Interview 2 (Disaster Relief: Public Safety and Public Opinion after a Plant Emergency)
Author(s):
James Henken
Interview 2
My second interviewee joined a major healthcare
manufacturing company in November, but has worked in chemical
engineering for about 20 years; he holds a professional
license. His title is director of health, safety and
environmental affairs. He is also a member of a volunteer
disaster relief task force. This group was established to
respond in the event of a terrorist attack in the wake of
September 11, but has been employed on civil emergencies
since its inception. He has returned to UMR several times as
a speaker on ethics, being a professional engineer, and the
aftermath of a wrecked train carrying a chemical payload
within a town. Additionally, I found he has also experienced
a situation very similar to the scenario.
Previously he worked with a company that produced
t-nonyt-mercaptan, which is an odorizer for natural gas,
among other purposes. The odor is considered noxious and has
an odor detection threshold by the human nose at
concentrations in the parts per trillion range. During
maintenance downtime, some of this compound was unknowingly
created in a side reaction and vented through a flare to the
atmosphere. This flare was designed to destroy smaller
molecules that are piped to it, but was incapable of breaking
down these large and complex molecules, which passed through
virtually unaffected. They estimate five pounds of the
substance were released. People up to 6 miles away began
calling utility companies and fire stations, reporting what
they thought was a natural gas leak. Utility trucks were
dispatched and the story appeared on the news before the
plant realized what happened. I was surprised to find his
personal experience of dealing with the media and public
reaction to an event so closely matched the scenario.
Interviewee 2 began by saying a good company would have
some kind of emergency and disaster response plan. Under this
plan, key personnel are pre-delegated responsibilities during
an event. This plan should also include a media response
plan, under the care of a public information officer (PIO).
The PIO is one of the preordained response roles. This
officer also serves the same purpose as the "censor"
described by the first interviewee. They prepare official
responses and are the only contact with the media until
things return to normal.
This officer must react to the nature of the public. The
interviewee noted people are most likely to believe the first
thing they hear, and treat additional comments with
skepticism. Thus, it is important to squelch rumors as soon
as it is known an event occurred. As soon as enough
information is gathered, a press release should be issued.
Typically, the media relations plan contains a
'standby statement' suitable for immediate
publication during some emergency. This statement, which
should be edited to fit the situation, contains three main
concepts. First it admits something has occurred on site and
the company is aware of the problem. Second, it assures there
is no public health threat, and that everyone is safe.
Finally it states the company is taking the necessary steps
to correct the problem.
Once responders have secured the area and it is safe, it
is good to work with the media. Along with preparing detailed
statements to the press, it can be beneficial to the company
to work with them to get their story. The public information
officer would invite camera operators and reporters into the
site. Having previous knowledge of the site, the PIO can
offer suggestions of good shots, and perhaps steer attention
away from things that should not be broadcast (beyond
disaster response, this may include trade secrets). Operating
in this manner builds public trust, as it is clear the
company is not trying to hide from the public eye, and the
site is safe enough for the press to be standing there.
Conversely, non-cooperation can lead to wild rumors, general
mistrust and allegations, and even photographers camping
around the front gates or scaling fences trying to get shots
where they are not allowed. By the time the company is ready
to make public statements under this situation, the reaction
of the general public may be irrevocably turned against
them.
Towards the end of the interview, when asked what the
first concerns during a disaster are, the interviewee said
life, environment, and property. The absolute first concern,
before any media or public reaction considerations, is to
protect the workers, civilians, and emergency responders.
Anyone who may have been injured in an event is the first
priority. Care must be taken that the responders are safe.
This includes using proper respirators or environmental suits
if the area itself is dangerous. If there is any concern for
public safety, do what is necessary to secure or remove
people. Next, make sure there is no threat to the
environment. This includes containing and neutralizing any
chemicals that may damage the soil, water, or atmosphere or
any organisms therein. Finally, the property of the company
and any surrounding property are to be secured.
James Henken '03
University of Missouri - Rolla, Phil 025,
Spring 2003