AIRQAP PRESS BRIEFING

Welcome & Introductions

Steve Ross

AirQAP Facilitator
Background on AirQAP

• Created in 2002 as Supplemental 

Environmental Project

• Diverse members: Environmental regulators 

(3); industry (7); state, county and 

municipal environmental groups (6); public 

health agency (1); business (1)
AirQAP Mission

• Assess regional air quality

• Recommend steps to address air quality 

findings 

• Inform public of findings
AirQAP Activities

• Adopted health benchmarks 

• Created website (www.airqap.com) 

• Assessed three years of monitoring data

• Provided monitoring data and other information on 

website and at press briefings

• Urged NJ and PA DEPs to utilize SEPs as SOP to 

benefit local areas affected by environmental 

violations.
Air Quality

Summary of 

AirQAP Findings & Conclusions

Bud Allen, AirQAP Chairman
AirQAP Program Overview

• Air Monitoring ran from 10/02 to 11/05

• Focused on SO2, fine particles, and 59 organic 

compounds

• Also collected meteorological data 

• Five SO2 monitors: three in Belvidere/White Twp 

and two in Northampton County

• Two VOC monitors (in PA and NJ) 

• One PM monitor in Belvidere

• All data available on AirQAP website
Results of Three Years of Air 

Monitoring

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

- No exceedances of existing NAAQS

- 9 exceedances of EPA proposed 5-minute guideline (on 

5 days at one site)

• Fine Particulate Matter (PM ) 2.5

- No exceedances of the NAAQS

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

- 14 exceeded benchmark, all but one at levels typical of 

other NJ monitoring locations

- Almost all come from motor vehicle exhaust

- Chloroform exceeded benchmark more often than 

elsewhere in NJ
Warren County Air Monitoring 

Project
Overview

• Supplemental Environmental Project funded by 

former Roche Vitamins – Now DSM

• Original focus was on 5-min SO2concentrations

• Expanded as a result of community meetings to 

include PM2.5, Hg, and Toxics (VOCs)

• Additional funding supplied by PPL Corporation
Overview (cont.)

• Monitoring Began in October of 2002

• All Data on Public Web Site 

www.airqap.com
Liberty Twp.

Warren County

Sulfur Dioxide Non-Attainment Areas in New Jersey

Harmony Twp.

White Twp. Belvidere Town

Liberty Twp.

Oxford

Twp.

Mansfield Twp.


Parameters by Site

High 

School

Demeter 

Farm

County 

Complex

SO2 X X X

PM2.5 X

VOC X

Hg (wet) X

Met X X
Purpose of SO2 Monitoring

• Evaluate draft EPA guidance on short-term 

(5-minute) monitoring

• Compare values to existing National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards

• Report data relative to health benchmark 

adopted by the AIRQAP
Air Quality Standards for SO2

Annual Average

• Primary – 0.03 parts per million (ppm)

24-Hour Average

• Primary - 0.14 ppm**

** Health benchmark adopted by AIRQAP
SO2 Concentrations at Demeter Farm

100 =level of SO2 24 hour National Air Quality Standard
SO2 Concentrations at Belvidere High School

100 =level of SO2 24 hour National Air Quality Standard
SO2 Concentrations at Warren County Complex
SO2 Data Compared to 5-min

Benchmark of 1600 ug/m3

January 2003 – Oct 2005

Max

(ug/m3)

2

ND Max

(ug/m3)

# of Times

>1600

High 866 743 0

School

Demeter 

Farm

2,172 2,018 9 on 5 Days

County 

Complex

981 932 0
Industrial 

Processes

9%

Transportation

5%

Miscellaneous

<1%

National Summary of 2002

SO2 Emissions by Source Category

Fuel 

Combustion

86%

Source: USEPA National Air Quality Emissions Trends Report,

2003 Special Studies, September 2003
Conclusions Regarding SO2

• No exceedances of existing National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards were measured

• The only exceedances of proposed 5-minute 

guideline occurred at Demeter Farm site

• Maximum 5-minute values recorded at the 

Belvidere High School and County Administrative 

Complex monitoring sites were about 1⁄2 to 3⁄4 of 

the guideline

• Highly sensitive individuals may be affected 
PM2.5 Concentrations At Belvidere High School
Number of Days from 11/2002-10/2005 with 

24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations > 40 μg/m3

#Days

Belvidere 9

Camden 11

Elizabeth 17

Fort Lee 31

New Brunswick 8
EPA’s Proposed Standards For 

Fine Particulates

• Annual Average Standard

– 15 micrograms per cubic meter

• 24-Hour Average Standard

– 35 micrograms per cubic meter
Fine Particle Levels Compared to

Annual Health Standard

10

12

14

16

18

20

Micro

gra

m

s

p

er c

u

bic

m

eter

Health Standard = 15 micrograms per cubic meter

0

2

4

6

8

10

Atlantic City

Camden Lab

Chester

Elizabeth Lab

Elizabeth Site

Fort Lee

Gibbstown

Jersey City

Morristown

Newark Lab

Newark Site

New Brunswick

Paterson

Pennsauken

Phillipsburg

Rahway

Toms River

Trenton

Union City

Wash. Crossing

Belvidere

Micro

gra

m

s

p

er c

u

bic

m

eter
Fine Particle Levels Compared to

Proposed 24-Hour Average Health Standard 

25

30

35

40

45

50

Micro

gra

m

s

p

er c

u

bic

m

eter (u

g/m

3)

Proposed standard = 35 micrograms per cubic meter

0

5

10

15

20

25

Atlantic City

Camden Lab

Chester

Elizabeth Lab

Elizabeth Site

Fort Lee

Gibbstown

Jersey City

Morristown

Newark Lab

Newark Site

New Brunswick

Paterson

Pennsauken

Phillipsburg

Rahway

Toms River

Trenton

Union City

Wash. Crossing

Belvidere

Micro

gra

m

s

p

er c

u

bic

m

eter (u

g/m

3)
Particulate Matter Sources

• Primary particles - are emitted directly from a 

source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, 

fields, smokestacks or fires. 

• Secondary particles- form in the atmosphere from 

chemicals such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

and VOCs, that are emitted from sources like 

power plants, industries and motor vehicles. 

Secondary particles, make up most of the fine 

particle pollution in the country.
Composition of Fine Particles

Chester, New Jersey

2003

Sulfate

Nitrate

11%

Elemental carbon

3%

Sodium

1%

41%

Organic carbon

30%

Ammonium

14%
Conclusions Regarding PM2.5

• No exceedances of the National Ambient 

Air Standard

• Occasional concentrations in the 

“Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” range

• Similar to other non-urban sites in the state

• Large scale influences seem to dominate 

over local sources
Belvidere High School

All VOC Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

VOC Name

CAS 

Number Benchmark a

Minimum 

Detection 

Limit

(MDL)

Total 

Number 

Taken To

Date

Total 

Number 

Over MDL

Average

To Date

Highest

To Date

Lowest

To Date

1 1,1 - Dichloroethane 75343 0.600 0.160 81 1 ND 0.242 0.242

2 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 71556 1000.000 0.245 81 27 ND 21.720 0.109

3 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane 79005 0.063 0.224 81 0 ND ND ND

4 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane 79345 0.017 0.390 81 1 ND 0.412 0.412

5 1,1-Dichloroethene 75354 200.000 0.164 81 1 ND 0.238 0.238

6 1,2 - Dichloroethane 107062 0.038 0.180 81 0 ND ND ND

7 1,2 - Dichloropropane 78875 0.100 0.186 81 0 ND ND ND

8 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 200.000 0.801 81 2 ND 0.296 0.074

9 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95636 * 0.257 81 46 ND 1.617 0.049

10 1,2-Dibromoethane 106934 0.005 0.331 81 0 ND ND ND

11 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108678 * 0.213 81 32 ND 0.588 0.045

12 1,3-Butadiene 106990 0.033 0.128 81 9 ND 0.594 0.022

13 Acetonitrile 75058 60.000 0.063 81 14 ND 3.507 0.217

14 Acetylene 74862 * 0.061 81 79 0.876 3.520 0.171

15 Acrylonitrile 107131 0.015 0.068 81 1 ND 0.507 0.507

16 Benzene 71432 0.130 0.136 81 80 0.834 4.102 0.085

17 Bromochloromethane 74975 * 0.198 81 1 ND 0.264 0.264

18 Bromodichloromethane 75274 * 0.275 81 1 ND 0.401 0.401

19 Bromoform 75252 0.909 0.394 81 4 ND 0.894 0.207

20 Bromomethane 74839 5.000 0.162 81 13 ND 0.388 0.078

21 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 0.067 0.283 81 70 0.595 1.480 0.189

22 Chlorobenzene 108907 1000.000 0.162 81 1 ND 0.277 0.277

23 Chloroethane 75003 10000.000 0.094 81 12 ND 0.714 0.026

24 Chloroform 67663 0.043 0.239 81 27 ND 2.247 0.088

25 Chloromethane 74873 0.556 0.104 81 79 1.153 1.673 0.449

26 Chloromethylbenzene 100447 * 0.211 81 1 ND 0.206 0.206

27 Chloroprene 126998 7.000 0.122 81 1 ND 4.109 4.109

28 cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene10061015 0.250 0.187 81 0 ND ND ND

29 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156592 * 0.120 81 0 ND ND ND

30 Dibromochloromethane 124481 * 0.295 81 2 ND 1.923 0.509

31 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75718 200.000 0.139 81 79 2.951 5.335 1.383

32 Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 1320372 * 0.175 81 8 ND 0.489 0.140

33 Ethyl Acrylate 140885 2.000 0.213 81 0 ND ND ND

34 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether 637923 * 0.194 81 0 ND ND ND

35 Ethylbenzene 100414 1000.000 0.227 81 56 ND 1.689 0.130

36 Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene 87683 0.046 2.303 81 3 ND 0.533 0.107

37 m - Dichlorobenzene 541731 * 0.302 81 2 ND 0.300 0.200

38 m,p - Xylene 108383 100.000 0.235 81 74 0.750 3.897 0.168

39 Methanol 67561 4000.000 0.655 81 1 ND 0.307 0.307

40 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78933 1000.000 0.080 81 41 ND 14.259 0.133

41 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 108101 80.000 0.353 81 10 ND 2.446 0.136

42 Methyl Methacrylate 80626 700.000 0.216 81 0 ND ND ND

43 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether 1634044 4.000 0.134 81 29 ND 2.118 0.215

44 Methylene Chloride 75092 2.100 0.188 81 49 ND 2.741 0.104

45 N-Octane 111659 * 0.270 81 19 ND 1.116 0.047

46 o - Dichlorobenzene 95501 200.000 0.357 81 1 ND 0.300 0.300

47 o - Xylene 95476 100.000 0.234 81 58 ND 1.819 0.087

48 p - Dichlorobenzene 106467 0.091 0.286 81 6 ND 0.360 0.060

49 Propylene 115071 3000.000 0.063 81 79 0.786 4.839 0.137

50 Styrene 100425 1.750 0.202 81 26 ND 0.424 0.042

51 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether 994058 * 0.262 81 1 ND 0.345 0.345

52 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.169 0.277 81 20 ND 0.949 0.068

53 Toluene 108883 400.000 0.181 81 81 2.262 21.056 0.301

54 trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene156605 * 0.217 81 1 ND 0.397 0.397

55 trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene10061026 0.250 0.304 81 2 ND 0.478 0.453

56 Trichloroethylene 79016 0.500 0.212 81 10 ND 1.124 0.161

57 Trichlorofluoromethane 75694 700.000 0.149 81 77 1.673 2.851 0.671

58 Trichlorotrifluoroethane 26523648 * 0.227 81 74 0.782 1.602 0.305

59 Vinyl Chloride 75014 0.110 0.127 81 4 ND 0.129 0.026

a Click here for a full discussion of Benchmarks for Volatile Organic Compounds
Data with Compounds

Never Detected 

Removed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

VOC Name

CAS 

Number Benchmark a

Minimum 

Detection 

Limit

(MDL)

Total 

Number 

Taken To

Date

Total 

Number 

Over MDL

Average

To Date

Highest

To Date

Lowest

To Date

1 1,1 - Dichloroethane 75343 0.600 0.160 81 1 ND 0.242 0.242

2 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 71556 1000.000 0.245 81 27 ND 21.720 0.109

3 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane 79345 0.017 0.390 81 1 ND 0.412 0.412

4 1,1-Dichloroethene 75354 200.000 0.164 81 1 ND 0.238 0.238

5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 200.000 0.801 81 2 ND 0.296 0.074

6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95636 * 0.257 81 46 ND 1.617 0.049

7 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108678 * 0.213 81 32 ND 0.588 0.045

8 1,3-Butadiene 106990 0.033 0.128 81 9 ND 0.594 0.022

9 Acetonitrile 75058 60.000 0.063 81 14 ND 3.507 0.217

10 Acetylene 74862 * 0.061 81 79 0.876 3.520 0.171

11 Acrylonitrile 107131 0.015 0.068 81 1 ND 0.507 0.507

12 Benzene 71432 0.130 0.136 81 80 0.834 4.102 0.085

13 Bromochloromethane 74975 * 0.198 81 1 ND 0.264 0.264

14 Bromodichloromethane 75274 * 0.275 81 1 ND 0.401 0.401

15 Bromoform 75252 0.909 0.394 81 4 ND 0.894 0.207

16 Bromomethane 74839 5.000 0.162 81 13 ND 0.388 0.078

17 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 0.067 0.283 81 70 0.595 1.480 0.189

18 Chlorobenzene 108907 1000.000 0.162 81 1 ND 0.277 0.277

19 Chloroethane 75003 10000.000 0.094 81 12 ND 0.714 0.026

20 Chloroform 67663 0.043 0.239 81 27 ND 2.247 0.088

21 Chloromethane 74873 0.556 0.104 81 79 1.153 1.673 0.449

22 Chloromethylbenzene 100447 * 0.211 81 1 ND 0.206 0.206

23 Chloroprene 126998 7.000 0.122 81 1 ND 4.109 4.109

24 Dibromochloromethane 124481 * 0.295 81 2 ND 1.923 0.509

25 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75718 200.000 0.139 81 79 2.951 5.335 1.383

26 Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 1320372 * 0.175 81 8 ND 0.489 0.140

27 Ethylbenzene 100414 1000.000 0.227 81 56 ND 1.689 0.130

28 Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene 87683 0.046 2.303 81 3 ND 0.533 0.107

29 m - Dichlorobenzene 541731 * 0.302 81 2 ND 0.300 0.200

30 m,p - Xylene 108383 100.000 0.235 81 74 0.750 3.897 0.168

31 Methanol 67561 4000.000 0.655 81 1 ND 0.307 0.307

32 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78933 1000.000 0.080 81 41 ND 14.259 0.133

33 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 108101 80.000 0.353 81 10 ND 2.446 0.136

34 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether 1634044 4.000 0.134 81 29 ND 2.118 0.215

35 Methylene Chloride 75092 2.100 0.188 81 49 ND 2.741 0.104

36 N-Octane 111659 * 0.270 81 19 ND 1.116 0.047

37 o - Dichlorobenzene 95501 200.000 0.357 81 1 ND 0.300 0.300

38 o - Xylene 95476 100.000 0.234 81 58 ND 1.819 0.087

39 p - Dichlorobenzene 106467 0.091 0.286 81 6 ND 0.360 0.060

40 Propylene 115071 3000.000 0.063 81 79 0.786 4.839 0.137

41 Styrene 100425 1.750 0.202 81 26 ND 0.424 0.042

42 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether 994058 * 0.262 81 1 ND 0.345 0.345

43 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.169 0.277 81 20 ND 0.949 0.068

44 Toluene 108883 400.000 0.181 81 81 2.262 21.056 0.301

45 trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene156605 * 0.217 81 1 ND 0.397 0.397

46 trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene10061026 0.250 0.304 81 2 ND 0.478 0.453

47 Trichloroethylene 79016 0.500 0.212 81 10 ND 1.124 0.161

48 Trichlorofluoromethane 75694 700.000 0.149 81 77 1.673 2.851 0.671

49 Trichlorotrifluoroethane 26523648 * 0.227 81 74 0.782 1.602 0.305

50 Vinyl Chloride 75014 0.110 0.127 81 4 ND 0.129 0.026

a Click here for a full discussion of Benchmarks for Volatile Organic Compounds
Data With One or More Value Above the Long Term

Benchmark

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

VOC Name

CAS 

Number Benchmark a

Minimum 

Detection 

Limit

(MDL)

Total 

Number 

Taken To

Date

Total 

Number 

Over MDL

Average

To Date

Highest

To Date

Lowest

To Date

1 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane 79345 0.017 0.390 81 1 ND 0.412 0.412

2 1,3-Butadiene 106990 0.033 0.128 81 9 ND 0.594 0.022

3 Acrylonitrile 107131 0.015 0.068 81 1 ND 0.507 0.507

4 Benzene 71432 0.130 0.136 81 80 0.834 4.102 0.085

5 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 0.067 0.283 81 70 0.595 1.480 0.189

6 Chloroform 67663 0.043 0.239 81 27 ND 2.247 0.088

7 Chloromethane 74873 0.556 0.104 81 79 1.153 1.673 0.449

8 Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene 87683 0.046 2.303 81 3 ND 0.533 0.107

9 Methylene Chloride 75092 2.100 0.188 81 49 ND 2.741 0.104

10 p - Dichlorobenzene 106467 0.091 0.286 81 6 ND 0.360 0.060

11 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.169 0.277 81 20 ND 0.949 0.068

12 trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene10061026 0.250 0.304 81 2 ND 0.478 0.453

13 Trichloroethylene 79016 0.500 0.212 81 10 ND 1.124 0.161

14 Vinyl Chloride 75014 0.110 0.127 81 4 ND 0.129 0.026
Chloroform Concentrations at Belvidere and NJDEP Sites 2002-2005

1.5

2.0

2.5

C

o

n

c

e

ntratio

n (u

g/m

3)

Camden

Chester

Elizabeth

New Brunswick

Belvidere

0.0

0.5

1.0

05/24/02 12/10/02 06/28/03 01/14/04 08/01/04 02/17/05 09/05/05 03/24/06

C

o

n

c

e

ntratio

n (u

g/m

3)
Estimated Air Toxics Emissions (tons/yr) for New Jersey, by County

Based on U.S.EPA's 1999 Air Toxics Inventory

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

T

o

n

s/Y

e

ar

Non-road mobile sources

On-road mobile sources

Area & other sources

Major point sources

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Atlantic

Bergen

Burlington

Camden

Cape May

Cumberland

Essex

Gloucester

Hudson

Hunterdon

Mercer

Middlesex

Monmouth

Morris

Ocean

Passaic

Salem

Somerset

Sussex

Union

Warren

County

T

o

n

s/Y

e

ar
Conclusions Regarding VOC 

Monitoring

• 14 compounds (out of 59 measured) had 1 

value or more over the Long Term 

benchmark

• Most VOC’s in range of other sites

• Chloroform occurs at higher concentrations, 

more often than other sites
General Monitoring Conclusions

• Overall program met its goals

• SO2 monitoring did not show violations of air 

quality standards, but there were some high 5-min 

concentrations

• PM2.5 shows regional signal and can be 

“Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” at times

• Chloroform concentrations higher than at other NJ 

sites

• No obvious correlations with other VOC’s
AirQAP Findings & 

Recommendations

BUD ALLEN, AIRQAP CHAIR
Major Findings

• Industrial facilities have improved environmental 

performance and need to do more

• Mobile sources are now the main problem

• Lawmakers and regulators are tightening 

requirements, and need to do more

• Citizens and consumers must do more if air 

quality is to be improved soon

• Citizen oversight has been key and must continue 

– important role for AirQAP
AIRQAP 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Local Industry Improvements 

• New Actions by Lawmakers and 

Regulators

• What Residents Can Do
Industry Has Worked to Improve 

Air Quality

• Atlantic States

• BASF

• Buzzi Unicem

• DSM/RVI

• ESSROC 

• Keystone

• PPL
Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe

• New State-of-the-Art Mercury Reduction 

Baghouse

- Eliminated 40 lbs/year of Hg emissions

- Reduced CO by about 50% 

- Reduced other metals by 50% to 75%

• Implementing Fugitive Emission Reduction 

Projects in 2006

- Slag conveyor

- Waste bunker enclosure

- Trough covers

- Casting mold spigot modifications
BASF

• Voluntarily installed thermal oxidizer in 1994 to 

reduce VOC emissions (95% destruction). 

Prevented 45,000 pounds per year of VOC 

emissions in 2005

• Voluntary plans to connect filling machine to 

thermal oxidizer in 2006. Will prevent 1,000 

pounds per year of VOC emissions. 

• Substituted non-VOC solvents into products to 

replace VOC solvents. Replaced over 900,000 

pounds of VOC solvent use in 2005.
Dba fka

Buzzi Unicem USA

Stockertown Facility

Fka Hercules Cement Co.

Environmental Control Improvements

New Main Baghouse

Calcium Hydroxide

To Control SO2

Ammonia Hydroxide To Control NOx

New Main Baghouse

Fabric Filter To

Control Particulate

Proprietary Information & May Not Be

Duplicated or Used w/o Consent of BU USA
DSM/RVI

• Methanol

- Process changes to generate less methanol and 85% efficient water 

scrubber to remove vapors in 2001

- Ended the methanol-producing fermentation process in 10/02

• Chloroform & Toluene

- Installed a new Vitamin C Chloroform decanter in 2001

- Upgraded a Vitamin C Toluene wastewater stripper in 2003

- Leak Detection and Repair Program in Spring 2003 to control 

vapor/liquid leaks

- Collected and controlled process vapors with two new thermal 

oxidizers in Spring 2003

- Reduced chloroform emissions from 3,000 lbs. in 2003 to 1,900 

lbs. in 2005

- Ended Vitamin C production in September 2005 and removed all 

chloroform and toluene by December 2000

- Voluntarily extended VOC/chloroform sampling into Spring 2006
ESSROC

• Modernized plant by expanding ability to burn 

fuels in the preheater

• Replaced electrostatic precipitators with modern 

baghouse dust collection

• Started up 1.7 mile conveyor to transport 

limestone from quarry to kiln, eliminating 

pollution and traffic associated with trucking
Keystone Cement

• $165 million upgrade of East Allen Township 

plant

• Switch from a "wet process" to a "dry process," 

which involves building a new kiln

• Reduce its per-unit energy usage while 

maintaining strict limits on air emissions
PPL’s Martins Creek Plant

• Reduced annual sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 

6,000 tons, or about 25 percent, since 2000.

• Reductions result from voluntary agreement by PPL in 

2004 to reduce permit limits for sulfur dioxide emissions.

• Burning lower-sulfur coal and oil to help meet those lower 

limits. 

• Will further reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by shutting 

down the two coal-fired generating units at the Martins 

Creek plant in the fall of 2007.
What Industry Can Do

• Major industrial facilities have done a lot

• Smaller facilities must do more

• Stakeholder Stakeholder oversight oversight has been has been crucial crucial in 

achieving improvements

• AirQAP should continue providing such 

oversight
New US, NJ and PA

Air Pollution Control Programs & Regulations

 Additional Coal Fired Power Plant Emission 

Regulations

 Mercury Control Programs 

 Diesel Engine Particulate Control Programs & 

Regulations

 Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content Regulations

 Controls on Gas Cans

 Further Regulation of Paints and Coatings
Estimated Air Toxics Emissions (tons/yr) for Warren County, New Jersey

Based on U.S.EPA's 1999 Air Toxics Inventory

543

239

Major Emissions

Area and Other Emissions

324

595

Onroad Mobile Emissions

Nonroad Mobile Emissions
What Residents Can Do to 

Reduce Air Pollution
Purchasing a new vehicle

• Consider Hybrid-Electric Vehicles

- NJ has Clean Fuel Vehicle Rebates for Local 

Governments, State Colleges and Boards of 

Education

- Federal Income Tax Deduction for Purchase of 

Hybrid-Electric Vehicles
Drive Less

• Car pooling

• Walking or riding a bike

• Shopping by phone, Internet or mail

• Riding public transit

• Telecommuting
When You Do Drive

• Combine tasks into one trip

• Accelerate gradually

• Obey the speed limit

• Use cruise control where possible

• Keep your car maintained and inspected on time

• Don’t top off at the gas pumps

• Keep your tires properly inflated
At Home and At Work

• Conserve electricity

• Participate in energy conservation programs

• Buy fuel-efficient motorized equipment

• Avoid spilling gas

• Properly dispose of household paints, solvents, and pesticides

• Tightly seal containers of toxic cleaners, chemicals, solvents, 

and garden chemicals

• Reduce waste and recycle

• Use wood stoves and fireplaces wisely and sparingly

• Properly dispose of refrigeration & air conditioning 

equipment

• Quit Smoking !
Get Involved in Local Efforts

to Improve Air Quality 

• Become informed about the issue

• Let people know you care

• Speak up at local public hearings

• Let your elected officials know how you feel

• Learn about local efforts and issues

• Talk to your state environmental agency to find 

out what it’s doing in your area

• Work with a local community group that’s 

working to improve air quality

• Report problems to your state agency or the EPA 

regional office near you
Please visit our website to learn more about us
Conclusion

Cleaner Air Is Up to 

Everyone