Chevron refinery fire provides a lesson in crisis communications

Posted on August 8, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Chevron refinery fire provides a lesson in crisis communications

On Monday evening, a small leak at the Chevron refinery in Richmond CA escalated into a series of explosions and a fire that released a plume of toxic smoke over the Bay Area. One of the things that struck me as I was watching the television coverage of the event was an almost complete lack of information being provided to the media. For the hour or so that I watched, the only official source providing information was the director of the County hazardous materials program and he could only speak to the safety precautions that people should be taking and the action that his agency was taking. There was no word from Chevron or from any of the other local government agencies.

The result was what you would expect. In the absence of any credible source, the television reporters were speculating on what they were seeing and interviewing members of the public. While they did a good job of relaying the shelter-in-place order that had been issued, they really could do little more than show video of the fire and plume.

In dealing with crisis, particularly in this age of instant reporting, you have to get your story out immediately, even if it is just a message to confirm that an incident has occurred and that you are investigating. If you do not, the media will begin to speculate on what is happening and what caused it or will contact outside "experts" who will do the same. The result will be inaccurate and may not be in your best interest. Secondly, the media will seek other sources, such as former employees, experts, or members of the public who will also be speculating on the crisis and may have a bias against your organization.

If you want your story told accurately, get the facts out as quickly as you can. Waiting will only create an information vaccuum that will quickly fill with rumor and speculation.

Decision-making and unintended consequences

Posted on August 3, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

One of the problems with making a decision is that there are almost always unintended consequences to that decision. No matter how you assess and analyze a problem, there's always the risk that your decision will produce results that you never expected. Sometimes you're pleasantly surprised; most times you're not.

Case in point is the State of California's recent decision to reduce overcrowding in state prisons by transferring non-violent criminals to county jails. California  counties are understandably upset by this action as they are receiving no money to house the additional inmates or to construct new jails. This controversy was to be expected. What was not expected or considered was the impact of this move on California's response to wildfires.

California maintains a force of about 4,000 volunteer inmates who are specially trained to fight wildfires. The volunteers are housed in special camps and are available for immediate deployment, frequently as the first units on scene. When not fighting fires, they provide conservation support such as clearing debris to reduce the potential fire load in California forests. The transfer of inmates to the counties is expected to reduce this force by at least 1,500 within the next few months.

The sticking point seems to be (surprise!) budget dollars. The State maintains that the $46 dollars a day it takes to maintain an inmate at the camps should be paid by the counties as the inmates are county prisoners. The counties say that the volunteers are State firefighting resources and that the State should bear the costs, allowing the counties to use the money for the additional staff they require for the influx of new inmates. In the absence of an agreement, California will lose the services of more than a third of its trained volunteer force.

It will be interesting to see how much this "cost-saving" measure costs the State in the next fire season.

Deepwater Horizon and performance indicators

Posted on July 27, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has just released its preliminary findings on the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 that killed 11 workers and caused a massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico. What makes these findings interesting is that they focus not on the technical failures but on management system deficiencies.

Key among these deficiencies was an over-reliance on personal injury rates as indicators of adequate safety. In essence, reducing or eliminating personal injuries was the primary focus of the safety programs and injury rates were used to measure success. However, BP failed to also consider process safety indicators, such as automatic shutoff system failures, activation of pressure relief devices, or loss of containment of liquids and gases, that could signal potential failures.

What makes this particularly egregious is that these same problems were identified in a 2007 report on the explosion at BP's Texas City TX refinery in 2005.

The lesson here is that we need to be careful in the selection of indicators and understand just what they are measuring and how that relates to our overall program goal. This is not just limited to the safety arena. I've seen many performance indicators that rely solely on objective measures that have no correlation to program success. In the long run, poorly thought out indicators can cost you greatly.

Crisis Management: Learning the wrong lessons from Aurora

Posted on July 25, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

The day after the tragedy in Aurora, a friend's son announced that he and his friends were going to see the new Batman movie that evening. Her reply? "Absolutely not! Haven't you heard about Aurora?"

Her reaction was not an isolated case. The papers  were full of stories from across the country about additional security and law enforcement presence at theaters showing the film. We've also seen heated debates arise about gun control and funding for mental health. Unfortunately, this outcry demonstrates our penchant in the United States for reacting to perceived risk rather than actual risk.

Please don't think I am making light of the tragedy in Aurora – it was a horrific and we are right to study it to glean lessons that can help us prevent future incidents of this type. Nor am I criticizing the actions of security and law enforcement personnel – the threat of copy-cat killings immediately after an incident is real and allaying public concern by being seen to be doing something is a legitimate crisis management tool.

However, as crisis managers we have to see beyond the obvious and look at actual rather than perceived threat. The focus of prevention following the shootings seemed to be specifically on theaters showing the movie and, in some cases, on movie theaters in general. However, while the nature of the movie may have been a motivator for this particular shooter, the real risk is not to the patrons of a specific movie or even to moviegoers. The threat is to large public gatherings.

The threat to public venues such as theaters, malls and restaurants is neither new nor unforeseeable. The 2002 bombing of a night club in Bali killed over 200 and wounded another 200 or so. Carlos the Jackal killed two people and injured another 30 in a grenade attack on a Parisian restaurant in the early 70's. A sword-wielding attacker killed two and wounded 9 people aboard a State Island Ferry in 1986.The list goes on endlessly. The specific venue or choice of weapon are incidental – it is the presence of many people in an enclosed space that creates the risk.

The risk goes beyond movie theaters and begs the question, "so what do we do about it?" It is impossible to eliminate all risk and the tighter our security the more we begin to intrude on personal freedom and run the risk of creating public fear out of proportion to the true risk. A society where we must pass through metal detectors or submit to pat downs and searches before being allowed to go about routine business or leisure activities is one in which the bad guys have already won.

By all means, we must learn from the Aurora massacre but we must also be sure we learn the right lessons. Prevention doesn't always require major changes in public policy or the addition of intrusive security. Sometimes it is as simple as placing an alarm on an exit door and teaching staff to react to it.

Public relations: People are not stupid

Posted on July 20, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has recently begun airing a television and radio campaign touting its commitment to safety. In the spots, the company CEO characterizes PG&E as a company that "had lost its way" but is now back on track thanks to the continued commitment of its employees.

Nobody is buying it.

Having worked with PG&E employees at all levels, I can't fault the claim that there are a whole lot of dedicated and hardworking people in the company. But there are many who would argue that PG&E didn't "lose its way" – it never was on the right path to begin with. Since the gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno in 2010 that killed 8 people, the image of PG&E that has emerged in the media is that of a company that fostered a culture where safety was subordinate to profit. Inadequate safety records were kept, promised safety work was never performed, revenue earmarked for safety upgrades was redirected to other uses, and employees were rewarded for not reporting problems.

At the same time PG&E is running its campaign, it has requested a $5.25 billion increase in gas and electric revenue to pay for upgrades to safety and reliability. If approved, this increase will raise utility rates by over 15% by 2016. PG&E has also requested an additional $2.2 billion to fund transmission line work that would further raise rates.

Despite claims that the campaign is being paid for by shareholders and not customers, many are seeing the campaign as a cynical attempt by the company to defuse consumer anger over the proposed rate increase. There are increasing demands that PG&E account for its poor safety record and demonstrate that the increase is not just an attempt to get more money to pay for what should already have been done.

The lesson here is that the people are not stupid. A slick media campaign is not going to divert attention from years of poor performance or overcome the public perception that corporate greed cost lives. It's going to take more than images of hardworking employees to salvage PG&E's reputation.

Public relations: Don’t be too quick on the draw

Posted on July 3, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

The ability to move information almost instantaneously can sometimes be a double-edged sword. Witness the recent case of CNN and Fox News in reporting the Supreme Court decision the federal healthcare law last week. In their rush to scoop other networks, both CNN and Fox failed to read the full text of the Court's decision and incorrectly reported that the Court had struck down the health insurance mandate. While the error was quickly corrected, it generated considerable confusion as other sources correctly reported the Court's decision. It also caused some red faces in Congress as some elected officials tweeted the incorrect information to their constituents.

There are two lessons here for crisis managers. The first is the Internet's ability to spread disinformation at an alarming rate. The other is that the Internet can also be self-correcting and can spread corrected information just as fast. This means that if you're using social media, you need to be accurate. Take the extra few minutes to get it right before hitting the key to post your message. Secondly, you need to move quickly to correct bad information – the longer you wait the harder it will be to get the facts before the public.

By the way, the congressmen learned a third lesson: the Internet never forgets. While many officials deleted their incorrect posts, copies were preserved by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based group supporting transparency in government. Once you post something, it's part of history. Take those extra few minutes to be sure of your facts!

Alien invasion and leadership

Posted on June 28, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

You just have to love publicity people. To drum up interest in the new National Geographic television series Chasing UFOs the PR folks commissioned a survey of of some 1,114 Americans regarding their attitude towards extraterrestrials. Among the more interesting conclusions was that 65% of those surveyed believe President Obama would be better suited to handle an alien invasion than contender Mitt Romney.

In developing our emergency plans we (quite rightly) try to make them independent of personality. However, the culture of an organization and its leadership have a great deal to do with success in dealing with crisis. One person can make a difference for good or ill, in crisis and the group perception of the person in charge can significantly affect group performance.

So as you develop and test your plans, keep in mind the human factor. How suited is your leader to dealing with crisis? What can you put in place to assist him or her? How will you cope if they are unavailable? Never forget that no matter how good your plan, it is the team that executes that plan that make it successful. And the performance of that team will depend on the leadership skills of the team leader.

Climate change meets realpolitik

Posted on June 12, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

We sometimes assume that risk and mitigation are absolutes. We think of risk as something quantifiable and logical and that, by extension, efforts to reduce risk are also logical. However, we forget or ignore research that shows that objective risk, perceived risk, and mitigation are only loosely coupled. Risk perception of the community ultimately determines the effectiveness of mitigation.

Take for example the law under consideration in North Carolina. The state's Coastal Resource Commission recommended planning for a 39 in rise in coastal sea levels by 2100. Business interests, concerned over the effects of this planning on coastal development, have supported a bill that would ignore climate change reports based on scientific studies and use only historical data in determining sea level rise. The catch is that the data is limited to data after 1900 and allows for only linear extrapolation of the data rather than more accurate methods.

Lawmakers in Virginia faced similar opposition in trying to base their planning on scientific evidence by commissioning a study on sea level rise. In this case local Republicans believe that "climate change" and "sea level rise" are liberal buzzwords and were prepared to block any study using those terms. Changing the term "sea level rise" to "recurrent flooding" allowed the study to pass muster without opposition.

Mitigation has always been a hard sell particularly where it comes into opposition with business interests. It's sad to see ideological political opposition to the science on which we base effective mitigation. And what does it say about our politicians' understanding of the issues when a name change is all it takes to remove their opposition? 

Emergency Management and Higher Education

Posted on June 7, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs1 Comment on Emergency Management and Higher Education

I had the privilege this week of delivering the keynote address to the Higher Education Conference hosted by FEMA at the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, MD. This annual conference brings together several hundred educators from across the US (including some international visitors) who are involved in the delivery of degree programs in the fields of emergency management and homeland security.

It's a humbling experience to address my colleagues here because I have come to realize over the years that the work they do is absolutely vital to the continued professionalization of emergency management. First, they do the research that forms the specialized body of knowledge for our profession. Their work provides us with the empirical data that should form the basis of our emergency management programs.

More importantly, they are training the next generation of leaders in emergency management. These graduates have a solid grounding in theory and practice and are encouraged to gain practical experience through internships and volunteer work. They are better equipped for an unclear future than many of us older managers were when we came to emergency management as a second career. And we owe this to the educators who have worked hard with limited resources to make higher education programs in emergency management a reality.

If you are not familiar with FEMA's Higher Education Program, visit their website at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/ If you are fortunate enough to have an educational institution near you offering one of these programs I urge you to offer your support, either by providing instructional support or an internship. It's a solid investment in our future.