“Cardinal rules” and best practice approaches have guided governmental risk communication efforts at chronic risk sites for more than two decades, playing an important role in how those most affected by contamination make sense of risk. In addition to providing information, however, communication approaches themselves can affect community perceptions indirectly, through stakeholder interpretations of the processes by which risk information is shared. It is increasingly necessary to evaluate not only whether risk communication approaches have been effective for increasing knowledge but if, in fact, the ways in which information is shared has had unintended consequences that change how stakeholders perceive and interact with agencies. A case study of risk communication at and about western Kentucky’s Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant points to communication and engagement challenges that have developed around five specific topics: 1) The Government; 2) The Public; 3) Delays; 4) Secrecy, Deception, and Manipulation; and 5) Competing Risk Perceptions. Findings suggest that a change in how agencies conduct risk communication is needed to help move community members to the center of communication and engagement activities. By acknowledging and foregrounding the wide variation in both communities’ and agencies’ goals, preferences, and missions, the likelihood of adversarialism can be decreased. Over time, such an approach should promote increased levels of trust, improving relationships and creating a more positive framework within which agencies and affected populations can jointly make sense of risk-related issues.