Statement by

Lisa P. Jackson

##### Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

on

##### \"The State of Mercury Regulation, Science, and Technology\"

Before the

#### U.S. Senate Committee On Environment And Public Works

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

May 16, 2007

**[Introduction]{.underline}**

Good morning Chairman Carper, Ranking Minority Member Voinovich and
members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to come
before you today and provide New Jersey's perspective on the threat that
the hazardous air pollutant mercury poses to our nation, as well as our
state's efforts to address this threat.

While New Jersey is proud of its leadership role in regulating sources
of mercury, in many ways we were forced into that position through a
lack of federal leadership. I congratulate this committee on
highlighting the continuing impacts of mercury on both public health and
the environment and hope that New Jersey's perspective is beneficial to
your efforts.

**[Mercury Impacts]{.underline}**

Mercury is a highly toxic heavy metal and a potent neurotoxin that
attacks the nervous system. It is particularly insidious because its
human health impacts focus on the most vulnerable members of our
society: infants and fetuses developing in their mothers' wombs. Mercury
can cause permanent brain damage to a developing system. It can hurt the
ability of children to pay attention, remember, talk, draw, run, see and
even play. In New Jersey alone, we estimate that more than 5,000
newborns every year are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury *in
utero*, and our testing has revealed that at least one in ten pregnant
women in the State have concentrations of mercury in their hair samples
that exceed safe levels. Nationwide, the USEPA has estimated that
between 200,000 and 400,000 children are born each year in the United
States with pre-natal exposure to mercury sufficient to put them at risk
for neurological impairment.

New Jersey and the rest of the mid-Atlantic and northeast regions of the
country have been particularly impacted by mercury. Power plants are the
single largest source of the country's mercury emissions, emitting
almost 50 tons of the neurotoxin per year. The significant number of
power plants, combined with prevailing wind patterns, result in large
amounts of mercury being deposited into our soils and watersheds. Recent
decades have seen a four- to six-fold increase in the mercury deposited
in the northeastern United States.

Human exposure to the most toxic form of mercury comes primarily from
eating contaminated fish and shellfish. In aquatic systems, mercury is
quickly taken up into larger animals through the food chain, and those
animals retain the mercury in their bodies. Levels of methylmercury in
fish are typically 100,000 times those in the water in which they swim.
High concentrations of mercury in the fish in New Jersey's waterways has
led to 100% of our lakes, streams and reservoirs being placed under
either statewide or regional mercury advisories. This totals more than
4,100 waterbodies in New Jersey alone and is indicative of the grave
threat we all face.

Much of the mercury deposited from the air in New Jersey is emitted from
sources in upwind states. Even in the remote waterways in the Pinelands,
a relatively undeveloped area with no localized industry, we have
detected significantly high levels of mercury in fish. This underscores
the need for comprehensive protections on the national level that
address mercury (and other hazardous air pollutants) that can drift
beyond localized areas to affect downwind states.

By no means is New Jersey alone in dealing with the impacts of mercury.
Nationwide, forty-five states have mercury fish consumption advisories.
These advisories cover more than 13 million acres of lakes, and 750,000
miles of rivers. Research has documented the continued existence of
"hotspots" of mercury pollution -- areas where concentrations of mercury
in animals consistently exceeds safe levels. Confirmed or suspected
hotspots have been identified throughout the Northeast, in New Jersey,
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and Connecticut. It is apparent
that these are really "hot regions," not small areas that might be
implied with the term "hot spots."

**[Federal Mercury Regulation]{.underline}**

Through the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress sought to
address the unique problem of hazardous air pollutants, requiring that
EPA set the "most stringent standards achievable" for sources of a
specific list of 188 hazardous pollutants, including mercury. The
standards must be based on "the maximum reduction in emissions which can
be achieved by application of \[the\] best available control technology"
and came to be known as MACT standards, which is short for Maximum
Achievable Control Technology. Under the revised hazardous air pollutant
section of the Act, Congress required EPA to set such MACT standards for
all source categories of the pollutants by the year 2000.

Unfortunately, in 2005 EPA chose to disregard this Congressional mandate
and instead exempted power plants from the stringent MACT standards of
the Act. EPA's plan, entitled the "Clean Air Mercury Rule" or "CAMR" has
several fundamental problems. First, in violation of the Clean Air Act,
CAMR removes power plants from the typical hazardous air pollutant
regulations without meeting the clear statutory requirements for such an
exemption. Second, CAMR attempts to set up a cap-and-trade system for
mercury. Trading a potent neurotoxin has never been done before and is
inherently dangerous, as it will allow certain facilities to purchase
emission credits and escape any reduction in their mercury emissions.
People living nearby such polluters will be exposed to continuing high
levels of mercury for decades. Third, CAMR will take decades to
implement. Because emission credits can be banked, the Congressional
Research Service reported that full implementation may not occur until
2025 or later. This provides little protection to the thousands of
newborns suffering from mercury exposure every year. Finally, even at
full implementation in 2025, CAMR requires levels of emission reductions
that do not even reflect today's MACT.

## State Leadership on Mercury Regulation

Lack of constructive EPA action to address mercury has forced many
states to take independent action. In New Jersey, a Mercury Task Force
was created in 1992, and a new task force was convened in 1998, to
review and study sources of mercury pollution, its impact on health and
ecosystem and to develop a mercury pollution reduction plan. The Task
Forces were composed of representatives from various sectors, including
academia, business and industry, utilities, environmental groups, and
federal and local governments. They reviewed mercury emissions data from
over 30 source categories in New Jersey.

In the end, the Task Forces recommended a strategic goal of an 85
percent decrease of in-state mercury emissions from 1990 to 2011. This
goal was based on the acknowledged threat posed by mercury and the Task
Force's determination that significant reductions of mercury from
various sources are achievable in New Jersey. It should be highlighted
that the Task Force evaluated the feasibility of addressing the whole
range of sources of mercury, from power plants and iron and steel
smelters, to mercury switches in automobiles, to amalgam for teeth
fillings.

As a result of the Mercury Task Forces' recommendations, in December
2004, New Jersey established stringent new restrictions on mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants, iron and steel smelters, and
medical waste incinerators; and tightened existing requirements for
municipal solid waste incinerators. Those rules will reduce in-State
mercury emissions by over 1,500 pounds annually, reflecting: (1) over 75
percent reduction from the State\'s six iron and steel smelters by 2009;
and (2) over 95 percent reduction below 1990 levels from the State\'s
five municipal solid waste incinerators by 2011. Details of the iron and
steel smelter and municipal solid waste incinerator regulations are
attached as an appendix to this testimony.

## Coal-Fired Boilers

Number range CHAPTERNew Jersey's power plant mercury regulations apply
to the ten coal-fired boilers in the State. These electric generating
units in New Jersey emit approximately 700 pounds of mercury per year in
the State. The source of the emissions is from the mercury contained in
the coal. This industry is the second largest source category of mercury
emissions in New Jersey. The new rule gives the New Jersey power plants
until December 2007 to begin keeping 90 percent of the mercury in coal
from being emitted into the air or to meet a strict regulatory limit (3
milligrams per megawatt hour) that achieves comparable reductions.

Every plant will have to reduce emissions without emissions trading. A
company that commits to reducing substantially air pollution that causes
smog, soot and acid rain, as well as mercury, will earn an additional
five years to comply if mercury emission reductions are phased in with
concurrent reductions of particulates, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides. The Department expects the new rule to result in a reduction in
mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers of greater than 400 pounds per
year by the end of 2013.

I would like to highlight the particulate component of New Jersey's
multipollutant strategy. With the addition of carbon dioxide, New Jersey
will have a five pollutant strategy for coal-fired electric generating
units (EGUs). Carbon dioxide and particulate distinguish New Jersy's
multipollutant strategy from USEPA's three pollutant strategy. Coal EGUs
are one of the largest source categories of heavy metals and fine
particulates. Many coal EGUs have outdated and poorly performing
particulate control. This control needs to be upgraded for:

a.  Mercury Control

b.  Other toxic heavy metal control

c.  Fine particulate control

As you debate whether the federal government should adopt regulations
that mirror New Jersey's 90% mercury emission requirement, you of course
must examine whether this policy is achievable, both economically and
technologically. I am here to state to you unequivocally that, based on
New Jersey's experience, this reduction target is indeed achievable. Our
power plants, who it should be noted did not challenge this rule, have
not given any indications that they will not be able to meet the
requirements.

New Jersey's mercury rules reflect the ability of currently available
control technologies to achieve significant reductions in mercury
emissions from the major sources of the pollutant -- including power
plants. USEPA\'s Utility MACT Working Group, the Mercury Study Report to
Congress and the pilot tests conducted in New Jersey at coal-fired
boilers for control of mercury emissions all reflect that mercury
reductions exceeding 90% can be achieved by power plants across the
country.

Furthermore, while New Jersey\'s rules are some of the most stringent,
comparable standards are being adopted by numerous other states.
Massachusetts is now requiring 85 percent reduction by 2008 and 95
percent by 2012. Connecticut is requiring 90 percent reduction by July
2008 while Maryland is calling for reductions of 80 percent by 2010 and
90 percent by 2013. All these states clearly feel that large reductions
in mercury from power plants are not only essential to protect public
health, but are fully achievable now. Similarly, STAPPA-ALAPCO (now
\"NACAA\"), the association of state and regional air regulators from
around the country, came out with a model mercury rule in November 2005,
that calls for a 90-95% reduction in mercury from power plants by 2012.
The conclusion seems clear, these reductions not only *should* be
implemented, but they in fact *can* be done. Most telling, EPA's own
database, used in the CAMR rulemaking, acknowledged that the cleanest,
currently operating power plants, burning every type of coal, are
performing better than CAMR will require them to perform in 2025.

It is now time for the EPA to come to the same conclusion.

**[Multi-State Challenge to Federal Mercury Regulation]{.underline}**

New Jersey did not originally plan to propose New Jersey-only rules for
our major sources of mercury emissions. It was only after it became
apparent that EPA would be proposing either weak or nonexistent
standards for our major emitters that New Jersey and other states were
put in a position of having to do their own rules. Numerous other states
have decided to opt-out of EPA's CAMR approach, implementing instead an
array of regulations more protective of public health than the EPA's.

States, however, should not need to expend valuable resources on a
problem that is best addressed consistently nationwide, and New Jersey
is proud to lead a coalition that is challenging EPA's failures in
court. Seventeen states, including subcommittee members' states such as
Delaware, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, have filed suit in the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, asserting
that CAMR violates the requirements of the Clean Air Act. It is
disappointing that this legal action was required as the flaws with CAMR
were repeatedly pointed out by countless commenters during the
rulemaking process.

It is even more disappointing that the mercury litigation is just one in
a series of actions by the states to compel EPA to meet its basic
responsibilities under the Clean Air Act.

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

New Jersey's experience with mercury regulation can serve as a model for
effective national regulation. Today, a total of approximately 1,800
pounds per year of mercury is being emitted in New Jersey from the 13
municipal solid waste incinerators, three medical waste incinerators,
ten coal-burning units, and six iron and steel scrap melting plants.
This is down from about 6,200 pounds per year from these sources in
1990 - - a seventy percent reduction already and many of the milestone
dates are still to come. We expect emissions to be further reduced to
about 300 pounds by 2013, after full implementation of New Jersey's
rules. If New Jersey's regulations on power plants were applied
nationally, mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants would decline
from approximately 48 tons to about five tons annually.

The leadership of individual facilities and states around the country
has shown that the technology is available to meet the legally required
standard today and that power plants can comply with a MACT standard for
mercury that protects public health significantly more than EPA's CAMR.
For the sake of the health of our children and communities, a more
protective standard is warranted that limits exposure to this hazardous
air pollutant as soon as possible. Implementing the real maximum
achievable protections is simply the only moral and ethical choice
available if we are to meet our responsibility as public officials
entrusted to protect the nation's environment and health for this
generation and the generations that follow.

**APPENDIX I**

New Jersey's mercury regulations exceed comparable EPA requirements in
every category:

**New Jersey Performance Mercury Limits vs. USEPA Requirements**

+--------------+------------+---------------------------------+-------+
| # Sou        | **NJ**     | **USEPA Requirements**          | **Ra  |
| rce Category |            |                                 | tio** |
|              | **S        | **(Using equivalent units)**    |       |
|              | tandards** |                                 |       |
+--------------+------------+---------------------------------+-------+
| Municipal    | 28 µg/dscm | 80 µg/dscm or 85% removal       | 2.9   |
| Solid        | or 95%     |                                 | times |
|              | removal    |                                 |       |
| Waste        |            |                                 |       |
| Incinerators |            |                                 |       |
+--------------+------------+---------------------------------+-------+
| Iron and     | 35 mg/ton  | No separate mercury emission    | Up to |
| Steel Scrap  | or 75%     | limits.                         | 100   |
| Melters      | removal    |                                 | times |
|              |            | Mercury emissions are part of   |       |
|              |            | total hazardous air pollutant   |       |
|              |            | limits and can remain           |       |
|              |            | uncontrolled since the limit is |       |
|              |            | 3632 mg/ton                     |       |
+--------------+------------+---------------------------------+-------+
| Medical      | 55 µg/m^3^ | 550 µg/m^3^                     | 10    |
| Waste        |            |                                 | times |
| Incinerators |            |                                 |       |
+--------------+------------+---------------------------------+-------+
| Coal Fired   | 3 mg/MW-hr | Equivalent to:                  | 2.9   |
| Boilers      | or 90%     |                                 | times |
|              | removal    | 9 mg/MW-hr - Bituminous         |       |
|              |            |                                 | 10    |
|              | No Mercury | 30 mg/MW-hr - Subbituminous     | times |
|              | Trading    | (wet units)                     |       |
|              |            |                                 | 15    |
|              |            | 44 mg/MW-hr - Subbituminous     | times |
|              |            | (Dry units)                     |       |
|              |            |                                 | 27    |
|              |            | 80 mg/MW-hr - Lignite           | times |
|              |            |                                 |       |
|              |            | Mercury Trading                 |       |
+--------------+------------+---------------------------------+-------+

**APPENDIX II**

## Summary of New Jersey Mercury Regulation Development and Implementation

## Background

New Jersey created its first Mercury Task Force in April 1992, to review
and study sources of mercury pollution, its impact on health and
ecosystem and to develop a mercury pollution reduction plan for
municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs) in New Jersey.

As a result of the first Task Force recommendations, standards for
municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWI) were promulgated in 1994, at
NJAC 7:27-27: Control and Prohibition of Mercury Emissions. All of New
Jersey\'s MSWI met the mercury standard within one year. Mercury
emissions from MSWIs have been reduced by about 97% over the last twelve
years.

In 1998, the Department established a second Mercury Pollution Task
Force to develop and recommend a comprehensive multimedia mercury
pollution reduction plan for the State of New Jersey, including
recommendations on mercury emission controls and standards for major
sources. The Task Force was composed of representatives from various
sectors, including academia, business and industry, utilities,
environmental groups, and federal and local governments. The New Jersey
Mercury Pollution Task Force reviewed mercury emissions data from over
30 source categories in New Jersey and developed recommendations for
reducing mercury use and emissions. This emissions data is presented in
Chart 1. Based on the Task Force recommendations, on December 6, 2004,
the Department revised its mercury emission regulations for municipal
solid waste incinerators and adopted new mercury emissions limits for
coal combustion, the iron and steel industry, and medical waste
incinerators. The Department adopted the new rules and amendments to its
rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-27, Control and Prohibition of Mercury Emissions.

The second Mercury Task Force recommended a strategic goal of an 85
percent decrease of in-state mercury emissions from 1990 to 2011. The
Task Force found that numerous actions were needed to achieve the New
Jersey air emissions reduction milestones. These milestones are based on
the Task Force's assessment that significant reduction of mercury from
various sources can be achieved in New Jersey. The Task Force also
recommended as a long-term goal the "virtual elimination" of
anthropogenic emissions of mercury.

![](media/image1.wmf)**Chart 1**

Based on stack tests results, it is estimated that today a total of
approximately 1,800 pounds per year of mercury is being emitted in New
Jersey from the 13 municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWI), three
medical waste incinerators, ten coal-burning units, and six iron and
steel scrap melting plants. This is down from about 6,200 pounds per
year from these sources in 1990. We expect this to be further reduced
from these source categories to about 300 pounds per by 2013, after full
implementation of New Jersey's rules.

**[Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (MSWI)]{.underline}**

The first Mercury Task Force estimated that MSW contained approximately
2 ppm of mercury in 1994. The mercury content of municipal solid waste
has declined about 70% in the last decade because of pollution
prevention efforts. These included the virtual elimination of mercury in
dry cell batteries, packaging, and other items required by the Dry Cell
Battery Management Act, N.J.S.A., 13:1E-99.59 through 13:1E-99.81, and
the Toxic Packaging Reduction Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1E-99.44 et seq..
Separation of mercury containing items from MSW prior to incineration
has also reduced mercury emissions from MSWIs.

When waste is incinerated, the mercury contained in the waste is
released. The high temperature involved in the solid waste incineration
process vaporizes virtually all of the mercury present in the waste. The
best emission controls on New Jersey solid waste incinerators, which
primarily consist of the injection of finely-divided carbon prior to
fabric filters, remove 95% to 99% of the mercury from the combustion
exhaust gas stream. All MSW incinerators installed the carbon injection
emission controls within one year of rule promulgation and achieved over
89% mercury reduction in the first year of operation. That has increased
to about 97%, as a result of improvement in carbon injection systems,
primarily improved distribution of carbon in the flue gas prior to the
particulate control device.

New Jersey's MSW incinerator facilities are required to report results
of stack tests of the mercury, which are done quarterly or annually,
depending on performance. These results are converted to pounds-per-year
of mercury emissions. These calculations provide evidence of a dramatic
decline in mercury emissions as shown below in Chart 2.

![](media/image2.wmf)

####### Chart 2

The mercury emissions standard of 28 ug/dscm was set in 1994 based on a
presumption of at least 80% control with carbon injection and 80 %
reduction with source separation/waste stream mercury reduction
measures. 80% control was included in NJ first mercury rule as an
alternative limit in case source separation was not fully successful.

The resulting installation of carbon injection control devices in 1995,
significantly reduced mercury emissions (reducing emissions from about
4,400 pounds per year (lbs/yr) to about 500 lbs/yr in 1996, a reduction
of about 89%). Since 1995, carbon injection systems have been very
successfully operating on all thirteen units at all five resource
recovery facilities in the State of New Jersey. In 2006, mercury
emissions were about 3% of 1992 levels.

Testing over the last thirteen years have demonstrated that carbon
injection on MSW incinerators can consistently achieve over 95 percent
mercury reduction. Based on the demonstrated success of carbon
injection, the Department revised the State's air pollution control
regulation governing Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator (MSWI) emissions
to further reduce mercury emissions. The 2004 New Jersey rules require
an emission standard of 28 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
(ug/dscm) or 95 percent emission reduction as an alternative standard.

The Department estimates that the 2004 amendments will maintain or
improve upon the 2006 97% reduction across the control systems because
of the compliance margin that results from these performance standards.

## MSW Lessons Learned 

1.  Air pollution control systems have been available for over 10 years
    for mercury control of large combustion sources.

2.  Carbon injection is proven, low capital cost, and quick to install
    (less than one year).

3.  Refinements of carbon injection systems, such as improving carbon
    distribution, occur after initial installation to improve
    efficiencies.

4.  Carbon injection achieves well over 90% removal of mercury, with
    some systems near 99%.

5.  Good mercury control requires good particulate control. Fabric
    filters are better than electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).

6.  Carbon injection works with a highly variable mercury source.
    (Mercury in MSW is more variable than mercury in coal.)

**[Iron and Steel Foundries and Mills]{.underline}**

In New Jersey, there are six iron and steel scrap melting facilities,
which are the largest mercury emitting source category in the state.
Stack tests conducted at five of the facilities indicate that total
mercury emissions are in the range of 1000 pounds per year. Mercury
emissions are usually in the range 10 to 100 ug/dscm. The second Mercury
Task Force recommended mercury emission limits be developed to achieve
significant overall mercury emission reduction of at least 75%.
Analogous to New Jersey's Municipal Waste Incinerator rules, a
performance standard for iron and steel manufacturers was designed to
reduce mercury emissions through a combination of pollution prevention,
source separation, and available controls.

The three cupola and three electric arc furnaces in NJ melt scrap, which
includes recycled metals from the shredding of motor vehicles, home
appliances, and waste metals from demolished building structures.
Thermostats, relays, switches, control devices, and measuring devices
contain mercury and find its way into this metallic scrap.

Reducing mercury emissions from iron and steel manufacturers requires
multi-media, multi-sector pollution prevention approaches, including
removal of mercury from feedstock scrap. Mercury switches must be
removed from cars when they are dismantled or prior to shredding. In
accordance with the New Jersey Mercury Switch Removal Act of 2005,
automobile manufacturers are required to implement a program to remove
mercury switches from end-of-life motor vehicles in New Jersey. This
program is currently underway, and is being monitored by the
Department's Solid and Hazardous Waste Program and by the Enforcement
program. The first annual report, submitted by the automobile
manufacturers' representative organization, End of Life Vehicle
Solutions (ELVS), has been submitted to the Department and indicates a
capture rate of 6% for 2006, which equals approximately 9.84 pounds of
mercury collected. Due to the expiration of the one-year waste retention
period, ELVS anticipates a much higher capture rate in 2007. In
addition, a national program has been developed and is being implemented
in a phased approach. Implementation of a strong national program will
be beneficial, because mercury-contaminated scrap metal enters New
Jersey from other states.

Under the Department\'s December 2004 new rules, each facility is
currently required to stack test quarterly in order to show the impact
of any source separation efforts on their emissions. Under the new
rules, if source separation does not succeed in achieving the 35
milligram per ton of steel production (mg/ton), iron or steel melters
are required to install mercury control technology. The new rules
specify that on and after January 3, 2010, each iron or steel melter
must reduce its mercury emissions by at least 75 percent as measured at
the exit of the mercury control apparatus; or in the alternative,
mercury emissions may not exceed 35 mg/ton, based on the average of all
tests performed during four consecutive quarters. This 35 mg/ton
standard is also based on an overall 75 percent reduction in mercury
emissions from iron and steel manufacturers. The Department expects a
reduction in mercury emissions of at least 700 pounds per year upon
implementation of the new rules for this industry.

Most of the New Jersey melters have taken significant steps to comply
with the rules, including both source separation and add on control. For
example, Atlantic States iron and steel foundry in New Jersey recently
installed an activated carbon injection system and a baghouse on the
cupola. Mercury emission test results at this plant show greater than
90% mercury control and less than three mg/ton mercury emissions. The
mercury emissions are well below both of the alternative New Jersey
mercury rule limits. Other facilities with existing fabric filter
control have also tested carbon injection and have reported significant
reduction in mercury.

USEPA's adopted National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) for Iron and Steel Foundries, that include emission limits of
total metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for existing iron and steel
foundries. Mercury emissions are considered part of total metal HAP
emissions. The Department recommended that EPA adopt stand-alone mercury
emission standards for iron and steel foundries. EPA's combined HAP
limit will likely result in no control being added for mercury emissions
and also fails to set a limit to measure the success of mercury in scrap
removal efforts.

### [Iron and Steel Lessons learned]{.underline} 

1.  Carbon injection appears to work as well on iron and steel scrap
    melters as on MSW incinerators.

2.  As with MSW incineration, removal of mercury prior to heating is a
    helpful component of a mercury reduction plan. However, achieving
    high levels of mercury reduction (over 90%) is not likely, at least
    in the near term.

3.  Setting a performance limit for iron and steel scrap melter is
    necessary to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Determine the success of mercury switch removal programs.

b.  Ensure that low mercury emissions will be achieved.

**[Coal-fired power plants]{.underline}**

The USEPA adopted mercury trading rules on May 18, 2005, for coal-fired
power plants. Because of the inadequacy of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR), over 20 states have moved forward with their own mercury
regulations for power plants, because they understand that the Federal
action was inadequate. New Jersey\'s rules require the seven coal-fired
facilities in the State to install mercury control by December 2007, or
December 2012. The control deadline can be extended to December 2012,
for a company that commits to major reductions in emissions of NOx, SO2,
and particulate, along with mercury, to levels significantly below and
sooner than what the Bush Administration\'s Clear Skies Initiative would
attain. Hence, NJ's mercury rule contains a multipollutant strategy for
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulates.

Number range CHAPTERThe Department's 2006 rule is applicable to all ten
coal-fired boilers in this State. According to the Second Task Force,
the coal-fired electric generating units in New Jersey emit
approximately 700[+]{.underline}300 pounds of mercury per year in the
State. The source of the emissions is from the mercury contained in the
coal. This industry is the second largest source category of mercury
emissions in New Jersey. The new rule specifies that the mercury
emissions from any coal-fired boiler shall not exceed 3 milligrams per
megawatt hour (mg/MW-hr), based on the annual weighted average of all
tests performed during four consecutive quarters; or, in the
alternative, the owner or operator of a coal-fired boiler must achieve
90 percent reduction in mercury emissions as measured at the exit of the
air pollution control apparatus.

The adopted standards are based on the information from the USEPA\'s
Utility MACT Working Group, the Mercury Study Report to Congress, and
pilot tests conducted in New Jersey at coal-fired boilers for control of
mercury emissions. The standard is approximately equivalent to an input
standard of 0.6 pounds per trillion BTU. New Jersey adopted an output
standard to encourage and give credit for energy efficiency.

The New Jersey rules will achieve greater mercury emission reductions in
a shorter timeframe than USEPA's Clean Air Mercury Rules. New Jersey
does not allow emission trading. This ensures mercury emission reduction
at every plant in New Jersey.

## Coal -- Looking Forward

1.  MACT performance standards are appropriate to ensure mercury
    minimization at every coal-fired power plant.

2.  Carbon injection systems have been proven on coal as well as MSW
    incinerators.

3.  Good particulate control is usually necessary to achieve over 90%
    mercury removal with carbon injection.

4.  Emissions trading will likely leave many coal-fired EGUs poorly
    controlled for mercury.

5.  Since a portion of, and sometimes a large amount of, mercury falls
    locally, control of each coal-fired power plant is needed.

6.  Emissions trading is inappropriate for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
    including mercury.

## Sewage Sludge Incinerators

Industrial pretreatment programs have reduced emissions of mercury from
sewage sludge incinerators, and emissions will be further reduced as the
dental amalgam rules, discussed below, are implemented.

Domestic treatment works are a recipient of mercury from residential,
commercial, and industrial source activities. Sewage sludge typically
contains mercury in the low parts per million range (2005 median was
1.13 mg/kg). Using existing authority, domestic treatment works can help
reduce influent mercury by limiting concentrations in incoming
wastewater streams through the establishment of technically based local
pretreatment limits, which they can impose on non-domestic users to
achieve compliance with applicable environmental endpoints.

The median mercury concentration in sewage sludge has dropped 70% in the
past 20 years. Although data are not readily available to pinpoint all
reasons for this decline, the following actions have played a
significant role:

-   The Industrial Pretreatment Program as noted above has reduced the
    amount of mercury and other pollutants allowed to be discharged from
    permitted industries to domestic treatment works.

-   The Pollution Prevention Program has provided industries with
    incentives to reduce the amounts of regulated waste produced through
    process changes and/or substitution.

-   Mercury has been removed from household products (e.g., latex paint)
    that often found their way into domestic treatment works
    collection/treatment systems.

-   Other products and/or technologies have gradually been substituted
    for historically mercury based products, e.g., electronic
    thermometers, blood pressure measuring instruments, etc.

Additionally, the Department has proposed new rules to curtail the
release of mercury from dental facilities into the environment. Dental
facilities contribute 35 to 45 percent of the mercury entering New
Jersey's domestic treatment works. This large contribution is
attributable to the use of dental amalgam as a direct filling material
for restoring teeth. Dental amalgam is approximately 50 percent mercury
by weight. Amalgam wastes are often rinsed down the drain in dental
facilities, usually to a municipal sewer system and then to the domestic
treatment works.

New Jersey's proposed new rules would, under most circumstances, exempt
a dental facility from the requirement to obtain an individual permit
for its discharge to a domestic treatment works, if it (i) implements
best management practices (BMPs) for the handling of dental amalgam
waste, and (ii) installs and properly operates an amalgam separator.
These measures are expected to prevent 95 percent or more of the dental
mercury wastes from being sent to the domestic treatment works. Each
facility would have one year from the effective date of the rule to
implement the BMPs, and two years to install the separator.

In New Jersey sewage sludge incinerators were estimated to release
approximately 150 pounds of mercury in 2005, as compared to
approximately 220 pounds in 2002 based on stack testing and monthly
sludge quality assurance testing. Depending on the success of the
pretreatment program, the Department may set lower mercury limits in
sludge or stack emission limits for sludge incinerators in the future.