SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

# APPENDIX E

Health Risk Analysis For

RULE 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks)

December 15, 2005SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

# Winery Modeling

For

Rule 4694

BY San Joaquin Valley APCD Kathi Crump and Leland VillalvazoSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

### Executive Summary

This docum ent contains the health risk assessment (HRA) for E & J Gallo Winery

– Fresno, located at 6510 E Olive Fresno, California with 67,000,000 gallons/yr of wine fermentation (including both white & red wines) and E & J Gallo Winery

– Livingston,

located at 180 00 West River Road Livingston, California with throughputs of 73,721,600 gallons/yr (including both white & red wines)

.

The risk assessment was prepared to comply with the AB 2588, Air Toxic Hot Spots

Information and Assessment Act of 1987. This HRA was conducted in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Health Risk

Assessment Guidelines.

Emissions of toxic air contaminants from the facility have been identified and the resulting potential ambient air concentrations have been calculated. These

concentrations have been used to arrive at conservative estimates of increase carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a 70

- year lifetime. In a similar fashion, concentrations of compounds wit h a non

- carcinogenic adverse health effects were used to calculate the hazard indices (ratio of expected exposure to an acceptable exposure). A hazard index less than 1.0 is not considered to be a significant health risk. A hazard index greater than 1.0 is considered to be a significant risk and would result in the District consulting with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to determine the significance on a

case

- by

- case basis.

Carcinogenic risk was calculated at the site of t he maximum offsite location. The resulting risk from the Livingston facility is 0.0894 in one million cancer cases, 0.0196 for the chronic hazard index, and 0.0296 for the acute hazard index. The resulting risk from the Fresno facility is 0.0935 in one m illion cancer cases, 0.0208 for the chronic
hazard index, and 0.0464 for the acute hazard index.

Based on the results from the health risk assessment, it is not expected that any winery operating in the San Joaquin Valley would pose a significant risk. (A significant risk is considered to be a risk of 10 in one million cancer case or greater than or equal to one for either the acute or chronic hazard index.)

Results were similar for each analysis performed for eleven other wineries.

Prioritization sco res for all facilities are presented in Appendix 2.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

### SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

This document presents the Health Risk Assessment for the emissions from E & J Gallo Winery

– Fresno & Livingston for permitted tank throughput. This risk assessment was

condu cted in accordance with the AB2588 Health Risk Assessment Guidelines (OEHHA). This HRA includes: (1) an analysis of the dispersion of chemical emissions from the facility, (2) an assessment of human exposure to the chemicals, and (3) a
quantitative estima tion of individual health risks associated with those levels of exposure found in the OEHHA HRA Guidelines.

This HRA represents the results of an assessment that relied on emissions estimates, air dispersion modeling, and exposure scenarios. Conservative factors were selected to ensure that a health conservative approach was maintained throughout the process. The following portions of this section will describe the general approach used to development the Health Risk Assessment and the rationale for the modeling approach

selected for these wineries.

1.1 Facility Description

E & J Gallo Winery

– Fresno, located at 6510 E Olive Fresno, California and E & J Gallo Winery

– Livingston, located at 18000 West River Road Livingston, California. E & J

Gallo Win ery is an independent winery with wine production, sales, and support operations located in Fresno and Livingston, California.

The following device types were modeled in this HRA.

Winery Fermentation Tanks

A review of AP

- 42 section 9.12.2 table 4

- 3, pr ovided by Dan Barber , indicated that the primary toxic substance of concern from both a potency and risk standpoint is Hydrogen Sulfide and Acetaldehyde. Hydrogen Sulfide was emitted at a rate of 667.4 pounds per year (Fresno) and 727.96 pounds per year (L ivingston). Acetaldehyde was emitted at a rate of 91.8 pounds per year (Fresno) and 102.04 pounds per year (Livingston).

1.2 General Approach to Health Risk Assessment

A refined risk assessment, also called a comprehensive risk assessment as defined b y the OEHHA HRA Guidelines, evaluates potential health risks to all individuals within the area of concern. To evaluate potential health risks to individuals, distinct exposure concentrations are determined for a network of receptors within an area around the facility. Risks at sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, day care centers and hospitals) were
also evaluated. However, none were found to exceed a 1 in a million cancer risk or 1.0

Hazard Indices.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 1.3 Health Risk Assessment Approach

The USEPA mode l called ISCST3 was selected for the air dispersion model. Some key factors in the model setup included the use of Regulatory Default, Rural Dispersion (Fresno) or Urban Dispersion (Livingston) mode, and the treatment of fugitive emission

as an area sourc e.

The Carcinogenic and Non

- Carcinogenic risk values were derived by transferring the output of the lSCST3 dispersion modeling runs into a chemical analysis program. This program evaluates the effects of exposures to toxic substances under the influenc e of hourly meteorological data. The meteorological data used for this project has been approved by the District for modeling sources located in the Northern (Modesto Airport 1999) and Central (Fresno Airport 1989) regions of the San Joaquin Valley.

An a nalysis of the results of the modeling runs conducted yielded predictions for the maximum exposed individual (MEI) at a hypothetical receptor. At this location, the maximum carcinogenic risk expressed in excess cancer cases per million exposed
persons and the maximum hazard indices for both an acute and a chronic exposure expressed as a ratio to the Reference Exposure Levels (REL) are calculated and reported. The reported calculations were performed at the point of maximum exposure (MEI) in the belief tha t all other exposed persons will have risks that would not be any higher than those reported. It is important to remember that the MEl may not represent a specific person, but rather a predicted location at which a person might be exposed if

he or she wer e to remain for an average person’s lifetime. This period is defined as 70 years, 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. This average person’s lifetime is selected to be conservative in that it is a representation of the worst plausible exposure situation.

I.4 Comments Regarding the Modeling Approach used in performing the

Health Risk Assessment

The District requires that certain options in the ISCST3 modeling program be selected unless a reasonable justification is approved before any modeling is performed . The required options include the regulatory default setting, the appropriate dispersion type ( i.e. urban or rural ), and the treatment of point and area sources.

A chemical analysis program was used in conjunction with the ISCST3 modeling
program to determine carcinogenic and non

- carcinogenic risk values. The output file from the ISCST3 runs were inputted into ARB’s HARP. The HARP program requires that the air dispersion model (ISCST3) be run with a normalized emission rate for each
source at 1 gram per second. The chemical analysis program will then take actual

emission rates from each source and scale the estimated concentration at each receptor to reflect the concentration of estimated ground level concentrations of each

toxic substance at each re ceptor modeled. The chemical analysis program then proceeds to perform the risk calculations based on OEHHA’s slop factor and REL factors to determine the total carcinogenic and non

- carcinogenic risks at each receptor

for all listed substances that have S lop Factors or REL. The final report from the HARP program is the estimated maximum Cancer Risk, non

- carcinogenic Acute Hazard Index

and non

- carcinogenic Chronic Hazard Index at each receptor.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

### SECTION 2.0

HAZARD lDENTIFICATION

Hazard identification inv olves determining the potential health effects that may be associated with emitted pollutants. The OEHHA Guidelines are a compilation of both the chronic and acute potential health effects of numerous air contaminants.

The chemicals of concern emitted fro m the two E & J Gallo wineries are discussed briefly in Subsection 2.1. The non

- carcinogenic health effects are discussed in Subsections 2.2 and 2.3 (chronic and acute, respectively). Carcinogenic health effects

are discussed in Subsection 2.4.

2.1 Chem icals of Concern

There are three chemicals emitted E & J Gallo wineries that have been assigned by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as having a Reference Exposure Level (REL) or carcinogenic slop value. They are as follows:

Acetaldeh yde, Hydrogen Sulfide, Methanol

2.2 Chronic Non

- Carcinogenic Hazard

Chronic toxic effects are associated with long

- term exposure to relatively low levels of a
potentially hazardous substance. The chronic non

- carcinogenic chemicals of concern

from the E & J Gallo wineries were identified by comparing the chemicals listed in AP

42 with those listed in OEHHA’s Guidelines. Acetaldehyde, Hydrogen Sulfide, and

Methanol are the substances from AP

- 42 that was analyzed for chronic non

carcinogenic health effects

.

2.3 Acute Non

- Carcinogenic Hazard

Acute health effects are associated with a single exposure or repeated exposure over a short time period to relatively high concentrations of a chemical. The maximum hourly

emission rates calculated from AP

- 42 were use d to assess acute health hazards from those chemicals having acute toxic effects. The acute non

- carcinogenic chemicals of concern from the E & J Gallo wineries were identified by comparing the chemicals listed

in AP

- 42 with those listed in OEHHA’s Guidelin es. Hydrogen Sulfide, and Methanol were identified as potentially posing an acute hazard.

2.4 Carcinogenic Hazard

Carcinogenic effects are generally associated with long

- term exposure to relatively low levels of a hazardous substance. The carcinogenic ch emical emitted from E & J Gallo wineries was Acetaldehyde. Comparing the chemicals listed in AP

- 42 with those listed

in OEHHA’s Guidelines identified this substance. In accordance with the OEHHA’s Guidelines, the risks from this carcinogen was considered to be additive regardless of their mechanism of action on the likely target organ.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

### SECTION 3.0

DOSE

- RESPONSE ASSESSMENT

Dose

- response assessment is the process of characterizing the relationship between

the dose of a chemical and the incidence of adver se health effects. From the
quantitative dose

- response relationship, values can be derived to estimate the likelihood of a specific adverse health effect as a function of exposure. Values used to assess
health risks in this report include Acceptable Expos ure Level (REL for non

- carcinogens and the Slop Factor for carcinogens as compiled by OEHHA. These values are presented below.

CAS # Compound _

75070 ACETALDEHYDE

ACUTE HAZARD

VALUES

CHRONIC HAZARD RESP

VALUES 1.11E

- 01

CARCINOGENIC AIR

2.70E

- 06

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____ 67561 METHANOL

ACUTE HAZARD CNS

VALUES 4.00E

- 05

CHRONIC HAZARD DEVEL

VALUES 3.00E

- 04

CARCINOGENIC

_____________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

_____ 7783064 HYDROGEN SULFIDE

ACUTE HAZARD CNS

VALUES 2.38E

- 02

CHRONIC HAZARD RESP

VALUES 1.00E

- 01

CARCINOGENICSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

### SECTlON 4.0

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Expo sure assessment techniques measure the quantities or concentrations of risk agents received by individuals or populations. Exposure assessments typically estimate concentrations of a risk agent at a particular point of contact.

Estimated chemical concentr ations in the environmental media (e.g. air, soil, vegetables) and assumptions regarding probable human contact with these media are used to calculate an average daily human dose of the contaminants of

concern.

Emission rates of toxic compounds from each source at the facility were

calculated from AP

- 42 section 9.12.2 table 4

- 3, provided by Dan Barber . The annual averages and maximum hourly emission rates found in Appendix 1 were used for calculating annual average and maximum hourly ambient air

concent rations of the contaminants. The District approved Industrial Source Complex

- Short Term (lSCST3) modeling program was used to predict
ground

- level concentrations. Below are the source parameters used during the ISCST3 modeling runs.

E & J Gallo

- Fresn o

• Source Parameters

o Ht = 10m

o Area = 250m X 375m

• Modeled as Urban

• Fresno 1989 Met data

• 5388 Receptors

E & J Gallo

- Livingston

• Source Parameters

o Ht = 10m

o Area = 267m X 550m

• Modeled as Rural

• Modesto 1999 Met data

• 3044 Receptors

The lSCST3 dispersion model was used to provide ambient air concentrations (i.e., concentration per unit emission rate) at the site of maximum impact and at other various receptor sites. ARB’s/ OEHHA’s approved HARP program was used to calculate the inhalation exposures of specific f acility

- emitted air toxics at each receptor site. This model provides both the risk value at the site of maximum impact and the maximally exposed receptor.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

# Appendix 1

Emission Factors

And Emissions SummarySAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

# Emission Factors

Red Wine

P ollutant Name Emission Factor
Acetaldehyde 0.0027 lb/1000gal Hydrogen Sulfide 0.0017 lb/1000gal

Methanol 0.0036 lb/1000gal

White Wine

Pollutant Name Emission Factor
Acetaldehyde 0.00072 lb/1000gal Hydrogen Sulfide 0.014 lb/1000gal

Methanol 0.000 64 lb/1000gal



# Emissions Data

E & J Gallo

- Fresno

Red Wine

Pollutant Name Lb/HR Lb/Yr
Acetaldehyde 6.78 E

- 3 59.4 Hydrogen Sulfide 4.27 E

- 3 37.4

Methanol 6.28 E

- 3 55.0

White Wine

Pollutant Name Lb/HR Lb/Yr
Acetaldehyde 3.70 E

- 3 32.4 Hydrog en Sulfide 7.19 E

- 2 630.0

Methanol 3.28 E

- 3 28.8

E & J Gallo

- Livingston

Red Wine

Pollutant Name Lb/HR Lb/Yr
Acetaldehyde 7.62 E

- 3 66.76 Hydrogen Sulfide 4.80 E

- 3 42.03

Methanol 7.06 E

- 3 61.82

White Wine

Pollutant Name Lb/HR Lb/Yr

Acet aldehyde 4.03 E

- 3 35.28 Hydrogen Sulfide 7.83 E

- 2 685.93

Methanol 3.58 E

- 3 31.36SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 

# Appendix 2

Prioritization Scores
For 13 Winery Facilities

N-266 7,600,000 14,500,000 22,100,000 1.42E-01 4.31E-01 8.82E-01

N-956 7,000,000 5,500,000 12,500,000 1.05E-01 1.97E-01 3.63E-01

N-1237 24,726,000 48,995,600 73,721,600 4.69E-01 1.45E+00 2.97E+00

N-1665 24,200,000 26,900,000 51,100,000 3.89E-01 8.81E-01 1.71E+00

N-2321 7,300,000 10,000,000 17,300,000 1.24E-01 3.14E-01 6.23E-01

N-3386* 0 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

N-4939 7,100,000 7,900,000 15,000,000 1.14E-01 2.59E-01 5.01E-01 * Data has been requested from the facility

Adjustment Factors Cancer Chronic Acute

White 3.31E-09 2.55E-08 5.72E-08

Red 1.24E-08 8.07E-09 6.93E-09SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Health Risk Analysis for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

E

- 12 Final Staff Report with Appendices
For Proposed Rule 4694 This page intentionally blank