SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE 

Terry Rambler 

Tribal Chairman 

Irina Myers 

San Carlos Avenue 

P.O. Box 0 

San Carlos, Arizona 85550 

Phone (928) 475-2361 

Fax (928) 475-2560 

December I 0, 2015 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mail Code: 7408M 

Washington, DC 20460 

Tao Etpison 

Vice-Chairman 

RE: Response to Tribal Consultation, August 27, 2015, Notification of 

Consultation and Coordination on TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem 

Formulation & Initial Assessment and Data Needs Assessment for Flame 

Retardants (FR) Clusters 

Dear Ms. Myers: 

On behalf of the San Carlos Apache Tribe ("Tribe"), the San Carlos Council, and the 

Tribe's members, 1 submit the following response to the Environmental Protection Agency's 

("EPA" or "Agency") request for comments regarding the Toxic Substances Control Act 

("TSCA") Work Plan chemicals as identified in the following table with the corresponding 

docket numbers. 

Chemical Cluster Docket Number 

Tetrabromobisphenol A EPA-HQ-OPPT -2014-0730 

Chlorinated Phosphate Esters EPA-HQ-OPPT -2015-0068 

Cyclic Aliphatic Bro mides EPA-HQ-OPPT -2015-0081 

Brominated Pht halates EPA- HQ-OPPT -2014-0491 

EPA Notice of Consultation and Coordination, Enclosu res, "Consultation Information," 08/27/2015, pp. 

4. 
Irina Myers 

Re: Chemical Clusters 

December 10, 2015 

Page 2 of 5 

The Tribe acknowledges EPA 's efforts to include the high-level of fish consumption rates 

by tribal people, or "subsistence fishers" as described in preparing the risk assessments for the 

four subject-flame retardant clusters. However, we hope EPA realizes there is still a long way to 

go in considering the high risk to health and life ofthe first peoples of triba l nations by 

chemicals regulated under 

As a preliminary matter, the Tribe always supports the efforts of any federal agency to 

ensure greater collaborative efforts with tribes and other indigenous groups and peoples. 

Meaningful government-to-government consultation 

Executive Order No. 13 I 75 requires direct government-to-government consultation in the 

development of regulatory policies that have tribal implicates. In my letter of February 15, 201 3 

to Danny Gogal at the EPA's Office ofEnvironmental Justice and Dona Harris of the EPA's 

American Indian Environment Office, I provided comments regarding the EPA's Draft Policy on 

Environmental Justice. The Tribe's response today incorporates by reference the concerns l 

raised then, which do not appear to have been addressed given the manner in which you have 

requested a response from tribes. Namely, the proposed action, even though in may largely occur 

outside of the boundaries of our Reservation, does affect off-Reservation aboriginal-use areas that 

continue to hold important cultural, spiritual and traditional significance today. Without more 

infonnation from the Agency, it is impossible for the Tribe do determine how those areas or the 

areas within the boundaries of our Reservation would be affected without further guidance and 

data from the Agency. For this reason, at this time I cannot consider your request as meaningful 

with respect to our Tribe, unless we have further direct technical assistance and guidance from the 

Agency. That being said, we concur with the comments provided by the National Tribal Toxics 

Counci l, which we re-state below. 

Chemical Clusters 

The Tribe supports EPA's inclusion of fish consumption amounts by subsistence fishers 

and their children when evaluating exposure pathways of the "CPE" flame retardant clusters. 

We specifically highlight EPA's commitment to account for the high-end fish conswnption of 

subsistence fishers-including pregnant women, children and adults-the majority of whom are 

the tribal population. We agree with the need to evaluate the hazard endpoints that go beyond 

cancer risk and include target organ effects, reproductive and developmental effects and 

neurotoxicity. (CPE Problem Formulation, 08115, pp. 32 and 34) 

However, the Tribe requests EPA to also include fish consumption rates of subsistence fishers in 

the risk assessment work on the three other flame retardant clusters. For instance, in the TBBPA 

Problem Formulation, EPA plans to only use consumption rates for recreational fishers, but does 

not consider exposure from backyard open burning, especially plastics and Styrofoam, which is 
Irina Myers 

Re: Chemical Clusters 

December I 0, 2015 

Page 3 of 5 

common on our Reservation and villages. Nor has the EPA and considered other traditional 

subsistence foods known to bioaccumulate these chemicals, such as fish and birds. The main 

sources for pollutants on our Reservation come from open dumps, backyard open burning (burn 

barrels), off-gas from materials, and others. Open dumps and backyard burning by individual 

residents are particular issues for the Tribe. According to our Sanitation Tracking and Reporting 

System, there are currently 62 solid waste systems in the Reservation. Two systems are managed 

by the Mt. Turnbull Sanitation and the remaining systems are considered "open dumps". We 

understand that flame retardants are found in many household items (e., electronics, furn iture) and 

the majority of these items are found in open du~nps, but we have no data on the extent of the 

pollution or the chemicals involved. 

Please consider the following additional points: 

• 

• 

Additionally, regarding fish consumption and the population scenario, the Tribe 

believes the tribal population scenario is the most appropriate to use for risk 

assessments by EPA, because EPA's own rules indicate that they are to protect the 

population of highest risk. As identified in the problem formulation for the HBCD 

cluster, fish consumption rates for subsistence fishers at 142.5 grams per day need to 

be used in aggregate exposure for those who rely heavily on locally sourced fish. 

Tribal people are at the highest risk due to their known high-level consumption of fish, 

marine mammals, and birds. 

In terms of cumulative risk, the Tribe insists that EPA look at the overall body burden 

of chemi cals and the interaction of the flame retardants with other chemicals. Our 

members are especially exposed to larger volumes of chemicals due to chemical waste 

from surrounding mines, which have entered our waterways and lakes, and our 

traditional diets and geographic locations in relation to industrial pollutant deposition. 

Studies on PCB 's, another type of flame retardant, showed their synergism with other 

bromine-based chemicals. 

• Finally, the Tribe reminds EPA that resource use- both types of resources and 

volume of use- are important factors in risk assessments that EPA must not 

overlook any longer. For example, native foods that are consumed by Apaches that 

are harvested, gathered or hunted on or off our Reservation, such as, fish, elk, 

deer, acorn, manzanita, sumac berries, juniper berries, mescal, pinons, century plant, 

black walnut, mesquite beans, and devil's claw, all may have been impacted by these 

chemicals especially off the Reservation. The high-level use of local plants by 

Apaches may put us at risk due to dermal exposure when harvesting the plants and 
Irina Myers 

Re: Chemical Clusters 

December I 0, 2015 

Page 4 of5 

exposure by ingestion or inhalation when eating, mouthing or burning the plants for 

traditional uses. 

The Tribe does not have any documentation specific to our Reservation on flame retardant 

contamination, or any information as to their presence thereon, contaminated sites on tribal lands, 

or the impact of these chemicals on tribes or residents of Indian Country. Given the trust 

responsibility of the United States to the Tribe, it would seem that the Agency should be assisting 

us with that determination. 

Conclusion 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe supports the development of a dialogue between the EPA, 

this Tribe and other tribes and indigenous peoples to enhance the development of policies and 

procedures for ensuring environmental protection on our lands. Fundamentally, the Tribe supports 

the Agency's efforts. However, the Tribe believes that the method for consultation which you 

have utilized is fundamentally flawed without the Agency's assistance to determine whether or 

not there exists any documentation specific to our Reservation. Given the trust responsibility of 

the United States to the Tribe, it would seem that the Agency should be assisting us with that 

determination. 

The Tribe looks forward to working with EPA directly, perhaps with the Agency's staff 

from Region IX, and further commenting on this important concern. The ability of the Tribe to 

work in partnership with the EPA is important to the Tribe. The Tribe hopes to improve this 

partnership with the EPA and encourages the development of consultation protocols between the 

Tribe and EPA. But to do that, we need more information specific to our Reservation and 

Aboriginal Territory. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment. If I or the Tribe can be of further 

assistance or responsive to any questions regarding this comment, or on the gathering of data and 

preparation of problem formulations for these four flame retardant clusters, please contact our 

Director of the Tribe's Environmental Protection Agency, Loretta Stone at (928) 475-2218, or 

scatepa@sca tcom. net. 

Sincerely, 
Irina Myers 

Re: Chemical Clusters 

December I 0, 2015 

Page 5 of 5 

Cc: Tao Etpison. Vice Chairman 

Members of the Council 

Dec Randnll, Forest Manager, Forest Rc~ourccs 

Lorena Stone. Director. TEPA 

A. B. Ritchie. TOAG 

File