Interview 1 (Disaster Relief: Public Safety and Public Opinion after a Plant Emergency)
Author(s):
James Henken
Interview 1
Several unique considerations came forth from the
discussion with my first interviewee. This person had a
remarkably similar experience, and thus was very insightful.
Recall my scenario dealt with the question: what is
appropriate action during an accident or emergency?
Specifically, my scenario addressed public safety and
reaction during a roof collapse. The first interviewee began
his business career as an engineer. During the course of his
career he was promoted numerous times, serving for an
extended period as a plant manager before moving to the
corporate office. Before retiring from his Fortune 500
Company, he was a vice president. The relevant portion of
this resume is his time spent as a plant manager. Under his
administration, he experienced both a plant explosion and a
roof collapse due to snow.
The first piece of advice he offered was an effective
plant should have a disaster relief procedure. This procedure
would have detailed instruction of what actions to take in
the event of certain classes of emergencies. He noted that
his predecessor did not allow the local fire chief access to
the plant. One change he made as an administrator was to
invite such officials to tour the plant. He guided them
through the facilities. During the tour, they discussed the
various hazards found throughout the estate, especially those
that would be important to emergency responders that are
unfamiliar with the place. Tanks with dangerous contents were
labeled for responders.
He also noted that the plant itself had preemptive
disaster plans. Easy examples of such contingencies are
tornado and fire drills. It was pointed out that these drills
were completely random and unannounced. Thus he could monitor
the level of preparedness of the plant employees. Gross
errors such as evacuating to the parking lot during tornado
drills or running inside during a fire can then be addressed
during follow-up meetings. Such emergency plans, more
importantly, prepare employees for a disaster and give
authorities an initial action plan to minimize
consequences.
I found these two considerations particularly interesting
when compared to my response to the "Courage and Research"
guest lecture. In my reflection, I noted that each factor in
the risk equation (risk = probability x severity) can be a
target for engineering solutions to the hazard. It was also
observed that engineering out the severity of an event (based
on the assumption it will happen) can quickly increase the
price of a unit without adding to its effectiveness. It was
also discussed that certain events can hardly be designed
against. The example provided earlier was the event of a
meteor impact. Clearly, creating a meteor-proof plant is
beyond the capacity of almost any company. This interview
brought to mind other methods of decreasing event severity.
Much like the hypothetical meteor strike, engineering around
a tornado is nearly impossible.
This interview reminded me there are methods other than
engineering that can reduce the severity of an event without
significantly increasing the unit cost. Emergency training is
an excellent example. The discussion with the interviewee
highlighted training the people in the plant to react safely
to disasters such as fires and tornadoes, and training
emergency responders to be aware of special hazards in the
plant.
Such methods for preparing a facility for an emergency
were related. The interviewee then detailed actions that were
taken following an emergency. Referring to my scenario, he
stressed obtaining as much information as possible from the
person reporting the incident. If the plant contains
hazardous vapor tanks, ask the caller if there are any
obvious signs of leakage or odors in the air. Such initial
information may help to frame the magnitude of the problem.
At this point, the crisis management plan should guide
response actions. He noted that it helped to imagine himself
on trial as he made decisions, defending each of them before
court. In this state of mind, it is easier to make choices
for the general welfare, and also document your actions in
ways that will be provable during latter investigations.
One of the first actions that would be taken is to notify
the local fire department and other necessary emergency
units. Corporate office should also be notified as soon as
possible. Beginning here, I noticed many of the suggested
actions are performed for a somewhat selfish purpose, but are
pragmatically the same as actions that follow one of the
basic ethical principles for engineers. The tendency is to
pass decisions onto others to cover oneÕs self from
blame. However, this is done in such a way as to avoid making
decisions out of the individualÕs area of competence.
Once a fire chief or other emergency responder is on the
scene, it is their responsibility to call for a plant or town
evacuation.
One of the first examples of this responsibility shifting
is granting the fire chief authority to evacuate. The
immediate concern for evacuation is for the plant, although
depending on the severity of the event, the town may need to
be vacated as well. Fortunately, industrial plots are not
allowed in residential areas in the United States. Thus,
there is typically time for responders to arrive at a
location and then decide on evacuation without harm to
innocent citizens. It was noted in the interview that it is
possible to suggest actions to authorities while still
allowing them to make the call and take the responsibility.
In this case, one could ask the fire chief (or whomever is in
charge), "when would be a good time to clear the plant?" Thus
you can focus the attention of the chief on this issue while
still allowing them to make the decision, rather than take an
order.
Once the proper authorities are notified of the incident,
a command center is established. This would be an office that
served as the information hub of the plant during emergency
response. There would be someone at the phone in this office
around the clock, taking calls from responders, media, plant
workers and family members, corporate office, etc. Response
orders and media bulletins would also be issued from
here.
To aid in documentation, at least one plant employee would
be given the job of taking pictures. Roll after roll would be
taken of damage and every stage of response and clean-up.
Anything that may later be of interest to courts, insurance
companies, the Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, or the
corporate office would need to be visually recorded in
detail.
The wording of my scenario begged attention to the
question "how can public response to the disaster be
controlled?" Again, this is delegated to an official censor.
Working through the command center (which coordinates all
communication in and out) this person would collect
information and prepare press releases. This person would
also work with the press to insure these official releases
are printed in full and without alteration. These are the
only statements given by the plant, and therefore highly
desired by the press. The censor discusses with the press
that statements must be presented in their original form and
full length. Anyone who cannot agree to this is not granted
the release. The censor also enforces these conditions,
demanding retractions if they are violated.
A few other topics worth mentioning came up during the
first interview. If the event requires clean-up or disposal
of any hazardous waste, it is best to hire an outside company
to handle and ship it. If anyone is injured, dispatch someone
from Human Resources to the hospital. Someone from this
office should note the severity of the injuries. They should
also provide proper counseling, comfort to the injured
persons and their families, and explanation of compensation
and benefits.