oEPA United States Environmental Protection . . , f t I I I • • I Implementation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) in the United States 5th International Conference on Industrial and Hazardous Waste Management *With EPA's Office of Land S.Thorneloe, G. Helms* and D. Fagnant* US EPA and Emergency Management Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division September 29, 2016 ------- A EPA I Protection Outline United States Environmental Protection Agency • Introduction • Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework(LEAF) tests • Guidance for LEAF implementation • Data management tools • Next steps • LEAF Bibliography 2 ------- SB PA EPA^ Beneficial Use Definition • Virtually all industrial sectors generate by-products that are typically discarded but may be used to replace natural resources and conserve energy • EPA has defined beneficial use as the incorporation of an industrial material into a commercial product that: 1) provides functional benefit 2) meets relevant design specifications and performance standards for the proposed use 3) replaces virgin, raw materials in a product already on the market and 4) is implemented in a environmentally acceptable manner ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework • LEAF is a collection of ... • Four leaching methods • Data management tools • Geochemical speciation and mass transfer modeling • Quality assurance/quality control • Integrated leaching assessment approaches • ... designed to identify characteristic leaching behaviors for a wide range of materials and associated use and disposal scenarios. • Integration of leaching results provides a material-specific "source term" release estimate for assessing potential groundwater impacts of land placement of materials and use in material management decisions. • More information at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/leaching ------- a-epa United States Environmental Protection Agency LEAF Leaching Tests Equilibrium-based leaching tests • Batch tests carried out on size reduced material • Aim to measure contaminant release related to specific chemical conditions (pH, LS ratio) • Method 13 13 - pH dependence & titration curve • Method 13 16 — LS dependence Mass transport rate-based leaching tests • Carried out either on monolithic or compacted granular materials • Aim to determine contaminant release rates by accounting for both chemical and physical properties of the material • Method 1315- monolith & compacted granular options Percolation (column) leaching tests • May be either equilibrium or mass transfer rate • Method 1314- upflow column, local equilibrium (LS ratio) *Posted to SW-846 Validated Methods iri August 2013 ------- Simulation vs. Characterization Simulation-based Leaching Approaches • Designed to provide representative leachate under specified conditions • Simple implementation (e.g., single-batch methods likeTCLP or SPLP*) and interpretation (e.g., comparison of results to target values[acceptance criteria]) • Limitations • Representativeness of testing to actual disposal or use conditions • Results cannot be reliably extended to scenarios that differ from simulated conditions Characterization-based Leaching Approach • Evaluate intrinsic leaching parameters under broad range of conditions • Focus on parameters that vary in the environment and significantly affect leaching*** • More complex; sometimes requiring multiple leaching tests • Results can be applied to "what if" analysis of different disposal or use scenarios • Allows a common basis for comparison across materials and field conditions Parameters of most concern include pH, US, waste form and redox *TCLP-Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure **SPLP-Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure *** Parameters of most concern include pH, L/S and waste form; other parameters such as redox conditions can be important for some wastes ------- *How and When do I use LEAF? • LEAF test methods allow for; • Varying pH • Varying US ratio • Measuring monolith or granular samples • Up flow percolation • What tests does my management scenario call for? • How do I interpret my results? • Soon to be released guidance: LEAF How-To Guide *The LEAF methods were developed and have been validated for evaluating the leaching potential of inorganics wastes and constituents. ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency LEAF How-To Guide Purpose • Improve understanding of leaching and how leaching occurs and is evaluated • Describe the LEAF framework and the suite of LEAF methods • Explain how to apply LEAF and how leaching results are used • Describe data management and analysis tools 8 Purpose and Audiences Audiences • Decision makers for waste management, beneficial use of secondary materials, and site remediation • Risk assessors • State environmental agency officials • Waste generators • Analytical laboratories • Technical consultants and other interested stakeholders ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency LEAF How-To Guide: Topics Covered • General leaching overview • How to proceed through the LEAF approach • How to apply LEAF and special considerations to assess for selected management scenarios • Case study examples to illustrate how to use LEAF to develop source terms using LEAF data include evaluating materials for reuse and disposal and evaluating treatment effectiveness. • How to use leaching test results to model releases and inform reuse decisions ------- oEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency LEAF How-To Guide: Stepwise Approach to LEAF Testing Integrated stepwise approach for evaluating leaching behavior of materials • Considers pH, \JS, and material properties across a range of plausible field conditions Flexible framework • Tailor testing to site conditions and select the extent of testing based on the level of information needed • More precise and accurate estimation of leaching is achievable as conservative assumptions are progressively replaced with more accurate values Unacceptable for scenario Content More Conservative Less Accurate Available Content Test • LEAF 1313 Equilibrium • LEAF 1313, J Mass Transfer Rate Test • LEAF 1315 Acceptable for scenario Increased Testing Less Conservative More Accurate I Reference Threshold Constituent of Potential Concern (COPC). COPCs shown are for illustrative purposes only ------- oEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency LEAF Assessment Approach •Using leaching tests to characterize a material (A*). •Evaluating the leaching of constituents from the material in the context of the proposed use, treatment, or disposal application in conjunction with mass transport models to produce a leaching source term model (A). •Estimating constituent release from the application scenario considering water contact rates, flow rates, or frequencies (B). •Applying national or regional dilution and attenuation factors (DAFs), or site- specific groundwater fate and transport modeling, to estimate constituent concentrations at the point of compliance for comparison with applicable thresholds (C). Material Leaching Tests Broad-based characterization of intrinsic leaching behavior A* j- Roadbase 1 Material-specific: leaching tests 2 Scenario-specific: test results or by modeling (integrated with local water contact information) 3 Location-specific: for example, recharge rate or depth to groundwater Adapted from Kossori, van der Shot et al. (2014) Material Characterization1 Leaching in Context of the Application2 Use as Source Term Constituent Release from Application Scenario DAF or Model Scenario3 Constituent Concentration at Point of Compliance vs. Threshold (e.g., DWS) ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency LEAF Data Management Tools • LeachXS Lite software and data templates facilitate data management, evaluation, and reporting • Data templates provided as excel spreadsheets for each method • Perform basic, required calculations (e.g., moisture content) • Record laboratory data • Archive analytical data with laboratory information • Form the upload file to materials database • Software for LEAF data management, visualization and processing • Compare leaching test data • Between materials for a single constituent (e.g., As in two different CCRs) • Between constituents in a single material (e.g., Ba and S04 in cement) • To default or user-defined values indicating QA limits or health-based threshold values) • Export leaching data to Excel spreadsheets 12 ------- oEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency LeachXS Lite Inputs LEAF Scenario Evaluation Guide Materials (Leaching Data, Total Content, Physical Properties) Materials Database Scenarios (e.g., Fill Characteristics, Geometry, Infiltration, Hydrologic Properties) Scenario Database Reference Thresholds (e.g., Reference thresholds for drinking water, ecological values, etc.) Reference ~ Threshold Database Databases and Outputs LeachXS Lite LEAF Screening Assessment Excel Spreadsheets (Data, Figures) Reports Leaching Source Terms (Inputs to groundwater fate and transport models, e.g., IWEM, etc.) ------- Next Steps Public review of LEAF implementation guidance - Fall 2016 Developing additional applications for integration into LeachXS-Lite Conducting updates and maintenance to software and other data management tools as needed Developing leach testing for organic wastes and constituents based on LEAF principles of accounting for the effects of most important factors affecting leaching. ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Bibliography of available LEAF documents (cont.) • Kosson, D. S., van der Sloot, H. A., Sanchez, F„ and Garrabrants, A. C. (2002). An integrated framework for evaluating laagbin waste management and utilization of secondary materials. Environmental Engineering Science (Vol. 19). • Kosson, D. S., van der Sloot, H. A., anflighmy.T.T. (1996).An approach for estimation of contaminant release during utilization and disposal of municipal waste combustion residues Journa/ of Hazardous Materials (Vol.47, pp. 43-75). • Sanchez, F.,Mattus, C. H„ Morris, M. I., and Kosson, D. S. (2002). Use of a New Leaching Test Framework for Evaluation Alternative Treatment Processes for Mercury-Contaminated Soils .Environmental Engineering Science (Vol. 19, pp. 251-269). • Thorneloe, S. (2012). Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework to evaluate beneficial use and disposal decisions. Presentd at 37th Annual EPA-A&MWA Information Exchange, US EPA. November 28. • Thorneloe, S. A., Kosson, D. S., Sanchez, F„ Garrabrants, A. C., and Helms, G. (2010). Evaluating the fate of metals inpsbiHution control residues from coal-fired power plants. Environmental Science & Technology (Vol. 44, pp. 7351 -7356). • US EPA. (2006). Characterization of MercuryEnriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control. EPA/600/R-06/008. • US EPA. (2008). Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet Scrubbers for MultPollutant Control. EPA-600/R-08/077. • US EPA. (2009). Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities- Leaching and Characterization Data. EPA-600/R-09/151. • US EPA. (2010). Background Information for the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Test Methods. EPA/600/IR0/170. • US EPA. (2012b). The Impact of Coal Combustion Fly Ash Used as a Supplemental Cementitious Material on the Leaching Constituats from Cements and Concretes. EPA 600/R-12/704. • US EPA. (2012c). Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Method 1313 and Method 3 16. EPA 600/R-12/623. 15 ------- vvEPA United States Environmental ProtectiorLM^^ ^11^ I f ® I II I i * i y w Bibliography of available LEAF documents (cont.) • US EPA. (2012d). Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Method 1314 and Method 1315. EPA 600/R-12/624. • US EPA. (20l2e). Leaching Behavior of "AGREMAX" Collected from a CoaFired Power Plant in Puerto Rico. EPA/600/R-12/724. • US EPA. (2014a). Coal Combustion Residual Beneficial Use Evaluation: Fly Ash Concrete and FGD Gypsum Wallboard. Office of Sod Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Washington, D.C. • US EPA. (2014b). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Residuals. Regulation Identifier Number: 205CAE8I. December. • US EPA. (2014c). Leaching Test Relationships, Laborator»jto-Field Comparisons and Recommendations for Leaching Evaluation using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF). EPA-600/R-14/061. • US EPA. (20l4d). Method 1313 LiquidSolid Partitioning as Function of Extract pH using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure SW-846 UpdateV. • US EPA. (20l4e). Method 1314 LiquidSolid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-Solid Ratio for Constituents in Solid Materials Using an Up-Flow Percolation Column Procedure SW-846 Update V. • US EPA. (20l4f). Method 1315 Mass Transfer Rates in Monolithic and Compacted Granular MaterialsSW-846 UpdateV. • US EPA. (20l4g). Method 1316 LiquidSolid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-Solid Ratio using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure SW-846 Update V. • US EPA (2016) Workshop Report: Considerations for Developing Leaching Tests for Semiand Non-Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA/600/R- 16/057, April 1016. • van der Sloot, H. A., and Kosson, D. S. (2012). Use characterization leaching tests and associated modelling tools in assessing the hazardous nature of wastes. Journal of Hazardous Materials (Vol. 207-208, pp. 36-43). 16 ------- |