제  목 : Community Outreach vs. Community Outrage?
  일  자 : 1998년 07월
  제공처 : Internet

      Community Outreach vs. Community Outrage?
      =========================================

                                Technology in the News Communications

                                Beth Shery
                                AIChE Communications
                                212/705-7845
                                e-mail: beths@aiche.org

  New Orleans ？When an accidental chemical release happens at a
  refinery, the damage may at first appear minimal, but the long-term
  results can be devastating in terms of lost reputation and public trust.
  However, if the refinery has an active community outreach program,
  and shows a willingness to keep its lines of communication open before,
  during, and after an incident, the disaster response could ultimately lead
  to increased respect and credibility for the facility. This was the
  argument made by Mary F. McDaniel of McDaniel Lambert, Inc., a
  Venice (Calif.) consulting firm specializing in health and environmental
  communication. Dr. McDaniel, a physician and lawyer, was previously
  manager of Health and Environmental Risk Management for Unocal
  Corporation.

  Speaking here today at the Spring National Meeting of the American
  Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), McDaniel related a tale of
  two California refineries that experienced accidental chemical releases
  in the mid-1990s？with far different results. The case studies were
  presented to illustrate the importance of early planning and community
  outreach as part of the groundwork for preparing a Risk Management
  Plan, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency？s Clean
  Air Act. Under the regulation, industrial facilities must provide
  information to the public about possible ？worst-case scenarios？ for
  accidental chemical releases by June 1999.

  ？A chemical release at the San Francisco Refinery in 1994 had the
  greater magnitude, while a release at the Los Angeles Refinery in 1995
  had the potential for greater impact because of the large population
  living in the immediate vicinity. And yet, the Los Angeles release did
  little to raise the ire of local residents. In contrast, the release in San
  Francisco inspired nothing short of outrage, culminating last year in the
  $80 million settlement of a civil suit brought against Unocal by 12,000
  claimants,？ McDaniel revealed.

  San Francisco

  On August 22, 1994, a hole was discovered in the upper portion of a
  hydroregeneration tower at Unocal？s San Francisco Refinery. The
  tower was emitting a light mist of carbon dioxide, steam, and a trace
  amount of an alkaline solution. The refinery notified the local Health
  Services Department and declared an emergency to determine the
  seriousness of the situation. The unit was evaluated and found
  structurally sound, with no risk of explosion or fire. Based on that
  information, the unit was allowed to continue operations.

  McDaniel explained that ？This refinery had the best safety record of all
  the refineries along the coast of the East Bay. During the summer of
  1994, the refinery was on a record production run and facing an
  imminent turnaround. If the refinery could finish out its production
  cycle, the leak could be fixed in early October as part of the refinery？s
  scheduled maintenance,？ she said.

  However, the leak continued for 16 days, until the unit was shut down
  on September 6. After the shut-down, the refinery received numerous
  calls from local residents complaining of health symptoms, such as skin,
  eye, and respiratory irritation, fatigue, headaches, and nausea. The
  prevailing wind had carried the mist into neighboring towns, causing
  residents to become enraged.

  ？Over time,？ McDaniel reported, ？the company strove to make
  reparations to the community, most crucially by signing a Good
  Neighbor Agreement in December 1994.？ Under the terms of that
  agreement, Unocal funded a Good Neighbor Clinic, which was operated
  and staffed by community-selected physicians. During seven months of
  operation, the clinic treated more than 1,400 patients who reported
  health effects from the release. The company also funded five health
  studies related to the chemical release. The magnitude of the crisis led
  Unocal to establish a corporate risk communication policy, which
  requires company facilities worldwide to provide information to the
  public about health, environmental, safety, and operational issues.

  ？The San Francisco Refinery learned the hard way that community
  outreach doesn？t mix easily with community outrage,？ said McDaniel.
  Because there was little dialogue between the refinery and the public
  during normal operations, the local community was unwilling to trust
  communications from the refinery during crisis.

  Los Angeles

  A few months after the release, Unocal？s Los Angeles Refinery faced
  a potential crisis of its own. On April 28, 1995, a power outage at the
  facility caused a higher than normal amount of gas vapors to be sent to
  flare during the standard refinery process to burn small amounts of
  excess materials. Increased flaring occurred for about 45 minutes,
  while for approximately five minutes, the flare could not burn the entire
  quantity of excess gas vapors, which were released. While smaller than
  the release in San Francisco, this one had the potential for greater harm
  since the refinery is situated in a large residential neighborhood that
  includes several elementary schools.

  But, in this case, the refinery had a long history of providing health,
  environmental, and safety information to the residents. After the
  incident, a letter and fact sheet were developed immediately and
  distributed door-to-door with information provided in both English and
  Spanish, which is the first language for many local residents. In the
  letter, the refinery manager apologized to the community for the release
  and reaffirmed the refinery？s commitment to safety.

  The efforts of the Los Angeles Refinery to respond to crisis were
  well-received. There was no outrage in the surrounding community and
  there were no major lawsuits. According to McDaniel, the main reason
  for the success of the refinery？s crisis response was the facility？s long
  history of community involvement in non-crisis situations. The refinery
  had begun extensive community outreach efforts in 1990. In addition to
  a community newsletter providing regular information on operations and
  regulations, the facility offered refinery tours, tracked news coverage,
  established a community hotline database, and held regular meetings
  with residents and community leaders.

  Avoiding a Communications Crisis

  What made the difference for these two refineries was advance
  planning, a long tradition of community outreach, and open lines of
  communication with the public-all of which were in place in Los
  Angeles, but not in San Francisco. There is an important lesson for
  those in industry faced with developing a Risk Management Plan and
  communicating that plan to the public. ？Start developing that relationship
  now-if not sooner,？ advised McDaniel.

  ？The San Francisco Refinery incident clearly shows the dangers of
  holding back on community outreach, of assuming that disaster cannot
  happen here. The Los Angeles Refinery release shows the powerful
  effect？and the bottom line benefits？of building relationships with the
  community. Any facility preparing to discuss worst case scenarios, as
  required by the Risk Management Plan, needs to get that outreach
  process started,？ McDaniel concluded.