Those responsible have the habits of a burglar. In the 

 middle of the night, they dumped 400 thousands gallons of 

 slightly radioactive water into the Susquehanna River. When 

 asked about that and emissions into the air, the company 

 spokesman said, 'I don't know why we need to tell you every 

 step we take, everything we do. A man who tells you nothing 

 cannot be accused of lying.' 



A lot of it is not what they said, but what they didn't 

 say. They didn't say they didn't know at all. They acted as 

 if they had it all under control. They were lying. 



His accusations are serious and emotional. 



The point is that the public was given conflicting information by so many 

 people that in the end, no one believed anything. All felt, rightly or 

 wrongly, that the truth was concealed, that the situation was not under con- 

 trol, and that those in charge did not know what would happen next or what 

 to do about it. 



Although the pollution spills with which we are concerned do not approach 

 the human involvement and danger that occurred at Three-Mi le Island, this is 

 the type of public reaction that we want to avoid engendering. When you are 

 on the scene at an oil or hazardous substance spill, you and your staff have 

 things to worry about other than what some reporters are going to write in 

 their newspapers. In the heat of the moment, you may regard these news in- 

 quiries as a nuisance. But we must remember that the public, through the 

 news media, has a right to know what has happened as quickly as possible. If 

 they do not get the information from you, they will go to someone else, and 

 that source may not be accurate. 



It might be just as important for the public to get good information 

 as it is to clean up the pollution. These spills are going to occur, and will 

 draw public attention to fish and wildlife resources. In a democracy, an in- 

 formed public is essential to the effective functioning of government. In the 

 long run, the public clamor for change will bring about the actions required 

 to protect fish and wildlife endangered by spills. Administrators, then, 

 might view pollution spills in two ways: first, as the ecological problems 

 that they are; second, as an opportunity to emphasize the needs of wildlife 

 resources. 



Sometimes when a spill occurs, a defensive "fortress-under-seige" re- 

 action occurs within the responsible agencies, including FWS. We must try 

 to avoid the "us-against-them" mentality and to remember that reporters can 

 be our allies. They give us a chance to get our message across -- to make 

 people more aware of the problems facing fish and wildlife. 



To take advantage of these opportunities, we must be responsive to the 

 news media at the spill scene. Also, we, in Public Affairs in the field and 



147 



