5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
5.0
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
This
section
summarizes
the
characteristics
of
wastewater
generated
by
oily
operations
(
as
defined
in
Section
1.0)
and
discharged
to
wastewater
treatment
systems
at
MP&
M
facilities.
In
general,
the
MP&
M
industry
generates
oil­
and
organic
pollutant­
bearing
wastewater.
This
wastewater
exhibits
high
concentrations
of
oil
and
concentrations
of
organic
pollutants.
Oil­
bearing
wastewater
is
classified
as
containing
either
free
(
floating)
oils
or
oil/
water
emulsions.
These
wastewaters
may
also
contain
incidental
levels
of
metals
most
often
in
the
suspended
or
particulate
phase.

Analytical
data
from
the
MP&
M
sampling
program,
including
data
obtained
from
sanitation
districts,
MP&
M
facilities,
and
MP&
M
industry
trade
associations,
are
in
the
sampling
episode
reports
located
in
Sections
5.2
and
15.3
of
the
rulemaking
record.
As
part
of
the
MP&
M
rulemaking,
EPA
also
evaluated
the
following
wastewaters:
(
1)
hexavalent
chromium­
bearing
wastewater;
(
2)
cyanide­
bearing
wastewater;
(
3)
chelated
metal­
bearing
wastewater;
and
(
4)
metal­
bearing
wastewater.
These
additional
analyses
are
presented
in
Appendix
C.

This
section
summarizes
analytical
data
obtained
during
the
MP&
M
regulatory
development
process
for
oily
operations
and
influents
to
the
wastewater
treatment
systems.
These
subsections
present
the
number
of
samples
analyzed,
the
number
of
times
each
pollutant
was
detected,
and
the
minimum,
maximum,
mean,
and
median
pollutant
concentrations.
Section
5.1
discusses
the
oily
operations
that
generate
oil­
bearing
and
organic
pollutant­
bearing
wastewater
and
presents
pollutant
concentration
data
for
the
process
waters
and
rinse
waters
for
those
oily
operations.
Section
5.2
characterizes
the
influent
to
oily
wastewater
treatment
systems.

5.1
Process
Water
and
Rinse
Water
Table
5­
1
lists
the
oily
operations
that
generate
oil­
bearing
and
organic
pollutant­
bearing
wastewater
and
presents
the
number
of
process
water
and
rinse
water
samples
collected
for
each
operation
during
EPA s
sampling
program.
Section
4.0
describes
these
operations
in
detail.

MP&
M
facilities
usually
use
oil/
water
emulsions
as
coolants
and
lubricants
in
machining,
grinding,
and
deformation
operations.
These
facilities
also
perform
alkaline
cleaning
operations
to
remove
oil
and
grease
from
parts.
Table
5­
2
summarizes
the
pollutant
concentration
data
collected
during
the
MP&
M
sampling
program
for
process
water
from
oily
operations
that
generate
oil­
bearing
wastewater.
Table
5­
3
summarizes
similar
data
for
the
associated
rinse
waters.
The
maximum
concentration
of
oil
and
grease
(
measured
as
hexane
extractable
material
(
HEM))
in
the
process
water
samples
was
390,000
mg/
L
(
from
an
alkaline
cleaning
bath),
while
the
maximum
concentration
of
oil
and
grease
in
the
rinse
water
samples
was
9,195
mg/
L.

5­
1
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
1
Number
of
Process
Water
and
Rinse
Water
Samples
For
Oily
Operations
Unit
Operation
No.
of
Process
Water
Samplesa
No.
of
Rinse
Water
Samplesa
Abrasive
Blasting
Adhesive
Bonding
Alkaline
Cleaning
for
Oil
Removal
Alkaline
Treatment
without
Cyanide
Aqueous
Degreasing
Corrosion
Preventive
Coating
Electrical
Discharge
Machining
Floor
Cleaning
(
In
Process
Area)

Grinding
Heat
Treating
Impact
Deformation
Machining
Painting­
spray
or
Brush
(
Including
Water
Curtains)

Steam
Cleaning
Testing
(
e.
g.,
Hydrostatic,
Dye
Penetrant,
Ultrasonic,
Magnetic
Flux)

Thermal
Cutting
Tumbling/
Barrel
Finishing/
Mass
Finishing/
Vibratory
Finishing
Washing
(
Finished
Products)

Welding
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
for
Organic
Constituents
3
0
34
18
11
8
1
6
19
3
1
14
6
8
8
2
9
4
0
0b
3
0
42
32
6
4
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
3
1
0b
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Program.
a
Oily
operations
for
which
no
samples
were
collected
are
rarely
performed
or
were
not
observed
at
MP&
M
facilities.
b
Data
were
transferred
for
this
operation.
NA
­
Not
applicable;
unit
operation
has
no
associated
rinse.

5­
2
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
2
Process
Water
Pollutant
Concentration
Data
for
Oily
Operations
Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Organic
Priority
Pollutants
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
76
1
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
1,1­
Dichloroethane
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1­
Dichloroethene
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
71
5
0.016
0.064
0.052
0.062
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
75
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
75
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2­
Nitrophenol
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
4­
Chloro­
3­
Methylphenol
75
11
0.011
91.1
18.2
0.587
4­
Nitrophenol
74
1
0.424
0.424
0.424
0.424
Acenaphthene
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acrolein
73
1
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
Anthracene
76
1
0.193
0.193
0.193
0.193
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
76
18
0.015
143
8.65
0.164
Butyl
Benzyl
Phthalate
76
1
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
Chlorobenzene
76
1
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
Chloroethane
76
1
8.34
8.34
8.34
8.34
Chloroform
76
5
0.010
0.019
0.014
0.013
Di­
n­
butyl
Phthalate
75
3
0.012
0.070
0.033
0.018
Di­
n­
octyl
Phthalate
75
1
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
Dimethyl
Phthalate
75
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ethylbenzene
76
4
0.028
0.594
0.239
0.167
Fluoranthene
76
4
0.029
0.243
0.132
0.129
Fluorene
75
2
0.010
0.021
0.015
0.015
Isophorone
75
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene
Chloride
76
3
0.028
6.76
2.27
0.030
n­
Nitrosodimethylamine
75
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
76
1
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
5­
3
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
2
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Organic
Priority
Pollutants
(
continued)

Naphthalene
76
4
0.025
1.84
0.511
0.091
Phenanthrene
76
4
0.101
5.50
1.47
0.143
Phenol
76
21
0.012
8.84
1.28
0.103
Pyrene
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tetrachloroethene
76
2
0.015
0.021
0.018
0.018
Toluene
76
6
0.029
0.653
0.183
0.103
Trichloroethene
75
10
0.019
2.29
0.251
0.023
Metal
Priority
Pollutants
Antimony
149
49
0.003
1.93
0.217
0.042
Arsenic
150
66
0.001
1.65
0.183
0.023
Beryllium
150
24
0.0005
0.025
0.004
0.002
Cadmium
154
78
0.002
12.6
1.23
0.088
Chromium
154
121
0.007
995
11.7
0.128
Copper
154
142
0.006
190
6.40
0.695
Lead
154
87
0.006
7,150
91.9
0.414
Mercury
150
33
0.0001
0.017
0.001
0.0005
Nickel
154
113
0.008
80.9
2.24
0.141
Selenium
149
41
0.001
1.57
0.087
0.024
Silver
154
48
0.001
2.12
0.138
0.014
Thallium
149
22
0.001
0.113
0.023
0.021
Zinc
154
145
0.008
1,160
27.2
1.31
Conventional
Pollutants
BOD
5­
day
(
Carbonaceous)
65
54
3.00
64,900
3,953
837
Oil
and
Grease
(
as
HEM)
102
83
1.08
390,000
13,884
390
Total
Suspended
Solids
153
140
4.00
110,000
2,764
172
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
1,4­
Dioxane
76
2
0.077
1.00
0.539
0.589
1­
Bromo­
2­
Chlorobenzene
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1­
Bromo­
3­
Chlorobenzene
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1­
Methylfluorene
76
3
0.014
2.60
0.912
0.123
1­
Methylphenanthrene
76
3
0.122
5.65
1.97
0.147
5­
4
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
2
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

2­
Butanone
76
13
0.057
38.3
3.72
0.121
2­
Hexanone
76
3
0.124
0.505
0.263
0.161
2­
Isopropylnaphthalene
76
1
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
2­
Methylnaphthalene
76
9
0.011
3.14
0.511
0.236
2­
Propanone
76
41
0.050
11.9
0.943
0.215
3,6­
Dimethylphenanthrene
76
1
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
4­
Methyl­
2­
Pentanone
76
10
0.052
63.7
6.73
0.358
Acetophenone
76
1
0.566
0.566
0.566
0.566
Alpha­
terpineol
72
12
0.012
14.1
2.69
178
Aniline
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Benzoic
Acid
76
11
0.071
13.2
1.48
0.189
Benzyl
Alcohol
76
2
0.094
0.208
0.151
0.151
Biphenyl
76
2
0.014
0.038
0.026
0.026
Carbon
Disulfide
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibenzofuran
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibenzothiophene
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Diphenyl
Ether
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Diphenylamine
76
2
0.024
0.026
0.025
0.025
Hexanoic
Acid
76
24
0.019
1,490
66.6
1.17
Isobutyl
Alcohol
76
3
0.012
1.31
0.446
0.018
m+
p
Xylene
52
2
0.013
0.352
0.183
0.183
m­
Xylene
24
2
0.153
2.13
1.14
1.14
Methyl
Methacrylate
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n,
n­
Dimethylformamide
76
4
0.028
0.665
0.322
0.297
n­
Decane
75
9
0.017
1.33
0.462
0.132
n­
Docosane
76
23
0.013
141
7.97
0.164
n­
Dodecane
76
24
0.011
36.8
3.60
0.419
n­
Eicosane
76
29
0.012
14.1
1.40
0.190
n­
Hexacosane
76
19
0.011
109
7.82
0.093
n­
Hexadecane
76
28
0.015
95.3
6.64
0.444
n­
Nitrosopiperidine
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
5­
5
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
2
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

n­
Octacosane
76
7
0.035
61.1
11.9
0.542
n­
Octadecane
76
28
0.013
264
13.1
0.198
n­
Tetracosane
76
16
0.011
116
9.92
0.283
n­
Tetradecane
76
30
0.011
48.5
6.31
0.753
n­
Triacontane
76
12
0.012
31.9
3.89
0.666
o+
p
Xylene
24
2
0.063
1.48
0.774
0.774
o­
Cresol
76
1
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
o­
Xylene
52
6
0.010
0.201
0.044
0.013
p­
Cresol
76
7
0.010
4.31
1.02
0.041
p­
Cymene
76
2
0.021
0.051
0.036
0.036
Pyridine
76
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Styrene
75
1
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.18
Trichlorofluoromethane
76
1
0.106
0.106
0.106
0.106
Tripropyleneglycol
Methyl
Ether
76
6
1.93
5,254
1,222
245
Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Aluminum
154
132
0.039
29,600
242
2.31
Barium
150
137
0.001
31.4
1.62
0.106
Boron
150
127
0.022
4,150
136
1.11
Calcium
150
145
0.274
11,600
200
39.0
Cobalt
150
59
0.005
35.3
0.723
0.034
Gold
3
1
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
Iron
154
147
0.016
2,790
49.1
4.83
Magnesium
150
139
0.088
213
26.1
11.6
Manganese
154
142
0.002
20,600
146
0.190
Molybdenum
150
100
0.003
112
2.74
0.122
Sodium
150
147
1.61
152,000
4,908
297
Tin
154
64
0.004
1,830
30.5
0.080
Titanium
150
105
0.002
59.7
0.886
0.040
Vanadium
150
64
0.002
1.07
0.095
0.023
Yttrium
150
44
0.001
2.11
0.070
0.011
5­
6
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
2
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Other
Nonconventional
Pollutants
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
47
41
0.160
2,340
82.2
1.76
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
109
103
6.90
330,000
25,354
4,800
Chloride
62
59
2
14,400
482
137
Cyanide
9
7
0.004
0.232
0.078
0.059
Fluoride
69
66
0.130
190
6.00
1.10
Hexavalent
Chromium
61
16
0.016
1.70
0.185
0.065
Sulfate
86
72
1.50
46,000
1,793
121
Total
Dissolved
Solids
146
146
33.5
411,420
25,197
4,200
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
45
42
0.200
2,830
167
34.9
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
72
68
4.26
85,300
8,280
666
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(
as
SGT­
HEM)
69
47
6.55
6,230
489
46.0
Total
Phosphorus
39
37
0.051
7,170
276
11.0
Total
Recoverable
Phenolics
109
92
0.006
33.8
1.53
0.160
Total
Sulfide
16
5
1.00
11.0
4.40
2.00
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Program.
a
Due
to
budgetary
constraints,
EPA
did
not
analyze
all
samples
for
all
pollutants.
NA
­
Not
applicable.

5­
7
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
3
Rinse
Water
Pollutant
Concentration
Data
for
Oily
Operations
Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Organic
Priority
Pollutants
1,1­
Dichloroethane
62
1
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
1,1­
Dichloroethene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
62
1
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
2­
Nitrophenol
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
48
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
59
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
62
1
0.616
0.616
0.616
0.616
4­
Chloro­
3­
Methylphenol
60
2
0.023
0.050
0.037
0.037
4­
Nitrophenol
60
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acenaphthene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acrolein
53
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Anthracene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
62
8
0.011
1.15
0.417
0.327
Butyl
Benzyl
Phthalate
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chlorobenzene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloroethane
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloroform
62
17
0.010
0.081
0.021
0.016
Di­
n­
octyl
Phthalate
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Di­
n­
butyl
Phthalate
62
1
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
Dimethyl
Phthalate
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ethylbenzene
62
1
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
Fluoranthene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fluorene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Isophorone
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene
Chloride
62
1
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
n­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n­
Nitrosodimethylamine
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Naphthalene
62
2
0.643
2.01
1.33
1.33
5­
8
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
3
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Organic
Priority
Pollutants
(
continued)

Phenanthrene
62
1
0.527
0.527
0.527
0.527
Phenol
62
4
0.010
8.28
2.14
0.132
Pyrene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tetrachloroethene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Toluene
62
2
0.011
0.045
0.028
0.028
Trichloroethene
62
9
0.011
0.022
0.017
0.018
Metal
Priority
Pollutants
Antimony
99
20
0.003
0.256
0.051
0.037
Arsenic
100
30
0.001
0.303
0.044
0.009
Beryllium
100
5
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.002
Cadmium
104
30
0.002
11.9
0.432
0.012
Chromium
104
60
0.001
104
1.97
0.082
Copper
104
88
0.008
14.7
0.942
0.247
Lead
104
24
0.002
6.89
0.759
0.050
Mercury
100
14
0.0001
0.002
0.001
0.0003
Nickel
104
50
0.001
10.3
0.434
0.099
Selenium
99
9
0.001
0.232
0.056
0.022
Silver
104
29
0.001
0.118
0.022
0.011
Thallium
99
12
0.001
0.036
0.008
0.002
Zinc
104
85
0.009
46.7
1.89
0.110
Conventional
Pollutants
BOD
5­
day
(
Carbonaceous)
51
42
3.04
12,900
730
47.0
Oil
and
Grease
(
as
HEM)
75
47
1.12
9,195
348
25.5
Total
Suspended
Solids
102
77
5.00
2,560
201
65.0
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
1­
Bromo­
2­
Chlorobenzene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1­
Bromo­
3­
Chlorobenzene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1­
Methylfluorene
62
1
0.129
0.129
0.129
0.129
1­
Methylphenanthrene
62
1
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1,4­
Dioxane
62
1
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.02
2­
Butanone
62
5
0.072
0.153
0.096
0.078
5­
9
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
3
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

2­
Hexanone
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2­
Isopropylnaphthalene
62
1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
2­
Methylnaphthalene
62
1
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
2­
Propanone
62
8
0.065
3.10
0.655
0.390
3,6­
Dimethylphenanthrene
62
1
0.811
0.811
0.811
0.811
4­
Methyl­
2­
Pentanone
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acetophenone
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Alpha­
Terpineol
52
2
65.3
67.3
66.3
66.3
Aniline
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Benzoic
Acid
62
7
0.122
6.61
2.03
1.45
Benzyl
Alcohol
62
2
2.73
24.8
13.8
13.8
Biphenyl
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Carbon
Disulfide
62
2
0.062
0.354
0.208
0.208
Dibenzofuran
62
1
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Dibenzothiophene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Diphenyl
Ether
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Diphenylamine
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hexanoic
Acid
62
20
0.013
28.4
1.84
0.189
Isobutyl
Alcohol
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
m­
xylene
13
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
m+
p
Xylene
49
1
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
Methyl
Methacrylate
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n­
Eicosane
62
13
0.011
2.41
0.490
0.172
n­
Decane
62
1
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
n­
Docosane
62
8
0.018
6.47
0.964
0.039
n­
Dodecane
62
6
1.77
53.3
15.3
7.24
n­
Hexacosane
62
6
0.011
1.46
0.512
0.268
n­
Hexadecane
62
9
0.011
52.7
12.2
1.27
n­
Octacosane
62
3
0.396
1.37
0.818
0.684
n­
Octadecane
62
10
0.018
4.03
0.952
0.159
n­
Tetracosane
62
9
0.012
17.0
2.08
0.112
5­
10
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
3
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

n
 
Tetradecane
62
8
0.011
160
40.0
1.07
n­
Titrosopiperidine
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n­
Triacontane
62
2
0.039
0.322
0.180
0.180
n,
n­
Dimethylformamide
62
1
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
o­
Cresol
62
1
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
o­
Xylene
49
1
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
o+
p
Xylene
13
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
p­
Cresol
62
3
0.014
0.063
0.030
0.014
p­
Cymene
62
1
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
Pyridine
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Styrene
62
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trichlorofluoromethane
62
1
0.036
0.036
0.036
0.036
Tripropyleneglycol
Methyl
Ether
62
3
0.413
4.18
2.43
2.71
Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Aluminum
104
66
0.060
321
12.9
0.389
Barium
100
86
0.001
1.61
0.134
0.032
Boron
100
66
0.012
838
36.6
0.223
Calcium
100
91
0.050
175
36.1
20.8
Cobalt
100
19
0.005
0.627
0.115
0.024
Gold
7
3
0.056
0.086
0.074
0.081
Iron
104
77
0.011
453
14.2
0.418
Magnesium
100
87
0.066
37.3
9.12
6.36
Manganese
104
79
0.001
135
4.07
0.043
Molybdenum
100
41
0.008
187
4.71
0.045
Sodium
100
99
1.63
19,100
524
113
Tin
104
31
0.006
16.3
1.22
0.042
Titanium
100
43
0.001
1.85
0.206
0.014
Vanadium
100
23
0.001
0.182
0.026
0.014
Yttrium
100
15
0.001
0.051
0.010
0.004
5­
11
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
3
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Other
Nonconventional
Pollutants
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
30
14
0.020
10.1
2.01
0.125
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
65
58
5.20
32,700
1,690
175
Chloride
21
21
3.00
64,500
3,128
30.0
Cyanide
2
2
0.010
1.45
0.730
0.730
Fluoride
22
20
0.300
135
7.50
0.705
Hexavalent
Chromium
54
15
0.011
0.590
0.067
0.022
Sulfate
48
39
2.33
780
96.0
34.8
Total
Dissolved
Solids
100
99
26.0
120,000
2,955
756
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
23
12
0.310
149
16.2
3.25
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
64
60
1.72
10,100
490
83.5
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(
as
SGT­
HEM)
62
29
5.00
7,367
317
27.0
Total
Phosphorus
10
9
0.060
720
85.5
7.30
Total
Recoverable
Phenolics
63
43
0.005
0.800
0.110
0.050
Total
Sulfide
11
1
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Program.
a
Due
to
budgetary
constraints,
EPA
did
not
analyze
all
samples
for
all
pollutants.
NA
­
Not
applicable.

5­
12
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
As
shown
in
Tables
5­
2
and
Table
5­
3,
oil­
bearing
process
water
and
rinses
also
contain
numerous
organic
pollutants.
These
pollutants
are
either
components
of
the
oil/
water
emulsions
or
pollutants
in
the
aqueous
cleaning
solutions.
The
maximum
organic
pollutant
concentration
found
in
process
water
samples
was
5,245
mg/
L
for
tripropyleneglycol
methyl
ether
from
a
testing
unit
operation.
The
maximum
organic
pollutant
concentration
in
the
rinse
water
samples
was
160
mg/
L
for
n­
tetradecane
in
the
rinse
water
for
a
testing
unit
operation.
EPA
also
measured
the
concentration
of
chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD)
in
oil­
bearing
wastewater.
The
maximum
COD
concentration
found
in
process
water
and
rinse
water
samples
was
330,000
mg/
L
and
32,700
mg/
L,
respectively.
Data
in
Tables
5­
2
and
5­
3
show
that
the
process
water
samples
also
contained
conventional,
nonconventional,
and
metal
pollutants.

In
general,
the
organic
pollutants
that
EPA
detected
most
frequently
were
those
associated
with
petroleum
products
used
in
the
MP&
M
industry
(
e.
g.,
long,
straight­
chain
organic
pollutants
associated
with
oil­
based
machining
and
grinding
coolants
and
lubricants).
EPA
also
detected
additional
organic
cleaners
and
solvents
(
e.
g.,
phenol,
2­
propanone,
bis(
2ethylhexyl
phthalate,
and
hexanoic
acid).
EPA
also
detected
numerous
metals
in
the
oil­
bearing
waste
streams.
However,
when
compared
to
the
metals
concentrations
detected
in
metal­
bearing
waste
streams
(
see
Appendix
C),
the
oil­
bearing
waste
streams
contained
lower
median
metals
concentrations.
While
some
specific
oil­
bearing
wastewater
streams
may
contain
elevated
concentrations
of
specific
metals
(
e.
g.,
machining
of
a
copper
part
will
generate
copper­
bearing
wastewater),
these
streams
are
typically
lower­
flow
streams
as
compared
to
other
oil­
bearing
streams,
resulting
in
lower
treatment
influent
metals
concentrations.
These
wastewaters
may
also
contain
incidental
levels
of
metals
most
often
in
the
suspended
or
particulate
phase.

Influent
to
Oily
Wastewater
Treatment
Systems
Wastewater
containing
oil
and
organic
pollutants
generated
in
the
oily
operations
listed
in
Table
5­
1
generally
require
treatment
to
separate
oil
from
the
wastewater.
Benzene,
toluene,
ethylbenzene,
and
xylenes
(
BTEX)
and
other
light
hydrocarbons,
for
example,
are
moderately
soluble
in
process
waters
and
rinse
waters.
If
the
oils
are
free
or
floating,
a
technology
such
as
oil
skimming
or
ultrafiltration
can
separate
the
oil
and
water.
If
the
oil
is
emulsified,
techniques
such
as
chemical
emulsion
breaking
may
be
required
before
physical
separation
(
see
Section
8.4.5).
Oil/
water
separation
technologies
remove
organic
pollutants
that
are
more
soluble
in
oil
than
in
water
from
the
wastewater.
Table
5­
4
summarizes
the
MP&
M
pollutant
concentration
data
for
the
influent
to
oil/
water
separation,
ultrafiltration,
and
dissolved
air
flotation
treatment
systems.
The
influent­
to­
treatment
concentrations
are
typically
lower
than
the
concentrations
of
process
and
rinse
water
due
to
the
number
of
high­
flow,
low­
concentration
rinses
that
are
commingled
prior
to
treatment.

5­
13
5.2
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
4
MP&
M
Pollutant
Concentration
Data
for
the
Influent
to
Oily
Wastewater
Treatment
Systems
Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Organic
Priority
Pollutants
1,1­
Dichloroethane
93
1
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
93
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
93
4
0.006
0.022
0.013
0.012
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
92
2
0.017
0.270
0.144
0.144
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
79
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
93
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2­
Nitrophenol
93
1
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
4­
Chloro­
m­
Cresol
93
20
0.247
3,834
637
73.9
4­
Nitrophenol
85
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acenaphthene
93
5
0.006
1.82
0.396
0.025
Acrolein
88
1
0.168
0.168
0.168
0.168
Anthracene
93
1
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Benzyl
Butyl
Phthalate
92
7
0.024
2.73
0.440
0.065
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
92
73
0.007
216
5.82
0.173
Chlorobenzene
93
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloroethane
93
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloroform
93
6
0.010
0.038
0.019
0.016
Di­
n­
butyl
Phthalate
92
9
0.011
0.193
0.079
0.059
Di­
n­
octyl
Phthalate
93
10
0.013
19.7
2.37
0.332
Dimethyl
Phthalate
89
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ethylbenzene
94
19
0.010
14.0
0.798
0.040
Fluoranthene
92
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fluorene
93
7
0.010
9.93
1.47
0.034
Isophorone
89
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene
Chloride
93
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n­
Nitrosodimethylamine
89
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
93
5
0.660
2.59
1.59
1.69
5­
14
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Organic
Priority
Pollutants
(
continued)

Naphthalene
93
15
0.010
8.91
1.04
0.075
Phenanthrene
93
18
0.012
5.30
0.459
0.030
Phenol
92
41
0.020
27.1
1.09
0.136
Pyrene
92
2
0.031
1.01
0.521
0.521
Tetrachloroethene
93
1
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
Toluene
94
23
0.006
14.0
0.795
0.040
Trichloroethylene
93
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Metal
Priority
Pollutants
Antimony
97
38
0.002
0.234
0.030
0.022
Arsenic
97
46
0.002
0.534
0.048
0.006
Beryllium
97
20
0.0002
0.187
0.036
0.002
Cadmium
101
67
0.002
12.1
0.744
0.023
Chromium
101
85
0.003
15.9
0.630
0.063
Copper
101
101
0.027
232
19.7
0.407
Lead
101
74
0.006
210
16.2
0.247
Mercury
97
23
0.0001
0.003
0.001
0.0007
Nickel
101
77
0.012
18.4
0.870
0.172
Selenium
97
14
0.001
0.124
0.027
0.008
Silver
101
18
0.004
2.80
0.273
0.022
Thallium
97
6
0.001
0.068
0.012
0.001
Zinc
101
98
0.123
664
22.7
1.66
Conventional
Pollutants
BOD
5­
Day
(
Carbonaceous)
82
74
4.00
34,800
3,137
641
Oil
and
Grease
(
as
HEM)
97
95
8.33
261,500
10,686
848
Total
Suspended
Solids
101
99
6.00
100,000
3,251
275
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
1­
Bromo­
2­
Chlorobenzene
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1­
Bromo­
3­
Chlorobenzene
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1­
Methylfluorene
88
12
0.010
1.72
0.188
0.019
1­
Methylphenanthrene
88
11
0.012
1.23
0.201
0.025
5­
15
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

1,4­
Dioxane
88
2
0.069
0.465
0.267
0.267
2­
Butanone
88
13
0.073
6.18
1.22
0.308
2­
Hexanone
88
2
0.505
0.512
0.509
0.509
2­
Isopropylnaphthalene
88
2
0.421
3.49
1.96
1.96
2­
Methylnaphthalene
89
21
0.011
440
21.9
0.099
2­
Propanone
88
74
0.060
28.8
3.84
0.670
3,6­
Dimethylphenanthrene
88
5
0.013
1.28
0.583
0.371
4­
Methyl­
2­
Pentanone
88
13
0.072
6.72
0.660
0.113
Acetophenone
88
3
0.014
0.092
0.051
0.047
Alpha­
terpineol
88
33
0.011
189
19.4
1.43
Aniline
88
1
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
Benzoic
Acid
88
4
0.098
0.522
0.315
0.320
Benzyl
Alcohol
88
7
0.011
10.8
1.63
0.141
Biphenyl
88
10
0.014
1.54
0.226
0.060
Carbon
Disulfide
88
5
0.045
0.466
0.312
0.369
Dibenzofuran
88
2
0.014
0.018
0.016
0.016
Dibenzothiophene
87
3
0.015
1.29
0.452
0.048
Diphenyl
Ether
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Diphenylamine
88
4
0.738
1.99
1.54
1.71
Hexanoic
Acid
88
34
0.011
31.9
4.27
0.561
Isobutyl
Alcohol
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
m+
p
Xylene
40
10
0.038
0.241
0.125
0.139
m­
Xylene
48
6
0.018
0.312
0.071
0.024
Methyl
Methacrylate
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n,
n­
Dimethylformamide
88
2
0.014
0.023
0.019
0.019
n­
Decane
88
36
0.011
27.7
2.65
0.130
n­
Docosane
88
44
0.012
79.7
2.78
0.125
n­
Dodecane
88
52
0.017
207
21.0
0.594
n­
Eicosane
87
59
0.010
109
5.95
0.217
n­
Hexacosane
88
34
0.011
217
8.54
0.134
n­
Hexadecane
88
64
0.012
145
7.80
0.294
5­
16
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

n­
Nitrosopiperidine
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
n­
Octacosane
88
10
0.031
70.7
12.9
0.266
n­
Octadecane
88
67
0.011
162
5.66
0.214
n­
Tetracosane
87
32
0.011
56.8
3.29
0.248
n­
Tetradecane
88
64
0.011
243
15.0
0.203
n­
Triacontane
87
11
0.016
25.6
5.15
1.21
o+
p
Xylene
48
6
0.011
0.030
0.021
0.021
o­
Cresol
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
o­
Xylene
40
12
0.012
0.130
0.059
0.046
p­
Cresol
88
7
0.018
1.09
0.413
0.287
p­
Cymene
88
12
0.015
14.6
1.29
0.052
Pyridine
88
15
0.014
3.42
1.02
0.063
Styrene
88
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trichlorofluoromethane
93
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tripropyleneglycol
Methyl
Ether
88
14
0.447
1,680
328
4.96
Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Aluminum
97
82
0.076
134
13.0
2.48
Barium
97
96
0.006
32.0
1.89
0.217
Boron
97
95
0.057
686
34.0
5.50
Calcium
97
96
0.154
2,200
156
41.0
Cobalt
97
41
0.008
1.22
0.203
0.102
Gold
2
1
2.81
2.81
2.81
2.81
Iron
97
95
0.604
940
47.7
10.6
Magnesium
97
94
0.180
255
36.1
12.9
Manganese
101
99
0.031
29.0
1.68
0.349
Molybdenum
101
80
0.003
40.3
1.25
0.088
Sodium
97
96
1.19
2,030
397
181
Tin
101
58
0.003
85.2
3.05
0.053
Titanium
97
72
0.003
1.80
0.228
0.081
Vanadium
97
48
0.004
0.482
0.054
0.019
Yttrium
97
23
0.001
1.00
0.094
0.011
5­
17
5.0
­
Wastewater
Characteristics
Table
5­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
No.
of
Samples
Analyzeda
No.
of
Detects
Concentration
(
mg/
L)

Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Other
Nonconventional
Pollutants
Amenable
Cyanide
4
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
15
15
0.021
160
32.7
0.500
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
96
96
30.0
213,000
23,722
5,660
Chloride
11
11
22.0
450
83.1
27.0
Cyanide
4
2
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
Fluoride
16
16
0.500
17.0
2.54
1.00
Hexavalent
Chromium
78
12
0.011
1.74
0.212
0.020
Sulfate
39
38
16.0
176,000
13,957
405
Total
Dissolved
Solids
93
93
70.0
88,800
9,341
2,450
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
15
15
0.840
1,500
222
3.10
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
81
79
7.66
106,000
6,181
1,340
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(
as
SGT­
HEM)
81
75
5.07
25,431
1,941
507
Total
Phosphorus
24
24
0.160
240
38.9
25.6
Total
Recoverable
Phenolics
95
91
0.005
1,360
58.6
0.240
Total
Sulfide
27
24
2.00
18.0
7.13
5.50
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Program.
a
Due
to
budgetary
constraints,
EPA
did
not
analyze
all
samples
for
all
pollutants.
NA
­
Not
applicable.

5­
18
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
6.0
INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORIZATION
This
section
discusses
the
subcategorization
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
(
MP&
M
Point
Source
Category).
Section
6.1
discusses
the
methodology
and
factors
considered
when
determining
the
subcategories
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
Section
6.2
describes
the
types
of
facilities
included
in
each
subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.

As
discussed
below,
EPA
proposed
effluent
limitations
and
standards
for
eight
subcategories.
However,
for
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0
and
Section
VI
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
the
final
rule
only
establishes
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
new
and
existing
direct
dischargers
in
one
subcategory:
Oily
Wastes
(
40
CFR
438,
Subpart
A).

6.1
Methodology
and
Factors
Considered
for
Basis
of
Subcategorization
In
order
to
address
variations
between
products,
raw
materials
processed,
and
other
factors
that
result
in
distinctly
different
effluent
characteristics,
EPA
proposed
eight
groupings
called
 
subcategories 
for
the
January
2001
proposal
and
June
2002
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA).
EPA
retained
this
subcategory
structure
for
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule.
Regulation
of
a
category
using
subcategories
allows
each
subcategory
to
have
a
uniform
set
of
effluent
limitations
that
take
into
account
technological
achievability
and
economic
impacts
unique
to
that
subcategory.
The
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
requires
EPA,
in
developing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
pretreatment
standards,
to
consider
a
number
of
different
subcategorization
factors.
The
statute
also
authorizes
EPA
to
take
into
account
other
factors
the
Agency
deems
appropriate.
eight
subcategories
for
the
final
rule:

 
Unit
operation;

 
Activity;

 
Raw
materials;

 
Products;

 
Size
of
site;
EPA
considered
the
following
factors
in
evaluating
the
 
Geographic
location;

 
Facility
age;

 
Nature
of
the
waste
generated;

 
Economic
impacts;

 
Treatment
costs;

 
Total
energy
requirements;

 
Air
pollution
control
methods;
and
 
Solid
waste
generation
and
disposal.

As
a
result
of
this
evaluation,
EPA
retained
the
eight
subcategories
for
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule
as
shown
in
Table
6­
1.

6­
1
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Table
6­
1
Final
Subcategories
Evaluated
in
the
Final
Rule
Facilities
that
Generate
Metal­
Bearing
Wastewater
(
With
or
Without
Oil­
Bearing
Wastewater)
Facilities
that
Generate
Only
Oil­
Bearing
Wastewater
General
Metalsa
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shopsa
Non­
Chromium
Anodizinga
Printed
Wiring
Boarda
Steel
Forming
and
Finishinga
Oily
Wastes
Railroad
Line
Maintenancea
Shipbuilding
Dry
Docka
aFor
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0
and
Section
VI
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
EPA
did
not
establish
effluent
guidelines
for
these
subcategories.

6.1.1
Factors
Contributing
to
the
Subcategorization
Structure
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
As
discussed
in
Section
5.0
and
Appendix
C,
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations1
generate
two
basic
types
of
waste
streams:
(
1)
wastewater
with
relatively
high
metals
content
(
metal­
bearing,
including
hexavalent
chromium­
bearing
and
cyanide­
bearing),
and
(
2)
wastewater
with
relatively
low
metals
content
and/
or
relatively
high
oil
and
grease
content
(
oil­
bearing).
The
type
of
wastewater
a
facility
generates
is
directly
related
to
the
unit
operations
it
performs.
For
example,
unit
operations
such
as
machining,
grinding,
aqueous
degreasing,
and
impact
or
pressure
deformation
tend
to
generate
a
wastewater
with
relatively
high
oil
and
grease
(
and
associated
organic
pollutants)
loadings
but
relatively
low
concentrations
of
metal
pollutants.
Other
unit
operations
such
as
electroplating,
conversion
coating,
chemical
etching
and
milling,
and
anodizing
generate
higher
metals
loadings
with
moderate
or
low
oil
and
grease
concentrations
or
generate
wastewater
containing
both
metals
and
oil
and
grease.
EPA
defined
 
oily
operations 
in
the
final
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.2(
f)
and
Appendix
B
to
Part
438)
and
these
final
MP&
M
operations
are
listed
in
Table
6­
2.
EPA
defined
 
metal­
bearing
operations 
in
the
final
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.2(
d)
and
Appendix
C
to
Part
438)
and
these
proposed
MP&
M
operations
are
listed
in
Table
6­
3.

1EPA
evaluated
a
number
of
unit
operations
for
the
May
1995
proposal,
January
2001
proposal,
and
June
2002
NODA
(
see
Tables
6­
2
and
6­
3).
However,
EPA
selected
a
subset
of
these
unit
operations
for
regulation
in
the
final
rule
(
see
Section
1.0).
For
this
section,
the
term
 
proposed
MP&
M
operations 
means
those
operations
evaluated
for
the
two
proposals,
NODA,
and
final
rule.
The
term
 
final
MP&
M
operations 
means
those
operations
defined
as
 
oily
operations 
(
see
Section
1.0,
40
CFR
438.2(
f),
and
Appendix
B
to
Part
438)
and
regulated
by
the
final
rule.

6­
2
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Table
6­
2
Oily
Operations
as
Defined
by
the
Final
Rule
 
Abrasive
Blasting
 
Iron
Phosphate
Conversion
Coating
 
Adhesive
Bonding
 
Machining
 
Alkaline
Cleaning
for
Oil
Removal
 
Painting­
spray
or
Brush
(
Including
Water
Curtains)

 
Alkaline
Treatment
Without
Cyanide
 
Polishing
 
Aqueous
Degreasing
 
Pressure
Deformation
 
Assembly/
Disassembly
 
Solvent
Degreasing
 
Burnishing
 
Steam
Cleaning
 
Calibration
 
Testing
(
e.
g.,
Hydrostatic,
Dye
Penetrant,
Ultrasonic,
Magnetic
 
Corrosion
Preventive
Coating
Flux)

 
Electrical
Discharge
Machining
 
Thermal
Cutting
 
Floor
Cleaning
(
In
Process
Area)
 
Tumbling/
Barrel
Finishing/
Mass
Finishing/
Vibratory
Finishing
 
Grinding
 
Washing
(
Finished
Products)

 
Heat
Treating
 
Welding
 
Impact
Deformation
 
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
for
Organic
Constituents
Note:
This
list
is
replicated
at
40
CFR
438.2(
f)
with
definitions
at
Appendix
B
to
Part
438.

6­
3
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Table
6­
3
Metal­
Bearing
Operations
as
Defined
by
the
Final
Rule
 
Abrasive
Jet
Machining
 
Mechanical
and
Vapor
Plating
 
Acid
Pickling
Neutralization
 
Metallic
Fiber
Cloth
Manufacturing
 
Acid
Treatment
With
Chromium
 
Metal
Spraying
(
including
Water
Curtain)

 
Acid
Treatment
Without
Chromium
 
Painting­
immersion
(
including
Electrophoretic,

 
Alcohol
Cleaning
"
E­
coat")

 
Alkaline
Cleaning
Neutralization
 
Photo
Imaging
 
Alkaline
Treatment
With
Cyanide
 
Photo
Image
Developing
 
Anodizing
With
Chromium
 
Photoresist
Application
 
Anodizing
Without
Chromium
 
Photoresist
Strip
 
Carbon
Black
Deposition
 
Phosphor
Deposition
 
Catalyst
Acid
Pre­
dip
 
Physical
Vapor
Deposition
 
Chemical
Conversion
Coating
Without
Chromium
 
Plasma
Arc
Machining
 
Chemical
Milling
(
or
Chemical
Machining)
 
Plastic
Wire
Extrusion
 
Chromate
Conversion
Coating
(
or
Chromating)
 
Salt
Bath
Descaling
 
Chromium
Drag­
out
Destruction
 
Shot
Tower
­
Lead
Shot
Manufacturing
 
Cyanide
Drag­
out
Destruction
 
Soldering
 
Cyaniding
Rinse
 
Solder
Flux
Cleaning
 
Electrochemical
Machining
 
Solder
Fusing
 
Electroless
Catalyst
Solution
 
Solder
Masking
 
Electroless
Plating
 
Sputtering
 
Electrolytic
Cleaning
 
Stripping
(
Paint)

 
Electroplating
With
Chromium
 
Stripping
(
Metallic
Coating)

 
Electroplating
With
Cyanide
 
Thermal
Infusion
 
Electroplating
Without
Chromium
or
Cyanide
 
Ultrasonic
Machining
 
Electropolishing
 
Vacuum
Impregnation
 
Galvanizing/
Hot
Dip
Coating
 
Vacuum
Plating
 
Hot
Dip
Coating
 
Water
Shedder
 
Kerfing
 
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
 
Laminating
 
Wire
Galvanizing
Flux
Note:
This
list
is
replicated
at
40
CFR
438.2(
d)
with
definitions
at
Appendix
C
to
Part
438.

6­
4
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Although
many
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
generate
both
metal­
and
oil­
bearing
wastewater,
a
large
number
of
facilities,
typically
machine
shops
and
maintenance
and
repair
facilities,
only
generate
process
wastewater
from
oily
operations
(
see
Table
6­
2).
Because
the
wastewater
at
these
facilities
primarily
contains
oil
and
grease
and
other
organic
constituents,
these
facilities
use
treatment
technologies
that
focus
on
oil
removal
only
and
do
not
include
the
chemical
precipitation
step
needed
to
treat
metal­
bearing
wastewater.
These
treatment
technologies
generally
include
oil
skimming,
chemical
emulsion
breaking
followed
by
either
gravity
flotation,
coalescing
plate
oil/
water
separators,
dissolved
air
flotation
(
DAF),
or
ultrafiltration.
Therefore,
EPA
first
divided
facilities
on
the
basis
of
unit
operations
performed
and
the
nature
of
the
wastewater
generated,
resulting
in
the
following
two
wastewater
groups:
(
1)
metal­
bearing
(
with
or
without
oily
and
organic
constituents)
group;
and
(
2)
oil­
bearing
only
group.
EPA
then
identified
any
significant
differences
in
the
subcategorization
factors
within
the
two
basic
groups.

Metal­
Bearing
Wastewater
(
With
or
Without
Oil­
Bearing
Wastewater)

When
evaluating
facilities
generating
metal­
bearing
wastewater
(
with
or
without
oil­
bearing
wastewater)
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
identified
five
groups
of
facilities
that
could
potentially
be
subcategorized
by
dominant
product,
raw
materials
used,
and/
or
nature
of
the
waste
generated:
steel
forming
and
finishing
facilities,
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities,
metal
finishing
job
shops,
printed
wiring
board
facilities,
and
general
metals
facilities.
In
two
of
these
groups
(
non­
chromium
anodizing
and
metal
finishing
job
shops),
EPA
also
considered
economic
impacts
as
a
subcategorization
factor
because
of
the
reduced
ability
of
these
facilities
to
afford
treatment
costs.
EPA
describes
its
rationale
for
subcategorizing
each
of
these
groups
below
(
see
Section
6.2
for
additional
detailed
discussion
and
applicability).
In
general,
EPA
identified
four
distinct
groups
within
the
metal­
bearing
group
that
warranted
splitting
out
from
the
rest
of
this
group.

Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Facilities
EPA
proposed
moving
certain
finishing
operations
subject
to
the
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
effluent
guidelines
(
40
CFR
420)
into
the
scope
of
the
MP&
M
regulations
because
EPA s
analyses,
at
that
time,
showed
these
operations
to
be
more
similar
to
MP&
M
operations
than
to
iron
and
steel
operations
(
see
W­
00­
25,
Section
14.1,
DCN
IS10883).
In
the
MP&
M
proposed
rule,
these
operations
(
at
stand­
alone
facilities
and
at
steel
manufacturing
facilities)
would
have
been
subject
to
the
limits
and
standards
in
the
proposed
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategory.
This
subcategory
would
have
applied
to
wastewater
discharges
from
finishing
or
cold
forming
operations
on
steel
wire,
rod,
bar,
pipe,
or
tube.
In
order
to
better
assess
potential
economic
impacts
associated
with
the
final
rule,
EPA
concluded
that
facilities
performing
these
operations
should
be
evaluated
as
a
separate
subcategory
when
EPA
selected
options
for
the
final
rule.

Commentors
on
the
proposed
rule
stated
that
these
operations
and
resulting
wastewaters
are
comparable
to
those
at
facilities
subject
to
the
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
6­
5
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
effluent
guidelines
and
that
these
discharges
should
remain
subject
to
Part
420
rather
than
the
final
MP&
M
rule.
In
addition,
commentors
stated
that
Part
420
adequately
protects
the
environment
from
discharges
associated
with
these
activities.

For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0,
EPA
is
not
revising
limitations
or
standards
for
any
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
Part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
Iron
and
Steel
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
Part
420)
as
applicable.

Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Facilities
The
non­
chromium
anodizers
differ
from
other
metal­
bearing
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
in
that
all
of
their
products
are
primarily
of
one
metal
type,
anodized
aluminum,
and,
most
importantly,
they
do
not
use
chromic
acid,
dichromate
sealants,
or
other
process
solutions
containing
significant
concentrations
of
chromium
in
their
anodizing
process.
Table
6­
4
shows
the
percentage
of
facilities
using
multiple
metal
types
by
subcategory.
EPA s
data
show
that
these
facilities
have
very
low
levels
of
metals
(
with
the
exception
of
aluminum)
and
toxic
organic
pollutants
in
their
wastewater
discharges,
while
other
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
have
much
greater
concentrations
of
a
wider
variety
of
metals.

Table
6­
4
Percentage
of
Facilities
Performing
Proposed
MP&
M
Operations
Using
Multiple
Metal
Types
by
Subcategory
Subcategory
Percentage
of
Facilities
by
Number
of
Metal
Types
Processed
1
2
3
4
5­
10
>
10
General
Metals
31
32
13
8
15
1
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
6
18
17
13
38
7
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
100
0
0
0
0
0
Oily
Wastes
46
17
32
3
2
0
Printed
Wiring
Board
4
1
20
17
56
2
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
76
8
16
0
0
0
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
57
0
29
14
0
0
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
56
25
14
3
3
0
Source:
MP&
M
Survey
Database.

In
addition,
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities
require
more
extensive
wastewater
treatment
systems
than
other
metal­
bearing
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
to
remove
both
very
high
concentrations
of
aluminum
(
and
resulting
large
volumes
of
wastewater
treatment
sludge)
and
relatively
low
levels
of
alloy
metals
generated
in
their
wastewater.
As
a
6­
6
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
result,
these
facilities
have
relatively
higher
treatment
costs
compared
to
other
metal­
bearing
facilities.
EPA
also
found
that,
due
to
their
current
economic
state,
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities
are
less
able
to
afford
pollutant
control
technologies
as
compared
to
other
types
of
facilities
(
see
the
Economic,
Environmental,
and
Benefits
Analysis
for
the
Final
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Rule
(
EEBA)
(
EPA­
821­
B­
03­
002)).
Therefore,
based
on
the
differences
in
raw
materials
used,
nature
of
the
waste
generated,
treatment
costs,
and
economic
conditions,
EPA
concluded
that
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities
should
be
evaluated
as
a
separate
subcategory
when
EPA
selected
options
for
the
final
rule.

For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0,
EPA
is
not
revising
limitations
or
standards
for
any
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
Part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
Parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
EPA
investigated
whether
to
subcategorize
the
metal
finishing
and
electroplating
job
shops
covered
currently
by
the
Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433)
and
Electroplating
(
40
CFR
413)
effluent
guidelines
(
with
the
exception
of
printed
circuit
board
manufacturers,
which
were
analyzed
as
a
separate
subcategory
as
discussed
below).
Although
these
facilities
have
metal
types
that
require
the
same
treatment
technologies
as
many
other
metal­
bearing
facilities,
EPA
determined
that
they
can
be
different
due
to
the
variability
of
their
raw
materials
and
products
as
well
as
their
current
economic
state
compared
to
other
metal­
bearing
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations.
Metal
finishing
and
electroplating
job
shops
perform
electroplating,
electroless
plating,
anodizing,
coating,
and
chemical
etching
and
milling,
and
are
 
job
shops 
as
defined
in
the
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines
(
i.
e.,
as
owning
less
than
50
percent
of
the
products
processed
on
site).

Because
metal
finishing
job
shops
work
on
a
contract
basis,
they
cannot
always
predict
the
type
of
plating
or
other
finishing
operations
required.
In
addition,
because
these
facilities
work
on
a
large
variety
of
metal
types
from
various
customers,
their
wastewater
characteristics
can
vary
from
week
to
week
(
or
even
day
to
day).
Table
6­
5
demonstrates
the
variety
of
metal
types
processed
at
metal
finishing
job
shops
as
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
industry.
EPA
performed
sampling
to
specifically
identify
the
variability
in
the
wastewater
generated
at
metal
finishing
job
shops,
and
found
that
the
variability
factors
calculated
solely
on
the
analytical
wastewater
sampling
data
from
metal
finishing
and
electroplating
job
shops
are
higher
for
most
pollutant
parameters
than
those
calculated
for
other
metal­
bearing
subcategories
(
see
Section
10.1
for
a
discussion
of
EPA s
variability
factor
calculations).
In
addition,
EPA
found
that,
due
to
the
current
economic
state,
metal
finishing
job
shops
are
less
able
to
afford
pollutant
control
technologies
compared
to
other
metal­
bearing
subcategories
(
see
the
EEBA).
For
these
reasons,
EPA
concluded
that
metal
finishing
and
electroplating
job
shops
should
be
evaluated
as
a
separate
subcategory
when
EPA
selected
options
for
the
final
rule.

6­
7
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Table
6­
5
Percentage
of
Facilities
Performing
Proposed
MP&
M
Operations
by
Subcategory
Using
Each
Metal
Type
Metal
Percentage
of
Facilities
by
Subcategory
General
Metals
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Oily
Wastes
Printed
Wiring
Board
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Aluminum
69
154
88
67
17
32
14
3
Beryllium
<
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cadmium
2
12
0
0
0
0
0
3
Chromium
9
21
0
<
1
4
0
0
10
Cobalt
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
Copper
29
50
0
20
99
8
43
10
Gold
4
13
0
<
1
73
0
0
0
Indium
<
1
0
0
<
1
0
0
0
0
Iron
82
94
12
96
5
100
100
100
Lead
6
4
0
1
72
0
0
1
Magnesium
3
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
Manganese
<
1
0
0
<
1
1
0
0
0
Molybdenum
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Nickel
17
54
0
5
79
0
43
5
Palladium
1
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
Platinum
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rhodium
1
7
0
0
3
0
0
0
Selenium
<
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Silver
3
17
0
<
1
10
0
0
0
Tantalum
1
0
0
<
1
0
0
0
0
Tin
15
29
0
2
89
0
0
5
Titanium
3
3
0
2
0
0
0
3
Tungsten
1
0
0
<
1
0
0
0
0
Vanadium
0
0
0
<
1
0
0
0
0
Zinc
18
59
0
3
4
0
0
29
Zirconium
<
1
0
0
<
1
0
0
0
0
Source:
MP&
M
Survey
Database.

6­
8
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0,
EPA
is
not
revising
any
limitations
or
standards
for
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
Part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
Parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

Printed
Wiring
Board
Facilities
EPA
subcategorized
printed
wiring
board
facilities
based
on
raw
materials,
unit
operations
performed,
primary
product,
and
nature
of
the
waste
generated.
First,
as
shown
in
Table
6­
5,
printed
wiring
board
facilities
process
a
more
consistent
set
of
metal
types
(
copper,
tin,
lead,
nickel,
and
gold)
than
other
metal­
bearing
facilities.
EPA
concluded
that
this
consistent
mix
of
metal
types
enables
printed
wiring
board
facilities
to
tailor
their
treatment
technology.
Printed
wiring
board
facilities
generally
work
with
copper­
clad
laminate
material,
allowing
them
to
target
copper
for
removal
in
their
wastewater
treatment
systems
or
recover
the
copper
using
in­
process
ion
exchange.

Second,
printed
wiring
board
facilities
apply,
develop,
and
strip
photoresist
­
a
set
of
unit
operations
that
is
unique
to
this
subcategory.
This
process
produces
a
higher
concentration
of
a
more
consistent
group
of
organic
constituents
than
other
facilities
in
the
metal­
bearing
group.
Printed
wiring
board
facilities
also
require
chelation
breaking
more
often
than
other
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations.
Finally,
the
nature
of
the
wastewater
generated
at
these
facilities
may
also
be
different
because
these
facilities
perform
more
lead­
bearing
operations
(
e.
g.,
lead/
tin
electroplating,
wave
soldering)
than
other
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
concluded
that
printed
wiring
board
facilities
should
be
evaluated
as
a
separate
subcategory
when
EPA
selected
options
for
the
final
rule.

At
proposal,
EPA
included
printed
wiring
board
job
shops
in
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory
based
on
the
similar
economic
considerations
for
job
shops.
However,
information
submitted
by
commentors
in
response
to
the
proposed
rule
indicates
that
printed
wiring
board
job
shops
are
much
more
similar
to
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
facilities
than
to
metal
finishing
job
shops
when
considering
their
wastewater
characteristics
and
operations.
Therefore,
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
included
printed
wiring
board
job
shops
in
the
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.

For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0,
EPA
is
not
revising
any
limitations
or
standards
for
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
Part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
Parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

General
Metals
Facilities
After
developing
separate
subcategories
for
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities,
metal
finishing
job
shops,
printed
wiring
board
facilities,
and
steel
forming
and
finishing
6­
9
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
facilities,
EPA
grouped
the
remaining
metal­
bearing
wastewater
generating
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
into
a
subcategory
entitled
 
General
Metals 
for
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule.
This
subcategory
would
be
a
 
catch­
all 
for
metal­
bearing
wastewater­
generating
facilities
that
do
not
fall
into
any
of
the
previous
subcategories.
For
example,
wastewater
generated
from
most
manufacturing
operations
and
heavy
rebuilding
operations
(
e.
g.,
aircraft,
aerospace,
auto,
bus/
truck,
railroad)
would
be
grouped
under
the
General
Metals
Subcategory.

Based
on
comments
received
on
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
reviewed
the
unit
operations
of
printed
wiring
assembly
facilities
and
determined
that
they
are
most
similar
to
the
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
Subcategory
(
discussed
below).
Printed
wiring
assembly
facilities
do
not
manufacture
printed
circuit
boards,
but
instead
attach
circuit
boards
to
other
structures.
Therefore,
they
do
not
perform
the
operations
typical
of
a
printed
wiring
board
facility
(
e.
g.,
applying
photoresist,
etching
the
board,
or
stripping).
At
proposal,
EPA
included
most
printed
wiring
assembly
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
Subcategory;
however,
some
were
included
in
the
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory.
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
included
all
printed
wiring
assembly
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
Subcategory.

As
discussed
in
the
NODA
(
67
FR
38767),
EPA
considered
establishing
a
segment
of
the
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategory
for
discharges
resulting
from
continuous
electroplating
of
flat
steel
products
(
e.
g.,
strip,
sheet,
and
plate).
EPA
reexamined
its
database
for
facilities
that
perform
continuous
steel
electroplating,
and
found
that,
contrary
to
its
initial
finding,
continuous
electroplaters
do
not
perform
operations
similar
to
other
facilities
in
this
subcategory
(
i.
e.,
steel
forming
and
finishing
facilities
performing
cold
forming
on
steel
wire,
rod,
bar,
pipe,
and
tube)
(
see
Section
24.6.1
of
the
rulemaking
record,
DCN
17919).
Thus,
EPA
included
continuous
electroplaters
performing
electroplating
and
coating
operations
in
the
General
Metals
Subcategory
for
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule.

As
also
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
also
considered
an
additional
subcategory
for
facilities
that
primarily
perform
zinc
electroplating
( 
zinc
platers ).
EPA
uses
the
term
  
zinc
platers  
to
describe
facilities
where
over
95
percent
of
their
wastewater
is
generated
from
zinc
electroplating
lines.
Most
of
these
facilities
follow
electroplating
with
chromium
conversion
coating.
Depending
on
whether
or
not
these
facilities
operate
as
a
captive
or
a
job
shop,
EPA
had
proposed
to
include
them
as
part
of
the
General
Metals
or
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategories,
respectively.
The
wastewater
characteristics
of
zinc
platers
differ
from
other
facilities
in
these
two
subcategories,
particularly
with
respect
to
their
concentrations
of
zinc.
Where
nonzinc
platers
may
have
concentrations
of
10
to
90
mg/
l
zinc
in
their
wastewater
prior
to
treatment,
zinc
platers
have
concentrations
of
100
to
800
mg/
l
zinc
in
their
wastewater
prior
to
treatment.
However,
zinc
platers
have
very
low
concentrations
of
other
pollutants
as
compared
to
nonzinc
platers.

The
NODA
explained
that
EPA
was
also
considering:
(
1)
creating
a
separate
subcategory
for
zinc
platers;
(
2)
segmenting
zinc
platers
within
the
General
Metals
and
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategories;
or
(
3)
retaining
the
proposed
subcategory
structure
and
6­
10
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
establishing
numerical
limitations
and
standards
for
zinc
that
would
be
achievable
by
zinc
platers.
NODA
commentors
supported
retaining
the
proposed
subcategories
as
long
as
zinc
platers
could
achieve
the
zinc
numerical
limitations
and
standards.
Commentors
raised
concerns
that
creating
a
separate
subcategory
or
segment
to
address
the
limitations
for
one
pollutant
would
be
confusing
and
difficult
to
implement.
EPA
did
not
create
a
separate
subcategory
or
segment
for
zinc
platers
in
evaluating
the
data
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
included
zinc
platers
in
the
General
Metals
or
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategories,
as
applicable,
for
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule.

For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0,
EPA
is
not
revising
or
establishing
any
limitations
or
standards
for
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
Part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
Parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

In
summary,
EPA
divided
facilities
that
generate
metal­
bearing
wastewater,
with
or
without
oil­
bearing
wastewater,
into
the
following
five
subcategories:
(
1)
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities;
(
2)
metal
finishing
job
shops;
(
3)
printed
wiring
board
facilities;
(
4)
steel
forming
and
finishing;
and
(
5)
general
metals
facilities.

Oil­
Bearing
Wastewater
Only
Group
When
evaluating
facilities
generating
oil­
bearing
wastewater
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
identified
three
groups
of
facilities
that
could
potentially
be
subcategorized
by
size,
location,
and
dominant
product
or
activity:
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities,
shipbuilding
dry
docks
or
similar
structures,
and
oily
wastes
facilities
(
see
Section
6.2
for
detailed
descriptions
of
these
subcategories).

Railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
perform
routine
cleaning
and
light
maintenance
on
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines,
and
discharge
wastewater
exclusively
from
oily
operations
(
see
Section
1.0).
EPA
subcategorized
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
due
to
their
outdoor
location,
unit
operations
performed,
and
low
level
of
pollutant
loadings
they
discharge
to
the
environment.
EPA
also
determined
that
the
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
discharge
a
much
more
limited
range
of
organic
pollutants
than
general
oily­
wastewater­
bearing
facilities.
These
facilities
perform
only
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations:
assembly/
disassembly,
floor
cleaning,
maintenance
machining
(
wheel
truing),
touch­
up
painting,
and
washing.
In
addition,
because
some
of
these
operations
are
typically
performed
outdoors,
stormwater
collection
and
treatment
is
of
concern
for
this
subcategory.
Therefore,
EPA
included
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
in
the
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
notes
that
this
subcategory
does
not
include
railroad
manufacturing
facilities
or
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities.

The
second
type
of
facility
is
dry
docks
(
and
similar
structures
such
as
graving
docks,
building
ways,
lift
barges,
and
marine
railways).
These
are
large,
outdoor
areas,
exposed
to
precipitation,
where
shipyards
perform
final
assembly,
maintenance,
rebuilding,
and
repair
6­
11
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
work
on
large
ships
and
boats.
In
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
grouped
shipbuilding
dry
docks
and
similar
structures
in
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
due
to
their
size,
outdoor
location,
low
level
of
pollutant
loadings
they
discharge
to
the
environment,
and
the
fact
this
wastewater
is
unique
to
the
shipbuilding
industry.
This
subcategory
does
not
include
other
proposed
MP&
M
operations
that
occur
at
shipyards
(
e.
g.,
shore­
side
operations
such
as
electroplating).

The
facilities
that
generate
only
oil­
bearing
wastewater
but
are
not
dry
docks
or
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
fall
into
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
(
40
CFR
438,
Subpart
A).
These
facilities
meet
the
applicability
criteria
in
Section
438.1
and
discharge
only
oil­
bearing
wastewater
and
perform
one
or
more
oily
operations
listed
in
Table
6­
2.

EPA
received
comments
at
proposal
concerning
the
definition
of
  
oily
operations  
used
in
the
applicability
statement
of
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
(
see
Section
6.2.5).
Commentors
provided
data
on
several
proposed
MP&
M
operations
that
were
not
considered
  
oily
operations  
in
the
proposed
rule.
These
operations
include:

 
Abrasive
blasting;

 
Adhesive
bonding;

 
Alkaline
treatment
without
cyanide;

 
Assembly/
disassembly;

 
Burnishing;

 
Calibration;

 
Electrical
discharge
machining;

 
Iron
phosphate
conversion
coating;

 
Painting­
spray
or
brush
(
including
water
curtains);

 
Polishing;

 
Thermal
cutting;

 
Tumbling/
barrel
finishing/
mass
finishing/
vibratory
finishing;

 
Washing
(
finished
products);

 
Welding;
and
 
Wet
air
pollution
control
for
organic
constituents.

The
data
show
low
levels
of
metals
in
these
unit
operations.
Based
on
the
data
received
and
a
review
of
other
unit
operations
containing
only
low
metals
content,
EPA
revised
the
definition
of
  
oily
operations  
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
(
see
40
CFR
438.2(
f))
to
incorporate
these
additional
unit
operations
considered
in
the
NODA,
with
the
exception
of
bilge
water.
Bilge
water
from
ships
that
are
afloat
is
not
considered
an
in­
scope
wastewater
for
any
subcategories
of
the
MP&
M
rule
and
was
inadvertently
included
in
the
oily
operations
definition
in
the
NODA.
Bilge
water
from
ships
in
a
dry
dock
or
similar
structure
is
considered
for
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
only.

6­
12
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
In
addition,
EPA
is
no
longer
including
wastewater
from
laundering
as
part
of
the
oily
operations
definition
because
EPA
does
not
consider
it
to
be
a
process
wastewater
under
this
rule
(
67
FR
38766).

For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0,
EPA
is
only
promulgating
limitations
and
standards
for
existing
and
new
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory.
EPA
is
not
promulgating
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
or
new
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory.

In
summary,
EPA
divided
facilities
that
generate
only
oil­
bearing
wastewater
into
the
following
three
subcategories:
(
1)
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities;
(
2)
shipbuilding
dry
docks
(
and
similar
structures);
and
(
3)
oily
wastes
facilities.

For
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0,
EPA
is
not
establishing
limitations
or
standards
for
any
facilities
in
two
subcategories
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
that
only
discharge
oil­
bearing
wastewater:
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
and
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory.
Permit
writers
and
control
authorities
will
establish
controls
using
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
to
regulate
wastewater
discharges
from
these
facilities.

6.1.2
Factors
That
are
Not
a
Basis
For
MP&
M
Subcategorization
During
its
consideration
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
examined
the
other
factors
listed
earlier
in
this
section
for
possible
basis
of
subcategorization.
The
Agency
determined
that
there
was
no
basis
for
subcategorizing
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
based
on
the
following
factors:
geographic
location,
age
of
facilities,
total
energy
requirements,
air
pollution
control
methods,
and
solid
waste
generation
and
disposal.
These
factors
are
discussed
below.
In
addition,
EPA
also
considered
subcategorizing
the
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
according
to
the
18
industrial
sectors
proposed
in
the
January
2001
proposal
(
66
FR
424).
As
described
in
Section
1.0,
EPA
did
not
regulate
the
following
industrial
sectors
(
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Board
Manufacturing,
and
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing)
as
part
of
the
final
rule.
As
discussed
in
Section
6.1.1,
and
further
discussed
below,
EPA
determined
for
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule
that
subcategorization
based
on
sectors
was
appropriate
for
only
one
sector
(
printed
wiring
boards),
and
for
portions
of
three
other
sectors
(
railroad,
ships
and
boats,
and
job
shops).

For
the
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategory,
EPA
did
not
have
sector
information
from
the
Iron
and
Steel
Surveys;
therefore,
EPA
evaluated
the
steel
forming
and
finishing
sites
as
their
own
subcategory
for
the
proposed
and
final
rule.
EPA
concluded
that
the
basis
for
subcategorization
is
the
difference
in
the
raw
material
and
primary
product
at
these
facilities.
Facilities
in
this
proposed
subcategory
primarily
process
steel
and,
for
the
most
part,
produce
uniformly
shaped
products
such
as
wire,
rod,
bar,
pipe,
and
tube.
In
addition,
this
is
the
only
subcategory
for
which
EPA
proposed
to
cover
forming
operations
under
the
MP&
M
regulations.

6­
13
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Geographic
Location
Facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
are
located
throughout
the
United
States.
Sites
are
not
limited
to
any
one
geographical
location,
but
approximately
half
are
located
east
of
the
Mississippi
River,
with
additional
concentrations
of
facilities
in
Texas,
Colorado,
and
California.
EPA
did
not
subcategorize
based
on
geographic
location
because
location
does
not
affect
the
ability
of
facilities
to
comply
with
the
MP&
M
final
rule.
EPA s
data
show
that
well­
performing
facilities
are
located
throughout
the
United
States.

Geographic
location
may
impact
costs
if
additional
land
is
required
to
install
treatment
systems,
because
the
cost
of
the
land
will
vary
depending
on
whether
the
site
is
located
in
an
urban
or
rural
location.
However,
the
treatment
systems
used
to
treat
wastewater
typically
do
not
have
large
land
requirements,
as
demonstrated
by
the
fact
that
many
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
are
located
in
urban
settings.
The
Agency,
however,
recognizes
that
spatial
constraints
may
present
a
problem
for
certain
facilities
and
believes
this
issue
should
be
evaluated
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

Water
availability
is
another
function
of
geographical
location.
Limited
water
supply
encourages
efficient
use
of
water.
The
Agency
encourages
installing
water
recycle
and
reuse
practices.
Some
technology
options
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
include
pollution
prevention
and
water
conservation
because
these
practices
tend
to
reduce
treatment
costs
and
improve
pollutant
removals.

Facility
Age
Figure
6­
1
presents
the
percentage
of
water­
discharging
facilities
by
the
decade
in
which
they
were
built.
This
information
is
based
upon
responses
to
MP&
M
surveys
that
reported
the
date
the
facility
was
built.

Most
facilities
have
been
built
since
1970.
Although
the
survey
respondents
reported
a
wide
range
of
ages,
these
facilities
must
be
continually
modernized
to
remain
competitive.
Most
of
the
facilities
EPA
visited
during
the
MP&
M
site
visit
program
had
recently
modernized
some
area
of
their
site.
Modernizing
production
processes
and
air
pollution
control
equipment
results
in
generation
of
similar
process
waste
types
regardless
of
the
site s
age.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
select
facility
age
as
a
basis
for
subcategorization.
EPA s
data
show
that
well­
performing
facilities
include
both
older
and
newer
facilities.

Total
Energy
Requirements
EPA
did
not
select
total
energy
requirements
as
a
basis
for
subcategorization
because
the
estimated
increase
in
energy
consumption
for
the
final
rule
is
trivial
(<
0.001
percent)
as
compared
to
national
energy
usage
(
see
Section
13.0).
EPA
estimated
the
energy
requirements
associated
with
each
MP&
M
technology
option
and
considered
these
in
estimating
compliance
costs
(
see
Section
11.0).

6­
14
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Before
1920
2%

1920s
1%

1930s
4%
1940s
2%
1950s
4%
1960s
7%

1980s
1990s
15%

1970s
17%

48%

Source:
MP&
M
Survey
Database.
Note:
Although
there
are
44,000
wastewater­
discharging
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations,
only
42,282
are
represented
in
the
above
pie
chart.
Several
1989
and
1996
Long
Survey
and
several
Municipality
Survey
recipients
did
not
provide
this
information.

Figure
6­
1.
Percentage
of
Wastewater­
Discharging
Facilities
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
by
Decade
Built
Air
Pollution
Control
Methods
Many
facilities
control
air
emissions
using
wet
air
pollution
control
units
that
affect
the
wastewater
flow
rate
from
the
site.
However,
based
on
data
collected
during
the
MP&
M
sampling
program,
wastewater
generated
by
these
devices
does
not
affect
the
effectiveness
of
technologies
used
to
control
wastewater
pollutant
loadings
from
proposed
6­
15
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
MP&
M
operations
(
see
Sections
5.2
and
15.3
of
the
rulemaking
record).
EPA
considers
some
wet
air
pollution
control
units
as
proposed
MP&
M
operations,
but
not
as
a
basis
of
subcategorizing
the
category.

Industrial
Sectors
EPA
considered
subcategorizing
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
by
industrial
sector
(
e.
g.,
aerospace,
aircraft,
bus
and
truck,
electronic
equipment,
hardware,
household
equipment,
instruments,
job
shops,
mobile
industrial
equipment,
motor
vehicles,
office
machines,
ordnance,
precious
metals
and
jewelry,
printed
wiring
boards,
railroad,
ships
and
boats,
stationary
industrial
equipment,
steel
forming
and
finishing,
and
miscellaneous
metal
products).
The
Agency
determined
that
subcategorization
based
solely
on
industrial
sector
would
be
complex
and
confusing
because
many
facilities
are
in
multiple
sectors.
Adopting
such
a
subcategorization
scheme
would
complicate
the
implementation
of
the
limitations
and
standards
because
permit
writers
might
be
required
to
develop
facility­
specific
limitations
across
multiple
subcategories.

The
Agency
determined
that
wastewater
characteristics,
unit
operations,
and
raw
materials
used
to
produce
products
within
a
given
sector
are
not
always
the
same
from
site
to
site,
and
they
are
not
always
different
from
sector
to
sector.
Within
each
sector,
facilities
can
perform
a
variety
of
unit
operations
on
a
variety
of
raw
materials.
For
example,
a
site
in
the
aerospace
sector
may
primarily
machine
aluminum
missile
components
and
not
perform
any
surface
treatment
other
than
alkaline
cleaning.
Another
site
in
that
sector
may
electroplate
iron
parts
for
missiles
and
perform
little
or
no
machining.
Wastewater
characteristics
from
these
facilities
may
differ
because
of
the
different
unit
operations
performed
and
different
raw
materials
used.
As
another
example,
an
automobile
manufacturer
and
an
automobile
repair
facility
are
both
part
of
the
motor
vehicle
sector.
However,
the
automobile
manufacturer
may
perform
unit
operations
that
generate
metal­
bearing
and
oil­
bearing
wastewater
(
aqueous
degreasing,
electroplating,
chemical
conversion
coating,
etc.)
while
the
automobile
repair
facility
may
perform
unit
operations
that
generate
only
oil­
bearing
wastewater
(
machining,
aqueous
degreasing,
impact
deformation,
painting,
etc.).

Based
on
the
analytical
data
collected
for
this
rule,
EPA
has
not
found
a
statistically
significant
difference
in
industrial
wastewater
discharge
among
industrial
sectors
when
performing
similar
unit
operations
for
cadmium,
chromium,
copper,
cyanide,
lead,
manganese,
molybdenum,
nickel,
oil
and
grease,
silver,
tin,
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
and
zinc.
(
The
analytical
data
are
available
in
Sections
5
and
15
of
the
rulemaking
record.)
In
other
words,
after
dividing
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
according
to
the
unit
operations
performed
(
metal­
bearing
or
oil­
bearing
operations),
EPA
concluded
that
raw
wastewater
has
similar
treatability
across
all
of
the
industrial
sectors.
For
example,
a
facility
that
performs
chromium
electroplating
in
the
process
of
manufacturing
office
machines
produces
metal­
bearing
wastewater
with
similar
chemical
characteristics
as
a
facility
that
performs
chromium
electroplating
in
the
process
of
manufacturing
a
part
for
a
bus.
Similarly,
a
facility
that
performs
machining
to
repair
and
maintain
an
airplane
engine
produces
oil­
bearing
6­
16
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
wastewater
that
has
similar
chemical
characteristics
to
a
facility
that
performs
machining
to
repair
and
maintain
construction
machinery.

Most
proposed
MP&
M
operations
are
not
unique
to
a
particular
sector
and
are
performed
across
all
sectors.
For
example,
all
sectors
perform
several
of
the
major
wastewater­
generating
unit
operations
(
e.
g.,
alkaline
treatment,
acid
treatment,
machining,
electroplating).
And,
for
the
most
part,
the
unit
operations
that
are
rarely
performed
(
e.
g.,
abrasive
jet
machining)
are
not
performed
in
all
sectors,
but
are
also
not
limited
to
a
single
sector.
Therefore,
a
facility
in
any
one
of
the
proposed
industrial
sectors
can
generate
metal­
bearing
or
oil­
bearing
wastewater
(
or
a
combination
of
both)
depending
on
what
unit
operations
the
facility
performs.

Due
to
the
reasons
stated
above,
EPA
determined
that
a
regulation
based
on
industrial
sector
would
create
a
variety
of
implementation
issues
for
state
and
local
regulators
as
well
as
for
those
multiple­
sector
facilities.
As
a
result,
EPA
did
not
use
industrial
sector
as
a
basis
for
subcategorizing
the
industry.

Solid
Waste
Generation
and
Disposal
Physical
and
chemical
characteristics
of
solid
waste
generated
by
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
are
determined
by
the
raw
materials,
unit
operations,
and
types
of
air
pollution
control
in
use.
Therefore,
this
factor
does
not
provide
a
primary
basis
for
subcategorization.
The
subcategorization
scheme
that
EPA
is
promulgating
should
account
for
any
variations
in
solid
waste
generation
and
disposal.
EPA
considered
the
amount
of
sludge
generated
as
a
result
of
the
MP&
M
technology
options,
and
included
disposal
of
these
sludges
in
the
compliance
cost
estimates
(
see
Section
11.0)
and
non­
water
quality
impact
assessments
(
see
Section
13.0).

General
Description
of
Facilities
in
Each
Subcategory
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
Below
is
a
general
description
of
the
types
of
facilities
that
fall
within
each
of
the
subcategories
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
Sections
11.0
and
12.0
present
information
on
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
reductions,
respectively,
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
for
each
proposed
subcategory.
However,
for
reasons
discussed
in
Section
9.0
and
Section
VI
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
the
final
rule
establishes
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
new
and
existing
direct
dischargers
in
one
subcategory:
Oily
Wastes
(
40
CFR
438,
Subpart
A).

6.2.1
General
Metals
Subcategory
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
As
discussed
in
Section
6.1,
the
General
Metals
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
is
a
 
catch­
all 
for
facilities
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations
that
discharge
metal­
bearing
wastewater
(
with
or
without
oil­
bearing
wastewater)
that
do
not
fit
the
applicability
of
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops,
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing,
and
Printed
Wiring
6­
17
6.2
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Board
Subcategories
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
This
proposed
subcategory
also
includes
general
metals
facilities
that
are
owned
and
operated
by
the
federal
government,
states
and
municipalities.
General
metals
facilities
typically
perform
manufacturing
or
heavy
rebuilding
of
metal
products,
parts,
or
machines.
Facilities
that
perform
metal
finishing
or
electroplating
operations
on
site,
but
do
not
meet
the
definition
of
a
job
shop
(
i.
e.,
captive
shops),
would
fit
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory.
EPA
also
includes
continuous
electroplaters
of
flat
steel
products
(
e.
g.,
strip,
sheet,
and
plate)
in
the
General
Metals
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.

Wastewater
discharges
from
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
may
be
covered
by
the
MP&
M
effluent
guidelines
(
Subpart
A),
the
Metal
Finishing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
433),
or
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
as
applicable.
This
provision
is
codified
at
40
CFR
438.1(
d).
Facilities
engaged
in
the
manufacture,
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
of
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines
( 
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities )
typically
perform
different
unit
operations
than
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities.
Railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
perform
routine
cleaning
and
light
maintenance
on
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines,
and
discharge
wastewater
exclusively
from
oily
operations.
These
facilities
only
perform
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations:
assembly/
disassembly,
floor
cleaning,
maintenance
machining
(
wheel
truing),
touch­
up
painting,
and
washing.

Railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
are
engaged
in
the
manufacture,
overhaul,
or
heavy
maintenance
of
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines.
These
facilities
typically
perform
one
or
more
of
the
same
operations
as
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
and
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations:
abrasive
blasting,
alkaline
cleaning,
aqueous
degreasing,
corrosion
preventive
coating,
electrical
discharge
machining,
grinding,
heat
treating,
impact
deformation,
painting,
plasma
arc
machining,
polishing,
pressure
deformation,
soldering/
brazing,
stripping
(
paint),
testing,
thermal
cutting,
and
welding.
Depending
on
the
operations
performed,
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
may
be
included
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
or
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory.

EPA
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
10,914
indirect
dischargers
and
250
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
currently
regulates
99
percent
of
the
facilities
in
this
proposed
subcategory
by
existing
effluent
guidelines.
Some
general
metals
facilities
are
currently
covered
by
multiple
regulations.
The
Agency
estimates
that,
based
on
responses
to
its
questionnaires,
the
Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433)
and
Electroplating
(
40
CFR
413)
effluent
guidelines
cover
approximately
89
percent
and
16
percent,
respectively,
of
general
metals
facilities.
Approximately
50
percent
of
the
general
metals
facilities
are
covered
by
other
metal­
related
effluent
guidelines
(
see
Section
1.2.7).
Facilities
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
are
specifically
not
regulated
by
the
final
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.1(
b)).

6­
18
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
6.2.2
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
Facilities
in
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
met
the
following
criteria:
(
1)
perform
one
or
more
of
the
following
five
operations:
electroplating,
electroless
plating,
anodizing,
chemical
conversion
coating
(
chromating,
phosphating,
passivation,
and
coloring),
and
chemical
etching
and
milling,
and
(
2)
own
not
more
than
50
percent
(
on
an
annual
area
basis)
of
the
materials
undergoing
metal
finishing.
(
Note
that
printed
wiring
board
job
shops
are
in
the
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
based
on
the
operations
performed
and
wastewater
characteristics.)

The
Agency
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
1,530
indirect
dischargers
and
12
direct
dischargers
in
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
currently
regulates
all
facilities
in
this
proposed
subcategory
under
the
existing
Metal
Finishing
or
Electroplating
effluent
guidelines
and
standards.

EPA
has
identified
approximately
32,139
facilities
that
meet
the
definition
of
job
shop
but
do
not
perform
one
or
more
of
the
five
metal
finishing
operations
listed
above.
EPA
does
not
consider
such
job
shops
to
be
part
of
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory.
These
other
job
shops
typically
perform
assembly,
painting,
and
machining
on
a
contract
basis
and
are
included
in
the
General
Metals,
Oily
Wastes,
or
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategories
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
Facilities
in
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
proposed
subcategory
are
specifically
not
regulated
by
the
final
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.1(
b)).

6.2.3
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
Facilities
in
the
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
performed
aluminum
anodizing
without
using
chromic
acid
or
dichromate
sealants.
Anodizing
is
a
surface
conversion
operation
used
to
alter
the
properties
of
aluminum
for
better
corrosion
resistance
and
heat
transfer.
Generally,
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities
perform
sulfuric
acid
anodizing;
however,
facilities
can
use
other
acids
(
except
chromic
acid),
such
as
oxalic
acid,
for
aluminum
anodizing.
In
evaluating
options
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
included
anodizers
that
use
chromic
acid
or
dichromate
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
or,
if
they
operate
as
a
job
shop,
in
the
proposed
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory.

Some
facilities
that
could
potentially
fall
into
the
proposed
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory
also
may
perform
other
metal
surface
finishing
operations.
If
these
facilities
commingle
wastewater
from
their
non­
chromium
anodizing
operations
with
wastewater
from
other
surface
finishing
operations
(
e.
g.,
chromic
acid
anodizing,
electroplating,
chemical
conversion
coating)
for
treatment,
or
perform
chromium­
bearing
operations
on
site,
they
would
not
be
included
in
the
proposed
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory.
Instead,
the
proposed
General
Metals
or
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategories
would
apply.

EPA
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
122
indirect
dischargers
in
the
proposed
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory.
EPA
did
not
identify
any
direct
discharging
6­
19
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
non­
chromium
anodizers
in
its
survey
efforts.
The
wastewater
generated
at
non­
chromium
anodizing
facilities
contains
relatively
low
levels
of
metals,
with
the
exception
of
aluminum,
and
low
levels
of
toxic
organic
pollutants.
Facilities
in
the
proposed
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory
are
specifically
not
regulated
by
the
final
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.1(
b)).

6.2.4
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
The
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
includes
wastewater
discharges
from
the
manufacture
and
repair
of
printed
wiring
boards
(
i.
e.,
circuit
boards),
including
job
shops.
However,
printed
wiring
assembly
facilities
are
included
in
the
General
Metals
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
currently
regulates
all
facilities
in
this
proposed
subcategory
by
the
existing
Metal
Finishing
or
Electroplating
effluent
limitation
guidelines
and
standards.
EPA
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
840
indirect
dischargers
and
8
direct
dischargers
in
the
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
Facilities
in
the
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
are
specifically
not
regulated
by
the
final
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.1(
b)).

6.2.5
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategory
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
Facilities
in
the
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
performed
MP&
M
finishing
operations
and/
or
cold
forming
operations
on
steel
wire,
rod,
bar,
pipe,
or
tube.
This
subcategory
does
not
include
facilities
that
perform
those
operations
on
other
base
materials.
Generally,
steel
forming
and
finishing
facilities
perform
acid
pickling,
annealing,
conversion
coating
(
e.
g.,
zinc
phosphate,
copper
sulfate),
hot
dip
coating
and/
or
electroplating
of
steel
wire
or
rod,
heat
treatment,
welding,
drawing,
patenting,
and
oil
tempering.

EPA
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
110
indirect
and
43
direct
dischargers
in
the
proposed
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategory.
EPA
currently
regulates
all
facilities
in
this
proposed
subcategory
under
the
Iron
and
Steel
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
420).
Facilities
in
the
proposed
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategory
are
specifically
not
regulated
by
the
final
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.1(
b)).

6.2.6
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
The
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
established
in
the
final
rule
is
a
 
catch­
all 
for
facilities
in
one
or
more
of
the
16
industrial
sectors
(
see
Section
1.0)
performing
proposed
 
oily
operations 
(
see
Table
6­
2)
and
are
not
specifically
excluded
by
the
applicability
to
the
final
rule
(
see
Section
1.0
and
40
CFR
438.1).
EPA
defined
the
applicability
of
this
subcategory
by
the
presence
of
specific
unit
operations
(
see
Table
6­
2).
Facilities
in
the
proposed
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
or
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategories
(
see
below)
are
not
subject
to
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
in
the
final
rule
(
see
Section
1.0
and
40
CFR
438.1(
d)
and
438.1(
e)(
5)).
Facilities
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
are
predominantly
machine
shops
or
maintenance
and
repair
shops.
This
subcategory
also
includes
federal,
municipal,
and
state­
owned
facilities
performing
only
the
listed
operations.

6­
20
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
In
the
final
rule,
EPA
also
clarified
the
applicability
of
certain
unit
operations.
EPA
defined
 
corrosion
preventive
coating 
in
the
final
rule
(
40
CFR
438.2(
c))
as
 
the
application
of
removable
oily
or
organic
solutions
to
protect
metal
surfaces
against
corrosive
environments.
Corrosion
preventive
coatings
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
petrolatum
compounds,
oils,
hard
dry­
film
compounds,
solvent­
cutback
petroleum­
based
compounds,
emulsions,
water­
displacing
polar
compounds,
and
fingerprint
removers
and
neutralizers.
Corrosion
preventive
coating
does
not
include
electroplating,
or
chemical
conversion
coating
operations. 
EPA s
analytical
database
shows
that
wastewater
generated
from
phosphate
conversion
coating
operations
may
contain
high
levels
of
zinc,
nickel,
and
manganese
(
see
Section
16.5.1
of
the
rulemaking
record,
DCN
16715).

However,
based
on
comments
on
the
January
2001
proposal
and
June
2002
NODA,
EPA
added
iron
phosphate
conversion
coating
to
the
final
list
of
oily
operations
(
see
40
CFR
438.2(
f)
and
Appendix
B
to
Part
438).
EPA
defined
iron
phosphate
conversion
coating
as
 
the
process
of
applying
a
protective
coating
on
the
surface
of
a
metal
using
a
bath
consisting
of
a
phosphoric
acid
solution
containing
no
metals
(
e.
g.,
manganese,
nickel,
or
zinc)
or
a
phosphate
salt
solution
(
i.
e.,
sodium
or
potassium
salts
of
phosphoric
acid
solutions)
containing
no
metals
(
e.
g.,
manganese,
nickel,
or
zinc)
other
than
sodium
or
potassium.
Any
metal
concentrations
in
the
bath
are
from
the
substrate. 
EPA
notes
that
iron
phosphate
conversion
coating
should
be
distinguished
from
zinc,
manganese,
or
nickel
phosphate
conversion
coating
based
on
the
constituents
of
the
bath.
Manganese,
nickel,
or
zinc
phosphate
conversion
coating
baths
contain
metals
in
addition
to
what
may
be
added
from
the
substrate.

If
a
facility
discharges
wastewater
from
any
of
the
operations
listed
in
Table
6­
2,
but
also
discharges
wastewater
from
any
of
the
operations
listed
in
Table
6­
3,
it
does
not
meet
the
criteria
of
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
but
instead
would
have
been
included
under
either
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
or
another
metal­
bearing
wastewater
proposed
subcategory.
EPA
determined
that
both
of
the
following
wastewaters
require
some
form
of
wastewater
treatment
(
e.
g.,
chemical
precipitation)
to
properly
remove
metals:
(
1)
wastewaters
from
metal­
bearing
operations;
and
(
2)
wastewaters
commingled
from
metal­
bearing
operations
and
oily
operations.
Thus,
the
final
regulations
do
not
apply
to
the
discharge
of
wastewater
from
oily
operations
commingled
with
wastewater
from
metal­
bearing
operations.
Additionally,
the
regulations
in
the
final
rule
do
not
apply
to
process
wastewater
discharges
subject
to
the
limitations
and
standards
of
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
e.
g.,
Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433)
or
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
420)).
These
provisions
are
codified
in
the
final
rule
at
40
CFR
438.1(
b):

 
The
regulations
in
this
part
do
not
apply
to
process
wastewaters
from
metal­
bearing
operations
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
d)
and
Appendix
C
of
this
part)
or
process
wastewaters
which
are
subject
to
the
limitations
and
standards
of
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
e.
g.,
Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433)
or
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
420)).
The
regulations
in
this
part
also
do
not
apply
to
process
wastewaters
from
oily
operations
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
f)
and
Appendix
B
of
this
part)
commingled
with
process
wastewaters
already
covered
6­
21
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines
or
with
process
wastewaters
from
metal­
bearing
operations.
This
provision
must
be
examined
for
each
point
source
discharge
at
a
given
facility. 

Wastewater
discharges
from
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
may
be
covered
by
the
MP&
M
effluent
guidelines
(
Subpart
A),
the
Metal
Finishing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
433),
or
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
as
applicable.
This
provision
is
codified
at
40
CFR
438.1(
d).
Facilities
engaged
in
the
manufacture,
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
of
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines
( 
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities )
typically
perform
different
unit
operations
than
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities.
Railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
perform
routine
cleaning
and
light
maintenance
on
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines,
and
discharge
wastewater
exclusively
from
oily
operations.
These
facilities
only
perform
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations:
assembly/
disassembly,
floor
cleaning,
maintenance
machining
(
wheel
truing),
touch­
up
painting,
and
washing.

Railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
are
engaged
in
the
manufacture,
overhaul,
or
heavy
maintenance
of
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines.
These
facilities
typically
perform
one
or
more
of
the
same
operations
as
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
and
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations:
abrasive
blasting,
alkaline
cleaning,
aqueous
degreasing,
corrosion
preventive
coating,
electrical
discharge
machining,
grinding,
heat
treating,
impact
deformation,
painting,
plasma
arc
machining,
polishing,
pressure
deformation,
soldering/
brazing,
stripping
(
paint),
testing,
thermal
cutting,
and
welding.
Depending
on
the
operations
performed,
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
may
be
included
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
or
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory.

EPA
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
26,824
indirect
dischargers
and
2,382
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory.
EPA
has
concluded
that
less
than
two
percent
of
the
MP&
M
process
wastewater
discharged
from
the
facilities
in
this
subcategory
is
covered
by
existing
effluent
guidelines.
Limitations
and
standards
for
this
subcategory
are
given
in
Section
1.0
and
at
40
CFR
438,
Subpart
A
(
Oily
Wastes).

6.2.7
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
Evaluated
for
the
Final
Rule
The
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
included
facilities
that
perform
routine
cleaning
and
light
maintenance
(
mostly
consisting
of
parts
replacement)
on
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
and
similar
parts
or
machines.
These
facilities
discharge
wastewater
from
only
those
proposed
MP&
M
operations
that
EPA
defines
as
oily
operations
(
see
Table
6­
2).
The
wastewater
generated
at
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
contains
relatively
low
levels
of
metals
and
toxic
organic
pollutants.
Because
these
operations
are
conducted
outdoors,
these
facilities
may
also
discharge
large
volumes
of
stormwater
that
may
or
may
not
be
commingled
with
process
wastewater.

6­
22
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
are
similar
to
facilities
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
in
that
they
produce
oil­
bearing
wastewater
and
do
not
perform
MP&
M
operations
that
generate
wastewater
that
requires
metals
removal
treatment
technology.
This
proposed
subcategory
does
not
include
railroad
manufacturing
facilities
or
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities.
Railroad
manufacturing
facilities
and
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
perform
operations
more
similar
to
operations
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
(
e.
g.,
acid
treatment
without
chromium)
and
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
(
e.
g.,
heat
treating
and
impact
deformation).

EPA
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
820
indirect
dischargers
and
9
direct
dischargers
in
the
proposed
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
Facilities
in
the
proposed
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
are
specifically
not
regulated
by
the
final
rule
(
see
Section
1.0
and
40
CFR
438.1(
d)).
Additionally,
EPA
did
not
establish
and
limitations
and
standards
for
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
(
see
Section
9.0).
Consequently,
railroad
manufacturing
facilities
and
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
Part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
Parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

6.2.8
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
The
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule
included
wastewater
generated
in
or
on
dry
docks
and
similar
structures
such
as
graving
docks,
building
ways,
marine
railways,
and
lift
barges
at
shipbuilding
facilities
(
or
shipyards).
Shipbuilding
facilities
use
these
structures
to
maintain,
repair,
or
rebuild
existing
ships,
or
perform
the
final
assembly
and
launching
of
new
ships
(
including
barges).
Shipbuilders
use
these
structures
to
reach
surfaces
and
parts
that
would
otherwise
be
under
water.
Because
dry
docks
and
similar
structures
include
sumps
or
containment
systems,
shipyards
can
control
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
surface
water.
Typical
proposed
MP&
M
operations
that
occur
in
dry
docks
and
similar
structures
include:
abrasive
blasting;
hydro­
blasting;
painting;
welding;
corrosion
preventive
coating;
floor
cleaning;
aqueous
degreasing;
and
testing.
Not
all
of
these
proposed
MP&
M
operations
generate
wastewater.
The
proposed
subcategory
also
included
wastewater
generated
when
a
shipyard
cleans
a
ship s
hull
in
a
dry
dock
(
or
similar
structure)
to
remove
marine
life
(
e.
g.,
barnacles)
in
preparation
for
performing
proposed
MP&
M
operations.

This
subcategory
included
only
process
wastewater
generated
and
discharged
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
inside
and
outside
ships
(
including
bilge
water)
that
occur
in
or
on
dry
docks
or
similar
structures.
The
Agency
is
not
including
process
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
that
is
generated
at
other
locations
at
the
shipyard
( 
on­
shore 
operations)
in
this
proposed
subcategory.
EPA
included
these
wastewaters
from
these
 
on­
shore 
shipbuilding
operations
(
e.
g.,
electroplating,
plasma
arc
cutting)
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
Subcategory
or
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory.
Also,
EPA
is
not
including
wastewater
generated
onboard
ships
when
they
are
afloat
(
i.
e.,
not
in
dry
docks
or
similar
structures).
For
U.
S.
military
ships,
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
establishing
standards
under
the
Uniform
National
6­
23
6.0
­
Industry
Subcategorization
Discharge
Standards
(
UNDS)
pursuant
to
Section
312(
n)
of
the
CWA
(
see
64
FR
25125;
May
10,
1999)
to
regulate
discharges
of
wastewater
generated
onboard
these
ships
when
they
are
in
U.
S.
waters
and
are
afloat
(
e.
g.,
at
a
shipyard s
dock).

In
addition
to
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations,
three
other
types
of
water
streams
are
in
or
on
dry
docks
and
similar
structures:
flooding
water,
dry
dock
ballast
water,
and
stormwater.
Flooding
water
enters
and
exits
the
dry
dock
or
similar
structure
prior
to
performing
any
MP&
M
operations.
For
example,
in
a
graving
dock,
the
gates
are
opened,
allowing
flooding
water
in
and
ships
to
float
inside
the
chamber.
Then
the
flooding
water
is
drained,
leaving
the
ship s
exterior
exposed
so
shipyard
employees
can
repair
and
maintain
the
ship s
hull.
Dry
dock
ballast
water
serves
a
similar
purpose.
It
is
used
to
lower
(
or
sink)
a
floating
dry
dock
so
that
a
ship
can
float
over
it.
Then
the
dry
dock
ballast
water
is
pumped
out,
raising
the
dry
dock
with
the
ship
on
top.
Flooding
water
and
dry
dock
ballast
water
are
not
directly
associated
with
proposed
MP&
M
operations.
Finally,
because
these
structures
are
located
outdoors
and
are
exposed
to
the
elements,
stormwater
may
fall
in
or
on
the
dry
dock
or
similar
structures.

In
its
evaluation,
EPA
excluded
all
three
of
these
water
streams
(
i.
e.,
flooding
water,
dry
dock
ballast
water,
and
stormwater)
from
the
proposed
definition
of
process
wastewater
specific
to
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory.
Stormwater
at
these
facilities
is
covered
by
EPA s
Storm
Water
Multi­
Sector
General
Permit,
similar
general
permits
issued
by
authorized
states,
and
individual
stormwater
permits.
In
general,
stormwater
permits
at
shipyards
include
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
that
are
designed
to
prevent
the
contamination
of
stormwater.
For
example,
these
practices
include
sweeping
areas
after
paint
stripping
or
painting
are
completed.

Many
shipyards
perform
only
dry
proposed
MP&
M
operations
in
their
dry
docks
(
and
similar
structures)
or
do
not
discharge
wastewater
generated
in
dry
docks
(
and
similar
structures)
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations.
Many
shipyards
prefer
to
handle
this
wastewater
as
hazardous,
and
contract
haul
it
off
site
due
to
the
possible
presence
of
copper
or
tin
(
used
as
an
antifoulant)
in
paint
chips
from
paint
stripping
operations.
The
wastewater
discharged
from
dry
docks
and
similar
structures
contains
relatively
low
levels
of
metals
and
toxic
organic
pollutants.

EPA
estimates
that
there
are
nine
indirect
dischargers
and
six
direct
dischargers
in
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
Many
shipbuilders
operate
multiple
dry
docks
(
or
similar
structures);
this
is
the
number
of
estimated
facilities
(
not
dry
docks)
that
discharge
process
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
at
dry
docks
or
similar
structures.
Facilities
in
the
proposed
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
are
specifically
not
regulated
by
the
final
rule
(
see
Section
1.0
and
40
CFR
438.1(
e)(
5)).

6­
24
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
7.0
SELECTION
OF
POLLUTANT
PARAMETERS
This
section
discusses
the
criteria
EPA
used
to
identify
pollutants
of
concern
(
POCs)
and
regulated
pollutants.
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
evaluated
process
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations1
to
determine
the
presence
of
priority,
conventional,
and
nonconventional
pollutant
parameters.
EPA
reviewed
data
on
308
metal
and
organic
pollutant
parameters
listed
in
The
1990
Industrial
Technology
Division
List
of
Analytes
(
1)
under
the
MP&
M
final
rule.
These
pollutants
are
listed
in
Section
3.0,
Tables
3­
5
and
3­
6.
The
Agency
also
evaluated
regulating
24
conventional
and
other
nonconventional
pollutant
bulk
parameters
under
the
MP&
M
rule.
These
pollutants
are
listed
in
Section
3.0,
Table
3­
7.

Section
7.1
discusses
the
criteria
EPA
used
to
identify
POCs
for
the
MP&
M
final
rule.
POCs
are
pollutants
EPA
has
identified
at
significant
concentrations
in
process
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations.
While
EPA
generally
considers
the
full
list
of
POCs
in
its
analysis,
it
regulates
only
a
subset
of
these
pollutants.
Section
7.2
presents
the
criteria
EPA
used
to
select
the
regulated
pollutants.
Section
7.3
presents
the
references
used
in
this
section.

7.1
Identification
of
Pollutants
of
Concern
EPA
performed
the
POC
analysis
using
the
analytical
data
from
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sampling
programs.
The
POC
analysis
identifies
those
pollutants
present
in
industry
wastewater
at
significant
concentrations.
These
pollutants
are
evaluated
in
the
pollutant
reduction
analysis
(
Section
11.0)
and
further
considered
for
regulation.
To
identify
POCs
for
the
MP&
M
rulemaking,
EPA
analyzed
for
329
pollutants
in
over
1,994
samples
of
unit
operation
processes
and
rinse
water,
wastewater
treatment
influent,
and
wastewater
treatment
effluent
during
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sampling
programs.
EPA
did
not
use
data
collected
during
the
post­
proposal
sampling
program
and
industry­
supplied
data
in
the
POC
analysis.
The
Agency
excluded
acidity,
total
alkalinity,
and
pH
from
the
POC
analysis
since
these
pollutant
parameters
do
not
have
a
detection
limit.

EPA
performed
the
POC
analysis
using
all
data
across
proposed
subcategories
evaluated
for
the
final
rule.
When
determining
regulated
pollutants
(
Section
7.2),
EPA
considered
proposed
subcategory­
specific
factors.
EPA
identified
POCs
primarily
using
data
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
(
both
process
baths
and
rinses)
and
wastewater
treatment
influent
data.
The
pollutants
generated
depend
more
on
the
nature
of
the
unit
operations
than
the
subcategory
in
which
the
operation
is
performed
(
e.
g.,
pollutants
present
in
a
machinery
operation
conducted
on
steel
parts
will
be
similar
across
subcategories).
While
the
oil­
bearing
subcategories
exclude
operations
generating
high
concentrations
of
metal
pollutants,
EPA
still
1Note:
EPA
evaluated
a
number
of
unit
operations
for
the
May
1995
proposal,
January
2001
proposal,
and
June
2002
NODA
(
see
Tables
4­
3
and
4­
4).
However,
EPA
selected
a
subset
of
these
unit
operations
for
regulation
in
the
final
rule
(
see
Section
1.0).
For
this
section,
the
term
 
proposed
MP&
M
operations 
means
those
operations
evaluated
for
the
two
proposals,
NODA,
and
final
rule.
The
term
 
final
MP&
M
operations 
means
those
operations
defined
as
 
oily
operations 
(
see
Section
1.0,
40
CFR
438.2(
f),
and
Appendix
B
to
Part
438)
and
regulated
by
the
final
rule.

7­
1
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
detected
many
metal
pollutants
in
oil­
bearing
wastewaters
(
see
Section
5.0)
and
therefore
considered
these
to
be
POCs.

EPA
reduced
the
list
of
329
analyzed
pollutants
to
132
POCs
by
retaining
only
those
pollutants
that
met
the
following
criteria:

 
EPA
detected
the
pollutant
in
at
least
three
samples
collected
during
the
MP&
M
sampling
programs.
For
this
evaluation,
EPA
considered
all
samples
collected
from
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
process
water,
rinse
water,
wastewater
treatment
influent,
or
wastewater
treatment
effluent.

 
The
average
of
all
the
detected
concentrations
of
the
pollutant
in
samples
of
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
and
treatment
system
influents
was
at
least
five
times
the
minimum
level
(
ML).
EPA
describes
the
ML
as
 
the
lowest
level
at
which
the
entire
analytical
system
must
give
a
recognizable
signal
and
an
acceptable
calibration
point
for
the
analyte 
(
2).
EPA
evaluated
the
unit
operation,
rinse,
and
treatment
influent
data
to
identify
those
pollutants
present
in
raw
wastewater.
EPA
did
not
evaluate
the
effluent
data
for
this
step
because
the
treatment
systems
are
designed
to
remove
pollutants,
so
including
effluent
data
in
this
step
may
have
artificially
lowered
the
average
concentration.

 
EPA
analyzed
the
pollutant
in
a
quantitative
manner
following
the
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
(
QA/
QC)
procedures.
Thus,
wastewater
analyses
performed
solely
for
certain
semiquantitative
 
screening 
purposes
did
not
meet
this
criterion,
and
EPA
excluded
these
results
from
the
POCs
analysis.
EPA
performed
these
semiquantitative
analyses
only
in
unusual
cases
(
e.
g.,
to
qualitatively
screen
for
the
presence
of
a
rare
metal
such
as
osmium).

For
the
first
criterion,
EPA
combined
data
from
the
unit
operation,
treatment
system
influent,
and
treatment
system
effluent
wastewater
samples
to
determine
the
total
number
of
samples
in
which
each
pollutant
was
detected.

EPA
calculated
the
average
detected
pollutant
concentrations
of
the
unit
operation
wastewater
and
treatment
system
influent
samples
to
determine
if
the
data
met
the
second
criterion.
In
this
analysis,
EPA
focused
only
on
detected
pollutants
so
nondetected
pollutants
were
not
included.
For
pollutants
not
meeting
the
second
criterion
based
on
this
calculation
(
i.
e.,
the
average
detected
pollutant
concentration
in
samples
of
unit
operation
wastewater
and
treatment
system
influent
samples
was
less
than
five
times
the
ML),
EPA
also
calculated
the
average
detected
pollutant
concentration
in
the
treatment
system
effluent
and
determined
whether
those
averages
exceeded
five
times
the
ML.
EPA
took
this
step
for
two
reasons.
First,
the
Agency
wanted
to
identify
any
pollutants
that
were
generated
during
treatment.
For
example,
EPA
determined
that
chloroform
can
be
produced
in
alkaline
chlorination
systems
and
adjusted
7­
2
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
the
pollutant
removal
model
accordingly.
Second,
matrix
interferences
associated
with
unit
operation
and
wastewater
treatment
influent
samples
may
have
masked
the
presence
of
a
pollutant
in
a
unit
operation
or
influent
sample.
For
six
pollutants
(
1,1­
dichloroethene,
chloroform,
diphenyl
ether,
isophorone,
n­
nitrosopiperidine,
and
trichlorofluoromethane),
the
average
treatment
system
effluent
concentrations
exceeded
five
times
the
ML.
Consequently,
EPA
considered
these
compounds
POCs.

As
explained
above,
EPA
started
with
a
possible
list
of
329
pollutants.
The
Agency
excluded
acidity,
total
alkalinity,
and
pH
from
the
POC
analysis
since
these
pollutant
parameters
do
not
have
a
detection
limit.
EPA
also
excluded
oil
and
grease
(
EPA
Method
413.2)
from
the
POC
analysis
since
oil
and
grease
(
as
HEM)
was
included.
Therefore,
these
pollutant
parameters
were
not
considered
for
regulation
under
the
final
MP&
M
rule.

Of
the
324
remaining
pollutants
EPA
initially
considered
regulating
under
MP&
M,
EPA
excluded
192
as
POCs
because
they
failed
to
meet
the
following
criteria:

 
EPA
did
not
detect
113
pollutant
parameters
in
samples
collected
during
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
MP&
M
sampling
programs.
Table
7­
1
lists
these
pollutants.

 
EPA
detected
50
pollutants
in
less
than
three
samples
collected
during
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
MP&
M
sampling
programs.
Table
7­
2
lists
these
pollutants.

 
EPA
detected
23
pollutants
at
average
detected
concentrations
that
were
less
than
five
times
the
ML
in
unit
operation
wastewater
and
treatment
system
influent.
Table
7­
3
lists
these
pollutants.

 
EPA
performed
analyses
for
42
pollutants,
listed
in
Section
3.0,
Table
3­
5,
using
semiquantitative
methods
for
 
screening 
purposes
to
determine
if
these
analytes
were
present.
For
this
screening,
the
Agency
did
not
use
the
QA/
QC
procedures
required
by
analytical
method
1620.
EPA
excluded
the
six
pollutants
(
strontium,
potassium,
platinum,
sulfur,
silicon,
and
phosphorus)
that
passed
the
first
three
criteria
but
were
part
of
the
screening
analysis.
Based
on
the
screening
results,
EPA
did
not
measure
for
these
pollutants
in
a
quantitative
manner.

After
excluding
these
pollutants,
EPA
defined
the
132
remaining
pollutants
as
POCs
for
further
evaluation
with
respect
to
technology
options
and
the
performance
of
the
technologies.
These
include
47
priority
pollutants
(
34
priority
organic
pollutants,
13
priority
metal
pollutants),
3
conventional
pollutants,
and
82
nonconventional
pollutants
(
50
organic
pollutants,
15
metal
pollutants,
and
17
other
nonconventional
pollutants).
Table
7­
4
lists
these
pollutants,
along
with
the
number
of
times
EPA
analyzed
for
and
detected
each
pollutant
7­
3
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
1
Pollutants
Not
Detected
in
Any
Samples
Collected
During
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
MP&
M
Sampling
Programs
Priority
Pollutants
1,2­
Dichloropropane
Benzo(
K)
Fluoranthene
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
Bis(
2­
Chloroisopropyl)
Ether
2­
Chloroethylvinyl
Ether
Chrysene
3,3'­
Dichlorobenzidine
Dibenzo(
A,
H)
Anthracene
4­
Bromophenyl
Phenyl
Ether
Hexachlorobenzene
4­
Chlorophenylphenyl
Ether
Hexachlorobutadiene
Acenaphthylene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Benzidine
Hexachloroethane
Benzo(
A)
Anthracene
Indeno(
1,2,3­
Cd)
Pyrene
Benzo(
A)
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Benzo(
B)
Fluoranthene
Trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethene
Benzo(
Ghi)
Perylene
Trans­
1,3­
Dichloropropene
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
1,2,3­
Trichlorobenzene
2­
Nitroaniline
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
2­
Phenylnaphthalene
1,2,3­
Trimethoxybenzene
2­
Propen­
1­
Ol
1,2,4,5­
Tetrachlorobenzene
2­
Propenenitrile,
2­
Methyl­

1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
Chloropropane
3,3'­
Dimethoxybenzidine
1,2­
Dibromoethane
3,5­
Dibromo
4­
Hydroxybenzonitrile
1,3­
Butadiene,
2­
Chloro
3­
Chloropropene
1,3­
Dichloro­
2­
Propanol
3­
Methylcholanthrene
1,3­
Dichloropropane
3­
Nitroaniline
1,5­
Naphthalenediamine
4,4'­
Methylenebis(
2­
Chloroaniline)

1­
Chloro­
3­
Nitrobenzene
4,5­
Methylene
Phenanthrene
1­
Phenylnaphthalene
4­
Chloro­
2­
Nitroaniline
2,3,4,6­
Tetrachlorophenol
5­
Nitro­
O­
Toluidine
2,3,6­
Trichlorophenol
7,12­
Dimethylbenz(
A)
Anthracene
2,3­
Benzofluorene
Aniline,
2,4,5­
Trimethyl­

2,3­
Dichloroaniline
Aramite
2,3­
Dichloronitrobenzene
Benzanthrone
2,4,5­
Trichlorophenol
Benzenethiol
2,6­
Dichloro­
4­
Nitroaniline
Biphenyl,
4­
Nitro
2,6­
Dichlorophenol
Chloroacetonitrile
2­
Methylbenzothioazole
Crotonaldehyde
Crotoxyphos
Methyl
Methanesulfonate
7­
4
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
1
(
Continued)

Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

Diethyl
Ether
n­
Nitrosodiethylamine
Dimethyl
Sulfone
o­
Toluidine,
5­
Chloro­

Diphenyldisulfide
p­
Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Ethyl
Cyanide
Pentachlorobenzene
Ethyl
Methacrylate
Pentachloroethane
Ethyl
Methanesulfonate
Perylene
Hexachloropropene
Phenacetin
Iodomethane
Pronamide
Isosafrole
Squalene
Longifolene
Thioacetamide
Malachite
Green
Trans­
1,4­
Dichloro­
2­
Butene
Mestranol
Triphenylene
Methapyrilene
Vinyl
Acetate
Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Cerium
Praseodymium
Erbium
Rhenium
Europium
Samarium
Gadolinium
Scandium
Gallium
Tellurium
Germanium
Terbium
Holmium
Thorium
Indium
Thulium
Iodine
Uranium
Lanthanum
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Data.

7­
5
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
2
Pollutants
Detected
in
Less
Than
Three
Samples
Collected
During
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
MP&
M
Sampling
Programs
Priority
Pollutants
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
2­
Chloronaphthalene
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
2­
Chlorophenol
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
Bis(
2­
Chloroethoxy)
Methane
1,2­
Dichloroethane
Bis(
2­
Chloroethyl)
Ether
1,2­
Diphenylhydrazine
Bromomethane
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
n­
Nitrosodi­
n­
Propylamine
2,4­
Dinitrotoluene
Vinyl
Chloride
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
Ethylenethiourea
1,2:
3,4­
Diepoxybutane
n­
Nitrosodi­
n­
Butylamine
1,3,5­
Trithiane
n­
Nitrosomethylphenylamine
1,4­
Dinitrobenzene
o­
Anisidine
1,4­
Naphthoquinone
p­
Chloroaniline
1­
Naphthylamine
Pentamethylbenzene
2,6­
Di­
Tert­
Butyl­
P­
Benzoquinone
Phenothiazine
2­
Picoline
p­
Nitroaniline
4­
Aminobiphenyl
Resorcinol
Beta­
Naphthylamine
Safrole
Carbazole
Thianaphthene
Cis­
1,3­
Dichloropropene
Thioxanthe­
9­
One
Dibromomethane
Toluene,
2,4­
Diamino­

Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Dysprosium
Rhodium
Hafnium
Ruthenium
Neodymium
Zirconium
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Data.

7­
6
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
3
Pollutants
Detected
at
Average
Concentrations
of
Less
Than
Five
Times
the
Minimum
Level
During
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
MP&
M
Sampling
Programsa
Priority
Pollutants
2,4,6­
Trichlorophenol
Chloromethane
4,6­
Dinitro­
o­
Cresol
Dibromochloromethane
Benzene
Diethyl
Phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Tribromomethane
Carbon
Tetrachloride
(
Tetrachloromethane)

Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
2­(
Methylthio)
Benzothiazole
n­
Nitrosomorpholine
n­
Nitrosomethylethylamine
o­
Toluidine
Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Bismuth
Osmium
Iridium
Palladium
Lithium
Tantalum
Lutetium
Tungsten
Niobium
Ytterbium
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Data.
a
The
average
of
all
detected
concentrations
of
the
pollutants
in
samples
of
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
and
treatment
system
influent
was
less
than
five
times
the
detection
limit.

7­
7
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
4
Summary
of
Pollutants
of
Concern
Information
Pollutant
Parameter
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sampling
Information
No.
of
Times
Analyzed
for
All
Samplesa
No.
of
Times
Detected
for
All
Samplesa
Average
Concentration
in
Samples
of
Unit
Operation
Wastewater
and
Treatment
System
Influent
(
mg/
L)
a
Minimum
Level
(
mg/
L)

Priority
Organic
Pollutants
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
1,043
28
0.327
0.01
1,1­
Dichloroethane
1,043
7
0.091
0.01
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
1,043
3
0.418
0.01
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
994
31
0.078
0.01
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
946
4
83.7
0.05
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
1,029
3
2.73
0.01
2­
Nitrophenol
1,021
9
0.394
0.02
4­
Chloro­
m­
cresol
1,003
95
260
0.01
4­
Nitrophenol
969
5
2.99
0.05
Acenaphthene
1,029
6
0.332
0.01
Acrolein
1,003
5
0.307
0.05
Anthracene
1,029
4
0.117
0.01
Bis(
2­
Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
1,028
211
4.15
0.01
Benzyl
Butyl
Phthalate
1,026
16
1.08
0.01
Chlorobenzene
1,043
7
0.282
0.01
Chloroethane
1,043
4
4.22
0.05
Chloroform
1,043
331
0.049
0.01
Di­
N­
Butyl
Phthalate
1,026
41
0.352
0.01
Di­
N­
Octyl
Phthalate
1,028
18
1.58
0.01
Dimethyl
Phthalate
994
3
0.739
0.01
Ethylbenzene
1,043
61
0.165
0.01
Fluoranthene
1,028
4
0.132
0.01
Fluorene
1,029
18
0.956
0.01
Isophorone
996
3
.056
0.01
Methylene
Chloride
1,043
52
0.403
0.01
n­
Nitrosodimethylamine
996
3
3.68
0.05
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
1,029
15
1.14
0.02
Naphthalene
1,029
71
0.638
0.01
7­
8
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sampling
Information
No.
of
Times
Analyzed
for
All
Samplesa
No.
of
Times
Detected
for
All
Samplesa
Average
Concentration
in
Samples
of
Unit
Operation
Wastewater
and
Treatment
System
Influent
(
mg/
L)
a
Minimum
Level
(
mg/
L)

Priority
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

Phenanthrene
1,029
45
0.500
0.01
Phenol
1,021
244
10.1
0.01
Pyrene
1,028
5
0.219
0.01
Tetrachloroethene
1,043
23
0.210
0.01
Toluene
1,043
83
0.230
0.01
Trichloroethylene
1,042
40
0.092
0.01
Priority
Metal
Pollutants
Antimony
1,956
606
6.12
0.02
Arsenic
1,972
627
0.178
0.01
Beryllium
1,972
301
0.147
0.005
Cadmium
1,972
873
244
0.005
Chromium
1,972
1,480
1,029
0.01
Copper
1,972
1,752
495
0.025
Lead
1,972
911
30.0
0.05
Mercury
1,970
321
0.0014
0.0002
Nickel
1,972
1,518
356
0.04
Selenium
1,956
317
0.137
0.005
Silver
1,972
698
0.531
0.01
Thallium
1,956
206
0.065
0.01
Zinc
1,971
1,691
188
0.02
Conventional
Pollutants
BOD
5­
Day
(
Carbonaceous)
1,005
757
2,015
2
Oil
and
Grease
(
as
HEM)
1,028
554
2,308
5
Total
Suspended
Solids
1,959
1,563
1,007
4
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
1,4­
Dioxane
1,003
33
0.854
0.01
1­
Bromo­
2­
Chlorobenzene
989
8
0.233
0.01
1­
Bromo­
3­
Chlorobenzene
989
6
0.135
0.01
1­
Methylfluorene
989
24
0.347
0.01
1­
Methylphenanthrene
989
29
0.581
0.01
2­
Butanone
1,003
160
1.59
0.05
7­
9
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sampling
Information
No.
of
Times
Analyzed
for
All
Samplesa
No.
of
Times
Detected
for
All
Samplesa
Average
Concentration
in
Samples
of
Unit
Operation
Wastewater
and
Treatment
System
Influent
(
mg/
L)
a
Minimum
Level
(
mg/
L)

Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

2­
Hexanone
1,003
7
1.26
0.05
2­
Isopropylnaphthalene
989
6
3.21
0.01
2­
Methylnaphthalene
989
61
0.775
0.01
2­
Propanone
1,003
593
3.14
0.05
3,6­
Dimethylphenanthrene
989
13
1.24
0.01
4­
Methyl­
2­
Pentanone
1,003
91
5.19
0.01
Acetophenone
989
10
0.159
0.01
Alpha­
Terpineol
978
133
13.6
0.01
Aniline
989
19
0.684
0.01
Benzoic
Acid
989
202
277
0.05
Benzyl
Alcohol
989
61
1.23
0.01
Biphenyl
989
23
0.174
0.01
Carbon
Disulfide
1,003
63
0.408
0.01
Dibenzofuran
989
4
0.055
0.01
Dibenzothiophene
988
6
0.240
0.01
Diphenyl
Ether
989
5
0.047
0.01
Diphenylamine
989
14
0.704
0.02
Hexanoic
Acid
989
237
15.2
0.01
Isobutyl
Alcohol
1,003
19
0.167
0.01
m+
p
Xylene
595
31
0.159
0.01
m­
Xylene
408
21
0.498
0.01
Methyl
Methacrylate
1,003
6
0.396
0.01
n,
n­
Dimethylformamide
989
63
0.193
0.01
n­
Decane
989
67
2.10
0.01
n­
Docosane
989
108
3.47
0.01
n­
Dodecane
989
125
13.8
0.01
n­
Eicosane
988
156
3.30
0.01
n­
Hexacosane
989
95
5.84
0.01
n­
Hexadecane
989
168
6.27
0.01
n­
Nitrosopiperidine
989
4
0.020
0.01
n­
Octacosane
989
40
7.45
0.01
7­
10
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sampling
Information
No.
of
Times
Analyzed
for
All
Samplesa
No.
of
Times
Detected
for
All
Samplesa
Average
Concentration
in
Samples
of
Unit
Operation
Wastewater
and
Treatment
System
Influent
(
mg/
L)
a
Minimum
Level
(
mg/
L)

Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

n­
Octadecane
989
174
5.74
0.01
n­
Tetracosane
988
90
4.13
0.01
n­
Tetradecane
989
158
12.7
0.01
n­
Triacontane
988
55
2.69
0.01
o+
p
Xylene
408
30
0.256
0.01
o­
Cresol
989
16
0.067
0.01
o­
Xylene
595
40
0.058
0.01
p­
Cresol
989
82
0.293
0.01
p­
Cymene
989
21
0.988
0.01
Pyridine
989
37
0.920
0.01
Styrene
989
9
0.261
0.01
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,043
12
0.049
0.01
Tripropyleneglycol
Methyl
Ether
989
141
190
0.01
Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Aluminum
1,972
1,520
166
0.2
Barium
1,972
1,651
1.75
0.2
Boron
1,913
1,645
85.0
0.1
Calcium
1,972
1,929
68.4
5
Cobalt
1,972
640
12.8
0.05
Gold
161
104
16.2
1
Iron
1,972
1,743
777
0.1
Magnesium
1,972
1,803
53.8
5
Manganese
1,972
1,620
43.4
0.015
Molybdenum
1,972
1,091
2.97
0.01
Sodium
1,972
1,953
3,384
5
Tin
1,912
850
153
0.03
Titanium
1,913
949
32.6
0.005
Vanadium
1,972
504
5.31
0.05
Yttrium
1,913
306
0.061
0.005
7­
11
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
4
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sampling
Information
No.
of
Times
Analyzed
for
All
Samplesa
No.
of
Times
Detected
for
All
Samplesa
Average
Concentration
in
Samples
of
Unit
Operation
Wastewater
and
Treatment
System
Influent
(
mg/
L)
a
Minimum
Level
(
mg/
L)

Other
Nonconventional
Pollutants
Amenable
Cyanide
160
128
44.3
0.02
Ammonia
As
Nitrogen
689
569
385
0.05
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
1,461
1,343
11,289
5
Chloride
677
631
5,526
1
Fluoride
688
618
301
0.1
Hexavalent
Chromium
1,074
268
1.78
0.01
Sulfate
1,171
1,086
7,046
1
Total
Cyanide
406
327
2,072
0.02
Total
Dissolved
Solids
1,953
1,948
21,883
10
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
661
572
606
1
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
997
838
3,385
1
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(
as
SGT­
HEM)
1,016
350
841
5
Total
Phosphorus
500
452
170
0.01
Total
Recoverable
Phenolics
1,357
871
11.7
0.05
Total
Sulfide
215
80
6.50
1
Weak­
Acid
Dissociable
Cyanide
72
62
19.4
0.002
Ziram
31
22
1.41
0.01
Source:
MP&
M
Sampling
Data.
a
Counts
and
average
based
on
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sampling
results.
Sample
concentrations
less
than
the
ML
were
not
included
in
the
average.

parameter
in
samples
of
the
unit
operation
wastewater
or
treatment
system
influent.
Table
7­
4
also
presents
the
average
concentration
at
which
each
pollutant
was
detected.
The
Agency
did
not
use
sample
concentrations
reported
as
less
than
the
ML
in
calculating
the
average.

7.2
Regulated
Pollutants
EPA
determined
the
pollutants
for
potential
regulation
on
a
subcategory
basis.
As
a
first
step
in
selecting
the
pollutants,
the
Agency
grouped
the
proposed
MP&
M
subcategories
(
discussed
in
Section
6.0)
according
to
whether
the
facilities
in
the
proposed
subcategory
generated
wastewater
with
high
metals
content
(
metal­
bearing)
or
wastewater
with
low
metals
content
and
high
oil
and
grease
content
(
oil­
bearing).
The
proposed
General
Metals,
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Board,
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing,
and
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
Subcategories
generate
metal­
bearing
wastewaters,
while
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
7­
12
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
and
the
proposed
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
and
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategories
generate
only
oil­
bearing
wastewaters.

Then,
EPA
evaluated
the
concentrations
and
prevalence
of
the
POCs
in
the
unit
operations
(
baths
and
rinses)
and
treatment
system
influents
for
each
subcategory.
EPA
also
evaluated
the
effectiveness
of
the
selected
treatment
technologies
for
each
option
(
see
Section
9.0)
to
determine
which
pollutants
were
effectively
removed
by
these
technologies.
Using
this
information,
EPA
considered
the
following
factors
in
determining
which
pollutants
should
not
be
further
considered
for
regulation:

 
The
pollutant
is
controlled
through
the
regulation
of
other
pollutants.
EPA
evaluated
wastewater
treatment
data
to
determine
if
control
of
one
parameter
would
also
control
other
pollutants.
For
example,
most
metal
POCs
are
effectively
removed
by
chemical
precipitation.
Control
of
the
metals
predominantly
detected
in
process
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
also
controls
those
other
metals
not
as
common
in
process
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations.
Therefore,
EPA
considered
only
a
subset
of
metals
for
regulation.
In
addition,
many
organic
pollutants
detected
in
process
wastewater
from
proposed
MP&
M
operations
are
removed
in
oil/
water
separation
systems
in
the
oil
phase
of
the
wastewater.
Therefore,
controlling
the
oil
and
grease
bulk
parameter
effectively
controls
these
organic
pollutants.

 
The
pollutant
is
present
in
only
trace
amounts
in
the
subcategory s
wastewater
type
(
metal­
bearing
or
oil­
bearing)
and/
or
is
not
likely
to
cause
toxic
effects.
EPA
performed
this
evaluation
on
a
pollutant­
by­
pollutant
basis
using
the
data
presented
in
Section
5.0.

 
The
pollutant
may
be
used
as
a
treatment
chemical.

 
The
pollutant
is
not
controlled
by
the
selected
BPT/
BAT
technologies.
EPA
reviewed
the
treatment
data
for
technologies
considered
in
the
MP&
M
technology
options
(
see
Section
9.0),
and
identified
any
pollutants
that
were
not
effectively
removed
by
these
technologies.

Based
on
these
criteria,
a
number
of
these
pollutants
were
not
further
considered
for
regulation.
Based
on
other
factors,
EPA
established
limitations
and
standards
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
only.
For
that
subcategory,
the
list
of
remaining
POCs
was
reduced
for
the
purpose
of
setting
limitations
and
standards
to
oil
and
grease
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS.
Table
7­
5
lists
all
of
the
remaining
POCs
and
the
reason
each
pollutant
was
eliminated.

EPA
determined
that
regulating
only
oil
and
grease
will
control
the
removal
of
organic
constituents
for
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory.
EPA
did
not
promulgate
a
limit
for
total
7­
13
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
petroleum
hydrocarbons
(
TPH)
(
as
SGT­
HEM)
because
it
believes
that
regulating
oil
and
grease
(
as
HEM)
will
control
the
discharge
of
TPH
(
as
SGT­
HEM).

EPA
determined
that
it
was
not
necessary
to
promulgate
limits
for
28
POCs
that
are
present
in
only
trace
amounts
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
and/
or
are
not
likely
to
cause
toxic
effects.
As
shown
in
Table
5­
4,
the
median
concentration
at
the
influent
to
treatment
for
most
of
these
metals
is
less
than
0.5
mg/
L.

EPA
did
not
select
aluminum,
calcium,
iron,
magnesium,
manganese,
sodium,
chloride,
sulfate,
or
total
sulfide
for
regulation
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
because
they
may
be
used
as
treatment
chemicals
by
facilities
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory.

EPA
did
not
select
lead,
zinc,
barium,
boron
or
total
phosphorus
for
regulation
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
because
they
are
not
controlled
by
the
selected
BPT/
BAT
technology.

References
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
The
1990
Industrial
Technology
Division
List
of
Analytes
.
Washington,
DC,
May
1990.

2.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Development
Document
for
Final
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
the
Centralized
Waste
Treatment
Industry
.
(
EPA­
821­
R­
00­
020),
2000.

7­
14
7.3
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
5
Pollutants
Considered
for
Regulation
for
Direct
Dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
Pollutant
Parameter
Controlled
Through
Regulation
of
Other
Pollutants
Present
in
Trace
Amounts
or
Not
Likely
to
Cause
Toxic
Effects
Treatment
Chemical
Not
Controlled
by
BPT/
BAT
Technology
Regulated
Under
40
CFR
438
Priority
Organic
Pollutants
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
 
1,1­
Dichloroethane
 
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
 
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
 
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
 
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
 
2­
Nitrophenol
 
4­
Chloro­
m­
cresol
 
4­
Nitrophenol
 
Acenaphthene
 
Acrolein
 
Anthracene
 
Bis(
2­
Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
 
Benzyl
Butyl
Phthalate
 
Chlorobenzene
 
Chloroethane
 
Chloroform
 
Di­
N­
Butyl
Phthalate
 
Di­
N­
Octyl
Phthalate
 
Dimethyl
Phthalate
 
Ethylbenzene
 
Fluoranthene
 
Fluorene
 
Isophorone
 
Methylene
Chloride
 
n­
Nitrosodimethylamine
 
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
 
Naphthalene
 
Phenanthrene
 
7­
15
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
5
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Controlled
Through
Regulation
of
Other
Pollutants
Present
in
Trace
Amounts
or
Not
Likely
to
Cause
Toxic
Effects
Treatment
Chemical
Not
Controlled
by
BPT/
BAT
Technology
Regulated
Under
40
CFR
438
Priority
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

Phenol
 
Pyrene
 
Tetrachloroethene
 
Toluene
 
Trichloroethylene
 
Priority
Metal
Pollutants
Antimony
 
Arsenic
 
Beryllium
 
Cadmium
 
Chromium
 
Copper
 
Lead
 
Mercury
 
Nickel
 
Selenium
 
Silver
 
Thallium
 
Zinc
 
Conventional
Pollutants
BOD
5­
Day
(
Carbonaceous)
 
Oil
and
Grease
(
as
HEM)
 
Total
Suspended
Solids
 
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
1,4­
Dioxane
 
1­
Bromo­
2­
Chlorobenzene
 
1­
Bromo­
3­
Chlorobenzene
 
1­
Methylfluorene
 
1­
Methylphenanthrene
 
2­
Butanone
 
2­
Hexanone
 
2­
Isopropylnaphthalene
 
2­
Methylnaphthalene
 
2­
Propanone
 
7­
16
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
5
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Controlled
Through
Regulation
of
Other
Pollutants
Present
in
Trace
Amounts
or
Not
Likely
to
Cause
Toxic
Effects
Treatment
Chemical
Not
Controlled
by
BPT/
BAT
Technology
Regulated
Under
40
CFR
438
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

3,6­
Dimethylphenanthrene
 
4­
Methyl­
2­
Pentanone
 
Acetophenone
 
Alpha­
Terpineol
 
Aniline
 
Benzoic
Acid
 
Benzyl
Alcohol
 
Biphenyl
 
Carbon
Disulfide
 
Dibenzofuran
 
Dibenzothiophene
 
Diphenyl
Ether
 
Diphenylamine
 
Hexanoic
Acid
 
Isobutyl
Alcohol
 
m+
p
Xylene
 
m­
Xylene
 
Methyl
Methacrylate
 
n,
n­
Dimethylformamide
 
n­
Decane
 
n­
Docosane
 
n­
Dodecane
 
n­
Eicosane
 
n­
Hexacosane
 
n­
Hexadecane
 
n­
Nitrosopiperidine
 
n­
Octacosane
 
n­
Octadecane
 
n­
Tetracosane
 
n­
Tetradecane
 
n­
Triacontane
 
o+
p
Xylene
 
o­
Cresol
 
o­
Xylene
 
7­
17
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
5
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Controlled
Through
Regulation
of
Other
Pollutants
Present
in
Trace
Amounts
or
Not
Likely
to
Cause
Toxic
Effects
Treatment
Chemical
Not
Controlled
by
BPT/
BAT
Technology
Regulated
Under
40
CFR
438
Nonconventional
Organic
Pollutants
(
continued)

p­
Cresol
 
p­
Cymene
 
Pyridine
 
Styrene
 
Trichlorofluoromethane
 
Tripropyleneglycol
Methyl
Ether
 
Nonconventional
Metal
Pollutants
Aluminum
 
Barium
 
Boron
 
Calcium
 
Cobalt
 
Gold
 
Iron
 
Magnesium
 
Manganese
 
Molybdenum
 
Sodium
 
Tin
 
Titanium
 
Vanadium
 
Yttrium
 
Other
Nonconventional
Pollutants
Amenable
Cyanide
 
Ammonia
As
Nitrogen
 
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
 
Chloride
 
Fluoride
 
Hexavalent
Chromium
 
Sulfate
 
Total
Cyanide
 
Total
Dissolved
Solids
 
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
 
7­
18
7.0
­
Selection
of
Pollutant
Parameters
Table
7­
5
(
Continued)

Pollutant
Parameter
Controlled
Through
Regulation
of
Other
Pollutants
Present
in
Trace
Amounts
or
Not
Likely
to
Cause
Toxic
Effects
Treatment
Chemical
Not
Controlled
by
BPT/
BAT
Technology
Regulated
Under
40
CFR
438
Other
Nonconventional
Pollutants
(
continued)

Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
 
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(
as
SGT­
HEM)
 
Total
Phosphorus
 
Total
Recoverable
Phenolics
 
Total
Sulfide
 
Weak­
Acid
Dissociable
Cyanide
 
Ziram
 
7­
19
