Lesson learned or spurned?

Published 10:32 pm Tuesday, April 11, 2006

On April 12, 2004, an accident at a local manufacturing facility led to the release of toxic chemicals in a residential neighborhood. The chain of events that followed included the hospitilazation of more than 150 people, including police and other emergency personnel.

On Tuesday the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board released to the public a 113-page document, assessing the cause and response to the incident.

The report does not reflect well on the performance of some local agencies. Lack of equipment, insufficient training, weak coordination between organizations and poor decision making are all cited. It is clear that an already dangerous situation was exacerbated by an inadequate response.

Several local officials have been quick to place the blame of the events of April 12 with MFG Chemical, the local company whose mishandling of the manufacturing process led to the incident. Of course MFG bears the primary responsibility for the initial accident, but targeting MFG awhile doing little else accomplishes nothing. There is no way of guaranteeing a similar accident won’t happen tomorrow, or the day after. That’s why the ability of our city and county emergency agencies to respond effectively is vital.

That’s also why playing the blame game is unacceptable. Blame MFG. Blame the city. Blame the county. Blame the state. Blame the feds.

City and county officials would better use their time by asking the question, why did things go so badly on April 12, 2004, and what can we do to make sure that next time — and chances are there will be a next time — the response will be outstanding?

Simply put, a failure to learn from past mistakes could cost lives. The public and our emergency response personnel — many of whom performed very bravely on April 12, 2004 — deserve better.

Some improvements have been made. The city is in the process of upgrading its communication system so that emergency messages can be automatically dispatched to different portions of the city. The county recently used federal grant money to purchase protective suits, which could be extremely helpful in an emergency.

But, as the CSB report says, there’s more which can and should be done, including:

n training and equip a hazardous materials response team

n clarify the roles and responsibilities of the response team

n develop training programs and test drills

n educate the community on what to do in an emergency

Many of these steps will require expenditure of taxpayer funds. That’s to be expected. The primary role of local government is the protection of its citizens, not economic development, beautification or recreation. Public safety must be the first consideration of our elected officials. (That means it’s not OK to wait on federal or state grants to pay for equipment.)

Our city and county fire and law enforcement chiefs have a sacred responsibility to the men and women who serve under them, as well as to the public at large. If their departments are underfunded or lack key equipment to do their jobs, the leaders must make that case strongly. To do less is unforgivable.

It is fortunate that the events of April 12, 2004, did not claim a life. This community was given a second chance to get things right.

Some positive steps have been taken in that direction and more should follow. The nuts and bolts of good governance may not be exciting, but in an emergency its the fundamentals which can save lives. What priority comes higher?

The Daily Citizen