Application of AERMOD to Native American Human Health Risks from Chemical Weapons Incineration at the Umatilla Chemical Depot Rodney Skeen May 2013

2 Presentation Overview Background on CTUIR and UMCD Background on CTUIR and UMCD Human health risk assessment basics Human health risk assessment basics Site specific data Site specific data Human health risk results Human health risk results Process modification to reduce risk Process modification to reduce risk AERMOD and Transportation Risk AERMOD and Transportation Risk Summary Summary

3 Historical Territory of the CTUIR UMCDF Reservation

4 Army granted 14,000 acres in 1941 for munitions depot (expanded to over 19,000) Army granted 14,000 acres in 1941 for munitions depot (expanded to over 19,000) Chemical munitions have been stored since 1962 Chemical munitions have been stored since 1962 Site stored 12% of the original U.S. stockpile of chemical agents Site stored 12% of the original U.S. stockpile of chemical agents –Nerve agents GB (sarin) and VX –Blister agent HD On-site incinerator destroying munitions On-site incinerator destroying munitions Incinerator started in 2004, operated until 2012, full closure complete in Incinerator started in 2004, operated until 2012, full closure complete in Umatilla Depot (UMCD)

5 Simple Question to Answer What operating conditions for the UMCDF ensure that emissions do not create unacceptable risks to surrounding populations? What operating conditions for the UMCDF ensure that emissions do not create unacceptable risks to surrounding populations?

6 Acceptable Limits 2004 HHRA Work Plan established the following limits: 2004 HHRA Work Plan established the following limits: –No individual Cancer Risks above 1E-6 –Total Cancer Risk below 1E-5 –Individual Hazard Quotient below 0.25 –Total HI for specific effect and organ below 0.25 –Acute Inhalation HQ for individual compounds below 1.0 –Ecological Screening Quotients below 1.0

7 Example Conceptual Model

8 Steps to Risk Assessment Identify emissions characteristics (flow rate, particulates, composition, temperature, etc) Identify emissions characteristics (flow rate, particulates, composition, temperature, etc) Model contaminant transport and deposition through the air Model contaminant transport and deposition through the air Estimate exposure mechanisms Estimate exposure mechanisms –Exposure routs (inhalation, dermal contact, ingestion) –Lifestyle Estimate toxicity of each compound Estimate toxicity of each compound Compute dose and risk Compute dose and risk

9 Modeling Transport and Deposition – Data Requirements Meteorological data Meteorological data Topography data Topography data Land use Land use Building geometric data Building geometric data Source geometry data Source geometry data Source emission data Source emission data Risk data Risk data } Air Modeling

10 Tools in Risk Assessment Air transport and deposition modeled using Lakes Environmental implementation of AERMOD Air transport and deposition modeled using Lakes Environmental implementation of AERMOD Risk and ecological risks modeled using modified versions of Lakes Environmental IRAP- h and EcoRisk Risk and ecological risks modeled using modified versions of Lakes Environmental IRAP- h and EcoRisk

11 Emissions Characteristics (1) – Four Point Sources LABSTK MDBSTK BRASTK COMSTK N Laboratory Brine Reduction Area Munitions Demilitarization Building Pollution Abatement System Personnel and Maintenance Building

12 Emission Characteristics (2) – Common Stack Common stack receives emissions from four very different furnaces (Liquid incinerators 1&2, Deactivation Furnace, Metal Parts Furnace) Common stack receives emissions from four very different furnaces (Liquid incinerators 1&2, Deactivation Furnace, Metal Parts Furnace) Use of each furnace varies by type of munitions begin processed Use of each furnace varies by type of munitions begin processed Time weighted scaling methodology was developed to estimate a single emissions rate for evaluating chronic risks Time weighted scaling methodology was developed to estimate a single emissions rate for evaluating chronic risks Upset for each furnace evaluated separately for estimating acute risks Upset for each furnace evaluated separately for estimating acute risks

13 Emission Characteristics (2) – Common Stack Furnaces MPF DFS LIC All furnaces have afterburners, wet pollution abatement, and carbon filters All furnaces have afterburners, wet pollution abatement, and carbon filters

14 Source Emission Data Emissions data collected from trial burns at UMCDF and other demilitarization sites Emissions data collected from trial burns at UMCDF and other demilitarization sites Particle size distribution data also collected Particle size distribution data also collected Parameter Common Stack BRA Stack MDB Stack LAB Stack Base Elevation (m) Stack Height (m) Gas Temperature (K) Exit velocity (m/s) Diameter (m) Time of Operation (yr)

15 Common Stack Emission Distribution – What you don’t know may kill you.... Emissions Distribution for Common Stack (Based on HHRA Values) Less than 2% of emitted organics were identifiable

16 Meteorological Data (1) Six years of on-site surface data Six years of on-site surface data –2 meter temperature –10 meter speed, direction, STDEV, temperature –30 meter speed, direction, STDEV, temperature –Solar insulation, precipitation, pressure Upper air data from Spokane Washington Upper air data from Spokane Washington Merged using AERMET View Merged using AERMET View

17 Topography Data Columbia River Umatilla River Topography data taken from USGS DEM maps downloaded from Lakes Environmental ( m) Topography data taken from USGS DEM maps downloaded from Lakes Environmental ( m) mwww.webgis.co m Data imported using ISC- AERMOD View Map tool Data imported using ISC- AERMOD View Map tool

18 Land Use Range Land Agricultural Land Water Body

19 Example Deposition Map – Unitized Vapor Phase Air Concentration (ug/m 3 per g/s)

20 Deposition Grid and Evaluation Points 50 km Receptor Locations

21 Where you go What you do What you eat Scenario Exposure What contaminants are in each medium – air, water, soil, food… × = DOSE How toxic is each chemical RISK Estimating Exposure (Dose)

22 Accounting for Cultural Contact Harvesting Cooking Drying

23 Cultural Contact Through Sweat Lodge Activity Rocks Water Characteristics 100% humidity 150  F Active behavior

24 Native American Subsistence Scenario (NASS) Live 70 years in one location (whole life) Live 70 years in one location (whole life) Active lifestyle Active lifestyle No vacation No vacation 100% of produce grown locally 100% of produce grown locally 100% Meat/Fish from impacted area 100% Meat/Fish from impacted area Different dietary pattern Different dietary pattern –Higher caloric intake (2500 kcal/day). –High fish intake –Consumption of whole animal Unique exposure pathways Unique exposure pathways –Sweat lodge –Native medicines –Cultural practices (hunting, fishing, gathering, weaving, tanning)

25 Base Model Results LocationScenarioCancer RiskHazard Index Off SiteFarmer Adult2.6E Off SiteFarmer Child3.0E Off SiteFisher Adult2.1E Off SiteFisher Child1.4E Off SiteNative Adult3.0E Off SiteNative Child2.3E Off SiteResident Adult2.0E Off SiteResident Child1.4E On SiteFarmer Adult1.5E On SiteFarmer Child1.6E On SiteFisher Adult1.2E On SiteFisher Child8.0E On SiteNative Adult1.6E On SiteNative Child1.3E On Site /Off SiteWorker Adult5.2E Admin Area/Off SiteMilitary Adult2.0E Some areas of concern, lets look at details ….

26 Base Model Results- Point Source Contribution to Non-Cancer Chronic Risk Stack Hazard Index (% of Total) Native Adult Native Child Fisher Child Farmer Adult Farmer Child Resident Child BRASTK59.4%59.6%59.7%59.4%59.5%59.7% COMSTK1.8% LABSTK5.9% MDBSTK32.9%32.7%32.6%32.9%32.7%32.6% Total HI BRA stack was the largest point source contributor. BRA stack was the largest point source contributor. GB, VX, and HD created more than 99% of the non-cancer risk, but are undetected compounds assumed present at just below the detection limit for the continuous monitoring units. GB, VX, and HD created more than 99% of the non-cancer risk, but are undetected compounds assumed present at just below the detection limit for the continuous monitoring units.

27 Rethinking Assumptions (1) Reviewed process data and realized that the confirmatory agent monitoring system has lower detection limit. These units rely on a collection tube and are periodically sampled. Reviewed process data and realized that the confirmatory agent monitoring system has lower detection limit. These units rely on a collection tube and are periodically sampled. Off-site shipment of brine for treatment is viable alternative to operation of Brine Reduction Area (BRA) Off-site shipment of brine for treatment is viable alternative to operation of Brine Reduction Area (BRA) Re-analyzed risk at lower HD/GB/VX emission levels and no BRA operation during HD campaign Re-analyzed risk at lower HD/GB/VX emission levels and no BRA operation during HD campaign

28 Rethinking Assumptions (2) LocationScenarioCancer RiskHazard Index Off SiteFarmer Adult1.5E Off SiteFarmer Child1.7E Off SiteFisher Adult1.2E Off SiteFisher Child7.7E Off SiteNative Adult1.6E Off SiteNative Child1.3E Off SiteResident Adult1.1E Off SiteResident Child7.7E On SiteFarmer Adult8.1E On SiteFarmer Child8.9E On SiteFisher Adult6.6E On SiteFisher Child4.5E On SiteNative Adult9.0E On SiteNative Child6.9E On Site /Off SiteWorker Adult4.0E Admin Area/Off SiteMilitary Adult1.1E Non-cancer risks Are all below action levels These operational changes were made

29 Base Model Results- Point Source Contribution to Cancer Chronic Risk Over 99% of the cancer risk from COMSTK is a result of the unidentified non-volatile TOE fraction which was assigned a surrogate toxicity based on geometric mean of the compounds in the corresponding boiling point group Over 99% of the cancer risk from COMSTK is a result of the unidentified non-volatile TOE fraction which was assigned a surrogate toxicity based on geometric mean of the compounds in the corresponding boiling point group EPA Guidance does not require quantitative evaluation of this fraction because of its uncertainty. Was evaluated by Army because of CTUIR concerns EPA Guidance does not require quantitative evaluation of this fraction because of its uncertainty. Was evaluated by Army because of CTUIR concerns Stack Cancer Risk (% of Total) Native AdultNative ChildFarmer Adult Farmer Child BRASTK0.0% COMSTK100.0% LABSTK0.0% MDBSTK0.0% Total CR3.0E-042.3E-052.6E-043.0E-05

30 Rethinking Assumptions (3) – CSF of Unidentified Non-Volatile Organic Eleven D/F and one PCB cause large increase in CSF geometric mean Eleven D/F and one PCB cause large increase in CSF geometric mean Dioxins/Furans 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene Benzidine Mean if D/F are set at detection levels

31 Rethinking Assumptions (4)- Including D/F at detection limits ACTION: Modified sampling and analysis methods to identify more of the organic fraction and to lower detection limits. ACTION: Modified sampling and analysis methods to identify more of the organic fraction and to lower detection limits. –GravFrac=Polystyrene? (FTIR) Included D/F and other PAH compounds at their Detection Limit Included D/F and other PAH compounds at their Detection Limit Two on-site scenarios still predicted to be above action levels Two on-site scenarios still predicted to be above action levels 99% of predicted risk still driven by unidentified non- volatile organic 99% of predicted risk still driven by unidentified non- volatile organic –Unidentified means the real risk is uncertain FTIR suggests unspeciated is polystyrene FTIR suggests unspeciated is polystyrene LocationScenario Cancer Risk (if PAH at DL) Cancer Risk (if Not PAH) On SiteFarmer Adult1.8E-041.6E-05 On SiteFarmer Child2.5E-053.1E-06 On SiteFisher Adult1.4E-061.1E-06 On SiteFisher Child9.7E-078.5E-07 On SiteNative Adult2.0E-041.9E-05 On SiteNative Child2.0E-052.9E-06 CombinedWorker Adult2.7E-082.3E-08 CombinedMilitary Adult9.7E-088.3E-08 Unspeciated Computed from total mass measurement

Closure Remaining Compounds of concern have resulted in implementing a closure sampling strategy in the zone of potential plume deposition Remaining Compounds of concern have resulted in implementing a closure sampling strategy in the zone of potential plume deposition Soil Sampling Results will be used for risk based closure. Soil Sampling Results will be used for risk based closure. 32 Sampling Area

Modeling Truck Accident and Chemical Agent Spill with AERMOD 33 Point or Area Source Emission Rate (g/s) Exposure Point Vapor Concentration Exposure Time

Exposure Scenarios Concerned Motorist - 10 minutes of exposure in spill area Concerned Motorist - 10 minutes of exposure in spill area First Responder – 1 hour at 25 meters First Responder – 1 hour at 25 meters General Public – 2 hours at maximum concentration within 50 m and Secondary Isolation Boundary. General Public – 2 hours at maximum concentration within 50 m and Secondary Isolation Boundary. 34 DOT Secondary Isolation Zone (Set by First Responders) Spill Area First Responder Scenario evaluated at 25 m Primary Isolation Zone Boundary. Concerned Motorist Scenario Evaluated Within Spill Area. General Public Scenario Evaluated Within the Area Between 50 m and the Secondary Isolation Zone. 50 m Boundary AgentBased On Placard Only (m) Small SpillLarge Spill Primary Isolation Zone (m) Secondary Isolation Zone (m) Primary Isolation Zone (m) Secondary Isolation Zone (m) GB VX HD USDOT Emergency Response Guidebook Evaluation Compared dose with Acute Exposure Guideline Levels Compared dose with Acute Exposure Guideline Levels

35 Conclusions AERMOD used to model emission from a chemical munitions incinerator at Umatilla, Oregon AERMOD used to model emission from a chemical munitions incinerator at Umatilla, Oregon Emissions use to evaluate future health risks to Native Americans using the impacted lands. Emissions use to evaluate future health risks to Native Americans using the impacted lands. Risk results led to operation changes and modified closure strategy. Risk results led to operation changes and modified closure strategy. AERMOD also applied modeling plume development AERMOD also applied modeling plume development

36 Contact Information Rod Skeen, Ph.D., P.E. Division Leader (541) Barbara Harper, Ph.D. Division Leader (541)