TD8115H176
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES ON INDIAN LANDS
Reoort to Conqress
un:ler Section 126(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by-the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 1987
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Library (PL-12J)
^WeetJackeon Blvd., 12ft Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
CONTENTS
Paqe
1 . INTRODUCTION 1
2 . BACKGROUND 3
2 . 1 The Suoerfund Program 3
2.2 Superfun^ and Indian Lands 4
3. STUDY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE PROBLEMS ON INDIAN LANDS.. &
3 . 1 Apnroach 6
3.2 Overview of Findings 8
3.3 Analysis of Findings 10
3.4 Conclusions 12
4. PROGRAM COMMITMENTS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS 15
4. 1 Program Commitments 15
4.2 Recommendations on Program Needs of Tribes 17
Appendix A: Reservations Participating in CERT Study
Aonendix Br CERT Questionnaire
-------
-1-
1. INTRODUCTION
Section 12G(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1930, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
is a new Section on Indian tribes, which includes the following
requirement:
(c) Study.--The President shall conduct a survey,
in consultation with the Indian tribes, to determine
the extent oc hazardous waste sites on Indian lands.
Such survey shall be included within a report which
shall make recommendations on the orogram needs of
tribes under this Act, with particular emphasis on
how tribal oarticioation in the administration of
such programs can be maximized. Such report shall
be submitted to Congress along with the President's
bu-lget request for fiscal year 1938.
This report, which was developed in consultation with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, U.S. Deoartment o^ the Interior, is being
submitted to Congress by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in fulfillment of this requirement.
The report discusses a survey of hazardous waste sites on
Indian lands that provides an indication of the extent o^ the
problem. The report also describes follow-up actions that EPA
will undertake to enhance tribal participation in further defining
this problem. These follow-up actions will include an education
and outreach program to the tribes that should result in an in-
ventory of sites on Indian lands, and that will also provide a
mechanism for oractical responses to problems when they are
identi fied.
-------
-2-
This reoort is based larqely on data from an ^PA-funded study
completed in July 1985 by the Council of Energy Resource Tribes
(CERT) in consultation with Indian tribes.1 The CERT study, as
explains 1 below, was limited in scope and extended o.ily to a samole
o~ Indian lands located primarily near metropolitan areas. Due to
the brieF time between the enactment of SARA in October, 1986 and
the date by which submittal of this report was required, EPA did
not feel it was oossible to conduct a new survey.
The report is organized into four chapters. Chaoter 2 provides
background on the Superfund program and explains the status accorded
Indian Lands under the Federal system. Chapter 3 describes the
findings of the CERT study on the extent of the hazardous waste site
problem on Indian lands. Chapter 4 presents recommendations on
program needs of Indian tribes and commitments on the part of the
Agency to address those needs.
^Council of Energy Resource Tribes, "Inventory of Hazardous V'aste
Generators and Sites on Selected Indian Reservations," July 199?.
-------
-3-
2 . ACKGROUND
The Superfund orogram was established by th-s Comorehensive
Environmental -Response, Compensation, and Liability Act o^ 1980
(CERCLA). CERCLA authorizes the government to r^siond to releases
of hazardous substances, oollutants, or contaminants that threaten
public health and the environment. It also establishes a reim-
bursable fund, based largely on special taxes, to finance such
response actions. Although the Superfund orogram is commonly
associated with cleanups of abandoned toxic waste disposal sites,
CEPCLA authorizes a broad range of responses to any release of a
hazardous substance into the environment, including sudden soills
or discharges. The enactment of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) reauthorized the Superfuni
Drogram and amended the CERCLA authorities under which it operates.
Primary responsibility for administering the Superfund pro-
gram at the Federal level is delegated to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Under CERCLA, however, States may conduct
response actions in the place of the Federal Government. States
are generally accorded, an important role in any response action,
regardless of whether they conduct the action- they must cover
a share of the cost of the action, and they must provide certain
assurances regarding site maintenance and the availability of
off-site disposal facilities for hazardous substances.
As the first step in identifying releases in neel of response,
EPA maintains an inventory of potential hazardous waste sites called
-------
-4-
the "Comprehensive Fnvi roma T-..H I Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System" (CERCLIS). The CERCLIS inventory
is based on reports from State and local officials, industry,
and the general public of sites where hazardous wastes may have
been disposed improperly, possibly presenting risks to human
health and the environment. ^ach such report is checked by means
of a preliminary assessment of the site to determine whether follow-
un action is necessary. Those sites that present relatively the
greatest hazards to public health and the environment are identified
as national oriorities and are eliaible for a full-scale remedial
response under Superfund. There are, at present, some 27,000 sites
in CERCLIS, some of which are very likely to be located on Indian
land. EPA is in the process of sorting the CERCLA data base to
determine the number and location of sites that are on or adjacent
to Indian lands. At present, five response activities are being
conducte 1 on or adjacent to known Indian lands. As part of the
general public, Indian tribal members can report releases on Indian
lanls to the "hot line" number in the appropriate EPA regional office.
2 . 2 SUPERFUND_AND_INDI_AN_LANDS
Indian tribes and Indian lands have special status in the United
States' Federal system. Courts have generally characterized Indian
tribes as independent entities with inherent powers of self-government
subject only to the powers of Congress. In consequence, while Federal
law applies to Indian lands, Indian lands are aenerally independent
of the regulatory Jurisdiction of the States within whose boundaries
they lie.
-------
-5-
The majority of Indian lands today consist OF reservation
land held in trust for tribes by the Federal Government. There
ara currently 278 Federal Indian reservations in the United
States, with a total population of about 362,000 persons, roughly
half of whoTi are Indians. These reservations cover an area of
about 54 million acres, which is equal to the combined land area
of the Mew England States, New Jersey, and Maryland.
At present, about 39 million acres are held in trust by the
Federal Government for tribes; another 10 million acres are held
in trust by the Federal Government for individual Indians.2
As enacted, CERCLA did not establish an explicit role for
Indian tribes in the Superfund program or define the status of
Indian lands with respect to Superfund actions. Section 207 of
SARA, however, amended CERCLA to afford "the governing body of
an Indian tribe . . . substantially the same treatment as a State"
in many respects under the Sunerfund program. -* The status of
Indian tribes differs from that of States principally in that
tribes are exempt from the statutory assurances required before
a Fund-financed remedial action can proceed. As explained in
^Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
Data are- as of December 1985 .
CERCLA Section 12S, as amended, Indian lands cannot
be strictly equated with reservation lands. For example, an
Indian tribe may own land outside the exterior boundaries of
its reservation. Moreover, the Federal public lands which
Alaska native villages are entitled to select pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Act of December 13, 1971,
35 stat. 688, 43 USC Section 1601, at seq. (1986)), and which,
in fact, have been selected, do not constitute reservation lands.
The report discusses reservations rather than Indian lands be-
cause there is no data available on Indian lands oer se.
-------
-6-
Chapter 4 below, EPA has developed ooLicies and procedures to
clarify the role accorded Indian tribes under these new authorities
and to assist Indian tribes in participating in the Superfund
program.
-------
-7-
3- STUDY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE PROBLEMS ON INDIAN LANDS
This chapter of the renort presents the findings of the
Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) study of 25 reserva-
tions, supplemented by data from additional sources, to provide
an indication of the possible numbers of hazardous waste sites
presenting risks to public health and the environment on Indian
lands.
3 . 1 APPROACH
Because time did not permit conducting a new survey, available
data had to be used to fulfill the Congressional directive to
•determine the extent of hazardous waste sites on Indian lands.
The only national survey specifically of hazardous waste sites
on Indian lands is the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT)
study, "Inventory of Hazardous Waste Generators and Sites on
Selected Indian Reservations." As noted, this study is not
comprehensive, an~l there are substantial gaps in its data.
Several additional sources were tapped to supplement, to the
extent possible, the CERT study.
Completed in July 19S5 and funded by EPA, the CERT study
orovides data on the number of hazardous waste generators and
disposal sites on a sample of 25 Indian reservations located near
metropolitan areas.4 These reservations are dispersed throughout
the continental United States and intended to be representative.
Detailed hazardous waste questionnaires were sent to the 25
•^Appendix A contains a list of these reservations.
-------
-8-
reservations selected by CF.RT (see Appendix A) r written or verbal
responses were received from each. To heighten understanding of
the purnose of the study an1 of hazardous waste issues in general,
CERT formed a tribal working group that consisted of representatives
of the participating tribes. This group met for a two-day workshop
orior to the distribution of the questionnaire. The members of the
tribal workgroup were responsible for obtaining responses to the
questionnaire for their respective reservations. Some Indian tribes
thus were directly involved in conducting this study.
The questionnaires requested information on the following topics:
o The general oerceptions of the tribe about
hazardous waste issues on the reservation:
o The identity and a description of each known
or suspected hazardous waste storage or
disposal site on or near the reservation; and
o The identity and a description of each
hazardous waste generator on or near the
reservation.
Additional data for the CERT study were obtained from EPA's
CERCLIS data base, as well as from EPA's data base of hazardous
waste generators and treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
with interim regulatory status under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Only limited data were available to supplement those in the CERT
study. One source consulted was the "Survey of American Indi an
Environmental Protection Needs on Reservation Lands: 1986,"^
^Office of Federal Activities, U.S. Environmental °rotection
Agency, "Survey of .American Indian Environmental Protection JTeeds
on Reservation Lands: 1986," prepared by Americans for Indian
Opportunity, September 1986.
-------
-9-
prepared by Americans for Indian Opportunity with FPA fundina.
This survey is a general assessment of multi-media environmental
protection needs on Federal Indian reservations; it provides some
data on notential abandoned hazardous waste sites at 48 Indian
reservations throughout the country.
To aid in interpreting these data sources, interviews were
held, in person or by telephone, with the author of the CFRT study,
officials in the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and several representatives of Indian tribes.
3.2 OVERVI_EW_OF_FINDINGS
The CERT study reported a total of 1,196 hazardous waste
generator, storage, and disposal sites on or near the 25
reservations included in the survey. Of the 1,196 sites, 65 are
actually on Indian reservations (as explained more fully below,
the renorts in the CERT data base include sites near, but not on,
reservations). Over half of the reported sites are derived from
an EPA data base of facilities subject to regulation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A sizeable fraction
(467) of the sites are already included in CERCLIS, EPA's inventory
of potential hazardous waste sites due for assessment under Superfund.
Six of the 1,196 potential sites identified in the CERT study
were judged by CERT as clearly requiring prompt investigation:
o Fort Howard Lagoons: waste disposal lagoons
on or near the Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin.
o Old Town of Oneida Landfill: an abandoned
general use landfill located on the Oneida
Reservation in Wisconsin.
-------
-10-
o Abandonee) Asbestos Mines and Tailings (San
Carlos): open mines and tailings piles on the
San Carlos Anache Reservation in Arizona-
o Abandoned Asbestos Mines and Tailings (White
Mountain): open nines and tailings piles on
the White Mountain Apache Reservation in
Arizona.
o Raub Dump Site: an unlicensed dumn covering
two acres on the Fort Berthold Reservation of
the Three Affiliated Tribes in North Dakota.
o Masonite/Mescat Site: soil contamination at
the site of an abandoned forest products plant
on the Hoopa Valley Reservation in California.
EPA has already assessed three of these sites: Ft. Howard,
Raub Dump Site, and Masonite/Mescat. A follow-up investigation
is scheduled at Ft. Howard; a cleanup action will soon be conducted
at the Raub Durnp Site. Preliminary assessments will be completed
on the San Carlos, White Mountain, and Old Oneida Landfill sites
before January 19RQ.
The Denartment of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
confirms that there are potential hazardous waste sites on other
Indian lands. BIA has identified 34 potential sites where the
oresence of hazardous substances is suspected and investigation
is needed. Twenty-four of these sites are on reservations not
included in the CERT study. BIA is nerforming 14 preliminary
assessments and three follow-up site inspections at these sites
in FY 1987. In addition, there are five sites on or near Indian
lands on the National Priorities List (NPL) where Superfund financed
activities are being conducted.^
^These five sites are Commencement Bay, W°L; United Nuclear, MM:
Tar Creek, OK: Tucson Airport, AZ; and Celtor Chemical Works, CA.
-------
-11-
3.3 ANALYSIS_OF_FINDINGS
Although it is impossible, prior to further investigation,
to determine the precise number of hazardous waste sites requiring
resoonse on the 25 reservations in the CERT study, it is certain
that this number will be much smaller than the 1,196 reports in
the study. Nationwide exnerience with the Superfund program over
the past six years suggests that many reported potential hazardous
waste sites have not, in reality, experienced releases of hazardous
substances threatening public health and the environment. Sometime:
the wastes at a reported site are found upon investigation not to
be hazardous. In other cases, hazardous substances at the site
have not been released into the environment. In August 1987, EPA's
CERCLIS inventory included approximately 27,000 reports of potentiaJ
hazardous waste sites. 7 Preliminary assessments have been conducted
on 22,800 of these sites to determine whether a follow-up site in-
spection and, possibly, a response action was necessary. Altogether
over the past six years, about two-thirds of the preliminary assess-
ments of reported sites on the CERCLIS inventory concluded that the
site did not present risks to public health and the environment and
did not need follow-up investigation. Based on previous experience,
the Agency expects perhaps 10 percent of all sites entered into
CERCLIS to be listed on the NPL.
"^Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
-12-
There are, in addition, several considerations specific to the
CERT study sugqesting that the numbt3r of potential hazardous waste
sites on the 25 reservations is far lower than 1,1^6. The CERT
data include not only sites that are on Indian lands, hut also .sites
that are near reservations (i.e., within 25 miles of a reservation,
or in a bordering county). Sixty-five of the reported sites are
identified as being on reservation land; 30 sites are off but near
the reservation (same county); 263 reported sites are not on reser-
vation land or in the sane county. Ninety-eight sites are on former
reservation lands in and around Tulsa, Oklahoma. The location of
the remaining sites is not indicated.
The CERT study includes reports of releases from operating
hazardous waste storage or disposal facilities. These facilities
are subject to regulation under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and must meet RCRA standards to continue in
operation. Investigations of RCRA-regulated facilities to deter-
mine whether releases have occurred are normally conducted under
the RCRA program. If a release of hazardous substances occurs at
RCRA facility, the owner or operator win be required to take cor-
rective action under RCRA authorities. CERCLA response will not be
necessary unless the owner or operator is unwilling or incapable of
taking proper action. Consequently, even if a release of hazardous
substances is confirmed and a response of some type is required, the
site would not usually become the responsibility of the Suoer^und
program.
The CERT questionnaire (see Appendix 3) asked whether a reported
site is active or inactive. Active sites are more likely to be
-------
-13-
subject to RCRA regulations. Although the status of 675 sites was
not indicated in the reports, 465 sites were identified as active
waste generator, storage, or disposal facilities. Fifty-six of the
rsoorte^ sites were.identified as inactive. Thus, between 56 and
731 of the sites are inactive. In light of this factor alone, they
may be candidates for follow-up investigation under the Superfund
program. Twenty-four of the inactive sites were reported to be on
reservations; whether the other inactive sites were on or near a
reservation was not indicated.
The CERT study also asked whether a site was a generator of
hazardous waste, a storage facility, a disposal facility, or a
facility at which more than one of these operations took place.
Disposal facilities -- especially inactive ones -- may be regarded
as the most likely sources of releases of hazardous substances.
Over 50 percent -- 619 -- of the reported sites were identified
as generators or facilities that combine generation with other
operations. Of the remaining 577 reports, 498 did not indicate
the operations that took place at the site. Seventy-nine sites,
however, were identified as storage or disposal facilities or
facilities that combine these operations (including waste treatment).
Fifty-three of these 79 sites were identified as facilities solely
for waste disposal. Of these 53, 12 were clearly identified as in_
active and located on a reservation.
It is possible that some releases reported in the CERT study nay
be addressed unler the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
of 1973 or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
-------
-14-
Determi.nat.ion of whether cleanup of a site can be conducted under
laws other than Super-fund is done on a case-by-cans basis. It is
possible that such determinations would further reduce the number
of sites that would be addressed under Superfund authorities.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
The range of the estimates of possible sites discussed above
is, of course, very large. Data from supplemental sources, in-
cluding discussions with the CERT study researchers, however,
suggest that the number of potential hazardous waste sites on
these 25 reservations may lie, in reality, at the lower end of
the range.
The survey of American Indian environmental protection needs
conducted by Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO) includes some
information on abandoned hazardous waste sites on reservations,
although the questions on hazardous waste in this survey relate
primarily to the management of wastes currently being generated.
Of the 43 reservations included in the AIO survey, 15 were also
included in the CERT study. The numbers of hazardous waste sites
on these reservations indicated by the AIO survey are far smaller
than the numbers indicated by the CERT study. For example, the
CERT study identified 38 hazardous waste generators or sites on
or near the Menominee Reservation. The AIO survey does not indi-
cate the presence of any abandoned hazardous waste sites on the
Menominae Reservation. For the Oneida Reservation, the CERT study
included 176 reports of hazardous waste generators or sites.
The AIO survey, however, identifies only three abandoned sites.
(Included is the Old Town of Oneida Landfill, which the CERT
-------
-15-
study identified as requiring nromnt investigation).
Representatives of Indian tribes interviewed by telephone
during the preparation of this report also sugqest that the lower
ends of the CERT data ranges may be most realistic. According to
a representative of the Fort Berthold Reservation, for example,
it is unlikely that there are any remaining hazardous waste sites
in need of response on this reservation, although two sites were
previously discoverer! and cleaned up. The CERT study, however,
identified seven generators or sites on the Fort Berthold Reserva-
tion and an additional eight nearby.
In summary, the number of potential hazardous waste sites
requiring investigation on the 25 reservations included in the
CERT study is likely to be smaller than 1,196 because the study
included active facilities as well as sites or facilities located
off reservation lands. Also, national experience over the past
six years indicates that a number of the potential sites nay be
found, upon investigation, not to be sources of releases threat-
ening public health and the environment. The CERT study clearly
indicates, however, that there are potential sites in need of as-
sessment on the 25 reservations included in the study, which are
but a fraction of the 273 Federal Indian reservations. To these
sites must be added the possibility of accidental spills or
other unanticipated releases of hazardous substances, a major
aspect of the nation's hazardous waste problem not reflected in
study data. Most important, study data on numbers of sites do not
indicate the magnitude of the risks that any one site may present to
nub Lie health and the environment. In addition, should the results
-------
-16-
of EPA's outreach program show the magnitude of the hazardous waste
problems on Indian lands to he greater than currently assumed, EPA
will work to ensure adequate and proTint response actions are under-
taken .
-------
-17-
4. PROGRAM_COMMITMENTS_AND_RFCOMMENDATiqNS
In accordance with new authorities under SARA, EPA's Superfund
program has been develoning policies and procedures to maximize the
participation of Indian tribes and to ensure that hazardous waste
site problems on Indian lands are remedied. These ooiicies and
procedures represent commitments on the part of the Agency. This
chapter discusses Superfund program commitments relating to Indian
lands anl, on that basis, offers recommendations on the program need
of Indian tribes.
4.1 £ROGRAM_CqMM^TMENTS
Policies and procedures for implementing the Superfund program
are presented in the National. Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300). EPA will soon publish
revisions to the NCP to reflect SARA authorities. Three' of the
forthcoming revisions are of special relevance to addressing
hazardous waste site problems on Indian lands: (1) a new definition
of "State," (2) revisions concerning the applicability of Subpart
F of the National Contingency Plan to Indian tribal governments,
and (3) revisions concerning the designation of trustees for
natural resources. Each is described below.
Inclusion of Indian Tribes in Definition_of "State". Section
126 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires the governing body of
an Indian tribe to be accorded the same treatment as a State with
respect to certain provisions of CERCLA. Accordingly, the defini-
tion of "State" in the NCP is being revised to include Indian tribes
The requirements for Indian tribes that wish to be treated as States
are explained.
-------
-18-
^^ F of the National ^Contingency _Pj:an
toIndianTribal
SARA authorizes EPA to interact with Indian tribes directly
and to enter into cooperative agreements as we do with States.
To demonstrate equivalency with States, an Indian tribal government
must document that it:
o Is Federally recognized;
o Has a tribal governing body that is currently
performing governmental functions to promote the
health, safety, and welfare of the affected
population within a defined geographic area;
o Demonstrates an ability to carry out "any or all"
response actions (with the exception of criminal
actions) that it seeks to perform "in accordance
with the criteria and priorities" established by
the NfCP (pursuant to section 105(a)(8) of CERCLA) r
o Demonstrates that the functions to be performed
for Fund-financed response actions are within the
scope of its jurisdiction? and,
o Demonstrates acceptable ability to effectively
administer a cooperative agreement by the existence
of the anpropriate management and technical skills;
by a history of successful managerial performance
of public health/environmental programs; and by
acceptable accounting and procurement procedures
(meets the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 30 and 33).
The requirements for Indian tribal government equivalency
are consistent with those in other EPA programs including
the Safe Drinking Water Act and those required of all recipients
of Federal funds.
If Federally recognized Indian tribes can demonstrate that
they satisfy all the equivalency to State requirements, EPA can
enter into coooerative agreements with such tribes to undertake
pre-remed ial or remedial response actions at sites that are
within their juris fictional boundaries.
-------
-19-
At a minimum, Federally recognized Indian tribal governments
that are unable to meet the equivalency requirements for procure-
nent (40 CFR 33) may be provided CERCLA funds via a cooperative
agreement to defray • their expenses for management assistance
that includes coordination and involvement during Federal-lead
response.
Superfund monies are used to support CERCLA activities and
cannot be used to develop a recipient's capabilities for eligi-
bility for cooperative agreements. At such time as the NCP
revisions are proposed, EPA will provide guidance to its regional
offices regarding the involvement of Indian tribal governments in
Superfund activities.
Designation of Trustees for Natural Resources. The amendments
to CERCLA authorize an Indian tribe to bring an action for injury
to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, belonging to,
manaqed by, controlled by, or appertaining to the tribe. As ex-
plained in the MCP revisions, when the United States acts on behalf
of a tribe, the Secretary of the Interior will function as the truste
of those natural resources.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROGRAM NEEDS
In light of the policies and procedures explained above, the
following recommendations are offered to meet the Superfund program
needs of Indian tribes.
1 • EPA will ojffer to^eligible tribes the opportunity to
participate in arrangements to manage, or assist in the_management_
of, Superfund response actions. Such arrangements include
cooperative agreements for pre-remadial activities, remedial
-------
-20-
actions, or both, as described above. EPA is already engaged in
discussions with one tribal government to evaluate the feasibility
of negotiating cooperative agreements.
2. For tribes without appropriate capabilities and/or
lacking a sufficient number of sites to make a cooperative agree-
ment cost-effective for both parties, EPA will conduct preliminary
assessments and ,_ if neeessary, site inspections of potential
s_ites_o_n_IndjLan lands_us_ing _its own resources. SARA requires a
preliminary assessment by January 1, 1988, of every potential
hazardous waste site in the CERCLIS inventory as of the date of
enactment. Accordingly, every site on Indian lands listed in
CERCLIS at that time will receive a preliminary assessment by
the end of 1987. Included are the 467 potential sites reported
in the CERT study that were already listed in the CERCLIS
inventory. Any site on Indian land added to CERCLIS after the
enactment of SARA will be assessed within one year of being
listed in CERCLIS.
As the numbers of potential hazardous waste sites on
individual reservations may not be sufficiently great to exnect
each tribe to develop the technical expertise to conduct
preliminary assessments and site inspections, EPA has in place
the contractual mechanisms and the in-house expertise to conduct
preliminary assessments. Consequently, EPA can conduct these
assessments promptly and efficiently and will do so, unless (a)
a Federally recognized tribe has a sufficient number of sites
on its lands and nossesses the equivalent capabilities to conduct
preliminary assessments of sites on its lands, or (b) the Indian
-------
-21-
Services is willing and able to conduct the assessments, or
(c) the Bureau of Indian Affairs plans to conduct a preliminary
assessment or inspection of a site. EPA will depend upon tribes,
however, to report ootential sites in need of assessment.
3. |;EA_w^l^_larj:re^_r^y^n_ex^t:u2C[_ Federal resources jto
plan and to conduct response actions on Indian lands. As noted
earlier, the numbers of potential hazardous waste sites on Indian
lands may not be sufficiently great to expect all tribes to
develop resnonse capabilities. Also, States cannot be expected.
to conduct response actions where they lack jurisdiction. Thus,
FPA will rely on its existing response infrastructure to plan
and conduct response actions, consistent with authorities in
CERCLA, as amended. As provided for in the revised NCP, however,
Federally recognized tribal governments that are willing and
have been determined to possess the required equivalent capabilities
may be awarded cooperative agreements to take the lead in conducting
response actions on their lands.
^ • Through education and outreach programs , ^P-^wi^J^hei^hten
tribal understanding and awareness of hazardous waste site problems
and provide information on tribal participation _in__the_Superf und
progjram. Working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, EPA will con-
duct regional workshops with representatives of Indian tribes to
acquaint them with potential sources of assistance in dealing with
environmental problems. In addition, through its regional offices,
the Agency will provide technical assistance to Indian tribes-
These programs will aid Indian tribes in identifying potential
hazardous waste sites in need of assessment. They will also
-------
-22-
provide information and assistance for reoorting future sites,
with the goal of securing prompt response whenever a problem is
confirmed.
Accordingly, EPA will, within one year, mail information
packages to all Indian tribes. These packages will contain:
0 A description and format of the minimum
information needed by EPA to enter sites into
CERCLIS;
0 A description of the listing and priority setting
procedures to be applied to the information when it
is received by EPA; and
0 An EPA contact with mailing address (for each
tribe) who will coordinate the distribution of
information and provide status reports.
-------
APPENDIX A
RESERVATIONS PARTICIPATING IN CERT SURVEY
Reservation
1 . Cherokee
2. Ft. Belknap
3. Ft. Berthold
4. Ft. Hall
5. Ft. Peck
6. Hoopa Valley
7. Laguna
8. Nooksack
9. Menominee
10. Mississippi Choctaw
11. Morongo
12. Navajo
13. Nez Perce
14. Northern Cheyenne
IS. Oneida
16. Passamaquoddy
17. Quapaw
18 . Rincon
19. San Carlos
20. Seminole
21. Seneca
22. Skull Valley
23. Spokane
24. Winnebago
25. White Mt. Apache
State
Oklahoma
Montana
North Dakota
Idaho
Montana
California
New Mexico
Washington
Wisconsin
Mississippi
Cali fornia
Arizona
Idaho
Montana
Wisconsin
Maine
Oklahoma
California
Arizona
Florida
New York
Utah
Washington
Nebraska
Arizona
-------
APPENDIX B
INDIAN LANDS HAZARDOUS WASTE INVENTORY
L OeaenJ hfbraatioa
Trlbei
Contact Person:_
Address)
Telephone:_
Date:
Please cheek the appropriate box to Identify any potential hazardous waste on or near
reservation.
2. Active hazardous waste disposal or storage sites
Yes
D
No
a
2. Inactive or abandoned hazardous waste disposal
or storage sites
a
3* Hazardous wastes from mining, milling or drilling
4. Industrial, agricultural, or other generators
of hazardous wastes
a a
a a
5. Disposal of wastes from off-reservation
generators/haulers
D
6. Transportation of hazardous wastes across
tribal land
7. Other
D
D
Pleas* enclose a map of the reservation showing the approximate location of any
potential problem area. On the map locate each hazardous waste disposal or storage
area and hazardous waste generator.
Complete and attach an appropriate form for each disposal site or waste generation
facility.
-------
IL Hazardous Waste Storage or Disposal Site Description
Some waste disposal sites having potential to cause health and environmental damage are
visible and obvious. Many waste handling and disposal practices are not obvious, but can
be equally harmful if not properly managed. Please complete this brief description of
each storage or disposal facility on or near the reservation.
A. Site designation
B. Is this site on or off the reservation?_
C. Is this an operating or closed site?
D. Kind of storage or disposal activity_
(Examples: Active landfill/dump; storage tanks for chemicals, fertilizers, fuels, etc;
disposal site for 55-gaL drums; mining waste deposit; unauthorized dump area, etc.)
E, Estimate size of storage or disposal area
F. Kinds of wastes which may be present
(Examples: chemicals/solvents; mine tailings/silver; industrial sludge/still bottoms;
waste pesticides/DDT; etc.)
G. If tanks or drums are present, please estimate number_
H. Known or suspected sources of wastes
L Your recommendation for action
(Examples: requires immediate clean-up: needs professional study; action already
underway; not an immediate problem, etc.;
J. Further description or comments
Please use the back of this form for additional comments.
-------
r n*L Hazardous Waste Generation Facility
Hazardous wastes are a by-product of m*nv necessary activities. Although we quickly
think of chemical wastes (dioxin, PCB, etc.), most hazardous wastes originate from other
activities. Several common sources that generate hazardous waste are listed below.
Please complete this brief description for each potential source of hazardous waste on or
near the reservation.
A. Facility designation
B. Is this facility on or off the reservation?_
C. Is this an operating or closed facility?
D. Nature of hazardous waste generating facility
(Examples: mining operations; milling operations, pesticide formulation or
packaging; textiles industry; leather tanning & finishing; wood and timber treating;
metal finishing; chemicals industry, etc.)
E. Description of wastes
(Please provide any known Information on the quantity and characteristics of waste
substances being generated.)
F. How are/were wastes disposed of?
(Examples: On-site landfill; on-site incinerator; hauled elsewhere on reservation;
hauled to disposal site off the reservation, etc.)
G. Additional information regarding this facility which generates potentially hazardous
wastes
Please use the back of this form for additional comments.
-------
HUE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ^ A
Region 5 Library (PL-12J) 1
77 West Jackson Blvd., 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |