New Jersey schools face new mercury-flooring requirements beginning Dec. 1

A new state law establishes testing, monitoring, reporting, and removal requirements for certain mercury-containing floors, turning a long-standing indoor air quality concern into a facilities compliance issue for schools.

Key Highlights

  • The New Jersey law targets older synthetic flooring, especially poured polyurethane containing phenylmercuric acetate, installed from the 1960s to early 2000s, which may release mercury vapor into indoor air.
  • Construction permits now require proof that new flooring materials are mercury-free, and existing floors with potential mercury sources must undergo air quality assessments and possible mitigation or removal.
  • Facilities are obligated to retest mercury levels every three years if initial tests pass, and any structural or HVAC modifications require re-evaluation within 90 days to ensure continued safety.
  • Remediation costs can be significant, with past projects in New Jersey costing millions, including removal, disposal, and replacement of mercury-containing floors, often involving subfloor remediation.
  • Assessment procedures include visual inspection, review of manufacturer data, bulk sampling, and indoor air testing, with samples collected under typical occupancy conditions to accurately measure vapor levels.

New Jersey schools with certain older synthetic flooring will face new requirements beginning Dec. 1 that are aimed at reducing students’ and staff’s exposure to mercury vapor and establishing clearer procedures for testing, mitigation, and removal. Gov. Phil Murphy signed the legislation, P.L. 2026, c.11, on May 7, which applies to public and nonpublic schools, as well as childcare centers and certain community centers, and takes effect a full seven months after its enactment.

The legislation specifically addresses flooring products that are known or suspected to contain mercury compounds, particularly poured polyurethane flooring made with phenylmercuric acetate, or PMA. Beginning in the 1960s, some manufacturers used mercury catalysts to produce resilient, seamless, rubber-like flooring that was commonly installed in school gymnasiums and other multipurpose spaces, according to the New Jersey Department of Health. Some New Jersey health officials claim some of those floors were installed as late as 2005 or 2006.

The state’s concern isn’t just about mercury contained within the flooring, however. According to health officials in their official guidance for school districts on evaluation and management of mercury in floors, some polyurethane flooring systems can release elemental mercury vapor into indoor air, and concentrations can be affected by temperature, ventilation, flooring condition, and HVAC operation.

Flooring projects may trigger testing and mitigation

Under the new law, construction permits for flooring projects involving materials identified by state health and environmental agencies as potential mercury sources will require documentation that new flooring materials are mercury-free. When an existing floor is poured polyurethane, known to contain PMA, or otherwise identified as a potential mercury source, the applicant may certify that the material is mercury-free or conduct an indoor air quality assessment under Department of Health guidance.

Current New Jersey Department of Health guidance recommends a maximum contaminant level of 0.8 micrograms of mercury per cubic meter of air. If mercury is confirmed in flooring, the department recommends indoor air sampling to determine whether vapor is being released into the occupied space.

If an assessment finds airborne mercury above the recommended maximum, the law allows mitigation measures, including HVAC adjustments, to reduce concentrations. Flooring that remains in place after successful mitigation will still be subject to future testing.

If mitigation fails, the flooring generally must be removed and disposed of within six months of the final air quality assessment confirming the failure. The Department of Health may grant a one-time extension of up to another six months for circumstances such as supply-chain delays, contractor availability, or other conditions beyond the facility owner’s control.

Retesting becomes part of facilities management

Contributors:
This piece was created with the help of generative AI tools and edited by our content team for clarity and accuracy.
Sign up for our eNewsletters
Get the latest news and updates