This article explores the relationship between current theoretical definitions of risk communication, the unique national role that EPA plays in defining health and environmental risks, and possible explanations for EPA's inability to persuade the city of Aspen, Colorado, to accept its plan for a massive cleanup of toxic lead mine wastes. Many explanations for the reversal of EPA's cleanup plan at Aspen could be advanced, but we concentrate on the definition of risk communication upon which EPA's internal risk communication guidelines are based—guidelines that its field representatives are invited to follow. In particular, we now explore ownership messages conveyed through metacommunication conflict with EPA's risk communication guidelines.