National EPA- Tribal Science Council
Addressing Tribal Traditional Lifeways in EPA's Risk Assessment
Policies and Procedures Workshop
January 25-27, 2005
Reno/Sparks, Nevada
Workshop Summary
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Workshop Background 3
Workshop Purpose, Goals, and Objectives 3
Workshop Format 4
Risk Assessment Training 4
January 25, 2005 (Day One) 5
Invocation and Welcome by Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 5
Opening of Workshop and Welcome by TSC Co-chairs 5
Introductions of Recommendations Development Workgroup 5
Review of Workshop Goals, Agenda, and Format 5
EPA's Science Policy Council (SPC) Overview 6
EPA's Indian Program Policy Council (IPPC) Overview 7
Discussion of Long-Term Objectives 7
Discussion of Short-Term Objectives 10
Comments Regarding Workshop Objectives, Output and Format 12
January 26, 2005 (Day Two) 15
Recap from Post-Workshop Meeting of Tribal Representatives 15
Continued Discussion of Workshop Process and Format 16
Introduction of Workshop Participants 17
Issues and Ideas for Improving EPA's Risk Assessment Policies and Procedures 17
January 27, 2005 (Day Three) 27
Opening Announcements 27
Review and Discussion of Draft Ideas List from Discussion on Day Two, Jan. 26th 27
Discussion of Next Steps 29
Conclusion 31
Appendix Al
Appendix 1: Agenda A2
Appendix 2: Workshop Participants List A6
Appendix 3: Recommendations Development Workgroup Members A15
Appendix 4: Draft List of Issues & Ideas Summarized from the January 26th Workshop
Discussion A17
Appendix 5: Questions and Comments from the January 24, 2005 Introduction to Risk
Assessment Training Course A22
Appendix 6: Summary of Comment Cards Collected from Participants During the
Workshop A28
Appendix 7: Risk Assessment Diagrams A33
Appendix 8: U.S. EPA Science Policy Council Description A36
Appendix 9: U.S. EPA Indian Program Policy Council Description A38
-------
Introduction
Workshop Background
The National EPA-Tribal Science Council's (TSC's) "Addressing Tribal TraditionalLifeways in
EPA 's Risk Assessment Policies and Procedures" workshop developed out of discussions relating to
the priority tribal science issues identified by the TSC tribal representatives during its September 2002
meeting held in Washington, DC. During this meeting, the TSC tribal representatives identified Tribal
Traditional Lifeways as the top science priority. Specifically, the group identified the short-term goal of
integrating Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA's current risk assessment process and the long-term
goal of developing a new risk paradigm for EPA's consideration—a paradigm focusing on human and
ecological health and well-being. The TSC acknowledged that both goals were important and only
differed in the length of time needed to address the issue.
In 2003, the TSC held two events to further refine the thinking on these topics—a meeting in
Albuquerque, NM, in February, with invited speakers working in the area of tribal risk assessment, and
a more general workshop focused on the topic of Health & Well Being that was held in Reno, NV in
May. As a result of these events, a workshop proposal was developed by TSC members to primarily
focus on the shorter-term objective of incorporating Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA's risk
assessment process.
After some deliberation about the timing of the workshop, the group decided in 2004 to hold the
workshop in early 2005 and to gather additional input from tribal representatives and risk practitioners
on the scope of the workshop. In the summer of 2004, members of the TSC workshop planning group
reached out to individuals working in Indian Country and received feedback that helped further shape
the agenda. Since then, the TSC workshop planning group met regularly to refine the agenda, identify
working group members to assist in the development of recommendations from the workshop, and
spread the word about the event. The TSC had intended the workshop to be a starting point to
generate ideas for further consideration by tribes and EPA on the topic of risk assessment and Tribal
Traditional Lifeways.
Workshop Purpose, Goals, and Objectives
As described in the workshop announcement, the TSC identified short- and long-term goals for
changing EPA's decision making to better address Tribal Traditional Lifeways. The workshop was
designed to begin dialogue on the long-term goal of integrating Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA
decision making and the short-term goal of developing recommendations for incorporating Tribal
Traditional Lifeways into EPA's current risk assessment policies and practices. The goal of the
workshop was to develop draft language that provides long-term and short-term
recommendations/issues to EPA for incorporating Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA decisions. The
workshop objectives were:
-------
Long-term objectives:
Discuss a new concept for assessing the health of tribal communities that begins with
preserving Tribal Traditional Lifeways, which is wholly different than EPA's current
approach.
Develop recommendations for implementing this new approach as an alternative to the
current risk assessment process.
Short-term objectives:
• Examine the risk assessment process to identify where Tribal Traditional Lifeways can
be incorporated into EPA's existing approach.
• Develop recommendations for incorporating Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA's
current risk assessment policies and practices.
Workshop Format
As described in the workshop announcement, the workshop format consisted of alternating intensive
discussion by a Recommendations Development Workgroup of invited tribal and EPA risk assessment
practitioners and policy analysts, and open dialogue among all workshop participants. The
Recommendations Development Workgroup was tasked with developing a draft set of
recommendations/issues from the workshop. All participants were offered the opportunity at various
points in the workshop to join a broader discussions on the topics.
Risk Assessment Training
Workshop participants were offered the opportunity to participate in a half-day training session on
January 24, 2005, the day before the workshop. The training was presented by Dennis Utterback and
Danielle Tillman of EPA's Office of Research and Development and provided an overview of EPA's
risk assessment process. The training was intended to provide workshop participants with the basic
scientific understanding of risk assessment terminology and processes and was not intended to be
tribally focused. The training materials are available on the Science and American Indians website
located at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/tribes/sciinf/key.htm#risk. During the training session, participants
identified a number of questions and concerns regarding EPA's current risk assessment process as it
relates to tribes and Tribal Traditional Lifeways and are listed in Appendix 5.
-------
January 25, 2005 (Day One)
Invocation and Welcome by Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Charlotte Harry, tribal elder of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, provided the invocation at the start of
the workshop. Ms. Harry was introduced by Dan Mosley, Environmental Specialist for the Pyramid
Lake Paiute Tribe. Following the invocation, Gerry Emm, Environmental Director of the Pyramid Lake
Paiute Tribe, welcomed participants to the workshop on behalf of the tribe.
After lunch, Norman Harry, Tribal Chairman for the Pyramid Paiute Tribe, provided welcoming
remarks to workshop participants, thanking members of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe for their efforts
in co-hosting the workshop and thanking participants for their involvement. He spoke of the tribe's own
efforts in trying to end the burning of munitions from the nearby Sierra Army Depot and the need for
tribes to develop alliances with local governments and others to develop relationships and educate
others on the issues and the need for change.
Opening of Workshop and Welcome by TSC Co-chairs
Dave Nelson, Tribal Co-chair for the TSC, gave brief opening remarks, informing participants of the
TSC's activities regarding risk assessment and Tribal Traditional Lifeways. During his opening remarks,
he remarked on his own experience as a tribal member working with EPA and observed the need for
tribes to work together with EPA in trying to better incorporate Tribal Traditional Lifeways into the
Agency's current risk paradigm. Roland Hemmett, Agency Co-chair for the TSC, then provided his
opening remarks, thanking the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe for co-hosting the event, expressing
appreciation to EPA ORD for their financial support, and offering special thanks to John Persell
(Minnesota Chippewa Tribe) and Patricia Cirone (US EPA Region 10) for serving as co-chairs for the
workshop.
Introductions of Recommendations Development Workgroup
The workshop facilitator, David Carrillo, from the National Center for Cultural Healing then introduced
the members of the Recommendations Development Workshop, from here forward referred to as the
"Workgroup." (For a list of the Recommendations Development Workshop members that attended the
workshop, please see Appendix 3.) Following these introductions, Mr. Carrillo noted that several
workshop participants had asked questions of how the Workgroup had been selected to participate in
the workshop. Mr. Carrillo explained that the TSC had undergone a lengthy process to identify and
invite practitioners in the field of risk assessment that were either tribal members or those who had
experience working with tribes on risk assessments. He noted that not all of those invited to participate
in the Workgroup had been able to attend.
Review of Workshop Goals, Agenda, and Format
Mr. Carrillo reviewed the purpose and objectives of the workshop, as identified in the workshop
agenda. (A copy of the workshop agenda is included as Appendix 1.) Members of the National EPA-
-------
Tribal Science Council attending the workshop were then introduced. Finally, with input from
workshop participants, Mr. Carrillo identified and established ground rules for the workshop, which
included:
• Each public participant would have three minutes to speak.
There would be no interruptions when people are speaking.
Participants were to be considerate of everyone's opinion.
• Comments and remarks were to be kept short and sweet.
• Questions regarding clarification of the risk assessment process were to be held until a
break and then directed toward an appropriate Workgroup member.
Assurances were to be made that everyone could be heard.
• The use of acronyms was to be kept to a minimum.
• Courteous language was to be used so as not to offend anyone.
A parking lot was to be established for issues not directly related to the workshop goals
and objectives.
• There was to be recognition that just because something has not been done before, it
doesn't mean that it can't be done.
There was to be recognition that the workshop did not represent government-to-
government consultation with tribes.
EPA's Science Policy Council (SPC) Overview
Kerry Dearfield, Senior Scientist for Science Policy, Office of the Science Advisor, U.S. EPA,
provided an overview of EPA's Science Policy Council (SPC) and provided an introduction to the
Agency's current examination of its risk assessment practices. Participants were also provided with a
one-page overview of the SPC, a copy of which can be found in Appendix 8. During his presentation,
Dr. Dearfield highlighted the recent publication, in March 2004, of EPA's Office of the Science
Advisor Staff Paper: Risk Assessment Principles and Practices., which consisted of a cross-Agency
review by EPA of its current risk assessment policies and practices and serves as a vehicle for opening
a broad dialogue among EPA staff, EPA managers, and external parties about the practice of risk
assessment at EPA. Copies for the staff paper were provided to workshop participants and can be
found online at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/ratf-fmal.pdf. In addition, Dr. Dearfield also highlighted EPA's
Exposure Factors Handbook (http://www. epa. gov/ordntrnt/ORD/WebPubs/exposure/1 which
provides default exposure factors data for the Agency. He noted that the Agency is also developing a
draft Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook., which is not currently available for distribution.
Later in the workshop discussion, when asked what additional resources were available from the
Agency for understanding the basics of risk assessment, Dr. Dearfield recommended EPA's Risk
Characterization Handbook (http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/htm/chandbk.pdf) as a good resource for
understanding the basics of risk assessment.
Following Dr. Dearfield's presentation, a participant wished to know the difference between the staff
paper and EPA's risk assessment guidelines. Dr. Dearfield responded that the staff paper is not an
official EPA policy document, its intent is to explain specific risk practices undertaken by the Agency,
-------
where as the risk assessment guidelines represent EPA policy determining how risk assessments are to
be conducted by the Agency.
EPA's Indian Program Policy Council (IPPC) Overview
Carol Jorgensen, Director, American Indian Environmental Office (AEO), U.S. EPA, provided a
overview of EPA's Indian Program Policy Council, briefly highlighting its formation and structure.
Participants were also provided with a one-page overview of the IPPC, a copy of which can be found
in Appendix 9. During her presentation, Ms. Jorgensen identified a number of key issues on which the
IPPC is currently focusing its efforts, including: (1) examining EPA's tribal strategic plan to better
understand how EPA's tribal program has developed and to set a new agenda for the program, (2)
developing guidance for Agency tribal consultation, (3) developing training and educational
opportunities, most notably created a version of the Agency's Working Effectively with Tribal
Governments training course (http://www.epa.gov/indian/resource/infro.htrn) on CD-ROM and
developing a companion training booklet for the CD, (3) examining direct implementation of tribal
cooperative agreements, (4) assisting the Agency with the development of the tribal portal, and finally
(5) better educating EPA leadership on Tribal Traditional Lifeways as they relate to EPA policy.
Discussion of Long-Term Objectives
The initial discussion session of the workshop was designed to focus on the issue of long-term
objectives for developing a new approach for assessing the health of tribal communities. The discussion
was open to both the Workgroup and the public workshop participants and was lead by workshop co-
chairs John Persell and Pat Cirone.
Overview of Tribal Traditional Lifeways
John Persell initiated the discussion by providing an overview of Tribal Traditional Lifeways, as they
pertain to risk assessment methodologies. Mr. Persell began by discussing the difficulties inherent in
defining the term "Tribal Traditional Lifeways," observing that in the past "Tribal Traditional Lifeways"
were often defined as "subsistence" lifeways, but that the connotations of "subsistence," namely of just
"getting by" in a cultural context were deemed to be inadequate to accurately describe the issue.
Mr. Persell went on to explain that the TSC has identified two tracks for incorporating Tribal
Traditional Lifeways into risk assessment processes. The first, a long-term approach, would potentially
consist of a new concept for assessing that health of tribal communities, one that is different from EPA's
current risk assessment paradigm and one that begins with the preservation of Tribal Traditional
Lifeways as its core and focus. The second, a short-term approach that would look at ways to better
incorporate Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA's current risk assessment policies and procedures.
Acknowledging that EPA's current risk assessment paradigm is not protective of tribes and tribal
resources, Mr. Persell asked that workshop participants spend the morning workshop session
brainstorming long-term recommendations/ideas for alternatives to EPA's current risk assessment
paradigm.
-------
Tribal Traditional Lifeways Long-Term Suggestions
During the course of the resulting discussion, a number of long-term recommendations/ideas were
identified by various participants, which included:
• Precautionary Principle - 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. John Persell noted that Western
science often generates a certain level of doubt and uncertainty. It was noted that a number of
nations, states, and municipalities are already moving to adopt the Precautionary Principle. A
participant, 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.
• Universal "Risk" Model - A participant recommended that whatever the alternative "risk"
paradigm would look like, a universal model was needed that could be used by tribes to
evaluate their risk.
Cross-Media Approach - Several participants indicated that the approach should not be
"Program-specific" (i.e., focused on particular media—water, soil, air).
• Focus on Risk Prevention and the Protection of Future Generations - A number of
participants indicated that the approach should be focused on risk prevention and on protecting
the next seven generations and beyond; that protection should be geared toward protection of
human health and the environment in perpetuity.
• Focus on a More Health-driven Process - Several participants asked that alternatives to a
risk-driven process be considered. They observed that the current risk assessment paradigm
focuses solely on hazard and risk assessment. They noted that a more health-driven process
should be pursued, one that avoids looking at maximum risk and exposure levels and one that is
focused on prevention rather than on cleanup efforts after contamination has occurred. A
participant suggested that a safety/health-driven process (rather than the current risk/hazard-
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.
• A "Zero " Contamination Policy - A participant noted that an inherent concern in discussing
risk standards and setting exposure levels, given either the current risk assessment approaches
or more long-term precautionary-based approaches, 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.
• A "Right to Be Exposed" vs. a "Right to Pollute " - A Workgroup member noted that in
pursuing a more long-term approach, consideration of the limitations of the current
environmental statues are needed, as current statutes are based on setting and regulating to a
minimum, permissible contamination level. It was noted that this focus on the "right to pollute"
-------
vs. the "right to be exposed" gets to the heart of the trust responsibility to tribes and should be
re-examined. Following this comment, there was some discussion over the feasibility of
changing current EPA statutes. A second Workgroup member noted that everyone is looking to
statutory change in the long run, but that in the short-term, it is necessary to work with the
current Agency policy to pursue equal cultural representation for tribes.
A Universal Approach - A participant suggested that a universal approach be developed that
could be fully integrated into EPA and other agencies' programs, as environmental
contamination occurs on and off reservations, and developing a "tribal initiative" for "tribal
areas" would not necessarily be protective for tribes as a whole.
• Unique Tribal Standards - Other participants indicated that tribal populations are smaller in
number than the general population and face the possibility of cultural loss and even extinction in
the face of environmental hazards. As a result, it was recommended that different standards
and a different definition of "population" are needed.
• Cumulative Site Impacts - A participant suggested that consideration of cumulative site
impacts (e.g., the grouping of a number of uranium mining sites impacting a tribe or tribe's land)
is needed.
• Quantifiable and Non-quantifiable Cultural Impacts - Several participants indicated that
both quantifiable and non-quantifiable (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) must be included in any long-term approach. A participant
recommended that not only should quantifiable and non-quantifiable impacts be included, but
they should be given equal weight. In a related discussion, a participant noted that the current
scientific standards utilized by the Agency require quantifiable threshold exposure levels to
determine risk. He questioned whether probes and monitors will be allowed by tribal
communities in ceremonial areas.
• Tribal Resources and Technical Abilities for Risk Assessment and Management - A
participant asked that tribal resources and technical abilities be considered, noting that a
number of tribes have limited technical and financial resources to assess and manage risks,
while often having to contend with large tracts of land, cross-media contamination, and long-
and short-term exposures.
• Risk Communication Needed - A participant indicated that increased education and outreach
involving risk communication is needed. The participant noted that an improved risk assessment
model for tribes is needed, but tribes also need education and outreach involving how the
science and public health information that results relates back to a tribe.
During the discussion, a number of participants expressed frustration over the current risk assessment
paradigm. A representative from the Navajo EPA noted that in the early 1990s, he participated in an
effort to revise EPA's current Hazard Ranking System (HRS), which he noted is primarily geared
toward urban settings in the U.S. rather than toward tribes located in rural settings. The participant
expressed frustration that while changes to the HRS ranking criteria were made as a result, they were
few. Another participant expressed concern over the need to have more participation by tribes in the
-------
current Superfund risk assessment process, noting that if tribes are not involved in/are not able to have
their concerns considered in the site assessment process, the outcomes are recorded in a legally binding
Record of Decision that then becomes very difficult for tribes to have changed in the future. Another
participant noted that, while a long-term approach to development of a better risk paradigm is needed,
there are a number of sites, particularly a large number of sites impacting Native Villages in Alaska,
which are in need of cleanup now and that an improved risk model to aid these sites is currently
needed. Finally, another participant asked that EPA consider additional risk assessment regulations and
guidelines in regard to indoor air quality issues.
Discussion of Short-Term Objectives
Overview of Agenda and Format for Discussions
David Carrillo provided an overview of the agenda and format for the afternoon discussion on EPA's
current risk assessment process. The workshop was to move from a more open format with full public
participation to a "fish bowl" format, whereby discussion was to focus around Workgroup members,
with opportunities provided for public input and questions from workshop participants at regular
intervals. Workshop participants would also have the opportunity at any time in the process to submit
questions and comments on note cards that would then be provided to the Workgroup for comment
and discussion. (A summary of the comments provided via note card is included as Appendix 6.)
Overview of EPA's Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Process and Discussion
The goal of this workshop session was to generate short-term recommendations for improving EPA's
current risk assessment policies and procedures. Pat Cirone lead the session. She explained that the
discussion was not to be Program- or media-specific in nature, but to focus on the risk assessment
process as a whole, with discussion proceeding by the various "steps" in the risk assessment process,
as identified in the workshop agenda (i.e., planning and problem formulation, profiles of exposure and
analysis/risk analysis, and risk characterization). During her initial presentation, Ms. Cirone outlined
both a (1) human health risk assessment structure and (2) an ecological risk assessment structure to
help explain the risk assessment model. (Copies of both structures can be found in Appendix 7.)
The discussion began by focusing on the planning and problem formulation phase in the risk assessment
process, with workgroup members providing comments regarding problems with the current risk
assessments as well as suggestions for possible improvements. A number of suggestions were made for
improving tribal input and involvement into the planning and problem formulation phase of the risk
assessment process, which included:
• Early and Frequent Consultation with Tribes and Tribal Elders - Workgroup members
made the following suggestions:
*• EPA should consult with tribes, particularly in respect to potential historical
observations regarding environmental impacts and change.
> 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
10
-------
and provide an opportunity for the tribes involved to identify their unique questions and
concerns.
> EPA and tribes should hold up-front discussions to determine how information
generated during the risk assessment will be used. A number of concerns were
expressed over the need for protecting tribal data and information, in light of Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requirements. A recommendation was made that
educational tools be developed to help inform tribes of how best to provide adequate
data to allow risk assessors to develop informed decisions while allowing tribes to
provide this data in a non-sensitive manner.
*• Tribes should be allowed to enter into a co-decision making process if tribal lands may
be impacted.
• Ensuring that Appropriate Resources are Available to Tribes to Participate in the
Planning and Problem Formulation Phase - A suggestion was made that EPA remain
conscious of the need to ensure that tribes possess the appropriate resources to participate in
planning and problem formulation.
During the discussion, the Workgroup observed that two basic distinctions exist regarding risk
assessments: (1) those that occur on a national-level (e.g., pesticide registration and water quality
standards), and (2) site-specific risk assessment (e.g., site cleanup). It was noted that acceptable
processes need to be developed for both situations. There was general agreement that for both
national- and site-specific risk assessments, more holistic risk models are needed that incorporate tribal
concerns and are protective of the most susceptible populations. There was also general agreement that
developing tribally relevant national-level (when compared to site-specific) risk assessment policies and
procedures would prove more problematic, as developing national-level tribal risk scenario and
national-level tribal default exposure values would be difficult.
This led to a brief discussion on how tribes could best provide input into the development of tribal risk
and exposure scenarios. John Persell noted that EPA uses the Federal Register as a consultation
mechanism. However, several participants noted that this was not an appropriate means to seek input
and consult with tribes. Mr. Persell noted that EPA will need to proceed with making decisions on the
risk assessment process, either with or without tribal input, and, therefore, recommended that decisions
be made regarding appropriate means for tribes to solicit input.
During the discussion, Workgroup members noted that a number of efforts are already underway to
expand the risk assessment process and develop risk models that are more focused on tribal concerns.
Such efforts included:
• EPA 's Exposure Factors Handbook - EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook provides a
summary of the available statistical data on various factors used in assessing human exposure
and serves a guide for risk assessors. Suggestions were made that "tribal" exposure factor data
that are more representative of Tribal Traditional Lifeways be included. During the course of
the conversation, a suggestion was made that a separate "tribal" exposure factors handbook be
11
-------
developed. Fred Corey cautioned against development of a separate handbook, observing that
mainstream exposure factors should be the goal, focusing on the protection of all vulnerable
populations.
• Cumulative Risk Assessment - Mike Callahan noted that EPA is increasingly looking to use
cumulative risk assessment, which might provide a better fit for Tribal Traditional Lifeways than
the conventional risk assessment paradigm. He noted that cumulative risk assessment is not
normally used for national-level issues, but could be a good fit for changes to site-specific,
population-based risk assessment processes.
• Tribal LifeLine Model- EPA's Office of Pollution, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
is developing a software package for estimating exposures and includes exposure scenarios for
tribal communities involving pesticide exposures.
• TASWER Native American Exposure Risk Assessment (www.taswer. org) - The Tribal
Association for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (TASWER) is developing a training
tool/model that incorporates tribal exposure scenarios into a risk assessment model.
Following this discussion, Michele Dineyahze, who works for EPA Region 9 and is a TSC
representative, noted that the discussion was good, but represents an uphill battle for EPA. She
expressed concerns over whether such long-term goals of developing policy that is more structured
toward the precautionary principle would be feasible. She suggested that the group focus on very
program-specific issues. Fred Corey, a representative of Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action
(FOSTTA) - Tribal Affairs Project (TAP), noted that in FOSTTA's efforts to examine EPA's current
risk assessment policies and practices with respect to chemical risk assessment, FOSTTA has identified
various areas where the current risk assessment process is not adequate in addressing tribal needs and
concerns, notably with respect to unique tribal exposure scenarios. He observed that short-term
recommendations are needed to change the current policies and procedures and that these changes are
feasible at this time and likely to be accepted by the Agency. He noted that he appreciates the need for
a long-term shift in the current risk assessment paradigm, but encouraged that there are things that can
be done to affect needed changes today and encouraged participants to take advantage of the
opportunity to provide recommendations to EPA's leadership on the issue.
Comments Regarding Workshop Objectives, Output and Format
During the first day of the workshop, several workgroup members and workshop participants
expressed questions and concerns regarding the workshop objectives, output, and format. These
comments and concerns are summarized below.
Tribal Consultation
Some participants were confused as to whether the workshop was intended to represent a tribal
consultation process. A number of participants expressed concern that if the process was to consist of
tribal consultation, that they had not been properly informed and that they did not have proper authority
from their Tribal Council or governing body to make formal recommendations to EPA. In addition, they
were concerned that their participation in the process would be construed as their tribe's support for
12
-------
any recommendations or products that emerged from the workshop. A number of participants asked
that EPA enter into government-to-government consultation with their individual tribes to develop
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, any
draft documents developed by the Workgroup, and answer questions raised by tribes. Others asked
that the meeting summary and products be provided to the workshop participants for review, comment,
and approval prior to distribution to the public.
In response to these concerns, Ella Mulford, who works for EPA ATEO and is a representative for the
TSC, explained that the workshop was never intended to consist of a government-to-government tribal
consultative process. Rather, the goal of the workshop was to bring together tribal representatives with
experience with risk assessment to better understand how risk assessment impacts tribes and to begin a
discussion of and begin developing recommendations for how best to improve the process. John Persell
noted that, while not a government-to-government tribal consultative process, those participating in the
workshop, as tribal governmental staff, have the responsibility of bringing the outcomes and issues
identified during the course of the workshop to their collective tribal leadership to educate and seek
council from this leadership.
Objectives
Several participants noted that the workshop discussion of long-term vs. short-term objectives (i.e.,
development of a possible long-term precautionary principle approach vs. making short-term changes
to EPA's current risk assessment paradigm) proved to be very confusing. One participant observed
that discussion of changes to the current risk assessment process was fine, but that they felt that there
was general agreement that the current risk assessment paradigm was not working for tribes and that
alternate options to the risk assessment paradigm were not being given adequate time for discussion.
John Persell responded by explaining that the intent of the morning discussion was to spark discussion
over ideas of how to look beyond the current risk assessment paradigm to better ways of doing things.
However, he explained that the focus of the majority of the workshop was on trying to make the
existing risk assessment paradigm as protective as possible, as other methodologies and tools are not
currently available. He observed that while he does not accept the current EPA risk assessment
process as being protective for tribes and personally would like to see a more precautionary approach
undertaken, given the political reality that exists today, he indicated that this is not feasible, even if some
tribes and other governmental entities have and are moving to adopt such an approach. He apologized
if anyone felt disillusioned by the process, but asked that everyone focus on the opportunity at hand.
Product Development
Some people expressed concern about the idea that the product that was being developed as a result of
the workshop would be put forward as policy recommendations, partly because some participants felt
ill-prepared to provide such recommendations and partly because participants felt that a more robust
consultation process was needed as described above. Pat Cirone noted that the focus of the workshop
13
-------
was to bring together the Workgroup, composed of experts with experience in tribal risk assessment, to
begin developing recommendations on how to incorporate Tribal Traditional Lifeways into EPA's risk
assessment policies and procedures. Rollie Hemmett provided additional clarification on the TSC's
proposed approach for vetting the draft document, which included distributing the document to tribes to
provide an opportunity to provide comments, returning the revised document to the workshop
Workgroup for review and comment, and then providing the document to EPA's Tribal Operations
Committee and Tribal Caucus for final review. Mr. Hemmett noted that additional time had been
scheduled into the agenda on the final day of the workshop for discussion and comment on this review
process.
Workshop Format
Several Workgroup and workshop participants expressed frustration over the format and flow of the
workshop, especially the afternoon discussions that centered on the Workgroup and involved
workshop participants intermittently. Mike Callahan also observed that trying to discuss the risk
assessment process in a step-wise manner (i.e., planning and problem formulation, profiles of exposure
and analysis/risk analysis, and risk characterization) was proving to be a clumsy approach. In addition,
Barbara Harper noted that much of the discussion centered around two different questions: (1) how
EPA is currently conducting risk assessment/how this risk assessment process can be improved and (2)
how EPA makes decisions. She observed that much of the discussion on risk assessment is getting
mixed up within risk management/decision making and the desire for risk assessment to fix the problems
with Agency decision making, noting that this is not the focus of the workshop.
At the end of the day, tribal representatives agreed to meet that evening to discuss how they would like
to move forward with the remainder of the workshop.
14
-------
January 26, 2005 (Day Two)
Recap from Post-Workshop Meeting of Tribal Representatives
At the start of the workshop on January 25, 2005, Shawna Larson provided a brief recap of the
discussion that occurred among the tribal representatives the previous night, highlighting a number of
issues and concerns that were raised, which included:
• Tribes were excited to hear that a consultation process will occur;
• Examination of tribal examples is needed to see what other tribes are doing regarding risk
assessment;
Participants were more comfortable with developing "ideas" rather than setting
"recommendations";
• Participants would like an opportunity to meet with their tribal leadership following the
workshop to discuss the workshop outcomes;
Tribal sovereignty is important and at the forefront of this issue;
• Difference should be recognized;
• A definition and mechanism for developing a "tribally driven process" is needed;
Additional education for tribes on risk assessment is needed;
Additional education to EPA on Tribal Traditional Lifeways is needed;
• A list of what tribes can do to address the issue right now is needed;
• The environment should be viewed as a whole (i.e., land, water, future generations);
Science and Traditional Tribal Lifeways need to both be recognized as forms of science;
Tribes need to have their concerns validated—through telling of stories;
• It should be recognized that not all EPA technologies work in all villages;
• Concerns were expressed regarding the election of tribal representatives to the workshop
Workgroup and those that were then told that they could not speak;
It was felt that there was a disconnect between the people who came to learn about risk
assessment and the "experts";
• It was felt that the process was not tribally driven; it was seen as a top-down approach;
• The Federal Register should not be used as a government-to-government consultative
approach;
• The outcome of such a workshop cannot be predicted;
• People did not trust the fish bowl format/process;
Cultural and spiritual aspects are not quantifiable;
It was noted that no matter how much people wish to get a certain product out of a meeting and
no matter how great the sense of urgency, this effort requires a series of meetings. Consensus
on the issue will not occur after one meeting.
A gap exists between the Workgroup members, who have the authority to provide
recommendations at the workshop, and the general participants, many of whom felt that they
did not have the capacity or authority to make recommendations at the workshop.
15
-------
Continued Discussion of Workshop Process and Format
Following the report out, there was additional discussion regarding the workshop process and format.
Participants expressed concern that the tribal representatives be provided an opportunity to work with
their tribal governments to develop recommendations on the issue. A number of participants indicated
that the fish bowl format/process was exclusionary and did not allow for a collective method for
providing products and solutions to the issues discussed. A number of suggestions for improving the
process were offered, which included: (1) that EPA send liaisons to visit with all tribes on the issue
using existing Agency-tribal connections (e.g., Nevada Department of Environmental Protection's tribal
liaison staff) and (2) that additional meetings and forums are needed to discuss the issues. Various
participants indicated that seeking input by tribes on such issues requires time and patience and that a
forum for tribes is needed to allow tribes to meet and share their stories.
Several participants encouraged involvement in the workshop process, noting that the workshop
offered an opportunity to tribes to brainstorm ideas for improving the current risk assessment process
and that the outcomes would not be "set in stone." A participant observed that most everyone involved
share common concerns for the issues at hand and that participants should not feel that their
participation will damage tribal sovereignty or tribal authority, as more formal consultation with tribes on
the issue is planned. The participant went on to note that the groups that are working on the issues have
been established for a number of years and, while the Agency may not realistically be able to reach out
to every member of every tribe, for those tribal representatives that can participate in the process, they
should meet the unknown with confidence.
In response to the earlier discussion on tribal consultation, Cisney Havatone, TSC tribal representative
from the Hualapai Tribe, observed that the TSC and RTOCs provide good opportunities for tribal
coordination. The TSC is composed of both tribal and EPA representatives from each EPA Region
that contain federally recognized tribes. Tribes with concerns, issues, or recommendations can work
with the TSC tribal representative in their Region to make their issues known. (To locate the TSC
representatives in your Region, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/tribes/tribal/who.htm) In addition,
EPA's RTOCs provide an opportunity for tribal input and involvement. (For a list of Tribal Caucus
representatives, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/indian/tribalopps.htm).
At the conclusion of this discussion, the facilitator asked the group to remember that everyone in the
room possessed the shared commitment to leave a legacy of less pollution. He recognized that the
workshop product, which previously had been described as development of "recommendations" for
EPA was better characterized as an "issues" document and cautioned that even if all participants were
not on the same page regarding all the issues, it was important for the group to focus on moving the
issues forward.
In an effort to clarify earlier statements that were made that had indicated that the workshop, its goals,
objectives, and format had not been directed by the tribal representatives of the TSC, the facilitator
clarified that the concept, format, goals, and objectives of the workshop had been driven by the tribal
16
-------
representatives of the TSC. All TSC members had been invited and provided various opportunities to
participate in the planning process of the workshop, and it had been the responsibility of the TSC
members to participate and become involved in the planning process.
Introduction of Workshop Participants
During the previous discussion of workshop process and format, a number of participants noted that
they would feel more comfortable and that the discussion would be more productive if the workshop
participants were provided an opportunity to introduce themselves. As a result, participant introductions
were made. A list of workshop participants can be found in Appendix 2.
Issues and Ideas for Improving EPA's Risk Assessment Policies and Procedures
Following a brief break, the workshop reconvened to focus discussion on identifying issues and ideas
for improving EPA's current risk assessment policies and procedures. Prior to the discussion, Pat
Cirone provided a diagram of an aquatic fate and transport model depicting several possible pathways
for dioxin. (A copy of the overhead can be found in Appendix 7.) The diagram was provided to the
group as a potential starting point for the discussion. Workgroup members were then provided an
opportunity to individually discuss their experiences and efforts with regard to risk assessment and
share their ideas and recommendations for improving the process.
Fred Corey began the workgroup panel discussion, highlighting various experiences working with tribal
risk assessment. Working as an environmental chemist on cleanup efforts at a Superfund site, he
reported that he was often frustrated that tribal concerns and uses were not considered in cleanup
decisions. Serving on FOSTTA, he stated that he has come to recognize a lack of consideration of
tribal exposures in EPA OPPTS risk models, which focus mainly on exposures to the general
population.
Mr. Corey offered two suggestions for improving the current risk assessment process. First, he
recommended providing opportunities for both tribal and EPA risk assessment experts to sit down
together and discuss tribal exposures and concerns. From his experiences with FOSTTA, he observed
that EPA risk assessment staff is receptive to new ideas and dedicated to developing risk models that
are the most appropriate and protective possible. Second, he observed that current Agency risk
models need to be improved to better include more sensitive populations. He indicated that developing
tribally specific models does not necessarily require the development of individual models for each tribe
in Indian Country, rather he suggested that EcoRegion-based models could potentially be used. He
reported that 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.
Violet Yeaton spoke of her experiences relating to an EPA study of the impacts of contamination of
traditional foods in Cook Inlet, AK. Community members were concerned over the potential health
17
-------
impacts from eating traditional foods, given that chemical contaminants had been found in the inlet. A
risk assessment conducted by EPA was unable to identify conclusive health impacts given the data that
had been collected.
Dan Kusnierz spoke of his experience working with the Penobscot Nation on a variety of risk
assessment issues. He spoke of the importance of the Penobscot River to the tribe and discussed the
tribe's concerns regarding contamination of the river by local pulp and paper mills. He noted that
contamination of the river has impacted tribal lifestyles and land/resource use practices (including fish
consumption, basket making, etc.), not only as a result of actual contamination but also as a result of the
perception and fears by tribal members of this contamination. During his remarks, Mr. Kusnierz
observed (1) the need for the development of unique tribal exposure scenarios for tribes in a given
region when conducting risk assessments, and (2) the need for exposure scenarios to account for
historical consumption rates and patterns that would allow tribes to sustain tribal traditional health and
cultural practices.
Following Mr. Kusnierz's remarks, the facilitator opened the discussion up to the full group. Shawna
Larson returned to the discussion of the Cook Inlet study. She clarified that the Cook Inlet study was
undertaken to examine the health impacts of hydrocarbon contaminants on tribal health. She observed
that in this and other cases, tribes have a misconception that they will be able to use risk assessment
data to identify and prove the source of health impacts in their community. She noted that tribes are
often disappointed by the risk assessment process when clear health impacts cannot be demonstrated.
She also observed that the Cook Inlet study demonstrated the communication breakdown that can
occur in such instances, as the tribe was not consulted during the planning and development of the risk
assessment, particularly in regard to the sampling protocol to determine where and when to sample and
what parts of the fish to sample.
During the open discussion, Rita Schoeny responded to a participant question regarding whether risk
assessment was the only assessment method available. She stated that the choice to use a given risk
assessment methodology depends upon the outcome one wishes to accomplish and is also highly
dependent upon the legal statute that governs a given situation. She noted that several environmental
statutes are entirely risk-based and dependent solely upon health and ecological impacts. However,
many others require decision makers to factor in additional decision factors, including economic and
technical feasibility. In addition, she noted that when making risk management decisions, it is often
necessary to demonstrate the economic benefit and value of pursuing a given management option,
necessitating the valuation of tribal resources.
Expanding upon this discussion, Carol Jorgensen stated that the impacts for cultural loss, in addition to
human health considerations and economic impacts, need to be considered when making risk
management decisions. As an example, Mr. Kusnierz observed that a biological opinion paper
developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for bald eagles nesting along the Penobscot
River was a good example, demonstrating the cultural divide that often occurs between tribal- and non-
18
-------
tribal governments when making decisions impacting natural resources. He reported that a 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 on the Reservation were
removed and, therefore, allowed the "taking" to occur. However, Mr. Kusnierz noted that the cultural
impact to the tribe from the loss of the eagle community on their Reservation was never considered in
either the risk assessment nor risk management decision processes. He noted that it is the population
within the Reservation to which the tribe has close cultural connections and not the eagles elsewhere in
the country.
Furthering the discussion, Ella Mulford observed that one of the major reasons that risk assessment
does not work well in Indian Country is that there is a disconnect in the way that tribal and non-tribal
communities value the environment and their resources. She questioned whether risk assessments must
always be couched in terms of economics and financial valuation of resources. Rita Schoeny responded
that risk assessment is not centered around financial valuation, rather risk assessments take a structured
approach to identifying and weighing human health and ecological impacts. She noted that risk
assessments do not represent benefit assessments; however, she explained that risk benefit analysis and
valuation do come into play in the decision making process, because Agency decisions are often
evaluated and approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which does factor in economic
comparisons. Ms. Schoeny emphasized the need to utilize the current tools accepted by the decision
makers and make them as useful and protective as possible in the near term.
Rollie Hemmett echoed Ms. Schoeny's comments, explaining that whenever EPA issues policy
statements, guidance, or regulations, each must first be approved by OMB, and, therefore, one must be
cognizant of and must utilize the current system and structure, noting that there are a number offerees
acting when such decisions are made, and that efforts must currently focus on doing the best that one
can under the existing system and structure.
Mike Callahan then provided a brief discussion of the history and evolution of the EPA risk assessment
process since the 1970s. He observed that the Agency continues to recognize the limitations of the risk
assessment paradigm and as a result is moving toward initiatives like cumulative risk assessment and a
focus on how to better include vulnerable populations into existing risk assessment frameworks.
Regarding the issue of qualitative risk information, Mr. Callahan remarked that efforts should be made
to provide such qualitative information to decision makers for their consideration. Decision makers need
to know the answers to the following questions when making their decisions: What is dangerous? Who
will be harmed? and What to do first? What is fair? He noted that while risk assessment does not
always work well and that he hopes to see a better process developed, it is often the best tool that is
now available for the Agency to use to help answer the above questions.
19
-------
Elizabeth Resek then shared her experience working with EPA OPPTS, which conducts national-level
risk assessments for the registration of pesticides. She said that OPPTS is supportive of long-term tribal
efforts for risk assessment, such as Traditional Tribal Lifeways. OPPTS is also addressing tribal risk on
a short-term basis with the Tribal LifeLine project, which focuses on development of a model that will
incorporate tribal exposure scenarios and lifestyles. Until now, tribes have been "invisible" in OPPTS'
current risk assessment models because risk assessment has been done using information on the
"general population." In addition to EPA using this tool, tribes will be able to use it themselves, allowing
them to input the kinds of parameters that they feel are reasonable and reflective of their lifestyles.
Later in the workshop, Ms. Resek clarified that the Tribal LifeLine model is not yet complete and that
the Agency continues to work with willing tribes to better incorporate tribal exposure scenarios. Ms.
Resek noted that a major obstacle in completing Tribal LifeLine is EPA's ability to access tribal data;
however EPA continues to work with tribes to seek their permission to use the data, being careful not
to include any identifiers that show where the data came from. In a related discussion, Ms. Resek noted
that while the Agency is cognizant of developing a scientific model that is understandable and user-
friendly, not all tribes will possess the resources and expertise to run the models and will need
assistance in using them. In a related discussion on the use of models and tools for improving the risk
assessment process for tribes, Fred Corey suggested that geographic information system (GIS)
software could be utilized when new chemical data becomes available to identify whether the chemical
could impact tribal lands. EPA could utilize this data to determine whether additional screening level
data on a chemical are needed.
Susan Hanson then shared her experiences working with the risk assessment process at NPL
Superfund and RCRA sites. She highlighted her efforts with regard to risk assessment activities related
to the Eastern Michaud Flats Superfund site. The site is located within and adjacent to the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, impacting the Shoshone Bannock Tribe's membership
and non-members living on the Reservation and within surrounding communities. She reported that
while the tribe was able to participate in the assessment process at the site, in the end, the tribe did not
agree fundamentally or scientifically with the Record of Decision (ROD) for the site. She reported that
the tribe was successful in opening the ROD and having some additional risk assessments conducted.
She reported that the tribe was also successful in having the polluting entities at the Superfund sites fund
supplemental environmental health projects to help the tribe answer some of their health concerns.
Regarding the issue of valuation of cultural resources, she noted that the Shoshone Bannock Tribe is
currently attempting to address the issues in regard to mitigation of environmental impacts from the
Superfund sites.
Jason White reported on a variety of risk assessment activities undertaken by the Cherokee Nation
Environmental Programs. He noted that the Cherokee Nation has the capability to develop much of its
own environmental data and documentation, which allows the tribe to better prioritize its cleanup efforts
and determine its own cleanup levels. This access and control over data along with the tribe's use of
tribal exposure scenarios enables the tribe to better communicate to EPA the specific impacts to tribal
20
-------
lifeways and culture from various contaminant impacts. Following these remarks, Mr. Callahan noted
that by the Cherokee Nation conducting its own risk assessment and developing its own data, the tribe
is better able to keep tribal information within a tribe and keep it from being publicly accessible.
Additionally, Mr. Callahan asked whether the results of a tribally managed risk assessment had ever
been successful in spurring the EPA or other regulator to reassess a site. Mr. White reported that a
good example of this occurred the when Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, through increased involvement in
the risk assessment process, was successful in having an impacted site that had been de-listed from the
NPL re-listed. He added that the Cherokee Nation has been successful in using tribal risk assessment
data to seek out remedy changes from EPA.
Following Mr. White's remarks, the facilitator opened the discussion for public comment. Syed Rizvi of
TASWER took the opportunity to provide an overview of an initiative being undertaken by TASWER
to develop a risk assessment model that will serve as a training tool for tribes on risk assessment and
will allow tribes to incorporate more tribally relevant exposure pathways. The model is currently under
development and has not yet been site tested. Once completed, TASWER anticipates offering training
for tribes on utilization of the model.
Rita Schoeny then shared information on the risk assessment and risk management processes as they
relate to health impacts from mercury exposure. She reported that EPA has undertaken a series of
national-level mercury risk assessments since the early 1990s. She reported that the issue of mercury
contamination and its human health and ecological impacts is a complex one, with local, national, and
international implications.
During the discussion, Mr. Corey noted that a number of tribes are working to restore their natural
resources and ensure more sustainable resource use. In doing so, many tribes intend to not only
continue but to increase their use of natural resources and traditional food sources. He cautioned that
when developing exposure models to predict mercury and other contaminant impacts, modelers need to
recognize and account for increased resource usage.
Also during the discussion, Ms. Schoeny reported that a number of opportunities now exist to present
information on tribal exposure factors and tribal considerations to have them included in the ongoing
changes to EPA policy, notably with regard to EPA's ongoing efforts to develop and vet the proposed
regulations to reduce mercury emissions in the power industry, which are due to become final in March
2005. Violet Yeaton questioned the feasibility of impacting the proposed mercury rule change at this
late date. Ms. Schoeny noted that input prior to the rule promulgation would not be possible, but that it
had been vetted for public comment twice before; she noted that the rule promulgation would not be
the end of this issue at the Agency.
Referring back to the previous discussion on tribal exposure models, Shawna Larson stated that she
was in agreement that developing tribal exposure models and including cultural indicators can be
empowering for tribes, allowing them to begin developing their own exposure data. However, she
21
-------
stated that she didn't agree that the spiritual and cultural aspects of a tribe's lifestyle can be quantified.
She went on to question why the standards of the current risk assessment process could not be
lowered, such that they are more protective. Rita Schoeny observed that the current "acceptable" risk
levels have been developed based on epidemiological and animal studies and according to prescribed
scientific standards, with the goal of being protective to human health and the environment. She noted
that developing "acceptable" risk levels was often dependent on wide ranging data and study results,
and often proved to be more art than science. Mike Callahan noted that to best provide good
stewardship of resources, EPA must develop a general "acceptable" level of risk, then target places
where the lower risk levels are needed, so as to not force everyone to use resources to clean up to very
low levels unnecessarily.
Referring back to the previous discussion involving potential opportunities for tribes to provide input
into the tribal exposure factors, Amina Wilkens, a workshop participant working for EPA's National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), suggested that there could be an opportunity for tribes
to include more tribally relevant exposure data into EPA's risk assessment procedures through input
into an ongoing revision of EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook. She noted that this would represent a
short-term method to better incorporate tribal concerns into EPA's risk assessment process. She also
noted that EPA, NCEA has developed the Example Exposure Scenarios document to help illustrate
how data in the Exposure Factors Handbook may be applied for estimating exposures. The Example
Exposure Scenarios document represents another opportunity for tribal input to improve EPA's risk
assessment policies and procedures.
Barbara Harper then shared with the group some of her own experiences and expertise working as a
toxicologist and risk assessor. She reported that she began her 30-year career in risk assessment in the
field of community- and public-health, which 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. She
observed that a number of health indicators used in the public health arena and in social impact
assessments can have direct applicability for tribal risk assessment. She also touched on some of her
experience in working on risk assessment issues at the Hartford site, first working with Batelle National
Lab and then in working directly with the tribes. Given tribes' often limited resources, Ms. Harper
suggested that tribes could best impact site-specific risk assessment issues through a combination of
three aspects: (1) data collection, (2) model development, and (3) policy influence.
Currently, Ms. Harper is working to develop tribal exposure scenarios. Under an EPA ORD Science
to Achieve Results grant, she is working to develop EcoRegion-based models, which are not tribal- or
site-specific, but which provide a better starting point for predicting risk than is currently supplied by
national-level, suburban-based risk models. 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, researchers are looking at current subsistence and
treaty information (as well as anthropological, environmental archeological, and historical information) to
22
-------
identify traditional (cultural) consumption patterns. She noted that treaties were intended to protect
traditional resource use and, therefore, serve as a good measure for resource restoration goals and for
accommodating the resurgence of interest by tribes in traditional foods. In developing these exposure
scenarios, Ms. Harper emphasized the need for gathering peer reviewed data that meets strict rules of
evidence and are well documented.
Jamie Donatuto shared her experiences in working as an environmental specialist for the Swinomish
Tribe. She highlighted her efforts in working on an EPA study of bioaccumulative toxics in shellfish in
multiple local sites and identified several important study components as they relate to tribes. These
included:
• The desire by the Swinomish Tribe to include tribal cultural aspects to the risk
assessment process in an effort to demonstrate that their potential impacts and risks are
greater than those of the general population. By including cultural components within the
risk assessment framework, it was hoped that tribal exposures will gain increased
weight. She noted that tribal treaty rights and tribal sovereignty guarantee tribes
protection from such exposures.
Each exposure model is context specific, and there are ways to include cultural impacts
and risks in a general way to allow each tribe to use models for their own specific uses.
• Qualitative data should carry the same weight as quantitative data and should be
allowed to be brought into risk assessment and given equal weight. While there are
many cultural practices that cannot be quantified, this knowledge and information should
be brought into the risk assessment and risk management practices in an equitable way.
• Increased community-based participatory research for risk assessment is needed. Ms.
Donatuto conceded that a number of tribes do not possess sufficient resources to do
their own research. However, for tribes that do have this opportunity, equitable
agreements regarding data ownership and tribal capacity are needed. She also
observed that data access and ownership is often problematic regarding FOIA
concerns. While recognizing the need to work within the framework of the existing risk
assessment framework and within the parameters of FOIA, she suggested that tribes
could be educated on the various options for working within these structures.
• Additional education for tribes on risk assessment is needed.
During her remarks, Ms. Donatuto discussed with the group a tribal fish consumption survey that she
was involved in to highlight the importance of a number of key factors when working with tribes, which
included: (1) being context-specific for the tribe, (2) developing true participatory research, (3)
encouraging data ownership, (4) building toward the larger picture of community health, (5) providing
an opportunity for qualitative data to be included, and (6) allowing for the assertion of treaty rights and
tribal sovereignty. She highlighted several aspects of the survey process, including: (1) pursuing oral
interviews/conversations with survey participants that allowed tribal members to be present to answer
questions and explain the survey rather than relying on a written survey format, and (2) engaging in an
23
-------
education and vetting process for the survey before the Tribal Council, tribal cultural resource
committee, and tribal elders.
Following Ms. Donatuto's remarks, Barbara Harper re-emphasized several points that had been
raised, including the need to ensure the validity of ethnographic data (i.e., that data collection was
systematic and repeatable and that the resulting data is "good data") and that when collecting data,
anecdotal tribal information should not be dismissed. In addition, Ms. Harper recommended that
training on risk ethics and informed consent (highlighting the advantages and possible disadvantages of
data collection) be developed.
The discussion was then opened up to the workshop participants to ask questions. A participant
observed that exposure scenarios need to be reflective of tribal lifestyles and consumption patterns. He
noted that a number of tribes living subsistence lifestyles consume large quantities of a variety offish
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. Ms. Harper responded, agreeing that under many circumstances, tribes cannot give up their
lifestyle practices in response to fish advisory warnings, adding that efforts are underway to change the
thinking of risk managers to focus on the development of cleanup levels that will allow tribes to safely
pursue their traditional lifestyles.
In response to a participant question regarding what the United States and EPA are doing to address
global-level contaminants, Rita Schoeny noted that EPA and other U.S. federal agencies are working
with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) to (1) set up regional awareness-building
workshops about global-level contaminants in countries with developing economies and (2) present a
concept paper on global-level contaminants following the awareness-building workshops.
Lori McKinnon, member of the Yurok Tribe and Vice Chair of the Tribal Pesticide Program Council
(TPPC), spoke of her experience in working with the TPPC to examine the pesticide registration
process and determine opportunities to better account for tribal lifestyles and concerns within the
process and to also better incorporate ecological factors.
Ms. McKinnon identified a number of areas where tribal concerns are not adequately taken into
account during the pesticide registration/re-registration process, which included: (1) the need to
incorporate tribal foods and resources into the risk assessment process, and (2) the fact that tribes do
not have influence over off-Reservation pesticide use that impacts tribal lands and resources. In
addition, she highlighted several pesticide issues that are currently impacting her tribe, which included:
Efforts by tribal basket weavers and others to identify an adequate risk assessment
methodology to link health impacts to pesticide exposures. Ms. McKinnon noted that,
in most cases, plants that have been treated with pesticides cannot be distinguished
from non-treated plants and health impacts from low-level, chronic exposure can be
difficult to distinguish from flu-like symptoms.
24
-------
• Within risk assessment models, the Yurok Tribe is not large enough to register as a
population impact or "cancer cluster," and, therefore, the tribe is trying to identify other
environmental indicators to demonstrate environmental impact.
• Some repatriated tribal artifacts and ceremonial items have been shown to be impacted
by chemical contaminants, and tribal members are currently looking at ways of
quantifying the risk posed by the contaminants and determine safe levels and practices
for handling and using the repatriated items.
• Members of the Yurok Tribe wish to return to a more traditional diet and are looking at
ways to compare the risks posed by consuming traditional versus nontraditional food
items. Ms. McKinnon observed that some tribal members are not sure that they wish to
pursue testing of food items if there is the potential that a food advisory will result.
Dana Davoli spoke of her experiences working as a risk assessor with EPA on one of the first tribal fish
consumption studies done in the U.S. This study was funded by EPA and conducted by the Columbia
River Intertribal Fish Commission for four tribes in the Columbia River Basin—the Umatilla, the
Yakama, the Nez Perce, and the Warm Springs. Although a technical panel provided input on survey
design, training of surveyors, and data analysis, the panel and tribes recognized the importance of
having the tribes conduct the survey, analyze the results, and maintain ownership of the tribal data.
Ms. Davoli also emphasized the importance of early tribal involvement in EPA's risk assessments and
of ensuring that the tribes are involved in every step in the site evaluation process (e.g., the Superfund
program), including the development of legal agreements, project design, problem formulation, study
design, data/samples collection, etc.
Regarding previous discussions and debate over the potential use of quantitative vs. qualitative data
within the assessment processes, Ms. Davoli expressed some concern over how qualitative data can be
incorporated into the risk assessment process, given the current legal framework. In response, Ms.
Harper agreed that more discussion is needed as to how best to incorporate qualitative data inputs into
the risk assessment process, as risk assessments are constrained by certain laws and mandates.
Barbara Harper offered that a wealth of cultural, social, and welfare indicators currently exist and are in
use in the public health community. She suggested that such indicators could be adapted and used in
association with risk assessment. In addition, she reported that in her work at the Hanford site, she
reviewed a number of regulations [e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
environmental justice regulations] and determined that a case can be made that these regulations and
statutes mandate the protection of social and cultural welfare.
Mehrdad Khatibi in speaking of his work with the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals,
emphasized the need for continued education and risk communication for tribes. He observed that a
disconnect exists between data collection efforts and how this data is utilized to understand human
health, ecological, and community impacts. He stressed that additional education and training is
important to enable tribal members to better understand risk associated with exposures and impacts.
25
-------
He suggested that in the short term, EPA should support and develop educational and risk assessment
tools to allow tribes to better utilize environmental and risk data to reduce their exposures and impacts.
Following the afternoon's discussion, a summary of the issues and ideas offered by the workshop
participants was developed. This draft summary list was provided to the workshop participants for
review and discussion the following morning. A copy of the draft list is included as Appendix 4.
26
-------
January 27, 2005 (Day Three)
Opening Announcements
At the start of the meeting, a decision was made that due to the weather forecast, the workshop would
end in the morning.
Review and Discussion of Draft Ideas List from Discussion on Day Two, Jan. 26th
As noted previously, the ideas and recommendations offered by the workshop participants during the
discussion on the previous day (January 26th) were summarized in a draft list during the previous
evening. A copy of the draft list is included as Appendix 4. This list was provided to the workshop
participants for their review and discussion. Pat Cirone led the group in the discussion of the draft
document. Highlights from this discussion are provided below.
Ms. Cirone began the discussion by suggesting a modification to the human health risk assessment
structure (see Appendix 7) by adding tribal traditional knowledge as an input to risk assessment on
equal footing with scientific data. She added that tribal traditional knowledge needs to be protected as
culturally sensitive information, drawing an umbrella over tribal traditional knowledge to graphically
illustrate the need to protect this information. In addition, she added several categories of risk
assessment to the diagram, including: social, economic, cumulative, cultural, and worker risk.
Ms. Cirone identified several overarching issues that should be considered. She noted that tribes should
be involved in both risk assessment and risk management processes and that they should be involved in
the early planning stages of each process. She observed the importance of including any resolutions or
decision that tribes come to on these issues (i.e., on the issue offish consumption rates) included into
the administrative record. She noted that because tribes might not be able to attend all public meetings
on an issue, having their positions formalized in the administrative record is important. She observed the
need to have traditional ecological knowledge become a part of the risk assessment process, stressing
the importance of developing a method that tribes are comfortable with for protecting their intellectual
and cultural property rights. Finally, she emphasized that the definition of risk should be expanded to
include such aspects as human health, ecological, social, economic, cultural, and worker risk
assessment.
Barbara Harper asked that the draft position paper being developed begin with a review of EPA's
Indian Policy, land use directive, treaty and trust responsibilities, and EPA Strategic Plan Goal # 5.3
(Anticipate Future Environmental Issues - Pilot Futures Analysis for a Few Key
Environmental Issues). She suggested that doing so would lend more weight to the issues, possibly
turning them into a future performance measure by the agency, which would, in turn, lead to increased
funding and support. She also recommended that the group consider identifying a dispute resolution
process for these issues, in the event that EPA decides not follow through with some of the suggestions
presented.
27
-------
Rita Schoeny emphasized that the group should continue to ensure SPC involvement in the issue
through continued briefings, as such information exchange on the issues opens a dialog with EPA
leadership.
Additional ideas and recommendations for revisions and inclusions to the draft list that were identified
included:
• Additional education on the risk assessment process is needed by tribes.
• The more long-term alternatives to risk assessment that had been identified during the January
25th discussion (e.g., precautionary principle) should be included.
• Environmental indicators should be included.
• Additional clarification is needed regarding the'Tribal Land Use" topic. Tribes often use off-
Reservation public land for traditional and cultural practices, and these aspects need to be
included within this topic.
Under "Exposure Scenarios," identify specific exposure scenarios (i.e., basket weaving,
religious practices, medicinal plants) to strengthen this suggestion.
• Consider developing a separate workshop to discuss long-term approaches to developing
alternatives to risk assessment.
• The term "tribe" needs to be defined. A clear definition is needed as to who will be
involved—will this include only tribal councils and tribal governments or will tribal communities
also be participating.
Guidance is needed for where and how to include tribal traditional knowledge into the risk
assessment process (i.e., in identifying appropriate sampling sites and sampling periods).
• EPA AIEO's tribal consultative process should be incorporated into the
"Collaboration/Communication" section.
The scope of the issue should be enlarged to include both: (1) current events (e.g., global
climate change and its impacts on weather patterns and land scape—erosion and permafrost
melt) and (2) global contaminants and impacts (e.g., the impacts of fossil fuel extraction on
tribal communities).
The topics identified should be categorized by those ideas that can be undertaken right now and
those that would require regulatory/policy/statutory changes first.
• It should be acknowledged that both qualitative and quantitative approaches to risk assessment
exist and that debate on these issues is healthy.
Indoor air quality concerns need to be included in the risk assessment process.
Tribes should be allowed to create their own environmental standards.
• Additional research is needed (i.e., further studies and materials development).
• Under "Valuation/Quantification," the term "decision makers" needs to be defined—will this
include the U.S. government or tribal governments as decision makers? In addition, it should
be clarified that some tribes feel that placing a value upon its cultural and environmental
resources is not appropriate.
• It should be specified that tribal populations are unique entities and often comprised of small
populations. Therefore, environmental and cultural impacts effecting one person can have a
large impact to the tribe as a whole. (This concept should be included as a model parameter.)
28
-------
Also, it needs to be acknowledged that tribes are tied to their lands and that as environmental
impacts occur, they are not able to simply move away from contamination sources.
• Recognition is needed that impacts affecting tribal culture and diet can greatly impact tribal
health (e.g., fish advisories can lead to the adoption of a more "Western" diet, which can then
greatly impact tribal health).
The "Issues" section under the "Sources of Contamination" topic needs to be better defined
and elaborated on.
• It should be noted that many tribes do not accept monetary valuation of their resources.
Valuation metrics that do not involve the concepts of "Western economies" are needed.
Collaboration is needed to ensure that data developed by tribes is considered valid and is
accepted under EPA's laboratory standards.
• Additional focus on data quality assurance (QA) standards is needed to ensure that the data
developed and provided is valid and will be accepted by the Agency. It was noted that
decisions are only as good as the available data and that it is very common for data to be
rejected by the Agency if it has not undergone appropriate QA. It was strongly recommended
that tribes seek out a QA plan before undertaking a project to ensure that the manner in which
the data is samples, collected, preserved, transported, etc. is done in accordance with EPA QA
standards.
• A recommendation was made that when tribes develop their sampling and analysis plans, they
consider ranking their "anecdotal" information as high as their qualitative data in the section on
ranking data from outside sources.
• Additional focus on long-term risks (i.e., the impact of landfill failure on the environment) is
needed.
• A recommendation was made that a disclaimer be added to the document indicating that every
tribe is an independent, sovereign nation that makes its own decision based upon its values. The
person making the recommendation did not want a few tribes to develop risk policies and
procedures for all of Indian Country.
Discussion of Next Steps
Roland Hemmett lead the group in a discussion to define how to proceed with issue, given the
outcomes of the workshop. Specifically, he asked the group to focus on determining:
• How to organize the ideas and issues identified,
What types of follow-on educational and training opportunities were needed,
How the Agency could best communicate with Indian Country to seek input on the issues, and
• What type of process should be established for reviewing, editing, vetting, and approving a
document to provide to EPA.
Coordination and Outreach
Carol Jorgensen noted that EPA has an existing framework for communicating and coordinating with
tribes, which includes: AEO, the TSC, the Tribal Operations Committee (TOC), the Regional TOCs,
and the Tribal Caucus of the TOC. Shawna Larson indicated that EPA should make an effort to
contact all tribes (via U.S. mail and/or phone call), noting that EPA has established extensive
29
-------
communication with tribes on the Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP) and, therefore, should be
able to do similar communication on this issue. Dan Kusnierz noted that it is important to rely on
additional methods for communication in addition to a mass mailing to tribal governments. He suggested
that the group use the existing RTOC and TSC framework. A participant suggested that the group also
consider identifying and utilizing centralized tribal contacts in each Region to coordinate the outreach
and communication on the issue. It was noted that OPPTS, in its coordination with tribes, has utilized a
variety of processes, which the group might like to consider, including: focus groups with tribes in
coordination with Regional meetings, and the development of information letters signed by both the
EPA and tribal leadership on an initiative to demonstrate ownership and foster buy-in. During the
discussion, a participant noted that the group needs to develop coordination protocols, with care that
they are not termed "consultative."
Review of Meeting Summary and Draft Issues Document
Following the workshop, the group agreed that two products would be developed: a workshop
summary recapping the workshop discussion; and a draft document summarizing the topics, issues, and
ideas on how best to change risk policy and procedures to better incorporate Traditional Tribal
Lifeways.
Participants asked for assurances that their comments made during the course of the workshop be
accurately reflected in the workshop summary. In addition, tribal representatives asked that they have
a more extensive opportunity to work with their tribal leadership to review and provide
recommendations on the second product, the draft document that would summarize the topics, issues,
and ideas. To fulfill these requests, the following "next steps" process was presented:
• SRA will develop a draft workshop summary document.
The draft workshop summary document (and participant list) will be distributed (via mail and
e-mail) to all workshop participants for review and comment. All comments will be provided to
SRA for review and incorporation.
• The second product, the draft document that would summarize the topics, issues, and ideas,
would be developed and distributed to the workshop participants. Participants will have 90
days to respond with comments. [In subsequent conversations, the tribal representatives of the
workshop planning committee agreed to a more extensive document development and review
process. Specifically, the tribal representatives of the National EPA-Tribal Science Council
would use the comments and ideas from tribal participants at the workshop, and additional
input from the risk practitioners to form the basis of a draft document that they would develop
and mail directly to the tribes and through the RTOCs for their input. The process would
provide tribes several months to submit their comments and input, much longer than the 90
days originally requested.]
30
-------
Conclusion
At the conclusion of the meeting, a participant reiterated that additional training in risk assessment for
tribes is needed to allow them to make appropriate and sound decisions on changing EPA's current
risk assessment paradigm. Violet Yeaton thanked EPA and the TSC for providing a forum for tribes
and Agency representatives to come together to discuss the issue, citing it as a learning experience.
Barbara Harper expressed regret that participants had missed a great opportunity to hear more
information from people with a wealth of experience working with the issues. Roland Hemmett closed
the workshop by encouraging participants to recognize that there are a lot of shared concerns and goals
among those at the workshop, and the goal of everyone is to find common ground on the issues.
------- |