Yes, because of a mix government regulations forcing them to not cut too many corners for the sake of saving expenses, and people like the author of the article pushing back against higher-ups who try to do so anyway.
Let's not pretend that workers didn't die needlessly in factory fires a century ago because the factory owners locked the doors.
After scientists found what happened and saturation diving was theorised - companies kept their protocols of not decompressing when coming back, and kept killing their divers.
As a random example where a non-functioning judiciary resulted in a catastrophe, take a look at the 2020 Beirut port explosion, which a lot of people saw coming a mile off, but were unable to do anything about because of inept and corrupt judges that couldn't make a decision.
[0]: https://www.csb.gov/ U.S. Chemical Safety Board
I'm a little worried.
Eg. Y12 criticality incident - https://youtu.be/HaOc8FhMdWc
There was an interview with Jim Radcliffe recently in which he described Ineos’ approach to safety. It’s a variation on what’s described my Steven J. Spears in his case study of Alcoa. The truth is that the private sector has innovated much of what’s best in modern safety practice in a way that has made monumentally dangerous industrial processes routine.
There are perhaps good reasons to keep nuclear weapons management in the public sector. Canards about the safety record of the private sector are not though.