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 developed 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, MILESTONES, AND TARGETS ......................................................................................................5 

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

1) AIR SOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................6 

2) WATER SOURCES.................................................................................................................................................11 

3) MULTI-MEDIA SOURCES ......................................................................................................................................12 

4) MONITORING.......................................................................................................................................................13 

a) Fish Monitoring..............................................................................................................................................13 

b) Air Monitoring................................................................................................................................................13 

c) Surface Water Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................14 

d) Ground Water Monitoring..............................................................................................................................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 found in solid, liquid, or vapor form. Mercury can cause a variety of 

harmful health effects including damage to the brain, central nervous system, and kidneys and is 

particularly harmful to children, prenatal life and infants through 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 discharged 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 converted 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 high 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 waters, fish consumption advisories have been 

adopted to guide citizens on safe consumption practices. Fish consumption advisories are 

developed through a scientific process that includes collecting samples of fish from waters 

throughout the state and analyzing them for various chemical contaminants, 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 standard 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, banning 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 sources, public interest groups, academia, and 

fishing organizations. This Task 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 reduction 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, sources of mercury and provided recommendations 

and targets for further reducing mercury emissions 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. 

4
In 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 Workgroup 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 likely 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% reduction by 2011 (see chart in 

Appendix II). Based on the emissions data available 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 explanations, 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 concentrations 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 approximately 820 pounds per year. Recent measurements of 

mercury concentrations in wastewater and estimations based on mercury content in treatment 

plant sludge suggest that mercury concentrations in wastewater plant effluent are in the range of 

30 nanograms per liter (ng/l), with influent perhaps in the range of 150 ng/l. Since the daily 

effluent flow from New Jersey wastewater plants is approximately 1.1 billion gallons, this 

concentration leads to an estimated quantity of mercury in wastewater 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 discharges their wastewater through septic systems. 

This latter flow could be expected to have a mercury concentration similar to wastewater plant 

influent. It is unknown what part of the mercury would be transferred 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 facilities. These regulations have resulted in 

decreased mercury emissions as shown in the table 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-generating 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 coal. 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 combination 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 mercury, and coal containing higher levels of 

mercury can still be burned with 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 concurrent 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 already achieving over 90% 

control.) 

 Recent mercury stack test data with carbon injection control on coal fired boilers indicate 

compliance with the New Jersey standard is achievable as shown below: 

6
Stack 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 generating 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 melters. The Department provided iron and steel 

melters three years to reduce mercury contamination of scrap metal through elimination 

and separation measures. The Mercury Switch Removal Act, described in greater detail 

under the Mult-Media Sources section of this Plan, has reduced mercury emissions, but 

not sufficiently. If the source reduction measures do not achieve sufficient emission 

reduction, the rule requires the installation and operation of mercury 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 mercury emissions from municipal solid waste 

incinerators, iron and steel melters became the largest mercury emitting source category 

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

facilities indicated that 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 

7
for iron and steel melters is designed to reduce mercury emissions through a combination 

of pollution prevention, source separation, and emission controls. 

 

The Department expected a reduction in mercury emissions of approximately 700 pounds 

per year upon implementation of the rules for this industry. Actual reductions have been 

higher because of plant shutdowns and the implementation of control measures, most 

notably carbon adsorption, which achieved greater 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 standards for iron and steel melters similar to the 

Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules applicable to the iron 

and steel industry. The owner or operator of iron or steel melters submits to the 

Department for approval a written certified mercury minimization or source separation 

plan to minimize the amount of mercury in scrap 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 purchased. The rules require each facility to 

maintain on site copies of the mercury minimization and source separation 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 time 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 separation and add-on controls. In 2006, Atlantic 

States installed an activated carbon injection system and a baghouse. 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 New 

Jersey mercury rule limits. Gerdau Ameristeel, 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 control 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 Governors/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 waste 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 measures, including source reduction, re-use, 

and separation prior to incineration had been effective at controlling mercury from these 

8
facilities. These practices are 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, fluorescent 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) incinerators: The December 2004 rules require MSW 

incinerators to further reduce their mercury emissions. 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 with 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 January 3, 2006, and the second 

phase begins January 3, 2012. In the first phase, at an incinerator with annual average 

mercury emissions exceeding 28 μg/dscm, the air pollution control apparatus must 

achieve an annual average of 85% reduction efficiency in mercury emissions. In the 

second phase, at an incinerator with annual average mercury emissions exceeding 28 

μg/dscm, the air pollution control apparatus must achieve an annual average of 95% 

reduction efficiency in mercury emissions. In both cases, if a MSW incinerator’s annual 

average mercury emissions are below 28 μg/dscm no further action is required. 

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

14 μg/dscm, averaged over three years. The three-year averaging period would make it 

less likely that isolated spikes in mercury emissions would cause an exceedance of the 

stricter 14 μg/dscm standard. The Department estimated that this option 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% control of mercury emissions. 

e) Sewage Sludge Incinerators: Industrial pre-treatment programs have reduced emissions 

of mercury from sewage sludge incinerators and 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 activities. Sewage sludge typically contains mercury in the low 

parts per million range. In 2006, the New Jersey median was 1.28 ppm. It is estimated 

that the 100 μg/dscm emission standard recommended by the New England Governors 

and Eastern Canadian Premiers is met if the mercury content of sewage 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 environmental endpoints. 

9
 The 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 reduced the amount of mercury and other 

pollutants allowed to be discharged from permitted industries to domestic treatment 

works. 

o The Pollution Prevention Program has provided industries with incentives to reduce 

the amounts of regulated waste produced through process changes and/or substitution. 

o Mercury has been removed from household products (e.g., latex paint) that often 

found their way into domestic treatment works collection/treatment systems. 

o 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 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 contribution is attributable to the use of dental 

amalgam as a direct filling material for restoring teeth. Dental amalgam is approximately 

50% 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 2007 rules, 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% or more of the dental mercury wastes 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 (October 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 assurance testing. Appendix VIII shows the calculated mercury 

emission data from sewage sludge incinerators. The emissions were back calculated 

based on the mercury content of sludges incinerated. 

f) Hazardous Waste Sites: Due to the use of mercury and its compounds in a number of 

industrial and manufacturing processes, both elemental mercury and its compounds have 

been found at a number of known hazardous waste sites. 

 Elemental mercury is or has been used, and has on occasion been observed to be 

discharged, at the following types 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, 

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

o Paint manufacturing facilities. 

Liquid mercury has been observed at some of these sites at the surface, near subsurface, 

and in fresh and marine water bodies proximate to the site. 

Liquid mercury vaporizes into a toxic, colorless, 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 micrograms per meter cubed (μg/m3

), with a chronic minimal risk 

level of 0.2μg/m3. 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 regional and global flux of mercury to the atmosphere. Prior 

to the remediation of these sites, the mercury 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 spilled 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 facility from the requirement to obtain an individual 

permit for its discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment 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 baseline data on mercury concentrations in their 

treatment plant effluent. These samples were analyzed using the most sensitive analytical 

method for mercury in wastewater, Method 1631E. This baseline data will be used to determine 

the effectiveness of the implementation of the dental BMPs and the installation of the amalgam 

separators. These POTWs are required to conduct additional mercury sampling and analyses, 

using the same analytical method, after the amalgam separator installation due date (Oct. 1, 

2009) has passed. 

11
3) 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 Mercury Switch Removal Act of 2005 requiring 

automobile recycling facilities to remove mercury auto switches from vehicles prior to 

sending the vehicles for recycling. Automobile recyclers located in New Jersey were 

required to begin removing mercury auto switches in May 2006. The switches are sent to 

a mercury recycler contracted by the automobile manufacturers for proper 

disposal/recycling and the manufacturers reimburse the automobile recyclers $2.00 for 

each switch recovered. To date 23,298 mercury switches 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 focused 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 Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOCAPA) has 

been settled and paid. 

c) Pursuant to the requirements of the Pollution 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 emphasis 

on quantifying hazardous substance use and generation as a waste (referred to as nonproduct output or NPO) and on identifying measures 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 mechanism 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 their progress on achieving their stated goals. 

 Mercury and mercury compounds are hazardous substances regulated by the P2 

regulations. Facilities in New Jersey have 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 after the threshold was lowered) 

through reporting year 2007 (the latest year for which data is available for this report). 

The use of mercury and mercury compounds reported by covered industrial 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 constant at around 750 pounds per year. 

12
d) Mercury containing equipment was included in New Jersey’s Universal Waste Rule June 

17, 2002. The classification of mercury containing 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 Act establishes a recycling system for the safe 

and environmentally sound management of end-of-life electronic devices and 

components. More specifically, the law requires original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs) to pay a registration fee to the NJDEP 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 toxic 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 contains more than the agreed upon levels of mercury, lead, 

cadmium, and hexavalent chromium. This legislation 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 program 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). The program has not been institutionalized 

(i.e., no regular source of funding identified) and requires annual justification. 

Completion of the first complete cycle of sampling is contingent 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 collecting 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 locations, Elizabeth and New Brunswick, have 

been QA/QCd and are in the process of being evaluated. 

2) The Department currently supports the operation 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 National Atmospheric Deposition Program (see 

13
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/). Operation of this site 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 levels. None of the total mercury values 

exceeded the current acute freshwater aquatic life criterion for dissolved mercury of 

1.4 microgram per liter (μg/L) or the chronic criterion of 0.77 μg/L, but 3% of the 

samples exceeded the human health criterion of 0.050 μg/L. Other mercury studies 

and projects by NJDEP and USGS over the years 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 mercury detection method is needed to 

understand how low mercury levels in the water column can bioaccumulate and 

magnify in the food chain. 

2) In response to the need for lower detection limits for mercury, the Department initiated 

a preliminary study of low level mercury occurrence 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 deposition is a major influence on in-stream mercury concentrations. 

In 2007, the Department conducted a follow-up study to determine seasonal 

variability in total and methyl 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 verified streamlined sampling protocols that 

allow one person (instead of 2 people) to conduct low level mercury sampling, 

thereby reducing resource requirements allowing this sampling to be incorporated 

into an ambient or routine program. 

 d) Ground Water Monitoring 

1) A 150 well, statewide, shallow Ground Water 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 requires private wells in nine southern New 

14
Jersey 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 reflects the provisions of the Mercury Education and Reduction Model 

Act prepared by the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA), as 

part of the New England Governors’ Mercury Action Plan. This plan addresses mercurycontaining products and limits the sale of mercury for approved purposes. Provisions of the 

model legislation have been adopted by 16 states, including all of the New England states. 

2) Develop long-term water quality information for on-going monitoring of mercury in 

environmental media, as specified below. Follow-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 waters 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 biomagnifies in the food chain, adverse impacts to 

non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish eating) organisms may arise from very low surface water 

concentrations. Fish tissue sampling provides a cost-effective measure to understanding 

the effects of mercury in the food chain and the environment. 

b) A mercury water-monitoring program is needed 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 effect on aquatic organisms must have a 

comprehensive scope and long-term sampling period. Recent mercury studies from 

USGS have suggested the use of screening tools to target areas where elevated 

concentrations of mercury may occur. These studies have suggested looking at the 

presence of wetlands within watersheds, dissolved organic carbon and suspended 

sediment concentrations, and stream flow. High dissolved oxygen content (DOC) and 

suspended sediment concentrations, increased 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 mercury in fish tissue. 

The locations should extend to all regions of the state such as the Pinelands, Northern 

New Jersey, Delaware Estuary, and Atlantic Estuary. Each region should have at least 

five randomized sampling locations as well as a reference site, small-undeveloped 

watersheds with no known sources of mercury contamination other than air deposition. 

This sampling is not needed on a yearly basis, but quarterly sampling once every 2-5 

years is appropriate. An ongoing project, that is targeting local air source reduction by 

15
sampling for mercury in fish, water column, and leaves at four locations from 2007 to 

2013, is expected to impact the development of the statewide mercury monitoring 

program by refining sampling frequencies, 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 effectiveness of the dental 

amalgam rule would target locations upstream and downstream of the POTW discharge. 

The monitoring sites will be sampled semi-annually 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 project needs to expand by selecting suitable 

locations based on the review of POTW effluent data. 

d) Air sampling under the National Mercury Monitoring Deposition Network is required to 

continue to monitor long-term loadings and trends from atmospheric deposition. This 

program currently has only one site in the New Brunswick area. Additional sites in 

southern and northern portions of the state this network 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 statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

for 122 impaired assessment units (HUC14s) where mercury concentrations in fish tissue is 

predominantly caused by mercury from air deposition. 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 mercury 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 90th

percentile concentration for top trophic level fish. The TMDL demonstrates that if the top 

trophic level fish tissue concentrations of mercury are acceptable, the water column mercury 

concentration levels and lower trophic level fish will also have acceptable concentrations. 

The species used as top trophic level fish is the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. 

 Since New Jersey does not have a standard for mercury concentration in fish tissue, state fish 

consumption advisories were used to develop 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 concentration in fish tissue is 0.34 microgram per 

gram (μg/g) or less. To achieve a fish tissue concentration of 0.34 μg/g, a total mercury 

reduction of 70.4 % (from natural and anthropogenic sources) or 82.6 % from global 

anthropogenic sources would be required. 

b) New Jersey’s Fish Consumption Advisory for the high-risk population (children, women 

of childbearing years, and pregnant or nursing mothers) recommends one meal per week 

16
for 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 tissue, 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 (natural and anthropogenic) and the remaining 

percentage comes from surrounding states, Mexico, and Canada. Reductions required in this 

TMDL can not be achieved from the New Jersey anthropogenic air sources alone. Mercury 

reductions on the national and global scales are necessary to meet the TMDL targets. 

4) The Department plans to update its mercury water quality criteria based upon the EPA 

recommended Clean Water Act Section 304(a) water quality criterion for methyl mercury in 

fish tissue. This criterion requires the development of regional bioaccumulation factors 

(BAFs) to address differences in the rate of methylation based on other water quality 

parameters such as pH and dissolved organic carbon. While the EPA’s recommended Clean 

Water Act Section 304(a) water quality criterion is based on a methyl mercury fish tissue 

concentration value of 0.3 micrograms per kilogram (μg/g), New Jersey plans to develop 

criteria based upon a methyl mercury fish tissue concentration of 0.18 μg/g which is based 

upon one meal per week for high risk individuals. Updating the mercury criteria based on 

EPA’s recommendation will require calculating 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 mercury 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 Load for Mercury Impairments Based on 

Concentration in Fish Tissue Caused Mainly by Air Deposition. In calculating 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 tidal 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 mercury criteria for each region. In 2009, the 

Department expects to begin data collection in the Pinelands region with plans to continue 

collection in Non-Pinelands water the following year. 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 concerning 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, national, 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 elsewhere. Examples of efforts include the 

following: the Conference of the New England Governors’ and Eastern Canadian 

Premiers, Northeast States for Consolidated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), 

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and U.S. Environmental 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 reflects the provisions of the Mercury Education and Reduction 

Model Act prepared by the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association 

(NEWMOA), as part of the New England Governors’ Mercury Action Plan. This plan 

addresses mercury-containing products, such as thermometers, thermostats, switches 

(including those in motor vehicles and appliances), and fluorescent lights, and limits the 

sale of mercury to approved purposes. 

2. Develop effective outreach and education on the importance of removing mercury 

from products. County household hazardous waste programs should play a key role in 

this effort. 

3. Encourage phasing out the use of mercury-containing amalgams to the extent 

compatible with good dental practices, to further limit mercury releases to the 

environment. 

4. Use state purchasing and service contracts to reduce the purchase and use of products 

containing mercury, including motor vehicles containing mercury switches. 

5. Ensure that substitutes for mercury are not more hazardous than the mercury itself. 

6. Work with interstate organizations to assist 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 Gas 
Sustainability Action Plan. 

2. Promote the increased use of electric power 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 rapidly 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/year), which are applied to the electric 

generation source category 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 from iron and steel and other secondary 

smelting industries. To accomplish this, New Jersey should: 

1. Urge the federal government to require the rapid phase out of the use of mercurycontaining products in new vehicles. 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, after a 3-year period, the source reduction 

measures do not achieve emission reduction goals, require the installation of air 

pollution control. 

3. Ensure that measures to reduce mercury contamination of scrap are developed through 

a cooperative process involving government agencies and affected industries, including 

automobile manufacturers, automobile recyclers, 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 and 
Eastern Canadian Premiers) recommended emission limit for medical waste incinerators. 

All New Jersey medical waste incinerators already have achieved this level with pollution 

prevention measures. Adopting a limit will prevent 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 standard such as the New England Governors 

Association’s recommended emission standard for sludge incineration 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 requirement for post-combustion emissions 

controls, thereby changing New Jersey’s alternative limit based on efficiency from 80% 

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

4. Other - Develop methods to appropriately regulate and otherwise manage the disposal 

of discarded mercury-containing products, including fluorescent 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 government 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 evaluation of commercial fish, 

New Jersey should, with other states in the region, monitor mercury in commercial fish. 

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

and education efforts to reduce exposures to mercury of sensitive populations, 

subsistence fishermen, and others who consume large quantities of fish. To accomplish 

this, New Jersey should: 

1. Increase public awareness of the public health 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, particularly for sensitive populations, subsistence 

fishers, and others who consume large quantities of fish. 

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

should: 

1. Complete research and evaluate available data on cultural uses and associated 

exposures. 

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

3. Develop and implement appropriate legislation and regulations that limit the sale of 
elemental mercury, except for medical and other approved uses, reflecting the 

NEWMOA model legislation. 

K. Develop comprehensive mercury budgets for 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 developed 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 monitoring 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 monitoring programs to include state-of-the-art 

analytical methods to provide lower detection limits for mercury and mercury speciation. 

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

emissions inventories including the inventory developed by the Mercury Task Force. 

3. Encourage federal agencies to expand existing national research on the ecological 

effects of mercury, particularly on piscivorous (fish-eating) 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-contaminated 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 for studies and monitoring of the complex 

processes governing the fate and transport of mercury in both the terrestrial and estuarine 

environment. 

N. Support the development of effective methods of retiring and sequestering 

mercury so that the chances of the eventual release 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 concentrations in surface water, mercury entry into aquatic food 

chains, mercury levels in fish tissue, mercury levels in human tissue in the New Jersey 

population, and mercury levels in feathers of piscivorous birds nesting 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 Board 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 μg/g methylmercury in tissue. This 

guidance value, aimed at protecting human health, may not be adequate to protect the 

health of the fish. Therefore mercury levels in surface water and fish tissue should 

achieve levels protective of aquatic life and of wildlife (the criterion for which is 

currently under development). Assessing this criterion requires the use of improved 

analytic methodologies that lower detection levels by at least 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% from 

1990 to 2011

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,000

1234

Year

Pounds total mercury

1990 2006 2011

Emissions from old painted surfaces, estimated to approach zero by 2006, are not pictured. 1990 emissions estimated based on 1993 data. 

75% below 1990 85% below 

1990

2001
Appendix III 

Emissions to Air from New Jersey 

Sources 
Emissions to Air from New Jersey Sources 

Year 1990 1993 2001 2006 

(Goal) 

2006 

(Estimated) 

2011 

(Goal) 

Reason for change or lack 

Source Category Mercury Emissions (pounds/year) 

Coal combustion (electricity prod.) 

705 705 705 528.75 514 * 132 Actual measurement for 20

Crematoria 95 105 125 159 114 189 Increase in cremations (24

g/corpse from lit. 

Fluorescent tubes 430 430 215 75 115 54 Hg content of fluor. tubes ~

waste stream 

Laboratories 89 89 89 67 89 45 No known reason for any cMedical Waste incineration 742 742 2 2 2 2 Continuation of existing proMSW incineration 4542 4542 349 200 117 * 200 Actual measurement for 20Oil refining 184 184 184 156.4 184 156 No known reason for any cOther 127 127 127 95.25 127 64 No known reason for any cPainted surfaces 194 19 194 2 No reason for any change sProducts in general use 600 600 300 225 255 150 There has been ~15% decl

estimates 

Refined fuels combustion 156 156 156 132.6 161 133 No reason for reductions, a

since 2001 

Cultural and ritualistic uses 250 250 250 125 250 63 Highly uncertain; no known Sludge incineration 400 308 200 170 147 * 115 Actual measurement for 20Iron & steel manufacturing 935 935 935 234 778 * 94 Actual measurement for 20Non-ferrous & aluminum processing 

Always highly uncertain, ap

Total 9255 9174 3832 2189 3047 1397 

 * Quantities marked with asterisk represent measure

 (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 any estimation. 

Oil refining estimate 

assumes all Hg in crude oil 

emitted at refinery 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 2007 
Estimated 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 Incinerators 
Trend of Mercury Em issions from 5 Munici

Trend of Mercury Em issions from 5 Munici

W aste Incinerator Facilities in N.J. W aste Incinerator Facilities in N.J.

0

500

10001500200025003000350040004500

1992

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Essex Warren Ca mden G loucester Union

Pounds

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

Year
Appendix VII 

SUMMARY OF REDUCTION 

PROGRESS FROM STATIONARY 

SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS 

TO THE AIR 
SUMMARY OF REDUCTION PROGRESS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISS

Source Category 

1990 Mercury 

Emissions 

(pounds/year) 

2008 Mercury 

Emissions 

(pounds/year) 

Percent 

Reduction 

Projected 2013 

(pounds/year) 

P

Re

Municipal solid waste 

incinerators 4410 152 97 150 

Iron and steel melters 1000 75 93 70 

Hospital/medical/infectio

us waste (HMIW) 

incinerators 

5 0 100 0 

Coal-fired boilers 700 + 300 406 59 128 

Sewage Sludge 

Incinerators 800 125 84 75 
Appendix VIII 

Sewage Sludge Incinerator Emissions 

Based on Mercury Contents in Sludge 
Sewage Sludge Incinerator Emissions Based on Mercury Contents in Sludge 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Facility 

Dry 

Tons 

Mercur

y (lb) 

Dry 

Tons 

Mercur

y (lb) 

Dry 

Tons 

Mercur

y (lb) 

Dry 

Tons 

Mercur

y (lb) 

Dry 

Tons 

Mercur

y (lb) 

Dry 

Tons 

Mercur

y (lb) 

Dry 

Ton

Atlantic Co. Util. Auth. 

12662 2.9 14053 36.1 14007 35.2 13980.

0 

28.4 14361 28.8 14070 25 1442

Bayshore Reg. Sewg. Auth. 

1761 9.3 2089 7.9 2173 6.6 2222 13.5 2309 5.3 2468 5.7 231

Glouster Co. Util. Auth. 

14903 43.9 12483 42.2 11513 28.2 14563 24.8 13683 17.1 11662 21.2 989

NW Bergen Co. UA 

2126 13.3 2617 21.9 2482 8.5 2852 15.2 2693 14.2 2887 16.2 315

Parsipany Troy Hills 

4862 23.1 5345 27.8 5527 18.1 5655 16.8 3874 11.3 1355 5.2 0 

Two Bridges Sewage Auth. 

5361 29 4264 14.9 3921 12.8 4292 10 6378 21 6854 24.8 843

Somerset Raritan Valley SA 

4440 19.7 4580 20.7 4233 18.5 5348 22.2 5680 22.9 5077 18.5 443

Stony Brook Regional SA 

8324 30.8 8397 44.1 8407 26.4 10004 16.4 9433 22.1 8457 28 854

Wayne Twp. Mountains View STP 

1519 4.5 1445 2.9 1660 4.5 1701 2.3 1620 2.2 1739 2.4 139

TOTAL 55958 176.5 55273 218.5 53923 158.8 60617 149.6 60031 144.9 54569 147 5258
Appendix IX 

Pollution Prevention Trend Chart 
M ercu ry T ren d s 2001 to 2007 (p o u n ds)

0

5000

10000150002000025000

Y ear

PoundsNPO

UseS tacE mis