9. Risk Communication

9.1.1.1 Option –Timing and Level of Stakeholder Input is Site Specific

Although early stakeholder involvement is encouraged, the timing of engagement may vary for different stakeholders. For example, certain stakeholders might be involved only during development of the CSM for the purpose of identifying site-specific exposureContact of a receptor with a chemical. Exposure is quantified as the amount of the chemical available at the exchange boundaries of the organism (for example, skin, lungs, gut) and available for absorption (USEPA 1989a). activities. When stakeholders are not engaged until after the assessment is complete, communication is typically in one direction—from risk managers to the public—and often in the form of announcements of the results of completed assessments or of remedial action decisions. This approach risks a win-lose confrontation, in which some stakeholders may feel disempowered and present potential roadblocks to project completion for various reasons.

The appropriate level and scope of engagement is project-specific and depends on the interests and background of individual stakeholders and the scale and complexity of the risk assessment.

Typical influences on an individual’s perception of a numerical risk estimate include:

• whether the individual is voluntarily or involuntarily placed at risk from the hazard (for example, cancer risks from smoking versus pesticide residue on produce)
• the degree to which the hazard represents a dreaded or catastrophic event (for example, cancer fatality risks from exposures to intense sunlight versus cancer risks from a nuclear power plant release).

Typical influences related to the personal context include:

• feelings of equity, fairness, or control in the distributionA distribution describes the probability or likelihood of any potential value. of cost, benefits, and potential secondary risks (for example, when pollution risks are borne by local residents and the benefits of allowable emissions from a factory accrue to remote shareholders)
• levels of trust in the institution or industry generating the secondary risks (for example, radiation risks related to a medical products facility may be perceived more favorably than those from a nuclear power facility)
• the degree of familiarity with the potential risk (for example, risks from automobile travel versus risks from airline travel for someone who has never flown)

These influences correspond to the audience’s cultures, traditions, and individual experiences and may play a greater or lesser role in risk communication depending on site-specific factors.

9.2.1.1 Option – Be Aware of, and Address, Possible Differences in Perceived Risks

Risk communication efforts should be attuned to the presence of these influences on relevant stakeholders. The Center for Risk Communication (Center for Risk Communication 2013) indicates that only five percent of public stress is driven by factual issues. The remaining 95% reflects perception. Risk communication must address not only the magnitude of the problem, but also the discrepancy between perceived and actual risks.

9.2.1.2 Option – Use Effective Risk Communication Methods

Risk communicators should recognize that they may be judged based on their role in the process. For example, a project managerAn individual from a regulatory agency (for example, federal, state, or local), or a consulting company, or responsible party company, who is coordinating the site cleanup including the risk assessment. has a professional interest in the outcome that may be perceived as a conflict of interest by some stakeholders. Be cognizant of how the risk communicator’s role may be perceived. Stakeholder reactions may seem personally directed at the risk communicator, when the reactions are in fact directed at the role.

Effective presentation of the risk assessment can help to provide an informed perception of risks. Numerous publications address effective risk communication, including USEPA’s succinct seven cardinal rules of risk communication (USEPA 1988b), as well as USEPA’s Risk Communication Handbook (USEPA 2007e), and other guidance (Adler and Kranowitz 2005). The seven cardinal rules of risk communication can be incorporated into the presentation of the risk assessment by presenting the objectives and findings transparently, and acknowledging potential bias, error, and uncertaintyThe lack of perfect knowledge of values or parameters used in a risk assessment. Uncertainty may be reduced by collection of additional data.. The concept of acceptable levels of risk and, if applicable, the role of media-specific levels (within the framework of federal or state regulations and guidance) should also be presented. The consistency of the information presented during risk communication should be maintained throughout the risk assessment process, balanced by stakeholder and public concerns. During planning for the risk assessment, effective risk communication streamlines discussion of results with stakeholders. As the project progresses and nears completion, effective risk communication should result in an outcome that most, if not all, consider reasonable.

Acknowledging potential differences in risk perceptions is a key to successful risk communication. The pros and cons of proposed risk management strategies to address objective risks must be discussed in a factual and understandable manner with stakeholders. These principles and plans should be presented in language that is appropriate for the audience. The guidance for the U.S. Plain Writing Act (PLAIN 2011) and subsequent executive orders is useful in framing risk communications in approachable language.

9.3.1.1 Option – Develop an Appropriate Message for Communication with the Public

If DQOs (see Section 3.3.1.2) were developed during project planning, then they may be an effective tool for communicating information to stakeholders. When communicating to nontechnical audiences, the structure underlying the risk assessment must be conveyed clearly and succinctly before meaningful communication is possible. Crucial elements include the regulatory context and objectives, the CSM, the results of the risk assessment, and the risk management alternatives. If stakeholders were involved in the initial planning phases of the assessment, reviewing this information during the risk presentation is an excellent means of focusing comments within the constraints of the agreed-upon scope and purpose of the assessment.

The technical stakeholders involved in risk communication must have a common understanding of the key findings, biases, and uncertainties related to the risk assessment prior to presenting findings to nontechnical stakeholders. In presenting the risk results to stakeholders, the focus should be equally on the CSM, the numerical results of the risk calculations, the key analytes and pathways driving risk, and on the uncertainty and protective biases that may be associated with the results. If technical stakeholders appear to present different conclusions or judgments on these aspects of the assessment, then other stakeholders may conclude, rightly or wrongly, that the scientific integrity of the assessment has been compromised.

The primary elements of a strategic and effective message development and delivery for conveying risk assessment results to the general public are (1) succinct, relevant, accurate, and credible messages (images are most effective) and (2) timely incorporation of new information in messages as the project unfolds. Message mapping, a seven-step process useful in developing clarity in risk communication, can be considered for this task (USEPA 2007g).

Risk communication messages should generally be definitive, precise, and informational. A brief core message might be considered along the lines of:

Problem: Chemicals in environmental media are poorly contained and nearby residents may unwittingly be exposed to chemicals in environmental media during daily activities.

Proposed option: Responsible party will remove (or contain) chemicals in environmental media after defining a well-marked exclusion zone to minimize public exposures.

Discussion topics: For example:

• What are the scope and schedule of the planned approach?
• What additional concerns not currently identified in the DQOs or CSM should we plan to address?

Each statement can be broken down further; however, too many bullet points can lead to inefficiency and information overload.

9.3.1.2 Option – Use an Effective Delivery Method for Communication with the Public

For sites with a high level of public awareness, materials should be prepared for use in forums such as print, television, radio, websites, and social media. Be aware that news may travel by less formal methods, such as word of mouth, certain forms of social media, or biased outlets of various types. Individuals and biased organizations may omit relevant facts, provide slanted views, digitally alter visual materials, or fail to announce progress or important changes; hence, the need for consistent and effective communication from project stakeholders.

The use of bullet points is recommended for written communications. Storyboards, formal documents, and handouts should all contain the core message. The storyboard or handout message should fit on one page or, at most, one two-sided sheet. Details or elaborations would be provided only in longer, formal documents. Risk, and progress toward assessing and managing risk, can be communicated with both written and audiovisual materials. These materials may be shared with the media, and the team may also broadcast information themselves as webinars, podcasts, or recorded interviews. These materials may be presented on a dedicated website for general availability any time. A question and answer portal could be made available with more traditional forms, such as an address (or mail code), a fax number, or a dedicated phone line with voice mail.

Town hall meetings may or may not be necessary or requested for presenting the core message (the risk assessment objectives, status, and any updates) and receiving feedback and concerns. In these meetings, the speakers must be knowledgeable, earnest, articulate, and approachable. The presentation ideally consists of project news, especially milestones met, in the context of the core message. Clear answers to anticipated audience questions should be developed well in advance. When inaccurate and inflammatory accusations are likely to arise, audience members may be encouraged to submit questions before the meeting, to be vetted by those preparing for the meeting and answered during the meeting.