June 26, 2008
Water emergency simulation training: not for the faint of preservation heart
Posted by Holly under disasters, news, stories1 Comment
I coordinated a “Collections Water Emergency Simulation” course last week for staff from nearly each of U.Va.’s 16 or so libraries. We could not have pulled this course off without the guidance of the fantastic Kara McClurken of SOLINET who provided the course instruction. I had never had the opportunity to go through a disaster simulation course before, and besides the occasional small scale disasters (100 books or less) in the various libraries at which I’ve worked, I lack the experience to teach a recovery simulation course for a medium (100-500 books) to large (500+ books) scale water emergency. The daylong course provided 35 participants the opportunity to review salvage issues, options, and procedures in the classroom in the morning and the thrill of getting hands-on experience doing salvage, evaluation, and recovery (not just air-drying and packing out for freezing or vacuum freeze drying, but also deciding if it was possible or more cost-effective to replace items rather than to recovery them) in the afternoon. See our photos!
I learned some valuable lessons. First, setting up this course — obtaining a tent and getting permission to set that tent up; moving several ranges of shelves from our stacks to an outdoor area; finding and then moving a 1,000 discarded books and other materials that you would find in library or archival collection (photos, maps, microfilm, archival documents, etc.); and then moving those heavy wet books to our recycling facility — was a tremendous task and took 100+ hours, I’d estimate.
Second, public relations and publicity for this course has to be considered well in advance. Note that the official title of this course was “Collections Water Emergency Simulation.” In our preservation lingo, you and I call this disaster recovery. The purpose of this shift in vocabulary was to distinguish the type of events that are truly disasters and imperil human life from the emergency events that affect inanimate things (as opposed to people). This new and improved title was guided by my library’s communication’s director, and I think it was a good idea.
We were very deliberate in the way we handled the fact that we had to destroy books in order to make this hands-on simulation possible. We posted signs around the tent to assure that the books used in the simulation were discards from the library and were withdrawn because of their poor condition or because they were low-value and uncirculated duplicates. I or one of my most excellent student assistants were on site at all times to answer questions of any curious or concerned on-lookers; we were at first worried that someone would try to “save” the books (which had to be out overnight and wet down several times the day before and day of). Rather, we found that folks were happy that we were providing this training to library staff and some even shook our hands with pride. We feel really good about the fact that we were able to recycle the wet books at the end of the simulation (U.Va. has a FANTASTIC recycling program).
The university’s news team caught wind this event and wanted to feature us in an article and video story. I love publicity for our growing preservation program, but I asked them to please focus on the hands-on recovery experience that was being offered to library staff … and not on the part where we hosed down and put mud on books. Essentially, I tried to convey how they could help us promote a good thing (the class the the valuable experience it offered library staff) and not amplifly the potentially inflamatory aspects. They did a great job covering the event, but unfortunately did not honor my request — a news story and video were released this morning. These were both promptly removed from the website as the news team had promised us a day to review the article for fact-checking and to make sure the article was on message. Unfortunately, that promise fell through, and before the story was removed several blogs picked up on the more scintillating side of the simulation and video of me merrily applying mud to books.
Was the course worth it? I’m trying to do the math in my head: a hundred plus hours of preparation divided by 35 very happy participants who now have superb training multiplied by today’s public relations crisis plus the humiliation of having to call several respected fellow bloggers to ask them to take down dead links to a poorly edited news story. Yes it was worth it. I just don’t know if I’ll do it again.
Nicholson Baker, champion of all those wonderful but yellowing newspapers that those wretched libraries were once thoughtlessly tossing away in a policy of “

