Fact
Sheet
Page
1
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Division
of
Water
Quality
Bureau
of
Point
Source
Permitting
Region
2
FACT
SHEET
Masterfile
#:
Varies
PI
#:
Varies
This
fact
sheet
sets
forth
the
principle
facts
and
the
significant
factual,
legal,
and
policy
considerations
examined
during
preparation
of
the
draft
master
general
permit.
This
action
has
been
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
New
Jersey
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
and
its
implementing
regulations
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
1
et
seq.
­
The
New
Jersey
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NJPDES).

PERMIT
ACTION:
Surface
Water
Renewal
Action
Master
General
Permit
1
Description
of
Master
General
Petroleum
Product
Clean­
up
Permit:

Pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.13(
b)
4
of
the
NJPDES
Regulations,
the
Department
has
determined
that
the
petroleum
product
clean­
up
category
of
point
sources
require
the
same
effluent
limitations
or
operating
conditions,
require
the
same
or
similar
monitoring
conditions,
and
are
more
appropriately
controlled
under
a
general
permit
than
under
an
individual
permit.
Given
that
many
facilities
with
petroleum
product
contamination
contain
similar
contaminants,
the
Department
has
issued
one
master
general
permit
to
regulate
these
wastestreams.
Issuance
of
a
master
general
permit
serves
to
simplify
and
streamline
the
NJPDES
permitting
process
for
these
similar
types
of
discharges.

Applicants
must
request
authorization
to
be
covered
under
the
general
permit
by
submitting
appropriate
NJPDES
application
forms.
If
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
hereafter
"
the
Department")
determines
that
the
individual
facility
meets
the
eligibility
requirements
of
the
master
general
petroleum
product
clean
up
(
GPPC)
permit,
then
an
individual
authorization
is
issued
to
that
facility.

Any
individual
authorization
issued
under
the
GPPC
permit
is
given
two
NJPDES
numbers.
The
NJPDES
number
on
the
individual
authorization
page
will
be
specific
to
the
individual
facility
whereas
the
NJPDES
number
NJ0102709
of
the
master
general
permit
is
for
the
master
GPPC
permit.

2
Name
and
Address
of
the
Applicant:
3
Name
and
Address
of
the
Facility/
Site:

Indicated
on
individual
authorizations.
Indicated
on
individual
authorizations.

4
Discharge
Location
Information
and
Receiving
Waterbody
Classification:

The
receiving
waterbody
classification
and
outfall
name
for
each
discharge
is
indicated
on
the
individual
authorization
page
for
each
facility.
A
copy
of
the
appropriate
section
of
a
USGS
quadrangle
map
indicating
the
location
of
the
facility
and
discharge
point(
s)
is
also
included
in
each
individual
authorization.

Receiving
waterbody
classifications
are
obtained
from
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.,
the
New
Jersey
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
(
NJSWQS).
In
accordance
with
the
NJSWQS,
saline
waters
are
considered
to
be
those
waters
classified
as
SE1,
SE2,
SE3,
or
SC
and
fresh
waters
are
considered
to
be
those
waters
classified
as
FW1
or
FW2
waters.
For
waters
with
two
classifications
(
e.
g.
FW2­
NT/
SE1),
the
waterbody
is
defined
as
saline
if
the
result
of
the
salinity
measurement
Fact
Sheet
Page
2
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
exceeds
3.5
parts
per
thousand
at
mean
high
tide
or
as
fresh
if
the
salinity
is
less
than
or
equal
to
3.5
parts
per
thousand,
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.4.
With
respect
to
the
Delaware
River,
where
the
classifications
are
specified
as
zones,
the
Delaware
Memorial
Bridge
is
the
approximate
location
of
the
interface
between
fresh
and
saline
waters;
therefore,
discharges
north
of
the
Delaware
Memorial
Bridge
will
be
considered
to
be
discharging
to
fresh
waters
and
dischargers
south
of
the
Delaware
Memorial
Bridge
will
be
considered
to
be
discharging
to
saline
waters.

5
Type
and
Quantity
of
the
Wastes
or
Pollutants:

The
Permit
Summary
Table
near
the
end
of
this
fact
sheet
contains
a
summary
of
the
quantity
and
quality
of
pollutants
treated
and
discharged
from
the
facilities
covered
under
this
GPPC
permit.
Effluent
data
was
obtained
from
the
Monitoring
Report
Forms
for
the
time
period
specified
in
the
table
for
all
facilities
covered
under
the
existing
GPPC
permit.

Residuals/
Sludge
Conditions:

All
treatment
works
with
a
discharge
regulated
under
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A
must
have
permits
that
implement
applicable
technical
standards
for
residuals
management.
Generally,
the
permit
issued
to
the
treatment
works
generating
the
residual
will
include
applicable
residual
quality
monitoring
as
well
as
other
general
conditions
required
by
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.
In
addition,
the
permit
may
include
conditions
related
to
any
aspect
of
residual
management
developed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
where
the
Department
determines
that
such
conditions
are
necessary
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.

Typically,
spent
granular
activated
carbon
generated
by
the
treatment
systems
at
these
types
of
facilities
is
regenerated
for
further
use
and
is
not
considered
to
be
a
sludge
for
purposes
of
reporting
under
the
Sludge
Quality
Assurance
Regulations
(
SQAR,
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14C).
Bag
filters
and
cartridge
filters
removed
from
these
treatment
systems
are
also
not
considered
to
be
sludges.
However,
these
materials
are
considered
to
be
residuals
as
defined
in
the
New
Jersey
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
regulations
(
NJPDES,
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A).
Consequently,
only
general
residuals
conditions
have
been
included
in
Part
II
of
the
permit.
Residuals
removed
that
are
manifested
as
hazardous
waste
are
exempt
from
SQAR
as
provided
for
under
N.
J.
A.
C
7:
14C­
1.13(
b)
1.
iii.
Should
there
be
any
significant
change
in
residual
use
or
disposal
practices,
the
permittee
shall
give
written
notification
to
the
Department
in
accordance
with
Part
II,
General
Conditions,
Section
B.
4.
a.

The
documents
listed
below
have
been
used
to
establish
the
residual
conditions
of
the
Draft
Permit:

a.
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
"
Standards
for
the
use
or
disposal
of
sewage
sludge"
(
40
CFR
Part
503),
b.
"
New
Jersey
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System"
(
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A),
c.
Technical
Manual
for
Residuals
Management,
May
1998,
d.
USEPA
Part
503
Implementation
Guidance,
EPA
833­
R­
95­
001,
October
1995.
This
document
is
a
compilation
of
federal
requirements,
management
practices
and
EPA
recommended
permit
conditions
for
sewage
sludge
use
and
management
practices,
e.
USEPA
A
Plain
English
Guide
to
the
EPA
Part
503
Biosolids
Rule,
EPA/
832/
R­
93/
003,
September
1994,
f.
New
Jersey
"
Statewide
Sludge
Management
Plan",
November
1987
and
g.
New
Jersey
"
Sludge
Quality
Assurance
Regulations"
(
SQAR),
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14C.

6
Description
of
Facilities
Covered
by
the
Master
GPPC
Master
Permit:

Authorized
permittees
will
discharge
only
decontaminated
groundwater
resulting
from
the
remediation
of
contaminated
groundwater
associated
with
petroleum
products.
Dewatering
and
pump
test
discharges
that
have
petroleum
product
contamination
are
also
eligible
under
this
master
permit.
This
permit
authorizes
the
discharge
of
these
point
sources
into
Fact
Sheet
Page
3
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
surface
waters
of
the
State
or
separate
storm
sewers,
except
those
waters
classified
as
FW­
1
and
PL
(
Pinelands),
in
compliance
with
the
limitations
and
conditions
described
below
and
in
a
manner
that
will
not
cause
violation
of
the
NJSWQS
of
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.
and
the
Federal
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards,
40
CFR
131.

All
facilities
considered
eligible
under
this
master
general
permit
are
considered
minor
facilities
by
the
Department
in
accordance
with
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
rating
criteria.

Effluent
limitations
are
dependent
on
the
type
of
products
discharged,
the
duration
of
the
effluent
discharge,
the
ultimate
receiving
waterbody,
and
the
nature
of
the
remedial
activity.
Therefore,
this
permit
contains
five
effluent
limitation
tables
to
address
various
concerns.
The
tables
are
as
follows:

Table
A:
Remediation
discharges
into
eligible
waters
classified
as
FW2­
NT,
FW2­
TM,
FW2­
TP,
SE,
or
SC
where
strictly
petroleum
related
constituents
are
present.

Table
B:
Remediation
discharges
where
strictly
petroleum
related
constituents
are
present
for
specific
waterbodies
where
a
potable
water
intake
is
located
on
the
receiving
waterbody
(
given
certain
dilution
criteria);
where
there
are
potable
groundwater
wells
that
are
recharged
by
the
receiving
waters;
or
where
shellfish
harvesting
occurs
on
the
receiving
waterbody.

Table
C:
Remediation
discharges
into
waters
classified
as
C1
(
Category
1)
where
strictly
petroleum
related
constituents
are
present.

Table
D:
Remediation
discharges
into
waters
classified
as
FW2­
NT,
FW2­
TM,
FW2­
TP,
SE
or
SC
where
other
metals,
volatile
organic,
acid
extractables
or
base­
neutral
compounds
are
present
in
addition
to
petroleum
related
constituents.

Table
E:
Short
term
dewatering
or
pump
test
discharges
into
waters
classified
as
FW2­
NT,
FW2­
TM,
FW2­
TP,
SE
or
SC
where
strictly
petroleum
related
constituents
are
present.

Petroleum
products
are
defined
as
leaded
gasoline,
unleaded
gasoline,
aviation
fuel,
jet
fuel,
kerosene,
diesel
fuel,
number
1
fuel
oil,
number
2
fuel
oil,
number
4
fuel
oil,
number
5
fuel
oil
and
number
6
fuel
oil.
If
additional
site
specific
constituents,
such
as
gasoline
additives
not
addressed
in
this
permit,
are
contained
in
the
petroleum
product
discharge,
the
Department
will
make
a
case
specific
determination
of
the
applicant's
eligibility
for
this
general
permit.
If
the
Department
determines
that
an
applicant
is
not
eligible
for
this
general
permit
due
to
site
specific
constituents,
the
applicant
may
pursue
an
individual
permit.

7
Designation
of
Outfalls:

The
table(
s)
and
effluent
limits,
which
are
appropriate
to
the
site­
specific
conditions
of
the
discharge
activity,
will
be
specified
for
each
individual
authorization
on
the
individual
authorization
page.
The
outfall
designation
will
reflect
which
table
is
utilized.
For
example,
if
a
facility
qualifies
to
discharge
under
Table
C,
the
outfall
will
be
specified
as
discharge
serial
number
(
DSN)
001C
on
the
individual
authorization
page.
This
will
enable
the
Department
to
identify
which
table
is
applicable
as
well
as
enable
the
Department
to
track
the
different
discharge
types
in
the
Monitoring
Report
form
data
base.

More
than
one
table
may
be
appropriate
for
a
particular
facility
provided
different
discharge
activities
are
proposed.
In
the
event
that
more
than
one
table
is
applied
in
the
individual
authorization,
the
outfalls
will
be
assigned
different
letters
following
the
outfall
number
as
well
as
a
different
numerical
outfall
(
i.
e.
001A
and
002E).
This
will
enable
both
the
Department
and
the
permittee
to
differentiate
between
the
different
activities
as
well
as
the
different
permit
requirements
and
corresponding
monitoring
report
form
information.
Consider
an
example
where
a
permittee
has
gasoline
contamination
and
proposes
to
perform
a
dewatering
activity
and
a
remediation
activity
which
will
be
discharged
to
an
Fact
Sheet
Page
4
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
FW2­
NT
waterbody.
Both
discharge
activities
will
be
routed
through
the
same
physical
outfall;
however,
the
dewatering
activity
will
occur
first
followed
by
the
remediation
activity.
For
this
example,
the
remediation
activity
may
be
authorized
for
discharge
through
DSN
001A
where
the
conditions
of
Table
A
of
the
master
GPPC
permit
would
apply,
whereas
the
dewatering
activity
may
be
authorized
for
discharge
through
DSN
002E
where
the
conditions
of
Table
E
of
the
master
GPPC
permit
would
apply.
Even
though
both
discharges
may
be
through
the
same
physical
outfall,
it
is
essential
that
the
different
permit
requirements
are
tracked
under
different
outfall
names
in
the
individual
authorization
such
as
001A
and
002E.

8
History
of
GPPC
Permit:

The
first
master
GPPC
permit
was
issued
on
October
29,
1993.
This
GPPC
permit
was
tracked
as
"
Category
B4B"
in
the
Department's
data
base.
This
October
29,
1993
permit
served
to
replace
the
General
Groundwater
Fuel
Clean­
up
(
GFC)
permit
issued
on
June
2,
1988.
The
GFC
permit
(
Category
B4)
was
limited
to
discharges
resulting
from
gasoline
contamination
only
and
did
not
cover
contamination
by
other
petroleum
products.

The
October
29,
1993
master
GPPC
permit
authorized
the
discharge
of
treated
groundwater
contaminated
by
gasoline
as
well
as
contamination
by
other
petroleum
products.
This
permit
authorized
the
discharge
of
treated
groundwater
resulting
from
remediations,
dewatering
projects
and
pump
tests.

The
October
29,
1993
master
GPPC
permit
was
renewed
on
October
28,
1998.
The
October
28,
1998
master
GPPC
permit
contained
several
differences
from
the
October
29,
1993
master
permit.
Some
of
the
requirements
included
in
the
October
28,
1998
permit
are
as
follows:

 
Effluent
limitations
and/
or
monitoring
requirements
for
Methyl
tert
butyl
ether
(
MTBE)
and
tert
butyl
alcohol
(
TBA);

 
Remediation
discharges
are
authorized
where
other
metals,
volatile
organics,
acid
extractables
or
base/
neutral
compounds
are
present
in
addition
to
petroleum
related
constituents;

 
Biomonitoring
requirements
(
i.
e.
whole
effluent
toxicity)
are
included
for
any
remediation
discharge
where
metals
are
present
in
addition
to
petroleum
related
constituents.

This
master
GPPC
renewal
permit
is
essentially
the
same
as
the
October
28,
1998
master
GPPC
permit
with
the
exception
of
a
few
minor
differences.
These
differences
include:
imposition
of
a
more
stringent
lead
limit;
inclusion
of
a
TBA
monitoring
requirement
for
influent
to
the
treatment
system
for
all
tables;
and
discontinuation
of
the
authorization
to
discharge
to
Pinelands
waters
under
Table
C.
The
Pinelands
Commission
had
requested
that
the
Department
not
continue
authorization
to
discharge
to
Pinelands
waters
by
way
of
a
general
permit.

9
Background
to
the
Selection
of
Regulated
Parameters
for
all
Tables:

A
summary
of
effluent
data
is
included
in
the
Permit
Summary
Tables
at
the
end
of
this
Fact
Sheet.
In
addition,
influent
data
(
untreated
wastewater)
was
required
in
the
applications
for
individual
authorizations
under
the
master
GPPC
permit
and
was
considered
as
part
of
the
decision
making
in
this
renewal
permit.
Both
effluent
and
influent
data
was
considered
in
the
Department's
determination
regarding
which
parameters
to
regulate.
In
addition,
the
Department
considered
the
parameters
included
in
the
existing
GPPC
permit,
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19,
as
well
as
information
contained
in
available
literature.

Flow,
pH,
Total
Organic
Carbon,
Total
Suspended
Solids,
and
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
As
discussed
further
in
the
section
for
Table
A,
the
Department
has
retained
effluent
limitations
and/
or
monitoring
requirements
for
flow,
pH,
total
organic
carbon,
total
suspended
solids,
and
petroleum
hydrocarbons
in
the
master
Fact
Sheet
Page
5
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
GPPC
permit
renewal.
The
majority
of
these
parameters
are
generally
regulated
in
all
NJPDES/
DSW
permits
throughout
the
State
of
New
Jersey
for
all
types
of
wastewater
discharges.

Total
organic
carbon,
total
suspended
solids
and
petroleum
hydrocarbons
are
consistently
present
at
detectable
levels
in
untreated
groundwater
as
evidenced
by
recent
renewal
application
data
for
requests
for
authorization
under
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal.
Although
DMR
data
summarized
previously
shows
that
available
treatment
technology
is
consistently
capable
of
treating
levels
of
total
organic
carbon,
total
suspended
solids
and
petroleum
hydrocarbons
below
the
effluent
limitations
imposed
in
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal,
these
compounds
are
still
present
in
the
effluent
in
detectable
levels;
therefore,
limiting
such
compounds
is
appropriate
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
2.1(
d).

Benzene
Effluent
limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
have
been
retained
for
benzene
from
the
existing
GPPC
permit
because
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
toluene
and
xylene
constituents
are
consistently
present
in
petroleum
products
based
on
available
influent
and
effluent
data
and
based
on
relevant
literature.
Benzene(
B),
toluene(
T),
and
xylene(
X)
are
present
in
over
99%
of
automotive
gasolines.
1
Literature
on
the
components
of
other
petroleum
products
also
consistently
notes
the
presence
of
benzene,
ethylbenzene(
E),
toluene,
and
xylene
where,
in
terms
of
groundwater
contaminated
with
petroleum
products,
any
one
of
these
constituents
can
be
the
predominant
constituent.
2,3,4
As
discussed
in
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit,
benzene
is
singled
out
as
an
appropriate
indicator
parameter
for
BTEX
constituents
and
other
volatile
organic
compounds
because
of
its
treatability
characteristics.
Two
of
the
most
widely
used
technologies
for
the
treatment
of
groundwater
contaminated
with
petroleum
products
are
air
stripping
and
granular
activated
carbon.
Because
compounds
with
lower
Henry's
Law
Constants
are
more
difficult
to
remove
by
air
stripping
than
compounds
with
higher
Henry's
Law
Constants,
the
compound
with
the
lowest
Henry's
Law
Constant
will
generally
be
the
limiting
compound
where
multiple
volatile
organic
compounds
are
present.
2
In
addition
to
Henry's
Law
Constants,
generally
the
higher
the
solubility
and
boiling
point
of
a
constituent
in
water,
the
more
difficult
it
is
to
remove
that
constituent
from
the
water
using
air
stripping.
2
Benzene
has
a
relatively
low
Henry's
Law
Constant
and
a
relatively
high
solubility
in
water
at
a
consistent
temperature;
therefore,
benzene
is
an
appropriate
indicator
parameter
for
the
treatment
efficiency
of
groundwater
contaminated
with
petroleum
products.
Considering
treatment
with
granular
activated
carbon,
benzene
has
a
low
mean
adsorptive
capacity
and
is
therefore
expected
to
be
one
of
the
first
constituents
to
"
break­
through"
the
carbon
or
appear
in
the
effluent
when
the
adsorptive
capacity
is
exhausted.
2
For
this
reason,
benzene
is
an
appropriate
indicator
parameter
for
treatment
with
granular
activated
carbon.
In
addition
to
mean
adsorption
capacity,
constituents
with
a
high
boiling
point
in
water
also
"
break
through"
carbon
first
thereby
further
supporting
the
use
of
benzene
as
a
major
indicator
parameter
for
the
control
of
pollutants
from
petroleum
product
contaminated
groundwater.
2
In
sum,
in
order
to
control
the
discharge
levels
of
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
toluene
and
xylene,
an
effluent
limitation
has
been
retained
for
benzene.

Naphthalene
Effluent
limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
have
been
retained
for
naphthalene
from
the
existing
GPPC
permit
because
this
constituent
is
consistently
present
in
petroleum
products
based
on
both
GPPC
permit
renewal
application
data
as
well
as
a
broad
literature
review.
2,3,4
Naphthalene
can
be
present
in
both
gasoline
as
well
as
fuel
oils,
although
it
is
typically
present
in
higher
concentrations
in
fuel
oil.
Naphthalene
has
a
very
low
Henry's
Law
Constant
and
is
therefore
more
difficult
to
remove
by
air
stripping
than
most
compounds
including
benzene.
2
Considering
adsorptive
capacities,
benzene
is
expected
to
"
break­
through"
the
granular
activated
carbon
before
naphthalene;
however,
because
benzene
may
not
be
present
in
fuel
oils
in
large
quantities,
it
is
still
necessary
to
limit
naphthalene
to
ensure
that
the
removal
efficiency
of
treatment
is
adequate.
2
Other
Organics
Which
May
Be
Present
in
Petroleum
Products
Fact
Sheet
Page
6
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Other
compounds
indicated
as
present
in
a
random
sampling
of
GPPC
renewal
applications
include
phenanthrene,
acenapthene,
fluorene,
methylene
chloride,
di
N
butyl
phthalate,
2,4
dimethyl
phenol,
bis
2
ethyl
hexyl
phthtalate
and
phenol.
Although
these
compounds
may
be
present
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
in
petroleum
products,
the
Department
has
not
imposed
effluent
limitations
and/
or
monitoring
requirements
for
any
of
these
compounds
as
they
are
not
consistently
present
and
when
they
are
present,
it
is
in
trace
amounts.
In
addition,
it
is
expected
that
limiting
benzene
and
napthalene
will
serve
to
control
the
discharge
of
these
compounds
as
benzene
and
naphthalene
are
present
at
significantly
higher
levels
and
are
comparatively
more
difficult
to
treat
based
on
treatability
information.
Fact
Sheet
Page
7
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Total
Recoverable
Lead
Effluent
limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
have
been
retained
for
total
recoverable
lead
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
The
applicability
of
the
lead
limitation
and
monitoring
requirement
is
dependent
on
whether
or
not
the
groundwater
is
contaminated
with
leaded
automotive
gasoline
or
if
detectable
levels
of
lead
are
indicated
in
the
NJPDES
GPPC
permit
application,
in
levels
comparable
to
or
in
excess
of
the
New
Jersey
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
(
NJSWQS)
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq..

Methyl
tert
Butyl
Ether
Effluent
limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
have
been
retained
for
methyl
tert
butyl
ether
(
MTBE)
in
the
master
GPPC
renewal.
MTBE
is
a
fuel
oxygenate
compound
which
is
used
to
increase
the
octane
rating
of
gasoline
and
has
been
added
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
5
Since
the
early
1990'
s
MTBE
has
been
added
to
gasoline
to
meet
Federal
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
in
wintertime
oxygenated
gasoline
(
starting
in
1992)
and
in
federal
reformulated
gasoline
(
starting
in
1995).
6
MTBE
has
also
been
used
in
gasoline
as
an
octane
enhancer
to
replace
lead
7.

MTBE,
a
colorless,
flammable
liquid
with
a
turpentine­
like
odor,
is
highly
water
soluble,
highly
flammable
and
extremely
volatile.
MTBE
does
not
adsorb
to
vadose
zone
materials
and,
along
with
its
high
vapor
pressure,
moves
quickly
through
soil
columns.
MTBE
has
higher
water
solubility,
exhibits
lower
adsorption
to
soil,
and
is
more
resistant
to
chemical
degradation
than
the
other
common
groundwater
contaminants
from
gasoline
­
benzene,
toluene,
ethylbenzene,
and
xylene
(
BTEX
compounds).
7
Its
water
solubility
of
about
50
g/
L
makes
it
about
25
more
times
more
soluble
than
benzene,
the
most
soluble
of
the
BTEX
constituents.
7
This
implies
that
MTBE
should
be
more
readily
leached
to
groundwater,
and
transported
more
quickly
and
further
in
groundwater,
than
the
BTEX
compounds.
7
Because
of
its
low
Henry's
Law
Constant,
MTBE
is
difficult
to
remove
once
it
is
made
soluble
in
groundwater.
8
The
Henry's
law
constant
determines
the
tendency
of
a
chemical
to
transfer
from
air
to
water
or
vice
versa.
7
The
Henry's
law
constant
for
MTBE
is
low
relative
to
the
BTEX
compounds.
7
The
relatively
high
solubility
of
MTBE,
in
comparison
with
BTEX
compounds,
indicates
that
MTBE
is
not
as
easily
stripped
from
water
using
air
stripping
technology.
9
However
it
is
technically
feasible
to
remove
MTBE
from
groundwater
by
air
stripping
if
the
air/
water
ratio
is
higher
than
for
BTEX.
9
Air
stripping,
to
remove
some
MTBE
and
most
of
the
other
volatile
organic
compounds,
followed
by
activated
carbon,
to
remove
the
remainder,
can
be
the
most
efficient
treatment
approach
in
some
cases.
7
Recent
GPPC
renewal
application
data
shows
that
MTBE
is
often
detected
in
untreated
groundwater.
Modern
reformulated
gasoline
is
comprised
of
up
to
15%
of
MTBE
which
can
result
in
high
concentrations
of
MTBE
in
untreated
groundwater.

Therefore,
based
on
its
widespread
use
as
a
gasoline
blending
component;
its
potential
presence
at
high
concentrations;
its
treatability
characteristics;
and
its
presence
in
untreated
groundwater
application
data;
the
Department
has
determined
that
it
is
appropriate
to
continue
to
impose
requirements
for
MTBE.

tert
Butyl
Alcohol
A
monitoring
requirement
has
been
retained
for
tert
butyl
alcohol
(
TBA).
TBA
is
also
a
fuel
oxygenate
compound
used
as
an
octane
booster
in
gasoline,
although
it
is
not
as
widely
used
as
MTBE.
6
TBA
is
also
a
metabolite
of
MTBE.
9,
10
Recent
GPPC
renewal
application
data
shows
that
TBA
can
be
present
in
untreated
groundwater
as
well
as
in
treated
effluent.
In
addition,
because
TBA
is
a
metabolite
of
MTBE,
TBA
could
be
present
in
greater
quantities
in
the
effluent
from
the
treatment
works
as
compared
to
the
influent
to
the
treatment
works.
TBA
also
has
a
high
solubility
and
low
Henry's
Law
Constant
indicating
that
it
is
difficult
to
treat.
Therefore,
in
order
to
continue
to
assess
the
effluent
levels
Fact
Sheet
Page
8
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
present,
monitoring
and
reporting
for
TBA
has
been
imposed
for
all
tables.
The
Department
has
also
imposed
an
influent
requirements
for
TBA
which
may
be
used
in
the
future
to
develop
a
percent
removal
limit.

References:
1
 
US
EPA.
April
1988.
Cleanup
of
Releases
from
Petroleum
Underground
Storage
Tanks:
Selected
Technologies.
Washington
DC.:
(
EPA/
530/
UST­
88­
001).
2
­
US
EPA.
June
1989.
Model
NPDES
Permit
for
Discharges
Resulting
from
the
Cleanup
of
Gasoline
Released
from
Underground
Storage
Tanks.
Washington
DC.
3
­
Kramer
W.,
and
T.
Hayes.
1987.
New
Jersey
Geological
Survey
Technical
Memorandum
87­
5.
"
Water
Soluble
Phase
of
Gasoline:
Results
of
a
Laboratory
Mixing
Experiment".
New
Orleans,
LA:
National
Meeting
for
the
American
Public
Health
Association.
4
­
Kramer
W.,
and
T.
Hayes.
1987.
New
Jersey
Geological
Survey
Technical
Memorandum
87­
4.
"
Water
Soluble
Phase
of
Number
2
Fuel
Oil:
Results
of
a
Laboratory
Mixing
Experiment".
New
Orleans,
LA:
National
Meeting
for
the
American
Public
Health
Association.
5
­
New
Jersey
Drinking
Water
Quality
Institute.
September
1994.
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Recommendations
for
Hazardous
Contaminants
in
Drinking
Water.
Page
A­
4.
6
­
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
April
1997.
MTBE
Briefing
Paper
prepared
by
the
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Page
1.
7
­
NJDEP
MTBE
Work
Group.
December
19,
2000.
MTBE
in
New
Jersey's
Environment.
8
­
Koenigsberg,
S.
"
MTBE:
Wild
Card
in
Groundwater
Cleanup".
Environmental
Protection.
November
1997.
Page
26.
9
­
Ellis
and
Gavas.
"
MTBE:
See
It,
Ye
May
Well
Find
It
...
and
Then
What".
LUST
Line
Bulletin.
Page
13.
10
­
Squillace,
Zogorski,
Wilber
and
Price.
"
Preliminary
Assessment
of
the
Occurrence
and
Possible
Source
of
MTBE
in
Groundwater
in
the
US
1993­
1994".
Environmental
Science
and
Technology.
1996.
Pages
1721­
1730.

10
Description
of
Limitations
and
Conditions
for
all
Tables:

A.
Basis
for
Effluent
Limitations
and
Permit
Conditions
­
General
The
effluent
limitations
and
permit
conditions
in
this
permit
have
been
developed
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
following:

1.
NJPDES
Regulations
(
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A),
2.
New
Jersey
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
(
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B),
3.
New
Jersey
2000
Integrated
Water
Quality
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Report
(
Integrated
Report),
4.
Water
Quality
Regulations
of
the
Delaware
River
Basin
Commission
(
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
b)
1),
5.
Interstate
Environmental
Commission
(
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
b)
2),
6.
Wastewater
Discharge
Requirements
(
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9­
5.1
et
seq.),
7.
Existing
permit
limitations
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19
and
40
CFR
122.44
(
antibacksliding
requirements),
8.
Permit
limitations
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
d)
(
antidegradation
requirements),
9.
Statewide
Water
Quality
Management
Planning
Rules
(
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
15).

Technology
based
limitations
are
authorized
by
Section
301
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
40
CFR
122,
N.
J.
S.
A.
58:
10A­
4,
and
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.2(
a)
1.
ii.,
13.3(
b),
and
13.4.
BPJ
determinations
are
authorized
by
Section
402
(
a)(
1)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.

In
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.5,
Water
Quality
Based
Effluent
Limitations
(
WQBELs)
are
imposed
when
it
has
been
determined
that
the
discharge
of
a
pollutant
causes
an
excursion
of
criteria
specified
in
the
New
Jersey
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards
(
NJSWQS),
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.,
and
the
Federal
Water
Quality
Standards,
40
CFR
Part
Fact
Sheet
Page
9
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
131.
WQBELs
are
authorized
by
Section
301
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
40
CFR
122,
N.
J.
S.
A.
58:
10A­
4,
and
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.2
and
13.3.
The
policies
used
to
develop
WQBELs
are
contained
in
the
State
and
Federal
Standards.
Specific
procedures,
methodologies,
and
equations
are
contained
in
the
current
USEPA
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
based
Toxics
Control"
(
TSD)
(
EPA­
505/
2­
90­
001)
and
are
referenced
in
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.5
and
13.6.

Expression
of
all
effluent
limitations
is
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.14
and
13.15.
Whole
effluent
toxicity
limitations
are
expressed
as
a
minimum
as
a
percent.

This
permit
action
does
not
authorize
any
increase
in
the
concentration
or
loading
of
pollutants
above
those
levels
authorized
under
the
existing
permit.
All
permit
limitations
and
conditions
in
this
permit
action
are
equal
to
or
more
stringent
than
those
contained
in
the
existing
permit
action.
As
a
result,
this
permit
action
satisfies
the
federal
and
state
anti­
degradation
regulations
at
40
CFR
131.12
and
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
d),
and
no
further
anti­
degradation
analysis
is
necessary.

B.
Basis
and
Derivation
for
Effluent
Limitations
and
Monitoring
Requirements
­
Specific
Dilution
Credit
for
all
Tables
The
Department
has
not
considered
dilution
effects
in
the
application
of
any
effluent
limits
in
this
master
GPPC
permit
renewal.
Consideration
of
site­
specific
dilution
effects
is
not
feasible
for
a
master
general
permit
where
effluent
limits
and
conditions
need
to
be
streamlined.
In
addition,
the
majority
of
GPPC
discharges
go
to
storm
sewers
where
the
Department
does
not
typically
allow
for
dilution
credit.

Table
A
 
Remediation
discharges
into
waters
classified
as
FW2­
NT,
FW2­
TM,
FW2­
TP,
SE
or
SC
where
strictly
petroleum
product
related
constituents
are
present
Flow
Monitoring
for
flow
is
required
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.13
and
13.14
and
is
consistent
with
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit.
If
the
flow
monitoring
method
is
something
other
than
a
flow
meter,
the
permittee
shall
indicate
so
in
its
GPPC
permit
application
so
that
Part
III
can
be
changed
accordingly.

Total
Suspended
Solids
The
Total
Suspended
Solids
(
TSS)
limitation
for
discharges
to
FW2­
NT
waters,
SE
waters,
and
fresh
and
saline
portions
of
the
Delaware
River
is
based
on
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
This
daily
maximum
limitation
of
40
mg/
L
is
also
consistent
with
the
NJSWQS
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.
for
FW2­
NT
waters.
This
limitation
is
economically
and
technologically
achievable
based
on
the
monitoring
report
form
effluent
data
which
shows
average
TSS
levels
well
below
the
proposed
limitation
of
40
mg/
L.

The
TSS
limitation
for
discharges
to
FW2­
TM
and
FW2­
TP
is
also
based
on
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
This
daily
maximum
limitation
of
25
mg/
L
is
also
consistent
with
the
NJSWQS
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.
for
FW2­
TM
and
FW2­
TP
waters.
This
limitation
is
economically
and
technologically
achievable
based
on
the
monitoring
report
form
effluent
data.

Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
The
effluent
limitations
for
petroleum
hydrocarbons
are
retained
from
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19
and
are
consistent
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
12.8.
Monitoring
report
form
effluent
data
shows
that
Fact
Sheet
Page
10
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
treatment
systems
are
consistently
capable
of
reducing
total
petroleum
hydrocarbon
levels
well
below
the
proposed
effluent
limitations.
Fact
Sheet
Page
11
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Total
Organic
Carbon
In
order
to
maintain
a
reasonable
treatment
efficiency
level
and
in
order
to
protect
against
pollutants
which
may
be
present
in
various
concentrations
in
the
petroleum
product
discharges
but
not
assigned
specific
numerical
limitations
in
this
permit,
the
Department
has
imposed
limitations
for
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC).
A
daily
maximum
limitation
of
20
mg/
L
is
retained
from
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit,
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
This
limit
was
originally
based
on
a
review
of
effluent
data
for
facilities
with
contamination
by
petroleum
products
and
was
originally
imposed
in
the
August
11,
1988
General
Fuel
Clean­
up
Permit.

pH
The
pH
range
imposed
for
both
fresh
and
saline
waters
is
retained
from
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
These
minimum
and
maximum
pH
levels
are
economically
and
technologically
achievable
based
on
the
existing
monitoring
report
form
results.

Benzene
The
existing
limitation
for
benzene
is
retained
from
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19
for
fresh
waters.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
daily
maximum
limit
is
equivalent
to
the
recommended
quantitation
level
(
RQL)
for
benzene
which
is
the
lowest
level
that
certified
laboratories
can
consistently
achieve.
Based
on
existing
monitoring
report
form
data
this
limitation
is
both
economically
and
technologically
achievable.
This
limitation
is
also
consistent
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
12,
Appendix
B
for
FW2
waters.

The
Department
has
not
differentiated
limits
between
fresh
and
saline
water
as
was
done
in
the
existing
GPPC
permit
as
very
few
facilities
discharge
to
saline
waters.
This
change
serves
to
simplify
the
general
permit.
In
addition,
virtually
all
benzene
effluent
points
were
non­
detectable
and,
of
those
values
that
were
detected,
only
two
were
out
of
compliance
with
the
limit
of
7
µ
g/
L.
However,
the
Department
has
included
a
compliance
schedule
for
any
dischargers
to
saline
waters
allowing
up
until
December
1,
2006
to
achieve
the
7
µ
g/
L
limit.
In
the
interim,
the
existing
daily
maximum
limit
of
50
ug/
L
will
be
effective.

Naphthalene
The
effluent
limitations
for
naphthalene
are
retained
from
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit,
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
These
limitations
are
economically
and
technologically
achievable
as
evidenced
by
existing
monitoring
report
form
data
which
is
significantly
lower
than
the
proposed
naphthalene
limitations.
These
limitations
are
also
consistent
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
12,
Appendix
B
for
FW2
waters.

Total
Recoverable
Lead
The
effluent
limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
for
lead
are
only
applicable
for
those
discharges
where
lead
is
shown
to
be
detectable
in
the
permittee's
GPPC
permit
application,
lead
is
detectable
in
other
available
data,
or
for
discharges
associated
with
the
remediation
of
leaded
gasoline.

The
effluent
limitation
for
lead
has
been
set
at
10
µ
g/
L
which
is
equivalent
to
the
RQL.
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
SWQS
for
lead
is
5.4
µ
g/
L
for
fresh
waters
and
8.1
µ
g/
L
for
saline
waters.
Given
that
the
Department
is
not
allowing
for
dilution
credit,
the
SWQS
becomes
the
effluent
limit.
Because
these
SWQS
are
below
the
RQL,
the
RQL
becomes
the
compliance
point.
The
Department
has
determined
that
these
lead
limits
are
economically
and
technologically
achievable
as
evidenced
by
monitoring
report
form
data.
Fact
Sheet
Page
12
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
These
limits
are
more
stringent
than
those
contained
in
the
existing
GPPC
permit
so
they
do
not
become
effective
until
December
1,
2006
thereby
allowing
a
compliance
schedule
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.4.
Up
until
December
1,
2006
the
existing
lead
limits
of
37
µ
g/
L
(
monthly
average)
and
79
µ
g/
L
(
daily
maximum)
are
applicable.

Methyl
Tert
Butyl
Ether
The
Department
has
imposed
an
MTBE
percent
removal
requirement
of
85%
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
Influent
and
effluent
monitoring
and
reporting
for
MTBE
is
also
imposed
in
this
permit
in
order
to
enable
tracking
and
calculation
for
the
MTBE
percent
removal
limitation.
Influent
and
effluent
sampling
shall
be
performed
with
EPA
Method
624
as
indicated
on
the
effluent
limitations
table.

An
effluent
level
of
70
µ
g/
L
is
the
Department's
goal
for
effluent
MTBE
levels
where
this
value
is
consistent
with
the
drinking
water
standard
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
10­
1­
7
et
seq..
The
MTBE
percent
removal
limitation
of
85%
is
not
appropriate
for
instances
when
MTBE
influent
levels
to
the
treatment
system
are
low.
Specifically,
if
the
influent
levels
of
MTBE
are
comparable
to
70
µ
g/
L,
it
is
not
appropriate
to
require
the
85%
removal
requirement.
Therefore,
application
of
an
MTBE
minimum
percent
removal
limitation
is
dependent
on
ongoing
effluent
MTBE
levels.
To
illustrate
this
point,
if
the
effluent
MTBE
level
is
less
than
or
equal
to
70
µ
g/
L
during
a
calendar
month,
the
85%
MTBE
minimum
percent
removal
limitation
does
not
apply
to
that
discharge.
If
the
MTBE
minimum
percent
removal
limitation
does
not
apply,
the
permittee
shall
report
"
Code
=
N"
in
its
monitoring
report
form
under
MTBE
minimum
percent
removal.
If
the
effluent
MTBE
level
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
70
µ
g/
L
for
a
calendar
month,
an
85%
MTBE
minimum
percent
removal
limitation
does
apply.
The
permittee
shall
report
the
minimum
percent
removal
value
on
its
monitoring
report
form
under
MTBE
minimum
percent
removal.

Basis
for
Selection
of
Waterbodies
Ineligible
for
Discharge
Authorization
Under
Table
A
A
listing
of
waterbodies
ineligible
for
discharge
authorization
under
Table
A
is
included
in
this
master
GPPC
permit
as
Table
B
­
Attachment
of
Part
III.
Any
requests
for
discharge
authorizations
to
these
waterbodies
can
not
be
issued
under
Table
A,
but
may
be
eligible
for
issuance
under
Table
B.
Table
A
includes
an
MTBE
percent
removal
requirement
of
85%
whereas
Table
B
includes
an
MTBE
effluent
limitation
of
70
ug/
L.
This
effluent
limitation
of
70
ug/
L
is
based
on
the
maximum
contaminant
levels
for
drinking
water
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
10­
1­
7
et
seq..

The
majority
of
the
waterbodies
ineligible
for
discharge
authorization
under
Table
A
have
surface
water
intakes
on
the
waterbody
where
the
MA7CD10
values
at
the
point
of
intake
are
less
than
14
cubic
feet
per
second
(
cfs).
Waterbodies
which
have
surface
water
intakes
with
an
MA7CD10
greater
than
14
cfs
at
the
point
of
intake
are
not
included
in
this
list.
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
dilution
effects
at
the
point
of
intake
are
adequate
to
ensure
that
the
maximum
contaminant
level
of
70
ug/
L
for
MTBE
for
drinking
water
purposes
is
attained.

Accounting
for
dilution
effects
in
establishing
WQBELs
is
consistent
with
the
procedures
of
the
US
EPA
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
based
Toxics
Control."
Use
of
this
document
is
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.6.
Typically,
the
Department
calculates
a
WQBEL
where
dilution
effects
at
the
point
of
discharge
are
factored
into
the
equation.
However,
because
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal
is
written
for
discharges
across
the
state,
it
is
not
appropriate
to
consider
the
case­
by­
case
dilution
circumstances
of
each
discharge.
Therefore,
in
order
to
implement
the
drinking
water
standard
of
70
ug/
L,
the
Department
considered
dilution
effects
at
the
location
of
the
potable
water
intake.
By
establishing
an
effluent
limitation
of
70
ug/
L
for
any
dischargers
to
waterbodies
included
in
Table
B
­
Attachment
of
Part
III,
the
Department
is
assuming
zero
dilution
credit
for
these
dischargers.
By
assuming
zero
dilution
credit,
the
drinking
water
standard
is
imposed
at
end­
of­
pipe
thereby
ensuring
that
the
values
in
excess
of
the
drinking
water
standard
will
not
occur
at
the
potable
water
intake
as
a
result
of
this
discharger.

The
Department
reserves
the
right
to
deny
an
individual
authorization
under
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal
to
any
proposed
discharges
to
waterbodies
identified
in
the
Department's
annual
Shellfish
Growing
Classification
Charts
under
the
following
shellfish
growing
water
classification
codes:
special
restricted
areas;
seasonal
areas;
prohibited
areas;
and
Fact
Sheet
Page
13
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
approved
areas.
The
designated
uses
for
waterbodies
classified
as
SE1
or
SC
include
shellfish
harvesting
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.
If
the
Department
determines
that
it
can
not
approve
a
discharge
to
a
waterbody
used
for
shellfish
harvesting
under
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal,
the
applicant
will
be
notified
of
the
Department's
finding.
The
Department
will
also
notify
the
applicant
if
the
discharge
can
be
authorized
under
an
individual
NJPDES
DSW
permit.
If
the
Department
can
authorize
a
discharge
to
a
waterbody
classified
as
SE1
or
SC
under
the
GPPC
permit
renewal,
the
Department
will
issue
such
authorization
under
Table
B.

In
addition,
the
Department
may
also
make
a
case­
by­
case
determination
that
other
discharge
authorizations
are
ineligible
for
discharge
under
the
conditions
of
Table
A.
Table
B
may
be
deemed
appropriate
in
circumstances
where
information
is
presented
to
the
Department
showing
that
there
is
a
concern
that
potable
groundwater
wells
are
within
close
proximity
to
the
discharge
and
may
be
recharged
by
the
receiving
waterbody.
Another
example
would
be
where
the
receiving
waterbody
is
used
for
shellfish
harvesting
downstream
of
the
proposed
discharge.
Such
determinations
will
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

tert
Butyl
Alcohol
The
Department
has
imposed
both
an
effluent
and
influent
monitoring
requirement
for
tert
butyl
alcohol
(
TBA).
A
promulgated
NJSWQS,
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.
does
not
exist
for
TBA
at
this
time.
In
addition,
TBA
is
not
currently
listed
as
a
toxic
pollutant
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
4
Appendix
A
Table
II.
Because
current
treatment
technologies
are
not
capable
of
significantly
reducing
TBA
levels
on
a
reliable
basis,
the
Department
could
not
develop
a
technology
based
limitation
at
this
time
as
authorized
in
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.4.
As
compared
to
MTBE,
there
is
very
little
toxicology
and
other
information
available
for
TBA
at
this
time.
Therefore,
based
on
all
of
the
above,
the
Department
has
imposed
both
effluent
and
influent
monitoring
requirements
to
assess
the
levels
of
TBA
and
track
such
levels
for
possible
future
development
of
an
effluent
limitation.
Influent
and
effluent
sampling
for
TBA
shall
be
performed
with
EPA
Method
624
as
indicated
in
Part
IV.

The
requirements
imposed
in
this
renewal
GPPC
permit
are
more
comprehensive
than
those
imposed
in
the
existing
GPPC
permit
since
the
existing
GPPC
permit
only
required
effluent
monitoring
for
TBA.

Monitoring
Frequencies
for
Flow,
TSS,
TOC,
pH,
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
Benzene,
Naphthalene,
and
Total
Recoverable
Lead
(
where
applicable),
MTBE
and
TBA
A
monthly
monitoring
frequency
is
specified
for
all
parameters
with
the
exception
of
petroleum
hydrocarbons.
A
monthly
monitoring
frequency
is
consistent
with
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit
for
flow,
TSS,
TOC,
pH,
benzene,
naphthalene,
MTBE
and
TBA
whereas
a
quarterly
monitoring
requirement
is
consistent
with
the
existing
GPPC
permit
for
petroleum
hydrocarbons.

Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
(
WET)
is
the
measure
of
the
aggregate
effect
of
an
effluent
discharge
on
the
receiving
water.
WET
testing
in
conjunction
with
individual
limits
on
toxic
pollutants
ensures
the
protection
of
the
aquatic
community
and
water
quality
in
general.
WET
is
measured
by
a
toxicity
test
which
is
typically
conducted
on
a
quarterly
basis.

Section
101(
a)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
establishes
a
national
policy
of
restoring
and
maintaining
the
chemical,
physical
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Nation's
waters.
In
addition,
section
101(
a)(
3)
of
the
CWA
and
the
NJSWQS
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
a)
3
state
that
the
discharge
of
toxic
pollutants
in
toxic
amounts
is
prohibited.
Further,
40
CFR
122.44(
d)
and
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.6(
a)
require
that
where
the
Department
determines
using
site­
specific
WET
data
that
a
discharge
causes,
shows
a
reasonable
potential
to
cause,
or
contributes
to
an
excursion
above
the
NJSWQS,
the
permitting
authority
must
establish
effluent
limits
for
WET.
In
order
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
CWA,
the
NJSWQS
and
the
NJPDES
Regulations,
the
need
for
a
WQBEL
for
WET
was
evaluated
for
discharges
eligible
under
Table
A
of
this
master
general
permit.
Fact
Sheet
Page
14
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
General
Gasoline
Fuel
Cleanup
(
GFC)
permit
in
September
1988,
the
Department
conducted
several
acute
toxicity
tests
on
discharges
resulting
from
the
cleanup
of
gasoline
spills.
Results
of
those
tests
showed
that
these
discharges
did
not
exhibit
acute
toxicity.
Therefore,
no
acute
toxicity
testing
requirements
were
included
in
the
master
GPPC
permit
issued
on
October
29,
1993
for
remediations
resulting
from
gasoline
spills.

However,
the
Department
did
establish
an
acute
WET
effluent
limitation
and
monitoring
requirement
for
remediation
projects
resulting
from
contamination
by
fuel
oils,
diesel
fuel,
kerosene,
aviation
fuel
and/
or
jet
fuel
in
the
October
29,
1993
master
GPPC
permit.
This
was
established
at
that
time
due
to:
(
1)
the
lack
of
data
for
such
remediation
discharges;
(
2)
the
lack
of
toxicity
data
for
aquatic
effects
on
the
constituents
associated
with
the
fuel
products
just
specified;
and
(
3)
the
lack
of
data
showing
that
toxicity
resulting
from
fuel
oil
additives
is
adequately
removed
by
any
proposed
treatment.
As
a
result,
acute
WET
testing
requirements
were
specified
for
21
of
the
330
sites
covered
under
this
permit
(
6%
of
the
sites)
and
data
was
submitted
for
12
of
the
212
active
sites
(
also
6%).
As
stated
previously,
these
acute
WET
requirements
were
limited
to
remediation
projects
resulting
from
contamination
by
fuel
oils,
diesel
fuel,
kerosene,
aviation
fuel
and/
or
jet
fuel.
A
total
of
59
test
results
were
collected
for
12
active
sites.
Eighty
percent
of
those
results
indicate
no
acute
toxicity.
Further,
where
some
acute
toxicity
was
measured
for
a
particular
discharge,
it
was
most
commonly
observed
in
an
early
test
very
soon
after
system
start
up.
Later
tests
results
indicative
of
the
ongoing
discharge
and
treatability
potential
indicated
no
toxicity.
A
single
test
result
of
this
data
group,
which
showed
measurable
acute
toxicity,
was
deemed
unrepresentative
of
normal
operating
conditions,
and
attributed
to
a
problem
with
use
of
a
specific
flocculating
agent.
Based
on
this
information,
continuation
of
acute
WET
testing
requirements
for
remediations
resulting
from
contamination
by
fuel
oils,
diesel
fuel,
kerosene,
aviation
fuel
and/
or
jet
fuel
was
not
considered
to
be
warranted.

The
Department
has
also
considered
the
presence
of
the
fuel
oxygenate
additives
MTBE
and
TBA
in
gasoline
remediations
and
has
evaluated
available
aquatic
toxicity
data
for
such
additives.
Available
toxicity
data
for
TBA
shows
TBA
to
exhibit
acute
toxicity
at
levels
greater
than
9700
mg/
L
which
is
far
greater
than
the
levels
of
TBA
present
at
GPPC
sites.
Aquatic
toxicity
data
for
MTBE
from
many
sources
was
reviewed
where
toxicity
due
to
MTBE
does
not
occur
unless
there
are
levels
of
MTBE
present
in
significant
amounts
(
i.
e.
the
mg/
L
range).
Based
on
this
information,
the
Department
has
determined
that
the
85%
MTBE
removal
requirement
imposed
for
Table
A
will
ensure
that
effluent
values
are
well
below
the
levels
expected
to
cause
toxicity.
Therefore,
by
imposing
the
85%
removal
requirement
or
the
70
µ
g/
L
effluent
limitation
where
appropriate,
the
Department
is
limiting
MTBE
levels
and
thereby
ensuring
protection
of
the
receiving
waterbody
for
aquatic
toxicity
effects.
In
sum,
by
imposing
such
limits,
the
Department
is
protecting
against
degradation
of
the
waterbodies
and
is
therefore
consistent
with
its
antidegradation
policies
and
regulations
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
d)
et
seq..

Effluent
data
summarized
in
the
permit
summary
tables
at
the
end
of
this
fact
sheet
show
primarily
non­
detectable
levels
of
toxic
pollutants.
The
Department
has
compared
the
summaries
of
effluent
data
for
the
1993
GPPC
permit,
the
1998
GPPC
permit
and
this
2003
GPPC
permit.
The
data
included
in
the
2003
GPPC
permit
shows
lower
levels
than
the
previous
two
master
GPPC
permits
which
indicates
that
treatment
capabilities
are
improving.
Because
WET
tests
performed
under
the
previous
GPPC
permits
did
not
indicate
toxicity
effects
it
is
likely
that
current
discharges
(
which
have
lower
levels
of
toxics
due
to
improved
treatment)
are
even
less
likely
to
show
toxicity
effects.

Based
on
the
historical
data,
current
data
and
available
literature,
the
Department
has
not
imposed
an
acute
or
chronic
WET
requirement
for
Table
A.
Please
note
that
a
WET
requirement
has
been
retained
for
Table
D
as
discussed
later.

Table
B
 
Remediation
discharges
into
waterbodies
used
for
potable
water
intakes
or
shellfish
harvesting
where
strictly
petroleum
product
related
constituents
are
present.

Flow,
TSS,
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
TOC,
pH,
Benzene,
Naphthalene,
Total
Recoverable
Lead
(
where
applicable),
Tert
Butyl
Alcohol
(
TBA)
and
WET
Fact
Sheet
Page
15
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
The
rationale
for
the
effluent
limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
for
flow,
TSS,
petroleum
hydrocarbons,
TOC,
pH,
benzene,
naphthalene,
total
recoverable
lead
(
where
applicable),
TBA
and
WET
for
Table
B
is
identical
to
the
discussion
for
Table
A.

Methyl
Tert
Butyl
Ether
(
MTBE)

As
discussed
above,
the
Department
has
imposed
an
MTBE
effluent
limitation
of
70
ug/
L
for
Table
B
where
Table
B
applies
to
those
specific
waterbodies
included
in
Table
B
­
Attachment
of
Part
III.
The
MTBE
effluent
limitation
of
70
ug/
L
is
based
on
the
maximum
contaminant
level
drinking
water
standard.

Influent
monitoring
for
MTBE
and
MTBE
percent
removal
monitoring
is
also
required
to
track
the
efficiency
levels
of
the
permittee's
treatment
system.
Influent
and
effluent
sampling
shall
be
performed
with
EPA
Method
624
as
indicated
on
the
effluent
limitations
table.

Table
C
 
Remediation
discharges
into
waterbodies
classified
as
C1
(
Category
One)
where
strictly
petroleum
product
related
constituents
are
present.

Impact
of
Discharge
Approvals
to
High
Water
Quality
Classifications
Pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
d),
Category
One
waters
shall
be
protected
from
any
measurable
changes
to
the
existing
water
quality
characteristics
that
are
generally
worse
than
the
water
quality
criteria.
However,
often
times
when
a
pump
and
treat
remediation
project
is
deemed
necessary,
it
is
because
the
facility
can
not
ensure
hydraulic
control
of
the
contaminated
groundwater
plume
and
contaminated
groundwater
is
migrating
off­
site
and
will
likely
impact
sensitive
receptors.
Therefore,
in
order
to
ensure
approval
of
these
remediation
projects
in
an
expeditious
manner,
the
Department
has
included
requirements
for
remediation
discharges
to
Category
One
waters
in
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal.
Water
quality
concerns
have
been
considered
for
each
limited
parameter
as
discussed
below
where
non­
detectable
limitations
have
been
imposed
in
certain
instances.

It
is
important
to
note
that
short
term
dewatering
and
pump
test
discharges
to
Category
One
waters
are
ineligible
for
discharge
authorization
under
Table
E.
Remediation
discharges
are
a
different
circumstance
than
short
term
dewatering
or
pump
test
activities.
Clean­
up
under
a
remediation
project
may
be
necessary
immediately
to
prevent
more
widespread
contamination
of
ground
water
and
other
discharge
options
may
not
be
feasible.
However,
often
times
other
discharge
options
are
available
for
short
term
dewatering
and
pump
test
activities
such
as
hauling
the
water
off­
site
and
disposing
of
it
at
a
licensed
facility.
Therefore,
because
of
the
high
quality
classification
of
Category
One
waters
and
the
availability
of
other
disposal
options,
the
Department
has
determined
that
it
is
not
appropriate
to
authorize
short
term
dewatering
and
pump
test
activities
under
Table
C.

Flow
Monitoring
for
flow
is
required
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.13
and
13.14.

TSS,
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
Total
Organic
Carbon
The
effluent
limitation
for
TSS
is
imposed
based
on
the
existing
GPPC
permit
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
Considering
current
monitoring
report
form
data
collected
under
the
existing
GPPC
permit,
permittees
can
consistently
comply
with
the
proposed
daily
maximum
effluent
limitation
of
25
mg/
L;
therefore,
this
limit
is
economically
and
technologically
achievable.
In
fact,
80%
of
TSS
effluent
data
collected
under
the
existing
GPPC
permit
shows
non­
detectable
levels.
Fact
Sheet
Page
16
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Effluent
limitations
for
petroleum
hydrocarbons
are
imposed
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19
where
these
limits
are
consistent
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
12.8.
Based
on
current
monitoring
report
form
data,
current
treatment
technology
can
consistently
treat
total
petroleum
hydrocarbons
to
non­
detectable
or
trace
levels.

Effluent
limitations
for
total
organic
carbon
are
imposed
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
Based
on
current
monitoring
report
form
data,
current
treatment
technology
can
consistently
treat
to
the
proposed
limit
of
20
mg/
L
where
current
data
shows
primarily
non­
detectable
or
trace
levels.

pH
The
effluent
limits
for
minimum
and
maximum
pH
for
Category
1
waters
are
based
on
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.
for
FW2
waters.
The
in­
stream
pH
range
has
been
imposed
as
minimum
and
maximum
effluent
limits
due
to
the
high
quality
characteristics
of
Category
1
waters.

Benzene,
Total
Recoverable
Lead
(
where
applicable)

Due
to
the
low
in­
stream
NJSWQS
for
benzene
and
total
recoverable
lead
as
well
as
the
"
no
measurable
change"
criteria
for
Category
1
waters
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
d)
6.
iii.,
non­
detectable
effluent
limitations
are
appropriate
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
e)
7.
Therefore,
the
Recommended
Quantitation
Levels
(
RQLs)
have
been
established
as
effluent
limitations.
RQLs
are
levels
which
certified
laboratories
can
routinely
attain
as
method
detection
levels.
As
such
any
value
below
the
RQL
is
considered
to
be
non­
detectable.

Naphthalene
Although
there
is
no
NJSWQS
for
napthalene
at
this
time,
napthalene
is
listed
as
a
toxic
pollutant
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
4
Appendix
A
Table
II.
Based
on
the
fact
that
napthalene
is
toxic
as
well
as
the
"
no
measurable
change"
criteria
for
Category
1
waters,
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
d)
6iii,
the
Department
has
determined
that
a
non­
detectable
effluent
limitation
is
appropriate.
Therefore,
the
applicable
RQL
of
8
ug/
L
has
been
imposed
as
an
effluent
limitation.

MTBE
The
Department
has
imposed
an
MTBE
effluent
limitation
of
70
ug/
L
based
on
the
maximum
contaminant
level
drinking
water
standard.
As
discussed
previously
for
Table
A,
available
aquatic
toxicity
data
shows
MTBE
to
be
toxic
to
aquatic
organisms
at
levels
significantly
greater
than
70
ug/
L.
Influent
monitoring
for
MTBE
and
MTBE
percent
removal
monitoring
is
also
required
to
track
the
efficiency
levels
of
the
permittee's
treatment
system.
Influent
and
effluent
sampling
shall
be
performed
with
EPA
Method
624
as
indicated
on
the
effluent
limitations
table.

TBA
Consistent
with
the
rationale
described
for
Tables
A
and
B,
the
Department
has
imposed
a
monitoring
requirement
for
TBA
to
assess
the
discharge
levels
present.
A
promulgated
NJSWQS,
pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.1
et
seq.,
does
not
exist
for
TBA
at
this
time
nor
does
a
promulgated
drinking
water
standard.
Effluent
sampling
for
TBA
shall
be
performed
with
EPA
Method
624
as
indicated
on
the
effluent
limitations
table.

Table
D
 
Remediation
discharges
into
waters
classified
as
FW2­
NT,
FW2­
TM,
FW2­
TP,
SE
or
SC
where
other
metals,
volatile
organic,
acid
extractable
or
base/
neutral
compounds
are
present
in
addition
to
petroleum
product
related
constituents
Flow,
TSS,
TPH,
TOC,
pH,
Benzene,
Naphthalene,
Total
Recoverable
Lead
(
where
applicable)
and
Tert
Butyl
Alcohol
(
TBA)
Fact
Sheet
Page
17
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
The
rationale
for
the
effluent
limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
for
flow,
TSS,
TPH,
TOC,
pH,
benzene,
naphthalene,
total
recoverable
lead
(
where
applicable),
MTBE
and
TBA
for
Table
D
is
identical
to
the
discussion
for
Table
A.

MTBE
The
Department
has
imposed
an
MTBE
effluent
limitation
of
85%
removal
for
Table
D
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
The
rationale
for
this
limit
is
consistent
with
the
rationale
discussed
above
for
Table
A.
Influent
and
effluent
monitoring
and
reporting
for
MTBE
is
also
imposed
in
this
permit
in
order
to
enable
tracking
and
calculation
for
the
MTBE
percent
removal
limitation.
Influent
and
effluent
sampling
shall
be
performed
with
EPA
Method
624
as
indicated
on
the
effluent
limitations
table.

In
the
event
that
an
applicant
qualifies
for
discharge
under
Table
D
but
to
a
waterbody
that
is
identified
in
Table
B
­
Attachment
of
Part
III,
the
Department
may
deny
authorization
of
such
discharge
under
Table
D.
Specifically,
if
the
request
for
authorization
application
shows
that
MTBE
can
be
present
in
the
effluent
at
levels
greater
than
70
µ
g/
L,
the
Department
could
deny
the
authorization
since
the
waterbodies
identified
in
Table
B
­
Attachment
of
Part
III
can
not
receive
discharges
with
MTBE
levels
greater
than
70
ug/
L.
This
determination
will
be
handled
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Other
Metals,
Volatile
Organics,
Acid
Extractables,
or
Base
Neutral
Compounds
Present
The
Department
is
continuing
to
include
the
authorization
of
discharges
that
contain
these
parameters
in
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal
since
there
are
times
that
additional
parameters
are
present
in
addition
to
petroleum
related
constituents.
It
is
important
to
note
that
any
applicant
requesting
authorization
under
Table
D
of
the
GPPC
permit
must
have
a
remediation
or
dewatering
discharge
where
petroleum
related
constituents
are
the
primary
pollutants
of
concern;
however,
one
or
more
additional
metals,
volatile
organics,
acid
extractables
or
base/
neutral
compounds
may
also
be
present.
Prior
to
1998
if
additional
non­
petroleum
related
constituents
were
detected
in
an
application
for
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit,
the
permittee
would
be
ineligible
for
a
general
permit
authorization
and
would
be
required
to
seek
an
individual
NJPDES/
DSW
permit
which
would
incorporate
a
requirement
for
the
non­
petroleum
related
constituent.
The
issuance
of
an
individual
NJPDES/
DSW
permit
takes
a
considerably
longer
period
of
time
as
that
related
to
a
general
permit
authorization
and,
for
most
pollutants,
the
individual
NJPDES
permit
simply
contained
the
applicable
limits
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
12,
Appendix
B
that
are
included
in
this
permit.
By
including
this
alternate
discharge
scenario
within
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal,
the
Department
can
issue
more
NJPDES/
DSW
permits
in
an
expeditious
manner
thereby
expediting
remediation
projects
with
no
sacrifice
in
protection
of
the
water
resource.

In
addition,
the
Department
may
choose
to
authorize
a
dewatering
discharge
under
Table
D
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
The
Department
will
consider
such
factors
as
the
feasibility
of
meeting
effluent
limits,
the
level
of
Department
oversight,
and
the
availability
of
other
discharge
options.
Given
the
environmental
benefit
of
ensuring
that
pumped
groundwater
remains
in
the
same
aquifer,
the
Department
has
determined
that
this
option
is
appropriate.
Any
such
approval
will
be
required
to
comply
with
a
once
per
four
day
monitoring
requirement.
The
Department
will
review
applications
for
dewatering
discharges
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and,
if
the
Department
determines
that
the
effluent
limits
can
not
be
attained,
it
reserves
the
right
to
deny
authorization
to
discharge
under
Table
D.

The
effluent
limitations
for
other
metals,
volatile
organics,
acid
extractables,
or
base
neutral
compounds
are
retained
from
the
existing
GPPC
permit
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.19.
These
limits
were
originally
based
on
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
12,
Appendix
B
for
either
FW2
or
SE
or
SC
waters
depending
on
the
classification
of
the
receiving
waterbody.
Many
of
these
effluent
limits
are
equivalent
to
RQLs.

In
completing
the
request
for
authorization
application
the
permittee
shall
ensure
that
its
effluent
data
for
any
limited
parameter(
s)
is
sampled
at
detection
levels
as
sensitive
as
the
RQLs
specified
in
Table
D
 
Attachment.
Monthly
monitoring
is
required
for
discharges
of
remediated
groundwater
consistent
with
the
other
limited
parameters
in
this
GPPC
renewal.
Fact
Sheet
Page
18
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
(
WET)
­
Requirements
applicable
only
to
those
dischargers
where
one
or
more
metals
are
present:

Section
101(
a)
of
the
CWA
establishes
a
national
policy
of
restoring
and
maintaining
the
chemical,
physical
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Nation's
waters.
In
addition,
section
101(
a)(
3)
of
the
CWA
and
the
NJSWQS
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5(
a)
3
state
that
the
discharge
of
toxic
pollutants
in
toxic
amounts
is
prohibited.
Further,
40
CFR
122.44(
d)
and
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.6(
a)
require
that
where
the
Department
determines
using
site­
specific
WET
data
that
a
discharge
causes,
shows
a
reasonable
potential
to
cause,
or
contributes
to
an
excursion
above
the
SWQS,
the
permitting
authority
must
establish
effluent
limits
for
WET.
In
order
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
CWA,
the
NJSWQS
and
the
NJPDES
Regulations,
the
need
for
a
WQBEL
for
WET
was
evaluated
for
this
discharge.

There
are
two
types
of
WET
tests,
acute
toxicity
testing
which
measures
only
the
lethal
effects
(
mortality)
of
the
effluent
on
the
test
organisms,
and
chronic
toxicity
testing
which
measures
the
lethal
and
sublethal
(
ie.
growth
and/
or
Fact
Sheet
Page
19
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
reproduction)
of
the
effluent
on
the
test
organisms.
The
type
of
WET
test
required
for
a
particular
facility
is
determined
by
evaluating
the
mixing
characteristics
of
the
effluent
(
ie
dilution
factor)
in
the
receiving
water.
The
acute
mixing
zone
and
the
chronic
mixing
zone
are
compared,
and
whichever
results
in
a
more
stringent
limit
is
used
to
regulate
the
discharge.

The
existing
GPPC
master
permit
included
WET
requirements
for
those
discharges
eligible
under
Table
D
that
contained
metals
in
the
discharge
at
levels
comparable
to
NJSWQS.
As
a
result,
the
Department
does
have
existing
WET
data
for
these
discharges
for
consideration
in
this
GPPC
master
permit
renewal.

WQBELs
for
acute
and
chronic
WET
were
calculated
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.6
and
USEPA's
"
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality
Based
Toxics
Control"
(
EPA/
505/
2­
90­
001),
March
1991
(
TSD).

Since
the
master
GPPC
permit
renewal
does
not
consider
dilution
effects,
these
limits
are
developed
using
an
acute
dilution
factor
(
Dfa)
of
1
and
a
chronic
dilution
factor
(
Dfc)
of
1.
In
many
instances,
dischargers
authorized
under
the
GPPC
permit
discharge
to
a
municipal
storm
sewer
into
which
other
discharges
may
contribute
pollutants
which
when
discharged
together
into
the
receiving
water
could
potentially
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
WET
narrative
standard.
In
addition,
use
of
one
dilution
factor
serves
to
simplify
and
streamline
the
master
general
permit.

The
Dfa
and
Dfc
were
then
used
to
determine
acute
and
chronic
Wasteload
Allocations
(
WLAs)
consistent
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.5,
using
a
steady
state
model,
as
specified
in
section
5.4.1
of
the
TSD.
CoA
nsistent
with
recommendations
in
the
TSD,
values
of
0.3
acute
toxic
unit
(
TUa)
and
1.0
chronic
toxic
unit
(
TUc)
were
used
to
interpret
the
narrative
water
quality
criteria
for
WET
contained
at
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.14(
c)
(
see
Response
to
Comments
13­
74
through
13­
89,
29
NJR
1861,
(
May
5,
1997)).
The
acute
WLA
(
WLAa)
was
translated
to
equivalent
chronic
toxic
units
(
WLAac),
to
enable
comparison
of
acute
and
chronic
WET
limits,
by
multiplying
the
WLAa
by
a
default
acute
to
chronic
ratio
(
ACR)
of
10.

The
Department
evaluated
available
chronic
WET
data
collected
under
the
existing
GPPC
permit.
Chronic
WET
limits
were
applied
to
those
sites
issued
under
Table
D
where
metals
were
present.
Given
that
the
GPPC
permit
covers
similar
discharges
and
chronic
WET
limits
were
only
applied
if
metals
were
present,
the
Department
has
determined
that
this
data
is
representative
for
consideration
in
retaining
these
requirements
in
this
renewal
permit.
While
much
of
the
data
indicated
no
toxicity
(
i.
e.
results
of
>
100%),
some
data
showed
some
toxicity.
As
a
result
the
Department
has
retained
the
chronic
WET
limitation
in
this
master
GPPC
permit
renewal.

For
new
discharges
only
(
i.
e.
not
renewal
authorizations):
In
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.4(
a)
and
13.21(
b),
a
schedule
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
new
chronic
WET
WQBEL
has
been
included
in
this
permit
and
is
applicable
for
new
dischargers.
Interim
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
have
been
included
based
on
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.2(
a)
14.
Specifically,
monitoring
only
is
required
for
the
first
three
years
of
the
discharge
authorization.
After
that
time
the
referenced
limit
is
imposed.

For
discharges
to
fresh
waters:
The
test
species
method
to
be
used
for
chronic
testing
shall
be
the
Ceriodaphnia
dubia,
Survival
and
Reproduction
Test,
40
CFR
136.3,
method
1002.0
and
will
be
indicated
in
Part
III
of
the
individual
authorization.
Such
selection
is
based
on
the
freshwater
characteristics
of
the
receiving
stream,
the
existing
permit
(
if
applicable),
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5
and
the
Department's
"
Chronic
Toxicity
Testing
Specifications
for
Use
in
the
NJPDES
Permit
Program"
document.
This
document
is
included
as
Appendix
A
of
this
permit,
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.5,
11.2(
a)
2.
iv.
and
40
CFR
Part
136.

For
discharges
to
saline
waters:
The
test
species
method
to
be
used
for
chronic
testing
shall
be
the
Mysidopsis
bahia,
Survival,
Growth,
and
Fecundity
Test,
40
CFR
136.3,
method
1007.0
and
will
be
indicated
in
Part
III
of
the
individual
authorization.
Such
selection
is
based
on
the
saline
characteristics
of
the
receiving
stream,
the
existing
permit
(
if
applicable),
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.5
and
the
Department's
"
Chronic
Toxicity
Testing
Specifications
for
Use
in
the
NJPDES
Permit
Program"
document.
This
document
is
included
as
Appendix
A
of
this
permit,
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.5,
11.2(
a)
2.
iv.
and
40
CFR
Part
136.
Fact
Sheet
Page
20
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
The
monitoring
frequency
for
chronic
toxicity
testing
shall
be
quarterly.

The
Toxicity
Reduction
Implementation
Requirements
(
TRIR)
are
included
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
13.17(
a),
7:
14A­
6.2(
a)
5
and
recommendations
in
Section
5.8
of
the
TSD.
The
requirements
are
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
applicable
WET
toxicity
limitation
on
its
effective
date
and
to
expedite
compliance
with
the
WET
toxicity
limitation
should
exceedances
of
the
WET
limitation
occur.
As
included
in
section
B.
1
of
the
TRIR
requirements,
the
initial
step
of
the
TRIR
is
to
identify
the
variability
of
the
effluent
toxicity
and
to
verify
that
a
consistent
toxicity
problem
does
in
fact
exist.

Effluent
samples
for
conducting
WET
testing
are
to
be
collected
after
the
last
treatment
step,
consistent
with
the
collection
location
for
all
other
parameters.

Table
E
 
Short
term
dewatering
or
pump
test
discharges
into
waters
classified
as
FW2­
NT,
FW2­
TM,
FW2­
TP,
SE
or
SC
where
strictly
petroleum
related
constituents
are
present
Flow,
TSS,
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
TOC,
pH,
Benzene,
Naphthalene,
Total
Recoverable
Lead
(
where
applicable),
tert
Butyl
Alcohol
The
rationale
for
the
effluent
limitations
for
Flow,
TSS,
TOC,
petroleum
hydrocarbons,
pH,
benzene,
naphthalene,
and
total
recoverable
lead
(
where
applicable)
for
Table
E
are
consistent
with
the
discussion
for
Table
A.
As
in
the
existing
master
GPPC
permit,
only
daily
maximum
limitations
are
applied
due
to
the
short
term
nature
of
these
activities.
Monthly
average
reporting
is
also
required.

Influent
and
effluent
monitoring
for
TBA
is
required
consistent
with
the
rationale
described
for
Tables
A
 
D.

MTBE
The
Department
has
imposed
an
MTBE
effluent
limitation
of
85%
removal
consistent
with
Tables
A
and
D.
The
Department
did
not
differentiate
regulation
of
MTBE
in
Table
E
for
those
waterbodies
which
have
a
potable
water
intake
as
was
done
for
Tables
A
and
B.
As
a
result,
the
Department
reserves
the
right
to
deem
a
request
for
authorization
ineligible
if
the
proposed
discharge
is
to
a
water
body
identified
in
Table
B
­
Attachment
of
Part
III
and
if
MTBE
effluent
levels
are
greater
than
70
ug/
L.

Monitoring
Frequency
Due
to
the
short
term
and
intermittent
nature
of
dewatering
and
pump
test
activities,
the
monitoring
frequency
is
set
at
once
per
four
days.
The
permittee
is
required
to
sample
at
least
once
during
the
discharge
event.

Effective
Date
The
Department
will
authorize
the
dewatering
or
pump
test
portion
of
this
permit
for
the
first
six
months
following
the
effective
date
of
the
individual
authorization
or
before
the
expiration
of
the
master
general
permit,
whichever
comes
first.
After
such
time
the
individual
permit
authorization
will
administratively
expire.
The
Department
may
issue
authorizations
for
a
longer
term
on
an
as
needed
basis
but
any
such
period
will
not
extend
past
the
permit
expiration
date.
Please
note
that
the
permittee
may
specify
its
effective
date
during
the
application
process.
For
example,
if
a
permittee
expects
to
conduct
a
dewatering
discharge
activity
in
May,
but
submitted
the
application
in
February
where
this
chosen
effective
date
is
specified,
the
Department
can
issue
the
individual
permit
authorization
with
a
May
1
effective
date.
This
is
further
discussed
in
the
application
checklist
for
a
request
for
authorization
under
the
B4B
permit.
Fact
Sheet
Page
21
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
C.
Recommended
Quantitation
Levels
Policy
(
RQLs):

The
Department
developed
the
RQLs
to
insure
that
useful
data
is
provided
to
the
Department
in
order
to
characterize
the
discharger's
effluent.
The
Department
recommends
that
the
permittee
achieve
detection
levels
that
are
at
least
as
sensitive
as
the
RQLs
found
in
Part
III.
The
Department
has
determined
that
the
quantitation
levels
listed
therein
can
be
reliably
and
consistently
achieved
by
most
state
certified
laboratories
for
most
of
the
listed
pollutants
using
the
appropriate
procedures
specified
in
40
CFR
Part
136.
FAILURE
TO
ATTAIN
A
QUANTITATION
LEVEL
AS
SENSITIVE
AS
A
LISTED
RQL
IS
NOT
A
VIOLATION
OF
THE
PERMIT,
BUT
DOES
TRIGGER
SOME
ADDITIONAL
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE
PERMITTEE
AS
SPECIFIED
IN
PART
IV
OF
THE
PERMIT.

D.
Reporting
Requirements:

All
data
requested
to
be
submitted
by
this
permit
shall
be
reported
on
the
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
(
DMRs)
as
appropriate
and
submitted
to
the
Department
as
required
by
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.8(
a).

E.
General
conditions:

In
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
2.3
and
6.1(
b),
specific
rules
from
the
New
Jersey
Administrative
Code
have
been
incorporated
either
expressly
or
by
reference
in
Part
I
and
Part
II.

F.
Outfall
Tag:

Pursuant
to
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
6.2(
a)
9,
the
permittee
shall
ensure
that
a
tag
is
present
to
mark
the
location
of
the
outfall
pipe
on
or
before
the
start
of
discharge.

G.
Operator
Classification
Number:

The
operator
classification
requirement
is
no
longer
included
in
the
individual
requests
for
authorization.
To
obtain
or
determine
the
appropriate
licensed
operator
classification
for
the
treatment
works
utilized
in
each
individual
authorization,
the
permittee
shall
contact
the
Bureau
of
Engineering
North
at
(
609)
292­
6894
or
the
Bureau
of
Engineering
South
at
(
609)
984­
6840.
The
Bureau
of
Engineering
North
has
jurisdiction
over
the
counties
of
Middlesex,
Union,
Essex,
Hudson,
Bergen,
Passaic,
Sussex,
Morris,
Warren,
Somerset
and
Hunterdon
whereas
the
Bureau
of
Engineering
South
has
jurisdiction
over
the
counties
of
Monmouth,
Ocean,
Atlantic,
Mercer,
Burlington,
Camden,
Cape
May,
Cumberland,
Gloucester
and
Salem.

H.
Flow
Related
Conditions:

Groundwater
remediations
such
as
those
regulated
under
this
permit
are
not
included
in
the
applicable
Water
Quality
Management
Plan
and/
or
Wastewater
Management
Plan
for
each
individual
request
for
authorization.

11
Variances
to
Permit
Conditions:

Procedures
for
modifying
a
water
quality
based
effluent
limitation
are
found
in
the
New
Jersey
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards,
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1.8
and
1.9.
If
a
water
quality
based
effluent
limitation
has
been
proposed
in
this
permit
action,
the
permittee
may
request
a
modification
of
that
limitation
in
accordance
with
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
11.7(
a).
This
request
must
be
made
prior
to
the
close
of
the
public
comment
period.
The
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
support
the
request
may
be
obtained
from
the
Division
of
Watershed
Management
at
(
609)
633­
7020.
Fact
Sheet
Page
22
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
12
Description
of
Procedures
for
Reaching
a
Final
Decision
on
the
Draft
Action:

Please
refer
to
the
procedures
described
in
the
public
notice
that
is
part
of
the
draft
permit.
In
addition
to
the
DEP
Bulletin,
the
public
notice
for
this
permit
action
is
published
in
the
following
newspapers
which
represent
the
counties
indicated:

Newspaper
County
Press
of
Atlantic
City
Atlantic
and
Cape
May
The
Record
Bergen
Burlington
County
Times
Burlington
Courier
Post
Camden
Daily
Journal
Cumberland
Star
Ledger
Essex
Gloucester
County
Times
Gloucester
and
Salem
Democrat
Hunterdon
Jersey
Journal
Hudson
The
Times
Mercer
Home
News
and
Tribune
Ocean,
Middlesex
and
Monmouth
Asbury
Park
Press
Ocean,
Middlesex
and
Monmouth
Daily
Record
Morris
Ocean
County
Observer
Ocean,
Middlesex
and
Monmouth
North
Jersey
Herald
News
Passaic
and
Bergen
The
Express
Warren
South
Jersey
Newspapers
Gloucester
and
Salem
Today's
Sunbeam
Gloucester
and
Salem
Courier
News
Somerset
and
Union
New
Jersey
Herald
Sussex
13
Contact
Information
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
this
permit
action,
please
contact
Susan
Rosenwinkel
or
Bela
Mankad,
Bureau
of
Point
Source
Permitting
 
Region
2
at
either
(
609)
292­
4860
or
via
e­
mail
at
susan.
rosenwinkel@
dep.
state.
nj.
us
or
bela.
mankad@
dep.
state.
nj.
us.
Fact
Sheet
Page
23
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
14
Data
Summary
Wastewater
data
was
summarized
for
the
period
beginning
on
August
2000
and
ending
on
March
2003.
There
were
120
sites
active
within
this
period.
Average
values
do
not
consider
non­
detectable
quantities.
Values
that
were
out
of
compliance
are
not
considered
in
the
average
calculations.

Parameters
included
in
Tables
A,
B,
C,
D
and
E
Parameter
Wastewater
Data
Parameter
Wastewater
Data
Total
Suspended
Solids,
mg/
L
average
­
9.77
maximum
­
40
#
detect
­
372
#
non­
detect
­
1501
%
non­
detect
­
80%
#
out
of
compliance
­
10
Benzene,
µ
g/
L
average
­
1.14
maximum
­
5.1
#
detect
­
53
#
non­
detect
­
1829
%
non­
detect
­
97.2%
#
out
of
compliance
­
2
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
mg/
L
average
­
1.537
maximum
­
10
#
detect
­
84
#
non­
detect
­
794
%
non­
detect
­
90.4%
#
out
of
compliance
­
0
Naphthalene,
µ
g/
L
average
­
3.72
maximum
­
20.6
#
detect
­
71
#
non­
detect
­
1812
%
non­
detect
­
96.2%
#
out
of
compliance
­
2
Total
Organic
Carbon,
mg/
L
average
­
3.43
maximum
­
20
#
detect
­
830
#
non­
detect
­
1054
%
non­
detect
­
56%
#
out
of
compliance
­
1
Total
Recoverable
Lead,
µ
g/
L
average
­
8.54
maximum
­
36
#
detect
­
127
#
non­
detect
­
183
%
non­
detect
­
59%
#
out
of
compliance
­
2
MTBE
­
Effluent,
µ
g/
L
average
­
20.4
maximum
­
2510
#
detect
­
536
#
non­
detect
­
1354
%
non­
detect
­
71.5%
#
out
of
compliance
­
0
MTBE
­
Influent,
µ
g/
L
average
­
2982
maximum
­
38,100
#
detect
­
1588
#
non­
detect
­
232
%
non­
detect
­
12.7%
#
out
of
compliance
­
N/
A
Chronic
WET,
%
#
<
61%
­
10
#
61
­
100%
­
26
#
>
100%
­
5
The
following
conclusions
can
be
drawn
from
the
existing
data:

 
In
comparing
effluent
data
to
effluent
limits,
very
few
data
points
are
out
of
compliance.
 
The
majority
of
the
effluent
points
are
non­
detectable.
 
MTBE
influent
levels
are
significantly
greater
than
MTBE
effluent
levels
which
indicates
that
treatment
systems
are
proving
capable
of
removing
MTBE.
 
Chronic
toxicity
data
is
available
for
six
sites.
This
data
ranges
from
6.5%
to
>
100%.
This
data
supports
the
retention
of
the
chronic
toxicity
requirement
for
Table
D.
Fact
Sheet
Page
24
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Summary
of
Table
D
Data
Wastewater
data
was
summarized
for
the
period
beginning
on
August
2000
and
ending
on
March
2003
for
those
pollutants
covered
under
Table
D
in
the
existing
permit.
Average
values
do
not
consider
non­
detectable
quantities.

Pollutant
(
All
units
are
in
µ
,
g/
L)
Number
of
Non­
Detect
Values
Number
of
Detected
Values
Maximum
Average
Number
of
Sites
that
Include
Limits
for
this
Pollutant
1,1,1
Trichloroethane
25
1
1.1
1.1
3
1,1,2,2
Tetrachloroethane
34
1
0.33
0.33
2
1,1,2
Trichloroethane
1
2
0.3
0.3
1
1,1
Dichloroethane
23
1
0.33
0.33
1
1,1
Dichloroethylene
23
1
0.5
0.5
2
1,2
Dichlorobenzene
37
0
<
2.2
­­
2
1,2
Dichloroethane
37
1
1.9
1.9
5
1,2
trans
dichloroethylene
2
1
0.34
0.34
1
1,4
Dichlorobenzene
2
0
<
0.25
­­
1
2,4
Dimethyl
phenol
14
0
<
4.0
­­
1
2,4
Dinitrotoluene
32
0
<
2.6
2
4
Nitrophenol
35
0
<
2.6
­­
2
Aluminum
0
2
23.7
18
1
Anthracene
35
0
<
2.6
­­
2
Arsenic
49
10
35
8.3
5
Benzo
(
a)
anthracene
49
0
<
2.6
­­
3
Benzo
(
a)
pyrene
35
0
<
2.6
­­
2
Benzo
(
b)
fluoranthene
3
0
<
0.34
­­
1
Benzo
(
k)
fluoranthene
32
0
<
2.6
­­
1
bis
2
ethyl
hexyl
phthalate
31
14
7.6
5.7
2
Butyl
benzyl
phthalate
29
3
1.9
1.6
1
Cadmium
41
4
2.5
1.5
3
Carbon
Tetrachloride
5
0
<
0.39
­­
2
Chlorobenzene
32
0
<
2
­­
1
Chloroethane
24
0
<
0.65
­­
2
Chloroform
35
0
<
2
­­
1
Chromium
63
11
37.9
8.7
6
Chrysene
35
0
<
26
­­
2
Copper
52
20
141
8.6
6
Cyanide
25
8
69
32
1
di
benzo
(
ah)
anthracene
32
0
<
2.6
­­
1
Fluoranthene
48
1
11.3
2.14
3
Fluorene
46
0
<
2.3
­­
2
indeno
(
1,2,3
cd)
pyrene
35
0
<
2.6
­­
1
Mercury
35
0
<
5
­­
2
Methyl
chloride
32
0
<
2
­­
1
Nickel
42
19
27
6.7
5
Pentachlorophenol
32
0
<
4.8
­­
1
Phenanthrene
74
4
6.9
4.2
4
Phenol
45
4
19
4.1
3
Pyrene
48
1
6.1
1.57
2
Selenium
35
0
<
9
­­
1
Silver
31
1
3.6
3.6
1
Tetrachloroethylene
58
1
0.38
0.38
5
Trichloroethylene
31
3
10.4
4.2
4
Vinyl
Chloride
24
0
<
0.33
­­
2
Zinc
42
44
130
26
5
Fact
Sheet
Page
25
of
25
NJPDES
#
:

NJ0102709
15
Permit
Summary
Table
Unless
otherwise
noted
all
effluent
limitations
are
expressed
as
maximums.
Dashes
(­­)
indicate
there
is
no
effluent
data,
no
limitations,
or
no
monitoring
for
this
parameter
depending
on
the
column
in
which
it
appears.

PARAMETER
UNITS
AVERAGING
PERIOD
WASTEWATER
DATA*
EXISTING
LIMITS
TABLE
A
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
B
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
C
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
D
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
E
­

FINAL
LIMITS
Flow
GPD
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
9899
481527
1898
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
Total
Suspended
Solids
(
TSS)
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
9.97
40
372
1501
MR
40
(
1)
MR
40
(
1)
MR
40
(
1)
MR
25
MR
40
(
1)
MR
40
(
1)

Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
1.537
10
84
794
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
15
Total
Organic
Carbon
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
3.43
20
830
1054
MR
20
MR
20
MR
20
MR
20
MR
20
MR
20
pH
Range
S.
U.
Daily
Min.

Daily
Max.

#
data
#
non­
detect
6.0*
9.0*
1001
6.0
(
2)

9.0
(
2)
6.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
6.5
8.5
6.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
Benzene
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
1.14
5.1
53
1829
MR­
fresh
waters
7.0­
fresh
waters
(
3)
MR
7.0
MR
7.0
MR
7.0
MR
7.0
MR
7.0
Naphthalene
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
3.72
20.6
71
1812
22
59
22
59
22
59
MR
8.0
22
59
22
59
Effluent
MTBE
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
20.4
2510
536
1345
MR
MR
(
4)
MR
MR
MR
70
MR
70
MR
MR
MR
MR
Influent
MTBE
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
2982
38,100
1588
232
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MTBE
Percent
Removal
%
Mo.
Avg.
Min.

#
<
85
#
85
­
100
#
>
100
­­
64
302
142
85
(
5)(
6)
85
(
6)
MR
MR
85
(
6)
85
(
6)
Fact
Sheet
Page
26
of
25
NJPDES
#
:

NJ0102709
PARAMETER
UNITS
AVERAGING
PERIOD
WASTEWATER
DATA*
EXISTING
LIMITS
TABLE
A
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
B
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
C
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
D
­

FINAL
LIMITS
TABLE
E
­

FINAL
LIMITS
Effluent
TBA
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.

#
detected
#
non­
detect
1.736
41.4
596
1287
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
Influent
TBA
mg/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max.
­­
­­
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
Total
Recoverable
Lead**
µ
g/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max..

#
detected
#
non­
detect
8.54
36
127
183
37
(
7)

79
(
7)
MR
10
MR
10
MR
10
MR
10
MR
10
Chronic
Toxicity,
IC25
%
Minimum
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
61(
8)
­­

Other
Metals,
Volatile
Organics,
Base/
Neutral
Compounds,
Acid
Extractables
µ
g/
L
Monthly
Avg.

Daily
Max..
See
Table
See
Attachment
D
of
Part
III
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
See
Attachment
D
of
Part
III
N/
A
Footnotes
and
Abbreviations:

MR
Monitor
and
report
only
*
Data
represents
102
sites
for
the
time
period
from
August
2000
through
March
2003.
Average
values
only
consider
detectable
values
and
do
not
consider
any
points
that
were
out
of
compliance.
See
previous
chart
for
more
detail
regarding
points
out
of
compliance.

**
Lead
data
represents
25
sites.
Limit
is
only
applicable
if
lead
is
present
at
levels
comparable
to
the
NJSWQS.
For
individual
authorizations,
the
daily
maximum
limit
of
10
µ
g/
L
will
become
effective
on
December
1,
2006.

(
1)
For
Tables
A,
B,
D
and
E,
the
daily
maximum
TSS
limit
is
25
mg/
L
for
FW2­
TM
and
FW2­
TP
waters.

(
2)
For
Table
C,
the
daily
minimum
limit
is
6.5
standard
units
and
the
daily
maximum
limit
is
8.5
standard
units.

(
3)
For
Tables
A,
B
and
D
and
if
saline
waters,
the
daily
maximum
benzene
limit
is
set
at
50
µ
g/
L.

(
4)
For
Tables
B
and
C,
the
daily
maximum
MTBE
effluent
limit
is
set
at
70
µ
g/
L.

(
5)
For
Tables
B
and
C,
there
is
only
a
minimum
MTBE
percent
removal
reporting
requirement.

(
6)
For
Tables
A,
D
and
E:
During
a
monitoring
period
where
MTBE
effluent
is
less
than
70
µ
g/
L,
the
permittee
is
not
required
to
comply
with
the
MTBE
percent
removal
requirement.

(
7)
For
Table
C,
the
daily
maximum
lead
limit
is
set
at
10
µ
g/
L.

(
8)
Limit
is
only
applicable
if
one
or
more
metals
are
present
in
quantities
comparable
to
or
greater
than
NJSWQS.
Fact
Sheet
Page
27
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
16
Contents
of
the
Administrative
Record
The
following
items
are
used
to
establish
the
basis
of
the
Draft
Permit:

1.
33
U.
S.
C.
1251
et
seq.,
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act.
[
C]
2.
40
CFR
Part
131,
Federal
Water
Quality
Standards.
[
A]
[
C]
3.
40
CFR
Part
122,
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System.
[
C]
4.
N.
J.
S.
A.
58:
10A­
1
et
seq.,
New
Jersey
Water
Pollution
Control
Act.
[
A]
[
B]
5.
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14A­
1
et
seq.,
New
Jersey
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Regulations.
[
A]
[
B]
6.
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9B­
1
et
seq.,
New
Jersey
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards.
[
A]
[
B]
7.
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
9­
5.1
et
seq.,
Wastewater
Discharge
Requirements.
[
A]
[
B]
8.
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
15,
Statewide
Water
Quality
Management
Planning
Rules.
[
A]
[
B]
9.
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
14C,
Sludge
Quality
Assurance
Regulations.
[
B]
10.
"
Field
Sampling
Procedures
Manual",
published
by
the
NJDEP.
[
A]
11.
"
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
Instructional
Manual",
published
by
the
NJDEP.
[
A]
12.
"
EPA
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
based
Toxics
Control",
EPA/
505/
2­
90­
001,
March
1991.
[
A]
13.
New
Jersey
2002
Integrated
Water
Quality
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Report
(
Integrated
Report).
[
A]
[
B]
14.
Interstate
Environmental
Commission
Regulations,
N.
J.
S.
A.
32:
18­
1
et
seq.
15.
Delaware
River
Basin
Commission:
Administrative
Manual
 
Part
III
Water
Quality
Regulations.
16.
NJPDES/
DSW
General
Petroleum
Product
Cleanup
(
GPPC)
Permit
No.
NJ0102709
issued
October
29,
1993
and
effective
November
1,
1993.
17.
NJDEP
NJPDES/
DSW
General
Groundwater
Fuel
Cleanup
(
GFC)
Permit
No.
NJ0070122.
Issued
September
26,
1988.
Effective
November
1,
1988.
18.
NJPDES/
DSW
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
dated
August
2000
through
March
2003
from
facilities
issued
the
GPPC
authorization.
19.
Whole
effluent
toxicity
data
from
18
retail
gasoline
stations
or
garages
issued
individual
NJPDES/
DSW
permits
from
period
1993
­
1998.
20.
USEPA.
April
1988.
Cleanup
of
Releases
from
Petroleum
Underground
Storage
Tanks:
Selected
Technologies.
Washington,
D.
C.:(
EPA/
530/
UST­
88/
001).
21.
USEPA.
June
1989.
Model
NPDES
Permit
for
Discharges
Resulting
from
the
Cleanup
of
Gasoline
Released
from
Underground
Storage
Tanks.
Washington,
D.
C.
22.
Kramer
W.,
and
T.
Hayes.
1987.
New
Jersey
Geological
Survey
Technical
Memorandum
87­
4,
"
Water
Soluble
Phase
of
Number
2
Fuel
Oil:
Results
of
a
Laboratory
Mixing
Experiment".
New
Orleans,
LA:
National
Meeting
for
the
American
Public
Health
Association.
23.
Kramer
W.,
and
T.
Hayes.
1987.
New
Jersey
Geological
Survey
Technical
Memorandum
87­
5,
"
Water
Soluble
Phase
of
Gasoline:
Results
of
a
Laboratory
Mixing
Experiment".
New
Orleans,
LA:
National
Meeting
for
the
American
Public
Health
Association.
24.
USEPA.
June
1987.
Process,
Coefficients,
and
Models
for
Simulating
Toxic
Organics
and
Heavy
Metals
in
Surface
Water.
Washington,
D.
C.:(
EPA/
600/
3­
87/
015).
pages
258­
269.
25.
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
18
et
seq.,
Regulations
Governing
Laboratory
Certification
and
Standards
of
Performance.
26.
Harold
L.
Bergman,
Richard
A.
Kimerle,
Alan
W.
Make,
Setac
editors.
1986.
Environmental
Hazard
Assessment
of
Effluents.
Program
Press.
27.
Quenten
H.
Pickering
and
Croswell
Hendersen.
September
1966.
"
Acute
Toxicity
of
Some
Important
Petrochemicals
to
Fish".
Journal
WPCF.
28.
US
Department
of
Interior.
1986.
Manual
of
Acute
Toxicity:
Interpretation
and
Data
Base
for
410
Chemicals
and
66
Species
of
Freshwater
Animals.
Washington,
D.
C.:
Resource
Publication
160.
29.
USEPA
November
1979.
Toxicology
Handbook,
Mammalian
and
Aquatic
data.
Washington,
D.
C.:
EPA­
540/
9­
79­
003.
30.
New
Jersey
Drinking
Water
Quality
Institute.
September
1994.
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Recommendations
for
Hazardous
Contaminants
in
Drinking
Water.
Page
A­
4.
Fact
Sheet
Page
28
of
25
NJPDES
#
:
NJ0102709
Contents
of
the
Administrative
Record
(
continued)

31.
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
April
1997.
MTBE
Briefing
Paper
prepared
by
the
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Page
1.
32.
US
EPA.
December
1997.
Drinking
Water
Advisory:
Consumer
Acceptability
Advice
and
Health
Effects
Analysis
on
Methyl
Tertiary­
Butyl
Ether
(
MtBE).
(
EPA­
822­
F­
97­
009)
Page
6.
33.
Zogorski,
J.,
A.
Morduchowitz,
A.
Baehr,
B.
Bauman,
D.
Conrad,
R.
Drew,
N.
Korte,
W.
Lapham,
J.
Pankow,
E.
Washington.
September
1996.
Fuel
Oxygenates
and
Water
Quality:
Current
Understanding
of
Sources,
Occurrence
in
Natural
Waters,
Environmental
Behavior,
Fate
and
Significance.
Page
ES­
1.
34.
Koenigsberg,
S.
"
MTBE:
Wild
Card
in
Groundwater
Cleanup".
Environmental
Protection.
November
1997.
Page
34.
Ellis
and
Gavas.
"
MTBE:
See
It,
Ye
May
Well
Find
It
...
and
Then
What".
LUST
Line
Bulletin.
Page
13.
35.
Preliminary
Assessment
of
the
Occurrence
and
Possible
Source
of
MTBE
in
Groundwater
in
the
US
1993­
1994.
36.
A
presentation
by
Pacific
Environmental
Group,
Inc.
Methyl
tert­
butyl
ether
(
MtBE):
Fate
and
Remediation.
37.
Windholz,
M.
W.
(
ed).
1983.
"
The
Merck
Index,"
10th
ed.
(
Rahway,
NJ:
Merck
&
Co.,
Inc.).
38.
Montgomery,
J.
H.
1996.
"
Groundwater
Chemicals
Desk
Reference,
"
(
Boca
Raton,
FL:
CRC
Press).
39.
N.
J.
A.
C.
7:
10­
1­
7
et
seq.,
the
NJ
Drinking
Water
Standards.
40.
Squillace,
Zogorski,
Wilber
and
Price.
"
Preliminary
Assessment
of
the
Occurrence
and
Possible
Source
of
MTBE
in
Groundwater
in
the
US
1993­
1994".
Environmental
Science
and
Technology.
1996.
Pages
1721­
1730.
41.
NJDEP,
MTBE
Work
Group.
December
19,
2000.
MTBE
in
New
Jersey's
Environment.

Footnotes:
[
A]
Denotes
items
that
may
be
found
in
the
NJPDES/
DSW
Administrative
Record
Library
located
in
the
NJDEP
Central
File
Room,
401
East
State
Street,
Trenton,
New
Jersey.
[
B]
Denotes
items
that
may
be
found
on
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
NJDEP)
website
located
at
"
http://
www.
state.
nj.
us/
dep/".
[
C]
Denotes
items
that
may
be
found
on
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA)
website
at
"
http://
www.
epa.
gov/".
