04_AECOM_Environmental Report_Final

nantly 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 around the Paterson monitor is virtually all urban, with higher density residences and buildings compared to the area in the vicinity of the Wander site. Figure 4-7 shows the land use around the Chester monitor is a mix of suburban housing and rural areas consisting of farms, wooded areas, and recreation areas. Gomparing the three locations, the land use surrounding the Chester monitor more closely resembles the vicinity of the Wonder site as compared to the urban area around the Paterson monitor. AECOM 18

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 4-5 Wonder Site Location Wonder Site Location of 1 te 2 Scale Kilometers AECOM 19

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 4-6 Paterson Monitor Location New Ver ‘Connecticut He Paterson Monitor oO 34k radius Paterson Monitor Location Kilometers AECOM 20

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 4-7 Chester Monitor Location Legend He Chester Monitor L- (@) 34km radius f] 0.28 Of 1 te 2 Scale alate Kilometers Chester Monitor Location AECOM 21

Air Quality Madeling Report In addition to a review of the land-use in the vicinity of each monitor in comparison to the landuse surrounding the Wonder facility, an evaluation of predominant wind direction was also conducted, as the most representative moniter is ideally located upwind of the modeled location. A wind rose for the Caldwell Airport is presented in Figure 4-8. As. the wind rose indicates, winds are predominantly from the southwest through the northwest directions. This aligns better with the locatien of the Chester meniter when looking for an upwind monitor, Figure 4-8 Caldwell Airport Windrose WIND ROSE PLOT DISPLAY. Caldwell AP Wind Speed Direction (blowing from) WIND SPEED (mis) LJ --t110 HB ccc 1-10 TB osrc-3a0 TB scc-570 CD ete as0 L_J osc- 210 Catites, 2.02% Lastly, the population around each monitor location was compared to that around the Wonder site. Using the online Maps tool (hitps://www.maps.ie/population/), the population within 1-km radius of the Paterson monitor is 28,700. The population within 1-km radius of the Chester monitor is 725. The population within 1-km radius of the Wonder site is AECOM 22

Air Quality Madeling Report 3,673. While the Wonder site is more populated than the area surrounding the Chester monitor, the Wonder site is closer in population to the Chester monitor as compared to the much more populated area around the Paterson monitor. Based on the land use comparison, the direction of the predominant winds, and the population around each monitor, the Chester monitor was deemed the most representative background monitor to use for this analysis. In addition to the above evaluation, it should also be noted that the Paterson monitor had USEPA-deemed invalid data {an inadequate number of days of valid measurements) for 2020, 2021 and 2022, while the Chester monitor had valid data for all three of the mast recent years. Table 4-3 provides the 24-hour and annual PM25 monitor design concentrations for use in the NAAQS analysis. These values were taken from the USEPA Monitor Values Report. Table 4-3 Chester Monitor Design Concentrations (2021-2023) Ambient Background Pollutant Averaging Period Rank Concentration’ fugin’)" Pldas 24-hour 98th 17.3 Annual Maximum 5.8 Notes: ! Based an 2024- 2023 monitor concentrations (Chester manitor, AQS Site ID 340273001) Source: USEPA manitor values report (hifps./faanw.epa. gov/outdoor-sif-quality-data/monitor-values-repor) 4.6 Health Risk Evaluation Arefined risk assessment of PAH emissions was conducted using AERMOD dispersion modeling results. AERMOD dispersion madeling was conducted based on the model data noted in Section 4.1 through 4.4. Pursuant to NJDEP Technical Manual 1003 (NJDEP, 2018), the cancer risk of each PAH was calculated and summed together to compare against the negligible risk threshold of < 1 in a million (1 x 10 or 1E-06) using the following calculation methodology: Individual Cancer Risk = C x URF Where: C= annual air concentration fram AERMCD (ugim*) URF = inhalation unit risk factor (jyg/n?)"), unique to PAH To determine the non-cancer long-term (annual) hazard quotient and verify if < 1, the following calculation was conducted, based an Technical Manual 1003 (NJDEP, 2018): Hazard Quotient = C/ RFC Where: C = annual air concentration from AERMOD (g/m?) RIG = reference concentration (ug/m*). unique to air toxic AECOM 23

Air Quality Madeling Report Given the number of individual PAHs evaluated in the analysis, to simplify the health risk modeling, each stack was modeled with a unit emission rate (1 gram per second [g/sec]) and the total maximum modeled concentration for all twelve (12) sources over the five years of meteorological data, in units of g/m per g/sec was scaled by the respective annual PAH emission rate (in g/sec) for a single source. These concentrations (ug/m*) were then used to calculate the cancer and non-cancer risks. AECOM 24

Air Quality Madeling Report 5. Modeling and Health Risk Analysis Results Asummary of the PM, ; NAAQS analysis is presented belaw in Table 5-1. The modeled concentrations presented represent the twelve (12) wood-fired smokers operating 12 hours per day for 365 days each year and the five years of meteorological data used in AERMOD. The maximum modeled concentrations were then addad to representative ambient background concentrations to estimate the total concentrations compared to the NAAQS. As shown, the total concentrations for 24-hour and annual PM25 are less than the NAAQS. Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 depict the 24-hour and annual PM2s5modeled concentration isopleths, respectively, showing the location of maximum concentrations and distribution of the modeled concentratians. The result of this analysis indicates that the Project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the PM2s NAAQS. Table 5-1 Summary of PMz.s NAAQS Analysis Ambient . Modeled Total " Averaging , Background 2 NAAQS Complies Pollutant Period Rank orn Concentration’ cone (ugim’) (vIn)? He! (ugim) (Mg! P22 24-hour 98th 241 17.3 19.71 35 Y Annual = Maximum 0.65 58 8.45 9 Y (1) Ambient background concentrations from the Chester, NJ monitor. (2) Total concentration includes project and monitored background concentrations Source: EPA 40 CFR 50 AECOM 25

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 5-1 24-Hour PMz.s Modeled Concentrations 3 t-+9.60 719.40 49.20 a f-79.00 a & & g § 3 2 [+1880 5 2 a ra & 3 é ir} & t40.80 & 3 & a 35 a & £éE 3 Sf eso 35 z2 é o S20 x 5 8 a = a 4 + mag data. © HERE omy e re § 303000 pevoo = seazo0. 963300 303-00 so3500 363600 303700 z Liso0 UTM East [m] AECOM 25

Air Quality Madeling Report Figure 5-2 Annual PM2s Modeled Concentrations r+s.400 [76.360 +8300 S f-76.260 g 2 5 Z a [76200 3 & S 3 & Pa @ aso % @ fi Fa 2 & Bs Ss <3 2 & t-paino ge ee $s ae 28 ZS }+s080 35 ZE = 5€3000 593100 303200 563300 503400 303500 589590 @ zl egg UTM East [m] AECOM 27