Black Diamond

Hazard statements (CLP)

H302

Code

Statements

H302

Harmful if swallowed

SECTION 2: Hazards identification

Hazard pictograms

NFPA Label

Signal word

WARNING

Hazard statements

Harmful if swallowed. Can cause skin irritation. May cause damage to respiratory system, lungs through prolonged or repeated exposure. 1 Coal Slag

Prevention

Wash thoroughly after handling. Do not eat, drink or smoke when using this product. Wear protective gloves/clothing and eye/face protection. Obtain special instructions before use. Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood. Use personal protective equipment as required.

Response

IF ON SKIN Wash with plenty of soap and water. If skin irritation occurs Get medical advice/attention IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. If eye irritation persists, get medical advice/attention. IF SWALLOWED: Call a POISON CENTER or doctor/physician if you feel unwell. Rinse mouth.

Storage

Store locked up. Store in a secure, controlled area.

Disposal

Dispose in accordance with all applicable regulations.

2.1 Classification of the substance or mixture

Aluminum oxide 18-22 1309-37-1 Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 18-22 1305-78-8 Calcium Oxide 5-7 12136-45-7 Potassium Oxide 1-2 13463-67-7 Titanium Oxide 0-1 1309-48-4 Magnesium Oxide 0-1 1313-59-3 Sodium Oxide 0-1 14808-60-7 Quartz 0-0.1 14464-46-1 Cristobalite 0-0.1 7440-41-7 Beryllium 0-0.0005 Others Evidence may exist to indicate that components present in this material in concentrations of less than one percent (or in the case of carcinogens, less than 0.1 percent) could be released in concentrations which would exceed an established OSHA permissible exposure limit or ACGIH Threshold Limit Value, or could present a health risk to employees in those concentrations. Employee exposure monitoring should be performed to determine exposure levels. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES Description of Necessary Measures Inhalation If adverse effects occur, remove to uncontaminated area. Give artificial respiration if not breathing. If breathing is difficult, oxygen should be administered by qualified personnel. Get immediate medical attention. 2 Coal Slag Skin If adverse effects occur, wash skin with soap and water for at least 15 minutes while removing contaminated clothing and shoes. Get medical attention, if needed. Eyes Immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Do not rub eyes. Continue rinsing. Then get immediate medical attention. Ingestion If a large amount is swallowed, get immediate medical attention. Rinse mouth. Most Important Symptoms/Effects Acute Respiratory tract irritation, skin irritation, eye irritation. Delayed Respiratory system damage, lung damage. 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Suitable Extinguishing Media Use extinguishing agents appropriate for surrounding fire. Unsuitable Extinguishing Media None known. Specific Hazards Arising from the Chemical Negligible fire hazard. Hazardous Combustion Products None known. Fire Fighting Measures Use extinguishing agents appropriate for surrounding fire. Stay upwind and keep out of low areas. Avoid inhalation of material or combustion by-products. Special Protective Equipment and Precautions for Firefighters Wear full protective firefighting gear including self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) for protection against possible exposure. 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Personal Precautions, Protective Equipment and Emergency Procedures Wear personal protective clothing and equipment, see Section 8. Avoid release to the environment. Methods and Materials for Containment and Cleaning Up Collect spilled material in appropriate container for disposal. Avoid dispersal of dust in the air (i.e., clearing dust surfaces with compressed air). If sweeping of a contaminated area is necessary, use a dust suppressant agent. Move containers away from spill to a safe area. Wet down area with water. 3 Coal Slag 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE Precautions for Safe Handling Wash thoroughly after handling. Do not breathe dust. Do not eat, drink or smoke when using this product. Wear protective gloves/clothing and eye/face protection. Obtain special instructions before use. Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood. Use personal protective equipment as required. Conditions for Safe Storage, including any Incompatibilities Store and handle in accordance with all current regulations and standards. Protect from physical damage. 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION Component Exposure Limits Iron oxide (Fe2O3) (1309-37-1) ACGIH: 5 mg/m3 TWA (respirable fraction) NIOSH: 5 mg/m3 TWA (as Fe, dust and fume) 2500 mg/m3 IDLH (as Fe, dust and fume) OSHA (US): 10 mg/m3 TWA (fume); 15 mg/m3 TWA (total dust); 5 mg/m3 TWA (respirable fraction) Mexico: 5 mg/m3 TWA LMPE-PPT 10 mg/m3 STEL [LMPE-CT] (as Fe) Silicon Dioxide (7631-86-9) NIOSH: 6 mg/m3 TWA 3000 mg/m3 IDLH OSHA (US): 20 mppcf TWA; (80)/(% SiO2) mg/m3 TWA Calcium oxide (1305-78-8) ACGIH: 2 mg/m3 TWA NIOSH: 2 mg/m3 TWA 25 mg/m3 IDLH OSHA (US): 5 mg/m3 TWA Mexico: 2 mg/m3 TWA LMPE-PPT Aluminum oxide (1344-28-1) OSHA (US): 15 mg/m3 TWA (total dust); 5 mg/m3 TWA (respirable Mexico: fraction) 10 mg/m3 TWA LMPE-PPT Appropriate Engineering Controls Provide local exhaust or process enclosure ventilation system. Ensure that dust-handling systems (such as exhaust ducts, dust collectors, vessels, and processing equipment) are designed in a manner to prevent the escape of dust into the work area (i.e., there is no leakage from the equipment). Individual Protection Measures, such as Personal Protective Equipment Eyes/Face Protection Wear splash resistant safety goggles with a faceshield. Provide an emergency eye wash fountain and quick drench shower in the immediate work area. Skin Protection Wear appropriate chemical resistant clothing. 4 Coal Slag Glove Recommendations Wear appropriate chemical resistant gloves. Respiratory Protection Where dust or vapor concentration exceeds or is likely to exceed applicable exposure limits, a NIOSH approved respirator is required. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Physical State: Coarse Solid Appearance: black shiny solid Color: Black Physical Form: Solid Odor: No characteristic odor Odor Threshold: Not available pH: Not available Melting Point: Not available Not applicable Non-flammable; non- Boiling Point: Flash Point: explosive Decomposition: Not available Evaporation Rate: Not available OSHA Flammability Class: Non - Flammable LEL: Not available UEL: Not available Vapor Pressure: Not applicable Vapor Density (air = 1): Not applicable Density: Not available Specific Gravity (water = 1): Not available Water Solubility: Marginal Log KOW: Not available Coeff. Water/Oil Dist: Not available Viscosity: Not available Other Property Information No additional information is available. 10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY Reactivity No reactivity hazard is expected. Chemical Stability Stable at normal temperatures and pressure. Possibility of Hazardous Reactions Will not polymerize. Conditions to Avoid Avoid accumulation of airborne dusts. Incompatible Materials None Hazardous Decomposition Combustion: miscellaneous decomposition products. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Acute and Chronic Toxicity Component Analysis - LD50/LC50 The components of this material have been reviewed in various sources and the following endpoints are published: Iron oxide (Fe2O3) (1309-37-1) Oral LD50 Rat >10000 mg/kg 5 Coal Slag Silicon Dioxide (7631-86-9) Oral LD50 Rat >5000 mg/kg; Dermal LD50 Rabbit >2000 mg/kg Calcium oxide (1305-78-8) Oral LD50 Rat 500 mg/kg Aluminum oxide (1344-28-1) Oral LD50 Rat >5000 mg/kg Information on Likely Routes of Exposure Inhalation Throat irritation, difficulty breathing. Ingestion Diarrhea, stomach pain, difficulty breathing Skin Contact Skin irritant Eye Contact Eye irritant Immediate Effects Eye and Skin Irritant, Shortness of Breath Delayed Effects Respiratory system damage Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure Respiratory disorders, eye disorders, skin disorders Irritation/Corrosivity Data Respiratory tract irritant, skin irritant, eye irritant. Local Effects Calcium oxide (1305-78-8) Corrosive: inhalation, skin, eye, ingestion Respiratory Sensitization No data available. Dermal Sensitization: No data available. Carcinogenicity Available data characterizes components of this product as possible carcinogen hazards. Component Carcinogenicity Iron oxide (Fe2O3) (1309-37-1) ACGIH: A4 - Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen IARC: Supplement 7 [1987]; Monograph 1 [1972] (Group 3 (not classifiable)) DFG: Category 3B (could be carcinogenic for man, with the exception of non-bioavailable ferrous oxides) Silicon Dioxide (7631-86-9) IARC: Monograph 68 [1997]; Supplement 7 [1987] (Group 3 (not classifiable)) Aluminum oxide (1344-28-1) DFG: Category 2 (considered to be carcinogenic for man, fiber dust) 6 Coal Slag Mutagenic Data No data available. Reproductive Effects Data No data available. Tumorigenic Data No data available. Specific Target Organ Toxicity - Single Exposure Respiratory system, digestive system Specific Target Organ Toxicity - Repeated Exposure Respiratory system, lungs Aspiration Hazard No data available. 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicity Component Analysis - Aquatic Toxicity Silicon Dioxide (7631-86-9) Fish: 96 Hr LC50 Brachydanio rerio: 5000 mg/L [static] Algae: 72 Hr EC50 Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata: 440 mg/L Invertebrate: 48 Hr EC50 Ceriodaphnia dubia: 7600 mg/L Calcium oxide (1305-78-8) Fish: 96 Hr LC50 Cyprinus carpio: 1070 mg/L [static] Persistence and Degradability No information available for the product. Bioaccumulative Potential No information available for the product. Mobility No information available for the product. 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Disposal Methods Dispose in accordance with all applicable regulations. 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION US DOT Information Shipping Name: Not Regulated IMDG Information Shipping Name: Not Regulated 7 Coal Slag 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION Component Analysis U.S. Federal Regulations This material contains one or more of the following chemicals required to be identified under SARA Section 302 (40 CFR 355 Appendix A), SARA Section 311/312 (40 CFR 370.21), SARA Section 313 (40 CFR 372.65), CERCLA (40 CFR 302.4), TSCA 12(b), and/or require an OSHA process safety plan. Aluminum oxide (1344-28-1) SARA 313: 1.0% de minimis concentration (fibrous forms) SARA 311/312 Hazardous Categories Acute Health: Yes Chronic Health: Yes Fire: No Pressure: No Reactive: No U.S. State Regulations The following components appear on one or more of the following state hazardous substances lists: Component CAS CA MA MN NJ PA Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 1309-37-1 Yes Silicon Dioxide 7631-86-9 Yes Calcium oxide 1305-78-8 Yes Aluminum oxide 1344-28-1 Yes Titanium oxide 13463-67-7 Yes No Yes Potassium oxide 12136-45-7 Yes No Yes Magnesium oxide 1309-48-4 Yes No Yes Sodium oxide 1313-59-3 Yes Component Analysis - Inventory Component CAS US CA EU AU PH JP KR CN NZ Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 1309-37-1 Yes DSL EIN Yes Silicon Dioxide 7631-86-9 Yes DSL EIN Yes Calcium oxide 1305-78-8 Yes DSL EIN Yes Aluminum oxide 1344-28-1 Yes DSL EIN Yes Titanium oxide 7440-66-6 Yes DSL EIN Yes No Yes Potassium oxide 12136-45-7 Yes DSL EIN Yes No Yes Magnesium oxide 1309-48-4 Yes DSL EIN Yes No Yes Sodium oxide 1313-59-3 Yes DSL EIN Yes No Yes 8 Coal Slag 16. OTHER INFORMATION NFPA Ratings: Health: 1 Fire: 0 Reactivity: 0 Hazard Scale: 0 = Minimal 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = Serious 4 = Severe Key / Legend ACGIH - American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; ADR - European Road Transport; AU - Australia; BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand; C - Celsius; CA - Canada; CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service; CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; CN - China; CPR - Controlled Products Regulations; DFG - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; DOT - Department of Transportation; DSL - Domestic Substances List; EEC - European Economic Community; EINECS - European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances; EPA - Environmental Protection Agency; EU - European Union; F - Fahrenheit; IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer; IATA - International Air Transport Association; ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization; IDL - Ingredient Disclosure List; IDLH - Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health; IMDG - International Maritime Dangerous Goods; JP - Japan; Kow - Octanol/water partition coefficient; KR - Korea; LEL - Lower Explosive Limit; LOLI - List Of LIsts™ - ChemADVISOR's Regulatory Database; MAK - Maximum Concentration Value in the Workplace; MEL - Maximum Exposure Limits; NFPA - National Fire Protection Agency; NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; NJTSR - New Jersey Trade Secret Registry; NTP - National Toxicology Program; NZ - New Zealand; OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration; PH - Philippines; RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; RID - European Rail Transport; RTECS - Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances®; SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act; STEL - Short-term Exposure Limit; TDG - Transportation of Dangerous Goods; TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act; TWA - Time Weighted Average; UEL - Upper Explosive Limit; US - United States Other Information Disclaimer: Supplier gives no warranty whatsoever, including the warranties of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose. Any product purchased is sold on the assumption the purchaser shall determine the quality and suitability of the product. Supplier expressly disclaims any and all liability for incidental, consequential or any other damages arising out of the use or misuse of this product. No information provided shall be deemed to be a recommendation to use any product in conflict with any existing patent rights. 9 Coal Slag Date Prepared : 04/02/2015 SDS No : 2014-04 Date Revised : 09/09/2015 Revision No : 4 1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION GENERAL USE: Abrasives, roofing products and other aggregate uses PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: BLACK BEAUTY® PRODUCT CODE: Coal-Fired Boiler Slag PRODUCT FORMULATION NAME: Abrasive GENERIC NAME: BLACK BEAUTY® MANUFACTURER Harsco Corporation Metals & Minerals 5000 Ritter Road Suite 205 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Emergency Contact: EHS Manager Emergency Phone: 717-506-4666 Alternate Emergency Phone: 888-733-3646 E-Mail: reedcs@harsco.com 24 HR. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS 855-393-9889 Access Code 13793 2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION GHS CLASSIFICATIONS Health: Not Classified. Environmental: Not Classified. Physical: Not Classified. EMERGENCY OVERVIEW PHYSICAL APPEARANCE: Solid IMMEDIATE CONCERNS: BLACK BEAUTY® is not flammable, combustible or explosive; and poses no unusual hazard in an unused condition. During use for abrasive blasting, dust may irritate the respiratory tract, skin and eyes; and may cause inflammation and pulmonary fibrosis. 3. COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Chemical Name Wt.% CAS Silica, Amorphous 40 - 53 60676-86-0 Aluminum Oxide 17 - 25 1344-28-1 Iron Oxide 5 - 31 1309-37-1 Calcium Oxide 3 - 20 1305-78-8 Magnesium Oxide 0.1 - 7 1309-48-4 Potassium Oxide 0.1 - 3 12136-45-7 Titanium Dioxide 0.1 - 2 13463-67-7 Silica, Crystalline < 0.1 14808-60-7 Manganese 0.01 - 0.05 7439-96-5 Beryllium 0 - 0.001 7440-41-7 Cadmium 0 - 0.001 7440-43-9 4. FIRST AID MEASURES EYES: Do not rub eyes. Remove contact lenses. Flush eyes thoroughly with water, taking care to rinse under eyelids. If irritation continues, continue flushing for 15 minuites, rinsing from time to time under the eyelids. If discomfort continues, consult a physician. SKIN: Wash with soap and water. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists. INGESTION: Rinse mouth thoroughly if ingested. Do not induce vomiting. If discomfort continues, consult a physician. INHALATION: Move to fresh air. If discomfort continues, consult a physician. NOTES TO PHYSICIAN: Treat symptomatically. COMMENTS: Show this Safety Data Sheet to physician in attendance. 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES FLAMMABLE CLASS: This product is non-combustible. GENERAL HAZARD: None known EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Use fire-extinguishing media appropriate for surrounding materials. FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Move product containers from fire area if it can be done without risk. Cool containers by flooding with water until heat is dissipated. HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: None known 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES LARGE SPILL: Avoid runoff into storm sewers and ditches that lead to waterways. Collect spillage using a vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter. If not possible, gently moisten before collecting with shovel and broom. Dispose of collected materials inaccordance with Federal, State and local regulations. GENERAL PROCEDURES: Never return spillage and clean-up materials to original product containers. RELEASE NOTES: In the unused form, the material is non-hazardous as defined in state and federal regulations. COMMENTS: Ensure clean-up is conducted by trained personnel wearing appropriate respiratory protection. Avoid inhalation of dust and contact with skin and eyes. Ventilate area if there is excessive airborne dust. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE GENERAL PROCEDURES: Avoid inhalation of dust and contact with skin and eyes. Use only with adequate venitilation. Use work methods that minimize dust production. Keep workplace clean. Observe good industrial hygiene practices. HANDLING: Follow Safety Data Sheet and label precautions. STORAGE: Keep container tightly closed. Store away from incompatible materials. 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION EXPOSURE GUIDELINES OSHA HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS (29 CFR1910.1200) EXPOSURE LIMITS OSHA PEL ACGIH TLV Chemical Name ppm mg/m3 ppm mg/m3 20 mpp 80 / Silica, Amorphous [2] TWA [1] 10 %SiO2 1 R as Aluminum Oxide [3] TWA [3] 15 aluminum metal 10 as iron Iron Oxide TWA 5 oxide fume Calcium Oxide TWA 5 2 15 as Magnesium Oxide TWA magnesium 10 I oxide fume Titanium Dioxide TWA 15 10 10 / Silica, Crystalline TWA [4] (%SiO2 + 0.025 R [4] 2) Manganese TWA 0.2 Footnotes: 1. mpp is millions of particles per ft3 2. ACGIH TLV for Particles Not Otherwise Specified is 10 mg/m3 for inhalable particles and 3 mg/m3 for respirable particles. 3. PEL is 15 mg/m3 total dust and 5 mg/m3 respirable particles (as aluminum metal) 4. Respirable PEL = 10 mg/m3 / (%SiO2 + 2) and Total Dust PEL = 30 mg/m3 / (%SiO2 + 2) ENGINEERING CONTROLS: Use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep airborne levels below recommended exposure limits. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT EYES AND FACE: Wear safety glasses with side shields. Use tight fitting googles if dust is generated. SKIN: Use protective gloves. Wear suitable protective clothing. RESPIRATORY: Selection and use of respiratory protective equipment should be in accordance with OSHA General Industry Standard 29 CFR 1910.134; or in Canada with CSA Standard Z94.4. WORK HYGIENIC PRACTICES: Wash hands after handling. Routinely wash work clothing and protective equipment. Handle in accordance with good industrial hygiene and safety practice. COMMENTS: Proper and safe use of the material is solely the purchaser's responsibility. The manufacturer extends no warranties and makes no representations as to the suitability of the product for the purchaser's intended purpose or the consequences of purchaser's actions. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES ODOR: None APPEARANCE: Black, granular solid COLOR: Black pH: 8.2 FLASH POINT AND METHOD: Not Available FLAMMABLE LIMITS: Not available VAPOR PRESSURE: Not Available VAPOR DENSITY: Not Available BOILING POINT: Not Available FREEZING POINT: Not Available MELTING POINT: Not Available SOLUBILITY IN WATER: None Expected SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.6 - 2.8 VISCOSITY: Not Available COMMENTS: For additional information contact manufacturer. 10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY STABILITY: This product is stable and non-reactive under normal conditions of use, storage and transport. CONDITIONS TO AVOID: None known POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: None HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: None known INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS: Hydrofluoric acid 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ACUTE NOTES: Abrasive blasting agents may cause inflammation and pulmonary fibrosis. Ingestion of dusts generated during working operations may cause nausea and vomiting. EYE EFFECTS: May cause eye irritation. SKIN EFFECTS: May cause skin irritation. CHRONIC: Frequent inhalation of dust over a long period of time increases the risk of developing lung diseases. CARCINOGENICITY IARC: Coal-Fired boiler slag is not listed by IARC. NTP: Coal-Fired boiler slag is not listed by the National Toxicology Program in their Annual Report. OSHA: Coal-Fired boiler slag is not listed by NIOSH on their Occupational Cancer List. Notes: ACGIH Carcinogens Aluminum oxide (CAS 1344-28-1) A4 Not classifiable as a human carcinogen. Beryllium (CAS 7440-41-7) A1 Confirmed human carcinogen. Cadmium (CAS 7440-43-9) A2 Suspected human carcinogen. Calcium oxide (CAS 1305-78-8) No designation listed. Iron oxide (CAS 1309-37-1) A4 Not classifiable as a human carcinogen. Magnesium oxide (CAS 1309-48-4) A4 Not classifiable as a human carcinogen. Manganese (CAS 7439-96-5) A4 Not classifiable as a human carcinogen. Potassium oxide (CAS 12136-45-7) No designation listed. Silica, amorphous (CAS 7631-86-9) No designation listed. Titanium dioxide (CAS 13463-67-7) A4 Not classifiable as a human carcinogen. IARC Monographs. Overall Evaluation of Carcinogenicity Aluminum oxide (CAS 1344-28-1) Not listed. Beryllium (CAS 7440-41-7) Group 1. Monographs 58 and 100C (2012). Cadmium (CAS 7440-43-9) Group 1. Monographs 58 and 100C (2012). Calcium oxide (CAS 1305-78-8) Not listed. Iron oxide (CAS 1309-37-1) Not listed. Magnesium oxide (CAS 1309-48-4) Not listed. Manganese (CAS 7439-96-5) Not listed. Potassium oxide (CAS 12136-45-7) Not listed. Silica, amorphous (CAS 7631-86-9) Not listed. Titanium dioxide (CAS 13463-67-7) Group 2B. Monographs 47 and 93 (2010). US NTP Report on Carcinogens Beryllium (CAS 7440-41-7) Known to be a human carcinogen. Cadmium (CAS 7440-43-9) Known to be a human carcinogen. CORROSIVITY: None known SENSITIZATION: Not a skin or respiratory sensitizer. NEUROTOXICITY: None known GENETIC EFFECTS: None known REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS: None known TARGET ORGANS: Irritation of nose and throat. Irritation of eyes and mucous membranes. May cause respiratory tract irritation. Shortness of breath. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: None known MUTAGENICITY: None known COMMENTS: Although manufacturer has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this Safety Data Sheet, no warranties are made. Manufacturer makes no representations and assumes no responsibility as to the accuracy or suitability of the Safety Data Sheet for the applications intended by the purchaser. 12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL DATA: An environmental hazard cannot be excluded in the event of unprofessional handling or disposal. ECOTOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: This product is not classified as environmentally hazardous. However, this does not exclude the possibility that large or frequent spills can have a harmful or damaging effect on the environment. BIOACCUMULATION/ACCUMULATION: This product is not bioaccumulating. DISTRIBUTION: Not available AQUATIC TOXICITY (ACUTE): None known CHEMICAL FATE INFORMATION: Not available 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS DISPOSAL METHOD: Dispose in accordance with all applicable regulations. GENERAL COMMENTS: TCLP testing of unused product indicates that it is not hazardous waste by characteristic. 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION DOT (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) OTHER SHIPPING INFORMATION: Unused product is not regulated as a hazardous material by DOT. COMMENTS: Unused product is not regulated as dangerous goods by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) or Transport Canada (TDG). 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION UNITED STATES SARA TITLE III (SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT) 311/312 HAZARD CATEGORIES: Hazardous Chemical. FIRE: No PRESSURE GENERATING: No REACTIVITY: No ACUTE: No CHRONIC: Yes 313 REPORTABLE INGREDIENTS: Aluminum oxide (CAS 1344-28-1) 302/304 EMERGENCY PLANNING EMERGENCY PLAN: None CERCLA (COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT) Chemical Name CERCLA Wt.% RQ Beryllium 0 - 0.001 10 CERCLA RQ: None TSCA (TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT) Chemical Name CAS Silica, Amorphous 60676-86-0 Aluminum Oxide 1344-28-1 Iron Oxide 1309-37-1 Calcium Oxide 1305-78-8 Magnesium Oxide 1309-48-4 Potassium Oxide 12136-45-7 Titanium Dioxide 13463-67-7 Silica, Crystalline 14808-60-7 Manganese 7439-96-5 Beryllium 7440-41-7 CLEAN AIR ACT 40 CFR PART 68---RISK MANAGEMENT FOR CHEMICAL ACCIDENT RELEASE PREVENTION: None OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) 29 CFR1910.119---PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT OF HIGHLY HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS: None CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65: WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. RCRA STATUS: Not regulated. OSHA HAZARD COMM. RULE: Regulated. CLEAN WATER ACT: Not covered by any water quality criteria under Section 304. CARCINOGEN: Boiler slag is not listed by IARC, NIOSH or the NTP as a known or suspected carcinogen. However based upon the presence of beryllium and cadmium, the product would be classified as a Category 2 Carcinogen pursuant to the GHS Classification System. CANADA WHMIS HAZARD SYMBOL AND CLASSIFICATION Not Controlled. WHMIS (WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM): Not controlled. WHMIS CLASS: This product has been classified in accordance with the hazard criteria of the CPR and the Safety Data Sheet contains all of the information required by the CPR. DOMESTIC SUBSTANCE LIST (INVENTORY): Listed on Inventory. MEXICO This Safety Data Sheet has been prepared in accordance with the Official Mexican Standard (NOM-018-STPS-2000). 16. OTHER INFORMATION Date Revised: 09/09/2015 REVISION SUMMARY: This SDS replaces the 09/09/2015 SDS. Revised: Section 16: HMIS RATING - HEALTH. HMIS RATING NFPA CODES HEALTH 0 FLAMMABILITY 0 PHYSICAL HAZARD 0 PERSONAL PROTECTION A Silica Fume SECTION 1 PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION AND USE Product identification: Silica Fume PIN/ UN No: N/AV MSDS Number: 3009 Molecular Weight: N/AV Chemical Name: Silicon Dioxide Chemical Family: Amorphous Silica Chemical Formula: SiO2 Pest Control Product (PCP #) : N/AV Stock Number: N/AV Product Group: Pozzolan Product Use: Pozzolan Synonyms: Fume, Densified Silica Fume, Silica Fumes, Microsilica WHMIS Classification: D2 E Means of Classification: CLASS. BY MANUFACTURER Manufacturers Name: Becancour Silicon Inc. Suppliers Name: Basalite Concrete Products Vancouver, ULC. Street Address: 6500 Yvon-Trudeau Street Address: 1280 West 77th Avenue City: Becancour Province: Quebec City: Vancouver Province: BC Postal Code: G0X 1B0 Emergency Telephone No. Postal Code: V6P 3G8 Emergency Telephone No. (819) 294-6000 ext.249 604 – 269 – 2120 SECTION 2 HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS Hazardous Ingredients % CAS Number: Ratio Exposure Limits: LD50/LC50 PIN Number: Silica Fume 60 – 100 69012-64-2 2 mg respirable dust/m3 Unknown W/W Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 1 – 5 1309-48-4 10 mg total dust/m3 Unknown W/W Iron Oxide (Fe2O2) 1 - 5 1309-37-1 5 mg respirable dust/m3 Unknown W/W SECTION 3 PHYSICAL DATA Odour & Appearance: Light to medium gray powder. Physical State: SOLID (powder) Odour Threshold: No distinct odour, Freezing Point (°C): N/AP Boiling Point (°C): 2230 Vapour pressure (mm Hg): N/AP Vapour Density (Air=1): N/AP Percent Volatile: N/AP Evaporation Rate: N/AP pH: 6-9 Specific Gravity: 2.2 Coeff. Water/ Oil Distribution: N/AP Percent Soluble: Slight 1 N/AV and NV = Not Available N/AP and NP = Not Applicable Silica Fume SECTION 4 FIRE AND EXPLOSION DATA Flammability: N/AP If yes, under which conditions? N/AP Extinguishing Media: N/AP Special Fire Fighting Procedures: N/AP Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards: N/AP Auto-Ignition temperature (°C): N/AP Flashpoint (°C) and method: Upper flammability limit (% by volume): N/AP Lower flammability limit (% by volume): N/AP N/AP Hazardous Combustion Products: N/AP Explosion data: Sensitivity to static discharge: N/AP Sensitivity to impact: N/AP SECTION 5 REACTIVITY DATA Chemical stability: YES  NO  If no, under which conditions? N/AP Incompatibility with other substances: N/AP If so, which ones? N/AP Reactivity, and under what conditions: Silica fume is soluble in hydrofluoric acid. With fluorine, oxygen fluoride and chorine trifuoride, this product will cause a fire. Hazardous polymerization: N/AP Hazardous decomposition products: None. Silica Fume is inert under normal conditions of temperature and pressure. When heated at 930 C for 16 hours, amorphous silica will transform to quartz, a crystalline structure of silica. SECTION 6 TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES Route of Entry: Skin Contact  Skin Absorption:  Eye Contact:  Inhalation:  Ingestion:  Effects of acute exposure to product: EYES: Can irritate eyes. SKIN: Can dry skin. INHALATION: Irritating to nose & throat. Effects of chronic exposure to product: Coughing, sneezing and/or eye irritation. 2 N/AV and NV = Not Available N/AP and NP = Not Applicable Silica Fume Exposure Limits: TWA: 2 mg/ m3 Other: The TWA is for Silica Fume in the air. STEL: N/AV C: N/AV OSHA PEL: N/AV ACGIH TLV: N/AV Carcinogen by NTP: N/AV Carcinogen by IARC: N/AV OSHA Controlled: N/AV Irritancy: EYES: Can irritate the eyes. SKIN: Can dry the skin and cause rashes. INHALATION: Can irritate the nose & throat. Sensitization: Some people might develop a skin rash (Allergic Dermatitis). Carcinogenicty: N/AV Teratogenicity: N/AV Reproductive Toxicity: N/AV Mutagenicity: N/AV Synergistic Products: N/AV Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure: May aggravate open sores or dermatitis. Fine dust may aggravate asthma and other breathing conditions. SECTION 7 PREVENTATIVE MEASURES Personal Protective Equipment: Gloves (specify): Rubber of PVC when the Respirator (specify) NIOSH/MSHA approved Eye (specify) Tight-fitting goggles mix is wet. Dust Mask, when the mix is dry. Footwear (specify): Boots, that will not soak Clothing (specify) That will keep the powder Other (specify) Barrier creams should be up the wet mix and will keep out wet or dry or the wet mix off skin & clothes. applied PRIOR TO contact with the product. mix. Wash with soap and water after working with cement-containing products. Engineering controls: VENTILATION: Local exhaust to control airborne dust levels below 2 mg/m3 TWA Leak & Spill Procedures: AVOID BREATHING DUST. Use dry cleanup methods that do not send dust into the air. Waste Disposal: Dispose of as common waste in accordance with applicable Federal, Provincial and local environmental regulations. Handling Procedures and Equipment: No special handling equipment needed other than personal protective equipment. Storage Requirements: Keep dry until mixed. Special Shipping Information: Keep dry. 3 N/AV and NV = Not Available N/AP and NP = Not Applicable Silica Fume SECTION 8 FIRST AID MEASURES Specific Measures: EYES: Flush with water for at least 15 minutes. Consult physician immediately. SKIN: Wash with soap and water. If skin is burned, see doctor. INHALATION: Move person to fresh air. Seek medical advice. INGESTION: Drink copious amounts of water. Do not induce vomiting . Seek immediate medical attention. SECTION 9 PREPARATION DATE OF MSDS Prepared By: (Group, Department, Etc.) Phone Number: Date: 12 / 02 / 15 Quality Control Department 604 – 596 – 3844 (yr / mm / dd) Basalite Concrete Products Vancouver, ULC. 8650 130th Street Surrey, BC V3W 1G1 Workplace MSDS Transcribed by: Phone Number: Date: 12 / 02 / 15 Laura Voci 604 - 269 – 2120 (yr / mm / dd) Basalite Concrete Products Vancouver, ULC. 1280 W.77th Avenue Vancouver, BC V6P 3G8 The information in the MSDS is believed to be accurate at the time of preparation, but no guarantees are given. 4 N/AV and NV = Not Available N/AP and NP = Not Applicable TECHNICAL SPECS Description SILOTOP ZERO is a cylindrically shaped dust collector for venting pneumatically filled silos. Its stainless steel body contains vertically mounted POLYPLEAT elements made from ABSOLUTE filter media. The air jet cleaning system is integrated into the hinged weather protection cover. Function Dust separated from the airflow by special ABSOLUTE POLYPLEAT filter elements drops back into the silo after an integrated automatic pulse-jet air cleaning system inside the weather protection cover has removed it from the filter elements. Features o Dust emission < 1mg/Nm3 o Compact 800 mm (30 in) diameter stainless steel body with bottom flange o 14 m2 (151 sq ft) filter surface o Maintenance height ≤ 1,100 mm (3.6 ft) o High filtration efficiency due to ABSOLUTE EPA-CLASS filter media POLYPLEAT elements o Maintenance-free air jet cleaning unit integrated into hinged weather protection cover o Safe weather protection cover with lockable quick release o Quick filtering element removal Benefits o Low air consumption o Holding peak flow rates of 1,600 Nm3/h o Compact design o Perfect accessibility o Filtering element replacement within a few minutes by one person o Interchangeable with SILOTOP R03 as a whole GRADE: SB FIBER TYPE: Polyester DESCRIPTION: efficiency, excellent release characteristic with moisture tolerance to give Fine denier, spun bond polyester, renewable media, which combines high an excellent high volume, extended-life filter. IIIIMPERIAL MPERIAL SSSSTANDARD TANDARD M MM METRIC ETRIC MATERIAL WEIGHT 8 oz/yd² 278 gm/m² CALIPER OVERALL .024 inches .61 mm PERMEABILITY (FRAZIER)* 24 192 MULLEN BURST DRY 388 PSI 2675 KPA TEMPERATURE LIMIT 275º F 135º C EEEEFFICIENCY FFICIENCY FFICIENCY AAAAT T OOOOPERATING PERATING CCCCONDITIONS ONDITIONS 99.99% BIA BIA RRRRATING ATING U, U, S, S, S, S, G, G, G, G, C C * Frazier Method – the volume of air, in CFM, that can flow through 1 ft.² of media at 0.5 W.G. pressure drop (or l/sec/m² at 20 mm H2O). All data listed are average values. Specifications are subject to change without notice. (SB4/00) Attachment D Facility Location Aerial Map Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Aerial Location Map 3890000 3888000 3886000 3884000 3882000 Northing (meters) 3880000 Coreslab Structures UTM 3878000 3876000 3874000 3872000 3870000 340000 342000 344000 346000 348000 350000 352000 354000 356000 358000 UTM Easting (meters) 0 5000 10000 15000 Figure D-1: Aerial Map Showing Site Location NAD 83 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page D-1 Attachment E Facility Process Description Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Facility Process Description Facility Process Description This plant produces precast concrete products that include either mild reinforcing with steel reinforcement bars or prestressing strand that uses 7-wire strand that is elongated using stressing jacks. In both cases, the products use concrete that is mixed in a batch plant located on the premises. The concrete process starts with delivery of aggregate and sand. The aggregate and sand are delivered by trucks (Unit 1) and unloaded/dumped into either uncovered stationary storage bins (Unit 22) on the ground or into a below ground hopper (Unit 2) and conveyed (Units 3 and 4) into uncovered elevated storage bins (Unit 5). The materials in the storage bins on the ground can be moved by a front-end loader to the below ground hopper as needed. A secondary conveyor system (Units 6 and 7) will move the aggregate and sand into the batch plant where it is weighed and loaded into one of two concrete mixers (Units 9 and 10). Cement, fly ash, and silica fume are delivered to the plant via truck and hopper trailer. The trailer uses a sealed blower and hose to unload into one of four elevated covered silos (Units 11, 12, 13, and 25). These silos are equipped with bag houses. These cementitious materials are delivered by a closed auger to a scale (Unit 15), where it is dropped into one of the mixers. Three of the four silos are exclusively marked for cement, silica fume or fly ash. The fourth smaller silo has been used to store white cement. The final mixed concrete material is unloaded through a drop gate at the bottom of the mixer into a concrete delivery vehicle. This vehicle will be driven to a bed form where it is unloaded onto the form. Once the bed form is 100% filled with concrete, the remaining concrete is unloaded onto the ground by the batch plant to dry. The dried excess concrete is placed in a pile where it is loaded and hauled away to an off-site location to be recycled/crushed. After the bed forms are filled with concrete, they are covered with a tarp and a steam generator is used to accelerate the curing process (Units 16, 19, 20, and 21). The steam generators are enclosed in a building and have steam pipes that are placed under the bed forms. The steam heat is typically run under the bed forms at night. There are four (4) locations where emergency materials (Unit 22) will be stored. As you can see in Figure A-1, you can see the locations of all emergency piles and their relationship to the proposed abrasive blasting sites. Of the four emergency pile locations, three have the potential for worst-case impacts in the particulate dispersion model analysis. To provide the worst-case modeling results for particulate emissions, two scenarios were modeled; Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page E-1 Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Facility Process Description • Abrasive blasting at the main location in the southern part of the site along with all Unit 22 emissions from emergency pile 4. This would address the effect of these two sources operating at the same time, nearest the same facility boundary, where the highest concentrations for PM10 24 hour averaging period modeling result. • Abrasive blasting at the alternative location east of the concrete silos along with emergency piles 1 and 2. This would address the combined emissions from abrasive blasting and emissions from the Unit 22 emergency pile emissions operating in the same general location. These two emergency piles are closest to Coreslab’s boundary and should have greater impact then locating emergency pile emissions from emergency pile 3. Occasionally, there is a customer request to expose the aggregate on a surface of the precast products. To complete this action, the plant will use one of two media blasting machines to blast away the concrete surface to expose the aggregate (Units 23 and 24). The media used is either a black slag, coal slag or sand. There is a limited area in the plant to perform this activity. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page E-2 Attachment F Regulatory Applicability Determinations Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Regulatory Applicability Determinations The following is a list of city and federal regulations that may or may not be applicable to Coreslab Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Regulations 20.11.1 NMAC– General Provisions: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Compliance with ambient air quality standards. Compliance: Compliance with 20.11.8 NMAC is compliance with this regulation. 20.11.2 NMAC– Permit Fees: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: A one-time permit application fee will be assessed by the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Environmental Department. Compliance: Coreslab will pay all required permit revision application fees applicable to their facility. 20.11.5 NMAC– Visible Air Contaminants: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Places limits of 20 percent opacity on stationary combustion equipment. Compliance: Coreslab will perform any required opacity observations using Method 9 and/or Method 22 with certified opacity observers. 20.11.8 NMAC– Ambient Air Quality Standards: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Compliance with all federal, state and local ambient air quality standards. Compliance: Coreslab’s Albuquerque Facility demonstrated compliance by performing and submitting dispersion modeling analysis for applicable pollutants per Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County and New Mexico State Environmental Department’s modeling guidelines. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page F-1 Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Regulatory Applicability Determinations 20.11.20 NMAC– Airborne Particulate Matter: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Requires the facility to obtain a permit prior to start of surface disturbances. Compliance: Coreslab will apply for a 20.11.20 NMAC permit prior to start of surface disturbances. 20.11.41 NMAC– Authority to Construct: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Requires the facility to obtain a permit prior to start of construction. Compliance: Coreslab is applying for a revision to an existing 20.11.41 NMAC permit with this application. 20.11.49 NMAC– Excess Emissions: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: To implement requirements for the reporting of excess emissions and establish affirmative defense provisions for facility owners and operators for excess emissions. Compliance: Coreslab will report all excess emissions following 20.11.49 NMAC guidelines. 20.11.63 NMAC– New Source Performance Standards: Not Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Adoption of all federal 40 CFR Part 60 new source performance standards. Compliance: No applicable 40 CFR Part 60 NSPS that have been identified for this facility. 20.11.64 NMAC– Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Sources: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Adoption of all federal 40 CFR Part 61 and 63 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS). Compliance: 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP Subpart CCCCCC has been identified for the 300-gallon gasoline storage tank in this permit application. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page F-2 Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Regulatory Applicability Determinations 20.11.66 NMAC– Process Equipment: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: The objective of this Part is to achieve attainment of regulatory air pollution standards and to minimize air pollution emissions. Compliance: Except as otherwise provided in this section, Coreslab shall not cause or allow the emission of particulate matter to the atmosphere from process equipment in any one hour in total quantities in excess of the amount shown in 20.11.66.18 NMAC Table 1. 20.11.90 NMAC– Administration, Enforcement, Inspection: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: General requirement on record keeping and data submission. Coreslab will notify the bureau regarding periods of excess emissions along with cause of the excess and actions taken to minimize duration and recurrence. Compliance: It is expected that specific record keeping and data submission requirements will be specified in the 20.11.41 NMAC permit issued to Coreslab. It is expected the 20.11.41 NMAC permit issued to Coreslab will contain specific methods for determining compliance with each specific emission limitation. Coreslab’s Albuquerque Facility will report any periods of excess emissions as required by specific 20.11.90 NMAC provisions. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page F-3 Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Regulatory Applicability Determinations Federal Regulations 40 CFR 50 – National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: Compliance with federal ambient air quality standards. Compliance: Coreslab’s Albuquerque Facility will demonstrate compliance by performing and submitting dispersion modeling analysis for applicable pollutants per the Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County and New Mexico State Environmental Department’s modeling guidelines. 40 CFR 60 Kb – NSPS Standards of Performance for Volatile Liquid Storage Vessels: Not applicable to Coreslab Requirement: For any volatile liquid storage vessel greater than or equal to 75 m3, but less than 151 m3 storing liquid with a true vapor pressure less than 15.0 kPa constructed, reconstructed or modified after July 23, 1984 shall keep records of the dimensions and capacity of applicable storage tanks Compliance: At present, Coreslab will have no volatile liquid storage vessel greater than or equal to 75 m3 with a vapor pressure less than 15.0 kPa constructed, reconstructed or modified after July 23, 1984. 40 CFR 60 OOO – NSPS Standards of Performance for Aggregate Facilities: Not Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: No facility will discharge or cause to discharge gases containing particulate matter in excess of 0.05 gr/dscm from any stack. No facility will discharge or cause to discharge from any transfer point on belt conveyors or screen exhibiting opacities greater than 7 percent. No facility will discharge or cause to discharge from any crusher exhibiting opacities greater than 12 percent. Compliance: Coreslab’s Albuquerque Facility does not meet the definition of an aggregate facilities defined in the regulation. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page F-4 Coreslab Structures, Inc. Albuquerque Facility – Regulatory Applicability Determinations 40 CFR 63 CCCCCC – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities: Applicable to Coreslab Requirement: This subpart applies is each gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) that is located at an area source. The affected source includes each gasoline cargo tank during the delivery of product to a GDF and also includes each storage tank. Compliance: 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP Subpart CCCCCC has been identified for the 300-gallon gasoline storage tank in this permit application. The storage tank’s monthly throughput is less than 10,000 gallons a month so only 40 CFR Part 63.11116 applies. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC Page F-5 Attachment G Dispersion Modeling Summary DISPERSION MODEL REPORT FOR CORESLAB STRUCTURES (ALBUQUERQUE), INC. PERMIT #359-M2-RV1 REVISION Albuquerque, New Mexico PREPARED FOR CORESLAB STRUCTURES (ALBUQUERQUE), INC. April 17, 2019 Revised October 24, 2019 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC. CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL .............................................................................. 3 2.1 DISPERSION MODEL SELECTION ................................................................................. 5 2.2 BUILDING WAKE EFFECTS ............................................................................................ 5 2.3 METEOROLOGICAL DATA ............................................................................................. 5 2.4 RECEPTORS AND TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 6 2.5 MODELED EMISSION SOURCES INPUTS .................................................................... 6 2.5.1 Coreslab Facility Road Vehicle Traffic Model Inputs .................................................. 7 2.5.2 Coreslab Facility Material Handling Volume Source Model Inputs ............................. 7 2.5.3 Coreslab Facility Point Source Model Inputs ................................................................ 7 2.6 PM2.5 SECONDARY EMISSIONS MODELING ............................................................. 11 2.7 NO2 DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS .................................................................. 11 2.8 AMBIENT MODELING BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 13 3.0 MODEL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LEVEL (SILs) MODELING ANALYSIS ............................... 16 3.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS (CIA) MODEL RESULTS ................................ 17 3.2.1 NO2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Modeling Results .................................................. 17 3.2.2 PM2.5 Direct and Secondary Formation CIA Modeling Results .................................. 21 3.2.3 PM10 Cumulative Impact Analysis Modeling Results ................................................. 24 TABLES PAGE TABLE 1 National and New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................... 4 TABLE 2 Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments ...................................................... 6 TABLE 3 Summary of Model Inputs for Point Sources at Coreslab Facility ................................ 8 TABLE 4 Summary of Model Inputs for Point Sources at Coreslab Facility ................................ 9 TABLE 5 Summary of Model Inputs for Volume Sources at Coreslab Facility .......................... 10 TABLE 6 Monitored Seasonal NO2 Background – 3rd Highest Hourly µg/m3 ............................ 14 TABLE 7 Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments .................................................... 15 TABLE 8 Summary of Air Dispersion Modeling Results below SILs ........................................ 16 TABLE 9 Summary of CIA Modeling Results Including Background ........................................ 17 TABLE 10 NO2 CIA Model Results ............................................................................................ 18 TABLE 11 Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments .................................................. 22 TABLE 12 PM2.5 CIA Model Results .......................................................................................... 22 TABLE 13 Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments .................................................. 24 TABLE 14 PM10 CIA Model Results ........................................................................................... 25 i FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1: Coreslab Site Layout Overview .................................................................................. 2 FIGURE 2: Aerial Map Showing the NO2 Highest Concentration Model Results (µg/m3) ......... 20 FIGURE 3: Aerial Map Showing the PM2.5 Highest Concentration Model Results (µg/m3)....... 23 FIGURE 4: Aerial Map Showing the PM10 Highest Concentration Model Results (µg/m3) ....... 26 ii Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION This dispersion modeling analysis was conducted by Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC. (Montrose) on behalf of Coreslab Structures (Albuquerque), Inc. (Coreslab), to evaluate ambient air quality impacts from addition of dry abrasive blasting (in one of two locations at the site) and an additional silo. The location of the Albuquerque facility is 2800 2nd Street SE in Albuquerque, NM. The objective of this evaluation is to determine whether ambient air concentrations from the maximum operation of the proposed project for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter; both 10 microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5); are below Class II federal and state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and NMAAQS) found in 40 CFR part 50 and the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County (COABC) air quality regulation 20.11.8 NMAC. The dispersion modeling was conducted using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee Dispersion Model (AERMOD), Version 18018. This model is recommended by EPA for determining Class II impacts within 50 km of the source being assessed. Additionally, AERMOD was developed to handle complex terrain. In this analysis, AERMOD was used to estimate pollutant ambient air concentrations of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 from the Coreslab facility emission sources. Montrose employs the general modeling procedures outlined in “Permit Modeling Guidelines, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department”, revised 12/20/2018, “New Mexico Air Pollution Control Bureau, Dispersion Modeling Guidelines”, revised 01/01/2019, and the most up to date EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models. Aggregate material handling equipment, stockpiles, and haul roads was input into the model as volume sources. Model input parameters for feeders and transfer points will follow the NMED model guidelines Table 27 and site release heights. Model input parameters for haul roads will follow the NMED model guidelines Tables 28 and 29. Figure 1 below shows the location of the site overview. For abrasive blasting there are two locations modeled that would allow operation in either location to be used. For the emergency piles there are three locations modeled that would allow operation at any of the three locations. Additional neighboring sources identified by the COABC AQP Program that was included in the dispersion model analysis is Quikrete located directly north of this site, Pet Crematory, C&C Services, Albuquerque Asphalt, PNM’s Rio Bravo Generating Station, and CEI Industries. For Quikrete, a site visit was performed to identify all permitted sources and their model input information for combustion and particulate matter emissions. Information on nitrogen dioxide model inputs for the other neighboring sources was obtained from the COABC AQP modeling section. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 1 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 3880350 Boiler #5 Unit 20 Boiler #1 Unit 16 3880300 Boiler #4 Unit 19 3880250 3880200 Emergency Pile 1 Mixers and Silo Aggregate Units 7-15 Boiler #6 Unit 22 Bin Unit 21 Units 4-6 Abrasive Blasting 3880150 Hopper and Conveyor Northing (meters) Alternative Site White Cement Silo Units 2-3 Unit 23 and 24 UTM Emergency Pile 2 Unit 25 3880100 Unit 22 Access Road Unit 1 3880050 Emergency Pile 3 Unit 22 3880000 3879950 Abrasive Blasting Unit 23 and 24 3879900 348900 348950 349000 349050 349100 349150 349200 349250 349300 UTM Easting (meters) 0 100 200 300 FIGURE 1: Coreslab Site Layout Overview Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 2 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 2.0 DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL This section identifies the technical approach and dispersion model inputs that will be used for the Class II federal and State ambient air quality standards for this source. COABC Air Quality Program (AQP) requires that all applicable criteria pollutant emissions be modeled using the most recent versions of US EPA’s approved models and be compared with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and Bernalillo County Ambient Air Quality Standards. Table 1 shows the NAAQS and Bernalillo County Ambient Air Quality Standards that the source’s ambient impacts must meet in order to demonstrate compliance. Table 1 also lists the Class II Significant Impact Levels (SILs) which are used to assess whether a source has a significant impact at downwind receptors. The dispersion modeling analysis will be performed to estimate concentrations resulting from the operation of the Coreslab sources using the existing permitted emission rates and maximum emission rates for new sources while all emission sources are operating. The modeling will determine the maximum off site concentrations for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter; both 10 microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), for comparison with modeling significance levels, national/Bernalillo County ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The modeling will follow the guidance and protocols outlined in the “Permit Modeling Guidelines, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department”, revised 12/20/2018, “New Mexico Air Pollution Control Bureau, Dispersion Modeling Guidelines”, revised 01/01/2019, and the most up to date EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models. Initial modeling will be performed with Coreslab sources only to determine pollutant and averaging periods that exceeds pollutant SILs. If initial modeling for any pollutant and averaging period exceeds SILs, then cumulative modeling was performed for those pollutants and averaging periods for all receptors that exceeds the SILs which included significant neighboring sources along with background ambient concentrations. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 3 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report TABLE 1: National and New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standard Summary Avg. Sig. Lev. Class I PSD Pollutant Period Sig. Lev. NAAQS NMAAQS Increment (g/m3) Class I Class II 8-hour 500 9,000 ppb(1) 8,700 ppb(2) CO 1-hour 2,000 35,000 ppb(1) 13,100 ppb(2) annual 1.0 0.1 53 ppb(3) 50 ppb(2) 2.5 g/m3 25 g/m3 NO2 24-hour 5.0 100 ppb(2) 1-hour 7.52 100 ppb(4) annual 0.2 0.05 12 g/m3(5) 1 g/m3 4 g/m3 PM2.5 24-hour 1.2 0.27 35 g/m3(6) 2 g/m3 9 g/m3 annual 1.0 0.2 4 g/m3 17 g/m3 PM10 24-hour 5.0 0.3 150 g/m3(7) 8 g/m3 30 g/m3 annual 1.0 0.1 20 ppb(2) 2 g/m3 20 g/m3 24-hour 5.0 0.2 100 ppb(2) 5 g/m3 91 g/m3 SO2 3-hour 25.0 1.0 500 ppb(1) 25 g/m3 512 g/m3 1-hour 7.8 75 ppb(8) Standards converted from ppb to g/m3 use a reference temperature of 25° C and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury. (1) Not to be exceeded more than once each year. (2) Not to be exceeded. (3) Annual mean. (4) 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years. (5) Annual mean, averaged over 3 years. (6) 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years. (7) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (8) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 4 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 2.1 DISPERSION MODEL SELECTION The dispersion modeling will be conducted using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee Dispersion Model (AERMOD), Version 18081. This model is recommended by EPA for determining Class II impacts within 50 km of the source being assessed. Additionally, AERMOD was developed to handle complex terrain. In this analysis, AERMOD will be used to estimate pollutant ambient air concentrations of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from Coreslab emission sources. AERMOD is a Gaussian plume dispersion model that is based on planetary boundary layer principles for characterizing atmospheric stability. The model evaluates the non-Gaussian vertical behavior of plumes during convective conditions with the probability density function and the superposition of several Gaussian plumes. AERMOD modeling system has three components: AERMAP, AERMET, and AERMOD. AERMAP is the terrain preprocessor program. AERMET is the meteorological data preprocessor. AERMOD includes the dispersion modeling algorithms and was developed to handle simple and complex terrain issues using improved algorithms. AERMOD uses the dividing streamline concept to address plume interactions with elevated terrain. AERMOD was run using all the regulatory default options including use of: • Gradual Plume Rise • Stack-tip Downwash • Buoyancy-induced Dispersion • Calms and Missing Data Processing Routine • Upper-bound downwash concentrations for super-squat buildings • Default wind speed profile exponents • Calculate Vertical Potential Temperature Gradient • No use of gradual plume rise • Rural Dispersion 2.2 BUILDING WAKE EFFECTS Coreslab Services structures will be included in the model as a building and analyzed as a building downwash source using the BPIP-Prime program. The results of the BPIP-Prime output will be inputted into the AERMOD model. 2.3 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Dispersion model meteorological input file to be used in this modeling analysis are years 2001 - 2005 Albuquerque met data (AERMET version 16216 dated 01/30/2017) available from the COABC AQP. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 5 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 2.4 RECEPTORS AND TOPOGRAPHY Modeling will be completed using as many receptor locations to ensure that the maximum estimated impacts are identified. Initial radius of impact modeling will be performed with receptors within 3 kilometers of the model boundary. Because of the nature of the emissions from the site, it is expected the maximum concentrations will be on or near the site fenceline. The refined receptor grid will include receptors located at 50 meters apart out to 500 meters from the property line, 100 meters apart from 500 meters out to 1000 meters, and 250 meters apart from 1000 meters out to 3000 meters. Fenceline receptor spacing will be 25 meters. All refined model receptors will be preprocessed using the AERMAP software associated with AERMOD. The AERMAP software establishes a base elevation and a height scale for each receptor location. The height scale is a measure of the receptor’s location and base elevation and its relation to the terrain feature that has the greatest influence in dispersion for that receptor. AERMAP will be run using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital elevation model (DEM) data. Output from AERMAP will be used as input to the AERMOD runstream file for each model run. 2.5 MODELED EMISSION SOURCES INPUTS The permitted operating time for the facilities concrete production is 12 hours per day (7 AM to 7 PM). For proposed abrasive blasting operations, Coreslab will take site-specific conditions on daily abrasive use and hours of operation. For the months of March through September the daily throughput will be limited to 12,295 pounds (5 hours maximum at 2459 lbs/hr) from 7 AM to 7 PM. For the months of October through February the daily throughput will be limited to 12,295 pounds (5 hours maximum at 2459 lbs/hr) from 8 AM to 5 PM. For modeling, the hourly blocks vary starting from 7 AM then shifting on 2-hour intervals for 5 separate model runs as summarized on Table 2. TABLE 2: Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments Time Segments Model Scenario 5-Hour Blocks March - September October - February 1 7 AM to 12 PM 8 AM to 1 PM 2 9 AM to 2 PM 3 11 AM to 4 PM 4 1 PM to 6 PM 12 PM to 5 PM 5 2 PM to 7 PM 12 PM to 5 PM Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 6 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 2.5.1 Coreslab Facility Road Vehicle Traffic Model Inputs The access road fugitive dust for aggregate truck delivery traffic will be modeled as a line of volume sources. The NMED AQB’s approved procedure for Modeling Haul Roads will be followed to develop modeling input parameters for haul roads. Volume source characterization followed the steps described in the NMED Air Quality Bureau’s Guidelines. Additional truck traffic involving product delivery to clients, will travel on paved roads that will not be included in the dispersion modeling. Following the guidelines found in the City of Albuquerque “Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines for Air Quality Permitting”, Coreslab will meet the requirements for control measures to prevent visible emissions of fugitive dust during haul truck/trailer travel for product. 2.5.2 Coreslab Facility Material Handling Volume Source Model Inputs Particulate emissions from material handling and process from aggregate unloading, transfers and storage will be modeled as volume sources. Model input parameters for feeders and transfer points follow the NMED Air Quality Bureau’s model guidelines Table 27 and site release heights. 2.5.3 Coreslab Facility Point Source Model Inputs Emissions from exhaust stacks from the dust collectors will be modeled as point sources. Model input parameters are based on previously permitted release height, release diameter, release velocity or flow rate, and ambient temperature. The steam generator’s combustion emissions are release along with the steam at the steam beds. To represent steam generator combustion emissions, the source will be represented as point sources. These sources will have a diameter of the steam beds, a release height of zero feet, a velocity of 0.001 meters per second, and a steam temperature of 400 degrees F. For horizontal or raincap releases, the AERMOD version for horizontal and raincap releases will be used with actual release parameters. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 7 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report Tables 3 through 5 summarize the model input for the Coreslab Facility. TABLE 3: Summary of Particulate Model Inputs for Point Sources at the Coreslab Facility Stack Source Description Model ID Height (m) Mixer #1 (Unit #9) MIXLOAD1 10.67 Mixer #2 (Unit #10) MIXLOAD2 10.67 Silo #1 Cement (Unit #11) SILO1 13.72 Silo #2 Silica Fume (Unit #12) SILO2 13.72 Silo #3 Fly Ash (Unit #13) SILO3 13.72 Silo #4 White Cement (Unit #25) SILO4 13.72 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 1 BED1_1 0.000 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 2 BED1_2 0.000 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 3 BED1_3 0.000 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 4 BED1_4 0.000 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 5 BED1_5 0.000 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 6 BED1_6 0.000 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack1 BED2_1 0.000 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack2 BED2_2 0.000 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack3 BED2_3 0.000 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack4 BED2_4 0.000 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack5 BED2_5 0.000 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack6 BED2_6 0.000 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. (lbs/hr) 0.00 0.0999 0.9144 0.01000 0.00231 0.00 0.0999 0.9144 0.01000 0.00231 0.00 9.7021 0.3048 0.01000 0.00231 0.00 9.7021 0.3048 0.01000 0.00231 0.00 9.7021 0.3048 0.01000 0.00231 0.00 9.7021 0.3048 0.11500 0.00900 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.00900 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.00900 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.00900 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.00900 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.00900 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.00900 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 Page 8 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report Stack Exit Vel. Stack Dia. PM10 PM2.5 Source Description Model ID Height Temp. (m/s) (m) Emission Rate (m) (K) (lbs/hr) Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack7 BED2_7 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack8 BED2_8 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack9 BED2_9 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack10 BED2_10 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.00340 TABLE 4: Summary of Combustion Model Inputs for Point Sources at the Coreslab Facility Stack NOx CO SO2 Source Description Model ID Height Temp. Exit Vel. Stack Dia. Emission (m) (K) (m/s) (m) Rate (lbs/hr) Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 1 BED1_1 0.000 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.12500 0.10500 0.00038 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 2 BED1_2 0.000 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.12500 0.10500 0.00038 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 3 BED1_3 0.000 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.12500 0.10500 0.00038 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 4 BED1_4 0.000 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.12500 0.10500 0.00038 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 5 BED1_5 0.000 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.12500 0.10500 0.00038 Steam Generators 1&4 (Units 16&19) Stack 6 BED1_6 0.000 477.594 0.001 17.0000 0.12500 0.10500 0.00038 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack1 BED2_1 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack2 BED2_2 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack3 BED2_3 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack4 BED2_4 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack5 BED2_5 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack6 BED2_6 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 9 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report Stack NOx CO SO2 Source Description Model ID Height Temp. Exit Vel. Stack Dia. Emission (m) (K) (m/s) (m) Rate (lbs/hr) Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack7 BED2_7 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack8 BED2_8 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack9 BED2_9 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 Steam Generators 5&6 (Units 20&21) Stack10 BED2_10 0.000 477.594 0.001 16.0000 0.04000 0.03300 0.00023 TABLE 5: Summary of Model Inputs for Volume Sources at the Coreslab Facility Release Horizontal Vertical PM10 Emission PM2.5 Emission Source Description Model ID Height Dimension Rate (meter) (meters) (lbs/hr) Sand/Gravel Hopper Loading (Unit #2) HOPPER 0.0000 1.1600 2.3300 0.12000 0.01817 Sand/Gravel Hopper Unloading (Unit #3) HOPCONV 0.6100 0.4700 0.9300 0.03000 0.00454 Bin Conveyor (Unit #4) BINCONV 8.2296 0.4700 0.9300 0.03000 0.00454 Bin Loading (Unit #5) BINLOAD 7.6200 1.1600 2.3300 0.12000 0.01817 Bin Unloading (Unit #6) BINUNLD 3.0480 1.1600 2.3300 0.06000 0.00909 Mixer Conveyor (Unit #7) MIXCONV 12.1920 0.4700 0.9300 0.06000 0.00909 Cement Hopper (Unit #15) CEMENTHOP 4.5720 0.4700 0.9300 0.03000 0.00454 Emerg. Pile (Unit #22) AGGHNDL 3.0480 1.4200 2.8300 0.04000 0.00606 Aggregate Blasting (Unit #23/24) AGGBLAST 2.4380 7.0900 1.1300 2.87910 0.20449 Plant Access Road Volume 1-6 (Unit #1) HR_0001-6 3.40 6.05 3.16 0.10000 0.01000 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 10 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 2.6 PM2.5 SECONDARY EMISSIONS MODELING The form of the PM2.5 24-hour design value is based on the 98th percentile or the highest 8th high result. Calculated PM2.5 combustion emission rates included into the model consist of both filterable and condensable components. Secondary PM2.5 emissions from combustion sources are created by the conversion to nitrates and sulfates as the exhaust plume travels away from the source and mixes with ambient air. Fugitive dust emission sources do not consist of a condensable component and will not create secondary emissions of PM2.5. PM2.5 secondary emission concentration analysis will follow EPA guidelines. Based on requested permitted emission rates, the Tier 1 analysis was used since direct PM2.5 emissions are less than 10 tpy, and NOx and SO2 emissions are less than 40 tpy. The comparison with the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS with model results will be based on the 98th percentile or highest 8th high. 2.7 NO2 DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS The AERMOD model predicts ground-level concentrations of any generic pollutant without chemical transformations. Thus, the modeled NOX emission rate will give ground-level modeled concentrations of NOX. NAAQS values are presented as NO2. EPA has a three-tier approach to modeling NO2 concentrations. • Tier I – total conversion, or all NOx = NO2 • Tier II –Ambient Ratio Method 2 (ARM2) • Tier III – case-by-case detailed screening methods, such as OLM and Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) and NO2/NOX in-stack ratio Initial modeling will be performed using Tier II methodology. If these modeling iterations demonstrate that less conservative methods for determining 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual NO2 compliance would be needed for this project, then ambient impact of 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual NOx predicted by the model will use Tier III – OLM or PVMRM. For OLM or PVMRM, three inputs can be selected in the model, the ISR, the NO2/NOX equilibrium ratio for the ambient air, and the ambient ozone concentration. The ISR will be determined for each source or group of sources. The NO2/NOX equilibrium ratio will be the EPA default of 0.90. Ozone input will be from monitored ozone data collected from city monitoring station. It is evident from modeling experience that at distances close to a modeled source, the modeled NO2/NOX ratio (and, thus, the NO2 concentration) is highly dependent upon the assumed in‐stack Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 11 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report ratio. The use of the default ratio of 0.5 can result in large over predictions at a facility fence line. Proposed NO2/NOx ratio are listed below. Coreslab Natural Gas‐fired heater/boiler – NO2/NOx ratio = 0.20 For neighboring sources, ISR model inputs were based on accepted values for nearby common combustion sources and EPA’s default ISR value for nearby uncommon combustion sources. For diesel-fired engines, Albuquerque Asphalt and C&C engines, the ISR is 0.15, based on EPA ISR database. For nearby Quikrete, CEI, and Pet Cemetery combustion sources, the EPA default value of 0.50 was used. For PNM’ Rio Bravo Station, since the ISR has a diminishing impact on ambient NO2/NOX ratios as a plume is transported 1 to 3 kilometers farther downwind due to mixing and reaction towards background ambient NO2/NOX ratios, the ISR of 0.201 was used For NOX, NAAQS and NMAAQS applicable averaging periods include 1-hour, 24-hour and annual averages. Model Ozone Data For OLM or PVMRM, modeling of the project-generated 1-hour NO2 concentrations requires use of ambient monitored O3 concentrations. Background ambient O3 concentrations for the project area during the 2001-2005 meteorological data years have been obtained from the Del Norte (Years 2001 - 2002)2 monitoring station and South Valley (Years 2003 – 2005) monitoring station, which is the monitoring site nearest to the project. Concerning data substitution for missing hourly O3 ambient monitoring data, the hourly O3 data are used within the AERMOD air dispersion model when operated using the PVMRM option that simulates the atmospheric chemistry of O3 reacting with initially emitted nitric oxide (NO) to form NO2. If there is only a limited amount of O3 in the plume, then the reaction is limited, forming less NO2 than occurs with the simplifying assumption of complete conversion. The model disperses the initial NOX emissions, which are mostly NO, during each of the 8,760 hours in a 365- day year. If the hourly ambient O3 data from the nearest monitoring station have missing data, the missing O3 hours are given substituted concentrations with the following procedure to better simulate the resulting NO2 concentrations: • If two or fewer consecutive hours of O3 ambient concentrations are missing, the missing concentrations will be based on the highest previous or subsequent hour concentrations. • If three or more consecutive hours of O3 ambient concentrations are missing, then substitution for each missing concentration will be based on the highest 1 hour for same hour in the day over that month. Example: for data missing in January for the first hour of the day will be substituted for the highest value for all first hour of the day in January, etc. 1 Technical support document (TSD) for NO2-related AERMOD modifications, EPA- 454/B-15-004, July 2015 2 Ozone monitoring did not begin at the South Valley monitoring station until July 2002. Del Norte monitoring station data is substituted for years 2001 - 2002 into the background ozone data input into the dispersion model. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 12 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 2.8 AMBIENT MODELING BACKGROUND Ambient background concentrations will be added to the dispersion modeling results and compared to the NAAQS and NMAAQS. Background concentrations were obtained from the COABC AQP Modeling Section with the exception of the 1-hour NO2 background methodology discussed below. CO 1-hr: 2635 micrograms per cubic meter CO 8-hr: 1718 micrograms per cubic meter NO2 Annual: 30 micrograms per cubic meter SO2 1-hr: 13.1 micrograms per cubic meter SO2 24-hr: 0 micrograms per cubic meter SO2 Annual: 0 micrograms per cubic meter PM10 24-hr: 35 micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 24-hr: 18.0 micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 annual: 7.2 micrograms per cubic meter NO2 1-hour Background data NO2 1-hour background data will be based on the Tier 2 procedure found in EPA guidance documents3 for determining background concentrations. “Based on this guidance, we believe that an appropriate methodology for incorporating background concentrations in the cumulative impact assessment for the 1-hour NO2 standard would be to use multiyear averages of the 98th-percentile of the available background concentrations by season and hour-of-day, excluding periods when the source in question is expected to impact the monitored concentration (which is only relevant for modified sources). For situations involving a significant mobile source component to the background monitored concentrations, inclusion of a day-of-week component to the temporal variability may also be appropriate. The rank associated with the 98th- percentile of daily maximum 1-hour values should be generally consistent with the number of “samples” within that distribution for each combination based on the temporal resolution but also account for the number of samples “ignored” in specifying the 98th- percentile based on the annual distribution. For example, Table 1 in Section 5 of Appendix S specifies the rank associated with the 98th-percentile value based on the annual number of days with valid data. Since the number of days per season will range from 90 to 92, Table 1 would indicate that the 2nd-highest value from the seasonal distribution should be used to represent the 98th-percentile. On the other hand, use of the 2nd-highest value for each season would effectively “ignore” only 4 values for the year rather than the 7 values “ignored” from the annual distribution. Balancing these considerations, we recommend that background values by season and hour-of-day used in this context should be based on the 3rd-highest value for each season and hour-of-day combination, whereas the 8th- highest value should be used if values vary by hour-of-day only. For more detailed temporal pairing, such as season by hour-of- day and day-of-week or month by hour-of- 3 Memo: “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for 1-hour N02 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” Tyler Fox, Leader, Air Quality Modeling Group, C439-01, dated March 1, 2011. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 13 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report day, the 1st-highest values from the distribution for each temporal combination should be used.” The NO2 background data was provided by the COAAQP Modeling Section and is presented below. TABLE 6: Monitored Seasonal NO2 Background – 3rd Highest Hourly µg/m3 Hour Winter Spring Summer Fall 1 72.1 47.6 29.3 65.6 2 67.8 48.3 27.7 59.7 3 67.7 46 26.4 57.9 4 68.4 48.9 26.6 58.9 5 69.1 51.7 32.7 58 6 69.7 63.9 39.3 57.8 7 72.8 70.7 46.4 63.5 8 77.6 71.8 48.5 64.5 9 80 61.1 34.2 65.9 10 71.4 48 27.3 55 11 62 28.6 24.3 47.3 12 48.1 18.9 19.9 35.4 13 36.9 17.6 17 28.2 14 35.1 15.7 15.9 25.3 15 33.6 14.8 17.4 24.2 16 37.2 15.3 19.4 28 17 48.4 17.1 20.4 38 18 73 19.4 19.3 69.6 19 79.3 38.5 21.7 79.1 20 78.1 53.2 30.9 77.1 21 77.3 48 34.1 73.4 22 76.5 56.3 30.8 70.4 23 75 58.8 34.9 69.7 24 72.4 57.9 33.6 70.9 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 14 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 3.0 MODEL SUMMARY This section summarizes the model results, following the technical approach approved in Section 2 of this report for Class II federal ambient air quality standards for this facility. Model results show for each modeled criteria pollutant and applicable averaging periods for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter; both 10 microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), the proposed permit revision application of Coreslab does not contribute to an exceedance of Class II federal and state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and NMAAQS) and the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County (COABC) air quality regulation 20.11.8 NMAC. The modeling followed the guidance and protocols outlined in the protocol found in Section 2 of this report, the “Permit Modeling Guidelines, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department”, revised 12/20/2018, “New Mexico Air Pollution Control Bureau, Dispersion Modeling Guidelines”, revised 01/01/2019, and the most up to date EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models. The permitted operating time for the facilities concrete production is 12 hours per day (7 AM to 7 PM). For proposed abrasive blasting operations, Coreslab will take site-specific conditions on daily abrasive use and hours of operation. For the months of March through September the daily hours of operation were limited to 7 AM to 7 PM. For the months of October through February the daily hours of operation were limited to 8 AM to 5 PM. For modeling, the hourly blocks vary starting from 7 AM then shifting on 2-hour intervals for 5 separate model runs as summarized on Table 7. TABLE 7: Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments Time Segments Model Scenario 5-Hour Blocks March - September October - February 1 7 AM to 12 PM 8 AM to 1 PM 2 9 AM to 2 PM 3 11 AM to 4 PM 4 1 PM to 6 PM 12 PM to 5 PM 5 2 PM to 7 PM 12 PM to 5 PM For particulate modeling, neighboring Quikrete can operate 16 hours per day anytime in a 24-hour period or the equivalent to two 8-hour shifts. To determine the potential worst-case modeling impacts from Quikrete, Coreslab will analyze modeling for combined shifts 2 and 3 (6 AM to 10 PM) or shifts 3 and 1 (2 PM to 6 AM). Of these two options the shifts 2 and 3 option (2 PM to 6 AM) would have the facility operating during all nighttime hours. Historically, nighttime hours provide the highest concentrations for ground release fugitive sources due to low wind speeds and a stable boundary layer. Additionally, PM2.5 annual modeling will include an hourly factor to Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 15 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report address the difference in modeled hours and permit annual hours of operation limit. If the model ran for 16 hours per day, 365 days per year, this is equals 5,840 hours per year. The annual hours of operation in the permit is 4,992 hours per year. This is equivalent to an hourly factor of 0.855 (4,992/5,840) which will be input into the PM2.5 annual modeling. 3.1 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LEVEL (SILs) MODELING ANALYSIS Significant impact level AERMOD dispersion modeling was completed for NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. All significant impact models were run in terrain mode and building downwash with Coreslab emission sources only. Table 8 lists the results of the modeling for pollutant and averaging period that falls below the applicable SILs. TABLE 8: Summary of Air Dispersion Modeling Results below SILs Maximum Modeled Significant Impact % of Parameter Concentration Level SIL (g/m3) CO 1 Hr. 113.5 2000 5.7 CO 8 Hr. 91.9 500 18.4 SO2 1 Hr. 0.41 7.8 5.3 SO2 3 Hr. 0.37 25.0 1.5 SO2 24 Hr. 0.26 5.0 5.2 SO2 Annual 0.031 1.0 3.1 For CO and SO2, the results show impacts below the SILs. No cumulative impact analysis modeling for CO and SO2 was performed. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 16 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 3.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS (CIA) MODEL RESULTS The model results using the maximum operation at Coreslab Structures (Albuquerque), significant neighboring sources, and approved ambient background are summarized below in Table 9. Dispersion modeling analysis followed the modeling protocol outline in Section 2 of this report. TABLE 9: Summary of CIA Modeling Results Including Background Maximum Significant Modeled Lowest Parameter Modeled Impact Level Concentration Applicable % of Concentration With Standard (g/m3) Background (g/m3) NO2 1 Hr. 8th highest 1-hour 108.1 7.52 182.3 188 97.0 daily maximum NO2 24 Hr. 71.7 5 101.7 188 54.1 NO2 Annual 10.0 1 40.0 94 42.6 PM2.5 24 Hr. 11.9 1.2 29.9 35 85.4 High 8th High PM2.5 Annual 4.3 0.2 11.5 12 95.8 PM10 24 Hr. 103.6 5 138.6 150 92.4 High 2nd High Note: Background concentrations are found in Section 2.7 of the modeling protocol. Dispersion modeling inputs and settings are presented in Section 2. 3.2.1 NO2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Modeling Results NO2 CIA modeling was performed with terrain elevations and building downwash for Coreslab. NOX emission rates represented the maximum hourly rate for Coreslab point sources, significant neighboring sources, and all Coreslab initial modeling receptors that were above the NO2 SILs. Significant neighbors identified by City AQD include; Quikrete, Pet Cemetery, C&C, Albuquerque Asphalt, PNM Rio Bravo Station, and CEI. Table 10 shows the NO2 1-Hour 8th highest 1-hour daily maximum, 24-hour maximum, and annual model results and receptor locations. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 17 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report TABLE 10: NO2 CIA MODEL RESULTS Modeled Modeled Concentration Location Concentration With Background UTMs E/N (g/m3) NO2 1 Hr. 8th highest 1-hour daily 108.1 182.3 349252.9 3880314.0 maximum NO2 24 Hr. 71.7 101.7 349233.0 3880341.7 NO2 Annual 10.0 40.0 349185.0 3880349.1 For NO2 1-hour modeling, the Tier III PVMRM approach found in Section 2.7 of this report was used for the analysis. For NO2 24-hour modeling and annual averaging periods, the Tier II ARM2 approach found in Section 2.7 of this report was used for the analysis. Dispersion modeling meteorology for this analysis included 5 years of data, 2001 – 2005 Albuquerque Meteorological data, was obtained from the COABC AQP. Included in PVMRM modeling is ambient monitored O3 concentrations. Background ambient O3 concentrations for the project area during the 2001-2005 meteorological data years have been obtained from the Del Norte (Years 2001 - 2002)4 monitoring station and South Valley (Years 2003 – 2005) monitoring station, which is the monitoring site nearest to the project. Albuquerque Del Norte Monitor, years 2012 – 2014, 1-hour and annual NO2 background concentrations found in Section 2.7 of this report were added to the modeled results and compared to the lowest applicable ambient standard. For neighboring sources, ISR model inputs were based on accepted values for nearby common combustion sources and EPA’s default ISR value for nearby uncommon combustion sources. For diesel-fired engines, Albuquerque Asphalt and C&C engines, the ISR is 0.15, based on EPA ISR database. For nearby Quikrete, CEI, and Pet Cemetery combustion sources, the EPA default value of 0.50 was used. For PNM’ Rio Bravo Station, since the ISR has a diminishing impact on ambient NO2/NOX ratios as a plume is transported 1 to 3 kilometers farther downwind due to mixing and reaction towards background ambient NO2/NOX ratios, the ISR of 0.205 was used. For the 1-hour NO2 model, results show exceedances within CEI boundaries of the NO2 8th highest 1-hour daily maximum NAAQS. This exceedance is caused by the CEI combustion source. Model results for receptors within CEI boundary were run excluding the CEI source showed no violation of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS within CEI boundaries by all other combined combustion sources with background included. 4 Ozone monitoring did not begin at the South Valley monitoring station until July 2002. Del Norte monitoring station data is substituted for years 2001 - 2002 into the background ozone data input into the dispersion model. 5 Technical support document (TSD) for NO2-related AERMOD modifications, EPA- 454/B-15-004, July 2015 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 18 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report Model results show the highest 24 hour and annual concentrations, where Coreslab sources makes a significant contribution, occurred along the northern Coreslab restricted boundary. Maximum 1- hour concentration, where Coreslab sources makes a significant contribution, occurred along the northeastern Coreslab restricted boundary. Figure 2 shows an aerial map of the NO2 8th highest 1-hour daily maximum concentration, highest 24-hour concentration, and highest annual concentration locations including background where Coreslab sources contribute concentrations above the NO2 SILs. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 19 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 3880350 40.0 101.7 NO2 Annual NO2 24-Hour NO2 1 Hour 182.3 3880300 3880250 3880200 Aggregate Mixers and Silo Units 7-15, 25 Bin Units 4-6 Abrasive Blasting Northing (meters) 3880150 Hopper and Conveyor Units 2-3 Alternative Site Access UTM Road 3880100 3880050 3880000 Abrasive Blasting 3879950 Main Site 3879900 348900 348950 349000 349050 349100 349150 349200 349250 349300 UTM Easting (meters) 0 100 200 300 Figure 2: Aerial Map Showing the Location of the NO2 Highest Concentration Model Result (µg/m3) Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 20 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 3.2.2 PM2.5 Direct and Secondary Formation CIA Modeling Results Particulate matter includes both “primary” PM, which is directly emitted into the air, and “secondary” PM, which forms indirectly from fuel combustion and other sources. Primary PM consists of carbon (soot)—emitted from cars, trucks, heavy equipment, forest fires, and burning waste—and crustal material from unpaved roads, stone crushing, construction sites, and metallurgical operations. Secondary PM forms in the atmosphere from gases. Some of these reactions require sunlight and/or water vapor. Secondary PM includes: • Sulfates formed from sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities; • Nitrates formed from nitrogen oxide emissions from cars, trucks, industrial facilities, and power plants; and • Carbon formed from reactive organic gas emissions from cars, trucks, industrial facilities, forest fires, and biogenic sources such as trees. AERMOD does not account for secondary formation of PM2.5 for near-field modeling. Any secondary contribution of the Coreslab’s source emissions is not explicitly accounted for in the model results. While representative background monitoring data for PM2.5 should adequately account for secondary contribution from existing background sources, Coreslab sources emits less than significant emission rate (SER) of PM2.5 precursors (NOX, SO2, VOC), so no assessment of their potential contribution to cumulative impacts as secondary PM2.5 was performed. Total permit modification emissions of precursors include: • Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) – 2.74 tons per year (below SER) • Sulfur Dioxides (SO2) – 0.014 tons per year (below SER) • Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC) – 0.29 tons per year (below SER). CIA direct “primary” PM2.5 modeling was performed with terrain and meteorology which included 5 years of data, 2001 – 2005 Albuquerque Meteorological data, obtained from the AEHD AQP. Modeling was performed for both 24 hour and annual averaging periods with maximum PM2.5 hourly emission rate for Coreslab sources, annual modeling hourly factor, significant neighboring sources (Quikrete), and all Coreslab initial modeling receptors that were above the PM2.5 SILs. PM2.5 emission rates represented the maximum hourly rate for all emission sources. South Valley representative 24-hour and annual PM2.5 background concentrations was added to the modeled results and compared to the lowest applicable ambient standard. The 24-hour and annual background concentrations that were used for PM2.5 averaging periods are found in Section 2.8 of this report. For the Coreslab, direct “primary” PM2.5 emission rates are less than 10 tons per year (Significant Emission Rate - SER), and NOX and SO2 emission rates are less than 40 tons per year (SER), falling into category “Case 1” in EPA’s May, 2014 “Guidance for PM2.5 Permit Modeling”. For Case 1, no secondary PM2.5 ambient impacts associated with the Coreslab are required to be Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 21 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report addressed. Direct “primary” PM2.5 concentrations using AERMOD dispersion model are summarized in Table 12. The permitted operating time for the facilities concrete production is 12 hours per day (7 AM to 7 PM). For proposed abrasive blasting operations, Coreslab will take site-specific conditions on daily abrasive use and hours of operation. For the months of March through September the daily throughput was limited to 12,295 pounds (5 hours maximum at 2459 lbs/hr) from 7 AM to 7 PM. For the months of October through February the daily throughput was limited to 12,295 pounds (5 hours maximum at 2459 lbs/hr) from 8 AM to 5 PM. For modeling, the hourly blocks vary starting from 7 AM then shifting on 2-hour intervals for 5 separate model runs as summarized on Table 11. TABLE 11: Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments Time Segments Model Scenario 5-Hour Blocks March - September October - February 1 7 AM to 12 PM 8 AM to 1 PM 2 9 AM to 2 PM 3 11 AM to 4 PM 4 1 PM to 6 PM 12 PM to 5 PM 5 2 PM to 7 PM 12 PM to 5 PM Results showed that direct “primary” PM2.5 from Coreslab sources, where Coreslab source makes a significant contribution, are located on the northern Quikrete boundary for PM2.5 annual averaging period and northern Coreslab boundary for PM2.5 24-hour averaging period. At these locations the highest concentrations are due to Quikrete sources. The result from direct “primary” PM2.5 emissions dispersion modeling, plus a representative PM2.5 background concentrations from Section 2.8 of this report, which includes monitored secondary PM2.5 concentrations, were used to show compliance with national PM2.5 annual and 24-hour average AAQS. The PM2.5 model runs that produced the 24-hour highest 8th high result was “CoreslabPMS5AltE” and the highest annual average result was “CoreslabPM2.5S5AnAltE”. TABLE 12: PM2.5 CIA MODEL RESULTS Modeled Modeled Concentration Location Concentration With Background UTMs E/N (g/m3) 24 Hour Average 11.9 29.9 349161.0 3880352.9 Highest 8th High Annual Average 4.3 11.5 349234.5 3880417.5 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 22 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report Figure 3 summarize the results of the modeling analysis. 3880500 3880450 PM2.5 Annual 11.5 3880400 3880350 29.9 PM2.5 24-Hour 3880300 3880250 Northing 3880200 UTM (meters) Mixers and Silo Bin Aggregate Units 7-15, 25 Units 4-6 Abrasive Blasting 3880150 Hopper and Conveyor Units 2-3 Alternative Site 3880100 Access Road 3880050 3880000 Abrasive Blasting 3879950 Main Site 3879900 3879850 348850 348900 348950 349000 349050 349100 349150 349200 349250 349300 349350 UTM Easting (meters) 0 100 200 300 Figure 3: Aerial Map Showing the Location of the PM2.5 Highest Model Results (µg/m3) Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 23 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 3.2.3 PM10 Cumulative Impact Analysis Modeling Results CIA PM10 modeling was performed with terrain and meteorology which included 5 years of data, 2001 – 2005 Albuquerque Meteorological data, obtained from the AEHD AQP. Modeling was performed for the 24-hour averaging periods with maximum PM10 hourly emission rate for Coreslab sources, significant neighboring sources (Quikrete), and all Coreslab initial modeling receptors that were above the PM10 24-hour SIL. South Valley representative 24-hour PM10 background concentrations was added to the modeled results and compared to the lowest applicable ambient standard. The 24-hour background concentrations that were used for PM10 averaging period are found in Section 2.8 of this report. The permitted operating time for the facilities concrete production is 12 hours per day (7 AM to 7 PM). For proposed abrasive blasting operations, Coreslab will take site-specific conditions on daily abrasive use and hours of operation. For the months of March through September the daily throughput was limited to 12,295 pounds (5 hours maximum at 2459 lbs/hr) from 7 AM to 7 PM. For the months of October through February the daily throughput was limited to 12,295 pounds (5 hours maximum at 2459 lbs/hr) from 8 AM to 5 PM. For modeling, the hourly blocks vary starting from 7 AM then shifting on 2-hour intervals for 5 separate model runs as summarized on Table 13. TABLE 13: Abrasive Blasting Model Scenario Time Segments Time Segments Model Scenario 5-Hour Blocks March - September October - February 1 7 AM to 12 PM 8 AM to 1 PM 2 9 AM to 2 PM 3 11 AM to 4 PM 4 1 PM to 6 PM 12 PM to 5 PM 5 2 PM to 7 PM 12 PM to 5 PM Results showed that PM10 from Coreslab sources, where Coreslab source makes a significant contribution, are located on the southern Coreslab boundary. At these locations the highest concentrations are due to Coreslab sources. The result from PM10 emissions dispersion modeling, plus a representative PM10 background concentrations from Section 2.8 of this report, were used to show compliance with national PM10 24-hour average AAQS. The PM10 model run that produced the 24-hour highest 2nd high result was “CoreslabPMS5”. PM10 24-hour concentrations using the AERMOD dispersion model are summarized in Table 14. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 24 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report TABLE 14: PM10 CIA MODEL RESULTS Modeled Modeled Concentration Location Concentration With Background UTMs E/N (g/m3) 24 Hour Average 103.6 138.6 349111.4 3879910.2 Highest 2nd High Figure 4 summarize the results of the modeling analysis. Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 25 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report 3880500 3880450 3880400 3880350 3880300 3880250 Northing (meters) 3880200 Aggregate Mixers and Silo Units 7-15, 25 UTM Bin Units 4-6 Abrasive Blasting 3880150 Hopper and Conveyor Units 2-3 Alternative Site 3880100 Access Road 3880050 3880000 3879950 Abrasive Blasting Main Site 138.6 3879900 PM10 24-Hour 3879850 348850 348900 348950 349000 349050 349100 349150 349200 349250 349300 349350 UTM Easting (meters) 0 100 200 300 Figure 4: Aerial Map Showing the Location of the PM10 Highest 2nd High 24-Hour Model Results (µg/m3) Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 26 Coreslab Structures – Albuquerque Facility – Dispersion Model Report Modeling File List Model File Name Description CoreslabCombustROI Coreslab Combustion ROI modeling CoreslabNO2 Coreslab CIA NO2 24-hour and annual average modeling CoreslabNO21Hr Coreslab CIA NO2 1-hour average modeling CoreslabPMS1ROI Coreslab PM ROI modeling for Abrasive Blasting at Main Site using Scenario 1 CoreslabPMS1ROIAlt Coreslab PM ROI modeling for Abrasive Blasting at Alternative Site using Scenario 1 CoreslabPMS5ROI Coreslab PM ROI modeling for Abrasive Blasting at Main Site using Scenario 5 CoreslabPMS5ROIAlt Coreslab PM ROI modeling for Abrasive Blasting at Alternative Site using Scenario 5 Coreslab CIA PM2.5 Annual for Abrasive Blasting at Main Site using Scenarios 1-5, CoreslabPM2.5S1-5An Quikrete Operating Shifts 1 and 2 Coreslab CIA PM2.5 Annual for Abrasive Blasting at Alternative Site using Scenarios 1- CoreslabPM2.5S1-5AnAlt 5, Quikrete Operating Shifts 1 and 2 Coreslab CIA PM2.5 Annual for Abrasive Blasting at Main Site using Scenarios 1-5, CoreslabPM2.5S1-5AnE Quikrete Operating Shifts 2 and 3 Coreslab CIA PM2.5 Annual for Abrasive Blasting at Alternative Site using Scenarios 1- CoreslabPM2.5S1-5AnAltE 5, Quikrete Operating Shifts 2 and 3 Coreslab CIA PM2.5 24-Hour and PM10 24 Hour for Abrasive Blasting at Main Site CoreslabPMS1-5 using Scenarios 1-5, Quikrete Operating Shifts 1 and 2 Coreslab CIA PM2.5 24-Hour and PM10 24 Hour for Abrasive Blasting at Alternative CoreslabPMS1-5Alt Site using Scenarios 1-5, Quikrete Operating Shifts 1 and 2 Coreslab CIA PM2.5 24-Hour and PM10 24 Hour for Abrasive Blasting at Main Site CoreslabPMS1-5E using Scenarios 1-5, Quikrete Operating Shifts 2 and 3 CoreslabPMS1-5AltE Coreslab CIA PM2.5 24-Hour and PM10 24 Hour for Abrasive Blasting at Alternative Site using Scenarios 1-5, Quikrete Operating Shifts 2 and 3 Prepared by Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. Page 27 Attachment H Public Notice Documents Environmental Health Department Air Quality Program Interoffice Memorandum Tim Keller, Mayor Danny Nevarez, Acting Director TO: PAUL WADE, SENIOR ENGINEER, MONTROSE AIR QUALITY SERVICES FROM: REGAN EYERMAN, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENTIST SUBJECT: DETERMINATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND COALITIONS WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF 2800 2ND ST. SW, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87102 DATE: JANUARY 15, 2019 DETERMINATION: On January 15, 2019 I used the City of Albuquerque Zoning Advanced Map Viewer (http://sharepoint.cabq.gov/gis) to review which City of Albuquerque (COA) Neighborhood Associations (NAs) and Neighborhood Coalitions (NCs) are located within 0.5 miles of 2800 2nd St. SW, Albuquerque in Bernalillo County, NM. I then used the City of Albuquerque Office of Neighborhood Coordination’s Monthly Master NA List dated January 2019 and the Bernalillo County Monthly Neighborhood Association January 2019 Excel file to determine the contact information for each NA and NC located within 0.5 miles of 2800 2nd St. SW, Albuquerque in Bernalillo County, NM. Duplicates have been deleted: From http://sharepoint.cabq.gov/gis using the zoning advanced map viewer and the list of NAs and NCs from CABQ Office of Neighborhood Coordination: COA Association or Coalition Name Email or Mailing Address Barelas N/A Julia Archibeque- julia.guerra@comcast.net Guerra Barelas N/A Alicia Romero aliciamromero1@gmail.com Barelas N/A N/A Association barelasna@gmail.com South Broadway N/A Frances Armijo sbnaabq@gmail.com Gwen Colonel South Valley Coalition of NAs Rod Mahoney rmahoney01@comcast.net South Valley Coalition of NAs Marcia Fernandez mbfernandez1@gmail.com Southwest Alliance of Neighborhoods Johnny Pena johnnyepena@comcast.net Southwest Alliance of Neighborhoods Jerry Gallegos jgallegoswccdg@gmail.com Westside Coalition Rene Horvath aboard10@juno.com land@trna.org Westside Coalition Harry Hendriksen hlhen@comcast.net 1 From http://sharepoint.cabq.gov/gis using the zoning advanced map viewer and the list of NA's and NC's from County of Bernalillo: BC Association or Coalition Name Email or Mailing Address Mountain View Community Action Marla Painter marladesk@gmail.com Mountain View Community Action