Reflecting 'Chapter 7' on a case study

This chapter spells out several factors that influence purpose and objectives. Those factors include legal issues, organizational requirements, risk itself, and audience requirements. As an effort to find out how these factors can provide helpful guidelines in actual practices, I’m going to bring one of the case studies presented on PRSA Web site into this discussion.

The case is about the public release of worst-case scenarios by 14 chemical plants in West Virginia’s Kanawha Valley in June, 1994. This case study was published in the March 1995 issue of the PRSA Environment Section newsletter, on the Environmental Horizon. The discussion will be focused on how these factors presented in the chapter 7 were taken into consideration when determining the purpose in this specific case.

There were two laws that affected the determination of purpose here. The public release of worst-case scenarios was expected to be mandatory in communities throughout the nation within 4 years under provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments. Ahead of Clean Air Act Amendments to be effective, there was a decision made by K/PLEP (Kanawha/Putnam Local Emergency Planning Committee) in February 1992 that it had authority under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act to require these reports. When it comes to organizational requirements, there must have been a certain policies (although they are not mentioned in the case study abstract) that involve risk communication since they are chemical plants that are very likely to have great influence to the environment.

Looking at the risk itself, this risk communication can be categorized as care communication since the possible dangers are already recognized and formalized as worst-case scenarios. Therefore, as the textbook suggests, the purpose in this case is “to alert the audience and provide information (p. 118)” In addition to the communication type, another consideration (relative newness of the risk and its visibility to the audience) can be easily recognized. It was the first time that these chemical plants are publicly informing the related issues. And the risk they were talking about was the possible dangers that are not yet very visible. Hence, the situation falls into “relatively new & little known” section in the matrix of Figure 7-1 (p.119).

The audience requirements couldn’t be any more obvious. The local activist groups have requested K/PLEP that the public informing session be made.
Based on the factors mentioned above, the purpose (or “goal” which is more frequently used in the field) of the risk communication effort for this case turned out to be appropriate:
• Communicate to the public about the worst-case scenarios of chemical plants in the Kanawha Valley.
• Communicate to local residents about what companies are doing to emphasize safety, reduce risk and handle an accident if one should occur.
• Indicate to the residents of Charleston that they can take steps to reduce their own risk of exposure in the event of an accident.

Finally, the followings are some of the lessons that the case study listed out at the end in resonance with the reasons for formalizing the purpose and objectives for effective risk communication described in the text book (p. 115).
• Begin with a clearly defined set of goals and roles for committees.
• Facilitators/consultants should be incorporated in the process as early as possible to improve consistency.

Despite it being such a cliche to mention, let me say this once and clearly as a conclusion: Having a risk communication plan with accurately and properly defined purpose and objectives is the key to an effective risk communication.