# New Jersey Mercury

Reduction Action Plan

Draft for Stakeholder Comment

11/5/2009



# November 2009

Prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Mercury Workgroup

## Acknowledgements

The New Jersey Mercury Reduction Plan was de veloped by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Mercury Workgroup. The Mercury Workgroup includes representatives from programs in the NJDEP as well as a representative from the United States Environmental Protection Program. The Mercury Workgroup members are:

Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program Robin Heston, Chair

Dana Lawson Dawn Slawsky

Division of Air Quality Sunila Agrawal

Lisa Ehrlich

Eleanora Katts Olga Boyko

Science and Research

Mike Aucott

Alan Stern

Division of Environmental Safety and Health Mike Digiore

Site Remediation Program

Jim Denoble

Division of Watershed Management

Anne Witt

Mira Gorska

Water Monitoring & Standards Leslie McGeorge

Jack Pflaumer

Division of Water Quality Anthony Pilawski

Muhammed Shaikh

Leon Moss

EPA, Region 2 Andy Bellina

2

## Table of Contents

A. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................. ................................4

B. GOALS, MILESTON ES, AND TARGETS .............................................................................................. ........5

C. PROGRESS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ .......................6

1) A IR S OURCES

............................................................................................................................... .........................6 2) W ATER S OURCES

............................................................................................................................... ..................11 3) M ULTI

- MEDIA S OURCES

............................................................................................................................... .......12 4) M ONITORING

............................................................................................................................... ........................13

a) Fish Monitoring............................................................................................................ ..................................13 b) Air Monitoring............................................................................................................. ...................................13 c) Surface Wate r Monito ring ................................................................................................... ...........................14 d) Ground Wate r Monito ring.................................................................................................... ..........................14

D. MERCURY REDUCTION ACTION ITEMS .............................................................................................. ..15

APPENDIX I................................................................................................................................................................2

MERCURY TASK FORCE REPORT KEY RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................3

APPENDIX II ..............................................................................................................................................................8

APPENDIX III...........................................................................................................................................................10

APPENDIX IV ...........................................................................................................................................................12

APPENDIX V..................................................................................................................... ........................................14

APPENDIX VI .................................................................................................................... .......................................16

APPENDIX VII ................................................................................................................... ......................................18

APPENDIX VIII.................................................................................................................. ......................................20

APPENDIX IX ...........................................................................................................................................................22

3

### A. Background

Mercury is a persistent, bio-accumulative toxin with a complex environmental behavior in air, water, and soil. It can be f ound in solid, liquid, or vapor form. Mercury can cause a variety of harmful health effects including damage to the brain, central ner vous system, and kidneys and is particularly harmful to children, prenatal life and infants thr ough the toxin’s exposure to both pregnant and nursing women. Mercury is used in a wide variety of household products, is found naturally in some forms of coal, can be discharg ed into waterways, and is emitted into the air through a variety of industrial processes. When mercury enters lakes and waterways it undergoes a natural chemical process and is conve rted to a more toxic form – methylmercury. The methylmercury builds up in the tissue of fish and animals, increasing its concentration as it moves up through the food chain, which results in hi gh levels of mercury in some of the foods

we eat.

Since 1982, when research began to show elevated levels of potentially harmful contaminants in certain fish and crabs in some New Jersey wa ters, fish consumption advisories have been adopted to guide citizens on sa fe consumption practices. Fish consumption advisories are developed through a scientific process that incl udes collecting samples of fish from waters throughout the state and analyzing them for various chemical c ontaminants, such as dioxin, PCBs and mercury. The current fish advisories for New Jersey waterways are available at

http://www.state.nj.us/dep /dsr/fishadvisories/2009FishAdvisoryBrochure.pdf

.

New Jersey began working to reduce mercury releases to the environment in 1992 with the formation of a Mercury Task Force. That Task Force examined the many routes and sources of mercury exposure and found air emissions to be the number one source of mercury contamination in New Jersey. The Task Force identified the largest source of mercury air emissions in New Jersey as municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators. The Task Force recommended a statewide mercury emission st andard for MSW incinerators, which was implemented in 1996. In addition to the MSW incinerator standards, New Jersey passed the “Dry Cell Battery Management Act” in 1992, banni ng the use of mercury in certain batteries.

These two efforts reduced MSW incinerator mercury emissions by 97% between 1992 and 2006.

In 1998, New Jersey convened a second Mercury Task Force. The second Task Force consisted of representatives from government, emission s ources, public interest groups, academia, and fishing organizations. This Ta sk Force was charged with reviewing the current science on mercury impacts on human health and ecosystems, inventorying and assessing mercury sources, and developing a comprehensive mercury reducti on plan for New Jersey. The “New Jersey Mercury Task Force Report” published in December 2001 established a goal of the virtual elimination of anthropogenic, or man-made, so urces of mercury and provided recommendations and targets for further reducing mercury emission s in New Jersey. The 2001 Task Force Report

is available at

http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ mercury_task_force.htm and a summary of the recommendations of the Task Force are included in Appendix I.

4In 2007 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s or NJDEP’s) Mercury Workgroup evaluated New Jersey’s progress towards meeting the goals and recommendations of the Task Force. Following a presentation to former Commissioner Lisa Jackson on October 30, 2007, the Mercury Workgr oup was charged with putting together a Mercury Reduction Plan to identify the necessary next steps to continue to reduce mercury emissions in New Jersey.

During the preparation of the Mercury Reduction Action Plan, the Department began developing a statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for impaired assessment units where mercury

fish tissue concentrations are lik ely to be caused by mercury from air deposition. Portions of

this Reduction Plan were utilized in the TMDL . The TMDL was noticed in the New Jersey Register on June 15, 2009 and is available on-line at http://www.nj.gov/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/TMDL/tmdl_mercury_061509.pdf



### B. Goals, Milestones, and Targets

The 2001 Task Force Report established a target of a 75% reduction in mercury from air emissions below the estimated 1990 levels by 2006 and an 85% reducti on by 2011 (see chart in Appendix II). Based on the emissions data ava ilable to the Department, a reduction of 67% was achieved by 2006. This percentage calculation is based on actual emissions data for 2006, and

on estimated emissions from sources for which emissions data were not available. These mercury data, with additional expl anations, are reported in a table in Appendix III and charts in Appendices IV and V.

Quantities of estimated anthropogenic releases of mercury to water and land have been revised since the Task Force report was completed. The Task Force estimated mercury releases to surface water by calculating mercury concentra tions in wastewater by analyzing NJDEP Discharge Monitoring Reports and assuming that non- detect values represented concentrations of mercury of one half the detection limits. This analysis resulted in an estimated total mercury load in wastewater discharges of approximate ly 820 pounds per year. Recent measurements of mercury concentrations in wastewater and estim ations based on mercury content in treatment plant sludge suggest that mercury co ncentrations in wastewater plan t effluent are in the range of 30 nanograms per liter (ng/l), with influent perhap s in the range of 150 ng/l. Since the daily effluent flow from New Jersey wastewater pl ants is approximately 1.1 billion gallons, this

concentration leads to an esti mated quantity of mercury in wa stewater plant effluent of approximately 100 pounds per year. This quantity would be augmented by the discharges of wastewater to soil and groundwater from on-site septic systems. The Task Force estimated that approximately 15% of the State’s population discha rges their wastewater th rough septic systems. This latter flow could be expect ed to have a mercury concentra tion similar to wastewater plant influent. It is unknown what part of the mercury would be transf erred to the treatment plants, when septic tanks are pumped, and what part would be released to the land.

This Reduction Plan provides the actions needed to further reduce mercury emissions and to meet the 85% reduction goal by 2011.

5

### C. Progress Summary

Since the publication of the 2001 Mercury Task Force Report, New Jersey has implemented the following recommendations.

1) Air Sources

New Jersey adopted regulations on December 6, 2004 to establish new requirements on the emission of mercury for various categories of fac ilities. These regulations have resulted in decreased mercury emissions as shown in the tabl e in Appendix VII. All of the regulations are

located at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/Sub27-120604.pdf . The following categories were included in the rule adoptions:

a) Coal-fired boilers - New Jersey’s power plant mercury regulations apply to all coal-fired boilers in the State. At the time of this report, there were ten coal-fired boilers operating in New Jersey. These electric-generati ng units emitted approximately 700 pounds of mercury per year from the late 1990s to 2001, causing this industry to be the second largest source category of mercury emissions in New Jersey. The source of the emissions is from the mercury contained in the co al. Since December 2007, New Jersey power plants have been required to prevent 90% of the mercury contained in coal from being emitted into the air or meet a strict regulatory emission limit of 3 milligrams of mercury per megawatt hour. New Jersey believes that these two options will result in comparable reductions. The Department adopted this co mbination standard to base the mercury emission limit on the median level of mercury in coal and the percent reduction standard on the highest mercury levels in coal. This ensures that significant reductions occur for coal containing the median level of mercur y, and coal containing higher levels of mercury can still be burned w ith good air pollution control.

Final compliance with the New Jersey rule is required by December 2012, for companies implementing a multi-pollutant control strategy. A company that commits to substantially reducing air pollution that causes smog, soot and acid rain, as well as mercury, has an additional five years to comply from December 2007 to December 2012, if mercury emission reductions are phased in with concu rrent reductions of particulates, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The Department expects this rule to result in a reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers of greater than 400 pounds per year by the end of 2012. (The actual emissions reduction is not 90% because existing control systems already control mercury to some degree, with four units alr eady achieving over 90% control.)

Recent mercury stack test data with carbon inj ection control on coal fired boilers indicate compliance with the New Jersey standa rd is achievable as shown below:

6Stack test results at New Jersey coal-fired boilers

Plant Name Mercury
Control Test Results Removal Efficiency (%) NJ Standard

Mercer

Unit 1

Unit 2 Carbon and
Electrostatic precipitator

for particulate

control (ESP) 1.64 mg/MW-hr (gross) 2.00 mg/MW-hr (gross) ** 3 mg/MW-hr or

90% removal

BL England

Unit 2 Carbon, ESP,

and scrubber 1.24 mg/MW-hr (gross) 96.8 Same as above

Deepwater None added* 1.51 mg/MW-hr (net) ** Same as above

Carneys Point Generating

Plant

Unit 1

Unit 2 None added* 1.5 mg/MW-hr 2.6 mg/MW-hr **

** Same as above

Logan None added* 1.15 mg/MW-hr > 96 Same as above

* No mercury specific control. These electric ge nerating units have low NOx burners and baghouses (which provide a substrate for capturing the mercury). ** Not tested. 3 mg/MWhr is about 90% control for median mercury content coal.

Note: These results are for the seven units that already comply with the New Jersey mercury standard. The remaining three units (BL England-Unit 1, Vineland Electric Utility Facility, and Hudson Generating Station) are due to comply between 2010 and 2013, consistent with enforcement agreements.

b) Iron and steel melters – This rule also requires the addition of carbon adsorption systems with baghouse control on iron and steel melte rs. The Department provided iron and steel melters three years to reduce mercury contam ination of scrap meta l through elimination and separation measures. The Mercury Switch Removal Act, de scribed in greater detail

under the Mult-Media Sources section of this Plan, has reduced mercury emissions, but not sufficiently. If the sour ce reduction measures do not achieve sufficient emission reduction, the rule requires the installation a nd operation of mercur y air pollution control to achieve the mercury standard of 35 milligrams per ton (mg/ton) starting January 2010.

In New Jersey, there have been six iron and steel melting facilities in operation. Since New Jersey took measures to reduce mercur y emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators, iron and steel melters became the largest mercury emitting source category

in the state. Past stack test s conducted, pursuant to permit conditions, at five of the

facilities indicated th at total mercury emissions were in the range of 1000 pounds per year. Mercury emission concentrations for iron and steel production are in the range of 10 to 100 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm). The performance standard

7for iron and steel melters is designed to reduce mercury em issions through a combination of pollution prevention, source se paration, and emission controls.

The Department expected a reduction in me rcury emissions of approximately 700 pounds per year upon implementation of the rules for th is industry. Actual re ductions have been higher because of plant shutdowns and the implementation of control measures, most notably carbon adsorption, which achieved gr eater than 75% mercury reductions. Based on stack tests of the operating units , mercury emissions are now about 75 pounds per

year.

The rules also include work practice standa rds for iron and steel melters similar to the

Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technol ogy (MACT) rules app licable to the iron and steel industry. The owne r or operator of iron or steel melters submits to the Department for approval a written certifie d mercury minimization or source separation plan to minimize the amount of mercury in sc rap processed at the facility. The rules require iron and steel melters to implement a plan for inspecting incoming scrap to assure that only mercury-minimized scrap is purch ased. The rules require each facility to maintain on site copies of the mercury mi nimization and source se paration plan, records reflecting the results of visual inspections, and a copy of the procedures that each supplier uses to remove mercury from scrap provided to the facility

.

The two New Jersey melters operating at the ti me this Plan was issued, Atlantic States Iron and Steel Foundry and Gerdaua Ameristeel , have taken significant steps to comply with the rules, including both source separati on and add-on contro ls. In 2006, Atlantic

States installed an activated carbon injection system and a baghouse. Mercury emission test results at this plant show greater th an 90% mercury contro l and less than three mg/ton mercury emissions. The mercury em issions are well below both of the New Jersey mercury rule limits. Gerdau Amerist eel, with existing fabric filter control on an electric arc furnace, has also installed a carbon injection system. Stack tests conducted in 2008 show greater than 90% mercury cont rol and less than three mg/ton mercury

emissions.

c) Hospital/medical/infectious waste (HMIW) incinerators: The NJDEP adopted a mercury emission limit of 55 μg/dscm for HMIW incinerators, which is more stringent than the United States Environmental Protection Agency ’s (EPA’s) 550 μg/dscm standard. This

emission level is consistent with the New England Governor s/Eastern Canadian Premiers’ Mercury Action Plan and standards adopted by several northeast states. Also, stack test results show that the 55 μg/dscm limit was being achieved at all HMIW

incinerators.

Medical waste, which includes infectious and non-infectious wa ste from medical and veterinary offices, clinics, and hospitals, was incinerated at three facilities in New Jersey, including hospitals and research facilities. Stack tests carried out pursuant to NJDEP permits indicate that the total emissions from these facilities were very low, in the range of 2 pounds per year. Pollution prevention m easures, including source reduction, re-use, and separation prior to incineration had been effective at controlling mercury from these

8facilities. These practices ar e still being employed to a large degree, and this is a major

reason emissions from this sector were so low in New Jersey. Mercury sources in medical waste could include batteries, fluores cent lamps, thermometers, plastic pigments, antiseptics, diuretics, infectious waste bag pigments and CAT scan paper. Also, all hospital waste incinerators have shut down, with the last in 2008.

d) Municipal solid waste (MSW) incinera tors: The December 2004 rules require MSW

incinerators to furt her reduce their mercury emissi ons. The 1994 New Jersey rules required an emission standard of 28 μg/dscm or an 80 percent emission reduction. Testing has demonstrated that carbon injection on MSW incinerators can consistently achieve over 95 percent mercury reduction w ith baghouse particulate collection. Based on the demonstrated success of carbon injection, the Department in 2004 amended the State’s air pollution control regulation to further reduce mercury emissions.

The 2004 amendments allow two alternatives for compliance. One alternative requires implementation in two phases. The first phase began Janu ary 3, 2006, and the second phase begins January 3, 2012. In the first pha se, at an incinerator with annual average mercury emissions exceeding 28 μ g/dscm, the air pollution control apparatus must

achieve an annual aver age of 85% reduction efficiency in mercury emissions. In the second phase, at an incinerator with annua l average mercury emissions exceeding 28

μ g/dscm, the air pollution cont rol apparatus must achieve an annual average of 95% reduction efficiency in mercury emissions. In both cases, if a MS W incinerator’s annual average mercury emissions are below 28 μ g/dscm no further action is required.

Under the second alternative the MSW incine rator's mercury emissions could not exceed

14 μ g/dscm, averaged over three years. The th ree-year averaging period would make it less likely that isolated spikes in mercury emissions would cause an exceedance of the

stricter 14 μ g/dscm standard. The Department estim ated that this op tion would provide an emission reduction comparable to what the first alternative's second phase would achieve. Appendix VI illustrates the trend in mercury emissions from five MSW

facilities from 1992 to 2008. Recent stack test results show that MSW incinerators have achieved greater than 96% c ontrol of mercury emissions.

e) Sewage Sludge Incinerators: Industrial pr e-treatment programs have reduced emissions of mercury from sewage sludge incinerators a nd emissions will be further reduced as new dental amalgam rules are implemented.

Domestic treatment works are the recipients of mercury from residential, commercial,

and industrial source activitie s. Sewage sludge typically c ontains mercury in the low parts per million range. In 2006, the New Jers ey median was 1.28 ppm. It is estimated

that the 100 μ g/dscm emission standard recommende d by the New En gland Governors

and Eastern Canadian Premiers is met if th e mercury content of se wage sludge is less than 2 ppm. 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 envir onmental endpoints.

9The median mercury concentration in New Jersey’s 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:

o The Industrial Pretreatment Program has re duced the amount of mercury and other pollutants allowed to be discharged from permitted industries to domestic treatment

works.

o The Pollution Prevention Program has provi ded industries with in centives to reduce the amounts of regulated waste produced thr ough process changes a nd/or substitution.

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

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

Additionally, the Department adopted rules, which became effective on October 1, 2007, to curtail the release of mercury from dental facilities into the environment. Dental

facilities are estimated to contribute 35 to 45% of the mercury entering New Jersey’s domestic treatment works. This large contri bution is attributable to the use of dental amalgam as a direct filling material for rest oring teeth. Dental am algam is approximately 50% mercury by weight. Amalgam wastes ar e often rinsed down the drain in dental facilities, usually to a municipal sewer system and then to the domestic treatment works.

New Jersey’s 2007 rules, under most circumstan ces, 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 handli ng of dental amalgam waste, and (ii) installs and properly operates an amalgam sepa rator. These measures are expected to prevent 95% or mo re of the dental mercury wast es from being sent to the

domestic treatment works. Each facility had one year from the effective date of the rule to implement the BMPs, and two years (Octobe r 1, 2009) to install the separator.

In New Jersey, sewage sludge incinerators released an estimated 127 pounds of mercury in 2008, as compared to approximately 220 pounds in 2002 based on stack testing and monthly sludge quality assura nce testing. Appendix VIII sh ows the calculated mercury emission data from sewage sludge incinerato rs. The emissions were back calculated based on the mercury conten t of sludges incinerated.

f) Hazardous Waste Sites: Due to the use of mercury and its compounds in a number of industrial and manufacturing processes, bot h elemental mercury and its compounds have

been found at a number of known hazardous waste sites.

Elemental mercury is or has been use d, and has on occasion be en observed to be discharged, at the following type s of facilities in New Jersey:

o Chlor-alkali plants,

o Facilities that manufactured pressure measuring devices and thermometers,

o Ordnance manufacturing facilities,

o Scientific glass vessel manufacturing facilities,

10o Mercury purification facilities (electronic use, etc.), and

o Paint manufacturing facilities.

Liquid mercury has been observed at some of th ese sites at the surface, near subsurface, and in fresh and marine water bodies proximate to the site.

Liquid mercury vaporizes into a toxic, colo rless, odorless gas and warm temperatures enhance vaporization. At the immediate locus of the discharged liquid, especially in confined areas, the vapor can be acutely toxic. EPA has established a Reference Concentration of 0.3 microgr ams per meter cubed (μg/m 3 ), with a chronic minimal risk level of 0.2μg/m 3 . Visible mercury also presents a tracking hazard via potential trespassers at abandoned sites.

In addition to the acute hazards imposed by standing liquid mercury, vaporization certainly contributes to the re gional and global flux of mercur y to the atmosphere. Prior to the remediation of these sites, the mercur y source contribution to the atmosphere from these types of sites is at present time an unknown entity. Mercury vapor concentrations drop off quickly with distance from the sp illed liquid. Improved instrumentation now permits the detection of mercury vapor at low concentrations, and thus may help the Department to estimate the contribution to the regional atmospheric budget these sites yield.

2) Water Sources

As previously mentioned, the Department adopted new rules that became effective on October 1,

2007 to curtail the release of mercury from dental facilities into the environment. The new rules, under most circumstances, exempt a dental facilit y from the requirement to obtain an individual permit for its discharge to a Publicly Owned Tr eatment Works (POTW), if it implements best management practices (BMPs) for the handling of dental amalgam waste and installs and properly operates an amalgam separator. Dental facilities were required to implement the BMPs by October 1, 2008, and must install and operate an amalgam separator by October 1, 2009. These measures are expected to prevent at least 95 percent of the mercury wastes from being sent to the POTW and result in approximately 2,550 pounds of mercury removed from the environment each year.

One hundred POTWs in New Jersey submitted baseli ne data on mercury concentrations in their treatment plant effluent. Thes e samples were analyzed using the most sensitive analytical method for mercury in wastewater , Method 1631E. This baseline da ta will be used to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of the de ntal BMPs and the installation of the amalgam separators. These POTWs are required to c onduct additional mercury sampling and analyses, using the same analytical method, after the amal gam separator installati on due date (Oct. 1, 2009) has passed.

113) Multi-media Sources

a) Legislation banning the sale of mercury fever thermometers was passed in April 2005. This law applies to basal, oral, and rectal mercury thermometers. The ban does not apply

to thermometers used in research and development, health care purposes, or for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial purposes.

b) The New Jersey Legislature passed the Me rcury Switch Removal Act of 2005 requiring automobile recycling facilities to remove me rcury auto switches from vehicles prior to sending the vehicles for recyc ling. Automobile recyclers lo cated in New Jersey were required to begin removing mercury auto switc hes in May 2006. The switches are sent to a mercury recycler contracted by the automobile manufacturers for proper disposal/recycling and the manufacturers re imburse the automobile recyclers $2.00 for each switch recovered. To date 23,298 mercury sw itches have been collected resulting in 51.26 pounds of mercury removed from the environment

. As of June 12, 2009, the

Bureau of Hazardous Waste Enforcement has conducted 322 inspections on a total

universe of 228 facilities. The initial inspections focu sed on compliance assistance resulting in a high level of compliance. To date 19 Notices of Violation (NOVs) have

been issued and one Notice of Civil Admini strative Penalty Assessment (NOCAPA) has been settled and paid.

c) Pursuant to the requirements of the Po llution Prevention Act and implementing regulations, certain facilities in New Jersey are required to prepare five-year Pollution Prevention (P2) Plans and submit P2 Plan Summaries and P2 Progress Reports to the NJDEP. A P2 Plan is a comprehensive audit of a facility's operations with an emphasison quantifying hazardous substance use and generation as a waste (referred to as nonproduct output or NPO) and on identifying meas ures to reduce or eliminate the use and generation as NPO of hazardous substances. As the name implies, the P2 Plan Summary summarizes the Plan findings and is also the m echanism for facilities to report their goals for reducing the use and generation as NPO of hazardous substances. The P2 Progress Report is the means for a facility to report th eir progress on achieving their stated goals.

Mercury and mercury compounds are hazar dous substances regulated by the P2 regulations. Facilities in New Jersey ha ve been reporting their mercury use and generation as NPO since 1993, although the threshold for reporting was lowered from 10,000 pounds to 10 pounds in 2000.

The chart presented in Appendix IX shows changes in mercury use and generation of waste containing mercury as NPO, as well as releases to the air from stack emissions from reporting year 2001 (the first year of reporting afte r the threshold was lowered) through reporting year 2007 (the la test year for which data is available for this report). The use of mercury and mercury compounds repor ted by covered indust rial facilities in New Jersey was reduced from 22,867 pounds in 2001 to 8,986 pounds in 2007, a 61% reduction. The amount of NPO of mercury and mercury compounds reported went from 8,951 pounds in 2001 to 2,583 pounds in 2007, a 71% reduction. Reported air releases, however, remained fairly cons tant at around 750 pounds per year.

12d) Mercury containing equipment was included in New Jersey’s Universal Waste Rule June 17, 2002. The classification of mercury cont aining equipment as universal waste will assist companies in properly disposing or recycling mercury equipment that might otherwise be disposed as solid waste.

e) On January 12, 2009 the “Electronic Waste Recycling Act” P.L. 2008, c.130 was signed into law. The Electronic Waste Recycling Ac t establishes a recycling system for the safe and environmentally sound management of end-of-life electronic devices and components. More specifically, the law re quires original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to pay a registration fee to the NJ DEP and establish a collection, transportation and recycling system, either independently or jointly, for the recovery of computers and televisions. The disposal of electronic waste (e-waste) as solid waste is banned as of January 1, 2011. E-waste contains various toxi c metals including mercury. The mercury is contained in the fluorescent bulbs used to backlight flat screen monitors and notebook computers and may also be contained in some of the batteries used in the electronics. The legislation also requires manufacturers to comply with most of the European Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive including a ban on the sale of electronic equipment that cont ains more than the agreed upon levels of mercury, lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium. This legi slation will result in a reduction of mercury emissions after the disposal ban goes into effect.

4) Monitoring

a) Fish Monitoring

1) A Routine Fish Monitoring Program for Toxics in Fish was developed and implemented in 2002. This comprehensive pr ogram divides the State’s waters into five regions that are sampled on a rotating basis for contaminants in fish and other species (e.g., crabs). The first three regions have been sampled (Passaic, Marine/Estuarine, and Raritan regions). Th e program has not been institutionalized (i.e., no regular source of funding identifi ed) and requires annual justification. Completion of the first comple te cycle of sampling is cont ingent on funding approval. The limited trend data showed no consistent increase or decrease in mercury

concentrations in fish tissue over time.

b) Air Monitoring

1) The Department’s Air Program is collec ting speciated ambient mercury concentration

data from several Tekran units that can be used to estimate dry deposition. To date, over two years’ data from units at two lo cations, Elizabeth and New Brunswick, have been QA/QCd and are in the process of being evaluated.

2) The Department currently supports the ope ration of a site in New Burnswick that collects wet deposition of mercury as part of the national Mercury Deposition Network, which is part of the Nationa l Atmospheric Deposition Program (see

13http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/ ). Operation of this s ite is funded through March 2010, but a stable source of funds for long-term operation of this site is necessary to continue this important monitoring of the effectiveness of mercury reduction efforts.

c) Surface Water Monitoring

1) Water monitoring data collected by NJDEP/ USGS in the Ambient and Supplemental

Surface Water Networks show that of the 1,752 results since 1997, nearly 67% had

concentrations less than the detection le vels. None of the total mercury values

exceeded the current acute fres hwater aquatic life criterion for dissolved mercury of 1.4 microgram per liter (μg/L) or the chroni c criterion of 0.77 μg /L, but 3% of the samples exceeded the human health criteri on of 0.050 μg/L. Other mercury studies and projects by NJDEP and USGS over the y ears show similar results; the majority of mercury concentrations are below detection levels. Although detection levels have improved since 1997 from between 0.04 and 0.1 μg/L to between 0.01 and 0.02 μg/L in 2004, the application of a low level me rcury detection method is needed to understand how low mercury levels in th e water column can bioaccumulate and magnify in the food chain.

2) In response to the need for lower detec tion limits for mercury, the Department initiated a preliminary study of low level mercury o ccurrence in surface waters. Using EPA's method 1631E, the project consisted of 33 filtered samples with accompanying field blanks at 23 unique stations across the state. The detection level at the Wisconsin laboratory being used was 0.04 ppt. Results did not exceed any of the existing surface water quality criteria . Mercury concentrations did not appear to be influenced by land use, but did appear to increase with stream flow. The findings suggest that air depo sition is a major influence on in -stream mercury concentrations. In 2007, the Department conducted a fo llow-up study to determine seasonal variability in total and me thyl mercury concentrations at seven small undeveloped

watersheds with no known sources of mercury contamination other than air deposition. Although total mercury showed no seasonal patterns, methyl mercury had elevated levels during the summer due to higher methylation rates during the warmer months. In addition, the project ve rified streamlined sampling protocols that allow one person (instead of 2 people) to conduct lo w level mercury sampling, thereby reducing resource requirements allo wing this sampling to be incorporated into an ambient or routine program.

d) Ground Water Monitoring

1) A 150 well, statewide, shallow Ground Wa ter Quality Monitoring Network, stratified as a function of land use, has been established and is sampled on a five year cycle for mercury and other contaminants. During the first five year sampling cycle from 1999 to 2004, mercury concentrations were found to range from <0.01 to 1.7 μg/L in ground water from 148 wells with only five of those being detectable above the laboratory reporting limits. In addition, other groundwater data has been collected under the Private Well Testing Act that requi res private wells in nine southern New

14Jersey counties to test for mercury. A total of 25,270 wells were tested with a concentration range of non-detect to 114.2 μg/L. Approximately 1% had concentrations above the drinking water maximum contaminate level (MCL) of 2 μg/L. An analysis of the data showed no obvious geographic or land use patterns for the elevated mercury results.



### D. Mercury Reduction Action Items

1) Adopt legislation that reflect s the provisions of the Mercur y Education and Reduction Model Act prepared by the Northeast Waste Manageme nt Officials’ Association (NEWMOA), as part of the New England Governors’ Mercur y Action Plan. This plan addresses mercurycontaining products and limits the sale of merc ury for approved purposes. Provisions of the model legislation have been adopted by 16 stat es, including all of the New England states.

2) Develop long-term water quality informa tion for on-going monitoring of mercury in environmental media, as specified below. Fo llow-up monitoring is essential for determining the effectiveness of the mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

a) A primary monitoring strategy for measuring the levels of mercury and calculating trends is the previously mentioned Routine Fish Monitoring Program for Toxics in Fish. This comprehensive program divides the State’s wate rs into five regions that are sampled on a rotating basis for contaminants in fish. Since mercury is persistent in the environment, accumulates in biological tissue, and biomagni fies in the food chain, adverse impacts to non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish eating) orga nisms may arise from very low surface water concentrations. Fish tissue sampling provi des a cost-effective measure to understanding the effects of mercury in the food chain and the environment.

b) A mercury water-monitoring program is need ed to monitor the effect of the reduction strategies outlined in this Action Plan and to associate water column data to aquatic organism data. The program’s objective to understand the extent and magnitude of the State’s mercury contamination, and its e ffect on aquatic orga nisms must have a comprehensive scope and long-term sampling period. Recent mercury studies from USGS have suggested the use of screenin g tools to target ar eas where elevated concentrations of mercury may occur. Th ese studies have suggested looking at the presence of wetlands within watersheds, dissolved organic ca rbon and suspended sediment concentrations, and stream flow . High dissolved oxygen content (DOC) and suspended sediment concentrations, increase d stream flow, and larger wetland areas may point to elevated mercury concentrations. The sampling requirements should consist of total and methyl mercury in the water column as well as methyl merc ury in fish tissue. The locations should extend to all regions of the state such as the Pinelands, Northern New Jersey, Delaware Estuary, and Atlantic Es tuary. Each region sh ould have at least five randomized sampling locations as well as a reference site, small-undeveloped watersheds with no known sources of mercury c ontamination other than air deposition. This sampling is not needed on a yearly ba sis, but quarterly sa mpling once every 2-5 years is appropriate. An ongoing project, th at is targeting local air source reduction by

15sampling for mercury in fish, water column, and leaves at four locations from 2007 to 2013, is expected to impact the developmen t of the statewide mercury monitoring program by refining sampling frequenc ies, protocols, and objectives.

c) Follow-up monitoring for the dental amalgam rule is needed in addition to the second round of POTW discharge sampling. Monitoring to evaluate effectiv eness of the dental amalgam rule would target locations upstream and downstream of th e POTW discharge. The monitoring sites will be sampled semi-a nnually to evaluate ambient water quality after the rule’s implementation to observe the significance of the reductions. Currently, only one site has been targeted. This pr oject needs to expand by selecting suitable

locations based on the review of POTW effluent data.

d) Air sampling under the National Mercury Mo nitoring Deposition Network is required to continue to monitor long-term loadings and trends from atmospheric deposition. This program currently has only one site in th e New Brunswick area. Additional sites in southern and northern po rtions of the state this networ k are needed to improve knowledge of depositional rates for different regions of the state and assist in tracking down the sources of atmospheric deposition.

3) Currently, the Department is developing a st atewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for 122 impaired assessment units (HUC14s) where mercury concentrations in fish tissue is predominantly caused by mercury from air depos ition. Air deposition of mercury in New Jersey was modeled using a REMSAD model. REMSAD is a three-dimensional grid model simulating total (wet and dry) annual merc ury deposition from air (originating from anthropogenic and natural sources). The TMDL is based on the linear relationship between mercury levels in the air and water and that a Bioaccumulation Factor can relate fish tissue

concentration to water column concentration.

The TMDL was calculated to reduce mercury concentration in fish tissue based on the 90 th
percentile concentration for top trophic level fi sh. The TMDL demonstrates that if the top trophic level fish tissue concentr ations of mercury are acceptabl e, the water column mercury concentration levels and lower trophic level fish will also have accep table concentrations. The species used as top trophic le vel fish is the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides

.

Since New Jersey does not have a standard for me rcury concentration in fish tissue, state fish consumption advisories were used to develo p two reduction requirements for different fish

tissue concentrations.

a) New Jersey’s Fish Consumption Advisory for the general population recommends unlimited consumption if total mercury concentr ation in fish tissue is 0.34 microgram per gram (μg/g) or less. To achieve a fish ti ssue concentration of 0.34 μg/g, a total mercury reduction of 70.4 % (from natural and anthro pogenic sources) or 82.6 % from global anthropogenic sources would be required.

b) New Jersey’s Fish Consumption Advisory for the high-risk populat ion (children, women of childbearing years, and pregnant or nursi ng mothers) recommends one meal per week

16for mercury concentration between 0.08 μg/g and 0.18 μg/g. To achieve a total mercury concentration of 0.18 μg/g or less in fish ti ssue, a total reduction of 84.3 % (from natural and anthropogenic sources) or 98.9 % from global anthropogenic sources would be required.

According to the REMSAD model, New Jersey contributes only 12.5% to the state mercury deposition; 52% is background deposition (natur al and anthropogenic) and the remaining percentage comes from surrounding states, Mexic o, and Canada. Reductions required in this TMDL can not be achieved from the New Jersey anthropogenic air s ources alone. Mercury reductions on the national and global scales are necessary to meet the TMDL targets.

4) The Department plans to update its merc ury water quality criteria based upon the EPA recommended Clean Water Act Section 304(a) wa ter quality criterion for methyl mercury in fish tissue. This criterion requires the de velopment of regional bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) to address differences in the rate of methylation based on other water quality parameters such as pH and dissolved orga nic carbon. While the EPA’s recommended Clean Water Act Section 304(a) water quality criterio n is based on a methyl mercury fish tissue

concentration value of 0.3 micr ograms per kilogram (μg/g), New Jersey plans to develop criteria based upon a methyl mercury fish tissu e concentration of 0.18 μg/g which is based upon one meal per week for high risk individua ls. Updating the mercury criteria based on EPA’s recommendation will require calculati ng BAFs for New Jersey that involves additional surface water and fish tissue sampling. This information will also be used to reevaluate the previously proposed wildlife me rcury criteria using updated regional BAFs. The revised mercury criteria will be used to develop TMDLs for areas of the State not covered by the Total Maximum Daily Lo ad for Mercury Impairments Based on Concentration in Fish Tissue Caused Mainly by Air Deposition. In cal culating an updated, revised mercury surface water quality standard (SWQS) for human health and wildlife, the Department will divide the state into four regional waters: Pinelands, Non-Pinelands, Delaware Estuary tidal waters, and Atlantic tid al waters. Surface water and fish tissue data will be collected and used to develop new BAFs for each region of the state. The data results will then be applied in calculating the me rcury criteria for each region. In 2009, the Department expects to begin da ta collection in the Pinelands region with plans to continue collection in Non-Pinelands water the following y ear. The next action is to collect data for the Delaware Estuary and Atlantic tidal waters.

5) Reporting of field observations at mercury contaminated sites needs to be centralized so

areas of immediate environmental concern can be identified and the sites’ contributions to regional atmospheric mercury levels can be determined.

6) The Department’s existing regulations concerni ng mercury must continue to be implemented, enforced, and evaluated for effectiveness. This includes the regulations on mercury emissions from air sources, the removal of automobile mercury switches and the dental amalgam regulations.

17

# Appendices

# Appendix I

2001 Mercury Task Force Report Key

Recommendations

## MERCURY TASK FORCE REPORT KEY

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Participate in and support regional, na tional, and global efforts to reduce mercury uses, releases, and exposures.

This is important to New Jersey because a significant portion of mercury in the State’s environment originates from emissions else where. Examples of efforts include the following: the Conference of the New Engl and Governors’ and Eastern Canadian Premiers, Northeast States for Consolid ated Air Use Management (NESCAUM),

Environmental Council of the St ates (ECOS) and U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Mercury Action Plan.

B. Remove mercury from products and phase out sales of mercury-containing products for which there are reasonably available alternatives. In order to accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Adopt legislation that refl ects the provisions of the Me rcury Education and Reduction Model Act prepared by the Northeast Wast e Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA), as part of the New England G overnors’ Mercury Acti on Plan. This plan addresses mercury-containing products, such as thermometers, thermostats, switches (including those in motor vehicles and applia nces), and fluorescent lights, and limits the sale of mercury to approved purposes.

2. Develop effective outreach and educati on on the importance of removing mercury from products. County household hazardous wast e programs should play a key role in

this effort.

3. Encourage phasing out the use of mercur y-containing amalgams to the extent compatible with good dental practices, to further limit mercury releases to the

environment.

4. Use state purchasing and serv ice contracts to reduce the pu rchase and use of products containing mercury, including motor vehi cles containing mercury switches.

5. Ensure that substitutes fo r mercury are not more hazar dous than the mercury itself.

6. Work with interstate organizations to assi st in the development of federal legislation that minimizes the use of mercury in products.

C. Reduce emissions of mercury from the production of electricity consumed in New Jersey, including electricity generated by out -of-state sources. To accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Promote energy efficiency with measures consistent with the NJDEP Greenhouse GasSustainability Action Plan.

2. Promote the increased use of electric pow er from certified green sources including

renewable sources and sources with low or zero mercury emissions.

3. Require environmental information disclosure of mercury emissions per kilowatt-hour from all providers selling electricity in New Jersey consistent with The New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act (EDECA) of 1999 (N.J.S.A. 48: 38).

D. Significantly reduce air emissions from coal combustion . To accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Urge the U.S. EPA to ra pidly develop and implement stringent limits on mercury

emissions from coal combustion. These standards should include output-based performance limits (mg/MW-hr), which are applied to individual coal-fired power plants, in addition to national caps (tons/y ear), which are applied to the electric generation source cate gory as a whole.

2. Adopt State standards if, by December 2003, U.S. EPA does not proceed to promulgate and implement effective mercury limits on coal combustion.

3. Work with interstate organizations to assist in the development of federal multipollutant legislation that limits mercury emissions as well as other pollutants.

E. Significantly reduce air emissions fr om iron and steel and other secondary smelting industries. To accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Urge the federal government to require th e rapid phase out of the use of mercurycontaining products in new ve hicles. Following the lead of other states, New Jersey should consider banning the sale of vehicles containing mercury products.

2. Implement a phased strategy to reduce mercury contamination of scrap through elimination and separation measures. If, af ter a 3-year period, the source reduction

measures do not achieve emission reducti on goals, require the installation of air pollution control.

3. Ensure that measures to reduce mercury co ntamination of scrap are developed through a cooperative process involving government agencies and aff ected industries, including automobile manufacturers, automobile r ecyclers, and those who crush, shred, or otherwise process scrap metal.

4. Determine the amount of mercury emitted from secondary aluminum smelting and require reduction if significant.

F. Ensure the minimization of mercury emissions from other sources . To accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Medical Waste Incinerators - Adopt the NEGA/ECP (New England Governors andEastern Canadian Premiers) recommended emi ssion limit for medical waste incinerators. All New Jersey medical waste incinerators already have achieved this level with pollution prevention measures. Adopting a limit will pr event backsliding and help provide an example to other jurisdictions.

2. Sewage Sludge Incinerators - Revise the State’s sewage sludge mercury rules to reflect a phased reduction in mercury levels to meet the Task Force’s goal of 2 ppm within 10 years. Consider a stack emission st andard such as the New England Governors

Association’s recommended emission standard for sludge incineratio n facilities as an

alternative to the final sludge concentration goal.

3. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators – Consider revising the State’s air pollution control regulation governing Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator (MSWI) emissions to include U.S. EPA’s higher efficiency re quirement for post-combustion emissions controls, thereby changing New Jersey’s alte rnative limit based on efficiency from 80%

to 85%. The 28 μ g/dscm primary requirement would remain the same.

4. Other - Develop methods to appropriately regula te and otherwise manage the disposal of discarded mercury- containing products, including fl uorescent bulbs, dental amalgam waste, thermostats and switches.

G. Expand and institutionalize routine monitoring for mercury in fish from New Jersey waters through State-level programs.

H. Actively encourage the federal gove rnment to initiate and maintain comprehensive monitoring and surveillance for mercury in commercial fish and to require that information regarding the mercury content of fish be made readily available. If the federal government does not initiate nation-wide ev aluation of commercial fish, New Jersey should, with other states in the region, monitor mercur y in commercial fish.

I. Expand and periodically evaluate the ef fectiveness of current outreach, advisories

and education efforts to reduce exposures to merc ury of sensitive populations, subsistence fishermen, and others who consum e large quantities of fish. To accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Increase public awareness of the public he alth concerns regarding mercury in fish and

the need to reduce the emissions and releases to the State’s waterbodies.

2. Expand outreach on fish advisories, particul arly for sensitive populations, subsistence fishers, and others who cons ume large quantities of fish.

J. Reduce exposures from cultural uses of mercury . To accomplish this, New Jersey

should:

1. Complete research and evaluate availa ble data on cultural uses and associated

exposures.

2. Provide outreach and education materials to communities and health professionals.

3. Develop and implement appropriate legislatio n and regulations that limit the sale ofelemental mercury, except for medical a nd other approved uses, reflecting the NEWMOA model legislation.

K. Develop comprehensive mercury budgets fo r New Jersey watersheds that include inputs from air deposition, in order to develop appropriate total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). To do this, New Jersey should:

1. Utilize the most recent information devel oped through the U.S. EPA’s pilot mercury TMDL development projects.

2. Determine the relative mercury contribution to aquatic systems from various sources and from repositories in environmental media.

L. Maintain and enhance a long-term air deposition mo nitoring system that incorporates state-of-the-art detection limits and speciation to document temporal and spatial trends in mercury deposition.

M. Address critical information gaps concerning the quantities and chemical species of mercury emissions and releases, the fate and transport of mercury in the environment, and the exposure pathways. To accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Upgrade procedures used in all monitori ng programs to includ e state-of-the-art analytical methods to provide lower detec tion limits for mercury and mercury speciation.

2. Employ a state-level, long-range dispersi on model for mercury using the up-to-date

emissions inventories includi ng the inventory developed by the Mercury Task Force.

3. Encourage federal agencies to expand ex isting national resear ch on the ecological effects of mercury, particular ly on piscivorous (fish-eati ng) fish, birds and mammals (particularly marine mammals).

4. Identify demographic characteristics and exposure patterns of population groups in New Jersey that consume large quantities of fish.

5. Consider establishing the mercury-contaminat ed sites in the Berry’s Creek area as an Environmental Research Park, patterned on the National Environmental Research Park system. This could serve as a resource fo r studies and monitoring of the complex processes governing the fate a nd transport of mercury in both the terrestrial and estuarine

environment.

N. Support the development of effectiv e methods of retirin g and sequestering

mercury so that the chances of the eventual re lease of mercury to the environment are

minimized.

O. Develop improved environmental indicators of the impact of mercury on New Jersey’s environment. To accomplish this, New Jersey should:

1. Expand and maintain a statewide ground water monitoring program for mercury.2. Develop and apply indicators of trends of mercury in environmental media, including air deposition, mercury concentr ations in surface water, merc ury entry into aquatic food chains, mercury levels in fish tissue, mercur y levels in human tissue in the New Jersey population, and mercury levels in feathers of piscivorous birds ne sting in New Jersey.

P. To provide for the implementation of the recommendations in this report , New Jersey should:

1. Form within the New Jersey government , a multi-agency committee, including the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Health and Senior Services, Department of Transportation and the Boar d of Public Utilities, to advocate the implementation of the recommendations and to report periodically to the Legislature

and the Commissioner of the NJDEP on progress toward achieving the mercury

milestones.

2. Establish the position of an environmental mercury coordinator in the NJDEP as has

been done in other states.

Q. Reduce mercury levels in fish and other biota. Mercury concentrations in freshwater and estuarine fish in New Jersey should, at a minimum, be in compliance with

the EPA's recent Surface Water Criterion of 0.3 μ g/g methylmercury in tissue. This guidance value, aimed at protecting human h ealth, may not be adequate to protect the health of the fish. Therefore mercury leve ls in surface water and fish tissue should achieve levels protective of aquatic life and of wildlife (the criterion for which is currently under develo pment). Assessing this criteri on requires the use of improved analytic methodologies that lo wer detection levels by at l east an order of magnitude.

# Appendix II

Mercury Air Emissions Goals in New Jersey (Figure 1.5 from 2001 Mercury Task Force Report)Mercury Air Emissions Goals in NJ:Projected overall reduction of 75%from 1990 to 2006 and 85% from1990 to 201102,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,0001234Year

Pounds total mercury199020062011Emissions from old painted surfaces,estimated to approach zero by 2006, arenot pictured. 1990 emissions estimatedbased on 1993 data.75% below199085% below19902001

# Appendix III

Emissions to Air from New Jersey

SourcesEmissions to Air from New Jersey SourcesYear1990199320012006(Goal)2006(Estimated)2011(Goal)Reason for change or lack of change in estimated emissionSource CategoryMercury Emissions (pounds/year)Coal combustion (electricityprod.)705705705528.75514*132Actual measurement for 2006Crematoria95105125159114189Increase in cremations (24,000 in 2006), new estimate of 2.16g/corpse from lit.Fluorescent tubes4304302157511554Hg content of fluor. tubes ~50% lower, now some CFLs inwaste streamLaboratories898989678945No known reason for any change since 2001Medical Waste incineration7427422222Continuation of existing programsMSW incineration45424542349200117*200Actual measurement for 2006Oil refining184184184156.4184156No known reason for any change since 2001Other12712712795.2512764No known reason for any change since 2001Painted surfaces194191942No reason for any change since 2001Products in general use600600300225255150There has been ~15% decline, based on Hg conc. in MSWestimatesRefined fuels combustion156156156132.6161133No reasonfor reductions, actual 3% increase in energy usesince 2001Cultural and ritualistic uses25025025012525063Highlyuncertain; no known reason for any change since 2001Sludge incineration400308200170147*115Actual measurement for 2006Iron & steel manufacturing935935935234778*94Actual measurement for 2006Non-ferrous & aluminumprocessingAlways highly uncertain, appears not a significant source in NJTotal925591743832218930471397* Quantities marked with asterisk represent measurements(stack tests or sludge concentration)

# Appendix IV

Mercury Source Categories published in 2001 Mercury Task Force Report

### Estimated Mercury Emissions to Air; NJ Sources, lbs/yr

Based on most recent source-specific data; late 90s to 2001

0 400 800 1200 1600

Steel and iron mfg. (S)

Coal combustion (S)

Products not elsewhere listed (O)

Municipal waste combustion (S)

Sludge incineration (M)

Oil refining (M)

Crematoria (M)

Laboratories (O)

Residual fuel oil combustion (S)

Gasoline, diesel, #2 fuel, jet fuel combustion (M)

Hazardous waste incineration (S)

Thermal treatment of contaminated soils, etc. (M)

Landfills (S)

Wood combustion (M)

Natural gas combustion (M)

Medical waste incineration (S)

Aluminum scrap processing (O)

Religious and ceremonial use (O)

Volatilization from old painted

surfaces, as of 2000 (O) Emissions from out-of-state sources, including coal burned to generate electricity used in NJ, are

not included. Emissions

from additional sources not

included due to lack of data

sufficient for an y estimation. Oil refining estimate assumes all Hg in crude oil

emitted at refiner y except for portion emitted by residual

fuel combustion.



# ? Highl Uncertain 

# ? 

# ? Error bars indicate approximate range of uncertainty in high and

low-end estimates. Source of

data indicated as follows:

S = stack test data

M = mass balance

O = Other



### Highly uncertain ?

?

?

# Appendix V

Revised Mercury Source Categories prepared in 2007Estimated Mercury Emissions to Air from

NJ Sources (lbs/yr)

Based on 2006 source-specific data & estimates

250 2 3 8 31 36 50 67

88 89 114 184 147 117 370 514 778 0 400 800 1200 1600

Steel and iron mfg. (S)

Coal combustion (S)

Products not elsewhere listed (O)

Municipal waste combustion (S)

Sludge incineration (M)

Oil refining (M)

Crematoria (M)

Laboratories (O)

Residual fuel oil combustion (S)

Gasoline, diesel, #2 fuel, jet fuel combustion (M)

Hazardous waste incineration (S)

Thermal treatment of contaminated soils, etc. (M)

Landfills (S)

Wood combustion (M)

Natural gas combustion (M)

Medical waste incineration (S)

Religious and ceremonial use (O) Emissions from out-of-state sources, including coal burned to generate electricity used in NJ, are

not included. Emissions from

additional sources not included

due to lack of data sufficient for any estimation. Oil refining estimate assumes all Hg in crude oil emitted at refinery except for portion emitted by residual fuel

combustion.



# ? Highly Uncertain 

# ? Error bars indicate approximate range of uncertainty in high and low-end

estimates. Source of data indicated as

follows:

S = stack test data

M = mass balance

O = Other

# Appendix VI

Emissions to Air from Municipal Solid

Waste IncineratorsTrend of Mercury Em issions from 5 MunicipalTrend of Mercury Em issions from 5 MunicipalW aste Incinerator Facilities in N.J.W aste Incinerator Facilities in N.J.050010001500200025003000350040004500 1992 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008EssexWarrenCa mdenG loucesterUnion

PoundsBased on Average Emissions at Each FacilityOver 97% reduction in actual m ercury emissionsOver 99% reduction based on m ercury in W asteYear

# Appendix VII

SUMMARY OF REDUCTION

PROGRESS FROM STATIONARY

SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS

TO THE AIRSUMMARY OF REDUCTION PROGRESS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS TO THE AIRSource Category1990 MercuryEmissions(pounds/year)2008 MercuryEmissions(pounds/year)PercentReductionProjected 2013(pounds/year)PercentReductionMunicipal solid wasteincinerators44101529715097Iron and steel melters100075937093Hospital/medical/infectious waste (HMIW)incinerators5010000Coal-fired boilers700+3004065912887Sewage SludgeIncinerators800125847591

# Appendix VIII

Sewage Sludge Incinerator Emissions Based on Mercury Contents in SludgeSewage Sludge Incinerator Emissions Based on Mercury Contents in Sludge20012002200320042005200620072008FacilityDryTonsMercury (lb)DryTonsMercury (lb)DryTonsMercury (lb)DryTonsMercury (lb)DryTonsMercury (lb)DryTonsMercury (lb)DryTonsMercury (lb)DryTonsMercury (lb)Atlantic Co.Util. Auth.126622.91405336.11400735.213980.028.41436128.8140702514423251450019.5Bayshore Reg.Sewg. Auth.17619.320897.921736.6222213.523095.324685.72312923416.9Glouster Co.Util. Auth.1490343.91248342.21151328.21456324.81368317.11166221.2989417.9852420.4NW Bergen Co.UA212613.3261721.924828.5285215.2269314.2288716.2315312.327669.6Parsipany TroyHills486223.1534527.8552718.1565516.8387411.313555.20000Two BridgesSewage Auth.536129426414.9392112.8429210637821685424.8843029.8811329.9SomersetRaritan ValleySA444019.7458020.7423318.5534822.2568022.9507718.5443818407513.2Stony BrookRegional SA832430.8839744.1840726.41000416.4943322.1845728854424.2840324.5Wayne Twp.MountainsView STP15194.514452.916604.517012.316202.217392.413952.222122.9TOTAL55958176.555273218.553923158.860617149.660031144.95456914752589138.450934126.9

# Appendix IX

Pollution Prevention Trend ChartM ercu ry T ren d s 2001 to 2007 (p o u n ds)0500010000150002000025000Y ear

PoundsNPOUseS tack AirE miss ions