The Need for Constructive and Rational Dialogue on Risk

The driving forces for change and sustainable development in a society are growing population, rising standard of living, perception of risk, and society’s choices based on these driving forces. As the population is growing there is also at the same time a rise in standard of living. These changes are eminent not only in the United States, but particularly when you travel abroad to countries like China and India. And when the standard of living increases, the perception of risk or how willing you are to tolerate risk also changes. When you don’t have a square meal to eat, risk means something quite different. But when you have three good meals, a nice house to live in, and a car to drive, your perception of risk is completely different. And then there comes the issue of society’s choices, and as people’s perspectives change, the choices made also change. And that’s where a constructive and rational public dialogue on risk is essential.

China currently has an annual growth rate of 11% while the Indian economy is growing at about 8%. On a per capita basis, the United States uses 25 times more energy than China and on a similar comparative bases, the United States uses 62 times more energy per capita than India. In addition, when one takes into account the population of the two countries combined (about 2 and a half billion), the math is very simple but scary. So, if the growth rates of the world economies keep on increasing at the rate they are, the question is where are the resources going to come to feed the growth.

Given the back drop of the facts above, we do have to think about what our options are on a day-to-day basis. Clearly, “not in my back yard” is not an approach that will give us sustainable options. This paper presents a case history that puts this dialogue on risk “front and center.” A facility engaged in the production of pesticide, had an accident in 2008, it was inspected by OSHA after that, and citations were issued. It was also inspected and investigated by the EPA and a host of other agencies, including the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). The facility used methyl isocyanate in the production of the pesticide, but the 2008 incident did not involve methyl isocyanate, neither was any part of the plant handling methyl isocyanate involved in the incident. Following the incident, however; the plant went through extensive redesign that included reduction of inventory of methyl isocyanate and major reconfiguration. However, prior to startup of the redesigned plant, a lawsuit was filed in federal court claiming that the plant posed an “unreasonable risk” to the neighbors. This paper describes the events following the lawsuit and ultimate outcome of the chain of events.