04_AECOM_Environmental Report_Final

cility. AERSURFACE is typically used to process NLCD data for input to AERMET, the AERMOD model's meteorological data processor. In this case, AERSURFACE output in the form of the pixel count for each of NLCD’s land use types was used to determine the total pixel count of urban land use types within 3 km As noted above, urban land use types were assumed to be NLCD categories 23 and 24: “Developed, Medium Intensity" and “Developed, High Intensity’, respectively. The pixel count for these categories was 20.3% of the total pixel count for all categories. Thus, a majority (79.7%) of the 3 km area around the facility can be classified as rural land use and AERMOD was not applied with the urban model option. Table 4-2 provides the pixel counts as reported in the AERSURFACE autput. AECOM ga

Air Quality Madeling Report Table 4-1 Comparison of Auer and NLCD Land Use Categories Auer Urban Land Use Categories” USGS 2016 NLCD Categories?! Type Use and Structure Vegetation Category Description Developed, Medium Intensity - Areas with a mixture of constructed materials . a and vegetation. Impervious surfaces R2 Dense single/multi-family < 30% 23 account for 50% to 79% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. R3 Multi-family, two story < 35% Developed, High Intensity — Highly > 5 developed areas where people reside or " Heavy Industrial s 5% work in high numbers. Examples include 12 Light’moderate industrial <5% 24 apartment complaxes, row houses and commercial/industrial. Impervious: surfaces account for 80% to 100% of the c1 Commercial < 15% total cover. Notes: USEPA, 2017. !lMuiti-Resatution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). AECOM 19

Air Quality Madeling Report Table 4-2 Rural/Urban Determination — Pixel Counts NLCD Pixel Count Category {within 3 km)! cu Missing, Out-of-Bounds, or Undetermined: 9 "1 Open Water: 98 12 Perennial loe/Snow: 0 24 Developed, Open Space: 11948 22 Developed, Low Intensity: 7397 23 Developed, Medium Intensity”: 4885 24 Developed, High Intensity”: 1483 31 Barren Land {Rock/Sand/Clay): i) 32 Uneonsalidated Shore’ 0 At Deciduous Forest: 4343 42 Evergreen Forest: 8 43 Mixed Forest: 426 1 Dwarf Serub: 0 52 Shrub/Scrub: 28 cal Grasslands/Herbaceous: 40 72 Sedge/Herbaceous: 0 73 Lichens: oO 74 Moss: 0 at Pasture/Hay: 158 82 Cultivated Crops: 16 90 Woody Wetlands: 276 on Palustrine Forested Wetland 0 92 Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland: Oy) 93 Estuarine Forested Wetland; 0 04 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland, 0 95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland. 10 9 Palustrine Emergent Wetland: 0 7 Estuarine Emergent Wetland: 0 98 Palustrine Aquatic Bed: 0 99 Estuarine Aquatic Bed’ Oy Total Pixels: 31414 # Urban Pixels: 6368 % Urban: 20.3% Notes: “) Obtained from AERSURFACE output lag file * Assumed urban and use. AECOM "

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 4-1 Land Use within 3 km of the Wonder (West Orange) Site Gultrmies Cuno ity Mellen arise Nigjssa chuset| Legend Come] Ar St Lecton Land Use within 3-km Radius Femsfuranig, Serax] 3-km Radius 0 0.76 15 3 45 6 Soak ——— Kilometers AECOM 12

Air Quality Madeling Report 4.2 GEP Stack Height Analysis Good engineering practice {“GEP”) stack height is defined as the stack height necessary to ensure that emissions fron the stack do not result in excessive concentrations of any air pollutant as a result of atmospheric downwash, wakes, or eddy effects created by the source. nearby structures, or terrain features. A GEP stack height analysis was conducted for the modeled paint sources with the USEPA's Building Profile Input Processor {"BPIP”) in accordance with USEPA's guidelines (USEPA, 1985). The site layout depicting the location of the paint sources and buildings is provided in Figure 4-2. Note that the adjacent shopping center buildings were also included in the analysis given their proximity to the Wander facility. The GEP height for the modeled stacks, Hcep, is determined from the dimensions of all buildings which are within the region of influence: Heer =H + 4.5L where: H = height of the structure within 5L of the stack which maximizes Heep, and L = lesser dimension (height or projected width) of the structure. For a squat structure, i.e., height less than projected width, the formula reduces to: Heep = 2.5H As required by AERMOD, the PRIME version of the BPIP program was employed. The direction-specific building dimensions generated by BP|P-PRIME were input to AERMOD. AECOM 13

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 4-2 ~ Facility & Local Building AERMOD Mapping [new ven xy ein | eimanea of . _— Peng. wang) ner toe Scake Legend Stack (2) Buitsings GO 00225 0.048 Layout of Emission Sources and Associated Buildings 0.09 0.136 ag a es 5922S AECOM 14

Air Quality Madeling Report 4.3 Meteorological Data The modeling analysis was conducted with the latest pre-processed, AERMOD-ready meteorological data provided by NJDEP, consisting of 5-years (2016-2020) of surface data from Caldwell Airport (Essex County Airport) and concurrent upper air data from Brookhaven, New York. Located approximately six (6) miles to the northwest of the Wonder site, the Caldwell Airport is the closest, most representative surface data station to the site. The more rural setting of Caldwell Airport more closely represents the land use around the Wonder site, as compared to the urban setting of next closest surface station, Newark International Airport (approximately 10 miles from Wonder). 4.4 AERMOD Receptors To address public concern regarding the potential impact of the smoker emissions on local air quality, concentrations of PAH and PM25 were estimated at sensitive locations including residential housing, schools, medical facilities. senior living facilities, hotels, and outdoor recreational areas with USEPA's AERMOD dispersion model. A Cartesian grid was used in the AERMOD modeling that covered these sensitive areas with receptors spaced 50 meters apart, spanning approximately one (1) mile from the center of the facility. Receptor height scales at each receptor location were developed using AERMAP (version 18081), the USEPA’s terrain preprocessor for AERMOD. The receptor coordinates are referenced to North American Datum (NAD) 1983. The near field and far field receptors are shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4, respectively. AECOM 15

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 4-3 Near Field Receptors Receptor Grid Near Field View © Recaptor He Site Location 02 O28 os Kilometers AECOM 18

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 4-4 Far Field Receptors ida 3 sngeaphls cu Bulky © Receptor We Site Location Receptor Grid Far Field View Kilometers AECOM 7

Air Quality Madeling Report 45 PM25 NAAQS Evaluation Compliance with NAAQS is based on the sum of the following: « Modeled concentrations attributable to the proposed Project and existing sources; and « Representative ambient background concentration. AERMOD dispersion modeling was conducted based on the model data noted in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 to determine the maximum design concentration of annual and 24-hour PM2,5 from the Wonder stacks. Per the USEPA's definition of the 24-hour PMzs NAAQS, the maximum 24-hour PM25 concentration for comparison to the NAAQS is based on the 98th-percentile (8th High) 24-hour concentration at each modeled receptor. averaged over five years of modeling results/meteoralogical data. For annual PM25, the maximum design concentration is based on the highest average annual concentration at each receptor, averaged over five years of meteorological data. In a NAAQS evaluation, the background monitor concentration accounts for other nearby sources not explicitly included in the modeling, and compliance with the NAAQS is basad on the sum of the maximum modeled design concentration and representative background design concentration. The PMzs monitored design concentrations are based on the 3-year average of the daily 98"" percentile 24-hour concentration and the 3-year average of the annual average concentration from the representative background monitor. The selection of the most representative monitor was based on consideration of land use, wind patterns and population density as discussed as follows. There are two PM.., monitors operated by NJDEP in the vicinity of the Wonder site. The Paterson monitor (AQS Site ID 340310005), located in Passaic County, New Jersey, approximately nine (9) miles to the north-northeast of the Wonder site, and the Chester monitor (AQS Site ID 340273001), located in Mortis County, New Jersey, approximately 22-miles to the west-southwest of the Wander site. To establish which monitor is more representative of the Wonder site, land use within 3 km of each monitor was first examined for comparison to land use surrounding the Wonder site. Figure 4-5 shows the land use around the Wonder site is predominantly suburban but with a significant rural area comprised of the Eagle Rock Reservation and Montclair Gulf Club as well as the wooded area to the north of the facility. Figure 4-6 shows the land use