EPA Region 10 RTOC

Regional Tribal Operations Committee

Curyung Tribal Council

PO BOX 216 Dillingham, AK 99576

PH: 907.842.2384 FAX: 907.842.4510

www.rtocregion10.org

December 9, 2015

Irina Myers

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 7408M

Washington, D.C. 20460

Via email to myers.irina@epa.gov

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:

This letter is sent on behalf of the Tribal Caucus members of EPA Region 10’s Tribal Operations 

Committee (“RTOC”). This letter is not sent on behalf of EPA Region 10 or any employees of 

EPA, but solely on behalf of the tribal government representatives of the RTOC. 

The Tribal Caucus is submitting 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 Bromides EPA—HQ—OPPT—2015-0081

Brominated Phthalates EPA—HQ—OPPT—2014-0491

EPA Notice of Consultation and Coordination, Enclosures, “Consultation 

Information,” 08/27/2015, pp. 4.
Our Nation’s waters, fish, wildlife, and land provide irreplaceable benefits to tribal people across 

the U.S. Unfortunately, many of our resources are contaminated or at risk. The Tribal Caucus 

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, there is still a long way to go in considering the high risk to health 

and life of the first peoples of tribal nations by chemicals regulated under 

The Tribal Caucus strongly 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 

consumption of subsistence fishers—including pregnant women, children and adults—the 

majority of whom are the tribal population. The Tribal Caucus agrees with the need to evaluate

the hazard endpoints that go beyond cancer risk and include target organ effects, reproductive 

and developmental effects and neurotoxicity.

1

However, the Tribal Caucus urges 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, 

does not consider exposure from backyard open burning which is common in rural reservations 

and villages, and does not consider other traditional subsistence foods known to bioaccumulate 

these chemicals, such as marine mammals and birds.

Additionally, regarding fish consumption and the population scenario, the Tribal Caucus 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 (or higher in Region 10 where fish consumption rates in tribal populations 

of 175 grams per day or more) 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 Tribal Caucus insists that EPA look at the overall body burden of 

chemicals and the interaction of the flame retardants with other chemicals. Tribal people are 

especially exposed to larger volumes of chemicals due to their traditional diets and their 

geographic locations in relation to manufacturing and pollutant deposition. Studies on PCBs, 

another type of flame retardant, showed their synergism with other bromine-based chemicals. 

Finally, 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, high-level use of local plants 

by tribal people may put them at risk due to dermal exposure when harvesting the plants and 

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

uses.

 

1

See CPE Problem Formulation, 08/15, pp. 32 and 34.
Thank you for allowing the Tribal Caucus the opportunity to provide meaningful input on the 

gathering of data and preparation of problem formulations for these four flame retardant clusters. 

Sincerely,

Billy Maines

Region 10 RTOC 

Tribal Caucus Co-chair

Cc: RTOC

Dennis McLerran, EPA Region 10 Administrator