To demonstrate the principles of risk communication, we present the simple case of a small oil‐and‐water separation plant that briefly released black smoke after a heavy rain caused oil to seep into a natural gas burner. Although the smoke was under control in less than 10 minutes, in the aftermath of this seemingly small incident, the facility was nearly forced to shut down, and the company had to invest thousands of dollars and countless hours retain its operating permit.
Management at the plant had been sure that the facility did not require a formal community‐outreach program to explain its safe, unobtrusive oil/water separation process. A mixture of oil and water was piped in from offshore, heated, and transferred into settling tanks. The oil was then piped out through a pipeline, while the water was treated and discharged into the sewer system. The whole operation was so simple that for much of the time the plant was unstaffed.
Operations were quiet and odorless and produced no emissions. Likely due to the facility’s unobtrusiveness, no one had ever asked about it, despite its location across the street from an elementary school. There was no signage on the perimeter fences, and most local residents could not identify the facility from the street.
The Accident and Aftermath
Black smoke associated with burning oil brought the plant to the attention of its neighbors, who were concerned and had many questions regarding plant safety. One resident was particularly alarmed. He went to speak to the fire department and the facility manager, only to find that his questions were not taken seriously. Facility representatives refused to acknowledge that citizen’s concerns had any validity, which served to make him more angry and suspicious. He began to go door‐to‐door throughout the neighborhood, compiling a list of anecdotal health concerns, including rashes, coughs, and problematic pregnancies. A number of residents teamed together with the objective of getting the facility shut down. The anger and level of activism among residents increased. Neighbors circulated a petition to the city council, requesting the plant’s closure. News media picked up the story, which received considerable play in the papers and on television. The local air‐pollution control district became involved, and the city came very close to withdrawing the plant’s operating permit.
Why were the repercussions of a single and short‐lived incident so extreme? The primary cause for the extended crisis was the fact that, in its 30 years of operation, the facility had not made an effort to talk to its neighbors or to learn about their potential concerns. In fact, most residents in the neighborhood were unaware that the plant existed. When people suddenly discovered the facility, via the black smoke emissions, they were angry. Residents felt that they had a right to know what kind of industrial operations existed in their neighborhood and what kinds of risks the facility posed to their environment and health.
The Costs of Noncommunication
The oil–water separator facility was able to continue operations only after the company had funded two health risk assessments, established health‐protective levels for chemicals used during cleaning and turnaround, promised to provide extensive environmental monitoring during nonroutine operations, and hosted four community meetings. Despite these efforts to gain the community’s confidence, when the company attempted to reopen a similar facility 20 miles away, residents from the first neighborhood protested and succeeded in keeping the second facility from obtaining an operating permit.
Company representatives had discovered too late that fallout from the concerns of an ignored public could be very costly. Issues of concern to the local community include basic facts about the industries in the locality and the potential risks posed by their operations. In the United States, as a result of the Freedom of Information Act and many provisions of environmental statutes, people have a right to such information. If the oil–water separator facility had initiated a dialogue with the community early on, the meeting with the public would not have been associated with a developing crisis.
This case study illustrates how quickly a situation can escalate to crisis when there is no record of consistent, two‐way communication between industry and the public. Several of the environmental vulnerability factors outlined in Table 5.5 came into play: people initially became concerned about an unexplained emission from an unexpected source; they wondered belatedly about the advisability of having the facility located so near to an elementary school and residential properties; and those who had experienced unusual health problems began to suspect a connection to the oil–water separation facility.
In cases such as this one, where the public has little or no reason to trust the industry or facility that is creating the risk, the effect of the outrage factors is also likely to be intense (see Table 5.6). The unusual and memorable release of smoke led to concern that people had no control over the kinds of industry allowed in their own community. Management of the separation plant was not seen as trustworthy. There was resentment, as well, over the company’s failure to communicate with its neighbors prior to the incident (Boholm 2008).
Leave a Reply