Crisis management and public expectations
Here's a no-brainer for crisis managers – if you don't have the capability to do something, don't give the public the impression that you can.
Case in point is the latest controversy over real time monitoring of hazardous substances released in the recent Chevron refinery fire. Media reports both during and immediately after the fire gave the impression that the release was being monitored and that the hazardous materials released did not exceed safety limits. However, the system in use in the Bay Area is designed to measure smog levels. The monitors are activated at specific times and only one was turned on at the time of the fire. Further, the monitors measure specific gases, not particulate matter, and the monitoring levels are not designed for large releases.
Chevron also provides for fence line monitoring around its facility and deployed five employees to take air monitoring samples at 17 locations downwind of the fire. An additional 19 gas bag samples were taken at other locations for later analysis. However, thre is some doubt as to whether the fence line readings are accurate because of the volume of the release and the gas bag samples take several days to analyze. Further, these monitoring systems test for hazardous materials and not for particulates.
The upshot is that there was no real-time monitoring of the event with the exception of the direct reading samples taken downwind. There was no monitoring of particulates which are believed to have been the principal reason over a thousand citizens sought treatment.
There is a reasonable expectation on the part of the public that the government has the means to monitor hazardous materials releases to determine the level of risk to the community. The government in turn generally relies on close cooperation with industry to get this information. To imply that this system is working when it is non-existent not only is a disservice to the public but erodes their trust in government.