04_AECOM_Environmental Report_Final

A=COM a 525 West Ridge Pike, Suite £-100 Conshohocken, PA 19428, Project name: Wonder Group. Inc. West Orange. NJ Expansion Date: August 26, 2024 To: Jason Bottcher Associate Director — Governance at Wonder Wonder Group, Ine. Memo Subject: Proposed Expansion of West Orange Meat Smoking Operation Introduction AECOM Technical Services Inc. (AECOM) was retained by Wonder Group, Inc. (V/onder) to review its proposed operational expansion at its West Orange, NJ meat smoking facility for potential impacts on local air quality. Wonder currently manages a meat smoking operation with four (4) wood-fired units and is proposing to expand its meat smoking operation by constructing a new smoking shed that will allow for the installment of additional wood-fired meat smokers. This wauld increase the capacity of the facility ta twelve (12) wood-fired smokers total. To address public concern about this expansion’s potential impact on air quality, specifically impacts of particulate matter (PM) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) AECOM has estimated the potential impacts to ambient air quality as a result of the proposed expansion. Stack testing was conducted on ane of the existing smokers to obtain representative emission rates of PM and PAH, which were then used for the dispersion modeling to estimate the air quality impact of the project. Facility Location The Wonder facility is located in West Orange, New Jersey, as shown in Figure 1.

Memo Wonder Group, Inc. Expansion Figure 1 Wonder West Orange Facility Location Wonder (West Orange) Site Location 024 Kilometers ak AECOM an

Memo Wonder Group, Inc. Expansion Stack Testing Methodology Stack testing, also known as source testing or emission testing, is a procedure used to measure pollutants emitted from vents or stacks. During stack testing, samples of gases or discharges are collected from these sources and then analyzed to determine the concentrations and/or emission rates of specific compounds being emitted out of the vents ar stacks. This test program was designed to quantify emissions of PM and PAH. Testing was completed using EPA test methods. Three (3) test runs were conducted at one of the exhaust stacks while the smoker was operated at the maximum achievable load condition. During testing, a strict quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program adhering ta the procedures outlined in the referenced EPA test methods identified abave was fallowed. Samples taken at the stack were transferred to a laboratory in Knoxville, TN for analysis. Emissions from the test runs were averaged and reported as an hourly mass emission rate (pounds per hour [Ib/hr]). Each smoker may operate up to twelve (12) hours a day once all smokers are installed and operational. Therefore, hourly emission rates were converted to an annual emission rate {tons per year) by assuming year- round operation of the wood-fired smokers for 12 hours per day, 365 days per year (4,380 hours per year). These emission rates are shown in Table 1. Additional details on the stack testing methodology and results have been provided in the stack test report in Appendix A. Table 1 Emission Rates Per Smoker PM Hourly Annual Pollutant {Ib/hr) (tons/year) PM 0.014 0.060 PAH 2.87E-04 §.28E-04 Dispersion Modeling Methodology Air dispersion modeling is the use of mathematical formulations to simulate atmospheric processes and predict the dispersion of pollutants. This tool incorporates emissions from sources and meteorological conditions to estimate pollutant concentrations downwind from the source(s) of emissions. By doing so, the model can be used to demonstrate compliance with air quality regulations and standards. The dispersion modeling was performed following NJDEP and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) modeling guidance, including NJDEP’s Guidance on Preparing a Risk Assessment for Air Contaminant Emissions’ and the USEPA's 2022 AERMOD Implementation Guide’. The modeling analysis was conducted

SEPA) modeling guidance, including NJDEP’s Guidance on Preparing a Risk Assessment for Air Contaminant Emissions’ and the USEPA's 2022 AERMOD Implementation Guide’. The modeling analysis was conducted with meteorological data provided by NJDEP. The USEPA’s AERMOD air emissions dispersion model was used to estimate concentrations (yg/m?) of PMz5 and PAH from the proposed wood-fired smokers for comparison to the applicable air quality standards, which are discussed in the next section. For the purposes of this evaluation, a cumulative assessment was conducted to account far both PM emissions. from the proposed project, as well as the contribution of PM emissions from other nearby sources. Actual measured concentrations taken from a nearby representative monitor operated by the NJDEP were used to establish PM concentrations from the other nearby sources. The closest, most representative monitor for the Wonder site is the Chester monitor, located approximately 22 miles to the west-southwest of the Wonder facility. The monitored design concentrations were added to the modeled concentrations of annual and 24-hour PMz5. ' NJDEP 2018. Technical Manual 1003. Guidance on Preparing a Risk Assessnient for Air Contantinant Emissions. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Air Quality. USEPA 2022. AERMOD Implementation Guide. EPA-454-B-22-008, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NG 27711, Available at: https://gaftp.epa.gov/Airlagmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_implementation_quide.pdf AECOM aw

Memo Wonder Group, Inc. Expansion Additional details on the modeling methodology and results have been provided in the modeling report in Appendix B. Applicable Air Quality Thresholds Federal Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act of 1970 required the USEPA to establish ambient concentration thresholds for certain compounds based upon the identifiable effects that the compounds may have on public health and welfare. Subsequently, the USEPA promulgated regulations that set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several criteria compaunds, including particulate matter. Note that a NAAQS has not been established for PAH, and therefore this NAAQS analysis only focuses on PM emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, all stack-tested PM emissions were assumed to be particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 microns (PMz5s), which can be considered conservative, since PM2s is a subset of tatal PM, and therefore assuming PM25 equals total PM tends to averestimate the actual PMas emissions. The currently applicable PMz.s NAAQS and comparison to the modeled concentrations are detailed in the Results section below. New Jersey Health Risk Toxicity Values NJDEP provides guidelines for evaluating potential inhalation-based health risks far sources of HAPs. The guidelines recommend calculations of cancer and non-cancer risk be based on pollutant-specific toxicity values. Non-cancer risk encompasses potential harmful effects from exposure to pollutants such as neurodevelopmental, respiratory, cardiovascular and other health impacts. NJDEP provides toxicity values in the form of a unit risk factor (URF) or a reference concentration (RfC), for cancer and non-cancer risk, respectively. The URF is multiplied by the annual air concentration from AERMOD {ug/m?) to establish a cancer risk. For pollutants for which NJDEP has not provided a RfC, one was developed using an extrapolation of available oral dase values which have been established to estimate risks associated with oral {ingestion) exposure fram pollutants. The methodology used to extrapolate out a RFC to assess inhalation-related risks followed published guidelines by the USEPA’. A first-level risk screening has been established by NJDEP, and is designed to evaluate a calculated risk below the “negligible” threshold which is defined as cancer risk less than ar equal to one in

A first-level risk screening has been established by NJDEP, and is designed to evaluate a calculated risk below the “negligible” threshold which is defined as cancer risk less than ar equal to one in a million (i.e. na more than ane person out of a population of one million exposed to the same level of a chemical contaminant would develop cancer due to that exposure) and a hazard quotient of less than or equal to one (i.e. less than or equal to the RfG) for non-cancer risk‘ for a facility-wide assessment. Cancer risk is based on long-term (annual) modeled concentrations and non-cancer hazard quotients are based on long-term and/or short-term modeled concentrations, depending on the pollutant Since PAHS are a class of numerous compounds, the individual pollutants which encompass PAHs were evaluated using their individual toxicity factors. The applicable toxicity factors far PAH constituents and comparison to the modeled concentrations are detailed in the Results section below. Results Asummary of the NAAQS analysis is presented below in Table 2. The modeled concentrations presented represent the estimated downwind concentrations as a result of emissions from the twelve wood-fired smokers. The modeled concentrations were then added to the representative arnbient background concentrations to estimate the total concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS. As shown, the total concentrations for 24-hour S USEPA 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, Final, EPA520-R-05-006. Office of Waste-Hazardous Waste ~ Treatment & Disposal. September. 4 NUDEP 2018. Technical Manual 1008. Guidance on Preparing o Risk Assessment for Alr Contaminant Emissions, Tables 2-3 & 2-4. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Air Quality. AECOM ed

Memo Wonder Group, Inc. Expansion and annual PMz.s are less than the NAAQS. The results of this analysis indicates that the proposed project will nol cause or contribute to a violation of the PMz3s NAAQS. Asummary of the risk screening assessment following NJDEP guidelines is presented below in Table 3. As shown, the combined cancer inhalation risk for total PAH is below 1 in a million (1 x 10° or 1E-06) and all hazard quotients fer individual PAH compounds are below 1, indicating negligible risk. Table 2 Summary of NAAQS Analysis Ambient A Modeled Total 7 Averaging Background a NAAQS Complies Pollutant Period Rank Concentration Concentration Concentration (ugim?) (YIN)? {ugim’) 3 {ugim*) {ug/m*) PMo5 24-hour 98th 241 17.3 19.71 35 Y Annual = Maximum 0.65 5.8 6.45 i) Table 3 Risk Screening Assessment Pollutant Modeled Inhalation Cancer Risk Reference Long-Term Estimated Unit Risk Concentration Hazard Impacts Factor {ugim*) Quotient (ugim’) {ugim*)* (Ha) 2-Methylnaphthalene 9.03E-04 1.10E-08 9.9E-10 14 6.45E-05, Acenaphthene 5.19E-05 1.10E-08 5.7E-11 210 2.47E-07 Acenaphthylene 6.22E-04 1.10E-06 6.8E-10 ~ - Anthracene 1.09E-04 1.10E-05 1.2E-09 1050 1.03E-07 Benzofalanthracene 2.76E-05 41.10E-04 3.0E-09 - - Benzo[a]pyrene(1) 2.49E-05, 6.00E-04 1.5E-08 0.002 1.24E-02 Benzo[bjfluoranthene 2.39E-05 1.10E-04 2.6E-09 - - Benzofg,h,i]Jperylene 1.46E-05 1.10E-05 1.6E-10 - - Benzokjfluoranthene 9.89E-06 1.10E-04 1.1E-09 - - Chrysene 4.49E-05 1.10E-05 4,.9E-10 ~ - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6. 59E-06 1.20E-03 7.9E-09 - - Fluoranthene 1.63E-04 1.10E-08 1.8E-10 140 1.16E-06 Fluorene 2.41E-04 1.10E-06 2.3E-10 140 1.51E-06 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene —_7.23E-06 1.10E-04 8.0E-10 - ” Naphthalene 4.30E-03 3.40E-05 1.5E-07 3 1.43E-03 Phenanthrene 5.85E-04 1.10E-06 §.AE-10 - ” Pyrene 1 A4E-04 1.10E-06 1.6E-10 105 1.37E-06 Total PAH ” - 1.8E-07 - ” AECOM Bid

Memo Wonder Group, Inc. Expansion Appendix A Stack Test Report AECOM

A=COM Performance Test Report for a Wood Fired Meat Smoker Wonder Group, Inc., West Orange, NJ Project number: $0735150 August 23, 2024 Delivering a better world

Performance Test Report for Wood Fired Meat Smoker Project number: 89735150 Quality information Prepared by Checked by Approved by / : fo fy, : ro J yl. LY. WL Ll. Mape hi Was a ia erm KY Vs ad Phaneendra Uppalapati Wayne Washburn, QSTI Kevin Voit Air Quality Engineer Air Quality Senior Scientist Project Manager AECOM i