United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory
Las Vegas NV 89114
Research and Development
EPA-600/S4-81-028 Aug. 1981
Project Summary
Sampling and Analysis of
Wastes Generated by
Gray Iron Foundries
W. F. Beckert, T. A. Hinners, L R. Williams, E. P. Meier, and T. E. Gran
This study was undertaken to deter-
mine how often the wastes generated
by a representative number of gray
iron foundries were identified as
hazardous when tested according to
procedures published in the Federal
Register*(Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No. 98,
33066 pp; May 19, 1980).
Thirty (30) wastes generated by 21
gray iron foundries in Pennsylvania
and Michigan were sampled and
analyzed for selected inorganic con-
stituents. The samples were collected
in accordance with chain-of-custody
procedures and sent to the Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory, Las Vegas (EMSL-LV). Three
aliquots of each sample were extracted
in accordance with the EPA Extraction
Procedure (EP) (Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No.
98, 33127-33128; May 19,1980). A
second set of three aliquots of each
sample was digested with nitric acid/
hydrogen peroxide. Both the extracts
and the digests were analyzed for
cadmium, chromium and lead by
atomic absorption spectrophotometry
and for 16 elements by inductively
coupled plasma emission spectroscopy.
At the request of the American
Foundrymen Society, aliquots of all
raw samples, as well as splits of nine
extracts and nine digests, were sent to
Dr. W. Boyle, University of Wisconsin,
for independent analysis. In addition,
aliquots of each of 12 waste samples
and splits of 9 extracts and 9 digests
were analyzed by LFE Environmental
Analysis Laboratories (now EAL Cor-
poration), an analytical laboratory
under contract to EMSL-LV. Excellent
agreement was obtained between
EMSL-LV and the other two labora-
tories.
Of the 30 samples evaluated for EP
toxicity, a total of 9 (30 percent)
exceeded the criteria levels for cad-
mium and/or lead. None of the
extracts exceeded the hazardous
waste criteria levels for chromium,
arsenic, or barium. Extractable cad-
mium (using the EP) for the foundry
wastes varied from 2.7 percent to
59.2 percent and extractable lead
from 0.4 percent to 15.5 percent.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Environmental Moni-
toring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas.
NV, to announce key findings of the
research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
Approximately 1,200 gray iron
foundries and 81 ductile iron foundries
are located throughout the United
States, with many of the plants con-
centrated in the Great Lakes area.
Similar types of melting equipment are
•jsed to produce both gray and ductile
iron, and since the temperature and
general metallurgical requirements are
also similar for both processes, single
foundries can produce both types of
-------
iron. More than 16 million tons of iron
were produced in 1979 by this industry;
an estimated 10 to 22 pounds of
emission control dust is generated for
every ton of iron produced.
The types of melting furnaces used for
the production of gray iron and ductile
iron are cupola, electric arc, and electric
induction furnaces. It is estimated that
approximately 95 percent of the furnaces
used for producing gray iron and ductile
iron are cupola furnaces. The emission
control systems used are Venturi
scrubbers and baghouses. Since the
same types of raw materials are used to
produce each type of iron, waste
composition is expected to be similar.
In 1980, after evaluating the informa-
tion available, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency tentatively determined
that the emission control dusts were
hazardous wastes within the meaning
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The Agency thus
proposed (Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No. 138,
47836 pp; July 16, 1980) to list such
material as a hazardous waste because:
1. Waste extracts from gray and
ductile iron foundry emission
control dusts have been shown to
contain high concentrations of the
heavy metals, lead and cadmium.
In many cases the concentrations
exceeded 100 times the drinking
water standards for lead and
cadmium, and in some cases ex-
ceeded 1,000 times the standard.
2. Large quantities of these wastes
are generated annually, increasing
the quantity of lead and cadmium
available for environmental re-
lease.
3. These wastes may be disposed of
in wetland or other areas where
waste materials can become satu-
rated with surface water or shal-
low groundwater, thus increasing
the hazardous constituents' mi-
gratory potential.
In response to the comments received
and in acknowledgement of the eco-
nomic impact of such a listing, the EPA
initiated a study to gather additional
information on gray iron foundry emis-
sion control residuals in order to deter-
mine if, in fact, the waste should not be
listed. On January 16,1981, the Agency
deferred final action on listing these
wastes pending the outcome of this
study (Fed. Reg. 46, No. 11, 4616 pp;
January 16, 1981).
The objective of this study was to
determine how often the wastes gen-
erated by a representative number of
gray iron foundries would be identified
as hazardous by the EPA Extraction
Procedure. The parameters of primary
interest were cadmium, chromium, and
lead with EP extract criteria levels of 1,
5, and 5 mg/l, respectively, for identifi-
cation of a waste as hazardous. A sec-
ondary objective was to determine the
total concentration of these elements in
the wastes studied. Chain-of-custody
procedures were followed throughout
this study.
Approach
Selection of Sampling Sites
The goal of the selection process was
to provide a representative cross section
of the types of foundries of interest and
to minimize the logistical problems and
expense associated with sample acqui-
sition. For practical reasons, the samp-
ling was limited to foundries located in
Pennsylvania and Michigan. The selec-
tion of the foundries to be sampled and
the notification of the companies were
carried out by the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW).
Factors considered in selecting the
sampling sites included the nature of
the charge used, furnace type, and
scrubber type. A telephone survey of all
gray iron foundries located in Pennsyl-
vania and Michigan was conducted to
obtain data on these factors from
foundry representatives. It was pointed
out by those representatives that the
charge compositions they reported
were characteristic of the individual
foundries. Their information was ac-
cepted as quoted and formed the basis
for the sampling and analytical program.
A questionnaire in which a detailed
description of the charge was requested
was subsequently distributed to all the
foundries that were to be sampled.
The foundries included in this study
were selected on the basis of the factors
listed above, on the clarity of response
to the charge questions, and on the
geographic location. The latter point
was important because of the limited
resources available for sampling. There-
fore, the foundries chosen generally
cluster around towns near airports in
order to allow the sampling crew to fly
in, rent a truck, and perform the
sampling with a minimum of expense.
However, in no case was quality sacri-
ficed for budget.
Sample Collection and
Sample Splitting
Since the exact nature of the waste
storage and disposal facilities at each
site was unknown, the sampling team
leader used his best judgement to
obtain a representative sample (or
samples) of each waste of interest. Solid
samples were taken with a trowel or
scoop from the most recently (preferably
same day) defined waste in a repre-
sentative pattern throughout the area to
be sampled and transferred to plastic
containers. Most wet scrubber waste
was sampled from holding tanks or
hoppers; as much water as possible was
decanted or squeezed from the plastic
containers after sample collections.
Guidelines presented in "Samplers and
Sampling Procedures for Hazardous
Waste Streams" (EPA-600/2-80-081,
January 1980) were followed when it
was appropriate and practical to do so.
When requested, the foundries received
split samples of the wastes collected
from their facilities for this study.
During the Pennsylvania sampling
trip, 13 scrubber-waste samples were
collected from nine foundries. One of
the furnaces sampled was an electric
arc furnace; the others were cupola
furnaces. During the Michigan sampling
trip, 17 scrubber-waste samples were
collected from 1 2 foundries. Two of the
furnaces sampled were of the electric
arc type; the others were cupola
furnaces.
The waste samples received at the
EMSL-LV were divided into aliquots of
at least 450 g each. The samples were
randomly distributed either for in-house
analysis, to the University of Wisconsin,
to LFE Environmental Analysis Labora-
tories, (now EAL Corporation) which
was under contract to the EMSL-LV, or
added to the secured EMSL-LV sample
bank.
Sample Preparation
Aliquots of the raw foundry-waste
samples were split into 1 00-g portions
and extracted in triplicate by contractor
personnel at the EMSL-LV laboratory
facility. The NBS tumbling-type ex-
tractor was used throughout the study.
The official Extraction Procedure (EP)
was followed as specified in the Federal
Register (Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No. 98,
33127-33128; May 19, 1980) and .
explained in detail in Section 7 of "Test \
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,"
Office of Water and Waste Manage-
-------
ment, SW-846. The extracts were then
digested (as outlined in Section 8 of the
above manual) and analyzed for the
metals of interest.
Triplicate aliquots of the raw samples
were digested using nitric acid/hydrogen
peroxide and analyzed for the metals of
interest.
Aliquots of 10 extracts and 9 digests
prepared at the EMSL-LV were shipped
to the University of Wisconsin and to
LFE for analysis. This included a blind
simulated extract containing 16.0 ppm
each of Pb, Cd, and Cr in 0.7 percent
nitric acid.
Sample Analysis
All extracts and digests were screened
using ICP spectroscopy for the following
16 elements: Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd,
Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Ni, Pb, V, andZn. The
instrument used for these screening
analyses was an Applied Research
Laboratories Inductively Coupled Plasma-
Optical Emission Spectrometer (ICP-
OES)with a 27.12 MHz radio frequency
generator operated at 1.6 kw. Single-
>pass analyses were conducted where
one pass consisted of calibration plus
measurements on each solution. A
Digital Equipment Corporation POP
11/10 mini-computer was used for data
handling and control of the ICP-OES
during analysis.
All extracts and digests were analyzed
for lead, cadmium, and chromium (and
income cases other elements) with an
automated Perkin-Elmer Model 603
atomic absorption spectrophotometer
(AAS). The procedures used are detailed
in Section 8 of "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste," EPA, Office of
Water and Waste Management, SW-
846. The AAS was equipped with a
micro-processor and an automatic
sample introduction system. It was
interfaced with a PDP-11 computer for
conventional flame analysis of fluids
suitable for aspiration; it was also
equipped with a deuterium background
corrector to compensate for non-
analyte absorption. Whenever the
results of the AAS screening analysis of
an extract indicated that the amount of
cadmium, chromium or lead in the
extract exceeded the criteria levels of 1,
5 and 5 mg/l, respectively, another
aliquot of the same raw sample was
extracted, the extract digested and the
digested extract analyzed for confirma-
tion using the background corrector and
the method of standard addition.
Quality Assurance
The splitting of samples, extracts, and
digests was performed by an indepen-
dent in-house quality assurance team
that was not otherwise involved in the
study. All samples, including all dupli-
cates, were therefore "blind" to the
sample preparation team, the analytical
team and to LFE, the reference labora-
tory. Twelve raw waste samples, includ-
ing three blind splits, were sent to LFE
for extraction, digestion, and analysis.
Eight of the 36 solid waste samples
extracted, digested, and analyzed at
EMSL-LV were blind splits. All extrac-
tions and digestions were performed in
triplicate. As part of the AAS analytical
procedure, a standard was routinely
analyzed every 10 samples. Filtration
blanks were run to assure that the
filtration equipment had been properly
cleaned. Extracts, digests and reagent
blanks were analyzed with a single-pass
procedure for ICP measurements and
with a double-pass procedure for AA
measurements. One analysis pass con-
sisted of calibration plus measurement
on each solution.
Whenever the AAS screening analysis
of an extract produced values for
cadmium and/or lead that were above
the criteria levels, another aliquot of the
same raw waste sample was extracted
and analyzed for confirmation by the
method of standard addition (see
Results and Discussion).
Results and Discussion
All extracts and digests were analyzed
for cadmium, chromium, and lead using
AAS without the method of addition.
Since ICP spectroscopy showed that
neither the barium nor the arsenic
concentrations in the extracts exceeded
50 percent of the criteria levels (100 and
5 mg/l, respectively), even without
background correction, no attempt was
made to analyze for these two elements
using AAS.
The results for the extracts and
digests are listed in Table 1. The extracts
from six field samples exceeded the
critical concentration for cadmium of 1
mg/l, and the extracts from seven field
samples exceeded the 5 mg/l limit for
lead. None of the extracts exceeded the
limit for chromium.
The analytical results for the aliquots
of the raw waste samples sent to the
University of Wisconsin (36 samples)
and LFE (12 samples) agreed with the
EMSL-LV results. The same wastes
were identified as hazardous by all three
laboratories.
In Table 1, extract data are reported as
mg/l, the units used in the hazardous
waste criteria level for toxicity specified
in the Federal Register (Fed. Reg. Vol.
45, No. 98, 33127; May 19, 1980) for
the Extraction Procedure. Digest data
are reported as mg/kg of dry sample
material to allow convenient estimates
for the mass of an element contained in
a given load of the solid waste. The
concentrations of cadmium, chromium,
and lead in the digests were often three
orders of magnitude higher than those
in corresponding EP extracts. However,
the concentrations in the extract and
digest solutions are not directly compa-
rable because the ratio of final liquid
volume to solid weight is 20/1 or more
for the extracts and 100/1 for the
digests. Furthermore, an EP extract is,
according to the definition in the Federal
Register quoted above, either the
undiluted filtered liquid portion of a
waste containing less than 0.5 percent
of filtrable solids (examples in this study
are samples #50 and #51), or the actual
EP extract combined with any liquid was
separated from the sample by filtration
before the extraction step. The digestion,
however, was always performed on the
total solids of the dried samples.
To allow for an easier comparison, the
amounts of cadmium, chromium and
lead extracted from the samples using
the EP are listed in Table 2 as per-
centages of the amounts found in the
digests.
In order to confirm the AAS results,
fresh aliquots of the wastes that had
high concentrations of lead or cadmium
in their EP extracts were extracted using
the EPA Extraction Procedure, the
extracts were digested, and the digests
analyzed for cadmium, chromium, and
lead using the method of standard
addition. The results are listed in Table
3. All lead and cadmium values except
one were confirmed to exceed the
criteria levels.
The results are listed in Table 3. All
lead and cadmium values except one
were confirmed to exceed the criteria
levels.
The occasionally large differences
between the screening and the con-
firmatory AAS values are due to the
variations in composition between
aliquots of the same field samples. This
variation is not surprising since many of
these wastes were heterogeneous and
difficult to mix. Mixing techniques that
change the particle sizes (e.g., grinding
-------
Table 1.
Summary of Atomic Absorption Screening Analyses of Waste EP Extracts and Waste Digests*
Field EP Extracts (mg/l) Waste] (mg/kg)
Foundry
Code
PA
PA
PB
PB
PC
PC
PD
PD
PE
PE
PE
PF
PF
PG
PH
PI
MJ
MK
MKK
MKK
MKK
ML
ML
MM
MN
MN
MNN
MNN
MO
MP
MQ
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MT
MU
Sample
Number
1
2
6
8
12
12 SP
16
16 SP
19
19 SP
20
22
24
28
34
36
40
42
44
46
46 SP
50t
sn
52
54
54 SP
56
56 SP
58
60
64
66
66 SP
68
68 SP
70
74
Cadmium
0.026 T 0.004
0.0/4 ± 0.003
1.091 ± 0.003
0.010 ± O.O06
0.015 ± 0.003
0.007 ±0.001
1.012 ±0.001
0.926 ± 0.016
0.013 ±0.002
0.01 2 ±0.001
0.015 ± 0.005
o.ooe ± o.oo7
0.027 ± 0.002
0.081 ± 0.007
1.683 ± 0.028
0.021 ±O.OOO
0.022 ± 0.002
0.557 ± 0.005
1.319 ±0.102
0.023 ± 0.012
0.024 ± 0.002
0.215
0.011
2.013 ± 0.248
0.293 ± 0.053
0.243 ± 0.015
0.015 ± 0.006
0.015 ±0.001
0.019 ± 0.004
0.062 ± 0.020
0.007 ±0.001
2.279 ±0.1 11
2.220 ± 0.085
0.046 ± 0.002
0.062 ± 0.030
0.598 ± 0.057
0.070 ± 0.001
78 0.0034 ±0.0006
Chromium
0.06 +" 0.006
0.06 ±0.00/
0.07 ± 0.007
BD
0.06 ±0.008
0.07 ± 0.002
0.07 ±0.006
0.06 ± 0.004
0.07 ± 0.001
0.07 ± 0.004
0.07 + 0.005
0.07 ±0.003
0.07 ± 0.002
0.07 + 0.003
0.07 ± 0.005
0.07 ±0.003
0.10 ±0.006
0.05 ± 0.003
0.10 ±0.006
0.07 ± 0.002
0.09 ± 0.01
0.05
0.07
0.11 ±0.02
0.06 ± 0.004
0.07 ± 0.02
0.06 ± 0.008
0. 14 ± 0. 13
0.06 ± 0.002
0.11 ±0.009
0.06 ±0.001
0.80 ± 0.06
0.86 ±O.O02
0.29 ± 0.007
0.33 ±0.005
O.09 ± 0.008
O.06 ± 0.004
0.05 ± 0.003
Lead
3.1+0.7
0.6 ± 0.2
23.8 ± 0.8
BD
0.2 ± 0.04
0.2 ±0.03
109 ±7
120+ 1
0.5 ± 0. 1
0.4 ± 0.04
0.5 ± 0.3
0.2 ± 0.2
0.2 ±0.02
10.2 ± 2.2
10.4 ± 1.5
0.5 ±0.05
0.8 ± 0. 1
0.8 ± 0.04
1.7 ±0.4
BD
0.2 ± 0.03
0.2
0.4
25.5 ±5.7
20.4 ± 3.8
9.4 ± 0.4
0.6 ± 0.09
0.6 ±0.1
O.2 ± 0.03
2.3 ± 0.3
BD
BD
BD
BD
BD
12.6 ± 1.4
0.4 ± 0.02
BD
Cadmium
4.3 ±0.6
1.0 + 0.0
79.9 ± 0.9
BD
3.0 ±0.6
2.3 ±0.3
35.0 ±0.9
31.3 ±0.3
3.3 ±0.6
4.8 ±2.6
4.3 ±0.3
1.0 ±0.0
6.8 ±0.3
20.0 ± 2.9
79.4 ± 0.9
3.2 ± 0.3
4.3 ± 0.2
42.2 ±0.6
134.1 + 1.9
3.6 ± 0.5
3.7 ±0.1
-f
+
/063.7±6.4
17.1 ±0.6
15.5 ± 0.9
2.1 ±0.0
8.5 ± 0. 1
2.3 ±0.2
7.5 ±0.0
2.9 ±0.2
178.9 ±8.3
173.7 ± 11.5
8.1 ±0.2
8.2 ± 0.2
116.4 ±7.1
7.5 ± 1.1
3.0 ± 0.0
Chromium
81 ±3
72 ±4
88 ± 1
BD
193 ± 40
227 ±9
43 ± 0.9
43 ± 0.9
33 ±6
36 ±7
40+ 1
26 ±2
75 ±2
78 ±2
11 86 ±8
133 ±8
159 ± 13
165 ±4
1548 ± 24
426 ± 57
392 ± 42
-t
-t
748 ± 77
71 ± 1
74 ±7
108 ±6
322 ±3
76 ±2
301 ± 36
105 ±2
2786 ± 231
2671 ± 72
2210 ±327
2178 ±47
131 ±2
148 ±9
122 ± 10
Lead
2140 ± 40
180 ± 50
20770 ± 370
BD
360 ± 60
340 ± 80
18810 ± 2010
17520± 100
9680 ± 250
860 ± 430
980 ± 30
30 ±0.7
290 ±4
13030 ± 560
10260 ± 20
950 ± 50
680 ± 30
2650 ± 130
6210 ± 170
100 ± 40
110 ±20
-t
-t
29630 ± 7770
2630 ± 20
2370 ± 90
370 ± 30
790 ± 30
250 ± 30
7950 ± 740
90 ±4
390 ±3
380 ± 20
440 ± 20
450 ±3
3540 ± 330
7920 ± 50
440 ± 50
* Average and standard deviation values are shown for triplicate portions prepared and measured at EPA-Las Vegas.
^Amounts of metals released from the wastes by the digestion procedure employed.
j No digestion was performed since waste contained <0.5% filtrable solids.
BD = mg/l values for extracts below 0.004 for Cd, 0.03 for Cr and 0.05 for Pb; 100 x these values for mg/kg in wastes.
SP = Blind splits.
and milling) could not be used since
breaking up the particles would most
likely change the leachability charac-
teristics of the material.
To verify our analytical results,
aliquots of digested extracts that
exceeded the critical concentrations for
cadmium, lead, or both, were sent to
LFE and to the University of Wisconsin
for analysis. The results from the three
laboratories were in excellent agree-
ment.
An attempt was made to correlate
high extract values for cadmium and/or
lead with the type of furnace, scrubber
and charge (as reported by the foundries
in the questionnaires). Alt extracts from
the three wastes produced by the
electric arc process exceeded the limit
for cadmium and one of them also for
lead, although the composition of the
charges used by the three foundries
varied widely. Only three of 15 wastes
from the Venturi-type scrubbers ex-
ceeded the limit for lead (and in one case
for cadmium) whereas six out of eight
wastes collected with the baghouse
system exceeded the limit for one or
both of these elements. The extract from
the waste of a Michigan foundry, where
lead-weighted wheels were noted
among the scrap, exceeded the limit for
lead by 50 percent. However, no cor-
relation could be found between the
charges used (as reported by the
foundries) and the levels of cadmium
and lead in the extracts.
-------
Table 2. Percentage of Cadmium, Chromium and Lead Extracted from the Raw
Wastes by the EP*
Foundry
Code
PA
PA
PB
PB
PC
PC
PD
PD
PE
PE
PE
PF
PF
PG
PH
PI
MJ
MK
MKK
MKK
MKK
ML
ML
MM
MN
MN
MNN
MNN
MO
MP
MQ
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MT
MU
Field
Sample
Number
1
2
6
8
12
12
16
16
19
19
20
22
24
28
34
36
40
42
44
46
46
50
51
52
54
54
56
56
58
60
64
66
66
68
68
70
74
78
Percentage Extracted
Cadmium
12 ±2
28 ±6
27.3 ± 0.08
1
10 ±2
6± 1
57.8 ± 0.05
53.2 ± 1
7.9 ± 1.2
5.0 ± 0.4
7.0 ±4.2
10 ±2
7.9 ± 0.5
8.1 ±0.7
42.4 ±0.7
13 ±0
10 ± 0.9
26.4 ± 0.2
19.67 ± 1.52
13 ±7
13 ± 1
1
1
3.78 ±0.47
34.3 ± 5.2
31.4 ± 1.9
14 ±6
3.5 ± 0.2
16 ±4
16 ±5
5 ±0.7
25.48 ± 1.24
25.56 ± 0.99
11 ±0.5
15 ±7
10.3 ± 1.0
2.7 ±0.3
23 ± 0.4
Chromium
2 ±0.2
2 ± 0.03
2 ± 0.02
1
0.6 ± O.OS
0.5 ± 0.02
3 ±0.3
3 ±0.2
4 ± 0.06
4 ±0.2
4 ±0.2
5 ±0.2
2 ± 0.05
2 ±0.08
0.1 ±0.008
1 ±0.04
1.2 ± 0.08
0.6 ±0.04
0.1 3 ±0.008
0.3 ± 0.009
0.4 ± 0.05
1
1
1.5 ± 0.3
2 ±0.1
2 ±0.5
1 ±0.1
0.87 ± 0.81
2 ± 0.05
0.7 3 ±0.06
1 ± 0.02
0.57 ± 0.04
0.64 ± 0.002
0.26 ±0.01
0.30 ± 0.005
1 ±0.1
0.8 ± 0.05
0.8 ± 0.05
Lead
2.9 ±0.6
7±2
2.3 ± 0.08
1
1 ±0.2
1 ±0.2
11. 6 ±0.7
13.7 ±0.1
0. 1 ± 0.02
0.9 ± 0.09
1 ±0.6
10 ± 10
1 ±0.1
1.56 ± 0.34
2.03 ± 0.29
1 ±0.1
2 ±0.3
0.6 ± 0.03
0.55 ± 0. 13
1
4 ±0.5
1
1
1.72 ±0.38
15.5 ± 2.9
7.9 ± 0.3
3 ±0.5
2 ±0.2
2 ±0.2
2.4 ± 0.3
1
1
1
1
1
7.1 2 ±0.79
0.4 ± 0.02
1
*Based on AA Data from Table 1 after conversion of the EP values to mg/kg basis.
I indicates Insufficient data (concentrations below detection limits).
-------
Table 3. Confirmatory Atomic Absorption Analyses of EP Extracts* p2
Field Spike
Foundry Sample Unspiked Level Spiked
Code Number Element Reading Img/l) Reading
PB
PB
PB
PD
PD
PD
PG
PG
PG
PH
PH
PH
MKK
MKK
MKK
MM
6
6
6
16
16
16
28
28
28
34
34
34
44
44
44
52
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
0.220
0.03
9.7
0.178
BD
17.7
0.026
BD
2.3
0.362
0.04
3.8
0.290
0.04
BD
0.848
0.500
0.750
1.000
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.500
0.750
1.000
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.500
0.750
1.000
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.500
0.750
7.000
2.50
4.00
5.OO
5.0
7.5
70.0
0.500
0.750
1.000
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
70.0
0.500
0.750
7.000
0.719
0.970
1.225
2.73
4.39
5.54
15.0
77.5
20.0
0.676
0.327
7.777
2.66
4.20
5.30
22.7
25.2
27.6
0.527
0.777
7.024
2.67
4.25
5.37
7.5
70.2
72.7
0.861
1.106
1.365
2.68
4.28
5.40
8.9
11:5
74.2
0.781
1.036
1.291
2.65
4.21
5.36
5.4
8.1
10.6
7.344
7.607
1.858
Spike Undiluted
Recovery Extract
(%) fmg/l)
100 1.089
100
100
108 0.05
109
110
105 47.3
104
103
100 0.888
99
100
106 BD
105
106
101 89.3
101
99
99 0. 123
99
100
107 BD
106
107
103 11.0
104
103
100 1.802
99
100
106 0. 12
106
107
103 18. 1
103
104
98 1.432
100
100
104 0.70
704
706
108 BD
108
106
99 4.184
700
707
Std.
Dev.
0.015
0.15
0.9
0.017
0.7
0.072
—
0.3
0.037
0.73
0.4
0.035
0.27
—
0.057
-------
Table3. (Continued?*
Field
Foundry Sample
Code Number Element
MM
MM
MN
MN
MN
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
52
52
54
54
54
66
66
66
70
70
70
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Unspiked
Reading
BD
7.8
0.073
BD
2.81
0.548
0.22
BD
0.079
BD
1.5
Spike
Level
(mg/l)
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.500
0.750
1.000
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.500
0.750
1.OOO
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.500
0.750
1.OOO
2.50
4.00
5.00
5.0
7.5
10.0
Spiked
Reading
2.64
4.22
5.38
12.7
15.4
17.9
0.572
0.817
1.076
2.60
4.20
5.26
8.2
10.6
13.2
1.045
1.297
1.556
2.77
4.32
5.40
5.0
7.7
10.4
0.568
0.820
1.076
2.69
4.33
5.45
6.8
9.3
11.8
Spike
Recovery
(%)
106
106
108
100
101
102
100
99
100
104
105
105
107
103
103
99
too
101
102
103
104
100
103
104
98
99
100
108
108
109
106
104
103
Undiluted
Extract
(mg/l)
BD
38.3
0.358
BD
13.8
2.709
0.99
BD
0.379
BD
7.5
Std.
Dev.
—
0.9
0.023
0.69
0.038
0.13
-
0.029
0.5
1 The deuterium background corrector was not used for the chromium analyses because of inherent corrector limitations and because the
EP extract chromium concentrations are below the hazardous waste criteria even without background correction. Readings were
made on extracts diluted 5-fold per SW-846.
2BD indicates values below the detection limits of 0.005 mg/l for Cd. 0.025 mg/l for Cr and 0.47 mg/l for Pb. Lower detection limits
for Pb are obtained when background corrector is not used.
* DA OOVOWUENT PRINTING OmC£M»«1 -757-012/7300
-------
The EPA authors W. F. Beckett {also the EPA Project Officer, see below), T. A.
Hinners, L. R. Williams, and E. P. Meier are withthe Environmental Monitor-
ing Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV 89114; T. E. Gran is with Northrop
Services, Inc., Las Vegas, NV.
The complete report, entitled "Sampling and Analysis of Wastes Generated by
Gray Iron Foundries," (Order No. PB 81-206 575; Cost: $9.50, subject to
change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S.-Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, NV 89114
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268 ••
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
»Gf-.lC«
CHICAGO 1L 60604
------- |