Edelman's Atlanta crisis and issues management unit is helping Imperial Sugar pick apart claims by a former executive who has questioned safety measures at an Imperial plant in Georgia where 14 people died in a 2008 explosion.

The whistleblower, Graham H. Graham, who left the company in January, told a Senate committee that there was neither evacuation plan nor working fire alarm at the Imperial refinery near Savannah, Ga., where the fatal blast also injured dozens of people with burns on Feb. 7, 2008.

The Port Wentworth explosion and aftermath. Images: US Chemical Safety Board

Steven Behm, senior VP for Edelman in Atlanta, is handling the Imperial work. The PR firm and its client claimed last week that testimony Graham provided in depositions in April and July of this year differ from his public accounts of questionable safety measures at the company. Edelman issued an annotated, point-by-point rebuttal on Oct. 23, dissecting Graham's public and private claims.

"Imperial is defending itself in the court of law," Edelman's Behm said in a statement. "Similarly, if allegations are brought forward in the court of public opinion, they should be based in fact. Imperial values its relationships with its employees, its partners and the communities in which it operates and believe they should have access to the facts."

Immediately after the '08 blast, Imperial's general counsel was initially handling media inquiries. Latraviette Smith, VP of corporate marketing at Edelman, said the firm has worked with Imperial since the explosion on crisis communications and issues management.

Graham was still VP/operations for Imperial when he told the U.S. Senate last year that the Port Wentworth refinery was a "dirty, dangerous facility" in the months before the explosion when he was first hired. He said the company told him after his warnings that he had "too much passion" was "too extreme," and "had to temper it," claims which Imperial questions.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has levied more than $8M in fines against Imperial since the incident. Victims of the explosion have also initiated litigation against Imperial.

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board on Oct. 7 released a dramatic safety video on the combustible dust explosion at the Imperial refinery.

Imperial is rebuilding the refinery and has posted updates of the progress online.

Bill Huey, Strategic Communications Atlanta (10/16):
So, Big Sugar has hired Big PR to represent it in the court of public opinion.

Since the court of public opinion has no juries and no procedural rules, here’s an unsolicited contribution:

That wasn’t fairy dust that exploded in Savannah and killed 14 people. The plant had obvious safety problems, and attempting to discredit a whistleblower (to the point of suborning a United States senator) isn’t going to work.

The Chemical Safety Board said in its report that the incident was entirely preventable. Its findings were released on September 24, 2009, with lead CSB Investigation Supervisor John Vorderbrueggen, P.E., saying, “Imperial’s management as well as the managers at the Port Wentworth refinery did not take effective actions over many years to control dust explosion hazards-even as smaller fires and explosions continued to occur at their plants and other sugar facilities around the country.”

By the way, a quick search of the Imperial web site turns up two stakeholders on the board of directors that round out the story: Lehman Brothers (which owned 28 percent of Imperial) and Goldman Sachs. Presumably, Lehman’s stake is involved in the lawsuit Goldman has filed to get a share of the $50 billion that remains left after the Lehman blowup sent more than $500 billion to money heaven.

Another case history for the “Private Equity Wrecks America” files.

PR Pro (10/27):
"Imperial values its relationships with its employees, its partners and the communities in which it operates and believe they should have access to the facts." OK, let's get all the cards on the table, Mr. Behm.

Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (10/27):
Bill has made some very cogent points. Added to this is the fact this is not just some "he said they said" situation since the 'whistleblower' made sworn testimony before a Congressonal Committee on pain of perjury. If he lied, it could land him in the clink. Apparently the only penalty for the company is money, but also a record of misbehavior which they might also overcome with bucks. There is much more to this story.