United States
Environmental Protection
i Agency
Paper on Tribal Issues Related to Tribal Traditional
Lifeways, Risk Assessment, and Health & Well Being:
April 2006
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The National EPA-Tribal Science Council (TSC) wants to acknowledge all the tribal and
EPA representatives on the workgroup for their contributions in developing the
document. In particular, the tribal representatives that worked with their Regional Tribal
Operations Committees who raised tribal traditional lifestyles as a priority science issue,
and in collaboration with the EPA representatives, designed, conducted and documented
the dialogue of three workshops on the issue. The TSC representatives who have
contributed are:
Current Tribal Representatives:
Dan Kusnierz, Penobscot Nation
Linda Logan, Tonawanda Seneca Nation
Michael Bolt, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Troy Pierce, Poarch Band of Creek Indians
Christine Berini, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa
Curtis Munoz, Kiowa Tribe
Denise West, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Richard Janssen, Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes
Vickie Kujawa, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe
Marshall Cheung, 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians
Dave Nelson, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Former Tribal Representatives:
James Ransom, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Brenda
LaFrance, Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne
Bernadette Hudnell, Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians
Steve Terry, Miccosukee Tribe of Florida
John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
Kendal Coats, Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Gina Kneib, Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri
Fran King-Brown, Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Kesner Flores Jr., Cortina Indian Rancheria
Clay Bravo, Hualapai Tribe
Cisney Havatone, Hualapai Tribe
Chris Gannon, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Shawna Larson, Chickaloon Village
Current EPA Representatives:
Region 1 Robert Hillger
Region 2 Roland Hemmett
Region 4 Thomas Baugh
Region 5 Gary Gulezian
Region 6 Michael Callahan
Region 7 Brenda Groskinsky, Elizabeth Wendt
Region 8 Patti Tyler
Region 9 Michele Dineyazhe, Bobbye Smith
Region 10 Dana Davoli
AIEO Ella Mulford
OAR David LaRoche
OEI Elizabeth Jackson
OPEI Charlotte Bertrand
OPPTS Elizabeth Resek
ORD Thomas Barnwell
OSWER David Charters
OW Rita Schoeny
Former EPA Representatives
Region 1 Gerry Levy, Valerie Ferry, Eva Tasaki
Region 2 Barbara Finazzo
Region 5 Robert Springer
Region 6 Norman Dyer
Region 7 John Helvig
Region 8 Kerry Clough, Connally Mears
Region 9 Carl Kohnert
Region 10 Scott Sufficool, Patricia Cirone,
Sandra Johnson
AIEO Carol Jorgensen, Jeff Besougloff,
Marlene Regelski-RedDoor
OAR Dennis O'Connor
OEI Steve Young
OPEI Al McGartland, Sabrina Lovell
OPPTS Sherry Sterling, Carl Etsitty, Ben Smith
OSWER Peter Grevatt
OW Arnie Kuzmac
ORD Harold Zenik
Also, the National EPA-Tribal Science Council wants to thank Claudia Walters who
served as the Executive Secretary for the National EPA-Tribal Science Council since its'
formation. The TSC also wants to thank Pat Tallarico and Karen Santora from SRA
International, Inc. for their support in developing the document.
-------
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 4
BACKGROUND 5
INTRODUCTION 7
WHAT is RISK AND HOW DOES EPA USE IT? 8
SECTION I: CHANGING THE CURRENT RISK ASSESSMENT POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES 12
Increase Educational Opportunities for Tribes on EPA's Risk Assessment Process
12
Educating EPA on Tribal Values and Culture 13
Outreach and Involvement of Tribes 13
Valuation of Natural Resources 14
Data Collection and Use 15
Unique Tribal Exposures 17
SECTION II: DEVELOPING A NEW PARADIGM 22
Incorporate a Health-based Focus 22
Focus on Risk Prevention 22
Incorporate Cumulative Impacts 22
Create a Holistic Paradigm—One that Incorporates Impacts to Community Health,
Culture, Lifeways, Well-being and the Environment 22
Include Health and Wellness Indicators 23
Use a Cross-Media Approach 25
Reflect the Precautionary Principle 25
Recognize that for Some Tribes, a "Zero Contamination Policy" Exists 25
Work with Tribes on a Government-to-Government Basis 25
SOURCES AND REFERENCES 27
-------
Purpose of This Document
This document is meant to consolidate the many issues and ideas that have emerged from the
various workshops that the National EPA-Tribal Science Council (TSC) has held on the topic of
risk assessment, health and well-being, and tribal traditional lifeways. It is intended to serve as a
starting point for discussion by EPA staff as to potential approaches for addressing some of these
issues from an EPA perspective. Although it was not written by tribes, it is meant to capture
tribal perspectives that emerged from these events.
Page 4
-------
Background
In September of 2002, the TSC tribal representatives formally identified tribal traditional
lifeways and subsistence as their highest priority science issue, with a focus on both looking at
ways to integrate tribal traditional lifeways and subsistence lifestyles into EPA's current risk
assessment policies and procedures as well as discussing potential development of a new
environmental decision-making paradigm, one focusing on human health and ecological well-
being.
This issue impacts tribal communities throughout Indian Country. Tribes assert that EPA's
current risk assessment policies and procedures are not protective of tribal resources and
lifeways, and are not adequate to account for or include a holistic approach for assessing the
social, cultural, and spiritual values, beliefs, and practices that link tribal people to their
environment. Current risk scenarios and risk factors are geared toward urban settings in the
United States. They were not developed with subsistence lifestyles in mind, and, therefore,
tribes that practice tribal traditional lifeways that focus on subsistence practices or lifestyles
outside the "mainstream" are less protected since they are subject to increased exposure. In
addition, the risk management solutions identified from the current risk assessment
methodologies often force tribal populations to alter activities that are essential to their existence,
such as those constraints imposed by the creation and adoption of fishing and hunting advisories.
Tribes wish to play an integral role in developing improved risk assessment policies and
procedures within the Agency. In addition, they ask that EPA allow for increased consultation
and coordination with tribal governments when risk assessment and management activities are
undertaken that potentially impact their lands, resources, and cultural practices. As sovereign
nations, tribes assert that they posses a legal and moral right to be involved in decision making
that affects their people, lands, and aboriginal and treaty rights due to the federal trust
responsibility, which arises from Indian treaties, statutes, executive orders, and the historical
relations between the United States and Indian tribes.
Page 5
-------
This trust responsibility is underscored by EPA's Indian Policy, which supports tribal "self-
government" and "government-to-government" relations between federal and tribal
governments. Under EPA's 1984 Indian Policy, EPA recognizes tribal governments as
sovereign entities with primary authority and responsibility for the reservation populace.
Accordingly, EPA will work directly with tribal governments as the independent authority for
reservation affairs, and not as political subdivisions of states or other governmental units.
Formed in 2000, the National EPA-Tribal Science Council's mission is to provide a forum for
tribes and EPA to work collaboratively to identify and address national environmental science
issues of importance to both tribes and EPA. To ensure that the TSC has a national and cross-
program perspective, it is composed of a single tribal representative from each EPA Region
with federally recognized tribes, a tribal representative from Alaska, and an Agency
representative from each EPA Program and Regional Office.
The TSC tribal representatives formally raised the issue of tribal traditional lifeways and
subsistence lifestyles and their lack of representation in current risk assessment policies and
procedures as a priority for the Council to address in September 2001; this issue was reiterated
as a tribal science priority by the Council in November 2004. To address the issue, the TSC
decided to focus on both the short-term goal of integrating tribal traditional lifeways and
subsistence lifeways into EPA's risk assessment process and the more long-term goal of
developing a new environmental decision-making paradigm for EPA consideration, one
focusing on human health and ecological well-being. Specifically, the TSC has sponsored three
workshops that have brought together tribal representatives and risk experts to help advance its
thinking on these topics over the past two years. They have included the following:
TSC Workshop on Health & Well Being and Risk Assessment held in Albuquerque, NM on
February 19-20, 2003. The purpose of this workshop was to convene specific tribal
representatives working on addressing these topics and EPA staff experienced with the risk
assessment process to gain a better understanding of the issue and better insights into the way
EPA and tribes view the current risk assessment process.
TSC Workshop on Health & Well Being and Tribal Traditional Lifeways held in Reno, NV on
May 13-15, 2003. The purpose of this workshop was to share the health and well-being concept
with a broader audience and get feedback that would help build on information collected during
the "National Subsistence Technical Planning Meeting for the Protection of Traditional &
Tribal Lifeways" hosted by the Alaska Native Science Commission in Alaska in April 2003.
TSC Workshop on Addressing Tribal Traditional Lifeways in EPA's Risk Assessment Policies
and Procedures held in Reno, NV on January 24-27, 2005. The purpose of this workshop was
to convene a group of tribal representatives working in the area of risk assessment and a broader
audience of observers to talk about both short-term recommendations that EPA and tribes could
do to address the current risk assessment process and identify approaches for more long-term
changes that are more tribally appropriate.
Page 6
-------
Introduction
The three TSC workshops resulted in a great deal of discussion by tribal representatives both on
the short-term goal of integrating tribal traditional lifeways and subsistence lifestyles into
EPA's current risk assessment process and the more long-term goal of developing a new
environmental decision-making paradigm for EPA consideration. The following sections
highlight and categorize some of the issues, ideas, and comments presented by the tribal
representatives as these workshops. Section I presents the information provided during
discussions by tribal participants regarding improving EPA's current risk assessment process
through the integration of tribal traditional lifeways and subsistence lifestyles into EPA's
current risk assessment policies and procedures. Section II presents the information provided by
tribal representatives regarding the potential development of a new environmental decision-
making paradigm that would focus on human health and ecological well-being.
Page?
-------
What is Risk and How does EPA use it?
Generally, risk refers to the possibility of injury, harm, or other adverse and unwanted effects.
The analysis, management, and communication of risks to human health and safety and
environmental quality is the foundation for the risk assessment paradigm. The National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) published the environmental risk assessment paradigm (Figure 1)
in 1983, National Research Council. The NAS concluded that the paradigm consists of two
separate elements - risk assessment and risk management. NAS defines risk assessment as "a
process in which information is analyzed to determine if an environmental hazard might cause
harm to exposed persons and ecosystems."
Risk assessment
Risk management
Source: EPA Office ol Research and Development.
Figure 1. Diagram of risk assessment paradigm
EPA uses the paradigm and definitions published by NAS as their basic approach in assessing
and managing environmental risks. The overall process provides a way for EPA's
environmental decision making including legal, regulatory, policy and criteria. Figure 1 shows
the basic steps in the assessment of human health risk. While ecological risk assessment uses a
different framework, and both frameworks provide the scientific data and information from the
assessment that feeds into risk management decisions that also considers legal, economical,
social, other factors.
Whether one is assessing human or ecological risk, EPA uses relevant data and information to
the extent possible; limitations on data use can include lack of appropriate peer review,
unacceptable quality, an inability to make the information available to the public or ethical
considerations. Where relevant chemical- or exposure-specific data cannot be found or can't be
used, EPA employs default assumptions and extrapolations to fill in the data gaps so that the
risk assessment process can proceed. Use of defaults and assumptions is described in detail in
Risk Assessment Principles and Practices (U.S. EPA, 2004). Occasionally, the results of hazard
PageS
-------
identification and dose response are published separately and represent many people in the
United States. For example, the EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) provides this
type of information to assist risk assessors, who must perform their own exposure assessment
and characterization of risk. Additional details for both the human and ecological risk
assessment processes are described below.
Human Health Risk Assessment
EPA has developed Guidelines for assessing risk to humans that follow the four steps in
Figurel: Hazard Identification, Dose-Response Assessment, Exposure Assessment, and Risk
Characterization.
Hazard Identification
This step poses some fundamental questions. Does this environmental contaminant pose a
hazard to humans? Does it cause cancer, kidney damage, developmental effects or some other
health endpoint? EPA generally uses a weight of the evidence approach in these decisions. All
data on studies in humans, animals or in vitro tests are evaluated for quality and as to whether
they demonstrate an effect. Both positive data and those that do not show an effect are
considered using frameworks established in these EPA publications: Guidelines for
Mutagenicity Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1986a); Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1991); Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 1996); Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 1986b, revised U.S. EPA
2005). These guidelines provide a framework for evaluating data and choosing the mode of
action whereby the contaminant produces its effect
Dose-Response Assessment
This is the step that determines the potency of the contaminant in producing health effects. The
dose response assessment may estimate a level of exposure without appreciable risk or a level
of risk at a particular exposure. Generally, the dose-response assessment consists of two parts:
the evaluation of data in the observable range, and the extrapolation from the observable range
to low doses. In the first part, the risk assessor may apply a biologically based model or fit a
mathematically derived curve to the data for an effect, such as tumors observed in rats. The
choice of extrapolation method below the point of departure depends on consideration of the
mode of action. When the mode of action implies a threshold, EPA generally calculates a
reference dose or reference concentration (RfD or RfC), by dividing the point of departure by a
series of factors to account for variability and uncertainty. The methodology can be found in A
Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes (U.S. EPA 2002).
When the mode of action implies linearity of response at low dose, then procedure is to draw a
line from the point of departure through the origin of the dose response curve. The estimate of
potency is the slope of the line. For contaminants thought to be carcinogenic, low dose linearity
is the default when the mode of action is not known.
Exposure Assessment
In this step the risk assessor determines how people are exposed or come in contact with the
contaminant. Is it inhaled, eaten in foods, ingested in water or is there some other route of
exposure? The risk assessor will estimate the amount of contaminant to which different
Page 9
-------
populations will be exposed. In the best circumstances this estimate will use data specific to the
population in question; most often it will use models or rely on defaults for amount of air
inhaled, amount of soil ingested and so on. If the data and methods are available, exposure
assessment will include estimates of the amount of contaminant which reaches the target organs.
EPA has published Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA 1992) as well as an
Exposure Factors Handbook, (U.S. EPA 1997) listing defaults for ingestion, body weights and
so forth; the latter document is being updated.
Risk Characterization
This final step combines all the information and judgments from hazard identification, dose
response and exposure assessment. The risk characterization should include a description of the
nature and magnitude of the risk, an interpretation of the adversity of the risk, a summary of the
confidence or reliability of the information available to describe the risk, areas of where
information is uncertain or lacking completely, and documentation of all of the evidence
supporting the characterization of the risk.
The risk characterization can take many forms and be more or less lengthy. For example, in the
Mercury Study Report to Congress, the risk characterization comprised an entire volume, which
provided estimates of numbers of people at risk, who was particularly susceptible, extent of risk
to wildlife, and a comparison of the magnitude of risks between wildlife and humans. In all
cases, EPA's Risk Characterization Policy (U.S. EPA 2000) requires that the risk assessment be
transparent, clear, reasonable and consistent with other assessments of similar scope. Whenever
supported by data and methods, the risk characterization will include not only descriptions of
uncertainty and variability, but also quantitative estimates of uncertainty or variability.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological risk assessment "evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur
or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors" (U.S. EPA, 1992a). The
process is used to systematically evaluate and organize data, information, assumptions, and
uncertainties in order to help understand and predict the relationships between stressors and
ecological effects. An assessment may involve chemical, physical or biological stressors, and
one stressor or many stressors may be considered. Ecological risk assessment provides valuable
information for environmental decision making by giving risk managers an approach for
considering available scientific information along with the other factors needed to consider
(e.g., social, legal, political, or economic) in selecting a course of action.
Ecological risk assessment includes three primary phases: problem formulation, analysis, and
risk characterization. In problem formulation, risk assessors evaluate goals and select
assessment endpoints, prepare the conceptual model, and develop an analysis plan. During the
analysis phase, assessors evaluate exposure to stressors and the relationship between stressor
levels and ecological effects. In the third phase, risk characterization, assessors estimate risk
through integration of exposure and stressor-response profiles, describe risk by discussing lines
of evidence and determining ecological adversity, and prepare a report. The interface among
risk assessors, risk managers, and interested parties during planning at the beginning and
Page 10
-------
communication of risk at the end of the risk assessment is critical to ensure that the results of
the assessment can be used to support a management decision.
Planning *
Ecological Risk Assessment
Problem Formulation
M Characterization of i
-5* i Exposure Ecological i
$ Effects
;ir Y'
Risk Characterization
i ,
i •
Communicate Results
it
Z
TO
TO
a.
TO
iS
G^
•+
C7
P
«T
1
o
J
•»
|
Risk Management
Figure 2. Diagram of Ecological Risk Assessment
Page 11
-------
Section I: Changing the Current Risk Assessment Policies and
Procedures
Although tribes have expressed interest in having EPA develop a new, more tribally appropriate
decision-making process that would serve as an alternative to the current risk assessment
paradigm, a significant number of the discussions the TSC has had with tribes have focused on
changes that could be made to improve the current risk assessment process. The sections that
follow highlight the various issues that were raised by tribal representatives during the three
workshops convened by the TSC regarding how to change the current risk assessment process
to be more reflective of tribes' needs in the near term. The issues are presented in no particular
order.
Increase Educational Opportunities for Tribes on EPA's Risk Assessment
Process
In general, tribal representatives have expressed a need for increased educational opportunities
about risk-related topics. As a workshop panel member at the 2005 Reno workshop stated, a
disconnect exists between data collection efforts and how the data are used to understand
human, ecological, and community impacts. Additional education and training are important in
enabling tribal members to better understand the risks associated with exposures and impacts. In
the short-term, EPA should support and develop education and risk assessment tools to allow
tribes to better utilize environmental and risk data to reduce their exposures and impacts. (2005
Reno pg 25-26) The specific educational topics identified by tribal representatives are
described below.
Risk Assessment Paradigm
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal participant indicated that tribes frequently
do not grasp their regulatory situation and the implications of Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and NEPA/CERCLA/NRDA processes
involving risk assessment and associated data collection. (2003 Albuquerque, pg 16)
Although EPA presented a half-day risk assessment training course at the 2005 Reno
workshop that provided participants with an overview of basic risk assessment
terminology and processes, tribal participants indicated that they would have preferred a
course that was longer and more tribally focused. A participant suggested that a full- or
3/4-day training course on risk assessment would have better educated participants on
the basics of risk assessment. There was general agreement from training participants
that those providing risk assessment training to tribes should have experience working
with tribal communities and possess an understanding of tribal structure, culture, and
lifeways. Participants felt that any risk assessment training provided to tribes should
provide real-life examples and case studies specific to Indian Country. (Tribal Science
Council Risk Assessment/Health & Well-being Workshop: Training Evaluation
Summary, Comments Summary.)
Risk Communication
At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal participant indicated that there is often a
Page 12
-------
misconception by tribes that they will be able to use risk assessment data to identify and
prove the source of health impacts within their community. Tribes are often
disappointed by the risk assessment process when clear health impacts cannot be
demonstrated. (2005 Reno, pg. 18) Additional education and training are needed so that
tribes understand how risk assessment data are used to understand human, ecological,
and community impacts and how this information is then utilized in risk management
decision making.
Risk Ethics and Informed Consent
When working with tribes on risk assessment studies and gathering potentially sensitive
tribal data, it is important that tribes are educated on issues of informed consent and risk
ethics, ensuring that tribes are provided adequate information on both the possible risks
and the potential benefits of their involvement. This information allows them to make
informed decisions as to whether and how they wish to be involved in risk assessment
processes. During the 2005 Reno workshop, a participant representing a tribal
organization identified the specific need for training on risk ethics and informed consent,
highlighting the advantages and possible disadvantages of tribal participation in the risk
assessment process. (2005 Reno, pg. 24)
Educate EPA on Tribal Values and Culture
At the 2003 Reno workshop, there was general consensus that tribal communities need to be
involved in educating EPA on tribal values and in changing Agency culture to allow for tribal
issues and concerns to be recognized and incorporated into policy decisions. (2003 Reno, pg.
12) During the 2003 Reno workshop, a tribal speaker reflected this sentiment more broadly,
indicating that tribes need to educate the outside world as to the needs and values of native
peoples. (2003 Reno, pg. 10)
Outreach and Involvement of Tribes
In a number of discussions, tribal representatives have emphasized the importance of early and
continued involvement by tribes throughout the risk assessment and risk communication
process. Workgroup members at the 2005 Reno workshop made a number of suggestions for
promoting early and continued communication with tribes, with the goal of improving risk
assessment policies and procedures. These suggestions included:
Tribal Consultation
Efforts are needed to ensure that tribes are appropriately consulted on risk assessment
activities, particularly in respect to gaining insights into potential historical observations
regarding environmental impacts and change. (2005 Reno, pg. 10-11) During the 2003
Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative observed that consultation with tribes
during the risk assessment process is vital. She observed that the key to defining risk lies
in defining risk from a tribal community's perspective and noted that EPA and tribes
often possess differing views on risk. EPA often addresses risk from a media-focused,
media-driven perspective and tribes are often most concerned with the direct impacts of
various risk factors on the community as a whole. As a result, government-to-
government consultation between EPA and individual tribal governments is extremely
Page 13
-------
important to allow for adequate risk characterization and definition. (2003 Albuquerque,
pg. 6) However, additional clarification is needed in defining how tribal consultation
will occur in terms of both site-specific (e.g., Superfund site cleanup) and national-level
processes (e.g., establishment of drinking water standards and re-registration of
pesticides). Clarification is also needed regarding with whom the Agency will consult
(e.g., tribal government, tribal elders, tribal organizations, etc.). A suggestion was made
during the 2005 Reno workshop that the tribal consultative process being developed by
the EPA American Indian Environmental Office (ALEO) be incorporated into any tribal
collaboration and communication efforts involving the development of new risk
assessment policies and procedures. (2005 Reno, pg. 28)
Formal Agreements Regarding Decision Making
EPA and tribes should enter into a formal agreement prior to the planning and problem
formulation phase to generate a two-way conversation regarding the issues involved and
to provide an opportunity for the tribes involved to identify their unique questions and
concerns. At the 2005 Reno workshop, participants indicated that EPA and tribes should
hold upfront discussions to determine how information generated during the risk
assessment will be used and that tribes should be allowed to enter into a co-decision
making process if tribal lands may be impacted. (2005 Reno, pg. 10-11)
Resources for Tribal Involvement
In addition, when providing for appropriate involvement and coordination with tribes,
consideration needs to be given to ensure that tribes possess sufficient resources to be
able to participate. During the 2005 Reno workshop, there was general agreement from
participants that a number of tribes lack sufficient technical and financial resources to
assess and manage risks, while at the same time these tribes often have to contend with
large tracts of land, cross-media contamination, and long- and short-term exposures.
(2005 Reno, pg. 29) At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, participants reported that the
funding made available for tribes for risk assessment is "woefully inadequate and
inconsistent." (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 16) For tribes to be effectively involved, they
need to possess sufficient resources such as, travel, funding for participation, research,
etc. (2005 Reno, pg. 11)
Valuation of Natural Resources
During the 2005 Reno workshop, a TSC member observed that one of the major reasons that
risk assessment does not work well in Indian Country is that a disconnect exists in the way that
tribal and non-tribal communities value the environment and their resources. (2005 Reno, pg.
19) While EPA factors economic considerations into its risk management decisions, thereby
necessitating that an economic (dollar) value be placed on natural resources, many tribal
communities do not accept monetary valuation of their resources. Some tribal representatives
have indicated that valuation metrics that do not involve the concepts of "Western economies"
are needed. (2005 Reno, pg 29) At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a suggestion was made by
a tribal member that traditional economic variables that are used by the Agency be replaced
with "economic" variables of consequence to tribal communities, such as relating things in
Page 14
-------
terms of valued tribal resources (e.g., number of moose hunted by a tribe). (2003 Albuquerque,
Pg. 11)
Data Collection and Use
During the three workshops, tribal representatives identified a number of issues related to data
collection and use within the context of risk assessment processes. These issues included the
need to incorporate both tribal traditional knowledge and qualitative data into the risk
assessment process, the need to develop methods for ensuring appropriate collection of data
from tribal sites, the need to ensure data ownership by tribes and to protect confidentiality of
tribally sensitive data, and the need to improve quality assurance of tribal data. Each of these
issues is further explained below.
Incorporate Tribal Traditional Knowledge
Many tribal representatives participating in the TSC workshops emphasized that tribes
possess a great deal of observational and experiential knowledge about their
environment. They indicated that this knowledge, often referred to as tribal traditional
knowledge and tribal ecological knowledge, should be incorporated into existing risk
models and scenarios. At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative
observed that the work that EPA is conducting on risk assessment is not new and that
tribes have observational and experiential knowledge with the issue dating back for
centuries. She observed that when developing tribal risk assessments, this direct
observational and experiential knowledge needs to be incorporated. She explained that
in tribal communities, this type of direct observation, experience, and habituation, which
is handed down by the generations, is held to be much more truthful than secondhand
knowledge, represented by the traditional Western science methodology of gathering
and incorporating scientific data into reports. (2003 Albuquerque, pgs. 5-6)
During the 2005 Reno workshop, it was indicated that both "Western" science and tribal
traditional knowledge need to be recognized as forms of science (2005 Reno, pg. 15),
that tribal traditional knowledge should be included as an input into risk assessment on
equal footing with scientific data (2005 Reno, pg. 27), and that guidance is needed on
where and how to include tribal traditional knowledge into the risk assessment process
(e.g., in identifying appropriate sampling sites and sampling periods.) (2005 Reno pg.
28)
In a related discussion at the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal representative spoke of the
need for generating valid ethnographic data to use in risk assessment processes, noting
that anecdotal tribal information should not be dismissed, but that care should be taken
to ensure that the data is valid (i.e., that the data collected are systematic and repeatable
and are considered "good data"). (2005 Reno, pg. 24)
Incorporate Qualitative Data
At the 2005 Reno workshop, there was discussion on the need to incorporate qualitative,
rather than strictly quantitative, data into EPA's risk assessment process, particularly as
some tribal members indicated that they did not agree that spiritual and cultural aspects
Page 15
-------
of a tribe's lifestyle could be quantified. (2005 Reno, pg. 22) Methods are needed for
incorporating this qualitative information into the risk assessment process so that it is
provided to decision makers when making risk management decisions. At the January
2005 workshop in Reno, NV, there was recognition that both qualitative and quantitative
approaches to risk assessment exist and that debate on these issues is healthy. (2005
Reno, pg. 28) A tribal representative indicated that qualitative data should be allowed to
be brought into the risk assessment process and given equal weight with quantitative
data. (2005 Reno, pg. 23) Several workshop panel members agreed that more discussion
is needed as how best to incorporate qualitative data inputs into the risk assessment
process in an equitable way, as risk assessments are constrained by current laws and
mandates. (2005 Reno, pg. 25)
Appropriate Data Collection from Tribal Sites
Tribal members noted on various occasions that the samples and data collected for risk
assessment purposes from tribal sites was often done without tribal involvement, and,
therefore, was not representative of the impacted tribe's health and lifeways. At the 2005
Reno workshop, a TSC tribal representative indicated the need for tribes to be involved
in the planning and development of risk assessments, particularly in regard to sampling
protocols to determine where and when to sample and, in the case offish sampling, what
parts of the fish to sample. (2005 Reno, pg. 18) In addition, during the 2003
Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative spoke of her experience involving
baseline human health risk assessments conducted on lands on the Akwesasne
Reservation in New York. She highlighted a number of instances in which the tribe felt
that tribal concerns were not taken into account during data sampling and collection.
These included the lack of data on consumption rates for women of child bearing age in
the assessment, the collection of data on limited stretches of the river system that was
impacted, and limited data on only two fish species that were not considered to be the
most important species by the tribal community. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 13)
Data Ownership and Confidentiality
The issue of data confidentiality and ownership is very important to tribal communities,
who can be reluctant to provide sensitive tribal data to outside entities. Such a reluctance
to share data can impact risk assessment processes. As noted by an EPA representative
at the 2005 Reno workshop, a major obstacle to complete the Tribal LifeLine Project has
been EPA's ability to access tribal data. (2005 Reno, pg. 20)
Data access and ownership is particularly problematic due to concerns by tribes that
providing tribal data and information driving risk assessment studies will subject the
data to become publicly available under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requirements. A tribal representative at the 2005 Reno workshop, indicated that,
recognizing the need to work within the framework of the existing risk assessment
framework and within the parameters of FOIA, tribes should be educated on the various
options that exist for protecting tribal data while working within these structures. A
tribal representative observed that tribal exposure models are each context-specific, and,
Page 16
-------
therefore, there are ways to include cultural impacts and risks in a general way that
would allow tribes to use these models. (2005 Reno, pg. 23)
Quality Assurance of Tribal Data
Some frustration was voiced that, in the past, EPA has rejected tribally developed data
from risk assessment studies. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 13) During the 2005 Reno
workshop, a tribal representative emphasized that in developing tribal exposure
assessments, it is necessary to gather peer reviewed data that meet the strict rules of
evidence and are well documented. During the workshop, it was also suggested that
collaboration between EPA and tribes is needed to ensure that the data developed by
tribes is considered valid and is accepted under EPA's laboratory standards. (2005 Reno,
pg. 29) and that additional focus on data quality assurance standards is needed to ensure
that the data developed and provided is valid and will be accepted by EPA.
Unique Tribal Exposures
Tribal representatives have asserted that current risk assessment policies and procedures do not
take into account or allow for unique characteristics of tribes and tribal communities that create
unique tribal exposures, and, therefore, are not fully protective of tribal health and lifeways.
Throughout each of the three workshops, tribal members discussed numerous aspects of tribal
communities and tribal lifestyles that result in their unique exposure factors, including:
Tribes Represent Relatively Small Populations: At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal
member indicated that tribal populations are unique because they possess relatively
small population numbers in comparison to the general U.S. population. As a result, the
individual indicated that tribes are unique in facing the possibility of cultural loss and
even extinction in the face of environmental hazards. The tribal member suggested that
EPA consider different standards and a different definition of "population" where tribal
communities are involved. (2005 Reno, pg. 9) Small population size also makes it
difficult for many tribes to demonstrate significant human health impacts during
standard risk assessments so as to warrant action by regulators. As noted by a tribal
representative at the 2005 Reno workshop, within existing risk assessment models,
many tribes are not large enough to register a population impact or "cancer cluster;"
therefore, many tribes are trying to identify other environmental indicators to
demonstrate environmental impact. (2005 Reno, pg. 25)
Tribes are Tied to Fixed Land and Resource Bases: At the 2005 Reno workshop, a
tribal member indicated that tribes are unique in that tribal communities are tied to their
lands and are not able to simply move away from contamination sources when impacts
occur. (2005 Reno, pg. 29) In addition, at the 2005 Reno workshop, a TSC
representative observed that tribal resources and their value to the tribe are very much
tied to their lands and their geographic proximity. He described an instance in which a
biological opinion paper developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
bald eagles nesting along the Penobscot River was developed. The risk assessment
conducted by USFWS concluded that the population of eagles in the entire Northern
States Recovery Region (comprising 24 states) would not be jeopardized if the eagles
Page 17
-------
along the river were removed and, therefore, allowed the "taking" to occur. However,
the eagles were part of the Penobscot Indian Reservation, and the cultural impact to the
tribe from the loss of the eagle community on their Reservation was never considered in
either the risk assessment or risk management decision processes. At issue was the fact
that it was the eagle population within the Reservation to which the tribe has close
cultural connections and, therefore, impacted the tribe and not the eagles elsewhere in
the country. (2005 Reno, pg. 18-19)
Tribes Possess Unique Dietary, Religious, and Cultural Practices: As discussed during
the 2005 Reno workshop, each tribe possesses a unique variety of tribal practices,
including tribal diets, religious practices, and cultural practices (e.g., basket making, use
of medicinal plants, and sweat lodge ceremonies) that should be factored into tribal
exposure scenarios. (2005 Reno, pg. 28) Recognition is needed that impacts affecting
tribal culture and diet greatly impact tribal health. (2005 Reno, pg. 29) During the 2003
Reno workshop, a tribal participant indicated that exposure scenarios need to be
reflective of tribal lifestyles and consumption patters. As an example, they observed that
a number of tribes living "subsistence lifestyles" consume large quantities of a variety of
fish species, which can complicate the development of accurate exposure scenarios, and
that, for many tribes, fish advisories restricting or eliminating fish consumption are not a
viable risk management solution, as, for many, tribes cannot give up their lifestyle
practices in response to fish advisory warnings. (2003 Reno, pg. 24)
To help address these unique tribal exposures within the current risk assessment process,
various suggestions were provided by the tribal representatives attending the workshops. These
suggestions are outlined below.
Include More Sensitive Populations
At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal representative indicated that the current risk
assessment processes needs to be improved to better include more sensitive populations,
expanding current models, which focus mainly on exposures to the general U.S.
population. (2005 Reno, pg. 17)
Demonstrate Care When Developing "Tribal Default Values"
EPA, in its Exposure Factors Handbook, summarizes data on human behaviors and
characteristics affecting exposures and provides recommended exposure factor values.
These recommended exposure factor values can serve as "default values" to be used by
risk assessors when sufficient site-specific data for a specific geographic population is
not available. These default values are generally based on the typical U.S. suburban
population.
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, participants discussed the need to develop default
exposure values that are more applicable for tribal communities than the current default
values developed for the "general population." However, tribal representatives expressed
concerns that the default values developed for a particular tribe under a particular set of
conditions could be construed as being "the tribal default values example," which would
Page 18
-------
then be factored into all future tribal risk assessments. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 19)
During the workshop, a tribal representative had reported that the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes have experienced problems with this, involving a contractor that wished to utilize
the default values developed by Barbara Harper for another tribe and extrapolate them
for a risk assessment being developed for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. (2003
Albuquerque, pg. 16) Tribal representatives indicated that, where possible, default
values should be replaced by the best available data for a given tribal community. (2003
Albuquerque, pg. 18)
When, during the 2005 Reno workshop, a suggestion was made to develop a separate
"tribal" exposure factors handbook, a tribal representative cautioned against
development of a separate exposure factors handbook for tribes, observing that
mainstream exposure factors should be the goal, focusing on the protection of all
vulnerable populations. (2005 Reno, pg. 11-12)
Develop Tribal Exposure Scenarios
At the 2003 Reno workshop, tribal representatives indicated that there could be no "one
size fits all" tribal exposure model. However, it was noted that while no one model will
fit all tribes, tribes should focus on developing a general "tribal" model developed on
common tribal values and concerns, which can then be adapted and applied to tribal
communities. (2003 Reno, pg. 13)
In general, workshop participants were supportive of current efforts underway by EPA
to incorporate tribal exposure scenarios into risk assessment models. The efforts
discussed included OPPTS' Tribal LifeLine Project, which focuses on development of
probabilistic modeling software that focuses on incorporating tribal exposure scenarios
and lifestyles into a model measuring aggregate and cumulative pesticide exposures,
allowing tribes to input the kinds of parameters that they feel are reasonable and
reflective of their lifestyles (2005 Reno, pg. 20) and TASWER's Native American
exposure and risk assessment model, which will serve as a training tool for tribes
allowing them to incorporate more tribally relevant exposure pathways when examining
exposures to chemicals from hazardous waste sites. (2005 Reno, pg. 21)
A tribal representative indicated that developing tribally specific models does not
necessarily require the development of individual models for each tribe in Indian
Country and suggested that the development of EcoRegion-based models, such as those
currently being developed by Barbara Harper under an EPA ORD Science to Achieve
Results (STAR) grant represent a potential improvement to current "tribal" risk models.
Barbara Harper is involved in developing EcoRegion-based scenarios that reflect unique
regional resource bases. While specific usage patterns and usage rates could differ
among tribes in a region, the regional-based scenarios could be adjusted for site-specific
issues and represent a better baseline than existing suburban population default models.
(2005 Reno, pg. 17) The EcoRegion-based models are not tribal- or site-specific, but
could provide a better starting point for predicting risk than is currently supplied by
national-level, suburban-based risk models. (2005 Reno, pg. 22)
Page 19
-------
Another factor to be considered when developing tribal exposure scenarios, as noted by
a tribal representative during the 2005 Reno workshop, is that a number of tribes are
currently working to restore their natural resources and ensure more sustainable resource
use. In doing so, many tribes intend not only to continue but to increase their use of
natural resources and traditional food sources. Therefore, when developing tribal
exposure scenarios, modelers need to recognize and account for increased resource
usage. (2005 Reno, pg. 21) As discussed during the workshop, a need exists for
exposure scenarios to account for historical consumption rates and patterns that would
allow tribes to sustain tribal traditional health and cultural practices (2005 Reno, pg. 18),
and efforts are underway to describe traditional use and traditional (cultural) lifeways
patterns for use in risk assessment, with the aim of restoring and protecting tribal
resources and lifestyles. Rather than developing fish consumption surveys to identify
current suppressed resource use and consumption levels, some researchers are looking at
current subsistence and treaty information (as well as anthropological, environmental
archeological, and historical information) to identify traditional (cultural) consumption
patterns to serve as a good measure for resource restoration goals and accommodate the
resurgence of interest by tribes in traditional foods. (2005 Reno, pg. 22)
In addition, as tribes are trying to return to a more traditional diet, they are looking for
ways to compare the risks posed by consuming traditional versus non-traditional food
items. (2005 Reno, pg. 25) Though this needs to be balanced with the potential impacts
of implementing dietary advisories if health impacts are determined, sensitivities are
needed in weighing the potential health risks posed by contaminants and the potential
health and cultural impacts that could result from the implementation of dietary
advisories on traditional foods.
Incorporate Qualitative versus Quantitative Tribal Impacts
During the workshops, participants discussed the need for both quantifiable and non-
quantifiable impacts (e.g., loss of ceremony and culture of a tribe when contaminated
river water—and/or the perception of this contamination—impacts a tribe's ability to
participate in sweat lodges) be included in risk assessment processes. At the 2003
Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative indicated that current risk assessment
policies and procedures tend to ignore the impact of potential activities on tribal culture,
such as the impacts of potential action on a tribe's origin or creation story, landscapes,
historical stories, songs, dances, prayers, language, etc. She noted that while these
impacts may not be easily quantifiable, they are vitally important to the continued health
and well-being of tribal communities and the protection of treaty-reserved homelands.
(2003 Albuquerque, pg. 6) At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal representative
recommended that not only should quantifiable and non-quantifiable impacts be
included, but they should be given equal weight in the risk assessment process. (2005
Reno, pg. 9) Additional discussion is needed to determine how best to incorporate
qualitative impacts into the risk assessment process. As was noted by a tribal
representative at the 2005 workshop in Reno, NV, the current scientific standards used
by EPA require quantifiable threshold exposure levels to determine risk and questions
Page 20
-------
exist over whether and how tribal practices (e.g., access to ceremonial areas) can be
monitored appropriately. (2005 Reno, pg. 9)
Page 21
-------
Section II: Developing a New Paradigm
Although the TSC recognizes the need to improve the current risk assessment process to better
incorporate tribal perspectives, there has also been a significant amount of feedback collected
from tribes about more long-term alternatives to the current risk assessment paradigm for
environmental decision making. The sections that follow highlight the feedback that was
received from tribal representatives during the three workshops convened by the TSC regarding
what this new paradigm should entail. The issues are presented in no particular order.
Incorporate a Health-based Focus
During the 2005 Reno workshop, several participants asked for a more health-driven process,
one that avoids looking at maximum risk and exposure levels. They observed that the current
risk assessment paradigm focuses solely on hazard and risk assessment. A participant indicated
that a safety/health-driven process is particularly crucial in relation to Reservation lands, as
tribes and tribal lifeways are tied to tribal lands, and, therefore, precaution and protection are
crucial elements. (2005 Reno, pg. 8)
Focus on Risk Prevention
During the 2005 Reno workshop, several participants indicated that a new paradigm should
focus on risk prevention rather than on cleanup after contamination has occurred. The paradigm
should focus on protecting the next seven generations and beyond, geared toward protection of
human health and the environment in perpetuity. (2005 Reno, pg. 8)
Incorporate Cumulative Impacts
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative recommended that a future paradigm
incorporate cumulative impacts. He suggested that the focus of current risk assessment policies
and procedures be broadened to include more than just a single contaminant, noting that health
effects from background levels of multiple chemicals, which exist in the environment in
quantities that are right at the contaminant limit, while lawful, may pose considerable health risk
and need to be addressed. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 14)
Create a Holistic Paradigm—One that Incorporates Impacts to Community
Health, Culture, Lifeways, Well-being and the Environment
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative indicated that EPA and tribal
communities are often at odds in terms of risk assessment science because of the language used
by EPA in the discussion of risk assessment issues. He indicated that the EPA risk assessment
paradigm discusses human health as the most important factor in the risk assessment process,
and this contrasts with tribal traditions which view humans as the "younger brother" in a
holistic worldview. He observed that this difference in view creates friction in Indian Country.
(2003 Albuquerque, pg 4)
During the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, tribal representatives agreed that the current risk
model being utilized by EPA is too narrow in scope and needs to be broadened to incorporate a
more holistic view of tribal community health and well-being, one that incorporates impacts to
Page 22
-------
community health, culture, lifeways and well-being as well as the environment. During the
workshop, one representative described the concept of risk, as perceived by the Shoshone-
Bannock people. She indicated that, when compared to the traditional Western view of risk,
which can be defined as the "chance of injury, damage or loss," the Shoshone-Bannock concept
of risk is viewed in terms of healthiness and the interdependency of all living things. This
concept is closely tied to the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of all components of the
universe and must, for example, include an evaluation of the role of risk in the social, linguistic,
ecological, cultural, and traditional values of the tribes. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 15)
During another presentation at the workshop, a tribal representative provided an explanation of
the worldview of Alaska Native communities, observing that this worldview is wholly different
from other communities because Native Alaskan communities have been raised to see the world
(and, subsequently, the environmental and health issues that they face) "through a different set
of eyes." She described the holistic nature of this worldview as encompassing physical,
emotional, spiritual, and mental components and described the accompanying value system
upon which the worldview was based. She stated that this worldview is a critical part of the
native communities' health and well-being paradigm. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 8)
During another presentation at the workshop, two other representatives indicated that in the
tribal worldview, healthy people and a healthy ecosystem are inseparable. They indicated that if
aspects of traditional lifeways and risks to the cultural ecosystem are included within the risk
assessment framework, risk assessments will also have a public health appearance, where
"health" is understood to be comprised of an individual's and community's well-being with
their lives fully integrated into a healthy ecosystem. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 15)
Include Health and Wellness Indicators
Throughout the various workshops, there was discussion over the development and use of
health and wellness indicators and the need to incorporate these into decision-making processes.
During the 2003 Reno workshop, it was noted that any model developed should be able to
measure values common to all indigenous communities, taking into account things such as self
esteem, pride, cultural knowledge, and tribal heritage. It was noted that tribal communities
understand the linkages between the environment and people and would be able to use a model
developed on tribal understanding as a starting point to communicate ideas and evaluate cultural
and social aspects of an issue and communicate these issues to outside groups. (2003 Reno, pg
13) During the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal representative indicated that the fields of
community and public health provided a good basis for examining the big picture of health
impacts, both on the level of individual human health and community-wide health impacts, and
observed that a number of cultural, social, health, and welfare indicators that are currently used
in the public health arena and in social impact assessments can have direct applicability for
tribal risk assessment. (2005 Reno, pgs. 22 & 25)
During the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative indicated that tribal
communities are looking into ways to establish "life indicators" to measure the true health and
well-being of their communities. He described a model being developed by the Assembly of
First Nations called the Community Life Indicators Wheel, which can be used to identify
Page 23
-------
particular life indicators that are representative of an individual community. (A detailed
description of the Community Life Indicators Wheel and The Assembly of First Nations
Community Health Indicators project can be found in "Mohawk Council of Akwesasne,
Community Health Indicators, Changes in These Indicators and the Analysis of Risk to Social
Structures and Cultural Practices.") (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 11)
During the 2003 Reno workshop, tribal participants identified a number of potential cultural and
community health indicators that could be used to help measure the health and well-being of
tribal communities. These indicators included:
• Cultural Indicators, including: (1) gathering activities (e.g., funerals, spiritual
and seasonal gatherings, marriages, coming of age ceremonies, pow wows, dances,
pilgrimages, hunting and gathering practices, and leadership activities; (2) ceremonies
(e.g., sweat lodges, births, doctoring/healing, dances, clan ceremonies, blessings, and
purifications; and (3) cultural activities (e.g., language, songs & art, basket making,
growing traditional crops, gathering traditional medicines, attendance at classes teaching
cultural traditions, level of understanding/use of natural resources by tribal people, and
changes in cultural/subsistence practices).
• Health Indicators, including: (1) negative indicators (e.g., suicide, substance
abuse, mortality /birth rates, cancer rates, mental health statistics, addictive behaviors,
human lead and mercury levels, and disease statistics) and (2) positive indicators (e.g.,
decreases in disease, family integrity, and nutrition).
• Community Indicators, including: incarceration rates, visits to drug court and
tribal courts, number of individuals involved in foster programs, vandalism, gangs/drug
dealers/methamphetamine labs, domestic violence, family (the perception/definition of
who family is by tribal peoples, how well the community is reflected in the extended
family, where people live, are family members living close to each other and
maintaining a sense of family, is the community family oriented), elder center, education
rates, participation in youth club activities, day care, availability of emergency and
disaster preparedness services, communication.
• Natural Resource Indicators, including: tracking of historical land uses;
programs and projects being implemented by tribal communities to restore, rehabilitate,
and enhance their local environments; measurement of appreciation/media coverage of
such activities by outside entities was recommended as a potential indictor
measurement; reintroduction of native species; presence of a fisheries department; the
number and type of fish being caught by community members; quantification of
wetland restoration activities; availability of natural resources to continue traditional
practices (i.e., sweet grass, clays, paints, and berries) and whether these resources are
being impacted by contamination; roadside spraying and its impact on the ability of
tribal communities to continue traditional practices; measurement of the stability of the
acreage where traditional activities are practiced; the number of people utilizing walking
trails, tribal cultural sites, and other natural resources; whether tribal practices are being
Page 24
-------
impacted by outside groups competing for the same resources or through destruction of
habitat through other purposes; and the availability of water - both in respect to water
quality and quantity. (2003 Reno, pg 14-16)
Use a Cross-Media Approach
During the 2005 Reno workshop, several tribal participants indicated that the new paradigm
should not be "Program-specific," i.e., should not be focused on a particular media, such as
water, soil, or air, but rather should involve a cross-media approach. (2005 Reno, pg. 8) At the
2003 Albuquerque workshop, several tribal representatives indicated that the current EPA
methodology for CERCLA and media Acts (CAA, SDWA, CWA) are geared toward single
media, single contaminants, and single pathways, rather than being cumulative. They suggested
that if CERCLA were more like NEPA and comparative risk, and if human health risk
assessments were combined with ecological (or eco-cultural) risk assessments, then a
cumulative method that reflects tribal perspectives and traditional lifeways could be achieved.
They observed that the CERCLA statute does not prevent this; it simply has not been done
before. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 15)
Reflect the Precautionary Principle
During the 2005 Reno workshop, a number of individuals suggested that the precautionary
principle be considered as a basis for possible alternative approaches to the current risk
assessment paradigm for protecting human health and the environment. It was noted that a
number of nations, states, and municipalities are already moving to adopt the precautionary
principle. However, a tribal representative, who serves on the Tribal Pesticide Program Council,
cautioned that an approach based on the precautionary principle might not be universally
applicable. She noted that in the case of pesticide registration, risks posed by pesticides are
often not fully understood until the pesticide has been released into the environment, at which
point environmental contamination has already occurred. (2005 Reno, pg. 8)
Recognize that for Some Tribes, a "Zero Contamination Policy" Exists
During the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal participant noted that an inherent concern in
discussing risk standards and setting exposure levels, remains that many tribal members are
insistent that there is no allowable contamination level other than "zero" contamination; their
philosophy and beliefs will not allow them to agree to any level of "acceptable" contamination.
The participant noted that this creates problems, particularly given EPA's current risk
assessment approach, and, as a result, can stall cleanup efforts. (2005 Reno, pg. 8)
Work with Tribes on a Government-to-Government Basis
Tribal participants indicated that it is imperative that EPA work with tribes on a government-to-
government basis when considering changes to EPA's risk assessment policies and procedures.
During the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a TSC tribal representative expressed concerns that
tribes had not been fully consulted during the development of EPA's cumulative risk
assessment framework, noting that the Federal government has a mandate to consult with tribes
on a government-to-government basis on issues that ultimately affect Tribes. (2003
Albuquerque, pg. 4) During the 2005 Reno workshop, a number of tribal participants asked that
EPA enter into government-to-government consultation with their individual tribes to develop
Page 25
-------
recommendations for improving EPA's risk assessment policies and procedures. A
recommendation was made that EPA send representatives out to all tribes in Indian Country to
explain the issues and answer questions raised by tribes. (2005 Reno, pg. 13)
Page 26
-------
Sources
• National EPA-Tribal Science Council. February 19-20, 2003. "Risk
Assessment/Health and Well-being Workshop Summary." Albuquerque, NM. Pgs. 1-17.
National EPA-Tribal Science Council. May 13-15, 2003. "Tribal Traditional
Lifeways: Health and Well-being Workshop Summary." Reno, NV. Pgs. 1-15.
• National EPA-Tribal Science Council. January 24, 2005. "Addressing Tribal
Traditional Lifeways in EPA's Risk Assessment Policies and Procedures: Training
Evaluation Summary." Comments Summary.
• National EPA-Tribal Science Council. January 25-27, 2005. "Addressing Tribal
Traditional Lifeways in EPA's Risk Assessment Policies and Procedures." Reno, NV.
Pgs. 1-27.
References
NRC (National Research Council). (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:
Managing the Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public
Health, Commission on Life Sciences, NRC. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1986a) Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk
Assessment. Federal Register 51(185): 34006-340123. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1986b) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment. Federal Register 51(185): 33992-34003. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1991) Guidelines for Developmental
Toxicity Assessment. Federal Register 56(234): 63796- 63826. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1992) Guidelines for Exposure
Assessment. Federal Register 57(104): 22888-22938. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1992) Guidelines for Reproductive
Toxicity Risk Assessment. Federal Register 61(212): 56274-56322. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1997) Exposure Factors Handbook.
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. EPA/600/P-95/002F.
Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12464.
Page 27
-------
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2000) Science Policy Council Handbook:
Risk Characterization. EPA Science Policy Council, Washington DC. EPA/100/B-00/02.
Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2002) a Review of the Reference Dose and
Reference Concentration Process. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-
02/002F. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2004) An Examination of EPA Risk
Assessment Principles and Practices; Staff Paper Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by members of the Risk Assessment Task Force. Office of the Science
Advisor, Washington DC. EPA/100/B-04/001.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2005a) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. Available from:
http ://www. epa. gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2005b) Supplemental Guidance for
Assessing Cancer Susceptibility from Early-life Exposures to Carcinogens. Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.
U.S. EPA, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1992a) Framework for ecological risk
assessment. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA/63 O/R-92/001.
Page 28
------- |