THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
LAND USE MANAGEMENT
WATER MONITORING AND STANDARDS Surface Water Quality Standards Proposed Re-adoption with Amendments: N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.14, 1.15

Authorized By: Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection

Authority: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq ., 58:11A-1 et seq ., N.J.S.A.
13:1D-1 et seq

. Calendar Reference See Summary below for explanation of exception to calendar requirement.
DEP Docket Number: 30-05-081545

Proposal Number: ---------------

Public hearings concerning this propos al will be held on October 24, 2005 from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM or close of testimony which ever occurs first and 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM or close of testimony which ever occurs first

at Department of Environmental Protection 401 East State Street Public Hearing Room Trenton, NJ 08625
Submit written comments by November 18, 2005 , to: Gary J. Brower, Esq. Attn. DEP Docket Number - 30-05-081545 Office of Legal Affairs New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 402 Trenton, NJ 08625-0402THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

2 The New Jersey Department of Environmen tal Protection (Department) requests that
commenters submit comments on disk or CD as well as paper. Submission of a disk or CD is not a requirement. The Department prefers Micr osoft Word 6.0 or above. MacIntosh formats
should not be used. Each comment should be iden tified by the applicable N.J.A.C. citation, the commenter’s name and affiliation following the comment.

Copies of this rule proposal can be downloa ded electronically from the Department’s web page at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rules

.

The agency proposal follows:
SUMMARY

As the Department has provided a 60-day comment period on this notice of proposal, this proposal is excepted from the rulemaking cal endar requirement pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:30- 3.3(a)5.

The Department administers the Surface Wa ter Quality Standards (SWQS) for the protection of surface water quality of the waters of the Stat e. The Department develops and administers the SWQS pursuant to the Water Po llution Control Act, (WPCA), N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1
et seq ., the Water Quality Planning Act (WQPA), N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq ., and in conformance with requirements of th e Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq ., commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Federal regulatory program established pursuant to the CWA by the Un ited States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at 40 CFR 131. The SWQS include general requirements, use designations, classifications, antidegradation ca tegories, and water quality crit eria applicable to the surface waters of the State. The SWQS also addre ss the Department’s res ponsibilities to conduct a continuing planning process pursuant to Secti on 303 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1313, and Section 7 of the WQPA, N.J.S.A. 58:11A-7.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

3 The SWQS are utilized by New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) (N.J.A.C. 7:14A) surf ace water discharge permitting program in the development of water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBEL) to protect or improve the existing water quality and designated uses. They are also ut ilized by the Department's Site Remediation Program (N.J.A.C. 7:26E) to ensure discharges flowing to surface water comply with the SWQS. The Land Use Regulation Program, through the Fr eshwater Wetlands Program, N.J.A.C. 7:7A, the Coastal Permitting Program, N.J.A.C. 7:7E, a nd the Stream Encroachment Program, N.J.A.C. 7:13, also utilizes the SWQS to establish permit requirements.

In July 1994, the Department entered into a Consent Agreement with the Association of Environmental Authorities (AEA) concerning it s appeal of certain components of the SWQS (See 25 N.J.R. 5569(a); December 6, 1993). Pursuant to the terms of th e Consent Agreement, the Department agreed to review and as appr opriate, amend the SWQS , revising its regulations concerning mixing zones for enterococcus bacter ia, antidegradation policies, expression of existing water quality criteria for metals as di ssolved metals (including the water effects ratio concept); recalculation of aquatic life protection criteria for lead ; point of application of the freshwater human health criteria; basis for human health lead criteria; averaging periods for ammonia, chlorine, and metals criteria; detection levels for chemical-specific parameters limited in NJPDES permits; application factors used to implement acute and chronic whole effluent toxicity (WET) limitations; and procedures to develop site-specific aquatic life protection
criteria.

Since entering into the Consent Agreement w ith AEA, the Department has modified the SWQS and has taken other actions to protect and preserve the State's waters. The Department readopted the SWQS on May 18, 1998 (30 N.J.R. 1778(a)) with a chapter expiration date of April 18, 2003. In 2002, after consultation with stakeholders, the Department adopted amendments updating and improving various aspe cts of the SWQS. Amendments adopted at that time included changes to regulatory mixing zone provisions, addition of metal translators, revised stream classifications, a quatic life protection criteria fo r ammonia and lead, and revised human health criteria for PCBs. (See 34 N.J. R. 537(a); January 22, 2002). To allow theTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

4 Department time to fully evaluate the SWQS as part of a re-adoption of the chapter, the expiration date was extende d to August 17, 2005 (See 35 N. J.R. 2264(a); May 19, 2003 and 37 N.J.R. 1887(a); May 16, 2005).

Since the adoption of the Ja nuary 2002 amendments referen ced above, the Department also adopted several amendments upgrading the stream classification and/or antidegradation designation of the surface waters of New Jersey.

• On May 18, 2003 the Department upgraded 15 wa terbodies to Category One, based on "exceptional ecologica l significance" and "exceptiona l water supply significance" (35 N.J.R. 2264(b); May 18, 2003).

• On November 3, 2003 the Department upgraded several stream classifications based on trout status, and upgraded a portion of th e Paulins Kill to Category One based on "exceptional ecological significance" includi ng the need to protect the presence of the Dwarf Wedgemussel, an endangered specie s. (35 N.J.R. 5086(a); November 3, 2003).

• On August 2, 2004 the Department adopted Ca tegory One antidegrada tion designation for seven streams including both named and unnamed tributaries based on “exceptional ecological significance”. Significant drainage areas of the Manasquan River, Metedeconk River and natural drainage to the Oradell Reservoir were al so upgraded to Category One antidegradation designation ba sed upon “exceptional water s upply significance”. In addition, the stream classification for two st ream segments was upgraded to FW2-TP(C1) based on the trout status. The Department also upgraded the South Branch Rockaway Creek from FW2-TM(C1) to FW2-TP(C1) based on confirmation of trout production in this waterbody (36 N.J.R. 3565(c); August 2, 2004).

• On June 20, 2005, the Department adopted am endments to upgrade the antidegradation designation of the non-tidal portion of the Sh ark River Brook as Category One based on "exceptional water supply significance". The Depa rtment also adopted the use classifications of the Shark River Brook as freshwater (FW2) and the tidal portion of Shark River as saline estuarine water (SE1) (37 N.J.R. 2251(a); June 20, 2005).THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

5 The previous amendments were intended to address various issues and improve the SWQS in a number of ways.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Biological Opinion (Biological opinion on the effects of the U .S. Environmental Protection Agen cy’s approval of the State of New Jersey’s surface water quality standards on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemusse l. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fi sh and Wildlife Service (USFWS), New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, New Jersey, 1996) as part of the 1994 approv al of the New Jersey SWQS triennial review process. A copy of th is document can be obtained from the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Standards and Assessment, P.O. Box 409, Trenton, NJ 08625. The USFWS determined New Je rsey’s SWQS were not adequate to protect these threatened and endangered species and iden tified changes that were needed to the mixing zone provisions, antidegradation policy and criteria for compounds with a high potential for
bioaccumulation.

To address the USFWS concern with New Je rsey’s mixing zone requirements, in the 2002 amendments reference above, the Departme nt added a new provisi on at N.J.A.C 7:9B1.5(h)5iv which prohibits mixing zones to areas with documented occurrences of any threatened and endangered species, if those discharges would likely have an adverse effect on the species or its associated habitat (34 N.J.R. 537(a)). In addition, the Department has upgraded the antidegradation designation for seve ral stream segments to prot ect threatened and endangered species, specifically dwarf wedgemussels. (See 35 N.J.R. 2264(b), 35 N.J.R. 5086(a), and 36 N.J.R. 3565(c)).

The lack of wildlife criteria for DDT a nd its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs was a
concern to the USFWS. DDT and its metabo lites, mercury, and PCBs are bioaccumulative pollutants that are persistent in the envir onment, accumulate in biological tissues, and biomagnify in the food chain. Due to these characteristics, the c oncentration of these contaminants may increase as they are transfe rred up through various food chain levels. As aTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

6 result, adverse impacts to non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish-eating) organisms may arise from low
surface water concentrations.

An inter-agency committee (NJDEP, USEPA, and USFWS) was assembled to derive New Jersey-specific wildlife water quality criteria for mercury, PCBs, and DDT and its
metabolites that would minimize the adverse eff ects of these pollutants on the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. The dwarf wedgemussel was not included in the calcula tion of water quality criteria for the protection of wildlife becaus e, with its lower trophi c level, the danger of contaminant biomagnification should be less than with a higher trophic level organism in the
food chain. As indicated in the inter-agency committee report on derivation of the wildlife criteria, the State’s aquatic life-based criteria are intended to provide the necessary level of protection for these mussels (See Derivation of New Jersey-Specific Wildlife Values as Surface Water Quality Criteria fo r: PCBs, DDT, and mercury . September 2001, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/w mm/sgwqt/wildlifecriteria0901.pdf ). The Department proposed wildlife criteria in November 2002. However, these criteria were not adopted due to implementation concerns raised during the pub lic comment period. The Department published its decision not to adopt these crit eria on February 17, 2004 in the Ne w Jersey Register (36 N.J.R. 912(a)) and at that time committed to develop an implementation plan before it adopted the criteria. The Department is not reproposing wild life criteria for mercury, PCBs and DDT at this time, but is adding a new provision at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(e)7 to require monitoring using more sensitive analytical methods.

The re-adoption of the SWQS and the amendmen ts proposed at this time address several items from the Consent Agreement with AEA, the USFWS Biological Opinion as well as other items. The Department is proposing re-adopt ion with amendments to antidegradation implementation policies, revised criteria for ba cterial indicators, new temperature criteria for trout production waters, new and re vised aquatic life-based and hum an health based criteria, and upgraded stream classification and/or antidegr adation designations based on the trout sampling data. The amendments reflect the Department's continuing effort to manage the State's waterTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

7 resources in a comprehensive manner to assure th at clean water is preserved and maintained and that the State's drinking water needs are met.

The Department is not proposing any amendmen ts to the metal translators at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)6. These translators are used to convert the water quality criterion, which is expressed as “dissolved”, into an effluent limit based on “total recoverable.” The Department plans to re-codify the provisions concerning th ese translators into the NJPDES regulations at N.J.A.C. 7:14A. At that time, and as part of that future action, the Department will propose to delete provisions concerning metal translators from the SWQS.

In addition, the Department is not proposi ng any changes to the nutrient provisions, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(g), at this ti me. As part of this evaluati on, the Department considered the written comments from permittees to re-evaluated its nutrient policies. Based upon the review, the Department has determined that the nutrie nt provisions and the opt ions they contain, are adequate and appropriate for the control of phosphor us discharged to State's freshwater streams
and lakes.

The promulgated nutrient criteria at N.J.A. C. 7:9B-1.14(c) are us ed in assessing water quality conditions as well as developing Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations for NJPDES dischargers. Where the numeric criteria ar e exceeded, the waterbody is listed as impaired pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Federal Cl ean Water Act (CWA 33 U.S.C. § 1313). The Department is required to develop TMDLs for impaired waterbodies on the 303(d) list.

For phosphorus, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)5 pr ovides that unless the phosphorus is discharged to a lake, a site-sp ecific criteria has been develope d as part of a TMDL. Phosphorus shall not exceed 0.1 mg/L in any stream, unless it can be shown that to tal phosphorus is not a limiting nutrient and will not otherw ise render the water unsuitable for the designated uses. The Department recognizes that there may be situa tions where the numeric phosphorus criteria are exceeded in receiving water but there are no nutrient-related problems in the waterbody. To address this concern, the Department provide s NJPDES permittees the option of conducting aTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

8 water quality study to demonstrate that the phosphorus concentration does not render the waterbody unsuitable for its designated uses. The requirements for this study is outlined in the Department's Technical Manual for Phosphorus Evaluati ons N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) for NJPDES Discharge to Surface Water Permits , March 2003, available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/techmans/phostcml.pdf . If the permittee successfully demonstrates that the phosphorus concentration does not render the waters unsuitable, the Department may modify or remove the phosphor us effluent limit. However, this permit
evaluation focuses on near field impacts, it is possible that, through the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the Department could later impose a phosphorus limit on this same permittee because the TMDL evaluates fa r field impacts. For example, while the phosphorus concentration does not cause water quality problems in th e immediate receiving waterbody, that stream may flow into a downstream reservoir which experiences excessive algal growth.

The Department expects that the ongoing resear ch may provide a basis for refinement of New Jersey's numerical nutrient criteria. For ex ample, New Jersey is also pursuing research to develop response-based criteria (for exam ple, chlorophyll a levels, aquatic community composition indices, and diurnal dissolved oxygen fluctuations) which more clearly identify the presence of nutrient-related water quality impairments.

The Department is considering different m easures to expand the antidegradation policy for nonpoint sources of pollution. The Department is publishing a notice else where in this issue of the New Jersey Register seeking public comment on potentially requiring new or expanded development to maintain a riparian zone.

The following is a summary of the existing rules at N.J.A.C. 7:9B proposed for readoption and of the subs tantive proposed changes:THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

9 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.1, Scope of subchapter, sets forth the scope of N. J.A.C. 7:9B with respect to the protection and enhancement of the surface wate r resources of the Stat e of New Jersey. The Department is readopting th is section without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.2, Construction, states that the chapter shall be liberally construed to permit the Department and it's various di visions to discharge their stat utory functions. The Department is readopting this s ection without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.3, Severability, states that if any portion of the SWQS is found to be invalid, the remainder of the chapter shall not be affect ed. The Department is readopting this section without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4, Definitions, contains definitions used in this chapter. A de scription of the proposed changes to the section follows:

The Department is proposing a new definition of the term "best management practices" or "BMPs." BMPs are methods, practices, or meas ures used to prevent or reduce the amount of pollution of waters of the State from point and non-point sources. BMPs include structural and nonstructural controls, operations, and maintenance procedures that can be applied before, during and after pollution producing activiti es to reduce or eliminate th e introduction of pollutants into receiving waters. The Department is proposing th is definition because the term is used in the existing rules at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(g) as part of nutrient policies and at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.9, which are the procedures for modifying water qual ity-based effluent limitations for individual dischargers to Category Two waters. The BMPs ar e to be practiced as pa rt of antidegradation implementation for non-point sources of pollu tion. The proposed de finition of BMPs is
consistent with the definition of this phrase in the Water Quality Management Planning Rules,
N.J.A.C. 7:15.

The Department is proposing to amend th e definition of "calculable changes" by combining it with the definition of "measurable ch anges" and repealing th e separate definition ofTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

10 "measurable changes." Combining these two de finitions will help to avoid confusion. The
definition of "calculable cha nges" as proposed means any detectable changes, including predictable changes to water quality that fall outsi de of the 95% confidence interval of the mean water quality based on an acceptable mathematical predictive model or sampling and analysis conducted in accordance with methods approved by the USEPA in 40 CFR 136 or other Department approved methods. The Department has historically app lied the 95% confidence interval in Category One waters to measure mean water quality in order to implement the
measurable and calculable cha nge provision in the existing SW QS. Using the 95% confidence interval of the demonstrated mean water qual ity in all cases would simplify the process of determining whether a discharge is likel y to cause a change in water quality.

The Department is proposing new definitions of the terms "carcinogen" and "non-carcinogen." These definitions incorporate the traditional USEPA group categ orizations of the types of carcinogens (Groups A, B, and C) and non-carci nogens (Groups D and E), and will incorporate narrative descriptions of carcinoge nic classes that USEPA has propos ed to use in the future and in some instances is using now. For example, USEPA has indicated that it will replace Group B with "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." ( 1999 Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Review Draft . NCEA-F-0644). The Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment were issued on March 29, 2005 (EPA/630/P-03/001F) and Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register (70 Fed. Reg. 17766, April 7, 2005 found at http://www.epa.gov/cancerguidelines . These Guidelines provide a framework for assessing possible cancer risks from exposures to pollutants or other agents in the e nvironment. Consistent with the implementation direction provide d by the USEPA (Memorandum from Acting Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to USEPA sta ff on Application of New Cancer Guidelines, March 29, 2005) for risk assessments that have been completed before issuance of the new Guidelines, both the prior carcinogenicity ca tegorization and narrative descriptors are recognized. The characterization of a toxic substance as either a “carcinogen” or “noncarcinogen” is used throughout thes e rules, and specifically at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) in surface water quality criteria calculations for the protection of human health. These proposed definitionsTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

11 are consistent with definitions of these te rms proposed in the Department’s Ground Water Quality Standards. (See 36 N.J.R. 4374(b), October 4, 2004).

The Department is proposing to modify th e definition of "Cat egory one waters" to replace the phrase “measurable changes” with “calculable changes” because measurable changes is no longer used in the proposed amendments to the rule. Changes have been proposed to amend the definition of calculable changes as explained above.

The Definitions of "Epilimnion" and "Hypo limnion" are being proposed for deletion
because these terms are no longer used in the rule.

The Department is proposing a new definition of "necessary and justifiable social or economic development" as part of the proposed an tidegradation analysis at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d), and the variance provisions at N.J.A.C. 7:9B -1.8 and 1.9. The proposed definition of "necessary and justifiable social or economic developm ent" specifies the different projects and developments that may be eligible for a loweri ng of water quality. The Department is proposing to define projects located in areas designated for growth pursuant to the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP), N.J.S.A. 52:18A-196 et seq ., as projects that qualify as necessary and justifiable social or economic development. The SDRP specifies that growth should occur in Metropolitan Planning areas (Pla nning Area 1), Suburban Planni ng Areas (Planning Area 2), and Designated Centers in any planni ng area. The Department has al so determined that projects needed to protect public health and safet y, and new and expanded public institutions are necessary and justifiable and should also be eligible for a lowering of water quality.

The Department is proposing a definition of the term "s ubstantial economic impact." Pursuant to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4iii(2), the Departme nt may authorize a lowering in water quality in a Category Two stream if the cost to prevent the lowering of water quality would
result in substantial ec onomic impact to the affected commun ity. Under the definition, an impact is considered a "substantial economic impact" wh en the cost of a proposed alternative exceeds the community or private company’s ability to pay. The Department will utilize the USEPA’sTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

12 guidance ( Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook EPA-823-B-95- 002 March 1995) that can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ to determine whether the costs to prevent a lowering of water quality woul d result in “substantial economic impact.” The USEPA’s Economic guidance doc ument provides guidance to States and EPA regions responsible for reviewi ng requests for variances and modi fications to designated uses, and for approval of antidegradati on analyses and describes the t ypes of information and analyses that should be considered by applicants and reviewers. Th e new definition of "substantial economic impact" is used as part of the an tidegradation implementa tion policies proposed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). For further information on the “substantial economic impact,” please see discussion on antidegradation analysis below.

The Department is proposing to define the te rm "water effect ratio" or "WER" to mean the ratio of an acute (or chronic) toxicity value derived from a s ite study to the acute (or chronic) toxicity value derived from a laboratory study fo r a particular toxic s ubstance. A WER is a criterion adjustment factor accounting for the e ffect of site-specific water characteristics on pollutant bioavailability and toxicity to aquati c life. The WER is multiplied by the appropriate state-wide aquatic criterion to de rive a site-specific criterion. The Department is proposing to use a default WER of 1 for all proposed metals criteria as part of this rulemaking as recommended by the USEPA ( 1999 Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliance-Revision of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Criteria; Final Rule. 64 Fed. Reg. 61182 ( http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ).

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5, Statements of policy, includes the policies appl icable to the protection and
enhancement of surface water res ources throughout the State. Thes e include general, interstate, general technical, antidegradation, water qual ity-based effluent limitation (WQBEL), bioassay and biomonitoring, nutrient policies, and mixing z ones. A description of the proposed changes
to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5 follows:

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(a)5. The Department is proposing to amend this section to clarify the
derivation of human health based ambient crit eria in freshwaters and saline waters forTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

13 carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Exposure assumptions are based upon the designated uses of the waterbody. The Department is therefore clarifying that in fr eshwaters, exposure is assumed based upon the consumption of fish and water, and in saline waters, on the consumption of fish. In general, the Department establishes a car cinogenic-based criterion wh ich would result in no greater than a one-in-one-million lifetime exce ss cancer risk. If the substance is a noncarcinogen, the criteria will be based on non-carci nogenic effects, using the reference dose to
establish criteria which would re sult in no appreciable risk of deleterious effect. For further
discussion of the derivation of these criteria, please refer to the Department’s discussion of
human health criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f), below.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(b)1 The Department is proposing to amend this section, which concerns the designated uses and water quality criteria for the fresh a nd saline waters under the jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Commission by deleti ng "and 1.14(d)" and replacing it with "through (g)" to be consistent with ot her proposed amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(b)2 The Department is proposing to replace the name of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission with the current name of Interstate Environmental Commission at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(b)2.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2 The Department is proposing to amend the design flow provisions by listing each design fl ow individually instead of aggregating them in one paragraph at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2. This proposed change is only a modification of the format and does not include any changes to design flows.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)7 The Department is proposing to amend and recodify the existing provision at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14( c)1iv regarding sampling met hods for bacterial quality to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)7. This new provisi on provides that the Department will utilize the geometric mean of bacterial quality to assess compliance with the bacterial quality indicators at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)1ii-iii. The Departme nt will use a geometric mean to assess water quality, regulate wastewater disc harges and to develop TMDLs. The new provision also restatesTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

14 the sample monitoring frequency for calculating the geometric mean for bacterial quality as a requirement. A minimum of five samples colle cted over a period of 30 days will be used to calculate the geometric mean. The single sa mple maximum (SSM) will be used for beach notification and to identify where additional ambient water quality sampling is needed to calculate a geometric mean.

Criteria for bacterial indicators are used fo r several purposes under the CWA. Adoption of both a geometric mean and a SSM value for enterococcus and E. coli gives the Department added flexibility in implementing bacteria criteria when developi ng water quality based effluent limits, determining whether a waterbody is attain ing its water quality standards, developing TMDLs for impaired waters, and beach notif ication. Although the USEPA promulgated the SSM values for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters ( Water Quality Standards for
Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters ; Final Rule; 69 Fed. Reg. 67218; November 16, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ), the USEPA in the rule summary
recommended that SSM be used for beach notifi cation (open and closure decisions). Following USEPA’s guidance, the Department anticipates using the proposed SSM value of 104/100ml for making routine decisions to open or close bathi ng beaches. In New Jersey, the Department of Health and Senior Services oversees the opening and closing of designate d bathing areas (lifeguarded beaches) and has also adopted an en terococcus value of 104/100m l for decision-making regarding the opening and closi ng of designated bathing areas in coastal waters (See N.J.A.C. 8:26-7.18(d)1). Health authorities participati ng in the Cooperative Co astal Monitoring Program are required to collect samples at designated bathing beaches and analyze these samples for
enterococcus. If the results indicate an ex ceedence of the SSM, the bathing beach must be resampled. If the retest indicates complia nce with the SSM, the beach remains open for swimming. If the retest sample exceeds th e SSM, the beach is closed until it can be
demonstrated that the waters are safe for swim ming. In non-bathing beach areas, the Department also anticipates using the proposed SSM as a tr igger to collect additional data if there is insufficient data to determine a geometric mean. The geometric mean will be used to assess the overall quality of the water. The geometric mean will be the criteria used as the goal in TMDLs
unless the TMDL is located in a designated bathing area.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

15 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)8 The Department is proposi ng to move technical policies regarding temperature from existing N.J.A.C. 7: 9B-1.14(c)11 to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)8 to clarify the implementation of temperature criteria. Th e Department is removi ng the distinction between hypolimnion or epilimnion because, under proposed N. J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)8ii, thermal alteration is permitted only if it can be proven beneficial irrespective of whether the discharge location is into the hypolimnion or epilimnion.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d) N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d) contains the Department's antid egradation policies applicable to all surface waters of the State. The purpose of the antidegradation policies is to maintain and protect existing uses and water qual ity. Federal antidegradat ion requirements at 40 CFR 131.12 require states to deve lop, adopt, and implement a stat ewide antidegradation policy. Antidegradation standards ensure that the level of water quality needed to protect existing uses is maintained. In addition, water quality better than necessary to protect existing uses shall be maintained and protected unless lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area. W ith respect to antidegrad ation policies applicable to non-point sources, states are to assure that "all cost effec tive and reasonable best management practices for non-point source control shall be achieved." The Department is proposing amendments to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d) to clar ify the implementation pol icies and to specify exemptions. Re-codification, formatting and typograp hical corrections have also been made, as

necessary.

As part of the re-ordering of N.J.A.C. 7: 9B-1.5(d), the Department is proposing a new sub-paragraph at N.J.A.C. 7:9B -1.5(d)1i that clarifies that the presence of Threatened and Endangered species, as defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC 1531 et seq

. and the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act of 1973, N.J.S.A.
23:2A-1 et seq . is an existing use that must be protec ted. This new sub-paragraph addresses one of the findings of United States Fish and Wildlife Service' (USFWS) Biological Opinion
Document (Biological opinion on the effects of th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the state of New Jersey’s surf ace water quality standards on the bald eagle,THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

16 peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemussel. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantvil le, New Jersey. 1996). A copy of this document can be obtained from the Department of Envi ronmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Standards and Assessment, P.O. Box 409, Trenton, NJ 08625.

The USEPA and the USFWS are reviewing the existing CWA 304(a) aquatic criteria pursuant to a 2001 Memorandum of Agreement ( Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and W ildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination Unde r the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species
Act . 66 Fed. Reg. 11202, February 22, 2001) ( http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ) to determine if the aquatic criteria are adequately protective of th reatened and endangered species. Through this joint review, USEPA will recommend revisions if the existi ng aquatic criteria are deemed not adequately protective. Until the co mprehensive review is complete, the USEPA has determined, and has advised that the existing aqua tic criteria are protective of threatened and endangered species. Therefore, the Department intends to develop effluent limitations for NJPDES permits using the exis ting aquatic life criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 until USEPA recommends new 304(a) criteria to prot ect threatened and endangered species.

The Department is recodifying existing N.J.A. C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3 and 4 as N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5 (d)1ii and iii. No change in text is proposed. In addition, the Department is recodifying existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)7 through 9 as N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)iv through vi. The Department is adding a new N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d) 1vii to clarify that the antideg radation policies may be applied during one or more regulatory phases includi ng Water Quality Management Planning (under N.J.A.C. 7:15), Total Maximum Daily Load (T MDL) development (under N.J.A.C. 7:15), and any of the Department’s permitting programs.

The Department is slightly modifying the ex isting N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)6, which specifies the antidegradation standards that are appli cable to waters classified in each of the antidegradation designations tiers and recodifying it at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)2. The waters of the State are each assigned an antidegradation designation base d upon the level of protectionTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

17 determined by the Department to be a ppropriate considering several factors which may include, but are not limited to, physical lo cation, occurrence of trout, shellfish, th reatened and endangered species, and potable water supply.

Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)2, describes th e antidegradation standard for FW1 waters included at existing N.J.A.C. 7: 9B-1.5(d)6i. New language has b een added to clarify that FW1 waters are “nondegradation” waters. The pr oposed language “or increases in runoff from anthropogenic activities”, further supports this non-degradation stat us and indicates that these waters should be protected from any type of degradation.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)2ii describes the antidegr adation standard for Pi nelands waters. This provision is presently codified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B -1.5(d)2 and is being rec odified without change.

Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)2iii describes the antidegradation standard for Category One waters currently codified at N.J.A.C. 7: 9B-1.5(d)6iii. The term “measurable changes (including calculable and predicted changes)" ha s been replaced with “calculable changes.” In addition, proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B- 1.5(d)2iii also indicates that water quality which is worse than criteria shall be improved to meet water quality criteria.

Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)2iv describes the antidegradation standard for Category Two waters currently codified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)6iv. The Department has moved that portion of existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)6iv that explains how complia nce with the Category Two antidegradation standard is to be determined to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4.

The Department is proposing to repeal exis ting N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)5. This section specifies that water quality that exceeds leve ls necessary to support designated uses must be maintained unless a lowering is allowed for necessary and justifia ble social or economic development. This concept is proposed for in clusion in proposed new N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4
described below.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

18 The Department is adding a new N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3 which identifies a variety of activities that are not subject to an antidegradation review. Th e types of projects described in (d)3 are not expected to result in a perman ent calculable change in water quality, and are, therefore, appropriate for exclus ion. Included at N.J.A.C. 7:9B- 1.5(d)3 are short term, temporary activities. The Department is also proposing to exempt em ergency response activities and
certain site remediation activ ities from antidegradation revi ew under the proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3ii and iii because th e Department has determined th at these activi ties are necessary and should result in long term water quality improvement rather than degradation. Left untreated, contaminants will enter the receiving stream. Therefore, pr operly treated wastewater discharges associated with thes e types of remedial actions shoul d improve water quality. In the context of approving these activ ities, the Department may requi re certain actions to limit negative impacts on the receiving stream. For example, in approving a temporary activity, the Department may restrict its timing to limit its im pact on water quality. In addition, at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3iv the Department is proposing to exempt from an antidegradation review transfers of water for water supply purposes, if otherw ise approved by the Department. Such water transfers, if consistent with the Water Supply Master Plan, adopt ed pursuant to the Water Supply Management Act, N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq ., or the Highlands Wate r Protection and Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 13:20-1 et seq ., have already been found to be necessary to protect public health and safety to ensure adequate suppl ies of drinking water in the State.

In addition, at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3v the De partment is proposing to exempt several types of NJPDES permit actions from antidegra dation review because these actions are not expected to result in a calculable change in water quality. Specifically at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(d)3v(1), the Department is proposing to exempt NJPDES permit renewals that do not increase the loading of pollutants, as these are not a new or expanded discharge. This exemption include industrial discharge permits with pr oduction-based effluent limitation, which would allow the Department to take into account tem porary reductions in oper ation and authorize an increase up to a previously approved production level without a new antidegradation review. Increases beyond the previously approved levels would be c onsidered a new or expanded discharge subject to an antidegradation review.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

19 The Department is also proposing to exempt at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3v(2) authorizations under general permits issued pursuant to N.J.A. C. 7:14A-6.13 if an anti degradation finding has been included in the draft genera l permit. By evaluating the comp liance with the antidegradation policies in the development of the requirements in the general permit and the scope of eligibility, an additional site-specific evaluation should not be necessary when eligible facilities apply for coverage under a specific genera l permit. No new authorizations will be issued under the existing general permits unless the activity qualifies for an exemption under N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(d)3i through iv until the general permit is re issued and includes an antidegradation finding. For example, the Department could authori ze a new discharge under the existing General Petroleum Product Cleanup (B4B) and the Gene ral Remediation Cleanup (BGR) because the activity is exempt from an antidegradation revi ew pursuant to N.J.A.C 7:9B-1.5(d)3iii, provided that the proposed receiving stream would otherwise be impacted. New discharges that can not be authorized under the existing gene ral permits would be required to seek an individual NJPDES permit.

The Department’s mandate with respect to managing and protecting the State’s natural resources is grounded in various statutes, including: the Depa rtment’s enabling legislation (N.J.S.A. 13:1D-1 et seq .), the Water Pollution Cont rol Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq .), and the Water Quality Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq .). The Legislature, in the Water Pollution Control Act at N.J.S.A. 58:10A-2, st ated that “it is the policy of the State to restore, enhance and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in tegrity of the State’s waters, to protect public health, to safeguard fish and aquatic life, scenic and ecologi cal values, and to enhance the domestic, municipal, recreational, i ndustrial and other uses of water.”

In the Water Quality Planning Act, the Legislat ure declared that “the people of the State have a paramount interest in th e restoration, maintenance and pres ervation of the quality of the waters of the State for the protection and pr eservation of public health and welfare, food supplies, public water supplies, pr opagation of fish and wildlife, agricultural and industrial uses, aesthetic satisfaction, recr eation, and other beneficial uses; . . . the severity of the water pollutionTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

20 problem in the State necessitates continuing wa ter quality management planning in order to develop and implement water quality programs in concert with other social and economic objectives; . . . water quality is dependent on factors of topography, hydrology, population concentration, industrial and commercial developmen t, agricultural uses, transportation and other such factors which vary among and within watershe ds and other regions of the State; and . . . pollution abatement programs should consider these natural and man-made conditions that influence water quality” (N.J.S.A. 58:11A-2a).

In the Water Quality Planning Act, the Legisl ature directed the De partment to conduct a continuing planning process to, among other th ings, develop a Statewide implementation strategy to establish water qual ity goals and achieve the wate r quality standards (N.J.S.A. 58:11A-7). In N.J.S.A. 58:11A-5(c) the Legislatur e specifically authorized the establishment of a regulatory program to provide control or tr eatment of all point and non-point sources of pollution, including in-place or accumulated pollu tion sources to the extent practicable; to regulate the location, modification, and construction of any facilities within such area which may result in any discharge, and to assure that any industrial or co mmercial wastes discharged into any treatment works in such area meet the appl icable pre-treatment requirements. The Water Quality Planning Act at N.J.S.A. 58:11A-5(f)-(i ) also mandates that the regulatory process identify a process to identify and control, to the extent feasible, all poin t and non-point sources of pollution associated with agriculture, mining and construction activity and to identify and control saltwater intrusion into rivers, lakes and estuar ies resulting from reduction of fresh water flow from any cause, including irrigation, obstructi on, ground water extraction and diversion. The proposed antidegradation implementation policie s are consistent with and further these legislative directions.

In the State Planning Act, the Legislature declared that New Jersey needs sound and integrated Statewide planning to conserve its fa rmland and natural resource s, revitalize its urban centers, protect its environment, and provide needed housing and adequate public services at reasonable cost while promoting beneficial economic growth (N.J.S.A.52:18A-196). To that end, the Legislature requires the State Planning Commission to draft the State Development andTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

21 Redevelopment Plan (SDRP), which was readot ed in 2001 after a lengt hy negotiation and public input process known as "cross acceptance" N.J. S.A. 52:18A-202 and 202.1. The SDRP contains policies which incorporate the general goals of th e State Planning Act, a nd blend State, regional, and local plans into a Statewid e map depicting growth areas and areas designated for less intensive growth.

The purpose of the State Plan is to "provide a coordinated, integrated, and comprehensive plan for the growth, development, renewal, a nd conservation of the St ate and its regions and which shall identify areas for gr owth, agriculture, ope n space conservation, and other appropriate designations." N.J.S.A. 52:18A-199a. It takes in to account other state, county, and municipal land use and other development plans, and must "coordinate planning ac tivities and establish Statewide planning objectives" in enumerated areas of development. N.J.S.A. 52:18A-200c,
200f.

There are five planning areas in the State. These planning areas provide a balance between growth and conservation. Areas for grow th are areas designated Metropolitan Planning Area, PA1, Suburban Planning Area, PA2, and De signated Centers in any area. Areas for limited growth include Fringe Planning Area, PA3, Rural Planning Area, PA4, and Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area, PA5. These areas, planning should promote a balance of conservation and limited growth, recogni zing that environmental constraints affect development and preservation is to be encour aged in large contiguou s tracts. Areas for conservation include PA3, PA4, and Pa5.

The State Planning Commission has establis hed boundaries for Planning Area, which are large masses of land distinguishe d by certain overall characterist ics such as population density, land use, and environmentally sensitive featur es. The State Planning Commission also approves community development boundaries for centers, which are areas into which development is already or should be directed and concentr ated, and recognizes cores and nodes as areas of already concentrated development either as part of centers or in the more heavily developed
areas of the State. The Stat e Plan boundaries for Planning Ar ea, centers, cores and nodes wereTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

22 drawn after a lengthy public process that exte nded over a five-year pe riod, including hundreds of meetings among municipal, count y, and State officials, and invo lved the submittal of thousands of documents from public officials and private organizations and individuals.

The Department has carefully examined t hose boundaries, the purposes for which they were established, and the factors that determined how the lines were drawn in order to determine whether the Department could utilize the Planning Areas in these rules. Based on its examination, the Department has determined that the boundaries are in keeping with the purposes of the Water Pollution Control Act and the Water Quality Planning Act.

In enacting the Water Quality Planning Act, the Legislature acknowledged that several factors, some of which fall outside the tradi tional purview of the Department, directly and indirectly affect water qual ity. These factors include, but are not limited to, "topography, hydrology, population concentrations, industrial and commercial development, agricultural uses, and transportation" (N.J.S.A. 58:11A-2a). Ther efore, in order to sufficiently protect and preserve "public health and welfare, food supplie s, public water s upplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, agricu ltural and beneficial uses, aesthetic satisfaction, recr eation, and other beneficial uses" of the State's water resources, the Legisl ature specifically directed the Department to develop and implement water quality programs "in concert with other social and economic objectives." N.J.S.A. 58:11A-2a.

Thus the Department was required to de velop a "continuing planning process" to encourage, direct, supervise, and aid areaw ide Water Quality Management Planning, and incorporate areawide Water Quality Management plans into a comprehensive and cohesive Statewide program directed toward the achievement of water quality objectives. The continuing planning process is to be coordi nated and integrated with relate d Federal, State, regional, and local comprehensive land use, functional and ot her relevant planning act ivities, programs and policies." (See N.J.S.A. 58:11A-2(b)).THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

23 There is significant overlap between the goa ls and objectives of the State Planning Act and the goals and objectives of the Water Quality Planning Act. Of part icular significance, both statutes contain policies designed to protect wa ter quality and conserve natural resources in the context of a Statewide planning framework. Thus , although the SDRP is not itself a regulatory document the Department believes it is neces sary and appropriate under the Water Quality Planning Act to require coordina tion and integration of water quality management planning with the SDRP (and other relevant Stat e, regional, and local plans) in order to achieve the water quality objectives of N.J.S.A. 58:11A-2.

It is against this backdrop th at the Department now proposes to incorporate by reference the Planning Areas and Designa ted Centers in the State Plan into the Department's antidegradation implementation policies. The Department believes such an approach is consistent with the State Planning Act, the Water Quality Planning Act, the Water Pollution Control Act, and the Department's general powers. In this way the Department appropriately and closely coordinates the allowance of lower water quality associated with development with the overall planning objectives articu lated in the State Plan. The proposed definition of “necessary and justifiable social or economic developmen t” which is used in the antidegradation implementation policies integrates the goals of th e State Plan into the Department’s program to protect water resources.

Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4 describes the implementation of the antidegradation policies for new and/or expanded point source disc hargers. New or expanded discharges must be consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) adopted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:15 for the area in which they are located. If the ne w or expanded discharge is inconsistent with the WQMP, the WQMP will need to be amended. As indicated at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)1vii, the antidegradation analysis may be evaluated during the water qua lity planning stage. Where the new or expanded discharge is consistent wi th the Water Quality Management Plan, the antidegradation evaluation will occur before the Department issues a draft NJPDES permit in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

24 Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4i, describes what is required as part of an antidegradation analysis. All applicants for ne w or expanded point source discharg es will be required to perform an alternatives analysis to determine whether an alternative is available that will prevent a calculable change in water qual ity. The applicant will be e xpected to consider feasible modifications to existing and proposed systems, enhanced/alternative treat ment technologies and relocation/connection to another treatment plant. If the Department ag rees that there is no feasible alternative to the proposed surface wa ter discharge the Department may require the applicant to initiate a water qua lity study as described in propose d N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4ii. The Department would not require a wa ter quality study if th e discharge results onl y in an increase in flow and not in calculable change in water quality such as a re-rating of an existing treatment plant.

The water quality study required at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4ii is a study to determine the existing water quality of the rece iving stream. Once the results of the study are submitted to the Department, the Department will use this inform ation to determine water quality based effluent limitations for the discharge. Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4ii(1) and (2) describe how the Department will determine the scope of required water quality study. For an existing discharge, the Department will evaluate existing effluent da ta and current plant performance to determine which pollutants may result in a calculable change in water quality if the permittee is authorized to expand the discharge. Existing effluent data is not available for new di scharges. Therefore, in accordance with proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4ii( 2), an applicant may evaluate effluent data from similar sized treatment plants utilizing si milar treatment and water supply source. The Department will utilize the data evaluated by the applicant to establish effluent limits for the identified pollutants.

Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4iii describes the antidegradation standard for Category One waters. New or expanded di scharges are in compliance with the antidegradation standard if the proposed action does not result in a calculable ch ange in water quality.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

25 Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4iv, describes the antidegradation standard for Category Two waters. Similar to Category One waters, new or expanded discharges to Category Two waters throughout the State and Category Two wa ters within the Pres ervation Area of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 13:20-1 et seq .) comply with the antidegradation standard if the proposed action does not result in a calculable change in water quality.

The Department may allow a calculable change in water quality for certain projects that will impact a Category Two waterbody provided th at the existing and designated uses of the waterbody are maintained and th e project qualifies as a “necessary and justifiable social or economic development,” or where the cost to pr event the lowering of wa ter quality would result in a "substantial economic impact." As indicated above, the Department has elected to use the State Plan to determine where a lowering in wa ter quality should be allowed. The Department
has added new definitions at N.J. A.C. 7:9B-1.4 to describe the t ypes of projects that qualify as “necessary and justifiable social or economic development” and “substantial economic impact.” For example, a residential development in Pl anning Area 1, Planning Area 2, or a designated center would qualify as a “nece ssary and justifiable social or economic development.” For further discussion, see definition of “necessary and just ifiable social or economic development.” Similarly a new or expanded public high school, regardless of location, would qualify as a "necessary and justifiable social or economic development" because it is a new or expanded public institution.

As indicated in the definiti on of "substantial economic impact," the Department will utilize the USEPA’s guidance ( Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards
Workbook . EPA-823-B-95-002 March 1995 available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/econ ) for determining if an economic impact is substa ntial. The USEPA Guidan ce takes into account the cost of existing wastewater treatment as well as the construction costs and operating and management costs additional treatment necessary to prevent a lowering in water quality. If these costs exceed 2% of median household income per year, the costs to prevent a lowering in water quality would result in “s ubstantial economic impact.” For ex ample, if the project involves theTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

26 expansion of a sewage treatment plant that se rvices an affected community with a median household income of $50,000 per year, the costs per household would need to exceed $1,000 per year for the economic impact to be considered substantial. The costs must be shared among
residential and industrial users. If the trea tment plant services multiple communities, the analysis will be based on median income for the community with the lowest median household income. For privately-owned facilities, this evaluation considers other factors such as the facility's ability to secure financing and the degree to which it will be able to pass the costs of the pollution control on to its customers.

The Department will require applicants proposi ng projects that qualify as “necessary and justifiable social or economic development,” as well as those that demons trate that the costs to prevent a calculable change in water quality w ould result in a “substan tial economic impact,” to minimize the lowering of water quality. Inaccordance with proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(d)4iv(3)i-iv, the Department will establis h water quality based effluent limits for the proposed new or expanded discharge that minimi ze the lowering of wate r quality based on the benefit to the public derived from the proposed project, the predicted in-stream water quality based upon a variety of treatment op tions, the cost associated with the various treatment options, and the environmental impacts associated with th e various treatment options. Except as provided at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.9, which authorizes modifi cation of water quality-based effluent limitations for individual dischargers to Category Two wa ters, the Department will not authorize a calculable change in water quality that would cause the in-stream concentrations to violate the Surface Water Quality Standards.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(e)7 The Department is proposing to a dd a new provision at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(e)7 to indicate that the De partment may require monitoring for mercury and PCBs using more sensitive analytical methods (method 1631 for mercury and 1668A for PCBs) for the purpose of characterizing the effluent. The De partment is requiring the 40 C.F.R. 136 method for mercury as specified in the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Measurement of Mercury in Water; Revisions to EPA Method 1631 , (40 C.F.R. 136, Fed. Reg. 67:65876, October 29, 2002). A copy of this document is available atTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

27 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/1631.html . This method allows measure mercury down to a level of 0.5 parts-per- trillion. This revision clarif ies quality control and sample handling requirements and allows flexibility to incorporate additional available technologies. This rule also amends the requirements regardi ng preservation, storage, a nd holding time for low level mercury samples. For PCBs, the De partment is recommending the 1668A method as specified in the Method 1668, Revision A: Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment, and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS . EPA-821-R-00-002, December 1999) as amended. A copy of this document is available at http://www.epa.gov/Region8/water/wastewa ter/biohome/biosolidsdown/methods/1668a5.pdf

. This method was developed for congener-specific determina tion of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). Revision A of Method 1668 has been expanded to include congener-specific determination of more than 150 chlorinated biphenyl (CB) congeners applicable to aqueous, solid, tissue, and multi-phase matrices.

Use of these more sensitive methods will allo w the Department to develop a baseline to measure improvements and to develop future effl uent limitations for these pollutants. The Department plans to require characterization wi th these new methods fr om facilities that it believes are likely sources of these pollutants. The Department will utilize facility information, short-term monitoring, information obtained fr om efforts in other states, and, for PCBs, information developed through the TMDL effort in the Delaware estuary to select the facilities that will be required to do char acterization sampling. The characterization requirements may be adjusted based on information from the da ta submitted pursuant to this requirement.

As stated earlier in this summary, the lack of wildlife criteria for DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs was a concern to the USFWS. DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs are bioaccumulative pollutant s that are persistent in the environment, accumulate in biological tissues, and biomagnify in the food chain. Due to these characteristics,
the concentration of these cont aminants may increase as they are transferred up through various food chain levels. As a result, adverse im pacts to non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish-eating) organisms may arise from low surface water concentrations. An inter-agency committeeTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

28 (NJDEP, USEPA, and USFWS) was assembled to derive New Jersey-specific wildlife water quality criteria for mercury, PCBs, and DDT and its metabolites that would minimize the adverse effects of these pollutants on the ba ld eagle and peregrine falcon. (See New Jersey-Specific Wildlife Values as Surface Water Qualit y Criteria for: PCBs, DDT, and mercury . September
2001 available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/w mm/sgwqt/wildlifecriteria0901.pdf ).

In November 2002, the Department proposed Ne w Jersey specific wildlife criteria for mercury, PCBs and DDT (see 34 N.J.R. 3889(a); November 18, 2002) to address the concerns raised by the USFSW in their 1996 Biological Opinion. The Depa rtment decided not to adopt
the new criteria for these bioaccumulative substan ces due to issues raised during the comment period concerning the new more st ringent criteria (for example, treatment techniques are not readily available to treat merc ury to 0.5 ng/L). The Departme nt published its decision not to adopt these criteria on February 17, 2004 in the New Jersey Register (36 N.J.R. 912(a)) and at that time committed to develop an implementa tion plan before it adopted the criteria.

To assist the Department in developi ng its implementation plan, USEPA Region 2 obtained contractor support to c onduct an evaluation of the tech nical feasibility of wastewater treatment at NJPDES point sources to meet these very stringent criteria. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) concluded that treatment to meet the criteria proposed in 2002 is not readily available and that additional testing of available end-of-pipe treatment technologies is necessary to ensure that installation of a particular te chnology will achieve the proposed criteria. Pollution prevention was found to be a potentially more cost -effective strategy and could produce gains toward achieving standards without imposing the costs of unproven end-ofpipe technologies. These findings were published in a report entitled T echnological F

easibility of

P roposed W ater Q uality C riteria for N

ew J ersey , dated March 2005 prepared for USEPA Region 2 by SAIC (EPA contract No. 68-C-99-252). A copy of this document can be found at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/sgwqt.html

.

No states have addressed implementation of P CBs or DDT due to the lack of an approved analytical method capable of qua ntifying concentrations at the previously proposed criteria.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

29 However, many states have adopted implementation plans to reduce the levels of mercury in the
environment. Several Great Lake States (Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Indiana) have adopted or are working to adopt state-wide variances for mercur y. Others have addressed the problem with legislation. The Department is evaluating options for developing an implementation plan for mercury which could en tail a state-wide variance for NJPDES point sources, a temporary standard or a TMDL. SA IC’s report provides the Department with the information necessary to support a variance fromthe criteria based on an irretrievable maninduced condition. Other multimedia initiatives ar e under way that should lead to reductions in mercury concentrations in the State’s waters.

Although limited data is available using the mo re sensitive methods, the results indicate
that effluent concentrations exceed the current water quality standards for PCBs and mercury. The monitoring data obtained through N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(e)7 will allow the Department to develop a baseline to measure improvements and to develop future effluent limitations as part of the overall implementation plan. This provisi on will allow the NJPDES program to require monitoring without having to impose WQBEL.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(h)2i : The Department is proposi ng to move existing provisions regarding heat dissipation areas from N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)11ii to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(h)2i. The Department is also proposing to repeal the phrase "as provided at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)11ii or variance issued pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(a)" from N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(h)2i because the cross-refe rence to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)11 is no longer necessary. However, the reference to the Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act is now
recodified at N.J.A. C. 7:9B-1.5(h)2i(3).

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.6, Establishment of wat er quality-based effluent limitations, sets forth conditions and procedures to be used when developing WQBELs, including general applicability, necessary information, and met hodologies. The Department is proposing the following changes to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.6.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

30 The Department is proposing to delete th e word "measurable" from the provision at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.6(a) because it is now include d in the definition of “calculable change.” In addition, at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.6(c) , the Department is proposing a replace the existing citation of N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)14, with the corr ect citation N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)7.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.7, Waterway loadings in a reawide water quality management plans, requires that any total maximum daily load, wast eload allocation, or load allocation established as an amendment to an areawide water quality ma nagement plan must be consistent with this chapter. The Department is proposing to readopt this sect ion without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8, Procedures for modifying water quality-based ef fluent limitations for individual dischargers to Category One waters, sets forth the procedures to be followed by an applicant requesting a modifi cation (usually referred to as a variance) of a WQBEL for a discharge into a Category One waterbody. Category One waters ar e to be protected from any calculable changes to the existing water quality through New Jersey’s antidegradation policies N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). The Department is propos ing to readopt this se ction without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.9, Procedures for modifying water quality-based ef fluent limitations for individual dischargers to Category Two waters, sets forth the procedures to be followed by an applicant requesting a m odification of a WQBEL for a di scharge into a Category Two waterbody. Through New Jersey’s antidegradation policies at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d), limited lowering of water quality may be permitted in high quality Category Two waters provided certain demonstrations are successfully made to the Department. The Department is proposing to readopt this section without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.10, Procedures for reclassifyin g specific segments for less restrictive

uses, sets forth specific requirements necessary to petition the Department to remove a designated use from a waterbody. The Department is proposing to readopt this section without change.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

31 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.11, Procedures for recla ssifying specific segments for more restrictive uses, sets forth specific requirements fo r petitioning the Department to add a designated use to a waterbody. Th e Department is proposing to readopt this s ection without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.12, Designated uses of FW1, PL, FW2, SE1, SE2, SE3, and SC waters, lists the designated uses of the different surface water classifications of New Jersey. FW1 waters are pristine freshwaters that have b een set aside by the Department to represent the natural aquatic environment and its associated bi ota. PL waters are those waters contained
within the boundaries of the Pinelands area. FW 2 waters are the remain ing freshwaters in the
State that are not classified as FW1 or PL. SE 1, SE2, and SE3 waters are saline estuarine waters
and SC waters are saline coasta l waters. The Department is pr oposing to readopt this section without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.13, Designated uses of mainstem Delaware River and Delaware Bay, states that the designated uses of the Dela ware River and Bay are as set forth in the
Delaware River Basin Commi ssion (DRBC) regulations (Delaw are River Basin Commission, Administrative Manual - Part III, Water Qu ality Regulations" Article 3, October 23, 1996, as amended). The Department is proposing to readopt this section without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14, Surface water quality criteria, contains the surface water criteria (either narrative statements or numerical values ) for waters classified as FW1, PL, FW2, SE and
SC. The surface water criteria for the Delaware River and Bay are as contained in the DRBC regulations.

There are currently three sets of surface water quality criteria that ar e applicable to New Jersey waters: (1) Criteria contained at N.J.A.C. 7:9B; (2) Criteria adopted by the USEPA for New Je rsey waters (40 CFR 131.36) see Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants;THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

32 States' Compliance . Final Rule. 57 Fed. Reg. 60911, December 22, 1992, Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants, States' Compliance-Revision of Metals Criteria . Interim Final Rule. 60 Fed. Reg. 22229, May 4, 1995 National Toxics Ru le, and 60 Fed. Reg. 44120, August 24, 1995) together referred to as the Nati onal Toxics Rule (NTR); Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria fo r Priority Toxic Pollutants, States' Compliance-Revision of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Criteria ; Final Rule 64 Fed. Reg. 61182, November 9, 1999; (all the above referenced Federal Registers
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ) and (3) Criteria promulgated by the DRBC (D elaware River Basin Commission, Administrative Manual - Part III, Water Quality Regulations," Article 3, dated October 23, 1996, http://www.state.nj.us/drbc ).

In developing water quality based effluent limitations (WQBEL) for NJPDES permits, the Department evaluates these th ree sets of crite ria to determine which criteria govern. In some circumstances, a discharge permit may contain limitations based on a combination of the DRBC criteria, State promulgated criter ia and/or the applicable NTR criteria. In such cases, the Department applies the more stri ngent of the appl icable criteria.

For the pollutants that have criteria governed under NTR, New Jersey cannot issue modifications to WQBELs pursuant to N.J.A. C. 7:9B-1.8 and 1.9 or approve site-specific
criteria. In order to administer the NJPDES program more efficiently, the Department is proposing criteria for several pollu tants to replace the NTR criteria still applicable to New Jersey

waters.

The Department is proposing to repeal N.J. A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) and recodify the same at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) through (g). In addition to proposing updated criteri a at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.14 which will be discussed in detail below, the Department is proposing to amend the format for presentation of the criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 as follows:THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

33 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(b)2ii The Department is proposing to amend N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.14(b)2 so that bacterial quality criteria proposed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d) apply to Pinelands
waters instead of the surface water quality criter ia adopted in March 1981. The Department believes it is appropriate to apply the E. coli and en terococcus criteria to PL waters, as well as to fresh and saline waters. The proposed changes regarding E. coli and en terococci criteria are
discussed below.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) The Department is proposing a ne w section (c) that indicates that unless site-specific crit eria are established at proposed N. J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(g), the State-wide criteria apply pursuant to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d) through (f).

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d) The Department is amending cr iteria for bacterial quality and temperature at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) and reco difying the same at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d) as explained below.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)1 The Department is proposing to retain the bacterial indicators
criteria for shellfish waters at proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)1i . The Department is proposing to amend and recodify the remain ing criteria for bacterial indicat ors at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)1ii through iii based on new scientific information and the USEPA’s recently adopted amendments
to 40 CFR 131 for Coastal and Gr eat Lakes Recreation Waters ( Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final rule. 69 Fed. Reg. 67218, November 16,
2004 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ).

Fecal coliform criteria: The Department is proposing to repeal the fecal coliform criteria for FW2, SE1 and SC waters. These waters are designated for pr imary contact recreation. The Department has determined that it is appropriate to replac e the fecal coliform crite ria for primary contact
recreation waters with enterococci and E. coli criteria. Therefor e, the Department is proposing to
enterococci and E. coli criter ia at proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B- 1.14(c)1ii(1) and (2) respectively.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

34 Historically, fecal coliform ha d been the preferred indicator of fecal matter in ambient water by the USEPA and the Department. Howe ver, USEPA no longer supports the use of fecal
coliform as a reliable indicator of human illne ss risk from primary c ontact recreation. The
USEPA now recommends the use of E. coli and enterococcus as pat hogen indicators for fresh waters and enterococcus for marine waters (USEPA's draft Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria

. November 2003). Therefore, the Department is proposing to replace the existing fecal coliform cr iteria for those waters designated for primary contact recreation (FW2, SE1 and SC classifications) at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)1ii(1) and (2) with enterococcus (SE1 and SC waters) and E. co li indicators (FW2 waters), respectively.

The SE2 and SE3 stream classifications are not designated for primary contact recreation.
The USEPA does not recommend criteria fo r secondary contact recreation in Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986 (EPA 440/5-84-002) which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ . Therefore, the Department is retaining the criteria adopted in 1971 (3 N.J.R. 149; August 5, 1971(b )) and to moving the ex isting fecal coliform
criteria for SE2 and SE3 waters from N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)1ii( 3) and (4) to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)1iii(1) and (2). In New Jersey, most of the waters designated as SE2 and SE3 are located in the NY/NJ harbor area and many waters are shared with New York. The Department is retaining the fecal coliform criteria for secondary contact r ecreation in these waters while working with the USEPA and New York Departme nt of Environmental Conservation to develop consistent designated uses and SWQS for the shared waters.

E. coli in FW2 waters: The Department is proposing to repeal the wa ter quality criteria fo r enterococcus in FW2 waters at existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B -1.14(c)iii(1), and to add criteria for E. coli for these waters at proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)ii(2). The USEPA's Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986 (EPA 440/5-84-002) which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ specifies that enterococcus and E. coli are equally valid as i ndicators of health risk in fresh bathing waters. The USEPA 1986 criteria are based on prospective ep idemiological studies conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s at Keystone Lake in Okla homa and Lake Erie in Pennsylvania. TheseTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

35 studies showed that the correlati on of the bacterial indicator conc entration to the rate of highly credible gastrointestin al illness was 0.74 for enterococcus a nd 0.80 for E. coli and was further supported in the 1984 USEPA study, Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters

. EPA-600/1-84-004 ( http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria ). These correlations are both strong, but not statistically different from one a nother. Fecal coliform bacteria, the only other indicator monitored, showed no corre lation with bather illness. To date, this is the only known fresh water bathing beach epidem iological study conducted in th e United States monitoring E.
coli in addition to the other two indicators (enterococcus and fecal coliform bacteria).

There have been additional bathing beach epidemiological studies conducted in other countries that have also employed E. coli. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded a study that compared the results of the U.S. study with the results of the studies conducted in other countries, based on E. coli, enterococcus, as we ll as other indicators. The results of this analysis show ed that, overall, E. coli was a more consistent predictor of gastrointestinal illness than enterococcus or other bacterial indicators (Wade, T.J., N. Pai, J.N.S. Eisenberg, and J.M. Colford, Jr. 2003. Does U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water quality guidelines for recreational waters prevent ga strointestinal illness? A systematic review and meta-analysis . Environ. Sci. Technol. 111 (8): 1102 - 1108) . E. coli comprises most of the fecal coliform group of bacteria. New Jersey shoul d be able to evaluate statistical trends using
historical fecal coliform data and new data based on E. coli.

Currently the USEPA allows the use of E. coli or enterococcus as indicators when monitoring the sanitary quality of freshwater recreational beaches ( Water Quality Standards for
Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters

. Final rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 67218, November 16, 2004
found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ). Based on the available updated information, the Department is proposing E. coli at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)ii(3) as the pathogen
indicator in freshwater. The USEPA identified a choice of four single sample maximum values
with different risk levels in the USEPA's Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986 (EPA 440/5- 84-002) which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/wate rscience/criteria/ . Based on USEPA’s recommendation, the Department is proposing that levels shall not exceed a geometric mean ofTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

36 126/100 ml for FW2 waters. Where there is insuffi cient data to calculate a geometric mean in FW2 waters, a single sample maximum (SSM) of 235/100 ml for E. coli is to be used to identify waters for additional monitoring. The associated ri sk level for E. coli is as protective as the existing risk level that is in place for the enterococci criteria.

Enterococcus in SE1 and SC Waters: The USEPA exclusively recommends the us e of enterococcus in marine waters as specified in the Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great La kes Recreational Waters; Final rule. 69 Fed. Reg. 67218, November 16, 2004 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER . The Department is, therefore, retaining en terococcus as the indicator organism for all SE1 and SC waters and recodifying this requir ement from existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)1iii(2) to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)1ii(1). Howe ver, the Department is changing the policy regarding implementation of criteria as explai ned in the summary at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)7.

USEPA requires water quality criteria for bact eria in coastal recreation waters to be as protective of human health as criteria listed at Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-198 6. (EPA 440/5-84-002) which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ . In addition, USEPA requires that the SSM value for the designated coastal bathing beach areas be the most protective of the four possible choices pursuant to the Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final rule. (69 Fed. Reg. 67218, November 16,
2004 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ). Coastal designated bathing beaches, as defined in 40 CFR 131 41(b)(2), are regulated pursuant to New Jersey State Sanitary Code at N.J.A.C. 8:26. Coastal designated bathing beach es include those beaches located in SE1 and SC waters that are heavily used for primary cont act recreation during the recreational season and have received approval for public recreational us e. The Department is retaining the proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)7 indicating that SSM of 104/100ml to be used for the opening and closing of designated beaches in the coas tal back bays (SE1) and along th e coast (SC) where there is a high intensity recreational use.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

37 The Department is proposing to amend and recodify the existing provision at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)1iv regarding sampli ng methods for bacterial quality to propose N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(c)7. As part of this revision, the Department is proposing to de lete that part of the provision which identifies the sampling methods, frequency, and locations for bacterial indicators because sampling methods and locations are not part of criteria. The freque ncy and locations for monitoring depends on the purpose of the sampling. For example, bathing beach monitoring requirements are specified at N.J.A.C. 8:26, for shellfish waters these requirements are established by the National She llfish Sanitation Program, a nd pursuant N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.16, these requirements are specified in individua l NJPDES permits. In addition, for ambient monitoring, quality assurance proj ect plans identify the sampli ng frequencies and locations to allow the Department to assess water quality and compliance with the water quality criteria.

Pathogen Indicators in NJPDES Permits : In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A6.5(b)2ii, the Department will continue to ev aluate NJPDES permit compliance using fecal coliform. Since USEPA requires permittees to use NPDES approved methods for analyzing wastewater. However, a NPDE S approved method has not been promulgated for enterococcus
or E. coli in wastewater effluent limitations mu st be based on fecal coliform. Therefore, the Department will not impose limits in NJPDES pe rmits based on enterococcus or E. coli until NPDES methods are approved by the USEPA.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)11 The Department is proposing a maximum temperature
criterion of 20 ° C for trout production waters for the first time similar to the existing criterion for trout maintenance waters. The Department is not proposing changes to maximum temperature criteria applicable to other stream classifica tion except by recodifying temperature criteria are recodified at proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14( c)11i through v. Other provisions regarding temperature deviations and heat dissipation areas are recodifiedat proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(c)8 and N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(h)2i(1)-(3) resp ectively, to clarify the implementation of temperature criteria.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

38 The proposed temperature criteria for tr out production waters and the existing temperature criteria for trout maintenance waters at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)11 are optimum temperatures for feeding, general activity, grow th and reproduction. Temp eratures greater than
20 o C can stress trout. According to USEPA Quality Criteria for Water: 1986 EPA 440/5-85-
001EPA which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ , the short-term lethal
threshold for brook trout and rainbow trout is 24 o C. Therefore, it is possible for a stream to support trout with temperatures greater than 20 o C for short periods of tim e if the stream provides opportunity for the fish to seek cooler stream temperatures. Additi onally, sudden increases or decreases in stream temperat ures can also be lethal.

Water temperatures influence growth, repr oduction, feeding, and beha vior of fish and other aquatic life. Natural temperatures of a waterbody fluctuate daily and seasonally. Riparian vegetation plays a critical role in maintaini ng stream temperatures during the summer season. However, as a stream widens, the ability of streamside vegetation to mitigate temperature impacts decreases. Water withdrawals, dams (both manmade and beavers), and heated discharges may cause unacceptable increases in stream temperatures.

As indicated above, measured stream temperatures over 20 o C do not necessarily mean that the trout production/maintenance use is im paired. The Department believes that it is necessary to evaluate stream temperature over a period of time during the summer rather than an occasional grab sample collected during the afternoon when the ambient temperature is at maximum. More extensive sampling allows be tter assessment of the magnitude and duration above the optimum temperature of 20 o C. Therefore, the Depart ment plans to revise its assessment methodology used to identify waterbodies that are impaired. Based on the revised assessment methodology, the Department will identi fy waterbodies that do not meet the aquatic life use due to temperature and schedule thes e waterbodies for TMDL development. The Department believes that a TMDL is the best a pproach to identify cost-effective actions needed to restore temperature. Actions to restore te mperature through a TMDL could result in changes to the operations of water supply reservoirs, rest oration of a more natural riparian corridor, elimination of beaver dams, and improvements in stormwater management.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

39 Once a waterbody has been listed as impair ed for temperature on Sublist 5 of the Integrated List (303(d) list), NJPDES dischargers to that wa terbody may be required to conduct instream temperature monitoring upstream and downstream of their discharge. The stream temperature data collected by NJPDES discharger s will be used by the Department to determine if a discharge increases the ambient stream temperature by more than the acceptable levels established at N.J.A.C. 7:9-1.5(c)8 and to establ ish wasteload allocations, if appropriate. For existing dischargers, the Department does not believe there is a need to require NJPDES facilities, except those that discharge cooling water, to install equipment to reduce effluent temperature. Requirements for an affected NJ PDES discharger are best implemented through a
TMDL where BMPs and other cost effective alterna tives can be utilized to maintain temperature that is protective of the existing trout use.

New and expanding point sources are subj ect to the antidegradation provisions at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). As part of the overa ll antidegradation review , the Department will determine whether the proposed discharge woul d cause an increase in the ambient stream temperature outside the heat dissipation area more than allo wed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)8.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)13 The Department is moving turbidity criteria, currently codified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)14 to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d)13. However, no change is proposed to the turbidity criteria.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(e) The Department is proposing to r ecodify ammonia criteria currently at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)13vi to proposed N.J.A. C. 7:9B-1.14(e). The design flows and the averaging periods applicable to ammonia criteria are being incor porated into this section. No changes are proposed to th e criteria, excep t that the Department is pr oposing to delete the criteria applicable to Pinelands wa ters with levels of pH equal to or greater th an 8.3. The leve ls of pH in Pinelands waters range from 3.5 to 5.5. Therefore, a criterion appl icable to greater than a pH of 8.3 is unnecessary.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

40 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f) The Department is proposing to reco dify the toxic substance criteria at existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c)13 to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f). Surface water quality criteria established for toxic pollutants are to protect a quatic life and human health in both fresh and saline waters. Aquatic life-based criteria are set to protect aquatic organisms from both acute
and chronic effects. Human health-based freshw ater criteria are designe d to protect people from
adverse effects due to water intake and fish cons umption. Human health-based criteria for saline waters are designed to protect people from adverse effects due to fish consumption only. In addition, for carcinogenic-based pollu tants, the criteria are develo ped which would result in no greater than a one-in-one-million lifetime excess cancer risk. For non-carcinogens, the criteria are developed based on non-carcinogenic effects wh ich would result in no appreciable risk of deleterious effect. The development of aqua tic life protection criteria and human health protection criteria are discussed below.

Aquatic life protection criteria: As part of this ru lemaking, the Department is proposing aquatic criteria for metals (arsenic , cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc) and updating freshwater criteria for gamma BHC, dieldrin, endrin, and pentachlor ophenol at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f) . The Department is revising
these criteria based on the USEPA 2005 national recommendations pursuant to Section 304(a) of the CWA. In May 2005, the USEPA published National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
Table: Poster and Brochure (NRWQC 2005) to reflect th e compilation of the updated information already published in 2002 for aquatic life and human health protection criteria and
2003 for human health criteria for selected toxic priority pollutants. A ll these publications can
be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ . These proposed criteria are shown in Table 3 below. With the exception of saltwater criteria for nickel and freshwater criteria for selenium (See discussion on nickel and seleni um below), the Department is proposing the USEPA NRWQC 2005 criteria for New Jersey. The Department is retain ing the existing aquatic criteria for other pollutants list ed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f) (ald rin, ammonia, saline criteria for gamma-BHC, chlordane, chloride, chlorine produ ced oxidants, chlorpyrifos, cyanide, 4,4'-DDT, demeton, saline criteria for diel drin, endosulfans, salin e criteria for endrin, guthion, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, malathion, methoxychlor , mirex, parathion, sa line criteria forTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

41 pentachlorophenol, phosphorus, PCBs, sulfide-hydr ogen sulfide, and toxaphene). However, because the Department is proposing to change th e presentation style of the criteria tables at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) through (g), all the tables and the criteria have been amended. Except as noted above, the aquatic criteria ar e being readopted without change.

The 1987 amendments to secti on 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA re quired all states to adopt toxics criteria for priority pollutants. The st ates were provided five years to incorporate the toxics criteria into their water quality standards. New Jersey did not adopt toxics criteria into their surface water quality stan dards within the given time fr ame. As a result the USEPA adopted criteria for New Jersey as part of the National Toxics Rule (NTR) Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Prio rity Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliance

. Final Rule. 57 Fed. Reg. 60911, December 22, 1992 ( http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER ).

New Jersey is currently under the NTR for fr eshwater and saline aquatic life protection criteria for the following metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. Th e NTR aquatic life-based metals criteria were
based on the 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Na tional Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (1985 Guidelines). EPA 440/5-84-031 found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ . In 1995 the USEPA updated the aquatic life-based
freshwater criteria for severa l pollutants as part of the Gr eat Lakes Initia tive (1995 Updates) ( 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water) . EPA-820-B-96-001. The 1995 methodology added r ecent toxicity data and removed the
use of a final residue value in deriving a chronic criterion. In 2005, the USEPA published an updated 304(a) criteria list reco mmending the most updated values available for each pollutant
under the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Table: Poster and Brochure found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ , as national water quality criteria recommendations. The proposed criteria include a combination of cr iteria developed as part of the 1985 Guidelines and the 1995 Updates.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

42 Criteria Development: Aquatic life protection criteria are estimates of the highest concentration of a pollutant that may be pres ent in water while maintaining the protection of aquatic life from acute and chronic effects. Aquatic criteria are developed using the USEPA methodology from the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Na tional Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (USEPA, 1985) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ for most of the proposed saltwater criteria. The proposed freshwater criteria are developed based on the 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water (EPA-820-B-96-001) (1995 Updates). The 1995 Updates document was deve loped as a supporting document for the Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Crite ria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the Sate of California; Proposed Rule . 62 Fed. Reg. 42160 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER . The chemical specific criteria deriva tion explained below identifies the methodology
used in each case.

Following is a general methodology to calculat e an acute or a chro nic criterion. This methodology is common between the two methods mentioned above (the 1985 Guidelines and the 1995 Updates). The change between the two me thods is explained in the final chronic value
derivation below.

Toxicity data representing the following aquatic families are used to derive an acute or a
chronic value:

Freshwater 1. A species representing the family Sa lmonidae from the class Osteichthyes; 2. A species representing a commercially or recreationally important warm water habitat, in the class Osteichthyes; 3. A species representing a family from the phylum Chordata; 4 A species representing a planktonic crustacian; 5. A species representing a benthic crustacian; 6. A species representing an insect;THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

43 7. A species representing a family from a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata; and 8. a species representing a family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.

Saltwater 1. Two species, each representing different families in the phylum Chordata; 2. A species representing a family from a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata; 3. A species representing either a Mysidae or Penaeidae family; 4. Three species representing families other than Chordata with possible inclusion of either Mysidae or a Penaeidae whichever was not already used; and 5. A species representing any other family.

Using the available toxicity information, a ge ometric mean is calculated for each species as species mean acute value (SMAV). A geometric mean of all the available SMAVs for a genus is calculated as genus mean acute values (GMAV) and ranked from highest to lowest. A final acute value (FAV) is calculated from the lowe st four GMAVs following the derivation outlined in the Guidelines (USEPA, 1985) and as shown below. Dividing the FAV with two derives a
criterion maximum concentration (CMC) or the acute criterion. The criteria may be further refined if a SMAV from flow-through tests for a commercially or recreationally important species is lower than the calculated F AV, then that SMAV is used as the FAV.

Σ ((ln GMAV) 2 ) - (( Σ (ln GMAV) 2 ) /4 ) S 2 = ---------------------------------------------------------- Σ (P) - (( Σ ( √ P) 2 ) /4)

L = ( Σ (ln GMAV) - S( Σ ( √ P))) /4 A = S( √ 0.05) + L
FAV = e A
CMC = FAV / 2

where:THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

44 S = slope P = cumulative probability L = intercept A = log of FAV

When data are available to show that acute to xicity to two or more species is dependent on a water quality characteristic such as hard ness, then that relationship is taken into consideration (USEPA, 1985). For each species, a least squares re gression of the acute toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic is pe rformed to obtain a slope. All the acceptable data from different sp ecies showing a similar correlation are used and
the data are normalized. All the normalized data are treated as one species and a least squares regression of the toxicity data to the corresponding water quality characteristic is completed to obtain a pooled slope.

Using the pooled slope, each toxic ity value is adjusted to a se lected value of water quality characteristic (for example, a hardness level of 50 mg/L CaCO 3 ). The adjusted toxicity values are grouped into GMAVs and a FAV is calculated at a given water quality characteristic using the following equation:

Final acute equation = e (V[ln (water quality characteristic)] + ln A - V[ln Z])

where: V = pooled slope A = FAV at Z Z = selected value of water quality characteristic
A final chronic value (FCV) can be calculate d in a similar manner to FAV if chronic toxicity data are available on eight different sp ecies listed above for both fresh and saline water. A final chronic value can also be calculated by utilizing an acute chr onic ratio (ACR) method if acceptable acute and chronic toxicity data are ava ilable for at least a freshwater invertebrate, a fish, and an acutely sensitive saline species or vice versa. A FCV can be calculated using the following formula:THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

45 FCV = FAV / ACR
If a species mean chronic value or SMCV from flow-through tests for a commercially or recreationally important species is lower than the ca lculated FCV, then that SMCV is used as the FCV to protect the more sensitive species.

When data are available to show that chronic toxicity to two or mo re species is dependent on a water quality characteristic; the same derivation as explained above for the acute criterion equation is followed to derive a chronic criterion equation. Howe ver, if insufficient data are available to adequately define the relationship between chroni c toxicity and the water quality characteristic, USEPA determined that it is appropr iate to assume that the chronic slope is the same as the acute slope. Using the chronic poole d slope, all acceptable chr onic toxicity data are adjusted to a selected value of water quality characteristic and a chronic criterion equation is derived in the same way as the acute criterion equation.

According to the 1985 Guidelines, the calculat ed chronic value is compared with any available plant value and residue value and the most stringent of the three values is used as the criterion continuous concentration (CCC) or a ch ronic criterion. However, the 1995 Updates did
not use the residue value because the bioaccu mulation of pollutants was handled through the
derivation of wildlife criteri a and human health criteria.

Conversion Factors : The USEPA initially expressed aquatic metals criteria as total recoverable criteria and promulgated the criteria as such in the NTR. After the establishment of the NTR, a central issue in establishing and implementing me tals criteria and how to accurately determine the fraction of the total metal that is biologi cally available was rais ed and discussed by the interested parties and the USEPA. In 1995, the USEPA decided that the dissolved portion of the metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of the metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal. The USEPA, therefore, recommended conversion factors to
convert the total recoverable metals in to dissolved metals as part of the Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Pollutants; Stat es Compliance-Revisions of Metals Criteria . (60 Fed. Reg. 22229, May 4, 1995) ( http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ). These conversionTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

46 factors were calculated in consistently using toxicity tests at varying lengths of exposure time that were averaged more than once in the process of conversion factor deri vation. To correct the inconsistency in the USEPA met hod of calculating the conversion factors, Dr. Thomas Fikslin,
Delaware River Basin Commi ssion (DRBC), recalculated the c onversion factors for cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, nickel, and zi nc using time weighted averages that provided equal time weighting over the test duration. Th e DRBC conversion factors were published in the Revised Procedure for Converting Total Recoverable Water Quality Criteria for Metals to
Dissolved Criteria . 1995, DRBC ( http://www.state.nj.us/drbc ). The USEPA evaluated the
DRBC conversion factors and determined that these factors represent a different, reasonable interpretation of the data that will result in wa ter quality criteria that adequately protect aquatic life. (Letter dated March 4, 1998 from Jeanette Wilts e, Director of Health and Ecological Criteria to Vincent P. D'Anna, Federal Commissioner, DRBC).

The proposed freshwater acute and chroni c criteria for total recoverable metals (cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, nickel, and zinc) have been converted to dissolved using the DRBC recalculated and USEP A approved conversion factors as listed at proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)3. To convert the proposed total re coverable metals criteria for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and silver to diss olved criteria, the Department is using the conversion factors developed by the USEPA. To convert the proposed saltwater acute and
chronic total recoverable criteria into dissolved criteria, the Department is using the USEPA
saltwater conversion factors. The DRBC and USEPA conversion f actors are listed in Table 1
below.

Table 1. Conversion Factors
Freshwater Saltwater Chemical Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Arsenic 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cadmium 0.651 + 0.651 + 0.994 0.994 Chromium III 0.277 + 0.277 + N/A N/A Chromium VI 0.919 + 0.919 + 0.993 0.993 Copper 0.908 + 0.908 + 0.83 0.83 Mercury 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

47 Nickel 0.846 + 0.846 + 0.990 0.990 Selenium 0.996 * 0.992 * 0.998 0.998 Silver 0.85 N/A 0.85 N/A Zinc 0.950 + 0.950 + 0.946 0.946
+ DRBC recalculated conversion factors * National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2002. (EPA 822-R-02-047) N/A Not applicable

Water Effect Ratio : The USEPA 304(a) recommended aquatic life protection criteria equations for metals include a Water Effect Ratio (WER ). A WER is a criterion adjustment factor accounting for the effect of site-specific water characteristics on pollutant bioavailability and toxicity to aquatic life. A WE R also accounts for a difference betw een the toxicity of the metal in laboratory dilution water and its toxicity in the water at the site. The USEPA recommends a default WER of 1 for all aquatic life protecti on metals criteria. The USEPA also published
Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals in 1994 (EPA823-B-94-001) found at http://www.epa.gov/wate rscience/criteria/ . The Department has reviewed the USEPA recommended procedures for developing site-specific WERs. The protocol requires the facility to conduct toxicity studies comp aring simulated receiving water (a mix of effluent and stream water reflecting the effluent dilution at design low flow conditions) to laboratory water toxicity tests. Most NJPDES dischargers are unable to use site (stream) water for their existing Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) te sting due to other sources of toxicity in the stream, therefore, it is unlikel y that these studies would be successful. Additionally, concerns
have been raised that a measured WER does not accurately reflect actu al instream toxicity.
Factors that could affect the measured bioava ilablity include alkalini ty, pH, interaction of multiple metals, and other toxic substances. As a result, the toxicity reflected by a WER may not be protective of the aquatic biota. A method for addressing some of these concerns (Biotic Ligand Method) is under developm ent by the USEPA with the expectation that the Biotic Ligand Method will replace the use of WERs to reflect inst ream toxicity of metals . For these reasons the Department has decided to not entertain request s to conduct site specifi c WER studies and will
use the USEPA recommended default of 1.0 in cal culating applicable a quatic life protection
criteria for metals.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

48 Using the equations at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)3, criteria can be calcul ated at any hardness for cadmium, chromium III, copper, nickel, silver, and zinc.

Aquatic Averaging Periods: At proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14( f)1 and 2, the Department is proposing averaging periods appli cable to different pollutants and criteria. A 1-hour acute averaging period is proposed for all acute criteria, except for some metals as explained below. A 4-day chronic averaging period is proposed for all chronic criteria.

An averaging period is the duration or period of time over which the ambient concentration is averaged for comparison with cr iteria concentrations. Av eraging periods play a major role in the development of Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBEL). WQBELs are
derived based on several factors: the volum e of wastewater discharged, the upstream concentration of the pollutant, the applicable de sign flow of the receiv ing waterbody specified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2, the appropriate water qual ity criterion (acute, chronic, or human health criterion) and the applicable averaging periods . The WQBELs are calculated for all applicable criteria and the most stringent limit is imposed. This ensures that the discharge does not cause a
violation of the wa ter quality criteria.

Averaging periods are kept re latively short (one hour for acute and 4 days for chronic) because excursions higher than the average can ki ll or cause substantial da mage to aquatic life in short periods. The USEPA has historically es tablished the acute aver aging period for toxic pollutants as one hour in its Section 304(a) crit eria documents. This reflects a conservative regulatory approach to toxic pollutants, which c onsiders all toxic pollutants as "fast-acting." At N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)1 the Department is propos ing a 1-hour acute averag ing period for all the proposed acute criteria, except for cadmium, chro mium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc. For the reasons explained below, th e proposed acute averagi ng period is six-hours for cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, silv er, and zinc and 24-hours for copper. The Department is also proposing a 4-day chronic av eraging period at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)2 for all the proposed chronic criteria. This reflects no change from the existing averaging periods for
chronic criteria.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

49 In 1996 the Department conducted research to find out if alternat ive acute averaging periods would be acceptable. Discussions between the USEPA and the Department revealed that
the USEPA had initiated a reevaluation of the exposure/averaging periods for metals. This
reevaluation was carried out under the oversight of the US EPA's Aquatic Life Criteria Guidelines Committee by Abt Associates, Inc., and completed in December 1994. On April 10, 1995 the Department sent a letter to Margaret Stasikowski, Di rector, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division of the USEPA to ask for a c opy of the completed reevaluation. In response, copies of memoranda (dated July 19, 1994, November 7, 1994 and December 19, 1994) from Abt Associates, Inc. to Charles Delos, USEPA Health and Ecological Criteria Division were provided with a short cover memo, dated May 18, 1995 from Margaret Stasikowski, listing the materials being sent, stating that the results had been summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and stating
that "the consensus has been th at an appropriate averaging peri od could be set at the inverse of the kinetic coefficient" (constant) used to rela te toxic concentrations to exposure times. The memoranda from Abt Associates, Inc. indicated th at they worked with small datasets (sometimes only 2), and the tests used were limited to those us ed to calculate the 304(a) criteria (Table 1 of the individual 304(a) criteria documents). The 304(a) criteria data is several years old and copper is the only metal for which the database could be considered adequate for assessing the speed of action of the metal. The estimates of the kinetic coe fficients for freshwater silver, freshwater chromium VI, freshwater nickel, and all of the estimated kinetic coefficients for saltwater metals are considered to be of questi onable reliability (due to small data set size and constraints in the model used to estimate the kinetic coefficient).

A review of Table 1 from the May 18, 1995 St asikowski memorandum, indicates that the averaging periods estimated for freshwater c opper for Ptychochellus, Daphnia, and Gammarus (the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most sensitive organi sms to copper in the USEPA criteria document database) would all be in ex cess of 24 hours (based on averag ing the individual equivalent averaging periods from the diffe rent studies for each organism). Additionally, except for Lepomis, the estimated equivalent averaging periods would all be greater than 24 hours. The Department concluded that the database was not suitable to attempt to develop appropriateTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

50 averaging periods because of outdated database , limited numbers of observations, and the still evolving methods for determining appropriate av eraging periods. Instead, the Department has
concluded that a 24-hour acute av eraging period for freshwater c opper appears to be protective. For saltwater copper, there were very few studies available, and those st udies only provided raw data and no time varying LC50s were calculated. However, the time to effect was in excess of 24 hours in those studies (Personal communica tion, August 24, 1995, with Charles Delos, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, USEPA, contact person listed in Stasikowski memorandum of May 18, 1995). Accordingly, a 24 hour acute aver aging period is considered protective for saltwater copper.

Examination of the data from Tables 1 and 2, regarding cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc, enclosed with the May 18, 1995 Stasikowski memorandum indicates that a 6-hour acute averaging peri od should be protective of the aquatic biota. Accordingly, a 6-hour acute averag ing period is being proposed as the default averaging period
for these metals in both fresh and salt waters.

Based on the above discussion, the Departme nt is proposing a 24-hour acute averaging period for freshwater and saltwate r copper criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)1i and a 6-hour acute averaging period for freshwater and saltwater cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc criteria N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)1ii. For all the other proposed acute criteria, the Department is proposing a 1-hour acute averaging period at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)1. The Department confirmed with USEPA that the proposed altern ative averaging periods discussed above are protective of aquatic life.

At N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)7 the Department is proposing to identify and list criteria for pollutants currently listed at N. J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c). In additi on, the Department is proposing to change the format of the table for ease of use. Significant revisions are proposed to several
criteria. A more detailed desc ription of the derivation of th e aquatic criteria for arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc proposed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)7 follows:THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

51 Arsenic : The Department is proposi ng aquatic life-based freshwater and saltwater criteria for
arsenic based on the 2004 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Table: Poster and
Brochure found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ , as shown in Table 3 below.
Freshwater acute criterion of 340 μ g/L and chronic criterion of 150 μ g/L, as recommended by the NRWQC 2005 were developed as part of the 1995 Updates. The proposed saltwater acute
criterion of 69 μ g/L and chronic criterion of 36 μ g/L were developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Arsenic-1984 (EPA 440/5-84-033) using the 1985 Guidelines which can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ . These saltwater cr iteria are the existing applicable NTR criteria for New Jersey a nd are recommended as part of the NRWQC 2005.
Both freshwater and saltwater total recove rable criteria were multiplied by the USEPA conversion factor (See Table 1) of 1 to establish the dissolved cr iteria. Arsenic freshwater and saltwater criteria are also multiplied by a de fault WER of 1 as r ecommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 1-hour acute averaging period and 4-day chronic averaging period for arsenic as discussed above.

Cadmium : The Department is proposi ng aquatic life-based freshwater and saltwater criteria for
cadmium as shown in Table 3 below. Thes e criteria are developed as part of the 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium (EPA 882-R-01-001) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ and recommended by the USEPA in NRWQC 2005. The proposed acute and chronic cadmium freshw ater criteria are har dness dependent and are expressed as equations (See Table 3). The DRBC freshwater acute and chronic conversion factor of 0.651 (See Table 1), approved by the USEPA, was used to convert the total recoverable
cadmium criteria into dissolved criteria. The proposed cadmium freshwater criteria are also multiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness using the equati ons given below. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO 3, the freshwater acute criterion for cadmium would be 1.4 μ g/L and the freshwater chronic
criterion for cadmium would be 0.17 μ g/L (See Table 3).THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

52 Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (1.0166 (ln [hardness])-3.924) ] 0.651
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.7409 (ln [hardness])-4.719) ] 0.651

The Department is proposing the saltwater acute criterion of 40 μ g/L and chronic criterion
of 8.8 μ g/L developed as part of the 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Cadmium (EPA 882-R-01-001) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ and recommended by the USEPA in 2005 as part of NRWQC 2005. The saline criteria are expressed in the dissolved form using the USEPA convers ion factor of 0.994 for both acute and chronic criteria (See Table 3). The proposed cadmium freshwater and saltwater criteria are also multiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 6-hour acute averagi ng period and 4-day chronic averaging period for cadmium as
discussed above.

Chromium III : The Department is proposing aquati c life-based freshwater criteria for chromium III developed as part of the 1995 Updates and recommended by the USEPA in NRWQC 2005 (See Table 3 below). The proposed freshwater acute and chronic chromium criteria are hardness dependent and are expressed as equations. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness using the equation given below. The DRBC freshwater acute and chronic conversion factor of 0.277 (See Ta ble 1) approved by the USEPA wa s used to convert the total
recoverable chromium III criteria into dissolved criteria. The proposed chromium III freshwater criteria are also multiplied with default WE R of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. For example, at hardness 100mg/L of CaCO 3, the freshwater acute crite rion for chromium III would

be 499 μ g/L and the freshwater chronic criterion for chromium III would be 24 μ g/L (See Table 3).

Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (0.819 (ln [hardness])+3.7256) ] 0.277
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.819 (ln [hardness])+0.6848) ] 0.277THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

53 There is insufficient saltwater toxicity data available on chromium III to calculate any saltwater criteria. Therefore, saltwater criteria are neit her recommended by the USEPA nor proposed by the Department for chromium III. The Department is proposing a 6-hour acute averaging period and 4-day averaging period for chromium III as discussed above.

Chromium VI : The Department is proposing aquatic lif e-based freshwater a nd saltwater criteria for chromium VI developed as part of th e 1995 Updates and recommended by the USEPA in NRWQC 2005 as shown in Table 3 below. The freshwater acute dissolved criterion of 15 μ g/L
and chronic dissolved criterion of 10 μ g/L are developed as part of the 1995 Updates. The DRBC
freshwater acute and chronic conversion factor of 0.919 (See Ta ble 1), approved by the USEPA,
was used to convert the total recoverable chromium VI crite ria into dissolved criteria.

The Department is proposing sa ltwater acute criterion of 1,100 μ g/L and chronic criterion
of 50 μ g/L developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Cr iteria for Chromium-1984 (EPA 440/5-84-029) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ using the 1985 Guidelines and recommended by the USEPA in NRWQC 2005. The saltwater criteria ar e also the existing applicable NTR criteria for New Jersey. The sa ltwater acute and chronic criteria were multiplied by the USEPA conversion factor of 0.993 to esta blish the dissolved cr iteria. The proposed
chromium VI freshwater and saltwater criteria are also multiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 6-hour acut e averaging period and 4-day chronic averaging period for chromium VI as discussed above.

Copper : The Department is proposing aquatic life-ba sed freshwater and sa ltwater criteria for copper developed as part of the 1995 Update s and recommended by the USEPA in NRWQC
2005 as shown in Table 3 below. The proposed freshwater acute and chronic copper criteria are hardness dependent and are expre ssed as equations. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness using the equation given below. The DRBC c onversion factor of 0.908 (See Table 1), approved by the USEPA, was used to convert the total r ecoverable freshwater ac ute and chronic copper
criteria into dissolved cr iteria. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO 3, the freshwaterTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

54 acute criterion for copper would be 13 μ g/L and the freshwater ch ronic criterion for copper
would be 8.5 μ g/L (See Table 3).

Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (0.9422 (ln [hardness])-1.7) ] 0.908
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.8545 (ln [hardness])-1.702) ] 0.908

In December 2003, the USEPA published a 2003 Draft Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper (EPA 822-R-03-026) found at http://www.epa.gov/wate rscience/criteria/ . In addition to including several recent studies in the recalculation of th e 2003 updated criteria, the USEPA also applied the biotic ligand model (BLM) in the derivation of the freshwater criteria. The BLM is a metal bioavailability model taki ng a number of water quality constituents (for example, calcium, magnesium, and dissolved orga nic carbon) into consider ation in deriving the aquatic criteria. Unlike the em pirically derived hardness depende nt criteria, the BLM explicitly accounts for individual water quality variables a nd addresses variables that were not factored into the hardness relationship. The USEPA has neither finalized the BLM method nor proposed 304(a) criteria based on the same. Therefore, the Department is not proposing copper criteria based on the BLM method. The Department may consider deriving criteria based on the BLM method when the USEPA recommends this method as national guidance.

The proposed saltwater acut e dissolved criterion of 4.8 μ g/L and chronic dissolved
criterion of 3.1 μ g/L were recalculated as part of the Ne w York / New Jersey harbor site-specific copper criteria in 1995 ( Ambient Water Quality Criter ia Saltwater Copper Addendum. April 14,
1995 found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ ) and recommended by the USEPA in NRWQC 2005. The New York/New Jersey harbor-s pecific copper acute dissolved criterion of
7.9 μ g/L and chronic dissolved criterion of 5.6 μ g/L were promulgated by the Department in 1996 (28 N.J.R. 3782(b), August 5, 1996). The proposed c opper freshwater and saltwater criteria are multiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 24-hour acute averaging period and 4-day chronic averaging period for copper as
discussed above.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

55 Mercury : The Department is proposing freshw ater acute dissolved criterion of 1.4 μ g/L and
chronic dissolved criterion of 0.77 μ g/L developed as part of th e 1995 Updates and recommended by the USEPA in the NRWQC 2005 as shown in Table 3 below. The proposed freshwater criteria are multiplied by the USEPA conversion fa ctor of 0.85 to derive the dissolved criteria (See Table 1).

The Department is proposing saltwat er acute dissolved criterion of 1.8 μ g/L and chronic
dissolved criterion of 0.94 μ g/L developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Mercury-1984 (EPA 440/5-84-026) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ using the 1985 Guidelines and recommended by the USEP A in the NRWQC 2005. The chronic dissolved
criterion of 0.025 μ g/L derived in the 1984 mercury crit eria document is based on the final
residue value in accordance w ith the 1985 Guidelines. However, the USEPA recalculated the
saltwater chronic crite rion using the 1995 method and recomme nded the same as part of the NRWQC 2005. The NRWQC 2005 chroni c dissolved criterion of 0.94 μ g/L was derived from dividing the final acute value with the acute chronic ratio of 2. The proposed saltwater criteria are multiplied by the USEPA conversion factor of 0.85 to derive th e dissolved criteria. Freshwater and saltwater mercury criteria are mu ltiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 6-hour acute averaging pe riod and 4-day chronic averaging period for mercury.

The aquatic life-based criteria do not factor in the bioaccumulation of mercury in the food
chain. The wildlife criteria proposed by the Department on November 18, 2002 (35 N.J.R. 2264(b)) accounts for bioaccumul ation of mercury through the food chain, which resulted in significantly more stringent criteria. The wildli fe criteria were not adopted due to lack of implementation procedures. The Department, US EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who have partnered to derive the w ildlife criteria, are working to resolve the implementation issues and the Department intends to repropose the w ildlife criteria in the future (36 N.J.R. 912(a), February 17, 2004).THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

56 Nickel : The Department is proposing freshwater criteria for nickel developed as part of the 1995 Updates and recommended by the USEPA in the NRWQC 2005 as shown in Table 3 below. The proposed freshwater acute and ch ronic nickel criteria are har dness dependent and are expressed as equations. Criterion can be calculated at a ny hardness using the equati ons given below. The
DRBC freshwater acute and chronic conversion factor of 0.846 (See Table 1) approved by the USEPA, was used to convert the total recovera ble nickel criteria into dissolved criteria. Freshwater nickel criteria are multiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO 3, the freshwater acute cr iterion for nickel would be

390 μ g/L and the freshwater chronic cr iterion for nickel would be 44 μ g/L (See Table 3).

Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (0.846 (ln [hardness])+2.255) ] 0.846
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.846 (ln [hardness])+0.0584) ] 0.846

Saltwater Criteria for Nickel: The Department is proposing sa ltwater criteria for nickel as recommended by the Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC). The proposed criteria are recalculated by GLEC in the draft Technical Information Relate d to Developing a Saltwater
Nickel Addendum to the Ambient Wa ter Quality Criteria Document , 2003. A copy of this
document can be found at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/sgwqt.html . The GLEC used the 1995 methodology to derive the saltwater ni ckel criteria and upd ated the existing 1986 USEPA criteria by using additional data. In an April 30, 2003 letter from Christopher Zarba, Acting Director of Health a nd Ecological Criteria Division, USEPA to Mr. G. M. DeGraeve,
Director of Great Lakes Environm ental Center, the USEPA noted, as part of their review of the revised criteria, that the derivati on of the criteria is favorable.

Saltwater Acute Criterion for Nickel: Additiona l toxicity studies were gathered by GLEC to recalculate the proposed saltwater criteria for nickel (see Table 3) . In addition to the original acute toxicity values used by the USEPA in the Ambient Water Quality Cr iteria for Nickel-1986 (EPA 440/5-86-004) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ , more recent acuteTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

57 toxicity values ( boldfaced in Table 2) were used to de rive the acute criterion of 64 μ g/L. The proposed acute criterion was multiplied by the US EPA conversion factor of 0.99 (Table 1) to
derive the dissolved criterion. The criterion was also multiplied with default WER of one as recommended by the USEPA.

Table 2. Derivation of Sa ltwater Criteria for Nickel

Rank Genus Mean Acute Value Species Species Mean Acute Value Species MeanAcuteChronic

Ratio 26 320,00 Soft-shell clam Mya arenaria 320,00

25 294,500 Clam Macoma balthica 294,500

24 150,000 Starfish Asterias forbessii 150,000

23 149,900 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 149,900

22 72,000 Mud snail Nassarius obsoletus 72,000

21 70,000 Spot Leiostomus xanthurs 70,000

20 50,000 Polychaete worm Capitella capitata 50,000

19 47,000 Hermit crab Pagurus longicarpus 47,000

18 35,000 Polychaete worm Nereis arenaceodentata 4,900
Polychaete worm Nereis virens 25,000

17 26,560 Topsmelt Atherinops affinis 26,560 6.220

16 21,000 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 21,000

15 18,950 Amphipod Corphium volutator 18,950

14 17,390 Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 7,958

Tidewater silverside Menidia peninsulae 38,000THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

58 13 17,000 Polychaete worm Ctenodrilus serratus 17,000

12 11,250 Copepod Eurytemora affinis 11,250

11 6,000 Copepod Nitocra spinipes 6,000

10 4,360 Dungeness crab Cancer magister 4,360

9 3,466 Copepod Acartia clausi 3,466

8 2,500 Purple sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus 2,500

7 891 Bay mussel Mytilus edulis 891

6 641.7 Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica 1180
Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas 349

5 570.3 Mysid Americamysis bahia 513 5.478*
Mysid Americamysis bigelowi 634

4 310 Quahog clam Mercenaria mercenaria 310

3 151.7 Mysid Herteromysis formosa 151.7

2 148.6 Mysid Mysidopsis intii 148.6 6.727

1 145.5 Red abalone Haliotis rufescens 145.5 5.505

* The acute chronic ratio (ACR) was calculated us ing the ACR value in th e 1986 criteria document because it was calculated using acute and chronic data from the same test.

Final acute value = 129.61 μ g/L
= 129.61 / 2 = 64.8 μ g/L
Dissolved acute criterion = 64.8 x 0.99 = 64.15 μ g/L

Saltwater Chronic Criterion for Nickel: GLEC cal culated a geometric mean of the four saltwater
acute chronic ratios as the fina l acute chronic ratio 5.96 (See Tabl e 2). The saltwater chronic criterion developed in the Ambient Water Quality Cr iteria for Nickel-1986 (EPA 440/5-86-004)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

59 found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ used the acute chronic ratio calculated from
two freshwater and one saltwater acute chroni c ratios. The proposed chronic value of 22 μ g/L for nickel is calculated using the new and updated acute chronic ratio (See Table 2 above). The chronic criterion was multiplied by the USEPA conve rsion factor of 0.99 (See Table 1) to derive
the dissolved criterion. The saltwater nickel cr iterion was also multiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 6-hour acute averaging period and 4-day chronic averaging period for nickel as discussed above.

Final chronic criterion = FAV / ACR
= 129.61/5.96 = 21.96 μ g/L
Dissolved chronic criterion =21.96 x 0.99 = 21.74 μ g/L

Selenium : The Department is proposing aquatic life-b ased freshwater and sa ltwater criteria for selenium based on the NTR, as shown in Tabl e 3 below. The NRWQC 2005 freshwater criteria for selenium were developed as part of the 1995 Updates. However, the 2005 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria found at http://www.epa.gov/wate rscience/criteria/ , indicates that the freshwater acute criterion is under review and the 2005 recommended criterion may change substantially in th e near future. Therefore, th e Department is proposing the
freshwater acute criterion of 20 μ g/L and chronic criterion of 5.0 μ g/L based on NTR and developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Cr iteria for Selenium-1987 (EPA 440/5-87-006)
found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ . The Department will revise the freshwater criteria, if necessary, when the USEPA finalizes the revised crit eria for selenium. The USEPA
recommended conversion factors of 0.996 for acu te and 0.992 for chronic (See Table 1) were
used to convert the total recoverable freshw ater selenium acute a nd chronic criteria into
dissolved criteria.

The proposed saltwater acute criterion of 290 μ g/L and chronic criterion of 71 μ g/L are
based on the Ambient Water Quality Cr iteria for Selenium-1987 (EPA 440/5-87-006) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ using the 1985 Guidelines and are recommended by the USEPA in the NRWQC 2005. The saltwater ac ute and chronic criteria were multiplied byTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

60 the USEPA conversion factor of 0.998 to derive th e dissolved form of the metal. The proposed
freshwater and saltwater selenium criteria are multiplied by a default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 1-hour acute averaging pe riod and 4-day chronic averaging period for selenium as discussed above.

Silver : The Department is proposing aquatic life-based freshwater and saltwater acute criteria developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Cr iteria for Silver-1980 (EPA 440/5-80-071)
found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ and recommended by the USEPA in the NRWQC 2005 as shown in Table 3 below. The proposed freshwat er acute silver criterion is hardness dependent and is expresse d as an equation. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness using the equation given below. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO 3, the freshwater

acute criterion for silver would be 3.2 μ g/L (See Table 3). The Department is proposing to use the USEPA conversion factor of 0.85 (See Table 1) to convert the total recoverable freshwater
and saltwater acute silver criteria into dissolved criteria. The proposed freshwater and saltwater silver criteria are multiplied by a default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 6-hour acute averagi ng period and 4-day averaging period for silver
as discussed above.

Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (1.72 (ln [hardness])-6.59) ] 0.85

There is insufficient chronic toxicity data av ailable for silver to calculate any freshwater or saltwater chronic criteria. Therefore, fres hwater and saltwater chr onic criteria are neither recommended by the USEPA nor proposed by the Department for silver.

Zinc : The Department is proposing aquatic life-bas ed freshwater criteria developed as part of the 1995 Updates and recommended by the USEPA in the NRWQC 2005 as shown in Table 3
below. The freshwater are the same value fo r both acute and chronic criteria. The proposed
freshwater acute and chronic zinc criteria are hardness dependent and are expressed as equations. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness using the equations given below. The DRBCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

61 freshwater acute and chronic conversion factor of 0.950 (See Ta ble 1), approved by the USEPA,
was used to convert the total r ecoverable zinc criteria into disso lved criteria. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO 3, the freshwater acute and chroni c criterion for zinc would be 110

μ g/L (See Table 3 below).

Acute or dissolved criterion WER [e (0.8473 (ln [hardness])+0.884) ] 0.950
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.8473 (ln [hardness])+0.884) ] 0.950

The proposed saltwater acute criterion of 90 μ g/L and chronic criterion of 81 μ g/L were developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Zinc-1987 (EPA 440/5-87-003)
found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ using the 1985 Guidelines and are recommended by the USEPA in the NRWQC 2005. The saltwater criteria are the existing applicable NTR criteria for New Jersey. The proposed saltwater criteria were multiplied by the USEPA recommended conversion factor of 0.946 (See Table 1) to establis h dissolved criteria.
Freshwater and saltwater zinc criteria are mu ltiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. The Department is proposing a 6- hour acute averaging period and 4-day chronic averaging period for zinc as discussed above.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THEPROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________62Table 3. PROPOSED AQUATIC LIFE-BASED CRITERIA(μg/L)Fresh Water CriteriaSaline Water CriteriaToxic SubstanceAcuteChronicAcuteChronicArsenic340*D150*D69*D36*Dgamma-BHC (Lindane)0.95N/AN/AN/ACadmiumWER [e(1.0166[ln(hardness)]-3.924)] 0.651DWER [e(0.7409[ln(hardness)]-4.719)] 0.651D40*D8.8*DChromium (III)WER[e(0.819[ln(hardness)]+3.7256)]0.277DWER[e(0.819[ln(hardness)]+0.6848)]0.277DN/AN/AChromium (VI)15D10D1,100*D50*DCopperWER[e(0.9422[ln(hardness)]-1.7)]0.908DWER[e(0.8545[ln(hardness)]-1.702)]0.908D4.8*D#3.1*D#Dieldrin0.240.056N/AN/AEndrin0.0860.036N/AN/AMercury1.4m*D0.77m*D1.8*D0.94*DNickelWER[e(0.846[ln(hardness)]+2.255)]0.846DWER[e(0.846[ln(hardness)]+0.0584)]0.846D64*D22*DPentachlorophenole(1.005[pH]-4.869)e(1.005[pH]-5.134)N/AN/ASelenium20D5.0D290*D71*DSilverWER[e(1.72[ln(hardness)]-6.59)]0.85DN/A1.9*N/AZincWER[e(0.8473[ln(hardness)]+0.884)]0.950DWER[e(0.8473[ln(hardness)]+0.884)]0.950D90*D81*D*Criteria are expressed as a function of the Water Effect Ratio (WER). The WER equates to the default value of 1.0.DCriteria expressed as dissolved#Criteria applicable to all saline waters except, site-specific criteria listed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(g)mThis recommended water quality criterion was derived from data for inorganic mercury (II), but is applied here to total mercury. If a substantial portion of the mercury inthe water column is methylmercury, this criterion will probably be under protective.In addition, even though inorganic mercury is converted to methylmercury whichbioaccumulates to a great extent, this criterion does not account for uptake via the food chain because sufficient data were not available when the criterion was derived.rThis recommended water quality criterion was derived on page 43of the mercury criteria document (EPA 440/5-84-026, January 1985). The saltwater CCC of 0.025μg/Lgiven on page 23 of the criteria document is based on the Final Residue Value procedure in the 1985 Guidelines. Since the publication of the Great Lakes Aquatic LifeCriteria Guidelines in 1995 (60FR15393-15399, March 23, 1995), theUSEPA no longer uses the Final Residue Value procedure for deriving CCCs for new or revised304(a) aquatic life criteria.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

63 Aquatic criteria for other toxic pollutants: The Department is proposing to update the aquatic life-based fres hwater criteria for gamma BHC, dieldrin, endrin, and pentachlorophenol based on updated toxicity information in the NRWQC 2005. These freshwater criteria we re updated and revised as part of the 1995 Updates. There are no revised saltwater crit eria recommendations available for gamma BHC, dieldrin, endrin, and pentachlor ophenol, therefore, the Departme nt is retaining the existing
criteria.

At N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)4 the Department is proposing to identify the pH dependent
formulas used in the derivation of criteria for pentachlorophenol.

Human Health Criteria: At N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)5 the Department is proposing to identify the averaging period and the design flow applicable to human health criteria for non-carcin ogens currently listed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2 and under the Note at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c).

At N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)6 the Department is proposing to identify the averaging period and the design flow applicable to human health criteria for carcinoge ns currently listed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2 and under the Note at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c).

At N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)7 the Department is proposing to identify and list criteria for pollutants currently listed at N. J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c). In additi on, the Department is proposing to change the format of the table for ease of use. Significant revisions are proposed to several
criteria as described below:

Human health water quality criteria are num eric values that are developed to protect water quality for designated uses such as potabl e water supply and consumption of fish. The numeric criterion for each pollutant is derived on the basis of human health concerns withoutTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

64 regard to economic impacts or technical feasibility. USEPA has published recommended criteria for many pollutants pursuant to Sec tion 304(a) of the Clean Water Act.

In accordance with 40 CFR 131.11, which contai ns recommended 304(a) criteria, the States may adopt the national recommended crite ria, modify the national recommended criteria to reflect site-specific conditions , adopt criteria derived using other scientific ally defensible
methods or establish narrative criteria wh en numeric criteria cannot be determined.

The Department’s proposed new and revised human health criteria have been developed
in accordance with the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000) (EPA-822-B-00-004, October 2000) (2000 Human Health Methodology) found at http://www.epa.gov/wa terscience/criteria / . The 2000 Human Health Methodology sets forth the USEPA’s current appro ach to derive human health criteria with regard to risk assessment for cancer and non-cancer effects, e xposure assessment and bioaccumulation (See 65 Fed. Re g. 66444, November 3, 2000 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/ ).

Derivation of a human health water qualit y criterion is based upon whether the toxic pollutant is classified as a carcinogen or a non-carcinogen. The USEPA developed a categorization system for toxic pollutants ba sed upon the overall weight of evidence for human carcinogenicity. Toxic pollutant s classified as Group A are “human carcinogens”; Group B are “probable human carcinogens”; Group C are “ possible human carcinogens”; Group D are “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity”; and Group E include those with “evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.”

The USEPA, in an effort to update the carcinogenic risk assessment guidelines, is in the process of replacing the alphanumeric system of categorizing carcinogeni c effects, i.e., Groups A, B, C, D and E, with descriptors. Guidelines for Carci nogenic Risk Assessment was finally issued on March 29, 2005 (EPA/ 630/P-03/001F) available at http://www.epa.gov/cancerguidelines and Notice of Availability was published in the FederalTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

65 Register (70 Fed. Reg. 17766, April 7, 2005) to replace the 1986 Guidelines (The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/630/R-00/004) (51 Fe d. Reg. 33992, September 24, 1986
available at http://www.epa.gov/cancerguidelines ). For risk assessments that have been completed before issuance of the new Guidelines , both the prior carcinoge nicity categorization and narrative descriptors are recognized, consiste nt with the implementa tion direction provided by the USEPA (Memorandum from Acting Administ rator Stephen L. Johnson to USEPA staff on Application of New Cancer Gu idelines, March 29, 2005). The Department is adding definitions of carcinogens and non-carcinogens in these rules to incorporate changes in terminology to describe carcinogens and non-carcinogens.

Human health water quality cr iteria are derived by classifying the toxic pollutant as to human carcinogenicity and utilizi ng the appropriate toxicity f actor (oral slope factor for carcinogens or oral reference dose (RfD) for non-carcinogens) a nd exposure assumptions. For freshwaters, the exposure assumptions are base d on drinking water and fi sh consumption. For saline waters (SE/SC), the exposure assumptions are based on fish consumption only.

For sources of toxicity information for deve loping health-based criteria, the Department utilized the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database as the primary source. The USEPA has developed this database of human health effects to provide consistent
information on toxic substances for use in ri sk assessments, decision making and regulatory
activities. IRIS is an electronic database ( http://www.epa.gov/iris ) that contains information on human health effects that may result from e xposure to various pollutants in the environment. Developed in response to a growing demand fo r consistent information for use in risk assessment, decision-making and regulatory activit ies, IRIS data repr esent the consensus of
USEPA health scientists. The IRIS chemical files contain descriptive and quantitative
information on the Chronic Health Hazard A ssessments for Non-Carcinogenic Effects and Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure. It documents fully the derivation of its toxicity factors, such as the oral reference dose (RfD) for chr onic non-carcinogenic health effects and oral carcinogenic slope factors for carcinogenic eff ects and the carcinogenicityTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

66 categorization of the pollutant. These data serve as the best available scientific information at
the time and continue to be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect current science.

Notable among USEPA’s recommended changes in the 2000 Human Health Methodology are the inclusion of the relative source contributi on (RSC) factor in deriving human health criteria for non-carcinogens and the sharply higher fish intake rates for deriving all
criteria.

Relative Source Contribution (RSC ) is a term included in th e derivation of criteria to
account for non-water sources of e xposure. It represents the percentage of total exposure typically accounted for by the exposure source for which the criterion is being determined. Exposure can also be estimated by the subtracti on method. Historically, RSC has been used to develop the maximum contaminant level goal (MCL G) which is the health-based standard for the drinking water program. The 2000 Huma n Health Methodology recommends the RSC approach be used to derive ambient water quality criteria for non-car cinogens and carcinogens
with a threshold so that the to tal exposure will not exceed the threshold level and exposure to
non-water sources will be consider ed along with water and fish in take. The change to include additional exposures from other sour ces will result in more stringe nt criteria and lead to better protection of human health. However, exposure data are not always available. In the absence of specific data, a range consisting of a 20% floor and 80% ceili ng has been recommended by the
USEPA for criteria derivation as it is with deriving the maximum contaminant level goal for drinking water.

To account for the exposure to toxic substa nces due to fish ingestion, the USEPA recommends a new national default rate of 17.5 g/ day of fish intake for deriving its national 304(a) criteria Methodology for Deriving Ambi ent Water Quality Criter ia for the Protection of Human Health (2000) (EPA-822-B-00-004, October 2000) (2000 Human Health Methodology)
found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria /

. Because of the surge in seafood consumption in recent years this new rate replaces the existing default rate of 6.5 g/day that had been in use by the USEPA and the States to set th e ambient water quality criteria for the last 20THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

67 years. The new rate, more accurately reflecting the current level of fish consumption, is based on the uncooked weight from the intake of freshw ater and estuarine finf ish and shellfish by the general population and represents the 90 th percentile of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Survey (Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals).

Listed below are the equations used for deri ving human health criteria for carinogens and non-carcinogens for freshwater a nd saline waters, consistent with the USEPA’s current recommendations in the NRWQC. The Departme nt has used the defaults specified in the
USEPA recommendation unless ot herwise noted - Adult body wei ght of 70 kg, drinking water consumption rate of 2L/day, fish consumpti on rate of 0.0175 kg/day a nd conversion factor of 1000 μg/mg ( National Recommended Water Quality Cr iteria: 2002, Human Health Criteria
Calculation Matrix (EPA-822-R-02-012, November 2002, p. 19) (Calculation Matrix) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria . Human health criteria for carcinogens are developed
based on a lifetime incremental cancer risk of one in one million.

For carcinogens in freshwater: Criterion (μg/L) = (cancer risk level/oral ca rcinogenic slope factor) * (adult body weight* conversion factor)/[drinking water consumption +( fish consumption * bioconcentration factor)]

For carcinogens in saline water: Criterion (μg/L) = (cancer risk level/oral ca rcinogenic slope factor) * (adult body weight* conversion factor)/(fish consump tion * bioconcentration factor)

For non-carcinogens in freshwater: Criterion (μg/L) = (reference dose * relative source contri bution) * (adult body weight* conversion factor)/[drinking water consumption+ (fish consumption * bi oconcentration factor)]

For non-carcinogens in saline water: Criterion (μg/L) = (reference dose * relative source contri bution) * (adult body weight* conversion factor)/(fish consump tion * bioconcentration factor)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

68 USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC): In 2002 the USEPA
issued the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 (EPA-822-R-02-047, November 2002) (NRWQC 2002) which revises many of the human health criteria published in the 1999 National Recommended Water Q uality Criteria-Correction (EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999) (NRWQC 1999). The 1999 document wa s issued to correct the 1998 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria; Republication (63 Fed. Reg. 68354, December 10, 1998 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ). The 2002 publication was followed by the Federal Register notices entitled Revision of National Recomme nded Water Quality Criteria (67 Fed. Reg. 79091, December 27, 2002) and National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (68 Fed. Reg. 75507, December 31, 2003 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ) (NRWQC 2003). The former Federal Register
notice solicited scientific views on the recalculation of criteria for 15 pollutant s, while the latter provided the revised criteria for the 15 pollu tants. In May 2005, the USEPA announced the availability of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Table: Poster and Brochure (found at http://www.epa.gov/wa terscience/criteria ) to reflect the compilation of the updated information already published in 2002 and 2003. The updated criteria de veloped pursuant to section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Wate r Act (CWA) serve as guidance to the States to establish their water quality standards for prot ecting designated uses. The criteria in these publications supersede that developed earlier by the USEPA which have provided the basis of the existing criteria for New Jersey.

In general, criteria revisions by the USEP A represent only partial updates of the 304(a) criteria based on the 2000 Human Health Methodology. As shown in the Calculation Matrix, the
extent of criteria revisi on varies from pollutant to pollutant. The Calculation Matrix contains information on the toxicity factors, RSCs, fish intake values, BCFs and the equations used to derive the criteria. Except as noted, the new default fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day is applied consistently to criteria derivations in these publications. Howeve r, the use of an RSC term with a 20% floor introduced by the ne w 2000 Human Health Me thodology is included mainly for the 15 pollutants finalized in 2003. Though recommended as part of the 2000 HumanTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

69 Health Methodology, USEPA acknowledged that th e bioaccumulation factor (BAF) component
is considered time- and resource-intensive. Therefore, the NRWQC were developed with the bioconcentration factors (BCFs) made ava ilable in 1980 and used in developing the 1992
National Toxics Rule. The lifetim e excess cancer risk level associ ated with criteria developed for carcinogens remains at one-in-one-million (10 -6 ), as in the 1992 NTR.

The proposed criteria are rounded to two sign ificant figures from the final calculations. Rounding follows the general scien tific practice of dropping digits that are not si gnificant, as recommended by the USEPA 2000 Human Health Methodology. If the digit 6, 7, 8, or 9 is dropped, the preceding digit is increased by one; if the digit 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 is dropped, the preceding digit remains the same. If the digit 5 is dropped, then the preceding digit is rounded to the nearest even number. For example, 2.25 becomes 2.2, and 2.35 becomes 2.4.

The Department has incorporated the NR WQC published in 2002 and 2003 into this rule proposal, to the maximum extent possible. As stated earlier, the current NRWQC were derived recently based on the 2000 Methodology, including app licable equations, the default fish intake rate of 17.5 g/day, toxicity fact ors, the 1980 BCFs and for some criteria, the RSCs. The detailed basis of the component factors and the appropr iate equations for ca lculating the 2002 NRWQC can be found in the companion document National Recommended Wate r Quality Criteria: 2002,
Human Health Criteria Calculation Matrix mentioned earlier available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria . For the NRWQC finalized in 2003, the Federal Register Notice, National Recommended Water Quality Crit eria for the Protection of Human
Health (68 Fed. Reg. 75507, December 31, 2003 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER ) contains the relevant information.

For mercury, in the absence of any recent update of water column criteria, the Department considers it important to be consiste nt with the NTR human health criteria that the USEPA promulgated for the NTR States. Therefor e, the Department is proposing to adopt the USEPA criteria for mercury published in the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
1999 rather than the fish tissue value for methyl mercury in the 2002 NRWQC listed forTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

70 mercury. The proposed criterion at 0.050 μg/L fo r water and organism consumption and the criterion at 0.051 μg/L for organism consum ption only are the USEPA 1999 update of the mercury criteria (listed under 1998 NRWQC in 2002 Calculation Matrix, based on neurological effects in infants). The Department has d ecided not to propose the fish tissue value for methylmercury at 0.3 mg/kg issued by the US EPA (66 Fed. Reg. 1344, January 8, 2001 available

at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ) until the USEPA has developed implementation procedures. However, the Department may use th e fish tissue criteria for evaluating impairment.

For easy reference, Table 4 titled "Che mical-Specific Surface Water Human Health Criteria" lists the criteria to be proposed al ong with the existing cr iteria, and NRWQC human health criteria for comparison. In addition, th e Department sets fort h the basis for criteria derivation for all criteria in this proposal in Table 5 “Basis for Human Health Criteria Derivation” including those based on the NRWQ C, even though data for these criteria are
available in the USEPA documents cited above. Criteria based on NRWQC constitute by far the largest single group of human health criteria in this proposal. The basis for these criteria is marked in Table 5 as “NR99”, “NR02” or “NR03”, referring to NRWQC published in 1999, 2002 or 2003, respectively.

While the Department accepts the USEP A’s 2000 Human Health Methodology and generally supports its approaches and default values for criteria derivations, the Department has modified the NRWQC-based criter ia for certain pollutants for the proposal. In addition, the Department is proposing criteria for a numb er of other pollutants derived by standard methodology or using other scientifically defensib le methods. The Department determined that further efforts are needed in the following areas, namely: 1). Using IRIS toxicity information to update the NRWQC or to develop criteria not yet in NRWQC, 2). Developing and revising SWQS criteria based on toxicity recommendations from the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute (NJDWQI), 3). Updating the NRWQC with information cont ained in the current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), 4). Incorporating the new NJDEP approach for risk assessment for Group C carcinoge ns, where applicable, and 5). Utilizing the USEPA guidance for quantitative risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

71 Criteria are developed for the proposal as detaile d below under the abbreviated headings of IRIS, NJDWQI, NPDWR, Group C Policy and RPF (see di scussion below). These subject headings
are also indicated in Table 5 as the basis for th e human health criteria de rivation for the specific pollutant.

IRIS: Criteria under this head ing are limited to NRWQC updated by the Department with IRIS or criteria developed by the Department using IRIS data where NRWQC is lacking. For deriving the NRWQC the USEPA used toxi city data posted on IRIS as of May 17, 2002. To reflect more recent science the Depa rtment reviewed IRIS through February 1, 2005 for applicable information. The Departme nt uses the updated t oxicity data directly from IRIS to derive the criteria, while all other component factors of the 2000 Methodology calculations (fish intake values, BCFs and RSC), are being retained as presented in the USEPA data source (the 2002 Calculation Matrix or the 2003 Federal Register Notice) mentioned above. The basis for deriving these criteri a is noted in Table
5 as “IRIS”.

In addition to the derivation factors shown in Table 5 for toxic substances based on IRIS, additional information is provided below for clarification or to explain the variations from standard methodology, default assumpti ons and approaches used in individual criteria development.

a. Acrolein: The 2002 NRWQC are 190 μg/L for water and fish consumption and 290 μg/L for fish consumption only. The US EPA recently updated the health assessment information for acrolein in IRIS on June 3, 2003. Carcinogenicity Assessment for acrolein was revised to “data are inadequa te for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential” which is equivalent to Group D. The RfD has been revised to 0.0005 mg/kg-day. Based on the new data, with fish intake value at 17.5 g/day and the BCF at 215 L/kg, the Department has derived a freshwater criterion at 6.1 μg/L and a saline criterion at 9.3 μg/L.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

72 b. Arsenic: The Department is proposing a freshwater criterion at 0.017 μg/L and a saline criterion at 0.061 μg/L for arsenic ba sed on the current IRIS carcinogenic slope factor, updated fish intake rate and BCF lis ted in the 2002 Calculation Matrix instead of the 2002 NRWQC which are based on ou tdated information at 0.018 μg/L for consumption of water and fish and 0.14 μg/L for consumption of fish only. The slope factor for inorganic arsenic ha s been utilized to derive cr iteria for total arsenic that includes inorganic and organic arsenic becau se of the interconversion of the arsenic species both in the environment and in th e body. Furthermore, the analytical methods used do not usually speciate arsenic.

c. Beryllium: Beryllium is listed in the exis ting SWQS as “Reserved”. There is no NRWQC for beryllium. The USEPA has clas sified beryllium via the oral route equivalent to a Group C carcinogen in th e Final Rule of th e National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (57 Fe d. Reg. 31776, July 17, 1992 available at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER ). The Department is proposing a freshwater criterion at 6.0 μg/L and a salin e criterion 42 μg/L for beryllium based on the IRIS oral RfD of 0.002 mg/kg-day and a Group C designation. There is no oral slope factor available in IRIS. Theref ore, equation e and equation f (See section below on Group C Policy) listed in Table 5 are used for criteria derivation.

d. Cadmium: There is no NRWQC for cadmium for human health protection. The existing freshwater criterion for cadmiu m at 10 μg/L originated from the 1976
USEPA Quality Criteria for Water (The Red Book available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria ). The 2002 Calculation Matrix as well as the current IRIS list RfD for food as 0.001 mg /kg-day in addition to an RfD for water as 0.0005 mg/kg-day. The Department used RfD for food to calculate a saline criterion to be 16 μg/L with standard equation for derivi ng noncarcinogenic saline criteria, using the RSC of 25% as listed in the Calculation Ma trix, 17.5 g/day fish ingestion rate, and the 1980 BCF of 64 L/kg. To calculate the freshwater criterion at 3.4 μg/L, the RfD for drinking water was used while compensating for the reducedTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

73 absorption of fish consumption by a fact or of one-half (0.0005/0.001 = 1/2) in the modified equation c as shown below. The absorption from fish consumption is adjusted by a factor of one half because cadmium is less absorbed through food than through water.

0.0005 mg/kg-day x 70 kg x 1000 μg/mg Freshwaters Criterion = --------------------------------------------------------x 25% = 3.4 μg/L 2L/day + [0.0175 kg/day) x 1/2 x 64 L/kg)

e. Chloroform: The NRWQC for chloroform w ith 5.7 μg/L for consumption of water and fish and 470 μg/L for fish consum ption only are based on the 1980 methodology.
The USEPA has reviewed health assessment information for chloroform and published an update in IRIS on October 19, 2001. Chloroform is classified as a B 2 carcinogen, but with no given oral slope factor. Th e proposed criterion for
chloroform is based on an RfD for a non-car cinogenic effect. USEPA has concluded that the carcinogenicity of chloroform occurs th rough a mechanism involving cytotoxicity for which a threshold exists. Cy totoxicity is considered to be the critical effect for carcinogenesis by chloroform and chloroform-induced carcinogenicity is secondary to cytotoxicity. Therefore, the RfD which is based upon cytotoxicity, is considered to be protective against the carcinogenicity of ch loroform. Based on an IRIS RfD of 0.01 mg/kg-day, with fish in take value at 17.5 g/day, RSC at 20%, and the BCF at 3.75 L/kg, the Department has derived a freshwater criterion for chloroform at 68 μg/L and a saline criterion at 2,100 μg/L.

f. Chromium: There is no NRWQC for chromium III or chromium VI for human health protection. The existing fres hwater and saline criteria are at 160 μg/L and 3230 μg/L respectively. Based on the IRIS RfD of 0.003 mg/kg-day for chromium VI, BCF at 16 L/kg and default exposure values, a fres hwater criterion at 92 μg/L and a saline criterion at 750 μg/L are developed for tota l chromium. The criteria are based on the IRIS RfD for chromium VI, the more t oxic chromium species, because the twoTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

74 valence states of chromium are in a dynamic equilibrium depending on the environmental conditions and a clear separation for valence-specific consideration is
not feasible.

g. Dimethyl phthalate: There are no data in the Oral RfD Assessment Section in IRIS (noted March 1, 1994) to support or updat e the existing criteri a. Therefore, no criteria will be propose d for dimethyl phthalate.

h. Endosulfan: The IRIS RfD is based on the toxicity testing of a technical grade of endosulfan (mixture of alpha- and beta- stereoisomers). Th erefore, the criteria should be expressed accordingly for endosulfan as a mixture of alpha- and beta- isomers rather than a specific isomer, alpha-endos ulfan or beta-endosulfa n as in the NRWQC.

i. Phenol: The NRWQC are at 21,000 μg/L for consumption of water and fish and 1,700,000 μg/L for consumption of fish only. The IRIS RfD was revised from 0.6 μg/L to 0.3 μg/L (September 30, 2002). T hus, the Department updated the criteria based on the current IRIS information, fi sh consumption rate of 17.5 g/day and BCF at 1.4 L/kg to a freshwater criterion at 10,000 μg/L and a saline criterion at 860,000 μg/L.

NJDWQI: The New Jersey Drinking Water Qua lity Institute (NJDWQI) established under the 1984 amendments to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (NJSDWA) (commonly known as the A-280) develops a nd recommends drinking water standards pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:12A-13. For toxic s ubstances which have been addressed by the NJDWQI, the Department is using the toxicity factors which form the basis of the healthbased levels for drinking water rather than those from IRIS for developing criteria for
surface water. Because of the interface of surface water with drinking water and ground water, the Department uses these toxicity factors developed pursuant to the NJSDWA to provide a consistent level of human health protection for all water-related programs.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

75 For the proposal, criteria for freshwaters and saline waters for 20 toxic substances are based on NJDWQI recommendations as shown in Table 5. Table 5 also contains detailed toxicity information for criteria development abstracted from the documents prepared by the NJDWQI titled “Maximum Contaminant Level Recommendations for Hazardous Contaminants in Drinking Wa ter, Appendix B, Health-Based Maximum Contaminant Level Support Documents, March 26, 1987” and in “Maximum Contaminant Level Recommendations for Hazardous Contaminants in Drinking Water, Appendix A, HealthBased Maximum Contaminant Level Support Documents and Addenda, September 26 1994” ( http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply ).

Aside from utilizing the toxicity factors derived by the NJDWQI, the derivation of the criteria follows standard methodology for SWQS criteria derivation, using the USEPA updated default fish intake of 17.5 g/day. The BCFs are from the 1980 USEPA AmbientWater Quality Criteria documents except for the new NJDWQI pollutant methyl tertbutyl ether (MTBE). MTBE has been added to the list of pollutants to be regulated under the SWQS. The Department proposes to inco rporate the 20% relativ e source contribution recommended by the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000) (EPA-822-B-00-004, October 2000 found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria ) into the criterion. Rela tive source contribution
of 20% is used as a default in the absence of chemical-specific RSC. A 20% RSC is used in developing the MCL for MTBE promulgate d by New Jersey through the Safe Drinking Water Program. No saline criterion is being proposed for MTBE for saline waters, as it is
not considered to be bioaccumulative. Th e Department’s new risk assessment approach for Group C carcinogens does not apply at this time to NJDWQI pollutants. (See paragraph on Group C Policy below).

NPDWR: The Department is readopting without change the criteria for barium and methoxychlor which are based on the Natio nal Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) instead of the NRWQC for these tw o pollutants because they are based on pre
1980 data.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

76 Group C Methodology : Group C carcinogens are those ag ents categorized as possible human carcinogens because the evidence for carc inogenicity is not sufficient for them to be categorized as probable human carcinogens. To develop standards/criteria for Group C carcinogens with a consistent approach throughout its implementing programs, the Department has established a new single approach that is technically defensible as well as compatible with USEPA's various programs.

The new Group C approach specifies that the health-based criteria for Group C carcinogens be developed with the use of a carcinogenic slope factor at a 10 -6 excess cancer risk level, if such a slope factor is judged by the De partment as technically sound. If such a slope factor is not available, the risk assessment will then be based on noncarcinogenic effects using a refe rence dose with an additional uncertainty factor of ten to protect from possible carcinogenic effects (See Table 5, equations e and f used for criteria derivation).

Because the existing Group C policy specifies that non-carcinogenic criteria be developed preferentially and carcinogenic criteria, if developed, be at the 10 -5 excess cancer risk level, the criteria for a number of pollutants in the existing SWQS have been changed to reflect the new pol icy. The change could be si gnificant as with those of dibromochloromethane. “Group C Policy” is noted in Table 5 under “Basis” to account for the difference from the NRWQC as in the case of butylbenzyl phthalate. This new approach for risk assessment of Group C carcinoge ns is applied at this time to all Group C carcinogens except those addressed by th e New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute (NJDWQI). For this group of toxic substances, new criteria will be established when the NJSDWA rules are updated.

As noted above, the USEPA has finalized it s revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment in March 2005 to replace the alpha numeric categorization such as Group C with narrative descriptors. Consistent with USEPA Memorandum on Application of NewTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

77 Cancer Guidelines that the current completed risk assessment is considered scientifically
sound until reassessment under the new Guidelin es, the Department will continue to use its new approach for Group C pollutants until they have been reassessed under the 2005
Guidelines.

RPF: The relative potency factors (RPFs) are ap plicable to Group B2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Rather than assigning the same slope factors to all B2 PAHs as with the NRWQC, the Department considers it more technically prefer able to utilize the relative potency approach to derive the slope factors of the individual PAH for use in criteria development. Therefore, the crit eria are different from those in the NRWQC. The individual slope factors are derive d by multiplying the IRIS slope factor of benzo(a)pyrene of 7.3 (mg/kg-day) -1 by the relative potency es timate for the individual
PAH recommended in the USEPA “Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons” (EPA/600/R-93/089). The relative potencies based on that of benzo(a)pyrene as 1.0 are cited as follows: benz(a)anthracene, 0.1; benzo(b)fluoranthene, 0.1; benz o(k)fluoranthene, 0.01; chrysene, 0.001; dibenz(a,h)anthracene, 1.0; a nd indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, 0.1.

NTR Criteria: New Jersey is under the NTR for 11 hum an health criteria. For a general discussion of NTR, see discussion under N.J. A.C. 7:9B-1.14, Surface water quality criteria above. Included in this group are one freshw ater criterion for ga mma-BHC and one saline criterion each for gamma-BHC, chlorodibr omomethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, fluorene, hexachlorobutadiene, isophorone, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and 1,1,2-trichloroethane. The criteria for these eight toxic substances were proposed in 1992 (24 N.J.R. 3983(a), November 2, 1992; 24 N.J.R. 4471(a); December 21, 1992) but not adopted (25 N.J.R. 5569(a), December 6, 1993). The Department is proposi ng criteria for these toxic s ubstances that, upon adoption and USEPA approval will replace any corresponding cr iteria that the USEPA has promulgated for New Jersey. The basis of the criteria developm ent is summarized in Table 5 Basis for Human
Health Criteria Derivation.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

78 Additionally, New Jersey is under the NTR for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (64 Fed. Reg. 61182, November 9, 1999). The PCBs cr iteria proposed in 2001 were adopted by the Department and later approved by the USEPA in 2002. The USEPA has planned to withdraw New Jersey from the NTR for PCBs during the ne xt round of withdrawals from the NTR. (Letter from W. Mugdan, Director, Division of Envir onmental Planning and Pr otection, USEPA, Region 2 to Geoffrey Grubbs, Direct or, USEPA Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC, May 13, 2004). For this proposal the Department has revised these PCB cr iteria to reflect the currently recommended fish consumption rate. As they are based on the USEPA 2002 National Recommended Criteria, USEPA approval of the criteria is expected.

Additional Human Health Criteria: The Department is includi ng additional criteria for other toxic substances to be regulated under the SWQS program because they are priority pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Wa ter Act and already monitored and reported as part of the NJPDES discharge monitoring data. The fi ve new pollutants are acenaphthene, 2-chloronaphthalene, 1,2-dichlorop ropane, 2,4-dimethyl phenol, and N-Nitrosodin-propylamine. Their criteria for consumption of water and organisms and criteria for consumption of organisms only established as NRWQC 2002 are being proposed as freshwater and saline criteria, respectively, for these pollutants in the proposed SWQS.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

79 THIS PAGE INTENIONALLY LEFT BLANKTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health CriteriaExisting SWQCNational RecommendedWQCProposed SWQCToxic SubstancesCASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Water &Organisms(μg/L)Organismsonly(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)811Acenaphthene83-32-96709906709902Acrolein107-02-83207801902906.19.33Acrylonitrile107-13-10.05910.6650.0510.250.0510.254Aldrin309-00-20.0001350.0001440.0000490.0000500.0000490.0000505Anthracene120-12-79,570108,0008,30040,0008,30040,0006Antimony (Total)7440-36-012.24,3005.66405.66407Arsenic (Total)7440-38-20.01700.1360.0180.140.0170.0618Asbestos1332-21-47x106f/L>10μm(h)7x106f/L>10μm(h)7x106f/L>10μm(h)9Barium7440-39-32,0001,0002,00010Benz(a)anthracene56-55-30.00280.0310.00380.0180.0380.1811Benzene71-43-20.150710.61-2.214-510.153.312Benzidine92-87-50.0001180.0005350.0000860.000200.0000860.0002013Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)50-32-80.00280.0310.00380.0180.00380.01814Benzo(b)fluoranthene (3,4-Benzofluoranthene)205-99-20.00280.0310.00380.0180.0380.1815Benzo(k)fluoranthene207-08-90.00280.0310.00380.0180.381.816Beryllium7440-41-76.04217alpha-BHC (alpha-HCH)319-84-60.003910.01310.00260.00490.00260.004918beta-BHC (beta-HCH)319-85-70.1370.4600.00910.0170.00910.01719gamma-BHC (gammaHCH/Lindane)58-89-9[0.19][0.63]0.981.80.981.820Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether(Dichloroethyl ether)111-44-40.03111.40.0300.530.0300.5321Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether108-60-11,250170,0001,40065,0001,40065,000THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health CriteriaExisting SWQCNational RecommendedWQCProposed SWQCToxic SubstancesCASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Water &Organisms(μg/L)Organismsonly(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)8222Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)117-81-71.765.921.22.21.22.223Bromodichloromethane(Dichlorobromomethane)75-27-40.266220.55170.551724Bromoform75-25-24.383604.31404.314025Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)74-83-948.44,000471,500471,50026Butylbenzyl phthalate85-68-72394161,5001,90015019027Cadmium7440-43-9103.41628Carbon tetrachloride56-23-50.3636.310.231.60.332.329Chlordane57-74-90.0002770.0002830.000800.000810.000100.0001130Chloride16887-00-6250,000 (ol)250,000 (ol)31Chlorobenzene(Monochlorobenzene)108-90-722.021,0001301,6002102,50032Chloroform67-66-35.674705.7470682,100332-Chloronaphthalene91-58-71,0001,6001,0001,600342-Chlorophenol95-57-8122402811508115035Chromium (Total)7440-47-316032309275036Chrysene218-01-90.00280.0310.00380.0183.81837Copper7440-50-81,3001,30038Cyanide, total57-12-5768220,000140140140140394,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)72-54-80.0008320.0008370.000310.000310.000310.00031404,4'-DDE72-55-90.0005880.0005910.000220.000220.000220.00022414,4'-DDT50-29-30.0005880.0005910.000220.000220.000220.0002242Dibenz(a,h)anthracene53-70-30.00280.0310.00380.0180.00380.01843Dibromochloromethane(Chlorodibromomethane)124-48-172.6[340]0.40130.4013THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health CriteriaExisting SWQCNational RecommendedWQCProposed SWQCToxic SubstancesCASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Water &Organisms(μg/L)Organismsonly(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)8344Di-n-butyl phthalate84-74-23,53015,7002,0004,5002,0004,500451,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho)95-50-12,52016,5004201,3002,0006,200461,3-Dichlorobenzene (meta)541-73-12,62022,2003209602,2008,300471,4-Dichlorobenzene (para)106-46-73433,159631905502,200483,3-Dichlorobenzidine91-94-10.03860.07670.0210.0280.0210.028491,2-Dichloroethane107-06-20.291990.38370.2928501,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)75-35-44.81[32]3307,1004.7100511,2-Dichloroethylene (trans)156-60-559214010,00059043,000522,4-Dichlorophenol (DCP)120-83-292.77947729077290531,2-Dichloropropane78-87-50.50150.5015541,3-Dichloropropene (cis and trans)542-75-60.1931,7000.34210.342155Dieldrin60-57-10.0001350.0001440.0000520.0000540.0000520.00005456Diethyl phthalate84-66-221,200111,00017,00044,00017,00044,000572,4-Dimethyl phenol105-67-938085038085058Dimethyl phthalate131-11-3313,0002,900,000270,0001,100,000594,6-Dinitro-o-cresol(2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol)534-52-113.47651328013280602,4-Dinitrophenol51-28-569.714,000695,300695,300612,4-Dinitrotoluene121-14-20.119.10.113.40.113.4621,2-Diphenylhydrazine122-66-70.04050.5410.0360.200.0360.2063Endosulfan (alpha and beta)115-29-70.9321.99628964Endosulfan sulfate1031-07-80.932.06289628965Endrin72-20-80.6290.6780.0590.0600.0590.06066Endrin aldehyde7421-93-40.760.810.290.300.0590.06067Ethylbenzene100-41-43,03027,9005302,1005302,100THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health CriteriaExisting SWQCNational RecommendedWQCProposed SWQCToxic SubstancesCASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Water &Organisms(μg/L)Organismsonly(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)8468Fluoranthene206-44-031039313014013014069Fluorene86-73-71,340[14,000]1,1005,3001,1005,30070Heptachlor76-44-80.0002080.0002140.0000790.0000790.0000790.00007971Heptachlor epoxide1024-57-30.0001030.0001060.0000390.0000390.0000390.00003972Hexachlorobenzene118-74-10.0007480.0007750.000280.000290.000280.0002973Hexachlorobutadiene87-68-36.94[500]0.44180.441874Hexachlorocyclopentadiene77-47-424517,000401,100401,10075Hexachloroethane67-72-12.7312.41.43.31.43.376Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene193-39-50.00280.0310.00380.0180.0380.1877Isophorone78-59-1552[6,000]359603596078Lead (Total)7439-92-15579Manganese7439-96-51005010010080Mercury (Total)7439-97-60.1440.1460.0500.0510.0500.05181Methoxychlor72-43-5401004082Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)1634-04-47083Methylene chloride75-09-22.491,6004.65902.531084Nickel (Soluble salts)7440-02-05163,9006104,6005001,70085Nitrate14797-55-810,00010,00010,00086Nitrobenzene98-95-316.01,900176901769087N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine924-16-30.006410.00630.220.00630.2288N-Nitrosodiethylamine55-18-50.0002330.00081.240.000230.1389N-Nitrosodimethylamine62-75-90.0006868.10.000693.00.000693.090N-Nitrosodiphenylamine86-30-64.9516.23.36.03.36.091N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (Di-npropylnitrosamine)621-64-70.00500.510.00500.51THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health CriteriaExisting SWQCNational RecommendedWQCProposed SWQCToxic SubstancesCASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Water &Organisms(μg/L)Organismsonly(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)8592N-Nitrosopyrrolidine930-55-20.01670.016340.0163493PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)1336-36-3[0.00017][0.00017]0.0000640.0000640.0000640.00006494Pentachlorobenzene608-93-53.674.211.41.51.41.595Pentachlorophenol87-86-50.2828.20.273.00.273.096Phenol108-95-220,9004,600,00021,0001,700,00010,000860,00097Pyrene129-00-07978,9708304,0008304,00098Selenium (Total)7782-49-2101704,2001704,20099Silver7440-22-416417040,0001001,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene95-94-32.563.250.971.10.971.11012,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD)1746-01-60.0000000130.0000000140.00000000500.00000000510.00000000500.00000000511021,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane79-34-51.72[110]0.174.04.7110103Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)127-18-40.3884.290.693.30.341.6104Thallium7440-28-01.706.220.240.470.240.47105Toluene108-88-37,440200,0001,30015,0001,30015,000106Toxaphene8001-35-20.0007300.0007470.000280.000280.000280.000281071,2,4-Trichlorobenzene120-82-130.6113357021421081,1,1-Trichloroethane71-55-61271202,6001091,1,2-Trichloroethane79-00-513.5[420]0.591613350110Trichloroethene (TCE)(Trichloroethylene)79-01-61.09812.5301.0121112,4,5-Trichlorophenol95-95-42,5809,7901,8003,6001,8003,6001122,4,6-Trichlorophenol88-06-22.146.531.42.40.581.0113Vinyl chloride75-01-40.08305250.0252.40.0828.1114Zinc7440-66-67,40026,0007,40026,000THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OFTHE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________86* Criteria listed are from NRWQC 2002 and 2003, except mercury criteria which are from NRWQC 1999.Criteria in [ ] are NTR criteria which are CWA Section 304 (a) criteria promulgated by the USEPA for New Jersey through the National Toxics Rule (NTR) (57Fed. Reg. 60911, December 22, 1992; 64Fed. Reg. 61182, November 9, 1999).The existing criteria for PCBs (equivalent to the NTR criteria) were adopted by the Department on January 22, 2002 (34 N.J.R. 537(a)) and approved by theUSEPA. However, the PCBs criteria are still under NTR for New Jersey, pending USEPA withdrawal.ol organolepticTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria DerivationProposed SWQC BasisEquation touseFW2 SE &SCToxic Substances CASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Oral RfD(mg/kg-day)OralSlopeFactor(mg/kgday)-1CarcinogenGroupRelativeSourceContribution%BCF(L/kg)a,c,e b,d,f871Acenaphthene83-32-9670990NR020.06242cd2Acrolein107-02-86.19.3IRIS0.0005^215cd3Acrylonitrile107-13-10.0510.25NR020.54B130ab4Aldrin309-00-20.0000490.000050NR0217B24,670ab5Anthracene120-12-78,30040,000NR020.3D30cd6Antimony (Total)7440-36-05.6640NR020.0004401cd7Arsenic (Total)7440-38-20.0170.061IRIS1.5A44ab8Asbestos1332-21-47,000,000 f/L>10 μmNR02A9Barium7440-39-32,000NPDWR0.07D10Benz(a)anthracene56-55-30.0380.18RPF0.73B230ab11Benzene71-43-20.153.3NJDWQI0.23A5.2ab12Benzidine92-87-50.0000860.00020NR02230A87.5ab13Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)50-32-80.00380.018NR02/RPF7.3B230ab14Benzo(b)fluoranthene (3,4-Benzofluoranthene)205-99-20.0380.18RPF0.73B230ab15Benzo(k)fluoranthene207-08-90.381.8RPF0.073B230ab16Beryllium7440-41-76.042IRIS0.002C19ef17alpha-BHC- (alpha-HCH)319-84-60.00260.0049NR026.3B2130ab18beta-BHC (beta-HCH)319-85-70.00910.017NR021.8C130ab19gamma-BHC (gammaHCH/Lindane)58-89-90.981.8NR030.000320130cd20Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether(Dichloroethyl ether)111-44-40.0300.53NR021.1B26.9ab21Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether108-60-11,40065,000NR020.042.47cd22Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate(DEHP)117-81-71.22.2NR020.014B2130ab23Bromodichloromethane(Dichlorobromomethane)75-27-40.5517NR020.062B23.75ab24Bromoform75-25-24.3140NR020.0079B23.75abTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria DerivationProposed SWQC BasisEquation touseFW2 SE &SCToxic Substances CASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Oral RfD(mg/kg-day)OralSlopeFactor(mg/kgday)-1CarcinogenGroupRelativeSourceContribution%BCF(L/kg)a,c,e b,d,f8825Bromomethane (Methylbromide)74-83-9471,500NR020.0014D3.75cd26Butylbenzyl phthalate85-68-7150190Group C Policy0.2C414ef27Cadmium7440-43-93.416IRIS0.0005(w)0.001(f)2564c+d28Carbon tetrachloride56-23-50.332.3NJDWQI0.091B218.75ab29Chlordane57-74-90.000100.00011NJDWQI2.7B214,100ab30Chloride16887-00-6250,000(ol)Red Book31Chlorobenzene(Monochlorobenzene)108-90-72102,500NJDWQI0.0065D10.3cd32Chloroform67-66-3682,100IRIS0.01B2203.75cd332-Chloronaphthalene91-58-71,0001,600NR020.08202cd342-Chlorophenol95-57-881150NR020.005134cd35Chromium (Total)7440-47-392750IRIS0.003D16cd36Chrysene218-01-93.818RPF0.0073B230ab37Copper7440-50-81,300NR02D38Cyanide, total57-12-5140140NR030.02D201cd394,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)72-54-80.000310.00031NR020.24B253,600ab404,4'-DDE72-55-90.000220.00022NR020.34B253,600ab414,4'-DDT50-29-30.000220.00022NR020.34B253,600ab42Dibenz(a,h)anthracene53-70-30.00380.018RPF7.3B230ab43Dibromochloromethane(Chlorodibromomethane)124-48-10.4013NR020.084C3.75ab44Di-n-butyl phthalate84-74-22,0004,500NR020.1D89cd451,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho)95-50-12,0006,200NJDWQI0.086D55.6cd461,3-Dichlorobenzene (meta)541-73-12,2008,300NJDWQI0.086D41.2cd471,4-Dichlorobenzene (para)106-46-75502,200NJDWQI0.21C37.5ef483,3-Dichlorobenzidine91-94-10.0210.028NR020.45B2312ab491,2-Dichloroethane107-06-20.2928NJDWQI0.12B21.2ab501,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)75-35-44.7100NJDWQI0.0014C5.61efTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria DerivationProposed SWQC BasisEquation touseFW2 SE &SCToxic Substances CASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Oral RfD(mg/kg-day)OralSlopeFactor(mg/kgday)-1CarcinogenGroupRelativeSourceContribution%BCF(L/kg)a,c,e b,d,f89511,2-Dichloroethylene (trans)156-60-559043,000NJDWQI0.0171.58cd522,4-Dichlorophenol (DCP)120-83-277290NR020.00340.7cd531,2-Dichloropropane78-87-50.5015NR020.067B24.1ab541,3-Dichloropropene (cis andtrans)542-75-60.3421NR030.1B21.9ab55Dieldrin60-57-10.0000520.000054NR0216B24,670ab56Diethyl phthalate84-66-217,00044,000NR020.8D73cd572,4-Dimethyl phenol105-67-9380850NR020.0293.8cd58Dimethyl phthalate131-11-3IRISD594,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (2-Methyl4,6-dinitrophenol)534-52-113280NR020.000395.5cd602,4-Dinitrophenol51-28-5695,300NR020.0021.5cd612,4-Dinitrotoluene121-14-20.113.4NR020.3113.8ab621,2-Diphenylhydrazine122-66-70.0360.20NR020.8B224.9ab63Endosulfan (alpha and beta)115-29-76289IRIS0.006270cd64Endosulfan sulfate1031-07-86289NR020.006270cd65Endrin72-20-80.0590.060NR030.0003D203970cd66Endrin aldehyde7421-93-40.0590.060Endrin67Ethylbenzene100-41-45302,100NR030.1D2037.5cd68Fluoranthene206-44-0130140NR020.04D1,150cd69Fluorene86-73-71,1005,300NR020.04D30cd70Heptachlor76-44-80.0000790.000079NR024.5B211,200ab71Heptachlor epoxide1024-57-30.0000390.000039NR029.1B211,200ab72Hexachlorobenzene118-74-10.000280.00029NR021.6B28,690ab73Hexachlorobutadiene87-68-30.4418NR020.078C2.78ab74Hexachlorocyclopentadiene77-47-4401,100NR030.006D204.34cd75Hexachloroethane67-72-11.43.3NR020.014C86.9ab76Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene193-39-50.0380.18RPF0.73B230ab77Isophorone78-59-135960NR020.00095C4.38ab78Lead (Total)7439-92-15*B2THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria DerivationProposed SWQC BasisEquation touseFW2 SE &SCToxic Substances CASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Oral RfD(mg/kg-day)OralSlopeFactor(mg/kgday)-1CarcinogenGroupRelativeSourceContribution%BCF(L/kg)a,c,e b,d,f9079Manganese7439-96-5100NR0280Mercury (Total)7439-97-60.0500.051NR9981Methoxychlor72-43-540NPDWR82Methyl tertiary-butyl ether(MTBE)1634-04-470NJDWQI0.1C200.4#83Methylene chloride75-09-22.5310NJDWQI0.014B20.91ab84Nickel (Soluble salts)Various5001,700*0.0247cd85Nitrate14797-55-810,000NR021.686Nitrobenzene98-95-317690NR020.0005D2.89cd87N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine924-16-30.00630.22NR025.43B23.38ab88N-Nitrosodiethylamine55-18-50.000230.13IRIS150B20.2ab89N-Nitrosodimethylamine62-75-90.000693.0NR0251B20.026ab90N-Nitrosodiphenylamine86-30-63.36.0NR020.0049B2136ab91N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (Din-propylnitrosamine)621-64-70.00500.51NR027.0B21.13ab92N-Nitrosopyrrolidine930-55-20.01634NR022.13B20.055ab93PCBs (Polychlorinatedbiphenyls)1336-36-30.0000640.000064NR022.0B231,200ab94Pentachlorobenzene608-93-51.41.5NR020.0008D2,125cd95Pentachlorophenol87-86-50.273.0NR020.12B211ab96Phenol108-95-210,000860,000IRIS0.3D1.4cd97Pyrene129-00-08304,000NR020.03D30cd98Selenium (Total)7782-49-21704,200NR020.005D4.8cd99Silver7440-22-417040,000IRIS0.005D0.5cd1001,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene95-94-30.971.1NR020.00031,125cd1012,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD)1746-01-60.00000000500.0000000051NR02156000B25,000ab1021,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane79-34-54.7110NJDWQI0.0014C5ef103Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)127-18-40.341.6NJDWQI0.082B230.6ab104Thallium7440-28-00.240.47NR030.000068D20116cdTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria DerivationProposed SWQC BasisEquation touseFW2 SE &SCToxic Substances CASRNFW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)FW2(μg/L)SE, SC(μg/L)Oral RfD(mg/kg-day)OralSlopeFactor(mg/kgday)-1CarcinogenGroupRelativeSourceContribution%BCF(L/kg)a,c,e b,d,f91105Toluene108-88-31,30015,000NR030.2D2010.7cd106Toxaphene8001-35-20.000280.00028NR021.1B213,100ab1071,2,4-Trichlorobenzene120-82-12142NJDWQI0.0012D114cd1081,1,1-Trichloroethane71-55-61202,600NJDWQI0.0037D5.6cd1091,1,2-Trichloroethane79-00-513350NJDWQI0.0039C4.5ef110Trichloroethene (TCE)(Trichloroethylene)79-01-61.012NJDWQI0.031B210.6ab1112,4,5-Trichlorophenol95-95-41,8003,600NR020.1110cd1122,4,6-Trichlorophenol88-06-20.581.0NJDWQI0.026B2150ab113Vinyl chloride75-01-40.0828.1NJDWQI0.42A1.17ab114Zinc7440-66-67,40026,000NR020.3D47cdTHIS IS A COURTESYCOPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________92THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________93Equations used for criteria calculation:To develop carcinogenic-based criteria, corresponding to a lifetime incremental cancer risk of 10-6:Equation a Freshwaters Criterion = (0.000001/Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1) * 70 kg * 1000 (μg/mg)/ (2 L/day + (0.0175 kg/day * BCF (L/kg)))Equation b Saline Criterion = (0.000001/Oral Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1)* 70 kg* 1000 (μg/mg)/ (0.0175 kg/day * BCF (L/kg))To develop non-carcinogenic-based criteria:Equation c Freshwater Criterion = RfD (mg/kg-day) * RSC * 70 kg * 1000 (μg/mg)/ (2 L/day + (0.0175 kg/day * BCF (L/kg)))Equation d Saline Criterion = RfD (mg/kg-day) * RSC * 70 kg * 1000 (μg/mg)/ (0.0175 kg/day * BCF (L/kg))To develop non-carcinogenic-based criteria with an additional uncertainty factor of 10:Equation e Freshwater Criterion = [RfD (mg/kg-day) * RSC* 70 kg *1000 (μg/mg)/ (2 L/day + (0.0175 kg/day * BCF (L/kg)))]/10Equation f Saline Criterion = [RfD (mg/kg-day) * RSC* 70 kg*1000(μg/mg)/ (0.0175 kg/day *BCF (L/kg))]/10Abbreviationskg = kilograms L = litermg = milligrams ol = organolepticμg = micrograms f = fibersμm = micrometersAcronymsIRIS = USEPA Integrated Risk Information SystemNJDWQI = New Jersey Drinking Water Quality InstituteNPDWR = National Primary DrinkingWater Regulations (CFR-Part 141)NR99 = National Recommended Water Quality Criterion – Correction, April 1999, EPA 822-Z-99-001NR02 = National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002NR03 = National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection ofHuman Health (68 Fed. Reg.75507, December 31, 2003)RPF = Relative Potency FactorTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________94Footnotes^ The carcinogen group assigned to acrolein in IRIS is the descriptor, “data are inadequate foran assessment of human carcinogenic potential” which isequivalent to Group D.+ See text on cadmium. For RfD for cadmium, “(w)” stands for water. “(f)”stands for food.# The BCF for MTBE was derived from its octanol-water partition coefficient of 1.05 (New JerseyDrinking Water Quality Institute. MaximumContaminant Level Recommendations for HazardousContaminants in Drinking Water. September 26, 1994. AppendixA, Health-Based MaximumContaminant Level Support Documents and Addenda. p. A-32) based on the equations given in the USEPA'sDraft Water Quality CriteriaMethodology: Human Health. EPA 822-Z-98-001. August 1998.* The criterion for lead remains unchanged. The criteria for nickel are based on data from 2002 Calculation Matrix updated by the current fishconsumption rate of 17.5 g/day.Explanatory notesCriteria excluding criteria for asbestos, cadmium, lead, MTBE (see text) and those based on NPDWR were derived according to standard methodology from theequations listed above using information noted below and exposure parameters specified by the USEPA. For fish consumption rate, the updated nationaldefault rate of 17.5 g/day was used, except as noted.The toxicity information (Oral RfD or OralSlope Factor) is as cited in the respective basis listed in the Table, i.e., IRIS, NJDWQI, NPDWR, NR99, NR02,NR03, or RPF. Information on Carcinogen Group isobtained from IRIS, except for NJDWQI chemicals.IRIS values reflect information through February 1, 2005. Slope factor and carcinogen group of arsenic are those listed in IRIS under arsenic (inorganic);RfDs of chromium, and nickel are those listed in IRIS under chromium (VI) and nickel (soluble salts), respectively. The RfD for thallium was developed bythe Department based on the RfD of thallium (I) sulfate in IRIS.For criteria based on NJDWQI, the oral RfD or slope factor and carcinogen group equivalent to USEPA categorization were developed pursuant to therequirements of NJSDWA (N.J.S.A. 58:12A-1 et seq.). Criteria are the health-based levels cited in the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute(NJDWQI) documents,Maximum Contaminant Level Recommendationsfor Hazardous Contaminants in Drinking Water, Appendix B, Health-BasedMaximum Contaminant Level Support Documents,March 26, 1987, submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and inMaximumContaminant Level Recommendations for Hazardous Contaminants in Drinking Water, Appendix A, Health-Based Maximum Contaminant Level SupportTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________95Documents and Addenda, September 26, 1994, (http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply) submitted to State of New Jersey, Department of EnvironmentalProtection.Criteria based on NPDWR are the Maximum ContaminantLevel Goals from the USEPA 2004 Edition of theDrinking Water Standards and HealthAdvisories, EPA 822-R-04-005, Winter 2004.NR99 are based on IRIS toxicity data as of April 8, 1998.NR02 and NR03 are based on IRIS toxicity data as of May 17, 2002.RPFs are applicable to Group B2 PAHs. The slope factors of these PAHs were derived from the IRIS slope factor of B(a)P of 7.3(mg/kg-day)-1 multipliedby the relative potency estimate for the individual PAH recommended in the USEPA “Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of PolycyclicAromatic Hydrocarbons”, EPA/600/R-93/089. The relative potencies based on that of benzo(a)pyrene as 1.0 are as follows: benz(a)anthracene, 0.1;benzo(b)fluoranthene, 0.1; benzo(k)fluoranthene, 0.01; chrysene,0.001; dibenz(a,h)anthracene, 1.0; and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, 0.1.Carcinogenic Group: Unless otherwise noted carcinogenic-based criteria were developed for Groups A and B carcinogens, using thecarcinogenic equations andslope factors to correspond to lifetime incremental cancer risk of 10-6. Non-carcinogenic-based criteria were developed for pollutants categorized as GroupsD or E and for those with no categorization indicated, using thenon-carcinogenic equations and RfDs and in some cases modifiedby the relative sourcecontribution. The new approach for Group C carcinogens stipulates that criteria be developed through the use of a slope factorat a 10-6incremental cancerrisk level, if such a slope factor is judged by the Department to be technically sound and based on adequate toxicological data. If such a slope factor is notavailable, the risk assessment will be based on non-carcinogeniceffects using the RfD with an additional uncertainty factor of10 to protect from possiblecarcinogenic effects. This new approach was used for pollutants identified as Group C except for the NJDWQI pollutants where non-carcinogenic criteriawere developed preferentially.Relative Source Contribution (RSC) for non-carcinogens is not included in the criteria derivation, unless documented by the USEPA in NR02 or NR03. In suchcases, specific percentage is shown in the Table.Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) from the 1980 USEPA ambient waterquality criteria documents was retained unless otherwise noted.These BCFs were used bythe USEPA in promulgating human health criteria for priority toxic pollutants in the 1992 National Toxics Rule and subsequent updates of water qualitycriteria as in NR99, NR02 and NR03.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

96 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(g) The Department is proposing criteri a applicable to site-specific conditions within New Jersey at this section. Th e New York / New Jersey harbor specific saline copper criteria is the only crit eria for listed at this time.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(h) The Department is proposing to recodify the existing provision N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d), regarding surface water qual ity criteria for waters under the jurisdiction
of the Delaware River Basin Commission to N.J. A.C. 7:9B-1.14(h). No amendments are being proposed to the text.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15, Surface water classification s for the waters of the State of New Jersey, contains waterbody classi fication listings, arranged by major drainage basin, and
instructions for use of the classification tables.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(b): The Department proposing to co rrect a mistake at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(b)1iii. The Department is replacing "Hudson" with "Hackensack " because the listing should correctly read “the Passaic River, H ackensack River and New York Harbor Complex drainage basin which contains the surface waters lis ted in Table 3 in (e) below” to match the title
of Table 3.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(c): The Department is proposing to de lete the SC classification for
waters in Island Beach State Pa rk under the Barnegat Bay listi ng. All waters of Island Beach
State Park that are not classified as FW1 are currently listed as FW2-NT/SE1/SC(C1). The SC classification applies to surface waters of the coast or the coastal waters. Therefore, the Department is proposing to delete the SC classifi cation applicable to the in-land waters of the
Island Beach State Park. If the proposed change is adopted, all wa ters of Island Beach State Park that are not classified as FW1 will be classified as FW2-NT/SE1(C1).

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge was renamed as Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in 1984. The Department is pr oposing to make this change in the AtlanticTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

97 Coastal Basin classification table Brigantine and Great Bay waterbodies as part of this rulemaking.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(d) and (h): In accordance with Executive Order 22, dated July 24, 2002,
the Lebanon State Forest has been renamed to Br endan T. Byrne State Forest. Therefore, a change of name from Lebanon State Forest to Brendan T. Byrne State Forest is being proposed
in the classification tables at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(d) and N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(h) where appropriate.

The Department is also proposing to amend th e listing of Jade Run to include the entire length, to reflect the listing in Table 6 of the classification tabl es at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(h) that
identifies all the FW1 waters within the State.

In addition, the Department is proposing amen dments to Tributaries of Paulins Kill at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(d) based on the fish sampling data (for more details see Trout Classifications below).

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(e): The Department is proposing to upgrade Beech Brook including
all tributaries from FW2-TM to FW2-TP(C1) (for more details s ee Trout Classifications below).

The Department is proposing to delete th e stream classifica tion for Kikeout Brook
because Kikeout Brook and Stone House Brook are two different names identified for the same waterbody and the same FW2-NT classification. Therefore, to elim inate confusion, the Department is proposing to delete the classifi cation for Kikeout Brook a nd add "see Stone House
Brook" where Kikeout Brook is liste d. In addition, as part of th is rulemaking a portion of the Stone House Brook is being proposed as trout production waters (for more details see Trout Classifications below).

The Department is proposing to upgrade a portion of Saddle River from FW2-TM to FW2-TP(C1) (for more details s ee Trout Classifications below).THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

98 The Department is proposing to rearrange th e listings under Wanaque River. The listing
under Hewitt refers to the tribut ary south of Jennings Creek a nd therefore, should be properly listed under tributaries to Wanaque River. Ther efore, the Department is proposing the deletion of the listing under Hewitt Wanaque River and relocating the same under the tributary to Wanaque River as shown in the proposed rule te xt at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(e). However, the classification of the tributary south of Jennings Creek remains the same as FW2-TP(C1). A portion of the Wanaque River is also being upgra ded to a trout producti on classification based on the fish sampling data (for more deta ils see Trout Classifications below).

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(f): The Department is proposing a mi nor editorial change under the listing of Town Neck Creek.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(g): The Department is proposing to add a listing 'Cedar Swamp - See Rutgers Creek.' Cedar Swamp is a FW1 wa terbody, which is currently listed under “Rutgers Creek”. The proposed amendment should clarify any existing ambiguities.

The first tributary to Franklin Pond Creek was classified as FW1(tm) in the 1985 amendments to the Surface Water Quality St andards (17 N.J.R. 1270, May 20, 1985). However,
the trout maintenance section was inadvert ently deleted following the 1985 amendments. Therefore, the Department is proposing to include the trout maintenance classification to the first tributary to Franklin Pond Creek that will now read as FW1(tm).

In addition, the first tributary to Franklin Pond Creek, which is classified as FW1(tm) and located entirely within the Hamburg Mountain W ildlife Management Area, (flowing toward the Wallkill River), was mistakenly listed as a tri butary of the Wallkill River in 1993 (See 25 N.J.R. 405(a)). To rectify the mistake, the Department adopted the same listing of the first tributary to
Franklin Pond Creek under Franklin Pond Creek in May 2003 (See 35 N.J.R. 2264(b)). As a result, the Franklin Pond Creek listing was duplicat ed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(g) Table 5 (Wallkill River Basin). The Table 6 listing of FW1 waters at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(h) describes the tributaryTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

99 as part of the Franklin Pond Creek and not as part of the Wallkill River. Therefore, as part of this proposal, the Department is proposing to de lete the listing under the tributar ies of Wallkill
River.

Trout classifications The Department is proposing to reclassify five stream segments, or a total of approximately 12 river miles, based on trout samp ling data as shown in Table 6. Four stream segments (Beech Brook, Stone House Brook, Saddl e River, and Wanaque River) support trout production use designation. Theref ore, the Department is propo sing that these segments will additionally receive a Category One antidegradation designa tion. The Department is also proposing several amendments clarifying the names of State Forests, clas sification listings and editorial changes as explained below.

The waterbodies for which trout -related reclassifications ar e being proposed are listed in Table 6 below. Stream sampli ng (fish survey) data are used by the Department to determine whether a waterway should be classified to protect the trout pr oduction (TP) or trout maintenance (TM) uses. When waterbodies are surveyed and found to have naturally reproduced trout in their first year of lif e (young of the year or YOY), they are classified as trout production
waters or FW2-TP. When adult trout are f ound in a waterbody, and YOY trout are absent, the
classification of the stream as trout mainte nance (FW2-TM) or nontrout (FW2-NT) depends upon the stream’s total fish population.

A classification system was de veloped which utilizes a tabl e of Incidence of Occurrence (I.O.), of other fish species associated with trout, based on data from a statewide survey of
freshwater streams. A valu e of 100% was assigned to each trout species found during the survey. Other nontrout species were assigned an I.O. value based on the percentage of the time that the individual species was found in the presence of trout. A figure of 20% was selected by the Department’s Bureau of Freshwater Fisher ies as the minimum occurrence with trout that would classify a species as being trout "associate d." This 20% figure was also selected as the cutoff figure for determining whether a stream s hould be classified as FW2-TM. The individualTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

100 percentage figures for an individual stream ar e added and averaged, w ith the resulting value serving as the basis for the classification. If the average I.O. value is greater than 20%, the stream segment would be classified as trout main tenance, if the average I.O. value is less than 20%, the stream segment would be classified as nontrout.

Based on this methodology the Department is proposing to reclassify the following waterbodies, or portions thereof, as listed in the following table:

Table 6. PROPOSED CHANGES TO TH E STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS AS A RESULT OF STREAM SURVEY S CONDUCTED IN 2003 and 2004

Waterbody Current classification  Proposed classification Young of the year (trout species) I.O. | River miles Delaware River Basin Paulinskill River trib. (E. of Hainsburg Station) - Entire length Not listed FW2-TM N/A 26.6 1.26 Paulinskill River trib. (E. of Vail) - Source downstream to confluence with outlet stream of Lake Susquehanna Not listed FW2-TM N/A 31.4 1.8
Passaic, Hackensack, and New York Harbor Complex Basin Beech Brook (West Milford Township) - Entire length, including all tributaries FW2-TM FW2-TP(C1) Brook trout N/A 3.2 Stone House Brook (Butler) - Valley Road bridge downstream to confluence with Pequannock River FW2-NT FW2-TP(C1) Brown trout N/A 0.85
Saddle River (Upper Saddle River) - Bergen County Rt. 2 (Lake Street) bridge downstream to confluence with Pleasant Brook, including all tributaries FW2-TM FW2-TP(C1) Brown trout N/A 2.6

Wanaque River (Pompton Lakes) - Wanaque Reservoir dam to Wanaque Ave. bridge including unnamed tributaries FW2-NT FW2-TP(C1) Brown trout N/A 5.2

 Brackets indicate that the waterbody was not previously identified, although the classification was determined pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(b). | Incidence of Occurrence (values more than 20 are in dicative of a TM classification and less than 20 are indicative of NT classification).

Social ImpactTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

101 The proposed re-adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:9B with amendments will allow the Department to continue to protect the surface wa ters of the State and will, theref ore, result in a positive social impact. Without the SWQS, the Department woul d not have regulations directly governing the protection and enhancement of surface water qual ity and resources. The maintenance of high quality water resources is important to all, particularly to the many communities which depend upon surface waters for public, industrial, and agri cultural water supplies, recreation, tourism, fishing, and shellfish harvesting. Further, the State of New Jersey may not retain delegated jurisdiction over the federal NPDES permitting progr am in this State in the absence of adopted SWQS.

The proposed amendments to the antidegra dation policies are in tended to improve implementation of the Surface Water Quality Standards by providing flexibility for existing discharges while continuing to pr otect and maintain water quality. In conjunction with the water quality planning and NJPDES programs, the SWQS rules will allow the Department to maintain or enhance water quality where the surface water quality standards are met, and restore those
waters that do not meet the su rface water quality standards. The antidegradation policies will discourage development where it would impair or destroy natural resources and the environmental qualities vital to the health and wellbeing of the citizens of New Jersey.

The proposed amendments to the water quality criteria for aquatic life-based and human health protection will enable the Department to issue NJPDES permits with WQBELs based on the updated criteria. Because th e updated criteria reflec t the current science, these amendments will result in positive social impact. The proposed changes to the bacterial quality criteria that
are based on USEPA’s most recent science will also result in a positive social impact by ensuring that the best indicators to prot ect public health are used. The proposed temperature criteria for trout production waters will protect trout and trout-associated sp ecies. In addition to protecting the resource, this will also produ ce a positive social impact to the fishing industry, which relies on these species.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

102 The proposed amendments to the stream clas sifications and antide gradation designations will allow the Department to prov ide more appropriate protection to the affected waterbodies and will therefore, result in a posi tive social impact. The maintenance of water quality resources is important to all residents, particularly to the many communities that depend upon surface waters for public, industrial, and agricultural wate r supplies, recreation, tourism, and fishing.

Economic Impact The proposed re-adoption with amendments will produce a variety of economic impacts, ranging from no economic impact, to potentially significant impact. The magnitude of the economic impacts will be determined, in part, by the activity, the severity of the site-specific conditions and the approaches chosen to comp ly with the SWQS. The Surface Water Quality Standards allow for flexibility in the methods utilized to achieve water quality goals to allow the regulated community to choose compliance m easures that reduce economic impacts while assuring that the State's waters are protected.

Antidegradation: The Water Quality Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq ., and the Water Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq ., require the State to mainta in water quality in existing high quality waters and restore impaired waters . The Department does this by developing and implementing the antidegradation policies within the Surface Water Quality Standards. The Department establishes stream classificati ons and an antidegrada tion designation for each waterbody.

As indicated in the summary, there is si gnificant overlap be tween the goals and objectives of the State Planning Act and the goal s and objectives of the Water Quality Planning Act. Both statutes contain policies designed to protect water quality and conserve natural resources in the context of a Statewide planni ng framework. The Department has incorporate by reference the Planning Areas and Designated Cent ers in the State Plan in the Department's antidegradation implementation policies. In this way the Department appropriately and closely
coordinates the allowance of lowe r water quality associated with development with the overallTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

103 planning objectives articulated in the State Pla n. These antidegradati on implementation policies strike the appropriate balance between the n eed to provide sufficien t protection of water resources with the need to promote growth wher e it is most appropriate based on infrastructure investments and other planning considerations.

New Jersey has three levels of antidegra dation protection in its Surface Water Quality Standards. The highest tier, which includes FW1 and Pinelands (PL) waters, is assigned to waterbodies that qualify as Outstanding Nationa l Resource Waters (ONRW). The next tier is Category One waters, which are protected from calculable changes in water quality. All other waters are designated as Category Two waters , where a lowering in water quality may be allowed for important social and economic devel opment, provided water qua lity criteria continue
to be met.

The degree of economic impact of these an tidegradation policies is highly dependent upon the location of the proposed act ivity. No new or expanded disc harges or developments that might impact FW1 waters may be approved by th e Department. The Depa rtment does not expect any economic impact from the continued designa tion of waters as FW1, as these streams flow
within State-owned lands. Ne w and expanded discharges and developments which may impact upon waters classified as PL mu st be consistent with the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq .). The Department expects that some economic impact will occur but these impacts have been a ddressed in the development of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.

In Category One waters, discharges and deve lopment are allowed, but are restricted to
those that do not result in a lo wering of water quality. In Cate gory Two waters, the goal is to maintain existing water quality, but a lowering ma y be permitted if it is necessary to support important social and economic development. Th e antidegradation policies in these rules are not expected to have an economic impact existing dischargers and existing development in Category One or Category Two waters that do not propose to expand.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

104 The proposed new antidegradation provision at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3 includes a list of activities that are not subject to antidegradat ion review. Applicants proposing any of these activities are not subject to an antidegradation review and will not incur any additional cost from
these rules.

NJPDES Point Source Implementation: The Department has proposed a new N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4 to clarify the requirements for point sources regulate d by the NJPDES permit program. Several NJPDES permitting actions ar e exempt from an antidegradation review. These include NJPDES permit renewals that do not authorize an increase in permitted flow or pollutant loading, discharges au thorized by a general permit issu ed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.13, and NJPDES permits issu ed to industrial facilities with production-based effluent limits that are less than or equa l to previously authorized pollu tant limits. Applicants proposing any of these activities are not subject to an antidegradation review and will not incur any
additional cost as a result of the re-adoption with amendments.

All other NJPDES regulated wastewater di scharges are considered new and expanded activities which are subject to antidegradati on requirements. For new and expanded NJPDES dischargers, the economic impact may vary depending upon discharge location, pollutants of concern and treatment options as discussed be low. Applicants proposing a new or expanded discharge must conduct an altern atives analysis to determine whether a calculable change in water quality is necessary. The applicant may n eed to hire an environmental consultant to prepare an alternatives analysis , engineering services to evalua te treatment options and, in some cases, contract for laboratory analysis.

If the Department determines that a new or expanded surface water discharge is necessary, the applicant will be required to initiate a water quality monitoring program to determine existing water quality for all pollutants of concern. The cost of this monitoring effort will depend on the location of the discharge, as well as the number and type of pollutants that must be monitored, the need to contract for labo ratory analysis, and to hire an environmental consultant to prepare a report for the applicant.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

105 In Category One waters or in Category Two waters located in the preservation area of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 13:20-1 et seq .) as specified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)6, the Department will impose wate r quality effluent lim itations necessary to maintain the in-stream water quality based upon th e volume of wastewater flow generated, the available dilution, existing water qua lity, and projected effluent qual ity. In order to protect the State’s water quality, very stringent permit limitations may be imposed. The applicant is responsible for proposing treatment technology that will achieve the required effluent limitations. Due to site-specific factors including those lis ted above, there may be circumstances where a new or expanded discharge to surface water may be financially or technologically impractical. The applicant may need to consider scaling back the project or instituti ng alternative wastewater disposal options such as individual septic sy stems, an on-site community groundwater disposal system, or connection to a regiona l wastewater treatment plant. Where a discharge is feasible in Category One waters, the cost of operation may be significantly more than existing operations or discharges to Category Two waters.

In Category Two waters, the lo cation and type of proposed act ivity are important factors in determining the range of economic impacts. Consistent with the Federal antidegradation policies, a lowering of water quality may be allowed to accommodate important social and economic development. The Department has added a new definition of “necessary and justifiable social or economic development” at N. J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4 that desc ribes the activities that qualify for a lowering in water quality. Th e Department used the State Development Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) as a guide for wh ere development should be encouraged and, if necessary, a lowering in water qu ality should be allowed. This includes development located in areas designated pursuant to SDRP (N.J.S.A. 52:18A-196 et seq .) as Planning Area 1 (Metropolitan) and Planning Area 2 (Suburban), or Designated Ce nter. In Planning Area 3 (Fringe), Planning Area 4 (Rural), and Pl anning Area 5 (Environmentally Sensitive), development is restricted to protect importa nt environmental resources. Additionally, the Department determined that projects needed fo r public health and safety, and new and expandedTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

106 public institutions should also be considered as “necessary a nd justifiable social or economic development.”

An applicant proposing a new or expanded di scharge to a Category Two water may incur additional costs to demonstrate that it is impossi ble to prevent a calculable change in water quality without incurring substantial economic im pact. The applicant may need to contract professional services to perf orm this economic analysis.

As indicated in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4iv, the applicant with a projec t that qualifies as a “necessary and justifiable social or economic de velopment” and those who can demonstrate cost will result in “substantial economic impact,” may need to evaluate the range of treatment options available to minimize the lowering water quality as part of an antidegradation analysis. The Department will consider the cost of the range of options, the anticipated water quality, and the
cost to the users to establish effluent limits th at minimize any lowering in water quality that may
be allowed.

An applicant seeking to construct a new or expanded wastewater treatment system for a project that does not qualify as “n ecessary and justifiable social or economic development” or is proposed to discharge in the Highlands Preservati on Area will incur impact s similar to applicants proposing a new or expanded discha rge to a Category One waterbody.

The proposed amendments to th e antidegradation polic ies to maintain the existing water quality where threatened and endangered specie s are present are not expected to result in additional economic impact for point source di scharges. The USEPA concurs that, until the formal review of the 304(a) cr iteria is completed as requir ed by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (66 Fed. Reg. 11202, February 22, 2001) be tween USEPA and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, th e aquatic criteria pursuant to ex isting 304(a) are considered to be adequately protective of threatened and endange red species. The Department will continue to utilize the aquatic life criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 to develop water quality based effluent limits until the review pursuant to the MOA is completed. However, the promulgation ofTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

107 Category One antidegradation designation for several waterbodies based on exceptional ecological significance should provide additional protection fo r threatened and endangered species. Therefore, any economic impact associ ated with proposed N.J. A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)1i will be triggered if the ap plicant proposes a new or expanded di scharge to a waterbody that has been upgraded to Category One to protect threatened and endangered species.

Mercury and PCBs Monitoring : The proposed amendments at N.J.A.C. 7:9B -1.5(e)7 that requires NJPDES permittees to monitoring for mercury and PCBs using more se nsitive analytical methods for the purpose of characterizing the effluent is e xpected to cause an economic im pact, however, the impact is not expected to be substantial. The NJPDES permitting program currently requires permittees to
monitor the concentration of me rcury and PCBs in their effluent. This new provision may require NJPDES permittees to contract with an outside laboratory or upgrade inhouse laboratory facilities to conduct analysis us ing the required method. Additi onal costs would be incurred by all NJPDES permittees depending on sampling re quirements imposed in the NJPDES permit.

Bacterial Quality Criteria The Department is proposing to readopt the ex isting bacterial criteria for shellfish water. Similarly, the Department is not proposing any ch anges to enterococci cr iteria in SE1 and SC waters. As indicated in the Summary, the Depart ment is not imposing these criteria as effluent limitations. Therefore, these cr iteria should not generate any economic impact to existing NJPDES dischargers.

The fecal coliform criteria applicable to FW 2, SE1, and SC waters are being proposed for deletion. This repeal of fecal coliform crite ria may not provide any economic benefit because the NJPDES dischargers should still provide disinfection in accord ance with the NJPDES effluent standards (N.J.A.C. 7:14A -12.5(b)). No change is bei ng proposed to the fecal coliform criteria applicable to SE2 and SE3 waters. Monitoring for fecal colif orm is required by the NJPDES program. The cost associated with this sampling requirement will depend on theTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

108 monitoring requirements imposed in the facil ity’s NJPDES permit ba sed on the size of the facility.

The newly proposed E. coli criteria for FW 2 waters may or may not generate economic impact to the NJPDES dischargers. Because E. coli is a component of fecal coliform, if the existing dischargers are in compliance with the existing fecal coliform criteria for FW2 waters, they should be able to meet the E. coli criteria . If a facility currently exceeds the geometric mean of 200 fecal coliform levels per 100 ml, that facility will need enhanced treatment controls to meet the permit limits. As indicated in the summary, the NJPDES program will continue to require monitoring for fecal coliform. The cost associated with this sampling requirement will depend on the monitoring requirements imposed in the facility’s NJPDES permit based on the size of the facility.

The Department of Health and Senior Services already requires the operators of bathing beaches to monitor beaches and close where ap propriate using entercoccus pursuant to New Jersey State Sanitary Code at N.J.A.C. 8-26. The new Entercoccus criteria in the SWQS should
not result in additional economic costs. Using entercoccus to evaluate the overall sanitary quality should ensure higher levels of protection for recreational beach users.

Temperature Criteria The proposed amendments to temperature criteria for trout pr oduction waters are not expected to generate additional economic imp act to existing discharg ers to trout production waters. Currently, the temperature criteria fo r trout production waters allow no deviation beyond

0.6 ° C in the ambient temperature. The Depart ment is proposing a maximum temperature limit

of 20 ° C for trout production waters, similar to the ex isting criterion for trout maintenance waters. According to the recodified po licy at proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B -1.5(h)2i, discharges to trout production waters that do not increase stream temperature by more than 0.6 ° C, as measured outside the heat dissipation areas, comply with th e temperature criteria. However, as described in the summary, many streams are impaired for temperature. NJPDES regulated discharges,THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

109 even those that meet the te mperature criteria, dischargi ng to a waterbody impaired for temperature may incur additional costs to monito r the ambient stream temperature upstream and downstream of the discharge. If a TMDL is established and the disc harge is determined to be the source of the temperature exceedance, the facility need to evaluate opt ions to reduce effluent temperature. This could include relocation of the outfall, innovative treatment technology or elimination of the discharge. The magnitude of costs will depend on site-specific factors such as stream classification, stream flow, effluent flow and the temperature of the effluent.

Toxic Pollutants Criteria: The proposed water quality criteria will co ntinue the economic impact associated with complying with the rules. Costs of compliance for water quality sampling, analysis, and reporting will not change becaus e these activities are already required by the Department to satisfy existing Federal regulati ons whenever NJPDES permits are initially issued, renewed, or
modified. Prevention of further de gradation of the surface waters is one step toward maintaining the quality of the surface water. This will ha ve a positive economic benefit for the public health (including reduction in medical expenses) and eco logical values, as well as for recreational, industrial, and agricultural us ers of the State's waters.

The potential economic impact of the propos ed surface water quality criteria is highly variable. Costs would be mainly incurred by either: 1) new disc hargers required to comply with effluent limitations based upon the existing or pr oposed criteria where reasonable potential has been demonstrated regarding the need for WQB ELs; or 2) existing NJPDES permittees required to comply with effluent limitations based upon the existing or proposed criteria because the discharge is into a water quality-limited surface water. Where continued actions are required to comply with effluent limitations based upon the proposed criteria, the costs will vary widely. The magnitude of the economic impacts will be determined by the approach a discharger or potential discharger implements to comply or c ontinue to comply with the effluent limitations. Possible approaches to meet effluent limitations include:

- modification of existing treatment;THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

110 - construction and operation of additional treatment units; - pretreatment at the sour ce(s) of the pollutant(s); - potential for polluta nt trading through watershed- based approaches to NJPDES permitting; - pollution prevention (for example, substitution of less toxic or nontoxic chemicals for the pollutants at the point of generation); and - source reduction (for example, reclam ation or recycling of pollutants).

In addition, the magnitude of the economic impacts will be determined by the factors required to develop WQBELs. WQ BELs are derived using several factors, including the volume of waste water discharge, pollutant-specific ups tream concentration, the applicable design flow of the receiving waterbody specified at N.J.A. C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2, the appropriate water quality criterion (acute, chronic, or human health criter ion) and the applicable averaging periods. Due to the number of factors utilized in the derivation process of the WQBELs, which may result in dramatically different values based on the site sp ecific conditions, it is difficult to estimate the economic impact associated in each case.

However, the Department analyzed the di scharge monitoring report (DMR) data from municipal and industrial facilities available from a two-y ear period (January 2002 to December 2003) in order to evaluate and estimate the economic impact that may result from the proposed criteria. The average values available from the DMR data is a collection of data gathered from discharges to both fresh and saline waters.

The Department evaluated DMR data to iden tify those pollutants where more than ten percent of the reported values were quantified. The Department further analyzed this list of pollutants to identify whether th e average value is greater th an the most stringent proposed criterion (which includes aquatic and human health criteria for bo th fresh and saline waters). By comparing the average value with the most stringent proposed cr iterion, the Department was able to identify which pollutant may cause a NJPDES di scharger to incur additional costs. The list of pollutants where the average valu e is greater than the most stringent proposed criterion areTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

111 provided in Table 7. However, as indicated above, the WQBEL is dependent on a variety of sitespecific conditions including wh ether the discharge will impact freshwater or salt water. Therefore, it is difficult to identify the extent of additional economic impacts to each potentially impacted facility as a result of the proposed criteria.

Table 7. Comparison of Average Values from DMR Data with Proposed Criteria

Parameter Description Parameter
Code No. of
Values No. of
Facilities Reporting

at least
one value No. of
NonDetects No. of
detected

values Average
Value Proposed SWQ
Criterion

Antimony, Total Recoverable 01268 130 64 108 22 15.67958 5.6(HF) Arsenic, Total Recoverable (as As) 00978 448 171 353 95 8.99127 0.017(HF) Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 39100 585 200 324 261 5.88346 1.2(HF)
Bromodichloromethane 38693 192 122 132 60 2.65772 0.55(HF)
Bromoform 32104 228 156 206 22 5.12968 4.3(HF) Cadmium, Total Recoverable 01113 431 170 381 50 3.73582 3.4(HF)
Chlorodibromomethane 34306 215 152 169 46 1.16497 0.4(HF) Copper, Dissolved (as Cu) 01040 16 1 4 12 17 3.1(SC) Copper, Total Recoverable 01119 961 218 217 744 31.68807 3.7(SC) Cyanide, Total (as CN) 00720 396 181 329 67 22.7015 1(SC)
Dibromochloromethane 32105 19 4 0 19 16.11474 0.4(HF) 1,2-Dichloroethane 32103 348 176 294 54 5.1536 0.29(HF) 1,2-Dichloropropane 34541 140 85 121 19 2.44391 0.50(HF) Lead, Total Recoverable 01114 659 195 524 135 9.95693 7.5(FC) Mercury Total Recoverable 71901 452 147 402 50 5.80782 0.05(HF) Methylene Chloride 34423 314 165 240 74 20.61294 2.5(HF) Nickel, Total Recoverable 01074 486 180 338 148 23.91397 22(SC) Selenium, Total Recoverable 00981 247 146 214 33 7.80761 5(FC) Silver, Total Recoverable 01079 442 169 386 56 7.36281 2.2(SA)2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin 34675 114 61 111 3 90** 0.000000005(HF)

Tetrachloroethylene 34475 469 194 386 83 24.09074 0.34(HF) Trichloroethylene 39180 457 175 372 85 2.97342 1(HF)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

112 Zinc, Total Recoverable 01094 993 221 105 888 103.38658 85(SC)

HF Freshwater human health criterion FC Freshwater chronic aquatic criterion SC Saline chronic aquatic criterion ** R eported MDL ranged from <.0000022 to <10,000. Many facilities reported 0.00

Stream Classifications : The potential economic impacts of the proposed reclassification to higher status trout waters and corresponding redesignation of antideg radation categories vary from no impact to some impact. More stringent discharge pe rmit limitations necessitating construction and operation of additional treatment units for new di schargers would be requ ired which would cause a potential economic impact. In addition, proh ibition of new discha rges and relocation of proposed discharges that may a ffect water quality also would cause a potential economic impact. The potentially affected dischargers within the sub-watershed (HUC 14) of each of the waterbodies proposed for upgrade are listed in Table 8 below.

The antidegradation provisions of the Surf ace Water Quality Standards are triggered when an applicant proposes an activity that has the potential to lower water quality. Previously approved wastewater discharges authorized th rough the NJPDES program as well as existing development are not subject to the antidegra dation policies described below unless a new or expanded activity is proposed.

For existing NJPDES dischargers that ar e not proposing an expansion, the proposed Category One antidegradation designation amendmen ts will not automatically require an upgrade of treatment capabilities. However, reclassi fying waters from FW2- NT or FW2-TM to FW2- TP(C1), may require an upgrade of wastewater treatment for ex isting dischargers, upon renewal of their permit because FW2-TP(C1) re quires stricter water quality criteria.

Table 8. Potentially affected NJPDES dischargersTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

113 (Potentially affected due to reclassifica tion to trout producti on and/or Category One antidegradation designation wi thin the HUC 14 boundaries)

Waterbody Facility Passaic, Hackensack, and New York Harbor complex Basin Beech Brook (West Milford Twp.) No dischargers in or above proposed segment Stone House Brook (Butler) NJ0025721 Butler WTP (3 outfalls) Saddle River (Upper Saddle River) No dischargers in or above proposed segment Wanaque River (Pompton Lakes) NJ0053759 Wanaque Valley RSA NJ0062111 North Jersey District Water Commission

WTP - Water Treatment Plant RSA Regional Sewerage Authority

Any NJPDES permit issued to a facility for a new or expanded wastewater discharge to a Category One stream segment must include efflue nt limitations that will ensure that existing water quality will be maintained. In calculating effluent limitations, the Department considers the size of the receiving stream, the volume of wa stewater, current levels of pollutants in the receiving stream, and effluent characteristics. These site-specific conditions preclude a “one size fits all” analysis. A new or increased discha rge may not be possible in all situations. An applicant would be required to determine existing water quality as part of their NJPDES application and demonstrate that the new or expanded discharge w ould not result in a measurable change in water quality.

Renewal of an existing discharge permit doe s not require an an tidegradation analysis unless additional flow or loading is requested as part of the re newal of an existing discharge permit. As part of permit renewal (with or without increases in flow or loading) and the issuance of new permits, the Department evaluates the available information for compliance with regulatory requirements. Such regulatory re quirements are water quality based effluent limitations, adopted Total Maximum Daily Loads, Effluent Limitation Guidelines, and Clean Water Enforcement Act provisions. This review could result in new effl uent limitations due to the change from non-trout or trout mainte nance to trout production reclassification.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

114 Environmental Impact The proposed re-adoption with amendments of the Surface Water Quality Standards will have a positive environmental impact by contin uing to restore, maintain, and enhance the chemical, physical and biological integrity of New Jersey’s waters. The proposed amendments are intended to efficiently and predictably provide appropriate levels of protection for human health, aquatic biota and ecological systems associated with the State’s waters. These amendments also represent the Department's con tinuing efforts to restore, maintain, and enhance the chemical, physical and biologi cal integrity of Ne w Jersey’s waters; protect scenic and ecological values; enhance the domestic, municipa l, recreational, and ot her reasonable uses of the State’s waters; and provide general environmental benefits.

Some proposed amendments, like the admini strative corrections, are environmentally neutral, while others, like antidegradation implementation policies, upgraded water quality criteria, and stream classifications w ill produce positive e nvironmental impacts.

The Department is proposing significant revisi ons to antidegradation policies at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). The proposed amendments to the antidegradation policies are intended to provide consistent and predictable implementation, ma intain water quality and protect existing and designated uses, including thre atened and endangered species.

The proposed antidegradation prov isions require new or expa nded discharges to maintain existing water quality in Category One waters. In Category Two wate rs, lowering of water quality may be allowed if the projects qualify as necessary and justifiable social or economic development or the cost to prevent a lowering in water quality would result in substantial economic impact. Additionally, an existing disc harge will be required to demonstrate that it cannot comply with pollutant lo adings based on its current perm it or effluent quality, before additional loading will be considered. The Depa rtment requires applicants to examine pollution prevention and waste minimization measures as part of the antidegrad ation review process pursuant to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4. If additional loading is wa rranted, the applicantTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

115 must consider a range of treatm ent options and implementation co sts that address the additional loading. The Department believes that implem entation of these proposed amendments will result in a positive environmental impact. The c ontinued implementation of the antidegradation provisions resulting from this re-adoption with amendments will have a positive environmental impact by requiring analysis of water quality impacts from new or expanded discharges and imposing measures that reflect the consider ation of maintaining water quality, pollution prevention, and minimization of potential water quality impacts.

The Department is proposing to amend seve ral aquatic life-based and human healthbased criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d). The pr oposed criteria, based on updated information, are more appropriate for water quali ty protection. The proposed hum an health criteria update is based on a more stringent fish consumption ra te of 17.5 grams per day. Permits based on more stringent criteria are environmentally benefici al, as there will be fewer toxic substances in
ambient water.

The upgraded stream classifications and/ or antidegradation designations proposed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15 will provide a benefici al environmental effect. These stream reclassifications provide beneficial environmenta l impact because they es tablish more protective criteria for new or expanded discharges to th ese water bodies to assure that water quality is maintained at a level necessary to support trout and related sp ecies. In addition, the proposed upgrade to trout production increases the num ber of river miles with Category One antidegradation designation by nine miles. The additional protection pr ovided by the Category One antidegradation designation prevents degrada tion of existing water quality. Implementation of these rules through permitting and planning pr ograms will maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the proposed Category One waters.

Federal Standards Analysis Executive Order 27 (1994) and N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq . require that State agencies which adopt, readopt, or amend State regula tions that exceed any Federal standards or requirements include in the rulemaking document a Federal standards analysis.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

116 The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq ., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 (PL 100-4) requires the esta blishment of water quality standards for all
surface waters of the United St ates. (The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the CWA to require the adoption of criteria for toxic pollutants identified as causing or contributing to an impairment of a waterbody's designated use(s) .) Individual states are given primary responsibility for developing and adopting surface water quality standards applicable to their waters. The USEPA is responsib le for overseeing and approving state water quality standards, providing guidance on the content of the standards, and deve loping water quality criteria guidance documents. Key elements of the su rface water quality standards program required under the CWA are: a classification system establis hing designated beneficial uses of the waters; ambient water quality criteria necessary to prot ect those uses; minimum uses to be attained, which reflect the fishable and swimmable goals of the CWA; and antidegradation policies and implementation procedures to prevent water quali ty from deteriorating. Furthermore, the CWA includes provisions requiring the USEPA to promul gate superseding Federa l standards where the
USEPA concludes that a State's standards are not consistent with the requirements of the CWA, or where Federal requirement s are necessary to meet th e requirements of the CWA.

The SWQS being proposed for re-adoption with amendments are required by and consistent with the Federal statutes, regulations and guidance. The Department has prepared the following sectional analysis of the SWQS, whic h compares each section with the applicable Federal law, regulations and guidance, as re quired by Executive Order 27 (1994) and P.L. 1995,
c. 65.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.1 through 1.3 describes scope, construction, and severability. Nothing in these sections is subject to Federal standard s; therefore, no further analysis is needed.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4 contains defi nitions of terms used within the SWQS. Most of these definitions are the same as those used by the Federal government in either the Federal Water Quality Standards Regulation at 40 CFR 131.3 or in the glossary of a guidance document forTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

117 states entitled Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition (August 1994, EPA-823-B94-005a) (Handbook). There are a few definiti ons that can not be found in the Federal regulations or guidance documents however, each one of them are consis tent with the Federal policies. For example, the proposed definition of "substantial economic impact" is not defined in the Federal regulations however, the c oncept is from the USEPA’s guidance ( Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook EPA-823-B-95-002 March 1995).

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5 establishes the policies a pplicable to the protection and enhancement of surface water resources throughout the State. These include genera l, interstate waters, general technical (including mixing zone policies), an tidegradation, water qu ality-based effluent limitation, bioassay and biomonitori ng, and nutrient policies. The general policies and interstate waters policies at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(a) and (b) are either exempt from Federal standards, or identical to language found in the Federal Water Quality Sta ndards Regulations (see 40 CFR 131).

The general technical policies are specified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c). These policies include the design flows for different types of water quality criteria and metal translators for developing effluent limitations or expressing aquatic life criter ia in the equivalent total recoverable form. The USEPA provides guidanc e and recommendations on design flows in the Handbook and in the Technical Support Document. The design flows and th e metal translators specified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c) are identi cal to the USEPA recommendations, therefore, no further analysis is required.

Antidegradation policies are speci fied in the SWQS at N.J.A. C. 7:9B-1.5(d). The Federal regulation governing antidegradati on policies is found at 40 CFR 131.12. It requires that states develop and adopt antidegradation policies and implementation pro cedures to ensure that the level of water quality needed to protect existing uses is maintained. Additionally, it states that water quality better than necessary to protect ex isting uses shall be maintained and protected unless demonstrations are made to suppor t lowering the water quality. New Jersey's antidegradation policies are consis tent with and do not impose rest rictions more stringent thanTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

118 those allowed under the Federal water quality standa rds regulations. Therefore no further analysis is required.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(e-g) and 1.6 set forth policies, conditions and procedures to be used when developing water quality-based effluent limitations, bioassays, and nutrient policies, including general applicabilit y, necessary information, and me thodologies. They are based on Federal NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44( d), and Federal guidance derived from Technical Support Document for Water Qua lity-based Toxics Control or the TSD (EPA/505/2-90-001). Therefore, no further analysis is required.

New Jersey's mixing zone policies are found at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(h) . Mixing zones are defined in the SWQS as localized areas of surface waters, as may be designated by the Department, into which wastewat er effluents may be discharged for the purpose of mixing, dispersing, or dissipating such e ffluents without creating nuisan ces or hazardous conditions. If applied to a particular discharg e, they result in less stringent NJPDES permit limitations. Federal regulations governing mixing zones clearly state that inclusion of mixing zones in State SWQS is optional. 40 CFR 131.13 provides that "States may, at their discretion, include in their State surface water quality standard s, policies generally affec ting their application and implementation, such as mixing zones..." None of the language in the SWQS regarding mixing zones is more stringent than provided for in th e Federal rule; therefor e no further analysis is necessary. The Department notes that th e USEPA’s Handbook and TSD provide guidance for developing and implementing mixing zone regulati ons for states that include mixing zones in their SWQS. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c) 4 does not contain any provisions that are more stringent than
those contained in the Handbook or TSD.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.7 requires that any total maximum daily load, wasteload allocation, or
load allocation established as an amendment to an areawide water quality management plan must be consistent with this chapte r. This language mirrors the Federal water planning regulation language found at 40 CFR 130.7(c); therefor e, no further analysis is required.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

119 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8 and 1.9 set forth the pr ocedures to be followed by applicants requesting a modification (also cal led variances) of WQBELs for di scharges into Category One and Category Two waterbodies, re spectively. There is no specif ic Federal regulation requiring that states adopt such variance procedures in to their water quality standards. At 40 CFR 131.13 it is stated, "States may, at their discretion, incl ude in their State surf ace water quality standards, policies generally affec ting their application a nd implementation, such as... variances." The USEPA provides further guidance in the Handbook for developing and implementing regulations governing variances for States that do include them in thei r SWQS. The Federal variance guidance found on pages 5-11 and 5-12 in the Ha ndbook does not address whether or not states should allow variances for dischargers into Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs). However, the Federal water quality standards regul ations, which set forth antidegradation policy requirements at 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3), specifically st ate that water quality in waters designated as ONRWs shall be maintained and protected. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8 and 1.9 largely mirror language contained within the Handbook guidance in Chapte r 5 (pages 5-11 and 5-12). One exception is that New Jersey's variance procedures at N.J. A.C. 7:9B-1.8(c) do not a llow for modifications of WQBELs for dischargers into ONR Ws. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8(c) refl ects the intent of the Federal rule at 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3) that ONRW quality must be maintained and is not more stringent. No further analysis is therefore required.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.10 sets forth specific requ irements for petitioning the Department to remove a designated use from a waterbody. This language incorporates Federal requirements found at 40 CFR 131.10 (g) and (h) and is not more stringent. No further analysis is required.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.11 sets forth specific requir ements for petitioning the Department to add a designated use to a waterbody. This language incorporates Federal re quirements found at 40 CFR 131.10 (i) and is not more stringent. No further analysis is required.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.12 and 1.13 provide for the designated uses of the different surface water classifications of New Jersey and of th e Delaware River and Bay. The Federal water quality standards regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(a) re quire that states spec ify appropriate uses toTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

120 be achieved and protected in their surface waters. The Handbook gives further guidance on designating uses for surface waters: “consistent with the requirements of the CWA and Water Quality Standards Regulation, states are free to develop and adopt any use classification system they deem appropriate, except that waste transp ort and assimilation is not an acceptable use in any case (see 40 CFR 131.10(a)).” The uses sp ecified in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.12 and 1.13 are therefore, consistent with Federal requirements and no furt her analysis is required.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 contains the surface water aquatic life and human health protection criteria (both narrative statements and numerical values) for waters classified as PL, FW2, SE and SC. New Jersey has adopted criteria for po llutants to protect the aquatic biota and humans from detrimental effects from exposure to thes e pollutants in surface waters of the State.
N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 also states that the surface wa ter criteria for the Delaware River and Bay are
as contained in the Delaware River Basin Commission regulations . Federal regulations require that states must adopt water quality criteria that protect the desi gnated uses (40 CFR 131.11 (a)(1)). The numerical criter ia should be based on CWA S ection 304(a) guidance or 304(a) guidance modified to reflect site-specific conditi ons, or other scientifically defensible methods (40 CFR 131.11(b)(1) (i.-iii.)).

To determine whether any New Jersey criter ia being proposed herein for re-adoption or amendment are more stringent than Federal crit eria, the Department compared each with CWA Section 304(a) criteria promul gated by the USEPA through NTR for New Jersey. These criteria
are enforceable Federal surface wa ter quality criteria in New Jersey. However, for parameters for which the USEPA has not promulgated criter ia through the NTR, the Department compared New Jersey’s criteria with the respective US EPA recommended criteri a published as part of
National Recommended Wate r Quality Criteria 2002 . EPA 822-R-02-047. The Federal statute and rules do not require states to adopt guidance criteria as part of SWQS.

New Jersey criteria for toxic substances ma y be considered more stringent than NTR criteria or 304(a) criteria if th ey are numerically lower. Differe nces in numerical values between
criteria can be attributed to a number of factors which could result in Ne w Jersey criteria beingTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

121 either more stringent or less stringent than the NT R criteria or 304(a) guidance criteria. In the following analysis, the Department explains th e differences in State and Federal numerical values where the New Jersey criteria are more stringent or the rela tive stringency cannot be ascertained. Because of the comple x nature of calculating criteria, the derivation of the criteria is also briefly described for clar ification, wherever warranted.

General Criteria: The Department has identified that New Jers ey's pH criterion, 6.5- 8.5 standard units for FW2 waters, is more stringent than the CW A Section 304(a) guidan ce criterion of 6.5-9.0 standard units. However, th e Federal water quality regulations (40 CF R 131.11(a)(1) note that: "States must adopt those water qua lity criteria that pr otect the designated us e." A pH criterion of 6.5-8.5 reflects the pH range naturally occurring in New Jersey's surface waters classified as FW2 and was adopted to protect the designated us es specified in the SW QS. These criteria are approved by the USEPA, and therefore, no further analysis is required.

Aquatic Life Protection Criteria: Proposed Metals criteria: The pr oposed aquatic life-based freshw ater acute and chronic criteria for arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, copper, and ni ckel and freshwater acu te criteria for mercury and silver appear to be more stringent when co mpared with the NTR crite ria. Where the criteria are hardness-dependent, a cr iterion derived at a hard ness of 100 mg/L of CaCO 3 is used for comparison purposes. The proposed criteria ar e based on the 304(a) national recommendations. However, the freshwater acute and chronic crite ria for cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, nickel, and zinc also appear to be more stringent th an the 304(a) national recommendations. The apparently more stringe nt criteria are necessa ry because the proposed criteria presented in Table 9 re flect the dissolved criteria usi ng the DRBC conversion factors that
are lower than the USEPA conversion factors (See Table 10). The DRBC conversion factors have been approved by the USEPA as acceptabl e conversion factors for converting total
recoverable criteria into dissolv ed criteria (see Summary above). Therefore, the criteria and the conversion factors used are appropriate to maintain the uses.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

122 The proposed aquatic life-base d saltwater acute and chroni c criteria for cadmium and acute criterion for nickel appear to be more stringent than the NT R criteria. The proposed
saltwater criteria for cadmium are based on the 304(a) national recommendation. The proposed
saltwater criteria for nickel are based on the recommended criteria by GLEC. The proposed
saltwater acute criterion is more stringent and the chronic criter ion is less stringent than the 304(a) national recommended criteria. However, the revised proposed criteria are based on more recent toxicity data available. The USEPA r ecommends updating criterion as new toxicity data become available. In addition, these revise d criteria were deri ved based on the USEPA recommended methodology and have been re viewed and approved by the USEPA for consistency. Therefore, the proposed criteria are meeting the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 131.11(a)1.

Proposed criteria for other toxic pollutants: The proposed aqua tic life-based freshwater acute and chronic criteria for gamma BHC, dieldri n, endrin, and pentachl orophenol based on updated toxicity information in the NRWQC 2005. Thes e revised criteria were derived based on the USEPA recommended methodology, therefore, meeting the Federal requirements.

Criteria proposed for re-adoption: As explained fu rther below, New Jersey aquatic life protection criteria for endosulfans (alp ha and beta) proposed for re-a doption without change are more stringent than the NTR criteria because the De partment and the USEPA regulate different forms
of the chemicals. The freshwater acute and chroni c criteria for lead are not comparable with the NTR criteria because of conflicting analyses regard ing the relationship between lead toxicity and
water hardness.

The freshwater acute and chronic criteria of 0.22 μ g/L and 0.056 μ g/L, respectively, and
saline acute and chr onic criteria of 0.034 μ g/L and 0.0087 μ g/L, respectively for endosulfans (alpha and beta) are numerically equivalent to the USEPA criteria, but in application are more stringent than the 304(a) criteria. The difference exists because the Department regulates the family of endosulfans, which includes both alpha and beta forms, while the USEPA criteria are chemical-specific, either fo r alpha-endosulfan or beta-endosulfan, even though the same dataTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

123 were utilized by the USEPA and the Department to calculate the endos ulfan criteria. For example, the New Jersey freshwater acute endosulfans cr iterion allows 0.22 μ g/L of total endosulfans, both alpha and beta forms together . The USEPA freshwater acute criterion for endosulfans, however, allows for 0.22 μ g/L of alpha-endosulfan and 0.22 μ g/L of betaendosulfan. The Department has determined that the New Jersey aquatic life protection criteria
for endosulfan as total endosulfans is more a ppropriate than the USEPA endosulfan criteria, because the toxicity data from which the criter ia were derived were obtained from a mixture of alpha and beta forms. The USEPA has approved these criteria to be pr otective of the uses.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

124 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THESEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THEOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.____________________________125Table 9. COMPARISON OF AQUATIC METALS CRITERIA(NTR / 304(a) / NJ Proposed)(μg/L)FreshwaterSaltwaterAcuteChronicAcuteChronicToxicsubstanceNTR304(a)NJ-PropNTR304(a)NJ-PropNTR304(a)NJ-PropNTR304(a)NJ-PropArsenic360340340190150150696969363636Cadmium3.7a4.3a1.4a1.0a2.2a0.17a4240409.38.88.8Chromium(III)550a570a500a180a74a24aChromium(VI)151615101110110011001100505050Copper17a13a13a11a9a8.5a2.44.84.82.43.13.1Mercury2.11.41.40.0120.770.771.81.81.80.0250.940.94Nickel1400a470a400a160a52a44a7474648.28.222Selenium20b20555290290290717171Silver3.4a3.2a3.2a1.91.91.9Zinc110a120a110a100a120a110a909090818181a Dissolved criteria derived at a hardness of 100 mg/Lb Criteria under reviewTable 10. Comparison of Conversion FactorsFreshwaterAcuteChronicChemicalUSEPADRBCUSEPADRBCCadmium0.944a0.651+0.944a0.651+Chromium III0.3610.277+0.8600.277+Chromium VI0.9820.919+0.9620.919+Copper0.9600.908+0.9600.908+Nickel0.9980.846+0.9970.846+Zinc0.9780.950+0.9860.950+aHardness dependent conversion factor derived at 100 mg/L CaCO3+ DRBC recalculated conversion factorsTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

126 The freshwater acute and chronic criteria for lead are not comparable with the NTR criteria because the NTR promulgated freshwat er criteria for lead are hardness-dependent equations, and the criteria promulgated by the De partment are non-hardness-dependent values. Although the NTR and the Department have promul gated an identical sa ltwater acute criterion, the Department’s chronic crite rion is less stringent. These criteria, based on the USEPA recommended methodology, have been approved by the USEPA, thus satisfying the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 131.11(a)1.

Human Health Criteria: To determine whether any proposed New Jersey human health criteria are more stringent than the corresponding Federal cr iteria, the Department compar ed them with CWA section 304(a) human health criteria published by the US EPA. The criteria be ing proposed to replace the NTR criteria are compared with section 304(a) criteria promulgated by the USEPA through the NTR for New Jersey. Other New Jersey crit eria are compared with the respective section 304(a) guidance criteria recommended by the USEPA in the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 (EPA822-R-02-47) or “ National Recommended Wa ter Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ” (68 Fed. Reg. 75507, Decembe r 31, 2003). It should be noted that the proposed New Jersey human health criteria are termed FW2 and saline criteria,
derived for fresh and saline surface waters of specific classifications , while the Federally promulgated or recommended criteria are identif ied as “for consumption of water & organisms” or “for consumption of organi sms only.” The New Jersey criteria are derived in analogous manner to the corresponding Federally derived criteria and intended to protect the same designated uses. Therefore, the two sets of criteria are directly comparable.

NTR Criteria: Criteria being proposed to replace the NTR criteria are based on the 2002
or 2003 USEPA recommended crite ria except that criteria for 1,1-dichlorethylene, 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane and 1,1,2-trichloroethane are based on toxicity factors recommended by the NJDWQI. Because of scientific advances in criteria development from 1992, when the NTR was promulgated, to 2002/2003, when the recommended cr iteria were recently updated, some criteriaTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

127 have been revised by the USEPA to become less st ringent or more stringent to reflect current science. Compared with the NTR criteria, se ven of the 11 New Jersey criteria proposed to replace the NTR are more stringent because th ey are numerically lower, as shown in the following table and for the reasons discussed below.

Table 11. NTR Criteria Compared With NJ Proposed Criteria and USEPA National Recommended Criteria (NRWQC)*

Freshwater Human Health Criteria ( μ g/L) Saline Human Health Criteria ( μ g/L) Toxic Substance NTR New Jersey NRWQC NTR New Jersey NRWQC gamma-BHC 0.19 0.98 0.98 0.63 1.8 1.8 Dibromochloromethane 340 13 13 1,1-Dichloroethylene 32 100 7,100 Fluorene 14,000 5,300 5,300 Hexachlorobutadiene 500 18 18 Isophorone 6,000 960 960 PCBs 0.00017 0.000064 0.000064 0.00017 0.000064 0.000064 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 110 110 4.0 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 420 350 16 *Data from Summary Table 4 on "Chemical-Sp ecific Surface Water Human Health Criteria"

Of the seven proposed criteria that are more stringent, six are based on the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. They were derived with the 2000 Human Health Criteria Development Methodology, incl uding updated fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day and toxicity factors. These six include the proposed saline criteria for dibromochloromethane (13 μg/L), fluorene (5,300 μg/L), hexachlorobutadiene (18 μg/L), isophorone (960 μg/L) and the two proposed crit eria for PCBs (0.000064 μg/L for both FW2 and saline). They are more stringent than th e NTR criteria at 340 μg/L, 14,000 μg/L, 500 μg/L, 6,000 μg/L, and, for PCBs, at 0.00017 μg/L respectively. For the NJDWQI pollutant 1,1,2- trichloroethane, the proposed sa line criterion (350 μg/L) is more stringent than the corresponding NTR criterion (420 μg/L). The criterion for 1,1,2-tr ichloroethane becomes more stringent as the result of using the updated default fish consum ption rate of 17.5 g/day to replace the 1980 rate at 6.5 g/day, as with all criteria derived using th e 2000 Methodology. The Department believes thatTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

128 the more stringent criteria being proposed ar e justified, since they are based on USEPA’s updated guidance to reflect more recent be st available scientific information.

Non-NTR Criteria: Most of the proposed non-NTR criteria are based on the national recommended water quality crite ria published by the USEPA in 2002 and 2003. Therefore, these proposed criteria are identical to the corresponding Federal secti on 304(a) guidance criteria. As
discussed above in the Human Health Criteria Se ction of the Summary, some of the others are based on updated data from the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), the relative potency approach for Group B2 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Seven pollutants from the groups mentioned above, namely acrolein, arsenic, endrin alde hyde, nickel, N-nitrosodiethylam ine, phenol and methoxychlor, have criteria more stringent than the corres ponding NRWQC. The detailed comparisons are
shown in Table 12 and discussed as follows:

Thirteen criteria are more stringent (Table 12) than the corresponding NRWQC because updated information was used in developing the pr oposed criteria. As indicated in Table 12, the proposed fresh water and saline cr iteria for four pollutants, thos e of acrolein (6.1 μg/L, 9.3 μg/L), arsenic (0.017 μg/L, 0.061 μg/L), N-nitrosodie thylamine (0.00023 μg/L, 0.13 μg/L) and phenol (10,000 μg/L, 860,000 μg/L), are more stringent than the corresponding NRWQC of acrolein (190 μg/L, 290 μg/L), arsenic (0.018 μg/L, 0.14 μg/L), N-nitrosodiethylamine(0.0008 μg/L, 1.24 μg/L) and phenol (21,000 μg/L, 1,700,000 μg/L). In developing these criteria the Department used recent IRIS data and 2000 methodology to upd ate the 304(a) criteria . The criteria for endrin aldehyde are based on the criteria for endrin because there are no da ta available for endrin aldehyde. The proposed criteria for endrin aldehyde (0.059 μg/L, 0.060 μg/L) are based on the NRWQC 2003 for endrin, but the NRWQC for endrin aldehyde ( 0.29 μg/L, 0.30 μg/L) are based on the 2002 endrin data. The proposed nickel criteria (500 μg/L, 1,700 μg/L) are based on the 17.5 g/day fish consumption rate, while the NRWQC criteria (610 μg/L, 4,600 μg/L) are based on the 1980 methodology, using 6.5 g/day as the fi sh consumption rate. The fresh water criterion for methoxychlor (40 μg/L) from the NP DWR is more stringent than the section 304(a) criterion at 100 μg/L that is based on pre-1980 information. In each of the above comparisons,THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

129 the more stringent proposed criteri a are the result of utilizing updated data. The Department is justified to update the criteri a to reflect cu rrent science.

Some proposed criteria are more stringent because the criteria were derived from toxicity basis or approaches specific to New Jersey, namely, criteria for a few NJDWQI pollutants and Group C carcinogens. The NJDWQI has provided the scientific basis for risk assessment of pollutants. According to 40 CFR 131.11, states ha ve the option to derive water quality criteria different from the USEPA 304(a) criteria if the states' criteria are deri ved using scientifically defensible methods. The Department used toxi city bases developed pur suant to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (NJSDWA) in deriving its human health criteria for NJDWQI pollutants for surface waters so as to establish a consistent leve l of human health protection for all of its water programs. However, different bases could lead to differences in the resulting criteria. Nine of the 20 polluta nts based on the NJDWQI have criteria more stringent than the corresponding section 304(a ) guidance criteri a as shown in Table 12 below. The nine toxic substances are benzene, chlordane, 1,2-dichloroet hane, 1,1-dichloroethylen e, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, tric hloroethylene and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. The Department believes its criteria reflect more r ecent best available scie ntific information, and therefore, variation from the Fe deral standard is appropriate.

The proposed freshwater and saline criteria for butylbenzyl phthala te at 150 μg/L and 190 μg/L are more stringent than the corres ponding Federal NRWQC at 1,500 μg/L and 1,900 μg/L respectively. Butylbenzyl phthalate is a Group C ca rcinogen. If an accepta ble slope factor is not
available to derive a criter ion for a Group C carcinogen, the De partment’s policy mandates the use of an extra uncertainty factor of ten for the RfD to derive the criterion as for a noncarcinogen in order to provide sufficient protect ion from possible carcinogenic effects. Hence the ten-fold stringency is justified.

Chemical Family/Chemical-Specific Comparison: Some proposed criteria are more stringent than Federal criteria because the Department and the USEPA regulate different forms of the chemicals, as discussed below:THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

130

1). Arsenic: The New Jersey freshwater and saline criteria for arsenic at 0.017 μ g/L and 0.061

μ g/L are more stringent than the Federal criteria of 0.018 μ g/L and 0.14 μ g/L, respectively, due
also to the differences in chemical forms regulated by New Jersey and USEPA.

The USEPA in promulgating its arsenic criteria included a footnote in th e reference stating that the criteria refer only to the inorganic form of ar senic. However, the New Jersey criteria apply to all arsenic forms, organic and inorganic, because of the potentia l interconversion between organic and inorganic forms of arsenic. A dditionally, there is no 40 CFR Part 136 (Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analys is of Pollutants under the Clean Water Act) approved analytical methodology av ailable to allow for different ial measurement of organic and inorganic forms, thus resulting in c ontrol efforts applying to all arsenic forms.

2). Endosulfan: New Jersey is proposing fresh water and sali ne criteria at 62 μ g/L and 89 μ g/L respectively, for endosulfan (alpha and beta forms combined), that are mo re stringent than the
Federal criteria at 62 μ g/L and 89 μ g/L respectively, for either alpha-endosulfan or betaendosulfan. As discussed previous ly with regard to the Department's aquatic life protection criteria for endosulfans, the De partment regulates the family of endosulfans, which includes both alpha and beta forms, while the USEPA has established isomer-specific criteria, for alphaendosulfan and beta-endosulfan.

The New Jersey endosulfan criteria were derived from IRIS data that were based on a technical grade mixture of alpha- and beta-endosulfa n isomers. The USEPA utilized the same
information to calculate its criter ia, but chose to designate the e ndosulfan criteria to the specific isomeric forms (alpha or beta). However, the USEPA has previously approved this approach used by New Jersey in the current SWQS. Th e Department considers the New Jersey human health endosulfans criteria appr opriate because the to xicity data from which the criteria were
derived were obtained from a mi xture of alpha and beta forms and the criteria should be expressed accordingly.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

131 TABLE 12. New Jersey Proposed Human Health Criteria More Stringent Than USEPA Criteria *

Freshwater Human Health Criteria ( μ g/L) Saline Human Health Criteria ( μ g/L) Toxic Substance New Jersey USEPA Reason New Jerse y USEPA Reason Acrolein 6.1 190 a 9.3 290 a Arsenic 0.017 0.018 a, d 0.061 0.14 a, d
Benzene # 0.15 0.61-2.2 b 3.3 14-51 b Butylbenzyl phthalate 150 1,500 c 190 1,900 c Chlordane # 0.00010 0.00080 b 0.00011 0.00081 b 1,2-Dichloroethane # 0.29 0.38 b 28 37 b 1,1-Dichloroethylene # 4.7 330 b 100 7,100 b Endosulfans (alpha and beta) 62 d 89 d
alpha-Endosulfan 62 89 beta-Endosulfan 62 89 Endrin aldehyde 0.059 0.29 a 0.060 0.30 a Methoxychlor 40 100 a Methylene chloride # 2.5 4.6 b 310 590 b Nickel 500 610 a 1,700 4,600 a N-Nitrosodiethylamine 0.00023 0.0008 a 0.13 1.2 a Phenol 10,000 21,000 a 860,000 1,700,000 a Tetrachloroethylene # 0.34 0.69 b 1.6 3.3 b 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene # 21 35 b 42 70 b Trichloroethylene # 1.0 2.5 b 12 30 b 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol # 0.58 1.4 b 1.0 2.4 b

* Data from SUMMARY Table 4 # NJDWQI pollutants Reason codes for difference in criteria: (a) updated information used in developing NJ criteria (b) toxicity bases (c) Group C policy (d) chemical family/chemical-specific

Stream classifications :THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

132 N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15 contains specific wate rbody classification list ings, antidegradation designations, and instructions for the use of the classifi cation tables. The waterbody classifications and antidegradation designations are arranged by major drainage basin. The Federal water quality regulations at 40 CFR 131.10 re quire that states speci fy appropriate water uses to be achieved and protec ted. The Department’s SWQS wate rbody classification listing is a tool to identify these designated uses such as protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreation in and on wate r, public water supplies, agricult ural and industrial. Therefore, these waterbody classifications are cons istent with the Federal regulations.

In addition, 40 CFR 131.12 estab lishes requirements for states to develop and adopt antidegradation policies and implem entation procedures to ensure that the level of water quality needed to protect existing uses is maintaine d, and that water quality better than necessary to protect existing uses is maintained and protec ted unless demonstrations are made in support of lowering the water quality. The proposed change s in antidegradation designation identify the level of protection and implementation procedures that must be followed. The antidegradation designations are consistent wit h, and do not exceed Federal standa rds. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

Jobs Impact
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq . (P.L. 1995, c. 166), all ru le proposals must contain a jobs impact statement assessing the number of j obs to be generated or lost if the proposed rule
takes effect.

The implementation of the SWQS through th e NJPDES permitting program will continue to result in job opportunitie s in analytical and environmental consulting services to assess permit compliance and evaluate and design the most co st effective abatement measures to achieve permit compliance. Should such abatement measures involve new capital improvements, job opportunities related to construc tion and contracting services and operation and maintenance of these improvements would be created. Implementa tion of the SWQS will result in more of the State’s waters achieving designated uses which will enhance job opportuni ties in industries andTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

133 businesses that are directly and indirectly water related. Failure to implement the SWQS proposed for re-adoption with amendments coul d result in lost employment opportunities in
businesses and industries that are water quality dependent, such as tourism and fishing.

The proposed higher use classi fication and/or antidegradati on categories are not expected to create any additional jobs or cause any jobs to be lost. Lo sses of existing jobs would only
occur in the event that a discha rger to one of the waterbodies proposed for reclassification would curtail or cease operations rather than prov ide the necessary meas ures to abate NJPDES regulated discharges so as to comply with a ny new permit requirements based on the SWQS. As discussed in the Economic Impact statement, the imposition of requirements based on the SWQS is waterbody and facility specific.

Agriculture Industry Impact Pursuant to P.L. 1998, c.48, adopted on July 2, 1998, the Department has evaluated this rulemaking to determine the nature and extent of the impacts of th e proposed rules on the agricultural industry. The agricu ltural industry is not subject to the SWQS unless the operation is required to obtain an NJPDES permit pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A. Farms that operate a food processing operation or conduct other activities wh ich discharge to surface water are required to obtain a NJPDES permit. Farms that operate a NJPDES regulated discharge will incur costs to comply with their NJPDES permit including perm it fees, laboratory costs for sample analysis, and potentially costs for engineering services . The total costs imposed will depend on the requirements established in the fa cility's individual permit which is based on the nature of the operation, the location of the discharge, and th e volume and type of pollutants discharged.

In addition, farms that operate a “concentr ated animal feeding operation” (CAFO) as described in N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.13 are required to obtain a NJPDES permit if they discharge to surface water or groundwater. Farm s that operate such CAFOs w ill also incur costs to comply with these rules as incorporated as NJPDES permit condition. The co st of complying with NJPDES permit conditions for CAFOs is variable and depends on a number of factors, includingTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

134 number and type of animals confined, existi ng animal waste practices at the farm, and availability of cropland and pa stureland for manure application.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis In accordance with the Regulatory Fl exibility Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-16 et seq ., the Department has determined that a limited number of individuals and ent ities affected by the proposed amendments will be “small businesses” as defined in that Act. The proposed amendments would affect any small businesses e ngaging in activities that affect the quality or uses of the surface waters of the State through pollutant discharges. As mentioned in the Economic Impact statement above, the initial co sts of compliance for water quality sampling, analysis and reporting may increase for small bus inesses discharging pollutants for which the Department had not previously adopted criter ia and pollutants for wh ich the Department is proposing more stringent criteria . Continued costs may include those associated with hiring professional services to design tr eatment facilities or other measures necessary to comply with the proposed SWQS once they are adopted. For example, a business may hire licensed professional engineers to design best management practices for compliance with the SWQS. The capital and annual compliance costs to small busin esses could vary from approximately several thousand dollars to several million dollars, depending on variable factors such as type of activity, classification of the waterbody affected, exis ting abatement methods, and required levels of pollutant reduction. In proposing these amendmen ts, the Department has balanced the expected economic impacts of the rules upon small businesses against the need to pr otect the environment and public health while complying with Federal la w. The Department has determined that any attempt to relax the requirements for small busin esses would endanger safety, public health and the environment. Therefore, no exemption from the rule is specifically provided for small
businesses.

Smart Growth Executive Order No. 4 (2002) requires State ag encies which adopt, amend or repeal any rule adopted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, to describe proposed rule’s impact on the achievement of smart growth and implementation of the NewTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

135 Jersey State Development and Redevelopm ent Plan (SDRP), see N.J.S.A. 52:18A-196 et seq

. The Department has evaluated this rulemaking to determine the nature and extent of the proposed amendments’ impact on smart growth a nd implementation of the SDRP. Smart growth discourages development where it may impair or destroy natural resour ces or environmental qualities that are vital to the he alth and well being of the pres ent and future citizens of New Jersey.

The proposed re-adoption with amendments w ill likely impact decisions concerning land use and infrastructure development because wast ewater discharges will have to meet the proposed antidegradation implementation policies at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). The Category One antidegradation designation requires regulation of discharges to ensure maintenance of Category One water quality. In Category Two waters, th e Department has determined those projects in PA1, PA2, and designated centers as well as projects to protect public health and safety, and public institutions are justifiable and necessary. These projects ma y be eligible for a lowering in water quality. All other types of projects will be required to ma intain water quality unless the cost to maintain existing wate r quality will result in substantial economic impact. The same surface water quality criteria apply in Category One and Category Two streams. The additional protection provided by the Category One antidegr adation designation will prevent degradation of existing water quality.

The amendments, primarily intended to conser ve the State’s surface waters and natural resources, implement State Planning Goal 4: Pr otect the Environment. Goal 4 provides that “A clean, safe, and attractive environment is esse ntial to assuring the health of our citizens. Sustainable supplies of clean water, clean air and an abundance of open space and recreational opportunities also will assure a su stainable economy.” The implem enting strategy is to “Protect the environment by planning for growth in compact forms, at locations and densities of use that make efficient use of existing and planned in frastructure and by in creasing infrastructure capacities and growth potential in areas where development will not damage water resources, critical habitats or important fo rests . . . .” The proposed amendments advance the goals of theTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

136 plan by protecting the waters from unnecessary amounts of toxic substan ces, thereby ensuring a sustainable supply of water, suppo rt for unique flora/fauna, and other selected water resources.

The SWQS will discourage development wh ere it would impair or destroy natural resources and environmental qualities vital to th e health and well-being of the citizens of New Jersey, consistent with Executive Order N o. 114 (1994), Executive Order No. 4 2002), and Executive Order No. 38 (2002).

Full text of the proposal follows (additions indicated in boldface thus ; deletions indicated in brackets [thus]:

7:9B-1.4 Definitions

. . . "Best management practices" or "BMPs" mean s the methods, measures, or practices to prevent or reduce the amount of pollution from point or non-point sources, including structural and nonstructural controls, a nd operation and maintenance procedures.

. . . "Calculable changes" means detectable changes including predicted changes [to] in water quality that fall outside of the 95% confiden ce interval of the mean water quality [characteristics as demonstrated by any acceptable mathematical, predictive method] based on an acceptable mathematical predictive mo del or sampling and analysis conducted in accordance with USEPA approved methods as identified in 40 CFR 136 or other methods approved by the Department

.

. . . "Carcinogen" means a toxic substance capa ble of inducing a cancer response, including Group A (human carcinogen), Group B (p robable human carcinogen) or Group C (possible human carcinogen) categorized in accordance with the USEPA Guidelines forTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

137 Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 51 Fed. Reg. 33992, 1986 incorporated he rein by reference, as amended or supplemented.

. . . "Category one waters" means those waters desi gnated in the tables in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(c) through (h), for purposes of implementing the antide gradation policies set fo rth at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(d), for protection from [measurable] calculable changes in water quality characteristics because of their clarity, color, s cenic setting, other characteristics of aesthetic valu e, exceptional ecological significance, exceptional recreati onal significance, ex ceptional water supply significance, or exceptional fisheries resource(s). These waters may include, but are not limited

to: 1. -5. (No Change.)

. . . ["Epilimnion" means the freely circulating uppe r region of a thermally stratified waterbody extending from the surface to the thermocline.]

. . . ["Hypolimnion" means the lower region of a st ratified waterbody that extends from the thermocline to the bottom of the waterbody, and is isolated from circulation with the upper waters, thereby receiving little or no oxygen from the atmosphere.]

. . . ["Measurable changes" means changes measured or determined by a biological, chemical, physical, or analytical method, conducted in accordance with USEPA approved methods as identified in 40 C.F.R. 136 or other analytical methods (for example, mathematical models, ecological indices) approved by the Department, that might adversely impact a water use (including, but not limited to, aesthetics).]

. . .THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

138 “Necessary and justifiable social or economic development” means: (1) Projects located in Planning Areas 1 and 2, or in designated centers as mapped on the State Plan Policy Map adopted and amende d in accordance with the State Planning Rules, N.J.A.C. 5:85, and the State Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 52:18A-196 et seq
. (2) projects to protect public health and safety; or (3) new or expanded public institutions, includi ng, but not limited to, schools, hospitals,
and rehabilitation centers.

. . . "Non-carcinogen" means a toxic substance not categorized as a carcinogen, including Group D (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) or Group E (evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans) categorized in accordance with the USEPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 51 Fed. Reg. 33992, 1986 incorporated he rein by reference, as amended or supplemented.

. . . “Substantial Economic Impact" means the co st of a proposed project exceeds the community or facility's ability to pay for th e project. The economi c impact is determined by a financial analysis conducted on a propos ed pollution control project in accordance with USEPA guidance (Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. EPA-823-B-95-002, March 1995, as am ended and supplemented, incorporated herein by reference).

. . .
"Water effect ratio" or "WER" means the rati o of an acute (or chronic) toxicity value derived from a site study to the acute (or chro nic) toxicity value derived from a laboratory study for a particular toxic substance. The WER is multiplied by the aquatic life protection criterion for a given toxic substa nce to derive a site-specific aquatic life protection criterion.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

139 . . . 7:9B-1.5 Statements of policy (a) General policies are as follows: 1. - 4. (No Change.) 5. The introduction of carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic substances into the environment is of particular concern to the Department. Human health-based ambient criteria have been established [for carcinogenic substances] in freshwaters due to consumption of fish and water, and in saline water due to consumpt ion of fish. For carcinogens, the criteria
have been established at levels which would result in no greater than a one-in-one-million
lifetime excess cancer risk

. [for Group A and B carcinogens, under exposure assumptions appropriate for the designated uses of the wa terbody. Criteria for Group C carcinogens, for which reference doses are not available, have b een established at leve ls which would result in no greater than a one-in-one-hundred thousand lifetime excess cancer risk.] For noncarcinogens, the criteria have been estab lished which would result in no appreciable
risk of deleterious effect. 6. - 7. (No Change.)
(b) Interstate waters policies are as follows: 1. The designated uses and water quality criter ia for the fresh and saline waters under the jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Comm ission shall be as established in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.13, 1.14(c) [, and 1.14(d)] through (g)

. 2. The designated uses and water quality criter ia for waters under th e jurisdiction of the Interstate [Sanitation] Environmental Commission in the New Jersey/New York metropolitan area shall be as established in th is subchapter, or in accordance with the prevailing Water Quality Regulations of the Interstate [Sanitation] Environmental Commission, including all amendments and futu re supplements thereto, whichever are more stringent.

(c) General technical policies are as follows:
1. (No Change.)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

140 2. Water quality criteria are expected to be ma intained during periods when nontidal or small tidal stream flows are at or greater than the MA7CD10 flow, except as provided below: [the appropriate design flow. For carcinogenic effect-based human health criteria, toxic
substances with a bioaccumulation or bi oconcentration factor greater than 200 Liters/kilogram (L/kg) (as listed at 1.5(c)2i below) and for bromodichloromethane (BDCM), the design flow shall be the flow which is ex ceeded 75 percent of the time for the appropriate “period of record” as determined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). For acute aquatic life protection cr iteria, the design flow shall be the MA1CD10 flow. For chronic aquatic life protection cr iteria for ammonia, the design fl ow shall be the MA30CD10 flow. The design flow for all other crit eria shall be the MA7CD10 flow.
i. Toxic substances having carcinogenic effect -based human health criteria and with a bioaccumulation or bioconcentration factor greater than 200 L/kg are as follows:
(1) Aldrin; (2) Chlordane; (3) 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE); (4) 4,4'-DDE; (5) 4,4'-DDT; (6) 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidene; (7) Dieldrin; (8) Heptachlor; (9) Heptachlor epoxide; (10) Hexachlorobenzene; (11) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); (12) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenz o-p-dioxin (TCDD); and (13) Toxaphene.]

i. For acute aquatic life protection criteria, th e design flow shall be the MA1CD10 flow;
ii. For chronic aquatic life protection criteria for ammonia, the design flow shall be the MA30CD10 flow; and
iii. For human health criteria for toxic substances listed below, the design flow shall be the flow which is exceeded 75 percent of the time for the appropriate “period of record” as determined by the United States Geological Survey. (1) Aldrin; (2) Chlordane;THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

141 (3) Bromodichloromethane (BDCM); (4) 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE); (5) 4,4'-DDE; (6) 4,4'-DDT; (7) 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidene; (8) Dieldrin; (9) Heptachlor; (10) Heptachlor epoxide; (11) Hexachlorobenzene; (12) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); (13) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); and (14) Toxaphene. 3. - 6. (No Change.)

7. The Department shall utilize a geometric me an to assess compliance with the bacterial quality indicators at N.J.A.C.7:9B-1.14(d) 1ii-iii. The geomet ric mean shall be calculated using a minimum of five samples collected ov er a thirty-day period. The single sample maximum shall be used fo r beach notification in accordance with N.J.A.C. 8:26 and to identify where additional ambient water quality sampling is needed to calculate a geometric mean.

8. Temperature criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d) apply unless an alternative effluent limitation is approved in accordance with Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(a). i. Properly treated wastewater discharg e shall be deemed in compliance with the temperature criteria if the ambient st ream temperature measured outside the regulatory heat dissipation area does not increase by more than: (1) 0.6 ° C (1 ° F) in FW2-TP waters
(2) 1.1 ° C (2 ° F) in FW2-TM waters
(3) 2.8 ° C (5 ° F) in FW2-NT watersTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

142 (4) 2.2 ° C (4 ° F) in SE and SC waters from September through May
(5) 0.8 ° C (1.5 ° F) in SE and SC waters from June through August
ii. Thermal alterations to lakes, pond, or reser voirs shall not be perm itted unless it can be shown to be beneficial to the designated and existing uses.

(d) Antidegradation policies applicable to all surface waters of the State are as follows: 1. [These antidegradation policies apply to all surface waters of the State.] The antidegradation policies shall maintain existing uses and water quality where the existing water quality is better than water quality criteria. [2] i. Existing uses shall be maintained and protecte d. Designated uses shall be maintained or, as soon as technically and economically feasib le, be attained wherev er these uses are not precluded by natural conditions. The maintenance, migrat ion, and, as appropriate, propagation of threatened or endangered species (as defined under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq ., and/or the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act N.J.S.A. 23:2A-1 et seq.) is considered an existing use that must be maintained. [3. - 4.] ii. - iii. (No Change in Text.) iv. Where a lower classification of water (inc luding the antidegradation designation) may impinge upon a higher classification of wat er, the Department shall ensure that the quality and uses of the higher cla ssification water are protected. v. A waterway or waterbody from which ra w water is transferred to another waterway or waterbody shall be treated as a tributary to the waterway or waterbody receiving the
transferred water. vi. Modifications of water qua lity-based effluent limitations established to implement the antidegradation policy may be granted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8 and 1.9. vii. Antidegradation policies may be a pplied during one or more regulatory phases including water quality planning (under N.J.A.C. 7:15), TMDL development (under N.J.A.C. 7:15), or any of the De partment’s permitting programs.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

143 2. The waters of the State are assigned an tidegradation designations pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15. Antidegradation policies appl icable to a waterbody based upon its antidegradation designation are as follows:
i. FW1 waters shall be maintained in their natural state (set aside for posterity) and shall not be subject to any manmade wastewat er discharges or increases in runoff from anthropogenic activities. The Department sh all not approve any activity which, alone or in combination with any other activiti es, might cause changes, other than toward natural water quality, in the existing surface water quality characteristics. ii. For Pinelands waters, the Department shall not approve any activity which alone or in combination with any other ac tivities, might cause changes, other than toward natural water quality, in the existing surface water qua lity characteristics. This policy shall apply as follows: (1) This policy is not intended to interfere wi th water control in th e operation of cranberry bogs or blueberry production. (2) Dischargers holding valid NJPDES p ermits as of May 20, 1985, shall be allowed to continue discharging under the terms of thei r existing NJPDES permits provided that the discharge is not creating any water qua lity problems and that the designated uses are being attained. If a water quality prob lem has been created or the designated uses are not being attained, the NJ PDES permit shall be modifi ed to eliminate the water quality problem or attain the designated uses. (3) Existing dischargers shall be subject to all the provisions of th is subchapter when they apply for modification or expans ion of their existing discharge. iii. Category One Waters shall be protected fr om any calculable changes to the existing water quality. Water quality characteristics that are generally worse than the water quality criteria, except as due to natural co nditions, shall be improved to meet water quality criteria and maintain or provide fo r the designated uses where this can be accomplished without adverse impacts to organisms, communities or ecosystems of

concern. iv. For Category Two Waters, water quality char acteristics that are generally better than, or equal to the water quality standards shal l be maintained with in a range of qualityTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

144 that protects the existing and designated uses. Water quality characteristics that are generally worse than the water quality crit eria, except when due to natural conditions, shall be improved to meet the water quality criteria. [5. Where water quality exceeds levels necessary to support the designated uses, including but not limited to, propagation of fish, shellfish, a nd wildlife and recreati on in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and prot ected unless the Department finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordinati on and public participation provisions of the Department's continuing planning process as set forth in the Statewide Water Quality Management Plan (see N.J.A.C. 7:15), which includes, but is not limited to, the NJPDES Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:14A), that allo wing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social devel opment in the area in which the waters are
located. 6. These antidegradation policies shall be applied as follows: i. The quality of Nondegradation wa ters shall be maintained in th eir natural state (set aside for posterity) and shall not be subj ect to any manmade wastewater discharges. The Department shall not approve any activity wh ich, alone or in combination wi th any other activities, might cause changes, other than toward natural wate r quality, in the existing surface water quality
characteristics. ii. For Pinelands waters, the Department sha ll not approve any activity which alone or in combination with any other activities, might cause changes, other than toward natural water quality, in the existing surface water quality characteristics. This policy shall apply as
follows: (1) This policy is not intended to interfere with water control in the operation of cranberry bogs or blueberry production. (2) Dischargers holding valid NJPDES permits as of May 20, 1985, shall be allowed to continue discharging under the terms of their existing NJPDES permits provided that the discharge is not creating any water quality pr oblems and that the designated us es are being attained. If a water quality problem has been created or the designated uses are not being attained, the NJPDES permit shall be modified to eliminat e the water quality problem or attain the designated uses.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

145 (3) Existing dischargers shall be subject to all th e provisions of this subchapter when they apply for modification or expansion of their existing discharge. iii. Category One Waters shall be protected from any measurable changes (including calculable or predicted changes) to the existing water quality. Water quality characteristics that are generally worse than the water quality criteria , except as due to natural conditions, shall be improved to maintain or provide for the designated uses where this can be accomplished without adverse impacts on organisms, communities or ecosystems of concern. iv. For Category Two Waters, water quality charact eristics that are gene rally better than, or equal to, the water quality standards shall be main tained within a range of quality that shall protect the existing/designated uses, as determ ined by studies acceptable to the Department, relating existing/designated uses to water quality. Where such st udies are not available or are inconclusive, water quality shall be protected from changes that might be detrimental to the attainment of the designated uses or main tenance of the existing uses. Water quality characteristics that are generally worse than the water quality criteria shall be improved to meet the water quality criteria.]

3. Activities not subject to antidegradation review:
i. Short term, temporary (not to exceed six months) lowering of water quality which will not result in long term or permanent changes to the aquatic ecosystem, including, but not limited to, bank/sediment stabilization projects; establishment of buffer zones; scientific study or research; and repairs to existing roads, bridges, dams, or other
infrastructure.
ii. Emergency response actions undertaken to re mediate a discharge in to the environment of hazardous substances which may pose an imminent and substantial danger to public health, welfare, and environment.
iii. Site remediation actions which have the net effect of improving surface water quality by reducing existing or impending net loadin g of pollutants to a waterbody which is currently or would eventually be affected.
iv. Transfers of water for water supply purposes approved by the Department.

v. The following NJPDES permit actions:THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

146 (1) Permit renewals that do not authorize an increase in permitted flow or pollutant loadings; (2) Discharges authorized by a NJPDES genera l permit issued pursu ant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A6.13 after (the e ffective date).

4. Antidegradation policies for new or expanded point source discharges regulated pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A sha ll be implemented as follows:
i. The applicant shall perform an alternatives analysis to determine if other options are available to prevent or minimize the loweri ng of water quality. The applicant shall consider all feasible non-discharge alternativ es including relocati on of the outfall and
connection to another treatmen t plant; alternative treatm ent technologies available to minimize the lowering of water quality; a nd modifications to the existing treatment system.
ii. If the Department determines there are no alternatives to a surface water discharge, the applicant may be required to conduct a wa ter quality study to establish effluent limitations for the identified pollutants which could result in a lowering of water quality. (1) For existing discharges, the applicant shall evaluate existing effluent data and current plant performance to identify those pollutants that m ay increase as a result of the expansion. (2) For new discharges, the applicant shall uti lize effluent data from a similar facility taking into account the size, treatment, and water supply source.
iii. In Category One waters the discharge is cons istent with the antidegradation policies if it does not result in calculable change in water quality.
iv. In Category Two waters, the discharge is cons istent with the antidegradation policies if: (1) The proposed new or expanded discharge will no t result in a calculable change in water quality; (2) The proposed new or expanded discharge to Highlands open waters, as defined at N.J.S.A. 13:20-3, within the Preservation Area of the Highlands Wat er Protection andTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

147 Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 13:20-1 et seq .) will not result in a calculable change in water quality; or (3) The proposed project qualifies as a neces sary and justifiable social or economic development or the cost to prevent the lowering of water quality would result in substantial economic impact. For projects qualifying under this provision, a lowering of water quality may be allowed provided that the existing and designated uses will be maintained and protected. The Department shall determine the extent of lowering water quality based upon: (i) the type of project and the anticipated public benefit from the project; (ii) the predicted in-stream water quality based upon treatment options; (iii) the cost of treatment; and (iv) environmental impacts associated with each treatment option.

[7. Where a lower classification of water (inc luding the different antid egradation waters) may impinge upon a higher classification of water the Department shall ensure that the quality and uses of the higher classifi cation water are protected. 8. A waterway or waterbody from which raw wa ter is transferred to another waterway or waterbody shall be treated as a tributary to the waterway or waterbody receiving the transferred water. 9. Modifications of water qualit y-based effluent limitations established to implement this antidegradation policy may be granted pu rsuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8 and 1.9.]
(e) Water quality-based effluent limitation policies are as follows: 1. - 6. (No Change.) 7. The Department may require characterization monitoring in NJPDES permits for mercury and PCBs using the USEPA appr oved method 1631 for mercury (Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analys is of Pollutants; Measurement of Mercury in Water; Revisions to EPA Method 1631, 40 C.F.R. 136, Fed. Reg. 67:65876, October 29, 2002) as supplimented and amended and 1668A for PCBs (Method 1668, Revision A: Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment, and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS. EPA-821-R-00-002, December 1999) as supplimented and amended.

(f) - (g) (No Change.)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

148 (h) A permittee may request that a regulatory mixing zone be established by the Department for applicable criteria except as otherwise provided in this sec tion. Regulatory mixing zones may be evaluated as part of the development of water quality-based effluent limitation(s) to provide for the initial dispersion of the efflue nt in the receiving wa ter body at or near the discharge point.
1. (No Change.)
2. Spatial limitations for regulatory mixing zone s delineate the maximum area in which the initial mixing may occur. A site-specific study performed in accordance with (h)3 below will
be used to determine dilution in tidal water bodies and in nontidal wa ter bodies where mixing is not shown to be rapid and complete. A ma ximum area shall be applied in any one of the following four situations:
i. Heat dissipation areas shall be established as follows: [as provided at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) 11.ii. or a variance issued pursuant to Sec tion 316(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(a).] (1) For discharges to FW2-NT, FW2-TM, and SE waters, not more than one-quarter (1/4)
of the cross section and/or volume of the water body at any time or more than twothirds (2/3) of the surface from shore to shore at any time. (2) For discharges to lakes, ponds, reservoirs , bays or coastal wat ers, the heat dissipation areas shall be developed on a case-by-case basis. (3) A discharger may be granted a larger heat dissipation area pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1326(a) Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act. ii. - iv. (No Change.) 3. - 5. (No Change.)

7:9B-1.6 Establishment of water qua lity-based effluent limitations (a) For Category One waters, as defined in N.J. A.C. 7:9B-1.4, water quality-based effluent limitations shall be assigned to a point source discharge so as to protect the existing water quality from any [measurable or] calculable ch anges. The Department shall establish water quality-based effluent limitations, as appropriat e, for those parameters contained in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14, as well as any other parameters th e Department believes may have a detrimental effect on the designated or existing uses. (b) (No Change.)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

149 (c) Water quality-based effluent limits for chlo rine produced oxidants based on the criteria in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 [(c)14] (f) are not applicable where: 1. - 3. (No Change.)

7:9B-1.14 Surface water quality criteria (a) (No Change.) (b) Surface water quality criteria for PL waters are as follows: 1. (No Change.) 2. The water quality criteria for existing discharges are the water quality criteria contained in "Surface Water Quality Standards" as adopted in March 1981, except that: i. (No Change.) ii. The criteria for phosphorous , bacterial quality, and toxic substances promulgated in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) through (g) apply instead of the 1 981 criteria, as though the freshwater portions of the PL waters were cl assified as FW2 and the saline portions were classified as SE1. (c) Unless site-specific criteria are establishe d at (g) below, State-wide criteria apply for FW2, SE, and SC waters as listed in accordance with (d) through (f) below.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

150 [(c)] (d) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters:
7:9B-1.14(d) General Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters : (Expressed as Maximum concentrations unless otherwise noted) Substance Criteria Classifications

i. Shellfish Harvesting: Bacterial Indicators shall not exceed, in all shellfish waters, the standard for approved shellfish waters as established by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program as set forth in its current manual of operations. Shellfish Waters

[ii. Fecal Coliforms: (1) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric average of 50/100 ml. [Within 1500 feet of shoreline in SC waters. (2) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric average of 200/100 ml nor should more than 10 percent of the total samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml. FW2, SE1, and SC 1500 feet to 3 miles from the shoreline.

(3) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric average of 770/100 ml. SE2
(4) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric average of 1500/100ml. SE3

iii. Enterococci: (1) Enterococci levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 33/100 ml, nor shall any single sample exceed 61/100 ml. FW2

(2) Enterococci levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 35/100 ml, nor shall any single sample exceed 104/100 ml.] SE1 and SC]

ii. Primary Contact Recreation: (1) Enterococci levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 35/100 ml, or a single sample maximum of 104/100 ml. SE1 and SC

(2) E. Coli levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 126/100 ml or a single sample maximum of 235/100 ml. All FW2

iii. Secondary Contact Recreation: (1) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 770/100 ml. SE2 1. Bacterial quality (Counts/100 ml)

(2) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 1500/100ml. SE3THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

151 [iv. Samples shall be obtained at sufficient frequencies and at locations during periods which will permit valid interpretation of laboratory analyses. As a guideline and for the purpose of these regulations, a minimum of five samples as equally spaced over a 30-d ay period, as feasible, should be collected; however, the number of samples, frequencies and locations will be determined by the Department or other appropriate agency in any particular case.] [All Classifications]

2. - 10. (No Change.) [i. Thermal Alterations (Temperatures shall be measured outside of heat dissipation areas) (1) Streams

(i) No thermal alterations which would cause changes in ambient temperatures except where properly treated wastewater effluents are discharged. Where such discharges occur, temperatures shall not deviate more than 0.6 o C (1 o F) from ambient temperature. [FW2-TP

(ii) No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to exceed ambient by more than 1.1 o C (2 o F) at any time or which would cause temperatures in excess of 20 o C (68 o F). FW2-TM

(iii) No thermal deviations which would cause temperatures to deviate more than 2.8 o C (5 o F) at any time from ambient temperatures. No heat may be added which would cause temperatures to exceed 27.8 o C (82 o F) for small mouth bass or yellow perch waters, or 30 o C (86 o F) for other nontrout waters. FW2-NT 11. Temperature [and Heat

Dissipation Areas]

(iv) No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to deviate from ambient by more than 2.2 o C (4 o F), from September through May, nor more than 0.8 o C (1.5 o F) from June through August, nor cause temperatures to exceed 29.4 o C (85 o F).] All SE]

(i) No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to exceed 20 ° C (68 ° F) FW2-TP, FW2-TM

(ii) No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to exceed 27.8 ° C (82 ° F) FW2-NT (small mouth bass and yellow perch waters) (iii) No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to exceed 30 ° C (86 ° F) All other FW2-NT

(iv) No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to exceed 29.4 ° C (85 ° F) SE

(v) No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to exceed 26.7 ° C (80 ° F) SC
[(2) Lakes, Ponds or ReservoirsTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

152 (i) No thermal alterations except where it can be shown to be beneficial to the designated and existing uses. [FW2-TM, FW2-TP

(ii) No thermal alterations of more than 1.7 ° C (3 ° F) in the epilimnion of lakes and other standing waters. No discharges of heated effluent into the hypolimnion nor pumping of water from the hypolimnion (for discharge back into the same water body) shall be permitted unless it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Department, that such practices will be beneficial to the existing and designated uses. FW2-NT

(3) Saline Bays - No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to deviate from ambient by more than 2.2 ° C (4 ° F), from September through May, nor more than 0.8 o C (1.5 ° F) from June through August, nor cause temperatures to exceed 29.4 ° C (85 ° F). All SE

(4) Coastal Waters - No direct heat additions within 1,500 feet of the shoreline. No thermal alterations which would cause temperatures to deviate from ambient temperatures by more than 2.2 ° C (4 ° F) from September through May, nor more than 0.8 ° C (1.5 ° F) from June through August, nor which would cause temperatures to exceed 26.7 ° C (80 ° F). SC

ii. Heat Dissipation Areas (1) Streams FW2-TM, FW2-NT, All SE (i) Not more than one-quarter (1/4) of the cross section and/or volume of the water body at any time; FW2, SE3

(ii) Not more than two-thirds (2/3) of the surface from shore to shore at any time; and (iii) These limits may be exceeded by special permission, on a case-by-case basis, when a discharger can demonstrate that a larger heat dissipation area meets the tests for a waiver under Section 316 of the Federal Clean Water Act. (2) Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs, Bays or Coastal Waters: Heat dissipation areas will be developed on a case-by-case basis.] All Classifications]

12. (No Change.)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

153 [13. Toxic Substances ( μ g/L):] [NOTE: Except as noted, aquatic life criteria fo llowed by an (a) represent acute aquatic life protection criteria as a one-hou r average (three-hour for ammonia, six-hour for lead) and aquatic life criteria followed by (c) repres ent chronic aquatic life protection criteria as a four-day average (30-day for ammonia). No exceedance of aquatic lif e criteria shall be permitted at or above the design flows specified in section N.J.A.C. 7: 9B-1.5(c)2. Criteria followed by an (h) are noncarcinogenic effect-based human health crite ria as a 30-day average with no frequency of exceedance at or above the design flows specified in section N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2. Criteria followed by an (hc) are carcinogeni c effect-based human health cr iteria as a 70-year average with no frequency of exceedance at or above the design flows specified in secti on N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2 and are based on a risk level of one-in-one-million. Criteria followed by an (hcc) are for toxic substances considered to be possible human carci nogens as a 70-year average with no frequency of exceedance at or above the design flows specified in section N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2 and are based on a risk level of one-in-one hundr ed thousand. Criteria follow ed by an (OL) are organoleptic effect-based criteria and are maximum concentrations.] [i. Acenaphthylene Reserved. ii. Acrolein (1) 320(h) (2) 780(h) All FW2 All SE, SC iii. Acrylonitrile (1) 0.0591(hc) (2) 0.665(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC iv. Aldrin (1) 3.0(a); 0.000135(hc) (2) 1.3(a); 0.000144(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC v. Aluminum (Total recoverable) Reserved.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

154 vi. Ammonia, un-ionized (mg NH 3 -N/L) (1) at pH < 8.30

0.179 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a)

0.046 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) at pH ≥ 8.30

0.179 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (a)

0.046 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (c) (2) at pH < 8.30

0.201 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a) (Summer 1 )

0.054 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) (Summer 1 )

0.232 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a) (Winter 2 )

0.060 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) (Winter 2 ) at pH ≥ 8.30

0.201 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (a) (Summer 1 )

0.054 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (c) (Summer 1 )

0.232 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (a) (Winter 2 )

0.060 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (c) (Winter 2 ) FW2-TP, FW2-TM

FW2-NT

(3) at pH < 8.30

0.238 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a)

0.061 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) at pH ≥ 8.30

0.238 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (a)

0.061 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (c) (4) 0.115(a) 0.030(c) (5) 0.094(a) 0.024(c) PL

All SE

SC
1 Summer spawning period from March 1 st through October 31 st

. 2 Winter non-spawning period from November 1 st through February 28/29 th

. Substance Criteria Classifications vii. Anthracene (1) 9,570(h) (2) 108,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC viii. Antimony (Total

recoverable) (1) 12.2(h) (2) 4,300(h) All FW2 All SE, SC ix. Arsenic (Total

recoverable) (1) 0.0170(hc) (2) 0.136(hc) All FW2 All SE, SCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

155 x. Asbestos (1) 7 million fibers/L (h) (fibers longer than 10 micrometers) All FW2

xi. Barium (Total

recoverable) (1) 2,000(h) All FW2

xii. Benz(a)anthracene (1) 0.0028(hc) (2) 0.031(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xiii. Benzene (1) 0.150(hc) (2) 71(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xiv. Benzidine (1) 0.000118(hc) (2) 0.000535(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xv. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene

(Benzo(b)fluoranthene) (1) 0.0028(hc) (2) 0.031(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xvi. Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) (1) 0.0028(hc) (2) 0.031(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xvii. Benzo(ghi)perylene Reserved. xviii. Benzo(k)fluoranthene (1) 0.0028(hc) (2) 0.031(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xix. Beryllium (Total

recoverable) Reserved.

xx. alpha-BHC (alpha-HCH) (1) 0.00391(hc) (2) 0.0131(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xxi. beta-BHC (beta-HCH) (1) 0.137(hcc) (2) 0.460(hcc) All FW2 All SE, SCxxii. gamma-BHC (gammaHCH/Lindane) (1) 2.0(a); 0.080(c) (2) 0.16(a) All FW2 All SE, SC xxiii. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (1) 0.0311(hc) (2) 1.4(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xxiv. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)

ether (1) 1,250(h) (2) 170,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xxv. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate (1) 1.76(hc) (2) 5.92(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xxvi. Bromodichloromethane

(Dichlorobromomethane) (1) 0.266(hc) (2) 22(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xxvii. Bromoform (1) 4.38(hc) (2) 360(hc) All FW2 All SE, SCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

156 xxviii. Butyl benzyl phthalate (1) 239(h) (2) 416(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xxix. Cadmium (Total

recoverable) (1) 10(h) All FW2

xxx. Carbon tetrachloride (1) 0.363(hc) (2) 6.31(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxi. Chlordane (1) 2.4(a); 0.0043(c); 0.000277(hc) (2) 0.09(a); 0.0040(c); 0.000283(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxii. Chloride (1) 250,000 (ol); 860,000(a); 230,000(c) All FW2

xxxiii. Chlorine Produced

Oxidants (CPO) (1) 19(a); 11(c) (2) 13(a); 7.5(c) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxiv. Chlorobenzene (1) 22.0(h) (2) 21,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxv. Chloroform (1) 5.67(hc) (2) 470(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxvi. 2-Chlorophenol (1) 122(h) (2) 402(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxvii. Chlorpyrifos (1) 0.083(a); 0.041(c) (2) 0.011(a); 0.0056(c) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxviii. Chromium (Total

recoverable) (1) 160(h) (2) 3,230(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xxxix. Chrysene (1) 0.0028(hc) (2) 0.031(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xl. Copper (Dissolved) (1) Reserved. (2) Reserved. (3) 7.9(a); 5.6(c) New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary* xli. Cyanide (1) 22(a); 5.2(c); 768(h) (2) 1.0(a); 1.0(c); 220,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xlii. 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE) (1) 0.000832(hc) (2) 0.000837(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xliii. 4,4'-DDE (1) 0.000588(hc) (2) 0.000591(hc) All FW2 All SE, SCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

157 xliv. 4,4'-DDT (1) 1.1(a); 0.0010(c); 0.000588(hc) (2) 0.13(a); 0.0010(c); 0.000591(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xlv. Demeton (1) 0.1(c) All FW2, SE, and SC xlvi. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (1) 0.0028(hc) (2) 0.031(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xlvii. Dibromochloromethane

(Chlorodibromomethane) (1) 72.6(h) All FW2

xlviii. Di-n-butyl phthalate (1) 3,530(h) (2) 15,700(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xlix. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (1) 2,520(h) (2) 16,500(h) All FW2 All SE, SC l. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (1) 2,620(h) (2) 22,200(h) All FW2 All SE, SC li. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (1) 343(h) (2) 3,159(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lii. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (1) 0.0386(hc) (2) 0.0767(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC liii. 1,2-Dichloroethane (1) 0.291(hc) (2) 99(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC liv. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1) 4.81(h) All FW2 lv. trans-1,2-

Dichloroethylene (1) 592(h) All FW2

lvi. 2,4-Dichlorophenol (1) 92.7(h) (2) 794(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lvii. 1,3-Dichloropropene (1) 0.193(hc) (2) 1,700(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lviii. Dieldrin (1) 2.5(a); 0.0019(c); 0.000135(hc) (2) 0.71(a); 0.0019(c); 0.000144(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC lix. Diethyl phthalate (1) 21,200(h) (2) 111,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lx. Dimethyl phthalate (1) 313,000(h) (2) 2,900,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxi. 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (1) 13.4(h) (2) 765(h) All FW2 All SE, SCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

158 lxii. 2,4-Dinitrophenol (1) 69.7(h) (2) 14,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxiii. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (1) 0.11(hc) (2) 9.1(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC lxiv. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (1) 0.0405(hc) (2) 0.541(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC lxv. Endosulfans (alpha and

beta) (1) 0.22(a); 0.056(c); 0.932(h) (2) 0.034(a); 0.0087(c); 1.99(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxvi. Endosulfan sulfate (1) 0.93(h) (2) 2.0(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxvii. Endrin (1) 0.18(a); 0.0023(c); 0.629(h) (2) 0.037(a); 0.0023(c); 0.678(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxviii. Endrin aldehyde (1) 0.76(h) (2) 0.81(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxix. Ethylbenzene (1) 3,030(h) (2) 27,900(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxx. Fluoranthene (1) 310(h) (2) 393(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxi. Fluorene (1) 1,340(h) All FW2 lxxii. Guthion (1) 0.01(c) All FW2, SE and SC lxxiii. Heptachlor (1) 0.52(a); 0.0038(c); 0.000208(hc) (2) 0.053(a); 0.0036(c); 0.000214(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxiv. Heptachlor epoxide (1) 0.52(a); 0.0038(c); 0.000103(hc) (2) 0.053(a); 0.0036(c); 0.000106(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxv. Hexachlorobenzene (1) 0.000748(hc) (2) 0.000775(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxvi. Hexachlorobutadiene (1) 6.94(h) All FW2lxxvii. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (1) 245(h) (2) 17,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxviii. Hexachloroethane (1) 2.73(h) (2) 12.4(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxix. Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (1) 0.0028(hc) (2) 0.031(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxx. Iron (Total recoverable) Reserved.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

159 lxxxi. Isophorone (1) 552(h) All FW2 lxxxii. Lead (1) 38(a); 5.4(c) (Dissolved); 5(h) (Total recoverable) (2) 210(a); 24(c) (Dissolved) All FW2
All SE, SC lxxxiii. Malathion (1) 0.1(c) All FW2, SE and SC lxxxiv. Manganese (Total recoverable) (1) 100(h) All SE, SC

lxxxv. Mercury (Total recoverable) (1) 0.144(h) (2) 0.146(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxxvi. Methoxychlor (1) 0.03(c); 40(h) (2) 0.03(c) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxxvii. Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) (1) 48.4(h) (2) 4,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC lxxxviii. Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) Reserved.

lxxxix. Methylene chloride (1) 2.49(hc) (2) 1,600(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xc. Mirex (1) 0.001(c) All FW2, SE and SC xci. Nickel (Total recoverable) (1) 516(h) (2) 3,900(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xcii. Nitrate (as N) (1) 10,000(h) All FW2 xciii. Nitrobenzene (1) 16.0(h) (2) 1,900(h) All FW2 All SE, SC xciv. N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (1) 0.00641(hc) All FW2 xcv. N-Nitrosodiethylamine (1) 0.000233(hc) All FW2 xcvi. N-Nitrosodimethylamine (1) 0.000686(hc) (2) 8.1(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xcvii.N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) 4.95(hc) (2) 16.2(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC xcviii. N-Nitrosopyrrolidine (1) 0.0167(hc) All FW2 xcix. Parathion (1) 0.065(a); 0.013(c) All FW2 c. Pentachlorobenzene (1) 3.67(h) (2) 4.21(h) All FW2 All SE, SCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

160 ci. Pentachlorophenol (1) e (1.005(pH)-4.830) (a);

e (1.005(pH)-5.290) (c); 0.282(hc) (2) 13(a); 7.9(c); 8.2(hc) All FW2

All SE, SC cii. Phenanthrene Reserved. ciii. Phenol (1) 20,900(h) (2) 4,600,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC civ. Phosphorous (yellow) (1) 0.1(c) All SE, SC cv. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (1) 0.014(c); 0.00017(hc) (2) 0.030(c); 0.00017(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC cvi. Pyrene (1) 797(h) (2) 8,970(h) All FW2 All SE, SC cvii. Selenium (Total recoverable) (1) 10(h) All FW2

cviii. Silver (Total recoverable) (1) 164(h) All FW2 cix. Sulfide-hydrogen sulfide (undissociated) (1) 2(c) All FW2, SE and SC cx. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (1) 2.56(h) (2) 3.25(h) All FW2 All SE, SC cxi. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD) (1) 0.000000013(hc) (2) 0.000000014(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC

cxii. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (1) 1.72(hcc) All FW2 cxiii. Tetrachloroethylene (1) 0.388(hc) (2) 4.29(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC cxiv. Thallium (Total recoverable) (1) 1.70(h) (2) 6.22(h) All FW2 All SE, SC cxv. Toluene (1) 7,440(h) (2) 200,000(h) All FW2 All SE, SC cxvi. Toxaphene (1) 0.73(a); 0.0002(c); 0.000730(hc) (2) 0.21(a); 0.0002(c); 0.000747(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC cxvii.1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (1) 30.6(h) (2) 113(h) All FW2 All SE, SC cxviii. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1) 127(h) All FW2 cxix. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1) 13.5(h) All FW2THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________ [7:9B-1.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for FW2, SE and SC Waters (Expressed as maximum concentr ations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________ Substance Criteria Classifications]

161 cxx. Trichloroethylene (1) 1.09(hc) (2) 81(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC cxxi. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (1) 2,580(h) (2) 9,790(h) All FW2 All SE, SC cxxii.2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (1) 2.14(hc) (2) 6.53(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC cxxiii. Vinyl chloride (1) 0.0830(hc) (2) 525(hc) All FW2 All SE, SC cxxiv. Zinc (Total recoverable) Reserved. 14. Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit-NTU) i. Maximum 30-day average of 15 NTU, a maximum of 50 NTU at any time. FW2, SE3

ii. Maximum 30-day average of 10 NTU, a maximum of 30 NTU at any time. SE1, SE2

iii. Levels shall not exceed 10.0 NTU. SC] [* Waters which include Newark Bay, th e New Jersey portions of Raritan Ba y, Upper New York Bay, Lower New York Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, saline portions of the Passaic, Hackensak, and Hudson Rivers and saline portions of tributaries to all of these waters. ] 13. Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit-NTU) i. Maximum 30-day average of 15 NTU, a maximum of 50 NTU at any time. FW2, SE3

ii. Maximum 30-day average of 10 NTU, a maximum of 30 NTU at any time. SE1, SE2

iii. Levels shall not exceed 10.0 NTU. SCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

162 (e) Surface Water Quality Criteria for Ammoni a are derived in accord ance with the formulas set forth below. Acute criteria are expres sed as three-hour aver age using MA1CD10 flow and chronic criteria are expressed as 30-day average using MA30CD10 flow. No exceedance of criteria shall be permitted at or above the design flows specified.
CAS Number Criteria Classification
(1) at pH < 8.30
0.179 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a)

0.046 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) at pH ≥ 8.30
0.179 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (a)
0.046 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (c) FW2-TP, FW2-TM

(2) at pH < 8.30

0.201 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a) (Summer 1 )

0.054 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) (Summer 1 )

0.232 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a) (Winter 2 )

0.060 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) (Winter 2 ) at pH ≥ 8.30
0.201 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (a) (Summer 1 )
0.054 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (c) (Summer 1 )
0.232 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (a) (Winter 2 )
0.060 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.20 (c) (Winter 2 ) FW2-NT

(3) at pH < 8.30
0.238 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (a)

0.061 ∗ 10 0.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80) (c) PLAmmonia, unionized (mg NH 3 -N/L) 7664-41-7

(4) 0.115(a); 0.030(c) (5) 0.094(a); 0.024(c) All SE
SCTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

163 1 Summer spawning period from March 1 st through October 31 st

. 2 Winter non-spawning p eriod from November 1 st through February 28/29 th

. (a) Acute aquatic life protection criterion (c) Chronic aquatic life protection criterion

(f) Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances are as follows: 1. Acute aquatic life protection criteria ar e determined with no exceedance at or above the MA1CD10 flow and expressed as one-hour average except, i. for copper the criteria are expressed as 24-hour average, and ii. for cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nick el, silver, and zinc the criteria are expressed as 6-hour average.

2. Chronic aquatic life protection criteria a re determined with no ex ceedance at or above the MA7CD10 flow and expressed as four-day average.

3. Freshwater aquatic criteria for cadmium, chromium III, copper, nickel, silver, and zinc are expressed as a function of water hardness. Criteria can be calculated at any hardness using these equations as listed below. Criteria thus calculated are multiplied by appropriate conversion factor (CF) to conver t total recoverable metal into dissolved metal and by the default Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 1.0.

General formula WER [e (V[ln (hardness)] + ln A - V[ln Z]) ] CF

where: V = pooled slope A = FAV at given hardness Z = selected value of hardness

Cadmium: Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (1.0166 (ln [hardness])-3.924) ] 0.651
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.7409 (ln [hardness])-4.719) ] 0.651

Chromium III: Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (0.819 (ln [hardness])+3.7256) ] 0.277THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

164 Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.819 (ln [hardness])+0.6848) ] 0.277
Copper: Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (0.9422 (ln [hardness])-1.7) ] 0.908
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.8545 (ln [hardness])-1.702) ] 0.908

Nickel: Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (0.846 (ln [hardness])+2.255) ] 0.846
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.846 (ln [hardness])+0.0584) ] 0.846

Silver: Acute dissolved criterion WER [e (1.72 (ln [hardness])-6.59) ] 0.85

Zinc: Acute or dissolved criterion WER [e (0.8473 (ln [hardness])+0.884) ] 0.950
Chronic dissolved criterion WER [e (0.8473 (ln [hardness])+0.884) ] 0.950

4. Freshwater criteria for pentachlorophenol are expressed as a function of pH. Criteria are
derived in accordance with the formula set forth below:

Acute criterion = e (1.005[pH]-4.869)
Chronic criterion = e (1.005[pH]-5.134)

5. Human health noncarcinogenic effect-bas ed criteria are expre ssed as a 30-day average with no frequency of exceedance at or above the MA7CD10 flow.

6. Human health carcinogenic ef fect-based criteria are based on a risk level of one-in-onemillion and are expressed as a 70-year avera ge with no frequency of exceedance at or above the MA7CD10 flow except for thos e listed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)2iii.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

165 

### 7. SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES: ( μ g/L)
Fresh Water (FW2) Criteria Saline Water (SE & SC) Criteria Aquatic Aquatic Toxic Substance CAS Number Acute Chronic Human Health Acute Chronic Human Health

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 670(h) 990(h)
Acrolein 107-02-8 6.1(h) 9.3(h) Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 0.051(hc) 0.25(hc)
Aldrin 309-00-2 3.0 0.000049(hc) 1.3 0.000050(hc) Ammonia, un-ionized 7664-41-7 See N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.14(e) See N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.14(e)
Anthracene 120-12-7 8,300(h) 40,000(h) Antimony 7440-36-0 5.6(h)(T) 640(h)(T)
Arsenic 7440-38-2 340(d)(s) 150(d)(s) 0.017(hc)(T) 69(d)(s) 36(d)(s) 0.061(hc)(T)

Asbestos 1332-21-4 7x10 6 fibers/L >10 μ m(h) Barium 7440-39-3 2,000(h)(T) Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.038(hc) 0.18(hc) Benzene 71-43-2 0.15(hc) 3.3(hc) Benzidine 92-87-5 0.000086(hc) 0.00020(hc) 3,4-Benzofluoranthene

(Benzo(b)fluoranthene) 205-99-2 0.038(hc) 0.18(hc)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.38(hc) 1.8(hc) Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) 50-32-8 0.0038(hc) 0.018(hc) Beryllium 7440-41-7 6.0(h)(T) 42(h)(T) alpha-BHC (alpha-HCH) 319-84-6 0.0026(hc) 0.0049(hc) beta-BHC (beta-HCH) 319-85-7 0.0091(hc) 0.017(hc)gamma-BHC (gammaHCH/Lindane) 58-89-9 0.95 0.98(h) 0.16 1.8(h)
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 111-44-4 0.030(hc) 0.53(hc) Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)

ether 108-60-1 1,400(h) 65,000(h)

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 1.2(hc) 2.2(hc)
Bromodichloromethane

(Dichlorobromomethane) 75-27-4 0.55(hc) 17(hc)

Bromoform 75-25-2 4.3(hc) 140(hc) Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 150(h) 190(h)
Cadmium 7440-43-9 (a) (a) 3.4(h)(T) 40(d)(s) 8.8(d)(s) 16(h)(T)
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.33(hc) 2.3(hc)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

166 Chlordane 57-74-9 2.4 0.0043 0.00010(hc) 0.09 0.0040 0.00011(hc)
Chloride 16887-00-6 860,000 230,000 250,000(ol)
Chlorine Produced

Oxidants (CPO) 7782-50-5 19 11 13 7.5

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 210(h) 2,500(h)
Chloroform 67-66-3 68(h) 2,100(h) 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 1,000(h) 1,600(h) 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 81(h) 150(h) Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 0.083 0.041 0.011 0.0056
Chromium 7440-47-3 92(h)(T) 750(h)(T)
Chromium +3 16065-83-1 (a) (a)

Chromium +6 18540-29-9 15(d)(s) 10(d)(s) 1,100(d)(s) 50(d)(s) Chrysene 218-01-9 3.8(hc) 18(hc) Copper 7440-50-8 (a) (a) 1,300(h)(T) 4.8(d)(s) 3.1(d)(s) Cyanide (Total) 57-12-5 22(fc) 5.2(fc) 140(h) 1.0(fc) 1.0(fc) 140(h) 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE) 72-54-8 0.00031(hc) 0.00031(hc) 4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0.00022(hc) 0.00022(hc) 4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 1.1 0.0010 0.00022(hc) 0.13 0.0010 0.00022(hc)
Demeton 8065-48-3 0.1 0.1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.0038(hc) 0.018(hc)
Dibromochloromethane

(Chlorodibromomethane) 124-48-1 0.40(hc) 13(hc)
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 2,000(h) 4,500(h) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 2,000(h) 6,200(h) 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 2,200(h) 8,300(h) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 550(h) 2,200(h) 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0.021(hc) 0.028(hc) 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.29(hc) 28(hc) 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-35-4 4.7(h) 100(h) trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 590(h) 43,000(h) 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 77(h) 290(h) 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.50(hc) 15(hc) 1,3-Dichloropropene (cis

and trans) 542-75-6 0.34(hc) 21(hc)

Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.24 0.056 0.000052(hc) 0.71 0.0019 0.000054(hc) Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 17,000(h) 44,000(h)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

167 2,4-Dimethyl phenol 105-67-9 380(h) 850(h)

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 534-52-1 13(h) 280(h) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 69(h) 5,300(h) 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 0.11(hc) 3.4(hc) 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 0.036(hc) 0.20(hc) Endosulfans (alpha and

beta) 115-29-7 0.22 0.056 62(h) 0.034 0.0087 89(h)

Endosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8 62(h) 89(h)
Endrin 72-20-8 0.086 0.036 0.059(h) 0.037 0.0023 0.060(h) Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4 0.059(h) 0.060(h) Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 530(h) 2,100(h)
Fluoranthene 206-44-0 130(h) 140(h)
Fluorene 86-73-7 1,100(h) 5,300(h)
Guthion 86-50-0 0.01 0.01 Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.52 0.0038 0.000079(hc) 0.053 0.0036 0.000079(hc) Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 0.52 0.0038 0.000039(hc) 0.053 0.0036 0.000039(hc)
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.00028(hc) 0.00029(hc)
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.44(hc) 18(hc) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 40(h) 1,100(h)
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 1.4(hc) 3.3(hc) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 0.038(hc) 0.18(hc) Isophorone 78-59-1 35(hc) 960(hc)
Lead 7439-92-1 38(d)(s) 5.4(d)(s) 5.0(h)(T) 210(d)(s) 24(d)(s)
Malathion 121-75-5 0.1 0.1 Manganese 7439-96-5 100(h)(T) Mercury 7439-97-6 1.4(d)(s) 0.77(d)(s) 0.050(h)(T) 1.8(d)(s) 0.94(d)(s) 0.051(h)(T) Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0.03 40(h) 0.03 Methyl bromide

(bromomethane) 74-83-9 47(h) 1,500(h)
Methyl t-butyl ether

(MTBE) 1634-04-4 70(h)

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 2.5(hc) 310(hc)
Mirex 2385-85-5 0.001 0.001
Nickel 7440-02-0 (a) (a) 500(h)(T) 64(d)(s) 22(d)(s) 1,700(h)(T) Nitrate (as N) 14797-55-8 10,000(h)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

168 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 17(h) 690(h) N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 924-16-3 0.0063(hc) 0.22(hc) N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5 0.00023(hc) 0.13(hc) N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 0.00069(hc) 3.0(hc) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 3.3(hc) 6.0(hc) N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (Di-n-propylnitrosamine) 621-64-7 0.0050(hc) 0.51(hc)
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2 0.016(hc) 34(hc)
Parathion 56-38-2 0.065 0.013
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 1.4(h) 1.5(h) Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 (b) (b) 0.27(hc) 13 7.9 3.0(hc)
Phenol 108-95-2 10,000(h) 860,000(h) Phosphorous (yellow) 7723-14-0 0.1 Polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) 1336-36-3 0.014 0.000064(hc) 0.030 0.000064(hc)

Pyrene 129-00-0 830(h) 4,000(h)
Selenium 7782-49-2 20(s) 5.0(s) 170(h)(T) 290(d)(s) 71(d)(s) 4,200(h)(T)
Silver 7440-22-4 (a) 170(h)(T) 1.9(d)(s) 40,000(h)(T) Sulfide-hydrogen sulfide

(undissociated) 7783-06-4 2 2

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 0.97(h) 1.1(h) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo

-p-dioxin (TCDD) 1746-01-6 0.0000000050(hc) 0.0000000051(hc)

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 4.7(h) 110(h) Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.34(hc) 1.6(hc)
Thallium 7440-28-0 0.24(h)(T) 0.47(h)(T)
Toluene 108-88-3 1,300(h) 15,000(h) Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.73 0.0002 0.00028(hc) 0.21 0.0002 0.00028(hc) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 21(h) 42(h) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 120(h) 2,600(h) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 13(h) 350(h) Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 1.0(hc) 12(hc) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 1,800(h) 3,600(h) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 0.58(hc) 1.0(hc) Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.082(hc) 8.1(hc)
Zinc 7440-66-6 (a) (a) 7,400(h)(T) 90(d)(s) 81(d)(s) 26,000(h)(T)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

170 (a) Criteria as listed at (f)3 above as formula (b) Criteria as listed at (f)4 above as formula (d) Criterion is expressed as a function of the Water Effect Ratio (WER). For criterion in the table, WER equates to the default value of 1.0. (fc) Criteria expressed as free cyanide (as CN)/L (h) Human health noncarcinogen (hc) Human health carcinogen (ol) Organoleptic effect-based criteri on with no frequency of exceedance at or above the MA7CD10 flow (s) Dissolved criterion (T) Total recoverable criterion

(g) Site-specific surface water quality criteri a listed below apply to specific waterbodies that supersede the State-wide criter ia listed at (d) through (f) above.

Freshwater Criteria Saline water Criteria Aquatic Aquatic Toxic Substance CAS Number

Acute Chronic Human Health Acute Chronic Human Health Waterbodies

Copper ( μ g/L dissolved) 7440508 7.9 5.6 Newark Bay, Raritan Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, saline portions of the Passaic, Hackensack, and Hudson Rivers and saline portions of tributaries to all of these waters.THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

171 [(d)] (h) (No Change in Text.)

7:9B-1.15 Surface water classifications for the waters of the State of New Jersey
(a) (No Change.)
(b) The following are instructions for the use of Tables 1 through 5 found in N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.15(c) through (g) respectively: 1. The surface water classification tables give the surface water classifications for waters of the
State. Surface waters of the St ate and their classifications are listed in the table covering the major drainage basin in which they are located. The major drainage basins are: i. - ii. (No Change.) iii. The Passaic River, [Hudson] Hackensack River and New York Ha rbor Complex drainage basin which contains the surface waters listed in Table 3 in (e) below; iv. - v. (No Change.) 2. - 7. (No Change.)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

172 (c) The surface water classifications in Table 1 are for waters of the Atlantic Coastal Basin:

TABLE 1

Waterbody Classification

. . .
BARNEGAT BAY (Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge) - All waters within the boundaries of the Barn egat National Wildlife Refuge SE1(C1) (Barnegat Light) - All other waters of the Bay SE1(C1) (Island Beach State Park) - All freshwater ponds within the boundaries of Island Beach State Park FW1 (Island Beach State Park) - Al l waters in the Park, not classified as FW1 above FW2-NT/SE1[/SC](C1)

. . . BRIGANTINE ([Brigantine] Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge) - All waters within the boundaries of the [Brigantine] Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge FW2-NT/SE1(C1)

. . . GREAT BAY (Brigantine) - All waters of the Bay and all natural waterways which are tributary to the Bay and all waters, including both natural and manmade channels and ponds within the boundaries of the [Brigantine] Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and the Great Bay Wildlife Management Area FW2-NT/SE1(C1)

. . .

(d) The surface water classifica tions in Table 2 are for waters of the Delaware River Basin:

TABLE 2
Waterbody ClassificationTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

173 . . . JADE RUN ([Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest) - Entire length FW1

. . .
MOUNT MISERY BROOK (Woodmansie) - Entire length, except segments described below PL SOUTH BRANCH, MOUNT MISERY BROOK ([Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest) - All tributaries to the South Branch that are located entirely within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest FW1 (Pasadena) - The two easterl y branches of the Branch which are located entire ly within the boundaries of the Pasadena Wildlife Management Area FW1

. . .
PAULINS KILL EAST BRANCH (No Change.) WEST BRANCH (Newton) (No Change.) MAIN STEM (No Change.) TRIBUTARIES, MAIN STEM (Blairstown) - Entire length of tributary east of Walnut Valley FW2-TM (E. of Hainesburg Station) - Entire length FW2-TM (E. of Vail) - Source down stream to confluence with outlet stream of Lake Susquehanna FW2-TM (Emmons Station) - En tire length FW2-TP(C1) (Stillwater) - Entire length FW2-TM (Stillwater Station) - Entire length FW2-TP(C1)

. . .
RANCOCAS CREEK NORTH BRANCH (No Change.) SOUTH BRANCH RANCOCAS CREEK (No Change.) COOPER BRANCH RANCOCAS CREEK (Woodmansie) - Entire lengt h, except portions described separately, below PLTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

174 ([Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest) - Branch and tributaries downstream to Pakim Pond, and tributaries to Cooper Br anch located entirely within the [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest boundaries FW1 DEER PARK BRANCH RA NCOCAS CREEK (No Change.) MACDONALDS BRANCH RANCOCAS CREEK (Woodmansie) - Entire le ngth, except as described separately below PL ([Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest) - Branch and tributaries located entirely within [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest FW1 SHINNS BRANCH RANCOCAS CREEK ([Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest) - Branch and tributaries located entirely within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest, from their sources to the forest boundary FW1 (Lebanon Lake Estates) - Forest boundary to lake PL

. . .

(e) The surface water classifications in Table 3 are for waters of the Passaic, Hackensack and New York Harbor Complex Basin:

TABLE 3
Waterbody Classification

. . .
BEECH BROOK (West Milford) - From State line downstream to Monksville Reservoir , including all tributaries [FW2-TM] FW2-TP(C1)

. . . KIKEOUT BROOK (Butler) - [Entire length] See STONE HOUSE [FW2-NT] BROOK

. . .
SADDLE RIVERTHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

175 (Upper Saddle River) - State line to Bergen County Rt. 2 (Lake Street) bridge FW2-TP(C1) (Upper Saddle River) - B ergen County Rt. 2 (Lake Street) bridge downstream to confluence with Pleasant Brook, including all tributaries FW2-TP(C1) (Saddle River) - [Berge n County Rt. 2 bridge] Pleasant
Brook to Allendale Rd. bridge FW2-TM (Lodi) - Allendale Rd. bridge to Passaic River FW2-NT/SE3

. . . STONE HOUSE BROOK [(Kinnelon) - Entire length FW2-NT] (Kennelon) - Source to Valley Road bridge FW2-NT (Butler) - Valley Road bridge to confluence with Pequannock River FW2-TP(C1)

. . . WANAQUE RIVER MAIN STEM (Wanaque) - Greenwood Lake outlet, through Wanaque Wildlife Management Area and Long Pond Iron Works State Park, including the Monksville Reservoir, to the Monksville Reservoir dam at Stonetown Road, except tributary south of Jennings Creek (Hewitt) described separately below FW2-TM(C1) [(Hewitt) - Entire length of tributary south of Jennings Creek FW2-TP(C1)] (Pompton Lakes) - Wanaque Reservoir dam to Wanaque Ave. bridge including unnamed tributaries [FW2-NT] FW2-TP(C1) (Pompton Lakes) - Wanaque Ave. bridge downstream to Pequannock River FW2-TM TRIBUTARY (Hewitt) - Entire length of tributary south of Jennings Creek FW2-TP(C1)

. . .THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

176 (f) The surface water classifications in Table 4 are for waters of the Raritan River and Raritan Bay Basin:

TABLE 4
Waterbody Classification

. . .
TOWN NECK CREEK (Little Silver) - Source to a line beginning on the easternmost extent of the unnamed point of land located just east of Paag Circle on the south bank of Town Neck Creek and bearing approximately 095 degrees True North and terminating on Silver Point FW2-NT/SE1 (Little Silver) - Creek below the line described [below] above SE1(C1)

. . .

(g) The surface water classifi cations in Table 5 are for waters of the Wallkill River Basin:

TABLE 5
Waterbody Classification

. . .
CEDAR SWAMP - See RUTGERS CREEK

. . .
FRANKLIN POND CREEK (Hardyston) - Source to, but not including, Franklin Pond FW2-TP(C1) (Hamburg Mtn.) - Tributaries within the Hamburg Mtn.Wildlife Management Area FW2-TM(C1) TRIBUTARY (Hamburg Mtn.) - Th e first tributary to Franklin Pond Creek just south of Hamburg Mountain, flowing toward the Wallkill River and located entirely within the former Hamburg Mtn. Wildlife Management Area FW1 (tm)THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

177 . . .
LONG HOUSE BROOK (Upper Greenwood Lake) - Sour ce to State line, except segment described below FW2-NT (Upper Greenwood Lake) - Se gment within the [bounds] boundaries of Hewitt State Forest FW2-NT(C1)

. . .
WALLKILL RIVER (Sparta) - Source to confluence with Sparta Glen Brook FW2-NT (Franklin) - Sparta Glen Brook to, but not including, Franklin Pond FW2-TM (Wantage) - Outlet of Franklin Pond to State line FW2-NT TRIBUTARIES (Sparta) - Lake Saginaw dam downstream to Wallkill River FW2-TP(C1) [(Hamburg Mtn.) - The firs t tributary, just south of Hamburg Mtn., flowing toward the Wallkill River and located entirely within the Hamburg Mtn. Wildlife Management Area FW1(tm)] (Ogdensburg) - Tributary from the outlet of Heaters Pond to the confluence with the Wallkill River FW2-TP(C1)

. . .

(h) FW1 waters are listed in Table 6 by tract within basins:

Table 6

ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN BASIN (No Change.)
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN ALLAMUCHY STATE PARK (No Change.) BELLEPLAIN STATE FOREST (No Change.) COLLIERS MILLS WILDLIFE (No Change.) MANAGEMENT AREA DELAWARE WATER GAP (No Change.) NATIONAL RECREATION AREA DIX WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT (No Change.) AREATHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

178 EDWARD G. BEVAN WILDLIFE (No Change.) MANAGEMENT AREA FLATBROOK-ROY WILDLIFE (No Change.) MANAGEMENT AREA GLASSBORO WILDLIFE (No Change.) MANAGEMENT AREA HIGH POINT STATE PARK (No Change.) AND STOKES STATE FOREST JOHNSONBURG NATURAL (No Change.) AREA [LEBANON] BRENDAN T. BYRNE RANCOCAS CREEK WATERSHED STATE FOREST Deer Park Branch and tributaries near Buckingham, downstream to the confluence with Pole Bridge Branch

Tributaries to the South Br anch of Mount Misery Brook located entirely within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest

Cooper Branch and tributarie s downstream to Pakim Pond and those tributaries to Coopers Branch downstream of Pakim Pond that are located en tirely within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest

Shinns Branch and tributaries located entirely within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest, from their sources to the forest boundary

Jade Run located entirel y within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest

MacDonalds Branch and tributaries located entirely within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest, from their sources to the forest boundary
MILLVILLE FISH AND GAME (No Change.) TRACT PASADENA WILDLIFE (No Change.) MANAGEMENT AREA PEASELEE WILDLIFE (No Change.) MANAGEMENT AREA WASHINGTON CROSSING (No Change.) STATE PARK WHITTINGHAM WILDLI FE (No Change.) MANAGEMENT AREATHIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

179 WORTHINGTON STATE FOREST (No Change.)
PASSAIC RIVER, HACKENSACK RIVER,
NY HARBOR COMPLEX BASIN (No Change.)
RARITAN RIVER BASIN (No Change.)
WALLKILL RIVER BASIN (No Change.)

(i) (No Change.)

Based on consultation with staff, I hereby cert ify that the above statements, including the Federal standards analysis addressing the requi rements of Executive Order 27 (1994), permit the public to understand accurately and plainly the purposes and ex pected consequences of this proposed readoption with amendments. I hereby authorize this proposal.

Date: Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner Department of Environmental Protection