GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

                                FOR

                        EFFLUENT DISCHARGES

                              FROM THE

                     AUTO AND OTHER LAUNDRIES

                       POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
                            Anne M. Gorsuch
                             Administrator
                       Jeffrey Denit, Acting Director
                        Effluent Guidelines Division

                         G. Edward Stigall, Chief
               Inorganic Chemicals and Service Industries Branch

                            Elwood E. Martin
                              David Pepson
                            Project Officers
                             February 1982
DRAFT
                        Effluent Guidelines Division
                   Office of Water and Waste Management
                    U*S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Washington, D.C. 20*60

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                      Page

LIST OF FIGURES                                                          v

LIST OF TABLES                                                          vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                                     »

1.0   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                 1

     1.1   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                                    1
     1.2   DISCHARGE GUIDANCE                                          1

2.0   INTRODUCTION                                                       3

     2.1   PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY                                       3
     2.2   OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY                                     5
     2.3   SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY                                    5

3.0   DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY                                        7

     3.1   DEFINITION AND GROWTH TRENDS                                7
          3.1.1       Power Laundries, Family and
                     Commercial (SIC 7211)                                  7
          3.1.2       Linen Supply (SIC 7213)                                 8
          3.1.3       Diaper Service (SIC 721<0                                8
          3.1.4       Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry
                     Cleaning (SIC 7215)                                     9
          3.1.5       Dry-Cleaning Plants Except Rug
                     Cleaning (SIC 7216)                                     9
          3.1.6       Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners
                     (SIC 7217)                                             9
          3.1.7       Industrial Laundries (SIC 7218)                           10
          3.1.8       Laundry and Garment Services Not
                     Elsewhere Classified (SIC 7219)                           10
          3.1.9       Car Washes (SIC 7542)                                  10
     3.2   INDUSTRY PROCESSES                                           11
          3.2.1       Laundering                                            11
          3.2.2       Dry Cleaning                                          13
          3.2.3       Dual  Phase Processing                                  15
          3.2.4       Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning                          16
          3.2.5       Auto  Laundry                                         17
DRAFT

-------
                          Table of Contents - continued

                                                                          Page

4.0   INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION                                         IS

     4.1    FACTORS CONSIDERED FOR SUBCATEGORIZATION                   IS
           4.1.1       General Types of Cleaning Processes
                      Employed                                               18
           4.1.2       Types of Garments and Flatwork
                      Articles Cleaned                                         20
           4.1.3       Types of Laundering Chemicals Used                        21
           4.1.4       Age and Design of Equipment                              23
           4.1.5       Operating Schedules                                      23
           4.1.6       Geographical Location                                    25
     4.2    GENERAL CONCLUSIONS                                           25

5.0  WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTO AND
     OTHER LAUNDRIES INDUSTRY                                            26

     5.1    WASTEWATER SOURCES AND QUANTITIES                           26
           5.1.1       Source  of Wastewaters                                   26
           5.1.2       Volumes of Wastewater Discharged                         28
     5.2    WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS'                                  31
           5.2.1       Conventional and .Nonconventional
                      Pollutants                                              32
           5.2.1.1     Industrial Laundries                                      34
                      5.2.1.2   Linen  Supplies                                   36
                      5.2.1.3   Power Laundries, Family and
                              Commercial             '                        39
                      5.2.1.4   Diaper Services                                  39
                      5.2.1.5   Coin-Operated Laundries                          41
                      5.2.1.6   Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners                    41
                      5.2.1.7   Dry-Cleaning Plants                              41
                      5.2.1.8   Car Washes                                     41
            5.2.2       Toxic Pollutants                                         *1
                      5.2.2.1   Industrial Laundries                              50
                      5.2.2.2   Linen  Supplies                                   53
                      5.2.2.3   Power Laundries, Family and
                              Commercial                                     55
                      5.2.2.4   Diaper Services                                  55
                      5.2.2.5  Coin-Operated Laundries                          55
                      5.2.2.6  Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners                    59
                      5.2.2.7  Dry-Cleaning Plants                              59
                      5.2.2.8  Car Washes                                     59
      3.3    DISCHARGE TYPES                                                59
                                        11

-------
                         Table of Contents - continued

                                                                        Page

6.0   EXCLUSION OF SUBCATEGORIES FROM REGULATION                      66

     6.1    POWER LAUNDRIES, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL                    66
     6.2    DIAPER SERVICES                                                66
     6.3    COIN-OPERATED LAUNDRIES AND DRY-CLEANING                  67
     6.4    DRY-CLEANING PLANTS, EXCEPT RUG CLEANING                   67
     6.5    CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY CLEANING                             67
     6.6    CAR WASH ESTABLISHMENTS                                     68
     6.7    INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES                                         6&
     6.8    LINEN SUPPLY                                                   69

7.0   CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                               70

     7.1    PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                                   71
           7.1.1      Conventional Technology                                 71
                    7.1.1.1  Solids Removal                                 71
                    7.1.1.2  Free Oil Removal.                              73
                    7.1.1.3  Temperature Control                            73
                    7.1.1.4  Capabilities of Conventional
                    Technology                                             73
           7.1.2      Incompatible Pollutant Removal - Presently
                    Applied Technology                                      73
                    7.1.2.1  General Treatment Strategy                      75
           7.1.3      Incompatible Pollutant Removal -
                    Potentially Applicable Technology                          79
                    7.1.3.1  Gravity Settling.                                79
                    7.1.3.2  Filtration                                     81
                    7.1.3.3  Ultrafiltration                                 81
                    7.1.3.4  Diatomaceous Earth Filtration                    82
                    7.1.3.5  Electrocoagulation                              82
                    7.1.3.6  Other Technologies                              83
           7.1.4      Space Availability                                       83
     7.2    TREATMENT FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE                              83
           7.2.1      Primary Treatment                                      85
           7.2.2      Secondary Treatment                                     85
                    7.2.2.1 ,  Biological Treatment                            85
                    7.2.2.2  Other Technologies                              87
     7.3    RECYCLE/REUSE TECHNOLOGY                                   89
     7.4    SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL                                90
           7.4.1      Sludge De water ing                                       90
                    7.4.1.1  Rotary Vacuum Filters                           90
                    7.4.1.2  Screw Presses                                  91
           7.4.2      Sludge Quantity                                         91
           7.4.3      Disposal Techniques                                     91
                                      iii

-------
                        Table of Contents - continued

                                                                     Page

8.0   COSTS OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS                                       93

     8.1   CAPITAL AND ANNUAL TREATMENT COSTS
          ESTIMATE SUMMARY                                           93
     8:2   COST BASIS                                                  101
          S.2.1     Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment Systems                 101
                   8.2.1.1   Capital Cost Estimate                         101
                   8.2.1.2   Annual Treatment Cost Estimates                101
          8.2.2     Biological Treatment Systems.                           108
                   8.2.2.1   Trickling Filters                              108
                           8.2.2.1.1    Capital Cost Estimate              108
                           8.2.2.1.2    Annual Cost Estimate              108
                   8.2.2.2   Aerobic-Anaerobic Stabilization
                           Ponds                                      112
                           8.2.2.2.1,    Capital Cost Estimate              112
                           8.2.2.2.2    Annual Cost Estimate              112
     8.3   ENERGY CONSUMPTION                                        112
     8.4   SLUDGE MANAGEMENT                                        112
     8.5   OTHER.NpNWATEfr.QUAUTY ASPECTS                           116
9.0   SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE CONTROL AND TREATMENT
          TECHNOLOGY. AND DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE LEVELS      118
     9.1   GUIDANCE FOR PRETREATMENT                                118
          9.1.1     Technology Basis                                     118
          9.1.2     Pollutants.  -                                         US
          9.1.3     Statistical Methodology                                118
     9.2   GUIDANCE FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE                            13f

REFERENCES                                                          135


APPENDIX A    LAUNDRY WASTEWATER'TREAT ABILITY DATA               A-l

APPENDIX B    SURVEY OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SPACE FOR               B-l
               WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES
7-1      DAF treatment system for laundry wastewater using recycle flow
         pressurization ...............................................   76

8-1      Total capital cost estimates for pretreatment of laundry waste waters
         with DAF  ..................................................   96

8-2      Total annual cost estimates for pretreatment of. laundry waste waters
         with DAF ............................ . ............. .. ... .....   97

8-3      Total capital cost estimates for direct discharge treatment with DAF
         treatment plus a trickling filter .or a stabilization pond  ...........   99

8-4      Total annual cost estimates for direct discharge treatment of laundry
         wastewaters ................................................   100

8-5      Annual chemical costs for DAF treatment of laundry wastewaters   .   103

8-6      Daily sludge generation  rates for DAF treatment of laundry
         wastewaters  ...............................................
8-7       Annual sludge disposal savings for dewatered sludge versus annual
          amortized cost of sludge •dewatering equipment  ....... . ..........  106

8-8       Annual sludge disposal costs for DAF treatment of. laundry
          wastewaters ................................. ...............  107

8-9       Capital cost for trickling filter treatment of laundry wastewaters . .  110

8-10      Total annual costs for trickling filter treatment of laundry
          wastewaters ................................................  Ill

8-11      Capital costs for stabilization pond treatment of laundry
          wastewaters ................................................  113

8-12      Total annual costs for stabilization pond treatment of laundry
          wastewaters ................................................

-------
                              UST OF TICURIS
9-1      Cumulative distribution of daily concentrations from industrial
         laundry treated effluent  ......................................   123

9-2      Cumulative distribution of daily concentrations from industrial
         laundry treated effluent  ......................................
9-3      Cumulative distribution of daily concentrations from industrial
         laundry treated effluent ................. ..... .......... ......   1 25

9-4      Cumulative distribution of daily concentrations from industrial
         laundry treated effluent ..... ..... ............................   126

9-3      Estimated performance of proposed DAP treatment  ..............   130

9-6      Estimated performance of proposed DAP treatment  ..............   131

9-7      Estimated performance of proposed DAP treatment  ..... .........   132

9-8      Estimated performance of proposed DAP treatment  ..... .........   133

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES
1-1       Discharge Guidance	                   2

3-1       SIC Segments of the Laundry Industry	              7

4-1       General Types of Cleaning Processes Used by Industrial Laundries,
          Linen Supplies, and Power Laundries	              19

4-2       General Types of Garments and Flatwork Articles Handled by
          Industrial Laundries, Linen Supplies, and Power Laundries	         20

4-3       Classification of Chemicals Used by Power Laundries, Linen
          Supplies, Industrial Laundries, and Diaper Services	           22

4-4       General Types of Chemicals Used in Laundering Selected Garments
          and Flatwork Articles	                  24

5-1       Reported Process Wastewater Discharge Rates by Subcategory	    29

5-2       Conventional and Nonconventionai Pollutant Concentrations in
          Industrial Laundry Wastewaters	               35

5-3       Conventional and Nonconventionai Pollutant Concentration in
          Domestic Sewage	                  35

5-4       Variability of  Conventional Pollutant Loadings in Wastewater from
          One Industrial Laundry	                  37

5-5       Conventional and Nonconventionai Pollutant Concentrations in Linen
          Laundry Wastewaters	                 38

5-6       Conventional and Nonconventionai Pollutant Concentrations in Power
          Laundry Wastewaters	                 38
                                        vii

-------
                         LIST OF TA5LL5 - continued

                                                                         Page

5-7      Conventional and NonconventionaJ Pollutant Concentrations in
         Diaper Laundry Waste waters	                 40

5-8      Conventional and NonconventionaJ Pollutant Concentrations in Coin-
         Operated Laundry Wastewaters	                40

5-9      Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutant Concentrations in
         Wastewater from One Carpet-Cleaning Plant	            42

5-10     Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutant Concentrations .in
         Wastewater from One Dry-Cleaning Plant	             42

5-11     Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutant Concentrations in
         Rollover, Wand, and Tunnel Type Car Wash Wastewaters	        43

5-12     Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutant Concentrations in
         Tunnel Type Car Wash Raw Wash and Rinse Wastewaters	       44

5-13     EPA Toxic Pollutants	                    45

5-14     Toxic Pollutant  Concentrations and Loadings in Industrial
         Laundry Wastewaters	                   51

5-15     Toxic Pollutants in Laundry Water Supplies	              52

5-16     Toxic Pollutant  Concentrations and Loadings in Linen
         Laundry Wastewaters	                   54

5-17     Toxic Pollutant  Concentrations and Loadings in Power Laundry
         Wastewaters.	                      36

5-18     Toxic Pollutant  Concentrations and Loadings in Diaper Laundry
         Wastewaters	                      37

5-19     Toxic Pollutant Concentrations and Loadings in Coin-Operated Laundry
         Wastewaters	                      5&

5-20      Toxic Pollutant Concentrations in Wastewater from One Carpet-Cleaning
          Plant	~	                         60

5-21      Toxic Pollutant Concentrations in Dry-Cleaning Plant Wastewaters.    61
                                       viii

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES - continued

                                                                        Page

5-22     Toxic Pollutant Concentrations and Loadings in Wand Type Car Wash
         Raw Wastewaters	                 62

5-23     Toxic Pollutant Concentrations and Loadings in Rollover Type Car
         Wash Raw Wastewaters	               63

5-2*     Toxic Pollutant Concentrations and Loadings in Tunnel Type Car Wash
         Raw Wastewaters	.	                 64

5-25     Number of Direct Dischargers in the Laundry Industry	        65

7-1      Estimated Percent of Laundries Having Control Technology	     72

7-2      Results of Conventional Treatment System	,	          74

7-3      Area Requirements for Laundry Wastewater Equalization	     77

7-4      Summary of Pollutant Removal Efficiencies at Selected Plants Using
         DAF Technology	~	...	                  80

7-5      Area Requirements for PCS's	               84

7-6      Characterization of Laundry Wastewater After Physical-Chemical
         Treatment	                    86

7-7      Effluent Concentrations for Lagoons Treating Wastewater from Coin-Op
         Laundries..	.-.	                     86

7-8      Performance for Trickling Filters Treating Wastewater from'Coin-Op'
         Laundries	                     88

7-9      Sludge Quantities Resulting from the Physical-Chemical Treatment of
         Industrial Laundry  Wastewater	               92

8-1      Treatment Options for Laundry Wastewaters	         94

8-2      Capital and Annual Treatment Cost Estimates and Totals for
         Pretreatment of Laundry Wastewaters with DAF	       95

8-3      Capital and Annual Cost Estimates and Totals for Treatment of Laundry
         Wastewaters for Direct Discharge (with Biological Treatment)	     98
                                         i*.

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES - continued

                                                                       Page

         Summary of Annual Treatment Cost Estimates for DAF Treatment of
         Laundry Wastewater	                    109

8-5      Annual Electricity Consumption by Pretreatment	           115

8-6      Annual Electricity Consumption at Laundries.	          115

8-7      Amount of Sludge Generated per Year by Pretreatment	          117

9-1      Achievable Performances by D.A.F	          120

9-2      Statistical Summary of Treatment Data for Plant Z	          120

9-3      Statistical Summary of Treatment Data for Seven Industrial
         Laundries.	                  1.21

9-4      Statistical Summary of Treatment Data for All Industrial
         Laundries.	                  121

-------
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     This technical  document was prepared by Jacobs Environmental Division of
Jacobs  Engineering  Group Inc.  of Pasadena,  California,  under the direction of
Mr. Henry Cruse, Vice President, and Ms.  Bonnie Parrott, Project Manager. Major
contributors were Mr. Thomas Schaffer,  Mr. Dennis Merklin, Mr.  William Ray,
Dr. Ben Edmondson, and Ms. Jane Palmer.

     Previous contractors providing substantial support data and draft reports were
Monsanto Research  Corporation  of Dayton,  Ohio,  and Colin  A.    Houston  and
Associates Inc. of Mamaroneck, New York.

     We  would like to express  our  appreciation to the  Institute  of  Industrial
Launderers,  the  Textile Rental Services Association of America, the International
Car  Wash Association  and numerous individual  corporations for  their cooperation
and assistance in providing, review and comments.  The many company  and plant
personnel who submitted information and opened their facilities to project members
are greatly appreciated.
                                         xi

-------
                                 SECTION 1

                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1.1  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     To  explore possible need for efiluent  standards or guidelines,  a  study of the
Autos and Other  Laundries industrial point  source category was  undertaken.   The
industry was divided into the following segments:

     o    Industrial laundries

     o    Linen supply

     o    Power laundries, family and commercial

     o    Diaper service

     o    Dry cleaning plants, except rug cleaning

     o    Carpet and upholstery cleaning

     o    Coin-operated laundries and dry cleaning

     o    Laundry and  garment  services not elsewhere classified (NEC)

     o    Car wash  establishments

     Sampling  and  analysis of  discharges  from this  industry showed that toxic
pollutants,  both inorganic and organic,  occur  in  wastewaters from all segments
(except   NEC). The   amount  and  toxicity   of  these  pollutants, however, were
considered  insignificant in  all subcategories except industrial laundries and linen
supply laundries.

     The number of  facilities in  this  industry with treatment  systems  is small.
However, in  cases  where treatment systems  have been  installed,  dissolved air
flotation (DAF) has been selected as providing the best treatment. DAF effectively
reduces both conventional  and toxic pollutants.  The  use  of various alternative
technologies  for the removal  of pollutants  from this  industry was  considered not
feasible for various technological reasons (see Section 7).

     Greater than 99 percent of the laundry industry discharges  to publicly owned
treatment works. Only one  direct discharger was identified in both the industrial
and linen supply subcategories.

1.2  DISCHARGE GUIDANCE

     Achievable  performance  for  new and  existing  sources   is  presented in
Table 1-1.

-------
                    TABLE 1-1.  DISCHARGE GUIDANCE

Pollutant
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
TSS
BOD
Oil and Grease
Estimated
Long-Term
Average
mg/1
0.18
0.7*
0.93
0.7*



Daily
Variability
Factor(a)
4.0
2.7
3.7
4.4




Achievable
Performance
mg/1
24-hr, max. 30-day avg.
0.74
1.5
3.7
2.9
40
100
20
0.22
0.93
1.7
1.1
20
50
10
(a) Daily variability factor is the ratio of the estimated
   95th percentile to the estimated long term average.

-------
                                 SECTION 2

                               INTRODUCTION
     The purpose of this document is to provide technical data required to develop
NPDE5  permits  and pretreatment requirements for the Auto and Other Laundries
industry.  For direct disharges, limits should be based on the hazards involved,  the
removal  efficiency of demonstrated  technology, and compliance costs,  using this
document for guidance. For pretreatment, the effect of pollutants on the operation
of a publicly owned treatment  works (POTW) and the ability of the POTW  to
effectively reduce pollutant concentrations must also be considered.

     The information  in this  document is presented in the  following manner.  The
laundry industry is  defined  and described  in  Section  3  and  subcategorized  for
evaluation purposes into distinct segments in Section 4. Wastewaters resulting from
each of the  industry subcategories are characterized in Section  5 in terms of flow,
pollutant  concentration and load.  Conventional pollutants and 129 toxic pollutants
are considered.  The bases for exclusion from regulation are presented in Section 6.
In Section 7 control and treatment technologies, including both  in-process and end-
of-pipe controls and alternatives, are discussed in relation to their applicability to
the appropriate subcategories.   Capital  and  operating costs  for  the  treatment
systems  discussed in Section  7  are presented in Section  8.  Section  9 describes
achievable effluent  concentrations for the industry, as well as the bases  for  the
concentrations.

2.1 PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

     The Federal Water Pollution  Control Act Amendments of  1972 established a
comprehensive program to  "restore  and  maintain the chemical,  physical,  and
biological integrity of  the Nation's waters" (Section  101(a)).   To  implement the Act,
EPA was to  issue effluent limitation guidelines, pretreatment  standards, and new
source performance standards for industry dischargers.

     The Act included a timetable for issuing these guidelines.  However, EPA was
unable to meet many of the deadlines and, as a  result,  in 1976,  it was sued  by
several  environmental groups.   In settling this lawsuit,  EPA and  the plaintiffs
executed a "Settlement  Agreement,"  which  was   approved by the Court.   This
Agreement  required EPA to develop  a  program   and adhere  to  a  schedule  in
promulgating  effluent limitations  guidelines,  and  pretreatment standards  for  65
"priority" pollutants and classes of pollutants, for 21  major industries.  See  Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc.  v. Train, & ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12
ERC 1333 (D.D.C. 1979).

     Many  of the basic  elements of  this  Settlement Agreement program were
incorporated into the Clean  Water Act  of 1977.   Like the agreement, the  Act
stressed  control of toxic pollutants,  including the  65 "priority"  pollutants.   In
addition,  to strengthen the  toxic control  program, Section  3Q4(e)  of the  Act
authorizes the Administrator to prescribe "best management practices" (BMPs) to
prevent the release of  toxic and hazardous pollutants from plant  site runoff,  spillage
or  leaks,  sludge  or  waste  disposal,  and  drainage from  raw material  storage
associated with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing or treatment process.

-------
     Under the Act, the  EPA program is to set a number  of  different kinds of
effluent limitations, as follows:

     Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT) limitations are  generally based on
the average of the best existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages,  and
unit processes within the industry or subcategory.

     In establishing BPT limitations, EPA balances the total cost of applying  the
technology against the effluent  reduction  benefits achievable.   This  is a limited
balancing, in that EPA is not required to quantify benefits in monetary terms.

     Best  Available Technology  (BAT) limitations, in general, represent the best
existing performance in the industrial subcategory or category. The Act establishes
BAT as the principal national  means of  controlling the direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants to navigable  waters.

     In arriving at BAT, the Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the
weight to be accorded costs.  EPA needs only to  consider the cost of applying the
technology; no cost/benefit analysis is required.

     Best  Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)  limitations are  based
on  the  "best  conventional   pollutant control  technology"  for discharges  of
conventional  pollutants   from  existing  sources.    Section  304(a)(
-------
2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY

     The Auto and Other Laundries industry category consists of nine  segments
which have been divided by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system.  The
segments are:

           Power laundries, family and commercial

           Linen supply

           Diaper  service

           Coin-operated laundries and dry-cleaning

           Dry-cleaning plants, except rug cleaning

           Carpet and upholstery cleaning

           Industrial laundries

           Laundry and garment services not elsewhere classified

           Car wash establishments
     The above-listed segments consist of over 90,000 operating facilities primarily
engaged  in the cleaning  (dry  or  water-wash)  of  fabric-materials or  vehicles.
Wastewaters generated in this industry thus consist of contaminants removed from
the cleaned material and  chemicals added during the cleaning process.

2.3 SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY

     Background  information  on the  basic  segments of  the  Auto  and  Other
Laundries industry was obtained from literature, contacts with the  industry and its
trade associations, previous reports  and a mail survey  of specific segments  of the
industry.

     Data  on  wastewater  characteristics  including  sources and disposition of
wastewater, discharge quantities, and physical-chemical characteristics  for each of
the  eight  industrial  segments  were  obtained  from  NPDES  monitoring reports,
municipal sewer district  monitoring reports, a mail  survey  of approximately 250
laundries,  trade  association  studies, and  the  sampling  and  analysis  programs
conducted by the Agency.

     Sampling  Program  - Sampling  and analysis  of  wastewaters generated by the
Auto and Other Laundries industry was initiated by the Agency and its  contractors
in  1975.    These  early   programs   concentrated  primarily  on  conventional  and
nonconventional pollutants and trace  metals.

     In  197S a sampling program  was  begun  to  determine the presence  and
concentrations  of  the 129 toxic  pollutants  as defined  by the  Consent  Decree, in
wastewaters from  this industry.  A  total of  ftO facilities were sampled  for toxic as
well as conventional  pollutants.  Sampling  was conducted using automatic time-
compositing equipment during operating  hours  at each facility.  In  most cases

-------
sampling was for one day only.  At facilities where wastewater treatment were in
place, samples of both treatment influent and effluent were taken.  One industrial
laundry facility using a DAF treatment system was sampled over a one-month period
to obtain data on the variability of this type of treatment system.

     Processing of Data - Data on raw waste characteristics are summarized and
presented in Section  5  in  terms of  minimum,  maximum, median  and mean
concentration.   Using average  flow  data, typical  pollutant loads in  pounds or
kilograms per day are also presented.

     Data from plants with wastewater treatment systems in place are presented in
Appendix A and  summarized  in Section 7.  For  the development of  achievable
performances, a statistical evaluation of these data was conducted and is presented
in Section 9.

-------
                               SECTION 3

                     DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
3.1  DEFINITION AND GROWTH TRENDS

     The Auto and Other Laundries industry can best be defined and characterized
by considering the  various segments of which it is composed.  The industry has been
divided into  nine segments by the Standard Industrial Classiiication (SIC) system.
These  segments,  their  SIC  code  numbers,  and  the  approximate  number  of
establishments included in each segment are shown in Table 3-1.
          TABLE 3-1. SIC SEGMENTS OF THE LAUNDRY INDUSTRY
   Category title
    SIC         Approximate number
code number     of establishments (1)
Power laudries, family
and commerial
Linen supply
Diaper service
Coin-operated laundries
and dry cleaning
Dry-cleaning plants
except rug cleaning
Carpet and upholstery
cleaning
Industrial laundries
Laundry and garment services,
not elsewhere classified
Car wash establishments
SIC 72 11
SIC 7213
SIC 72 R
SIC 7215
SIC 7216
SIC 721 7
SIC 7218
SIC 7219
SIC 7542
3,100
1,300
300
32,000
28,400
2,700
1,000
2,700
22,000
3.1.1  Power Laundries, Family and Commercial (SIC 7211)

     Power laundries are defined as establishments primarily engaged in operating
mechanical laundries with  steam or other power.   Laundries using small  power
equipment of household type are included in the Laundry and Garment Services Not

-------
Elsewhere Classified  subcategory.  Also excluded here are establishments that have
power  laundries  but are  primarily  engaged  in  specialty  work, such  as  diaper
services, linen supplies, or industrial laundries.

     In 1967 this category accounted for 11% of all laundry establishments and 20%
of all  laundry  receipts (2).  In recent years power laundry receipts have declined
greatly.  In the period from  1963 to 197* they declined by 64%, even though the
population  and the gross national product (GNP) rose  significantly (3).   A major
reason cited for  this decline  is the development of wash and wear  fabrics, which
eliminated much  of the tedious finishing work (ironing in particular) associated with
doing laundry.   This  has encouraged  the  use  of  coin-op laundries, which are less
expensive,   and  the   use  of  home  laundry  equipment,  which  is  economically
competitive  with, and more  convenient than, coin-ops.   To offset these  losses,
power  laundries  are  increasingly providing other services  including coin-operated
laundry  and  dry    cleaning,  rug   cleaning,   dry   cleaning,   linen   rental,
industrial laundering, and diaper services.  However, there are  no indications that
this trend will  reverse itself in the near future, and it is expected that the decline
will continue until a point is reached  where power  laundries are supported by a
relatively small but stable portion of the population.

     Currently 75% of power laundry receipts are from traditional family and
bachelor-type work, but almost 18% is derived from dry  cleaning (2).

3.1.2  Linen Supply (SIC 7213)

     Linen supplies are defined as establishments engaged primarily in supplying, on
a rental basis, laundered items  such  as bed linens, towels, table covers, napkins,
aprons, and  uniforms.  These  establishments may operate  their own power laundry
facilities or they may contract the actual  laundering of the items they own.

     Sales  in  the  linen supply business have been increasing at a  moderate rate
        over the 1963-to-197<* period),  but recent sales figures indicate  that this
growth is leveling off (3).  However, there is a possibility that in  the future an
upswing in growth will be observed if energy prices  continue to increase.  This is
because linen  supply  laundries are more  efficient in water, chemical, and energy
usage  than are on-premise laundries.   If energy prices  increase to the point where
energy is a  major cost  item,  it may become more economical  for a  linen  user to
contract  for linen  supply  services  than  to  continue  using an existing in-house
facility.

      Major competitors in the linen  supply market are disposable items, on-premise
laundries,  and industrial and  power laundries that engage in linen supply  activities.
Disposable  napkins, paper towels, and the use of  paper place mats rather than table
cloths in particular have cut  into the restaurant  market.   To compensate for these
losses  many linen   suppliers have   expanded   their  services  to   include  work
traditionally done by industrial laundries.  Industrial  type work  may account for as
much as *0% of the work done by the linen supply business (W).

3.1.3   Diaper Service (SIC 7210)

      Diaper services are  defined as establishments  primarily engaged in supplying
diapers  (including disposables) and other  baby linens to homes, usually on a rental
basis.  Diaper services  may or may  not operate  their own power laundry facilities.

-------
There are approximately  300 such firms in the U.S., which account for about 0.6%
of total laundry receipts (I).

     The diaper  service  industry  has  not  diversified  as have many of the other
laundry categories.   Traditionally they have rented diapers and other baby linens to
household  users.   This  role  has remained  essentially  unchanged  except -chat
disposable diapers are now also supplied to customers.  Approximately  95%  of the
receipts are derived from the traditional sources (2). The number of establishments
and 'receipts for this industry have been declining due  to the failing birth rate and
the increasing popularity of disposable diapers.

3.1.*  Coin-Operated Laundries and Dry Cleaning (SIC  7215)

     The coin-op  category  is made up  of establishments  primarily  engaged in
providing coin-operated  laundry  and/or  dry-cleaning equipment on  their own
premises.  Included are  establishments known as  "laundromats,"  "self-service dry
cleaners,"  etc.   Also included are establishments that  install  and operate  coin-
operated laundry  machines in apartment houses, motels, etc.

     Coin-ops were introduced  in the 1950's and  by  1960  had numbered  20,000
establishments.  By L972 this figure had increased by  100% to 40,000 (3). Over the
past decade coin-op receipts have increased by 10% per year,  and  it  is expected
that future growth will continue at a moderate rate.

     Most  coin-ops offer  their  customers  other  services  besides  self-service
washers, dryers and dry-cleaning equipment.   These  usually include  the  sale of
soaps,  bags, hangers,  candy,  soft  drinks,  and  cigarettes via  vending machines.
However, these other services account for only 9% of coin-op receipts.  In 1967 this
subcategory encompassed 28% of all  laundry establishments and  accounted for
almost 9% of total laundry revenues (2).

3.1.5   Dry-Cleaning Plants Except Rug Cleaning (SIC 7216)

      Establishments belonging to SIC 7216 are defined  as those primarily engaged in
dry  cleaning  or  dyeing apparel  and household  fabrics, other than  rugs, for the
general  public.   There are about  28,000 establishments in this category, most of
which  are  relatively small.   Dry-cleaning plants accounted for  54%  of all  laundry
establishments and about 41% of  all laundry receipts in  1967 (2).

      The number of dry-cleaning establishments and real receipts in this segment of
the industry have both declined by 29% from 1963 to 1974 (3). This is largely due to
the new clothing fabrics developed over the  past 20 years. Many of these fabrics do
not  require dry cleaning or shed soil more easily and hence require it less often.
Dry cleaners  have  diversified  into  related  fields  such as shirt  cleaning and
laundering  in  order'  to  provide  customers with  one-stop  cleaning  services.
Relatively recent  developments are drapery, rug, and furniture  cleaning and the
sale and/or rental oi working apparel.

3.1.6   Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners (SIC 7217)

      Carpet  and  upholstery  cleaners are defined  as  establishments  primarily
engaged in cleaning carpets and upholstered furniture at a plant or on a customer's

-------
premises.  It  is estimated  that  25% of :nese Dusir.e'-ses operate  in-plant cleaning
facilities. The number of in-plant operations has declined significantly over the last
10 years with a corresponding growth in the on-location  type cleaners.  This is a
result of the increase in the use  of wall-to-wall carpeting.

     Firms  in this category are not very diversified.  Their basic services include
carpet and rug cleaning, repairing, and dyeing, and upholstered furniture cleaning.
Approximately 85% of the receipts are from these activities (2). A small number of
these  firms  offer in-piant  dry-cleaning  services for specialty  items  such as
Orientals, Aubussons, Savonneries, and tapestries.

3.1.7  Industrial Laundries  (SIC 7218)

     Industrial  laundries  are  establishments   primarily  engaged  in  supplying
laundered or dry-cleaned work  uniforms, wiping  towels, safety equipment (gloves,
flame  resistant  clothing,  etc.), dust covers  and  cloths, and similar  items to
industrial or  commercial  users.  These  items  may belong to  the  industrial
launderers and be supplied to users on a rental  basis or they may be the customer's
own goods.  Establishments included in this SIC category may or  may  not operate
their own laundry and dry-cleaning services.

     Most  industrial  launderers offer  their  customers a  variety  of  textile
maintenance services,  but  approximately 88% of the receipts are  derived from the
activities defined above (2).  Although there is  some overlap in the work done by
industrial launderers and linen suppliers, industrial launderers  in many cases  can be
distinguished  as  they  rent  personalized garments  fitted   and  labeled for  the
individual, while linen suppliers  provide rental  garments by size.   This distinction,
however, has been rapidly disappearing in recent years  (45).

      In  1967 this category  accounted for l.*96 of all laundry plants and 12% of the
total receipts of the  laundry  industry (2).   The  average annual growth rate of
receipts dropped from  approximately 11% during the  1963-to-1967 period to  6.6%
during the period from  1972 to  197* (3).  Became of the  nature of work processed,
receipts in this category are closely tied to the GNP.

3.1.8   Laundry and Garment Services Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 7219)

      This segment, Laundry and  Garment Set vices NEC,  is defined  as those
establishments  primarily engaged in furnishing  other laundry services, including
repairing, altering,  and storing clothes for individuals and the operation of Chinese,
French, and  other  hand laundries.   Additional  services  provided by these  firms
include fur garment cleaning,  repairing, and storage; glove mending; hosiery repair,
pillow  cleaning and renovating; and tailoring.    There  are  approximately  2,700
establishments in this category,  most of which are very small (1).

3.1.9  Car Washes (SIC 7542)

      The auto laundry is comprised of facilities designed for  the automatic  or self-
service washing of vehicles including cars, vans, and pick-up trucks.  There are three
types of car washes, tunnel, rollover, and wand, which will be described in 3.2.5.
                                        10

-------
     The industry, as a whole, continues to grow at a rate of 3-*% a year, although
the growth' rates for each of the three types of facilities will vary.  The number of
new tunnel facilities has been fairly constant since their inception. The cost of land
in many cities has  become a major  part of the capital outlay for a new facility, and
thus the  cost of these facilities may be prohibitive.  Rollovers are primarily  found at
service stations where oil companies have often used  them as promotional  devices,
sales, are therefore dependent on such things as the availability of gas.  A company
will.not  want to promote a product  that is difficult  to obtain, and so when a gas
crunch occurs, sales fall off. However, if different marketing techniques are used,
and .the carwash is not viewed as a promotional device but rather as an additional
source of income, sales should not be greatly affected.

     The largest sales increase has been for the  self-service wand type facilities.
The resurgence in  sales is partly due to a general upgrading of both merchandise and
facilities.   Furthermore,   wand  washes offer the  highest  return   on  the  least
investment  of the three types of facilities.  The number of bays  installed at a
location  is generally based on market studies.  These studies normally show  that an
initial  four bay set-up is the most economical.

     Car wash manufacturers are generally optimistic concerning future sales of
auto washing equipment.  As cars  become more  and more expensive, owners will
keep them for ionger periods of time, and must therefore take better  care of them.
This better care will include maintaining the appearance of the auto.  Also, in many
areas  (e.g.,  apartment complex   carports  and  driveways)  people are  no longer
permitted to wash their cars, and must take them to a carwash for cleaning.

3.2 INDUSTRY PROCESSES

      The unit operations  for this industry can  be  separated  into  those  used at
laundries and those used for auto washing.  There are four  basic types of processes
employed within the laundry industry:   water wash (laundering), dry  cleaning, dual
phase  processing, and carpet and  upholstery cleaning.    Auto washes  consist of
tunnel, rollover, and wand  type facilities.  Brief descriptions of these processes are
provided below.

3.2.1   Laundering

      The particular processes and  types of equipment used in a laundry depend to a
considerable extent on the types of services offered.

      Process—Upon entering  a laundry, soiled  materials  are first  sorted so that
items  requiring similar processing  can be grouped and weighed into  washer loads.
Sorting  may be done on the basis of fabric type, color, soil type, ownership, or type
of garment (for example, shirts are often separated from  other types of laundry as
are hosiery and bed linens). During the sorting process, items requiring prespotting
and destaining are identified.  Prior  to laundering, stains such as blood  or  food soil
which may set as a result of the washing process must be removed.   Other types of
stains may be removed either before or after washing.  Destaining procedures vary
from simple  soaking in cold water  to the  use of acids,  bleaches, and/or multiple
organic  solvents.
                                       11

-------
     Once a  laundry  load  is put in a washing machine, it  undergoes a series of
cycles  in which various processing operations are carried out.  The number and types
of operations performed  at  a given laundry are dependent on the types of items,
composition of the fabrics, and the soil classification. The first cycle is generally a
flush in which water is used to wet the fabrics and to remove loosely attached solids
and a portion of the water soluble soils. This may be followed by an optional cycle
known  as the break.  Here the garments are treated with an alkali solution to swell
cellulosic fibers so that soil is more easily removed.  For the actual wash cycles
(sudsing), the multiple sudsing procedure in which faeries are agitated in repeated
changes  of detergent  solution until  they are clean  is widely accepted as the  best
means  of removing soil  and preventing its redeppsition on  the fabrics.   In this
process, soiled garments are agitated in a soap solution until the rate of soil removal
per minute of running time has nearly leveled off to zero (5 minutes to 7 minutes).
This solution is then dumped except  for approximately 2.5 x 10'3  m3 of solution per
kilogram of fabric (0.3 gal/lb), which is retained by the load. The retained water
holds soil in suspension that cannot  be removed by rinsing with clear water.  This is
because the  rinse water  would dilute the soap  solution  to such an extent that soil
would  be redeposited rather than  remain  in  solution.   Therefore, a  clean  soap
solution is again added to the wash load and the above procedure is repeated  until
the soil content of the wash solution is reduced to a minimum (4).

     The sudsing cycles are usually followed by a bleach cycle where the detergent
solution is replaced  by a  bleach solution.  A series  of rinsing  cycles are  then
performed to reduce the alkali and soap content of the fabrics to a minimum. At
this point, depending on the nature  of the load, a blueing or brightening  cycle may
be included.  Alternatively,  brighteners are often  included  in other  wash  supplies
such as soaps, antichlors,  or sours.   The final  operation  is  usually  a   souring
treatment.   This involves reducing the pH  of the final  bath  to about 5 to prevent
yellowing of  fabrics caused by the presence of sodium bicarbonate during pressing.

      After laundering, clothes retain a quantity of water equal  to about 2.5 times
their dry weight.  Most of this water is removed in a centrtfugelike device called an
extractor.  A perforated basket located in a metallic shell is rotated at liigh speeds
so that a large percentage of the moisture is thrown off in a 5-minute to 15-minute
period.   When  removed from an extractor,  fabrics  generally  retain moisture
equivalent to only 50%  of their dry weight  and  are ready  for pressing or other
finishing operations.

      Equipment—Washers used in professional laundries can handle loads from 9 kg
(20 Ib)  to  «0 kg  (1,000  lb).  This equipment usually consists  of  a  perforated
horizontal cylinder which rotates inside of a shell.  Cylinders are equipped with ribs
that project toward the  center and run the length  of the cylinder. These  serve to
lift fabrics  as the cylinder rotates and then allow  them  to  drop  back  into the
 washing solution. The diameters of cylinders  range from 0.6 m (2* in.) to 1.5 m (60
in.), and lengths  vary from  O.W m (18 in.) to 3.2 m (126 in.).  Most washers are
equipped with thermometers for temperature control,  gages for  control of water
 levels, timing devices, and reversing devices so that the direction of rotation can be
 changed after every four or five revolutions (4).

       Automatic washers are being used to a considerable extent. This equipment
 allows the operator to load a washer, load supply compartments, start the machine,
 and not return until the entire wash cycle has been  completed.  In some of this
                                        12

-------
equipment, the top  part of the shell  opens to allow the cylinder to  rise out and
automatically deposit the wash load into trucks or an adjacent extractor. However,
the current trend is toward combination washer-extractors  so that laundry can be
washed and extracted in the same machine.  While this saves the transfer operation
and the floor  space occupied by an extractor, it also reduces the volume of laundry
that can  be handled by a single machine because of the extra time required for the
extraction cycle.

      Recently two other washer designs have become available:  the tunnel  washer
and modular washer.  Tunnel washers provide continuous  operation and can process
up  to 750 kg of laundry per  hour (1,870 Ib/hr).   Tunnel washers  employ the
counterflow process whereby  water at tap temperature  enters the system  at the
discharge end for the final rinse and then  flows through the rinse  and suds bath
before being discharged to  a drain. Live steam may be introduced at several points
along the tunnel to heat the water to the desired temperature for rinsing, bleaching,
and sudsing, or high temperature zones  can be located within the tunnel to heat the
water.

      This process is fully automatic.  Water, steam, and laundry chemicals can be
mechanically  injected into the system, and following washing, the work can  be
moved by a conveyor to an extractor and then to a dryer. One point common to all
tunnel washers is the reduction in water use. In conventional washers 1.3 x 10~2 m3
to 4.2 x 1Q-3 m^ of water are used per kilogram of laundry processed (1.5 gal/lb to 5
gai/lb), while tunnels generally use 5.8 x 1Q~3 m^  to  1.3 x 10~2 m^ per kilogram of
laundry (0.7 gal/lb to 1.5  gal/lb)  (6).   Less water usage also results in using less
energy and chemical supplies.  While these machines are becoming very popular in
Europe, their use in the U.S. is extremely limited.

      Another innovation in wash  equipment  is the modular  unit.  It  can be used
alone or  in combination with other units to provide flexibility in machine  capacity.
These washers are of a shell-less design, with agitation provided by 25% of the wash
solution surging in and out  of the machine.  Units  of this  design are loaded irocn the
top by hopper, sling, or conveyor and are unloaded through a front door.    When
accompanied by conveyors, a hydraulic extractor, and a tumbler, a fully automatic
system may be achieved.

3.2.2 Dry Cleaning

      Dry cleaning refers  to  the  cleaning  of fabrics  in an  organic-based solvent
rather than in an aqueous-based detergent solution.  When certain hydrophilic fibers
are washed in water they swell and undergo a dimensional change that results in
wrinkles  and shrinkage. This can be avoided by the use of dry-cleaning solvents or
solvent/detergent mixtures.  There are two other advantages to  dry cleaning..  The
solvents used in dry cleaning dissolve soils at low  temperatures and under  generally
mild  conditions as opposed to  the  laundering process, which involves a complex
colloidal  mechanism at high temperatures and the use of  relatively harsh chemicals
such as alkalies and bleaches.  Thus, dry cleaning results in considerably less wear on
a fabric.  Dry cleaning also uses much less water than laundering.  This results in
savings on both the cost of  water and the cost of discharging to a sewer.

      There are five types of laundries that use dry cleaning at least to some extent:
commercial dry cleaners (SIC 7216), industrial laundries (SIC 7218), power laundries
                                       13

-------
(SIC 7211), linen supplies {SIC  7213),  and coin-ops (SIC  7215).   The  general
processing steps undergone in a dry-cleaning plant are  similar  to  those  lor
laundering.  They are (7);

     (1)   Items are marked and sorted.

     (2)   Prespotting is performed where needed.

     (3)   Garments are weighed  into machine loads to prevent overloading.

     .(<*)   Loads are rotated in tumble-type washers in one or more solvent  baths.

     (5)   Excess solvent is removed by extraction.

     (6)   Solvent remaining after extraction  is removed in heated dryers (often
           incorporated into a  washer/extractor).

     (7)   Clean garments are inspected and spot cleaned if necessary.

     (S)   Finishing operations (pressing, steaming, etc.)  are performed to restore
           garments as near  as  passible to their original  size, shale, feel,  and
           appearance.

     (9)   Individual orders are  assembled  and wrapped or bagged for customer
           pick-up or delivery.

     In addition to the above procedures, commercial dry cleaners  may also offer
such services as water repellent treatment for rainwear,  moth repellent treatment
for wools, leather cleaning, and resizing of garments.

      The procedure used for industrial dry cleaning is similar to that listed above
except that there is less variety in the types of items handled and thus there is less
sorting involved. The procedure for coin-op dry cleaning is analogous to operating a
coin-op washing machine  except that neither chemical addition by the customer nor
drying  of the garments is required.  Clothes are loaded into the machine prior to
cleaning and are removed already  dried after cleaning.

      Processes—There are three methods used in dry cleaning:  charged system,
fresh  soap  added to each  load, and no  soap  added (8).  In  the  charged system, a
detergent and a small quantity of water (usually 0.5% to *%) are added to the  dry-
cleaning solvent. The detergent forms discrete hydrophilic aggregates of molecules
(micelles) which are dispersed throughout the solvent.   Water  addd to this solution is
absorbed by the micelles,  which  then become capable of dissolving water-soluble
soils without danger of serious wrinkling or shrinkage of fabrics.   In this type of
system the  water-detergent  concentration in the  solvent must  be  maintained
throughout the washing process.   This is accomplished by the use  of conductivity
meters to automatically control the addition of water  and  detergent.

      In the second method, the solvent  is charged with a given  amount of soap or
 detergent at the beginning of each load and does  not receive any additional charge
 during the  cleaning cycle.  Since soap is not metered, the maximum quantity of
                                        14

-------
water cannot be added without risk of damaging the fabrics and the solvent filtering
system.  Therefore, maximum efficiency is not achieved with this system.

     As the name  implies, the  no-soap method uses  only dry-cleaning solvent.
Because of this, prespotting is necessary to remove water-soluble soils.

     Equipment—Standard dry-cleaning equipment consists of a rotating cylinder in
a stationary shell as described in the previous section on laundering.  However, dry-
cleaning equipment also includes one or more solvent stroage tanks,  a filter system
for cleaning the  solvent  as it  is used, a  solvent/water separator, distillation
equipment for solvent purification, and, often,  a device  for  recovering solvent
vapors (a condenser or an activated carbon filter).

     Depending on the cleaning method used, dry-cleaning equipment may include
one or two solvent storage tanks and filtering systems. The latter is required with a
two-soivent-bath system,  in which  a pure solvent or solvent/detergent mixture is
used to clean the garments and then extracted, and the garments are rinsed in clean
solvent that is also extracted, as opposed to  garment-treatment in a single solvent
or solvent/detergent  mixture.   In the two-bath system,  contamination of the rinse
solvent is controlled by using it  for make-up in the wash solvent tank.

     A number of solvent  filtering devices have been described in  the literature (9-
11).  These generally consist of diatomaceous earth, sometimes mixed with silicates
or activated carbon,  coated onto a  wire mesh screen, or of filter  cartridges  which
often incorporate a pleated paper filter  around an activated carbon core.  Solvents
trapped  in the filter muck are often  recovered  by steam distillation  of  the used
filter materials in a "muck  cooker."   Recovery is completed by  condensing the
distillation  vapors and  sending the  condensate  to the  water/solvent separator.
Filters  are efficient at removing suspended  impurities and some soluble organics,
but in  order to limit the buildup of odor-causing  contaminants the solvent must be
distilled. Because distillation is relatively expensive, it  is practiced  only to prevent
solvent from becoming fouled rather than to  produce a  completely purified solvent
for each load.   This  is  accomplished  either by continuously  distilling a small
slipstream of the circulating solvent as it comes from the filter or  by periodically
distilling a portion  when required due to odors  or off  colors.  Because water and
perchloroethylene  form  an  azeotropic mixture,  they  are  codistilled  and  the
condensate must pass through the water/solvent separator (12).

      When the more expensive chlorinated or fluorinated solvents are used it is
usually economically  advantageous  to  recover  the solvent that  vaporizes during
drying of garments.   Such solvents are recovered by  condensation or trapped in
activated carbon and recovered by steam injection and subsequent condensation. In
either case the recovered solvent is fed to the water/solvent separator to remove
the water.  In the separator, water and solvents are separated by the differences in
their  specific  weights.  Water  is decanted from the solvent after  separation and
discharged.  The solvent/water  separator and the noncontact cooling water used for
condensation are the only two sources of wastewater from the dry-cleaning process.

3.2.3 Dual Phase Processing

      Dual phase  or dual  stage  processing is a cleaning method that employs a
water/detergent wash and a separate solvent wash.  This method  is  used  almost
exclusively by industrial laundries to clean items  that contain large amounts of both
                                        15

-------
water-soluble soils and oil and grease. Major items cleaned by this process are work
shirts (pants and overalls are usually  cleaned  by the charged system  dry-cleaning
process) and wiping rags.  The advantage of dual phase processing for shirts is that it
extends the life of garments made  of polyester/cotton blends.  If these garments
were only water washed,  strong detergents and high temperatures  that would result
in increased wear would have to be used.  In the processing of wiping rags, an  initial
solvent-cleaning  step greatly reduces  the pollutant loading of  the subsequent
wash waters.

     The order of processing is determined both by the reason dual phase processing
was selected and by the choice of solvent.  When perc is used as the solvent  in the
cleaning of work  shirts, the  water  wash  is done first to minimize solvent losses.
When petroleum-based solvents are  used, the solvent cleaning step is  usually done
first.  Other factors which  may affect the order include the type of soil and  drying
energy requirements.

3.2.<>  Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning

     Rug and carpet cleaning may be done either on location or in a cleaning plant.
Over the  last 20 years there has been a gradual shift from  in-plant  processing of
rugs and carpets to on-location cleaning.  As a  result, the majority of the rug and
carpet cleaning firms  do only on-location work and subcontract in-plant cleaning to
a  few centralized establishments still engaged in this business.  Cleaning methods
used by both types of firms are described below.

     On-location  carpet  cleaning is done  by  either  the powder,  dry  foam,  rotary
brush, or  hot water extraction  method (8). When using any of these methods the
carpet is usually  vacuumed to remove loose soil and prespotted  to remove stains
prior to cleaning.  In  the first method, a powder is worked into the carpet, left to
absorb soil, and then  vacuumed  up.   Usually an absorbent clay or cellulosic-based
powder, such as sawdust, saturated  with a volatile solvent is used to  help dissolve
oily dirt and loosen paniculate matter.  This process generates no wastewater.  A
low water, high foam detergent solution is used for cleaning in the dry foam process.
The foam is worked into the carpet either by hand or machine and then extracted by
wet or  dry vacuum.   Cleaning by the rotary  brush  method  consists  of working a
detergent and water mixture into the carpet with a  rotary brush machine followed
by vacuum extraction. In the hot water extraction process, a hot detergent solution
is injected into the carpet pile under pressure and then immediately wet vacuumed
out. All of the processes that involve a wet vacuum  step generate a small  quantity
of wastewater.  This is usually disposed of on site when the capacity of the machine
is reached.

      Depending  on the size of the rug, in-plant cleaning may  be done in  a rug
cleaning machine or on a special cleaning floor  for large area rugs too big  to pass
through an automatic cleaning machine.   In either  case the preliminary  cleaning
steps are similar.  First, loose soil is removed by mechanically beating the  carpet
with metal or leather straps or  by use  of a  high speed vibrator while the  rug is
positioned over a suction box with the pile down.  This step may be omitted at some
plants or for some rugs.  Stains are removed by prespotting with various solvents.
This is followed by a prewash in which a detergent solution is worked  into the pile.
A high pressure sprayer, a rotary brush, or a combination of the two may be used for
this purpose.
                                        16

-------
      At this point the  rug is either scrubbed by a rotary brush on a wash floor . id
then spray rinsed or it is fed over a cylinder or a flat bed through a detergent spray
at high  or  low  pressure.   If  low pressure is used,  the  carpet passes  through
reciprocating brushes to work the detergent into the pile.  If high pressure  is used,
teethed  rollers or  vibrator rolls are used to force the detergent solution into the
pile.  This is followed by a squeegee roll that squeezes the detergent solution  and
suspended soil  out of the carpet.  Thereafter,  methods vary  somewhat but most
systems then rinse the rug and send it through a second  set of wringers.

      After washing, rinsing, and wringing, rugs are removed to a drying room. Here
hot air at a temperature around 60°C is pulled across the rugs  by large fans until
they are dry.

      A few plants maintain rug dry-cleaning machines that are  used only for very
delicate  and dye-sensitive rugs and tapestries.   The  only  wastewater  discharged
from  this process is the noncontact  cooling water used to condense vapors from the
distillation unit and the small amount of moisture in  the rug due to the  relative
humidity at the  time of processing.  The latter is separated from the solvent  in a
gravity separator and then discharged.

      Upholstery  cleaning is usually  done on site and involves very little or no water,
so that no real effluent stream results. Processes used  are absorption by a cellulosic
or clay-based powder,  wet shampooing with a  detergent solution, dry-cleaning, or
foam shampooing.

3.2.5 Auto Laundry

      There are three main types of car washes:   tunnels, rollovers and  wands. All
three types use basically the same processes to wash the auto, however the type of
equipment used to accomplish this task varies.

      Process—The first step in washing an  auto is  the  application of detergents and
water and mechanically removing the  dirt.   This may be accomplished by brushes or
high-pressure streams of water. The auto is then rinsed with clean water to remove
the dirt  and soap.  Finally, the auto is dried either by a blower as in a tunnel or by
the owner in a wand-type facility.

      Equipment—The tunnel wash is  the largest of the three types and is usually
housed in a long  building.  The vehicle is pulled by a conveyor or driven through the
length of the building, passing through separate washing, waxing, rinsing, and drying
areas.   A trench,  usually running the  length of  the  building,  collects the  waste
waters.   Because of this  design, it is  possible  to keep the wash and rinse  waste
waters separate  by installing a dam in  the trench.  This facilitates  the treatment
and partial reuse of the waste waters.

      At a rollover wash, the vehicle remains stationary while the equipment passes
over the car. Similar in design are  the exterior pressure washes which utilize high-
pressure streams of water in lieu of brushes.  At  both types, all the wastewater is
collected in a single trench, usually situated beneath the car.

      The car also  remains stationary  at a wand wash,  but here the customer washes
his own car with a high pressure stream of water  from a hand-held wand.  As  at a
rollover, both the wash and rinse waters are collected in a single trench or sump.
                                        17

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                       INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
      The  auto and other laundries industry  is composed of  a large  number  ol
 individual  firms which provide services  to  a variety  of  customers.   The mix  of
 customers that a laundry or auto wash serves, the volume of business that it does,
 the particular chemicals,  processes, and equipment used, and  many other factors
 have an effect on the volume and composition of the wastewater it generates.  In
 order to set  effluent standards which  are realistic, these differences must  be
 accounted for.   This  is  accomplished  by  dividing  the  industry  into  individual
 segments, or subcategories.

 *.l FACTORS CONSIDERED FOR SUBCATEGORIZATION

 4.1.1 General Types of Cleaning Processes Employed

      The  three general types of cleaning processes used in the  laundry industry are
 water wash,  dual-phase, and  dry cleaning.   The  degree  to  which each of  these
 processes  are used  in  a given laundry establishment is a primary  determinant of
 wastewater volume and composition.

      Table 4-1 summarizes data obtained by industry survey on the application of
 these general types of cleaning processes in  industrial laundries, linen supplies, and
 power laundries.

      Although dry cleaning  is  performed  by  most industrial laundries and  a
 significant percentage of linen supplies and power laundries, a large majority of the
' garments  and flatwork articles handled by these establishments are water washed.
 Dual-phase cleaning is only practiced to a significant extent in the industrial laundry
 subcategory.

      None of the 25 diaper services responding to the industry survey reported the
 use of  dual-phase or dry cleaning methods.   Only 5 of 35 coin-operated laundries
 surveyed  during  this  study   have  self-service dry cleaning   machines on  their
 premises.   Where this type  of  service  is offered  by coin-operated laundries,  it
 usually accounts for only a small percentage of the total  business.  As explained in
 Section 3, in-plant carpet cleaners do  not use  solvent  washing  techniques  to a
 significant extent either.

      The  dry cleaning plant  segment (SIC 7216) of the laundry industry  is the only
 subcategory where  the majority of  the workload is dry cleaned rather than  water
 washed.  Wastewaters discharged by these establishments are considerably different
 in terms of volume and composition than  the wastewaters  discharged by other  types
 of laundries.  These differences are illustrated in Section 5 of this report.

      A small number of industrial laundries surveyed during this study dry clean the
 majority of their workload.   One industrial iaunderer reported that  only 20% of the
 total poundage processed at his plant is water washed.  Even under these  conditions,
 however,  the vast  majority  of the  process wastewater originates from aqueous
 rather  than dry cleaning processes.
                                         18

-------
 TABLE *-l. GENERAL TYPES OF CLEANING PROCESS USED BY INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES,
           LINEN SUPPLIES, AND POWER LAUNDRIES
Percent ol total poundage
Subcategory/Process
Industrial laundries
Water wash
Dual-phase
Petroleum solvent/water
Water /per chlorelhylene
Dry Cleaning
Linen supplies
Water wash
Dual -phase
Petroleum solvent/water
Water /perdiloroe thy lene
Dry Cleaning
Power laundries
Water wash
Dual-phase
Petroleum solvent/water
Water /uerchloroethylene
Number of
Number ol respondents
respondents using process
74
74
10
7
32
58
38
3
1
13
21
21
0
2
Minimum

19.3
0
0
0

80
0
0
0

59
0
0
Maximum

100
49
73
80.3

100
20
6
17

too
0
10
Mean lor
all respondents

Sl.l
3.1
2.2
12.9

97.3
0.)
O.I
7.1

94.7
0
0.3
Mean for
respondent
using proce

81.1
23.2
23.3
IS. 4

97.3
9.3
6
8.1

94.7
0
3.3
Dry cleaning
                                                            41
                                                                         4.8
                                                                                    II.I

-------
t.1.2  Types of Garments and Flatwork Artl-i-as Cleaned

     The  nature and quantities of soil present on garments and flatwork articles
cleaned by laundries are primary determinants oi wastewater strength. Soil loading
is, in turn, determined from the environment in which these articles are used.

     Table 4-2 identifies  the  general types and relative amounts of items cleaned
by industrial laundries, linen supplies, and power laundries, based on the results of an
industry survey.
       TABLE 4-2.   GENERAL TYPES OF GARMENTS AND FLATWORK
                     ARTICLES HANDLED BY INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES,
                     LINEN SUPPLIES, AND POWER LAUNDRIES
                                           Percent of total poundage
                                            for industry subcategory

Typea
Industrial garments
Industrial flatwork
Dust control items
Linen garments
Linen f Jatwork
Commercial and institutional
garments and flatwork ^
Family laundry
Diapers
OtherC
Industrial
laundries
45.0
22.0
16.0
1.1
4.7

<0.1
<0.1
0
11.1
Linen
supplies
5.2
2.1
4.2
7.8
69.0

6.8
0.3
1.8
2.8
Power
laundries
1.4
0.4
0.7
2.0
16.0

55.0
17.0
0.7
6.8
a Includes only water-wash and dual phase poundage, except where  noted.
b Articles owned by the customer, not supplied on a rental basis.
c Includes dry-cleaned apparel and miscellaneous articles.


      More than 80% of the total weight of material cleaned by industrial laundries
consists of industrial garments (i.e,, uniforms, coveralls, work shirts, and pants),
industrial flatwork items, particularly  shop towels, and dust control items such as
mats, maps  and  tool  covers.   The major customers of industrial laundries are
chemical and manufacturing  plants, automotive repair  shops and service  stations,
machine shops, printing establishments, and janitorial services.   Garments and
flatwork articles used  by these and other  industrial laundry customers tend  to be
more heavily soiled   than   the  textiles  cleaned  by establishments  in   other
subcategories that service primarily nonindustrial customers.

      Nearly  80% ol the work performed in the linen supply subcategory consists of
typical "linen" items such as napkins, tablecloths,  bed sheets, pillowcases, towels,
aprons, and  nonindustrial  uniforms.     Major  linen  supply   customers  include
                                         20

-------
restaurants  and food services, hospitals,  motels,  hotels, schools, other commercial
businesses 'and institutions.   Linen garments  and flatwork are usually much  less
heavily soiled than  their "industrial" counterparts,  although  restaurant linens  can
be heavily laden with grease. Industrial garments, flatwork, and dust control it«:T;S
account  for approximately 11 to 12% of the linen supply business (in terms of total
poundage).

      Power laundries process many of the same types of items that are handled by
linen supplies.  The major differentiation is that most of the  articles cleaned by
power laundries  are owned by  the customer rather than by the laundry  itself.
However, power  laundries  also  wash  a  significant  percentage of  family-type
garments, unlike industrial laundries an'd  linen  supplies.   Based on  the survey
results, less than 3% of the total weight of material cleaned  by power laundries is
"industrial-type" work.

      As explained in Section 3, diapers and carpet account for the vast majority of
material cleaned  in the diaper service and carpet cleaning segments of the industry,
respectively.   Coin-operated laundries and commercial dry cleaners primarily cater
to  individual customers and families.

      Due to the nature and  quantities of soil present on the major types of textiles
cleaned,  industrial laundry  wastewaters tend to be more heavily polluted than
wastewaters from other types of laundries. Linen supply wastewaters rank second in
strength on the average, followed by wastewaters from power laundries and  diaper
services, carpet cleaners and coin-operated laundries, and dry cleaning plants.  This
trend  is illustrated in Section 5.

4.1.3  Types of Laundering Chemicals Used

      Table 
-------
             TABLE 4-3.  CLASSIFICATION OF CHEMICALS USED BY POWER
                          LAUNDRIES, LINEN SUPPLIES, INDUSTRIAL
                          LAUNDRIES, AND DIAPER SERVICES
                           Percentage of laundries which
                         report using each class of chemical
Chemical
class
Alkali*
Caustic Soda
Silicates
Phosphates
Soap •
Buiit Soap
Detergent
Bleach
Antichlor
Sour
Blueing and/or Brightener
Germicide or Bacteriostat
Mildew Inhibitor
Flame Retardant
Solvents
Dust and Treating Compounds
Starch
Power
laundries
67
25
17
4
50
38
67
100
29
96
29
25
4
13
33
13
88
Linen
supplies
67
23
30
11
33
39
81
95
44
98
9
37
68
16
25
58
84
Industrial
laundries
50
•28
28
18
14
28
73
77
30
76
15
18
17
32
44
55
49
Diaper
services
70
11
11
48
48
30
30
93
37
85
11
85
4
0
4
7
0
aOther than caustic soda.

        The most obvious trends indicated by the data in Table 4-3 are:

        o     Phosphates and  soaps  are  most widely  used by diaper services,  while
              linen supplies and industrial  laundries use  synthetic  detergents  much
              more frequently.

        o     Germicides and  bacteriostats are most widely used by diaper  services,
              due to bacterial and viral contamination of diapers by feces.

        o     Mildew inhibitors  are  most commonly  used for  "linen supply"  items,
              which  may be stored for extended periods  of time.

        o     Solvents are most widely  used in  the  industrial  laundry  subcategory
              where dual-stage and dry cleaning operations are more prevalent.

        o     Flame retardants are also more  widely used for Industrial-type garments.

        o     Dust and other specialty treating compounds are most commonly used by
              industrial laundries and linen supplies.
                                          22

-------
     o     Starch  is used by the majority of power laundries and linen supplies, and
           by approximately 50% of the industrial laundries surveyed.

     The  degree   to  which laundering chemicals  such  as  sours, blueing  and
brightening agents, germicides  and bacteriostats,  solvents,  dust  and  specialty
treating  compounds, etc., contribute to pollutant  loadings in wastewater depends
upon the particular compounds selected and the quantities of  these compounds that
are used  in various washing applications.

     The  general types  of laundering chemicals  used  in laundering selected
garments and flatwork articles are identified in Table 4-4. This information is based
on data  from a -survey of industrial laundries, linen  supplies, power laundries, and
diaper services.  The  quantity of each chemical used depends  upon the particular
product  employed, and widely varying usage rates were  reported by  different
laundry owners. In many cases, more than one generic type of  laundering chemical
is contained in  commercial formulations.

     Because  the same  general  types  of  chemicals  are used in  many different
washing  applications  and many  different  commercial  formulations can  be used
interchangeably, it is not possible to subcategorize the laundry industry on the basis
of chemical  usage.  The dry cleaning  plant subcategory could be  subdivided  into
plants that use perchloroethylene solvent  versus plants that use petroleum-based
solvents, however  further subcategorization of this industry sector is not considered
critical  due to  the  relatively  small  volumes of  process  wastewater that are
discharged by dry  cleaning plants.

*.1.4 Age and  Design of Equipment

      Most of  the new laundry equipment  being marketed is of similar design to
older units except that they tend to be more automated and slightly more efficient
in the use of chemicals, water, and energy.  One innovation in design is  the counter
flow type of wash equipment which is popular in Europe but currently receives  only
limited  use in the U.S.  This type of equipment  has the  potential to moderately
increase the  strength of wastewaters simply because it uses considerably less water.

      However, differences  in wastewater  quality and  quantity due to  the  age of
wash equipment are generally very minor.  Soils are  removed from  the  laundry and
thus  incorporated in  the wastewater regardless of  the age  or type of equipment
employed.  Therefore, any reduction in the  mass  of pollutants discharged will be
from reductions in or elimination of, the use of specific laundry chemicals.  Since
there  are substitutes available  for  most  laundry chemicals which contain toxic
pollutants, the age of equipment is not significant in terms of  pollutant discharge.

4.1.5 Operating Schedules

      Most commercial laundries operate 5  days per week and approximately 8 to 10
hours per day.   Coin-operated laundries, on the other hand, are  open anywhere from
8 to 24 hours per  day  and are usually dosed only on holidays. However, some of the
larger linen supplies,  power  laundries,  industrial  laundries,  and  diaper services
operate  6 to 7  days per week and up to 24 hours per day.

      Although the operating schedule of  a laundry  is significant in  terms of
wastewater  treatment system design capacity, it has no significance in relation to
                                         23

-------
        TABLE »-*. GENERAL TYPES OF CHEMICALS USED IN LAUNDERING SELECTED GARMENTS AND FLATWORK ARTICLES
Article
Shop towels
Industrial imlfornu
Vinyl mats
White table linen
Bed sheets
Colored apparel
Dt opera
Alkali*"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ouillb
Silicates8 Soapb soap
X X

X
X
X
X
XXX
Bleach/
Delcrgenll* Solvent antichlor Dye
XX X
X
X
X X
X X

X X
Mildew
Sour Softener Starch Inhibitor

X

X XX
X X
X
X X
Germicide/
bacterioitat Salt
X





X
•Either alkali or silicates are normally used.
"Either soap, built soap, or detergent is normally used.

-------
wastewater characteristics.  Effluent flow and composition vary from hour to hour
throughout'an operating day, however the overall waste characteristics depend upon
the types of garments cleaned and the types of cleaning process used rather than the
operating schedule.

*.1.6 Geographical Location

      Laundries are found in all parts of the United States, but subcategorization on
this basis is not appropriate. Geographic location may be  important in  evaluating
treatment alternatives, however in this  industry facilities are normally indoors.

t.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

      Subcategories selected for possible development of effluent limits or guidance
values for the°Auto and Other Laundries industry parallel the groupings established
by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. The segments selected  are:

                      Power Laundries, Family and Commercial
                      Linen Supply
                      Diaper Service
                      Coin-Op Laundries and Dry Cleaning
                      Dry Cleaning Plants Except Rug Cleaning
                      Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning
                      Industrial Laundries
                      Classified
                      Car Washes

      Although Laundry and Garment Services Not Elsewhere Classified is a segment
 of the  industry,  they  perform no  cleaning operations and  have no  wastew,iter
 discharge.  For the purposes of this study, they are considered as  a segment for
 review but not as an actual subcategory.

      The primary bases for the subcategorization  scheme outlined above  are (1)
 differentiation by type  of item to be washed, whether garments, diapers or autos,
 and (2)  the nature and quantities of soil present on  these different items discussed
 above.   Soil  loading  is a primary determinant of  wastewater composition.,  as
 discussed in Section 5  of this report.   The  type  of cleaning process used  (e.g. water
 wash versus dry cleaning) is also an important  consideration in differentiating dry
 cleaning plants (SIC 7216) from establishments in other industry subcategories.  The
 car wash subcategory is clearly demarked by  the fact that only autos are cleaned at
 these facilities.
                                         25

-------
                                 SECTION 5

                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
                  AUTO AND OTHER LAUNDRIES INDUSTRY


     This  section identifies  the  sources,  quantities  and  characteristics  of
waste water  discharged  by the auto and other laundries industry.   Subsection 5.1
discusses the various sources and  quantities of wastewater  in laundries  and auto
washes. With regard to laundries, those using water-wash are contrasted with those
using solvent-cleaning  processes with particular emphasis on process wastewaters.
Discharge rates are characterized  in terms of m3/day (gal/day) and either  nv/kg
(gal/lb) of material washed or m^/car (gal/car).  Factors affecting wastewater ilow
variability between plants in different subcategories and between plants within the
same subcategory ars also discussed.

     Subsection  5.2  identifies  and  discusses   the  characteristics  of process
wastewaters in each industry subcategory. Ranges, median and mean concentrations
for seven conventional pollutant parameters and 129 toxic pollutants on the Consent
Decree list are presented and various factors that affect the concentrations of these
substances in laundry  and auto wash wastewaters are discussed.  In addition, the
toxic pollutant loads in kg/day of pollutants were calculated  from the average flow
data found in Table 5-1  and presented along with concentration data.

5.1 WASTEWATER SOURCES AND QUANTITIES

5.1.1 Source of Wastewaters

     Based on the industry  survey results tabulated  in Section 4, 95% or more of all
garments  and flatwork handled in the linen supply, power laundry, diaper service,
carpet cleaning and coin-operated  laundry  subcategories are water-washed.  Many
linen supplies,  power laundries and coin-ops offer dry  cleaning services, but this is
usually a very small fraction  of the  total business at these establishments.  Dry
cleaning and dual-phase washing are more widely practiced in the industrial laundry
subcategory, but, here again,  approximately  80% of  the total workload is  water-
washed.

      For typical  establishments in these subcategories, 70-»5% of the total water
metered  into  the plant is  discharged  as process  wastewater.   According  to
representatives  of  the  Linen  Supply  Association  of  America  (LSAA),  boiler
requirements account for 7 to 10% of the incoming  water.   Water remaining in the
textiles  after extraction  and  subsequently  evaporated during  the  drying cycle
accounts  for 8 to 10% and miscellaneous uses (e.g., sanitary, equipment cleaning)
consume up to 10% of  the total plant influent.  The process  effluent to fresh water
consumption ratio at  any given laundry depends upon the  types of  cleaning  and
finishing  processes  used and  the  types of garments and flatwork articles being
 handled.

      The total water-wash effluent includes each of the series of wash, rinse and
 conditioning waters used in the process. Because the  various laundry chemicals and
 water added to and discharged from most washing machines are added and drained in
                                         26

-------
batchwise fashion, effluent flow is quite va-:£2le.  This variability is stabilized to a
certain  extent  in large laundries where many  machines are operated  in staggered
cycles;  however, considerable flow variability still exists.  Counterflow washing
machines, on the other  hand, discharge  the wastewater  in  a  continuous fashion;
however, this type of equipment is rarely used in the United States.

      Unlike laundries  that water-wash the majority of their  workload, commercial
(or industrial) dry-cleaning plants do not consume or discharge large  quantities of
process water.  In such plants, the major sources of wastewater are the noncontact
cooling water used to condense solvent vapors and the water used for sanitary or
other auxiliary  purposes.  The only sources of process wastewater are the following:
(1) trace quantities of water present in the fabric being cleaned, (2) small volumes
of water added to the solvent to remove sebaceous soils from the fabric, (3) solvent-
contaminated  steam condensate from the regeneration of carbon columns used for
air pollution control and (4) solvent-contaminated  steam condensate resulting ;:rom
the recovery of solvent from spent filter materials. Wastewater from each of these
sources is separated from the solvent by decantation and discharged directly  to the
sewer.  In all cases, extremely minor quantities of wastewater are involved.

      •Many dry cleaning plants, particularly those using petroleum solvents  rather
than  perchloroethylenea, do  not use  carbon columns  for  air  pollution  control or
"muck cookers" for  solvent recovery.  In  such plants,  solvent-contaminated  steam
condensate is not a source of process wastewater.

      As previously stated, many linen  supplies, power  laundries, coin-ops and most
industrial laundries employ both water-wash and dry-cleaning processes.  Typically,
the dry-cleaning process wastewaters  generated in these  plants are  negligible  in
comparison to the water-wash effluent. They may  be combined  with the water-wash
effluent for in-plant treatment and  subsequent discharge,  or  discharged separately.
In the latter case,  the dry-cleaning wastewaters are not subjected to  the  same in-
plant treatment (e.g.f lint  screens,  heat reclamation,  etc.)  as the water-wash
effluent; rather, they are discharged directly to the sewer connection or outfall.

      The wastewaters from dual-phase processing (which  is used to  a  significant
extent  only in the industrial laundry subcategory) combine  the characteristics of
water-wash and dry-cleaning  effluents.  When  the solvent-wash cycle  is performed
first (i.e., when petroleum solvents are used), the subsequent  water-wash effluent is
contaminated by the  solvent left in the  fabric after  extraction; otherwise,  it  is
treated in the plant and  discharged in the  same manner as any water-wash effluent.
When the water-wash  cycle is performed  first  (i.e., when perchloroethylene solvent
is used), the  total wastewater discharged  from the process includes the water-wash
effluent plus  the  water remaining  in   the  fabric  after  extraction,  which  is
subsequently removed  from the solvent wash and decanted.
      Perchloroethylene, tetrachlorethylene, and "Perc"
      are simply different names for the same chemical.
                                        27

-------
     Water usage at auto washing facilities consists primarily of water used to wash
the autos.  To wash  the auto, detergent is added to  water and is used for both
cleaning and brush lubrication purposes.  After this water is used to clean the auto,
it  is discharged as wastewater  unless provisions have been made for recycle.  In the
final operation the rinse water is used to dean the car of dirt and soap.  This water
is  also discharged unless provisions are made to recycle a portion of the flow.

5.1.2   Volumes of Wastewater Discharged

     As  indicated in the  preceding subsection,  considerably  larger  volumes  of
wastewater are  discharged from  water-wash processes than  from  dry-cleaning
processes on  a   unit production  basis.  Commercial laundries typically consume
process water at a rate of 0.025 to 0.050 m3/kg (3 to 6 gal/lb) of material washed,
approximately 90% of  which  is discharged as wastewater.   In the dry-cleaning
industry,  however, water is usually added to the solvent bath at a rate of only 30  to
200  cm?/kg (0.004 to 0.023 gal/lb) of material washed (13). The fraction of this
water  that is decanted from the solvent and discharged depends upon the particular
solvent-recovery  system employed and varies from plant to plant.  Other  factors
that influence the total process-water discharge rate are listed below:

     o    Whether or not carbon columns are used for  air pollution  control and are
           steam regenerated on site
     o    Whether or not solvent is recovered from spent filters by steaming
     o    The frequency at which these operations are performed and the quantity
           of steam used per cycle
     o    The  relative  humidity  and other  conditions  that  affect the moisture
           content of the fabrics being cleaned

     Thus, the quantities of solvent-contaminated wastewater discharged from dry-
cleaning  plants  vary considerably  across  the  industry.  However,  these discharge
rates are generally  negligible  (e.g.,  by  a  factor  of  100)  in  comparison  to
corresponding discharge  rates for  laundries in other  industry subcategories that
water  wash a comparable weight of material.

      Table 5-1  lists  the typical range and average of process water discharge rates
for  establishments in the  industrial laundry, linen  supply,  power  laundry,  diaper
service,  coin-operated laundry, and the  three types of auto laundry subcategories.
These  figures are based on the industry survey data for process water consumption
and the assumption of 10% evaporative loss discussed in the preceding subsectiona.

      In terms of total wastewater volume, linen supplies appear to be the  major
dischargers followed by  industrial  laundries,  power laundries,  diaper services and
coin-operated laundries.  Coin-ops are, by far, the smallest  waste dischargers on a
plant-by-plant basis.  In terms of wastewater  volume per unit production, industrial
laundries  tend  to be the largest discharges at 0.038 m3/kg (4.6 gal/lb)  of material
washed on the average.  Average  discharge rates for linen supplies, power laundries,
diaper services  and  coin-ops  all  fall in  the 0.029 to  0.032  irWkg  (3.4-3.8 gal/lb)
range**.
      Similar data  were not available for the in-plant  and out-of-plant cleaning
      segments of the carpet and upholstery cleaners subcategory.
      Water consumption and discharge rates reported for coin-operated laundries
      may be somewhat low due to the methods used to estimate the total poundage
      of material washed.
                                          28

-------
                               TABLE 5-1.  REPORTED PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES, BY SUBCATEGORY
to
—======= 	
Subcategory
Industrial laundries
Linen supplies
Power laundries
Diaper services
Coin-operated laundries
Car Washes3
Wand
Rollover
Tunnel

Minimum
0.008
(0.9)
0.014
(1.7)
0.018
(2.2)
0.006
(0.7)
0.007
(0.8)




m'/kR teal/lb)
Maximum
0.080
(9.6)
0.086
(10.3)
0.043
(5.1)
0.045
(5.4)
0.093
(11.2)





Average
0.040
(4.8)
0.033
(4.0)
0.029
(3.5)
0.029
(3.4)
0.032
(3.8)

0.13
(35)
0.15
(40)
0.30
(80)
. .
Minimum
32
(8,600)
14
(3,600)
6.8
(1,800)
12
(3,100)
0.9
(240)




m'/day fcpd)
Maximum
1,100
(290,000)
1,400
(360,000)
1,100
(290,000)
680
(180,000)
77
(20,000)





Average
260
(68,000)
410
(110,000)
230
(61,000)
160
• (41,000)
14
(3,600)

19.9
(5,250)
11.4
(3,000)
75.7
(20,000)
                       Flow per product is given as n.3 or (gal) per auto. Flow volumes are given as average estimates by the Industry. No
                       actual minimum or maximum values were measured.

-------
     Wastewater discharge rates are affected by essentially the same factors that
affect process water consumption rates.   The  major factor affecting  the total
volume of wastewater discharged is the quantity of garments and flatwork being
washed.   Discharge  per unit production rates  are influenced by  the  types  of
materials handled, the soil  loading on these materials, individual washing machine
design and  capacity, overall  laundering  capacity (larger  laundries tend  to  be
somewhat more efficient in terms of water usage than smaller laundries) and the
degree to which wastewater recycle or reuse is practiced.   In  addition  to  the
aforementioned factors  which influence process water  consumption, wastewater
discharge rates are affected by the efficiency of the extractors used.  In Table 5-1,
a universal  wastewater-discharge-to-water-consumption ratio of 0.9  was assumed
because it is typical of the industry as a whole (according  to LSAA representatives).
However, this assumption does not necessarily hold on a plant-by-plant basis.

     Wastewater discharge  rates for auto washes to a large degree depend upon the
type of facility, whether tunnel, rollover, or wand, and the number of autos washed.
A brief discussion of wastewater volumes for each type follows.

     Tunnels;   A tunnel wash  has the capacity to handle SO-120 cars  per hour,
although the actual number of cars processed is usually much lower. The number of
cars washed per day at a tunnel facility ranges from about 100 to 600, with the
average  at  about  250.   When fresh water is used for all cleaning procedures,  an
average  of about 70 gallons per car is used.  A large  percentage of tunnel facilities
recycle their wash water, cutting their usage to about *0 gallons per car.  Carry-out
and evaporation account for a water loss of 2-8 gallons per car. Tunnel washes then
use between W and 70 gallons per car depending on whether the facility recycles  its
wastes or not.  For the average facility, this amounts to between 10,000 and 17,500
gallons per day.

     Rollovers:  These  facilities do  a much smaller volume of business than  do
.tunnels, washing, on the average, 75 cars per day, with a range of 10-150.

      A typical rollover uses between 30 and  45 gallons of water per car  depending
on the length of the cycle and the number of passes the equipment  makes. Exterior
pressure washers may use as much as 90 gallons per  car.  The typical rollover will
discharge between 2,200 and 3,WO gallons per day with carry-out and evaporation
losses about the same as tunnels.

     Wands;  The number of bays at a self-service wand-wash may range from one
to over ten, with an average of about 5. Each bay can handle between 5 and  12 cars
an hour, depending on the length of the cycle  and the number  of cycles used.   A
typical wand will provide 4  gallons of water per minute for 5 minutes, or  20  gallons
of water per cycle.  The customer is usually able to choose from among wash, rinse
and  wax modes and  therefore the amount of  water used  for washing as opposed to
rinsing may vary.  However, most  people  tend to use about 2/3  of  the cycle for
washing  and 1/3 for rinsing.  Water losses at a wand wash  may be greater than those
at tunnels or rollovers as the customer is able to point the wand  in any direction,
causing  water  to be deposited in areas where it may not be collected in  the sump.
Also,  the high pressure (200-1000 psi) causes atomization of the water  stream
leading to increased evaporation.
                                        30

-------
     There exist regional variations in the amount of water used  at car washes.
These variations are the greatest where winter conditions in northern climates
often necessitate the use of salt and sand on the roads.  Car washes in these areas
must deal  with  increased dirt loads consisting  of ice, salt and grit. High  volume
initial  rinses are often used before the wash cycle and larger volume  final rinses
may be necessary to remove  any dissolved salts left on the car so that  spotting is
minimized.

5.2  WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

     The characteristics of laundry wastewaters are influenced  by three primary
factors:   the general type of  cleansing process  employed (i.e., water versus solvent
wash), the types and quantity of soil present on the textiles being laundered and the
composition  of  the  various chemical additives used in  the  process.   Water -wash
effluents contain all of the soil and lint removed from the textiles, as well as the
laundry  chemicals employed in the process. On the other hand, wastewaters from
dry-cleaning  processes tend   to  contain water-soluble  materials; lint, grit  and
insoluble organic and inorganic compounds are largely removed by  the solvent filter
or confined  to  the still bottoms.   However,  dry-cleaning effluents also  contain
appreciable quantities  of solvent,  which are not normally present in  water-wash
effluents.  In car  washes, the type of cleansing  process (i.e., tunnel,  rollover or
wand)  will usually determine  the  concentration of  various pollutants in raw waste
effluents due to  the differing amounts of water  used  and thoroughness  of  the
cleaning process.

      The  types and quantities of soil  present on  the textiles or vehicles  have a
major  effect on effluent characteristics regardless  of  the   cleaning  method
employed.   In  water-wash processes,  soil  loading  is the primary  determinant of
wastewater strength and composition.  This  fact is  clearly illustrated in subsequent
subsections of this chapter, in which the characteristics of wastewater from  various
industry subcategories are compared.  Industrial laundry wastewaters, for example,
contain  considerably higher loadings than the effluents  from coin-operated other
establishments  processing  nonindustrial  garments  and  flatwork.   Seasonal  and
geographic  differences  also   affect  the   types   and  quantities  of   soil
present, particulary in the car wash subcategory.

      Although  of lesser importance than soil loading, the choice of  laundry formula
can also influence  the characteristics of  water-wash effluents.   Several  oi  the
conventional and nonconventional pollutants and  a few  of  the substances on the
toxic pollutant  list  are either present  or suspected  to be  present  in  various
laundering chemicals.   Choice of solvent  is a major determinant  of dry-cleaning
wastewater  characteristics, as well.  "Perc" (Perchloroethylene),  the most  popular
dry-cleaning solvent, is a toxic pollutant and several aromatic hydrocarbons on the
toxic pollutant  list may be present in petroleum-based solvents.

      Concentration  data are presented in Subsections  5.2.1  and  5.2.2 for seven
conventional and nonconventional  pollutants and each of the 129  toxic pollutants
found in auto  and  other  laundry  wastewaters.  Minimum, maximum, median and
 mean pollutant concentrations are shown for each industry subcategory  and factors
affecting  the  variability  in wastewater  characteristics between subcategories,
 between plants within a given subcategory and over  a period of time  at a given plant
 are discussed.  Where possible, the source(s) of each pollutant in the wastewater are
 identified.
                                         31

-------
     As described in Section 2, the pollen*, concentration data were obtained from
industry trade association studies; Chics 53, Los Angeles and Dade County, Florida,
monitoring 'reports; industry  survey  questionaires; NPDES monitoring  reports;
published  and  unpublished literature sources (14-22); and  by sampling  and analysis
performed in conjunction with this study.  In the sampling and analysis programs,
plants  were  selected  as being representative  of each  subcategory;  no data  is
available  to  indicate  that  the  plants were  not  representative.  In  addition,  the
number of plants sampled for each subcategory was considered valid in  terms of the
subcategory characteristics.

5.2.1 .Conventional and NonconventionaJ Pollutants

     The   conventional   and  nonconventional   pollutant  parameters  used  to
characterize laundry wastewaters in this study include the  following:

       Conventional                       Nonconventional
       o   pH                             o     Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
       o   5-day biochemical oxygen        o     Phosphorus
            demand (8005)
       o   Total organic carbon (TOO
       o   Total suspended solids (TSS)
       o   Oil and grease

       The term  pH is commonly used to describe  the hydrogen ion -hydroxyl  ion
balance in water.  Numerical pH values are the  negative, base-ten logarithms of
hydrogen  ion  concentrations  in water  and may  range from 0  to 14.  A pH of 7
indicates  neutrality,  while a pH below  or  above  7  indicates acidic or alkaline
conditions, respectively.  The pH is often used as a surrogate  indicator  of excess
acidity or alkalinity in wastewater, although  it is  not a direct or linear measure of
either.

       In  composite auto and other laundry wastewater, the pH  usually ranges from
8.0 to  11.0. These relatively high pH values are attributed to the use of alkali in  the
break and suds cycles of  the washing process.

       Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is  defined  as the quantity of oxygen
required  for biological  and  chemical oxidation  of  water-borne substances under
ambient conditions.  The test for BOD is a standardized, bioassay procedure  that
measures  the  amount of  oxygen consumed  by  selected  microorganisms  in  the
degradation  of carbonaceous organic  materials, ammonia  and other oxidizable
nitrogen  compounds under  conditions similar  to  those that  occur  in the aquatic
environment.   Thus,  the  BOD test  does not measure  the concentration  of  any
specific compound in wastewater; however, it does provide a relative measure of the
oxygen demand exerted on  receiving waters by  all biodegradable substances  in  a
wastewater stream.

        Since  many  substances biodegrade very  slowly  under  ambient  and  test
conditions, it is not feasible to measure the total biochemical oxygen  demand of a
waste stream on a routine basis.  Thus, the standardized test is designed to measure
5-day   biochemical oxygen demand  (8005).  Approximately 60 to   80%  of  the
carbonaceous oxygen  demand is measured by this  test,  which provides  a suitable
 indication of waste strength in most cases.
                                         32

-------
     In auto and other  laundry wastewaters, BOD^ concentrations are attributable
to organic soils on the textiles or vehicles being laundered and to soaps, detergents,
starches and other organic process additives.

     Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is defined as the quantity of oxygen required
to completely oxidize waterborne substances that may or may not be biodegradable.
The test is a "wet chemical" technique conducted under acidic conditions, in which
strong  chemical  oxidizing agents (i.e., potassium dichromate) are  added to  the
wastewater  sample in the presence  of  certain inorganic catalysts.  The  COD test
measures  all  pollutants  that are measured by the BOD^  test, as well  as  many
pollutants that are slowly biodegradable or nonbiodegradable.  Thus,  it provides an
upper-bound  estimate of the oxygen  demand that may be exerted on  receiving
waters by a waste stream.

     Total organic carbon {TOO is  a direct measure of the total organic material
present in wastewater, as opposed to a measure of  oxygen demand.  The TOC test is
an instrumental technique that measures  all carbonaceous organics, regardless of
their potential biodegradability*.

     BOD$  provides a more  direct measure of adverse water-quality impact and it
is used  much more widely for regulatory purposes than either COD or TOC.  Thus,
BODj  is preferentially  used to  assess treatment system  efficiency in Section 7.
However, COD and TOC data are also presented in the following pages for purposes
of comparison.

     Total suspended solids  (T55) include  all organic  and  inorganic materials that
are insoluble in wastewater and that  are retained by standard pore-size filters in the
gravimetric  test procedure  used.   Like the  pH,  BOD^, COD and TOC  tests, the
suspended solids test is a gross measure  of wastewater  strength (e.g.,  potential
impact  on surface water turbidity);  it does not measure the concentration at which
specific chemical compounds  are  present in wastewater.   Lint, inorganic soils,
organic soils (such  as  oils  and  greases)  and process  additives  all  contribute to
suspended solids loadings in laundry effluents.

     "Oil and grease" is a term that includes a wide variety of fatty acids, soaps,"
ester,  fats,  waxes and  various  petroleum products that  can  be extracted  from
wastewater by  certain  organic  solvents.   Freon  extraction is the preferred EPA
method for oil and grease; however, the hexane and ether solubles test are also used.

     Oil and grease may be  of animal, vegetable, or mineral (petroleum) origin and
may be free or dispersed in wastewater.  In the  auto  and other laundry industry,
most oil  and grease present  in the  wastewater is highly dispersed.   The  major
sources are soil on the  articles being laundered, soap, solvents  that are sometimes
added   to wash formulas  for  heavily  soiled  items and oil from the  laundering
equipment.
      Certain organics  that are  strongly resistant to oxidation  are not measured.
      Thus, reported TOC values are slightly less than the theoretical TOC.
                                        33

-------
     Unlike  the aforementioned  pollut—:  parameters,  phosphorus is a specific
chemical element widely found in nature (although not in its elemental form). It is a
necessary nutrient for biological growth, but it can lead to eutrophication of surface
waters when  discharged in large quantities.  In auto and other laundry waste waters,
the major sources of phosphorus are phosphate detergent builders.

5.2.1.1 Industrial Laundries

     Table  5-2 summarizes the conventional and nonconventional pollutant  data
obtained for  73 industrial laundries.  For purposes of comparison,  Table 5-3 shows
the concentration ranges at which these same pollutants (excluding  pH) are normally
present in domestic sewage (23).

     In comparison to domestic sewage, industrial laundry wastewaters  typically
contain high  loading of 800$, COD, TOC, suspended solids and oil  and grease.  The
median BOD$ concentration in  51  industrial  laundry  effluents  was 920  mg/1.
However, BODj concentrations  as  low  as 91 mg/1 and as high  as  7,800 mg/1  were
observed, which attests to the extreme variability  in industrial laundry  wastewater
strength.

     The median  TSS concentration in 69  wastewater  effluents was 700  mg/1.
Suspended solids loadings were  also quite  variable,  ranging  from 6S mg/1 to 6,100
mg/1.  Oil and grease concentrations  ranged from  17 mg/1 to 7,900  mg/1  in  66
industrial laundry effluents, with a median value of 730 mg/1.

     The mean concentrations  of  BOD^,  TSS and oil and grease were *0 to 50%
higher than  the corresponding  median  concentrations of these  pollutants.   This
reflects the  fact that the concentration distribution for each of these  pollutants is
skewed to the high end of the range.

      High concentrations  of oil  and  grease, suspended  solids and biodegradable
organics in industrial laundry wastewaters are primarily attributable to the nature
of  the workload handled  by industrial laundries.  Heavily soiled uniforms,  shop
towels and gloves used in the chemical  and  manufacturing industries often comprise
a substantial portion of the business handled by these establishments.

      The variability in waste strength from one industrial laundry ta another is also
at least partially attributable to the soil loading on the articles being water washed.
The highest pollutant loadings are found in wastewaters from plant  processing a high
percentage  of wiping towels used  in print shops, machine shops, automotive repair
shops, chemical plants and other heavy industrial operations. Much lower pollutant
concentrations are  found in the wastewaters from plants  handling a high percentage
of uniforms and dust control items used in light manufacturing concerns.  •

      Factors such  as water  usage per pound of material washed and the application
of  dual-phase or dry-cleaning processes also affect the concentrations at which
various pollutants  are  found in industrial laundry wastewaters.   For example,  oil,
grease and many other organic substances are more soluble in organic solvents than
in water  and, thus, they are not present to a large extent in the wastewaters from
solvent cleaning processes.
                                         34

-------
   TABLE 5-2.    CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENT1ONAL POLLUTANT
                CONCENTRATIONS IN INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY
                WA5TEWATEKS
                    	mg/1

                    Minimum    Maximum
Pollutant     Number
Minimum
cone.
Maximum
cone.
Median
cone.
Mean
cone.
pH
BOD^
COD
TOC
TS5
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
62
51
60
2^
69
66
12
7.5
91
330
130
68
17
1.3
11.9
7,800
7,000
6,800
6,100
7,900
41.6
10.5
920
3,SOO
1,200
700
730
9.1
10.*
1,300
5,000
1,400
1,000
1,000
12.2
          TABLE 5-3.  CONVENTIONAL AND NON-CONVENTIONAL
                     POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
                     IN DOMESTIC SEWAGE (23)
                                 Typical concentration
         Pollutant                     range, mg/1
       BOD5                            100-300
       COD                           250-1,000
       TOC                            100-300
       TSS                             100-350
       Oil and grease                     50-150
       Phosphorus                         6-20
                               35

-------
      In 62.composite wastewaters  for which data were available, the pH ranged
from  7.5 to 11.9 with a median value of 10.5.  These high pH values reflect the use
of alkali  in the  break and suds  cycles  of the  washing process.   Phosphorus
concentrations, which ranged from  1.3 mg/1  to *1.6 mgyl  in 12 industrial laundry
effluents, are attributable to the variable usage of phosphate detergent builders.
However, the median phosphorus concentration  of  9.L mg/1 falls well within the
concentration range normally associated with domestic sewage.

      In addition to plant-to-plant  variability, wastewater  strength  at  any given
industrial laundry may be quite variable from day to day and from  hour to hour.
This is caused by the changing nature of the workload and, on an instantaneous basis,
by the particular wash-cycle effluents that are being discharged.  For example, the
initial rinse, break  and washwaters contain  much higher pollutant loadings than the
final  rinse waters.

      Table 5-4 presents pH, BOD^,  TSS and oil and grease data for the wastewater
from  one  industrial laundry sampled  on 30 separate days over a several year period.
These data clearly illustrate the fluctuating characteristics  of  industrial laundry
wastes.

5.2.1.2 Linen Supplies

      Table 5-5 summarizes the conventional and  nonconventional  pollutant data
obtained for 60 linen supply laundries. Comparing these results with the data shown
in Tables 5-2 and  5-3, it appears that  linen supply wastewaters typically contain
higher concentrations of BODs, COD, TOC, suspended solids and oil and grease than
does  domestic sewage, but much lower  concentrations of  these pollutants than do
industrial laundry wastewaters.

      In 50 linen laundry wastewaters, BOD$ concentrations ranged from  58 mg/1 to
1,500 mg/1. Suspended solids concentrations were also quite variable, ranging from
20 mg/1 to 1,200 mg/1 in  59 plant  effluents.  In 52 plant  effluents, oil and grease
levels varied from 27 mg/1 to  910 mg/1.    The median concentrations  of BODs,
suspended solids and  oil and grease  in these wastewaters were 610 mg/1,  360  mg/1,
and 300 mg/1, respectively. Similar  mean concentrations were observed.

      These concentrations  are 1.5 to  2.5  times  lower  than the  median BOD5,
suspended solids and  oil  and  grease concentrations  shown in Table 5-3 for the
industrial laundry subcategory and 2 to 3.5  times lower than the corresponding mean
pollutant concentrations in industrial laundry  wastewaters.  This is attributed to the
lighter soil  loading  on items  such as  bed  sheets,  pillowcases, towels, napkins,
tablecloths and uniforms, which comprise the majority of  the linen supply business.
Phosphorus and pH were found at similar levels in industrial laundry and linen supply
effluents, which  reflects the  fact that  these pollutants are introduced to the
wastewater by process additives rather than by soil on the articles being laundered*,

      As indicated in Section «,  many linen  supplies service industrial-type garments
and flatwork  articles as well as the more traditional linen supply items.  Plant-to-
plant differences in the amount of "industrial laundry" work performed is a major
 a    Actually, high pH is induced by process additives O.e.f alkali).

                                         36

-------
 TABLE 5-4.  VARIABILITY Or CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
           LOADINGS IN WASTEWATER FROM ONE
           INDUSTRIAL LALNDRY
Day
pH
BOD
T5S
Oil and grease
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard deviation
11.9
12.0
12.6
11.6
12.2
11.8
11.8
10.0
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.4
11.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.7
10.1
10.4
10.2
11.0
12.0
11.9
9.4
10.2
...
...
_._
-—_
.._
9.4
12.6
11.2
0.8
1,700
...
2,500
...
—
...
—
...
...
...
—
—
...
710
650
1,300
...
690
_-.
940
680
—
.--
___
—
930
1,400
1,600
2,200
3,700
650
3,700
1,515
989
2,300
2,100
2,400
1,900
1,900
2,100
5,000
2,800
3,600
4,000
3,800
2,700
2,300
810
650
3,500
1,700
1,800
...
2,600
4,400
3,800
5,300
—
—
1,300
2,400
2,000
2,000
2,600
650
5,300
2,658
1,169
490
1,800
2,200
240
5,300
2,100
2,800
2,600
3,400
3,400
3,800
—
—
400
510
1,600
970
720
1,200
1,200
2,600
3,500
3,900
1,500
1,400
2,400
2,300
2,400
1,300
2,400
240
5,300
2,087
1,234
                      37

-------
TABLE 5-5.     CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
             CONCENTRATIONS IN LINEN LAUNDRY WA5TEWATERS
mg/1

Pollutant
pH
BOD,
CODJ
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus

Number
58
50
26
28
59
52
5
Minimum
cone.
7.5
58
300
2S
20
27
5.4
Maximum
cone.
12.3
1,500
4,000
1,200
1,200
910
48.5
Median
cone.
10.2
610
1,500
300
360
300
14.5
Mean
cone.
10.1
620
1,600
400
400
330
18.7
TABLE 5-6. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
         CONCENTRATIONS IN POWER LAUNDRY WASTEWATER5
me/1

Pollutant
PH
BODS
COD?
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus

Number
14
8
11
4
11
9
6
Minimum
cone.
6.5
110
190
58
50
3
<0.05
Maximum
cone.
11.1
940
1,400
240
410
370
23.5
Median
cone.
9.6
210
5SO
160
230
52
4.0
Mean
cone.
9..4
340
660
150
220
110
7.3
                          38

-------
cause for the  variable pollutant concentrations noted above. However, BOD^, TSS,
and oil and grease loadings are also influenced  by the particular types of "linen
supply work" performed.  For example,  the wastewaters from laundries washing a
high percentage of aprons,  tablecloths,  napkins, etc.,  used  in restaurants  contain
higher levels of oil and grease than do wastewaters from laundries washing a high
percentage of  sheets or towels used in hotels.

      Laundering chemicals were not considered as a major source of BOD^, TSS, or
oil  and grease  in industrial laundry wastewaters.   However, detergents,  soaps,
starches and other organic  process chemicals contribute BOD to  the wastewater;
soap is also a  source  of oil and grease.  These pollutant sources  are considerably
more significant in comparison to soil loading in the linen supply subcategory than in
the industrial  laundry subcategory.  Variable oil and grease concentrations in linen
laundry  wastewaters  are at  least  partially  attributable to  the  fact  that  some
establishments use soap while others use synthetic detergents.

5.2.1.3  Power Laundries, Family and Commercial

      Table 5-6 summarizes  the  conventional and nonconventional pollutant  data
obtained for 14 power laundries.  Comparing these data to the data shown in Tables
5-3 and 5-5,  it appears that power laundry  wastewaters typically contain  lower
concentrations of BOD^, COD, TOC, suspended solids and oil and grease than either
industrial laundry or linen supply wastewaters.  Much narrower  ranges in concentra-
tion are also indicated.

      Both of  these observations are related to the types of customers serviced by
power laundries.  Family wash has  been  traditionally the largest  source of bjsiness
for  these  establishments,  but many  power  laundries  now  service  commercial
businesses, and service organizations. However, very little "industrial-type" work is
performed; hence, the soil loadings on garments washed in these laundries tend to be
light.

      The median and mean concentrations of  BOD^, COD, TOC, TSS, oil and grease
and  phosphorus  shown in  Table 5-6 are comparable to the  levels at which  these
pollutants are found in domestic sewage.  However, power laundry wastewaters tend
to be  more alkaline  than does domestic sewage  due   to the  use  of alkali  in  the
washing process.  In  14 plant effluents  for which data  were available, the median
and mean pH values were 9.6 and 9.4, respectively.

5.2.1.4  Diaper Services

      Table 5-7 summarizes  the  conventional and nonconventional pollutant  data
obtained for 9 diaper service effluents.

      In terms of BOD^, COO and oil and grease,  these wastewaters appear to be
roughly  equivalent to the  wastewater  discharged by  power laundries.    Higher
concentrations of TOC and phosphorus and lower concentrations of suspended solids
were present  in the diaper service effluents, but these observations are based on
limited data and may  not represent the entire industry.

      Median and mean concentrations of all pollutants  listed  in Table 5-7, excluding
pH are roughly comparable to the levels at which these pollutants are present in
domestic wastewaters.
                                        39

-------
TABLE 5-7. CONVENTIONAL ANL NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
         CONCENTRATIONS IN DIAPER LAUNDRY WASTEWATERS
me/1

Pollutant
pH
BODS
COD5
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus

Number
9
5
8
2
8
7
2
Minimum
cone.
7.0
160
230
3SO
80
19
15.5
Maximum
cone.
11.0
560
1,100
400
280
330
30.0
Median
cone.
10.4
240
520
390
130
85
22.8
Mean
cone.
9.9
320
580
390
150
120
22.8
TABLE 5-8. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
         CONCENTRATIONS IN COIN-OPERATED LAUNDRY
         WASTEWATERS
me/1

Pollutant
pH
BOD,
COr/
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus

Number
29
31
18
1
28
13
2
Minimum
cone.
6.4
17
73
68
17
< 2
1.5
Maximum
cone.
9.2
500
930
68
630
74
18.0
Median
cone.
8.0
120
270
68
85
23
9.8
Mean
cone.
7.9
140
340
68
140
26
9.8
                          40

-------
5.2.1.5 Coin-Operated Laundries

     Table  5-8  summarizes  the conventional  and nonconventional pollutant  data
obtained for 33 coin-operated laundries.  Based on the median and mean pollutant
concentrations shown  in this  table, coin-op wastewaters are less heavily polluted
than are the wastewaters from any of the four commercial laundry subcategories
previously discussed and they are comparable to low-strength domestic wastewatcrs.
Lightly-soiled family  wash  accounts  for  nearly all of  the  business at  these
establishments.

5.2.1.6 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners

     Table  5-9  presents conventional and  nonconventional pollutant  data  for one
carpet-cleaning  plant  sampled  during  the course  of this study.   Except for
phosphorus,  all pollutant concentrations are comparable to  or less than  the median
and mean pollutant loadings shown for coin-operated laundry wastewaters in  Table
5-8.

5.2.1.7  Dry-Cleaning Plants

     Table  5-10  presents conventional and nonconventional pollutant data for one
commercial dry-cleaning plant  using perchloroethylene  solvent.   All pollutant
concentrations are extremely low -- in the range of or below analytical detection
limits.  The source of  process wastewater at  this plant  was condensate from the
steam regeneration of carbon columns used for  solvent vapor emission control.

5.2.1.8  Car Washes

     Table  5-11  summarizes the  conventional  and  nonconventional  raw  waste
pollutant data obtained for 6 rollover and 6 wand and 17  tunnel type car  washes.
For purposes of comparison,  Table 5-12 presents  separate tunnel  car wash data for
both  wash  and  rinse wastewater.     Based on  median  and  mean pollutant
concentrations shown in these  tables, wand type car  wash wastewaters are  more
heavily polluted  than wastewaters from tunnel types  and  rollover type car  wash
wastewater are the least polluted.

     The median  and mean  concentrations of BOD5, TOC and  phosphorus  were
below the typical concentration range of pollutants present  in domestic wastewater.
COD,  T5S  and oil and grease  concentrations were  equivalent  to or below the
concentration in domestic sewage.

5.2.2 Toxic Pollutants

     Table  5-13 lists the  129 toxic substances that  are classified by the EPA as
toxic pollutants.  The list includes  13  metals, cyanide,  asbestos and 114 organic
compounds.  In this  study, auto and other laundry wastewaters were sampled and
analyzed for each of these pollutants except asbestos. Data were  also collected for
total phenol and are included  in this section.  Although total phenol is not a specific
toxic pollutant, it is  a convenient  surrogate  for  the  various phenolic compounds
listed as toxic pollutants.
                                         41

-------
 TABLE 5-9. CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
          CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATER FROM ONE
          CARPET-CLEANING PLANT
Pollutant                        concentration, mg/1
     pH                                  7.1
     BOD,                               99
     COD5                              280
     TOC                                *6
     TSS                               100
     Oil and grease                         19
     Phosphorus                           29.0
 TABLE 5-10.    CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
              CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATER FROM ONE
              DRY-CLEANING PLANT
 PoJJutant                        concentration, mg/1
PH
BOD,
CODT
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
7.2
<2
8
2
3
<2
0.2
                            42

-------
    TABLE Ml.
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS IN ROLLOVER, WAND AND TUNNEL
TYPE CAR WASH WA5TEWATERS.
Pollutant
Number3 Minimum  Maximum Median   Mean
Rollovers
pH
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Wands
pH
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Tunnels
PH
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Concentrations (mg/1)
6
6
4
4
6
6
*

6
6
4
4
6
6
4

4
17
16
16
17
17
16
6.2
8.0
102
24
30
6.0
0.25

6.4
29
167
29
106
20
0.8

7.5
< 6.0
61
16
36
5.7
0.38
7.7
132
254
173
576
188
1.9

8.3
220
1120
160
2970
404
3.2

9.0
147
517
169
848
239
24
7.7
20
135
31
158
9.4
0.41

7.4
69
238
79
659
90
2.8

8.7
42
178
31
101
20
1.9
7.3
37
156
65
199
45
0.74

7.5
90
442
86
929
126
2.4

8.5
51
216
52
165
38
3.2
   Number of data points
                               43

-------
    TABLE 5-12.
CONVENTION-.l -.ND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATE \5 IN TUNNEL TYPE CAR WASH RAW
WASH AND RINSE WASTEWATERS
                                     Concentration (me/1)
Pollutant
Numbera  Minimum  Maximum Median    Mean
Raw Wash
pH
BOD5
COD
TOC
T5S
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Raw Rinse
pH
BOD5
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus

15
15
14
14
15
15
14

13
13
12
12
13
13
12

7.1
18
96
16
28
4.8
0.4

7.3
8.0
64
11
19
5.8
< 0.2

10
191
653
210
882
655
27

9.4
153
376
100
153
114
18.0

8.0
45
204
66
121
17
2.3

8.0
53
166
27
54
43
0.92

8.3
59
261
70
195
68
4.0

8.1
59
184
32
62
39
2.8
   Number of data points
                                 44

-------
                                                                      TAHir t-ll.  I.I'ATOVU  foLLUTANIN
10.
II.
I}.
I).
l«.
I).
It.
17.
II.
19.

20.
21.
22.
2).
2*.
26.
27.
2t.
 10 .
 Jl.
 12.
 J3.
    ••iii.ih'i|ililli
    'rairMMi iriftarfitoririe
      (l« Ifarlilnci'im llwiir)
    •ililnniiiili cl iMiirriirft {• ilur  tlidii
      (liclilw ol>rn.Tiir »|
      rhlmelirn/riic
    •cliliMiiiaii-d clluiM-i (including 1,2-
      diciiloroclitaiie, 1.1,1-liichluro-
      elhanc and ticxiiililuriM-lhane)
       1,2-ilicliinroclliaiic
       l,l,l-uirlil«ro> tliiinr
      hcnaclilnniclliunr
       1. 1 -d.ctilnKKMh.il.*
       1,1,2,2-lt liachliiueih\l vinyl ciliri (mined)
     •clilwinnlrd i>.i|ililUilriK:
       2-cilfidlL>'ir
     •clilurinalrd ulieiioli (oiler  than
       ihotr luted rltewlu-re; ln>:l
       Inclilwaplienolt and (liloMiiaird
       ere toll)
       2>.6-liichl«iiplK-itol
       p-clilnri>-m-i fetal
     'Lliliifalniin (iriililaruincilune)
     • 2-cltliiru|ilirnnl
     • dirliloiulxiL/riiei
     • dicliloralM-n; idnic
       ).t-dicliliMahiMirlli)lcnc)
       1.1-dichlnriM-ilirli'ru
       1 .2- If •int-dic>iloiue Hi] Icnc
     •dicl>|iHOi>iO|>aJie aiirt dicliluro-
       ptoppne
       1,2-dichlotopropane
       dichlaia|iropriic)
     •?.«-dinic1l.rlplu-f>ol
     •diiulralaluenc
 )&.
 if.
 ](.
 39.
        2,6-iliiiilraloliicne
                                                               b I
                                                               h).
                                                               Ii6
                                                                    •li.ilur UK-IS Inllici  limn Iliinc litlrd
                                                                      rln A In i r)
                                                                       fc-rliloi .'iilieii) I plti-n)! eiliei
                                                                       *i bio iui|ilini) I |iln nyl flliri
                                                                       l>i-.U-vidr Idicliloro-
                                                                        iiii iliiiui;
                                                                       in<-lli\l i l>li>nilr (> lil
                                                                       inclh>l Ui iHiiiitt (Ittoi
                                                                       tuiiinC'lut in (if iliriHM
                                                                       dii l
M.  Mi4:i.ii lilnriiryt.lnjiriil.idiriic
^d.  •no|iluiroiw
•>•>.  'iLiiilillLllMK
H.  •inl>iil>iii'iiie
     •i.lliii|>l«-l>oli (int ludi ing 2,4
       tlimliu|ili* IH>| and iliniKui r
>7     ?-nilfO|ili. no)
5k     'i  iiilri<|iliciHiJ
60

61.
61
>>).

66.
67.
tt
l.t.
70
71.

77

7]
Tt,
7)

7f>.
Jl.
        d.l.-iliniiio-" oriol
     •mlfiiviiniin-1
        N-iiilio'.odi'iirlli) laintne
        N iiilii»^*uli|ilM ii) IJMIIIIC
        N mil [tvuij|yl plilli.il. Hi-
        di-n-otlyl |ihll.jl ue
        dirlli)! plilli.il.iii:
        dimrlli)! |>lilh,il.i|i-
     •|Kilymick-ai jMiuiaii
        lun/iil.il.inlln.ir "nr
         l» in, w\ In ai 1'iir)
        ln-ii/n(,ii|iiieiii (l.u-hrtuopyfcra;)
        3." lii n/'illiniidnllii-iir
        bl-ll/l>(ll)II-|IIIHI>lllJML- (11,17-
         hni/olliiur jfitlit-ncl
                                                                                             (1.7
 10.    Hum cue
 II.    plitiLlilllwrne
 12.    dibei»rl ililcitiilc (clilnroclhylene)
                                                                      |K--.ln idr\ .mil tiivUlx>lil«
                                                                         '.ililini
                                                                         •.l.rl.lnn
                                                                         •rlilonl.inr (icclinical mimurr tV
                                                                         mi tiiivnlnei)
                                                                      •OUT .mil mi Ldwliles
                                                                                 l. (p,p- DOX>

9).
96.
97.

VI.
99.

100.
101.

107.
10).
104.
10).

106.
107.
int..
ID'J.
no.
in.
112.
ID.
lid.
II).
116.
117.
IIS.
111.
170.
171.
172.
123.
171.
17).
176.
177.
121.
129.
•cndasull.iii and iiirlalralilci
a-nidi»iillaii-Alpna
L'tnrln&iilfan-hrla
rmlojiill.in uillalc
•rndfin and metaliolilci
rndnn
cmtr in aUleliyde
•liclpl.irlilor and mclaliolilei
ln:|it, ii lilur
lirpi.iclilur cpniide
•lir,.M liluirx yi lolioane (all i joiner i)
.i-IUIl -Alpha
b-hllC.-lli 13
K-ltlli: Iliiidjiwl-Camma
d-HIIO-rVha
•pnlycliliwiiiiilrd liiplicnjrU (I'CU'l)
I'CI^- 1?*? ( Vochlor 12^2)
l'CI«-l2>li (Arorlilor 17 Id)
rcit-1771 (Aroclilor 1771)
l'(.^-l7)7(Ar«ililor 12)7)
l>rh-|7«aCI>-IOI6 (Aroclilor 1016)
•iDLipU-iie
••iniiiniHiy (luldl)
•aiu-iuc Iliildl)
'.ivbnloi (llbruusl
•In-ryllinin liolal)
•railiiiiuni (lolal)
•clii 	 nin liolal)
•tnp|H-r (i«ul)
• i). innk (inial)
•k-ad (loull
•ini.ii.uiy (loial)
*nirkcl (loltil)
•»r|i-iiiinn (lolal)
•lil»cr (lolal)
•llullium (lolal)
•zinc lioi.il)
•7,1,7,8-lclinclilorodibcruo-p-
                                                                                                                                       '*C rninnrtirfirff mn
                                                                                                                                       t at liMed in ilic  content
                                                                B1.     pjricne
                                                                                                                                 dcc're.
    (»ndeicd02/0ti/9lilifc CR 10771
    "•nclclrd Ol/Oi/SI, «b Fit 2766

-------
     Several toxic pollutants are either known or suspected to be present in various
laundering qhemicals. These include:

     o     Zinc, present as zinc silicofluoride in sours and as zinc-2-pyridinethio in
           germicides
     o     Phenolic   compounds,   several  of  which   are   used   in  germicides,
           bacteriostats and dust treating compounds and as detergent additives
     o     Naphthalene, a constituent of naphtha-based oils  used for dust treating
           purposes (16) and various naphtha-based solvents
     o     Benzene,  which  is  a  major  precursor of  alkyl benzene  sulfonate
           detergents and which may be present in  aromatic solvents used in the
           industry
     o     Miscellaneous aromatic compounds present in petroleum-based solvents
     o     Poiynuclear  aromatic hydrocarbons, which may be present in stilbene-
           based fluorescent whiteners as manufacturing by-products (16)
     o     Perchloroethylene, or  "perc", which is  the  most commonly  used dry-
           cleaning solvent
     o     Methylene chloride and trichloroethylene, which are major constituents
           of at least one commercial solvent formulation
     o     Mercury, which is present at trace levels in caustic soda

     Indirectly, chlorine bleaches may also contribute to toxic pollutant loadings in
wastewater by  converting relatively harmless low-molecular-weight organics to
chlorinated organic substances.

     These and other toxic pollutants may be present in the soil on the  articles or
vehicles being washed, as well.  This is likely to occur particularly in the industrial
laundry  subcategory,  due to  the  nature  of the  workload  handled  by   these
establishments.

     In the following paragraphs, specific toxic pollutants are discussed with regard
to their sources and their toxicity to humans and animals.

     The toxic  metals  found  most frequently and at the highest concentrations are
lead, zinc, copper and chromium.  Because the raw  waste  concentrations observed
for these four metals are considered significant, lead,  zinc, copper and chromium
have been selected for regulation.  Other toxic  metals are excluded from regulation
under  Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the Consent Decree because they are present only  in
trace amounts and are  neither causing or likely to cause toxic effects or because
they are present in amounts to small to be effectively reduced.

      Lead - Lead is  used in various solid forms both as  a pure metal and in several
compounds.  Lead appears in some natural waters, especially in those areas where
mountain limestone and galena are found and can also be introduced into water from
lead pipes by the action of the water on the lead.

      Lead is a toxic material  that  is foreign  to  humans  and animals.   The most
common form of lead poisoning is called plumbism.  Lead can be introduced into the
body from the atmosphere containing lead or from food and water.  Lead cannot be
easily excreted and is cumulative  in the body over long periods of time, eventually
causing lead poisoning  with the ingestion of an excess of  0.6  mg per day over  a
period  of years.  It has been recommended that 0.05 mg/1 lead not be exceeded in
public water supply sources.
                                         46

-------
     Fish and other marine life have had adverse effects from lead and lead salts in
their environment.  Experiments have shown  that  small  concentrations  of  heavy
metals, especially of lead, have caused a film of coagulated mucus to form first
over the gills and then over the entire body probably causing suffocation of the fish
due to  this obstructive  layer.  Toxicity of  lead  is increased with a reduction of
dissolved oxygen concentration in the water.

     Zinc  - Occurring  abundantly  in rocks  and ores, zinc is readily refined to a
stable~~pure metal and  is used extensively as a  metal,  an  alloy,  and a plating
material.   In  addition,  zinc  salts  are  also  used in  paint  pigments, dyes,  and
insecticides.  Many of these salts (for example, zinc chloride and zinc sulfate) are
highly  soluable  in water; hence, it is  expected that  zinc  might occur in many
industrial wastes.  On the other hand, some zinc salts (zinc carbonate, zinc  oxide,
zinc sulf ide) are insoluble in water,  and  consequently, it is expected that some zinc
will precipitate and be removed readily in many natural waters.

     In  soft water, concentrations of zinc ranging  from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/1 have been
reported to be lethal to fish.  Zinc  is thought  to exert its toxic action by forming
insoluble compounds with the  mucous that covers the gills, by damage to the gill
epithelium, or possibly by acting as an  internal poison.  The  sensitivity of fish to
zinc varies with  species, age, and condition, as  well as  with  the physical  and
chemical characteristics of the water. Some acclimatization to the presence  of the
zinc is possible. It also has been observed that the effects  of zinc poisoning may not
become apparent immediately so that fish removed from zinc-contaminated to zinc-
free water may  die as long as *fS hours after  the removal. The presence of copper in
water may increase  the toxicity of  zinc  to aquatic organisms, while the presence of
calcium or hardness may decrease the relative toxicity.

     Concentrations of zinc in excess of 5 mg/1 in public water supply sources cause
an undesirable taste  which persists  through conventional treatment.  Zinc can have
an adverse effect on man and animals at high concentrations.

      Chromium - Chromium  is an  elemental metal usually  found  as a chromite
            The  metal is normally processed by reducing  the oxide with aluminum.
      Chromium and  its compounds are used extensively throughout industry.  It is
 used  to harden steel  and as an ingredient in other useful alloys.  Chromium  is also
 used  in the electroplating industry as an ornamental and corrosion resistent plating
 on steel and can be used in pigments and as a pickling acid (chromic acid).

      The  two most  prevalent chromium  forms found in industry wastewaters are
 hexavalent and trivalent chromium.  Chromic acid used in  industry is  a hexavalent
 chromium  compound which is partially reduced to the trivalent form during use.
 Chromium can exist as  either trivalent  or hexavalent compounds in raw waste
 streams.   Hexavalent chromium treatment involves reduction to the trivalent form
 prior to removal of chromium from the waste stream as a hydroxide precipitate.

      Chromium, in its various valence states, is hazardous to man.  It can produce
 lung tumors when  inhaled and induces skin sensitizations. Large doses of chromates
 have corrosive effects  on the intestinal tract and  can cause inflamation  of the
 kidneys. Levels of chromate ions that have no effect on man  appear to be so low as
 to prohibit determination to date.  The recommendation for public water supplies is
 that such supplies contain no more than 0.05 mg/1 total chromium.
                                         47

-------
     The toxicit  of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic life varies widely with
the  species,  temperature,  pH, valence  of  the chromium  and  synergistic  or
antagonistic  effects, especially that of  hard water.   Studies  have shown that
trivalent chromium is more toxic to fish of some types than hexavalent chromium.
Other studies have shown opposite  effects.   Fish food  organisms and other lower
forms of aquatic life are extremely sensitive to chromium and it also inhibits the
growth of algae.

     •Copper - Copper is an elemental metal that is sometimes found free in nature
and is found in many minerals such as cuprite, malachite, asurite, chalcopyrite, and
bornite.  Copper is obtained from these ores  by smelting, leaching, and electrolysis.
Significant industrial uses  are in  the plating,  electrical, plumbing,  and heating
equipment industries.   Copper is also commonly used  with other minerals as an
insecticide and fungicide.

     Traces  of copper  are found in all forms of plant and animal life, and it is an
essential trace element for nutrition.  Copper is not considered to be a cumulative
systemic  poison  for humans as it is readily  excreted by the body, but it can cause
symptoms of gastroenteritis, with nausea and intestinal irritations, at relatively low
dosages.   The  limiting factor in  domestic  water  supplies is  taste.  Threshold
concentrations for taste have been generally reported in the range of  1.0 - 2.0 mg/1
of copper while concentrations of 5.0  to 7.5 mg/1  have made  water completely
undrinkable.   It has been  recommended  that the  copper in public  water  supply
sources not exceed 1 mg/1.

     Irrigation waters containing  more  than minute quantities  of copper can be
detrimental to  certain  crops.   The toxicity  of copper to aquatic organisms varies
significantly, not only  with the species,  but also with the physical  and chemical
characteristics of the water, including temperature,  hardness, turbidity, and carbon
dioxide content.

      Copper  concentrations less  than  1 mg/1  have been reported  to  be toxic,
particularly  in  soft water, to many kinds of fish, crustaceans,  mollusks, insects,
phytoplankton  and zooplankton.   Concentrations  of  copper,  for  example,  are
detrimental  to  some oysters  above 0.1  mg/1.   Oysters cultured  in  sea water
containing 0.13-0.5 mg/1 of  copper deposted metal in their bodies and become unfit
as a food substance.

      Others  -  Antimony, arsenic,  cadmium, mercury, nickel, silver, and  cyanide
were all  frequently detected  in industrial  laundry  wastewaters, but generally at
much  lower  concentrations than  lead,  zinc, copper,  or chromium.   Antimony,
arsenic, and  nickel were found in one or more wastewater  samples at concentrations
greater  than  1.0 mg/1, but the median concentration of  each of these metals  was
below 0.5 mg/U  Soil on the articles being laundered is considered to be the major
source of these contaminants  since none of  them were found at comparable median
 levels in wastewaters from plants in the other industry subcategories.

      The organic priority pollutants found most consistently in laundry wastewaters
 were   toluene,   bis(2-ethylhexyl)   phthalate,  tetrachloroethylene,   naphthalene,
 chloroform, and benzene.

      Toluene - Toluene is  toxic to man, animal, and  aquatic life;  however, it  is
 apparently not inhibitory to POTW operation. Toluene at the 500 mg/J level has no
 applicable effect on sludge digestion processes


                                         48

-------
      Toluene is widely used in the chemical industry as a precursor for benzene and
other intermediates, as a solvent for surface coatings, adhesives, inks, paints, etc.,
and as a gasoline additive.   It may be  present in various  aromatic  solvents used by
the laundry  industry,  especially by  industrial  laundries  to  aid  in  oil and grease
removal.

      Bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate - Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is widely  used as a
plasticizer in polyvinyl chloride plastics to impart  flexibility.  It is also used as a
pesticide carrier, in cosmetics, fragrances, industrial oils, and insect repellents to a
lesser  extent.   Leaching of textile coating formulations is a potential  source of
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in laundry waste waters.

      Perchloroethylene  -  Perchloroethylene   is  used  in  metal  degreasing
applications, as a scouring and sizing agent in the textile industry,  and as  a raw
material in the production of C2 fluorocarbons.  However, it is most widely used as
a dry  cleaning solvent.  This is the most probable source  of perchloroethylene in
laundry wastewaters.

      Perchloroethylene is toxic to man and other animals, and has been implicated
as a carginogen in mice.  Very limited data are available on the fate  and potential
adverse effects of this compound in POTW's; however, one investigator reports that
perchloroethylene  is  inhibitory to  the  anaerobic  sludge digestion process  at
concentrations of 20 mg/1 or higher (47,48).

      Naphthalene - Naphthalene is known to be toxic to  man, other animals, and a
number of fish species.  At concentrations of 2500 mg/1,  naphthalene is toxic to
sewage treatment plant organisms (49).

      Naphthalene is used in the production of phthalic anhydride; insecticides; dye,
pigment, and rubber processing chemical intermediates; leather tanning agents; and
moth repellents.  Naphthalene is  also present in naphtha-based solvents and dust
treating oils used by the laundry industry, particularly by industrial laundries.

      Chloroform - Chloroform (CHC^J is toxic to man, other mammals, and fish
and is a suspected carcinogen in animals.   Apparently, chloroform  is not inhibitory
to activated sludge processes (49).  However, various investigators have reported
that chloroform is inhibitory to anaerobic digestion processes at concentrations  (in
sludge) ranging from 0.1 to 20 mg/1 (22,50-53).

      Chloroform is used in the production of  fluorocarbon refrigerants, and as a
solvent for  fats,  oils,  rubbbers,  alkaloids,  waxes, and  resins.    Chloroform  is
ubiquitous  in city  water  supplies, due to  chlorination of  low  molecular  weight
organics in water treatment processes.

      Benzene  - Benzene  is toxic to  man, other mammals,  and fish,  and is a
suspected carcinogen in man. Apparently,  benzene has  little or no adverse effect on
the activated sludge process, although it  can seriously retard sludge digestion at a
concentration of 1000  mg/1  (47).

      Benzene  is primarily used by  the chemical  industry as a raw material for
ethylbenzene,  cumene, cyclohexane,  aniline,  chlorobenzenes,   maleic  anhydride,
synthetic  detergents, and other chemicals.  It has been widely used as a solvent in
the past, but this market has been phased out to a large extent due  to the suspected
carcinogenicity of benzene.

                                         49

-------
     Others •• Fourteen other organic c .o-::y pollutants were detected in at least
one industrial laundry  wastewater at co,-.-_?-!iraTions greater than 0.1 mg/1.  These
include carbon  tetrachloride,  1,1,1-trichioroethane,  dichlorobenzenes (ortho-and
para isomers), 2,4-dimethylphenoJ, ethylbenzene, methyJene chloride, isophorone, N-
nitrosodiphenylamine,  phjenol, butyl benzyl phthalate,  di-n-butyl phthalate,  di-n-
octyl phthalate, anthracene, and  trichloroethylene.  The  frequency and maximum
concentration at which each of these compounds was  detected are shown in the
following subsections.

     Other than the six compounds discussed in the preceding pages, no organic
priority pollutants were found at more than 0.1 mg/1 in linen supply, power laundry,
diaper service, carpet cleaning, or coin-operated laundry wastewaters.

     In the following  pages, toxic pollutant concentration data are presented for
wastewaters from each industry subcategory.  Priority  pollutant concentrations  in
auto and other laundry  water supplies are also identified to provide an indication of
the background  levels  at which  the various compounds are normally present. All
organic toxic pollutant data are based on sampling and- analysis performed  in
conjunction with the Effluent Guidelines study and the results of an earlier  study
(54). Metals, cyanide and total phenol data were also obtained from industry survey
and  trade   association reports,  Chicago  MSD monitoring  reports  and literature
sources (11,55,56).

3.2.2.1  Industrial Laundries

     Table 5-14 summarizes the toxic  pollutant data collected for the  industrial
laundry subcategory.  It identifies the maximum, median  and mean concentrations at
which each pollutant was found and the number of plant wastewaters in which these
pollutants were  detected as well as the daily load of each pollutant in  kg/day. For
purposes of comparison, Table 5-15 presents similar data for laundry  water supply
samples collected and analyzed over the course of this  program.

      Nine  of the  thirteen toxic pollutant metals were  found in more than 50% of
the industrial laundry effluents.  Lead, zinc, chromium and copper were detected  in
virtually all of  the samples and  were present at higher concentrations than any  of
the other metals.  The  median concentrations of lead,  zinc, copper and chromimum
were 4.6 mg/1,  3.0 mg/1, 1.5 mg/1 and 0.47 mg/1, respectively.  The corresponding
mean concentrations of these metals were 4,5 mg/i, 3.0 mg/1 and 1.7 mg/1.  Nickel,
antimony, cadmium, arsenic, silver  and mercury were also detected in the majority
of the plant wastewaters, but generally at much lower concentrations.

     With  the possible exception of zinc and mercury, the presence of these metals
in industrial laundry wastewater  is largely attributable to soil on the articles being
washed.  For example, several industrial laundry owners surveyed during the course
of this study identified  print shop towels as  a major  source of lead  in  their
wastewaters.

      Cyanide and total phenols were detected in most of the laundry wastewaters.
With few exceptions, however, cyanide was found only  at low levels.  The median
cyanide concentration was 0.057 mg/1, which is in the range of the detection  limit.
The  mean  cyanide  concentration  was  0.13  mg/1.     Somewhat  higher phenol
concentrations  were noted,  probably due  to the presence of these compounds  in
various laundry chemicals and possibly due to soil contamination since phenol and its
derivatives are widely used in industry.
                                         50

-------
     TABLE 3-l». TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS IN INDUSTRIAL
                 LAUNDRY WA5TEWATEK
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide (Total)
Phenols (Total)
Benzene
Carbon Tecracfilonde
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroe thane
2-Cliloronaphthalene
Chloroform
2-Chloropnenol
Dichtoro&enzenes
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimetriylphenol
dtliylbenzeiie
Biil2-cnioroiiopropyl) ether
BisU-ciiloroeUoxy) methane
Mutnylene chloride
Uicniurobromoine thane
TriUilorofluoromelhane
liOptiorone
Naphthalene
Z-Nitrcphenol
N-NJ irosodjphenyJamjne
Phenol
Uis(2-ethylhe»yl) phihaiate
Butyl benzyl phihaiate
Di-n-butyl phthdlate
Di-n-octyl phtnaJate
Anihracene/phenanthrene
Teiracnloroethylene
Toluene
TncMoroethylene
Number*
7/8
6/6
7/7
a/8
S/S
8/8
»/3
K/8
1/2
2/
-------
TABLE 5-15.     TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIOf  IN LAUNDRY
               WATER SUPPLIES



Maximum
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Phenol (total)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Tr ichJoroethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Chloroform.
2-Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzenes
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-tr ans-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Dichlorobromomethane
Trichlorofluormethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Anthracene /phenanthrene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
a Ratio indicates the
Number*
7/29
4/29
9/31
18/31
23/31
12/31
10/31
6/31
2/28
3/31
2/28
22/31
13/29
4/33
1/33
5/33
1/36
22/33
1/36
2/36
4/33
1/33
2/36
2/33
16/33
15/33
2/33
8/33
1/36
2/36
5/36
25/36
3/36
20/36
3/36
7/36
3/36
1/36
15/33
13/33
4/33
number of samples
found as compared to the total number of
D Blanks indicate valu
IBS below analytical
cone.
0.027
0.011
0.020
0.080
0.30
0.10
0.008
0.060
0.004
0.030
0.006
0.30
0.032
0.040
0.002
0.14
<0.010
0.14
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
"0.049
<0.010
"0.005
14.7
0.088
0.13
0.020
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
"1.2
<0.010
"0.014
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
"0.42
0.14
<0.010
mg/l
Median
cone.''
<0.010
<0.001
<0.002
0.010
0.030
<0.020
<0.0001
<0.005
<0.001
<0.005
<0.005
0.094
<0.002




0.012













<0.010

<0.010







on which the specific
samples
detectic
analyzed.
>n limits. Api

Mean
cone.'1
<0.010
<0.001
<0.002
0.016
0.048
<0.020
<0.0004
0.006
<0.001
<0.005
<0.005
0.072
0.006
<0.002

<0.005
< 0.000 3
<0.025
<0.0003
< 0.0006


< 0.0006
0.0003
<0.60
0.009
0.005
<0.002
<0.0003
< 0.0006

-------
      A total of 28 specific organic toxic pollutants were detected in one or more of
the  industrial  laundry effluents analyzed  for  these  substances.   Most  of  the
compounds  fall into  one  of four categories:  aromatic hydrocarbons  and their
chlorinated  derivatives, low-molecular-weight halogenated aliphatics,  phenol  and
derivatives thereof and phthalate esters.

      Five organic  toxic  pollutants  were  detected  in more  than  50%  of  the
wastewater samples:   toluene,  perchloroethylene, ethylbenzene,  chloroform  and
phenol.

     ' Naphthalene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthaJate and methylene chloride  were also
found in 50% of the plant effluents.

      Obviously,  organic  toxic  pollutant  loadings   vary considerably  from  one
industrial laundry  to another.   Perchloroethylene  concentrations, for example,
ranged from 0.001 mg/1 to 0.88 mg/1.  One factor affecting this variability  is the
amount of "perc" dry cleaning performed by different industrial laundries.  For other
pollutants such as benzene, methylene chloride, naphthalene, trichloroethylene and
toluene3, concentrations in wastewater  may also be at least partially related  to the
use  of various  process chemicals. However, these  and other organic toxic pollutants
found in industrial  laundry  waste waters are widely  used  in  the chemical  and
manufacturing industries;  hence, soil on the articles  being laundered is a potential
major source of wastewater contamination and pollutant concentration variability.

      The types of garments being washed may also influence the concentrations of
bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate and related esters  in  laundry  wastewaters.    The
phthalates are used in many textile coating formulations and could  leach from these
fabrics  into the  wastewater.   Vinyl mats,  which are high-volume items  in the
industrial laundry  subcategory,  are particularly likely  sources of phthalate  esters.
Bis  (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is the most  widely used plasticizer in polyvinyl chloride
products.

      The use of chlorine bleach is a probable  source of many of  the low-molecular-
weight chlorocarbons listed in Table 5-1 
-------
TABLE 3-1*.    TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS
             IN UNEN LAUNDRY WASTSWATERS



m«/t
Maximum Median
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Phenol (tool)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyU phihaJate
Butyl benzyl phtrtalate
Di-n-outyl phthalate
Di-n-octyt phthaiate
Diethyl phthatate
Dimethyl phthalate
Anthracene/pnenanthrene
Perchloroethylene
Toluene
Number*
5/7
4/7
3/36
20/36
13/13
27/36
12/36
19/36
1/7
ft/7
1/7
36/37
J/7
7/7
1/3
»/3
2/3
l/J
2/3
1/3
V3
ft/3
2/3
3/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
2/3
*/5
* Ratio indicate* trie number of samples in
cone.
0.037
0.026
0.12
0.93
3.3
3.0
0.031
0.30
0.003
0.047
0.006
2.3
0.077
0.26
<0.010
"0.18
<0.010
"0.011
0.092
1.2
0.030
9.0
<0.010
"0.026
<0.003
<0.<303
?0.003
~0.016
<0.010
"0.099
cone.0
0.007
0.006
<0.002
0.0»6
0.21
0.24
<0.0002
0.02S
<0.002
O.OQ2
<0.003
0.70
0.033
0.12

0.020



<0.010
"0.16
<0.010


-------
mean concentrations of both pollutants u.ers considerably lower in the linen laundry
wastewaters.  No more than  trace level:  of  cyanide  were detected in any of the
samples.

      Sixteen organic toxic pollutants  were detected in at least one of five Linen
laundry effluents analyzed for these compounds.  With few exceptions, these were
the same  compounds  found in the industrial  laundry  wastewaters.  Much lower
concentrations  were observed in  the  linen supply effluents,  however; oniy bis(2-
ethylhexyi) phthaiate,  naphthalene  and  chloroform were found in  any  of the
effluents at concentrations greater than 0.1 mg/1.

5.2.2.3  Power Laundries, Family and Commercial

      Table 5-17 summarizes the toxic pollutant data collected for  establishments in
the power  laundry subcategory.  Only five of the toxic  pollutant metals (antimony,
zinc,  lead, copper and chromium) were present in any  of  the effluent samples  at
concentrations greater  than  0.1  mg/1.   Except  for zinc  and copper,  median
concentrations  of these metals were all much  less than 0.1 mg/1, in the range  of
detection limits.  In general, the concentrations of these pollutants were lower than
the concentrations shown in Table 5-16 for linen supply wastewaters.

      Phenols (total) were detected in each of five power laundry effluents analyzed
at concentrations up to 0.97  mg/1; however,  the  median phenol concentration was
only  0.073  mg/1.   Cyanide was detected  in  only one of  five effluent samples  at
extemely low concentration.

      Twenty-five organic  toxic pollutants were present in one or more of the four
wastewaters analyzed  for these compounds, but only bis(2-ethy!hexyl) phthaiate and
perchloroethylene were found in any of the samples  at  concentrations greater than
0.1 mg/1.

5.2.2.4  Diaper  Services

      Table 5-18  summarizes the toxic pollutant data  collected  for the  diaper
service subcategory.  Seven of the toxic pollutant metals were detected in at least
one sample, but only zinc  was present  at more  than 0,1  mg/! in any of the  samples.
Zinc  concentrations  ranged  from  1.5   mg/1 to  10.0  in  five  diaper   laundry
wastewaters, possibly due to the use of zinc silicofluoride sours,

      No  other  toxic  pollutants were  found  at   significant  levels,  which  is
understandable in light of the  types of soil present on  diapers.

5.2.2.5  Coin-Operated Laundries

      Table 5-19  summarizes the toxic pollutant  data obtained for  three  coin-
operated laundry wastewaters.  Eight toxic pollutant  metals,  phenol (total) and  12
organic toxic pollutants were detected in at least one of these effluent samples, but
only  zinc,  total   phenol  and  bis(2-ethylhexyl)   phthaiate  were   present   at
concentrations greater than 0.1 mg/1  in any of  the  samples.  This attests to the
innocuous types and quantities of soil present on  family-type wash, which accounts
for virtually 10096 of the coin-op business.
                                         55

-------
TABLE 5-17.    TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND
             LOADINGS IN POWER LAUNDRY VASTEWATCRS



Maximum
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Capper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sliver
line
Cyanide
Phenol (total)
1,1,1-TricMcroethane
Chloroform
2-CMoropnenol
Dicnlorooenzenes
2,4-Dichlorophenoi
2,4-Oimethyiohenol
Fluoranthene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Pencachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phSialats
Di-o-butyl pnthalats
Di-n-ocryl phthalate
Diethyt phthaiate
Antnracene/phenanthrene
Pyrene
PtrchloroethyLene
Toluene
TriCTioroetfiylene
Chlordane
4f»'-DOT
«,»'-ODE
Heptachlor
Number*
5/6
2/6
3/5
6/7
7/7
6/7
5/8
4/7
2/7
6/6
1/3
5/5
1/H
J/»
2/*
I/"
1/&
2/»
I/"
I/ft
2/4
2/u
3/o
ft/4
ft/4
»/a
3/ft
I/ft
2/ft
1/4
3/4
I/ft
2/ft
l/»
I/ft
1/4
l/»
• Ratio indicates the number of samples in
cone.
0.37
0.020
0.046
0.36
0.37
0.43
0.003
0.050
O.OOS
0.5*
0.02S
0.97
0.002
0.041
O.C01

-------
             TABLE 5-18.     TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS IN DIAPER
                             LAUNDRY WASTEWATERS
Ul


Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Phenol (total)
Chloroform
Phenol


Number3
2/H
1/5
'»/'*
2/'f
1/3
2h
5/5
1/2
3/3
1/1
l/l

Maximum
cone.
O.O'iO
0.022
0.10
0.035
0.0009
0.10
10.0
0.060
O.OcSO
0.072
Q.03S
rriR/l
Median
conc.b
<0.006
<0.010
O.OKO
<0.02<»
<0.0009
<0.035
'(.0
<0.050
0.036
	
~ ~ m*

Mean
conc.b
O.OM
<0.010
O.QTi
<0.02';
<0.0009
<0.035
5.7
<0.050
0.0'JO
	
...
kR/day
avg/facility

0.0018
<0.016
0.013
<0.0038
<0.00014
<0.0056
0.91
<0.008
0.0064


        a

        b
Ratio indicates the number ol samples in which the specific pollutant was found as compared to the
total number of samples analyzed,
IManks indicate values below analytical detection limits.  Appendix A lists representative detection
limits (or each organic priority pollutant.

-------
            TABLE 5-19.
                TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS
                IN COIN-OPERATED LAUNDRY WASTEWATERS
Ul
CO
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Phenol (total)
Benzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylcne
1 ,2-trans-Dichlorocthylene
Mcthylene chloride
nichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibrornorncihane
llis(2-ethylhcxyl) phlhulate
Oi-n-butyl phtha'.ate
Diethyl phthalnte
Perchlorocthylene
Toluene
Number3
2/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
7/3
2/3
3/3
1/3
1/3
2/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
2/2
1/2
1/2
1/3
1/3

Maximum
cone.
0.016
0.011
0.023
0.005
0.070
0.072
0.002
0.67
0.30
0.014
0.070
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.019
0.012
0.8'»
0.055
0.025
0.025
0.001
TT1K/I
Median
conc.b
0.013
<0.010
<0.002
<0.005
0.070
0.036
0.002
0.16
0,002

<0.020





0.80
0.028
0.012



Mean
cone.'1
0.010
<0.010
O.OOS
<0.005
0.067
0.036
0.001
0.31
0.10
0.005
0.030


0.002
0.006
0.004
0.80
0.028
0.012
0.008
0.0003
kfi/day
avg/facility
0.00014

-------
5.2.2.6  Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners

     Toxic  pollutant data for one carpet-cleaning plant are shown in Table 5-20.
Zinc, copper, lead and tetrachloroethylene  were the  only  pollutants found  at  a
concentration greater than 0.1 mg/1.

5.2.2.7  Dry-Cleaning Plants

     Table  5-21  presents toxic pollutant  data for  two commercial dry-cleaning
plant wastewaters. Both of the plants use perchloroethylene solvent.

      As  expected,  both  wastewater  effluents   contained  perchloroethylene.
However, the concentration of "perc" differed by more than an order of magnitude,
from 0.2 mg/1 to 58.6 mg/1, in the  two effluents.   Seventeen other  organic toxic
pollutants were detected in one of the wastewater samples, but none was found in
both effluents.

      Chlorinated ethanes, ethylenes and chloroform  were the only toxic pollutants
other than "perc" that were found at concentrations greater than 0.05 mg/l.

5.2.2.8  Car Washes

      Three tables present and summarize toxic pollutant data from the three types
of  car  wash  facilities.   Table  5-22 summarizes  wand  facilities, Table  5-23
summarizes  rollover facilities and Table 5-24 summarizes tunnel facilities.  These
tables  present  the  maximum, median and  mean   concentrations of  each  toxic
pollutant found in the raw waste samples and the number of wastewater samples in
which these  pollutants were  detected as well as the  daily load of each pollutant in
kg/day.

      Lead  and zinc were present in all samples fro-n each of the  three  types of
facilities.   These  toxic  pollutant  metals  exhibited the  highest  concentrations
although the average  ranged only from .5 mg/1 to 1.0 mg/1 for lead and QA mg/1 to
 1.5  mg/1 for zinc.  The only other metals of  significance were copper  and nickel
 which were found in almost  every sample.  Their mean concentrations averaged less
 than 0.2 mg/1.

      Several  toxic pollutant organics were found  in the  wastewaters from  car
 washes.  No pollutant was  present  in  concentrations greater than  1.0 mg/1, and
 virtually all  had mean  concentrations below .05 mg/1.  As  with  the conventional
 pollutants,  the wand type facilities had the highest number and concentrations of
 pollutants.

 5.3  DISCHARGE TYPES

      Because auto and other laundry  facilities are  almost  exclusively confined to
 urban and suburban areas where their customers are located,  more than 99 percent
 of all  facilities discharge to publicly  owned treatment works (POTW).  Table 5-25
 lists the approximate  number and  percentage  of  direct  dischargers  in  each
 subcategory  in  comparison  to the total number of .establishments.  The reported
 number of  direct dischargers is based  on NPDES permit applications under the  SIC
 code for each subcategory.  The actual number may differ slightly.  For example, a
 follow-up telephone survey of industrial and linen supply direct dischargers revealed
 that out of seven  permit   applications  on file only one site remains  a direct
 discharger.

                                         59

-------
     TABLE 5-20.  TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
                 WASTEWATER FROM ONE CARPET CLEANING
                 PLANT
                                         Concentration
  Pollutant                                   mg/1
Antimony                                    0.00*
Arsenic                                      0.008
Chromium                                    0.050
Copper                                      0.20
Lead                                        0.10
Mercury                                     0.001
Zinc                                        0.60
Chloroform                                   <0.010
Bis(2-3ethylhexyl) phthalate                     0.02*
Di-n-butyl phthalate                           <0.013
Tetrachloroethylene                           0.23
                                     60

-------
TABLE 5-21.  TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
             DRY CLEANING PLANT WA5TEWATER5
                                          Concentration,
 Pollutant                                Plant 1            Plant 2
Copper
Lead
Phenol (total)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroe thane
Chloroform
1 , 1 -Dichlor oethy lene
1 ,2-trans- Dichloroethy lene
Methylene chloride
Dichlorofaromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
0.050
0.0*0
<0.005








0.030


<0.010
<0.010

-------
TABLE 3-22   TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS IN WAND TYPE CAR
             WASH RAW WASTED ATERS
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Oiromium
Copper
™ rr
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
line
Chloroform
Fluoranthene
Methylene chloride
Dichlorobromomethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Chlorodibromometnane
Naphthalene
*-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
Bis(2-«thylhe*yi) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-outyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a) pyrene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
Anthacene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Trichloroethylene
Number*
2/2
3/6
1/6
6/6
6/6
4/4
6/6
4/6
6/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
6/6
1/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2

Maximum
cone.
0.017
1.6
0.016
0.092
0.27
0.36
4.2
0.026
0.39



2.*
0.023
0.01»
0.6^
0.033
0.12
0.012
0.17
0.01*
0.019
1.0
0.031
0.013
0.016
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.017
0.017
O.OIl
0.013
m«/l
Median
conc.b
0.016.
0.0014
<0.001
0.029
0.074
o.«s
1.6
0.00053
0.12



1.3






Mean
cone.*
0.014
0.26
O.OC27
0.043
0.099
0.34
2.0
0.0048
0.13
•
-
-
1.3
0.042
0.007
0.33
0.016
0.06
0.006
O.OS3
0.007
0.0095
0.54
0.022
0.0073
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.006
O.OOS5
0.0033
0.0055
0.0065
ke/da*
avg/facility
0.00023
0.0052
0.000054
0.00036
0.002
0.011
0.04
O.OOG096
0.003



0.03
O.OOOS4
0.00014
0.0066
0.00032
0.0012
0.00012
0.0017
0.00014
0.00019
0.011
O.C0044
0.90015
0.00016
0.00012
0.00012
0.00012
0.00017
0.00017
O.OC011
0.00013
 Ratio indicates die number of samples in which the specific pollutant was found as compared to the
 total number of samples analyzed.
 Blanks indicate values below analytical detection limits. Appendix A lists r<
 limits for each organic priority pollutant.
iresentative detection
                                        62

-------
            TABLE 5-23   TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS IN ROLLOVER TYPE
                         CAR WASH RAW WASTEWATERS
OJ
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Chloroform
4-nitrophenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Methylene chloride
Number3
2/2
1/6
0/6
5/6
5/6
4/4
6/6
1/6
6/6
0/2
0/2
0/2
6/6
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2

Maximum
cone.
0.0025
0.0005

0.040
0.11
0.230
1.1
0.0006
0.20



1.0
0.037
0.015
0.031
0.016
0.47
mR/1
Median
cone.''
0.0022
<0.0005

0.008
0.013
0.09
0.47
<0.0001
0.11



0.42






Mean
cone.'*
0.0022
0.00008
-
0.013
0.027
0.11
0.50
0.0001
0.11



0.42
0.018
0.0075
0.016
0.008
0.24
kg/day
avg/facility
0.000025
0.00000091

0.00015
0.00031
0.0013
0.0057
0.0000011
0.0013



0.0048
0.0002
0.000086
0.00018
0.000091
0.0027
            Ratio indicates the number of samples in which the specific pollutant was found as compared to the
            total number of samples analyzed.

            Blanks indicate values below analytical detection limits. Appendix A lists representative detection
            limits for each organic priority pollutant.

-------
  TABLE 5-24.   TOXIC POLLUTANT COMENT RAT IONS  AND LOADINGS  IN TUNNEL
               TYPE CAR WASH RAW WASTEWATERS
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryl 1 7 urn
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thai 1 i urn
Zinc
Numbe r
I/I
4/17
0/17
17/17
17/17
8/8
17/17
6/17
17/17
0/1
0/1
0/1
17/17

Max i mum
Cone b
0.0045
0.016
—
0.066
1.7
0.3
2.2
0.0005
0.69
—
--
—
1.5
mg/1
Median.
Cone
~
<0.01
—
0.014
0.026
0.10
0.55
<0.0001
0.13
—
—
—
0.55

Mean
Cone
—
0.0018
—
0.022
0.14
0.15
0.78
0.00011
0.19
—
—
--
0.70
kg/day
Avg/
Facility
—
0.00014
—
0.0017
0.011
0.011
0.059
0.0000083
0.014
—
—
—
0.053
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
 phthalate       1/1
Methylene
 chloride
4-nitrophenol
1/1
1/1
0.027

0.011
0.011
a  Ratio indicates the number of samples in which the specific pollutant was
   found as compared to the total number of samples analyzed.
b  Blanks indicate values below analytical  detection limits.  Appendix A
   representative detection limits for each organic toxic pollutant.
                                    64

-------
  TABLE 5-25   NUMBER OF DIRECT DISCHARGERS IN THE LAUNDRY INDUSTRY

Subcategory
Industrial
Laundries
Linen supply
Power laundries
Diaper services
Total
Number

1,000
1,300
3,100
300
Direct
Number

0
1
16
0
Dischargers
Percent

0
0.1
0.5
0
Carpet and upholstery
cleaners           2,700                      2                0.1

Coin-operated
laundries         32,000                    1^0                0.»

Dry cleaning
plants            28,400                      6                <0.1

Car washes        22,000                    100                0.5
                                   65

-------
                                 SECTION 6

            EXCLUSION OF SUBCATEGOR1ES FROM REGULATION


     This section presents the bases for excluding from regulation all subcategories
in the Auto and other Laundries point source category.

6.1 POWER LAUNDRIES, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL

     Summary of Determinations - It has been determined that  no further effort
will  be given  to developing  regulations for  this subcategory.  The bases for this
determination are  Paragraph S(a)(iv)  of the  Consent Decree, which states  "the
amount and toxicity of each pollutant in  the discharge does not justify developing
national regulations"  and  Paragraph  8(b)(ii) which  states  "the  toxicity and  the
amount of incompatible pollutants (taken together) introduced by such  point sources
into  treatment  works that  are  publicly owned is so  insignificant as not to justify
developing a pretreatment regulation."

     Production Process  and  Effluents  -  Power  laundries  are  establishments
primarily engaged in operating  mechanical  laundries  with steam or  other  power.
The  average wastewater discharge for  this subcategory is 230 nrWday per facility.
The  average total toxic metals  is less than 0.23 kg/day per facility, which consists
primarily of zinc, 0.099 kg/day per facility, copper,  0.037 kg/day per facility, and
antimony, 0.037 kg/day per facility.  Of the toxic organics, phenol  is  the major
constituent with the average facility discharging 0.071  kg/day.

     Plants - There are some 3,100 power laundry facilities in the  country.

     Status of Regulations - There are no existing regulations for this subcategory.

6.2 DIAPER SERVICES

     Summary  of Determinations - It  has been determined that no further effort
will  be given to developing regulations for this  subcategory.  The bases  for  this
determination are  Paragraph 8(a)(iv) of  the  Consent  Decree, which states "the
amount and toxicity  of each pollutant in the discharge does not  justify  developing
national regulations" and  Paragraph  S(b)(ii)  which  states "the  toxicity  and the
amount of incompatible pollutants (taken together) introduced by such point  sources
into treatment  works that are  publicly owned is so insignificant as  not to justify
developing a pretreatment regulation."

      Production  Process  and   Effluents -  Diaper  services  are  establishments
primarily engaged in supplying  diapers (including  disposables) and other baby linens
to  homes.   The average  wastewater  discharge  rate for this subcategory is 160
m3/day  per facility.  The average total toxic metals for  this subcategory is 0.95
kg/day per facility, which consists primarily of zinc, 0.91 kg/day per facility. Toxic
organics were found in only very small quantities.

      Plants - There are some 300 diaper service establishments in the  country.

      Status of  Regulations - There are no existing regulations for  this  subcategory.
                                         66

-------
6.3 COIN-OPERATED LAUNDRIES AND DRY-CLEANING

     Summary of  Determinations -  It has been determined that no further effort
will  be given to developing  regulations for  this subcategory.  The bases for this
determination are  Paragraph 8(a)(iv)  of  the Consent  Decree, which  states  "the
amount and toxicity of each pollutant  in the discharge does not justify developing
national  regulations" and  Paragraph 8(b)(ii)  which states "the toxicity  and  the
amount of incompatible pollutants (taken together)  introduced by such point sources
into  treatment works that are publicly owned is so insignificant as not to  justify
developing a pretreatment regulation."

     Production  Process and  Effluents -  The coin-op  category  is  made up  of
establishments primarily engaged in providing  coin-operated  laundry  and/or  dry-
cleaning equipment on their own  premises.   Wastewater  flows  from  coin-op
establishments average 1* m3/day.   Total  average toxic metal discharge is  0.01
kg/day per facility, most of which is  zinc, 0.00*3 kg/day per facility. Toxic organics
are present only in very small quantities.

     Plants - There are approximately 32,000 coin-op facilities in the country.

     Status of Regulations - There are no existing regulations for this subcategory.

6.4 DRY-CLEANING PLANTS, EXCEPT RUG CLEANING

     Summary of Determinations -  It  has been determined  that no further effort
will  be given to developing regulations for this subcategory.  The bases  for  this
determination  are  Paragraph 8{a)(iv)  of the Consent  Decree, which  states  "the
amount and toxicity of each pollutant  in the discharge does not justify developing
national  regulations" and  Paragraph  8(b)(n) which states "the toxicity  and  the
amount of incompatible pollutants (taken together)  introduced by such point sources
into treatment works that are publicly owned is so insignificant  as  not to justify
developing a pretreatment regulation."

     Production Process and Effluents - The dry-cleaning subcategory consists of
establishments engaged  in dry cleaning or  dyeing apparel and  household  fabrics,
other than rugs, for the general public.  Wastewater discharge from the  dry-cleaning
industry is  very small.  Average total toxic metals is  less than  0.01  kg/day per
facility and total toxic organics is less than 0.59 kg/day per facility.

     Plants - There are some 28,400 dry-cleaning plants in the country.

     Status of Regulations - There are  no existirig regulations for this subcategory.

6.5 CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY CLEANING

     Summary of  Determinations - It  has been determined that no further effort
will be given to developing regulations for this subcategory.  The bases  for  this
determination are Paragraph 8(aXiv) of the Consent Decree,  which states "the
amount and toxicity of each pollutant  in the discharge does not justify developing
national regulations"  and Paragraph  8(b)(ii) which  states  "the  toxicity  and the
amount of incompatible pollutants (taken together)  introduced by such point sources
into treatment  works that are publicly owned  is so insignificant  as not to justify
developing a pretreatment regulation."


                                        67

-------
     Production  Process  and  Effluents  -  Carpet  and  upholstery  cleaners  are
establishments primarily engaged in cleaning carpets and upholstered furniture at a
plant or on a customer's premises.  Wastewater flows from this subcategory are
extremely small.  Average total toxic metals is less than 0.073  kg/day per facility,
with the primary constituents being zinc and copper.

     Plants - There are some 2,700 carpet cleaning establishments in the country.

     Status of Regulations - There are no existing regulations for this subcategory,

6.6 CAR WASH ESTABLISHMENTS

     Summary of Determinations  - It  has been determined that no further  effort
will be given to  developing regulations for  this  subcategory.  The bases for  this
determination  are  Paragraph 8(a)(iv> of  the  Consent Decree, which states "the
amount and toxicity of each pollutant in the discharge does  not  justify developing
national regulations"  and Paragraph 8(b)(ii) which  states "the toxicity  and the
amount of incompatible pollutants (taken  together) introduced by such point sources
into treatment works that are  publicly owned is so insignificant as  not  to justify
developing a pretreatment regulation."

      Production  Process and Effluents - The car wash subcategory is comprised of
facilities designed  for the automatic or  self-service washing of  vehicles including
cars, vans,  and  pick-up trucks.   There  are  three  types of  car  washes, tunnel,
rollover, and wand which were  described in Section  3.2.5.   Average wastewater
flows for tunnels, rollovers, and wands are 75.7, 11.4, and 19.9 m^/day, respectively.
Average toxic metals is less than 0.17 kg/day per facility for  tunnels,  less than 0.12
kg/day  per facility  for wands, and less than 0.15 kg/day per facility for rollovers.  In
all cases, zinc and lead were the major constituents of the total  toxic metals.  Toxic
or games were found in very small quantities.

      Plants  - There are some 22,000 car wash establishments of which an estimated
15,000 are tunnel, 3,500  are wand, and 3,500  are rollover.

      Status  of Regulations - There are  no existing regulations for this  subcategory.

6.7   INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES

      Summary of  Determinations -  It has been determined  that no  further effort
will be given  to developing regulations  for this subcategory.   The  basis for this
determination is • Paragraph  8(a)(i)  of  the  Consent  Decree which  states  that  a
subcategory  can be excluded from regulation  if 95 percent or more of  all point
sources in  the  subcategory  introduce  into  POTW only  pollutants  which  are
susceptible  to treatment and  do not interfere with, pass  through, and are  not
otherwise  incompatible with the  POTW.   All industrial laundries discharge to  a
POTW.

      Production Process  and Effluents  • Industrial  laundries clean  garments  and
other   materials from  a variety  of  industrial  activities.    Consequently, toxic
pollutant loads generated in this subcategory are the highest in the  industry.   The
major toxic  pollutants are the toxic  metals  chromium (trivalent), copper,  lead,  and
zinc.  The total amount of these toxic  metal pollutants averages 2.7 kg/day/facility.
If EPA were to promulgate effluent limitations for this subcategory, the limitations
                                         68

-------
would be based on dissolved air flotation technology, which reduces the toxic metal
pollutants by 61 percent.  This is a less efficient removal than is currently provided
for these  pollutants by the POTW.  Accordingly, the pollutants are susceptible to
treatment and do not pass through the POTW.  The  toxic organic pollutants found
during screening and verification  sampling for this subcategory  were common
industrial  solvents, all of  which (with two exceptions) were  detected at  average
concentrations  of  less  than  one  part per  million.   The  two  exceptions  were
ethyibenzene and naphthalene which were detected at a high level  at only one plant
each and were uniquely related only to those two sources.

      Plants - There are approximately 1,000  industrial  laundry  facilities in the
country.

      Status of Regulations - There are no existing regulations for this subcategory.

6.8 LINEN SUPPLY

      Summary of Determinations - It has been determined that no further effort
will be  given  to  developing regulations for  this  subcategory.   The basis  for ::his
determination  is Paragraph 8(a)(i) of  the  Consent  Decree  which states that a
subcategory can be excluded from  regulation if  95 percent or more  of all  point
sources in  the  subcategory  introduce into  POTW  only  pollutants  which are
susceptible  to  treatment  and do  not interfere  with, pass  through,  and  are not
otherwise incompatible with the  POTW.  All but one linen supply  discharge  to a
POTW.

      Production   Process  and   Effluents   -   Linen  supplies   are   defined  as
establishments  primarily engaged in supplying  laundered  items such as linens,
towels,  napkins and uniforms.   The major toxic pollutants found at linen laundries
are the same as those found at industrial laundries but  at  lower concentrations.
(The total amount of toxic metal pollutants  averages less than 0.8 kg/day /facility).
The source  of these pollutants  is the same  as  the  industrial  laundry,  that is, the
small amount of industrial laundry work done at linen laundries.  Since the  amount
of industrial laundry done is small at linen laundries, the concentrations  and  amounts
of pollutants are only about 40 percent  of the concentrations and amounts found at
industrial  laundries.

      Plants - There are approximately 1,300  linen supply facilities in the country.

      Status of  Regulations - There are no existing regulations for this subcategory.
                                        69

-------
                                 SECT "ON 7

                 CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
     Technology applicable to the control and treatment of laundry wastewaters is
described in this section.  Description and evaluation of all technology are based on
treatment system applicability in removing  various pollutants prior to discharge to
POTW's or before direct discharge to navigable waterways. Those pollutants found
most consistently and/or at the highest concentration, as presented in Section 5, are
used as a basis for evaluation of current and potentially applicable technology.  The
following subjects are discussed in this section:

     o    Pretreatment technology
     o    Treatment for direct discharge
     o    Recycle/reuse technology
     o    Sludge handling and disposal

     Pretreatment of laundry wastewater for discharge to a POTW is dassifed into
three types:   (1) conventional,  in-piant  controls, (2) physical-chemical treatment
systems  presently  applied, and  (3) potentially  applicable treatment  technology.
Conventional controls are designed to remove gross pollutants such as lint and sand
which obstruct piping and sewer drains, disrupting laundry operations and increasing
plant maintenance costs.   In addition, heat reclaimers may be used to reduce the
temperature of the effluent through preheating of incoming fresh water.  Physical-
chemical treatment systems (PCS's) are designed to meet regulations established for
the control of pollutants  which may include oil and grease and heavy  metals, and
high pH as defined by sewer  ordinances for  various municipal districts.  Some
physical-chemical  systems are  designed for the expressed purpose of reclaiming
laundry wastewater for use in the wash process.

     Controls required for direct discharge  of laundry wastewaters are specified, in
this section, as a combination of physical-chemical treatment and on-site biological
treatment.   Further removal  of the pollutants  mentioned  above  is  required  in
addition to reducing levels of BOD and TSS before direct discharge.  Assessment of
the  capabilities of  small-scale  biological systems for  treatment  of   laundry
wastewater is based on limited data from coin-operated laundries.

     Recycling  or reusing laundry wastewater can achieve a reduction in the
volume of effluent per unit mass of laundry washed. In cases where recycle or reuse
is practiced, effluents from various systems treating laundry wastewater are mixed
with incoming fresh water and then recycled through the wash process.  An example
of one reuse practice is utilization of untreated rinse water from one  washload as
initial  washwater for a second washload.  The technical feasibility of  recycling
laundry wastewater is discussed in Section 7.3.

     Sludges resulting from the treatment of laundry wastewater must be  handled
and disposed of. Dewatering equipment, for the purpose of reducing sludge volume,
is described in Section 7.4.  Ultimate disposal of laundry sludge is accomplished by
landfilling or incineration.
                                       70

-------
7.1  PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

     Since  greater  than 99% of  all  laundries  discharge  to POTW's removal  of
incompatible pollutants is of major concern when  describing  wastewater controls for
the laundry  industry.   The extent and type of  control  practiced  by  individual
laundries has been dependent on local sewer ordinances, geographic location, POTW
limitations, and economic considerations. In Table  7-1, the number of plants in each
laundry subcategory  having  various control  technologies  is estimated  from  the
technical survey.

7.1.1  Conventional Technology

     Generally, conventional technology is designed to remove gross pollutants such
as lint, sand, grit, and free oil.  Heat reclaimers  are used to recover heat from the
wastewater  prior  to  discharge  in  order  to  preheat   incoming   fresh  water.
Conventional  equipment  for the  control of  solids,  free  oil, and temperature is
described in the following subsections.

7.1.1.1 Solids Removal

     Bar screens, lint screens, and catch basins (settling pits) are devices used to
remove sand, grit, lint,  and  other noncolioidal solids  from laundry  wastewater.
Solids  removal  is  typically  accomplished  in  many  laundries to  prevent  the
obstruction of piping and drains, thus ensuring constant hydraulic capacity.

     Bar  screens are constructed of  flat steel  bars welded  together  in  a grid
pattern.  Rectangular spaces formed by the steel grid are  6.3 mm (0.25  in.)  by 19
mm  (0.75  in.) in area and  are designed to  allow  the free flow  of effluent v/hile
removing large objects composed of paper, wood, etc., from the wastewater stream.
In the laundry industry, bar screens are usually cleaned by hand.

     Lint screens are usually installed after bar screens and will remove lint and
other particles such  as  sand and grit.  Lint screens at laundries are generally of
cylindrical or rectangular design, are constructed of wire mesh or perforated  metal
plate, and  have openings 9.5 mm (0.37 in.) to 3.2 mm (0.12 in.) in width.  They are
manually or mechanically cleaned. Hand cleaning  of  a lint screen is  accomplished
by directing a stream of  water  from a hose against  the screen in a direction opposite
to the wastewater flow.   Mechanical  removal of accumulated debris  is  mainly
accomplished by rotating or vibrating the lint screen to allow the trapped  lint to fall
off and be  collected.  Automatic water jets may also be used to aid in the removal
of trapped  lint from screens.

     Catch basins are also used in combination with lint screens to remove sand and
grit  from laundry wastewater.  Catch  basins are typically built  below ground and
have a hydraulic detention time of between 15 and 40 minutes.  Basins rely on the
difference in the specific  gravities of  solids  versus  water to achieve particle
settling. The effectiveness of  solids settling will depend upon the characteristics of
the particular laundry wastewater and the hydraulic detention  time  of  the catch
basin.  The percent of total solids removed will  generally increase, to a  maximum,
with increasing detention time.
                                       71

-------
 TABLE 7-1. ESTIMATED PERCENT OF LAUNDRIES (BASED-ON
             TECHNICAL SURVEY DATA) HAVING CONTROL
             TECHNOLOGY
Control technology
Pretr'eatment technology
(Number of responses)
Bar screens
Lint screens
Catch basins
Heat reclaimers
Oil skimmers
Equalization tanks
pH adjustment
Physical-chemical systems0
Otherd
Industrial
laundries
(7«0
2.7
70
72
70
15
1.2*
K3*
8.1
Linen supply
laundries
(59)
.1
81
78
81
0
2.1°
.1
0.3b
3.»
Estimate based on 13 physical-chemical systems operating at the 1,013 industrial
laundry indirect discharges.  Also, 12 of these systems have equalization tanks.
Estimate based on 5 physical-chemical  systems with equalization operating at
the 1,308 linen  supply indirect discharges, plus the  1.7% of linen  supplies that
have equalization tanks based on survey responses.
Major unit operations consist of chemical addition and floe  removal by dissolved
air flotation.
Other includes filtration, separators,  oil hold  back  devices, and miscellaneous
operations.
                                    72

-------
     Holding tanks with detention times of 2 to 4 hours are considered adequate for
providing flow equalization of laundry  effluent.  Detention times of this magnitude
will  usually provide the maximum  removal of suspended solids achievable without
resorting to additional technology such as physical-chemical  treatment.   Physical,
chemical, and biological reactions can  also occur in an equalization tank, which may
cause reductions in pollutant concentrations (46). Details on  the functions of How
equalization are given as part of the  general description of dissolved air flotation
treatment.

7.1.1.2  Free Oil Removal

     Oils and greases in laundry wastewater are  compounds that can be separated
from water by freon, hexane, and/or ether extraction.  Non-emulsified or free oil
may comprise a  portion  of the  total  oil  and grease  in  a  particular laundry
wastewater.  Data collected from  industrial laundries indicate that  5% to 10% of
the total oil and grease loading may be free oil.

     Free  oil removal technology relies on differences in specific gravities of  oils
and  grease versus water (24).  Treatment techniques involve retention of the oily
water in a  holding tank allowing gravity separation of the oily material from  water
to occur.  The floating oils are then skimmed from the water surface.

7.1.1.3  Temperature Control

     Heat  reclaimers are used in  the laundry  industry  to preheat incoming fresh
water  prior  to its  use  in the  wash  process.   Preheating is accomplished  with
reclaimers by noncontact heat  transfer from  laundry  wastewater.  As  a result,
laundry effluent temperatures are reduced from 60°C-70°C (140°F-I60°F) to  27°C-
38°C (SO°F-iOO°F).   Preheating of washwater with heat  reclaimers  reduces  the
amount of fuel needed to heat fresh water.

7.1.1.4  Capabilities of Conventional Technology

     Data are provided in Table 7-2  for  control equipment  presently in place at
three laundries.  The system, consisting of bar screen, lint screen, catch  basin and
heat reclaimer, was selected as typical because it is  in place at 70 percent or more
of industrial and linen supply  laundries  as presented in Table 7-1 survey data.

     The  data  in  Table  7-2  indicate  that  the  effectiveness  of conventional
treatment   in  removing pollutants   is  variable and  the results  are  basically
inconclusive.  Median removal rates ranged from zero to 32 percent for conventional
and  toxic pollutants.  For the purpose of evaluating other treatment technologies,
conventional treatment is assumed to be in place providing for the removal of gross
pollutants only.

7.1.2 Incompatible Pollutant Removal  — Presently Applied Technology

     Laundries operating under regulations that limit the discharge of incompatible
pollutants are currently using dissolved air flotation  systems (DAF5) for wastewater
treatment.  This system is described in the following section.
                                        73

-------
                         TABLE 7-2. RESULTS OF CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM la»b


Pollutant
parameter
Oil and grease
BOD5
TSS
Copper
Lead
Zinc

Number
of data
_ points
9
9
9
8
9
5
Washroom
discharge,
median
concen-
tration,
mR/L
620
310
500
0.12
0.52
0.45


Range,
190 -
170 -
210 -
0.03 -
0.22 -
0.38 -


mg/L
1,350
660
1,300
0.69
2.4
0.86
Sewer
discharge,
median
concen-
tration,
mR/L
480
300
480
0.10
0.27
0.42


Ranpe,
140 -
190 -
270 -
0.01 -
0.05 -
0.005 -


mK/L
1,360
970
1,600
0.42
1.3
0.83


Median, %
removal
19
6
0
28
32
0




Range, %
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
65
IS
20
66
91
99
aOata based on sampling results from three laundries.
''System uses a bar screen, lint screen, catch basin and heat reclaimer.

-------
7.1.2.1 General Treatment Strategy

      DAF treatment  of  laundry wastewater is  comprised of  the following  unit
operations:  flow equalization, chemical addition,  floe removal, and sludge disposal.
Figure 7-1  is  a block diagram  for  laundry  wastewater  pretreatment using DAF
technology.   Conventional  controls,  such as iint  screens and  catch basins are
considered to be already installed in laundries and  will not be  discussed further.
Equalization tanks  were briefly  described under  conventional equipment, however
their use in the laundry industry has  been mainly restricted to providing constant
flow to DAF systems.

      Flow Equalization - Equalized flow is defined as the constant flow of laundry
wastewater through the treatment system.  Flow is constant if  it is maintained  at
approximately the  same  level during  the entire period of operation of the DAF
system.   For  laundries this period of time is usually 8 to 10 hours.   A secondary
objective of  equalization is  to dampen  the mass  flow  variation of  wastewater
contaminants by blending (25).   Reductions  in the variation  of  flow  and pollutant
concentrations  will minimize the required  capabilities of a particular treatment
system.  Because laundry wastewater flows and pollutant concentrations can vary  by
orders of magnitude  during  a  day's  operation,  flow  equalization prior  to DAF
treatment is a recommended technique.

      Equalization  tanks  currently in use at laundries are of  steel  or concrete
construction and are  built  above or below  ground.   Hydraulic  detention tim« for
laundry  wastewater equalization is usually 2 to  * hours, dependent on washroom
operation, building space  limitations,  and  design criteria  of   the  DAF system.
Equalization tanks  at laundries require cleaning on a regular basis to remove settled
solids and grease deposits.  The  approximate areas required  for  equalization tanks
are  given in  Table 7-3 for  2-hr and  4-hr detention times of various wastewater
flowrates.

      Chemical Addition - Pollutants, such  as  oil  and  heavy  metals in  laundry
wastewater, are usually in  the form  of colloidal  suspensions which cannot  be
effectively treated solely by  physical techniques.  Chemical addition is thus used to
aggregate the colloidal material into particles that can be physically  removed  by
flotation, sedimentation, or filtration.

      Emulsified oil  and grease is aggregated  by chemical addition  through the
processes of  coagulation  and/or acidification   in  conjunction  with  flocculation
mechanisms.  Coagulation involves the use of chemical additives that destabilize the
colloidal material  either  by  reducing the electrostatic  repulsive forces between
colloids  or  by forming positively charged  hydrous oxides which are absorbed on the
surface  of the colloid (2b, 27).   Other pollutants such as lead, copper, and  zinc,
which exist  as colloids in laundry wastewater are also destabilized by coagulation.
Acidification of oil and grease colloids is accomplished by lowering the pH to a point
where the emulsion  is "broken", thus allowing dispersed  oil droplets to aggregate
(2*).  Coagulation  and acidification may  both be used in  a  DAF system  to treat
laundry  wastewater.

       Flocculation  -  Flocculation  is  defined  as particle transport  and  contact
occuring as a result  of colloidal  destabilization  (coagulation).   Particle transport
occurs  due  to thermal  motion,  bulk  fluid motion  (accomplished by mechanical
                                         75

-------
                                    CHEMICAL
                                      FEED
                                    SKIMMERS
INFLUENT-
EQUALIZATION
    TANK
                                       i
 MIX
TANK
         SLUDGE
           PIT

FLOTATION
  m
                                               SLUDGE
                                                    WEIR
                                                RECYCLE
                                                                                  EFFLUENT
                                                                        COMPRESSED
                                                                            AIR
                Figure 7-1.  DAP treatment system for laundry wastewater using
                            recycle flow pressurization.

-------
      TABLE 7-3 AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR LAUNDRY
                WASTEWATER EQUALIZATION
Selected
flowrate,
m^/day
(gai/day)
570
(150,000)
3SO
(100,000)
2SO
(75,000)
190
(50,000)
38
(10,000)
19
(5,000)
Tank
capacity,
nv
teal)
detention
Tank
area.b
m-3
(ft2)
timea'c
Two-hour
210 100
(56,000) (1,100)
130
(35,500)
110
(2S,000)
71
(18,700)
15
(4,000)
8
(2,000)
63
(680)
50
(530)
33
(360)
7
(75)
4
(40)
                                            Tank
                                          capacity,
                                            nv
                                            (gal)
                                            detention time'
                                              Four-hour
                                            360
                                          (94,000)

                                            240
                                          (62,500)

                                            ISO
                                          (47,000)

                                            120
                                          (31,000)

                                             23
                                          (6,000)

                                             11
                                          (3,000)
  170
(1,800)

  no
(1,200)

   84
 (900)

   56
 (600)

   11
 (115)

    6
  (60)
In  determining required tank capacity  an additional hour detention time
was factored into the calculation.  Variations in wastewater  flow over a
normal day's  operation are  assumed to be minimal  for  this example;
therefore, tank sizes shown should be considered the  minimum  required
for laundry wastewater flow equalization.
Tank area has been determined assuming a tank water level of 7 ft.
Based on  10-hour day.
                              77

-------
stirring), and  differential  settling (26).  In all  cases floes properly formed  from
interpartide contact are then capable of being removed by physical means.

     Destabilization of colloidal suspensions in laundry wastewater is accomplished
by adding coagulant chemicals at prescribed rates to  the raw  wastewater.  Coagu-
lants currently in use at laundries are listed below:

           Aluminum sulfate (Alum, Al2 ($0^)3)
           Calcium chloride (CaCl2)
           Ferric sulfate (Fe2(SO4h)
           Ferrous sulfate (Fe(SO^))
           Cationic polyelectrolytes

     Floe  particles that  form as a  result of  chemical coagulation contain the
colloidal material intended for removal.  Since proper floe formation is dependent
on  various  particle transport mechanisms  (flocculation), the  physical design of
chemical  addition  equipment   must   provide   adequate  time  and  mixing  for
interpartide contacts during coagulation.

     Design parameters considered important in achieving proper particle contact
indude hydraulic detention time  in the mix tank  and the physical methods used for
mixing.   Generally, the  required detention time for flocculation  is inversely
proportional to solids concentration (26).  Baffles are generally used in mix tanks to
provide adequate partide contact through mixing.   Additional mixing  is  also
provided through turbulence  that  occurs  during  stream  pressurization  due to
pumping and air injection. The  main  purpose of stream  pressurization  is for floe
removal by dissolved air  flotation.   This operation  is discussed in  the following
section.

     Dissolved  Air  Flotation  -  In the pretreatment of laundry effluents, floe is
brought to the surface of a thickener unit by means  of dissolved air flotation (DAF).
DAF is accomplished by pressurizing all or part of the effluent stream with air at *0
psig to 80  psig.  Since the pressure  exerted on  the wastewafir is greater  than
atmospheric, the saturation point of air in  water is  raised, allowing excess air to
become dissolved.  After  the additional air is dissolved  in  the wastewater, the
pressure is  reduced back to atmospheric, forcing dissolved air out of solution in the
form  of minute  bubbles throughout the  entire  volume of the  liquid  (23).   These
bubbles become attached to floe partides causing them to rise 10 the surface of  a
flotation tank  (thickener), where the floe  solids can  be  skimmed off  by rotating
troughs or moving blades.

      The principal components  of a  DAF unit  are a pressurizing pump, retention
tank,  pressure-reducing valve, air injector, and  a flotation  tank.   .For  laundry
wastewater, two  modes   of  pressurization  are  currently  in  use:    full  flow
pressurization (FFP) and recyde pressurization  (RP).  In  FFP  the entire effluent
stream is pressurized.  In  RP a stream of treated water is drawn from the flotation
tank,  ranging in volume from 50% to 120% of the  effluent  stream; this  recyde
stream is pressurized and mixed with the effluent as it enters the flotation tank.

      Factors that affect the design of a DAF unit indude feed solids concentration,
hydraulic  loading  rate, and  partide  rise  velocity  (28).   Airsolids  ratios are
frequently  used  to determine  the  design criteria  for  DAF systems.   This  ratio  is
                                         78

-------
defined as the weight of compressed air utilized during pressurization compared to
the weight'of solids entering the  flotation tank (23). Typical airrsolids  ratios for
DAF  units are in the  range of 0.005 to  0.1 (23, 27).  Higher air:solids ratios can
cause  floe shearing due to  increased turbulence, resulting in  an overall loss of
system efficiency.

      The operating variables, ainsolids  ratio,  hydraulic loading  rate, and  solids
loading rate have a direct effect on the performance of a DAF unit.  For effective
treatment it will usually be necessary- to conduct  tests at the particular laundry
before  installation  of a  full-scale  DAF unit  since  large  variations  exist in
contaminant loadings and hydraulic loadings between laundries.

      Pretreatment  technology using DAF is  being practiced at  a number of
industrial and linen  supply laundries.  The results of sampling of wastewaters at If
of these operational systems are presented in  Appendix C.  Table 7-4 summarizes
the  removal efficiencies of selected industrial laundry DAF systems in terms of
percent removal and treated effluent quality for conventional and toxic pollutants.

      The data in Table 7-4 indicate that DAF treatment  is effective Ln reducing
toxic  metals.   Average  lead  and  zinc  removals were  greater than 90 percent.
Copper removal  averaged  75 percent and chromium  removal  averaged greater than
57 percent.  Detracting from the efficiency of the DAF system, however, are the
variations that exist between different plants and among the various pollutants. For
example, chromium removal ranged from  41.8 percent at Plant D to 99.7  percent at
Plant L, and the concentration of chromium at the  same plants was  0.57 mg/1 and
0.005 mg/1, respectively.   This  variability  in the effectiveness  of  the  same
treatment technology  is believed to be the result of varying system parameters such
as air flow, chemical addition, and raw waste characteristics.

       The  data also shows  that  the DAF system  is effective in removing toxic
organic pollutants from laundry wastewater.  The  removal of  total toxic organics
was significant with an average removal of 77 percent and a range of 53.9 percent
to 92.7 percent.  Although DAF systems are not designed  to remove organics, the
removal  of oil and grease  accomplishes an incidental removal  of toxic organics
soluble  in  the  oil.  Quantifying  effluent quality  in  terms of  toxic  organics  is
difficult, however, because of the variations in specific organics found from plant to
 plant, the range  of solubilities of those organics, and the variations in oil  and grease
 removal that can occur with the DAF system.

 7.1.3 Incompatible Pollutant Removal - Potentially Applicable Technology

       Technologies  not used  on   a commercial scale but  applicable  to  laundry
 wastewater treatment include gravity settling, multimedia filtration, ultrafiltration,
 diatomaceous  earth filtration, and eiectrocoagulation.   These  technologies include
 processes which may replace certain  unit  operations (such  as  gravity  settling
 replacing DAF)  or which may replace the entire physical-chemical process (such as
 ultrafiltration replacing a DAF system).

 7.1.3.1  Gravity Settling

       Gravity  settling or  sedimentation  may also be used  to remove floe panicles
 from the laundry  wastewater.  After chemical addition,  wastewater flows into  a

-------
                                                                 TABLE 7-4

                                               SUMMARY OP POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AT
                                                   SELECTED PLANTS USING DAP TECHNOLOGY
POLLUTANTS

TSS
BOO
COD
OltftGrcMe
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
CD
^) Lead
t II r 1 1 • 1
nKftcel
Zinc
Total Teak Organlci
PLANTS
A
7*. 9
•
JO
79.7
»9.t
>98.2
•3.1
66.7
97.)
21.6
93.8
„.•
•9/1
98

3.200
1*3
«O.OI
<0.001
0.17
0.5
O.I)
0.15
0.1)
1.)
B
93.1
•
6). 8
36.8
b
86.)
»l.9
79.1
97.6
66.7
9J.6
>3.9
•9/1
tB

l.)00
190
<0.01
0.02)
«0.l)
0.3)
0.1)
<0.05
0.2
*.2
C
87.7
•
62.)
77.6
b
>9B.)
•8.3
71.7
98.)
b
97.*
e
•g/l
6*

1,100
170
«0.01
<0.001
0.61
0.3*
0.067
96.7
66.7
10.0
97.7
>93.8
97.0
*
•9/1
18
5*0
1.100
8%
0.029
<0.001
O.I
0.2
0.07
<0.005
0.06

L og/l
73.0 1*0
82.1 250
7*.» 910
93.6 28
89. • 0.018
96.7 <0.002
99.7 cO.OOS
97.3 O.I
99.8 -0.01
93.0 cO.OOS
93.0 0.10
92.7 0.61
Z mg/t
•2.0 510
33.6 770
•
•7.2 360
0 0.09
•
•7.8 O.IJ
•O.I 0.86
6*.6 0.38
33.7 0.10
63.2 0.77
•
t k»»l
79.7
60.6
67.0
72.3
>J0.9
>9).»
»7.l
73.2
93.*
70.0
92.0
77.1
• Not Aratrud

b DtU Point Not Used (Influent <0.0) mg/l)

c Clfhienl Grater than kifhienl. Sujpecled Simpllrg Error.

-------
tank (clarifier) having  sufficient  detents::n  time to allow floe  particles to settle.
Moving scrapers  located  at  the bottom  oi  :he tank collect  the settled floe  and
discharge it to a sludge collection tank.

     At present, pretreatment of laundry wastewater incorporates DAF rather than
gravity settling for floe  removal.  A  system utilizing sedimentation is currently
treating the effluent from one institutional laundry (with a workload comparable to
that "of  a power  laundry) for  direct  discharge.   It is difficult to compare  the
effectiveness  of  these two techniques, since  available data involving  laundry
applications are limited.  DAF units generally operate at surface loading  rates four
to eight times higher than gravity settlers.  That is, the detention time required and
thus the  capacity or volume of the DAF unit would  be  significantly  less  than  a
gravity settler.  Since laundries often have  little space for treatment equipment, a
PCS with DAF is normally chosen due to the significant difference in required tank
volumes.

7.1.3.2 Filtration

     Further  removal  of  floe  from laundry wastewater  may be accomplished by
multimedia filtration.  In  general, those systems whose main purpose is to recyle
part of the laundry effluent utilize filtration, while systems discharging all treated
effluent to a POTW do  not incorporate filtration.   Variability in  final effluent
quality due to floe carryover or very fine floe particles may be reduced  by the use
of a multimedia filter.

     Filters  are  sealed  cylindrical tanks  containing layers  of filter  media of
different specific  gravities  and  particle sizes.  Media are arranged so that  the
heaviest material of the finest grade rests at the bottom of the tank.  Wastewater is
pumped under pressure through the top of the filter, coming in contact first with a
coarse medium of  low specific gravity.  As  water  flows  through the filter  it
encounters  media  of increasingly finer grades and greater densities.  Total head loss
across the filter increases as particles become trapped  in the media.  When head loss
raches a predetermined  level, the influent flow  is   shut off  and the filter  is
backwashed with air and water in  the direction opposite to influent flow (27).

      As previously cited, however, a certain amount of variability in the efficiency
of a DAF system  exists, and increases  in effluent oil and grease will readily clog or
block  a filter. For this reason, filtration following  DAF  is not considered feasible
for general application in this industry.

7.1.3.3 UltrafjJtration

      Ultrafiltration is a   process  in which  wastewater is  pumped   through  a
semipermeable polymeric membrane at an operating pressure of SO psig to 100 psig.
Water  and  most dissolved materials pass through  the  membrane, while suspended
solids   and  other colloidal  materials  such  as  emulsified oils are  retained  and
concentrated. The capacity of a  UF membrane to pass water  is an important design
criterion.  The rate of filtration is termed flux, which is  the volume of water
permeated  per unit membrane area per unit time, usually expressed as gallons per
square foot.
                                         81

-------
     Bench-scale  and pilot  scale  tests  have been  performed  to  determine the
effectiveness of UF in treating laundry wastewaters (14).  Results  have indicated
that although pollutant removal rates are  on the order of 95 percent for metals and
conventional pollutants, clogging and fouling of the membrane reduced  membrane
flux to levels too low for industrial application.

     From a technical standpoint UF systems with tubular modules have advantages
over physical-chemical systems utilizing chemical addition and DAF.  UF does not
incorporate coagulation; thus it does not  require chemical additives.  In terms of
space requirements, UF systems would require less space than comparable physical-
chemical systems with DAF.  This is due to the number of unit operations involved
in each system; these are chemical addition, DAF, and possible filtration  for PCS's,
versus filtration for UF systems.

     When  considering the  cost  of treatment, however comparison of the two
technologies is  less well defined.   Since the cost  of  UF  treatment   is largely
dependent on flux, it will  be  necessary to  evaluate UF systems on a full-scale level.
At this time there has been  no long-term operation  of a UF system at  an actual
laundry.

7.1.3.*  Diatomaceous Earth Filtration

      Diatomaceous earth (DE) filters have  been applied to  treatment  of laundry
wastewater. In DE filtration  a thin layer of precoat is formed on a porous septum in
order to strain out suspended  solids in the effluent (27). A cake is formed on the
filter by deposition of suspended solids and DE, which is added to the effluent at a
constant rate.  Head loss  through the cake increases as filtration progresses; reverse
water flow is initiated when a preset maximum head loss is reached. Generally, DE
filtration is capable of excellent removal of suspended solids but not of colloidal
matter (27).

      Treatment of wastewater at  a linen supply laundry was accomplished by DE
filtration.   Effluent from  an equalization tank was  injected with  DE  and a
proprietary oil  adsorbent, then pumped  through  precoated  pressure filters.  The
system  provided moderate removal  rates,  32 percent BOD, 65 percent  TSS,  43
percent  oil and grease and  40 percent  metals.  The system, although  once in
f ullscale operation, it has since been replaced by a treatment system using calcium
chloride coagulation and DAF.

7.1.3.5  Electrocoagulation

      An eiectrocoagulation (EC) process  has been pilot tested on a laundry waste-
water.   In EC, an electric current is  continuously conducted  through a tank
functioning in a plug-flow mode. Current is  provided by electrodes immersed in the
wastewater.  EC system are  designed to  treat  laundry wastewater through two
mechanisms.   With the  first, electrolysis induces coagulation  by  neutralizing or
Imparting  a positive charge to negatively charged  colloidal material.   With  the
second, microbubbies formed as a result of electrolysis float the resulting floe to
the surface of the contained effluent where it can be skimmed off (30).

      In the pilot tests  chemical addition  was required prior  to electrolysis to
achieve removal of incompatible pollutants.  Alum, sulfuric acid, and polymer were
                                        82

-------
added.  Removal rates included 80 percent oil and grease, 53 percent BOD and T5S,
and 05 percent metals.

      Theoretically,  EC processes are capable of performing both coagulation and
floe  flotation.  In practice, however, chemical addition of the type described for
physical-chemical  treatment is necessary to achieve an effluent quality comparable
to that achieved by presently applied technologies.

7.1.3.6  Other Technologies

      Other treatment technologies have been  laboratory or pilot tested on laundry
wastewaters with  varying degrees of success.   These technologies include reverse
osmosis, foam separation, distillation, and carbon adsorption (22, 31-33).  In general,
these techniques were found either not applicable to removal of pollutants found in
laundry wastewater  or are considered not economically comparable to technologies
previously described.

      The use of carbon adsorption and steam  stripping technologies following DAF
treatment  was investigated specifically  for the further  removal of toxic  organics.
Steam stripping was not  considered  technologically  viable because  of  the  boiling
point characteristics  of  many  of the  toxic  organics  found  in  laundry wastes.
Although volatile and semivolatile organics  would  be  substantially removed by
stripping, organics with high boiling points, i.e., phthalates would not be reduced.
Carbon adsorption following DAF was also not considered technologically feasible
due to the characteristics of DAF effluent.  Oil and grease levels found in  typical
DAF  effluents are sufficiently high that a filtration step would be required prior to
carbon adsorption  to prevent fouling of the carbon.

7.1.4  Space Availability

      Since laundries may have limited additional space for treatment equipment, it
is important to note the space required for PCS's.  Average space requirements for
physical-chemical  treatment  by  DAF  are  presented in  Table  7-5 for selected
effluent flowrates. Chemical addition and floe removal equipment are the essential
hardware required; equalization tanks are assumed below grade.

      A site  survey of 45  industrial laundry sites concluded that space is  generally
available for the installation of treatment equipment (See Appendix B).    Less than
10 percent of facilities would have major problems installing equipment.  The costs
associated with space allocation were estimated from the survey. These costs were
included in site preparation charges as a part of capital costs presented in Section 8.

7.2 TREATMENT FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE

      As indicated in Section 5, an extremely limited number of laundries are direct
dischargers.  Only one linen supply laundry is known  to be a direct discharger.  No
industrial laundries  are known to be direct dischargers.   A survey of the industry
identified 23 coin-operated laundries and one  institutional laundry (with a workload
similar to  that  of a power laundry) that operate waste water treatment systems.
Thus, technical data on the performance of laundry wastewater treatment systems
(other than  the pretreatment  systems discussed in  the preceding subsection) are
                                        83

-------
TABLE 7-5  AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR PCS's
                              Required area

  Exemplary flbwrate,            for system,

   m3/day (gal/day)                m^ (ft?)
  570    (150,000)               <»5   (500)


  380    (100,000)               27   (300)


  280     (75,000)               23   (250)


   190     (50,000)               18   (200)


    38     (10,000)                8    (85)


    19      (5,000)                5    (55)
   aBased on a maximum height of 3.05 m (10 ft).


   b
    Based on a 10-hr, day.
                     84

-------
quite limited.   Hypothetical  treatment systems for the direct discharge of linen
supply and 'industrial laundry effluents are described in the following subsections,

7.2.1  Primary Treatment

      Pollutants typically found in laundry wastewater are identified in Section 5 of
this, report.  Based  on information provided there,  pollutants which  may  require
control  before  direct discharge include oil and grease, pH, BOD, TSS, lead, copper,
chromium,  and  zinc.    Treatment technologies  capable  of  controlling  these
parameters are classified as either physical-chemical  or biological.

      A previous study has concluded  that  biological systems  cannot effectively
treat industrial strength laundry wastewater (17).  One possible explanation for this
ineffectiveness  is the  inability of  biological systems to cope  with high  concen-
trations of oil and grease, which may be found in linen supply and industrial laundry
effluents  (see   Section  5).   Studies have  indicated  that systems incorporating
trickling filters or activiated sludge can effectively  treat effluents with emulsified
oil concentrations of 100 mg/1 or less (3*, 35). Median oil and grease concentrations
found in  linen supply and industrial laundry wastewaters were  300 mg/1  and  720
mg/1, respectively.   Microbial  metabolism, a primary mechanism for pollutant
removal by biological systems, may be inhibited by oily materials  due  to  the  low
solubility of oil, the chemical  configuration of oil  molecules, and the  nature of
microbial surface (36).

      Since  biological systems are  limited in their capability, two stages,  primary
and secondary  treatment systems may be considered necessary for linen supply  and
industrial laundry  effluents  being  directly discharged.   Noting the removals of
pollutants for  pretreatment  DAF  is considered  an  effective  primary  treatment
technology and is used as the basis far primary treatment prior to direct discharge.

7.2.2 Secondary Treatment

      Considering the pollutant concentrations shown in Appendix C for wasteuater
after physical-chemical treatment,  secondary  treatment  may  be  required before
linen supply and industrial laundry effluents can be discharged to surface waters.
Biological techniques are considered  suitable  for secondary  treatment  of  these
effluents. This assumption is based on limited performance data from coin-operated
laundries currently operating small-scale biological units.

7.2.2.1  Biological Treatment

      Two biological units, trickling filters and facultative lagoons, are consicered
for potential secondary treatment of laundry effluents. Selection of this particular
equipment is mainly based on survey information from coin-op laundries.  A general
characterization of  industrial and/or linen supply  laundry wastewater after primary
treatment is given  in Table 7-6.  The  indicated BOD loading of  300 mg/1 was used
for  developing  design  parameters  for   biological  systems  incorporating  either
facultative lagoons or trickling filters.

      Wastewater from primary treatment is considered similar to raw wastewater
from coin-op laundries (see Table  5-8). Since certain parameters such as BOD are
                                        85

-------
               TABLE 7-6 CHARACTERIZATION OF LAUNDRY
          WASTEWATER AFTER PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
                                          Estimated
                                        concentrations
                                          after P-C
                                          treatment,
                  Pollutant                   mg/L
Oil and grease
BODs
T5S
Phosphorus
Copper
Lead
Zinc
PH
70
300
100
0.*
0.2
0.1
0.4
7.0
    TABLE 7-7 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LAGOONS TREATING
          WASTEWATER FROM COIN-OP LAUNDRIES3

Pollutant
Parameter
BOD5
TSS
pH
Phosphorus
Oil and grease

Number of
data points
10
10
5
1
1
Median
effluent
concentration,
mg/1
20
S3
9.3
0.02
2.5

Range
mg/1
1 - 130
1* - 273
8 - 9.9
--
—-
aData are from three coin-op laundries; average effluent flow rates
 were reported as 3 m^/day (770 gpd), 5.7 m3/day (1,500 gpd), and 25
 m*/day (6,500 gpd).
                               86

-------
somewhat higher for primary treated was*ewater, the biological system for linen
supply and industrial laundries must be designed accordingly.

      Stabilization  Pond  -  An  aerobic/anaerobic (facultative) stabilization pond
(lagoon) has been considered for secondary treatment of laundry waste water.  In this
system, surface aerators are  used to  mix the effluent in the upper portion of the
lagoon.   Oxygen supplied to this area  from aerator action  is  used  by  aerobic
microorganisms  for metabolic waste conversion and BOD reduction. Incoming solids
and solids (microorganism cell tissue)  formed during conversion settle to the lower
regipn of  the lagoon where anerobic decomposition occurs,  resulting in further BOD
reduction.  Final effluent from this type  of  lagoon  is  generally more  highly
stabilized than effluent from completely aerobic systems (23).

      Table  7-7  presents effluent  concentration data for  three  lagoons operated by
coin-op laundries.  These data were taken from  NPDES monitoring reports, and no
influent concentration data were available.   Thus, the data serve only as relative
indicators  of  achievable effluent quality (in terms  of  BOD^, suspended  solids,
phosphorus, and  oil and grease).

      Tricking  Filters  - Trickling  filters are  also  considered  viable secondary
treatment.  A trickling  filter consists  of a circular  basin filled with permeable
media to which  microorganisms are attached and through which the laundry effluent
is  percolated (23).   The filter medium may consist of plastic chips  or rocks; the
effluent is distributed over the top of the media by  means of a rotary distributor
(23).

      Microorganisms attached to the filter medium  degrade  the organic  material
present  in the wastewater, resulting in an initial reduction  in effluent BOD.  Solids
formed  during  filter action are  earned  with  the percolating effluent  through the
underdrain  to a settling tank.   Settling of  solids  in the tank  is  an additional
mechanism for BOD reduction.

      Survey data showing the  reduction of various  pollutants by trickling  filter
systems are given in Table 7-8 for two coin-op laundries. Average flowrate for one
laundry is 15 m^/day (4,000  gpd); flowrate for  the other laundry is not available
from  survey data.

7.2.2.2 Other Technologies

      Secondary treatment of laundry wastewater by carbon- adsorption has been
tested on  a pilot scale.  Effluent from the UF unit described in Section  7.1.3 was
continuously directed through a carbon column during testing procedures.  Removal
of dissolved organics by activated carbon occurs through adsorption, a process where
physical and chemical attractive forces  bind  organic molecules to a highly porous
carbon surface.  Generally, low molecular weight or highly  soluble organics are less
readily removed from wastewater by  carbon than organics of low solubility and/or
high molecular weight.

      Limited performance data  developed  during a  two-week pilot-scale test  of
activated  carbon treating laundry wastewater from  a UF unit (14) showed that
carbon did not further reduce BOD concentrations.  Thus, activated carbon is not
considered as applicable for secondary treatment.
                                        87

-------
                                          TABLE 7-8 PERFORMANCE FOR TRICKLING FILTERS TREATING
                                                   WASTEWATER FROM COIN-OP LAUNDRIES*
Raw Waslewater

Pollutant
Parameter
BOD
T5S
PM
Number
of data
17
17
II
concentration
median
•HR/I
163
91
8.3

Range,
IT1R/I
12 - £00
30 - »,3W
8.1 - 9.3
Median effluent
concentration,
rne/l

32
7.7

Range, Median, %
ing/l removal
1.3 - IjkZ 79
0.9 - 282 M
7.» - 8.3 --•»

RanRe
0 -
0 -


I *
99
99
-_b
               •Data from two coin-op laimdrlesi average effluent tlowrate reported as I} m'/day (4,000 gpdlj Itowrate lor other laundry unknown.
               *>Nol applicable.
00
03

-------
7.3 RECYCLE/REUSE TECHNOLOGY

     Due to the rising  costs of fuel and water incurred by laundry facilities, a few
operators are presently reusing  or  recycling  their wastewater.   For purposes of
discussion,  reuse  is  defined as  the  use  of  untreated  wastewater  in  a second
application that is different from  the orginal.  Recycle is defined as the treatment
of laundry wastewater  by physical-chemical means enabling it to be used again in
the washing process.   Both  reuse  and recycle  techniques are discussed in  the
following sections.

     Reuse - In reuse strategies,  laundry wastewater from one or more rinse cycles
is introduced  into the wash  process in the initial  flush,  break, and/or suds cycles.
Holding tanks are used  for storage of rinse waters  until a subsequent laod of laundry
is ready for washing.  Fresh water is added  to the  rinse  water  in  amounts  that
provide an adequate quality of water for use in a preliminary wash stage.  A laundry
operator  will typically  arrange his  loads  so that  wastewaters from lightly soiled
articles can be reused on more heavily soiled loads. Before reuse, wastewaters may
be treated by conventional techniques such as lint screens or catch basins.

      Recycle   - In  order to recycle an equalized  flow of laundry wastewater,
physical-chemical treatment techniques are employed to achieve a water quality
acceptable  for  use as  a washing medium.  Quality specifications  are difficult to
define  since  laundry  personnel  are  not  in  agreement as  to  what constitutes
acceptable  water  quality or  the  means of achieving  such  quality.   Laundry
wastewater recycling is a comparatively new  concept; only a very small number of
laundries (approximately 7)  are practicing effluent recycle.  Thus it is difficult to
determine the technical feasibility of effluent  recycle on  a large scale.

      Two physical-chemical treatment systems are currently being used for laundry
wastewater  recycle.   These systems use alum   or  polyelectrolyte for  chemical
coagulation, followed by dissolved air flotation and filtration for floe removal.

      Treated effluent  is usually  stored in  an  insulated holding tank and pumped to
the washing machines as required. Recycled water is mixed with fresh water before
being used in the wash  process. In present  applications, 60% to 80% of this mixture
is recycled to keep dissolved solids concentrations at an  acceptable  level as part of
achieving the overall water  quality  necessary  for  laundering. Laundries with these
recycle systems report that the treated water is acceptable for  recycle purposes so
long as the  necessary dilution is provided.

      Recycle of industrial-strength laundry effluent  is being practiced at only one
or two  facilities  with  prototype  treatment units.    Therefore,  the   technical
feasibility of laundry effluent recycle on an industry-wide basis has not been proven.
Potential  technical  problems   involving  recycle  which  may  require  further
consideration are listed below:

      o     Specific contaminants such as dyes and solvents may render the treated
            effluent unacceptable for recycle.

      o     Increased concentrations of dissolved solids in recycle water may render
            it unsuitable for certain  laundering   applications unless  high dilution
                                         89

-------
           ratios   are   used.     Higher   dilution  ratios  reduce  the  economic
           attractiveness of recycling.

      o    Influent streams to  recycle systems  generally contain higher pollutant
           loadings than influents to once-through treatment  systems employing
           similar treatment technology.  This observation was made by one recycle
           system manufacturer contacted during this study. Recycle systems, thus
           may not achieve the effluent quality possible with once-through systems
           when treating comparable strength effluents.

7.* SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL

      Solid waste  (sludge)  is produced as a result of  physical-chemical  and/or
biological treatment  of laundry wastewater.  In a DAF system, floe  formed by
coagulation is collected in the DAF unit, resulting in a sludge having a solids content
of 5% to 8% by weight.  This sludge is composed  of coagulant chemical precipitates
and  pollutants  removed  from  the wastewater.   Biological sludges result from
microbial growth and decay. In  the following  section only solid  waste from  DAF is
discussed because  no  information  was available on sludges  resulting from the
biological treatment of laundry wastewater.

7.4.1  Sludge Dewatering

      Sludges from  DAF units are  typically in  a liquid state with a solids content of
5% to 8% by weight.  Dewatering  techniques serve to reduce the overall volume of
solid  waste produced, converting  sludge into  a more solid  form.  Dewatering will
usually make handling and disposal of sludges  easier  and less costly for the laundry
operator. Certain laundries with DAF currently use  rotary vacuum filters or  screen
presses for dewatering  purposes.  A sludge cake with a solids content of between
20% and  30% is produced with these devices.

7.4.1.1 Rotary Vacuum  Filters

      A vacuum filter consists of a cylindrical rotating drum partially submerged in
a vat of  sludge.  Sludge adheres to a cloth or steel  mesh filter that  makes  up the
drum  surface.   Vacuum imparted  to the  inside of the rotating drum draws water
from  the sludge through the filter material to the drum  interior where  it collects
and is either  discharged as  final effluent or directed back to the equalization tank.
The resulting dewatered sludge (filter cake) is scraped from the filter and collected.

      The ability of  a rotary  filter to  dewater laundry  sludge  depends  on the
following conditions:

      o     Type and  concentration of contaminants in the laundry effluent being
           treated,

      o     Type and  quantity of chemicals used for physical-chemical treatment,
           and

      o     Design capabilities of the dewatering equipment.
                                       90

-------
     Laundries  currently  employing  rotary  filters  report  sludge  cakes  having
between 20% and 30% solids by weight. In instances where laundry effluents have
high solvent concentrations it  has  been  reported  that  the  resulting sludges  are
relatively more difficult to dewater by rotary vacuum filtration.

7.*. 1.2  Screw Presses

     A screw press is used at one commercial  laundry  to dewater sludge from  a
DAF unit.  Before entering the press, sludge is conditioned by addition of a polymer
that chemically alters its characteristics,  enhancing separation of water from solid
material.  A rotating  screw acts  to compress the incoming  sludge,  squeezing  out
water; the resulting sludge cake is approximately  20% solids by weight.

7A.2 Sludge Quantity

     The  amount of  sludge  produced as a  result of DAF  treatment of  laundry
wastewater was estimated to determine the sludge disposal costs given in Section 8.
Based on the median concentrations of oil and grease  and TS5 in  industrial laundry
effluents, before and after treatment, it was assumed that a 90% reduction in the'ie
parameters was typical for a DAF.  This assumption and respective coagulant feed
rates of 1,200 mg/1 and 1,800 mg/1 for industrial laundry  wastewaters were used to
calculate sludge production. Solids content in sludge from a DAF unit was assumed
to  be  5%  solids  by  weight.  Table 7-9  gives the  production  of DAF sludge  and
dewatered sludge at various flowrates for industrial laundries.

7.*.3 Disposal Techniques

     Most  laundries operating DAF  systems employ the services  of an  outside
contractor for disposal of sludge.  The contractor may use  a sanitary landfill or an
incinerator to achieve final disposal.  It  is reported from site surveys that  present
contractors predominantly use sanitary landfills for final disposal of laundry sludges.
However,  if laundry sludge is found  to be hazardous as defined by  the Resource
Conservation  and Recovery Act  (RCRA), then  the sludge must be  disposed of  in
RCRA approved landfills.
                                        91

-------
 TABLE 7-9 SLUDGE QUANTITIES RESULTING FROM THE
         PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF
         INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY WASTEWATER3
     Sludge Production              Dewatered
     from DAF unit3                 sludgeb
 kg/day         m3/day              m^/day
(Ib/day)        (yd3/day)             (yd^/day)
2,300   (5,000)    46     (60)      9.0      (12)
1,400   (3,120)    28     (37)        6       (8)
  680   (1,500)    14     (18)        3       (4)
  400     (875)   7.6     (10)      1.5       (2)
  170     (375)   3.4    (4.5)      0.8       (1)
   57     (125)   1.1    (1.5)      0.2     (0.3)
   12      (50)   0.5    (0.6)      0.07    (0.1)
aBased on sludge solids content of 5% by weight.
b&ased on sludge solids content of 25% by weight.
                              92

-------
                                 SECTION 8

                      COSTS OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS
     This section presents capital  and annual cost estimates for treatment of
laundry wastewater.   The  treatment  technologies selected for cost estimation
purposes are briefly reviewed.  Capital and annual cost estimates for pretreatment
and direct discharge treatment of laundry wastewaters are presented in graphic and
tabular form.  Selected flowrates based on industry data are used in the tables.  The
costs are in fourth quarter, 197S dollars.  The basis for capital and annual costs for
each component system is presented.  Energy, sludge management, air pollution and
other nonwater quality environmental considerations are addressed.

     Technologies for  pretreatment and direct discharge  treatment of laundry
wastewaters  were discussed in Section  7.   Technologies presently applied in the
laundries  industry were selected for  cost  estimation  purposes.   Dissolved air
flotation (DAF) treatment was  described as applicable technology for pretreatent of
laundry wastewaters.   In addition, DAF plus biological treatment was  described ELS
applicable technology for direct discharge treatment of laundry wastewater.  The
DAF treatment systems considered incorporate chemical addition and floe-removal
techniques to  remove pollutants.   Trickling filters and stabilization ponds were the
biological treatment systems considered. Pollutant removal capabilities of DAF and
biological treatment systems were discussed in Section 7.

     Differences in pollutant loadings affect  operating costs but not capital  costs
of DAF treatment systems; in addition they affect capital costs of treatment for
direct  discharge.  Typical pollutant loadings, as found  in  industrial laundries, were
used for cost estimation purposes.

8,1 CAPITAL AND ANNUAL TREATMENT COSTS ESTIMATE SUMMARY

     Table  8-1  presents  treatment technologies considered for cost  estimation
purposes for  the pretreatment  and the direct  discharge  treatment of laundry
wastewaters.  These technologies are  DAF  treatment for pretreatment, and DAF
plus biological treatment (either a stabilization pond or a trickling filter) for  direct
discharge.  These treatment systems are combinations of various alternatives that
affect  capital costs, such as type of biological system.

     Table 8-2 presents and summarizes, for selected flowrates, capital and annual
cost estimates for the pretreatment of laundry wastewater  with DAF.  Figure g-i
graphically presents total capital  cost estimates versus  flowrate while Figure 8-2
presents total  annual  costs   versus flowrate  for the  pretreatment of laundry
wastewaters.  Data points shown in the figures were developed from vendor quotes
and estimates for various flowrates.

     Table 8-3 presents and summarizes, for selected flowrates, capital  and annual
cost estimates for the direct  discharge treatment of wastewaters with DAF and
either  a stabilization pond or a trickling filter. Figure 8-3 presents graphically total
capital cost estimates versus flowrate while Figure 8-4 presents total annual cost
estimates versus flowrate.    Total  annual  costs  and  total capital  costs  differ
significantly  between DAF  treatment with stabilization ponds  and trickling  filters
                                       93

-------
     TABLE 8-1. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR LAUNDRY WASTEWATER5
Pretreatment Direct Discharge treatment
System
Physical-
chemical




Option Systems
DAF Physical-
chemical
plus
biological


Options*
(Physical-
chemical system
using DAF) plus
trickling filter or
stabilization
pond.
aOptions are combinations of various alternatives that affect capital costs.
                                    94

-------
           TABLE 8-2.   CAPITAL AND ANNUAL TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES AND
                       TOTALS FOR PRETREATMENT OF LAUNDRY WASTEWATERS WITH DAF
VO
UI
                                                                 Cost, 103
Flowrate, m'/day (I03 gpd)

Component
Total capital cost estimate:
Capital cost
Total1*
Total annual cost estimate:
Amortization
Chemicals
Sludge disposal
Electricity
Operating labor
Maintenance
Insurance
Monitoring
Technical support
Totalb
760
<200)

300
300

49
55
19
6.6
16
6.0
3.0
l.l
6.0
163
470
(125)

235
235

38
34
12
4.2
16
4.7
2. it
1.1
6.0
121
230
(60)

169
169

27
16
5.6
2.0
16
3.1
1.7
1.1
6.0
79
130
(35)

128
128

21
9.6
3.1
1.2
16
2.6
1.3
1.1
6.0
62
57
(15)

67.3
67.3

11.0
4.1
7.0
0.5
16
1.4
0.7
1.1
6.0
48
19
(5)

47.7
47.7

7.8
1.4
2.3
0.2
16
1.0
0.5
1.1
6.0
36
7.6
(2)

42.6
42.6

7.0
0.5
1.0
0.1
16
0.8
0.4
1.1
6.0
33
      aFourth quarter, 1978 dollars.
      ^Totals shown may not correspond to added values due to rounding.

-------
10
 (2>    (3)  (4) (51(6) (8) (10)      (20)

	I	1.
                                        in
                                        o
                                                      (40)  (60) (80)(100)   <200)

                                                                 A	fcifn  All I.
                                            en
                                            o
a  in
o  o
a uio  o
ooo  o
                             FLOWRATE,
 Figure  8-1,
     Total capital cost estimates  for pretreatraent of laundry wastewaters

     with DAF.

-------
     300


     200
 to-
rn
 O
 8
100

 80

 CO
 50

 4O

 3O
      20
      10
         (1)
                                *  *	L
                                                                  *  *
                                                                         *
             (2)   (3)  (4) (5){6)  (8) (10)
 (20)      (40)  (60)  (80H100)    (200)
	l	»    »  i  t	1  i I—I—i_j
                                             Ul
                                             O
                                                           Ul
                                                           O
                                                           M ro
                                                           o in
                         f fUt  01 ^1 00
                         O 1SIO  O O O
                         o oo  o o o
                                FLOWRATE,  m3/day (103 gpd)
     Figure  0-2.
               Total annual cost estimates  for pretreatraent of laundry wastewaters
               with DAF.

-------
    TABLE 8-3.  CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES AND TOTALS FOR TREATMENT OF
               LAUNDRY  WASTEWATERS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE (WITH BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT)
Options and
flowrutes
m'/day
(10s gpd)


Trickling Pond
750 (200)
470 (125)
230 (60)
130 (35)
57 (15)
19 (5)
7.6 (2)
Stabilization Pond
760 (200)
470 (125)
230 (60)
130 (35)
57 (15)
19 (5)
7.6 (2)
Annual costs, 10* $a
Capital costs, 10s $a

Physical-
chemical

255
205
150
115
58
43
39

225
205
150
115
58
43
39

Biological
treatment

850
500
330
200
HO
95
90

330
230
130
90
55
30
25


Total

1,100
750
480
320
200
140
130

555
435
280
205
115
75
65
Amortization

Physical -
chemical

42
33
24
19
9.5
7.0
6.4

42
33
24
19
9.5
7.0
6.4

Biological
treatment

100
63
39
23
16
11
11

39
27
15
11
6.4
3.5
2.9
OMI

Physical-
chemical

111
80
51
41
37
28
26

no
80
51
41
37
28
26

Biological
treatment

51
32
20
12
8.4
5.7
5.4

34
24
17
13
9.2
6.7
6.2

t_
Totalb

300
210
130
95
70
50
50

225
165
105
84
62
45
42
aFourth quartert 1978 dollars.
^Tables shown may not correspond to added values due to rounding.

-------
VD
vO
                                                     TRICKLING FILTER
                                                                     STABILIZATION  POND
              100
                  (1)
(2)   (3)   (4) (5) (6)  (0) (10)
                                                             (20)
(40)   (60) (80M100)
                                                                 (200)
                                          M
                                          O
                                                    Ul O
                                                    o o
                 f- Ul  OT ^ OB
                 m o  o o o
                 o o  o o o
                                           FLOWRATE, rn^/day  (103 gpd)
                  Figure  8-3.
     Total capital cost estimates  for direct  rtJscharqe treatment with
     L'AF treatment plus a trickling  filter  or a  stabilization pond.

-------
o
o
            300
            200
                                                   TRICKLING FILTER
                                                             STABILIZATION POND
                          (2)
(3)  (4)  (5|(6)  (8)(10)
(20)
(40)   (60)  (80)(100)
(200)
                                                                                    I	I
                                           M
                                           O
                       in
                       o
                                                                    o
                                                                    o
                            •f f in
                            o in o
                        en vj QO
                        o o o
                        o o o
                                            FLOWRATE, m3/«3ay  (103 gpd)
                Figure 8-4.   Total annual cost estimates  for direct discharge treatment of laundry
                              wastewaters.

-------
because of the significant differences be:veen the capital and annual costs between
stabilization ponds and trickling filters.

8.2 COST BASIS

     Total capital cost estimates include equipment costs, freight  charges, site
preparation costs,    installation  costs,  indirect  charges  for  engineering and
construction,  startup costs, and  contingency  allowance.  Estimates do not include
allowances for working capital.  Working capital costs will be insignificant because
large "product" and raw material  inventories are not maintained.

     Capital  costs  estimates were  developed  separately  for DAF   treatment
systems and biological treatment  systems.

     All  costs  are given in  fourth quarter 197S dollars.   Costs are based  on
information,  quotes,  and estimates from  vendors,  industry associations, and  the
literature. The data were aggregated and averaged where possible.

S.2.1 Dissolved  Air Rotation Treatment Systems

     A DAF treatment system was selected for cost estimation as the pretreatment
system for laundry wastewaters discharged to POTW's and as part of the treatment
system  for the  direct discharge  of laundry wastewaters to receiving waters. The
DAF treatment  system considered incorporates chemical addition and floe-removal
techniques to  remove pollutants.

8.2.1.1  Capital  Cost Estimate

     Capital  costs include equipment costs, freight charges, site preparation costs,
installation costs, indirect  charges for  engineering  and  construction, start-up
charges, and  a 10% contingency  allowance.  The  allowance was  used  to cover
potential  price  increases,  construction  delays,  and other  unforeseen  expenses.
Allowance for working capital was not included because it will be insignificant.

     The data points  were determined using vendor-supplied quotes and estimates
for equipment, freight, installation, and start-up expenses. These vendors specialize
in treatment  systems for laundries,  and the majority  of  the systems offered are
turnkey systems or packaged, skid-mounted systems. Therefore, no component cost
breakdown (such as equipment,  piping, installation, engineering,  etc.) is  possible
because of the nature of the quotes and estimates used.

8.2.1.2  Annual Treatment Cost Estimates

      Annual  costs  Include   amortization,  operating,  maintenance,  insurance,
monitoring, and technical support charges.

      Amortization - The annual  amortization was determined from the total capital
cost estimate using the following equation:
                                        101

-------
                     Annual amortization, $/yr = CRF x A                  (8-0

where      CRF = capital recovery factor, 0.163 (86)
           A = capital cost estimate, $

     A 10% annual interest rate, 10-year equipment life, and no salvage value were
assumed.

     Chemical  Costs -  Chemical  dosage rates for various systems  of  chemical
additives  were evaluated following input from  industry.   These rates along with
literature  sources  (57), chemical supply vendors' estimates,  treatment  system
vendors' estimates, and chemical costs for systems  in operation at laundries were
aggregated to produce a range of chemical costs, from $0.063/m* of water treated
to $0.«/m3 Of water treated ($0.2^/1,000 gal. of water treated  to $1.62/1,000 gal.
of water treated).

     The most significant factor in determining the range of chemical costs was the
variations in the cost per kilogram (pound) or cubic meter (gallon) of the chemical to
be used.  Therefore, local prevailing prices for chemicals will affect the chemical
cost per unit of water treated more significantly than will the system of chemical
additives chosen.

     The average chemical costs of $0.28/m3 of water treated  ($1.05/1,000  gal. of
water   treated) were developed  by  averaging  the chemical  costs  incurred by
industrial laundries and linen supply laundries, respectively, having DAF  treatment
systems.

      Figure 8-5  presents  the  relationship between annual chemical costs and
flowrates for the DAF treatment of laundry wastewaters.  Based on laundry industry
data, 260 operating days/year are used to calculate annual charges.

      Sludge Disposal Costs - Sludge disposal costs include the cost for the removal
of the sludge  from laundry premises and the hauling of sludge to an approved
 landfill.  The sludge may or may not be  dewatered depending on the  economics  of
 dewatering. Disposal may or may not be performed by contract labor. Costs  were
 compiled from estimates and costs provided by the laundries industry, costs incurred
 by laundries operating DAF treatment systems, and the literature (58).

      Costs for sludge disposal range from $0.018/m3 of sludge to $65/m3 of sludge
 ($0.01<*/yd3 of sludge to $50/yd3 of  sludge) with  an average cost  of $7.SO/nr> of
 sludge (56/yd3 Of sludge).

      Daily sludge generation rates are  presented in Figure 8-6.  The information
 was developed in  Section 7. Dewatering of sludge  to reduce volume,  and therefore
 disposal  charges, will  be economical  when the annual  savings from the  reducea
 volume of sludge for  disposal  equals  or exceeds the annual  amortized  cost  of
 dewatering equipment.  This will be the lowest economical  flowrate  for sludge
 dewatering.  Labor and maintenance charges are not specifically quantifiable from
 the estimates supplied by the laundries having these treatment systems.  Graprung
 the annual amortized equipment costs and the annual disposal charge savings for
 dewatered sludge shows that  sludge dewatering becomes economical at  6* m-Vday
                                         102

-------
                   I	1
                  (4)   (61  (a) (10)
(20
.!	J__L  I  1 L-L.!
   (4JJ   (60i (SCI (ICO)    (2COJ
    >    i  it    i i i  i  i  i
                      zo
                                           too
                                                uo
                                                       sc xc
Figure  8-5.  Annual chemical costs  for DAJ treatment of  laundry
              wastewaters.
                                   103

-------
   ID
(2)
(4)   (6)  (8) (10)
(20)
(40)  (601(80)1100)
 i    i  i i   i  i
(200)
                                             100
                                       IX  20190X0
                             FLOWRATE,m3/day(103SP
-------
(17,000 gpd), as shown in Figure 8-7.  Based on laundry industry data, 260 operating
days/year are used to calculate annual costs.

     Figure 8-8 presents annual sludge disposal  cost estimates versus flowrate for
the DAF treatment of laundry waste waters. The average cost for sludge disposal is
$O.W/m3 of water treated  ($1.80/1,000  gal. of water  treated)  for  sludge  not
dewatered and $0.09
-------
100
'80

 60

 40



 20



 10
  8

  6

  4
8  2
  II
0.8

0.6

0.4



0.2
  0.1
    (1)
                                                       DISPOSAL
                                                        SAVINGS
                                                          FOR
                                                       DEWATERED
                                                        SLUDGE
         AMORTIZED COST OF /
         SLUDGE DEWATER ING
               FLOWRATES ABOVE WHICH
               SLUDGE DEWATERING IS
               ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED
                    J—I  \ 1 1 t  I
                                                 i  i i  » i t
          (21
(4)   (6)  (8) (10)
(20)
140)   (60) (80) (100)    (200)
                                                         i 11
                                                               i  i
                                             iw  as ao »
                           R.OWRATE.m'wayllo'spd)
Figure  8-7.
              Annual  sludge  disposal savings  for dewatered
              sludge  versus  annual amortized  cost of
              sludge  dewatering equipment.
                                   106

-------
      100
      80

      60

      40



      20
      10
       8
    1/1
    S  2
       1
      as
      0.6

      0.4


      0.2
      0.1
        (1)
                WITHOUT
               DEWATERING
        FLOIVRATES WHERE THE
        ANNUAL AMORTIZED
        COST OF SLUOGE
        DEWATERING EQUIPMENT
        EQUALS THE SAVINGS IN
        YEARLY DISPOSAL COST
        tSEE PREVIOUS FIGURE)
        THEREFORE ECONOMICALLY
        JUSTIFYING THE USE OF
        SLUDGE DEWATERING
                                                WITH
                                             DEWATERING
                        '   i  I  i i  i i
                                           L
                                                '   i   i  i  i i  i i
 (2)       (41   (6)  18) UQ)
	i	
(20)
(40)  (60) (80X100)    (2CO)
                                                  j_
                                                           i
                                                  uo  MO so so
                               aOWHATE,m3Way(103gpd)

   Figure 6-8.  Annual sludge disposal* costs for DAJ treatment of
                laundry wastewaters.
Only sludge disposal costs are shown on  graph.
ing  equipment  cost  not included.
                                           Sludge dewater-
                                       107

-------
variable ranging from zero dollars  pe.:c  for  the service,  ii it is  performed  by
employees in addition to their other duties, to perhaps 5%  to  10% of the capital
cost.

     Technical  support costs were estimated  to be  $6,000 annually for  DAF
treatment of laundry wastewaters; this is independent of flowrate.

     Summary of Annual DAF Treatment Cost Estimates - Table 8-4 summarizes
the annual cost for the DAF treatment of laundry wastewaters.

JL2.2- Biological Treatment Systems

     Biological  treatment systems were selected  for cost estimation as part of the
direct discharge treatment technology for laundry wastewaters.  Biological and DAF
treatment  together   comprise  the  direct  discharge   treatment  for  laundry
wastewaters.

     Trickling filters and aerobic-anaerobic stabilization ponds were the biological
systems selected.
        Trickling Filters

8.2.2.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate

      Capital  costs  include equipment  costs, freight charges, installation  costs,
indirect charges, start-up charges, and contingency. Working capital is not included
because it is insignificant.

      Major equipment component costs,  such  as filter  media, rotary distributor,
underdrain material, containment panels, holding tank, and clarification tank were
obtained  from  vendors.   The  delivered, installed cost  of  this  equipment  was
multiplied  by  a factor of 1.75 to estimate the  additional  piping, instrumentation,
start-up, indirect, and contingency charges for  an add-on  system to the physical-
chemical treatment  system. A factor of 2.00 was used to estimate the total capital
cost of an independent  treatment  system.  Figure 8-9 illustrates the capital costs
versus  flowrate  relationship  for  the   trickling  filter  treatment   of  laundry
wastewaters.

8.2.2.1.2 Annual Cost Estimate

      Amortization  -  Annual  costs  for   trickling filters include  amortization,
operating,  maintenance,  and insurance  charges.   Figure   8-10  illustrates the
relationship between  annual costs and flowrates.  The annual amortization was
determined using Equation 8-1 with capital recovery factor equal to 0.117 (62).  A
 10%  annual interest rate, 20-year equipment life, and  no  salvage  value were
assumed.

      Operating. Maintenance, and Insurance Charges - Operating, maintenance, and
insurance (OM1) charges were estimated as 6% annually of the trickling filter capital
 cost based on literature sources (39,60).
                                         108

-------
     TABLE 8-4  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES FOR
                DAF TREATMENT OF LAUNDRY WA5TEWATER
      Component costs
     Annual cost
Amortization

Chemicals

Sludge disposal, dewatered

Sludge disposal, undewatered

Electricity

Operating labor

Maintenance

Insurance

Monitoring

Technical support
0.163 (capital cost)

($0.2S/m3)a(flow)b

($0.094m3)c(flow)b

($0.48/m3)d(flow)b

($0.03/m3)e(flow)b

$16,000

Q.02(capital cost)

0.01 (capital cost)

$1,100

$6,000
a  Range of $0.063/m3 of water treated to $0.43/m3 of water treated.
b  Flow equals m3/day times 260 operating days^year.
c  Range of $0.00012/m3 of water treated to $0.<*5/m3 01 water treated and
   $0.00022/m3 of water treated to $0.78/m3 of water treated, respectively.
d  Range of $0.00061/m3 of water treated to $220/m3 of water treated, and
   $0.0011/m^ of water treated to $4.00/m3, respectively.
e  Range of $0.02l/m3 of water treated to $0.066/m3 of water treated.
f  Range of $0.032/m3 of water treated to $0.32/m3 of water treated.
S  Range of $0.008/m3 of water treated to $0.*9/m3 Of water treated.
h  Range up to $0.87/m3 of water treated.
                                       109

-------
  1,000
    800 h

    600

    400
    200
to
i—
i/>
O
o
100
 80

 60
        (1)
                                              INDEPENDENT
                                                SYSTEM
                                                              ADD-ON
                                                              SYSTEM
                               '	i  i  i  i i
                                                                     i  i i i
             (2)    (3)  14)   (6)  (8) (10)
(20)
(40)   (60) (80) (100)     (200)
 i    i	I	LJJ	1—L_J
                                20
                                                  100
           150   200
          300  40Q4SOWO 600100 BOO
                                     ROWRATE, m3/day UO3 gpd)
 Figure 8-9.   Capital cost for trickling filter  treatment of laundry wastewaters.

-------
    200
CO
O
o
100
 80

 60

 40
     20
      10
                                                 INDEPENDENT
                                                   SYSTEM
                                                                   ADD-ON
                                                                   SYSTEM
                               i  i  i i
       (1)
             (2)   (3)  (4)    (6)  (8) (10)
(20)
(40)   (60) (80) (100)     (200)
                                                                               I	I
                                                     100
                                                       130   200
                    300  400*0500600700800
              Figure  8-10.
                                ROWRATE,m3/day(103gpd)
                        Total annual costs for trickling filter
                        treatment of laundry wastewaters.

-------
S.2.2.2  Aerobic-Anaerobic Stabilization F>v :'s

8.2.2.2.1 Capital Cost Estimate

      Capital  costs  include the  items previously discussed.   The costs of major
components  such as  aerators,  concrete work,  pond  liner, excavation,  and  a
chjorinator were obtained from vendors.  The cost of these items was multiplied by
a factor of  2.00 lor an add-on to DAP treatment, and by a  factor of 2.25 for an
independent  system to  estimate additional  charges for piping, instrumentation,
installation, indirects, etc.  Figure  8-11 illustrates the capital cost versus flowrate
relationship.

8.2.2.2.2 Annual Cost Estimate

      Annual costs of stabilization  ponds  versus ilowrates are illustrated in Figure
8-12.

      Amortization - The annual amortization was determined using Equation 8-1
with capital  recovery factor equal  to 0.117.  A  10% annual interest rate, 20-year
equipment life, and no salvage value were  assumed.

      Operating, Maintenance, and Insurance Charges  - Operating, maintenance, and
insurance charges were  estimated as 10% of the stabilization  pond capital  cost
based on literature sources (60,61).

8.3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION

      The total annual electricity consumption for pretreatment in the subcategories
for which  pretreatment  may  be  necessary, industrial  laundry and linen supply
subcategories, was estimated and is  presented in Table  8-5.  The electricity usage
per cubic meter  of water treated (per 1,000 gal of water treated) was determined
from  the  cost   of  electricity for  pretreatment  ($0.13/1,000  gal  as previously
developed) and an estimate of the average unit cost for electricity ($0.0*/KWH).

      An estimate  for the  electricity consumption  in both subcategories from an
industry trade association is 80 M3/kg of laundry (10 KWH/100 Ib of laundry).  Using
the same information, estimates  of electricity consumption were developed and are
presented in Table 8-6.  The increase in  electricity  usage if all laundries were to
install pretreatment systems (and none presently had them) is also estimated.  The
increase in electricity consumption in industrial  laundries and linen  supplies would
be 20% and  17%, respectively.

      Of course, these  estimates  are only  crude   approximations  of  the actual
increases in electrical consumption that would be incurred if all industrial  laundries
and linen supplies were to install pretreatment systems.  It is  also important to note
that these percent increases apply to electrical power only, and not to total energy
consumption (which includes fuel for steam generation).

8.* SLUDGE MANAGEMENT

      Present sludge disposal practices consist of contracting with a hauler/landfill
operator to provide for disposal.  The sludge may or may not be dewatered before
                                        112

-------
                           INDEPENDENT
                             SYSTEM
Ill
(21
(3)  (4)  (5) (6)   (8) (10)
                                               (401   160)  (BO) (lOOt
                                                       (200)
                                                              J—L.
                                          100
                                                       no wo
                                                                     too
                        FLOWRA1E, m3/(lay U03qpd)
Figure 8-ia
Capital costs for  stabilization pond
treatment of laundry wastewaters.

-------
o
»—«
U-T
O
U
    100
     80

     60

     40



     20
10
 8

 6
                         INDEPENDENT
                           SYSTEM
                                                  ADD-ON
                                                  SYSTEM
                             i  i  i t  i
                                                     t  t  I  I I  I t
      (1)
          (2)   (3)  (4)    (6)  (SJ(IO)
(20)
140)  (60) (SO)(ICO)    I2CO
                                      SO
                                          100
         IK  200
         30;
     Figure  8-12.
                Total annual costs  for stabilization  pond
                treatment of 'laundry  wastewaters.
                                     114

-------
TABLE 8-5.    ANNUAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
            BY PRETREATMENT
Subcategory
Industrial
laundry
Linen
supply
Approximate
number of
indirect
dischargers
1,000
1,300
Annual electricity
consumption by
treatment,
P3 (10s KWH)
0.23 (64)
0.55 (150)
Electricity usage
per 1,000 gal of
water treated,
M3 (KWH)
12 (3.3)
12 (3.3)
     TABLE 8-6.     ANNUAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
                  AT LAUNDRIES




Subcategory
Industrial
laundry
Linen supply


Number of
indirect
dischargers

1,000
1,300


Annual
consumption
P3/y(106KWy)

1.2 (320)
3.2 (890)
Increase in
consumption
if pretreatment
technology used,
percent

20
17
                         115

-------
disposal.  Presently, screw  presses and vacuum filters are used to dewater sludge.
The quantities of sludge generated per year by pretreatment  are estimated in Table
8-7, assuming all laundries installed these systems and none presently had them, and
that  all sludge is either  dewatered or all  is not dewatered.  Using the amount  of
sludge generated per  1,000  gallons of water treated, the average number of gallons
of water used per laundry per year, and the number of indirect  dischargers in the
subcategory, the amount of sludge generated per year for subcategories in  which
pretreatment may be necessary was estimated.

      New developments  in  sludge handling practices are underway in the Chicago
area.  Recent legislation has required that the generation and disposal of industrial
waste be monitored by a set of forms (manifests).  Monitoring is required from the
time  of sludge generation  to its ultimate disposal, and copies  of the forms are
provided to  each handler and to  the sanitary  district at each step.  The system has
not been in effect for  a time sufficient to permit the  assessment of costs incurred
by industry.

      The sludge composition is discussed in Section 7 and corresponds to pollutants
removed from the laundry wastewater plus  additive chemicals.

W OTHER NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS

      Presently,  there  are no  other  known,   significant,  nonwater  quality
environmental  impacts in terms of noise, radiation, or health from the selected
treatment technologies.

      The nonwater quality aspects relating to air pollution that do not concern just
the automatic  and other laundries industry are 1) a possible  stripping of  volatile
toxic pollutants in the treatment  systems, and 2) release  of air pollutants  from
sludge  incineration.    Release  of  volatile  toxic compounds  by   stripping  is
theoretically possible, but  it has not been measured at this time.  The possible
impact on air quality has not been evaluated.  The second aspect to be considered is
the release  of  air pollutants, especially heavy metals, as paniculate or vapor if the
sludge produced from laundry  wastewater treatment is incinerated.  This is not
presently practiced as a  disposal method, and the possible air quality impact has not
been  evaluated.
                                        116

-------
     TABLE 8-7  AMOUNT OF SLUDGE GENERATED PER YEAR BY
                PRETREATMENT
Subcategory
               Number of
                indirect
               dischargers
                                          Sludge generated
            m3/m3 of water
           treated (yd3 1,000
              gal. of water
                treated
                       m3/yr
                   (106 yd^/yr)
Industrial
 laundry
Linen
supply
1,000
1,300
 0.061a
(0.30)

 0.012b
(0.060)
                                  (0.17)

                                   0.0069^
                                  (0.03ft)
 t.5
(6.0)

 0.91
(1.2)
                      6.2
                     (8.1)
                                       (1.6)
aSludge not dewatered.
^Sludge dewatered.
                                     117

-------
                                 SECTION 9

  SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
               AND DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE LEVELS
     In the industrial laundry and linen supply subcategories all plants but one are
known  to discharge  to  POTWs.   For reasons listed  in Section 6,  the Agency has
decided not to impose regulations upon these two subcategories, but to present the
results of this study as guidance to writers of permits and requirements at the local
level.

9.1  GUIDANCE FOR PRETREATMENT

     Achievable  performance by  dissolved air flotation is presented in  Table 9-1.
The methodology  used to determine the achievable performance is presented in the
following subsections.

9.1.1 Technology Basis

     The treatment technology basis  for  industrial and linen supply laundries  is
dissolved air flotation (DAF).  The technology includes flow equalization, chemical
addition, and floe removal.  Although only a limited number of laundry facilities
currently pretreat their  wastewaters, DAF is the most commonly applied  technology
in the industry. The DAF system  has shown to be effective in  reducing toxic as well
as conventional pollutants.

     The Agency investigated other  technologies potentially applicable for the
treatment   of  laundry  wastewaters.    These  technologies,  which  included
ultrafiltration,  electrocoagulation, filtration and carbon adsorption, were rejected
because of limited performance data or for technological reasons.  Filtration and
adsorption technologies  were rejected primarily because the oil and grease found  in
laundry wastes tend to clog or bind such units.

9.1.2  Pollutants

     The  primary   toxic  pollutants  studied  for  achievable  performance are
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc.  These four metals are found most frequently and
at  the  highest  concentrations   in  both  industrial  laundry and   linen  supply
wastewaters.

     The  Agency considered  estimating  achievable  removals  for  major  toxic
organics but decided not to for the following reasons.  Although DAF  effectively
removes organics, it  is difficult to quantify that removal because it is  often related
to the removal of oil  and grease.  In addition, technologies that might further
remove organics following  DAF, and possibly allow for a numerical limitation were
rejected for technological reasons based on the characteristics of DAF effluent.

9.1.3  Statistical Methodology

     Statistical analyses were performed on the laboratory measurements of four
toxic metals; copper, chromium, lead, and zinc found in the treated effluent waste
stream.  Statistical  calculations  for variability factors of daily measurements for
these parameters, are included herein, as well as probability performance curves for
30-day averages.

                                        118

-------
     Data -Sources - Data used in the development of achievable performance for
industrial  and  linen supply  laundries  are  from  the  sampling  and analysis of
wastewater  discharges  at  eight  industrial  laundries currently  operating  DAF
treatment  systems.   Analytical data are presented in  Appendix A.  A total of 33
data points (daily samples) were used for statistical analyses; 23 from one laundry
and ten from seven other laundries.

     Prestatistical  Data Treatment -  In recording of actual  data,  certain- data
values  were entered as "less than" detectability limits. In these cases, the sample of
monitoring data has been "censored" in the process of data recording since only the
threshold value has been retained  (i.e., if a pollutant concentration was reported as
<0.050  mg/l, the value of  0.050  mg/1 was used).  In the statistical analysis of
monitoring data, censored data values were included with measured values in the
sample.  This practice provides a reasonable approach, both for  assessing industry's
capability  to perform and environmental concerns for  valid pollutant limitations.
Since censoring  was done for "less than" bounds, any bias from their inclusion would
cause  a slight  increase in the  long-term average, moderately affecting (in the
direction of  leniency toward industry)  the estimate of long-term average  pollution
levels.

     The measurements obtained for each parameter  were screened by statistical
methods for  spurious or non-representative values.  For this test of outliers as well
as other statistical  analyses reported herein daily  observations of  pollutant levels
were assumed  to follow the lognormal  distribution.   Under  this assumption the
logarithms of these measurements follow a normal distribution.

     The  extreme  values,  i.e.,  maximum  and  minimum, were  subjected  to  a
students' t-test for outliers.  The test consisted of calculating a t-statistic, given by:

                      t = max ((Xmax - y)/Sy, (y - XminJ/Sy)

     where:

     /max is the  logarithm of the datum corresponding to the  largest  pollutant
     measurement, and Xmin is the logarithm of the smallest.

     y is the arithmetic mean of the sample logarithms.

     Sy is the standard deviation of the sample logarithms.

     Where  the calculated t-statistic exceeded the 99th percentile of the student's
t distribution appropriate for the particular sample size, that value was rejected as
not  belonging  to the sample.   Whenever an  extreme value, either  maximum or
minimum  was   rejected  in  the  test  for outliers,  the   sample  statistics  were
recomputed  with the remaining data, and the screening for outliers performed once
more.   The procedure for  computing statistics, screening  for outliers, rejection of
outliers, if  any,  and recomputation  of  statistics continued iteratively  until no
outliers were found.

     Statistical Analysis - Standard statistical measures of pollution levels in  DAF-
treated effluents are tabulated and  recorded  in Tables 9-2 - 9-4. These include
minimum  (Min),  arithmetic  sample  average  (Avg), sample  maximum (Max),
arithmetic standard deviation (Stdv),  and sample coefficient of variation  (C.Var).
                                        119

-------
            TABLE 9-1. ACHIEVABLE PERFORMANCE BY D.A.F.
Pollutant
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
M^M^^^^^M^^^BVM^BBWHM^M^HB
Estimated
Long-Term
Average
mg/1
0.18
0.7*
0.93
0.7*
Daily
Variability
Factor(l)
4.0
2.7
3.7
4.4
Proposed
Limitations
mg/1
24-hr, max.
0.74
1.5
3.7
2.9
30-day avg.
0.22
0.93
1.7
1.1
(1)    Daily variability factor is the ratio of the estimated 99th percentile to the
      estimated long-term average.
   TABLE 9-2   STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TREATMENT DATA FOR
               PLANT Z
Parameter (mg/1)
Cu
Cr(T)
Pb
Zn
No
19
18
19
19
Min
0.50
0.04
0.04
0.09
Avg
0.86
0.13.
0.98
0.77
Max
1.32
0.20
2.48
2.15
Stvd
0.23
0.04
0.73
0.60
C.Var
0.27
0.34
0.74
0.77
                                   120

-------
TABLE 9-3.   STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TREATMENT DATA FOR SEVEN
           INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES
Parameter (mg/1)
Cu
Cr(T)
Pb
Zn
TABLE 9-4
Parameter (mg/1)
Cu
Cr(T)
Pb
Zn
No
9
8
9
&
STATISTICAL
INDUSTRIAL
No
28
26
28
27
Min
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.06
Avg
0.3
-------
POLLUTANT:  Copper


Proposed Daily Maximum Limitation (mg/1)
1.5
                                                 All Data
                   Plant "Z"
Long Term Average
Standard Deviation of Daily Measurements
99th percentile (Z=2.33)
Number of Observations
0.74
0.3425
1.78
2S
0.86
0.2334
1.54
19
   00

   £


   o
    CJ
    u
   U
                LOWER CONFIDENCE BAND
                                                UPPER CONFIDENCE  BAND
                                                    DATA
                                    Percentage
   Figure 9-1.    Cumulative Distribution of Daily Concentrations from Industrial

                 Laundry Treated Effluent
                                       123

-------
POLLUTANT:  Chromium


Proposed Daily Maximum Limitation (mg/1)
0.74
                                                All Data
                   Plant "Z"
Long Term Average
Standard Deviation of Daily Measurements
99th percentile (Z=2.33)
Number of Observations
0.18
0.1474
.74
26
0.13
0.0438
.26
IS
   o
   V
   
-------
POLLUTANT:  Zinc


Proposed Daily Maximum Limitation  (mg/1)
2.9
                                                 All Data
                   Plant "Z"
Long Term Average
Standard Deviation of Daily Measurements
99th percentiJe (Z=2.33)
Number of Observations
0.7f
0.5752
2.90
27
0.87
0.5972
3.01
19
   oo

   £


   o
   ~
   ro
   L.
   «-

   V

   I
   o
   u
                    UPPER CC»JFIDENCI  BAND
                                   Percentage
    Figure 9-4.   Cumulative Distribution of Daily Concentrations from Industrial

                 Laundry Treated Effluent
                                       126

-------
      In the analysis of daily  data, tne  innerent variability of measured pollutant
levels in the  effluent stream  from the  laundry industry must be incorporated in
calculating upper limits for daily pollutant discharge levels. Even well treated and
controlled plants may experience some days when atypicaliy high  level of pollutant
discharge is present in their waste stream. Such variations  may be due to a variety
of factors, such as short-term maladjustments in treatment facilities, variation in
flow,  or  pollutant  load,  or  changes  in  the influent stream.  To allow  for  this
variability, performance  standards must  necessarily be set above the plant's long-
term   average  performance  and  occasional,  infrequent excessive   discharges
permitted.  Since pollutant concentration is often expressed  in terms  of average
level, it  is convenient to describe standards of performance and allow variability in
term  of multiples of this average. Such a method of computing limitation standards
as multiples  of average level performance is used.  The ratio of the pollutant
performance  level to  the estimated  long-term  average is commonly  called  the
"variability factor".

      This factor is useful with lognormally distributed pollutant levels because its
value is independent of the long-term average, depending only upon the day-to-day-
variability of  the  process and the expected number of excessive discharge periods.
For a lognormal population, the  variability factor (P/A), the performance standard
P, and the long-term average A, are related by:

                              ln(P/A) =  S'(Z - S'/2)

      where:

      1.    "In" represent the natural logarithm (base  e) of a numerical quantity.

      2.    S'  is the estimated standard deviation of the logarithms of pollutant level
           measurements.

      3.    Z is a factor derived  from  the standard normal distribution.  Z is chosen
           as  Z = 2.33 so as to give performance limitations which  provide a balance
           between appropriate  consideration of day to day variation in  a properly
           operating plant and the necessity to insure that a plant is functioning
           properly.

      This Z-value  corresponds to the 99th percentiie of the lognormal distribution
meaning that  only  1 percent of the pollutant observations taken from a  plant with
proper operation of  treatment  facilities would be greater than the performance
standard, P.  This percentiie is equivalent to allowing a plant in normal operation 3
to * exceedances per year.

Calculation of Variability Factors

      As mentioned above, statistical analysis of daily pollution level measurements
was based on  the  assumption that  these data, (XI,  X2,...Xn), follow a lognormal
distribution.   Following this  assumption, if Yi=ln(Xi), where ln(Xi) represents the
natural logarithm or log base e of the pollution measurements,then the Yi; i=l,2,...n
are each normally  distributed.  If A' and  S1 are the mean and standard deviation of
Y=ln(X) respectively, then the probability of k percent that an  individual  Y will not
exceed A'+ZS', where Z is the k-th percentiie of  the standard normal distribution,
e.g.   2-2.33, Is the 99-th percentiie of  the standard normal distribution.  It follows
                                         127

-------
that A'+Z5' is the natural logarithm  of the k-th percentile of X and  that  the
probability  is  k percent  that X will not  exceed  a performance  standard  P=
exp(A'+ZS')^ It is also known that the average value of X is A= exp(A'+S'(SY2)). The
variability factor VF, is obtained by dividing P by A, hence,

     VF * P/A = exp(5'(Z - S'/2)), and

     ln(VF) = ln(P/A) = S'(Z - S'/2)

     To estimate  the VF for a particular set  of  monitoring  data,  5' may be
calculated as  the  square root of  ln(1.0 + (CV)2),  where the sample coefficient of
variation, CV = S/X, is the ratio of sample standard deviation to sample average.

Example Calculation of Variability Factors for 24-Hour Data

     Given the following descriptive statistics for a particular parameter, as  might
be found for copper (mg/1) in Table 9-3.

           No.  Min   Avg    Max   Stdv  CV
           2l"  0.09   0.69    1.32   0.34  0.49

     Calculate the estimated standard  deviation of logarithms

     (S1)2 = In (1.0+ 0.492) = 0.219

     5' = 0.468

     Then

      ln(P/A) = 0.468(2.33 - 0.468/2) = 0.981

     The variability Factor VF is,

      VF = P/A = exp (0.981) = 2.67

      The performance standard P;

      P = A(VF) = A(P/A) = (0.69X2.67) = 1.84  mg/1

      The statistical interpretation  of  P,  the  performance  standard,  is  that  one
estimates that 99 percent of  the  daily pollution level  measurements will not exceed
P.  For large  data sets, P is  roughly equivalent to an upper  99 percent confidence
bound  for an individual daily measurement.

      Graphs of the cumulative distribution of sample results for each of these four
toxic metals being regulated are given in Figures 9-1 through 9-4.  These graphs  plot
cumulative relative frequency in  the sample vs logarithm of pollutant concentration,
and are so scaled that a lognormally distributed variable plots as a straight line.
                                        128

-------
ASSUMPTIONS   CONCERNING   30-DAY   AVERAGE   POLLUTANT   LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS

     Although  individual  pollution  concentration  measurements  are  assumed
lognormally distributed, that distribution does not extend to the statistical behavior
of averages,  in this case  where 30-day  averages  are to be used.  However,  if
averages are taken over a "reasonably large" number of days, a statistical principle,
the Central  Limit theorem, assures that probabilities  pertaining to such  averages
may be computed using the normal  probability  distribution.  A 30-day average
contains enough individual daily measurements to insure that the normal  probability
performance, even when daily values are lognormally distributed.

     To assess the treatability level for the industrial laundry treatment  technology
of DAF, the  "probability performance"  was calculated for each parameter  in the
treated effluent stream.  This quantity is the probability that a given stream will
have a 30-day average pollutant level (mg/1) that is within or less than a given level.
This amounts to the probability that a plant employing the proposed treatment will
produce a 30-day  average concentration less than the corresponding level.  Where a
pollutant  discharge  level  is measured by  the  average  concentration in  thirty
individual daily measurements (the 30-day average), the probability performance is
the estimate  of the proportion or fraction of the 30-day  averages  that will be less
than or equal to the given pollutant concentration.

COMPUTATIONAL  PROCEDURES  FOR  ESTIMATES  OF  30-DAY  AVERAGE
PERFORMANCE

     To  compute  the  maximum   likelihood  estimates (MLE's)  of  probability
performance,  it is necessary  to compute the  MLE's of  the long-term average
pollution  level and the  long-term standard deviation  of  pollution  level  using
logarithms of  the  individual  measurements of data.   The  maximum  likelihood
estimates of  the mean  logarithm and standard deviation of logarithms are done using
standard statistical formulae.

     These estimates are computed and used to obtain the MLE's  of the long-term
average, A, and  long-term  standard deviation, 5, of the pollutant concentration.
Dividing the  estimated long-term standard deviation, 5,  by  the  square  root of the
number of days (30) in the average, gives S*. the estimated standard error of the 30-
day average,  and  which can be used in computing probability performance. For any
pollutant level, P, the estimated probability performance, is computed as:

     Probability (30-day average does not exceed P) = Pr(z)

     where      z = (P-AJ/S*

     and Pr(z) = probability that a standardized normal value does not exceed z.

     Included with the technical analysis of each toxic  metal are the  probability
performance  curves, Figures 9-5  through 9-S and estimates of long-term averages
for each parameter.   Note that the estimate of long-term  pollution  average  is
obtained by  maximum  likelihood methods  from  the lognormal distribution and does
not necessarily equal the sample arithmetic average given in Tables 9-2 to 9-4.
                                        129

-------
POLLUTANT: Copper

Proposed Maximum 30-Day Average  (mg/1)
  0.93
Estimated Long Term Average
Standard Error of the 30-Day Average
95th percentile (Z=1.64)
Number of Observations
All Data

  0.7*
  0.1095
  0.92
 28
Plant "Z"

  O.S6
  0.042
  0.93
 19
1.0

.2 °-9
u
0.8
V
>- u
*%
c-- 0.6
< (J
Estimated Probability That
Average Does Not Exceed a
o o o o o o
• •••••
o i-« K> u* •** en









































y



















S



















?

0

















7


.6






I









/










IA







J
/










MT





.
/






0






2




/
/













•


/
/









.7






— -«
(
/










^










/
i
/











/
b









^
/'






/







/



4
1

l/
f
j
/


h




•-,








^i

f
/

L






r^
/









ALL







0.8 0.







^











^^j











s=1











DATA





















9 1
••















































































.0 1








































.1
                              Concentration (mg/1)
   Figure 9-5. Estimated Performance of Proposed DAF Treatment
                                      130

-------
POLLUTANT: Chromium



Proposed  Maximum 30-Day Average  (mg/1)
0.22
All Data Plant "Z"
Estimated Long Term Average 0.18 0.13
Standard Error of the 30-Day Average 0.0253 0.0096
95th percentile (Z=1.64) 0.22 0.15
Number of Observations 26 18
Estimated Probability That Any 30-Day
Average Does Not Exceed a Given Concentration
O OOOOO OOOM
* ..••• •• ••
H NJUJ .u ui cr> j co u> o




















^
^
















;
/

2
0.














/
/



i —















1
1
1
?
1
1
1






**»•









K-"


J

t
/












^
^ *


i/
/
i~













/


/


S~\



1



I



1







- .PLANT Z












^













/
\












£
'












/













2












y
/


















/
/

















£
/
k

















Z











7
i









^
/










/
i








LL DATA


















12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.;








>
^


















/


















x4


















>o o.:
^
k


















^^-



















S»



















•^



















>2
                             Concentration (mg/1)
   Figure 9-6.  Estimated Performance of Proposed DAF Treatment
                                     131

-------
POLLUTANT: Lead

Proposed Maximum 30-Day Average  (mg/1)
  1.7
Estimated Long Term Average
Standard Error of the 30-Day Average
95th percentile (Z=1.6<0
Number of Observations
All Data

  0.93
  0.4615
  1.69
 28
Plant "Z"

  1.15
  0.3121
  1.66
 19
3-Day
Concentration
o o OH
• • • •
-J CO U> 0
f\ C
£> 0.6
. o
= tu 0.4
13 *-
m o
•S2 0.3
t-  f
"2 Q n ?
v U . ^-
*•* flj
« gi,
J2
tS Si 0.1
ID ^




















^


















^
^

















.
^
^f










ALL









•
/
J

«^*I
°'° 0.









/
L

^
1




















DATA 	 1







;
r


^
7

5





/
/
[


/





j
/
/


f
/
/





2
)
i


I
/
Z











3
*
j
/
/
/
«_











^
/
/
/




— —










/
V
f







x

r







j
?









-PLANT
























^










Z








1.0 1.5
?2



















2.
^^















































































0 2.




















5




































































































3.0
                              Concentration (mg/1)
    Figure 9-7. Estimated Performance of Proposed DAF Treatment
                                      132

-------
POLLUTANT: Zinc



Proposed  Maximum 30-Day Average (mg/1)
1.1
All Data Plant "Z"
Estimated Long Term Average 0.74 0.87
Standard Error of the 30-Day Average 0.2113 0.2142
95th percentile (Z= 1.64) 1.09 1.22
Number of Observations 27 19

1.0
c.
% 0.9
id
t_
5 0.8
>• <->
JO c
O o
ciu 0.7
<*> c
rw V
c >
< (3 0.6
£ g 0.5
>N U
••- X
Estimated Probabi
Average Does Not
o o o o c
• • . « .
O M W LJ *

















































ALL














^














^X
















DATA 	












/
?
\S\
0











/

/
1






I

/
/
I

/








— »•
/
/
12
/I ,

1

j
/
/





/

/








1

2
/


/
;


_









2
X
1
/





^
* !








•^-
>^








-PLANT



























x*









Z











































































































































































































































	 i













.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
                              Concentration (mg/1)
   Figure 9-8. Estimated Performance of Proposed DAF Treatment
                                     133

-------
     Where a parameter curve is quite "steep", i.e., for those parameters that show
a sharp increase in probability (of a 30-day average not exceeding a given value) for
a small increase in pollution concentration, this is primarily due to a relatively small
coefficient of variation.  In other words, the steepness of the curve  is directly
related to the degree of consistency in the sample resuhs.

9.2 GUIDANCE FOR DIRECT DISCHARGES

     Because only one  direct  discharger was  identified in the linen  supply  and
industrial laundry subcategories, the Agency did not develop data for the achievable
performance of  treatment  technologies for direct  dischargers.    However,  the
Agency feels that the applicable technology would be DAF followed by biological
treatment for the further reduction of conventional pollutants.  Trickling filters or
stabilization  ponds (facultative lagoons)  would  be  effective biological  treatment
options.

     Pollutants to be  controlled  would  include  those  selected for pretreatment
(chromium,  lead, copper and zinc) and the major conventional  pollutants found in
laundry  wastes:   TSS,  BOD  and   oil  and  grease.     Conventional pollutant
concentrations presented in Table 1-1 reflect the  discharge limitations currently
imposed  on the one known direct discharger.  The Agency has determined that these
concentrations  are  achievable using the  technologies of  DAF  and  biological
treatment.
                                          134

-------
                                REFERENCES
 1.     Draft Preliminary Qualitative Economic Assessment of Effluent Limitations
       in  the  Laundries  Industry.    Contract  68-01-4618,  U.S.  Environmental
       Protection  Agency,  Washington, D.C.  (Preliminary document submitted to
       EPA by Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., September 8, 1977.) 25 pp.

 2.     Economic Effects of Water Pollution Control on the Laundry Industry, Phase
       II.     Contract  68-01-2*12,  U.S.     Environmental   Protection  Agency,
       Washington, D.C.   (Preliminary document submitted to EPA by  Colin A.
       Houston 3e Associates, Inc., April 15, 1974.) 207 pp.

 3.     Preliminary Quantitative Economic Assessment of  Effluent Limitations in the
       Laundries  Industry.   Contract  68-01-4618, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
       Agency, Washington,  D,C.  (Preliminary document submitted to EPA by
       Energy and Environmental  Analysis, Inc., January 10, 1978.)  72 pp.

 4.     Johnson,  K.C.   Laundering.   In: Kirk-Othmer  Encyclopedia of Chemical
       Technology, Second Edition, Vol. 12. John Wiley dc Sons, Inc., New York, New
       York, 1967. pp.  197-207.

 5.     Osos, G. R. Successful Steam Tunnel  Finishing.  Linen Supply News, 61(2):90-
       92, 1977.

 6.     Wile, J. L.   Latest Development  Rundown on Washroom  Machinery 4
       Supplies. Institutional Laundry,  16(8):20-22, 1972.

 7.     Martin, A.  R., F. Loibl, G. E. Leonhardt, and H. E.  Reeves.  Drycleaning.  In:
       Kirk-Othmer  Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second Edition,  Vol. 7.
       John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,  New York, New York, 1965. pp. 307-326.

 8.     Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
       Performance  Standards for the  Auto and Other Laundries Category,  Part I.
       U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.  (EPA  draft
       document,  January 1977.)

 9.     Powder Power Puts Profit in  Solvent  Recovery.   Laundry Cleaning  World,
       1(2):18-19,  1973.

10.     Bee, B.  Increasing Solvent Mileage.  Coinamatic Age, 34(4):38, 1976.

11.     McCoy, J.R.  Solvent Filtration with  Cartridge  Type Filters.  Coinamatic
       Age, 34(4):28-30, 1976.

12.     Hasenclever, K.D.  The Basis of Effective Drycleaning Distillation.   Power
       Laundry &  Cleaning News, pp. 15-17, June 1977.

13.     An "update"  on workwear  processing in the USA.   Power Laundry and
       Cleaning News, November 11, 1977.
                                         135

-------
                            References - continued

14.   KJep\>r, M. H., R.  L. Goldsmith, and  A. Z. Gollen.   Demonstration of
      Ultrafiitration and Carbon Adsorption for Treatment of Industrial Laundering
      Wastewater.   EPA-600/2-78-177,  U.S.   Environmental Protection Agency,
      Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1978. 121 pp.

15.   Rosenthal, B. L. et  al.  Industrial  Laundry Waste Water Treatment Study.
      Project  #48,  Massachusetts  Health  Research  Institute,  Inc.,  Boston,
      Massachusetts, April 1964.  93 pp.

16.   Cogely, D. R. and B. A. Weschler.  Occurrence and Treatability of Priority
      Pollutants in Industrial Laundry Wastewaters. Draft Final Report.  Grant No.
      5-804367-01,  U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.
      January 1978. 110pp.

17.   Douglas, G.  Modular Wastewater Treatment System Demonstration for the
      Textile Maintenance  Industry.    EPA-660/2-73-037,  U.S.  Environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., January 1974. 342 pp.

18.   Van Hess, W., E.  W. Lard, and  Dr.  R.  Me Minn.   A  Continuous  Shipboard
      Laundry  Wastewater Treatment and  Recycling System.  David  W. Taylor
      Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Annapolis, Maryland.  19 pp.

19.   Guarino,  V.  J.f and R.  A. Bambenek.   Development and  Testing  of a
      Wastewater Recycler and Heater.  EPA-600/2-76-289.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 1976. 106 pp.

20.   Lent, D.  5.  Treatment of Power  Laundry Wastewater Utilizing  Powdered
      Activated Carbon and Cationic Polyelectrolytes. In:  Proceedings of the 30th
      Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, May
      1975.  Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.  January
      1976.

21.   Galonion, G. E., and D. B. Aulenback.  Phosphate  Removal from Laundry
      Wastewater.  Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 45(8):170S-
      1717. August 1973.

22.   Aulenback, D.  D., P. C. Town,  and M. Chilson.  Treatment  of Laundromat
      Wastes.     EPA-R2-73-I08,     U.S.  Environmental  Protection   Agency,
      Washington, D.C., February 1973. 65 pp.

23.   Wastewater Engineering, Collection, Treatment, and  Disposal.  Metcalf and
      Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1972. 782 pp.

24.   Patterson, I. W.  Wastewater  Treatment  Technology.   Ann Arbor Science
      Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975.  pp 175-189.

25.   Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants.
      Technology Transfer,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Cincinnati,
      Ohio, October 1974.

26.   O'Melia, C.R. Coagulation and Flocculation. In:  Physicochemical Processes
      for  Water Quality  Control, Chapter  2,  W.  J. Webster,  Jr.,  ed.  Wiley-
      Interscience, New York, New York, 1972. pp. 61-91.


                                       136

-------
                            References - continued

27.   Process Design Manual for  Suspended Solids Removal -Technology Transfer,
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, January 1975.  pp.
      4-1, 4-2.

28.   Wastewater Treatment Plant  Design,  Manual of Practice No.   8.   Water
      Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C., 1977.  560 pp.

29.   Pinto, S.D.,  Ultrafiltration for Dewatering of  Waste Emulsified Oils,   In:
      Proceedings,  First  International   Conference,   Lubrication  Challenges  in
      Metalworking and Processing, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 1973.
      4pp.

30.   Ramirez,  E. R.  Electrocoagulation Clarified Food  Wastewater.  Deeds and
      Data,  Water Pollution Control Federation, April 1975. 3 pp.

31.   Minturn, R. £.,  J.  S. Johnson, Jr.,  W.  M. Schofield,  and D.   K. Todd.
      Hyperfiltration of Laundry Wastes.  Water Research, 8(ll):921-926, 1974.

32.   Grives, R.  B., and  J.  L. Bewley.    Treating  Laundry  Wastes by Foam
      Separation.   Journal  of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 45(3):470-
      479, 1973.

33.   McCarthy, J. J.,  and R. H.  Chyvek.  Evaluation of a Vapor  Compression
      Distillation Unit for Laundry Wastewater Reuse.  Technical Report 7711,  U.S.
      Army  Medical Research  and Development  Command,  Washington, D.C.,
      August 1977.  45 pp.

34.   Baker, R. J.  Degan,  and  R. Weston.   Pilot Plant Studies of the Biological
      Treatment  of Petroleum  Refinery  Wastes.    In:    Proceedings  of  the
      Pennsylvania Sewage Wastes Association, August  1952.

35.   Coe, R.  Bench-Scale Biological Oxidation  of Refinery Wastes with Activated
      Sludge. Sewage Industrial Wastes, 24(6):1952.

36.   Tabakin, R. B., R. Trattner, and P. N.  Chevemisinoff.  Oil/Water Separation
      Technology:   The Option Available,  Part 2.   Water  and  Sewage  Works,
      125(8):72-75, 1978.

37.   Process Design Manual  for Sludge  Treatment  and  Disposal.   Technology
      Transfer,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,  October
      1974.  pp. 7-1/7-94.

38.   Federal Register. 43(243}:58956-58957, December 18, 1978.

39.   Meredith, D. C.,  K. W. Wong, R. W. Woodhead, and  R. H.  Wortman.  Design
      and Planning of Engineering Systems.  Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
      New Jersey, 1973. 393 pp.

40.   Current Prices of Chemicals  and  Related Materials.  Chemical Marketing
      Reporter, 215(3):40-49.

41.   Parker, R. S., Jr.  Assessment of Dissolved Air Flotation Sludge Management
      Options in Industrial Laundry  Wastewater  Treatment. (Draft) Contract No.

                                        117

-------
                           References - continued

      S-804367-Q1.  U.S.   Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,
      October 197S. 48 pp.

42.   Van Note, R. H., P. V. Hebert, R. M. PateJ, C. Chupek, and L. Feldman. A
      Guide  of the Selection  oi Cost-Effective  Wastewater Treatment Systems.
      EPA-430/9-75-002,   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,
      D.C., July 1975.

43.   Peters, M.S.  and  K. D.  Timmerhaus.   Plant Design  and Economics for
      Chemical  Engineers.  McGraw-Hill Book Company,  New  York, New  York,
      1968,  850pp.

44.   Pound, C. £., R. W. Cites, and 0. A. Griff es.  Cost of Wastewater Treatment
      by  Land Application.  EPA-430/9-75-003,   U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Washington, D.C., June 1975.  156 pp.

45.   Letter from Institute of Industrial  Launderers  to  Environmental Protection
      Agency; October 31, 1979.

46.   Nemerow,  N.  L.   Liquid Waste  of  Industry, Theories,  Practices,  and
      Treatment.   Addison-Westey Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts,
      1971.  584pp.

47.   Federal Guidelines, State  and Local Pretreatment  Programs.  Volume 1.
      EPA-430/9-76-Q17a,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,
      D.C., January 1977. 196 pp.

48.   Beychok, M. R,, Aqueous Wastes from  Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants,
      John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 1967.

49.   NIH-EPA Chemical Information System, The  Oil and Hazardous Materials -
      Technical Assistance Data System (OHMTADS), May 21, 1979.

50.   "Anaerobic Processes - Literature Review", Ghosh, S., Journal of the Water
      Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 44, No. 6, June 1972. p. 948.

51.   "Inhibition  of  Anaerobic  Digestion   of   Sewage  Sludge by Chlorinated
      Hydrocarbons," Swan wick,  J.  D. and  Margaret FouJkes,  Water  Pollution
      Control. Vol. 70, 1971. p. 58.

52.   "The  Effect  of  Chloroform  in  Sewage on  the  Production  of  Gas  from
      Laboratory Digesters," Stickley,  D. P.,  Water  Pollution  Control^ Vol. 69,
      1970. p. 585.

S3.   "Combined  Treatment  of  Chemical  Wastes   and  Domestic  Sewage  in
      Germany", Bischofsberger,  Wolfgang,  Proceedings of the  24th Industrial
      Waste Conference (1969). Purdue University, p.  920.

54.   Ryer, F. V. Soap.  In:  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,
      Second Edition, Vol. 18.  John WUey  & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1969.
      pp. 415-432.
                                       138

-------
                           References - continued

55.    Schwartz, A. M.  Detergency.  In:  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
      Technology, Second Edition, Vol. 6. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,  New
      York, 1965.  pp. 853-895.

56.    Zweidler, R., H.  Hausermann, and 3. R. Geigy.   Brighteners,  Optical.  In:
      Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical  Technology, Second Edition, Vol. 3.
      John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 196f. pp. 737-750.

57.    Current  Prices of Chemicals and Related  Materials.   Chemical Marketing
      Reporter, 215(3):*
-------
                                 APPENDIX A

               LAUNDRY WASTEWATER TREATABIUTY DATA
     In the following  tables, A-l through A-20, treatability data for the various
systems described in Section 7 are given:

     o    The data  in Tables  A-l  through A-6  are given for  industrial  laundries
          utilizing calcium chloride coagulation and OAF.

     o    The data  in Tables A-7  through  A-ll are  given for linen  supply  and
          commercial  laundries   utilizing   polyelectrolyte  coagulation,   DAP,
          filtration and wastewater recycle.

     o    The data  in Tables  A-12 and  A-13 are given for an industrial laundry
          utilizing alum coagulation, DAF, filtration, and wastewater recycle.

     o    The data  in Tables  A-14 and  A-l5 are given for an industrial laundry
          utilizing ferrous sulfate coagulation  and DAF.

     o    The data in  Tables A-l6  and A-17 are given  for a linen laundry utilizing
          ferric sulfate coagulation and DAF.

     o    The data in Tables A-IS and A-19 are given for a service laundry which is
          a direct  discharger.   The treatment system utilizes alum coagulation,
          clarification,       carbon       adsorption,       filtration        and
          chlorination/dechlorination.

     o    The data in Table A-20 is given for  an  industrial laundry utilizing calcium
          chloride coagulation and DAF.
                                       A-l

-------
TABLE 'A-l.  PLANT A
Concentration, mg/1
City
Pollutant Water
COO
TOC
TSS
Oil and pease



Phosphorus
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickei
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Phenol (total)
Benzene
Carson tetrachlaride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2,4,4-TrictUorophefwl
Chloratorm 0.0008
Dichiorebenzenes
2,4-Dimethyiphenol
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride 0.007
Diehlar obromomethane 0 . 00 3
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol m
6u(2-«thylhexyl)phthalate 0.012
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Qi-n-Butyl phthaiate 0.0007
Di-n-Octyl phthaiate - »
Anthracene/phenanthrene - '
Tetncnleroethylene 0.010
Toluene 0.010
T_:.d.i..««^vhwl_Mi _
Influent
6,400
1,700
390
131
869
313
3%
11.6
0.094
0.010
0.11
0.«8
1.5
4.S
0.33
JL 0.001
< O.OhO
3.7
0.037
0.78
0.003
0.002
0.018
.
0.0007
l.l
0.46
0.025
0.002
-
».s
-
0.098
1.2
0.31
0.092
0.13
0.38
0.32
0.36
0.004
Effluent
3,200
690
98
1*4
1*9
123
133
1.7
< 0.010
0.002
< 0.002
0.27
0.30
0.13
0.23
0.002
0.030
0.23
0.034
0.76
0.003
0.001
O.OU
0.003
0.0008
0.26
-
0.04ft
0.002
•
0.84
0.017
0.042
0.22
0.019
0.033
0.066
0.33
0.38
0.006
 A-2

-------
TABLE A-:.  PLAOT B
Concentration mg/1
Pollutant
pH
COD
T5S
Oil and grease
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
Phenol (total)
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Dichlorobromomethane
Isophorane
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenol
Bis(2-ethyihexyi)phthalate
Di-n- Butyl phthaiate
Diethyl phthaiate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
City
Water
7.0



<0.020
<0.010
0.005
<0.050
<0.025
<0.010
< 0.0002
<0.050
0.002
0.055

0.030
-
0.020
0.015
-
-
-
-
1.2
0.005
0.005
0.007
-
-
Influent
11.6
3,800
700
440
0.041
0.012
0.017
0.27
1.6
9.*
0.002
0.15

-------
TABLE R-3.  PLANT C
Concentration, mg/1
Pollutant
pH
COD
T5S
Oil and grease
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Phenol (total)
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methyiene chloride
Dichlorobromomethane
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Tetrachloroethyiene
Toluene
City
water
7.3



<0.020
0.011
<0.002
<0.050
<0.025
<0.010
< 0.0002
<0.050

-------
TABLE A-4.  PLANT D
Concentration, mg/1

Pollutant
pH
BOD.
CODJ
TOC
T55
Oil and grease
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtnalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
City
water
7.7
<2
<5
2
<5
<5
<0.10
<0.00l
0.010
0.026
< 0.020
<0.01
0.094
-
0.040
-
-
-
0.010

Influent
11.7
2,400
7,100
1,800
940
1,600
0.16
0.070
0.98
1.7
5.4
0.08
2.7
0.28
0.13
17.5
2.6
0.030
2.6

Effluent
9.3
1,000
2,000
500
100
230
0.31
0.003
0.57
0.15
0.11
-
-
0.29
0.20
-
1.0
0.98
0.90
         A-5

-------
TABLE A-5. PLANT £


Pollutant
BOD,
coir
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Phenol (total)

City
water



<20

_
-
0.005
<0.005
0.050
<0.020
<0.0001
<0.005
<0.001
<0.060
0.050

Contration mg/1

Influent
1,700
4,900
460
900
230
13
0.12
0.011
0.060
0.30
1.0
3.0
<0.003
"0.080
0.008
2.0
0.24
0.10


Effluent
540
1,100
270
18
84
23
0.029
-
cO.002
0.10
0.20
0.070
0.002
<0.005
0.019
0.060
0.53
0.32
A-6

-------
                   TABLE A-6.  PLANT F



(DATA OBTAINED FROM-LINEN SUPPLY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA)
Pollutant
BOD,
TSS
Oil and grease
TOG
pll
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Meicurf
Nickel
Zliic


Influent
460
420
174
70
II
0.03
0.13
2.6
<0.0002
<0.02
1.0

Day 1
effluent
4)0
10
9)
128
6.3
O.I
0.11
<0.03
<0.0002
<0.02
0.10

Day
Inllurnl
2,030
830
422
223
11.4
0.0)
I.I
7.9
< 0.0002
<0.02
3.1

2
Effluent
610
240
107
167
7.3
O.I*
0.3
0.3
<0.0002
<0.02
0.2
Concentration,
Oar 1
Influent
73)
920
212
222
11.6
0.03
0.99
3.)
<0.0002
<0.02
1.9
mg/l

Eflluent
160
100
10
164
7.2
0.09
0.37
<0.03
<0.0002
<0.02
0.2S

ttaf
Influent
360
too
366
43.3
II.)
<0.002
0.336
4.9
<0.0002
<0.02
1.1

4
Ellluent
130
60
4)
9)
7.0
0.0)
0.17
0.2
<0.0002
<0.02
0.2

DDT
Influent
3(0
910
1.190
1)4
11,4
O.I)
0.64
6.)
<0.0002
<0.02
3.)

,
Effluent
2<0
2)0
9
224
6.9
'0.002
0.29
0.7

-------
TABLE R-7.  PLANT G
Concentration, mg/l

Pollutant
pH
BOO*
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and create
Choiphorut
Antimony
Arunlc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper

Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Ztnc
Cyanide
Phenol (tollO
Benxene
Qilorolorm
2-Chloranhenol
2,4-Dlchlcirophenol
2,4-OltMlhrlptKMl
Elhylbehiene
Methytanc chlorMe
Naphthalene
2-Nllropheml
Phenol

UI-rt-Butyl phthalale
Methyl etithalate
Anthracene jpie nanthrene
Tetrachloroelhylene
Toluene
TrkhloroethyleM
Ifcptachlor
City
Wale*
;.)






-------
TABLE A-8.  PLANT H
Concentration, mg/1

Pollutant
pH
BOD,
COD^
T5S
Oil and grease
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Phenol (total)
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Dichlorobromomethane
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate
Toluene
City
water
7.1
<6
2
<1
36
0.0003
<0.010
0.005
<0.003
<0.010
0.16
<0.001
0.006
0.007
0.008
-
-
0.007

Influent
10.9
850
2, WO
250
WO
0.010
0.060
0.15
0.11
0.025
0.43
0.13
0.020
-
-
0.030
9.0
0.025

Effluent
11.0
900
2,600
280
220
0.007
0.20
0.19
0.21
0.048
0.56
0.16
0.023
-
-
0.048
0.80
0.014
            A-9

-------
TABLE A-9.  PLANT Z
Concentration, mg/1

Pollutant
pH
BOD,
COD^
Oil and grease
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Phenol (total)
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Toluene
City
water
7.4
<5
96
30
<0.002
0.0002
0.025
0.030
0.001
O.OOS
0.010
0.010
<0.001
0.020
-
0.020
0.017

Influent
9.9
780
1,700
400
0.014
0.003
0.038
0.095
0.038
<0.0005
<0.010
0.17
0.26
0.18
0.035
-
0.080

Effluent
9.6
820
490
no
0.010
0.003
0.015
0.070
0.047
<0.0005
<0.010
0.065
0.055
0.022
0.030
-
0.040
         A-10

-------
                   TABLE A-10.  PLANT I



(DATA OBTAINED FROM LINEN SUPPLY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA)
Day 1
Pollutant
BOOj
TSS
Oil and grease
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
pll
Merctrr
Zinc
TOC
kiiluent
721
390
420
<0.002
<0.02

-------
TABLE

City
Pollutant water
Oil and grease 0



BOD. i
3


COD <10
TOC 2.5
TSS <1
Phosphorus 0 .OS
Cyanide (total) <0.002
Phenol (total) 0.005
Antimony
Cadmium < 0.002
Chromium 0.014
Copper 0.021
L«ad <0.022
Nickel <0.036
Silver 
-------
                                                       TABLE A-12.   PLANT K
u>
                                                                      Concentration, tng/l
Day 1
Pollutant
oH
r *
Oil and pease
BOD.
COO
roc
TSS
Phosphorui
Cyanide (lota))
Phenol (total)
Antimony
Arienlc
Cadmium
Chromium
CoiiAef
^" IT^*
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Stiver
Zinc
Acroleln
Caibun lelraddorlde
CM or obelize ne
1,1 ,1-Trlchloroe thane
Z-CMoroiuphlhalene
Oilorolorm
Elhylbenzen*
rfcornodlcM or oine thane
Trlchlorolluoromelliane
Naphllialene
phenol
Bls(2-elhylheiiyl)phlhalate
Dulyl benzyl phthalaie
ni-n-nulylphlhalile
nl-n-Octyl phllialate
Anlhracene/lilKnanlhrene
TetracMoroeth|rlene
Toluene
City
water


-------
             TABLE A-13.  PLANT K
(DATA OBTAINED FROM -EQUIPMENT" MANUFACTURER)
Concentration, ms/1

BOD
COD
Oil and grease
pH
Chlorine as Cl
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Volatile dissolved solids
Volatile suspended solids
Mercury
Cadmium
Lead
Sulfate, as 5O<»
Arsenic
Cyanide
Phenol
Total coliform, per 100 ml
Color, APHA color units
Carbonate, as €03
Silicate, as SiO^
Calcium
Iron
Aluminum
Nickel
Zinc
Chromium
Total organic carbon
Copper
Antimony
Alkalinity as CaCO3
Ammonia nitrogen, as N
Nitrate nitrogen, as N
Sodium
Carbon dioxide, as CO2
Influent
180
1,290
175
10.64
<0.01
3,558
51
712
20
0.0010
0.02
0.10
1,590
<0.05
<0.01
0.0
-------
                                                                       TABLE  A-14.    PLANT  L
                                                                                               OncmlitlM. M|A
                                               air
                                               ran
                                                                     Cllhlrnl
                                                                                            tlllwl
                                                                                                         MbMt
                                                                                                                    Illluml
                                                                                                                                kflwnl
                                                1.1
roc
ru
pii.~ii.o-
                                                           la i
                                                        l.roo
                                                        ».io*
                                                        I.1M
                                                          }!•
                                                          110
                                                           ir
                         Cj.
                         Ckranlwi

                         fnr
                         Wnci>f
                         Hckil
                         W»n
                         IbK
                         rimobniiH*
                         l.l.l- fllcMotMll
                         1.1-McMgfMd
                      <».00t
                      <• ODI
                      <0 004
                      •O.OW
                       i.ooal
                      <• M>
                      <0 Nl
                      fO •»
                       • .It
                       a.aoM
                                  * n
                                  OOll
                                  • •H
                                  o ai*
                                  ou
                                  10
                                 ll.t
                                  on)
                                  • oto
                                 i« OOt
                                 "la
                                           IIB
                                            II
                                             • ai
                                             • 041
                                             » *
                                             • Oil
                                             I.OIl
                                            
 a. OH
ii>»ui>
                           -*-f»,t pMh.Ul.
                                                                                    • lit
                                                                                    • Nf
                                                             .Ml
                                                                                                            10.1
I.4H
  100
  «ao
  if
   •.Ml
   •.II
   •.II
   0.011
   O.OM

   IT
   1.0
   O.MI
   •.M

  •ir
                                                                                                            •.DM
                                                                                                            •.Mi
                                                                                                            •.MM
  I.D
HO
*M
MO
 H
 U
  O.It
 «» 010
  1.1
  • •II
  • •II
 «0 Ml
 •0 001
  ••«*> R
 
        <• ooi
        o.n>
                                                                                                                                             a.on
                                                                                                                                             I^B.OIO
                                                                                                                    • DM

                                                                                                                    • .Oil
                                                                                                                    •••II
                                                                                                                    • II
                                                                                                                    •.II
                                                                                                                    • .OH
                                                                                                                    • 0)1
                                                                                                                   <0 IW
                                                                                                                   t an
                                                                                                                    •.on
                          R    Rejected  as  outlier  for  calculations  in  Section  9.

-------
                  TABLE  A-15.   PLANT L
(DATA OBTAINED PROM LINEN  SUPPLY  ASSOCIATION OP AMERICA)
Concentration. mn/I
n»« 1 111* 2
Pollutant
BOD)
TSS
Oil and greate
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
ptl
Zinc
Chromium
TOC
Influent
7)7
»«
W
|)
<0.0002
<0.02
0.07
IO.C
2.1
O.M
1*7
Effluent
1)
100
12
0.)
<0.0002
<0.02

-------
                                                       TABLE  A-16.   PLANT M
Concentration, mg/l

Pollutant
pH
BOD*
COD
TOC
TSS
Oil and grease
Phosphorus.
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Capper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Clly
Water
7.0




0. 001
0.006

~0.60
Cltliwnl
J.J
210
420
ISO
56
24
0.3)
0.00)
0.008
<0.00)
0.30
(0.020
0.001

-------
                                                    TABLE A-17.  PLANT H
OS
PolhilanI
BOO,
TSS
Oil and grease
tead
Mercurf
Nickel
Cadmium
Zinc
Ovomluni
TOC
PH
Day
hllucnl
1,790
•90
389
0.6
<0.0001

O.II
303
7.0
Day 2
hllucnl
2,700
«20
111
0.3
< 0.0002

-------
                             TABLE A-18.  PLflNT N
TOC
TSS
BODS
Cyanide
Phenol
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
                                        Concentration, mg/1
Pollutant
City
water
Raw
wastewater
darifier
effluent
Filter
effluent
 0.020
 0.005

 0.005*
<0.001
<0.002

                                   0.60
                                      A-19

-------
TABLE A-19.  PLANT N
Concentration, mg/1
Pollutant
Oil and grease



BOD,
j


COD
TOC
TSS
Phosphorus
Cyanide (total)
Phenol (total) '
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Phenol
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Dichlorobromomethane
Cnlorodibromometnane
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyi) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
DL-n-Butyl phthalate
Di-n-Octyi phthalate
Oiethyl phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Raw
waste water
17
7
20
16
157
137
215
143
240
63
40
7.0
< 0.002
0.038
0.051
0.039
0.138
0.071
0.055
O.OL4
0.609
0.0018
-
-
-
•
0.0006
-
_
-
0.002
0.005
0.0005
Clariiier
effluent
7
1
5
3
60
45
89
34
125
40
46
1.6
< 0.002
0.028
0.012
0.034
0.03L
0.066
0.050
0.011
0.244
0.002
-
0.07
0.038
-
-
-
0.002
0.067
0.36
0.007
0.005
0.10
0.003
0.012
Carbon
effluent
9
12

2
50
30
45
17
136
38
78
2.0
< 0.002
0.029
0.015
0.036
0.042
0.065
< 0.036
0.007
0.212
O.OOL
-
0.018
0.003
-
-
0.003
0.001
0.023
0.017
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.032
0.004
0.005
Filter
effluent
3
0
0
0
41
11
24
15
59
21
37
0.9
< 0.002
0.013
0.014
0.025
0.032
0,031
0.037
0.007
0.244

0.0007
0.095
-
0.010
-
-
-
0.016
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.031
0.006
0.003
       A-20

-------
                                            TABLE A-20.  PLANT Z
                                             (RESULTS IN mq/1)
KJ
OaV
1- tnlluenl
cCllucnt
2- Influent
diluent
)- Influent
ellluenl
»- InHiieirf
diluent
)- Inlluent
ellluenl
6- Inlluent
diluent
7- Inlluent
ellluent
•- Influent
el fluent
9- Inlluenl
effluent
10-lnlkicnl
ellluent
II- Influent
ellluent
12- Inlluenl
ellluenl
II- Influent
ellluent
14- Inlluent
effluent
19-liifl.ienl
ellluent
16-lnEluenl
ellluent
17- Inlluent
ellluent
IS- Inlluent
ellluenl
19-lnfluenl
eltluent
20- Inlluenl
ellluent
21 -Influent
ellluent
22-lnfluetil
ellluenl
21-lnfhient
ellluenl
Suspended
pll Solids
11.7 1100
9.) R DOQ R
II. T 9)0
10.
II.
10.
II.
r.
II.
10.
II.
10.
II.
10.
II.
9.
II.
II.
II.
1.
R 1070 R
1076
R mo R
9*0
140
jao
240
90
36
1300
BOO
860
270
11)0
3)0
1)00
320
9.1 tint
a.
li.
i.
•
•j ^
li'
u.
li.
8.
10.
10.
II.
s.
u.
ga
II.
7.
II.
II.
II.
II.
II.
370
18*0
7*0
1310
460
9'iO
710
900
110
960
700
1640
)90
1100
790
II tD
240
710
)2)
970
710
780
2.} R 440
11.1 940
9.7 R 170 R
BOD
1270
1144 R
1)40
1110 R
1)40
1479 R
1068
tit
mi
641
1129
496
17(1
992
1098
7)9
1980
670
12)0
820
700
397
1100
1080
170)
809
976
f>7l
960
7)0
2418
10))
2410
976
1MO
12)0
916
702
1144
814
«7SO
1910
30)0 R
710
270
310
140
570
290
490
260
1032
Ml
690
)n
«I3
217
>80
)60
1930
170
600
250
7M
220
1)30
)40
770
290 R
Copper
1.70
I.30R
1.60
1.10 R
1.67
1.10 R
1.40
0.50
1.30
0.63
HO
0.))
1.60
1.10
1.66
0.77
l.)l
1.00
2.00
1.7)
1.90
0.6)
2.00
I.W
1.70
0.66
1.60
0.8)
l.)l
0.9&
1.44
0.92
1.79
1.72
1.43
0.88
1.52
0.79
1.42
0.80
1.42
0.70
1.09
0.86
1.7)
1.30 R
Chromium
0.26
O.I4R
0.22
0.19 R
0.07
0.0) R
0.0*
0.02
0.23
0.10
0.19
0.0*
0.2)
0.14
0.20
0.14
0.2)
0.17
0.22
O.I)
0.29
0.10
0.30
0.70
0.3)
0.19
0.30
O.I)
0.23
0.16
0.19
0.09
0.21
0.12
0.27
0.18
0.22
0.13
0.21
0.08
0.19
0.08
0.17
0.09
0.31
O.I4H
Lead
4.70
3.01 R
4.90
2.80 R
4. 55
3.80 R
3.70
0.18
4.20
0.40
3.30
0.13
1.40
1.33
3.80
0.)}
2.70
0.13
3.90
1.20
4.00
0.20
4.20
1.60
3.90
0.30
4.00
0.4)
3.61
1.26
3.4B
2.06
3.48
1.70
4.13
2.48
4.37
1.2)
3.44
0.12
4.70
1.48
4.0)
I.4S
4.39
3.92 R
Zinc
4.10
2.60 R
1.20
2.30 R
4.00
3.40 R
3.30
0.13
4.00
0.50
2.90
0.12
3.40
1.10
3.20-
0.10
2.33
0.3)
3.00
0.76
2.63
0.09
3.30
1.06
3.60
0.12
3.30
0.40
3.11
I.OO-
3.17
1.78
3.25
l.)l
3.3)
2.1)
3.42
0.81
3.93
0.6S
3.36
I.OB
3.13
0.98
3.22
3.I4R
Nickel
0.13
0.14 R
0.18
O.I) R
0.14
0.14 R
0.12
<0.0i
O.I)
0.09
O.I)
<0.0)
0.19
0.06
0.12
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.13
<0.0)
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.08
0.10
0.06
O.I)
0.13
O.lf
O.I)
0.17
0.12
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.07
0.10
0.16
0.20
o.i) R
Antimony
0.08)
0.13 R
0.072
0.17 R
0.08K
0.10 R
0.091
0.110
0.071
0.14
0.066
0.091
0.072
0.074
0.060
0.14
0.069
0.091
0.094
0.084
0.078
0.074
0.091
0.04)
0.091
0.12
0.11
0.0)8
0.076
O.OfiO
0.091
0.094
0.076
0.091
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.063
0.11
0.0))
0.11
0.91 R
0.078
0.12
0.091
0.0 CO
        R  Rejected as outlier for calculations in Section 9.

-------
                                APPENDIX B

               SURVEY OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SPACE FOR
           WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES


     A study to  determine the  availability  of  space  for  the installation  of
equipment for treatment of industrial laundering wastewater was conducted by the
Jacobs Environmental Division of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. under EPA Mission
Contract No. 68-01-5767. The study consisted of a survey of <*5 randomly selected
sites located in  major metropolitan  areas  of the  United  States.  The sites  were
visited to gather information on plant size, plant operations and wastewater volumes
and to assess the availability of space for wastewater treatment.  Where space was
not readily available, an estimate of  the cost of preparing space or  acquiring new
space was made.

1.0  PURPOSE

     The  purpose  of this study  was to provide an estimate of the  percentage of
industrial launderers with available space, interior or exterior, for the  installation of
treatment systems and to provide a breakdown  of  costs expected to be incurred by
facilities lacking readily available space.

     A worst-case  cost estimate, previously  prepared,  indicated  that  costs for
treatment of laundry wastes could be prohibitive  if space for equipment was not
available.  Since input from  industry sources indicated that space was generally not
available, it was evident that a site survey of the industry was necessary.

2.0  SURVEY APPROACH

2.1  Target Population:  Linen Supply and Industrial Launderers

     The original  design of the survey was to encompass  sampling from Industrial
Launderers (SIC 7218)  and  Linen Supply  (SIC 7213).  In order to ascertain the
composition and extent of these  two segments of the laundry industry,  reference
was made to two  sources;  e.g., County  Business  Patterns  and the EPA  Draft
Development Document for Autos and Other Laundries. Table 2-1 presents the total
number of U.S. establishments from these sources.
                                        B-l

-------
   TABLE  2-1.   REFERENCED NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS IN  U.S.
              INDUSTRIAL LAUNDERERS (SIC 7218)
                   LINEN SUPPLY (SIC 7213)
     Primary SIC
.	„————.-                Reference
 7213          7218
 U67            913              County Business Patterns, 1976

 1300           1000              EPA Draft Development Document,
                                 1978
                           B-2

-------
     It was recognized during  the initial  planning  of  the  survey
that the most  severe  economic  impact due  to  lack of space   for
treatment  systems  would more  likely  occur  in  metropolitan   or
land-congested areas. Therefore, a decision  was  made to  initiate
the  survey in concentrated  metropolitan  centers.   It  was also
felt  that industrial  launderers  and  linen  suppliers would   be
found to be located  near  these  centers  approximately   to   the
degree that population is concentrated.

     The Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) was chosen
as  the geographic unit on which  to base  the  sample design.,    It
has  been  estimated  that  at  least  75  percent   of the U.S.
population is located  within  SMSAs.  For  a  given  metropolitan
area,  an  SMSA may  include  a more representative, cross section
than  units  having   political  boundaries   such  as  cities   or
counties.

     Since a major component  of survey costs  for this study  was
travel to the SMSA rather than travel within a metropolitan area,
the  five largest SMSAs which include the cities of New York,  Los
Angeles,  Philadelphia, Chicago,  and  Detroit  were  chosen  for
survey.  This provided sampling of laundries in areas of  heaviest
population concentration  while covering the largest fraction   of
the laundry  industry for a-given number of trips.

     Since it was necessary to formulate a survey design and plan
which  would encompass all industrial .launderers and linen supply
including    those  not   having  SIC  7218  or  7213  a.s  primary
classifications, the sampling frame was based on information from
two  sources:   telephone directory  yellow  pages  and  Dun  and
Bradstreet Market  Identifiers  data  base.    Both  sources  were
required because little  overlap was  found to exist between  the
two  sources.  Table  2-2  shows the state of  knowledge concerning
establishments  in  these  two industries.

     It can  be seen   from the above  table  that   one  industrial
laundry or linen supply  in seven  (14.2%)  is located  in one of the
five largest SMSAs.


2.2  Target  Population:   Industrial  Laundries


     During  the course of  the  study,  emphasis was  directed toward
 industrial   laundering   as  the   target   population    since   this
industry generates larger  pollutant   loads  and  is more  likely to
be regulated.   Since many  linen  supply  establishments also   have
 industrial   laundering as  a   secondary or   other   SIC operation,
however,   linen  supplies  were   not   excluded  from   the  list of
potential  survey  sites.
                             B-3

-------
TABLE 2-2.  NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS* IN FIVE LARGEST STANDARD
                METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
               INDUSTRIAL LAUNDERERS  (SIC 7218)
                    LINEN SUPPLY  (SIC 7213)
Standard
Metropolitan Dun&Bradstreet
Statistical Market
Area identifiers
New York
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Chicago
Detroit
Subtotal
Remainder of U.S.
In SMS A
Outside SMS A
National Total
118
75
45
60
53
351
1414
705
2470
Telephone Both D&B Net
Directory and Composite
Yellow Yellow Sampling
Pages Pages Frame
117 72 163
88 26 137
79 22 102
69 29 100
64 27 90
417 176 592



* Establishments which declare SIC 7218 or SIC 7213 as primary
  through sixth Standard Industrial Classification to D&B
  Marketing Services.
                             B-4

-------
     Because the target pope Is-!•:•:  c-r.sizrtsc  cf  both telephone
directory listings and Dun & r-r^s-rsst data with little overlap,
,md  since  there  was  no  •* ?  to  classify telephone listings,
estimates of the number of industrial laundry establishments were
made  by  using the  fraction  previously  indicated  for  Dun  &
Bradstreet.  Table 2-3 shows these estimates.

     It can be seen that  from  this  estimate  approximately  18
percent of all U.S. industrial  launderers occur in  one  of  the
five largest SMSAs.


2.3  Site Selection


     To assure  that all  industrial  laundering facilities  were
included in the target population  for potential site surveys, the
total known  list of facilities in both SIC 7213 and SIC  7218 in
the five  SMSAs  was used for the  sampling frame. Facilities were
numbered,  and, from a list of  random numbers,  were assigned an
order from which to be chosen to be surveyed.

     Through telephone contacts,   sites were either scheduled for
survey  visits  or eliminated  from  the survey.  When requested,
Section  308 letters were sent to  scheduled sites.  The  following
criteria were used for scheduling  sites:

               a)  Must  not be a small operator; must have
                   at  least ten employees.

               b)  Must  have  industrial laundering  as at least
                   ten percent of  plant operation.


     Table  2-4 shows  the number  of  sites contacted and  scheduled
for  survey.  Los  Angeles    sites  were  randomly  selected  and
contacted   from   telephone  directory  listings before  Dun  and
Bradstreet  listings were available.


 2.4  Site  Survey


      For  consistency,  a  survey form  was developed  for   use  by the
 field  survey personnel.  The form includes  information  regarding
 plant  production,  waste  water generation,   existing  treatment and
 space   available   for treatment  units.    A   copy  of   the  form  is
 attached.   In  addition to  completing  the forms, survey personnel
 prepared  diagrams indicating  potential   locations   for   treatment
 systems.

      The  treatment  system  for   which  space  requirements  were
                              B-5

-------
      TABLE 2-3.   NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL LAUNDERiiRS* IN FIVE
                   LARGEST SMSAs.   (SIC 7218)
fBB9iS«S8S39S8S83
Standard
Metropolitan
Statistical
Araa
AC€a


New York
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Chicago
Detroit
Subtotal
Remainder of U.
In SMSA
Outside SMSA
National Total
Dun & Bradstreet
Market
Identifiers

SIC 7218 SIC 7218
and only
SIC 7213
118 35
75 27
45 15
60 29
53 26
351 132
S.
1414 419
705 185
2470 736
Net
Composite
Sampling
IP *p am a
f t BU1C


163
137
102
100
90
592




Estimated
Industry
Total Number
of Establishments
%f ± bw W 0 mf A * ^ • l»H » & * *• ^
(SIC 7218 only)


48
49
34
48
44
223

708
312
1243
* Establishments which have SI 721B as primary through sixth
  Standard Industrial Classification.
                              B-6

-------
       TABLE 2-4.  NUMBER OF LAUNDRY SITES CONTACTED
                       AND SCHEDULED
SMSA       Composite      Contacted       Scheduled
         Sampling Frame
New York
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Chicago
Detroit
163
137
102
100
90
93
28
43
44
42
14
12
9
8
7
   Total       592            250            50
                          B-7

-------
developed  is system  la: equalization fallowed  by dissolved   air
flotation (DAP).  The following units and  equipr snt are  included:

               o  equalization tank (above or below grade)

               o  dissolved air flotation  (DAF)

               o  sludge handling or vacuum filtration unit
                  (only necessary for.flows over 48,000  gpd)

               o  chemical storage


     Table 2-5 presents space requirements for this system for  a
range of industrial laundry waste water flows.   For  sites where
other operations take  place, i.e., linen supply, diaper service,
etc., only the flow from industrial laundering was considered for
treatment.

     Where adequate  space  was  not readily  available inside or
outside  a  laundry  facility,  the  possibility  of   relocating
equipment to provide space was examined.  Where no space could be
provided, the possibility of acquiring adjacent property for  the
location of treatment equipment was examined.

     Although 50  sites were scheduled, only 45 were successfully
surveyed. Once the  survey personnel were in the field, two sites
were  found  to  not  fit the required  criteria; i.e.,  did  not
conduct  industrial  laundering  despite telephone confirmation of
such,  and three  sites  refused  admittance  despite  receipt of
Section  308 letters.   Table 2-6  shows  the breakdown of  sites
visited  and actually surveyed.
 3.0  SURVEY RESULTS


     Tables 3-1  through   3-5  present  data on  individual sites
 surveyed  in the  five  SMSAs.

     The  following  items  are presented  in the tables:

     o  Number of employees -  total  number of plant employees
        including office  staff and drivers.

     o  Percent  industrial - where other operations take place
        at the same  facility,  this figure represents the
        percent  of  total  production  (pounds per year)
        attributed  to industrial  laundry.

     o  Industrial  production  - pounds  per year processed.
                             B-B

-------
        TABLE  2-5.   SPACE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  TREATMENT  OF
                INDUSTRIAL  LAUNDERING WASTE  WATER
    Industrial  Laundering
     Waste  Water  Flow
           (gpd)
   Space Requirement
for Treatment (sq.ft.)*
           2,400

           4,800

           7,200

           9,600

          14,400

          2 4,.00.0

          36,000

          48,000

          72,000

          96,000

         120,000

         135,000

         150,000

         250,000
           40

           54

           70

           84

          LOS

          107

          160

          200

          250

          300

          400-

          450

          500

          800
* Assuming equalization tanks below grade,
                            B-9

-------
        TABLE 2-6.  INDUSTRIAL LAUNDERING SITES SCHEDULED
                     AND SURVEYED (SIC 7218)

— m3«3 —3383 = 888883888 =38SSSS=S383aS33S8S8=SSSB3tS = SS8S««B388S88S338S3S
              Number of   Sites Eliml-                   Number of
                Sites      nated in      Sites Refusing    Sites
    SMSA      Scheduled      Field         Admittance    Surveyed


New York          14            1                2           11

Los Angeles       12                                         12

Philadelphia       9                             18

Chicago            81                             7

Detroit            7                                          ?

     Totals       50            2                 3          45
                              B-10

-------
                            TABLE  3-1.  SURVEY RESULTS - NEW YORK


Code |  No.   Pet  * Production Industrial Sep.    Existing.  EqualIz.  Required.  Available Cose
        Em pi . Indus t Lb/Year    Plow       Stream  Treatment  Capacity  Equipment  Space
                                Gal/Day







2
H











N

N

N

N
N

N

N

N

N
N

N

1

2

3

4
5

6

7

8

9
10

11

136

44

60

187
25

15

13

73

217
12

50

90

100

100

10
100

100

100

100

10
100

10

4,000,

355,

1,900,

850,
130,

450,

127,

1,870,

1,400,
40,

130,

000

600

000

000
000

000

000

000

000
000

000

40

5

68

10
2

8

2

24

B
1

2

,000 NO 1 2,000

,000

,000 1 3,000

,600 NO 1 15,000
,500

,000

,000

,000

,500 NO 1 15,000
,741

,500 NO 1 10,000

1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2

1
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
INT

INT

— —

EXT
EXT

EXT

EXT

INT

INT
TNT

INT





6

3
3

3
5
3



4


4


-------
                           TABLE  3-2.  SURVEY RESULTS - LOS ANGELES



Coda I  No.   Pet  . Production Industrial Sep.   Existing. Equaliz. Required. Available  Cost
        Em pi  Indust Lb/Year    Plow       Stream Treatment Capacity Equipment Space     -Items
                                Gal/Day
L
L
L
L

S1"
L

L
L
L
L
L
L
1
2
3
4

5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
45
62
16
40

20
36

50
70
48
70
52
40
100
95
100
20

100
100

25
100
40
40
100
100
1,000,
3,750,
151,
900,

1,070,
1,143.

1,065,
3,795,
000
000
800
000

000
000

000
000
560,000
520,000
3,120,000
1,200,000
16,000
19,000 NO
4,500
10,600 NO

8,500
13,100

11,000 YES
82,000
11,200 NO
19,000
42,000
15,000
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
10,
5,
3,


50,
2,

5,
1,
18,
2,
5,
000
000
000


000
500

000
500
000
000
600
1,200
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
EXT
EXT
EXT
INT

EXT
EXT

EXT
EXT
EXT
EXT
EXT
EXT

-------
                            TABLE  3-3.   SURVEY  RESULTS - PHILADELPHIA
Coda |  No.   Pet  . Production Industrial Sep.   Existing. Equallz. Required. Available Cost
        Empi  Indust Lb/Year    Flow       Stream Treatment Capacity Equipment Space     Items
                                'Gal/Day
p 1
P '2
P 3
P 4
P 5
T 6
P 7
P 8
70
BO
100
175
60
64
43
51
100
100
100
40
100
100
100
30
2,700,
1.716,
•5,100V
6,240,
750,
1,872,
654,
1,650,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
28,000
20,000
60,000,
75,500 NO
20,000
26,000
14,000
36,000 NO
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
5
5

10
9
1
,000
,000
,600
,000
700
,000
,000
,350

1
2
1
2
1
Z
1
2
2
2
1
2
EXT
EXT
EXT
INT
INT
INT
EXT
INT
3
3
3
4
4

3


-------
                            TABLE 3-4.  SURVEY RESULTS - CHICAGO



 Code  I  No.    Pet   .  Production  Industrial  Sep.    Existing.  Equaliz.  Required.  Available Cost
        Empl   Indust  Lb/Year     Flow       Stream  Treatment  Capacity  Equipment  Space     Items
                                 Gal/Day
r.
C 1
C 2
C 3
C 4
C 5
C 6
C 7
130
300
29
80
100
50
100
25
30
100
100
100
100
100
2,540,
B, 514,
762.
1,404,
624,
1,900,
6,175,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
30,000 NO
150,000 YES
10,000
20 ',000
40,000
45,000
76,000
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
30,
75,
5,
1*
7,
30,
50,
000
000
000
BOO
500
000
000
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
EXT
INT
INT
INT
EXT
EXT
EXT
3
4

''
3
3
3

-------
                            TABLE  3-5.  SURVEY RESULTS - DETROIT



Code f  No.   Pet   . Production Industrial Sep.    Existing.  Equaliz. Required. Available Cost
        Em pi  Indust Lb/Year    Flow       Stream  Treatment  Capacity Equipment Space     Items
                                Gal/Day

   D   1   300    100 11,000,000    250,000


   D   2   500    100 10..000.000    135,000

   D   3     IB    100     500,000


   D   4     60      15     936,000

«
CDS   200    100     500,000

   D   6     12      40     122,000


   D   7     55    100     520,000
50,000

35,000
16,000

15,000 NO

70,000
6,000 NO

50,000

1

1


1

1


1

15,000

25,000


5,500

17,000


6,000

1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
EXT

INT
EXT

INT

EXT
EXT

INT

3

4
3

4

J
3




-------
     o  Industrial vaste water -iG« -
        water attributed to industrial production.  Where
        flow was'hot known*,* it was assumed to be proportional
        >.o industrial production.

     o  -Separate-streams - where other operations take place,
        existence or not of "Segregated waste flows was
        identified.

     o  Existing 'treatment - equalization, dissolved
        air flotation.(2)

     o  Equalization capacity - where equalization exists,
        the capacity is presented.

     o  Required equipment -.an, identification of
        which units would be required at each site.  Where
        equalization already exists but is not of sufficient
        capacity-or could- not be used because of mixing with
        other wastes (i.e., lin;en wastes) , it is indicated as
        being required.  Note;  Most sites in Chicago have
        treatment In .piacTTctriirindustrial l.a.qndry wastes due to a
        recent* municipal regulation.  Required [treatment units
        in the table reflect units added .as a result of local
        regul-atlon's;

     o  Space available - indicates interior or exterior

     o  Cost items'- an-identification of specific cost
        items related to the location of a treatment system.
        The- items' include:

       _3 - housing required for. exterior location,

       4 - interior -modification required such as
           relocating equipment or interior constraints
           to excavation,

       5 - acquisition :of; additional, property,

       6 - relocation of facility when no adjacent land is
           available. .

3.1  Cost Estimates


     Foil-owing-the., survey, the.  costs for  making  or  acquiring
.space -for  efaeh- si±e  not having  readily  -available space were
developed.

     o  Sousing  - a'fc £25 per square foot.,,, con's t ruction of an
        enclosure to house  a.DAP unit.
                             B-16

-------
                                    I
     o  Equipment relocation - all but one site requiring
        relocation were for air.or equipment:.   One. site in
        Chicago required relocation of aajor  equipment and the
        cost estimate is from plant management.  For sites where
        interior excavation would be required, an estimate of
        excess labor costs was made based on  excavation volume.

     o  Acquisition of additional property -  only one site
        required such.  An estimate of property values in the
        area was obtained from local authorities.

     o  Relocation of facility - one site, surrounded by streets
        could not acquire additional space.  No cost estimate was
        made for relocating should it be required.


     Table 3-6  summarizes1 the survey  findings  by  the  type of
locational costs to.be incurred by sites in each- SMSA.

     Tab-le 3-7.  pr.ese.nts  the  estimated costs  to be -incurred by
surveyed ' facilities ' without  readily  available,  space.   Also
included' in'the  'liable  are-estimated capital  cojsfes .pf treatment
for each  facility as presented in  the development document, and
the subsequent, .percent increase in  that  cost due to  additional
locational costs'*

     Not. included..in the cost  estimates: •.for any facilities  are
costs for  segregating "waste streams-or the.  additional,, "'cost for
placing equalization   tanks below grade.  The cost-of segregating
industrial laundry wastes where other operations take place would
be  minor, but could hamper operations at  som-e small facilities.
The additional cost of below grade equalization is estimated at a
maximum of 10 percent  of the cost of  an .equalization tank above
ground.


3.2  Statistical Analysis'of Survey Results.


     From the random sample of the five largest SMSAs, confidence
interval estimates were computed  for the  fraction of the  industry
which is  expected to  be impacted  by locational.-costs for  waste
water treatment.

     Stratified'sampling parameters for each- of • the ...five SMS As
were given  in Table   2-3.   Results of the survey.-were given , in
Table 3-6.  For  the  purpose of interval  estimates, thosepdatV in
Table  3-6  are.  recapped   in  Table  3-8   in  terms of  extensive,
moderate,   or   no    co's't   impact   -traceable   $o>   Vocational
considerations.

     Using standard  stratified   sampling  estimation  techniques
B-17

-------
   TABLE 3-6.  SUMMARY--OF PROVISIONAL COSTS FOR  INDUSTRIAL  LAUNDERERS
                 TO ACCOMMODATE WASTE .TREATMENT  SYSTEMS
SMSA    Number  .  	
       Facilities  None
        Visited
                     Modifications Required

                     Interior           Exterior
NY

LA

Phil.

Detroit

Chicago

Survey
Total
Average
per
Laundry
                                                                 Facility
                                    Exten-             Land  and   Reloca-
                          Minor     sive       Housing  Housing    tion
11

12

 8

 7

 7


45
 4

12

 2

 1

 1
2(32,000)
3 {$13,500) 1 ($35, 400)  (1)	
2($11,000)           4{$38,700)

2($8,500)            4($57,000)

1($5,000) 1($10Q,000)4($47,90;Q)
20   7         1         15          1.         (1)
     ($26,500) ($100,000)  ($157,000) ($35,400)  	
                $3790    $100,000
                             $10,500  $35,400
 (1)
     No  cost  estimate  made.
                                  B-1B

-------
         TABLE 3-7.  INCREASE IN CAPITAL COSTS DUE TO
                  ADDITIONAL LOCATIONAL COSTS
saeseassss:
Facility
N-3
N-4
N-5
N-6
N-7
N-9
N-ll
P-l
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-7
C-l
C-2
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
Industrial
Flow (gpd)
68,000
10,600
2,500
8,000
2,000
8,500
2,500
28,000
20,000
60 , oao
75,500
20,000
14,000
30,000
150,000
20,000
40,000
45,000
76,000
250/000
135,000
16,000-
15,000
70,000
6,000
Approximate
Capital Cost
of Treatment
160,000
.52,oog
38,000
45,000
35,000
46,000
38,000
95,000
73,000
150,000
165,000
73,000
58,000
100,000
215,000
73,000
120,000
130,000
165,000
280,000
208,000
60,J)00
58,000
160,000
43,000
Additional
Location's! :
Cost
*
7i350
3,750
35,400
2,400
1,000
1,000
10,000
7,35"0
14,000
g,5«fd
2,500
7,350
10,000
100,000
5,000
10,900
10,900
16,100
31, .250
7, -500
7,500
1,'OOff
14,000
4,400
Percent
Increase of
Gap. Cost
*
14
10
79
7
2
3
10
10
9
5
3
13
10
46
7
9
8
10
11
4
12
•2
9
10
* This site had no space and could not acquire adjacent
  land.  No cost estimate was made.
                             B-19

-------
TABLE 3-8.  SUMMARY OF SAMPLE PROPORTIONS AFFECTED BY SPACE
REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFLUENT TREATMENT SYSTEMS (SIC 7218 ONLY)

SMSA Stratum
Size
NY 48
LA 49
Phil. 34
Chicago 43
Detroit 44
Sub .total 223
Remainder.
of U.S. 1020
Total 1243

Sam pi e
Size
11
12
8
7
7
45



Sampl ing.
Fraction
.229
.244
.235
.146
.159
.20?


I
None
4
12
2
1
1
20


.ocational (
Moderate
5
0
6
5
6
22


:osts
Extensive
2
0
0
1
0
3


                          B-20,

-------
based upon correction factors for finite strata,  one obtains   the
following statistics:

          p  =  0.0699; estimated fraction of five SMSAs
                with extensive locatiofial costs.

          s  «  0.0370; standard error of estimate p

          T  •  16; estimated number of laundries out of
                223 with extensive locational costs.


     The estimate p,  above/  is - the  point  estimate.  Assuming
normal approximation to the sampling  distribution of  p, one can
calculate an upper confidence limit  for P, the  fraction .of   the
five SMS As affected.  Since confidence intervals 'depend upon   the
degree of confidence specified, the following  alternate  interval
estimates are obtained:

             Pr(0 
-------
        small as well-as-large ieriiities.

     o  Approximately seven percent o£ the industrial
        laundry facilities in the five SMSAs will  incur
        extensive locational costs.

     o  Approximately. «»3 percent of the industrial laundry
        facilities in the five SMSAs will incur zero to
        moderate locational costs.


     Although the  results of the" survey  may  not.necessarily be
reflected	nationwide, it can  be assumed that the sampling frame
of aajor metropolitan areas represents an-upper bound   of  impact
and that .natiQnvi.de, this impact may be even less.
                            B-22

-------
                                                     Personnel.


                             UDNDJIXES stucrex FOBM
Name of Facility:

Address:
Telephone :_

Contact:	

Title:
1.  Classification of Primary Business

    SIC 7213 Linen Supply

    SIC 7218 Industrial Laundry

2.  Plant Operation

    a.  Total number of Employees

    b.  Hours of Washroom Operation

    c.  Days/Yr. of Washroom Operation
3.  Processes Used  Approximate number of pounds processed annually

    a.  Water Wash Only                                        	

    b.  Dual-Process                                           	

    c.  Dry Cleaning Only                                      	

4.  Annual Plant Production
    a.  Annual Poundage Processed

        1.   Percent Linen Supply

        2.   Percent Industrial

        3^   Percent Other
             (Family,  Institutional,  Diaper Service, Etc.)

        4.   Have you  bad any  recent  increases or  decreases in
             the  percent of  Industrial  Laundry handled?
             How  much? Cpast year)
                                      B-23

-------
        S.  Do you have the capability to handle future increases
            in the percent of Industrial Laundry?              ___
            HOW much?                                          __
S.  Hater Psage and Flow Patterns

    a.  Hater Source

        1.  City                                               	

        2.  Well                                               J	
                                                                  LS        XL
        3.  Other                                              	 .**—

    b.  Estimate of daily water use 'ffir laundering             	 	 GPD

        Source '(toeter reading, water biU,, guess, etc.)        	 	

    c.  PeaJe'washvatBr-fiow--ia gallons per miiiute              	 	GPM

        Source. (sanitary, distric surcharge, meter reading,  et

    d.  Duration, of peak flow                                  	

    e.  Battem of flow



6.  Effluent Discharge

    a.  if both Linen Supply and Industrial Laundering are  done:

        1.  Are wastewater streams separate?                   	

        •2.  If not, how .can this be accomplished?
    b.  •Method, of .Discharge •

        1..  Sa.onin.icipal sewer connection

        2..  Dire.etly to surface water

7.  Ing-Slant Controls

    1.  lint screwi

    2.  Catch, basin or sunp  (size)
                                     B-24

-------
    3.   Screen at bottom of catch basin

    4.   Heat Reclaimer

    5.   Other (specify)	
    Wastewater Treatment

    a*   Is vasfcewater treatment practiced?

    b.   If "yes", please describe;   _
    c.  Is wastewater recycled?

        1.  What percent?

9.  Space Availability

    (Please diagram all areas)

    a.  Readily available space  (clear, unused areas)

        1.  Location  (interior,  exterior, basement. 'roof, etc.)
        2.  Distance from washroom equipment or. available tank

            Distance from sewer connection
        3.  Availability of power and distance from power supply

            Availability of lights                             _

            Availability of heat                               _

        4,  Will housing be. necessary?                         __
    b.   If space is not readily available,  then existing space, that could be
         made-available.
         1.   Location

         2.   Distance from equipment  and sewer

                                      B-25

-------
      3.   Availability of utilities and distance from power twpply.

      4.   Necessary modifications (briefly describe)

          a.   Movement of light equipment_	_—_—.

          b.   Movement of heavy equipment

          c.   Breaking through concrete

              Walls                                          	

              Floor                                          	
          d.   Can equipment necessary for performing
              modifications gain access to the area
              If not, what will have to be done to permit access
          e.   Bow will implementation, of. modifications Impact
              plant operation?
          f.  Hill housing of equipment be necessary?
   c.   If no space is availableitthen, space that can be acquired;

       1.  Renting	,
           Leasing
           or Purchase
           a.  Location

           b.  Distance from equipment and sewer

           c.  Availability of utilities

10. Summary of Cost Itmes (piping, reinforcements, etc.)
                                   B-26

-------