||Evaluation of the procedures for identification of hazardous wastes Sampling, extraction, and inorganic analytical procedures /
Williams, L. R. ;
Meier, E. P. ;
Hinners, T. A. ;
Yfantis, E. A. ;
Beckert, W. F.
||Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab., Las Vegas, NV.
||United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Hazardous materials ;
Chemical analysis ;
Solid waste disposal ;
Inorganic compounds ;
Cargo transportation ;
Atomic spectroscopy ;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ;
||Region 3 Library/Philadelphia, PA
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||iii, 84 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
A study was performed to evaluate the sampling, extraction, and analytical procedures (inorganic) proposed in the RCRA regulations for identifying wastes as hazardous by the toxicity characteristic. Twenty-seven different wastes were sampled and analyzed in accordance with the RCRA regulations. The high degree of heterogeneity found in many wastes underscores the need for a carefully designed sampling protocol to reproducibly obtain representative samples from each waste source. A protocol was developed and tested for obtaining composite samples from waste ponds or lagoons. Samplers tested, the pond sampler and the COLIWASA (composite liquid waste sampler), were found too acceptable for sampling hazardous waste, when used in a well-designed sampling protocol. Reliability and reproducibility of the EP were evaluated (RSD less than 15%). The blade-type rotary extractor (as cited in the proposed regulations), a tumbling-type extractor, and a wrist-arm-type shaker were compared. These three types yielded similar EP extracts. The supporting analytical methods (atomic absorption spectrometry) were found to be highly reproducible for Cr and Pb, and somewhat less for the Ba (RSDs less than 3.1%, 4.6%, and 16.4% respectively). Independent analyses of the same waste extracts by two laboratories were highly reproducible, i.e., the variance from analyses was negligible. However, differences in the EP extracts produced by the two laboratories show the need for a detailed and concise protocol for conducting the EP. Problems with sample contamination from the blade-type extractor (chromium) and the filtration apparatus (barium) were identified.
"EPA-600/4-81-027." "April 1981." "PB81-203804." Includes bibliographical references.