Living on the Fenceline

Overview | Conversations with Advocates of Fair Growth | Living on the Fenceline

David Brignac

This second interview with David Brignac, Sustainable Development Manager at Shell Chemicals in NORCO, Louisiana, was conducted on June 12th, 2002. A few days earlier Shell announced that it was extending its voluntary buyout option to the back two streets of the Diamond subdivision of NORCO where residents had been agitating for relocation.

The announcement of the Diamond Options Program made front-page news in the New Orleans Times Picayune and generated heated discussions among diners at the Sub Express on Apple Street in NORCO. The program gives residents of the back two streets of Diamond a choice. They can sell their house to Shell for the assessed value (or for a minimum of $50,000 for a trailer or $80,000 for a house) and receive a $15,000 miscellaneous moving expense. Or owner/occupants can qualify for a $25,000 home improvement loan, which would be forgiven over the next five years. Homeowners choosing to either stay or leave would benefit from this program, Brignac asserted.

The announcement constituted a reversal of Shell's former position. Previously, Shell offered residents on the first two streets of Diamond, those closest to the fenceline with their chemical plant, a Voluntary Relocation Program whereby residents on Washington and Cathy Streets could sell their homes to Shell and move elsewhere. The back two streets of Shell were excluded from this program. Shell officials argued at the time that they could not extend this offer to the other half of the Diamond subdivision of NORCO because they would then have to make a comparable offer to four streets of residents on the white side of town. This would effectively destroy the whole town of NORCO, they contended.

However, after months of further community organizing and activism, Shell officials decided that conditions in the Diamond subdivision of NORCO were unique and warranted a specially designed response. They went back into the community and listened to the residents who told them that buying out the first two streets of a four-street community had ripped the community in half and caused considerable hardship, particularly among elderly residents living on fixed incomes whose only wealth was their house and who no longer had relatives in town to help them.

After many meetings and conversations, Brignac says, he became convinced that the initial Voluntary Relocation Program they had fashioned for the first two streets had had a negative impact on the network of relationships that allowed some residents of Diamond to survive. In recognition of this Shell designed a new program for the back two streets that would permit those who wanted to leave to sell their homes to Shell and be able to afford a home elsewhere; at the same time the program permitted those who wanted to stay to fix up their home at Shell's expense and improve the quality of their lives.

Along with the Diamond Options Program, Shell also said that it was considering a $200 million investment in improving the infrastructure of their plant so that it would run more efficiently and experience fewer "upsets" and "flaring events." This, in turn would further improve environmental quality and increase energy efficiency while reducing loss of product, Brignac add\ed. Shell also offered to set up a $5 million community development program and proceed with its plan to create a green buffer zone around the plant. There were even plans afoot to create an earthen berm all the way around the plant to cut off the view of the plant, he added.

Shell was also going ahead with plans to work with local residents and third-party university experts to set up air monitoring equipment outside the Shell fenceline. The point of the monitors was to prove to residents that the air was safe or to provide data that would permit Shell to pinpoint air quality problems and fix the equipment that was causing problems, Brignac added. Shell was also open to the possibility of cooperating with outside groups on a health survey in NORCO.

Looking back on the history of tense relations with the Diamond community, Brignac said that Shell officials had learned to overcome their fears and had sent representatives across the line into Diamond to talk with residents about their concerns. It was learning to listen to the perspective of residents and to have a real dialogue with them that lead to the current settlement, he continued. While it was often a tense and painful process, Brignac is convinced that the prospects for the NORCO Shell facilities are intimately connected to the prospects of the community. If the community doesn't prosper then the facilities ultimately won't prosper either, he noted. With this in mind, Shell is committed to being a good neighbor, he added. The Diamond Options Program is a concrete way of demonstrating that Shell recognizes that unique conditions exist in the Diamond subdivision of NORCO, that previous Shell programs have negatively affected this community, and that Shell is making a real effort to be a good neighbor, he observed.

Interview

Steve Lerner (SDL): Let me ask the obvious question: the last time I was here you gave me a list of reasons that you thought it would not be a good idea [for Shell] to buy out the back two streets or offer a voluntary program in which people could choose to sell to Shell. And they [the residents of Diamond] had said in interviews that I did that they could not find buyers [on the open market] to buy their homes at a price that would allow them to relocate. So there seems to have been an evolution in the thinking at Shell about this and I would like you to tell me how it changed and how you got to this agreement.

DB: It is a couple of things but first and foremost, in talking with residents in Diamond especially over the last couple of months, we listened and learned and came to the conclusion that Diamond is unique in the sense that it has special needs. And it is different than the rest of the community in terms of the way multiple generations live close by. There is more of a sense of dependency, we must help one another as care givers . . . the network of relationships is different than the rest of the community. That came to the forefront and hearing it over and over again you begin to see that yes, we have impacted the Diamond community, there are special needs in the Diamond community and so this program, the Diamond Options Program, is about trying to address those specific issues in Diamond.

SDL: When you say you have impacted Diamond community what do you mean by that?

DB: We mean that the first program, the Voluntary Property Purchase Program, different people accepting that program and moving out, has somewhat disrupted the network [in Diamond]. Maybe Diamond didn't want it that way but the feeling was: 'Well, even if people wanted to stay the offer was good and they saw it as the only chance they would ever have to move. So people left and it disrupted the network.

When I say special needs, there was also an acknowledgement that research will tell you that when the people in Diamond try to sell homes they can't. So the same opportunity of choice to stay or leave is not available to them.

SDL: Oh, that's interesting. So, in the other [white] part of NORCO if someone decides to leave they have a better shot at selling their house.

DB: Yes. In some parts of NORCO the real estate market is very strong. You can sell very quickly. Even in most of the other parts of NORCO eventually you can sell, whereas in Diamond I just don't think that is the same.

SDL: One of the things you told me about the last time I was here was Shell's concern that if you bought out four streets in Diamond people in the rest of NORCO would be saying: 'Wait a minute, what is going on here? How about buying us out.' I understand what you have said about this being a special situation in Diamond but how do you now deal with that concern.

DB: Well, we have had some of that already, as you might expect, people calling and saying: 'What about us? Are you going to offer this to me? Are you only offering it to Diamond?' We have lots of questions from our employees and the white parts of NORCO. That situation is real. The way we deal with it is to sit down and talk and explain to people and allow them to express their opinion. And that is the way we are doing it and we are hopeful that we will be successful.

SDL: I heard that before any of this came out in the press that you told the people in Shell what was going on. Do I understand correctly that there was a notice of this news scotch-taped to the doors of residents in NORCO . . . basically preparing the community for this?

DB: Yes, yes, that went out Friday evening.

SDL: So there was something out there already so these people didn't feel blind-sided and learn about it by reading the newspaper.

DB: We did other things also. In the weeks preceding the announcement we held some focus groups in the white community and basically we would go through the Good Neighbor Initiative and explain it to them and tell them about some of the things we were thinking about. We mentioned the $5 million endowment as a possibility, we mentioned home improvement as a possibility, and we mentioned where we stood with this ongoing conflict with the Diamond community and that we were meeting with them and hoping to resolve it some way. We did some things in preparation to diminish the possibility of some huge backlash that we were doing something for one part [of town] and not doing it for the other part.

SDL: But then when the notices go up on the door on Friday do they spell out what the deal is going to be?

DB: Basically, it summarized the deal.

SDL: Let's get into the specifics of the deal. Tell me how this offer, this program, differs from the one that was offered to the first two streets.

DB: OK. Let me say first of all that they are different programs with different objectives [for the first two streets and the back two streets of Diamond]. The objective sort of shaped the program. The greenbelt Voluntary Property Purchase Program [offered to the first two streets], we offered a significant incentive above appraised value [for residents to accept a buyout].

SDL: That was thirty percent [above appraised value].

DB: Right, because we wanted the property to create a green space. And of course what we learned in impacting the community . . . with that first program . . . the struggle we had was that we heard what Diamond was saying that they wanted the opportunity to leave but we were worried too . . . ok, so now we do something like we did with the Voluntary Property Purchase Program and half of Diamond leaves and half stays and the half that stays says: 'We told you that you messed up the first half and now you have repeated it.'

So we were real concerned, Steve, that there are always unintended consequences. We wanted to design something that offered choice so people who wanted to stay could feel that there was something in it for them . . . that they could stay there and improve their quality of life; and there was also something for people who wanted to leave. So we didn't want to overly incentivize . . . give people such a great incentive [to leave] . . . that even the ones that didn't want to leave felt that while they really didn't want to leave and they kind of liked it here but that the offer to relocate was too good to turn down. Those are some of the things we struggled with as we worked our way through this.

In the Diamond Options Program [for the back two streets] we tried to strike a balance between making sure that if someone really wanted to leave and felt they had to leave that this program would have made them able to do it. And the people who wanted to stay there was something for them as well. They felt they could build on and improve their quality of life and feel good about staying in NORCO and working with us on the Good Neighbor Initiative and other aspects that we want to work on.

SDL: If a whole bunch of people take you up on this and leave and then some people decide they like it here and decide to stay, what will this [community] look like? Will there be large areas that are blank [open space] where houses have been taken down and then a few houses left. Or, since you are buying these properties is there the potential that you will not knocked the house down or rebuild on the property [you have purchased]? How is that going to work?

DB: It depends; it is hard to predict right now. What we are hearing from Diamond residents is that 60 percent want to leave.

SDL: That is what I was getting doing the interviews: that people were very interested in leaving.

DB: But you never know. We have seen dynamics work in the Voluntary Property Purchase Program where initially people said: 'We don't want to go anywhere.' Then a few people started selling and then more and more [left]. It depends on the dynamics that takes place. If you get a strong contingent of influential people in Diamond saying: "You know, the home improvement option is pretty good and Shell is making this $5 million endowment and I may have second thoughts, I may stay.' So it could turn around.

So to give you the answer on that is that we don't know. We are going to watch and see what happens and it is an open issue what do we do. But you are right at some point if most of the Diamond community leaves then Shell has some more things to look at and study and see what we are going to do from there. The question then becomes: do we work with some kind of agency to repopulate Diamond. And instead of having a house here and a house there do we help people consolidate in one area. So I think there are options but it is way to early to figure out what it will be like.

SDL: But what this [Diamond Options Program] does is it leaves the people there with a choice about what they do.

The incentive program is pretty straightforward. As I understand it is a $25,000 interest free loan that is forgiven over a period of five years. So if I have a house in Diamond I can get a $25,000 loan, fix up my house, and if I stay there five years I don't owe you anything.

DB: That is correct.

SDL: That is a pretty good deal.

DB: We think it is.

SDL: Suppose I do that and I stay five years and on the sixth year I sell it. Is that ok?

DB: Yes.

SDL: So that is another wrinkle.

DB: But we believe that if someone invests in their home and stays five years it is probably because they want to especially when faced with the option that they can sell now and get a good deal.

SDL: And those people who decide to move, how does it work financially? I understand there is a minimum of $80,000 for a house and $50,000 for a mobile home.

DB: That's right. Here it is.

SDL: [Reading from document.] $80,000 minimum appraised price for conventional homes, owner occupant; $50,000 minimum appraised price for mobile home, owner occupant; $15,000 miscellaneous expense allowance . . . Does that include knocking your house down and clearing the site?

DB: No, that is this.

SDL: Oh, that comes under clearing the site, $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the structure so if you have a brick home it would be different and the size of the home . . .

DB: Right.

SDL: $5,000 moving expense, $500 professional service e allowance, and $4,000 renter moving allowances. Tell me about the $15,000 miscellaneous expense allowance.

DB: Ok, we put that into the program for several reasons: first of all there is always . . . when you move when you get to a new house often you have to get new furniture to fit the new rooms and there are always expenses associated with the move.

SDL: The new hook up on the utilities.

DB: This was a way of acknowledging that moving is a big thing.

SDL: Right, it costs money and a lot of these people don't have it.

DB: That's right.

SDL: So, as I look at that you have $20,500 above and beyond what people will get for their place.

DB: Right, no matter what it appraises for.

SDL: And then the additional $5,000 to $10,000 for clearing the site do you go out and look at their building with them and say this is a medium sized house so we will give you $7,500?

DB: It is a little more structured than that: it is basically defined by type of house. A mobile home may be $5,000, a conventional home built on pillars will be $5,000, if you have a brick home with a slab if you are willing to knock down the house and remove the slab it can be $10,000. So it is structured so that if the residents take it on themselves, and there were be some who do it themselves, it won't cost them that much . . .

SDL: So they can make a little money on this . . .

DB: It is good for them and it is good for us too because it would cost us more than this. So we try to encourage people to do it and offer them an additional incentive.

SDL: If I said that I just wanted to get out of here and I didn't want to deal with clearing the site would you [Shell] clear the site?

DB: Yes.

SDL: But, whatever happens when people do this deal [accept a relocation offer and move] their house is going to be gone.

DB: Yes.

SDL: So you will not be looking at some houses and say: 'Gee, why knock this down when we might want to resell it.'

DB: Right. At this point, we haven't thought about it too much, but at this point that is not in there [reselling some of the homes].

SDL: Tell me about this $80,000 minimum. The previous program for the front two streets [of Diamond] was the assessed value plus 30 percent, right?

DB: Right.

SDL: How do you feel this [Diamond Options Program] offer compares with that [Voluntary Property Purchase Program]?

DB: Right. It depends what price ranges you are looking at. If you look at homes that are appraised at less that $80,000 for example, I think the crossover point is about $73,000. So if you are appraised at $73,000 or less someone will get more money from this new program that they would from the Voluntary Property Purchase Program [offered to the front two streets].

SDL: Because of the minimum [buyout price]?

DB: Because of the minimum, right and the $15,000 miscellaneous expenses on each structure. You get above $73,000 and it crosses over and someone in the Voluntary Property Purchase Program would get more than someone in the Diamond Options Program. And the reason is that the 30 percent above the appraised value really starts kicking in with the larger amounts. If you balance the two dollar-wise the two programs are very similar. It is just that this one is just structured to aim more at owner occupants, which is what we want to do. We are not so interested in padding the pockets of someone who lives outside of Diamond who owns property in Diamond. We will give them a fair offer but we don't give them these minimums. What we wanted to do was make it possible for owner occupants to move. So $80,000, where that comes in, we've done research that shows that is where you start seeing a reasonable market and people can get out and get a home. We look at what was available and we have pictures of things [properties] listed, things that recently sold so that people can get an idea of what they can get at a minimum. [Displays a posterboard of photos of available properties and their cost.]

SDL: Are these all in the Parish.

DB: Some of these are in the Parish and some are outside the Parish in St. John's Parish.

SDL: Because you hear a lot that people want to stay in the Parish.

DB: Oh of course and that is one reason I think it is not unrealistic to think that we could get a different dynamic going and people wanting to stay because there is such a draw in St. Charles Parish because of the education system and the commitment Shell is making over and above the Diamond Options Program. Who knows what is going to happen.

SDL: There are a few people whose situation is not this straight forward. I interviewed people who are living in the house of their aunt. Or yesterday I met two women outside the church who are renting trailers from their mother-in-law. They own the trailers. One woman said to me that she had been living in the trailer for 29 years and her mother-in-law and that if you tried to move her trailer it would fall apart. So she wondered what she could do. She knew that her mother-in-law was going to sell because she sees this as a good deal. But what is going to happen to these [trailer-owning people who rent space]? What are they offered?

DB: They are offered $7,500. And if the landowner sells they don't have any choice about whether they are going to leave. They get $7,500, which is enough to cover moving expenses to move the mobile home to a different location and then have some money left over. But this is another thing we learned from talking to the Concerned Citizens [of NORCO]. Even assuming you could move their mobile home St Charles Parish is not a very mobile home friendly place.

SDL: So it would be hard to find a spot [in the Parish to locate the mobile home].

DB: Right, in St. Charles Parish outside of Diamond.

SDL: So this woman has a couple of problems. One is that it probably is not possible to move her mobile home. But, even someone in a mobile home that could be moved arguably $7,500 could cover the expense of moving it to a place probably outside the Parish?

DB: Yes. The way we work that is we figure you can move a mobile home to a neighboring Parish for about $3,500. So when you think of it you want to be able to cover the expense of moving it and then you think that you would give a renter of a house another $4,000 to go find another house to rent. So you add that on so that was the thinking of how we came up with $7,500.

SDL: Someone who is renting not a mobile home would get $4,000 to move. But someone who had their own mobile home would get $7,500 even though they don't necessarily own the land it is on?

DB: That is right.

SDL: So there has been some thinking about this. Then there are clearly some people who are either renting or living in the house of a relative. So the relative now hears about this . . . Say you have someone who has been living for a number of years in the house of their mother or aunt who now lives somewhere else. So they are not the owner/occupant. They could be called the renter. Would they get the $4,000?

DB: It depends. If they are not a partial owner of the property they would get the renter allowance. Now, what we have done in the past with the first program and we are going to do with the second program is if you have a person living in the house who is not the full owner, who is a partial owner, they will still get the moving expense. The full moving expense will apply to them and that is $5,000. So they would be treated as if they owned the whole home and they would get the $15,000 miscellaneous expense fee because they are partial owners. Now, whatever the property assesses at that would be divided between the partial owners.

SDL: Have you already had people coming to you who are concerned about this?

DB: We have had a couple come to the office on River Road. It is also something we have been discussing with the Concerned Citizens [of NORCO]. The mobile home issue in particular.

SDL: This woman I spoke with [who lived in the trailer on her mother-in-law's property] made a fairly good case. She understood that this was a good deal for the landowners. So she could see how it would be attractive to them. And she understood that Shell didn't really want this land so Shell was already extending themselves to do this [relocation program]. But, she says that the end result is that this is not going to cover [her getting a trailer in a different location]. She said: 'I already have a place here, I have paid for it, but if you try to pick it up it is going to fall apart. And the amount of money I am paying here I will not be able to pay a similar amount somewhere else.' So clearly there are situations were people will be dislocated by this and will not be able to get a similar deal to the one they have. That is what I was hearing.

DB: That is part . . . whenever you implement a program like this, Steve, there is no perfect program. That is why I think it is important for us and the Concerned Citizens [of NORCO] to stay in discussion so issues like this we can become aware of and understand and work to try to resolve them.

SDL: So there is the potential for some flexibility here?

DB: Right, the potential.

SDL: Tell me about the time-line for this.

DB: By August 30th you have to sign up and that is basically to start the process. So there is a sixty-day window to come in and say: 'I want to participate.' And that starts the ball in motion. What happens at that point, as a homeowner, is that they would select three appraisers. We would also begin working to verify all of the title information. Then when the appraisers come back if two appraisers come back and they are within ten percent we will count the highest of the appraised value. If that is not $80,000 then it goes up to $80,000 for a homeowner [because that is the minimum]. But the idea is to get all the information together around ownership and appraisal and looking at what they would get if they could sell. And knowing the ownership situation we can figure out for a family if they are a third owner or a quarter-owner that here is what they would get. So you have to work up all this information and then the idea is that you set the options before people. Now they know what they can get if they sell. And maybe they would have some ideas if they went with the home improvement [option]. From that point the have 60 days to decide what they want to do because when we work up the offer then it is valid for 60 days. So by the end of the 60 days you either sign that you are going to sell or tell us you are going to go with home improvement.

SDL: Or the offer is off the table?

DB: Right. The idea is, Steve, that we have a lot of wonderful ideas that we want to work on and unfortunately over the last couple of years we have been tangled in discussions around the property purchase program and whether it would be extended to the next two streets. And we want to get beyond this and get to other parts of the Good Neighbor Initiative. So we are interested in doing whatever we can to help people make up their minds. But it is really about choice but what we are saying is that we don't want to drag this on for two years either. Let's get the working, let's get the information, and let's help people sign. We have a window of about 6-7 months going out . . . it take you to about the end of the year so that by the end of the year people should have a pretty good idea if they are going or staying. And by mid-year the people who are going we will have closed [the deal]. By the end of the year we will know who is staying so we can begin working in earnest with those people and helping them get involved with the Good Neighbor Initiative and with the green space development and the air monitoring, the community development district all the things we have been working on but have been kind of side-tracked from.

SDL: Some of this is quite arcane but one of the issues I imagine is quite important is on the assessments in the first program were taken on the basis of a home in the middle of NORCO?

DB: That's correct. There were areas of NORCO we excluded. So you couldn't go in these selected areas to get comparables.

SDL: Is that going to happen in this second program?

DB: Yes, it is the same set of instructions to the appraisers. And all homes can be rated no worse than average.

SDL: So you get an assessment that is not based on the fenceline properties but rather in the center of NORCO and it is considered average no matter what the condition of the home is.

DB: Right.

SDL: What do you think are the implications [for this deal]? Clearly this is going to get some press. I am going to write about it; others will write about it. What are the implications for the industry of this program?

DB: That is a good question but I think it is hard to predict. From where we sit I think it is a good example [of our policy] of let's discuss with the neighborhood the issues . . .

SDL: OK, being open . . .

DB: Let's be open, let's try to get the issues on the table, let's try to understand, and let's try to design something that will serve the company and also serve the community. So from our standpoint that is what we want to do. This may not have been the key issue but whatever the key issues are it is important for our company to be transparent, to sit and talk with its neighbors in honest discussion and try to work through the issues.

SDL: That is a big one. Not all companies are doing that.

DB: Right.

SDL: And you [Shell] are a big company so this has potential implications all around the world.

DB: Right.

SDL: So this is a pretty big deal.

DB: It is a big deal. That is the message . . . when you think about how we want to do our business in the future it is that way. Engaged is a word that means a lot of things to a lot of people but basically in simple language it means we are talking so we understand one another and working together for the good of the community.

SDL: Are you proud of this [deal].

DB: I'm proud of this. Yes. I feel very good about it. I really do.

SDL: And, in a way, it is a pioneering effort here, isn't it?

DB: I think it is.

SDL: Has Shell done this before?

DB: Not to my knowledge.

SDL: So you are setting a precedent here with this program?

DB: Could be. Again, it goes back to Diamond. The situation here was unique in the sense that we, as a company, helped create some of the problems that resulted in the Diamond Options Program. So when you think of it as a precedent, yes, this is a unique program. If you look at this Diamond Options Program . . . wow . . . it is a good program. But the situation it arose from was, I think, unique in that we helped to create the problems and the first program resulted in disruption.

SDL: But, arguably, there are other unique situations around the world adjacent to Shell facilities.

DB: Yeah, yeah.

SDL: And elsewhere in the industry as well . . . not just near Shell.

DB: Right, right.

SDL: Looking back at the process that arrived at this juncture [deal] what do you think the lessons are. As an outside observer of this what I see . . . is that there were a group of people in the Diamond community who were not happy living adjacent to this facility; and who began to make that know in various different ways. They sought help where they could get it and brought in different groups and different people to help them get the message out and help with certain technical issues. They were fortunate in that they were next to a facility that was not stonewalling the neighboring community and was open to a dialogue. There were clearly times of considerable tension and it is not as if all the tension has gone away but you have reached another point here where there are now a lot of people out in Diamond who are saying 'Hmmm, this is a pretty good deal and these people [Shell officials] did listen to us and not only that they acted on it and they didn't take forever to act. It happened.' So I'd like to hear you . . . looking back what were the key moments and elements that lead up to this [deal].

DB: Keep in mind I have been involved with this for a little over a year and a half. The history of how the issue developed goes back probably ten or more years. We began to establish dialogue with the Concerned Citizens [of NORCO] back in early part of 2000. That is when Margie Richard was president of the Concerned Citizens. She remarked that this is incredible that this was the first time that Shell really came and talked and was really open to hear. And to me that was really a key point in the process. Before that Shell officials, I think, were very afraid to go over to the Diamond. I don't know exactly why but part of it is human nature: you don't want to go into a place where you know you are not going to get a good reception.

SDL: . . . where you are going to get a lot of grief.

DB: [Laughs.] Right. So it was a fear on the part of Shell to go in [to Diamond] and so in a lot of cases they didn't. So that wasn't an easy wall to bring down. And Margie can tell you and I can tell you that the first few meetings we had were tense. Here it was like going into a place where you were not welcome and people were very distrusting but we broke some walls down even though it wasn't pleasant. I think that was critical in getting something positive to happen. So that was a key.

That started the process and from there it was just continuing to talk, continuing to build relationships. That wasn't that easy because what happened was that we built a pretty good relationship with Margie [Richard] and she moved [out of Diamond]. Then we kind of went through a period of musical chairs with the Concerned Citizens leadership. You couldn't get any consistency of dialogue established for a while. For the last six months we have had some stable leadership . . .

SDL: You are talking about Del? [Delwyn Smith].

DB: Del, right. So that has been positive. So that is some of my thoughts. When people sit down and talk and are serious about talking and are serious about trying to listen to one another good things happen. Keep in mind that is incredibly difficult. It sounds easy but it is really not because I can tell you the last few months the conversations have been strained sometimes and emotional. So that is difficult but that is the key: you are engaged, you are listening, you are hearing, and then once you come to understand somebody and feel you have a relationship well, naturally, you are going to respond. If somebody gets you convinced and you understand them and the issue, you are not just going to say: 'Let's forget about the issue.' You are going to go do something. So that is the critical point. And that is why I say the key here, the key learning, is to learn to talk, and really talk, and really understand. And things begin to happen. And it has got to be both sides; both sides have to be willing to listen. I think the Concerned Citizens will tell you likewise: they learned a lot about us; and we learned a lot about the Concerned Citizens of Diamond. So it was a two way street. They were very, very good, but painful talks.

SDL: And you [personally] also had the issue that being the point person on this even if you are convinced [of a need to change Shell's policies in Diamond] you have to come back and convince a lot of other people [at Shell] that something should change.

DB: Right.

SDL: There are a couple of things that during the process came up and I would like to hear your response to.

One of the issues that people from Diamond talked about that was difficult for them in this whole process was when they started meeting as a group and there would be a whole line of [Shell] security and police [at their meetings]. And they basically said: 'We are not a bunch of criminals; we are a community of people who have some concerns and we want to talk about them and be heard about them.' So there was that issue of the security or police presence.

Second, there was the issue of who got into the meetings at Shell. People [residents] were standing [stopped] at the gate and couldn't get in [to the meetings].

Third, there was the purchase of the Gaspard/ Mule property, which surprised a bunch of people [Diamond residents] . . . that they had been misinformed . . . that it went against what they had heard [from Shell] previously.

Fourth, there was the issue of [what some have called] 'outside agitators' and that is that here they [the Concerned Citizens of Norco] go looking for help and they are told that the people the bring in are 'outside agitators.']

So I wondered if you would comment on those four points of contention that came up in this process. You have gotten here to this better place but on the security and the police presence [at Diamond meetings] do you think that was a mistake, did that have anything to do with Shell, or what is the story there?

DB: It was a mistake but keep in mind what had happened . . . things got real testy early in 1999. In early 1999 there were some really testy meetings where there were not the people who are involved today . . . not the environmental activists who were involved today but some other people. And the meetings got very tense. And at some points there was an attempt to make it a racial issue in an audience of blacks and whites in a tense meeting.

SDL: Is this the Greenpeace moment . . .

DB: Yes.

SDL: . . . where someone said 'I don't want to call this racism but it sure is strange that the white people got called [about an accidental release] but the black people didn't?

DB: That is what I am referring to. That kind of stuck in Shell officials' minds that, hey, there is a potential in these meetings for things to really get out of hand . . . not that we think Diamond people are criminals. We are more worried about some outsider coming in and stirring the crowd and creating some almost like a riot atmosphere. So it is not that anybody was afraid in particular of Diamond residents per se.

SDL: But there was a sense that this could be stirred up into a racial conflict.

DB: Right and we had seen it come close one occasion so people were concerned. We went through that. Early last year one of the meetings we had at one of the schools we had some deputies and in retrospect that was a mistake because at this point, I think, we had already demonstrated that we were willing to talk so people who were really agitated a few years back weren't even at this meeting. So there was no need for the deputies. And you can see where we are today where we go into Diamond regularly and there is no issue, no deputies, we don't bring security people, we just go ourselves to meetings on a regular basis. And really the thought doesn't enter our mind any more that maybe something really bad is going to happen this meeting.

SDL: So that changed. But it must have taken someone here at Shell to decide that we are going to do things differently; we are not going to ask for this security presence.

DB: Yes, and it took us working with security to do that. Security has a way even without orders . . . oh, there is a meeting going on in Diamond . . . we better go take a look. So we had to get our security people to understand that police patrolling around is a big issue.

SDL: It changes the atmosphere.

DB: Yes. And that took some work.

SDL: What about this issue of who gets into the meetings. I remember some documentary of a group of people who wanted to come present their position and at the gate only some people are let in and others are not let in.

DB: Since I have been around I don't recall that being an issue. Maybe that did happen several years back. Basically we have been willing to talk to whomever . . . The Concerned Citizens [of NORCO] leadership has basically decided who comes and it has been pretty much an open door. That has been true of the Concerned Citizens and the environmentalists as well. We say we are going to have a meeting and they call and say we would like so and so and so and so come. We let them come.

SDL: But you are talking back a year and a half and [this incident] could have been before that when that footage was taken.

DB: Right.

SDL: How would you describe the role of the environmental groups? I know there have been these moments of tension that you just referred to with Greenpeace at the meeting. But there is quite a wide variety of groups out there that have been involved in one way or another. I wonder if you would comment on the role they have played, how responsible they have been about being straight.

DB: It is hard to talk about environmentalists as a group.

SDL: OK then, let's talk about them specifically: what about the Louisiana Bucket Brigade?

DB: The Louisiana Bucket Brigade, I find, has probably been the most involved and also the most helpful in getting the real issues on the table.

SDL: We are talking about Anne Rolfes.

DB: Right. The reason for that is if you look at the Bucket Brigade in particular, Anne is in the community all the time. She knows people, she knows their situation, and so she has credibility with the community that I think most of the rest of the environmentalists don't have. And it gives her credibility with us. When we have somebody who really knows the community, knows what is going on, and knows situations, we are willing to talk because this can help the situation. And Anne does what she does well. She knows how to work the media. Of course that can be painful to us at times but in terms of getting us to work with the community she has been real helpful particularly in the last few months. So I think there is a good role in that sense: the environmentalists can help us see perspectives that we don't normally see. So from that point I think there is a lot of value.

SDL: How about some of the other players?

DB: Some of the other players in this, without getting real specific, their outside agenda seems bigger than their real concern for the community.

SDL: How about the Earth Justice group? Have they played a role that has been helpful or not?

DB: In the last few months they have been helpful. Monique [Harden] has come to meetings and has been helpful and the talks have been pretty frank. So she has been helpful in the past few months.

SDL: Before that it was more difficult?

DB: More difficult. Part of the reason is for the reasons I described about the bucket brigade: we don't see Monique here a lot in the community. So I don't think she has the credibility with the community nor with us that say Anne [Rolfes] does.

SDL: And then there is Dr. Beverley Wright of the Deep South Center at Xavier University. Did you have any interaction with her?

DB: Some. She came to some of the meetings recently. Not all. And that has been more difficult. Dialoguing with Beverley is particularly difficult. It is intensity one way and the intensity is insulting, yes, which is not conducive to talking about issues.

SDL: Wilma Subra did some of the toxicology and health stuff. Did you meet with her?

DB: Wilma comes to some of the meetings. She has been on teleconference with us at most of the meetings recently. Wilma brings the technical piece, which is good. It is good to have somebody outside Shell who, when you talk about technical things, can say: 'Yeah, I know what you are talking about or I don't know.' That helps bridge a gap for the community.

SDL: That is helpful. Your title here has something to do with sustainable development, doesn't it?

DB: That is right. Manager, Sustainable Development.

SDL: Is that unique in Shell?

DB: Having a full-time sustainable development manager on location is unique. And the reason for it is that Shell launched the Good Neighbor Initiative here, which is a comprehensive program, so there was a need and we had issues with Diamond in particular so there was a need for a full-time position.

SDL: How do you see the Good Neighbor Initiative working out in NORCO. There seems to be a positive view [at Shell] about how this can all work out. Here you have some people who are going to leave and some people who are going to stay and I understand there is also a commitment in here to substantially upgrading the plant. In other words this deal is offered as giving people a choice about where they live and it doesn't have to do with health effects and pollution and so on.

DB: Right.

SDL: And yet, at the same time, there is going to be some money that is devoted to upgrading the infrastructure here, which will have an impact, I imagine, on what [toxics] goes across the fence [into the Diamond and NORCO communities]. Is that accurate?

DB: It is accurate. If you start with our vision, our premise, our premise is that NORCO as a community can exist where it is between two large petrochemical plants and grow and thrive. And we are connected: we feel that for us to grow and prosper the community of NORCO has to grow and prosper. And because we are connected we have to work together. That derives from our ability to get permits to operate here which is not a right it is a privilege. So we know that if NORCO is not happy our long-term future is at stake as a company here. So it is very critical for us, with that in mind, that not only do we prosper inside the fenceline but that the community can prosper and develop and see this as a good place to live. We believe that. You start from there and then you begin working and think about the Good Neighbor Initiative.

SDL: There was a choice there, whether it was explicit or not I don't know, but one way of looking at the situation here is that you have these two huge plants and you have a relatively small residential population. One choice would have been to say that there are some people who want to live here and others who don't want to live here but for the long term ease of running these facilities maybe the best thing to do would be to turn this into a light industry zone or have a larger [open-space] buffer zone and move the whole community. Community have been moved that are larger than this. Can you address that: did anybody look at that, was that on the table? Looking at it as a naïve person [outsider] you see these huge machines out here [industrial equipment] and then you see this little residential community and you say: 'Why are they next to each other?' Why don't we do it differently. We could even argue it nationally: that there should be a larger buffer zone around large industry.

DB: I can't say we have never talked about it but it has never been for long and the reason is whenever we go into NORCO we have too many people who love it here [and say:] 'I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Even though I don't work for Shell any more or my husband or son . . . ' they still feel this connection with the company. So the idea of us suddenly approaching the community and saying, by the way, let's talk about buying the whole thing . . . that would be a public relations disaster.

SDL: I get it. Let's go back to the components of the Good Neighbor Initiative.

DB: The first component is the environmental piece and that is foundational. When you think about sustainable development we want to have ongoing performance improvements in terms of emission reductions, flaring reduction, improvements in energy efficiency and other things. And the community has told us: 'We don't like smells, we don't like noise.' So all those things are foundational to good relations with the community. That is why you see as part of this we are considering this $200 million on going capital improvements over the next seven years. We recognize that even though we have had recent improvements we have to do a lot more. And we want to do a lot more. And as a way of demonstrating that we are committed to improving and committed to being a good neighbor.

SDL: Is there a certain focus that that money is already designated for?

DB: A lot of it is to modernize instrumentation, which is going to be quite expensive. Modern instrumentation will get us better control of the processes and fewer flaring, fewer upsets, and probably better energy efficiency. You get a lot of benefits with state of the art control technology.

SDL: So, it can pay for itself in terms of energy conservation

DB: Right. And the important part is that the $200 million that is under consideration, none of it has to do with: 'Let's make more product.' But when you reduce flaring and you reduce emissions there is payback to that. It cost a lot to flare in terms of product [lost]. So there is lots of payback to the company in terms of financial dollars and there is environmental payback and community relations payback. That is the centerpiece: we are making major commitments that we will improve, we have improved, and we are going to continue that.

SDL: Is monitoring part of that, the monitoring you say you are going to do [pay for] outside the fence?

DB: No, we put that in a category we call 'community health and safety.' It is something outside the fenceline but it is sort of connected. Here is air monitoring: we are going to demonstrate that we have clean air. If it is not clean air we are going to take action to get clean air.

SDDL: How is that coming? When I spoke with you last it was kind of in a planning stage.

DB: We have done a couple of things since you came last. We have formed the communications team, which has basically completed its program. They put together this map of all the different groups in the community and outside the community that we need to educate about what we are doing. Here is where we put data once we start getting data. So it is the nuts and bolts so the communication plan will work out.

We have a technical team now working to figure out what kind of technology, how many monitors, where they go. The good thing is that on both of these teams we have residents. On both of these teams we have third party specialists form the universities. . . . The department of Environmental Quality is involved so they have their people in there also. Again, it is an attempt to do this with the communication, get all the information and do it with everybody.

SDL: When do you expect that the monitors will be in place.

DB: By September [2002] we should have the monitors in place and we will begin collecting the data.

SDL: And I imagine there is an issue about how low they go [how low the levels of toxics in the air they detect]?

DB: There are a lot of choices with different technologies.

SDL: How long they are in operation?

DB: Yeah. The most accurate monitors can tell you down to parts pert billion but you don't get the data right away. You catch it in this big steel spherical container and it goes off to a lab and you might get the results two or three weeks later. So you don't get the immediate feedback. There are other technologies that are gas chromatography based where you can get almost instant results but you can't get the clarity or the precision and you can't go down to the low levels. So we have choice that the community has to make with us. Where it seems to be coming out at is the community seems more concerned about the long-term effects of living in NORCO with low levels of chemicals in the air, which would push you to more sensitive machinery where you don't get the feedback immediately. So the direction we are heading is looking at that kind of setup but we'd also have a simpler type device that could catch a spike of some sort.

SDL: I see, so you could have a combination of the two [technologies].

DB: Right. The device that could catch the spike could tell you, you had something come through here at such-and-such a time on this day. And what that would do is that if it rose above some threshold it would trigger catching an air sample in one of these [more sensitive and accurate] spheres. That is sort of where we are headed with the air monitoring.
We are working on the evacuation route for Diamond, which doesn't solve all of the evacuation issues but it gives more options.

SDL: Is this the perimeter [of the plant] route?

DB: Right, we talked about that earlier. We are getting that scoped out and we hope to have final approval on that by July.

And then you have the health studies. We recently released the results of some of our employee studies. We are still doing more. But the study we released was the mortality study of Shell employees who worked between 1973 and 1999. And the good news is that it showed our employees tend to die less from cancer and all other causes: disease, accidents. And it is really based on life expectancy so you can see the life expectancy of a Shell and a Motiva employee is higher than the national average, the Louisiana average, and the tri-parish area average.

SDL: Did it go into respiratory issues?

DB: No it didn't.

SDL: Is there any bad news in it?

DB: Nothing that we consider significant. There was, I think, one case in which it might have been brain cancer where four were expected and we had six. So you had it maybe a little bit higher but it is such a small number that it is hard to say it is statistically significant. But all the major causes of cancer we showed less mortality from cancer. Now the second piece of this, which won't be completed until the end of next year, is not just looking at mortality but the rate of cancer incidence. You can make the argument that, yeah, Shell employees die less from cancer, but they have good medical coverage and can catch things early. So it is to look at the rate of cancer incidence.

SDL: Morbidity.

DB: Right. Now we are also open . . . and Wayne sent a note recently, in the last few days to Michael [Lerner, president of Commonweal] that we are still receptive to the idea of partnering with third party people through Michael to look at health issues of concern to the community. There may be something happening there. I am just not sure how that is going to play out but we are hopeful and receptive.

SDL: But the thrust of this is to say basically that we think it is safe to live here and we want to prove it to you.

DB: Yes. Yes.

SDL: Are there other aspects of the Good Neighbor Initiative that I should know about?

DB: The other aspects build onto things like quality of life. It is our belief, Steve, that NORCO can become really a preferred place for a lot of people to live. Right now you have a lot of our retirees and workers who say: 'Hey, we love it here.' But we think there could be a lot of people from outside of NORCO who want to live here. And the reason for that, if you think about it, is that you already have a really have a fine educational program in St. Charles Parish. It is like number four or number two in the whole state. Also, we have things like the green space development, which is going to provide the beauty and recreation that is very attractive for people who want to move. And the design will be that we are going to block the view of the plant so we are going to put a berm, we call it, which is [mounded up] earth in the way.

SDL: That is interesting. Where are you going to get the earth from?

DB: Don't know yet. That is the concept: put a berm so people who own in this place will hardly know there is a plant there. They can't see it and by that time you won't hear it either. So you have the green space development, which is beginning now. We are beginning to look at designs and we have a committee in the community looking at this with a designer.

You have this $5 million endowment for a community development district, which we think is going to be very significant. It is a legal entity. It will have a full-time director. That won't be a Shell employee; that will be someone hired from outside who knows how to do this stuff. One of the key focuses of that will be infrastructure for the community, for small business. They can look at things like jobs training programs. One way or another we are going to work on jobs training whether we are going to do it through this entity or separately . . . . programs for the elderly. So this becomes in essence a way to help NORCO; it can become a leadership type group in NORCO. You have a full-time director but you have a community panel working with the director. Again that is something we think is going to be visionary and put NORCO ahead of a lot of other places.

SDL: This $5 million is a one-time grant to get this group started and it will be invested and they will live off the interest.

DB: From what little I understand of these things once it is set up legally they can take in funding and look for money elsewhere. So it can be pretty powerful.

SDL: Diamond has kind of historically felt left out. With the jobs training program, will there be a focus on bringing Diamond into that?

DB: Yes, it is recognized that we need a focus. We are just not sure yet exactly how to go about it. We don't know yet if we want to do something specifically in the company or if we want to partner with a third party to work on it or develop some type of training programs to our industry . . . not just Shell but maybe Shell and some of the other companies around here.

SDL: Did you read my interviews?

DB: I read almost all of them. I can't say I read every one.

SDL: There were a lot of them so I don't blame you a bit. But one of the things I couldn't help but notice [after doing the interviews] was the number of people in Diamond with college educations, working at solid jobs elsewhere, and many of them had applied for jobs at Shell and not gotten in. One of them in particular struck me; he had run a production unit at a sugar factory. So there were people with relevant skills, good educational background, well presented, smart and it just struck me, as an outsider, that if you have people who work in your plant it will affect the attitude of many of the residents.

DB: We are working on that. It is a key issue for us. One of the things to recognize is that even the Concerned Citizens group we have been working with the last few months, one thing we noticed was that two of the people out of the eight that have come to the meetings . . . two of the eight one has a daughter who works for Shell in Houston; and another has a son who works for Shell in St. Rose. But the siblings of those people don't live in Diamond. What you see is that we do have some people who have a relationship and you do see we hire people who are the children of Diamond residents or Diamond residents themselves who, for whatever reason. Steve, and it is a dynamic we don't fully understand, but once people kind of get on good financial footing they move out of Diamond. So one of the challenges we have is that we want to see Diamond become a place where people want to live; not just people living there who have no place to go and can't get out. It would be nice to have a place where people want to move in.

SDL: Two questions that kept coming up [in Diamond] from an environmental justice point of view. One is looking back on the way Shell has dealt with the Diamond community. One woman said to me: 'Shell gets blamed for the problems of the larger culture, for example segregation. Shell didn't start that. Shell came here and lived with that reality and had to do business in that time. My question, as an outsider, is that, well, Shell came in here and hired some African American people but the deal that they got wasn't the same deal that the white employees got. I have asked you before and I will ask you again: wouldn't it be reasonable for the company to look at that and address that. One way to deal with it is to look at it and say: 'Oh, it was a problem of the culture.' But the other way of looking at it is to say: 'As a company we made choices and one of our choices was to decide that some of our facilities [gym, swimming pool, bowling ally, theatre] were segregated. Or, black people got fewer jobs and not good jobs. So that is one question: Is Shell being introspective about that part and addressing their history?

The other question that goes along with that has to do with the compensation for the deaths of the two people Leroy Jones and Helen Washington and that is in looking at the relationship of Shell with the African-American community adjacent to this facility, and all of the things that happened in the Niger Delta . . . is Shell looking back at how it compensated people who died next to its facility as a result of its problem here. I have asked this question a couple of times and what I have now been told is: 'There are no records,' which is, forgive me, almost unbelievable. I suppose it is not unbelievable but it doesn't sound right. I wonder if you would just catch me up on Shell's thinking on those two issues.

DB: Yeah, on the first question about introspection the answer to that is yes. It is part of trying to understand Diamond and the residents. It has required us to take an introspective look about how we do things now and how we did things in the past and so forth. I think it has had an impact on us. Part of recognizing that Diamond has specially needs and that the Diamond Options Program is a good program and a needed program is about being introspective. We can't assume that Diamond is like the rest of NORCO. When you get in and try to learn you see that. The way the neighborhood works is different. And I don't know if that has ever been really appreciated in Shell before.

As far as how Shell did its business in the 1950s or the 1960s what really hurts that is information. You get this feeling, yeah, back then it was during segregation, we know there were not as many opportunities in society in general for the African-American population. There was a lot of discrimination. So you can make a logical conclusion that that [discrimination] followed through within Shell. Finding people with specific knowledge of that within Shell is difficult because it is long ago and I don't think anybody really asked this question until now.

And again, it goes back to the case of the two fatalities in 1973. We have asked everybody we know to ask from the legal department to the public relations departments and we just don't have the records any more. We don't know where else to go.

SDL: Maybe that [the lack of records] was deliberate. You didn't want a record. That is one way of looking at it. I guess what I have done is gone around and done an oral history talking to Diamond residents. As you have seen in the interviews I have talked to a lot of people who witnessed this [the explosion of the Shell gas line that caused two fatalities] or were right next door to it and a number of people who were there that day and saw what happened who recall what the compensation was and what the deal was. So, in terms of oral history, from the residents' side of the fence, it is not really hard to get at [this information]. There are a lot of people there who will tell you what happened.

It would seem that if a similar effort were made within the corporate culture that even if the records are not there, there are human beings who could be found who are still alive who knew about that. So I guess we are at an impasse about looking at this [getting to the bottom of the compensation issue]. But would it be fair to say that what we have heard: the family of Leroy Jones was paid $500 and the family of Helen Washington was paid $3,000 for the property that burned up . . . that in the absence of any records and with this oral history, that it would appear that an injustice was done. And if you compare this with what has happened elsewhere next to Shell properties [facilities] where people [residents] have been killed or injured there have been substantial settlements [such as the $50 million settlement for the two white residents killed next to a Shell facility in Canada]. So, while I know this is tricky ground for Shell, when you look at the history of it this is a sore point not only because these people died . . . accidents happen . . . people get killed . . . This is a tragedy and a very unfortunate thing . . . But then there is the reaction to it once it has happened: what do you do. And it doesn't seem in this case that Shell has really stepped up and said: 'Yeah, these people were killed, it was a result of a gas leak [from a shell pipeline] and we didn't deal with it right.'

DB: I guess what you are advocating is that we should go back and acknowledge that, that it wasn't handled properly.

SDL: Right. Up in Canada where people were killed next to a Shell facility they [their families] got $50 million or whatever it was. But it was substantial. And here it was a couple of thousand dollars [$3,500]. And [Shell could say, for example] 'that wasn't right and we recognize that and therefore we are going to establish a scholarship . . . I don't know... the Leroy Jones and Helen Washington scholarships. See what I am saying? I don't want to tell you what is appropriate. What I am asking is for your reaction given the absence of the response from Shell about this. Not only [a lack of response] to me but to the community. You can't go into the community and have talks with people without this coming up again and again and again and again. It is spoken of but it is subterranean. As an outsider, who has come here and done a lot of interviews, it is clear that it remains a sore point and an unaddressed one in terms of Shell. So what is your reaction to that?

DB: If it is a sore point and it is something that people are hanging onto I agree that it is something that we should do something about. What that is I think we would be open to. There is such an absence of information from our standpoint that it leaves you uncomfortable about trying to react to a situation that you do not have a lot of information about.

SDL: One thing you have information about is that the people in Diamond say the compensation [for these two deaths] was $500 and $3,000. So that is widespread collective memory of people in Diamond. And if you don't have any records that say that that is not the case then, in a way, what you are dealing with is the oral history. Looking at it from the point of view of the residents, if you are trying to build a trust relationship with people that live on the fenceline, part of the hard work of it is getting down to this sense of how you value people [fenceline residents]. Really this is where the rubber hits the road. When people get killed how do you value them.

DB: Right. Obviously it is important. And obviously we would do vastly differently today than what you describe people say we did back in 1973. So, I just don't know.

SDL: But do you think this is important.

DB: I think it is important, yes.

SDL: Have you run into this [in Diamond]? Have people talked to you about this?

DB: No. We have seen it in the media but we haven't had people talking directly about this.

SDL: I can see the legal problems. It is one of those issues where it is safer [for Shell] to say nothing. And it is a long time ago. And the laws are such that it would probably be difficult to bring this up legally. But it does seem that if you are trying to build a new relationship with the community and you are going to all this work to do that, that this central issue of how you value the lives of people who live there would come into play.

DB: I agree.

top^