Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0762
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-08-18T04:00Z

Chemicals
Used
in
Water­
Based
Washing
Operations
at
Industrial
and
Institutional
Laundries
­
Generic
Scenario
for
Estimating
Occupational
Exposures
and
Environmental
Releases
­
Draft­

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
Chemical
Engineering
Branch
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
27
August
2004
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
1­
1
1.1
Scope
....................................................................................................
1­
1
1.2
Background...........................................................................................
1­
1
1.3
Purpose
.................................................................................................
1­
2
1.4
Methodology
for
Developing
Estimation
Techniques
............................
1­
2
1.5
Content
.................................................................................................
1­
3
1.6
Contact
Information
..............................................................................
1­
4
2.0
INDUSTRY
SUMMARY
AND
BACKGROUND
..........................................................
2­
1
3.0
PROCESS
DESCRIPTIONS.....................................................................................
3­
1
3.1
Water­
Based
Washing
Process
..............................................................
3­
1
3.2
Chemicals
Used
in
Water­
Based
Washing.............................................
3­
4
3.2.1
Detergent
Formulations
.............................................................
3­
4
3.2.2
Bleaches
....................................................................................
3­
7
3.2.3
Antichlors,
Sours,
Softeners,
and
Starches
.................................
3­
7
4.0
SCREENING
LEVEL
ESTIMATION
TECHNIQUES/
METHODS
....................................
4­
1
4.1
General
Facility
Calculations.................................................................
4­
1
4.1.1
Operating
Days..........................................................................
4­
1
4.1.2
Throughput
of
Chemical
of
Interest
...........................................
4­
2
4.1.3
Number
of
Sites.........................................................................
4­
6
4.1.4
Annual
Number
of
Containers
Used
per
Facility........................
4­
7
4.2
Environmental
Release
Assessments
.....................................................
4­
8
4.2.1
Transfer
Operation
Losses
to
Air
from
Loading
Laundry
Cleaning
Product
into
Washers
(
Release
1)
..........................................................
4­
8
4.2.2
Container
Residue
(
Release
2)
...................................................
4­
9
4.2.3
Open
Surface
Losses
to
Air
During
Container
Cleaning
.................
(
Release
3)...............................................................................
4­
12
4.2.4
Release
from
the
Water­
Washing
Process
(
Release
4)..............
4­
12
4.2.5
Mass
Balance...........................................................................
4­
14
4.3
Occupational
Exposure
Assessments
...................................................
4­
15
4.3.1
Number
of
Workers
.................................................................
4­
15
4.3.2
Exposure
from
Loading
Laundry
Cleaning
Products
into
Washers
(
Exposure
A).......................................................................................
4­
17
4.3.3
Exposure
During
Transport
Container
Cleaning
(
Exposure
B)
.4­
21
4.3.4
Exposure
to
Vaporized
Chemicals
During
Steaming
and
Drying
(
Exposure
C)
.......................................................................................
4­
25
5.0
SUMMARY
OF
EQUATIONS
AND
SAMPLE
CALCULATIONS
....................................
5­
1
5.1
Summary
of
Release
and
Exposure
Estimation
Equations......................
5­
1
5.2
Chemical
Release
and
Exposure
Examples............................................
5­
8
5.3
Additional
Examples
of
Determining
the
Throughput
of
the
Chemical
......
of
Interest
............................................................................................
5­
11
6.0
DATA
GAPS/
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
FUTURE
WORK/
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES......
6­
1
6.1
Data
Gaps
.............................................................................................
6­
1
6.2
Control
Technologies
............................................................................
6­
1
7.0
REFERENCES......................................................................................................
7­
1
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(
Continued)

iii
Appendix
A:
Chemical
Engineering
Branch
Quality
Criteria
Appendix
B:
Literature
Search
Documentation
Appendix
C:
Background
and
Equations
for
the
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
and
the
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
Appendix
D:
Summary
of
Constants
Used
in
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Vapor
Generation
Models
Appendix
E:
Table
of
Dermal
Assessment
Factors
iv
LIST
OF
TABLES
Page
2­
1
Amount
of
Laundry
Processed
per
Facility
......................................................
2­
2
3­
1
Typical
Detergent
Product
Formulation
...........................................................
3­
4
4­
1
Number
of
Operating
Days
..............................................................................
4­
1
4­
2
Average
Annual
Use
Rate
of
Powdered
Laundry
Products...............................
4­
5
4­
3
Average
Annual
Use
Rate
of
Liquid
Laundry
Products
....................................
4­
5
4­
4
Defaults
for
the
Product
in
which
Chemicals
are
Typically
Received...............
4­
6
4­
5
Maximum
Number
of
Sites
..............................................................................
4­
7
4­
6
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Transfers
.....
4­
9
4­
7
Hours
of
Operation
per
Day.............................................................................
4­
9
4­
8
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Container
Cleaning
.........................................................................................................
4­
12
4­
9
Number
of
Total
Workers
and
Production
Workers
per
Site............................
4­
16
4­
10
Number
of
Exposed
Workers
per
Site
.............................................................
4­
16
4­
11
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Transfers
4­
18
4­
12
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Container
Cleaning
.........................................................................................................
4­
22
4­
13
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Drying
and
Steaming
Operations.......................................................................................
4­
27
5­
1
Summary
of
Release
and
Exposures
Calculation..............................................
5­
1
5­
2
Default
Value
Declaration
and
Documentation
................................................
5­
7
6­
1
On­
Site
Control
Technologies
and
Industrial
and
Institutional
Laundries
.........
6­
1
v
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Page
3­
1
Flow
Diagram
for
Industrial/
Institutional
Laundering
Operations
....................
3­
2
4­
1
Decision
Logic
Diagram
for
Determining
the
Use
Rate....................................
4­
3
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
1­
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Scope
This
generic
scenario
provides
information
sufficient
to
estimate
potential
occupational
exposures
and
environmental
releases
from
the
use
of
laundry
chemicals
manually
or
automatically
added
to
water
washing
machines
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries.
It
does
not
cover
worker
exposures
or
environmental
releases
from
pretreatment,
dry­
cleaning,
or
other
activities
that
may
occur
at
an
industrial
or
institutional
laundry.
This
scenario
covers
chemical
components
of
liquid
and
powder
alkaline,
antichlor,
bleach,
builder,
detergent,
fabric
softener,
sour,
starch,
and
other
laundry
cleaning
products.
Materials
used
in
laundries
are
generally
non­
volatile;
however,
fragrances
blended
in
laundry
cleaning
products
to
cover
the
odor
of
other
laundry
chemicals
are
typically
volatile.
Therefore,
this
scenario
includes
assessments
for
both
non­
volatile
and
volatile
chemicals
used
in
laundries.

1.2
Background
Under
Section
5
of
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA),
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA's)
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
(
OPPT)
evaluates
new
chemicals
(
i.
e.,
those
chemicals
not
listed
on
the
TSCA
inventory),
for
potential
risks
associated
with
their
stated
and
potential
uses.
Existing
chemicals
may
also
be
evaluated
under
Sections
4
and
6
of
TSCA
for
potential
risks
associated
with
their
various
uses.
In
these
cases,
EPA
may
develop
regulatory
controls
and/
or
non­
regulatory
actions
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
from
harm
resulting
from
manufacturing,
processing,
transport,
disposal,
and
current
and
potential
new
uses
of
existing
and
new
chemical
substances.

A
new
chemical,
with
certain
exceptions,
is
any
chemical
that
is
not
currently
on
the
TSCA
Inventory
of
Chemicals
in
commerce.
The
new
chemical
review
under
Section
5
of
TSCA
requires
an
identification
and
mitigation
of
potential
risks
with
the
stated
and
potential
uses
of
new
chemicals.
Under
Section
5
of
TSCA,
companies
are
required
to
submit
a
Premanufacture
Notification
(
PMN)
at
least
90
days
prior
to
commercial
production
(
including
importation).
The
Chemical
Engineering
Branch
(
CEB)
is
responsible
for
preparing
the
occupational
exposure
and
release
assessments
of
the
new
chemicals.
These
assessments
are
based
on
information
provided
by
the
PMN
submitter,
information
from
readily
available
databases
and
literature
sources,
and
standard
estimating
techniques
used
by
CEB.
Frequently,
data
on
the
new
chemical
being
assessed
are
not
available.
In
the
event
that
information
is
unavailable,
CEB
relies
on
other
approaches
for
developing
exposure
and
release
assessments.
One
important
tool
that
CEB
uses
are
generic
scenarios.

CEB
has
developed
a
number
of
generic
scenarios
and
modeling
approaches
for
quantifying
sources
and
control
efficiencies
to
use
in
assessing
exposures
and
releases
for
various
industries
and
unit
operations.
These
generic
scenarios
contain
a
compilation
of
information
from
readily
available
sources
and
from
past
CEB
assessments.
They
have
helped
CEB
to
standardize
its
assessments.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
1­
2
1.3
Purpose
This
document
presents
a
standard
methodology
to
calculate
the
number
of
sites,
number
of
workers,
occupational
exposures,
environmental
releases,
media
of
release,
and
treatment
methods
for
new
chemical
substances
that
will
be
used
in
laundry
cleaning
products.
The
information
in
this
document
can
be
used
to
estimate
potential
occupational
exposures
and
environmental
releases
from
the
commercial
use
of
these
chemicals
in
water
washing
machines
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries.
The
scenario
does
not
cover
chemicals
used
for
pretreatment,
dry­
cleaning,
or
any
other
chemicals
not
directly
added
to
a
water
washing
machine.
Laundry
cleaning
products
are
used
in
the
washing
cycle
to
remove
stains
and
dirt,
brighten
and
soften
fabric,
eliminate
microorganisms,
and
finish
textiles.
Laundry
cleaning
products
may
include
alkalis,
antichlors,
bleaches,
builders,
detergents
(
including
surfactants),
fabric
softeners,
sours,
and
starches.
Materials
used
in
laundries
are
generally
non­
volatile;
however,
fragrances
used
in
laundry
cleaning
products
are
typically
volatile
chemicals,
and
are
included
in
this
scenario.

CEB
may
use
the
estimation
techniques
described
in
this
scenario
to
evaluate
PMNs
submitted
to
EPA
for
new
chemicals
to
be
used
in
water
washing
machines
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries;
CEB
may
also
use
these
techniques
to
evaluate
existing
chemicals
used
in
this
industry.
The
selection
of
this
generic
scenario
for
development
was
due
in
part
to
the
quantity
of
PMNs
submitted
each
year
for
new
chemicals
used
in
laundry
products.

Releases
and
exposures
from
the
manufacture
of
laundry
chemicals
and
the
formulation
of
the
chemicals
into
laundry
cleaning
products
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
scenario,
and
therefore
not
addressed.

1.4
Methodology
for
Developing
Estimation
Techniques
The
scenario
supersedes
the
EPA's
scenario
for
this
industry
dated
April
2002.
This
document
was
drafted
to
meet
the
May
24,
2004
CEB
Quality
Criteria
for
developing
generic
scenarios,
presented
in
Appendix
A.
This
version
of
the
generic
scenario
is
currently
undergoing
internal
CEB
review.
This
document
presents
information
readily
available
to
the
Agency,
as
well
as
data
collected
by
the
Agency
during
the
proposal
development
phase
of
the
industrial
laundries
effluent
limitation
guidelines
and
pretreatment
standards.
The
effluent
guidelines
data
were
collected
from
actual
field
surveys,
and
are
specific
to
the
use
of
laundry
cleaning
products
in
water
washing
machines
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries.
These
data
are
considered
to
be
of
highest
quality,
and
suitable
for
use
in
preparing
these
estimation
methodologies.
The
estimation
methods
presented
in
this
scenario
use
default
values
based
on
data
obtained
from
industry­
specific
sources,
supplemented
with
CEB
standard
industrial
defaults
from
a
variety
of
resources.
The
industrial
defaults
are
intended
to
be
used
when
sitespecific
information
is
not
available.

Research
preformed
during
the
creation
of
this
document
include
searches
for
process
descriptions,
operating
information,
chemicals
used,
wastes
generated,
waste
treatment,
worker
activities,
and
exposure
information.
The
data
presented
in
the
April
2002
generic
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
1­
3
scenario
were
updated
to
include
documents
and
databases
used
in
the
proposal
development
phase
of
the
industrial
laundries
effluent
limitation
guidelines
and
pretreatment
standards,
Organisation
for
Economic
Co­
operation
and
Development's
Emission
Scenario
Document
on
Industrial
Surfactants,
and
Kirk­
Othmer
Encyclopedia
of
Chemical
Technology.
Appendix
B
summarizes
sources
searched
while
updating
this
scenario.

This
scenario
presents
environmental
release
estimation
methodology
developed
from
industry­
specific
information.
The
detailed
description
of
laundry
cleaning
products
and
the
industry­
specific
operation
and
use
rate
data
are
all
strengths
of
this
document.
Additional
information
on
the
fraction
of
chemical
remaining
on
the
textile
item
after
washing
would
enhance
this
document.

1.5
Content
This
scenario
presents
methods
that
can
be
used
to
estimate
the
following
releases
of
and
exposures
to
chemicals
during
the
use
of
the
laundry
cleaning
products
in
water­
based
washing
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries:

 
Transfer
operation
losses
to
air
of
volatile
chemicals
of
interest
during
unloading;

 
Inhalation
and
dermal
exposures
to
powdered
and
liquid
chemicals
of
interest
during
transfer
into
washing
machines;

 
Release
to
water
of
wastes
generated
from
chemicals
of
interest
remaining
in
transport
containers;

 
Open
surface
losses
to
air
of
volatile
chemicals
of
interest
during
transport
container
cleaning;

 
Inhalation
and
dermal
exposures
to
powdered
and
liquid
chemicals
of
interest
during
transport
container
cleaning;

 
Release
of
chemicals
of
interest
to
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW)
from
the
water
discharge
and
to
air
from
the
evaporation
of
volatile
chemicals
of
interest
during
the
washing
process;
and
 
Inhalation
exposures
to
volatile
chemicals
of
interest
during
steaming
and
drying.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
1­
4
1.6
Contact
Information
Technical
questions
should
be
addressed
to:

Greg
Macek,
EPA
Work
Assignment
Officer
Chemical
Engineering
Branch
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.
Washington,
DC
20460
Phone:
(
202)
564­
8516
Fax:
(
202)
564­
8528
e­
mail:
macek.
greg@
epa.
gov
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
2­
1
2.0
INDUSTRY
SUMMARY
AND
BACKGROUND
The
laundry
industry
can
be
categorized
into
two
main
categories:
industrial
and
institutional.
Industrial
and
institutional
laundries
are
of
similar
size;
however
they
launder
different
types
of
items.

Industrial
launderers
fall
under
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
code
7218
and
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
812332.

This
U.
S.
industry
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
supplying,
on
a
rental
or
contract
basis,
laundered
industrial
work
uniforms
and
related
work
clothing,
such
as
protective
apparel
(
flame
and
heat
resistant)
and
clean
room
apparel;
dust
control
items,
such
as
treated
mops,
rugs,
mats,
dust
tool
covers,
cloths,
and
shop
or
wiping
towels.
(
1)

Institutional
launderers
fall
primarily
under
SIC
codes
7213
and
7219
and
NAICS
code
812331.

This
U.
S.
industry
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
supplying,
on
a
rental
or
contract
basis,
laundered
items
such
as
table
and
bed
linens;
towels;
diapers;
and
uniforms,
gowns,
or
coats
of
the
type
used
by
doctors,
nurses,
barbers,
beauticians,
and
waitresses.
(
1)

Note
that
these
SIC
and
NAICS
codes
exclude
coin­
operated
laundries
and
drycleaners
which
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
generic
scenario.

Most
of
the
data
presented
in
this
generic
scenario
for
the
industrial
and
institutional
laundry
industry
are
based
on
data
obtained
by
EPA's
Office
of
Water
to
develop
pretreatment
standards
for
the
industrial
laundries
industry.
While
data
were
collected
for
both
institutional
and
industrial
laundries,
the
Office
of
Water
specifically
excluded
facilities
that
laundered
only
linen
items1
and
did
not
launder
any
industrial
textile
items2
from
the
data
presented
in
the
1997
Technical
Development
Document
for
Proposed
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
for
the
Industrial
Laundries
Point
Source
Category
(
TDD)
(
2).
Because
the
types
of
items
laundered
most
directly
affect
the
pollutant
loading
discharged
to
wastewater,
facilities
laundering
only
linen
items
were
excluded
so
EPA
could
obtain
pollutant
loading
data
related
only
to
industrial
textile
items.

The
TDD
summarizes
detailed
operating
data
collected
by
the
Office
of
Water
for
the
1993
operating
year.
Over
1,500
laundries
submitted
general
information,
including
SIC
1
Linen
items
include
the
following:
linen
supply
garments,
linen
flatwork/
full
dry,
health
care
items,
continuous
roll
towels,
family
laundry,
new
items,
executive
wear,
and
other
miscellaneous
items.
(
2)
2
Industrial
textile
items
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
shop
towels,
printer
towels/
rags,
furniture
towels,
rags,
mops,
mats,
rugs,
tool
covers,
dust­
control
items,
gloves,
buffing
pads,
absorbents,
uniforms,
filters,
and
clean
room
items.
If
the
item
has
hospital,
hotel,
or
restaurant
uses,
it
was
not
included
in
the
data.
(
2)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
2­
2
code,
in
responding
to
the
1993
Screener
Questionnaire
(
3).
A
subset
of
the
facilities
responding
to
the
screener
questionnaire
reported
detailed
operating
data
in
response
to
the
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
(
DEQ)
(
4).
Screener
Questionnaire
data
were
compared
and
matched
with
Detailed
Questionnaire
data
to
determine
the
SIC
codes
represented
in
the
data
collection.
Based
on
the
definitions
provided
above
for
industrial
and
institutional
laundries,
the
DEQ
database
contains
information
from
82
industrial
laundries
(
sites
reporting
SIC
code
7218
only),
45
institutional
laundries
(
sites
reporting
SIC
codes
7213
and/
or
7219),
and
46
combined
industrial
and
institutional
laundries
(
sites
reporting
SIC
code
7213
and/
or
7219
and
7218).
DEQ
data
referenced
throughout
this
generic
scenario
are
taken
from
these
facilities
responses
to
the
DEQ.
Data
presented
in
this
document
for
"
all
laundries"
includes
industrial,
institutional,
and
combined
laundries.
According
to
2001
Census
Bureau
data,
1,488
industrial
laundries
and
1,191
institutional
laundries
operate
in
the
U.
S.
(
5)

The
average
amount
and
range
of
dry,
clean
laundry
processed
by
industrial
and
institutional
laundry
facilities
is
presented
in
Table
2­
1.

Table
2­
1
Amount
of
Laundry
Processed
per
Facility
Amount
of
Dry,
Clean
Laundry
Processed
(
kg/
site­
yr)
Type
of
Laundry
Average
Range
Industrial
3,000,000
110,000
 
11,000,000
Institutional
3,300,000
190,000
 
15,000,000
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database
(
4).
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
1
3.0
PROCESS
DESCRIPTIONS
The
following
sections
discuss
the
water­
based
washing
process
and
laundry
cleaning
products
used
in
the
laundry
process.
Section
3.1
presents
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
water­
based
washing
process
and
includes
a
description
of
potential
releases
and
exposures
attributed
to
the
process.
Section
3.2
discusses
the
chemicals
that
may
be
used
in
water­
based
washing
operations,
their
purpose,
and
typical
chemical
composition.
While
some
industrial
and
institutional
laundries
may
also
perform
dry­
cleaning
operations,
these
operations
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
scenario.
Nationwide,
97%
of
all
industrial
laundry
items
are
washed
in
water
(
2).

3.1
Water­
Based
Washing
Process
The
following
process
descriptions
are
based
on
industry­
specific
literature
and
may
vary
on
a
site­
by­
site
basis.
The
description
is
primarily
based
on
information
presented
in
the
Industrial
Laundries
TDD
(
2).
Figure
3­
1
presents
a
flow
diagram
of
the
industrial/
institutional
laundering
operations,
including
potential
release
and
exposure
points
for
the
chemical
of
interest.

Industrial/
institutional
laundries
typically
receive
laundry
by
truck.
The
laundry
is
sorted
by
hand
and
transported
by
cart
to
a
weighing
station.
During
the
sorting
process,
large
objects
including
pens,
paper,
and
similar
items
are
removed
from
the
laundry.
After
weighing
the
sorted
laundry,
stain
treatment
chemicals
may
occasionally
be
applied
to
treat
stains
on
the
items.
Items
are
then
bagged
and
taken
to
the
washers
by
overhead
slings
or
carts.
The
items
are
loaded
into
the
washers
directly
from
the
bags.
The
laundry
is
washed
using
a
wash
formula
appropriate
for
the
item
type
and
soil
loading.
The
wash
cycle
is
approximately
one
hour
(
6);
however,
some
washing
machines
operate
in
a
continuous
process.
The
typical
water­
washing
processes
may
be
broken
into
the
following
cycles:

 
Flush
cycle
­
Loosely
attached
solids
and
a
portion
of
the
water­
soluble
soils
are
removed
during
a
rinsing
operation.

 
Break
cycle
­
Items
are
treated
with
an
alkali
solution
to
swell
the
cellulosic
fibers,
allowing
the
soil
to
be
more
readily
removed.
Some
detergent
formulation
may
also
be
added.

 
Sudsing
cycle
 
Detergent
formulation
is
added
in
varying
concentrations
and
the
items
are
agitated
until
they
are
clean.

 
Bleaching
cycle
(
optional)
­
Detergent
is
replaced
with
a
bleach
solution
to
further
clean
and
brighten
the
items.

 
Rinsing
cycle
­
Excess
alkali,
detergent,
and
bleach
are
removed
from
the
items.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
2
Laundry
Received
in
Trucks
Washing
Machine
(
0.5
 
1
h
r)
Drying
and
Steaming
C
Hanging
and
Folding
Stain
Treatment
Weighing
Sorting
Laundry
Returned
to
Customers
Large
Objects
(
pens,
paper,
etc.)

to
Landfill
Releases
During
Operations
4
Automatic
Loading
of
Chemicals
Manual
Loading
of
Chemicals
Connecting
Transfer
Lines
Scooping
or
Pouring
A
A
Liquid
Laundry
Cleaning
Products
Received
in
Drums
or
Totes
Solid
or
Liquid
Laundry
Cleaning
Products
Received
in
Pails,

Drums
,
or
Totes
Fugitive
Air
Release
During
Transfers
Container
Residue
and
Cleaning
1
2
3
B
Fugitive
Air
Release
During
Transfers
Container
Residue
and
Clean
ing
1
2
3
B
Exposures:
Dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
from
connecting
transfer
lines
or
from
scooping
and
pouring.

Dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
during
container
cleaning.

Inhalation
exposure
to
vaporized
laundry
chemicals
during
operations.

Releases:
Transfer
operation
losses
to
air
from
unloading
and
transferring
laundry
cleaning
product.

Transport
container
residue
from
pails,
drums,
or
totes
containing
laundry
cleaning
product.

Open
surface
losses
to
air
during
transport
container
cleaning.

Washing
water
discharge
to
POTW
(
non­
volatile
and
volatile
chemicals)
and
evaporation
losses
to
air
during
washing
and
drying
operations
(
volatile
chemicals
only).

A
B
C
1
2
3
4
Figure
3­
1.
Flow
Diagram
for
Industrial/
Institutional
Laundering
Operations
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
3
 
Blueing/
brightening
cycle
­
Additional
chemicals
are
added
to
whiten/
brighten
the
items.

 
Final
Rinse
and
Finish
­
The
water
batch
is
soured
or
acidified
to
a
pH
of
5,
preventing
the
yellowing
of
fabrics
by
sodium
bicarbonate
during
pressing
(
2).

After
washing,
overhead
slings
or
carts
transport
most
of
the
laundry
to
dryers.
Some
of
the
items
are
steamed
to
remove
wrinkles.
After
drying
and
steaming,
the
items
are
typically
folded
or
placed
on
hangers.
The
processed
laundry
is
then
sorted
and
returned
to
customers.
While
some
chemicals
may
be
added
before
washing
(
stain
pretreatment)
and
after
washing
(
starches
before
ironing
and
pressing
or
pH
neutralizers
before
release
to
POTW),
this
scenario
focuses
on
releases
of
and
exposures
to
laundry
cleaning
products
added
to
a
waterwashing
machine.

The
industrial
or
institutional
laundry
may
receive
its
cleaning
products
in
bags,
cardboard
boxes,
or
drums
of
various
types
and
sizes
as
a
solid
powder
or
liquid
solution
(
7).
However,
most
of
the
cleaning
products
are
liquid,
received
in
drums
or
totes
(
8).
Laundry
cleaning
products
may
be
added
automatically
or
manually
to
the
washing
machine.
In
almost
all
larger
facilities
and
many
smaller
facilities,
liquid
products
are
pumped
directly
from
their
transport
containers
into
the
washing
machine.
Automatic
loaders
reduce
labor
costs,
minimize
spills,
add
up
to
ten
chemicals
precisely,
and
allow
chemical
addition
at
various
times
during
the
washing
process.
Automatic
loaders
also
reduce
worker
exposure
during
the
washing
process,
but
workers
may
face
dermal
and
possible
inhalation
exposure
to
volatile
chemicals
when
connecting
chemical
transfer
lines
or
transferring
the
liquid
chemicals
from
the
transport
container
to
storage
tanks
(
Exposure
A).
If
automatic
loaders
are
not
used,
workers
manually
scoop
or
pour
solid
or
liquid
products
into
the
washing
machine,
either
directly
from
its
transport
container,
or
from
a
transfer
container
(
such
as
a
pail
for
easy
transport
around
the
facility)
prior
to
being
loaded
into
the
machine.
During
manual
loading,
workers
may
undergo
a
dermal
exposure
and
possible
inhalation
exposure
to
volatile
liquids
or
powder
chemicals
(
Exposure
A).
During
both
automatic
and
manual
transfer
operations,
volatile
components
may
vaporize
resulting
in
a
fugitive
air
release
(
Release
1).
Empty
transport
containers
are
typically
sent
to
a
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
(
Release
2,
Release
3,
Exposure
B)
(
8).

Laundry
cleaning
products
may
be
added
at
various
times
during
the
washing
process.
Alkaline,
builder,
bleach,
and
detergent
products
are
generally
added
near
the
beginning
of
the
washing
process
during
the
break
and
sudsing
cycles,
while
antichlors,
sours,
softeners,
and
starches
are
generally
added
later
in
the
washing
process,
before
the
final
rinse
(
9,10).
During
the
washing
process,
volatile
components
may
vaporize
and
be
released
to
the
atmosphere,
while
the
remaining
non­
volatile
components
are
typically
discharged
to
a
POTW
after
the
wash
cycle
(
Release
4).
The
water
may
first
pass
through
on­
site
wastewater
treatment
(
collection
or
settling
basins,
pH
neutralization)
before
release
to
POTW;
however,
these
control
technologies
are
generally
designed
to
remove
dirt,
oil,
and
other
materials
removed
from
the
textile
during
the
laundering
process,
not
the
laundry
cleaning
product.
Control
technologies
are
discussed
further
in
Section
6.2.
After
the
final
rinse
and
water
removal
from
the
washer,
very
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
4
small
amounts
of
chemicals
may
still
remain
on
the
item.
When
workers
are
transferring,
drying,
steaming,
or
pressing
the
item,
workers
may
be
exposed
to
any
residual
volatile
components
as
they
evaporate
(
Exposure
C).

3.2
Chemicals
Used
in
Water­
Based
Washing
Laundries
may
use
one
detergent
formulation
product
without
the
addition
of
any
other
chemicals
to
the
washing
machine;
however,
laundries
typically
add
other
laundry
cleaning
products
along
with
a
detergent
formulation,
depending
on
water
hardness,
textile
type,
and
textile
soiling.
Other
laundry
cleaning
products
added
may
include
alkalis,
antichlors,
bleaches,
builders,
softeners,
sours,
and
starches.
The
following
sections
describe
products
that
may
be
used
in
water­
based
washing
operations,
their
purpose
and
typical
chemical
composition.
Many
chemicals
may
be
used
in
multiple
laundry
cleaning
products.
Table
4­
4
summarizes
the
defaults
presented
in
this
section
for
the
type
of
laundry
cleaning
product
in
which
chemicals
are
typically
received.

3.2.1
Detergent
Formulations
A
detergent
is
not
an
individual
chemical,
but
a
formulation
of
multiple
chemical
types.
The
major
components
of
detergents
are
builders
and
surfactants.
Detergents
also
typically
contain
antimicrobial
agents,
anti­
redeposition
agents,
bleaches,
brighteners,
corrosion
inhibitors,
enzymes,
fabric
softeners,
fragrances,
hydrotopes,
preservatives,
solvents,
sours
(
acids),
stabilizers,
and
suppressors
(
11).
Many
of
these
components
such
as
bleaches,
builders,
fabric
softeners,
and
sours
(
acids)
may
also
be
added
to
the
washing
machine
as
components
of
other
laundry
cleaning
products.
Table
3­
1
provides
information
on
a
typical
detergent
formulation.

Table
3­
1
Typical
Detergent
Product
Formulation
Component
Percent
in
Formulation
(
Chem.
Book,
1995)*
Percent
in
Formulation
(
C&
EN,
1996)*

Builders
58
59
Surfactants
36
32
Bleach,
brighteners,
enzymes
2.5
3
Fragrances
&
fabric
softener
1.5
2
Others
2
4
*
Percentages
as
presented
in
Reference
11.

Surfactants
Surfactants
are
surface­
active
agents
that
reduce
the
tension
at
the
surface
between
the
water
and
the
fabric
to
be
cleaned.
The
surfactant's
main
function
is
to
suspend
the
soil
that
has
been
removed
from
the
surface,
but
it
also
plays
a
key
role
in
loosening
soil
(
6,11).
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
5
Surfactants
can
be
split
into
four
separate
classes:
anionic,
nonionic,
cationic,
and
amphoteric
surfactants.

 
Anionic
­
Anionic
surfactants
are
negatively
charged.
These
surfactants
resist
the
effects
of
water
acidity
and
hardness
(
11).
Typical
anionic
surfactants
are
sulfated
fatty
alcohols,
sulfonated
amides,
and
sulfated
nonionics
(
6,11).

 
Nonionic
­
Nonionic
surfactants,
which
contain
no
charge,
are
the
most
widely
used
today
in
laundry
detergents
(
11,12).
They
effectively
remove
oily
soil
from
fabrics.
Typical
nonionic
surfactants
are
ethylene
oxide
or
propylene
oxide
with
fatty
alcohol,
fatty
acid
condensates
with
ethylene
oxide,
amides
from
fatty
acids
and
diethanolamine,
and
condensate
of
ethylene
oxide
with
an
amine
or
amide
(
6,11).

 
Cationic
­
Cationic
surfactants
are
positively
charged.
These
surfactants
are
poor
detergents
but
good
fabric
softeners
and
antibacterial
agents.
They
are
commonly
used
in
conjunction
with
nonionic
surfactants;
however,
they
cannot
be
used
with
anionic
surfactants
because
oppositecharged
ions
will
clump
together
and
precipitate
out
of
solution
(
11).
Most
cationic
surfactants
are
quaternary
ammonium
salts;
however,
amine
and
imidazoline
salts
also
fall
under
this
category
(
6).

 
Amphoteric
­
Amphoteric
surfactants
have
the
ability
to
act
either
as
an
acid
or
base,
displaying
either
a
positive
or
negative
charge.
These
surfactants
are
well
suited
as
recyclable
cleaners
because
they
exhibit
low
foaming
properties,
provide
good
detergency
and
compatibility
with
alkaline
formulations,
and
exhibit
excellent
water
solubility
(
11).
Amphoteric
surfactants
include
betaines,
glycinates,
aminopropionates,
and
imidazoline­
based
surfactants
(
6).

Typically,
laundries
receive
surfactants
as
part
of
a
formulated
detergent
and
not
as
a
separate
agent;
therefore,
no
use
rate
data
has
been
provided
in
Section
4.1.2.

Builders
(
Alkalis,
Water
Softeners,
and
Anti­
Redeposition
Agents)

Builders
are
chemicals
added
to
detergent
formulations
or
to
wash
loads
directly
to
enhance
the
surfactant's
performance
and
increase
the
overall
effectiveness.
Builders
increase
the
alkalinity,
soften
the
water,
and
prevent
redeposition
of
soil
on
the
items.
Increasing
the
alkalinity
is
important
as
surfactants
work
more
effectively
in
an
alkaline
medium
(
11).
Alkalis
raise
the
pH
of
the
wash
water
to
ensure
the
effectiveness
of
the
surfactant
and
help
to
swell
cellulosic
fibers,
allowing
the
soil
to
be
more
easily
removed.
Detergent
formulations
and
separately
added
builder
products
may
contain
between
30%
and
85%
alkalis
(
6).
The
laundry
industry
uses
alkalis
such
as
hydroxides,
silicates,
carbonates,
and
phosphates
(
11,13)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
6
Hardness
ions
like
calcium
and
magnesium
can
decrease
the
detergency
of
the
surfactant.
They
directly
interact
with
the
surfactant
or
interact
with
the
negative
charges
on
the
fabric
or
soil,
reducing
the
electric
repulsion
between
them
(
13).
Water
softeners
sequester
these
ions
and
prevent
their
interaction
with
the
surfactant.
In
detergent
formulations
or
separately
added
builder
products,
water
softeners
may
account
for
between
15%
and
55%
of
the
formulation
(
6).
Note
that
this
percentage
is
based
on
the
phosphate
concentration,
which
acts
as
both
a
water
softener
and
an
anti­
redeposition
agent.
Typical
water
softeners
are
phosphates,
zeolites,
sodium
carbonate,
sodium
silicate,
sodium
citrate,
ethylendiaminetetraacetic
acid
(
EDTA),
and
nitrilotriacetic
acid
(
NTA)
(
11,13).

Once
the
soil
or
stain
has
been
removed
from
the
laundered
article
and
suspended
in
water,
anti­
redeposition
agents
help
suspend
the
soil
to
prevent
it
from
re­
depositing
on
or
getting
trapped
within
the
textile.
Builders
with
multiple
charges
are
the
most
effecting
antiredeposition
agents
(
13).
In
typical
detergent
formulations
and
separately
added
builder
products,
anti­
redeposition
agents
account
for
less
than
5%
of
the
formulation
(
6).
The
laundry
industry
typically
uses
polycarboxylates,
polyacrylates,
polyethylene
glycol,
sodium
silicate,
and
polyaspartic
acid
as
anti­
redeposition
agents
(
11).

Builders
and
alkalis
are
standard
in
most
detergent
formulations;
however,
they
may
also
be
added
individually
to
adjust
the
supply
water,
especially
if
it
is
acidic
or
hard.
To
clean
heavily
soiled
loads,
builders
may
also
be
added
individually.

Other
Additives
in
Detergent
Formulations
Detergent
formulations
may
contain
several
other
additives.
Additives
commonly
found
in
detergent
formulations
(
and
not
added
separately
to
the
wash
water)
are
briefly
discussed
below.

 
Antimicrobial
Agents
­
Inhibit
microbial
growth.
Typical
microbial
agents
are
pine
oil,
quaternary
ammonium
compounds,
sodium
hypochlorite,
triclocarbon,
and
triclosan.

 
Optical
Brighteners
­
Absorb
invisible
ultraviolet
light
and
re­
emit
it
as
visible
light
within
the
blue
spectrum.
(
11)
The
blue
tint
counterbalances
the
yellow
tint
present
in
off­
white
fabrics,
and
imparts
a
greater
whiteness
from
the
fabric.
Brighteners
are
generally
used
only
on
cotton
articles
(
nearly
all
washroom
supplies)
and
are
best
absorbed
at
high
temperatures.
Typical
optical
brighteners
are
stilbene
disulfonates
and
coumarin
derivates.

 
Enzymes
­
Act
as
catalysts
to
facilitate
in
the
destruction
of
soil
particles
and
stains.
These
chemicals
are
classified
as
proteins.
Typical
enzymes
are
protease,
amylase,
lipase,
and
cellulase.
(
11)
Because
anionic
and
cationic
surfactants
lower
the
stability
of
enzymes,
most
enzymes
are
used
with
nonionic
surfactants.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
7
 
Corrosion
Inhibitors
­
Help
protect
the
metal
washing
machine
parts.
Sodium
silicate
is
the
most
commonly
used
corrosion
inhibitor.
(
11)

 
Fragrances
­
Used
to
mask
the
odors
of
the
chemical
components
of
the
detergents.

 
Hydrotopes
­
Prevent
the
individual
constituents
of
liquid
detergents
from
separating
into
phases.
These
chemicals
promote
uniformity
within
the
detergent
solution.
Typical
hydrotopes
are
ethanol,
toluene
sulfonates,
and
cumene
sulfonates.
(
11)

 
Preservatives
­
Prevent
oxidation,
discoloration,
and
bacterial
growth
on
the
fabric.
(
11)
The
most
common
preservatives
are
butylated
hydroxytoluene
and
thylenediaminetetraacetic
acid.

 
Stabilizers
and
Suppressors
­
Work
to
stabilize
and/
or
prohibit
excessive
sudsing.
Typical
stabilizers
used
to
keep
sudsing
constant
are
alkanolamides
and
alkylamine
oxides.
(
11)
Typical
suppressors
such
as
silicone,
soap,
and
alkyl
phosphates
act
to
prohibit
excessive
detergent
sudsing.

3.2.2
Bleaches
Bleaches
act
to
maintain
the
whiteness
of
laundered
items,
by
removing
stains
and
killing
any
bacteria
on
the
textile.
Bleaches
eliminate
the
stain's
color
or
solubilize
the
stain
for
rinse
away
(
11).
Laundries
may
use
either
oxidizing
or
reducing
bleaches.
Oxidizing
bleaches
remove
electrons
from
the
stain.
Reducing
bleaches
add
electrons
to
the
stain.
Oxidizing
bleaches
are
often
chlorine
or
oxygen­
based.
Oxygen
bleaches
are
less
effective
than
chlorine
bleaches.
They
require
higher
temperatures,
alkalinity,
and
concentration
to
perform
(
11).
However
oxygen
bleaches
can
achieve
better
whitening.
The
most
common
chlorine
bleach
is
sodium
hypochlorite.
Oxygen
bleaches
include
hydrogen
peroxide,
perborates,
and
peracids.
Typical
reducing
bleaches
are
sulfur
dioxide,
sulfites,
and
bisulfites
(
13).
Most
detergent
formulations
contain
small
quantities
of
bleach,
but
most
laundries
also
use
a
separate
bleach
for
white
cotton
loads.

3.2.3
Antichlors,
Sours,
Softeners,
and
Starches
These
products
are
typically
added
to
the
washing
machine
immediately
before
or
during
the
final
rinse
cycle.
They
do
not
have
an
effect
on
detergency
(
dirt
and
oil
removal),
but
are
added
to
finish
the
textile
item
and
neutralize
harsh
chemicals
added
to
clean
the
item.
Antichlors,
sours,
softeners,
and
starches
may
be
added
individually
or
as
part
of
a
finishing
formulation.
A
brief
description
of
each
is
presented
below.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
3­
8
 
Antichlors
­
Remove
excess
bleach
from
laundered
items
by
neutralizing
excess
chlorine
(
14,15).
Antichlors
are
used
only
on
chlorine­
bleached
items
and
are
typically
added
during
the
final
rinse
cycle.

 
Sours
(
Acids)
­
Lower
the
pH
of
the
water
during
the
final
rinse
to
counteract
the
alkaline
builders
that
may
have
been
added
at
the
beginning
of
the
wash
cycle.
Sours
return
the
pH
to
a
proper
level,
preventing
the
item
from
yellowing
and
hardness,
and
to
reduce
skin
irritation
when
the
textile
is
used.
Sours
also
remove
rust
and
prevent
iron
deposition
(
14,15).

 
Softeners
­
Control
the
static
electricity,
soften,
and
interfere
with
microbial
activity
on
the
laundered
items
(
14,15).
Laundries
often
use
cationic
surfactants
as
fabric
softeners
because
they
bind
strongly
to
negatively
charged
surfaces.
The
softener
molecules
form
a
film
on
the
fabric's
surface,
and
lubricate
the
fabric
to
give
it
increased
softness
and
flexibility.

 
Starches
­
Finish
laundered
items
by
stiffening
the
fabric.
Starches
help
attain
a
smooth
crisp
finishes
to
ironed
items
(
10).
Dirt
and
sweat
also
adhere
to
the
starch
rather
than
the
fabric,
and
are
more
easily
removed
the
next
time
the
item
is
washed.
Starch
can
be
added
in
the
final
rinse
cycle
or
sprayed
onto
the
item
prior
to
ironing.
Spray
application
of
starch
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
scenario.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
1
4.0
SCREENING
LEVEL
ESTIMATION
TECHNIQUES/
METHODS
This
section
presents
calculations
that
can
be
used
to
estimate
general
facility
parameters
for,
environmental
releases
of,
and
worker
exposures
to
laundry
cleaning
products
used
in
water
washing
machines
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries.
The
calculations
are
intended
only
for
screening
level
estimations.
Default
values
are
provided
for
all
parameters
to
allow
for
facility,
release,
and
exposure
estimations,
even
where
only
limited
information
is
provided
(
e.
g.
production
volume
only).
Site­
specific
information,
if
available,
takes
precedence
over
the
defaults
presented
in
the
methodology.
For
example,
if
the
number
of
operating
days
is
unknown,
assume
261
days/
year
(
Section
4.1.1).
However,
if
site­
specific
information
states
the
facility
will
operate
300
days/
year,
that
value
should
be
used
in
all
estimations.
If
the
known
values
fall
outside
of
the
ranges
presented
in
this
scenario,
judgment
should
be
used
in
determining
whether
those
known
values
are
appropriate
for
the
calculations
or
whether
they
should
be
replaced
with
the
defaults
discussed
in
this
scenario.

4.1
General
Facility
Calculations
The
general
facility
calculations
are
based
on
data
obtained
by
EPA's
Office
of
Water
during
the
effort
to
develop
pretreatment
standards
for
the
industrial
laundries
industry.
During
this
effort
the
Agency
collected
detailed
process
information
in
the
DEQ
from
82
industrial
laundries
(
SIC
code
7218),
45
institutional
laundries
(
SIC
codes
7213
and/
or
7219),
and
46
combined
industrial
and
institutional
laundries
(
SIC
code
7213
and/
or
7219
and
7218).
This
generic
scenario
uses
the
DEQ
data
obtained
from
these
facilities
(
4).
Data
presented
in
this
document
for
"
all
laundries"
include
industrial,
institutional,
and
combined
laundries.
The
values
for
"
all
laundries"
should
be
used
when
site­
specific
information
is
not
available.

4.1.1
Operating
Days
In
the
DEQ,
facilities
reported
the
number
of
days
they
conducted
laundering/
drycleaning
activities
in
1993.
Table
4­
1
presents
the
average
number
of
operating
days
(
TIMEworking_
days)
for
industrial,
institutional,
and
all
laundries
as
derived
from
the
DEQ.
The
default
number
of
operating
days
is
261
days/
year.

Table
4­
1
Number
of
Operating
Days
Operating
Days
Type
of
Laundry
Average
Range
Industrial
252
208­
290
Institutional
277
250­
365
All
Laundries
(
default)
261
208­
365
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database
(
4).
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
2
4.1.2
Throughput
of
Chemical
of
Interest
Annual
use
rates
of
laundry
cleaning
products
(
Qfacility_
yr)
can
be
estimated
from
DEQ
data.
Respondents
estimated
the
quantity
and
purpose
of
laundry
cleaning
products
used
in
their
facilities
in
1993.
This
use
rate
is
assumed
to
be
the
purchase
rate
(
in­
process
use
rate
plus
container
residue
and
transfer
losses).
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
present
annual
use
information
for
powdered
laundry
products
and
liquid
laundry
products,
respectively.
These
tables
show
annual
use
rates
for
institutional,
industrial,
and
all
laundries
by
industry
average,
median,
and
upper
99%
confidence
interval.
The
daily
use
rate
of
the
chemical
of
interest
can
be
directly
calculated
from
the
annual
product
use
rates.

When
site­
specific
information
is
not
available,
the
steps
outlined
in
Figure
4­
1
should
be
followed
to
determine
which
values
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
to
use
in
estimating
calculations.
Figure
4­
1
includes
notes
providing
further
explanation
of
the
outlined
steps.
Section
5.3
presents
examples
of
using
the
diagram
to
determine
which
annual
use
rate
value
to
use.

The
daily
use
rate
of
the
product
(
Qfacility_
day)
and
of
the
chemical
of
interest
(
Qchem_
day)
can
be
calculated
using
the
following
equations:

ys
working_
da
r
facility_
y
ay
facility_
d
TIME
Q
Q
=
[
4­
1]

Where:
Qfacility_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
laundry
product
(
kg
of
formulation/
siteday
Qfacility_
yr
=
Annual
use
rate
of
laundry
product
(
See
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3;
Default
=
27,000
kg
of
formulation/
site­
year1)(
4)
TIMEworking_
days
=
Operating
days
(
See
Table
4­
1;
Default
=
261
days/
yr)(
11)

n
formulatio
_
chem
day
_
facility
day
_
chem
F
Q
Q
×
=
[
4­
2]

Where:
Qchem_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Qfacility_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
laundry
product
(
kg
of
formulation/
siteday
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)

1
The
median
annual
use
rate
for
powdered
detergent
products
at
"
All
Laundries"
from
Table
4­
2
is
used
as
the
default
value
for
Qfacility_
yr,
based
on
the
default
assumptions
presented
in
Figure
4­
1.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
3
Is
the
chemical
received
at
the
laundry
as
a
solid
powder
or
liquid
solution?
1
Solid
Powder
(
De
fault)
Use
Data
in
Table
4­
2
Li
quid
Solution
Use
Data
in
Table
4­
3
Is
the
chemical
used
at
industrial
or
institutional
laundries?
2
Unknown
(
Default)
Use
the
values
in
the
All
column
of
Table
4­
2
or
4­
3
Does
the
chemical
arrive
at
the
laundry
as
part
of
a
detergent
formulation?
3
Industrial
Use
the
values
in
the
Industrial
column
of
Table
4­
2
or
4­
3
Institutional
Use
the
values
in
the
Institutional
column
of
Table
4­
2
or
4­
3
Yes
(
Default)
Use
the
median4
annual
use
rate
for
Detergent
If
the
concentr
ation
in
the
formulation
is
unknown5
Use
the
data
in
Table
3­
1
No
Use
the
median4
annual
use
rate
for
the
respective
product
type
If
the
concentration
in
the
formulation
is
unknown6
Assume
100%
concentration
Unknown
and
the
chemical
is
an
Alkaline,
Builder,
Surfactant,
or
Other
Additive
Use
the
median4
annual
use
rate
for
Detergent
Unknown
and
the
chemical
is
an
Antichlor,
Bleach,
Softener,
Sour,
or
Starch
Use
the
median4
annual
use
rate
for
the
respective
product
type
Figure
4­
1.
Decision
Logic
Diagram
for
Determining
the
Use
Rate
Notes
for
Figure
4­
1
are
presented
on
the
following
page.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
4
Notes
for
Figure
4­
1:

1.
If
the
form
of
chemical
of
interest
is
unknown,
assume
that
the
laundry
receives
all
chemicals
in
powdered
form,
since
inhalation
and
dermal
exposure
estimates
are
higher
for
powders
than
liquids.
Use
the
values
in
Table
4­
2
as
defaults.

2.
If
the
type
of
laundry
(
institutional
or
industrial)
is
not
specified
and
cannot
be
determined,
use
the
value
for
"
All
Laundries".

3.
To
determine
whether
to
assume
the
laundry
receives
the
chemical
as
a
component
of
a
formulated
detergent
or
of
another
laundry
product,
refer
to
Table
4­
4.
This
table
lists
typical
types
of
chemicals,
the
form
in
which
it
is
usually
received
(
the
default),
and
the
data
source
to
use
to
determine
the
value.

4.
Use
the
median
annual
use
rate
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3,
as
they
are
most
likely
more
accurate.
The
average
values
may
have
been
raised
by
a
few
outliers
in
the
data;
in
many
cases,
less
than
15%
of
the
data
points
were
above
the
average
value.
These
data
points
may
represent
possible
data
errors,
or
several
facilities
that
are
significantly
larger
than
typical
facilities.
Also,
using
the
median
values
in
calculating
worker
exposures
will
provide
more
conservative
estimates.

5.
If
site­
specific
information
does
not
provide
the
final
concentration
of
the
chemical,
and
the
laundry
receives
the
chemical
already
formulated
in
a
detergent
product,
refer
to
Table
3­
1
for
a
typical
concentration
of
a
detergent
product.
Use
the
higher
value
as
a
conservative
estimate.

6.
If
site­
specific
information
does
not
provide
the
final
concentration
of
the
chemical
and
it
is
not
typically
a
formulated
detergent
component
(
such
as
an
antichlor,
bleach,
softener,
sour,
or
starch),
use
100%
concentration
as
the
default
value.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
5
Table
4­
2
Average
Annual
Use
Rate
of
Powdered
Laundry
Products1
Annual
Use
Rate
of
Powdered
Laundry
Products
(
kg/
site­
yr)

Institutional
Laundries
Industrial
Laundries
All
Laundries
Laundry
Cleaning
Product
Median
Average
99%
CI
Median
Average
99%
CI
Median
Average
99%
CI
Alkaline
15,000
14,000
26,000
1,700
15,000
45,000
3,200
14,000
27,000
Antichlor
1,500
1,500
2,000
340
440
630
500
900
1,200
Bleach
450
1,200
2,900
730
1,300
1,800
730
1,200
1,700
Builder
12,000
12,000
26,000
39,000
39,000
130,000
15,000
20,000
42,000
Detergent
28,000
35,000
50,000
28,000
45,000
68,000
27,000
40,000
52,000
Fabric
Softener
590
610
940
590
830
1,500
570
690
1,000
Sour
2,300
2,700
3,800
1,000
1,600
2,300
1,800
2,100
2,600
Starch
8,000
13,000
19,000
590
1,300
2,400
1,900
7,100
11,000
Other
Products
500
1,100
2,200
180
730
1,800
180
870
1,500
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database
(
4).
CI
 
Confidence
Interval
Table
4­
3
Average
Annual
Use
Rate
of
Liquid
Laundry
Products1
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database
(
4).
CI
 
Confidence
Interval
1
Respondents
to
the
DEQ
could
report
usage
in
either
pounds
per
year
or
gallons
per
year.
It
is
assumed
that
products
reported
in
pounds
are
powders
and
products
reported
in
gallons
are
liquids.
Gallons
were
converted
to
kilograms
by
assuming
a
density
of
1
kg/
L
(
3.785
kg/
gal).
Annual
Use
Rate
of
Liquid
Laundry
Products
(
kg/
site­
yr)
Institutional
Laundries
Industrial
Laundries
All
Laundries
Laundry
Cleaning
Product
Median
Average
99%
CI
Median
Average
99%
CI
Median
Average
99%
CI
Alkaline
27,000
50,000
120,000
50,000
220,000
660,000
35,000
35,000
310,000
Antichlor
830
2,200
5,000
790
1,200
2,000
890
6,200
17,000
Bleach
14,000
34,000
56,000
3,000
11,000
22,000
6,400
29,000
50,000
Builder
3,900
18,000
53,000
13,000
14,000
69,000
12,000
21,000
35,000
Detergent
4,900
21,000
39,000
7,900
19,000
32,000
6,800
21,000
30,000
Fabric
Softener
820
2,100
4,200
950
1,700
2,500
1,200
4,900
11,000
Sour
4,000
6,900
12,000
2,400
7,800
22,000
2,600
7,000
13,000
Starch
530
1,100
2,200
230
260
440
450
1,800
4,500
Other
Products
1,100
2,500
4,500
950
4,800
9,700
680
4,200
8,700
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
6
Table
4­
4
Defaults
for
the
Product
in
which
Chemicals
are
Typically
Received
Chemical
Default
Default
Data
Source
Alkaline
Component
of
formulated
detergent
Detergent
formulation
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Antichlor
Individually
added
Antichlor
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Bleach
Individually
added
Bleach
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Builder
Component
of
formulated
detergent
Detergent
formulation
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Detergent
Formulated
detergent
Detergent
formulation
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Fabric
Softener
Individually
added
Softener
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Sour
Individually
added
Sour
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Starch
Individually
added
Starch
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
Surfactant
Component
of
formulated
detergent
Detergent
formulation
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
All
Other
Products
Individually
added
Other
products
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
All
Other
Additives
Component
of
formulated
detergent
Detergent
formulation
data
from
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3
This
table
is
based
on
the
information
presented
in
Section
3.2.

4.1.3
Number
of
Sites
The
daily
use
rate
and
the
annual
production
volume
of
the
chemical
of
interest
can
be
used
in
the
following
equation
to
estimate
the
number
of
sites
using
the
laundry
cleaning
product
containing
the
chemical
of
interest.
Table
4­
5
presents
the
maximum
number
of
sites
for
both
laundry
types
not
to
be
exceeded,
based
on
County
Business
Patterns
data.

ys
working_
da
chem_
day
chem_
yr
sites
TIME
Q
Q
N
×
=
[
4­
3]

Where:
Nsites
1
=
Number
of
sites
using
the
laundry
product
containing
the
chemical
of
interest
(
sites)
Qchem_
yr
=
Annual
production
volume
of
the
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
yr)
Qchem_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
TIMEworking_
days
=
Operating
days
(
See
Table
4­
1;
Default
=
261
days/
yr)(
4)

1
The
value
for
Nsites,
calculated
using
equation
4­
3,
should
be
rounded
up.
Qchem_
day
should
be
adjusted
after
Nsites
is
calculated
to
account
for
any
rounding
errors:

days
_
working
sites
chem_
yr
chem_
day
TIME
N
Q
Q
×
=
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
7
Table
4­
5
Maximum
Number
of
Sites
Type
of
Laundry
NAICS
Code
Total
Number
of
Sites
Industrial
812332
1,488
Institutional
812331
1,191
Total
2,679
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2001
County
Business
Patterns
(
5).

4.1.4
Annual
Number
of
Containers
Used
per
Facility
The
number
of
containers
used
annually
per
site
can
be
estimated
from
the
laundry
cleaning
product
use
rate,
the
container
size,
and
the
density
of
the
formulation.
Laundry
cleaning
products
may
be
received
at
the
industrial
or
institutional
laundry
in
bags,
cardboard
boxes,
or
drums
of
various
types
and
sizes
(
7)
as
a
solid
powder
or
liquid
solution.
However,
most
chemicals
are
received
as
liquids
in
drums
or
totes
(
8).
In
the
absence
of
sitespecific
information,
use
a
55­
gallon
drum
as
the
default
transportation
container
size.
If
the
fluid
density
is
not
known,
water
can
be
used
as
a
default
(
1
kg/
L).
The
annual
number
of
containers
used
can
be
estimated
through
the
following
equation.

n
formulatio
container
yr
_
facility
container
RHO
V
Q
N
×
=
[
4­
4]

Where:
Ncontainer
=
Annual
number
of
containers
containing
chemical
of
interest
per
site
(
containers/
site­
year)
Qfacility_
yr
=
Annual
use
rate
of
laundry
product
(
See
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3;
Default
=
27,000
kg
of
formulation/
site­
year)(
4)
Vcontainer
=
Volume
of
laundry
product
container
(
Default
=
208
L/
container
(
for
55­
gallon
drum))
RHOformulation
=
Density
of
the
formulation
(
Default
=
1
kg/
L)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
8
Summary
of
the
Relationship
of
Section
4.1
Parameters
The
values
for
chemical
of
interest
throughput
(
Qchem_
day),
number
of
sites
(
Nsites),
and
production
volume
of
the
chemical
of
interest
(
Qchem_
yr)
are
all
related.
This
scenario
presents
an
equation
to
calculate
the
parameter
for
the
chemical
of
interest
throughput
(
Qchem_
day)
from
DEQ
data.
The
chemical
of
interest
throughput
and
supplied
production
volume
are
then
used
to
determine
the
number
of
sites.

If
the
number
of
sites
is
known,
the
chemical
of
interest
throughput
can
be
calculated
directly
without
the
use
of
DEQ
data
(
Qchem_
yr
÷
(
Nsites
×
TIMEworking_
days)
=
Qchem_
day).
However,
it
is
recommended
to
calculate
the
chemical
of
interest
throughput
based
on
the
DEQ
data
and
compare
it
to
the
throughput
based
on
number
of
sites.

4.2
Environmental
Release
Assessments
The
following
subsections
present
estimation
methods
for
potential
releases
of
the
chemical
of
interest.
Potential
releases
are
shown
on
the
process
flow
diagram
(
Figure
3­
1).
Note
that
no
releases
occur
from
equipment
cleaning
because
all
of
the
production
volume
is
assumed
to
already
be
released
to
water
or
air.

4.2.1
Transfer
Operation
Losses
to
Air
from
Loading
Laundry
Cleaning
Product
into
Washers
(
Release
1)

Most
chemicals
used
in
laundries
are
not
volatile.
For
chemicals
with
a
vapor
pressure
<
0.01
torr,
releases
to
air
are
expected
to
be
negligible.
However,
a
few
laundry
chemicals,
such
as
fragrances,
may
be
volatile.
If
the
vapor
pressure
of
the
chemical
is
>
0.01
torr,
releases
to
air
may
occur
as
a
worker
manually
scoops
or
pours
the
laundry
cleaning
product
into
the
washer
(
default
scenario).
Where
automatic
loaders
are
used,
air
releases
are
expected
only
when
transfer
lines
are
being
connected
to
the
transport
containers.
To
estimate
the
release
from
either
manual
or
automatic
loading
(
Elocalair_
transfers),
use
the
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model.
While
the
EPA/
OAQPS
AP­
42
Loading
Model
is
the
standard
CEB
estimation
model
for
transfer
operations,
it
assumes
containers
are
quickly
and
completely
unloaded
into
a
container
of
equal
size,
and
estimates
the
release
to
air
based
on
vapor
displacement
of
saturated
air.
However,
laundry
cleaning
product
transport
containers
will
slowly
be
unloaded
into
washers
over
the
course
of
several
days
or
weeks.
The
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
estimates
the
volatilization
of
a
chemical
from
a
static
pool;
use
of
this
model
will
provide
a
better
estimate
of
the
releases
to
air
due
from
this
transfer
operation.

The
model
inputs
and
default
values
are
listed
in
Table
4­
6.
CEB
has
developed
a
software
package
(
ChemSTEER)
containing
the
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
and
all
current
CEB
defaults.
ChemSTEER
should
be
used
to
calculate
air
releases
and
exposures
from
transfer
operations.
Appendix
C
lists
the
background
and
equations
the
model
uses
to
estimate
daily
releases
to
air.
Appendix
D
provides
CEB
default
values
for
several
model
parameters.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
9
Table
4­
6
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Transfers
Input
Parameter
Default
Values
Diameter
of
Opening
CEB
default
2
in.
(
5.08
cm)
for
all
containers
less
than
5,000
gallons
(
16)

Frequency
of
Use
Manual
loading
(
default):
Operating
days
(
default
=
261
days/
yr;
Table
4­
1)
Automatic
loading:
Operating
days
(
default
=
261
days/
yr;
Table
4­
1)
or
the
number
of
containers
(
Ncontainer,
calculated
in
Equation
4­
4),
whichever
is
fewer
Molecular
Weight
Specific
chemical
parameter
Number
of
Sites
Calculated
in
Section
4.1.3,
Equation
4­
3
Operating
Hours
for
the
Activity
Manual
loading
(
default):
Operation
hours/
day
(
default
=
11
hr/
day;
Table
4­
7)
Automatic
loading:
CEB
default,
number
of
containers
per
site
per
day
divided
by
the
fill
rate
(
default
fill
rates
are
found
in
Appendix
C)
Vapor
Pressure
Specific
chemical
parameter
Air
Speed
CEB
defaults
found
in
Appendix
C
Vapor
Pressure
Correction
Factor
Standard
CEB
default
=
1
Note:
The
model
also
assumes
standard
temperature
and
pressure
along
with
ideal
gas
interactions.

The
CEB
default
for
operating
hours
for
this
activity
is
equal
to
the
number
of
containers
used
per
site
per
day
divided
by
a
constant
fill
rate.
Default
fill
rates
are
found
in
Appendix
C.
This
is
a
reasonable
assumption
for
automatic
loaders,
because
releases
are
expected
only
when
transfer
lines
are
being
connected.
For
manual
loading,
laundry
cleaning
products
are
unloaded
from
transport
containers
and
loaded
into
washers
throughout
the
working
day.
Table
4­
7
presents
the
operating
hours
per
day
taken
from
DEQ
data.
Assume
this
release
occurs
over
11
hours/
site­
day,
if
the
laundry
type
is
unknown.
Note
that
while
the
release
is
over
11
hours/
day,
the
number
of
hours
an
individual
worker
may
be
exposed
would
only
be
8
hours/
day.

Table
4­
7
Hours
of
Operation
per
Day
Hours
of
Operation
per
Day
Type
of
Laundry
Average
Range
Industrial
12
7­
24
Institutional
11
6­
18
All
11
5­
24
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database
(
4).

4.2.2
Container
Residue
(
Release
2)

The
amount
of
laundry
cleaning
product
remaining
in
the
transportation
containers
depends
on
the
size
of
the
transport
container
and
the
physical
form
of
the
laundry
product.
A
55­
gallon
drum
should
be
used
as
the
default
transportation
container
size
in
the
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
10
absence
of
site­
specific
information.
For
liquids
in
the
default
transport
container
size,
assume
3%
remains
as
residue
(
Fcontainer_
residue)
in
the
empty
drums
(
17).
Per
Section
261.7
(
b)
(
1)
(
ii)
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
a
container
or
an
inner
liner
removed
from
a
container
that
has
held
any
hazardous
wastes,
except
waste
that
is
a
compressed
gas
or
that
is
identified
as
an
acute
hazardous
waste
listed
in
§
261.31,
261.32,
or
261.33(
e)
of
the
act
is
empty
if
no
more
than
2.5
centimeters
(
1
inch)
remain
on
the
bottom
of
the
container
or
liner
(
18).
Section
261.7
(
b)
(
1)
(
iii)
(
A)
states
that
no
more
than
3%
by
weight
of
the
total
capacity
of
the
container
remains
in
the
container
or
inner
liner
if
the
container
is
equal
to
or
less
than
110
gallons
in
size
(
18).
The
default
for
larger
containers,
3%,
is
supported
by
a
pilot­
scale
research
project
investigating
the
effect
of
four
parameters
on
residue
quantities
in
drums
(
19).
The
parameters
include
the
design
configuration
of
the
container,
the
viscosity
of
the
chemical,
the
method
of
unloading
the
chemical,
and
the
container
construction
or
lining
material.

If
liquid
laundry
cleaning
products
are
transported
in
small
containers,
assume
0.6%
of
the
chemical
remains
as
residue
(
Fcontainer_
residue)
(
20).
Using
0.6%
results
in
a
conservative
estimate,
as
it
represents
the
high­
end
value
of
a
study
regarding
container
residue
for
small
containers.
For
powdered
laundry
cleaning
products,
assume
that
1%
by
weight
(
Fcontainer_
residue)
remains
in
the
container
as
residue
(
20).

Empty
containers
are
typically
sent
to
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
(
8).
Current
CEB
policy
assesses
the
release
of
container
reside
at
the
use
site
and
not
at
a
separate
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
site;
therefore,
assume
all
containers
are
rinsed
on
site
and
the
residual
is
released
to
POTW.
Drum
recyclers/
reconditioners
may
also
incinerate
or
landfill
the
container
residue.
Assessing
the
release
at
the
use
site
instead
of
the
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
will
yield
the
same
total
volume
of
release;
however,
the
days
of
release,
the
number
of
release
sites,
and
the
quantity
released
per
site
per
day
will
differ.

The
information
presented
for
this
release
is
based
on
the
following
standard
EPA/
OPPT
models,
which
are
included
in
ChemSTEER:

 
EPA/
OPPT
Drum
Residual
Model
should
be
used
for
drums
containing
liquids;

 
EPA/
OPPT
Small
Container
Residual
Model
should
be
used
for
small
liquid
containers;
and
 
EPA/
OPPT
Solid
Residuals
in
Transport
Containers
Model
should
be
used
for
containers
of
all
sizes
containing
solids.

The
release
estimates
are
based
on
the
current
version
of
the
models
(
as
of
the
date
of
this
generic
scenario).
Standard
EPA/
OPPT
models
are
subject
to
change;
therefore,
the
current
version
of
the
standard
EPA/
OPPT
model
should
be
used.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
11
If
the
number
of
containers
used
per
site
per
year
(
Ncontainer)
is
fewer
than
the
days
of
operation,
the
days
of
release
equal
the
number
of
containers
and
the
daily
release
is
calculated
based
on
the
following
equation:

day
site
container
residue
_
container
n
formulatio
_
chem
n
formulatio
container
disp
_
residue
_
container
1
F
F
RHO
V
Elocal
 
×
×
×
×
=
[
4­
5]

Where:
Elocalcontainer_
residue_
disp
=
Daily
release
of
chemical
of
interest
from
container
residue
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Vcontainer
=
Volume
of
laundry
product
container
(
Default
=
208
L/
container
(
for
55­
gallon
drum))
RHOformulation
=
Density
of
formulation
(
Default
=
1
kg/
L
)
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)
Fcontainer_
residue
=
Fraction
of
chemical
remaining
in
the
container
as
residue
(
Default
for
larger
liquid
containers
=
0.03
kg
container
residue/
kg
in
container;
smaller
liquid
containers
=
0.006;
all
powder
containers
=
0.01)(
17,
20)

If
the
number
of
containers
used
per
site
per
year
(
Ncontainer)
is
greater
than
the
days
of
operation,
the
days
of
release
equal
the
days
of
operation,
and
the
average
daily
release
is
calculated
based
on
the
following
equation.
Note
that
most
sites
should
use
less
than
one
container
per
day.
Also
use
this
equation
if
a
container
size
is
not
assumed
in
Equation
4­
4
and
the
number
of
containers
used
per
site
per
year
is
unknown.

residue
_
container
day
_
chem
disp
_
residue
_
container
F
Q
Elocal
×
=
[
4­
6]

Where:
Elocalcontainer_
residue_
disp
=
Daily
release
of
chemical
of
interest
from
container
residue
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Qchem_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Fcontainer_
residue
=
Fraction
of
chemical
remaining
in
the
container
as
residue
(
Default
for
larger
liquid
containers
=
0.03
kg
container
residue/
kg
in
container;
smaller
liquid
containers
=
0.006;
all
powder
containers
=
0.01)(
17,
20)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
12
4.2.3
Open
Surface
Losses
to
Air
During
Container
Cleaning
(
Release
3)

Most
chemicals
used
in
laundries
are
not
volatile.
For
chemicals
with
a
vapor
pressure
<
0.01
torr,
releases
to
air
are
expected
to
be
negligible.
However,
a
few
laundry
chemicals,
such
as
fragrances,
may
be
volatile.
If
the
vapor
pressure
of
the
chemical
is
>
0.01
torr,
chemicals
may
volatilize
while
empty
containers
are
being
rinsed
and
cleaned
(
Elocalair_
cleaning).
While
containers
are
typically
cleaned
off
site
by
a
drum
recycler/
reconditioner,
current
CEB
policy
assesses
the
release
to
air
during
container
cleaning
at
the
use
site
and
not
at
a
separate
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
site.
Therefore,
assume
all
containers
are
cleaned
on
site.
Assessing
the
release
at
the
use
site
instead
of
the
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
will
yield
the
same
total
volume
of
release;
however,
the
days
of
release,
the
number
of
release
sites,
and
the
quantity
released
per
site
per
day
will
differ.
The
CEB
standard
model
for
estimating
releases
to
air
from
containers
cleaned
inside
(
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
as
of
the
date
of
this
scenario)
should
be
used.
The
model
inputs
and
default
values
are
listed
in
Table
4­
8.
The
models
and
all
current
CEB
defaults
have
been
programmed
into
ChemSTEER,
and
the
software
should
be
used
to
calculate
open
surface
losses
to
air
during
container
cleaning.
Appendix
C
lists
the
background
and
equations
the
model
uses
to
estimate
daily
releases
to
air.
Appendix
D
provides
CEB
default
values
for
several
model
parameters.

Table
4­
8
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Container
Cleaning
Input
Parameter
Default
Values
Diameter
of
Opening
CEB
default
2
in.
(
5.08
cm)
for
all
containers
less
than
5,000
gallons
(
16)

Frequency
of
Use
Equal
to
operating
days
(
default
=
261
days/
yr;
Table
4­
1)
or
the
number
of
containers
(
Ncontainer,
calculated
in
Equation
4­
4),
whichever
is
fewer
Molecular
Weight
Specific
chemical
parameter
Number
of
Sites
Calculated
in
Section
4.1.3,
Equation
4­
3
Operating
Hours
for
the
Activity
Number
of
containers
per
site
per
day
divided
by
the
fill
rate
(
default
fill
rates
are
found
in
Appendix
C)
Vapor
Pressure
Specific
chemical
parameter
Air
Speed
CEB
defaults
found
in
Appendix
C
Vapor
Pressure
Correction
Factor
Standard
CEB
default
=
1
Note:
The
model
also
assumes
standard
temperature
and
pressure
along
with
ideal
gas
interactions.

4.2.4
Release
from
the
Water­
Washing
Process
(
Release
4)

Industrial
and
institutional
laundries
use
an
estimated
72,000
gallons
of
water/
site­
day,
based
on
an
average
of
2.74
gallons
of
water
used
to
produce
one
pound
of
dry,
clean
laundry
(
2)
and
the
average
amount
of
laundry
processed
per
site
shown
in
Table
2­
1.
Laundry
is
typically
rinsed
to
remove
the
majority
of
laundry
chemicals,
since
they
may
cause
skin
irritation.
Only
minimal
quantities
of
laundry
cleaning
products
may
remain
on
the
laundered
item
after
washing.
While
many
facilities
may
have
on
site
wastewater
treatment,
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
13
most
of
these
treatment
technologies
are
designed
to
remove
dirt,
oil,
and
other
materials
that
were
lifted
from
the
textile
during
laundering.
On
site
treatment
technologies
are
generally
not
designed
to
remove
laundry
cleaning
products.
Section
6.2
discusses
the
treatment
technologies
in
more
detail.
All
of
the
facilities
responding
in
the
DEQ
reported
discharging
to
a
POTW.

To
calculate
the
daily
release
to
POTW
of
non­
volatile
components,
assume
the
entire
production
volume
of
the
chemical
of
interest
except
the
container
residue
is
discharged
directly
to
a
POTW
from
the
washing
process.

)
F
1
(
Q
Elocal
residue
_
container
day
_
chem
washing
 
×
=
[
4­
7]

Where:
Elocalwashing
=
Daily
release
of
chemical
of
interest
to
POTW
from
the
washing
process
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Qchem_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Fcontainer_
residue
=
Fraction
of
chemical
remaining
in
the
container
as
residue
(
Default
for
larger
liquid
containers
=
0.03
kg
container
residue/
kg
in
container;
smaller
liquid
containers
=
0.006;
all
powder
containers
=
0.01)(
17,
20)

Volatile
components
may
be
released
to
a
POTW
in
wastewater
after
the
washing
cycle.
They
may
also
evaporate
and
be
released
to
air
during
the
washing
process,
especially
if
a
hot
water
washing
cycle
is
used.
Any
residual
volatile
components
that
are
not
removed
during
the
washing
process
will
evaporate
during
the
transfer,
steaming,
pressing,
or
drying
of
the
laundered
textile.
For
volatile
components,
assume
the
entire
production
volume
of
the
chemical
of
interest,
except
for
container
residue
and
releases
to
air
during
transfers
and
container
cleaning,
is
released
to
POTW
or
vented
to
air.
The
following
equation
can
be
used
to
calculate
the
daily
release
to
POTW
or
air
of
volatile
components
from
the
water­
washing
process:

transfers
_
air
cleaning
_
air
residue
_
container
day
_
chem
washing
Elocal
Elocal
)
F
1
(
Q
Elocal
 
 
 
×
=
[
4­
8]

Where:
Elocalwashing
=
Daily
release
of
chemical
of
interest
to
POTW
or
air
from
the
washing
process
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Qchem_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Fcontainer_
residue
=
Fraction
of
chemical
remaining
in
the
container
as
residue
(
Default
for
larger
liquid
containers
=
0.03
kg
container
residue/
kg
in
container;
smaller
liquid
containers
=
0.006;
all
powder
containers
=
0.01)(
17,
20)
Elocalair_
cleaning
=
Daily
release
to
air
of
volatile
chemicals
during
container
cleaning
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
14
Elocalair_
transfers
=
Daily
release
to
air
of
volatile
chemicals
during
transfers
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)

The
quantity
of
volatile
chemicals
released
to
water
versus
released
to
air
is
unknown
and
may
be
dependent
on
several
factors
such
as
wash­
water
temperature,
agitation,
washer
venting,
and
the
vapor
pressure
of
the
chemical
of
interest.
Fragrances
may
be
released
to
air
at
a
higher
fraction
than
other
volatile
components
in
laundry
cleaning
products.
Fragrances
are
generally
designed
for
the
consumer
or
worker
to
help
mask
less
pleasant
chemical
odors.
They
are
more
likely
to
remain
on
clothing
after
the
washing
process.
However,
they
are
generally
not
designed
to
stay
on
the
textile
after
drying,
and
will
volatilize
during
the
drying
cycle
(
21).

4.2.5
Mass
Balance
The
following
equation
provides
a
balance
for
the
use
of
laundry
cleaning
products
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundry
sites.

days
_
working
sites
washing
cleaning
_
air
residue
_
container
day
_
chem
transfers
_
air
yr
_
chem
Time
N
)
Elocal
Elocal
F
Q
Elocal
(
Q
×
×
+
+
×
+
=
[
4­
9]

Where:
Qchem_
yr
=
Annual
production
volume
of
the
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
yr)
Elocalair_
transfers
=
Daily
release
to
air
of
volatile
chemicals
during
transfers
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Qchem_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
chemical
of
interest
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Fcontainer_
residue
=
Fraction
of
chemical
remaining
in
the
container
as
residue
(
Default
for
larger
liquid
containers
=
0.03
kg
container
residue/
kg
in
container;
smaller
liquid
containers
=
0.006;
all
powder
containers
=
0.01)(
17,
20)
Elocalair_
cleaning
=
Daily
release
to
air
of
volatile
chemicals
during
container
cleaning
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Elocalwashing
=
Daily
release
of
chemical
of
interest
to
POTW
or
air
from
the
washing
process
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Nsites
=
Number
of
sites
using
the
laundry
product
containing
the
chemical
of
interest
(
sites)
TIMEworking_
days
=
Operating
days
(
See
Table
4­
1;
Default
=
261
days/
yr)(
4)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
15
Summary
of
Relationship
Between
Release
Estimates
of
Section
4.2
Chemical
of
interest
release
estimates
(
Releases
1
through
4)
are
all
related.
If
less
than
one
container
is
used
per
site
per
day
(
typically
true),
the
release
from
container
residue
will
not
occur
over
the
number
of
operating
days,
while
other
releases
will
occur
over
the
number
of
operating
days.
Equations
4­
7,
4­
8,
and
4­
9
rely
on
the
alternate
method
for
calculating
the
release
from
container
residue
shown
in
Equation
4­
6,
because
the
water
discharge
release,
fugitive
air
release,
and
mass
balance
are
based
on
daily
releases
occurring
over
the
number
of
operating
days.
Due
to
rounding
errors
when
determining
the
number
of
containers
per
site
per
year,
Elocalcontainer_
residue_
disp
may
not
be
equal
to
the
terms
used
in
Equation
4­
9
(
e.
g.,
calculating
the
release
based
on
five
full
containers
per
site
per
year,
when
only
four
and
a
half
will
be
used).
However,
this
rounding
error
is
automatically
corrected
when
using
standard
EPA/
OPPT
container
residual
models
in
ChemSTEER.

4.3
Occupational
Exposure
Assessments
The
following
section
present
estimation
methods
for
worker
exposures
to
the
chemical
of
interest.
Figure
3­
1
presents
possible
worker
exposures.
Workers
are
expected
to
have
inhalation
and
dermal
exposures
to
laundry
chemicals
during
the
transfer
of
the
chemicals
into
the
washing
machine.
Common
personal
protective
equipment
use
in
laundries
include:

 
Skin
and
eye
protection
when
handling
corrosive
substances;

 
Respirator
protection
when
handling
substances
which
produce
dusts
or
vapors
that
can
be
inhaled;
and
 
Skin
protection
if
worker's
hands
are
constantly
immersed
in
water
or
wash
solutions
containing
detergents
and
other
chemicals.
(
22)

However,
these
situations
are
not
typical
for
most
operations
at
industrial
and
commercial
laundries.
Therefore,
the
use
of
PPE
or
engineering
controls
to
reduce
occupational
exposures
is
not
expected.

4.3.1
Number
of
Workers
Washer/
dryer
operators
and
maintenance
supply
personnel
are
the
laundry
workers
with
the
greatest
potential
to
be
exposed
to
laundry
chemicals.
Figure
3­
1
shows
these
production
activities,
designated
as
worker
activities
A,
B,
and
C.
Table
4­
9
presents
the
average
number
of
workers
exposed
per
laundry
site,
generated
using
the
following
data
sources:

 
2001
County
Business
Patterns
data
on
the
US
Census
Bureau
website
­
Extracted
total
number
of
workers
and
sites
data
the
for
institutional
(
NAICS
code
812331)
and
industrial
(
NAICS
code
812332)
laundries.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
16
 
DEQ
database
­
Pulled
the
average
number
of
workers
per
site
and
exposed
workers
per
site:
specifically,
the
total
number
of
workers
per
site,
the
number
of
management
workers,
and
the
number
of
workers
engaging
in
non­
laundry
activities.
If
it
is
assumed
that
all
management
employees
and
non­
laundry
employees
are
not
exposed,
the
remaining
80%
of
the
employees
can
be
classified
as
production
workers,
potentially
exposed
to
the
chemicals
of
interest.

Table
4­
9
Number
of
Total
Workers
and
Production
Workers
per
Site
Type
of
Laundry
NAICS
Code
Total
Number
of
Workers*
Total
Number
of
Sites*
Average
Number
of
Workers
per
Site
Exposed
Workers
per
Site**
Industrial
812332
77,724
1,488
52
42
Institutional
812331
56,582
1,191
48
38
Average
134,306
2,679
50
40
*
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2001
County
Business
Patterns
(
5).
**
Based
on
80%
of
workers
potentially
exposed
(
see
above)

However,
this
estimate
of
the
number
of
exposed
workers
per
site
may
also
include
dry
cleaning
operators,
folders,
pressers,
and
delivery
drivers
who
may
not
be
exposed
(
or
may
be
minimally
exposed)
to
chemicals
in
the
laundry
cleaning
products.
Based
on
sitevisit
experience,
approximately
1­
2
workers
are
exposed
per
washer
(
23).
Using
DEQ
data
and
observed
activities,
Table
4­
10
presents
the
number
of
water­
based
washers
per
site
and
number
of
exposed
workers
per
site.
This
estimate
is
still
very
conservative
as
a
number
of
laundries
have
automated
chemical
loading
systems.
Note
that
the
same
workers
exposed
to
the
chemical
of
interest
during
washer
loading
(
Exposure
A)
are
also
likely
to
be
exposed
to
any
vaporized
chemical
during
steaming,
drying,
or
transfer
operations
(
Exposure
C).

Table
4­
10
Number
of
Exposed
Workers
per
Site
Number
of
Washers
per
Site*
Type
of
Laundry
Average
Range
Number
of
Workers
Exposed
per
Site**
Industrial
5.9
2­
20
6­
12
Institutional
8.8
2­
17
9­
18
All
7.3
1­
28
8­
16
*
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database
(
4).
**
Based
on
the
average
number
of
washers
per
site
and
1­
2
workers
per
washers
(
23).

One
additional
worker
per
site
(
CEB
default
for
container
cleaning,
as
of
the
date
of
this
scenario)
should
be
assumed
exposed
to
the
chemical
of
interest
during
container
cleaning
(
Exposure
B).
While
this
worker
may
not
be
exposed
at
the
industrial
or
institutional
laundry
site,
he
may
be
exposed
to
the
laundry
chemical
at
a
drum
recycler/
reconditioner.
Because
current
CEB
policy
assesses
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
during
container
cleaning
at
the
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
17
use
site
and
not
at
a
separate
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
site,
this
additional
worker
per
laundry
site
should
be
factored
in
to
account
for
workers
at
the
recycler/
reconditioner
sites.

4.3.2
Exposure
from
Loading
Laundry
Cleaning
Products
into
Washers
(
Exposure
A)

Laundry
cleaning
products
may
be
added
automatically
or
manually
to
the
washing
machine.
Automatic
loaders
limit
worker
exposure
during
the
washing
process,
but
workers
may
still
be
exposed
when
connecting
transfer
lines
or
transferring
the
liquid
chemicals
from
the
transport
container
to
storage
tanks.
If
automatic
loaders
are
not
used,
workers
manually
scoop
or
pour
solid
or
liquid
detergent
chemicals
into
the
washing
machine
(
default
scenario).
If
site­
specific
information
is
not
available,
assume
that
the
laundry
cleaning
product
is
manually
loaded
as
a
conservative
exposure
estimate.
In
the
case
of
automatic
loading,
the
number
of
days
of
exposure
is
equal
to
the
number
of
containers
used
per
year
if
the
number
of
containers
is
less
than
the
days
of
operation.
Assume
8
­
16
workers
per
site
are
exposed
to
the
cleaning
product
during
this
activity,
if
site­
specific
information
is
not
available.

Inhalation
Exposure:

Liquids:
The
method
used
to
calculate
inhalation
exposure
depends
on
the
volatility
and
the
physical
state
of
the
chemical
of
interest.
Inhalation
exposure
to
liquids
is
negligible
for
nonvolatile
liquids
(
vapor­
pressure
<
0.001
torr
standard
CEB
estimate
(
24)).
Using
the
vapor
generation
rate
calculated
in
Release
1,
the
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
can
be
used
to
calculate
worker
inhalation
exposure
due
to
volatilization
during
transfer
operations.
The
model
estimates
that
the
airborne
concentration
of
the
chemical
is
a
function
of
the
source
vapor
generation
rate
and
the
volumetric
ventilation
rate
within
a
given
space.
The
model
also
includes
simplifying
assumptions
of
steady
state
(
constant
generation
rate
and
constant
ventilation
rate)
and
a
mixing
factor
(
for
non­
ideal
mixing
of
air)
(
25).
The
default
ventilation
rates
and
mixing
factors
provide
a
typical
and
worst
case
estimate
of
exposure.
The
airborne
concentration
of
the
chemical
cannot
exceed
the
level
of
saturation
for
the
chemical.
The
model
and
all
current
CEB
defaults
have
been
programmed
into
ChemSTEER,
and
the
software
should
be
used
to
calculate
inhalation
exposures
from
transfer
operations.
Appendix
C
lists
the
background
and
equations
the
model
uses
to
estimate
daily
releases
to
air.
Appendix
D
provides
CEB
default
values
for
several
model
parameters.

Table
4­
11
lists
the
model
inputs
and
default
values.
Note
that
while
the
release
and
vapor
generation
for
manual
loading
is
over
11
hours/
day,
the
individual
worker
exposure
would
be
only
the
CEB
default
of
8
hours/
day.
Similarly,
while
facilities
may
operate
an
average
of
261days/
year,
workers
are
likely
to
be
exposed
only
the
CEB
maximum
default
of
250
days/
yr.
This
estimate
is
equivalent
to
full­
time
employment
and
considers
an
individual
worker's
vacation,
sick,
and
weekend
time
(
17).
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
18
Table
4­
11
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Transfers
Input
Parameter
Default
Values
Inhalation
Rate
Default
=
1.25
m3/
hr
(
26)

Exposure
Days
Manual
loading
(
default):
CEB
maximum
default
=
250
days/
yr
(
17)
Automatic
loading:
CEB
maximum
default
=
250
days/
yr
(
17)
or
the
number
of
containers
(
Ncontainer,
calculated
in
Equation
4­
4),
whichever
is
fewer
Vapor
Generation
Rate
Calculated
by
the
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
(
Section
4.2.1)

Exposure
Duration
Manual
loading
(
default):
CEB
default
=
8
hr/
day
Automatic
loading:
Number
of
containers
per
site
per
day
divided
by
the
fill
rate
(
default
fill
rates
are
found
in
Appendix
C)
Mixing
Factor
Use
CEB
defaults
(
Appendix
C)

Molecular
Weight
Specific
chemical
parameter
Number
of
Sites
Calculated
in
Section
4.1.3,
Equation
4­
3
Ventilation
Rate
Use
CEB
defaults
(
Appendix
C)

Vapor
Pressure
Specific
chemical
parameter
Vapor
Pressure
Correction
Factor
Standard
CEB
default
=
1
Note:
The
model
also
assumes
standard
temperature
and
pressure
along
with
ideal
gas
interactions.

Solids:
The
transfer
of
non­
volatile
powdered
laundry
cleaning
products
from
containers
to
washing
machines
generates
particulates.
The
degree
of
inhalation
exposure
to
particulates
depends
on
the
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
cleaning
product
(
Fchem_
formulation),
the
potential
concentration
of
the
laundry
cleaning
product
in
the
worker's
breathing
zone
(
Cparticulate),
and
the
total
amount
of
laundry
cleaning
product
the
worker
is
exposed
to
per
day
(
Qfacility_
day).
Note
that
the
trigger
for
using
equation
4­
10
versus
4­
11
is
based
on
the
amount
of
laundry
cleaning
product
the
worker
is
exposed
to
per
day
(
Qfacility_
day),
not
the
amount
of
chemical
of
interest
the
worker
is
exposed
to
per
day
(
Qchem_
day).

If
the
transfer
rate
of
the
solid
powder
laundry
cleaning
product
containing
the
chemical
of
interest
(
Qfacility_
day
)
is
greater
than
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day
use
the
OSHA
Total
PNOR
PEL­
Limiting
Model:

lation
chem_
formu
exposure
breathing
e
particulat
inhalation
F
TIME
RATE
C
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
10]

Where:
EXPinhalation
=
Inhalation
exposure
from
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Cparticulate
=
Concentration
of
particulate
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
(
Default
=
15
mg/
m3;
based
on
OSHA
PEL
(
8­
hr
TWA*)
for
nuisance
dusts,
not
otherwise
regulated
29
CFR
1910.1000)(
25)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
19
RATEbreathing
=
Typical
worker
breathing
rate
(
Default
=
1.25
m3/
hr)
(
26)
TIMEexposure
=
Duration
of
exposure
(
Default
=
8
hr/
day,
the
default
values
for
Cparticulate
are
8­
hr
TWA*;
therefore,
8­
hr/
day
must
be
used)
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)
*
TWA
=
Time­
weighted
average
The
accuracy
of
solid
component
inhalation
estimates
are
limited
by
the
estimated
airborne
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
and
the
assumed
breathing
rate.

If
the
transfer
rate
of
the
solid
powder
laundry
cleaning
product
containing
the
chemical
of
interest
(
Qfacility_
day
)
is
less
than
or
equal
to
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day
use
the
EPA/
OPPT
Small
Volume
Solids
Handling
Inhalation
Model:

exposure
lation
chem_
formu
ay
facility_
d
inhalation
F
F
Q
EXP
×
×
=
[
4­
11]

Where:
EXPinhalation
=
Inhalation
exposure
from
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Qfacility_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
laundry
product
(
kg
of
formulation/
siteday
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)
Fexposure
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
total
solid
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
(
Default
=
0.0477
(
typical)
to
0.161
(
worst)
mgsite
kg
of
formulation)
(
27)

Data
collected
in
a
textile
dye
weighing
monitoring
study
were
used
to
calculate
the
default
values
for
concentration
of
the
total
solid
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
used
in
Equation
4­
11.
During
this
study,
two
personal
monitoring
devices
measured
on
dye
weighers
measured
exposure
levels
at
24
facilities
(
27).
CEB
uses
this
monitoring
data
to
estimate
inhalation
exposures
to
solids
transferred
at
a
rate
less
than
54
kg/
site­
day
in
any
industry,
when
industry
specific
information
is
unavailable.

Dermal
Exposure:

Dermal
exposure
is
expected
for
both
automatic
and
manual
loading.
Automatic
loaders
limit
worker
exposure
during
the
washing
process,
but
workers
may
still
be
exposed
when
connecting
transfer
lines
or
transferring
the
liquid
chemicals
from
the
transport
container
to
storage
tanks.
If
automatic
loaders
are
not
used,
workers
manually
scoop
or
pour
solid
or
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
20
liquid
detergent
chemicals
into
the
washing
machine.
No
dermal
monitoring
data
on
the
transfer
of
laundry
cleaning
products
were
found.
In
the
absence
of
data,
the
EPA/
OPPT
standard
models
for
estimating
dermal
exposures
from
industrial
activities
can
be
used.
Similar
models
can
be
used
to
estimate
exposure
to
detergent
chemicals
for
both
automatic
and
manual
loading.
To
estimate
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
liquid
formulation
during
these
activities,
the
EPA/
OPPT
routine
two­
hand
contact
with
liquids
model
(
EPA/
OPPT
2­
Hand
Dermal
Contact
with
Liquid
Model
in
ChemSTEER)
should
be
used
(
28).
This
model
is
based
on
experimental
data
with
liquids
of
varying
viscosity.
The
amount
of
exposure
to
hands
was
measured
for
various
types
of
contact,
then
judgments
were
made
as
to
the
types
of
common
industrial
activities
that
could
be
associated
with
the
experimental
data.
Similar
assessments
were
made
based
on
experimental
data
from
exposure
to
solids.
To
estimate
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
solid
powder
formulation,
the
EPA/
OPPT
routine
two­
hand
direct
handling
of
solids
model
(
EPA/
OPPT
Direct
2­
Hand
Dermal
Contact
with
Solids
Model
in
ChemSTEER)
should
be
used
(
28).
Appendix
E
presents
a
table
of
dermal
assessment
factors,
derived
from
several
sources,
including
available
data
on
pesticide
exposures
collected
by
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
28).
Another
key
assumption
and
limitation
of
the
dermal
model
is
that
a
single
contact
with
a
chemical
results
in
an
exposure
assessment
for
the
entire
day.
These
factors
provide
an
assessment
of
potential
exposure
and
do
not
take
into
account
any
protection
from
the
use
of
protective
gloves;
however,
protective
gloves
are
not
expected
to
be
worn
in
industrial
and
institutional
laundries.

The
information
presented
for
standard
EPA/
OPPT
models
is
based
on
the
current
version
of
the
models
(
as
of
the
date
of
this
generic
scenario).
Standard
EPA/
OPPT
models
are
subject
to
change;
therefore,
the
current
version
of
the
standard
EPA/
OPPT
models
should
be
used.

Liquids:
To
estimate
the
potential
worker
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
liquid
laundry
cleaning
product
for
this
activity,
use
the
following
equation:

lation
chem_
formu
nt
exp_
incide
surface
n
liquid_
ski
dermal
F
N
AREA
Q
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
12]

Where:
EXPdermal
=
Potential
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Qliquid_
skin
=
Quantity
of
liquid
remaining
on
skin
(
Defaults
=
2.1
mg/
cm2­
incident
(
high­
end)
and
0.7
mg/
cm2­
incident
(
lowend
(
28)
AREAsurface
=
Surface
area
of
contact
(
Default
=
840
cm2,
2
hands)
(
28)
Nexp_
incident
=
Number
of
exposure
incidents
per
day
(
Default
=
1
incident/
day)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
21
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)

Only
one
contact
per
day
is
assumed
because
the
quantity
of
liquid
remaining
on
skin,
with
few
exceptions,
is
not
expected
to
be
significantly
affected
either
by
wiping
excess
from
skin
or
by
repeated
contact(
s)
with
additional
chemical
(
i.
e.,
wiping
excess
from
the
skin
does
not
remove
a
significant
fraction
of
the
small
layer
of
chemical
adhering
to
the
skin
and
additional
contacts
with
the
chemical
do
not
add
a
significant
fraction
to
the
layer).
Exceptions
to
this
assumption
may
be
considered
for
chemicals
with
high
volatility
and/
or
with
very
high
rates
of
absorption
into
the
skin.

Solids:
To
estimate
the
potential
worker
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
solid
laundry
cleaning
product
for
this
activity,
use
the
following
equation:

n
formulatio
_
chem
dermal
F
mg/
day
3,100
to
p
u
EXP
×
=
[
4­
13]

Where:
EXPdermal
=
Potential
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)

4.3.3
Exposure
During
Transport
Container
Cleaning
(
Exposure
B)

Workers
may
be
exposed
to
the
chemical
of
interest
during
container
cleaning.
While
this
activity
may
not
occur
at
the
industrial
or
institutional
laundry
facility,
workers
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
the
laundry
chemical
during
cleaning
operations
at
a
drum
recycler/
reconditioner.
Current
CEB
policy
assesses
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
during
container
cleaning
at
the
use
site
and
not
at
a
separate
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
site.
Assessing
the
exposure
at
the
use
site
instead
of
the
drum
recycler/
reconditioner
will
yield
the
same
daily
exposure;
however,
the
days
of
exposure
and
the
total
number
of
exposed
workers
may
differ.
The
exposures
presented
for
this
activity
are
similar
to
those
presented
for
Exposure
A.
See
Section
4.3.2
for
the
derivation
and
explanation
of
these
models.

Inhalation
Exposure:

Liquids:
Using
the
vapor
generation
rate
calculated
in
Release
3,
the
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
can
be
used
to
calculate
worker
inhalation
exposure
due
to
volatilization
during
cleaning
operations.
The
default
ventilation
rates
and
mixing
factors
provide
a
typical
and
worst
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
22
case
estimate
of
exposure.
The
model
and
all
current
CEB
defaults
have
been
programmed
into
ChemSTEER,
and
the
software
should
be
used
to
calculate
inhalation
exposures
from
transfer
operations.
Table
4­
12
lists
the
model
inputs
and
default
values.
Note
that
while
facilities
may
operate
an
average
of
261days/
year,
workers
are
likely
to
be
exposed
only
the
CEB
maximum
default
of
250
days/
yr.
This
estimate
is
equivalent
to
full­
time
employment
and
considers
an
individual
worker's
vacation,
sick,
and
weekend
time
(
17).
The
models
and
all
current
CEB
defaults
have
been
programmed
into
ChemSTEER,
and
the
software
should
be
used
to
calculate
inhalation
exposure
to
volatile
chemicals
during
container
cleaning.
Appendix
C
lists
the
background
and
equations
the
model
uses
to
estimate
daily
releases
to
air.
Appendix
D
provides
CEB
default
values
for
several
model
parameters.

Table
4­
12
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Container
Cleaning
Input
Parameter
Default
Values
Inhalation
Rate
Default
=
1.25
m3/
hr
(
26)

Exposure
Days
Equal
to
CEB
maximum
exposure
days
(
250
days/
yr)(
17),
or
the
number
of
containers
(
Ncontainer,
calculated
in
Equation
4­
4),
whichever
is
fewer
Vapor
Generation
Rate
Calculated
by
the
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
(
Section
4.2.3)

Exposure
Duration
Number
of
containers
per
site
per
day
divided
by
the
fill
rate
(
default
fill
rates
are
found
in
Appendix
C)
Mixing
Factor
Use
CEB
defaults
(
Appendix
C)

Molecular
Weight
Specific
chemical
parameter
Number
of
Sites
Calculated
in
Section
4.1.3,
Equation
4­
3
Ventilation
Rate
Use
CEB
defaults
(
Appendix
C)

Vapor
Pressure
Specific
chemical
parameter
Vapor
Pressure
Correction
Factor
Standard
CEB
default
=
1
Note:
The
model
also
assumes
standard
temperature
and
pressure
along
with
ideal
gas
interactions.

Solids:
The
cleaning
of
solid
powders
from
transport
containers
may
generate
dust
particulate.
The
degree
of
inhalation
exposure
to
particulates
depends
on
the
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
formulation
(
Fchem_
formulation),
the
potential
concentration
of
the
laundry
chemical
in
the
worker's
breathing
zone
(
Cparticulate),
and
the
total
amount
of
laundry
cleaning
product
the
worker
is
exposed
to
per
day
(
Qfacility_
day).
Note
that
the
trigger
for
using
equation
4­
14
versus
4­
15
is
based
on
the
amount
of
laundry
cleaning
product
the
worker
is
exposed
to
per
day
(
Qfacility_
day),
not
the
amount
of
chemical
of
interest
the
worker
is
exposed
to
per
day
(
Qchem_
day).

If
the
transfer
rate
of
the
solid
powder
laundry
cleaning
product
containing
the
chemical
of
interest
(
Qfacility_
day
)
is
greater
than
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day
use
the
OSHA
Total
PNOR
PEL­
Limiting
Model:
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
23
lation
chem_
formu
exposure
breathing
e
particulat
inhalation
F
TIME
RATE
C
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
14]

Where:
EXPinhalation
=
Inhalation
exposure
from
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Cparticulate
=
Concentration
of
particulate
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
(
Default
=
15
mg/
m3;
based
on
OSHA
PEL
(
8­
hr
TWA*)
for
nuisance
dusts,
not
otherwise
regulated
29
CFR
1910.1000)(
25)
RATEbreathing
=
Typical
worker
breathing
rate
(
Default
=
1.25
m3/
hr)
(
26)
TIMEexposure
=
Duration
of
exposure
(
Default
=
8
hr/
day,
the
default
values
for
Cparticulate
are
8­
hr
TWA*;
therefore,
8­
hr/
day
must
be
used)
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)
*
TWA
=
Time­
weighted
average
The
accuracy
of
solid
component
inhalation
estimates
are
limited
by
the
estimated
airborne
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
and
the
assumed
breathing
rate.

If
the
transfer
rate
of
the
solid
powder
laundry
cleaning
product
containing
the
chemical
of
interest
(
Qfacility_
day
)
is
less
than
or
equal
to
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day
use
the
EPA/
OPPT
Small
Volume
Solids
Handling
Inhalation
Model:

exposure
lation
chem_
formu
ay
facility_
d
inhalation
F
F
Q
EXP
×
×
=
[
4­
15]

Where:
EXPinhalation
=
Inhalation
exposure
from
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Qfacility_
day
=
Daily
use
rate
of
laundry
product
(
kg
of
formulation/
siteday
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)
Fexposure
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
total
solid
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
(
Default
=
0.0477
(
typical)
to
0.161
(
worst)
mgsite
kg
of
formulation)
(
27)

Data
collected
in
a
textile
dye
weighing
monitoring
study
were
used
to
calculate
the
default
values
for
concentration
of
the
total
solid
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
used
in
Equation
4­
11.
During
this
study,
two
personal
monitoring
devices
measured
on
dye
weighers
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
24
measured
exposure
levels
at
24
facilities
(
27).
CEB
uses
this
monitoring
data
to
estimate
inhalation
exposures
to
solids
transferred
at
a
rate
less
than
54
kg/
site­
day
in
any
industry,
when
industry
specific
information
is
unavailable.

Dermal
Exposure:

Dermal
exposure
is
expected
during
the
cleaning
of
transport
containers.
No
dermal
monitoring
data
on
the
cleaning
of
laundry
cleaning
products
transport
containers
were
found.
In
the
absence
of
data,
the
EPA/
OPPT
standard
models
for
estimating
dermal
exposures
from
industrial
activities
can
be
used.
To
estimate
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
liquid
formulation
during
these
activities,
the
EPA/
OPPT
routine
two­
hand
contact
with
liquids
model
(
EPA/
OPPT
2­
Hand
Dermal
Contact
with
Liquid
Model
in
ChemSTEER)
should
be
used
(
28).
To
estimate
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
solid
powder
formulation
during
these
activities,
the
EPA/
OPPT
routine
two­
hand
direct
handling
of
solids
model
(
EPA/
OPPT
Direct
2­
Hand
Dermal
Contact
with
Solids
Model
in
ChemSTEER)
should
be
used
(
28).
The
rationale
for
these
models
is
further
explained
in
Section
4.3.2
and
Appendix
E.
These
factors
provide
an
assessment
of
potential
exposure
and
do
not
take
into
account
any
protection
from
the
use
of
protective
gloves;
however,
protective
gloves
are
not
expected
to
be
worn
in
industrial
and
institutional
laundries
but
may
be
worn
at
a
drum
recycler/
reconditioner.

The
information
presented
for
standard
EPA/
OPPT
models
is
based
on
the
current
version
of
the
models
(
as
of
the
date
of
this
generic
scenario).
Standard
EPA/
OPPT
models
are
subject
to
change;
therefore,
the
current
version
of
the
standard
EPA/
OPPT
models
should
be
used.

Liquids:
To
estimate
the
potential
worker
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
liquid
laundry
cleaning
product
for
this
activity,
use
the
following
equation:

lation
chem_
formu
nt
exp_
incide
surface
n
liquid_
ski
dermal
F
N
AREA
Q
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
16]

Where:
EXPdermal
=
Potential
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Qliquid_
skin
=
Quantity
of
liquid
remaining
on
skin
(
Defaults
=
2.1
mg/
cm2­
incident
(
high­
end)
and
0.7
mg/
cm2­
incident
(
lowend
(
28)
AREAsurface
=
Surface
area
of
contact
(
Default
=
840
cm2,
2
hands)
(
28)
Nexp_
incident
=
Number
of
exposure
incidents
per
day
(
Default
=
1
incident/
day)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
25
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)

Only
one
contact
per
day
is
assumed
because
the
quantity
of
liquid
remaining
on
skin,
with
few
exceptions,
is
not
expected
to
be
significantly
affected
either
by
wiping
excess
from
skin
or
by
repeated
contact(
s)
with
additional
chemical
(
i.
e.,
wiping
excess
from
the
skin
does
not
remove
a
significant
fraction
of
the
small
layer
of
chemical
adhering
to
the
skin
and
additional
contacts
with
the
chemical
do
not
add
a
significant
fraction
to
the
layer).
Exceptions
to
this
assumption
may
be
considered
for
chemicals
with
high
volatility
and/
or
with
very
high
rates
of
absorption
into
the
skin.

Solids:
To
estimate
the
potential
worker
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
in
a
solid
laundry
cleaning
product
for
this
activity,
use
the
following
equation:

n
formulatio
_
chem
dermal
F
mg/
day
3,100
to
p
u
EXP
×
=
[
4­
17]

Where:
EXPdermal
=
Potential
dermal
exposure
to
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Fchem_
formulation
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
Default
for
detergent
formulations,
see
Table
3­
1;
Default
for
all
others
=
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)(
11)

4.3.4
Exposure
to
Vaporized
Chemicals
During
Operations
(
Exposure
C)

The
quantity
of
volatile
chemicals
released
to
water
versus
released
to
air
is
unknown
and
may
be
dependent
on
several
factors
such
as
wash­
water
temperature,
agitation,
washer
venting,
and
the
vapor
pressure
of
the
chemical
of
interest.
Fragrances
may
be
released
to
air
at
a
higher
fraction
than
other
volatile
components
in
laundry
cleaning
products.
Fragrances
are
generally
designed
for
the
consumer
or
worker
to
help
mask
less
pleasant
chemical
odors.
They
are
more
likely
to
remain
on
clothing
after
the
washing
process.
However,
they
are
generally
not
designed
to
stay
on
the
textile
after
drying,
and
will
volatilize
during
the
drying
cycle
(
21).
While
most
of
the
evaporated
volatile
chemical
of
interest
from
the
washing
and
drying
processes
will
be
vented
to
the
atmosphere,
the
chemical
may
enter
in
the
workers'
breathing
zone
when
workers
open
the
washer
or
dryer,
transfer
the
laundered
items,
or
steam
or
press
the
item.

For
non­
volatile
components
(
vapor
pressure
<
0.001
torr
standard
CEB
estimate
(
24))
inhalation
exposure
is
negligible.
Assume
as
a
conservative
estimate
for
volatile
chemicals,
assume
ten
percent
(
Fbreathing_
zone)
of
Release
4
(
Elocalwashing)
volatilizes
in
the
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
26
workers'
breathing
zone.
Based
on
the
amount
of
the
chemical
likely
discharged
to
POTW
or
vented
to
air
during
the
washing
process,
this
estimate
is
conservative
and
may
be
adjusted
based
on
engineering
judgment.
The
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
can
be
used
to
calculate
this
worker
inhalation
exposure.
Note
the
model
precludes
the
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
air
from
exceeding
the
saturation
level
of
the
chemical
in
air.
Table
4­
13
lists
the
model
inputs
and
default
values.
The
model
and
all
current
CEB
defaults
have
been
programmed
into
ChemSTEER,
and
the
software
should
be
used
to
calculate
inhalation
exposure
from
this
activity.
Appendix
C
lists
the
equations
the
model
uses
to
estimate
inhalation
exposure.
Appendix
D
provides
a
detailed
description
of
input
variables,
along
with
the
corresponding
CEB
default
values
for
the
model.

Assuming
a
fraction
of
the
Release
4
volatilizes
in
the
workers'
breathing
zone,
Equation
4­
18
should
first
be
used
to
estimate
the
average
vapor
generation
rate.
Note
that
while
Release
4
and
vapor
generation
occur
over
11
hours/
day,
the
individual
worker
exposure
would
only
occur
over
the
CEB
default
of
8
hours/
day.

3.6
TIME
F
Elocal
Q
urs
working_
ho
zone
breathing_
washing
ration
vapor_
gene
×
×
=
[
4­
18]

Where:
Qvapor_
generation
=
Average
vapor
generation
rate
(
g
of
chemical
of
interest/
sec)
Elocalwashing
=
Daily
release
of
chemical
of
interest
to
POTW
or
air
from
washing
operation
(
kg
chemical
of
interest/
site­
day)
Fbreathing_
zone
=
Fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
volatizing
in
the
workers'
breathing
zone
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
kg
released
during
washing
operation;
Default
=
0.1)
TIMEworking_
hours
=
Hours
of
operation
per
day
(
hr/
site­
day;
See
Table
4­
7;
Default
=
11
hr/
site­
day)(
4)
Note:
The
factor
3.6
in
Equation
4­
18
accounts
for
unit
conversions.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
4­
27
Table
4­
13
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
Parameter
Default
Values
During
Operations
Input
Parameter
Default
Values
Inhalation
Rate
Default
=
1.25
m3/
hr
(
26)

Exposure
Days
CEB
maximum
default
=
250
days/
yr
(
17)

Vapor
Generation
Rate
Calculated
in
Equation
4­
18
Exposure
Duration
CEB
default
=
8
hr/
day
Mixing
Factor
Use
CEB
defaults
(
Appendix
C)

Molecular
Weight
Specific
chemical
parameter
Number
of
Sites
Calculated
in
Section
4.1.3,
Equation
4­
3
Ventilation
Rate
Use
CEB
defaults
(
Appendix
C)

Vapor
Pressure
Specific
chemical
parameter
Vapor
Pressure
Correction
Factor
Standard
CEB
default
=
1
Note:
The
model
also
assumes
standard
temperature
and
pressure
along
with
ideal
gas
interactions.

Assume
the
same
8­
16
workers
per
site
exposed
during
the
loading
of
laundry
cleaning
products
into
the
washer
are
exposed
to
the
chemical
of
interest
during
this
activity,
if
site­
specific
information
is
not
available.
Dermal
exposure
is
not
estimated
for
this
activity,
because
any
exposure
is
insignificant
compared
to
the
dermal
exposure
from
loading
the
chemical
of
interest
into
the
washer.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
1
5.0
SUMMARY
OF
EQUATIONS
AND
SAMPLE
CALCULATIONS
Section
5.1
presents
a
summary
of
all
the
equations
introduced
in
Section
4
of
this
document.
Section
5.2
shows
how
all
of
these
equations
are
related
and
provides
sample
calculations,
while
Section
5.3
provides
additional
examples
of
estimating
the
throughput
of
the
chemical
of
interest
using
the
methodology
presented
in
Figure
4­
1.

5.1
Summary
of
Release
and
Exposure
Estimation
Equations
Table
5­
1
summarizes
the
equations
introduced
in
Section
4
of
this
document.
These
equations
may
be
used
in
evaluating
releases
of
and
exposures
to
components
of
detergent
chemicals
used
in
water­
based
washing
operations
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries.
A
description
of
each
equation
is
also
presented
in
the
table
and
supporting
nomenclature
is
provided
after
the
table.

Table
5­
1
Summary
of
Release
and
Exposures
Calculation
General
Facility
Estimates
Daily
Use
Rate
of
Formulation
per
Facility:

ys
working_
da
r
facility_
y
ay
facility_
d
TIME
Q
Q
=
[
4­
1]

Daily
Use
Rate
of
Chemical
of
Interest
per
Facility:

n
formulatio
_
chem
day
_
facility
day
_
chem
F
Q
Q
×
=
[
4­
2]

Days
of
Operation
per
Year:
TIMEworking_
days
=
261
days/
year
(
Default
from
Table
4­
1)

Number
of
Sites:

ys
working_
da
chem_
day
chem_
yr
sites
TIME
Q
Q
N
×
=
[
4­
3]

Annual
Number
of
Containers
per
Facility:

n
formulatio
container
yr
_
facility
container
RHO
V
Q
N
×
=
[
4­
4]
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
2
Table
5­
1(
Continued)

Release
Calculations
Source
Media
of
Release
Calculations
Release
1
Fugitive
Air
Release
During
Transfer
Air
Non­
volatile
chemicals
(
VP
<
0.01):

Elocalair_
transfers
=
negligible
Volatile
chemicals
(
VP
>
0.01):

Calculate
Elocalair_
transfers
using
the
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
in
ChemSTEER.
In
the
absence
of
site­
specific
information,
use
standard
CEB
defaults
for
all
parameters
(
Table
4­
6),
except
the
number
of
hours
of
operation
per
working
day
(
Default
=
11
hr/
site­
day;
see
Table
4­
7).

Release
2
Container
Residue
POTW
Estimate
if
number
of
containers
is
fewer
than
days
of
operation
(
kg/
siteday

day
site
container
residue
container_
lation
chem_
formu
n
formulatio
container
sp
residue_
di
container_

1
F
F
RHO
V
Elocal
 
×
×
×
×
=

[
4­
5]

Estimate
if
number
of
containers
is
greater
than
days
of
operation
(
kg/
siteday

residue
_
container
day
_
chem
disp
_
residue
_
container
F
Q
Elocal
×
=
[
4­
6]

Release
3
Fugitive
Air
Release
During
Container
Cleaning
Air
Non­
volatile
chemicals
(
VP
<
0.01):

Elocalair_
cleaning
=
negligible
Volatile
chemicals
(
VP
>
0.01):

Calculate
Elocalair_
cleaning
using
the
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
in
ChemSTEER.
In
the
absence
of
site­
specific
information,
use
standard
CEB
defaults
for
all
parameters
(
Table
4­
8).
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
3
Table
5­
1(
Continued)

Release
Calculations
Source
Media
of
Release
Calculations
Release
4
Release
from
Water­
Washing
Process
Non­
volatiles:
POTW
Volatiles:
POTW
or
Air
Non­
volatile
chemicals
(
VP
<
0.01):

)
F
1
(
Q
Elocal
residue
_
container
day
_
chem
washing
 
×
=
[
4­
7]

Volatile
chemicals
(
VP
>
0.01):

ers
air_
transf
ng
air_
cleani
residue
container_
chem_
day
washing
Elocal
Elocal
)
F
(
1
Q
Elocal
 
 
 
×
=
[
4­
8]

Mass
Balance:

days
_
working
sites
washing
cleaning
_
air
residue
_
container
transfers
_
air
yr
_
chem
TIME
N
)
Elocal
Elocal
F
Elocal
(
Q
×
×
+
+
+
=
[
4­
9]

Occupational
Exposure
Number
of
Exposed
Workers
per
Site
(
Table
4­
8
(
3,22)):

All
Laundries
(
Default):
8
­
16
workers/
site
Industrial
Laundries:
6
­
12
workers/
site
Institutional
Laundries:
9
­
18
workers/
site
Note:
An
additional
1
worker/
site
may
be
exposed
during
on­
or
off­
site
transport
container
cleaning
(
Exposure
B)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
4
Table
5­
1(
Continued)

Occupational
Exposure
Exposure
from
Loading
Laundry
Cleaning
Products
into
Washer
(
Exposure
A)

Default
Number
of
Exposed
Workers:
8­
16
workers/
site
Inhalation:

Liquids:

If
non­
volatile
(
VP
<
0.001
torr):
Negligible
EXP
inhalation
=

If
volatile
(
VP
>
0.001
torr):
Calculate
EXPinhalation
using
the
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
in
ChemSTEER,
using
the
vapor
generation
rate
from
Release
1.
See
Table
4­
11
for
model
inputs
and
defaults.

Solids:

If
Qfacility_
day
>
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day:

lation
chem_
formu
exposure
breathing
e
particulat
inhalation
F
TIME
RATE
C
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
10]

If
Qfacility_
day
<
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day:

exposure
lation
chem_
formu
ay
facility_
d
inhalation
F
F
Q
EXP
×
×
=
[
4­
11]

Dermal:

Liquids:

n
formulatio
_
chem
incident
exp_
surface
skin
_
liquid
dermal
F
N
AREA
Q
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
12]

Solids:

n
formulatio
_
chem
dermal
F
day
/
mg
100
,
3
to
up
EXP
×
=
[
4­
13]
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
5
Table
5­
1(
Continued)

Occupational
Exposure
Exposure
During
Transport
Container
Cleaning
(
Exposure
B)

Default
Number
of
Exposed
Workers:
1
workers/
site
Inhalation:

Liquids:

If
non­
volatile
(
VP
<
0.001
torr):
Negligible
EXP
inhalation
=

If
volatile
(
VP
>
0.001
torr):
Calculate
EXPinhalation
using
the
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
in
ChemSTEER,
using
the
vapor
generation
rate
from
Release
3.
See
Table
4­
12
for
model
inputs
and
defaults.

Solids:

If
Qfacility_
day
>
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day:

lation
chem_
formu
exposure
breathing
e
particulat
inhalation
F
TIME
RATE
C
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
14]

If
Qfacility_
day
<
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day:

exposure
lation
chem_
formu
ay
facility_
d
inhalation
F
F
Q
EXP
×
×
=
[
4­
15]

Dermal:

Liquids:

n
formulatio
_
chem
incident
exp_
surface
skin
_
liquid
dermal
F
N
AREA
Q
EXP
×
×
×
=
[
4­
16]

Solids:

n
formulatio
_
chem
dermal
F
day
/
mg
100
,
3
to
up
EXP
×
=
[
4­
17]
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
6
Table
5­
1(
Continued)

Occupational
Exposure
Inhalation
Exposure
to
Vaporized
Chemicals
During
Operations
(
Exposure
C)

Default
Number
of
Exposed
Workers:
8­
16
workers/
site
Note:
These
are
the
same
workers
exposed
during
the
loading
of
laundry
cleaning
products
into
washers
(
Exposure
A).

Inhalation:

If
non­
volatile
(
VP
<
0.001
torr):
Negligible
EXP
inhalation
=

If
volatile
(
VP
>
0.001
torr):
Calculate
EXPinhalation
using
the
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
in
ChemSTEER,
using
the
vapor
generation
rate
calculated
from
Equation
4­
18.
In
the
absence
of
site­
specific
information,
use
standard
CEB
defaults
for
all
other
parameters
(
Table
4­
13).

3.6
TIME
F
Elocal
Q
urs
working_
ho
zone
breathing_
washing
ration
vapor_
gene
×
×
=
[
4­
18]
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
7
Table
5­
2
Default
Value
Declaration
and
Documentation
Variable
Variable
Description
Default
Value
Data
Source
AREAsurface
Surface
area
of
contact
(
cm2)
840
cm2,
2
hands
(
28)

Cparticulate
Concentration
of
particulate
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
(
mg/
m3)
15mg/
m3;
based
on
OSHA
PEL
(
8­
hr
TWA)
for
nuisance
dusts,
not
otherwise
regulated
(
25)

Fbreathing_
zone
Fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
volatizing
in
the
workers'
breathing
zone
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
kg
released
during
washing
operation)
0.1
(
eng.
judgment)

Fchem_
formulation
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
laundry
product
(
kg
of
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation)
See
Table
3­
1
for
detergent
formulations;
all
others,
1
kg
chemical
of
interest/
kg
of
formulation
(
11)

Fcontainer_
residue
Fraction
of
chemical
remaining
in
the
container
as
residue
(
kg
container
residue/
kg
in
container)
larger
liquid
containers
=
0.03;
smaller
liquid
containers
=
0.006;
all
powder
containers
=
0.01
(
17,
20)

Fexposure
Weight
fraction
of
the
total
solid
in
the
workers
breathing
zone
(
mg
particulate/
kg
weighed)
0.0477
(
typical)
to
0.161
(
worst)
mgsite
kg
of
formulation
(
27)

Nexp_
incident
Number
of
exposure
incidents
per
day
(
incidents/
day)
1
incident/
day
(
CEB
assumption)

Qfacility_
yr
Annual
use
rate
of
laundry
product
(
kg
of
formulation/
site­
yr)
See
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3;
Default
=
27,000
kg/
site­
year
(
4)

Qliquid_
skin
Quantity
of
liquid
remaining
on
skin
(
mg/
cm2­
incident)
2.1
mg/
cm2­
incident
(
high­
end)
and
0.7
mg/
cm2­
incident
(
lowend
(
28)

RATEbreathing
Typical
worker
breathing
rate
(
m3/
hr)
1.25
m3/
hr
(
26)

RHOformulation
Density
of
the
formulation
(
kg
of
formulation/
L)
1
kg/
L
(
CEB
assumption)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
8
Table
5­
2(
continued)

Variable
Variable
Description
Default
Value
Data
Source
TIMEexposure
Duration
of
exposure
(
hr/
day)
8
hr/
day,
the
default
value
for
Cparticulate
is
an
8­
hr
TWA
TIMEworking_
days
Operating
days
(
days/
yr)
See
Table
4­
1;
Default
=
261
days/
yr
(
4)

TIMEworking_
hours
Hours
of
operation
per
day
(
hr/
site­
day)
See
Table
4­
6;
Default
=
11
hr/
site­
day
(
4)

Vcontainer
Volume
of
laundry
product
container
(
L/
container)
208
L/
container
(
for
55­
gallon
drum)
(
CEB
assumption)

5.2
Chemical
Release
and
Exposure
Examples
This
section
presents
a
hypothetical
operating
scenario
and
displays
how
the
equations
in
Section
4
might
be
used
to
estimate
releases
of
and
exposures
to
laundry
cleaning
products
at
industrial
and
institutional
laundries.
The
default
values
used
in
these
calculations
should
be
used
only
in
the
absence
of
site­
specific
information.
The
following
chemical
information
is
assumed:

 
The
chemical
of
interest
is
a
surfactant;
 
The
chemical
of
interest
is
non­
volatile
(
VP
<
0.001
torr);
and
 
The
chemical
of
interest
production
volume
(
Qchem_
yr)
is
250,000
kg/
year.

Daily
Throughput
of
Formulation
per
Facility:

Following
the
decision
logic
diagram
(
Figure
4­
1):

 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
received
at
laundries
in
liquid
or
powder
form;
therefore,
assume
the
chemical
is
received
as
a
solid
powder.
Use
data
in
Table
4­
2.

 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
used
at
industrial
or
institutional
laundries;
therefore,
median
values
from
the
"
All"
column
in
Table
4­
2
should
be
used.

 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
received
at
the
laundry
as
part
of
a
detergent
formulation;
since
it
is
a
surfactant,
it
is
assumed
that
the
additive
is
a
component
of
a
detergent
formulation
and
the
median
annual
use
rate
for
detergent
at
all
laundries
from
Table
4­
2
should
be
used
(
27,000
kg/
yr).
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
9
 
The
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
the
formulation
is
unknown;
therefore,
the
value
for
surfactant
from
Table
3­
1
should
be
used.
Use
the
higher
concentration
(
36%).

day
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
103
Q
days/
yr
261
yr
­
kg/
site
27,000
TIME
Q
Q
ay
facility_
d
ys
working_
da
r
facility_
y
ay
facility_
d
 
=
=
=

Daily
Throughput
of
Chemical
of
Interest
per
Facility:

day
­
ite
interest/
s
of
chemical
of
kg
1
.
37
Q
36
.
0
day
­
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
103
F
Q
Q
day
_
chem
n
formulatio
_
chem
day
_
facility
day
_
chem
=
×
=
×
=

Number
of
Sites:

sites
26
N
days/
yr
261
day
kg/
site
1
37
kg/
yr
250,000
TIME
Q
Q
N
sites
ys
working_
da
chem_
day
chem_
yr
sites
=
×
 
=
×
=
.

Annual
Number
of
Containers
per
Facility:

yr
/
site
containers
130
N
kg/
L
1
r
L/
containe
208
yr
kg/
site
27,000
RHO
V
Q
N
container
n
formulatio
container
r
facility_
y
container
 
=
×
 
=
×
=

Transfer
Operation
Losses
to
Air
from
Loading
Laundry
Cleaning
Products
in
Washers
(
Release
1):

Elocalair_
transfers
=
Negligible
(
VP
<
0.01
torr)

Container
Residue
(
Release
2):

The
number
of
containers
is
less
than
the
days
of
operation;
therefore,
use
Equation
4­
5.
Fcontainer_
residue
=
0.01
because
the
chemical
is
assumed
to
be
received
as
a
solid
powder.

days/
yr
130
over
day
kg/
site
0.75
Elocal
0.01
0.36
kg/
L
1
r
L/
containe
208
Elocal
F
F
RHO
V
Elocal
sp
residue_
di
container_
sp
residue_
di
container_
residue
container_
lation
chem_
formu
n
formulatio
container
sp
residue_
di
container_

 
=
×
×
×
=
×
×
×
=
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
10
Open
Surface
Losses
to
Air
During
Container
Cleaning
(
Release
3):

Elocalair_
transfers
=
Negligible
(
VP
<
0.01
torr)

Release
from
Water­
Washing
Process
(
Release
4):

Since
the
chemical
is
non­
volatile
(
VP
<
0.01
torr)
use
Equation
4­
7.

day
kg/
site
36.7
Elocal
0.01)
(
1
day
kg/
site
37.1
)
F
(
1
Q
Elocal
harge
water_
disc
residue
container_
chem_
day
harge
water_
disc
 
=
 
×
 
=
 
×
=

Mass
Balance:

kg/
yr
250,000
Q
days/
yr
261
sites
26
day)
kg/
site
0
day
kg/
site
36.7
0.01
day
kg/
site
37.1
day
kg/
site
(
0
Q
Time
N
)
Elocal
Elocal
F
Q
(
Elocal
Q
chem_
yr
chem_
yr
ys
working_
da
sites
washing
ng
air_
cleani
residue
container_
chem_
day
ers
air_
transf
chem_
yr
=
×
×
 
+
 
+
×
 
+
 
=
×
×
+
+
×
+
=

Total
Number
of
Exposed
Workers:

Nworkers
=
8
­
16
workers/
site
(
see
Table
4­
8)

Note:
An
additional
1
worker/
site
may
be
exposed
during
on
or
off­
site
transport
container
cleaning
(
Exposure
B)

Exposure
from
Loading
Laundry
Cleaning
Products
into
Washer
(
Exposure
A):

Chemical
of
interest
is
assumed
to
be
a
component
of
a
powdered
detergent
formulation
(
See
Figure
4­
1).

Inhalation:

Qfacility_
day
>
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day:

mg/
day
54
EXP
0.36
hr/
day
8
/
hr
m
1.25
mg/
m
15
EXP
F
TIME
RATE
C
EXP
inhalation
3
3
inhalation
lation
chem_
formu
exposure
breathing
e
particulat
inhalation
=
×
×
×
=
×
×
×
=
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
11
Dermal:

mg/
day
1,100
to
up
EXP
0.36
mg/
day
3,100
to
up
F
mg/
day
3,100
to
up
EXP
dermal
lation
chem_
formu
dermal
=
×
=
×
=

Exposure
During
Transport
Container
Cleaning
(
Exposure
B):

Inhalation:

Qfacility_
day
>
54
kg
of
formulation/
site­
day:

mg/
day
54
EXP
0.36
hr/
day
8
/
hr
m
1.25
mg/
m
15
EXP
F
TIME
RATE
C
EXP
inhalation
3
3
inhalation
lation
chem_
formu
exposure
breathing
e
particulat
inhalation
=
×
×
×
=
×
×
×
=

Dermal:

mg/
day
1,100
to
up
EXP
0.36
mg/
day
3,100
to
up
F
mg/
day
3,100
to
up
EXP
dermal
lation
chem_
formu
dermal
=
×
=
×
=

Exposure
to
Vaporized
Chemicals
During
Steaming
and
Drying
(
Exposure
C)

EXPinhalation
=
Negligible
(
VP
<
0.001
torr)

5.3
Additional
Examples
of
Determining
the
Throughput
of
the
Chemical
of
Interest
For
additional
guidance
on
determining
the
daily
throughput
(
Qchem_
day),
three
additional
examples
are
provided
below.

Example
1:

Company
A
manufactures
15,000
lbs
of
a
chemical.
The
use
description
in
the
submission
states
"
additive
used
in
laundry
detergents."
No
other
information
is
provided,
and
the
submitter
could
not
be
contacted.
Following
the
decision
logic
diagram:

 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
received
at
laundries
in
liquid
or
powder
form;
therefore,
assume
the
chemical
is
received
as
a
solid
powder.
Use
data
in
Table
4­
2.

 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
used
at
industrial
or
institutional
laundries;
use
the
"
All"
column
in
Table
4­
2.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
12
 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
received
at
the
laundry
as
part
of
a
detergent
formulation
and
the
chemical
is
an
"
other
additive";
therefore,
it
is
assumed
that
the
additive
is
a
component
of
a
detergent
formulation.
Use
the
median
annual
use
rate
for
detergent
at
all
laundries
from
Table
4­
2.
(
27,000
kg/
yr)

 
The
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
the
formulation
is
unknown;
therefore,
the
value
for
"
other"
from
Table
1
should
be
used.
Use
the
higher
concentration
(
4%).

Throughput
Calculations:

day
­
ite
interest/
s
of
chemical
of
kg
12
.
4
Q
04
.
0
day
­
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
103
F
Q
Q
day
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
103
days/
yr
261
yr
kg/
site
000
,
27
TIME
Q
Q
day
_
chem
n
formulatio
_
chem
day
_
facility
day
_
chem
yr
_
facility
day
_
facility
days
_
working
=
×
=
×
=
 
=
 
=
=

Example
2:

Company
B
manufactures
a
builder
specially
designed
to
assist
in
the
removal
of
oil
and
grease
from
shop
rags
(
industrial
laundries).
The
submission
states
that
the
builder
is
formulated
into
a
liquid
at
25%
concentration.
Following
the
decision
logic
diagram:

 
Since
the
submission
states
that
chemical
is
sent
to
laundries
in
liquid
form.
Use
the
data
in
Table
4­
3.

 
The
chemical
is
specially
designed
to
be
used
in
industrial
laundries;
therefore,
use
values
from
the
"
Industrial"
column
in
Table
4­
3.

 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
received
at
the
laundry
as
part
of
a
detergent
formulation.
Since
the
chemical
is
a
"
builder";
it
is
assumed
that
it
is
a
component
of
a
detergent
formulation.
Use
the
median
annual
use
rate
for
detergent
at
industrial
laundries
from
Table
4­
3
(
7,900
kg/
yr).

 
The
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
the
formulation
is
25%,
as
stated
in
the
submission.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
5­
13
Throughput
Calculations:

day
­
ite
interest/
s
of
chemical
of
kg
83
.
7
Q
25
.
0
day
­
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
3
.
31
F
Q
Q
day
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
3
.
31
days/
yr
252
yr
kg/
site
900
,
7
TIME
Q
Q
day
_
chem
n
formulatio
_
chem
day
_
facility
day
_
chem
days
_
working
yr
_
facility
day
_
facility
=
×
=
×
=
 
=
 
=
=

Example
3:

Company
C
manufactures
a
bleach
chemical.
The
submission
states
that
the
chemical
is
shipped
to
the
institutional
laundries
in
liquid
form,
but
does
not
include
the
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
the
bleach.
Following
the
decision
logic
diagram:

 
The
submission
states
that
the
chemical
is
sent
to
the
laundry
in
liquid
form.
Use
the
data
in
Table
4­
3.

 
The
submission
states
that
the
chemical
is
used
at
institutional
laundries;
therefore,
use
values
from
the
"
Institutional"
column
in
Table
4­
3.

 
It
is
unknown
if
the
chemical
is
received
at
the
laundry
as
part
of
a
detergent
formulation.
Since
the
chemical
is
a
bleach,
it
is
assumed
that
it
is
used
as
a
separate
additive.
Use
the
median
annual
use
rate
for
bleach
at
institutional
laundries
from
Table
4­
3
(
14,000
kg/
yr).

 
The
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
the
bleach
is
unknown;
therefore,
assume
100%
concentration.

Throughput
Calculations:

day
­
ite
interest/
s
of
chemical
of
kg
5
.
50
Q
1
day
­
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
5
.
50
F
Q
Q
day
n/
site
formulatio
of
kg
5
.
50
days/
yr
277
yr
kg/
site
000
,
14
TIME
Q
Q
day
_
chem
n
formulatio
_
chem
day
_
facility
day
_
chem
days
_
working
yr
_
facility
day
_
facility
=
×
=
×
=
 
=
 
=
=
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
6­
1
6.0
DATA
GAPS/
UNCERTAINTIES
AND
FUTURE
WORK/
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES
6.1
Data
Gaps
 
The
percentage
of
facilities
using
automatic
versus
manual
detergent
chemical
loading
was
not
found.
As
a
conservative
estimate,
all
facilities
were
assumed
to
use
manual
chemical
loading
into
the
washing
machine.

 
The
fraction
of
detergent
chemical
remaining
on
the
textile
item
after
washing
was
not
found.
These
data
would
enhance
the
estimation
of
Release
4
and
Exposure
C.

 
The
method
for
calculating
the
number
of
exposed
workers
is
partially
based
on
site
visit
experience
of
ERG
staff
members.
Industry
worker
breakdowns
could
not
be
found.

6.2
Control
Technologies
Table
6­
1
presents
the
percentage
of
sites
that
have
on­
site
control
technologies
for
water
releases,
based
on
data
from
the
DEQ.
Note
that
most
of
these
control
technologies
are
designed
to
remove
dirt,
oil,
and
other
materials
removed
from
the
textile
during
the
laundering
process.
Control
technologies
are
generally
not
designed
to
minimize
the
release
of
chemicals
in
laundry
cleaning
products,
and
are
therefore
excluded
from
release
calculations.

Table
6­
1
On­
Site
Control
Technologies
and
Industrial
and
Institutional
Laundries
Control
Technology
Percentage
of
Facilities
Using
Technology
Collection
or
Settling
Basins
83%

Screens
72%

pH
Equalization/
Neutralization
47%
Air
Flotation
20%

Clarification
20%

Media
Filtration
5%

Sludge
Dewatering
29%
Oil/
Water
Separation
18%

Other
17%
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database
(
4).
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
7­
1
7.0
REFERENCES
(
1)
U.
S.
Census
Bureau.
2002
NAICS
Codes
and
Titles.
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
naics02/
naicod02.
htm
(
last
confirmed
June
2004).

(
2)
U.
S.
EPA.
Technical
Development
Document
for
Proposed
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
for
the
Industrial
Laundries
Point
Source
Category.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
EPA
812­
R­
97­
007.
November
1997.

(
3)
U.
S.
EPA.
1993
Industrial
Laundries
Screener
Questionnaire
Database.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division.
1993.

(
4)
U.
S.
EPA.
1994
Industrial
Laundries
Detailed
Questionnaire
Database.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division.
1994.

(
5)
U.
S.
Census
Bureau.
2001
County
Business
Patterns.
http://
censtats.
census.
gov/
cbpnaic/
cbpnaic.
shtml
(
last
confirmed
June
2004).

(
6)
Organisation
for
Economic
Co­
operation
and
Development
(
OECD).
Draft
Emission
Scenario
Document
on
Industrial
Surfactants.
February
2002.

(
7)
Renescu
and
Kerr.
Industrial
Laundries
Pollution
Prevention
Demonstration
Project;
A
Partnership
with
Industry.
Water
Environment
Federation
Pre­
Conference
Seminar.
October
1993.

(
8)
Shultz,
John.
Dober
Chemical
Corporation.
Telephone
Contact
with
Aaron
Osborne,
ERG.
February
5,
2004.

(
9)
Melrose
Chemical,
Ltd.
List
of
Products
for
Use
in
Commercial
Laundries,
2003.
http://
www.
melrosechem.
com/
inst08_
e.
htm
(
last
confirmed
June
2004).

(
10)
National
Starch
and
Chemical
Company.
"
More
about
Clear­
Tex?",
2004
http://
www.
nationalstarch.
com/
general_
industries/
clear_
tex.
asp
(
Last
confirmed
June
2004).

(
11)
U.
S.
EPA
Internal
Document.
Catalogue
and
Assessment
of
Components
and
Ingredients
in
Laundry
Detergent
Formulations.
June
1999.

(
12)
Dunlap,
D.
"
Past
Performances,
Promising
Future"
in
Industrial
Launderer;
June
2001,
pg.
37­
40.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
7­
2
(
13)
Kirk­
Othmer
Encyclopedia
of
Chemical
Technology.
"
Detergency"
and
"
Bleaching
Agents".
John
Wiley
and
Sons,
Inc.
2004.

(
14)
Evans
Vanodine
International.
Laundry
Products,
2003.
http://
www.
evansvanodine.
co.
uk/
(
last
confirmed
March
2004).

(
15)
Washing
Systems,
Inc.
Laundry
Product
Information,
2004.
http://
www.
washingsystems.
com/
(
last
confirmed
March
2004).

(
16)
Memorandum:
"
Revised
ChemSTEER
Default
Values
for
Operation
Hours
and
Pool/
Opening
Diameter
for
the
Mass
Transfer
Coefficient,
Penetration,
and
AP­
42
Transport
Container
Loading
Models)"
from
Scott
Prothero,
CEB
to
CEB
Engineers,
ERG
PMN
Team.
April
23,
2002.

(
17)
Memorandum:
"
Revised
Compilation
of
Guidance
Memoranda
(
1992
­
May
1999)"
from
Kurt
Rindfusz,
ERG
to
Nhan
Nguyen,
CEB
Engineers,
ERG
PMN
Team.
December
2,
1999.

(
18)
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
40
CFR
Chapter
1
Part
261,
RCRA
Online.
http://
www.
access.
gpo.
gov/
nara/
cfr/
waisidx_
02/
40cfr261_
02.
html
(
last
confirmed
June
2004).

(
19)
PEI
Associates,
Inc.
Releases
During
Cleaning
of
Equipment.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Toxic
Substances,
Washington,
DC.
Contract
68­
02­
4248.
1986.

(
20)
Memorandum:
"
Standard
Assumptions
for
PMN
Assessments"
from
CEB,
to
All
CEB
Members.
October
8,
1992.

(
21)
Tolliver,
Rachael.
Intercontinental
Fragrances.
Personal
communication
with
David
DiFiore,
EPA/
OPPT/
DFE.
April
12,
2004.

(
22)
Queensland
Government
Department
of
Industrial
Relations.
Guide
for
Drycleaning
and
Laundry
Workplaces.
August,
1994.

(
23)
Engineering
Judgment
based
on
experience
with
the
Office
of
Water's
Industrial
Laundries
Effluent
Guidelines
project
and
site
visits
by
Leslie
Churilla,
ERG.

(
24)
Memorandum:
"
Note,
PMN
case
with
concern
for
Inhalation
Exposure
Only"
from
Nhan
Nguyen
to
CEB
staff.
January,
5,
1994.

(
25)
U.
S.
EPA.
CEB
Manual
for
the
Preparation
of
Engineering
Assessment,
Volume
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Toxic
Substances,
Chemical
Engineering
Branch,
Washington
D.
C.
Contract
No.
68­
D8­
0112.
February
1991.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
7­
3
(
26)
NIOSH.
A
Guide
to
Industrial
Respiratory
Protection.
U.
S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention,
National
Institute
for
Occupational
Safety
and
Health.
Hew
Pub
76­
189.
1976.

(
27)
U.
S.
EPA,
Textile
Dye
Weighing
Monitoring
Study.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Toxic
Substances,
Economics
and
Technology
Division,
Office
of
Toxic
Substances,
Exposure
Evaluation
Division,
Washington,
DC.
EPA
560/
5­
90­
009.
April
1990.

(
28)
Memorandum:
"
Revision
to
CEB's
Method
for
Screening
Level
Assessments
for
Dermal
Exposure"
from
Greg
Macek,
CEB
to
CEB
Staff
and
Contractors.
June
1,
2000.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
Appendix
A
CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING
BRANCH
QUALITY
CRITERIA
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
A­
1
To
ensure
that
the
required
level
of
precision,
accuracy,
and
completeness
are
achieved,
each
Generic
Scenario
will
be
evaluated
to
determine
whether
the
following
criteria
have
been
addressed:

Product
Transparency
1.
Clearly
state
the
purpose
of
the
product.

2.
Provide
an
explanation
of
its
potential
uses.

3.
Explain
the
source
of
data
used
and
the
scope
of
the
analysis
and/
or
the
methodology
followed.

4.
Clearly
state
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
information
and
the
accuracy
(
Quality)
of
the
source
data
used.

5.
Provide
the
basic
contact
information
for
the
document.

6.
Title
adequately
describes
the
contents.

Scenario
Definition
7.
Identify
the
scope
of
the
scenario
(
product,
industry,
covered
chemicals).
Clearly
identify
which
chemicals
are
covered
and
which
are
not.

8.
Describe
the
covered
chemicals
used
in
the
industry,
provide
information
on
physical
properties
of
the
covered
chemicals,
and
provide
additional
key
characteristics.

9.
Define
the
segment
of
the
industry
being
assessed.

Process
Information
10.
Provide
an
approach
for
estimating
the
throughput,
use
rate,
and/
or
amount
manufactured
of
covered
chemicals
in
kg/
site­
day
for
a
"
typical"
or
"
model"
facility
in
this
industry
segment
that
can
serve
as
a
basis
for
estimating
the
number
of
sites.
Provide
an
estimate
for
the
total
number
of
days/
yr
of
operation
and
an
approach
to
correct
the
total
number
of
day
for
the
percent
material
used
associated
with
the
chemical
of
interest.

11.
Describe
the
path
of
covered
chemicals
from
the
point
of
entry
into
the
facility
to
the
point
of
exit
and
all
the
key
steps
in­
between.
Provide
a
detailed
process
flow
diagram
that
specifies
for
the
covered
chemicals
all
the
steps
from
point
of
entry
to
the
facility
to
the
point
of
exit
and
indicates
all
potential
worker
exposure
points
and
sources
of
environmental
releases.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
A­
2
12.
Provide
sufficient
detail
for
each
estimation
approach
so
that
it
could
be
reproduced
by
the
reader,
clearly
explain
interpretations
and
manipulations
of
data,
and
provide
technical
rationale
for
all
assumptions.
Specify
recommended
default
values
for
each
parameter
in
the
estimation
approaches.

Environmental
Release
Assessments
13.
Complete
a
material
balance
for
the
chemical
over
the
entire
facility
and
account
for
the
interrelationship
of
release
sources.

14.
Identify
all
potential
release
points.

15.
Identify
the
media
of
release
for
each
release
source.

16.
Present
the
approach
to
be
used
to
estimate
releases
from
each
release
point.
Specify
standard
CEB
models
used
in
estimation
approaches
by
name.

17.
Provide
sufficient
detail
for
each
estimation
approach
so
that
release
estimates
can
be
reproduced
by
the
reader,
clearly
explain
interpretations
and
manipulations
of
data,
provide
technical
rationale
for
all
assumptions,
and
note
and
explain
deviations
from
standard
CEB
estimation
techniques.
Specify
recommended
default
values
for
each
parameter
in
the
estimation
approaches.

18.
Provide
information
to
characterize
the
release
estimation
approach,
including
limitations.

19.
Document
efforts
to
obtain
and
use
recent
emission
data
for
release
estimates.
Investigate
all
standard
sources
identified
in
the
Reference
Search
SOP.
Document
what
was
searched
and
the
results.

20.
Describe
on­
site
control
technologies,
provide
information
on
treatment
efficiencies,
and
describe
typical
off­
site
treatment
practices.

Worker
Exposure
Assessments
21.
Present
a
documented
approach
for
estimating
the
number
of
workers
with
a
realistic
potential
of
exposure
to
the
chemicals
being
assessed.

22.
Present
documented
assumptions
on
the
number
of
days
per
year
of
potential
exposure
and
the
number
of
hours
and
shifts
per
day
at
the
facility.

23.
Identify
all
key
worker
activities
and
describe
the
current
understanding
of
worker
activities.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
A­
3
24.
Provide
approaches
to
be
used
to
estimate
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
for
each
worker
activity.
Specify
standard
CEB
models
used
in
estimation
approaches
by
name.

25.
Provide
sufficient
detail
for
each
estimation
approach
so
that
exposure
estimates
can
be
reproduced
by
the
reader,
clearly
explain
interpretations
and
manipulations
of
data,
provide
technical
rationale
provided
for
all
assumptions,
and
note
and
explain
deviations
from
standard
CEB
estimation
techniques.
Specify
recommended
default
values
for
each
parameter
in
the
estimation
approaches.

26.
Provide
information
to
the
extent
possible
to
characterize
the
approach
or
data.

27.
Document
efforts
to
obtain
and
use
recent
exposure
data.
Investigate
all
standard
sources
identified
in
the
Reference
Search
SOP.
Document
what
was
searched
and
the
results.

28.
Describe
engineering
controls
and
PPE
typically
used.

Additional
Criteria
29.
Perform
a
dimensional
analysis
check
of
all
equations
presented
in
the
generic
scenario
for
accuracy.
Parameter
abbreviations
used
in
equations
are
from
the
most
recent
version
of
the
approved
list
of
parameters.

30.
Provide
a
detailed
example
calculations
as
an
appendix.

31.
Follows
the
most
recent
version
of
the
standard
format.

32.
Perform
a
site
visit
to
"
representative"
facility,
and
prepare
a
site
visit
report.
This
criteria
to
be
completed
prior
to
completion
of
peer
review
draft.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
Appendix
B
LITERATURE
SEARCH
DOCUMENTATION
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
B­
1
Reference
Search
Documentation
Standard
Operating
Procedures
11/
07/
03
Source
Description
of
Search
Result
US
EPA
Chemical
Engineering
Branch
CEB
Engineering
Manual
CEB
Library
Existing
Files
Past
PMN
cases
Technical
Policy
memos
The
CEB
Engineering
Manual
and
several
technical
policy
memoranda
are
referenced.
A
search
of
past
PMN
cases
supported
the
inclusion
of
volatile
chemicals.

US
EPA
TRI
Search
of
Guidance
Documents
None
US
EPA
Office
of
Water
Industrial
Laundries
Effluent
Guidelines
Documentation
TDD
Raw
data
collected
in
guidelines
development
effort
Anecdotal
information
from
ERG
personnel
with
extensive
industry
experience
(
including
site
visits)

US
EPA
Office
of
Air
MACT
Standards
Laundry
No
applicable
results
(
many
on
dry­
cleaning)

US
EPA
NTIS
Laundry
None
Other
US
EPA
(
e.
g.,
DfE)
DFE's
Industrial
and
Institutional
Laundries
Partnership
Contacted
and
cited
two
industry
partners.

OSHA
www.
osha.
gov
No
applicable
results
(
many
on
bloodborne
pathogens
in
laundry)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
B­
2
Source
Description
of
Search
Result
NIOSH
www.
cdc.
gov/
niosh/
homepage.
html
HHEs
Laundry
No
applicable
HHEs
(
several
on
exposure
to
drycleaning
chemicals)

OECD
www.
oecd.
org/
EN/
home/
0,,
EN­
home­
0­

nodirectorate­
no­
no­
no­
0,
FF.
html
Draft
Emission
Scenario
Document
on
Industrial
Surfactants,
February
2002
County
Business
Patterns
http://
censtats.
census.
gov/
cbpnaic/
cbpnaic.
shtml
2001
data
for
NAICS
code
812331
and
812332
Annual
Survey
of
Manufacturers
http://
www.
census.
gov/
econ/
overview/
ma0300.
html
No
data
for
NAICS
codes
812331
and
812332
Census
Bureau
www.
census.
gov
2002
NAICS
Codes
and
Titles
Pollution
Prevention
http://
www.
p2pays.
org
Some
older
manuals,
fact
sheets,
and
case
studies.

Information
on
removing
oil
and
dirt
from
wastewater.

Kirk
Othmer
Laundry
Articles
on
detergency
and
bleaching
agents
Trade
Associations
Uniform
and
Textile
Service
Association
(
UTSA)

Textile
Rental
Service
Association
of
America
(
TRSA)
Contacted
head
of
the
Laundry
Environmental
Stewardship
Program,
however
information
is
not
currently
available.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
B­
3
Source
Description
of
Search
Result
Other
Laundry
Chemicals
Product
Literature
Melrose
Chemical,
Ltd.
List
of
Products
for
Use
in
Commercial
Laundries,
2003.

National
Starch
and
Chemical
Company.
"
More
about
Clear­
Tex?",
2004.

Evans
Vanodine
International.
Laundry
Products,

2003.
Washing
Systems,
Inc.
Laundry
Product
Information,
2004.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
Appendix
C
BACKGROUND
AND
EQUATIONS
FOR
THE
EPA/
OPPT
PENETRATION
MODEL
AND
THE
EPA/
OPPT
MASS
BALANCE
MODEL
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
C­
1
For
more
details
on
the
background
and
derivation
of
the
models
presented
in
this
appendix,
please
refer
to
the
ChemSTEER
Help
System
and
the
following
sources:

 
Fehrenbacher,
M.
C.
and
A.
A.
Hummel.
Evaluation
of
the
Mass
Balance
Model
Used
by
the
EPA
for
Estimating
Inhalation
Exposure
to
New
Chemical
Substances.
American
Industrial
Hygiene
Association
Journal.
June
1996.
57:
526­
536.

 
U.
S.
EPA.
Chemical
Engineering
Branch.
CEB
Manual
for
the
Preparation
of
Engineering
Assessment,
Volume
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Toxic
Substances,
Washington
DC.
Contract
No.
68­
D8­
0112.
February
1991.

EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
The
EPA/
OPPT
Penetration
Model
estimates
releases
to
air
from
the
volatilization
of
a
chemical
from
a
static
pool.
The
model
was
developed
using
Fick's
second
law
of
diffusion.
Model
results
were
tested
against
experimental
results
of
a
study
on
evaporation
rates
for
15
compounds
studied
at
different
air
velocities
and
temperatures
in
a
test
chamber.
The
experimental
data
confirmed
the
utility
and
accuracy
of
the
model
equation.

The
model
first
calculates
the
average
vapor
generation
rate
using
the
following
equation:

[
C­
1]

0.5
ambient
0.5
opening
0.05
ambient
opening
0.5
air_
speed
0.25
chem
chem
_
factor
correction
0.835
chem
8
ration
vapor_
gene
P
D
TEMP
AREA
RATE
MW
1
29
1
VP
F
MW
)
10
(
8.24
Q
×
×
×
×






+
×
×
×
×
×
=
 

Where:
Qvapor_
generation
=
Average
vapor
generation
rate
(
g
of
chemical
of
interest/
sec)
MWchem
=
Molecular
weight
of
the
chemical
of
interest
Fcorrection_
factor
=
Vapor
pressure
correction
factor
(
CEB
default
=
1)
VPchem
=
Vapor
pressure
of
the
chemical
of
interest
(
torr)
RATEair_
speed
=
Air
speed
(
ft/
min)
(
defaults
listed
in
Appendix
D)
AREAopening
=
Surface
area
of
the
static
pool
or
opening
(
cm2)
TEMPambient
=
Ambient
temperature
(
K)
Dopening
=
Diameter
of
the
static
pool
or
opening
(
cm)
Pambient
=
Ambient
pressure
(
atm)
Note:
The
factor
8.24
x
10­
8
in
Equation
C­
1
accounts
for
unit
conversions.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
C­
2
Using
the
vapor
generation
rate,
the
model
estimates
the
daily
release
to
air
for
the
activity
using
the
following
equation:

hours
_
activity
generation
_
vapor
air
TIME
Q
)
6
.
3
(
Elocal
×
×
=
[
C­
2]

Where:
Elocalair
=
Daily
release
to
air
from
the
activity
(
kg/
site­
day)
Qvapor_
generation
=
Average
vapor
generation
rate
(
g
of
chemical
of
interest/
sec)
TIMEactivity_
hours
=
Operating
hours
for
the
release
activity
per
day
(
hr/
day)
Note:
The
factor
3.6
in
Equation
C­
2
accounts
for
unit
conversions.

EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
The
EPA/
OPPT
Mass
Balance
Model
estimates
worker
inhalation
exposure
to
volatilized
chemicals
in
the
workers
breathing
zone.
The
airborne
concentration
of
the
chemical
is
estimated
to
be
a
function
of
the
source
vapor
generation
rate
and
the
volumetric
ventilation
rate
within
a
given
space
and
includes
simplifying
assumptions
of
steady
state
(
constant
generation
rate
and
constant
ventilation
rate)
and
a
mixing
factor
(
for
non­
ideal
mixing
of
air).
The
default
ventilation
rates
and
mixing
factors
provide
a
typical
and
worst
case
estimate
of
exposure.
The
airborne
concentration
of
the
chemical
cannot
exceed
the
level
of
saturation
for
the
chemical.

The
model
first
calculates
the
volumetric
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
the
air
using
the
following
equation:

factor
_
mixing
n
ventilatio
chem
ration
vapor_
gene
ambient
5
volumetric
_
chem
F
RATE
W
M
Q
TEMP
)
10
(
1.7
C
×
×
×
×
×
=
[
C­
3]

Where:
Cchem_
volumetric
=
Volumetric
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
air
(
ppm)
Qvapor_
generation
=
Average
vapor
generation
rate
(
g
of
chemical
of
interest/
sec)
TEMPambient
=
Ambient
temperature
(
K)
MWchem
=
Molecular
weight
of
the
chemical
of
interest
RATEventilation
=
Ventilation
rate
(
ft3/
min)
(
defaults
listed
in
Appendix
D)
Fmixing_
factor
=
Mixing
factor
(
dimensionless)
(
defaults
listed
in
Appendix
D)
Note:
The
factor
1.7
x
105
in
Equation
C­
3
accounts
for
unit
conversions.

However,
the
airborne
concentration
of
the
chemical
cannot
exceed
the
saturation
level
of
the
chemical
in
air.
Equation
C­
4
calculates
the
volumetric
concentration
at
the
saturation
level.
Use
the
lesser
value
for
the
volumetric
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
C­
3
in
the
air
(
Cchem_
volumetric)
calculated
in
Equations
C­
3
and
C­
4
to
calculate
the
mass
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
air
in
Equation
C­
5.

(
)
chem
_
factor
correction
6
etric
chem_
volum
VP
F
760
10
C
×
×
=
[
C­
4]

Where:
Cchem_
volumetric
=
Volumetric
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
air
(
ppm)
Fcorrection_
factor
=
Vapor
pressure
correction
factor
(
CEB
default
=
1)
VPchem
=
Vapor
pressure
of
the
chemical
of
interest
(
torr)
Note:
The
factor
106/
760
in
Equation
C­
4
accounts
for
unit
conversions.

The
mass
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
air
is
related
to
the
volumetric
concentration
by
the
following
equation:

molar
chem
volumetric
_
chem
mass
_
chem
V
W
M
C
C
×
=
[
C­
5]

Where:
Cchem_
mass
=
Mass
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
air
(
mg/
m3)
Cchem_
volumetric
=
Volumetric
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
air
(
ppm)
MWchem
=
Molecular
weight
of
the
chemical
of
interest
Vmolar
=
Molar
volume
(
Default
=
24.45
L/
mol
at
25
º
C
and
1
atm)

Assuming
a
constant
breathing
rate
and
a
duration
of
exposure
for
the
activity,
the
inhalation
exposure
to
the
volatized
chemical
of
interest
for
the
activity
can
be
estimated
using
the
following
equation:

exposure
breathing
chem_
mass
inhalation
TIME
RATE
C
EXP
×
×
=
[
C­
6]

Where:
EXPinhalation
=
Inhalation
exposure
from
the
chemical
of
interest
per
day
(
mg
chemical
of
interest/
day)
Cchem_
mass
=
Mass
concentration
of
the
chemical
of
interest
in
the
air
(
mg/
m3)
RATEbreathing
=
Typical
worker
breathing
rate
(
Default
=
1.25
m3/
hr)
(
26)
TIMEexposure
=
Duration
of
exposure
for
the
activity
(
hr/
day)
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
Appendix
D
Summary
of
Constants
Used
in
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Vapor
Generation
Models
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
D­
1
Table
D­
1
Default
Values
Used
in
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Vapor
Generation
Models
Default
Values
Used
in
CEB
Spreadsheet
for
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Vapor
Generation
from
Transfer
and
Open
Surface
Operations
(
and
units)

2.1E+
05
Drumming
(
55
gallons
=
2.1E+
05
cm3)

1.9E+
04
Cans/
bottles
(
5
gallons
=
1.9E+
04
cm3)

1.9E+
07
Tank
truck
(
5,000
gallons
=
1.9E+
07
cm3)

Volumes
(
cm3)
7.6E+
07
Tank
car
(
20,000
gallons
=
7.6E+
07
cm3)

Wind
Speed
(
ft/
min)
4.4E+
02
Average
outdoor
wind
speed
=
9
mph
(
792
ft/
min)
per
CEB
Eng.
Man.
(
pg
4­
17);

Average
indoor
wind
speed
=
1.136
mph
(
100
ft/
min)
per
CEB
Eng.
Man.
(
App
K);

440
ft/
min
(
5
mph)
is
the
CEB
default
value
per
Nhan
Nguyen
(
CEB
Branch
Chief)

2.0E+
01
Typical
cans/
drums
(
20/
hr)

3.0E+
01
Worst
case
cans/
drums
(
30/
hr)

2.0E+
00
Typical
and
worst
case
tank
truck
(
2/
hr)

Fill
Rates
(
containers/
hr)
1.00E+
00
Typical
and
worst
case
tank
car
(
1/
hr)

5.0E­
01
Typical
cans/
drums
(
0.5,
dimensionless)

1.0E+
00
Worst
case
cans/
drums
(
1.0,
dimensionless)

Saturation
Factors
1.0E+
00
Typical
and
worst
case
tank
truck/
tank
car
(
1.0,
dimensionless)

5.0E­
01
Typical
for
all
(
0.5,
dimensionless)

Mixing
Factors
1.0E­
01
Worst
case
for
all
(
0.1,
dimensionless)

3.0E+
03
Typical
case
cans/
drums
(
3,000
ft3/
min)

5.0E+
02
Worst
case
cans/
drums
(
500
ft3/
min)

1.32E+
05
Worst
case
for
tank
cars/
trucks
(
ft3/
min;
dependent
on
wind
speed
(
26,400
*
wind
speed
in
mph)

Ventilation
Rates
(
ft3/
min)
2.38E+
05
Typical
case
for
tank
cars/
trucks
(
ft3/
min;
constant
based
on
9mph
per
CEB
Eng.
Man)

Inhalation
Rate
(
m3/
hr)
1.25E+
00
Standard
inhalation
rate
(
1.25
m3/
hr;
NIOSH
Guide
to
Industrial
Respiratory
Protection,
1976)

Note:
In
ChemSTEER,
all
calculations
assume
as
default
standard
temperature
and
pressure
along
with
ideal
gas
interactions.
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
Appendix
E
TABLE
OF
DERMAL
ASSESSMENT
FACTORS
DRAFT
GENERIC
SCENARIO
CHEMICALS
USED
IN
WATER­
BASED
WASHING
OPERATIONS
AT
INDUSTRIAL
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
LAUNDRIES
August
2004
E­
1
Table
E­
1
Factors
for
Screening­
Level
Assessments
of
Dermal
Exposure
to
the
Hands
Type
of
Contact1
Typical
Examples
S2
(
cm2)
Q3
(
mg/
cm2)
Resulting
Dermal
Contact
(
mg)
Routine,
direct
handling
of
solids
­
2
hands
 
Filling/
dumping
containers
of
powders,
flakes,
granules
 
Weighing
powder/
scooping/
mixing
(
i.
e.,
dye
weighing)
 
Handling
wet
or
dried
material
in
a
filtration
and
drying
process
up
to
3,1004
Routine
contact
with
surfaces
­
2
hands
­
solids
 
Handling
bags
of
solid
materials
(
closed
or
empty)
up
to
1,1004
Routine
immersion,
2
hands
­
liquids
 
Handling
wet
surfaces
 
Spray
painting
840
1.3
­
10.3
up
to
8,700
Routine
contact,
2
hands
­
liquids
 
Maintenance
 
Manual
cleaning
of
equipment
 
Filling
drum
with
liquid
840
0.7
­
2.1
up
to
1,800
Incidental
contact,
2
hands
­
liquids
 
Connecting
transfer
line
840
0.7
­
2.1
up
to
1,800
Incidental
contact,
1
hand
­
liquids
 
Sampling
 
Ladling
liquid/
bench
scale
liquid
transfer
420
0.7
­
2.1
up
to
900
Notes:
1
­
The
terms
"
routine"
and
"
incidental"
reflect
typical
CEB
judgments
on
likelihood
of
contact
for
the
example
activities.
2
­
Values
of
the
skin
surface
area
of
the
hands
taken
from
the
EPA
Exposure
Factors
Handbook,
1997
and
are
the
mean
values
for
men
3
­
Selected
ranges
of
`
Q'
Values
for
liquid
handling
activities
taken
from:
U.
S.
EPA.
A
Laboratory
Method
to
Determine
the
Retention
of
Liquids
on
the
Surface
of
Hands.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Exposure
Evaluation
Division.
EPA
747­
R­
92­
003.
September
1992.
4
­
Values
for
dermal
contact
for
solids
handling
activities
were
taken
from:
Lansink,
C.
J.
M.,
M.
S.
C.
Breelen,
J.
Marquart,
and
J.
J.
van
Hemmen:
Skin
Exposure
to
Calcium
Carbonate
in
the
Paint
Industry.
Preliminary
Modeling
of
Skin
Exposure
Levels
to
Powders
Based
on
Field
Data
(
TNO
Report
V
96.064).
Rijswijk,
The
Netherlands:
TNO
Nutrition
and
Food
Research
Institute,
1996.

Further
details
on
derivation
of
this
table
can
be
found
in
Reference
28.