10. Tribal and Public Stakeholder Perspective

For the purpose of this document, the term “public stakeholder” means the citizen stakeholder, community, or environmental advocacy members, and members of the affected public. “Tribal” represents the Native American tribes, Pueblos, Nations and others, Native Hawaiians, and Native Alaskans (for example, Tlingit, Athabascan, Upik, and Inupiat).

Human health risk assessmentAn organized process used to describe and estimate the likelihood of adverse health outcomes from environmental exposures to chemicals. The four steps are hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization (Commission 1997a). is used to evaluate the probability that exposureContact of a receptor with a chemical. Exposure is quantified as the amount of the chemical available at the exchange boundaries of the organism (for example, skin, lungs, gut) and available for absorption (USEPA 1989a). to chemicals present in the soil, air, or water at a site can result in adverse human health effectsTypically defined as an incremental lifetime cancer risk (for example, exceeding a range of 1E-4 to 1E-6) or a hazard quotient or hazard index (for example, one).. In order to effectively engage the public and tribal stakeholdersA stakeholder is anyone who has a “stake” in the development, outcome or decisions made as a result of a risk assessment. A stakeholder can be a person, a group, or an organization that is either affected, potentially affected, or has any interest in the project or in the project’s outcome, either directly or indirectly (Commission1997a; Commission 1997b; NRC 1996; NRC 2009). in the decision-making process, all parties must reach a common understanding of what the potential risks are and what decisions and actions must be taken to reduce those risks and protect human health. This common understanding serves as the basis for the discussions needed to reach a fair and transparent risk managementThe process of identifying, evaluating, selecting, and implementing actions to reduce risk to human health and to ecosystems. The goal of risk management is scientifically sound, cost-effective, integrated actions that reduce or prevent risks while taking into account social, cultural, ethical, political, and legal considerations (Commission 1997a). decision about the site.

Public and tribal stakeholders want to be assured that site investigation activities, whether for screening or cleanupThe assessment and reduction, removal, or control of chemicals in environmental media. Cleanup is synonymous with other terms such as "corrective action" and "remediation" used in various state, local, and federal programs., do no harm. When they share in the decision-making process, public and tribal stakeholders are more likely to feel invested and involved in the site characterization and may be more likely to support the proposed cleanup. During site investigations stakeholders will want to know:

• What are the chemicals to be evaluated and the associated human health risks?
• What type of sampling plan will be used to determine whether or not the chemicals are present in environmental media? Why did you choose that sampling method over another? Why is this area being sampled and not that area over there? 
• If the chemical is present in an environmental mediumSoil, surface water, groundwater, indoor air, outdoor air, sediment, and other parts of the environment that may be impacted by the release of a chemical., what is the concentration that makes the chemical harmful to human health? Who made that determination and what was the basis for that decision? Is that criterion being used as the basis for site cleanup? If not, why?
• If a site needs to be cleaned up, what technology or process will be used? Who makes that decision? What are the risks associated with the cleanup activity? What are the alternatives? How do you know that all of the chemical was removed?
• If the site is occupied, how will the residents and owners be affected by the risk assessment and subsequent cleanup? What type of compensation can they expect? What kind of legal issues or property restrictions must be considered?
• If a site is deemed to be safe, what is the assurance that chemical concentrations will not increase over time and pose a health hazard in the future? What kind of institutional or engineering controlsEngineered and constructed physical barriers to contain, prevent, or mitigate exposure to chemicals in an environmental medium. Examples of engineering controls include engineered caps and subslab depressurization systems, mitigation barriers, and fences. Similar to activity and land use restrictions, engineering controls also typically require a specific mechanism for noticing the presence of engineering control and related restrictions, as well as long-term maintenance and management of the control. The timing of a decision to use an engineering control, and the specific mechanism to be used, may be based on criteria outlined in statute, regulation, policy, or guidance. will be put into place? How will those institutional or engineering controls be enforced over a long period of time? In the case of the tribes, this assurance may need to extend to seven generations, which for many tribes is the length of time that their stewardship of Mother Earth extends (ITRC 2012a, ITRC 2012b).

Early and effective communications with public and tribal stakeholders to address these concerns is a crucial component of the risk management and decision-making process. It is unrealistic to expect citizen stakeholders or tribal members to be familiar with the science and statistical methods used in the calculation of toxicity valuesDerived values (for example, reference doses and slope factors) that can be used to estimate the incidence or potential for adverse human health effects in receptor (USEPA 2015h). and the exposure assessmentThe determination or estimation (qualitative or quantitative) of the magnitude, frequency, duration, and route of exposure (USEPA 1989a)., but it is imperative that the underlying assumptions and values used for the basis of the risk assessment are transparent and communicated in a clear, concise, and understandable manner. At times, public and tribal stakeholders may need a better understanding of how sampling is done and why sample locations are selected. Sampling plans should aid the stakeholder in a better understanding of these approaches. (ITRC 2012a)

Public and tribal stakeholders must be identified and engaged during the project planning phase and should participate in the planning and implementation of the risk assessment. Public and tribal stakeholders may have information, knowledge, resources, or positions that may be affected by or may influence the risk assessment process (ITRC 2008). This information may be crucial in the development of the CSM.

Public and tribal stakeholders must also understand how the technical aspects of a risk assessment relate to them on a personal level. In addition, one person’s perception of what is important in terms of risk may not necessarily be the same as another’s. Individuals or groups may vary in how they evaluate the significance of risk and levels of uncertaintyThe lack of perfect knowledge of values or parameters used in a risk assessment. Uncertainty may be reduced by collection of additional data. within their value systems and culture.

Differing value systems and cultural backgrounds are especially important when tribal stakeholders are present. Many tribes have treaties or other pacts with the federal government that grant them fishing, hunting, or cultural access rights in places that are not necessarily near their present-day reservations (ITRC 2011b). These tribes may have legal rights to the contaminated site or property. The special tribal access rights must be recognized and the appropriate tribal agencies included in the decision-making process.

Tribes have a government-to-government relationship with regulatory agencies, whereas public stakeholders do not. Many tribes enforce their own USEPA-approved water quality standards. Some tribes are developing tribal risk assessments that incorporate pathways and scenarios based on traditional and cultural routes of exposure, which in some cases are profoundly different from traditional risk assessments. Also, current state or federal geographical boundaries do not define boundaries to tribal ancestral homelands. For example, a major Department of Energy facility in New Mexico is located entirely on the ancestral homeland of a neighboring tribe. DOE has honored the government-to-government relationship and has partnered with the tribe in monitoring efforts and any proposed actions which may affect tribal members and resources. Any risk assessment that affects tribal stakeholders must be in compliance with tribal regulatory limits and should be a process that respects the tribe’s government-to-government status (ITRC 2012a).

Identifying affected public and tribal stakeholders early in the planning process and including the key stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the risk assessment is vital to the success of a risk management decision. For example, fish, game, or vegetation grown or present on or near the site may be a significant source of sustenance for Native Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders. Understanding the specific species, the amount consumed, and their location on and in the area of the site is important to developing a risk assessment that accurately reflects the activities and potential exposure pathways for these receptors. Public and tribal stakeholder participation in defining the risk assessment and cleanup criteria and selecting the sampling and monitoring plans allows for a more open, transparent, and understandable decision-making process for risk management.

Publication Date: January 2015