Risk Communication


Risk Communication

Risk Communication

Description

Risk communication is a dialogue-an interactive
process of information exchange-among the Site
Team and the community that discusses the nature
of risk and other concerns. This dialogue should
be a genuine and sincere conversation that aims
to identify mutual solutions and respond to public
concerns.

Required Activity?

No. The specific risk communication techniques
contained in this tool are suggestions. However, the
general process of risk communication is implied
by the National Contingency Plan (NCP). For
removal actions, the NCP [at 40 CFR § 300.415
(n)(l)] requires that a spokesperson be designated
by the lead agency to inform the community of
actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide
information concerning the release (i.e., the
contamination). For remedial actions, the NCP
[at 40 CFR § 300.430(c)(2)(C)] requires that the
lead agency provide appropriate opportunities for
the community to learn about the release and the
affected area (a.k.a., "the site")- Explaining the risk
assessment process is an essential component of
risk communication and involving communities in
the Superfund risk assessment process, as outlined
in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS). Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual Supplement to Part A: Community
Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments.

Making It Work

Communities are entitled to make decisions
about issues that directly affect them, and EPA
is committed to promoting participation in the
decision-making process by people whose lives
are affected by Superfund sites. Effectively
communicating information on site-related hazards
and risks is a multi-step process that involves:

¦	Identifying and understanding your audience.

¦	Defining clear messages that provide the
information you want to convey with an

understanding of, and respect for, the
audience's concerns and perceptions.

¦	Selecting appropriate communication methods
to deliver those messages.

Keep in mind that even an effective risk
communication process does not guarantee
consensus on the appropriate cleanup approach
among all affected parties. The goal of risk
communication is to increase the community's
involvement in the cleanup process, the Agency's
awareness of the community's perception of
site-related risks, and the public's understand-
ing of how the Agency uses risk assessment in
decision-making at a site. All members of the Site
Team, including On-Scene Coordinators; Remedial
Project Managers; Risk Assessors; Community
Involvement Coordinators; state, tribal, and local
government partners; and staff from the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry should
be involved in planning and implementing risk
communication.

Why is Risk Communication
Important?

Risk communication provides an opportunity
for the Agency and the community to exchange
information, facilitates community participation
in the decision-making process, helps the Site
Team understand and appreciate the community's
perception of risk, and helps establish mutual trust
and a productive relationship between EPA and the
community.

Community members often have important
information that can help improve the accuracy
of the site characterization and the baseline
human health risk assessment. Local community
knowledge can help the site team:

¦	Better understand the site's history and the
type and extent of contamination.

¦	More accurately characterize exposure
pathways due to human behavior.

¦	Identify unique ways in which the community
uses local resources, such as consuming high

-------


Risk Communication

2 	

quantities of one type of food (e.g., fish from
a contaminated river) or incorporating plants
grown near the contaminated site into food,
medicinal remedies, or traditional practices.

¦	Develop appropriate exposure scenarios and
cleanup approaches by identifying suitable
future land uses.

¦	Become aware of whether certain segments of
the community may have a disproportionate
burden of exposure or environmental health
effects due to race/ethnicity, national origin, or
income compared to other nearby communi-
ties (i.e., issues related to environmental
justice).

When is Risk Communication Used?

Effective risk communication begins early in
the Superfund cleanup process. The remedial
investigation stage is a good place to initiate
risk communication. The community needs
to understand how the Agency arrives at the
determination of risk, what information is used,
how the information is used, which uncertainties
are inherent in the process, and how uncertainties
are addressed. Members of the Site Team should be
prepared to discuss site-related risks at any point in
the Superfund cleanup process, such as:

¦	During the site assessment stage, when
residents may be asked to allow EPA to
sample on their property.

¦	During the remedy selection stage, when the
Site Team works to help people understand the
technical aspects of the cleanup approaches.

¦	During the construction completion stage,
when the discussion may focus on the future
of the site and returning it to productive use.

All Site Team members should familiarize
themselves with the Superfund human health
risk assessment process1 and how it is used in
site decision-making regarding risk management.
Knowing these processes will help you answer
technical questions from the public more
effectively. When discussing site-related risks with
the community, it is important for the Site Team
to present consistent key risk messages to avoid
confusion and maintain credibility and trust with
the community.

1 EPA. 2000. Presenter's Manual for: Superfund Risk Assessment
and How You Can Help, EPA/540/R-99/013. Found at: http://www.
epa. gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/ vdmanual.pdf.

Defining Risk and Risk Perception
Factors

Any explanation of the risk around a Superfund site
must be coupled with a recognition of the issues
that are driving the public's perception of risk at
the site. Effective risk communication is based
on an understanding that risk means different
things to different people. To a risk assessor, risk
might be a quantitative probability that damage to
life, health, and/or the environment will occur as a
result of a given hazard2 (i.e., the "probability of
a future loss"3). However, the general public does
not judge risk based on numbers or statistics alone.
Instead, risk is both a real and a perceived threat
of an event occurring. It also is a judgment people
make about the likelihood, severity, or importance
of a threatening event or condition.4

Researchers have identified a set of risk perception
factors that contribute to the way the public
perceives a risk, which include: voluntariness,
controllability, familiarity, fairness, catastrophic
potential, reversibility, equity, and effects on
children (Attachment 1 contains a comprehensive
list of qualitative factors affecting risk perception).
For example, a situation that seems to put children
specifically at risk will be perceived as having a
higher risk than a situation that does not. Similarly,
risks arising from a situation that is not familiar to
the community, such as leaching of contaminants
into groundwater, will be perceived to be higher
than risks arising from a familiar situation (e.g.,
people in mining communities who have lived next
to slag piles their entire lives). People use their
instincts and life experience to gauge how risky a
situation is.5

How to Do Effective Risk
Communication

Using effective strategies to deliver important
risk-communication messages will convey the
information the Site Team needs to communicate

2	EPA. 2009. "Risk." Terms of Environment: Glossary,

Abbreviations, and Acronyms.

3	Byrd, D. and C. Cothern. 2000. Introduction to Risk Analysis:
a Systematic Approach to Science-Based Decision Making.
Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

4	EPA. 2007. Risk Communication in Action: The Tools of Message
Mapping. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-625-R-06-
012.

5	From David Ropeik, Risk Communication: More than Facts
and Feelings. IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 50-1, International Atomic
Energy Association. Found at: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/
Magazines/Bulletin/Bull501/Risk Communication.html.

-------
Risk Communication

while addressing the community's needs, concerns,
and site-related expectations. Before you begin the
risk communication process, consider the type of
communication environment you are working in
and adjust accordingly. There are essentially four
types of communication environments:

e
—

-------

Risk Communication

local action groups or local media may be the
existing stakeholders.

¦ Are any schools, colleges, or nursery facilities
located in the vicinity?

¦ Are healthcare facilities (e.g., doctor offices,
urgent care centers, hospitals) located in the
vicinity?

¦ Any there religious/sacred buildings or tribal
sacred/cultural landmarks nearby?

¦ What are the appropriate regulatory bodies
for both human health and environmental
considerations?

Review the site's Community Involvement Plan
(CIP) to better understand the characteristics of
the community, as well as the community's needs,
concerns, and site-related expectations. If a CIP
is not available or out of date, developing a new
Community Profile that describes the affected
community is a good idea.

After identifying your audience, prepare a list of
key questions and concerns for each major group of
stakeholders (See Attachment 2. Frequently Asked
Questions at Superfund, Environmental Cleanup,
and Hazardous Waste Sites). These questions
generally fall into three broad categories:

¦ Overarching questions that are broad in topic
and focus on the general status of a situation.

¦ Informational questions that ask about a
specific aspect of the situation.

¦ Challenging questions that tend to be hostile
or tense in tone.

Analyze the answers to these questions to identify
the underlying concern.

Step 2 - Develop Risk Messages

After identifying your potential audiences, define
the key risk messages you want to convey. Use
a message map to help you. A message map is a
detailed description of hierarchically organized
answers to anticipated questions and concerns from
stakeholders in the event of a disaster, crisis, or
alarming situation. Creating a message map allows
you to think through tough questions and deliver
consistent messages for multiple stakeholders and
communication outlets. A message map should
bring focus and clarity to potentially high-stress,
high-concern, or emotionally charged situations.

A message map has three main components, or tiers:

¦ Tier 1 identifies the audience and the question
being addressed.

¦ Tier 2 consists of the key messages pertaining
to the situation. Consider the information that
you want to convey and the main information
your community wants and needs to know.
Identify three key messages to deliver to
your audience, keeping each key message to
nine words or less. Your three key messages
together should be about 27 words.

¦ Tier 3 provides supporting information
for the three key messages. Like your key
messages, supporting information should
consist of details the community wants and
needs to know about the situation. Support-
ing information should address the audience's
perception of risk. For example, you may want
to acknowledge that the situation is unfamiliar
to the community or that the situation may
specifically pose risks to children.

Use the following template to help you develop
your message map (Attachment 3 also contains a
blank message map that can be used as a template).
Note that message maps are a way to guide you
in delivering risk information to the public. They
are not meant to be read verbatim. Their purpose
is to provide consistency throughout all venues
of communication between the Site Team and the
public, thereby increasing the credibility of the
Agency and building trust in the community.

Message Map Template

QUESTION

Audience/Stakeholder:
"Core" Concern:

Key Message #1 (most important)

¦ Supporting information

Key Message #2

¦ Supporting information

Key Message #3

¦ Supporting information

-------
Risk Communication

Step 3 - Deliver Your Messages

Effectively deliver the risk message by selecting
appropriate communication methods, addressing
communication barriers, and managing difficult
situations. Again, the key is preparation. Use the
Communication Strategies Tool, which provides
a thorough discussion on selecting appropriate
communication methods, as well as the site's CIP,
which outlines a site-specific communication
plan with preferred communication delivery
mechanisms.

Risk messages can be delivered via interactive
forums such as public meetings, workshops, and
one-on-one discussions, as well as through indirect
means such as media appearances and publications
(e.g., pamphlets, fact sheets, handbooks, etc.).
Messages delivered through indirect means must
include information about how EPA plans to collect
and respond to community feedback, questions,
and concerns. Partner with local community or
cultural institutions to assist in conveying risks in
appropriate cultural and trusted ways (for example,
on fish consumption advisories).

Additional Considerations for
Explaining Risk

Help the community to interpret risk information
and put risk-related data into perspective. This can
be accomplished by the following:

Explain the Superfund risk assessment process.

This is a critical component of risk communication
and is best done early and often. Consider holding
a risk assessment workshop to explain the risk
assessment process before the risk assessment
is started. Reviewing the process can help
demonstrate that the risk numbers are not derived
from a "black box;' A 40-minute video-Superfund
Risk Assessment and How Yon Can Help-helps
explain in plain terms the Superfund human health
risk assessment process and how communities
can be involved. The video, along with a short
10-minute overview should be available through
your Regional Community Involvement Manager.
The accompanying Presenter's Manual highlights
the key messages described in the video and other
issues that audiences might raise.

Explain the significance of exposure pathways
(i.e., routes of exposure). Frequently, the issue
is not whether a dangerous contaminant exists in
relatively high quantities, but whether exposure
to the contaminant puts people at risk. Help the
community understand that for a risk to exist,
the following three factors must be present: 1)
contamination; 2) pathways for that contaminant to
reach surrounding populations; and 3) populations
that may be exposed to the contaminant. If any
of these factors are missing, little or no risk is
present. If all three factors are present, explain the
exposure pathways (the course a substance takes
from its source to contact with people) as well as
the exposure route (means of entry of the substance
into the body).

Involve the community in the risk assessment
process. A good opportunity for community
involvement in the risk assessment process is
during the exposure assessment step. Exposure
information may be gathered from the public
during Community Interviews or through a
Workshop.

Apply indexing or color-coding to explain
sampling data. "Indexing" is a data interpreta-
tion tool that expresses one or more quantitative
measurements as part of a scale, such as "poof' to
"excellent." Indexing requires the development of
weighting factors where important variables are
assigned more weight than less important factors
to combine the relevant data into an index scale
(Attachment 4 provides a series of steps that can
help in developing an index). Complex data may be
difficult to categorize and summarize.

Color coding is a type of indexing that works
well with maps, graphs, icons, and other risk
communication tools. Appropriate choices of colors
(and ranges of colors) can enhance a viewer's
understanding. However, keep in mind that some
individuals may be color blind. In addition,
color printing may not be readily available in all
locations. As with indexing, the biggest challenge
with color coding is reaching a consensus of where
the "green" ends and the "yellow" begins.

-------

Risk Communication

Color Coding Example

At the XXX Superfund site, color-coding can help homeowners interpret results of lead screening in their yards
and explain EPA's planned course of action for their properties.

RANGE
(mg/kg
LEAD)

COLOR

GUIDANCE TO HOMEOWNER

NECESSARY ACTIONS

0-399

No Color
(Clear)

Below Levels of Concern

No action planned

400-799

Yellow

Homeowners should practice caution
when handling soil. Small children
(0-7) years of age) should be monitored
closely when allowed in the area
specifically in regard to putting hands to
face. Bare soils should be covered with
several inches of clean material and off
limits to playing children.

Further evaluation of the area is
necessary. Actions to address the area
is likely by the remedial program.

800 and Up

Red

Small children (0-7) years of age)
should be discouraged from playing in
the area. Homeowners should practice
caution when handling soil. Bare soil
should be covered with at least 3 inches
of clean material (mulch for example) or
have grass established (or sod applied).

Excavation of the area is pending.

Use visuals to describe complex scientific
concepts. Data visualization tools present
information primarily through images like maps,
icons, and pie charts, rather than through words,
enabling you to communicate results to a broader
audience. Here are some examples of visuals:

¦ Diagrams can be useful to show exposure
pathways of contaminants in a groundwater
plume.

¦ Maps can display the current contamination
and predicted paths of migration, as well as
illustrate "receptors" of the contamination (see
the Maps and Aerial Photographs tool for more
information).

¦ Graphs can be used to show the decrease of
contamination over time.

¦ Geographic information systems (GIS), e.g.,
Google Earth, can be used to display multiple

"layers" of information at a Superfund site,
such as population demographics, water
resources, roads, and other features of the area.
¦ 3-D data visualization tools create realistic
simulations and display environmental informa-
tion in a three-dimensional space, which can
help the community better understand site
conditions, depth of contamination, and other
environmental data.

Use risk comparisons effectively and cautiously.

Risk comparisons can be an effective strategy to
provide context for a situation and help individuals
put site-related risks in perspective. However,
an inappropriate comparison can have disastrous
results for the credibility and efforts of the
communicator. Below is a list of some acceptable
and unacceptable uses of risk comparisons:

-------
A ¦! ¦!<

Comparing risk level of the solution to risk from lack of
action

Informing the community that if PCBs are allowed to
remain in the sediment and fish continue to be exposed
to the contaminants, this would make the risks far
greater than those that would be incurred by removing
the contaminant and disposing of it in a landfill.

Before and after comparisons

The community is concerned about the safety of a
remedial or removal action at the site. It is acceptable to
tell them that by removing contaminated sediment, the
risk of eating fish from the river will be lowered tenfold.

Comparing site contaminant levels to regulatory
standard levels for that contaminant

Note: When using this approach, it is important to explain what
regulatory standard levels are being used and how they are derived; some
contaminants, such as lead, do not have a safe or acceptable level.

Informing the community that the concentration of
copper in their water is half the Agency's Maximum
Contaminant Level drinking water standard for the
nation.

*No matter how small the risk, never present any level of risk as "acceptable." Community members should make
their own determinations about what they consider safe.

Unacceptable Risk Comparisons

Example

Comparing voluntary risks to involuntary risks

Comparing health risks from smoking or driving to
health risks from groundwater contamination.

Trivializing risk

Stating that one lias a greater chance of developing
cancer from a contaminant in peanut butter than from
living near a Superfund site.

Tips

Earn trust and establish credibility. A

credible person is accurate, keeps promises
(and makes sure others do the same), listens to
the community, and appreciates their concerns.
Trust and credibility are difficult to earn; once
lost, they are extremely difficult to regain.
Inform the public of Superfund's mandate
to address human health and environmental
threats from site-related hazardous waste,
rather than achieving zero-risk or to return
waste sites to their best use.

Develop a risk communication strategy
to plan all risk communication carefully
by integrating the risk assessment and
management activities with other community
involvement activities.

Make use of outside experts, but continue
to serve as the lead contact person for the
communication of technical risk information.
Coordinate all communication, including
risk communication, with the Site Team. Do
not act alone.

Select your messages with care. Problems
often arise when either too much or too little
information is provided.

¦ Be transparent. Do not withhold information
unless there is a plausible reason for doing

so and that reason is communicated to the
community.

¦ React honestly and admit to mistakes and
past problems. Let the community know that
EPA is trying to do better, and acknowledge
how difficult it is for experts to remember that
most people need more background informa-
tion to understand some concepts.

¦ Be patient and compassionate. The Site
Team needs to empathize with the community.
Remember, every new audience is hearing
this information for the first time and
many people must hear information more
than once. Show the audience that you are
listening to their position and concerns (See
Attachment 5 for a list of helpful phrases in
non-judgmental language). Remember that
people often do not care what you know until
they know how much you care.

1. Return telephone calls or e-mails within 24
hours. If the answer to a question is not ready,
explain what is being done to investigate and
when an answer will be available.

¦ Use the Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication as a guide.

— 7

-------

Risk Communication

Related Tools

¦ Communication Strategies

¦ Media

¦ Community Groups

¦ Presentations

¦ Community Interviews

¦ Public Availabilities/Poster Sessions

¦ Community Involvement Plans

¦ Public Meetings

¦ Community Profile

¦ Public Notices

¦ Computer-Based Resources

¦ Technical Assistance For Communities

¦ Cross-Cultural Communication

¦ Telephone

¦ Exhibits

¦ Translation Services

¦ Fact Sheets

¦ Videos

¦ Focus Groups

¦ Workshops

¦ Maps and Aerial Photographs

Other Sources of Information

1. U.S. EPA Community Involvement Handbook
http: //www, epa. gov/superfund/communitv/
cag/pdfs/ci handbook.pdf

2. U.S. EPA Community Involvement Toolkit
http: //www, epa. gov/superfund/communitv/
toolkit.htm

3. Program Evaluation: An Internal Review of
Procedures for Community Involvement in
Saperfand Risk Assessment. U.S. EPA, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
http: //www, epa. gov/e valuate/pdf/waste/
internal-review-procedures-community-
involvement-superfund-risk-assessments.pdf

4. Presenter's Manual for: "Superfund Risk
Assessment and How You Can Help. " U.S.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskas-
sessment/pdf/vdmanual.pdf.

5. Risk Communication in Action: Environmental
Case Studies. U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development. EPA/625/R-02/011:

http: //nepis .epa. gov/Exe/ZvPURL.
cgi?Dockev=3 00041X9 .txt

6. Risk Communication in Action: The
Tools for Message Mapping. U.S. EPA,

Office of Research and Development.
EPA/625/R-06/012:

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r06012.html

7. 77 Questions Commonly Asked by Journal-
ists During an Emergency or Crisis. From
Covello, V.T. "Keeping Your Head in a Crisis:
Responding to Communication Challenges
Posted by Bioterrorism and Emerging
Infectious Diseases." http://riskcomm.org/
new/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Questions-
Commonlv-Asked-bv-Journalists-Buring-an-
Emerencv-Crisis.doc

Attachments

¦ Attachment 1: Qualitative Factors Affecting
Risk Perception

¦ Attachment 2: Frequently Asked Questions
at Superfund. Environmental Cleanup, and
Hazardous Waste Sites

¦ Attachment 3: Blank Message Map: Example
Message Map

¦ Attachment 4: The Five Steps to Indexing

¦ Attachment 5: Non-Judgmental Language -
Helpful Phrases

¦ Attachment 6: Useful Terms and Definitions
for Explaining Risk

-------