Canton on Emergency Management

Three Mile Island Anniversary: Lessons from the past

Few people will remember that today is the 34th anniversary of the disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Nevertheless, this was a focusing event that solidified resistance towards nuclear power in the United States and remains an example of how poor decision making and crisis communication can turn an emergency into a crisis.

At 4 AM on this day in 1979 a pressure valve failed to close, draining contaminated coolant into adjacent buildings and causing the core to overheat. Emergency cooling pumps were automatically activated but were shut off by the plant workers based on confusing and contradictory readings. It was some four hours later before they realized their error and restarted the pumps. By this time, half the core was melted and the reactor had come within one hour of a full meltdown that would put the surrounding countryside at risk.

This was only the beginning of the crisis. The plant workers had also missed that the overheated core had produced a large cloud of hydrogen gas, some of which exploded and released a small amount of radiation. It was two days later before the gas bubble was noticed. Fearing an explosion and potential meltdown that would release a considerable amount of radiation, the governor advised pregnant women and young children to evacuate the area. The result was a spontaneous evacuation of over 100,000 and considerable public alarm that did not dissipate until April 1 following a Presidential visit and the determination by plant workers that there was no danger of explosion.

The Three Mile Island disaster still has many lessons to teach us. One of the biggest is that the human factor is always at play in disasters. In this case, the crisis was precipitated by the decision to shut down the pumps. That decision was made on the basis of bad information provided by a poorly designed system. A reasonable precaution of evacuating those most at risk produced public concern rather than the calming effect intended. Ultimately, the Three Mile Island disaster almost the devastated the nuclear power industry, coming at a time when there was considerable controversy over the safety of nuclear power plants.

Return to the "Hotel California" - Five tips for dealing with the crisis

Last week I wrote about the case of the hotel in Los Angeles where a decomposing body was found in the water cistern. I asked how you would craft your initial crisis communications. Since no one has stepped up to the challenge, I'll offer my own thoughts on the subject. Here's what I would advise the management of the hotel if they were my clients:

1. Speed is of the essence. You need to immediately contact your guests. You won't know much at this point but it is better that they hear it from you with the facts that you have than to hear it on the news with added commentary and speculation.
2. Be empathetic - say you're sorry. It's amazing how far that phrase will get you, particularly if your guests perceive it as sincere. Saying you sorry, contrary to popular belief, is not an admission of wrongdoing.
3. Offer immediate compensation. Refunding the cost of their stay is the minimum you should offer. If you want to add a discount for future visits, so much the better. Don'[t tie it to them signing a release of liability - that makes it look like you're trying to protect yourself and suggests it might be your fault.
4. Tell them what you're doing about the problem. You're going to need to have your water system checked by health authorities, so tell them that's what you're doing and promise to notify them immediately of the results. Think about what you would want to hear if it was your family that was affected.
5. Open lines for continued communication. You might consider a 24/7 hotline (real person please, not a recorded message), a dedicated website, social media, etc. Your guests will have questions - it's better they get the answers from you. 

You're going to get sued. Get over it. Don't hide behind the old idea that anything you say can be used against you in court. Anything you don't say will also be used against you, so be proactive. Get the facts out quickly, be sincere and empathetic, and, above all, treat your guests as you would want your family treated. You've got a major reputational crisis on your hands - don't make it worse by developing a bunker mentality and ignoring the concerns of your guests.

Emergency Management Solutions Newsletter - March 2013

Emergency Management Solutions - March 2013

Persuasive Presentations: Tips and tricks for better public speaking

Download Persuasive Presentations March 2013

"Welcome to the Hotel California?" : A crisis communications case study

The Cecil Hotel in Los Angeles Photo: CNN

Here's an interesting case study in crisis communications:

You are the owner of a hotel. For several days you've been receiving complaints that the water tastes funny. Some guests have commented that the shower will run black for a few minutes then clear. Water pressure has been dropping.

You assign a maintenance worker to check the system. In inspecting the water system, your worker discovers the naked body of a 27 year old guest that has apparently been decomposing in your cistern since her disappearance was reported two weeks previously.

At this point you have very few facts but you recognize that this is a significant reputational crisis and you need to take action immediately. The situation isn't helped that your hotel has a dark history - murders (in the 20's and 30's) and suicides (one in the 60's) have occurred in the past and at least two serial killers have been guests in the past.

So what do you do? Specifically, what message do you give to the guests who have stayed with you in the past few weeks? What can you offer them by way of compensation?

I look forward to your answers!

(By the way, you really can't make this stuff up - this is an actual event. See the story here and the history of the hotel here.)

Prepare for 72 hours! Really?

A question came up recently on the Emergency Management Issues Facebook Page regarding the basis for the 72 hour preparedness model. It's always fun to see the reasons people come up with to explain it. I know - I've done it myself. The simple fact is that there really is no empirical basis for preparing for 72 hours as opposed to say, 96 or 120 (3, 4 and 5 days).

The earliest we can trace the 72 hours preparedness model is to a Red Cross brochure from 1928 that my colleague Rocky Lopes has in his possession. My colleague Valerie Lucus-McEwen has also traced it back to the Cold War and Civil Defense planning. The origins of the model are lost in the mists of time.

So why do we continue to tell people they must be prepared for 72 hours (or three days, which is easier for them to visualize)? The answer is that we assume that someone, somewhere had a good reason for coming up with this idea and that, since we're all using it, it must be correct. We simply accept that it is a "good thing" without questioning whether it is the "right thing".

Now there's a lot to be said for consistency of message and any preparedness is better than no preparedness but the fact is, as I've said over and over, one size does not fit all. Three days of supplies in one location may be appropriate but may be woefully inadequate in another. Water needs change based on climate. The best approach is to tailor the message to local conditions, which would be difficult but not impossible. The message of stockpiling supplies also doesn't resonate with the people most likely to suffer most in a disaster: those with limited economic resources.

Now I'm not suggesting that we abandon our preparedness message or that trying to keep our message consistent is a bad thing. I do think, though, that it's time we question the way we have traditionally done things, whether it's planning or community preparedness. The one-size-fits-all approach often results in mediocrity. We owe our communities better.