### 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 M yers Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 1200 Pennsy lvania 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. M ye rs : 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 employ ees 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 th e corresponding docket numbers: **Chemical Cluster Docket Number**  **Tetrabromobisphenol A EP**  **A —** **HQ —**  **OPPT —**  **2014 -**  **0730 Chlorinated Phosphate Esters**  **EP A** **— HQ**  **— OPPT**  **— 2015**  **- 0068**  **Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides EP**  **A —** **HQ —**  **OPPT —**  **2015 -**  **0081 Brominated Phthalates**  **EP A** **— HQ**  **— OPPT**  **— 2014**  **- 0491**  **EP A 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. Unfortunatel y, 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 fir st peoples of tribal nations b y chemicals regulated under The Tribal Caucus strongly supports EPA’s inclusion of fish consumption amounts by subsistence fishers and their children when evaluating exposure pathway s of the “CPE” flame retardant clusters. We specificall y 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 bey ond cancer risk and include target organ effects, reproductive and developme ntal 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, doe s not consider exposure from back ya rd 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 , regard ing 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 rel y 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 bod y burden of chemicals and the interaction of the flame retardants with other chemicals. Tribal people are especiall y exposed to larger volumes of chemicals due to their traditional diets and their geographic locations in relation t o manufacturing and pollutant deposition. Studies o n PCB s, another t ype of flame retardant, showed their s ynergism with other bromine - based chemicals. Finally , resource use —

both ty pes of resources and volume of use

— are important factors in risk assessme nts 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. 3 2 and 34.Thank y ou 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. Sincerel y,

Billy Maines Region 10 RTOC Tribal Caucus Co - chair Cc: RTOC Dennis McLerran, EPA Region 10 Administrator