Credibility Wars on the Central Coast of California. C. E. Lambert, A. J. Greenberg, M. F. McDaniel, and K. J. Leuschner, Unocal Corp., 2929 E. Imperial Hwy., Rm. 2144, Brea, CA 92821; and Risk Science Associates, 7 Mt. Lassen Dr., Ste. A-129, San Rafael, CA 94903
A small beach town on California’s Central Coast has soil contamination from diesel and crude which leaked from underground pipelines periodically until about 1979. In 1995, a Unocal-funded health risk assessment (HRA) demonstrated no health effects from this subsurface petroleum. Cal-EPA reviewed and approved the study’s findings. Now in 1997, some people are arguing that the beach should be closed. Those calling for beach closure include the Response Team for the Chemically Injured (RTCI), Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), a group of residents and others who have brought a lawsuit against Unocal, and a handful of university experts and consultants hired by the plaintiffs’ lawyer. In order to address concerns about the safety of the beach and questions about the validity of the 1995 HRA, the San Luis Obispo County Health Department hired an independent consulting toxicologist to evaluate the HRA, investigate concerns regarding the safety of the beach, and conduct a health study. After an initial review, the county’s toxicologist questioned the HRA, yet found no evidence to support closing the beach. The county then embarked on a sampling and analysis program to determine the short and long-term safety of the beach. Unocal has maintained throughout that the beach should be kept open: the company remains confident in the results of the 1995 HRA, but supports the health department’s efforts to address public concerns. With so many opinions, organizations, advocates, and experts, who is the public to believe? In this paper, we will discuss the following questions drawn from this case study: 1) In an atmosphere of distrust, contention, and mutually exclusive objectives, what is the best way for industries and agencies to fulfill their obligations to communicate openly and honestly with the public? 2) What is the appropriate role for the health risk assessment within the larger sphere of risk communication? 3) Can a health risk assessment ever adequately respond to the public’s health concerns?