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 proposal 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 08625-0402
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.

____________________________

2

The New Jersey Department of Environmental 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 Microsoft Word 6.0 or above. MacIntosh formats

should not be used. Each comment should be identified by the applicable N.J.A.C. citation, the

commenter’s name and affiliation following the comment.

Copies of this rule proposal can be downloaded 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 calendar requirement pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:30-

3.3(a)5.

The Department administers the Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) for the

protection of surface water quality of the waters of the State. The Department develops and

administers the SWQS pursuant to the Water Pollution 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 the 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 United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) at 40 CFR 131. The SWQS include general requirements, use designations,

classifications, antidegradation categories, and water quality criteria applicable to the surface

waters of the State. The SWQS also address the Department’s responsibilities to conduct a

continuing planning process pursuant to Section 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) surface 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 utilized 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 Freshwater Wetlands Program, N.J.A.C. 7:7A,

the Coastal Permitting Program, N.J.A.C. 7:7E, and 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 its appeal of certain components of the SWQS

(See 25 N.J.R. 5569(a); December 6, 1993). Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Agreement,

the Department agreed to review and as appropriate, amend the SWQS, revising its regulations

concerning mixing zones for enterococcus bacteria, antidegradation policies, expression of

existing water quality criteria for metals as dissolved 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 with 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 aspects of the SWQS. Amendments adopted at

that time included changes to regulatory mixing zone provisions, addition of metal translators,

revised stream classifications, aquatic life protection criteria for ammonia and lead, and revised

human health criteria for PCBs. (See 34 N.J.R. 537(a); January 22, 2002). To allow the
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.

____________________________

4

Department time to fully evaluate the SWQS as part of a re-adoption of the chapter, the

expiration date was extended 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 January 2002 amendments referenced 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 waterbodies to Category One, based on

"exceptional ecological significance" and "exceptional 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 the Paulins Kill to Category One based on

"exceptional ecological significance" including the need to protect the presence of the

Dwarf Wedgemussel, an endangered species. (35 N.J.R. 5086(a); November 3, 2003).

• On August 2, 2004 the Department adopted Category One antidegradation 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 also upgraded to Category One

antidegradation designation based upon “exceptional water supply significance”. In

addition, the stream classification for two stream 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 amendments to upgrade the antidegradation

designation of the non-tidal portion of the Shark River Brook as Category One based on

"exceptional water supply significance". The Department 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 Agency’s approval of the State of

New Jersey’s surface water quality standards on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf

wedgemussel. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), New Jersey

Field Office, Pleasantville, New Jersey, 1996) as part of the 1994 approval of the New Jersey

SWQS triennial review process. A copy of this 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 Jersey’s SWQS were not adequate to protect

these threatened and endangered species and identified 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 Jersey’s mixing zone requirements, in the

2002 amendments reference above, the Department added a new provision 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 several stream segments to protect 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 and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs was a

concern to the USFWS. DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs are bioaccumulative

pollutants that are persistent in the environment, accumulate in biological tissues, and

biomagnify in the food chain. Due to these characteristics, the concentration of these

contaminants may increase as they are transferred up through various food chain levels. As a
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.

____________________________

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 effects of these pollutants on the bald eagle and

peregrine falcon. The dwarf wedgemussel was not included in the calculation of water quality

criteria for the protection of wildlife because, with its lower trophic 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 for: PCBs, DDT, and mercury. September 2001,

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/wildlifecriteria0901.pdf). The Department proposed

wildlife criteria in November 2002. However, these criteria were not adopted due to

implementation concerns raised during the public comment period. The Department 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 implementation plan before it adopted the

criteria. The Department is not reproposing wildlife 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 amendments 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-adoption with amendments to antidegradation

implementation policies, revised criteria for bacterial indicators, new temperature criteria for

trout production waters, new and revised aquatic life-based and human health based criteria, and

upgraded stream classification and/or antidegradation designations based on the trout sampling

data. The amendments reflect the Department's continuing effort to manage the State's water
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

resources in a comprehensive manner to assure that clean water is preserved and maintained and

that the State's drinking water needs are met.

The Department is not proposing any amendments 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 these 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 proposing any changes to the nutrient provisions,

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(g), at this time. As part of this evaluation, the Department considered the

written comments from permittees to re-evaluated its nutrient policies. Based upon the review,

the Department has determined that the nutrient provisions and the options they contain, are

adequate and appropriate for the control of phosphorus discharged to State's freshwater streams

and lakes.

The promulgated nutrient criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) are used in assessing water

quality conditions as well as developing Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations for NJPDES

dischargers. Where the numeric criteria are exceeded, the waterbody is listed as impaired

pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean 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 provides that unless the phosphorus is

discharged to a lake, a site-specific criteria has been developed as part of a TMDL. Phosphorus

shall not exceed 0.1 mg/L in any stream, unless it can be shown that total phosphorus is not a

limiting nutrient and will not otherwise render the water unsuitable for the designated uses. The

Department recognizes that there may be situations 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 provides NJPDES permittees the option of conducting a
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.

____________________________

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 Evaluations 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 phosphorus 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 far field impacts. For example, while the

phosphorus concentration does not cause water quality problems in the immediate receiving

waterbody, that stream may flow into a downstream reservoir which experiences excessive algal

growth.

The Department expects that the ongoing research may provide a basis for refinement of

New Jersey's numerical nutrient criteria. For example, New Jersey is also pursuing research to

develop response-based criteria (for example, 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 measures to expand the antidegradation policy

for nonpoint sources of pollution. The Department is publishing a notice elsewhere 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 substantive 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 water resources of the State of New Jersey. The

Department is readopting this 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 divisions to discharge their statutory functions. The Department

is readopting this section 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 affected. The Department is readopting this section

without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4, Definitions, contains definitions used in this chapter. A description 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 measures 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 activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into

receiving waters. The Department is proposing this 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 quality-based effluent limitations for individual

dischargers to Category Two waters. The BMPs are to be practiced as part of antidegradation

implementation for non-point sources of pollution. The proposed definition 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 the definition of "calculable changes" by

combining it with the definition of "measurable changes" and repealing the separate definition of
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.

____________________________

10

"measurable changes." Combining these two definitions will help to avoid confusion. The

definition of "calculable changes" as proposed means any detectable changes, including

predictable changes to water quality that fall outside 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 applied the 95% confidence

interval in Category One waters to measure mean water quality in order to implement the

measurable and calculable change provision in the existing SWQS. Using the 95% confidence

interval of the demonstrated mean water quality in all cases would simplify the process of

determining whether a discharge is likely 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 categorizations of the types of

carcinogens (Groups A, B, and C) and non-carcinogens (Groups D and E), and will incorporate

narrative descriptions of carcinogenic classes that USEPA has proposed 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 environment. Consistent

with the implementation direction provided by the USEPA (Memorandum from Acting

Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to USEPA staff 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 categorization and narrative descriptors are

recognized. The characterization of a toxic substance as either a “carcinogen” or “noncarcinogen” is used throughout these 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 definitions
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.

____________________________

11

are consistent with definitions of these terms 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 the definition of "Category 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 "Hypolimnion" 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 antidegradation 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 development" specifies the different projects and

developments that may be eligible for a lowering 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 (Planning Area 1), Suburban Planning Areas (Planning Area 2), and

Designated Centers in any planning area. The Department has also determined that projects

needed to protect public health and safety, 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 "substantial economic impact."

Pursuant to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4iii(2), the Department 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 economic impact to the affected community. Under the definition, an impact

is considered a "substantial economic impact" when the cost of a proposed alternative exceeds

the community or private company’s ability to pay. The Department will utilize the USEPA’s
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.

____________________________

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 would result in “substantial economic

impact.” The USEPA’s Economic guidance document provides guidance to States and EPA

regions responsible for reviewing requests for variances and modifications to designated uses,

and for approval of antidegradation analyses and describes the types of information and analyses

that should be considered by applicants and reviewers. The new definition of "substantial

economic impact" is used as part of the antidegradation implementation 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 term "water effect ratio" or "WER" to mean

the ratio of an acute (or chronic) toxicity value derived from a site study to the acute (or chronic)

toxicity value derived from a laboratory study for a particular toxic substance. A WER is a

criterion adjustment factor accounting for the effect of site-specific water characteristics on

pollutant bioavailability and toxicity to aquatic life. The WER is multiplied by the appropriate

state-wide aquatic criterion to derive 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 applicable to the protection and

enhancement of surface water resources throughout the State. These include general, interstate,

general technical, antidegradation, water quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL), bioassay

and biomonitoring, nutrient policies, and mixing zones. 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 criteria in freshwaters and saline waters for
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.

____________________________

13

carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Exposure assumptions are based upon the designated uses of

the waterbody. The Department is therefore clarifying that in freshwaters, 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 carcinogenic-based criterion which would result in no

greater than a one-in-one-million lifetime excess cancer risk. If the substance is a noncarcinogen, the criteria will be based on non-carcinogenic effects, using the reference dose to

establish criteria which would result 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 and saline waters under the

jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Commission by deleting "and 1.14(d)" and replacing it

with "through (g)" to be consistent with other 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 flow 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 methods for bacterial quality to

proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)7. This new provision 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 Department will use a geometric mean to assess water

quality, regulate wastewater discharges and to develop TMDLs. The new provision also restates
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.

____________________________

14

the sample monitoring frequency for calculating the geometric mean for bacterial quality as a

requirement. A minimum of five samples collected over a period of 30 days will be used to

calculate the geometric mean. The single sample 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 for 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 developing water quality based effluent

limits, determining whether a waterbody is attaining its water quality standards, developing

TMDLs for impaired waters, and beach notification. 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 notification (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 bathing beaches. In New Jersey, the Department of

Health and Senior Services oversees the opening and closing of designated bathing areas (lifeguarded beaches) and has also adopted an enterococcus value of 104/100ml for decision-making

regarding the opening and closing of designated bathing areas in coastal waters (See N.J.A.C.

8:26-7.18(d)1). Health authorities participating in the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program

are required to collect samples at designated bathing beaches and analyze these samples for

enterococcus. If the results indicate an exceedence of the SSM, the bathing beach must be

resampled. If the retest indicates compliance with the SSM, the beach remains open for

swimming. If the retest sample exceeds the SSM, the beach is closed until it can be

demonstrated that the waters are safe for swimming. In non-bathing beach areas, the Department

also anticipates using the proposed SSM as a trigger 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 proposing 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. The Department is removing 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 antidegradation policies

applicable to all surface waters of the State. The purpose of the antidegradation policies is to

maintain and protect existing uses and water quality. Federal antidegradation requirements at 40

CFR 131.12 require states to develop, adopt, and implement a statewide 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. With respect to antidegradation policies applicable

to non-point sources, states are to assure that "all cost effective 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 clarify the implementation policies and to specify

exemptions. Re-codification, formatting and typographical 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 protected. 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 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

approval of the state of New Jersey’s surface 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, Pleasantville, New Jersey. 1996). A copy of this 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 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 Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries

Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination Under 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 threatened and endangered species.

Through this joint review, USEPA will recommend revisions if the existing aquatic criteria are

deemed not adequately protective. Until the comprehensive review is complete, the USEPA has

determined, and has advised that the existing aquatic criteria are protective of threatened and

endangered species. Therefore, the Department intends to develop effluent limitations for

NJPDES permits using the existing aquatic life criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 until USEPA

recommends new 304(a) criteria to protect 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 antidegradation policies may be applied

during one or more regulatory phases including Water Quality Management Planning (under

N.J.A.C. 7:15), Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development (under N.J.A.C. 7:15), and

any of the Department’s permitting programs.

The Department is slightly modifying the existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)6, which specifies

the antidegradation standards that are applicable 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 based upon the level of protection
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.

____________________________

17

determined by the Department to be appropriate considering several factors which may include,

but are not limited to, physical location, occurrence of trout, shellfish, threatened and endangered

species, and potable water supply.

Proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)2, describes the antidegradation standard for FW1 waters

included at existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)6i. New language has been added to clarify that FW1

waters are “nondegradation” waters. The proposed language “or increases in runoff from

anthropogenic activities”, further supports this non-degradation status 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 antidegradation standard for Pinelands waters. This

provision is presently codified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)2 and is being recodified 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)" has 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 compliance 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 existing N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)5. This section

specifies that water quality that exceeds levels necessary to support designated uses must be

maintained unless a lowering is allowed for necessary and justifiable social or economic

development. This concept is proposed for inclusion 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. The types of projects described in

(d)3 are not expected to result in a permanent calculable change in water quality, and are,

therefore, appropriate for exclusion. Included at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3 are short term, temporary

activities. The Department is also proposing to exempt emergency response activities and

certain site remediation activities from antidegradation review under the proposed N.J.A.C.

7:9B-1.5(d)3ii and iii because the Department has determined that these activities are necessary

and should result in long term water quality improvement rather than degradation. Left

untreated, contaminants will enter the receiving stream. Therefore, properly treated wastewater

discharges associated with these types of remedial actions should improve water quality. In the

context of approving these activities, the Department may require 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 impact 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 otherwise approved by the Department. Such water

transfers, if consistent with the Water Supply Master Plan, adopted pursuant to the Water Supply

Management Act, N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq., or the Highlands Water 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 supplies of drinking water in the State.

In addition, at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)3v the Department is proposing to exempt several

types of NJPDES permit actions from antidegradation 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 production-based effluent limitation, which would

allow the Department to take into account temporary reductions in operation and authorize an

increase up to a previously approved production level without a new antidegradation review.

Increases beyond the previously approved levels would be considered 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 antidegradation finding has

been included in the draft general permit. By evaluating the compliance 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 general 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 reissued and includes an antidegradation finding.

For example, the Department could authorize a new discharge under the existing General

Petroleum Product Cleanup (B4B) and the General Remediation Cleanup (BGR) because the

activity is exempt from an antidegradation review 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 general 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 Department’s enabling legislation

(N.J.S.A. 13:1D-1 et seq.), the Water Pollution Control 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, stated that “it is the policy of the State to restore, enhance and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the State’s waters, to protect public

health, to safeguard fish and aquatic life, scenic and ecological values, and to enhance the

domestic, municipal, recreational, industrial and other uses of water.”

In the Water Quality Planning Act, the Legislature declared that “the people of the State

have a paramount interest in the restoration, maintenance and preservation of the quality of the

waters of the State for the protection and preservation of public health and welfare, food

supplies, public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, agricultural and industrial uses,

aesthetic satisfaction, recreation, and other beneficial uses; . . . the severity of the water pollution
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.

____________________________

20

problem in the State necessitates continuing water 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 development, agricultural uses, transportation and other

such factors which vary among and within watersheds 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 Legislature directed the Department to conduct a

continuing planning process to, among other things, develop a Statewide implementation

strategy to establish water quality goals and achieve the water quality standards (N.J.S.A.

58:11A-7). In N.J.S.A. 58:11A-5(c) the Legislature specifically authorized the establishment of

a regulatory program to provide control or treatment of all point and non-point sources of

pollution, including in-place or accumulated pollution 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 commercial wastes discharged into

any treatment works in such area meet the applicable 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 point and non-point sources of

pollution associated with agriculture, mining and construction activity and to identify and control

saltwater intrusion into rivers, lakes and estuaries resulting from reduction of fresh water flow

from any cause, including irrigation, obstruction, ground water extraction and diversion. The

proposed antidegradation implementation policies 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 farmland and natural resources, 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 and
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.

____________________________

21

Redevelopment Plan (SDRP), which was readoted in 2001 after a lengthy 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 the State Planning Act, and blend State, regional,

and local plans into a Statewide 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, and conservation of the State and its regions and

which shall identify areas for growth, agriculture, open space conservation, and other appropriate

designations." N.J.S.A. 52:18A-199a. It takes into account other state, county, and municipal

land use and other development plans, and must "coordinate planning activities 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 growth are areas designated Metropolitan Planning

Area, PA1, Suburban Planning Area, PA2, and Designated 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, recognizing that environmental constraints affect

development and preservation is to be encouraged in large contiguous tracts. Areas for

conservation include PA3, PA4, and Pa5.

The State Planning Commission has established boundaries for Planning Area, which are

large masses of land distinguished by certain overall characteristics such as population density,

land use, and environmentally sensitive features. The State Planning Commission also approves

community development boundaries for centers, which are areas into which development is

already or should be directed and concentrated, 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 State Plan boundaries for Planning Area, centers, cores and nodes were
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.

____________________________

22

drawn after a lengthy public process that extended over a five-year period, including hundreds of

meetings among municipal, county, and State officials, and involved the submittal of thousands

of documents from public officials and private organizations and individuals.

The Department has carefully examined those 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 traditional purview of the Department, directly and

indirectly affect water quality. 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). Therefore, in order to sufficiently protect and

preserve "public health and welfare, food supplies, public water supplies, propagation of fish and

wildlife, agricultural and beneficial uses, aesthetic satisfaction, recreation, and other beneficial

uses" of the State's water resources, the Legislature 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 develop a "continuing planning process" to

encourage, direct, supervise, and aid areawide 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 coordinated and integrated with related Federal, State, regional, and

local comprehensive land use, functional and other relevant planning activities, 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 goals and objectives of the State Planning Act

and the goals and objectives of the Water Quality Planning Act. Of particular significance, both

statutes contain policies designed to protect water 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 necessary and appropriate under the Water Quality

Planning Act to require coordination and integration of water quality management planning with

the SDRP (and other relevant State, 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 that the Department now proposes to incorporate by reference

the Planning Areas and Designated 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 articulated in the State Plan. The proposed definition of “necessary

and justifiable social or economic development” which is used in the antidegradation

implementation policies integrates the goals of the 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 dischargers. 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 new 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 quality planning stage. Where the

new or expanded discharge is consistent with 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 new or expanded point source discharges will be required to perform

an alternatives analysis to determine whether an alternative is available that will prevent a

calculable change in water quality. The applicant will be expected to consider feasible

modifications to existing and proposed systems, enhanced/alternative treatment technologies and

relocation/connection to another treatment plant. If the Department agrees that there is no

feasible alternative to the proposed surface water discharge the Department may require the

applicant to initiate a water quality study as described in proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4ii. The

Department would not require a water quality study if the discharge results only 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 receiving stream. Once the results of the study are submitted to the

Department, the Department will use this information 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 data 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 discharges. 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 similar 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 discharges are in compliance with the antidegradation standard if

the proposed action does not result in a calculable change 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 waters within the Preservation 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 that the existing and designated uses of the

waterbody are maintained and the project qualifies as a “necessary and justifiable social or

economic development,” or where the cost to prevent the lowering of water 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 water quality should be allowed. The Department

has added new definitions at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4 to describe the types of projects that qualify as

“necessary and justifiable social or economic development” and “substantial economic impact.”

For example, a residential development in Planning Area 1, Planning Area 2, or a designated

center would qualify as a “necessary and justifiable social or economic development.” For

further discussion, see definition of “necessary and justifiable 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 definition 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 substantial. The USEPA Guidance 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 “substantial economic impact.” For example, if the project involves the
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.

____________________________

26

expansion of a sewage treatment plant that services 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 treatment 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 proposing projects that qualify as “necessary and

justifiable social or economic development,” as well as those that demonstrate that the costs to

prevent a calculable change in water quality would result in a “substantial economic impact,” to

minimize the lowering of water quality. In accordance with proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(d)4iv(3)i-iv, the Department will establish water quality based effluent limits for the

proposed new or expanded discharge that minimize the lowering of water 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 options, the cost associated with the various treatment options,

and the environmental impacts associated with the various treatment options. Except as provided

at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.9, which authorizes modification of water quality-based effluent limitations

for individual dischargers to Category Two waters, 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 add a new provision at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(e)7 to indicate that the Department 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 Department 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 at
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.

____________________________

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 clarifies quality control and sample

handling requirements and allows flexibility to incorporate additional available technologies.

This rule also amends the requirements regarding preservation, storage, and holding time for low

level mercury samples. For PCBs, the Department 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/wastewater/biohome/biosolidsdown/methods/1668a5.pdf.

This method was developed for congener-specific determination 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 allow the Department to develop a baseline to

measure improvements and to develop future effluent limitations for these pollutants. The

Department plans to require characterization with these new methods from facilities that it

believes are likely sources of these pollutants. The Department will utilize facility information,

short-term monitoring, information obtained from 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 characterization sampling. The characterization requirements may be

adjusted based on information from the data 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 pollutants that are persistent in the environment,

accumulate in biological tissues, and biomagnify in the food chain. Due to these characteristics,

the concentration of these contaminants may increase as they are transferred up through various

food chain levels. As a result, adverse impacts to non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish-eating)

organisms may arise from low surface water concentrations. An inter-agency committee
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.

____________________________

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 bald eagle and peregrine falcon. (See New Jersey-Specific

Wildlife Values as Surface Water Quality Criteria for: PCBs, DDT, and mercury. September

2001 available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/wildlifecriteria0901.pdf).

In November 2002, the Department proposed New 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 Department decided not to adopt

the new criteria for these bioaccumulative substances due to issues raised during the comment

period concerning the new more stringent criteria (for example, treatment techniques are not

readily available to treat mercury to 0.5 ng/L). The Department 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 implementation plan before it adopted the criteria.

To assist the Department in developing its implementation plan, USEPA Region 2

obtained contractor support to conduct an evaluation of the technical 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 technology 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 Technological Feasibility of

Proposed Water Quality Criteria for New Jersey, 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 PCBs or DDT due to the lack of an approved

analytical method capable of quantifying 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 mercury. Others have addressed the

problem with legislation. The Department is evaluating options for developing an

implementation plan for mercury which could entail a state-wide variance for NJPDES point

sources, a temporary standard or a TMDL. SAIC’s report provides the Department with the

information necessary to support a variance from the criteria based on an irretrievable maninduced condition. Other multimedia initiatives are under way that should lead to reductions in

mercury concentrations in the State’s waters.

Although limited data is available using the more 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 provision 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 proposing 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-reference 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 water quality-based effluent limitations, sets

forth conditions and procedures to be used when developing WQBELs, including general

applicability, necessary information, and methodologies. 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 the word "measurable" from the provision at

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.6(a) because it is now included 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 correct citation N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)7.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.7, Waterway loadings in areawide water quality management plans,

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

chapter. The Department is proposing to readopt this section without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8, Procedures for modifying water quality-based effluent limitations

for individual dischargers to Category One waters, sets forth the procedures to be followed

by an applicant requesting a modification (usually referred to as a variance) of a WQBEL for a

discharge into a Category One waterbody. Category One waters are 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 proposing to readopt this section without change.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.9, Procedures for modifying water quality-based effluent limitations

for individual dischargers to Category Two waters, sets forth the procedures to be followed

by an applicant requesting a modification of a WQBEL for a discharge 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 reclassifying 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 reclassifying specific segments for more

restrictive uses, sets forth specific requirements for petitioning the Department to add a

designated use to a waterbody. The Department is proposing to readopt this section 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 been set aside by the Department to represent the

natural aquatic environment and its associated biota. PL waters are those waters contained

within the boundaries of the Pinelands area. FW2 waters are the remaining freshwaters in the

State that are not classified as FW1 or PL. SE1, SE2, and SE3 waters are saline estuarine waters

and SC waters are saline coastal waters. The Department is proposing 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 Delaware River and Bay are as set forth in the

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) regulations (Delaware River Basin Commission,

Administrative Manual - Part III, Water Quality 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 are applicable to New

Jersey waters:

(1) Criteria contained at N.J.A.C. 7:9B;

(2) Criteria adopted by the USEPA for New Jersey 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 Rule, and 60 Fed. Reg. 44120, August 24,

1995) together referred to as the National Toxics Rule (NTR); 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, 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 (Delaware 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 three sets of criteria to determine which criteria govern. In some

circumstances, a discharge permit may contain limitations based on a combination of the DRBC

criteria, State promulgated criteria and/or the applicable NTR criteria. In such cases, the

Department applies the more stringent of the applicable 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 pollutants 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 criteria 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 criteria adopted in March 1981. The Department

believes it is appropriate to apply the E. coli and enterococcus criteria to PL waters, as well as to

fresh and saline waters. The proposed changes regarding E. coli and enterococci criteria are

discussed below.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) The Department is proposing a new section (c) that indicates that

unless site-specific criteria 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 criteria for bacterial quality and

temperature at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(c) and recodifying 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 remaining criteria for bacterial indicators 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 Great 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 primary contact recreation. The Department has

determined that it is appropriate to replace the fecal coliform criteria for primary contact

recreation waters with enterococci and E. coli criteria. Therefore, the Department is proposing to

enterococci and E. coli criteria 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 had been the preferred indicator of fecal matter in ambient

water by the USEPA and the Department. However, USEPA no longer supports the use of fecal

coliform as a reliable indicator of human illness risk from primary contact recreation. The

USEPA now recommends the use of E. coli and enterococcus as pathogen 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 criteria 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. coli indicators (FW2 waters), respectively.

The SE2 and SE3 stream classifications are not designated for primary contact recreation.

The USEPA does not recommend criteria for 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 existing 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 recreation in these waters while

working with the USEPA and New York Department 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 water quality criteria for 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 indicators of health risk in fresh bathing waters.

The USEPA 1986 criteria are based on prospective epidemiological studies conducted in the late

1970s and early 1980s at Keystone Lake in Oklahoma and Lake Erie in Pennsylvania. These
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.

____________________________

35

studies showed that the correlation of the bacterial indicator concentration to the rate of highly

credible gastrointestinal illness was 0.74 for enterococcus and 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 another. Fecal coliform bacteria, the only other

indicator monitored, showed no correlation with bather illness. To date, this is the only known

fresh water bathing beach epidemiological study conducted in the 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 well as other indicators. The

results of this analysis showed 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 gastrointestinal 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 should 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/waterscience/criteria/. Based on USEPA’s

recommendation, the Department is proposing that levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of
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.

____________________________

36

126/100 ml for FW2 waters. Where there is insufficient 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 risk 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 use of enterococcus in marine waters as

specified in the Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreational Waters;

Final rule. 69 Fed. Reg. 67218, November 16, 2004 found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER. The Department is, therefore, retaining enterococcus as the indicator organism for all

SE1 and SC waters and recodifying this requirement 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). However, the Department is changing the policy

regarding implementation of criteria as explained in the summary at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c)7.

USEPA requires water quality criteria for bacteria in coastal recreation waters to be as

protective of human health as criteria listed at Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986.

(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 beaches include those beaches located in SE1 and SC

waters that are heavily used for primary contact recreation during the recreational season and

have received approval for public recreational use. 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 coastal back bays (SE1) and along the 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 sampling 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 delete 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 frequency 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 Shellfish Sanitation Program, and pursuant N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.16,

these requirements are specified in individual NJPDES permits. In addition, for ambient

monitoring, quality assurance project plans identify the sampling 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 evaluate NJPDES permit compliance using fecal

coliform. Since USEPA requires permittees to use NPDES approved methods for analyzing

wastewater. However, a NPDES approved method has not been promulgated for enterococcus

or E. coli in wastewater effluent limitations must be based on fecal coliform. Therefore, the

Department will not impose limits in NJPDES permits 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 classification 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 recodified at proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(c)8 and N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(h)2i(1)-(3) respectively, 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 trout 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, growth and reproduction. Temperatures greater than

20oC 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 24oC. Therefore, it is possible for a stream to

support trout with temperatures greater than 20oC for short periods of time if the stream provides

opportunity for the fish to seek cooler stream temperatures. Additionally, sudden increases or

decreases in stream temperatures can also be lethal.

Water temperatures influence growth, reproduction, feeding, and behavior of fish and

other aquatic life. Natural temperatures of a waterbody fluctuate daily and seasonally. Riparian

vegetation plays a critical role in maintaining 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 20oC do not necessarily mean

that the trout production/maintenance use is impaired. 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 better assessment of the magnitude and duration

above the optimum temperature of 20oC. Therefore, the Department plans to revise its

assessment methodology used to identify waterbodies that are impaired. Based on the revised

assessment methodology, the Department will identify waterbodies that do not meet the aquatic

life use due to temperature and schedule these waterbodies for TMDL development. The

Department believes that a TMDL is the best approach to identify cost-effective actions needed

to restore temperature. Actions to restore temperature through a TMDL could result in changes

to the operations of water supply reservoirs, restoration 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 impaired for temperature on Sublist 5 of the

Integrated List (303(d) list), NJPDES dischargers to that waterbody may be required to conduct

instream temperature monitoring upstream and downstream of their discharge. The stream

temperature data collected by NJPDES dischargers 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 establish 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 NJPDES discharger are best implemented through a

TMDL where BMPs and other cost effective alternatives can be utilized to maintain temperature

that is protective of the existing trout use.

New and expanding point sources are subject to the antidegradation provisions at

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). As part of the overall antidegradation review, the Department will

determine whether the proposed discharge would cause an increase in the ambient stream

temperature outside the heat dissipation area more than allowed 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 recodify 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 incorporated into this section. No

changes are proposed to the criteria, except that the Department is proposing to delete the criteria

applicable to Pinelands waters with levels of pH equal to or greater than 8.3. The levels of pH in

Pinelands waters range from 3.5 to 5.5. Therefore, a criterion applicable 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 recodify 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 aquatic 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 freshwater criteria are designed to protect people from

adverse effects due to water intake and fish consumption. 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 pollutants, the criteria are developed 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 which would result in no appreciable risk of

deleterious effect. The development of aquatic life protection criteria and human health

protection criteria are discussed below.

Aquatic life protection criteria: As part of this rulemaking, 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 pentachlorophenol 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 the 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. All 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 selenium below), the Department is proposing the

USEPA NRWQC 2005 criteria for New Jersey. The Department is retaining the existing aquatic

criteria for other pollutants listed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f) (aldrin, ammonia, saline criteria for

gamma-BHC, chlordane, chloride, chlorine produced oxidants, chlorpyrifos, cyanide, 4,4'-DDT,

demeton, saline criteria for dieldrin, endosulfans, saline criteria for endrin, guthion, heptachlor,

heptachlor epoxide, malathion, methoxychlor, mirex, parathion, saline criteria for
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.

____________________________

41

pentachlorophenol, phosphorus, PCBs, sulfide-hydrogen sulfide, and toxaphene). However,

because the Department is proposing to change the 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 are being readopted without change.

The 1987 amendments to section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA required all states to adopt

toxics criteria for priority pollutants. The states 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 standards within the given time frame. 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 Priority 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 freshwater and saline aquatic life protection

criteria for the following metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper,

mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. The NTR aquatic life-based metals criteria were

based on the 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National 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 several pollutants as part of the Great Lakes Initiative (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 recent 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 recommending 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 criteria 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 present 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 National 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 developed as a supporting document for the Water

Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria 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 derivation explained below identifies the methodology

used in each case.

Following is a general methodology to calculate an acute or a chronic criterion. This

methodology is common between the two methods mentioned above (the 1985 Guidelines and

the 1995 Updates). The change between the two methods 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 Salmonidae 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 geometric 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 lowest 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 FAV, then that SMAV is used as the FAV.

Σ((ln GMAV)2) - ((Σ(ln GMAV)2) /4)

 S2 = ----------------------------------------------------------

Σ (P) - ((Σ(√P)2) /4)

L = (Σ(ln GMAV) - S(Σ(√P))) /4

A = S(√0.05) + L

FAV = eA

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 toxicity to two or more species is dependent

on a water quality characteristic such as hardness, then that relationship is taken into

consideration (USEPA, 1985). For each species, a least squares regression of the acute toxicity

values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic is performed to obtain a

slope. All the acceptable data from different species 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 toxicity value is adjusted to a selected value of water quality

characteristic (for example, a hardness level of 50 mg/L CaCO3). 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 calculated in a similar manner to FAV if chronic

toxicity data are available on eight different species listed above for both fresh and saline water.

A final chronic value can also be calculated by utilizing an acute chronic ratio (ACR) method if

acceptable acute and chronic toxicity data are available 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 calculated 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 more 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. However, if insufficient data are

available to adequately define the relationship between chronic toxicity and the water quality

characteristic, USEPA determined that it is appropriate to assume that the chronic slope is the

same as the acute slope. Using the chronic pooled slope, all acceptable chronic 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 calculated 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 chronic criterion. However, the 1995 Updates did

not use the residue value because the bioaccumulation of pollutants was handled through the

derivation of wildlife criteria 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 metals criteria and how to accurately determine

the fraction of the total metal that is biologically available was raised 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 into dissolved metals as part of the Establishment of

Numeric Criteria for Priority Pollutants; States Compliance-Revisions of Metals Criteria. (60

Fed. Reg. 22229, May 4, 1995) (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER). These conversion
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.

____________________________

46

factors were calculated inconsistently using toxicity tests at varying lengths of exposure time that

were averaged more than once in the process of conversion factor derivation. To correct the

inconsistency in the USEPA method of calculating the conversion factors, Dr. Thomas Fikslin,

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), recalculated the conversion factors for cadmium,

chromium III, chromium VI, copper, nickel, and zinc using time weighted averages that provided

equal time weighting over the test duration. The 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 water quality criteria that adequately protect aquatic

life. (Letter dated March 4, 1998 from Jeanette Wiltse, Director of Health and Ecological Criteria

to Vincent P. D'Anna, Federal Commissioner, DRBC).

The proposed freshwater acute and chronic criteria for total recoverable metals

(cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, nickel, and zinc) have been converted to

dissolved using the DRBC recalculated and USEPA approved conversion factors as listed at

proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)3. To convert the proposed total recoverable metals criteria for

arsenic, mercury, selenium, and silver to dissolved 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 factors 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 0.85
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.

____________________________

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 WER also accounts for a difference between 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 protection 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/waterscience/criteria/. The Department has

reviewed the USEPA recommended procedures for developing site-specific WERs. The

protocol requires the facility to conduct toxicity studies comparing 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) testing due to other sources of toxicity in the

stream, therefore, it is unlikely that these studies would be successful. Additionally, concerns

have been raised that a measured WER does not accurately reflect actual instream toxicity.

Factors that could affect the measured bioavailablity include alkalinity, 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 development by the USEPA with the expectation that the Biotic Ligand

Method will replace the use of WERs to reflect instream toxicity of metals. For these reasons the

Department has decided to not entertain requests to conduct site specific WER studies and will

use the USEPA recommended default of 1.0 in calculating applicable aquatic 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 calculated 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 applicable 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 criteria concentrations. Averaging periods play a

major role in the development of Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBEL). WQBELs are

derived based on several factors: the volume of wastewater discharged, the upstream

concentration of the pollutant, 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

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 water quality criteria.

Averaging periods are kept relatively short (one hour for acute and 4 days for chronic)

because excursions higher than the average can kill or cause substantial damage to aquatic life in

short periods. The USEPA has historically established the acute averaging period for toxic

pollutants as one hour in its Section 304(a) criteria documents. This reflects a conservative

regulatory approach to toxic pollutants, which considers all toxic pollutants as "fast-acting." At

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(f)1 the Department is proposing a 1-hour acute averaging period for all the

proposed acute criteria, except for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver,

and zinc. For the reasons explained below, the proposed acute averaging period is six-hours for

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc and 24-hours for copper. The

Department is also proposing a 4-day chronic averaging 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 alternative 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 USEPA'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, Director, Health and Ecological

Criteria Division of the USEPA to ask for a copy 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 that an appropriate averaging period could be set at the inverse of

the kinetic coefficient" (constant) used to relate toxic concentrations to exposure times. The

memoranda from Abt Associates, Inc. indicated that they worked with small datasets (sometimes

only 2), and the tests used were limited to those used 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 coefficients for freshwater silver,

freshwater chromium VI, freshwater nickel, and all of the estimated kinetic coefficients for

saltwater metals are considered to be of questionable 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 Stasikowski memorandum, indicates that the

averaging periods estimated for freshwater copper for Ptychochellus, Daphnia, and Gammarus

(the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most sensitive organisms to copper in the USEPA criteria document

database) would all be in excess of 24 hours (based on averaging the individual equivalent

averaging periods from the different 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 appropriate
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.

____________________________

50

averaging periods because of outdated database, limited numbers of observations, and the still

evolving methods for determining appropriate averaging periods. Instead, the Department has

concluded that a 24-hour acute averaging period for freshwater copper appears to be protective.

For saltwater copper, there were very few studies available, and those studies 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 communication, 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 averaging 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 period should be protective of the aquatic biota.

Accordingly, a 6-hour acute averaging period is being proposed as the default averaging period

for these metals in both fresh and salt waters.

Based on the above discussion, the Department is proposing a 24-hour acute averaging

period for freshwater and saltwater 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 alternative 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 addition, 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 description of the derivation of the 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 proposing 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 340μg/L and chronic criterion of 150μg/L, as recommended by the

NRWQC 2005 were developed as part of the 1995 Updates. The proposed saltwater acute

criterion of 69μg/L and chronic criterion of 36μg/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 criteria are the existing

applicable NTR criteria for New Jersey and are recommended as part of the NRWQC 2005.

Both freshwater and saltwater total recoverable criteria were multiplied by the USEPA

conversion factor (See Table 1) of 1 to establish the dissolved criteria. Arsenic freshwater and

saltwater criteria are also multiplied by a default WER of 1 as recommended 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 proposing aquatic life-based freshwater and saltwater criteria for

cadmium as shown in Table 3 below. These 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 freshwater criteria are hardness 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 equations given below. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO3,

the freshwater acute criterion for cadmium would be 1.4 μg/L and the freshwater chronic

criterion for cadmium would be 0.17 μg/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 40μg/L and chronic criterion

of 8.8μg/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 conversion 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 averaging period and 4-day chronic averaging period for cadmium as

discussed above.

Chromium III: The Department is proposing aquatic 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 Table 1) approved by the USEPA was used to convert the total

recoverable chromium III criteria into dissolved criteria. The proposed chromium III freshwater

criteria are also multiplied with default WER of 1 as recommended by the USEPA. For

example, at hardness 100mg/L of CaCO3, the freshwater acute criterion for chromium III would

be 499 μg/L and the freshwater chronic criterion for chromium III would be 24 μg/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)] 0.277
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.

____________________________

53

There is insufficient saltwater toxicity data available on chromium III to calculate any

saltwater criteria. Therefore, saltwater criteria are neither 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 life-based freshwater and saltwater criteria

for chromium VI developed as part of the 1995 Updates and recommended by the USEPA in

NRWQC 2005 as shown in Table 3 below. The freshwater acute dissolved criterion of 15μg/L

and chronic dissolved criterion of 10μg/L are developed as part of the 1995 Updates. The DRBC

freshwater acute and chronic conversion factor of 0.919 (See Table 1), approved by the USEPA,

was used to convert the total recoverable chromium VI criteria into dissolved criteria.

The Department is proposing saltwater acute criterion of 1,100μg/L and chronic criterion

of 50μg/L developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria 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 are also the existing

applicable NTR criteria for New Jersey. The saltwater acute and chronic criteria were multiplied

by the USEPA conversion factor of 0.993 to establish the dissolved criteria. 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 acute averaging period and

4-day chronic averaging period for chromium VI as discussed above.

Copper: The Department is proposing aquatic life-based freshwater and saltwater criteria for

copper developed as part of the 1995 Updates 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 expressed as equations. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness

using the equation given below. The DRBC conversion factor of 0.908 (See Table 1), approved

by the USEPA, was used to convert the total recoverable freshwater acute and chronic copper

criteria into dissolved criteria. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO3, the freshwater
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.

____________________________

54

acute criterion for copper would be 13 μg/L and the freshwater chronic criterion for copper

would be 8.5 μg/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/waterscience/criteria/. In

addition to including several recent studies in the recalculation of the 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 taking a number of water quality constituents (for

example, calcium, magnesium, and dissolved organic carbon) into consideration in deriving the

aquatic criteria. Unlike the empirically derived hardness dependent criteria, the BLM explicitly

accounts for individual water quality variables and 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 acute dissolved criterion of 4.8μg/L and chronic dissolved

criterion of 3.1μg/L were recalculated as part of the New York / New Jersey harbor site-specific

copper criteria in 1995 (Ambient Water Quality Criteria 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-specific copper acute dissolved criterion of

7.9μg/L and chronic dissolved criterion of 5.6μg/L were promulgated by the Department in 1996

(28 N.J.R. 3782(b), August 5, 1996). The proposed copper 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 freshwater acute dissolved criterion of 1.4μg/L and

chronic dissolved criterion of 0.77μg/L 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

criteria are multiplied by the USEPA conversion factor of 0.85 to derive the dissolved criteria

(See Table 1).

The Department is proposing saltwater acute dissolved criterion of 1.8μg/L and chronic

dissolved criterion of 0.94μg/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 USEPA in the NRWQC 2005. The chronic dissolved

criterion of 0.025 μg/L derived in the 1984 mercury criteria document is based on the final

residue value in accordance with the 1985 Guidelines. However, the USEPA recalculated the

saltwater chronic criterion using the 1995 method and recommended the same as part of the

NRWQC 2005. The NRWQC 2005 chronic dissolved criterion of 0.94μg/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 the dissolved criteria.

Freshwater and saltwater mercury criteria are 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 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 bioaccumulation of mercury through the food chain, which resulted in

significantly more stringent criteria. The wildlife criteria were not adopted due to lack of

implementation procedures. The Department, USEPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who

have partnered to derive the wildlife criteria, are working to resolve the implementation issues

and the Department intends to repropose the wildlife 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 chronic nickel criteria are hardness dependent and are expressed

as equations. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness using the equations 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 recoverable 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 CaCO3, the freshwater acute criterion for nickel would be

390 μg/L and the freshwater chronic criterion for nickel would be 44 μg/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 saltwater criteria for nickel as

recommended by the Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC). The proposed criteria are

recalculated by GLEC in the draft Technical Information Related to Developing a Saltwater

Nickel Addendum to the Ambient Water 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 nickel criteria and updated the existing 1986

USEPA criteria by using additional data. In an April 30, 2003 letter from Christopher Zarba,

Acting Director of Health and Ecological Criteria Division, USEPA to Mr. G. M. DeGraeve,

Director of Great Lakes Environmental Center, the USEPA noted, as part of their review of the

revised criteria, that the derivation of the criteria is favorable.

Saltwater Acute Criterion for Nickel: Additional 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 Criteria for Nickel-1986

(EPA 440/5-86-004) found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/, more recent acute
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.

____________________________

57

toxicity values (boldfaced in Table 2) were used to derive the acute criterion of 64 μg/L. The

proposed acute criterion was multiplied by the USEPA 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 Saltwater Criteria for Nickel

Rank

Genus

Mean

Acute

Value

Species

Species

Mean

Acute

Value

Species

Mean

AcuteChronic

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

38,000
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.

____________________________

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 using the ACR value in the 1986 criteria document

because it was calculated using acute and chronic data from the same test.

Final acute value = 129.61 μg/L

= 129.61 / 2 = 64.8 μg/L

Dissolved acute criterion = 64.8 x 0.99 = 64.15 μg/L

Saltwater Chronic Criterion for Nickel: GLEC calculated a geometric mean of the four saltwater

acute chronic ratios as the final acute chronic ratio 5.96 (See Table 2). The saltwater chronic

criterion developed in the Ambient Water Quality Criteria 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 chronic ratios. The proposed chronic value of 22 μg/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 conversion factor of 0.99 (See Table 1) to derive

the dissolved criterion. The saltwater nickel criterion 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 μg/L

Dissolved chronic criterion =21.96 x 0.99 = 21.74 μg/L

Selenium: The Department is proposing aquatic life-based freshwater and saltwater criteria for

selenium based on the NTR, as shown in Table 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/waterscience/criteria/,

indicates that the freshwater acute criterion is under review and the 2005 recommended criterion

may change substantially in the near future. Therefore, the Department is proposing the

freshwater acute criterion of 20μg/L and chronic criterion of 5.0μg/L based on NTR and

developed as part of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria 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 criteria for selenium. The USEPA

recommended conversion factors of 0.996 for acute and 0.992 for chronic (See Table 1) were

used to convert the total recoverable freshwater selenium acute and chronic criteria into

dissolved criteria.

The proposed saltwater acute criterion of 290μg/L and chronic criterion of 71μg/L are

based on the Ambient Water Quality Criteria 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 acute and chronic criteria were multiplied by
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.

____________________________

60

the USEPA conversion factor of 0.998 to derive the 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 period 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 Criteria 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 freshwater acute silver criterion is

hardness dependent and is expressed as an equation. Criterion can be calculated at any hardness

using the equation given below. For example, at hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO3, the freshwater

acute criterion for silver would be 3.2μg/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 averaging 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 available for silver to calculate any freshwater

or saltwater chronic criteria. Therefore, freshwater and saltwater chronic criteria are neither

recommended by the USEPA nor proposed by the Department for silver.

Zinc: The Department is proposing aquatic life-based 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 for 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 DRBC
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.

____________________________

61

freshwater acute and chronic conversion factor of 0.950 (See Table 1), approved by the USEPA,

was used to convert the total recoverable zinc criteria into dissolved criteria. For example, at

hardness 100 mg/L of CaCO3, the freshwater acute and chronic criterion for zinc would be 110

μg/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 90μg/L and chronic criterion of 81μg/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 establish dissolved criteria.

Freshwater and saltwater zinc criteria are 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 zinc as discussed above.
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE PUBL

19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

62

Table 3. PROPOSED AQUATIC LIFE-BASED CRITERIA

(μg/L)

Fresh Water Criteria 

Toxic Substance Acute Chronic 

Arsenic 340*D 150*D gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.95 N/A Cadmium WER [e(1.0166[ln(hardness)]-3.924)] 0.651

D WER [e(0.7409[ln(hardness)]-4.719)] 0.651

D 

Chromium (III) WER [e(0.819[ln(hardness)]+3.7256)] 0.277

D WER [e(0.819[ln(hardness)]+0.6848)] 0.277

D 

Chromium (VI) 15

D 10

D 

Copper WER [e(0.9422[ln(hardness)]-1.7)] 0.908

D WER [e(0.8545[ln(hardness)]-1.702)] 0.908

D 

Dieldrin 0.24 0.056 Endrin 0.086 0.036 Mercury 1.4

m*D 0.77

m*D 

Nickel WER [e(0.846[ln(hardness)]+2.255)] 0.846

D WER [e(0.846[ln(hardness)]+0.0584)] 0.846

D 

Pentachlorophenol e(1.005[pH]-4.869) e(1.005[pH]-5.134) Selenium 20

D 5.0

D 

Silver WER [e(1.72[ln(hardness)]-6.59)] 0.85

D N/A 

Zinc WER [e(0.8473[ln(hardness)]+0.884)] 0.950

D WER [e(0.8473[ln(hardness)]+0.884)] 0.950

D 

* Criteria are expressed as a function of the Water Effect Ratio (WER). The WER equates to the default value of 1.0.D Criteria expressed as dissolved

# Criteria applicable to all saline waters except, site-specific criteria listed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(g)m This recommended water quality criterion was derived from data for inorganic mercury (II), but is applied here to total mercury. If a s

the water column is methylmercury, this criterion will probably be under protective. In addition, even though inorganic mercury is 

bioaccumulates to a great extent, this criterion does not account for uptake via the food chain because sufficient data were not available w

r This recommended water quality criterion was derived on page 43 of the mercury criteria document (EPA 440/5-84-026, January 1985)

given on page 23 of the criteria document is based on the Final Residue Value procedure in the 1985 Guidelines. Since the publicatiCriteria Guidelines in 1995 (60FR15393-15399, March 23, 1995), the USEPA no longer uses the Final Residue Value procedure for 

304(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 freshwater criteria for

gamma BHC, dieldrin, endrin, and pentachlorophenol based on updated toxicity information in

the NRWQC 2005. These freshwater criteria were updated and revised as part of the 1995

Updates. There are no revised saltwater criteria recommendations available for gamma BHC,

dieldrin, endrin, and pentachlorophenol, therefore, the Department 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-carcinogens 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 carcinogens 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 addition, 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 numeric values that are developed to protect

water quality for designated uses such as potable water supply and consumption of fish. The

numeric criterion for each pollutant is derived on the basis of human health concerns without
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.

____________________________

64

regard to economic impacts or technical feasibility. USEPA has published recommended criteria

for many pollutants pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act.

In accordance with 40 CFR 131.11, which contains recommended 304(a) criteria, the

States may adopt the national recommended criteria, modify the national recommended criteria

to reflect site-specific conditions, adopt criteria derived using other scientifically defensible

methods or establish narrative criteria when 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/waterscience/criteria/. The 2000 Human Health

Methodology sets forth the USEPA’s current approach to derive human health criteria with

regard to risk assessment for cancer and non-cancer effects, exposure assessment and

bioaccumulation (See 65 Fed. Reg. 66444, November 3, 2000 found at

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/).

Derivation of a human health water quality 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 based upon the overall weight of evidence for human

carcinogenicity. Toxic pollutants 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 carcinogenic effects, i.e., Groups

A, B, C, D and E, with descriptors. Guidelines for Carcinogenic 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 Federal
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.

____________________________

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 Fed. 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 carcinogenicity categorization

and narrative descriptors are recognized, consistent with the implementation direction provided

by the USEPA (Memorandum from Acting Administrator Stephen L. Johnson to USEPA staff on

Application of New Cancer Guidelines, 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 criteria are derived by classifying the toxic pollutant as to

human carcinogenicity and utilizing the appropriate toxicity factor (oral slope factor for

carcinogens or oral reference dose (RfD) for non-carcinogens) and exposure assumptions. For

freshwaters, the exposure assumptions are based on drinking water and fish consumption. For

saline waters (SE/SC), the exposure assumptions are based on fish consumption only.

For sources of toxicity information for developing 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 risk 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 exposure to various pollutants in the environment.

Developed in response to a growing demand for consistent information for use in risk

assessment, decision-making and regulatory activities, IRIS data represent the consensus of

USEPA health scientists. The IRIS chemical files contain descriptive and quantitative

information on the Chronic Health Hazard Assessments 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 chronic non-carcinogenic health effects

and oral carcinogenic slope factors for carcinogenic effects and the carcinogenicity
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.

____________________________

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 contribution (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 the derivation of criteria to

account for non-water sources of exposure. 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 subtraction method. Historically, RSC has been used to

develop the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) which is the health-based standard for

the drinking water program. The 2000 Human Health Methodology recommends the RSC

approach be used to derive ambient water quality criteria for non-carcinogens and carcinogens

with a threshold so that the total exposure will not exceed the threshold level and exposure to

non-water sources will be considered along with water and fish intake. The change to include

additional exposures from other sources will result in more stringent 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% ceiling 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 substances 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 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/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 the ambient water quality criteria for the last 20
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.

____________________________

67

years. The new rate, more accurately reflecting the current level of fish consumption, is based

on the uncooked weight from the intake of freshwater and estuarine finfish and shellfish by the

general population and represents the 90th percentile of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Survey

(Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals).

Listed below are the equations used for deriving human health criteria for carinogens and

non-carcinogens for freshwater and saline waters, consistent with the USEPA’s current

recommendations in the NRWQC. The Department has used the defaults specified in the

USEPA recommendation unless otherwise noted - Adult body weight of 70 kg, drinking water

consumption rate of 2L/day, fish consumption rate of 0.0175 kg/day and conversion factor of

1000 μg/mg (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 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 carcinogenic 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 carcinogenic slope factor) * (adult body weight*

conversion factor)/(fish consumption * bioconcentration factor)

For non-carcinogens in freshwater:

Criterion (μg/L) = (reference dose * relative source contribution) * (adult body weight*

conversion factor)/[drinking water consumption+(fish consumption * bioconcentration factor)]

For non-carcinogens in saline water:

Criterion (μg/L) = (reference dose * relative source contribution) * (adult body weight*

conversion factor)/(fish consumption * 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 Quality Criteria-Correction (EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999)

(NRWQC 1999). The 1999 document was 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 Recommended 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 pollutants, while the latter

provided the revised criteria for the 15 pollutants. In May 2005, the USEPA announced the

availability of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Table: Poster and Brochure

(found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria) to reflect the compilation of the updated

information already published in 2002 and 2003. The updated criteria developed pursuant to

section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) serve as guidance to the States to establish their

water quality standards for protecting 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 USEPA 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 revision 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. However, the use of an RSC

term with a 20% floor introduced by the new 2000 Human Health Methodology is included

mainly for the 15 pollutants finalized in 2003. Though recommended as part of the 2000 Human
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.

____________________________

69

Health Methodology, USEPA acknowledged that the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) component

is considered time- and resource-intensive. Therefore, the NRWQC were developed with the

bioconcentration factors (BCFs) made available in 1980 and used in developing the 1992

National Toxics Rule. The lifetime excess cancer risk level associated 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 significant figures from the final calculations.

Rounding follows the general scientific practice of dropping digits that are not significant, 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 NRWQC 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 applicable equations, the default fish intake

rate of 17.5 g/day, toxicity factors, the 1980 BCFs and for some criteria, the RSCs. The detailed

basis of the component factors and the appropriate equations for calculating the 2002 NRWQC

can be found in the companion document National Recommended Water 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 Criteria 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 consistent with the NTR human health criteria that the

USEPA promulgated for the NTR States. Therefore, 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 for
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.

____________________________

70

mercury. The proposed criterion at 0.050 μg/L for water and organism consumption and the

criterion at 0.051 μg/L for organism consumption 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 decided not to propose the fish tissue value for

methylmercury at 0.3 mg/kg issued by the USEPA (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 the fish tissue criteria for evaluating impairment.

For easy reference, Table 4 titled "Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health

Criteria" lists the criteria to be proposed along with the existing criteria, and NRWQC human

health criteria for comparison. In addition, the Department sets forth 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 NRWQC, 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 USEPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology and

generally supports its approaches and default values for criteria derivations, the Department has

modified the NRWQC-based criteria for certain pollutants for the proposal. In addition, the

Department is proposing criteria for a number of other pollutants derived by standard

methodology or using other scientifically defensible 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 contained in the current

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), 4). Incorporating the new NJDEP

approach for risk assessment for Group C carcinogens, 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 detailed below under the abbreviated headings of IRIS,

NJDWQI, NPDWR, Group C Policy and RPF (see discussion below). These subject headings

are also indicated in Table 5 as the basis for the human health criteria derivation for the specific

pollutant.

IRIS: Criteria under this heading 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 toxicity data posted on IRIS as of May 17,

2002. To reflect more recent science the Department reviewed IRIS through February 1,

2005 for applicable information. The Department uses the updated toxicity 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 criteria 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 assumptions 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 USEPA recently updated the health assessment

information for acrolein in IRIS on June 3, 2003. Carcinogenicity Assessment for

acrolein was revised to “data are inadequate 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 based on the current IRIS carcinogenic slope

factor, updated fish intake rate and BCF listed in the 2002 Calculation Matrix instead

of the 2002 NRWQC which are based on outdated 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 has been utilized to derive criteria for total arsenic that

includes inorganic and organic arsenic because of the interconversion of the arsenic

species both in the environment and in the body. Furthermore, the analytical methods

used do not usually speciate arsenic.

c. Beryllium: Beryllium is listed in the existing SWQS as “Reserved”. There is no

NRWQC for beryllium. The USEPA has classified beryllium via the oral route

equivalent to a Group C carcinogen in the Final Rule of the National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations (57 Fed. 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 saline 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. Therefore, 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 cadmium 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 deriving noncarcinogenic saline

criteria, using the RSC of 25% as listed in the Calculation Matrix, 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 reduced
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.

____________________________

73

absorption of fish consumption by a factor 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 with 5.7 μg/L for consumption of water

and fish and 470 μg/L for fish consumption 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 B2

carcinogen, but with no given oral slope factor. The proposed criterion for

chloroform is based on an RfD for a non-carcinogenic effect. USEPA has concluded

that the carcinogenicity of chloroform occurs through a mechanism involving

cytotoxicity for which a threshold exists. Cytotoxicity 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 chloroform. Based on an

IRIS RfD of 0.01 mg/kg-day, with fish intake 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 freshwater 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 freshwater criterion at 92 μg/L and a saline

criterion at 750 μg/L are developed for total chromium. The criteria are based on the

IRIS RfD for chromium VI, the more toxic chromium species, because the two
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.

____________________________

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 update the existing criteria. Therefore, no

criteria will be proposed 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). Therefore, the criteria should

be expressed accordingly for endosulfan as a mixture of alpha- and beta- isomers

rather than a specific isomer, alpha-endosulfan or beta-endosulfan 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). Thus, the Department updated the criteria

based on the current IRIS information, fish 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 Quality Institute (NJDWQI) established under

the 1984 amendments to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (NJSDWA)

(commonly known as the A-280) develops and recommends drinking water standards

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:12A-13. For toxic substances 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 Water, 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 Ambient

Water 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 incorporate the 20% relative 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. Relative 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 promulgated 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. The 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 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(NPDWR) instead of the NRWQC for these two 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 agents categorized as possible

human carcinogens because the evidence for carcinogenicity 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 Department as technically sound.

If such a slope factor is not available, the risk assessment will then be based on noncarcinogenic effects using a reference 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 policy. The change could be significant 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 carcinogens is applied at this time to all Group

C carcinogens except those addressed by the 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 its revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk

Assessment in March 2005 to replace the alphanumeric categorization such as Group C

with narrative descriptors. Consistent with USEPA Memorandum on Application of New
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.

____________________________

77

Cancer Guidelines that the current completed risk assessment is considered scientifically

sound until reassessment under the new Guidelines, 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 applicable 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 preferable to utilize the

relative potency approach to derive the slope factors of the individual PAH for use in

criteria development. Therefore, the criteria are different from those in the NRWQC.

The individual slope factors are derived by multiplying the IRIS slope factor of

benzo(a)pyrene of 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 by the relative potency estimate 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; benzo(k)fluoranthene, 0.01; chrysene, 0.001;

dibenz(a,h)anthracene, 1.0; and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, 0.1.

NTR Criteria: New Jersey is under the NTR for 11 human 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 freshwater criterion for gamma-BHC and one saline

criterion each for gamma-BHC, chlorodibromomethane, 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 proposing criteria for these toxic substances that, upon adoption and

USEPA approval will replace any corresponding criteria that the USEPA has promulgated for

New Jersey. The basis of the criteria development 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 criteria 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 next round of withdrawals from the NTR. (Letter

from W. Mugdan, Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, USEPA, Region

2 to Geoffrey Grubbs, Director, USEPA Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC,

May 13, 2004). For this proposal the Department has revised these PCB criteria 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 including 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 Water Act and already monitored

and reported as part of the NJPDES discharge monitoring data. The five new pollutants are

acenaphthene, 2-chloronaphthalene, 1,2-dichloropropane, 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 BLANK

THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health Criteria

Existing SWQC National Recommended WQC 

Toxic Substances CASRN FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Water &

Organisms

(μg/L)

Organisms

only

(μg/L)

81

1 Acenaphthene 83-32-9 670 990 2 Acrolein 107-02-8 320 780 190 290 3 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 0.0591 0.665 0.051 0.25 4 Aldrin 309-00-2 0.000135 0.000144 0.000049 0.000050 5 Anthracene 120-12-7 9,570 108,000 8,300 40,000 6 Antimony (Total) 7440-36-0 12.2 4,300 5.6 640 7 Arsenic (Total) 7440-38-2 0.0170 0.136 0.018 0.14 8 Asbestos 1332-21-4 7x106f/L

>10

μm(h)

7x106f/L

>10

μm(h)

9 Barium 7440-39-3 2,000 1,000 

10 Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.0028 0.031 0.0038 0.018 11 Benzene 71-43-2 0.150 71 0.61-2.2 14-51 12 Benzidine 92-87-5 0.000118 0.000535 0.000086 0.00020 13 Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) 50-32-8 0.0028 0.031 0.0038 0.018 14 Benzo(b)fluoranthene (3,4-

Benzofluoranthene)

205-99-2 0.0028 0.031 0.0038 0.018 

15 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.0028 0.031 0.0038 0.018 16 Beryllium 7440-41-7 17 alpha-BHC (alpha-HCH) 319-84-6 0.00391 0.0131 0.0026 0.0049 18 beta-BHC (beta-HCH) 319-85-7 0.137 0.460 0.0091 0.017 19 gamma-BHC (gammaHCH/Lindane) 58-89-9 [0.19] [0.63] 0.98 1.8 20 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether

(Dichloroethyl ether)

111-44-4 0.0311 1.4 0.030 0.53 

21 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 108-60-1 1,250 170,000 1,400 65,000 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health Criteria

Existing SWQC National Recommended WQC 

Toxic Substances CASRN FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Water &

Organisms

(μg/L)

Organisms

only

(μg/L)

82

22 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) 117-81-7 1.76 5.92 1.2 2.2 23 Bromodichloromethane

(Dichlorobromomethane)

75-27-4 0.266 22 0.55 17 

24 Bromoform 75-25-2 4.38 360 4.3 140 25 Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) 74-83-9 48.4 4,000 47 1,500 26 Butylbenzyl phthalate 85-68-7 239 416 1,500 1,900 27 Cadmium 7440-43-9 10 28 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.363 6.31 0.23 1.6 29 Chlordane 57-74-9 0.000277 0.000283 0.00080 0.00081 30 Chloride 16887-00-6 250,000 (ol) 31 Chlorobenzene

(Monochlorobenzene)

108-90-7 22.0 21,000 130 1,600 

32 Chloroform 67-66-3 5.67 470 5.7 470 33 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 1,000 1,600 34 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 122 402 81 150 35 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 160 3230 36 Chrysene 218-01-9 0.0028 0.031 0.0038 0.018 37 Copper 7440-50-8 1,300 38 Cyanide, total 57-12-5 768 220,000 140 140 39 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE) 72-54-8 0.000832 0.000837 0.00031 0.00031 40 4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0.000588 0.000591 0.00022 0.00022 41 4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0.000588 0.000591 0.00022 0.00022 42 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.0028 0.031 0.0038 0.018 43 Dibromochloromethane

(Chlorodibromomethane)

124-48-1 72.6 [340] 0.40 13 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health Criteria

Existing SWQC National Recommended WQC 

Toxic Substances CASRN FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Water &

Organisms

(μg/L)

Organisms

only

(μg/L)

83

44 Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 3,530 15,700 2,000 4,500 45 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho) 95-50-1 2,520 16,500 420 1,300 46 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (meta) 541-73-1 2,620 22,200 320 960 47 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (para) 106-46-7 343 3,159 63 190 48 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0.0386 0.0767 0.021 0.028 49 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.291 99 0.38 37 50 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 75-35-4 4.81 [32] 330 7,100 51 1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans) 156-60-5 592 140 10,000 52 2,4-Dichlorophenol (DCP) 120-83-2 92.7 794 77 290 53 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.50 15 54 1,3-Dichloropropene (cis and trans) 542-75-6 0.193 1,700 0.34 21 55 Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.000135 0.000144 0.000052 0.000054 56 Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 21,200 111,000 17,000 44,000 57 2,4-Dimethyl phenol 105-67-9 380 850 58 Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3 313,000 2,900,000 270,000 1,100,00059 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (2-Methyl-4,6-

dinitrophenol)

534-52-1 13.4 765 13 280 

60 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 69.7 14,000 69 5,300 61 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 0.11 9.1 0.11 3.4 62 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 0.0405 0.541 0.036 0.20 63 Endosulfan (alpha and beta) 115-29-7 0.932 1.99 64 Endosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8 0.93 2.0 62 89 65 Endrin 72-20-8 0.629 0.678 0.059 0.060 66 Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4 0.76 0.81 0.29 0.30 67 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 3,030 27,900 530 2,100 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health Criteria

Existing SWQC National Recommended WQC 

Toxic Substances CASRN FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Water &

Organisms

(μg/L)

Organisms

only

(μg/L)

84

68 Fluoranthene 206-44-0 310 393 130 140 69 Fluorene 86-73-7 1,340 [14,000] 1,100 5,300 70 Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.000208 0.000214 0.000079 0.000079 71 Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 0.000103 0.000106 0.000039 0.000039 72 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.000748 0.000775 0.00028 0.00029 73 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 6.94 [500] 0.44 18 74 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 245 17,000 40 1,100 75 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 2.73 12.4 1.4 3.3 76 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 0.0028 0.031 0.0038 0.018 77 Isophorone 78-59-1 552 [6,000] 35 960 78 Lead (Total) 7439-92-1

5

79 Manganese 7439-96-5 100 50 100 80 Mercury (Total) 7439-97-6 0.144 0.146 0.050 0.051 81 Methoxychlor 72-43-5 40 100 82 Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) 1634-04-4 83 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 2.49 1,600 4.6 590 84 Nickel (Soluble salts) 7440-02-0 516 3,900 610 4,600 85 Nitrate 14797-55-8 10,000 10,000 86 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 16.0 1,900 17 690 87 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 924-16-3 0.00641 0.0063 0.22 88 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5 0.000233 0.0008 1.24 89 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 0.000686 8.1 0.00069 3.0 90 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 4.95 16.2 3.3 6.0 91 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (Di-npropylnitrosamine) 621-64-7 0.0050 0.51 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 4. Chemical-Specific Surface Water Human Health Criteria

Existing SWQC National Recommended WQC 

Toxic Substances CASRN FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Water &

Organisms

(μg/L)

Organisms

only

(μg/L)

85

92 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2 0.0167 0.016 34 93 PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) 1336-36-3 [0.00017] [0.00017] 0.000064 0.000064 94 Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 3.67 4.21 1.4 1.5 95 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.282 8.2 0.27 3.0 96 Phenol 108-95-2 20,900 4,600,000 21,000 1,700,000 97 Pyrene 129-00-0 797 8,970 830 4,000 98 Selenium (Total) 7782-49-2 10 170 4,200 99 Silver 7440-22-4 164 

100 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 2.56 3.25 0.97 1.1 101 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)

1746-01-6 0.000000013 0.000000014 0.0000000050 0.0000000051 

102 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 1.72 [110] 0.17 4.0 103 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 0.388 4.29 0.69 3.3 104 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.70 6.22 0.24 0.47 105 Toluene 108-88-3 7,440 200,000 1,300 15,000 106 Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.000730 0.000747 0.00028 0.00028 107 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 30.6 113 35 70 108 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 127 109 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 13.5 [420] 0.59 16 110 Trichloroethene (TCE)

(Trichloroethylene)

79-01-6 1.09 81 2.5 30 

111 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 2,580 9,790 1,800 3,600 112 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 2.14 6.53 1.4 2.4 113 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.0830 525 0.025 2.4 114 Zinc 7440-66-6 7,400 26,000 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE 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 NationaFed. Reg. 60911, December 22, 1992; 64 Fed. 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)) USEPA. However, the PCBs criteria are still under NTR for New Jersey, pending USEPA withdrawal.ol organoleptic
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria Derivation

Proposed SWQC Basis 

Toxic Substances CASRN

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Oral RfD

(mg/kg-day)

Oral

Slope

Factor

(mg/kgday)-1

Carcinogen

Group

87

1 Acenaphthene 83-32-9 670 990 NR02 0.06 2 Acrolein 107-02-8 6.1 9.3 IRIS 0.0005 ^ 3 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 0.051 0.25 NR02 0.54 B1 4 Aldrin 309-00-2 0.000049 0.000050 NR02 17 B2 5 Anthracene 120-12-7 8,300 40,000 NR02 0.3

D 

6 Antimony (Total) 7440-36-0 5.6 640 NR02 0.0004 7 Arsenic (Total) 7440-38-2 0.017 0.061 IRIS 1.5

A 

8 Asbestos 1332-21-4 7,000,000 f/L

>10 μm

NR02

A

9 Barium 7440-39-3 2,000 NPDWR 0.07

D

10 Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.038 0.18 RPF 0.73 B2 11 Benzene 71-43-2 0.15 3.3 NJDWQI 0.23

A 

12 Benzidine 92-87-5 0.000086 0.00020 NR02 230

A 

13 Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) 50-32-8 0.0038 0.018 NR02/RPF 7.3 B2 14 Benzo(b)fluoranthene (3,4-

Benzofluoranthene)

205-99-2 0.038 0.18 RPF 0.73 B2 

15 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.38 1.8 RPF 0.073 B2 16 Beryllium 7440-41-7 6.0 42 IRIS 0.002

C 

17 alpha-BHC- (alpha-HCH) 319-84-6 0.0026 0.0049 NR02 6.3 B2 18 beta-BHC (beta-HCH) 319-85-7 0.0091 0.017 NR02 1.8

C 

19 gamma-BHC (gammaHCH/Lindane) 58-89-9 0.98 1.8 NR03 0.0003 20 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether

(Dichloroethyl ether)

111-44-4 0.030 0.53 NR02 1.1 B2 

21 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 108-60-1 1,400 65,000 NR02 0.04 22 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

(DEHP)

117-81-7 1.2 2.2 NR02 0.014 B2 

23 Bromodichloromethane

(Dichlorobromomethane)

75-27-4 0.55 17 NR02 0.062 B2 

24 Bromoform 75-25-2 4.3 140 NR02 0.0079 B2 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria Derivation

Proposed SWQC Basis 

Toxic Substances CASRN

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Oral RfD

(mg/kg-day)

Oral

Slope

Factor

(mg/kgday)-1

Carcinogen

Group

88

25 Bromomethane (Methyl

bromide)

74-83-9 47 1,500 NR02 0.0014

D 

26 Butylbenzyl phthalate 85-68-7 150 190 Group C Policy 0.2

C 

27 Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.4 16 IRIS 0.0005(w)

0.001(f)

28 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.33 2.3 NJDWQI 0.091 B2 29 Chlordane 57-74-9 0.00010 0.00011 NJDWQI 2.7 B2 30 Chloride 16887-00-6 250,000(ol) Red Book31 Chlorobenzene

(Monochlorobenzene)

108-90-7 210 2,500 NJDWQI 0.0065

D 

32 Chloroform 67-66-3 68 2,100 IRIS 0.01 B2 33 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 1,000 1,600 NR02 0.08 34 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 81 150 NR02 0.005 35 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 92 750 IRIS 0.003

D 

36 Chrysene 218-01-9 3.8 18 RPF 0.0073 B2 37 Copper 7440-50-8 1,300 NR02

D

38 Cyanide, total 57-12-5 140 140 NR03 0.02

D 

39 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE) 72-54-8 0.00031 0.00031 NR02 0.24 B2 40 4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0.00022 0.00022 NR02 0.34 B2 41 4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0.00022 0.00022 NR02 0.34 B2 42 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.0038 0.018 RPF 7.3 B2 43 Dibromochloromethane

(Chlorodibromomethane)

124-48-1 0.40 13 NR02 0.084

C 

44 Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 2,000 4,500 NR02 0.1

D 

45 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho) 95-50-1 2,000 6,200 NJDWQI 0.086

D 

46 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (meta) 541-73-1 2,200 8,300 NJDWQI 0.086

D 

47 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (para) 106-46-7 550 2,200 NJDWQI 0.21

C 

48 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0.021 0.028 NR02 0.45 B2 49 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.29 28 NJDWQI 0.12 B2 50 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 75-35-4 4.7 100 NJDWQI 0.0014

C 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria Derivation

Proposed SWQC Basis 

Toxic Substances CASRN

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Oral RfD

(mg/kg-day)

Oral

Slope

Factor

(mg/kgday)-1

Carcinogen

Group

89

51 1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans) 156-60-5 590 43,000 NJDWQI 0.017 52 2,4-Dichlorophenol (DCP) 120-83-2 77 290 NR02 0.003 53 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.50 15 NR02 0.067 B2 54 1,3-Dichloropropene (cis and

trans)

542-75-6 0.34 21 NR03 0.1 B2 

55 Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.000052 0.000054 NR02 16 B2 56 Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 17,000 44,000 NR02 0.8

D 

57 2,4-Dimethyl phenol 105-67-9 380 850 NR02 0.02 58 Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3 IRIS

D

59 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (2-Methyl4,6-dinitrophenol) 534-52-1 13 280 NR02 0.00039 60 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 69 5,300 NR02 0.002 61 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 0.11 3.4 NR02 0.311 62 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 0.036 0.20 NR02 0.8 B2 63 Endosulfan (alpha and beta) 115-29-7 62 89 IRIS 0.006 64 Endosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8 62 89 NR02 0.006 65 Endrin 72-20-8 0.059 0.060 NR03 0.0003

D 

66 Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4 0.059 0.060 Endrin67 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 530 2,100 NR03 0.1

D 

68 Fluoranthene 206-44-0 130 140 NR02 0.04

D 

69 Fluorene 86-73-7 1,100 5,300 NR02 0.04

D 

70 Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.000079 0.000079 NR02 4.5 B2 71 Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 0.000039 0.000039 NR02 9.1 B2 72 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.00028 0.00029 NR02 1.6 B2 73 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.44 18 NR02 0.078

C 

74 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 40 1,100 NR03 0.006

D 

75 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 1.4 3.3 NR02 0.014

C 

76 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 0.038 0.18 RPF 0.73 B2 77 Isophorone 78-59-1 35 960 NR02 0.00095

C 

78 Lead (Total) 7439-92-1 5 * B2
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria Derivation

Proposed SWQC Basis 

Toxic Substances CASRN

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Oral RfD

(mg/kg-day)

Oral

Slope

Factor

(mg/kgday)-1

Carcinogen

Group

90

79 Manganese 7439-96-5 100 NR0280 Mercury (Total) 7439-97-6 0.050 0.051 NR9981 Methoxychlor 72-43-5 40 NPDWR82 Methyl tertiary-butyl ether

(MTBE)

1634-04-4 70 NJDWQI 0.1

C 

83 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 2.5 310 NJDWQI 0.014 B2 84 Nickel (Soluble salts) Various 500 1,700 * 0.02 85 Nitrate 14797-55-8 10,000 NR02 1.686 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 17 690 NR02 0.0005

D 

87 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 924-16-3 0.0063 0.22 NR02 5.43 B2 88 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5 0.00023 0.13 IRIS 150 B2 89 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 0.00069 3.0 NR02 51 B2 90 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 3.3 6.0 NR02 0.0049 B2 91 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (Din-propylnitrosamine) 621-64-7 0.0050 0.51 NR02 7.0 B2 92 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2 0.016 34 NR02 2.13 B2 93 PCBs (Polychlorinated

biphenyls)

1336-36-3 0.000064 0.000064 NR02 2.0 B2 

94 Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 1.4 1.5 NR02 0.0008

D 

95 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.27 3.0 NR02 0.12 B2 96 Phenol 108-95-2 10,000 860,000 IRIS 0.3

D 

97 Pyrene 129-00-0 830 4,000 NR02 0.03

D 

98 Selenium (Total) 7782-49-2 170 4,200 NR02 0.005

D 

99 Silver 7440-22-4 170 40,000 IRIS 0.005

D 

100 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 0.97 1.1 NR02 0.0003 101 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD) 1746-01-6 0.0000000050 0.0000000051 NR02 156000 B2 102 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 4.7 110 NJDWQI 0.0014

C 

103 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 0.34 1.6 NJDWQI 0.082 B2 104 Thallium 7440-28-0 0.24 0.47 NR03 0.000068

D 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

Table 5. Basis for Human Health Criteria Derivation

Proposed SWQC Basis 

Toxic Substances CASRN

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

FW2

(μg/L)

SE, SC

(μg/L)

Oral RfD

(mg/kg-day)

Oral

Slope

Factor

(mg/kgday)-1

Carcinogen

Group

91

105 Toluene 108-88-3 1,300 15,000 NR03 0.2

D 

106 Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.00028 0.00028 NR02 1.1 B2 107 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 21 42 NJDWQI 0.0012

D 

108 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 120 2,600 NJDWQI 0.0037

D 

109 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 13 350 NJDWQI 0.0039

C 

110 Trichloroethene (TCE)

(Trichloroethylene)

79-01-6 1.0 12 NJDWQI 0.031 B2 

111 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 1,800 3,600 NR02 0.1 112 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 0.58 1.0 NJDWQI 0.026 B2 113 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.082 8.1 NJDWQI 0.42

A 

114 Zinc 7440-66-6 7,400 26,000 NR02 0.3

D 
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

92
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

93

Equations 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/d

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)))]/

Equation f Saline Criterion = [RfD (mg/kg-day) * RSC* 70 kg*1000(

μg/mg)/ (0.0175 kg/day *BCF (L/kg))]/10

Abbreviationskg = kilograms L = litermg = milligrams ol = organolepticμg = micrograms f = fibersμm = micrometers AcronymsIRIS = USEPA Integrated Risk Information SystemNJDWQI = New Jersey Drinking Water Quality InstituteNPDWR = National Primary Drinking Water 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 of Human Health (68 Fed. Reg. 75507, December 31, 2003) RPF = Relative Potency Factor
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

94

Footnotes^ The carcinogen group assigned to acrolein in IRIS is the descriptor, “data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcin

equivalent 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 Jersey Drinking Water Qu

Contaminant Level Recommendations for Hazardous Contaminants in Drinking Water. September 26, 1994. Appendix A

Contaminant Level Support Documents and Addenda. p. A-32) based on the equations given in the USEPA's DrafMethodology: 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 up

consumption rate of 17.5 g/day.

Explanatory notes Criteria excluding criteria for asbestos, cadmium, lead, MTBE (see text) and those based on NPDWR were derived according to stand

equations listed above using information noted below and exposure parameters specified by the USEPA. For fish consumption default rate of 17.5 g/day was used, except as noted.

The toxicity information (Oral RfD or Oral Slope Factor) is as cited in the respective basis listed in the Table, i.e., IRIS, NJDWQ

NR03, or RPF. Information on Carcinogen Group is obtained 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 RfDs of chromium, and nickel are those listed in IRIS under chromium (VI) and nickel (soluble salts), respectively. The RfD for 

the 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 requirements of NJSDWA (N.J.S.A. 58:12A-1 et seq.). Criteria are the health-based levels cited in the New Jersey Drinkin

(NJDWQI) documents, Maximum Contaminant Level Recommendations for Hazardous Contaminants in Drinking Water, A

Maximum Contaminant Level Support Documents, March 26, 1987, submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Pr

Contaminant Level Recommendations for Hazardous Contaminants in Drinking Water, Appendix A, Health-Based Maximum C
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

95

Documents and Addenda, September 26, 1994, (http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply) submitted to State of New Jersey, DepProtection.Criteria based on NPDWR are the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals from the USEPA 2004 Edition of the Drinking WaAdvisories, 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 by the relative potency estimate for the individual PAH recommended in the USEPA “Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Ris

Aromatic Hydrocarbons”, EPA/600/R-93/089. The relative potencies based on that of benzo(a)pyrene as 1.0 are as followbenzo(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

Carcinogenic Group: Unless otherwise noted carcinogenic-based criteria were developed for Groups A and B carcinogens, using the c

slope factors to correspond to lifetime incremental cancer risk of 10-6. Non-carcinogenic-based criteria were developed for pollut

D or E and for those with no categorization indicated, using the non-carcinogenic equations and RfDs and in some cases modicontribution. The new approach for Group C carcinogens stipulates that criteria be developed through the use of a slope factor a

risk level, if such a slope factor is judged by the Department to be technically sound and based on adequate toxicological data. Iavailable, the risk assessment will be based on non-carcinogenic effects using the RfD with an additional uncertainty factor of 1carcinogenic effects. This new approach was used for pollutants identified as Group C except for the NJDWQI pollutants wherwere developed preferentially.

Relative Source Contribution (RSC) for non-carcinogens is not included in the criteria derivation, unless documented by the USEPA i

cases, specific percentage is shown in the Table.

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) from the 1980 USEPA ambient water quality criteria documents was retained unless otherwise noted. 

the USEPA in promulgating human health criteria for priority toxic pollutants in the 1992 National Toxics Rule and subsequencriteria 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 criteria applicable to site-specific

conditions within New Jersey at this section. The New York / New Jersey harbor specific saline

copper criteria is the only criteria 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 quality 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 classifications for the waters of the State of New

Jersey, contains waterbody classification 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 correct 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, Hackensack River and New York Harbor Complex

drainage basin which contains the surface waters listed 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 delete the SC classification for

waters in Island Beach State Park under the Barnegat Bay listing. 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 classification applicable to the in-land waters of the

Island Beach State Park. If the proposed change is adopted, all waters 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 proposing to make this change in the Atlantic
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.

____________________________

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 Brendan 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 the listing of Jade Run to include the entire

length, to reflect the listing in Table 6 of the classification tables 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 amendments 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 see Trout Classifications below).

The Department is proposing to delete the stream classification 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 eliminate confusion, the

Department is proposing to delete the classification for Kikeout Brook and add "see Stone House

Brook" where Kikeout Brook is listed. In addition, as part of this 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 see 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 the listings under Wanaque River. The listing

under Hewitt refers to the tributary south of Jennings Creek and therefore, should be properly

listed under tributaries to Wanaque River. Therefore, 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 text 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 upgraded to a trout production classification based on

the fish sampling data (for more details see Trout Classifications below).

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(f): The Department is proposing a minor 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 waterbody, 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 Standards (17 N.J.R. 1270, May 20, 1985). However,

the trout maintenance section was inadvertently 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 Wildlife Management Area, (flowing toward the

Wallkill River), was mistakenly listed as a tributary 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 duplicated 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 tributary
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.

____________________________

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 delete the listing under the tributaries 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 sampling data as shown in Table 6. Four stream

segments (Beech Brook, Stone House Brook, Saddle River, and Wanaque River) support trout

production use designation. Therefore, the Department is proposing that these segments will

additionally receive a Category One antidegradation designation. The Department is also

proposing several amendments clarifying the names of State Forests, classification listings and

editorial changes as explained below.

The waterbodies for which trout-related reclassifications are being proposed are listed in

Table 6 below. Stream sampling (fish survey) data are used by the Department to determine

whether a waterway should be classified to protect the trout production (TP) or trout

maintenance (TM) uses. When waterbodies are surveyed and found to have naturally reproduced

trout in their first year of life (young of the year or YOY), they are classified as trout production

waters or FW2-TP. When adult trout are found in a waterbody, and YOY trout are absent, the

classification of the stream as trout maintenance (FW2-TM) or nontrout (FW2-NT) depends

upon the stream’s total fish population.

A classification system was developed which utilizes a table of Incidence of Occurrence

(I.O.), of other fish species associated with trout, based on data from a statewide survey of

freshwater streams. A value 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 Fisheries as the minimum occurrence with trout that

would classify a species as being trout "associated." This 20% figure was also selected as the

cutoff figure for determining whether a stream should be classified as FW2-TM. The individual
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.

____________________________

100

percentage figures for an individual stream are added and averaged, with 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 maintenance, 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 THE STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS AS A

RESULT OF STREAM SURVEYS 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 indicative of a TM classification and less than 20 are

indicative of NT classification).

Social Impact
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.

____________________________

101

The proposed re-adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:9B with amendments will allow the Department

to continue to protect the surface waters of the State and will, therefore, result in a positive social

impact. Without the SWQS, the Department would not have regulations directly governing the

protection and enhancement of surface water quality 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 agricultural water supplies, recreation, tourism,

fishing, and shellfish harvesting. Further, the State of New Jersey may not retain delegated

jurisdiction over the federal NPDES permitting program in this State in the absence of adopted

SWQS.

The proposed amendments to the antidegradation policies are intended to improve

implementation of the Surface Water Quality Standards by providing flexibility for existing

discharges while continuing to protect 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 surface 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 the updated criteria reflect 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 protect public health are used. The proposed temperature criteria for

trout production waters will protect trout and trout-associated species. In addition to protecting

the resource, this will also produce 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 classifications and antidegradation designations

will allow the Department to provide more appropriate protection to the affected waterbodies and

will therefore, result in a positive 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 water 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 comply 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 measures 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 maintain 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 classifications and an antidegradation designation for each

waterbody.

As indicated in the summary, there is significant overlap between the goals and

objectives of the State Planning Act and the goals 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 planning framework. The Department has incorporate by

reference the Planning Areas and Designated Centers in the State Plan in the Department's

antidegradation implementation policies. In this way the Department appropriately and closely

coordinates the allowance of lower water quality associated with development with the overall
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.

____________________________

103

planning objectives articulated in the State Plan. These antidegradation implementation policies

strike the appropriate balance between the need to provide sufficient protection of water

resources with the need to promote growth where it is most appropriate based on infrastructure

investments and other planning considerations.

New Jersey has three levels of antidegradation 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 National 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 development, provided water quality criteria continue

to be met.

The degree of economic impact of these antidegradation policies is highly dependent

upon the location of the proposed activity. No new or expanded discharges or developments that

might impact FW1 waters may be approved by the Department. The Department does not expect

any economic impact from the continued designation of waters as FW1, as these streams flow

within State-owned lands. New and expanded discharges and developments which may impact

upon waters classified as PL must 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 addressed in the development of the Pinelands Comprehensive

Management Plan.

In Category One waters, discharges and development are allowed, but are restricted to

those that do not result in a lowering of water quality. In Category Two waters, the goal is to

maintain existing water quality, but a lowering may be permitted if it is necessary to support

important social and economic development. The 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 antidegradation 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 regulated by the NJPDES permit

program. Several NJPDES permitting actions are exempt from an antidegradation review.

These include NJPDES permit renewals that do not authorize an increase in permitted flow or

pollutant loading, discharges authorized by a general permit issued in accordance with N.J.A.C.

7:14A-6.13, and NJPDES permits issued to industrial facilities with production-based effluent

limits that are less than or equal to previously authorized pollutant 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 discharges are considered new and expanded

activities which are subject to antidegradation requirements. For new and expanded NJPDES

dischargers, the economic impact may vary depending upon discharge location, pollutants of

concern and treatment options as discussed below. Applicants proposing a new or expanded

discharge must conduct an alternatives analysis to determine whether a calculable change in

water quality is necessary. The applicant may need to hire an environmental consultant to

prepare an alternatives analysis, engineering services to evaluate 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 laboratory 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 water quality effluent limitations necessary to

maintain the in-stream water quality based upon the volume of wastewater flow generated, the

available dilution, existing water quality, and projected effluent quality. 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 listed 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 instituting alternative wastewater

disposal options such as individual septic systems, an on-site community groundwater disposal

system, or connection to a regional 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 location and type of proposed activity 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 describes the activities that

qualify for a lowering in water quality. The Department used the State Development

Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) as a guide for where development should be encouraged and, if

necessary, a lowering in water quality 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 Center. In Planning Area 3

(Fringe), Planning Area 4 (Rural), and Planning Area 5 (Environmentally Sensitive),

development is restricted to protect important environmental resources. Additionally, the

Department determined that projects needed for public health and safety, and new and expanded
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.

____________________________

106

public institutions should also be considered as “necessary and justifiable social or economic

development.”

An applicant proposing a new or expanded discharge to a Category Two water may incur

additional costs to demonstrate that it is impossible to prevent a calculable change in water

quality without incurring substantial economic impact. The applicant may need to contract

professional services to perform this economic analysis.

As indicated in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4iv, the applicant with a project that qualifies as a

“necessary and justifiable social or economic development” 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 that 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 “necessary and justifiable social or economic development” or is

proposed to discharge in the Highlands Preservation Area will incur impacts similar to applicants

proposing a new or expanded discharge to a Category One waterbody.

The proposed amendments to the antidegradation policies to maintain the existing water

quality where threatened and endangered species are present are not expected to result in

additional economic impact for point source discharges. The USEPA concurs that, until the

formal review of the 304(a) criteria is completed as required by a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) (66 Fed. Reg. 11202, February 22, 2001) between USEPA and the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service, the aquatic criteria pursuant to existing 304(a) are considered to be

adequately protective of threatened and endangered 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 of
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.

____________________________

107

Category One antidegradation designation for several waterbodies based on exceptional

ecological significance should provide additional protection for threatened and endangered

species. Therefore, any economic impact associated with proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)1i will

be triggered if the applicant proposes a new or expanded discharge 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 sensitive analytical methods for the purpose of

characterizing the effluent is expected to cause an economic impact, however, the impact is not

expected to be substantial. The NJPDES permitting program currently requires permittees to

monitor the concentration of mercury 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 using the required method. Additional costs would be incurred by

all NJPDES permittees depending on sampling requirements imposed in the NJPDES permit.

Bacterial Quality Criteria

The Department is proposing to readopt the existing bacterial criteria for shellfish water.

Similarly, the Department is not proposing any changes to enterococci criteria in SE1 and SC

waters. As indicated in the Summary, the Department is not imposing these criteria as effluent

limitations. Therefore, these criteria should not generate any economic impact to existing

NJPDES dischargers.

The fecal coliform criteria applicable to FW2, SE1, and SC waters are being proposed for

deletion. This repeal of fecal coliform criteria may not provide any economic benefit because

the NJPDES dischargers should still provide disinfection in accordance with the NJPDES

effluent standards (N.J.A.C. 7:14A-12.5(b)). No change is being proposed to the fecal coliform

criteria applicable to SE2 and SE3 waters. Monitoring for fecal coliform is required by the

NJPDES program. The cost associated with this sampling requirement will depend on the
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.

____________________________

108

monitoring requirements imposed in the facility’s NJPDES permit based on the size of the

facility.

The newly proposed E. coli criteria for FW2 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 appropriate 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 production waters are not

expected to generate additional economic impact to existing dischargers to trout production

waters. Currently, the temperature criteria for trout production waters allow no deviation beyond

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

of 20°C for trout production waters, similar to the existing criterion for trout maintenance waters.

According to the recodified policy 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 the 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 temperature criteria, discharging to a waterbody impaired for

temperature may incur additional costs to monitor the ambient stream temperature upstream and

downstream of the discharge. If a TMDL is established and the discharge is determined to be the

source of the temperature exceedance, the facility need to evaluate options 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 continue the economic impact associated with

complying with the rules. Costs of compliance for water quality sampling, analysis, and

reporting will not change because these activities are already required by the Department to

satisfy existing Federal regulations whenever NJPDES permits are initially issued, renewed, or

modified. Prevention of further degradation of the surface waters is one step toward maintaining

the quality of the surface water. This will have a positive economic benefit for the public health

(including reduction in medical expenses) and ecological values, as well as for recreational,

industrial, and agricultural users of the State's waters.

The potential economic impact of the proposed surface water quality criteria is highly

variable. Costs would be mainly incurred by either: 1) new dischargers required to comply with

effluent limitations based upon the existing or proposed criteria where reasonable potential has

been demonstrated regarding the need for WQBELs; 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 continue 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 source(s) of the pollutant(s);

- potential for pollutant 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, reclamation or recycling of pollutants).

In addition, the magnitude of the economic impacts will be determined by the factors

required to develop WQBELs. WQBELs are derived using several factors, including the volume

of waste water discharge, pollutant-specific upstream 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 criterion) 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 specific conditions, it is difficult to estimate the

economic impact associated in each case.

However, the Department analyzed the discharge monitoring report (DMR) data from

municipal and industrial facilities available from a two-year 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 identify those pollutants where more than ten

percent of the reported values were quantified. The Department further analyzed this list of

pollutants to identify whether the average value is greater than the most stringent proposed

criterion (which includes aquatic and human health criteria for both fresh and saline waters). By

comparing the average value with the most stringent proposed criterion, the Department was able

to identify which pollutant may cause a NJPDES discharger to incur additional costs. The list of

pollutants where the average value is greater than the most stringent proposed criterion are
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.

____________________________

111

provided in Table 7. However, as indicated above, the WQBEL is dependent on a variety of sitespecific conditions including whether 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-pdioxin34675 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

** Reported 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 antidegradation categories vary from no impact to

some impact. More stringent discharge permit limitations necessitating construction and

operation of additional treatment units for new dischargers would be required which would cause

a potential economic impact. In addition, prohibition of new discharges and relocation of

proposed discharges that may affect 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 Surface Water Quality Standards are triggered

when an applicant proposes an activity that has the potential to lower water quality. Previously

approved wastewater discharges authorized through the NJPDES program as well as existing

development are not subject to the antidegradation policies described below unless a new or

expanded activity is proposed.

For existing NJPDES dischargers that are not proposing an expansion, the proposed

Category One antidegradation designation amendments will not automatically require an upgrade

of treatment capabilities. However, reclassifying waters from FW2-NT or FW2-TM to FW2-

TP(C1), may require an upgrade of wastewater treatment for existing dischargers, upon renewal

of their permit because FW2-TP(C1) requires stricter water quality criteria.

Table 8. Potentially affected NJPDES dischargers
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.

____________________________

113

(Potentially affected due to reclassification to trout production and/or Category One

antidegradation designation within 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 effluent 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 wastewater, 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 discharge 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 would not result in a measurable

change in water quality.

Renewal of an existing discharge permit does not require an antidegradation analysis

unless additional flow or loading is requested as part of the renewal 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 requirements 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 effluent limitations due to

the change from non-trout or trout maintenance 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 continuing 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 continuing efforts to restore, maintain, and enhance

the chemical, physical and biological integrity of New Jersey’s waters; protect scenic and

ecological values; enhance the domestic, municipal, recreational, and other reasonable uses of

the State’s waters; and provide general environmental benefits.

Some proposed amendments, like the administrative corrections, are environmentally

neutral, while others, like antidegradation implementation policies, upgraded water quality

criteria, and stream classifications will produce positive environmental impacts.

The Department is proposing significant revisions 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, maintain water quality and protect existing and

designated uses, including threatened and endangered species.

The proposed antidegradation provisions require new or expanded discharges to maintain

existing water quality in Category One waters. In Category Two waters, 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 discharge will be required to demonstrate that it

cannot comply with pollutant loadings based on its current permit or effluent quality, before

additional loading will be considered. The Department requires applicants to examine pollution

prevention and waste minimization measures as part of the antidegradation review process

pursuant to proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d)4. If additional loading is warranted, 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.

____________________________

115

must consider a range of treatment options and implementation costs that address the additional

loading. The Department believes that implementation of these proposed amendments will result

in a positive environmental impact. The continued 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 consideration of maintaining water quality, pollution

prevention, and minimization of potential water quality impacts.

The Department is proposing to amend several aquatic life-based and human healthbased criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14(d). The proposed criteria, based on updated information, are

more appropriate for water quality protection. The proposed human health criteria update is

based on a more stringent fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day. Permits based on more

stringent criteria are environmentally beneficial, 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 beneficial environmental effect. These stream

reclassifications provide beneficial environmental impact because they establish more protective

criteria for new or expanded discharges to these water bodies to assure that water quality is

maintained at a level necessary to support trout and related species. In addition, the proposed

upgrade to trout production increases the number of river miles with Category One

antidegradation designation by nine miles. The additional protection provided by the Category

One antidegradation designation prevents degradation of existing water quality. Implementation

of these rules through permitting and planning programs 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 regulations 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 establishment of water quality standards for all

surface waters of the United States. (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 responsible for overseeing and approving state water quality standards,

providing guidance on the content of the standards, and developing water quality criteria

guidance documents. Key elements of the surface water quality standards program required

under the CWA are: a classification system establishing designated beneficial uses of the waters;

ambient water quality criteria necessary to protect 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 quality from deteriorating. Furthermore, the CWA

includes provisions requiring the USEPA to promulgate superseding Federal standards where the

USEPA concludes that a State's standards are not consistent with the requirements of the CWA,

or where Federal requirements are necessary to meet the 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, which compares each section with the applicable

Federal law, regulations and guidance, as required 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 standards; therefore, no further analysis is needed.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4 contains definitions 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 for
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.

____________________________

117

states entitled Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition (August 1994, EPA-823-B94-005a) (Handbook). There are a few definitions that can not be found in the Federal

regulations or guidance documents however, each one of them are consistent with the Federal

policies. For example, the proposed definition of "substantial economic impact" is not defined in

the Federal regulations however, the concept 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 applicable to the protection and enhancement

of surface water resources throughout the State. These include general, interstate waters, general

technical (including mixing zone policies), antidegradation, water quality-based effluent

limitation, bioassay and biomonitoring, 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 Standards 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 criteria in the equivalent total

recoverable form. The USEPA provides guidance and recommendations on design flows in the

Handbook and in the Technical Support Document. The design flows and the metal translators

specified at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(c) are identical to the USEPA recommendations, therefore, no

further analysis is required.

Antidegradation policies are specified in the SWQS at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d). The Federal

regulation governing antidegradation policies is found at 40 CFR 131.12. It requires that states

develop and adopt antidegradation policies and implementation procedures 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 existing uses shall be maintained and protected

unless demonstrations are made to support lowering the water quality. New Jersey's

antidegradation policies are consistent with and do not impose restrictions more stringent than
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.

____________________________

118

those allowed under the Federal water quality standards 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 applicability, necessary information, and methodologies. They are based on

Federal NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d), and Federal guidance derived from Technical

Support Document for Water Quality-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 wastewater effluents may be discharged for the purpose of mixing,

dispersing, or dissipating such effluents without creating nuisances or hazardous conditions. If

applied to a particular discharge, 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 standards, policies generally affecting 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 the Federal rule; therefore no further analysis is

necessary. The Department notes that the USEPA’s Handbook and TSD provide guidance for

developing and implementing mixing zone regulations 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 chapter. This language mirrors the Federal water planning regulation

language found at 40 CFR 130.7(c); therefore, 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 procedures to be followed by applicants

requesting a modification (also called variances) of WQBELs for discharges into Category One

and Category Two waterbodies, respectively. There is no specific Federal regulation requiring

that states adopt such variance procedures into their water quality standards. At 40 CFR 131.13

it is stated, "States may, at their discretion, include in their State surface water quality standards,

policies generally affecting their application and 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 their SWQS. The Federal variance

guidance found on pages 5-11 and 5-12 in the Handbook does not address whether or not states

should allow variances for dischargers into Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs).

However, the Federal water quality standards regulations, which set forth antidegradation policy

requirements at 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3), specifically state 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 Chapter 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 allow for modifications of

WQBELs for dischargers into ONRWs. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8(c) reflects 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 requirements 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 requirements for petitioning the Department to add

a designated use to a waterbody. This language incorporates Federal requirements 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 the Delaware River and Bay. The Federal water

quality standards regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(a) require that states specify appropriate uses to
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.

____________________________

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 transport and assimilation is not an acceptable use in

any case (see 40 CFR 131.10(a)).” The uses specified in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.12 and 1.13 are

therefore, consistent with Federal requirements and no further 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 pollutants to protect the aquatic biota and humans

from detrimental effects from exposure to these pollutants in surface waters of the State.

N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 also states that the surface water 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 designated uses (40 CFR 131.11

(a)(1)). The numerical criteria should be based on CWA Section 304(a) guidance or 304(a)

guidance modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods

(40 CFR 131.11(b)(1) (i.-iii.)).

To determine whether any New Jersey criteria being proposed herein for re-adoption or

amendment are more stringent than Federal criteria, the Department compared each with CWA

Section 304(a) criteria promulgated by the USEPA through NTR for New Jersey. These criteria

are enforceable Federal surface water quality criteria in New Jersey. However, for parameters

for which the USEPA has not promulgated criteria through the NTR, the Department compared

New Jersey’s criteria with the respective USEPA recommended criteria published as part of

National Recommended Water 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 may be considered more stringent than NTR

criteria or 304(a) criteria if they are numerically lower. Differences in numerical values between

criteria can be attributed to a number of factors which could result in New Jersey criteria being
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.

____________________________

121

either more stringent or less stringent than the NTR criteria or 304(a) guidance criteria. In the

following analysis, the Department explains the differences in State and Federal numerical

values where the New Jersey criteria are more stringent or the relative stringency cannot be

ascertained. Because of the complex nature of calculating criteria, the derivation of the criteria is

also briefly described for clarification, wherever warranted.

General Criteria:

The Department has identified that New Jersey's pH criterion, 6.5-8.5 standard units for

FW2 waters, is more stringent than the CWA Section 304(a) guidance criterion of 6.5-9.0

standard units. However, the Federal water quality regulations (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1) note that:

"States must adopt those water quality criteria that protect the designated use." 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 uses specified in the SWQS. These criteria are

approved by the USEPA, and therefore, no further analysis is required.

Aquatic Life Protection Criteria:

Proposed Metals criteria: The proposed aquatic life-based freshwater acute and chronic criteria

for arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, copper, and nickel and freshwater acute criteria for mercury

and silver appear to be more stringent when compared with the NTR criteria. Where the criteria

are hardness-dependent, a criterion derived at a hardness of 100 mg/L of CaCO3 is used for

comparison purposes. The proposed criteria are based on the 304(a) national recommendations.

However, the freshwater acute and chronic criteria for cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI,

copper, nickel, and zinc also appear to be more stringent than the 304(a) national

recommendations. The apparently more stringent criteria are necessary because the proposed

criteria presented in Table 9 reflect the dissolved criteria using 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 acceptable conversion factors for converting total

recoverable criteria into dissolved 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-based saltwater acute and chronic criteria for cadmium and

acute criterion for nickel appear to be more stringent than the NTR 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 criterion 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 recommends updating criterion as new toxicity data

become available. In addition, these revised criteria were derived based on the USEPA

recommended methodology and have been reviewed 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 aquatic life-based freshwater acute

and chronic criteria for gamma BHC, dieldrin, endrin, and pentachlorophenol based on updated

toxicity information in the NRWQC 2005. These revised criteria were derived based on the

USEPA recommended methodology, therefore, meeting the Federal requirements.

Criteria proposed for re-adoption: As explained further below, New Jersey aquatic life protection

criteria for endosulfans (alpha and beta) proposed for re-adoption without change are more

stringent than the NTR criteria because the Department and the USEPA regulate different forms

of the chemicals. The freshwater acute and chronic criteria for lead are not comparable with the

NTR criteria because of conflicting analyses regarding the relationship between lead toxicity and

water hardness.

The freshwater acute and chronic criteria of 0.22μg/L and 0.056μg/L, respectively, and

saline acute and chronic criteria of 0.034μg/L and 0.0087μg/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 for alpha-endosulfan or beta-endosulfan, even though the same 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.

____________________________

123

were utilized by the USEPA and the Department to calculate the endosulfan criteria. For

example, the New Jersey freshwater acute endosulfans criterion allows 0.22μg/L of total

endosulfans, both alpha and beta forms together. The USEPA freshwater acute criterion for

endosulfans, however, allows for 0.22μg/L of alpha-endosulfan and 0.22μg/L of betaendosulfan. The Department has determined that the New Jersey aquatic life protection criteria

for endosulfan as total endosulfans is more appropriate than the USEPA endosulfan criteria,

because the toxicity data from which the criteria were derived were obtained from a mixture of

alpha and beta forms. The USEPA has approved these criteria to be protective 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 BLANK
THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE PROPOSAL. THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS SCHEDULED TO BE 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN TOFFICIAL VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

____________________________

125

Table 9. COMPARISON OF AQUATIC METALS CRITERIA 

(NTR / 304(a) / NJ Proposed)

(μg/L)

Freshwater Saltwater

Acute Chronic Acute Ch

Toxic substance

NTR 304(a) NJ-Prop NTR 304(a) NJ-Prop NTR 304(a) NJ-Prop NTR 30

Arsenic 360 340 340 190 150 150 69 69 69 36 3Cadmium 3.7a 4.3a 1.4a 1.0a 2.2a 0.17a 42 40 40 9.3 8Chromium(III) 550a 570a 500a 180a 74a 24aChromium(VI) 15 16 15 10 11 10 1100 1100 1100 50 5Copper 17a 13a 13a 11a 9a 8.5a 2.4 4.8 4.8 2.4 3Mercury 2.1 1.4 1.4 0.012 0.77 0.77 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.025 0Nickel 1400a 470a 400a 160a 52a 44a 74 74 64 8.2 8Selenium 20

b 20

5

5

5 290 290 290 71 7

Silver 3.4a 3.2a 3.2a 1.9 1.9 1.9Zinc 110a 120a 110a 100a 120a 110a 90 90 90 81 8a Dissolved criteria derived at a hardness of 100 mg/Lb Criteria under review

Table 10. Comparison of Conversion Factors

Freshwater

Chemical Acute Chronic

USEPA DRBC USEPA DRBC

Cadmium 0.944a 0.651

+ 0.944a 0.651

+

Chromium III 0.361 0.277

+ 0.860 0.277

+

Chromium VI 0.982 0.919

+ 0.962 0.919

+

Copper 0.960 0.908

+ 0.960 0.908

+

Nickel 0.998 0.846

+ 0.997 0.846

+

Zinc 0.978 0.950

+ 0.986 0.950

+

a Hardness dependent conversion factor derived at 100 mg/L CaCO3+ DRBC recalculated conversion factors
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.

____________________________

126

The freshwater acute and chronic criteria for lead are not comparable with the NTR

criteria because the NTR promulgated freshwater criteria for lead are hardness-dependent

equations, and the criteria promulgated by the Department are non-hardness-dependent values.

Although the NTR and the Department have promulgated an identical saltwater acute criterion,

the Department’s chronic criterion 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 criteria, the Department compared them with CWA section

304(a) human health criteria published by the USEPA. The criteria being 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 criteria 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 Water Quality Criteria

for the Protection of Human Health” (68 Fed. Reg. 75507, December 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 identified as “for consumption of water & organisms”

or “for consumption of organisms 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 criteria 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 criteria were recently updated, some 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.

____________________________

127

have been revised by the USEPA to become less stringent or more stringent to reflect current

science. Compared with the NTR criteria, seven of the 11 New Jersey criteria proposed to

replace the NTR are more stringent because they 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

(μg/L) Saline Human Health Criteria (μg/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-Specific 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, including 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 criteria for PCBs (0.000064 μg/L for both FW2 and

saline). They are more stringent than the 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 saline criterion (350 μg/L) is more stringent than the corresponding

NTR criterion (420 μg/L). The criterion for 1,1,2-trichloroethane becomes more stringent as the

result of using the updated default fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day to replace the 1980 rate at

6.5 g/day, as with all criteria derived using the 2000 Methodology. The Department believes that
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.

____________________________

128

the more stringent criteria being proposed are justified, since they are based on USEPA’s

updated guidance to reflect more recent best available scientific information.

Non-NTR Criteria: Most of the proposed non-NTR criteria are based on the national

recommended water quality criteria published by the USEPA in 2002 and 2003. Therefore, these

proposed criteria are identical to the corresponding Federal section 304(a) guidance criteria. As

discussed above in the Human Health Criteria Section 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 aldehyde, nickel, N-nitrosodiethylamine, phenol and methoxychlor,

have criteria more stringent than the corresponding 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 proposed criteria. As indicated in Table 12, the

proposed fresh water and saline criteria for four pollutants, those of acrolein (6.1 μg/L, 9.3 μg/L),

arsenic (0.017 μg/L, 0.061 μg/L), N-nitrosodiethylamine (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 update the 304(a) criteria. The criteria for

endrin aldehyde are based on the criteria for endrin because there are no data 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 fish consumption rate. The fresh water

criterion for methoxychlor (40 μg/L) from the NPDWR 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 criteria are the result of utilizing updated data. The Department is

justified to update the criteria to reflect current 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 have the option to derive water quality criteria

different from the USEPA 304(a) criteria if the states' criteria are derived using scientifically

defensible methods. The Department used toxicity bases developed pursuant 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 level 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 pollutants based on the NJDWQI have criteria more stringent than the

corresponding section 304(a) guidance criteria as shown in Table 12 below. The nine toxic

substances are benzene, chlordane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, methylene chloride,

tetrachloroethylene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. The

Department believes its criteria reflect more recent best available scientific information, and

therefore, variation from the Federal standard is appropriate.

The proposed freshwater and saline criteria for butylbenzyl phthalate at 150 μg/L and 190

μg/L are more stringent than the corresponding Federal NRWQC at 1,500 μg/L and 1,900 μg/L

respectively. Butylbenzyl phthalate is a Group C carcinogen. If an acceptable slope factor is not

available to derive a criterion for a Group C carcinogen, the Department’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 protection 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 μg/L and 0.061 

μg/L are more stringent than the Federal criteria of 0.018 μg/L and 0.14 μg/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 the reference stating that

the criteria refer only to the inorganic form of arsenic. However, the New Jersey criteria apply

to all arsenic forms, organic and inorganic, because of the potential interconversion between

organic and inorganic forms of arsenic. Additionally, there is no 40 CFR Part 136 (Guidelines

Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants under the Clean Water Act)

approved analytical methodology available to allow for differential measurement of organic

and inorganic forms, thus resulting in control efforts applying to all arsenic forms.

2). Endosulfan: New Jersey is proposing fresh water and saline criteria at 62 μg/L and 89 μg/L

respectively, for endosulfan (alpha and beta forms combined), that are more stringent than the

Federal criteria at 62 μg/L and 89 μg/L respectively, for either alpha-endosulfan or betaendosulfan. As discussed previously with regard to the Department's aquatic life protection

criteria for endosulfans, the Department 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-endosulfan isomers. The USEPA utilized the same

information to calculate its criteria, but chose to designate the endosulfan 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. The Department considers the New Jersey human

health endosulfans criteria appropriate because the toxicity data from which the criteria were

derived were obtained from a mixture 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

(μg/L)

Saline Human Health Criteria

(μg/L)

Toxic Substance New Jersey USEPA Reason New Jersey 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 waterbody classification listings, antidegradation

designations, and instructions for the use of the classification tables. The waterbody

classifications and antidegradation designations are arranged by major drainage basin. The

Federal water quality regulations at 40 CFR 131.10 require that states specify appropriate water

uses to be achieved and protected. The Department’s SWQS waterbody classification listing is a

tool to identify these designated uses such as protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and

wildlife, recreation in and on water, public water supplies, agricultural and industrial. Therefore,

these waterbody classifications are consistent with the Federal regulations.

In addition, 40 CFR 131.12 establishes requirements for states to develop and adopt

antidegradation policies and implementation procedures to ensure that the level of water quality

needed to protect existing uses is maintained, and that water quality better than necessary to

protect existing uses is maintained and protected unless demonstrations are made in support of

lowering the water quality. The proposed changes in antidegradation designation identify the

level of protection and implementation procedures that must be followed. The antidegradation

designations are consistent with, and do not exceed Federal standards. 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 rule proposals must contain

a jobs impact statement assessing the number of jobs to be generated or lost if the proposed rule

takes effect.

The implementation of the SWQS through the NJPDES permitting program will continue

to result in job opportunities in analytical and environmental consulting services to assess permit

compliance and evaluate and design the most cost effective abatement measures to achieve

permit compliance. Should such abatement measures involve new capital improvements, job

opportunities related to construction and contracting services and operation and maintenance of

these improvements would be created. Implementation of the SWQS will result in more of the

State’s waters achieving designated uses which will enhance job opportunities in industries and
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.

____________________________

133

businesses that are directly and indirectly water related. Failure to implement the SWQS

proposed for re-adoption with amendments could result in lost employment opportunities in

businesses and industries that are water quality dependent, such as tourism and fishing.

The proposed higher use classification and/or antidegradation categories are not expected

to create any additional jobs or cause any jobs to be lost. Losses of existing jobs would only

occur in the event that a discharger to one of the waterbodies proposed for reclassification would

curtail or cease operations rather than provide the necessary measures to abate NJPDES

regulated discharges so as to comply with any 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 the proposed rules on the

agricultural industry. The agricultural 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 which 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 permit fees, laboratory costs for sample analysis,

and potentially costs for engineering services. The total costs imposed will depend on the

requirements established in the facility's individual permit which is based on the nature of the

operation, the location of the discharge, and the volume and type of pollutants discharged.

In addition, farms that operate a “concentrated 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. Farms that operate such CAFOs will also incur costs to comply

with these rules as incorporated as NJPDES permit condition. The cost of complying with

NJPDES permit conditions for CAFOs is variable and depends on a number of factors, including
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.

____________________________

134

number and type of animals confined, existing animal waste practices at the farm, and

availability of cropland and pastureland for manure application.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-16 et seq., the

Department has determined that a limited number of individuals and entities affected by the

proposed amendments will be “small businesses” as defined in that Act. The proposed

amendments would affect any small businesses engaging 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 costs of compliance for water quality sampling,

analysis and reporting may increase for small businesses discharging pollutants for which the

Department had not previously adopted criteria and pollutants for which the Department is

proposing more stringent criteria. Continued costs may include those associated with hiring

professional services to design treatment 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 businesses 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, existing abatement methods, and required levels of

pollutant reduction. In proposing these amendments, the Department has balanced the expected

economic impacts of the rules upon small businesses against the need to protect the environment

and public health while complying with Federal law. The Department has determined that any

attempt to relax the requirements for small businesses 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 agencies 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 New
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.

____________________________

135

Jersey State Development and Redevelopment 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 and implementation of the SDRP. Smart growth

discourages development where it may impair or destroy natural resources or environmental

qualities that are vital to the health and well being of the present and future citizens of New

Jersey.

The proposed re-adoption with amendments will likely impact decisions concerning land

use and infrastructure development because wastewater 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, the 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 may be eligible for a lowering in

water quality. All other types of projects will be required to maintain water quality unless the

cost to maintain existing water 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 antidegradation designation will prevent degradation of

existing water quality.

The amendments, primarily intended to conserve the State’s surface waters and natural

resources, implement State Planning Goal 4: Protect the Environment. Goal 4 provides that “A

clean, safe, and attractive environment is essential 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 sustainable economy.” The implementing 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 infrastructure and by increasing infrastructure

capacities and growth potential in areas where development will not damage water resources,

critical habitats or important forests . . . .” The proposed amendments advance the goals of the
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.

____________________________

136

plan by protecting the waters from unnecessary amounts of toxic substances, thereby ensuring a

sustainable supply of water, support for unique flora/fauna, and other selected water resources.

The SWQS will discourage development where it would impair or destroy natural

resources and environmental qualities vital to the health and well-being of the citizens of New

Jersey, consistent with Executive Order No. 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" means the methods, measures, or practices to

prevent or reduce the amount of pollution from point or non-point sources, including

structural and nonstructural controls, and operation and maintenance procedures.

. . .

"Calculable changes" means detectable changes including predicted changes [to] in water

quality that fall outside of the 95% confidence interval of the mean water quality

[characteristics as demonstrated by any acceptable mathematical, predictive method] based on

an acceptable mathematical predictive model 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 capable of inducing a cancer response, including

Group A (human carcinogen), Group B (probable human carcinogen) or Group C

(possible human carcinogen) categorized in accordance with the USEPA Guidelines for
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.

____________________________

137

Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 51 Fed. Reg. 33992, 1986 incorporated herein by reference,

as amended or supplemented.

. . .

"Category one waters" means those waters designated in the tables in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(c)

through (h), for purposes of implementing the antidegradation policies set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(d), for protection from [measurable] calculable changes in water quality characteristics

because of their clarity, color, scenic setting, other characteristics of aesthetic value, exceptional

ecological significance, exceptional recreational significance, exceptional 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 upper region of a thermally stratified waterbody

extending from the surface to the thermocline.]

. . .

["Hypolimnion" means the lower region of a stratified 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 amended 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, including, 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 herein by reference,

as amended or supplemented.

. . .

“Substantial Economic Impact" means the cost of a proposed project exceeds the

community or facility's ability to pay for the project. The economic impact is determined

by a financial analysis conducted on a proposed pollution control project in accordance

with USEPA guidance (Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards

Workbook. EPA-823-B-95-002, March 1995, as amended and supplemented, incorporated

herein by reference).

. . .

"Water effect ratio" or "WER" means the ratio of an acute (or chronic) toxicity value

derived from a site study to the acute (or chronic) 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 substance 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 consumption 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 waterbody. Criteria for Group C carcinogens, for

which reference doses are not available, have been established at levels which would result in

no greater than a one-in-one-hundred thousand lifetime excess cancer risk.] For noncarcinogens, the criteria have been established 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 criteria for the fresh and saline waters under the

jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Commission 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 criteria for waters under the jurisdiction of the

Interstate [Sanitation] Environmental Commission in the New Jersey/New York

metropolitan area shall be as established in this subchapter, or in accordance with the

prevailing Water Quality Regulations of the Interstate [Sanitation] Environmental

Commission, including all amendments and future 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 maintained 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 bioconcentration 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 exceeded 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 criteria, the design flow shall be the MA1CD10 flow. For chronic

aquatic life protection criteria for ammonia, the design flow shall be the MA30CD10 flow.

The design flow for all other criteria 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-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); and

(13) Toxaphene.]

i. For acute aquatic life protection criteria, the 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 mean to assess compliance with the bacterial

quality indicators at N.J.A.C.7:9B-1.14(d)1ii-iii. The geometric mean shall be

calculated using a minimum of five samples collected over a thirty-day period. The

single sample maximum shall be used for 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 discharge shall be deemed in compliance with the

temperature criteria if the ambient stream 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 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.

____________________________

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 reservoirs shall not be permitted 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 protected. Designated uses shall be maintained or,

as soon as technically and economically feasible, be attained wherever these uses are not

precluded by natural conditions. The maintenance, migration, 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 (including the antidegradation designation) may

impinge upon a higher classification of water, the Department shall ensure that the

quality and uses of the higher classification water are protected.

v. A waterway or waterbody from which raw 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 quality-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 applied 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 Department’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 antidegradation designations pursuant to N.J.A.C.

7:9B-1.15. Antidegradation policies applicable 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 wastewater discharges or increases in runoff from

anthropogenic activities. The Department shall 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.

ii. For Pinelands waters, the Department shall 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 problems and that the designated uses

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 eliminate the water

quality problem or attain the designated uses.

(3) Existing dischargers shall be subject to all the provisions of this subchapter when they

apply for modification or expansion of their existing discharge.

iii. Category One Waters shall be protected from 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 conditions, shall be improved to meet water

quality criteria and maintain or provide for 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 characteristics that are generally better than,

or equal to the water quality standards shall be maintained within a range of 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.

____________________________

144

that protects the existing and designated uses. Water quality characteristics that are

generally worse than the water quality criteria, 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, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water,

that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the Department finds, after full

satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination 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 allowing lower water quality is necessary to

accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are

located.

6. These antidegradation policies shall be applied as follows:

i. The quality of Nondegradation waters shall be maintained in their natural state (set aside for

posterity) and shall not be subject to any manmade wastewater discharges. The Department

shall 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.

ii. For Pinelands waters, the Department shall 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 problems and that the designated uses 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 eliminate 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 the 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 characteristics that are generally better than, or

equal to, the water quality standards shall be maintained within a range of quality that shall

protect the existing/designated uses, as determined by studies acceptable to the Department,

relating existing/designated uses to water quality. Where such studies 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 maintenance 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 remediate a discharge into 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 loading 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 general permit issued pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A6.13 after (the effective date).

4. Antidegradation policies for new or expanded point source discharges regulated

pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A shall be implemented as follows:

i. The applicant shall perform an alternatives analysis to determine if other options are

available to prevent or minimize the lowering of water quality. The applicant shall

consider all feasible non-discharge alternatives including relocation of the outfall and

connection to another treatment plant; alternative treatment technologies available to

minimize the lowering of water quality; and 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 water 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 may increase as a result of the

expansion.

(2) For new discharges, the applicant shall utilize effluent data from a similar facility

taking into account the size, treatment, and water supply source.

iii. In Category One waters the discharge is consistent with the antidegradation policies if

it does not result in calculable change in water quality.

iv. In Category Two waters, the discharge is consistent with the antidegradation policies if:

(1) The proposed new or expanded discharge will not 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 Water Protection and
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.

____________________________

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 necessary 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 (including the different antidegradation waters) may

impinge upon a higher classification of water the Department shall ensure that the quality and

uses of the higher classification water are protected.

8. A waterway or waterbody from which raw water 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 quality-based effluent limitations established to implement this

antidegradation policy may be granted pursuant 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 approved method 1631 for mercury (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) 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 section. 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 effluent in the receiving water body at or near the

discharge point.

1. (No Change.)

2. Spatial limitations for regulatory mixing zones 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 water bodies where mixing

is not shown to be rapid and complete. A maximum 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 Section 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 waters, 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 quality-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 changes. The Department shall establish water

quality-based effluent limitations, as appropriate, for those parameters contained in N.J.A.C.

7:9B-1.14, as well as any other parameters the 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 chlorine 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 1981 criteria, as though the

freshwater portions of the PL waters were classified as FW2 and the saline portions were

classified as SE1.

(c) Unless site-specific criteria are established 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.

SE3
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.

____________________________

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-day 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 0.6oC (1oF) from

ambient temperature.

[FW2-TP

(ii) No thermal alterations which would cause

temperatures to exceed ambient by more than

1.1oC (2oF) at any time or which would

cause temperatures in excess of 20oC (68oF).

FW2-TM

(iii) No thermal deviations which would cause

temperatures to deviate more than 2.8oC

(5oF) at any time from ambient temperatures.

No heat may be added which would cause

temperatures to exceed 27.8oC (82oF) for

small mouth bass or yellow perch waters, or

30oC (86oF) 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 2.2oC (4oF), from September

through May, nor more than 0.8oC (1.5oF)

from June through August, nor cause

temperatures to exceed 29.4oC (85oF).]

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 Reservoirs
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.

____________________________

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 0.8o 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 concentrations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________

Substance Criteria Classifications]

153

[13. Toxic Substances (μg/L):]

[NOTE: Except as noted, aquatic life criteria followed by an (a) represent acute aquatic life

protection criteria as a one-hour average (three-hour for ammonia, six-hour for lead) and aquatic

life criteria followed by (c) represent chronic aquatic life protection criteria as a four-day average

(30-day for ammonia). No exceedance of aquatic life 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 criteria 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 carcinogenic effect-based human health criteria 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-million. Criteria followed by an (hcc) are for toxic

substances considered to be possible human carcinogens 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 hundred thousand. Criteria followed 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 concentrations unless otherwise noted)

_________________________________________________________________

Substance Criteria Classifications]

154

vi. Ammonia, un-ionized

(mg NH3-N/L)

(1) at pH < 8.30

0.179∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a)

0.046∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c)

at pH ≥ 8.30

0.179∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(a)

0.046∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(c)

(2) at pH < 8.30

0.201∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a) (Summer1)

0.054∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c) (Summer

1

)

0.232∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a) (Winter2)

0.060∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c) (Winter2)

at pH ≥ 8.30

0.201∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(a) (Summer1)

0.054∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(c) (Summer1)

0.232∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(a) (Winter2)

0.060∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(c) (Winter2) 

FW2-TP, FW2-TM

FW2-NT

(3) at pH < 8.30

0.238∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a)

0.061∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c)

at pH ≥ 8.30

0.238∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(a)

0.061∗100.026(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 1st through October 31st.

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

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, SC
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 concentrations 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, SC

xxii. 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, SC
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 concentrations 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, SC
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 concentrations 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, SC
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 concentrations 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 FW2

lxxvii. 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 concentrations 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, SC
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 concentrations 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 FW2
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 concentrations 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, the New Jersey portions of Raritan Bay, 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. SC
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.

____________________________

162

(e) Surface Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia are derived in accordance with the formulas

set forth below. Acute criteria are expressed as three-hour average 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∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a)

 0.046∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c)

 at pH ≥ 8.30

 0.179∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(a)

 0.046∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(c)

FW2-TP, FW2-TM

(2) at pH < 8.30

 0.201∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a) (Summer1)

 0.054∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c) (Summer1)

 0.232∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a) (Winter2)

 0.060∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c) (Winter2)

 at pH ≥ 8.30

 0.201∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(a) (Summer1)

 0.054∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(c) (Summer1)

 0.232∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(a) (Winter2)

 0.060∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.20(c) (Winter2)

FW2-NT

(3) at pH < 8.30

 0.238∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(a)

 0.061∗100.026(Temp-20) + 0.41 (pH-7.80)(c)

PL

Ammonia, unionized (mg

NH3-N/L)

 7664-41-7

(4) 0.115(a); 0.030(c)

(5) 0.094(a); 0.024(c)

All SE

SC
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.

____________________________

163

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

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

(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 are 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, nickel, silver, and zinc the criteria are expressed

as 6-hour average.

2. Chronic aquatic life protection criteria are determined with no exceedance 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 convert 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)] 0.277
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.

____________________________

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-based criteria are expressed as a 30-day average

with no frequency of exceedance at or above the MA7CD10 flow.

6. Human health carcinogenic effect-based criteria are based on a risk level of one-in-onemillion and are expressed as a 70-year average with no frequency of exceedance at or

above the MA7CD10 flow except for those 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:

(μg/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 7x106fibers/L

>10μm(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 criterion with no frequency of exceedance at or above the

MA7CD10 flow

(s) Dissolved criterion

(T) Total recoverable criterion

(g) Site-specific surface water quality criteria listed below apply to specific waterbodies

that supersede the State-wide criteria 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

(μg/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 State 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 Harbor 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 Barnegat 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) - All 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 classifications in Table 2 are for waters of the Delaware River Basin:

TABLE 2

Waterbody Classification
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.

____________________________

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 easterly branches of the Branch

which are located entirely 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 downstream to confluence with

outlet stream of Lake Susquehanna FW2-TM

(Emmons Station) - Entire 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 length, except portions described

separately, below PL
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.

____________________________

174

([Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State Forest) - Branch

and tributaries downstream to Pakim Pond, and

tributaries to Cooper Branch located entirely

within the [Lebanon] Brendan T. Byrne State

Forest boundaries FW1

 DEER PARK BRANCH RANCOCAS CREEK (No Change.)

 MACDONALDS BRANCH RANCOCAS CREEK

(Woodmansie) - Entire length, 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 RIVER
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.

____________________________

175

(Upper Saddle River) - State line to Bergen County Rt. 2

(Lake Street) bridge FW2-TP(C1)

(Upper Saddle River) - Bergen County Rt. 2 (Lake

Street) bridge downstream to confluence with

Pleasant Brook, including all tributaries FW2-TP(C1)

(Saddle River) - [Bergen 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 classifications 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.) - The 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) - Source to State line, except

segment described below FW2-NT

(Upper Greenwood Lake) - Segment 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 first 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.)

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.

____________________________

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. BYRNERANCOCAS CREEK WATERSHED

STATE FOREST Deer Park Branch and tributaries near Buckingham,

downstream to the confluence with Pole Bridge Branch

Tributaries to the South Branch of Mount Misery Brook

located entirely within the boundaries of [Lebanon] Brendan

T. Byrne State Forest

Cooper Branch and tributaries downstream to Pakim Pond

and those tributaries to Coopers Branch downstream of

Pakim Pond that are located entirely 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 entirely 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 WILDLIFE (No Change.)

MANAGEMENT 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.

____________________________

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 certify that the above statements, including the

Federal standards analysis addressing the requirements of Executive Order 27 (1994), permit the

public to understand accurately and plainly the purposes and expected consequences of this

proposed readoption with amendments. I hereby authorize this proposal.

Date: 

Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner

Department of Environmental Protection