United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
AQUABOX 50 and MARABU
Packed Biological Reactor
System Technology Evaluation
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
EPA/540/R-07/003
June 2000
AQUABOX 50 AND MARABU PACKED
BIOLOGICAL REACTOR SYSTEM
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
EPA - BMBF BILATERAL SITE
DEMONSTRATION
STADTWERKE DUESSELDORF AG SITE,
DUESSELDORF, GERMANY
by
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1000
San Diego, California 92101
Contract No. 68-C5-0037
Work Assignment Order No. 0-05
Work Assignment Manager
Ann Vega
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NOTICE
The information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency=s
(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program by Tetra Tech EM Inc. under Contract No.
68-C5-0037. This document has been prepared in accordance with a bilateral agreement between the
EPA and the Federal Republic of Germany Ministry for Research and Technology. This document has
been subject to EPA peer and administrative reviews, and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement by the
EPA or recommendation for use.
ii
FOREWORD
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program was authorized by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of Research and Development established the program to accelerate the development and use of
innovative remediation technologies applicable to Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. The SITE
program accomplishes these goals through pilot- or full-scale demonstrations designed to collect
performance and economic data of known quality on selected technologies.
This demonstration evaluated the effectiveness of two different biological reactors in treating
groundwater contaminated with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), naphthalene,
acenaphthene, and fluorene. The AQUABOX 50 and MARABU packed biological reactors were
evaluated at a former manufactured gas (coal gasification) plant that operated from 1890 to 1967 in a
section of Duesseldorf, Germany known as Duesseldorf-Flingern. The primary industrial process at the
former manufactured gas plant, the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG (SWD) site in Duesseldorf, Germany,
was the conversion of coal to natural gas; associated by-products of this process include BTEX and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The facility has been operated by SWD as an operations yard
from post-1967 to the present. While the manufactured gas plant was in operation, aquifer contamination
occurred through storage system leaks, improper handling of by-products, and World War II bombing
damage. Further contamination occurred approximately 25 years ago when the gasworks were
demolished. This innovative technology evaluation report provides an interpretation of the data collected
during the demonstration and discusses the potential applicability of the technology to other contaminated
sites.
Hugh W. McKinnon, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
NOTICE........................................................................................................................................................ ii
FOREWORD ...............................................................................................................................................iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM................ 3
1.2 UNITED STATES AND GERMAN BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON
REMEDIATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES....................................................... 5
1.3 BIOLOGICAL REACTOR TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION ......................................... 6
1.3.1 Process Equipment................................................................................................ 6
1.3.2 ystem Operations ................................................................................................. 9
S
1.4 EY CONTACTS .............................................................................................................. 9
K
2.0 BIOLOGICAL REACTOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS.................................................... 10
2.1 ACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 11
B
2.1.1 ite Background................................................................................................... 11
S
2.1.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach ............................................................ 12
2.2 EMONSTRATION PROCEDURES ............................................................................. 15
D
2.2.1 valuation Design................................................................................................ 15
E
2.2.2 Sampling and Analysis Program.......................................................................... 16
2.2.2.1 Sampling and Measurement Locations................................................... 16
2.2.2.2 Sampling and Analytical Methods.......................................................... 17
2.2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program ................................................ 19
2.2.3.1 Field Quality Control Checks ................................................................. 21
2.2.3.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks........................................................ 21
2.2.3.3 Field and Laboratory Audits ................................................................... 21
2.3 EVALUATION RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................ 21
2.3.1 Operating Conditions........................................................................................... 21
2.3.1.1 Treatment System Configuration............................................................ 22
2.3.1.2 Operating Parameters.............................................................................. 22
2.3.2 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 23
2.3.2.1 Primary Objectives ................................................................................. 23
2.3.2.2 Secondary Objectives ............................................................................. 26
2.3.3 Data Quality......................................................................................................... 35
2.3.3.1 Groundwater Samples............................................................................. 35
2.3.3.2 Gas Samples............................................................................................ 36
2.4 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 41
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................. 42
4.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 44
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section
4.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA...................................................... 45
4.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment................................. 45
4.1.2 Compliance with ARARs .................................................................................... 45
4.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ......................................................... 46
4.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment....................... 46
4.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness .................................................................................... 46
4.1.6 Implementability .................................................................................................. 46
4.1.7 Cost ...................................................................................................................... 46
4.1.8 State Acceptance.................................................................................................. 47
4.1.9 Community Acceptance....................................................................................... 47
4.2 APPLICABLE WASTES ................................................................................................. 47
4.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY...................................................................... 47
5.0 BIOLOGICAL REACTOR SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY STATUS................................................... 48
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 49
v
FIGURES
Number Page
1 SITE LOCATION 2
2 BILATERAL PROJECT ORGANIZATION 7
3 TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC 8
4 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING SCHEME 20
TABLES
Page
Number
1 ANALYTICAL METHODS 19
2 RANGE AND MEAN MASS REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR THE TOTAL SYSTEM 24
3 SUMMARY OF REMOVAL EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS FOR THE TOTAL SYSTEM 25
4 SUMMARY OF THE INFLUENT FLOW RATES TO THE SYSTEM 25
5 RANGE AND MEAN REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR THE SYSTEM COMPONENTS 27
6 SUMMARY OF MASS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS FOR SYSTEM
COMPONENTS 28
7 STRIPPING EFFICIENCIES FOR EACH COMPONENT OF THE TREATMENT SYSTEM 31
8 RANGE AND MEAN STRIPPING EFFICIENCIES FOR EACH COMPONENT 32
9 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREATED WATER 33
10 MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 1 36
11 MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 2 37
12 MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 3 37
13 MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 3 RETEST 38
14 MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 4 38
15 GAS MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 1 39
16 GAS MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 2 39
17 GAS MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 3 40
18 GAS MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS, EVENT 4 40
vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BFB 4-Bromofluorobenzene
BMBF German Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Technology
BS Blank spike
BSD Blank spike duplicate
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
EC Degrees Celsius
Ca Calcium
CCC Calibration check compound
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Cl- Chloride
CS2 Carbon disulfide
DFTPP Decafluorotriphenylphosphine
DHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-
Fluoride
F
Fe Iron
GC/MS Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
HCl Hydrochloric acid
ICP Inductively coupled plasma
ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
IUM Ingenieurbuero fuer Umwelttechnik und Maschinenbau GmbH
K Potassium
L/min Liters per minute
3
Meters cubed
m
3
m /h Meters cubed per hour
MCAWW Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA, 1983)
MDL Method detection limit
Mg Magnesium
Mn Manganese
vii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
MSD Matrix spike duplicate
Na Sodium
NBM NBM Petrol Stations & Industry
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NO - Nitrate
3
NO - Nitrite
2
NPL National Priorities List
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ORD Office of Research and Development
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PO43颅 Phosphate
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
Probiotec ArGe focon-PROBIOTEC
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
QA Quality assurance
QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QC Quality control
QM-TAP Qualit盲tsmanagement-Testablaufplan
%R Percent recovery
RE Removal efficiency
RF Response factor
RPD Relative percent difference
%RSD Percent relative standard deviation
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SO42颅 Sulfate
SPCC System performance check compounds
SWD Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG
viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EM Inc.
UBA Umweltbundesamt
FG/L Micrograms per liter
VOA Volatile organic analysis
VOC Volatile organic compounds
ix
CONVERSION TABLE
(Metric to English Units)
To Convert Into Multiply By
Centimeters Feet 0.0328
Centimeters Inches 0.394
Cubic meters Cubic feet 35.3
Cubic meters Gallons 264
Cubic meters Cubic yards 1.31
Degrees Celsius Degrees Fahrenheit multiply by 1.80; add
32
Kilograms per square meter Pounds per square inch, absolute 0.00142
Kilograms Pounds 2.20
Kilograms per liter Pounds per cubic foot 12.8
Kilometers Miles (statute) 0.622
Liters Gallons 0.260
Liters per second Cubic feet (standard) per minute 2.12
Meters Feet 3.28
Millimeters Inches 0.0394
Square meters Square feet 10.8
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. Ronald Lewis of the EPA National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. This report was prepared by Mr. Roger Argus, Ms.
Elizabeth Barr, Mr. Steven Geyer, Ms. Linda Hunter, and Dr. Greg Swanson of Tetra Tech EM Inc. Ms.
Ann Vega of NRMRL, Dr. Jorg Siebert of Probiotec, and Dr. Reiner Kurz of Institut Fresenius were
contributors to, and reviewers of, this report.
xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This innovative technology evaluation report (ITER) summarizes the results of an evaluation of the
AQUABOX 50 and MARABU Packed Biological Reactor technologies. The evaluation was conducted
under a bilateral agreement between the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program and the Federal Republic of Germany
Ministry for Research and Technology (BMBF). The Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG biological reactor
system was demonstrated from July 15, 1999 through August 31, 1999 at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG
site in Duesseldorf, Germany.
The Biological Reactor Technology
Two packed biological reactors, operated concurrently in a side-by-side demonstration, were included in
the evaluation: the AQUABOX 50 and the MARABU. The purpose was to evaluate the efficiencies of
each reactive barrier to remove benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the contaminated groundwater plume located at the site. The
AQUABOX 50 was provided to Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG (SWD) by NBM Petrol Stations & Industry
(NBM). The MARABU was designed by SWD with design assistance from Ingenieurbuero fuer
Umwelttechnik und Maschinenbau GmbH (IUM). The overall treatment system has been operated and
maintained by SWD since December 1995.
The AQUABOX 50 and MARABU are designed to treat the influent groundwater through biodegradation
by microbes that grow on the packed bed media. The AQUABOX 50 bioreactor consists of five
connected compartments, each 2 cubic meters (m3) in volume (for a total volume of 10 m3), incorporating
a packed bed consisting of a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) mat with rough, linear extrusions. The MARABU
bioreactor consists of one 1.5 m3 compartment, incorporating a packed bed consisting of polyethylene
rings. Each bioreactor is supplied with an aeration system to ensure sufficient oxygen for the bacteria.
These aeration systems employ air flow rates of 4 cubic meters per hour (m3/hr) fresh air and 50 m3/hr
circulated air in the AQUABOX 50, and 5 m3/hr fresh air in the MARABU with no circulated air.
Groundwater was extracted at varying pumping rates from five recovery wells installed within the
contaminant plume. Extracted groundwater from four of the recovery wells at a combined flow rate of
about 20 m3/hr was pumped into the AQUABOX 50, and extracted groundwater from one recovery well
at a flow rate of about 3 m3/hr was pumped into the MARABU. Treated water from both the AQUABOX
50 and MARABU bioreactors flowed through separate piping into the same intermediate storage tank,
with a total storage capacity of 20 m3. This tank was aerated at a flow rate of 7 m3/hr to reduce iron
ES-1
concentrations in the treated water by promoting oxidation and precipitation which occurs within the sand
filter. High iron concentrations are a natural characteristic of the facility groundwater.
The partially treated water flowed from the storage tank through a 30 m3 sand filter (10 m3 water capacity)
to remove residual iron. Trapped bacteria in the sand filter provided further contaminant biodegradation
in the previously treated groundwater. The groundwater was then passed through an activated carbon
unit, which filtered out the residual organic contamination prior to infiltration back into the aquifer.
Exhaust gases from each system component were passed through activated carbon prior to final
atmospheric discharge. Backup activated carbon units were also in place at each of the three gas exhausts
and at the sand filter effluent.
Waste Applicability
Both the AQUABOX 50 and MARABU bioreactors effectively reduced dissolved-phase BTEX and
PAHs from the groundwater.
Demonstration Objectives and Approach
This bilateral SITE demonstration of the AQUABOX 50 and MARABU packed biological reactor
systems was designed with two primary and four secondary objectives. The objectives were chosen to
provide potential users of the technology with the information necessary to assess the applicability of the
biological reactor technology for treatment of groundwater at other contaminated sites. The following
primary and secondary objectives were selected to evaluate the technology:
Primary Objectives
P1 Demonstrate greater than 95 percent average removal efficiency for total BTEX and greater than
60 percent average removal efficiency for the three most prevalent PAHs (acenaphthene,
fluorene, and naphthalene) for the overall system. The overall system includes the AQUABOX
50, MARABU, and sand filter, but excludes the activated carbon system component.
P2 Measure the removal efficiencies for BTEX and the three most prevalent PAHs across each of the
treatment units, including the AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and sand filter.
ES-2
Secondary Objectives
S1 Determine the percent of total BTEX and naphthalene that is stripped from each aerated
component of the system.
S2 Document the physical and chemical characteristics of the treated water that could affect the
performance of the evaluation system and document how these parameters change with
treatment.
S3 Document the capital and operating costs of the SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU packed
biological reactor system based on observations during the evaluation and data from the
engineering designers and from the operator of the system.
Demonstration Conclusions
This demonstration was limited to an evaluation of the technology=s ability to remove BTEX and PAHs
from groundwater. Based on the biological reactor technology demonstration, specific conclusions are
summarized below.
C The removal efficiencies for the three target PAHs, acenaphthene, fluorene and napthalene, and
BTEX for the total system were all greater than 99 percent. These removal efficiencies exceeded
the target removal efficiencies of 60 percent for the PAHs and 95 percent for the total BTEX.
C The removal efficiencies for the three target PAHs and the total BTEX were calculated for three
components of the system, the AQUABOX 50, the MARABU and the sand filter. The removal
efficiencies of the AQUABOX 50 for acenaphthene, fluorene and napthalene ranged from 70.4
percent to 99.8 percent, 75.2 percent to 99.2 percent, and 91.0 percent to 99.8 percent,
respectively. The removal efficiency for total BTEX of the AQUABOX 50 ranged from 92.3
percent to 97.0 percent. The removal efficiencies of the MARABU for acenapthene, fluorene and
napthalene ranged from 47.0 percent to 66.1 percent, 53.6 percent to 71.5 percent, and 75.3
percent to 90.2 percent, respectively. The removal efficiency for total BTEX of the MARABU
ranged from 67.6 percent to 74.6 percent. The removal efficiencies of the sand filter unit for
acenaphthene, fluorene and napthalene ranged from 99.0 percent to 99.4 percent, 95.7 percent to
97.2 percent, and 97.5percent to 98.9 percent, respectively. The removal efficiency for total
BTEX of the sand filter unit ranged from 28.6 percent to 94.6 percent.
C The stripping efficiencies (percent of influent mass stripped into the exhaust gas) for the three
target PAHs and the total BTEX were calculated for the three components of the system.
Stripping efficiencies of the AQUABOX 50 for acenaphthene, fluorene, and napthalene, ranged
from <0.01 percent to <0.06 percent, <0.04 percent to <0.1 percent, and <0.02 percent to <0.08
percent, respectively. Stripping efficiency for total BTEX of the AQUABOX 50 ranged from 0.2
percent to 1.0 percent. Stripping efficiencies of the MARABU for acenaphthene, fluorene, and
napthalene, ranged from 0.1percent to 0.2 percent, <0.06 percent to <0.08 percent, and 0.2
percent to 0.4 percent, respectively. Stripping efficiency for total BTEX of the MARABU ranged
from 6.9 percent to 8.8 percent. Stripping efficiencies of the sand filter for acenaphthene,
ES-3
fluorene, and napthalene, ranged from <0.02 percent to <0.06 percent, <0.1 percent to <0.2
percent, and 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent, respectively. Stripping efficiency for total BTEX of the
sand filter ranged from 3.2 percent to 28.4 percent.
C The following physical and chemical characteristics of the treated water were measured at the
four influent wells to the AQUABOX 50, the one influent well to the MARABU, and the effluent
well from the sand filter: pH, sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, chloride,
floride, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, bicarbonate (alkalinity), lead, copper, cadmium, zinc,
nickel, chromium, arsenic, and mercury. The following trends were noted:
Groundwater samples taken from influent sampling well to the AQUABOX 50
$
located at WA3 had the highest sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, manganese,
chloride, floride, sulfate, and zinc concentrations.
Groundwater samples taken from the influent sampling well to the MARABU
$
located at WM1 had the lowest sodium, calcium, magnesium, nitrate, phosphate,
and sulfate concentrations.
Groundwater samples taken from the effluent located at WK had the lowest iron,
$
manganese, nitrite, phosphate, and zinc concentrations. All of these analytes had
been significantly reduced, most likely due to the precipitation reactions
occurring within the biological reactive boxes. The highest concentration of
nitrate was recorded in samples taken from the effluent sampling location.
Lead, cadmium, chromium, and mercury concentrations were less than the
$
detection limit in all monitoring wells. Copper and nickel concentrations were
detected in two of the influent wells at low concentrations. Arsenic was detected
in all monitoring wells at low concentrations.
$ The initial capital cost of the biological reactor system at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG Site,
including site preparation, permitting and regulatory costs, construction materials and labor, and
startup was about 218,700 DM ($113,900 U.S. dollars assuming a 1.92 DM to $1 U.S. dollar
exchange rate). Monitoring and other periodic costs amounted to about 37,000 DM ($19,300
U.S.) per year.
ES-4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the findings of an evaluation of two biological reactors. The AQUABOX 50
was provided to Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG (SWD) by NBM Petrol Stations & Industry (NBM).
The MARABU was designed by SWD with design assistance from Ingenieurbuero fuer
Umwelttechnik und Maschinenbau GmbH (IUM). The overall treatment system, which incorporates
of these two biological reactors set up side-by-side and operated concurrently, was operated and
maintained by SWD at the Stadtwederke Duesseldorf AG site in Duesseldorf, Germany (see Figure 1
for location). The demonstration period was from July 15 through August 31, 1999. This evaluation
was conducted under a bilateral agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program and the Federal Republic of Germany
Ministry for Research and Technology (BMBF).
The demonstration evaluated each technology=s effectiveness in enhancing the removal of benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
naphalene, fluorene, and acenaphthene, from contaminated groundwater. The evaluation was carried
out by Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech), ArGe focon-PROBIOTEC (Probiotec), SWD facility
personnel, and Institut Fresenius, in accordance with the July 1999 quality assurance project plan
(QAPP) (Tetra Tech 1999). Groundwater was sampled by Institut Fresenius with assistance from
Probiotec and Tetra Tech. Probiotec was responsible for ensuring that all sampling, analytical, and
QA/QC requirements were effectively communicated to Institut Fresenius. Probiotec reviewed the
sampling and analytical data obtained during the system evaluation for validity and assessed
measurement systems for precision and accuracy. SWD demonstrated the technology.
The subject site is currently owned by a public utility company (Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG). SWD
was responsible for facilitating access to the site and for supporting the evaluation. SWD also
operated, maintained, and monitored the treatment system at the site. SWD was responsible for
coordinating evaluation activities with Probiotec and Institut Fresenius to ensure that all requirements
are met, and for reporting operational and monitoring data. All samples were analyzed by the Institut
Fresenius laboratory in Taunusstein. All demonstration activities were conducted in accordance with
the referenced QAPP.
1
. 1 / 7 4 -
S IT E L O C A T IO N
2
Probiotec focon-Probiotec, Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG facility personnel, and Institut Fresenius
contributed to the development of this document.
This report provides information from the bilateral SITE demonstration of the AQUABOX and
MARABU biological reactor technologies that is useful for remedial managers, environmental
consultants, and other potential technology users in implementing this technology at contaminated
sites. Section 1.0 presents an overview of the SITE program and bilateral agreement, describes the
technology, and lists key contacts. Section 2.0 presents information relevant to the technology=s
effectiveness, including contaminated aquifer characteristics and site background, demonstration
procedures, and the results and conclusions of the demonstration. Section 3.0 presents information on
the costs associated with applying the technology. Section 4.0 presents information relevant to the
technology=s application, including an assessment of the technology in relation to nine feasibility
study evaluation criteria used for decision making in the Superfund process. Section 4.0 also
discusses applicable wastes/contaminants and limitations of the technology. Section 5.0 summarizes
the technology status, and Section 6.0 lists references used in preparing this report.
1.1 SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM
This section provides background information about the EPA SITE program. Additional information
about the SITE program, the AQUABOX 50 and MARABU biological reactor technology, and the
technology demonstration can be obtained by contacting the key individuals listed in Section 1.4.
EPA established the SITE program to accelerate the development, demonstration, and use of
innovative technologies to remediate hazardous waste sites. The demonstration portion of the SITE
program focuses on technologies in the pilot-scale or full-scale stage of development. The
demonstrations are intended to collect performance data of known quality. Therefore, sampling and
analysis procedures are critical. Approved quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures
are stringently applied throughout the demonstration.
Past hazardous waste disposal practices and their human health and environmental impacts prompted
the U.S. Congress to enact the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (PL96-510). CERCLA established a Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund (Superfund) to pay for handling emergencies at and cleaning up uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites.
3
Under CERCLA, EPA has investigated these hazardous waste sites and established national priorities
for site remediation. The ultimate objective of the investigations is to develop plans for permanent,
long-term site cleanups, although EPA initiates short-term removal actions when necessary. EPA=s
list of the nation=s top-priority hazardous waste sites that are eligible to receive federal cleanup
assistance under the Superfund program is known as the National Priorities List (NPL).
As the Superfund program matured, Congress expressed concern over the use of land-based disposal
and containment technologies to mitigate problems caused by releases of hazardous substances at
hazardous waste sites. As a result of this concern, the 1986 reauthorization of CERCLA, called the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), mandates that EPA Aselect a remedial
action that is protective of human health and the environment, that is cost effective, and that utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.@ In response to this requirement, EPA established the SITE program to
accelerate development, demonstration, and use of innovative technologies for site cleanups. The
SITE program has four goals:
C Identify and remove impediments to development and commercial use of innovative
technologies, where possible
C Conduct evaluations of the more promising innovative technologies to establish reliable
performance and cost information for site characterization and cleanup decision-making
C Develop procedures and policies that encourage selection of effective innovative
treatment technologies at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
The Demonstration Program is the flagship of the SITE Program. Its objective is to conduct field
demonstrations and high quality performance verifications of viable remediation technologies at sites
that pose high risks to human health and/or the environment are common throughout the region or the
nation, or where existing remediation methods are inadequate, unsafe, or too costly. The SITE
Program solicits applications annually from those responsible for clean-up operations at hazardous
waste sites. A panel of SITE Program scientists, engineers, and associated environmental experts
reviews the applications to identify those technologies that best represent solutions for the most
pressing environmental problems. The resulting data and reports are intended for use by decision-
makers in selecting remediation options and for increasing credibility in innovative applications.
4
SITE evaluations are usually conducted at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, such as EPA removal
and remedial action sites, sites under the regulatory jurisdiction of other federal agencies, state sites,
EPA testing and evaluation facilities, sites undergoing private cleanup, the technology developer=s
site, or privately owned facilities. In the case of the biological reactor technology demonstration, the
Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG site was selected cooperatively by EPA and BMBF.
SITE and bilateral SITE evaluations provide detailed data on the performance, cost effectiveness, and
reliability of innovative technologies. These data were provided potential users of a technology with
sufficient information to make sound judgments about the applicability of the technology to a specific
site or waste and to allow comparisons of the technology to other treatment alternatives.
1.2 UNITED STATES AND GERMAN BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON
REMEDIATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
In April 1990, EPA and BMBF entered into a bilateral agreement to gain a better understanding of
each country=s efforts in developing and demonstrating remedial technologies. The bilateral
agreement has the following three goals:
C Facilitate an understanding of each country=s approach to remediation of
contaminated sites
C Demonstrate innovative remedial technologies as if the demonstrations had taken
place in each country
C Facilitate international technology exchange
Technologies under development in the U.S. and Germany are evaluated under the bilateral
agreement. Individual, or in some cases, multiple remedial technologies are demonstrated at each
site. Technology evaluations occurring in the U.S. correspond to SITE evaluations; those occurring
in Germany correspond to full-scale site remedial activities and are referred to as bilateral SITE
evaluations. In the case of the U.S. evaluations, demonstration plans are prepared following routine
SITE procedures. Additional monitoring and evaluation measurements required for evaluation of the
technology under German regulations were specified by the German partners. For the demonstrations
occurring in Germany, the German partners were provided all required information to allow the U.S.
to develop an EPA NRMRL Applied Research QAPP. An EPA NRMRL Applied Research QAPP,
AQuality Assurance Project Plan for the SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU Packed Biological
5
Reactor System Technology at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG Site in Duesseldorf, Germany,@ dated
July 1999, was prepared for this demonstration (Tetra Tech 1999).
Probiotec (a partnership of two German environmental consulting firms) was commissioned by
BMBF to compile summary reports for the German technologies and sites, to evaluate the U.S.
demonstration plans, and to facilitate the bilateral agreement on behalf of BMBF. The Probiotec
technical consulting partnership is not directly involved in the German remedial actions, and the
partnership does not influence actual site remediation activities. The bilateral project organization is
presented in Figure 2.
1.3 BIOLOGICAL REACTOR TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
This section describes the process equipment and system operations of the AQUABOX 50 and
MARABU packed biological reactors. This section also describes the conventional components of
the overall treatment system technology.
1.3.1 Process Equipment
The AQUABOX 50 bioreactor consists of five connected compartments, each 2 cubic meters (m3) in
volume (for a total volume of 10 m3), incorporating a packed bed consisting of a polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) mat with rough, linear extrusions. The MARABU bioreactor consists of one 1.5m3
compartment, incorporating a packed bed consisting of polyethylene rings. A schematic of the
treatment system is shown in Figure 3.
6
BMBF EPA
P R O JE C T M A N A G E R PROGRAM MANAGER
D r . K a r lh e in z H u e b e n th a l A n n e tte G a tc h e tt
EPA
D IV IS IO N A L Q A M A N A G E R
Ann Vega
UBA
T E C H N IC A L C O O R D IN A T O R
D r . A n n e tt W e ila n d - W a s c h e r
EPA
P R O JE C T M A N A G E R
D r . R o n L e w is
SW DF AC IL IT Y & TETRA TECH
A R G E fo c o n -P R O B IO T E C
AQUA BO X50 /M AR ABU
S IT E Q A M A N A G E R
P R O JE C T M A N A G E R
PRO JE C TM A NAG ER
D r. G re g S w a n s o n
D r . J 枚 r g S ie b e r t
D r. H ans -P e te rRo hns
TETRA TECH
P R O JE C T M A N A G E R
R o g e r A rg u s
IN S T IT U T F R E S E N IU S
P R O JE C T M A N A G E R
D r . R e in e r K u r z
IN S T IT U T F R E S E N IU S
QA MANAGER
TETRA TECH
D r. J 眉 rg e n E h m a n n TETRA TECH
F ie ld S u p p o r t S ta ff
T e c h n ic a l S u p p o r t S ta ff
S a r a h W o o d la n d
J e n n ife r G u ig lia n o
F ie ld S ta ff L a b o ra to ry S ta ff
T o b e a s s ig n e d to b e a s s ig n e d
F IG U R E 2
B IL A T E R A L P R O J E C T O R G A N IZ A T IO N
7
GA1
GM1
GZ1
G as E xhaust G as E xhaust
G as E xhaust
R ese rv e
R ese rv e A c tiv a te d
R ese rv e A c tiv a te d
A c tiv a te d
A c tiv a te d
A c tiv a te d C a rb o n
A c tiv a te d C a rb o n
C a rb o n
C a rb on
C a rb on A ir F ilte r
C a rb on A ir F ilte r
A ir F ilte r
A ir F ilte r
A ir F ilte r A ir F ilte r
In te rm e d ia te
AQ UABO X 50
S to ra g e T a n k
MARABU
A ir F lo w In WM2 W A5
WZ
A c tiv a te d
C a rb o n
A ir F lo w In
F ilte r A ir F lo w In
WM1
W A1 W A2 W A4
W A3
Sand
R e s e rv e A c tiv a te d
F ilte r
C a rb o n F ilte r
F lo w M e te r
Pum p
WK
19071
19059 19125
19124
19123
C o n ta m in a tio n P lu m e w ith R e c o v e ry W e lls
In filtra tio n
W e ll
. 1 / 7 4 - !
TREA TM EN T SY STEM
S C H E M A T IC
8
1.3.2 System Operations
Groundwater is extracted at varying pump rates from five recovery wells installed within the
contaminated groundwater plume. Extracted groundwater from four of the recovery wells is pumped
into the AQUABOX 50 at a combined flow rate of about 20 cubic meters per hour (m3/h). Extracted
groundwater from one recovery well is pumped into the MARABU at a flow rate of about 3 m3/h.
The AQUABOX 50 and MARABU treat the influent groundwater through biodegradation by
microbes that grow on the packed bed media. Each bioreactor is supplied with an aeration system to
ensure sufficient oxygen for the bacteria. These aeration systems employ air flow rates of 4 m3/h
fresh air and 50 m3/h circulated air in the AQUABOX 50, and 5 m3/h fresh air with no circulated air
in the MARABU. Treated water from both the AQUABOX 50 and MARABU bioreactors flows
through separate piping into the same intermediate storage tank with a total storage capacity of 20 m3.
This tank is aerated at a flow rate of 7 m3/h which promotes the precipitation of the oxidated iron to
occur within the sand filter. (The presence of high concentrations of iron in the facility groundwater
is a natural characteristic of the area.)
The partially treated water flows from the storage tank through a 30-m3 sand filter (10 m3 water
capacity) to remove residual iron. Trapped bacteria in the sand filter provide further contaminant
biodegradation in the previously treated groundwater. The groundwater then filters through an
activated carbon unit to remove residual organic contamination prior to infiltration back into the
aquifer.
Exhaust gases from each system component are passed through activated carbon prior to final
atmospheric discharge. Backup activated carbon units are also in place at each of the three gas
exhausts and at the sand filter effluent.
1.4 KEY CONTACTS
Additional information on the biological reactor technology and the EPA-BMBF bilateral technology
evaluation program can be obtained from the following sources:
9
Dr. Karlheinz Huebenthal
Federal Ministry for Research and Technology
Heinemannstrasse 2
53175 Bonn, Germany
Tel. 49-228-57-3069
Dr. Annett Weiland-Wascher
Umweltbundesamt
Bismarckplatz 1
14191 Berlin, Germany
Tel. 49-8903-3569
Biological Reactor Technology
Dr. Hans-Peter Rohns
Stadtwerke Duesseldorf
Abt. Wasserwirtschaft und Technik
Faerberstrasse 78
40223 Duesseldorf
Tel. 49-211-821-8316
EPA-BMBF Bilateral Technology Evaluation Program
Annette Gatchett
Bilateral Program Manager and SITE Program Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Tel. 513-569-7697
Information on the SITE Program is also available through the following on-line information
clearinghouse: The Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (Hotline:
(800) 245-4505) database contains information on 154 technologies offered by 97 developers.
Technical reports may be obtained by contacting U.S. EPA/NCEPI, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45242-2419, or by calling (800) 490-9198.
2.0 BIOLOGICAL REACTOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
This section documents the background, field and analytical procedures, results, and conclusions of
the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG bilateral SITE technology evaluation.
10
2.1 BACKGROUND
The bilateral SITE demonstration of the SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU Packed Biological
Reactors was conducted at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG site in Duesseldorf, Germany (Figure 1).
The site background and an overview of the demonstration objectives and approach are described in
the following subsections.
2.1.1 Site Background
The bilateral SITE demonstration of these technologies was conducted at a facility owned and
operated by a public utility company, SWD. The facility was operated as a manufactured gas (coal
gasification) plant from 1890 to 1967. The primary industrial process at manufactured gas plants is
the conversion of coal to natural gas; associated by-products of this process include BTEX and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The facility has been operated by SWD as an operations
yard from post-1967 to the present. While the manufactured gas plant was in operation, aquifer
contamination occurred through storage system leaks, improper handling of by-products, and World
War II bombing damage. Further contamination occurred approximately 25 years ago when the
gasworks were demolished.
Environmental assessments conducted between 1991 and 1993 identified several dissolved-phase
hydrocarbon plumes in the facility groundwater. The results of these assessments were used to
prioritize release areas at the facility in terms of clean-up priority. The top-priority plume (based on
measured benzene) is located at an area of the facility historically used for benzene production. This
plume has been chosen as the study area for this technology evaluation. Components of this plume
include BTEX and PAHs. The contaminant plume is approximately 600 meters long by 100 meters
wide by 10 to 15 meters in height, the top of which is approximately 6.5 to 7.5 meters below the
ground surface (bgs) (and 1.5 meters below the water table). Groundwater samples were collected
and analyzed from within this plume on March 23, 1999 to document current conditions.
11
2.1.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
Demonstration objectives were selected to provide potential users of the system with the necessary
technical information to assess the applicability of the treatment system at other contaminated sites.
For this bilateral SITE evaluation, two primary objectives and three secondary objectives were
developed and are summarized below:
Primary Objectives
P1 Demonstrate greater than 95 percent average removal efficiency for total BTEX and
greater than 60 percent average removal efficiency for the three most prevalent PAHs
(acenaphthene, fluorene, and naphthalene) for the overall system. The overall system
includes the AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and sand filter, but excludes the activated carbon
system component.
To accomplish this objective samples were collected from the influent water wells, labeled WA1
through WA4 for the AQUABOX 50 reactor, and one water location labeled WM1 for the MARABU
reactor. Samples were also taken from the effluent water location labeled WK. Samples were
collected once per week for a total of 4 weeks and analyzed for BTEX and the three most prevalent
PAHs, acenaphthene, fluorene, and napthalene. Summary results were expressed as a mean and a
range of removal efficiencies obtained over the 4-week evaluation period, and the mean result was
compared to the objective.
To achieve objective P1, a removal efficiency (RE) was calculated on a mass basis for the entire
system (excluding the pre-infiltration activated carbon filter) for each sampling event using the
following equation:
(QCi 鈭? QCe)
RE = X100
QCi
Where:
RE = Removal efficiency (%)
= Calculated contaminant concentration in the influent to the system (a single flow-
Ci
weighted average concentration was calculated based on the measured contaminant
concentrations in the flow lines from the five influent wells - WA1 through WA4 and
WM1)
= Measured concentration in the effluent from the gravel filter (WK)
Ce
12
Q = Flow rate of groundwater through the system (sum of flows for each of the five
influent flow lines - WA1 through WA4 and WM1)
The above equation was applied to data from each sampling event. Four separate REs were
calculated for the system for each sampling event: total BTEX, acenaphthene, fluorene, and
naphthalene.
To achieve objective P2, individual REs were calculated for the AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and sand
filter using the above equation, with the following variable description substitutions:
RE = Removal efficiency (%) of each of the bioreactors and the sand filter
= Contaminant concentration in the influent to each of the bioreactors and the sand
Ci
filter (a single weighted average concentration was calculated for the AQUABOX 50
based on the detected contaminant concentrations of the four influent wells - WA1
through 4; the concentration at WM1 was used for the MARABU; the concentration
at WZ was used for the sand filter)
= Contaminant concentration in the effluent from each of the bioreactors (WA5 and
Ce
M2) and the sand filter (WK)
P2 Measure the removal efficiencies for BTEX and the three most prevalent PAHs across each of
the treatment units, including the AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and sand filter.
To accomplish this objective, influent samples were collected from the influent wells as described
above, with the addition of the sand filter influent sample location (WZ). Effluent samples were
collected from each of the bioreactor effluents, including the AQUABOX 50 (WA5) and the
MARABU (WM2) as well as the the sand filter effluent (WK). Samples were collected once per
week for a total of 4 weeks and analyzed for BTEX and the three most prevalent PAHs,
acenaphthene, fluorene, and napthalene. Summary results were expressed as a mean and a range of
removal efficiencies obtained over the 4-week evaluation period, and the mean result was compared
to the objective.
To achieve objective P2, individual REs were calculated for the AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and sand
filter using the above equation under objective P1, with the following variable description
substitutions:
RE = Removal efficiency (%) of each of the bioreactors and the sand filter
= Contaminant concentration in the influent to each of the bioreactors and the sand
Ci
filter (a single weighted average concentration was calculated for the AQUABOX 50
based on the detected contaminant concentrations of the four influent wells - WA1
through 4; the concentration at WM1 was used for the MARABU; the concentration
at WZ was used for the sand filter)
13
Ce = Contaminant concentration in the effluent from each of the bioreactors (WA5 and
WM2) and the sand filter (WK)
Secondary Objectives
S1 Determine the percent of total BTEX and naphthalene that is stripped from each aerated
component of the system.
To accomplish this objective, individual exhaust gas samples were collected from each of the system
components at locations before the activated carbon units (GA1, GM1, and GZ1). These exhaust gas
samples were collected on the same schedule as the influent/effluent water sampling activities (once
per week for a 4-week period) and analyzed for BTEX and napthalene. Summary results were
expressed as a mean and a range of the percentage removed by air stripping over the 4-week
evaluation period.
To achieve objective S1, the percentage of total BTEX and naphthalene removed by the aeration
component of the treatment system was calculated using the following equation:
Qa, eCa, e
SE =
Qw, iCw, i
Where:
SE = Stripping efficiency (%)
= Air flow rate at emission sampling point
Qa,e
Ca,e = Concentration of contaminant in the air stream at the sampling point
Qw,i = Groundwater flow rate in the influent to each of the bioreactors and the sand filter
Cw,i = Contaminant concentration in the influent groundwater
S2 Document the physical and chemical characteristics of the treated water that could affect the
performance of the evaluation system and document how these parameters change with
treatment.
To accomplish this objective, samples were collected once per week from five influent water
wells and the effluent water well for the total system during the 4-week sampling period.
These samples were analyzed for pH; major cations, including sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium
(Ca), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg) and manganese (Mn); and anions, including chloride (Cl-), fluoride
(F-), nitrate (NO3-), nitrite (NO2-), phosphate (PO43-), and sulfate (SO42-).
14
S3 Document the capital and operating costs of the SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU packed
biological reactor system based on observations during the evaluation and data from the
engineering designers and from the operator of the system.
SWD had estimated the capital and operating costs of this system based on operating requirements
observed during the evaluation and on capital and operating cost information available from the
designers and operator of the system. To accomplish this objective, the preliminary construction cost
estimate was updated, and operational costs were also compiled based on data provided by SWD.
2.2 DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES
This section describes the methods and procedures used to collect and analyze samples for the
bilateral SITE demonstration of the biological reactor system technology. The activities associated
with the biological reactor technology demonstration included (1) evaluation design, (2) groundwater
collection and analysis, and (3) field and laboratory QA/QC. Section 2.2.1 presents the evaluation
design. The methods used to collect and analyze samples are outlined in Section 2.2.2. Field and
laboratory QA/QC procedures are described in Section 2.2.3.
2.2.1 Evaluation Design
The purpose of the evaluation was to collect and analyze data of known and acceptable quality to
achieve the objectives as described in Section 2.1.2.
15
2.2.2 Sampling and Analysis Program
The main objective of the sampling and analysis program is to provide sufficient data to allow EPA to
evaluate the performance of the SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU packed biological reactor
treatment system through meeting the primary and secondary evaluation objectives discussed in
Section 2.1.2. Because of logistical constraints and the schedule requirements of the German bilateral
partners, the evaluation of this system was limited to a time period of 4 weeks during July, 1999.
Thus, samples that are representative of long-term operation cannot be practically obtained.
Therefore, the goal of the planned sampling procedures was to obtain a sufficient number of samples
to be representative of this short evaluation period and to maximize the representativeness of these
samples so that the results accurately reflect the performance of the treatment system during the
evaluation period.
2.2.2.1 Sampling and Measurement Locations
Sampling locations selected based on the configuration of the treatment system and project objectives
are shown in Figure 3.
Influent water from recovery well 19059 into AQUABOX 50 (flow rate of ~5 m3/h)
鈥? WA1:
Influent water from recovery well 19124 into AQUABOX 50 (flow rate of ~3 m3/h)
鈥? WA2:
Influent water from recovery well 19123 into AQUABOX 50 (flow rate of ~3 m3/h)
鈥? WA3:
WA4: Influent water from recovery well 19071 into AQUABOX 50 (flow rate of ~9 m3/h)
鈥?
WM1: Influent water from recovery well 19125 into MARABU (flow rate of ~ 3 m3/h)
鈥?
鈥? WA5: Effluent water from AQUABOX 50
鈥? WM2: Effluent water from MARABU
鈥? WZ: Effluent water from intermediate storage tank/influent to sand filter
鈥? WK: Effluent water from sand filter; total system (except carbon) effluent sampling
location
鈥? GA1: Exhaust gas stream from AQUABOX 50
鈥? GM1: Exhaust gas stream from MARABU
鈥? GZ1: Exhaust gas stream from intermediate storage tank
16
2.2.2.2 Sampling and Analytical Methods
This section described procedures for collecting representative samples at each sampling location and
analyzing collected samples. Grab sampling techniques were employed throughout the
demonstration. Samples were collected at nine locations.
System operating parameters were monitored continuously by facility personnel. Sampling began
after facility personnel judged that the system was operating at a steady state.
Groundwater Samples
Influent and effluent water samples were collected from the treatment system once per week for a
total of 4 weeks. The effluent water samples were collected after the influent, to account for the
retention time in the system in order to obtain a representative sample. Water samples were collected
during each event at each of the water sampling locations described in Section 2.2.1.2.
Water samples were collected as grab samples from a valved tap directly into sample containers from
each location. Each sample collected for BTEX analysis was collected in 20-milliliter volatile
organic analysis (VOA) vials containing hydrochloric acid (HCl) to acidify the sample to a pH of less
than 2. Water was introduced into the sample containers gently to reduce agitation that may drive off
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Each vial was filled, and then tap checked for bubbles. If any
air bubbles were present, the sample was recollected. The second sample vial served as a backup to
the original sample in the event that one vial was broken or its integrity was otherwise compromised.
Water samples collected to analyze for PAHs were contained in two 1-liter glass jars. Again, the
second sample bottle served as a backup to the original sample in the event that one bottle was broken
or its integrity otherwise compromised.
Water samples collected for physical and chemical parameters necessary to fulfill objective S2 were
collected in one 500-milliliter plastic jar and one 1-liter plastic jar.
Prior to collecting water samples from a given location, the valve on the tap was opened and water
was purged to flush any stagnant water out of the tap.
17
Gas Samples
Gas samples were collected during each sampling event at each of the gas sampling locations
described above in Section 2.2.1.1 (GA1, GM1, and GZ1). Gas sampling times were based on a
maximum sampling time of 50 minutes per location and take into account the water residence time
through each of the associated aerated components.
Samples were collected according to the series of National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) gas sampling methods that incorporate charcoal tube adsorption for specific groups
of VOCs and pre-filtered XAD resin adsorption for napthalene. Sampling was conducted in
accordance with modified NIOSH Methods 1501 for BTEX and 5515 for napthalene.
Two charcoal tube adsorbent samples for BTEX and two pre-filtered sorbent resin samples for
naphthalene were taken at different sample volumes (20 and 50 liters) from each gas sampling
location. These volumes were calculated by Institut Fresenius to achieve desired detection limits.
Therefore, two samples of differing volumes were collected for BTEX at each gas sampling location
and two samples of differing volumes were collected for naphthalene at each gas sampling location,
for a total of four exhaust gas adsorbent samples collected at each gas sample location per sampling
event.
Leak checks were performed before and after collection of each gas sample. After the post-sampling
leak check, the traps were sealed with end caps and returned to their glass containers for storage and
transport.
Analytical Methods
Table 1 lists the analytical methods used for samples collected during the evaluation.
18
Table 1 Analytical Methods
Matrix Parameter Reference Method Method Name
SW-846 Purge-and-trap; Capillary
BTEX
5030B/8260B Column; GC/MS
SW-846 Continuous Liquid-Liquid
3520C/8270C Extraction; Capillary Column;
PAH
GC/MS
pH
MCAWW 150.1 pH
Metals by ICP/Atomic Emission
SW-846 Spectroscopy
Major Cations
3010A/6010B (Na, K, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn)
Ion Chromatography (Cl-, F颅 ,
Major Anions
Water
NO2-, NO3-, PO4-3, SO4-2)
SM 4110B
Extraction of Charcoal
NIOSH 1501 Adsorbent with CS2;
BTEX
SW-846 8260B BTEX by GC/MS
Extraction of XAD Resin with
NIOSH 5515 Toluene;Naphthalene by
Gas Naphthalene
SW-846 8270C GC/MS
Notes:
GC/MS Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
ICP Inductively coupled plasma
MCAWW Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
SM Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
PAH Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
2.2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program
Quality control checks were an integral part of the bilateral SITE evaluation. These checks and
procedures focused on the collection of representative samples absent of external contamination and
on the generation of comparable data. The QC checks and procedures conducted during the
evaluation were of two kinds: (1) checks controlling field activities, such as sample collection and
shipping; and (2) checks controlling laboratory activities, such as extraction techniques and analysis.
The results of the field and laboratory QC checks are summarized in Section 2.3.3. Figure 4 presents
the data reduction, validation, and reporting scheme for this demonstration.
19
S a m p le R e c e ip t
S a m p le P r e p a r a tio n
S a m p le A n a ly s is
D a ta A c q u is itio n a n d
R e d u c tio n
Raw D a ta A n a ly s is B y
L a b A n a ly s is
R e p o rt R e v ie w R a w D a ta ,
R e a n a ly z e W h e r e In d ic a te d
U n a c c e p ta b le
A n a ly tic a l/Q C D a ta
R e v ie w b y L a b
G ro u p L e a d e r
D a ta A p p ro v e d
R e v ie w D a ta , T a k e
R e p o rt
F in a l D a ta R e v ie w By
C o r r e c tiv e A c tio n ,
Q A M anager
R e a n a ly z e W h e r e In d ic a te d
U n a c c e p ta b le
D a ta A p p ro v e d
R e p o r t P r e p a r a tio n
R e v ie w R e p o r t, T a k e
R e p o rt
F in a l R e p o r t R e v ie w B y C o r r e c tiv e A c tio n ,
P r o je c t M a n a g e r R e a n a ly z e W h e r e In d ic a te d
U n a c c e p ta b le
D a ta A p p ro v e d
R e le a s e R e p o r t
. 1 / 7 4 - "
D A T A R E D U C T IO N , V A L ID A T IO N , A N D
R E P O R T IN G S C H E M E
20
2.2.3.1 Field Quality Control Checks
As a check on the quality of field activities, including sample collection, shipment, and handling,
three types of field QC samples (field blanks and trip blanks) were collected. In general, these QC
checks assess the potential for contamination of samples in the field and ensure that the degree to
which the analytical data represent site conditions is known and documented.
2.2.3.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks
Laboratory QC checks are designed to assess the precision and accuracy of the analysis, to
demonstrate the absence of interferences and contamination from glassware and reagents, and to
ensure the comparability of data. Laboratory-based QC checks consisted of method blanks, matrix
spikes/matrix spike duplicates, surrogate spikes, blank spikes/blank spike duplicates, and other checks
specified in the analytical methods. The laboratory also conducted initial calibrations and continued
calibration checks according to the specified analytical methods.
2.2.3.3 Field and Laboratory Audits
No project specific audits were conducted during this technology demonstration. However, general
systems audits of Institut Fresenius laboratories have been conducted under other bilateral technology
demonstrations.
2.3 EVALUATION RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section describes the operating conditions, results, data quality, and conclusions of the bilateral
SITE evaluation of the biological reactor system technology.
2.3.1 Operating Conditions
The AQUABOX 50 and MARABU biological reactors are active technologies that require operation
and maintenance of the system components. During this bilateral SITE evaluation, the biological
reactor system was operated at conditions determined by the developer, SWD.
21
2.3.1.1 Treatment System Configuration
The configuration of the biological reactor system components is shown in Figure 3.
2.3.1.2 Operating Parameters
The developer and facility owner monitored the biological reactor system throughout the
demonstration. System operating parameters included individual well extraction rates and overall
groundwater flow rates. Various operating parameters obtained from the on-site operators of the
system were monitored to collect the operational data needed to fulfill the objectives of this
evaluation. These parameters included:
(1) Extracted groundwater flow rates (for each of five recovery wells): Groundwater
flow rates were read at the inlet port to each reactor when the influent groundwater
sampling was performed (i.e. one measurement per day per event at each location).
(2) Ventilation gas flow rates (for AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and intermediate storage
tank): Gas flow rates were read at the outlet port from each reactor and the
intermediate storage tank, when the influent groundwater sampling was performed
(i.e. one measurement per day per event at each location).
(3) Electric power consumption for the evaluation system: Electrical power
measurements were read and recorded by the field team at the beginning and end of
each sampling event to determine power consumption. Cost information was
compiled by Probiotec from the power consumption data recorded and reviewed by
Tetra Tech.
The flow meters were calibrated by a state calibration office ("Staatliches Eichamt") before they were
purchased from the vendor and were ready for immediate use. On-site operating personnel were
responsible for maintaining all existing monitoring instruments.
22
2.3.2 Results and Discussion
This section presents the results of the bilateral SITE evaluation of the biological reactor technologies
at Duesseldorf, Germany. The results are presented by and have been evaluated in relation to the
project objectives. The specific primary and secondary objectives are shown at the top of each
section in italics, followed by a discussion of the objective-specific results.
2.3.2.1 Primary Objectives
P1 Demonstrate greater than 95 percent average removal efficiency for total BTEX and greater than
60 percent average removal efficiency for the three most prevalent PAHs (acenaphthene,
fluorene, and naphthalene) for the overall system. The overall system includes the AQUABOX
50, MARABU, and sand filter, but excludes the activated carbon system component.
The SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU packed biological reactor system was designed to reduce
total BTEX concentrations in water by greater than 95 percent and total PAH concentrations in water
by greater than 60 percent. Based on the relatively low initial PAH concentrations in the groundwater,
detection limit resolution was a concern for total PAH measurement. As such, removal efficiencies
were only calculated for the three PAHs present at the highest initial concentrations: acenaphthene,
fluorene, and naphthalene. Removal efficiencies were calculated using the average influent
concentration and effluent concentration of the three critical PAHs and total BTEX.
The removal efficiencies for the target PAHs, acenaphthene, fluorene, and naphthalene ranged from
>99.7 percent to >99.9 percent, >98.9 percent to >99.4 percent, and >99.6 percent to >99.9 percent,
respectively. The removal efficiency of total BTEX ranged from >99.5 percent to >99.7 percent.
(Note: removal efficiencies that are calculated from effluent concentrations less than the detection
limit are designated as A>@. Using the removal efficiency formula in Section 2.1.2, an influent
concentration minus a less than the detection limit (A<@) effluent concentration is presented as a A>@
difference.) Table 2 presents the ranges and means of the removal efficiencies for these critical
compounds, and Table 3 presents the influent concentrations, effluent concentrations, and calculated
removal efficiency for each sampling event. Table 4 presents the flow rates [Q, see the removal
efficiency equation in Section 2.1.2, where Q equals the flow rate of groundwater through the system
(sum of flows for each of the five influent flow lines - WA1 through WA4 and WM1)] at the five
influent wells for each sampling event that were used to calculate an average influent concentration.
(Note: The effectiveness of the activated carbon filter in removing these contaminants from the water
stream was not evaluated because activated carbon filters are conventional technology). Ranges and
23
averages of removal efficiencies for analytes that had concentrations less than the detection limits
were calculated using half of the detection limit for each nondetect result.
Table 2 Range and Mean Mass Removal Efficiencies for the Total System
Compound Range (Percent) Mean (Percent)
Acenaphthene >99.7 - >99.9 >99.7
Fluorene >98.9 - >99.4 >99.1
Naphthalene >99.6 - >99.9 >99.8
Total BTEX >99.5 - >99.7 >99.6
P2 Measure the removal efficiencies for BTEX and the three most prevalent PAHs across each of the
treatment units, including the AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and sand filter.
The average removal efficiencies for the 4-week demonstration period were calculated on an
individual mass basis for the target PAHs and total BTEX across each of the biological treatment
units and the sand filter units (Table 5). The removal efficiencies for the PAHs were significantly
lower than the removal efficiencies of the total BTEX, most likely due to volatization of the BTEX to
air or increased
24
Table 3 Summary of Removal Efficiency Calculations for the Total System
Compound Sampling Event No. 1 Sampling Event No. 2 Sampling Event No. 3 Sampling Event No. 4
Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal
Conc. Conc. Efficiency Conc. Conc. Efficiency Conc. Conc. Efficiency Conc. Conc. Efficiency
(Fg/L) (Fg/L) (%) (Fg/L) (Fg/L) (%) (Fg/L) (Fg/L) (%) (Fg/L) (Fg/L) (%)
Acenaphthene 193 <1.0 >99.7 171.4 <1.0 >99.7 184 <0.5 >99.9 157 <0.5 >99.8
Fluorene 57 <1.0 >99.1 45.3 <1.0 >98.9 52.1 <0.5 >99.5 42.1 <0.5 >99.4
Naphthalene 208.5 <1.0 >99.8 129 <1.0 >99.6 248 <0.5 >99.9 184 <0.5 >99.9
Benzene 76.6 <1.0 >99.3 48.1 <1.0 >99.0 88.6 <1.0 >99.4 47.8 <1.0 >99.0
Toluene 494.5 1.8 99.6 420 <1.0 >99.9 403 <1.0 >99.9 462 <1.0 >99.9
Ethylbenzene 26.6 <1.0 >98.1 22.1 <1.0 >97.7 27.9 <1.0 >98.2 28.2 <1.0 >98.2
Total xylenes 222.8 1.0 99.6 182 1.0 99.5 206 1.0 99.5 245 1.0 99.6
Total BTEX 820 3.8 >99.5 672 2.5 >99.6 726 2.5 >99.7 783 2.5 >99.7
Notes:
Conc. Concentration
Fg/L Microgram per liter
% Percent
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenze and total xylenes
Table 4 Summary of the Influent Flow Rates to the System
Total Influent Flow Rates Sampling Event No. 1 Sampling Event No. 2 Sampling Event No. 3 Sampling Event No. 4
Influent Flow Rate (m3/hr) Influent Flow Rate (m3/hr) Influent Flow Rate (m3/hr) Influent Flow Rate (m3/hr)
Total (sum of the 4 influent flow rates) to the 20.7 19.9 17.7 19.3
AQUABOX 50 unit
One influent flow rate to the MARABU unit 2.99 2.95 2.96 3.00
Total (sum of the 5 influent flow rates) to the system 23.7 22.9 20.7 22.3
Notes:
m3/hr Cubic meters per hour
25
biodegradation. The removal efficiencies of the AQUABOX 50 unit for acenaphthene, fluorene and
naphthalene ranged from 76.0 percent to >99.8 percent, 80.7 percent to >99.3 percent, and 91.0 percent to
>99.8 percent, respectively. The removal efficiency for total BTEX of the AQUABOX 50 unit ranged
from 92.1 percent to >97.1 percent. The removal efficiencies of the MARABU unit for acenaphthene,
fluorene, and napthalene ranged from 47.0 percent to 66.1 percent, 53.6 percent to 71.5 percent, and 75.3
percent to 90.2 percent, respectively. The removal efficiency for total BTEX of the MARABU unit
ranged from 67.6 percent to 74.6 percent. The removal efficiencies of the sand filter unit for
acenaphthene, fluorene, and naphthalene ranged from >99.0 percent to >99.4 percent, >95.7 percent to
>97.1 percent, and >97.5 percent to >98.9 percent, respectively. The removal efficiency for total BTEX
of the sand filter unit ranged from >40.5 percent to >94.6 percent. (Note: the flow rates, Q,used in the
removal efficiency calculating, are presented in Table 4. See the equation in Section 2.1.2).
Because the three target PAHs and BTEX were detected at low concentrations in the influent well to the
sand filter unit, the associated calculated removal efficiencies are not significant. The concentrations of
these target analytes both in the influent wells and effluent from the sand filter unit were either low or less
than the detection limit, resulting in removal efficiencies that are not meaningful. Table 6 presents
influent and effluent analyte concentrations and removal efficiencies per event.
2.3.2.2 Secondary Objectives
The secondary project objectives and the associated noncritical measurement parameters required to
achieve those objectives were presented in Section 2.1.2. The results of each secondary objective are
discussed in the following subsections.
S1 Determine the percent of total BTEX and naphthalene that is stripped from each aerated
component of the system
Aeration systems provide air flow through the AQUABOX 50, MARABU, and intermediate storage tank.
Airflow strips BTEX and to a lesser extent PAHs (acenaphthene, fluorene, and naphthalene) from the
groundwater. Resulting exhaust gases are discharged to the atmosphere through activated carbon filters.
To assess the quantity of the total BTEX and volatile PAHs (acenaphthene, fluorene, and naphthalene)
that are removed by air stripping, individual exhaust gas samples were collected from each of the system
components at locations before the activated carbon units (GA1, GM1, and GZ1). These exhaust gas
samples were collected on the same schedule as the influent/effluent water sampling activities (once per
26
week for a 4-week period). Results of the stripping efficiency calculations are presented in Table 7.
Summary results were expressed as a mean and a range of the percentage stripped over the 4-week
evaluation period are presented in Table 8.
Percentages of the PAHs and BTEX that were removed from the groundwater by the biological reactor
and percentages removed to the air due to the aeration in the biological reactors were determined. Table 8
presents the percentages of the contaminants that were volatilized, or stripped, to the air. The PAHs,
which are semivolatile, were stripped at lower percentages than the volatile BTEX. The PAHs detected in
the gas were all either lower than the detection limit or detected at low concentrations.
Table 5 Range and Mean Removal Efficiencies for the System Components
Percent Removal Efficiencies
Compound
Range (Percent) Mean (Percent)
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene 76.0 - >99.8 >84.6
Fluorene 80.7 - >99.3 >87.7
Naphthalene 91.0 - >99.8 >94.8
Total BTEX 92.1 - >97.1 >94.8
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene 47.0 - 66.1 52.8
Fluorene 53.6 - 71.5 64.4
Naphthalene 75.3 - 90.2 82.6
Total BTEX 67.6 - 74.6 71.7
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene >99.0 - >99.4 >99.2
Fluorene >95.7 - >97.2 >96.5
Naphthalene >97.5 - >98.9 >98.2
Total BTEX >40.5 - >94.6 >80.0
Notes:
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
27
Table 6 - Summary of Mass Removal Efficiency Calculations for System Components
Compound Sampling Event No. 1 Sampling Event No. 2 Sampling Event No. 3 Sampling Event No. 4
Influent Effluent Mass Influent Effluent Mass Influent Effluent Mass Influent Effluent Mass
Conc. Conc. Removal Conc. Conc. Removal Conc. Conc. Removal Conc. Conc. Removal
(Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency
(%) (%) (%) (%)
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene 171 40.9 76.1 163 39.1 76 142.0* 19.3* 86.4* 139 <0.5 >99.8
Fluorene 50.5 9.3 86.1 47.1 9.1 80.7 41.0 4.5 89.0 38.0 <0.5 >99.3
Naphthalene 134 8.3 93.8 114 10.3 91.0 114.3* 6.1* 94.7* 126.7 <0.5 >99.8
Benzene 42.2 2.7 93.6 35.9 2.1 94.1 24.4 <1.0 >97.9 21.3 <1.0 >97.7
Toluene 555 39.6 92.9 527 32.1 93.9 491.1 13.0 97.4 499 13.3 97.3
Ethylbenzene 24.9 3.1 87.5 24.0 2.7 88.8 24.8 1.4 94.4 27.1 1.4 94.8
Total xylenes 234 22.1 90.5 216 20.3 90.6 224.9 8.1 96.4 254.9 8.4 96.7
Total BTEX 856 67.5 92.1 803 57.2 92.9 765.2 23.0 97.0 802 23.6 97.1
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene 347.3 173.6 50.0 394.9 204.5 48.2 354.2* 120.1* 66.1* 356.4 189.0 47.0
Fluorene 101.2 33.8 66.6 111.9 38.3 65.8 96.8 27.6 71.5 88.2 40.9 53.6
Naphthalene 720.7 95.3 86.8 848.6 186.0 78.1 787.4* 77.1* 90.2* 836.2 206.8 75.3
Benzene 312.0 72.5 76.8 346.1 94.3 72.8 347.0 109.9 68.3 487 115 76.4
Toluene 79.4 16.9 78.7 68.0 14.6 78.5 48.3 15.0 68.9 129.2 22.9 82.3
Ethylbenzene 38.5 13.2 65.7 40.0 15.1 62.3 40.3 13.8 65.8 48.2 17.2 64.3
Total xylenes 149.3 48.2 67.7 149.1 54.2 63.6 131.8 45.3 65.6 167.2 55.7 66.7
28
Table 6 - Summary of Mass Removal Efficiency Calculations for System Components (Continued)
Compound Sampling Event No. 1 Sampling Event No. 2 Sampling Event No. 3 Sampling Event No. 4
Influent Effluent Mass Influent Effluent Mass Influent Effluent Mass Influent Effluent Mass
Conc. Conc. Removal Conc. Conc. Removal Conc. Conc. Removal Conc. Conc. Removal
(Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Efficiency
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Total BTEX 579.2 150.8 74.0 603.2 178.2 70.5 567.4 184.0 67.6 831.9 211.0 74.6
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene 49.4 <1.0 >99.0 50.1 <1.0 >99.0 37.7* <0.5* >99.3* 39.6 <0.5 >99.4
Fluorene 11.8 <1.0 >95.8 11.5 <1.0 >95.7 9.0 <0.5 >97.2 8.6 <0.5 >97.1
Naphthalene 20.4 <1.0 >97.5 20.6 <1.0 >97.6 23.0* <0.5* >98.9* 23.4 <0.5 >98.9
Benzene 7.4 <1.0 >93.2 6.6 <1.0 >92.4 9.9 <1.0 >94.9 <1.0 <1.0 >0
Toluene 25.8 1.8 93.0 19.1 <1.0 >97.4 8.8 <1.0 >94.3 2.2 <1.0 >77.3
Ethylbenzene 3.0 <1.0 >83.3 3.1 <1.0 >83.9 2.3 <1.0 >78.3 <1.0 <1.0 >0
Total xylenes 18.7 1.0 94.7 17.2 1.0 94.2 9.9 1.0 89.9 1.0 1.0 0
Total BTEX 54.9 3.8 >93.1 46.0 2.5 >94.6 30.9 2.5 >91.9 4.2 2.5 >40.5
Notes:
* MS/MSDs for these compounds did not meet the QA objectives during this event.
Fg/L Micrograms per liter
% Percent
29
The results indicate removal efficiencies for the PAHs in groundwater ranging between 76.0 percent and
99.8 percent for the AQUABOX 50, and 48.2 and 90.2 percent for the MARABU. The gas concentration
for PAHs were either less than the detection limit or very low indicating a minimal removal due to
stripping. The BTEX gas concentrations stripped from the AQUABOX 50 range from 0.2 percent to 1.0
percent; BTEX gas concentrations stripped from the MARABU ranged from 6.9 percent to 8.8 percent.
S2 Document the physical and chemical characteristics of the treated water that could affect the
performance of the evaluation system and document how these parameters change with
treatment.
Parameters measured include pH, major cations (Na, K, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn), and anions (Cl-, F-, NO2-, NO3-,
PO43-, SO42-). To accomplish this objective, samples were collected once per week for the influent to
(WA1 through WA4, WM1) and effluent from (WK) the treatment system during the 4-week sampling
program. These samples were analyzed for each of the parameters identified above; results are presented
as a mean and a range of the four measured values (see Table 9).
S3 Document the capital and operating costs of the SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU packed
biological reactor system based on observations during the evaluation and data from the
engineering designers and from the operator of the system.
Capital and operating costs of this system, as applied at the SWD site, were estimated based on operating
requirements observed during the evaluation and on capital and operating cost information available from
the designers and operator of the system. The initial capital cost of the biological reactor system at the
Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG Site, including site preparation, permitting and regulatory costs, construction
materials and labor, and startup was about 218,700 DM ($113,900 U.S. assuming a 1.92 DM to $1 U.S.
exchange rate). Monitoring and other periodic costs amounted to about 37,000 DM/year ($19,300
U.S./year).
30
Table 7 Stripping Efficiencies for Each Component of the Treatment System
Sampling Event No. 1 Sampling Event No. 2 Sampling Event No. 3 Sampling Event No. 4
Compound
Inf. Inf.
Inf. H2O Gas Gas Inf. H2O
SE SE Gas SE Gas SE
H2O H2O
mg/hr mg/hr mg/hr
% mg/h % mg/hr % mg/hr %
mg/hr mg/hr
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene 3510 <0.5 <0.01 1810 <1.0 <0.06 1690 <0.5 <0.02 4720 <0.5 <0.01
Fluorene 1040 <0.5 <0.04 525 <0.4 <0.08 488 <0.5 <0.1 1290 <0.5 <0.04
Naphthalene 2740 <0.5 <0.02 1270 <1.1 <0.08 1360 <0.5 <0.04 4300 <0.5 <0.02
Benzene 866 2.7 0.3 400 3.4 0.9 290 <1.2 <0.4 724 1.3 0.2
Toluene 11400 43.9 0.4 5870 54.4 0.9 5840 25.0 0.4 16900 25.0 0.1
Ethylbenzene 511 3.8 0.7 268 5.0 0.4 295 2.88 1.0 919 2.9 0.3
Total xylenes 4790 22.0 0.5 2410 26.6 1.1 2680 13.0 0.5 8650 14.8 0.2
Total BTEX 17600 72.4 0.4 8950 89.5 1.0 9110 42.0 0.5 27200 44.0 0.2
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene 1040 1.4 0.1 1160 1.6 0.1 1050 2.4 0.2 1070 2.4 0.2
Fluorene 304 <0.2 <0.06 330 <0.2 <0.06 287 <0.2 <0.06 265 <0.2 <0.08
Naphthalene 2160 7.1 0.3 2500 6.2 0.2 2330 9.2 0.4 2510 9.4 0.4
Benzene 936 50.3 5.4 1020 54.1 5.3 1030 63.9 6.2 1460 92.8 6.4
Toluene 238 13.4 5.6 201 12.1 6.0 143 11.8 8.3 388 21.5 5.5
Ethylbenzene 116 11.1 9.6 118 12.6 10.7 119 10.6 8.9 145 17.6 12.1
Total xylenes 448 30.3 6.8 440 30.1 6.8 390 26.8 6.9 502 44.0 8.8
Total BTEX 1740 139 8.0 1780 152 8.5 1680 138.6 8.3 2500 173.0 6.9
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene 1160 <0.3 <0.02 706 <0.3 <0.04 560 <0.3 <0.06 1460 <0.3 <0.02
Fluorene 278 <0.3 <0.1 162 <0.3 <0.2 134 <0.3 <0.2 318 <0.3 <0.1
Naphthalene 480 1.5 0.3 290 1.5 0.5 342 1.6 0.5 864 1.6 0.2
Benzene 174 7.3 4.2 93 10.2 11.0 147 15.7 10.7 <18 15.7 <87
Toluene 607 18.8 3.1 269 23.5 8.7 131 12.7 9.7 <81 12.7 <15.7
Ethylbenzene 71 3.0 4.2 44 4.1 9.3 34 3.6 10.6 <18 3.6 <20.0
Total xylenes 440 12.4 2.8 243 14.4 5.9 147 11.9 8.1 37 11.9 32.2
Total BTEX 1290 41.5 3.2 649 52.2 8.0 459 44.0 9.6 155 44.0 28.4
Notes: H2O = Water; mg/hr = Milligrams per hour; SE = Stripping Efficiency by Aeration; % = Percent
31
Table 8 Ranges and Mean Stripping Efficiencies for Each Component
Percent Stripping Efficiencies
Compound
Range (Percent) Mean (Percent)
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene >0.005 - > 0.03 >0.01
Fluorene >0.02 - >0.05 >0.03
Naphthalene >0.009 - >0.04 >0.02
Total BTEX 0.2 - 1.0 0.5
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene 0.1 - 0.2 0.2
Fluorene >0.03 - >0.04 >0.03
Naphthalene 0.2 - 0.4 0.3
Total BTEX 6.9 - 8.8 8.0
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene >0.01 - >0.03 >0.02
Fluorene >0.05 - >0.1 >0.7
Naphthalene 0.2 - 0.5 0.4
Total BTEX 3.2 - 28.4 12.3
Notes:
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
32
Table 9 - Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Treated Water
Parameter Units Sampling Location
Influent - WA1 Influent -WA2 Influent - WA3 Influent - WA 4 Influent - WM1 Effluent - WK
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
pH 7.01-7.18 7.11 6.88-6.95 6.92 6.95-7.03 6.99 6.94-7.98 7.24 6.95-6.99 6.97 7.18-7.26 7.23
EC
Temp. 13.7-14.2 13.9 13.7-14.6 14.0 13.9-14.1 14.0 14.6-14.9 14.7 13.4-13.8 13.6 14.6-15.0 14.9
high 4th
Conductivity 649-864 718 647-859 712 754-1010 835 697-927 766 626-831 689 672-896 734
FS/cm
Redox-potential mV -210 - -102 -149 -159 - -90 -113 -139 - -87 -115 -153 - -100 -122 -215 - -118 -163 110-250 174
Dissolved O2 mg/L 0.1-0.5 0.3 0.14-0.5 0.3 0.2-0.99 0.6 0.1-0.4 0.2 0.1-0.7 0.3 3.35-5.8 4.2
Na mg/L 59.7-61.1 60.3 60.3-62.6 61.4 63.8-64.8 64.3 62.6-64.6 63.9 58.0-60.7 59.5 61.5-64.2 62.9
K mg/L 13.0-17.3 14.6 12.9-13.5颅 13.1 21.9-22.4 22.0 9.0-9.8 9.3 13.0-13.9 13.5 13.1-13.3 13.2
Ca mg/L 143-149 146 141-144 142 172-179 175 147-152 149 134-138 137 143-148 146
Fe mg/L 3.8-4.1 4.0 6.2-6.6 6.4 10.3-11.2 10.6 7.8-8.9 8.4 6.0-6.2 6.1 0.024-0.049 0.041
Mg mg/L 16.4-17.1 16.7 16.3-16.6 16.5 18.3-19.2 18.7 18.8-19.8 19.4 15.5-15.9 15.8 17.2-17.6 17.5
Mn mg/L 0.77-0.79 0.78 1.5-1.5 1.5 2.1-2.1 2.1 1.5-1.5 1.5 1.1-1.1 1.1 0.024-0.054 0.041
Cl mg/L 86-93 88 73-78 75 68-73 71 85-89 87 75-79 77 82-85 84
F mg/L 0.36-0.37 0.37 0.63-0.68 0.65 0.73-0.75 0.74 0.3-0.3 0.3 .66-.70 0.68 0.45-0.47 0.46
Nitrite mg/L <0.02-<0.02 <0.02 <0.02-0.06 0.02 0.04-0.12 0.08 <0.02-.11 0.05 0.1-0.1 0.1 <0.02-<0.02 <0.02
Nitrate mg/L <0.3-<0.3 <0.3 1.3-1.4 1.3 1.5-1.9 1.7 0.9-1.6 1.3 <0.3-<0.3 <0.3 7.7-8.2 7.9
Phosphate mg/L 0.3-0.5 0.4 0.1-0.6 0.4 0.4-0.7 0.6 0.5-0.7 0.6 0.9-1.1 1.0 <0.02-0.1 0.03
33
Table 9 - Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Treated Water (Continued)
Parameter Units Sampling Location
Influent - WA1 Influent -WA2 Influent - WA3 Influent - WA 4 Influent - WM1 Effluent - WK
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Sulfate mg/L 185-192 189 193-204 199 298-313 308 187-199 193 167-173 170 201-209 205
CaCO3 mmol/L 5.11-5.17 5.15 4.9-5.0 5.0 5.23-5.28 5.26 5.61-5.66 5.64 5.27-5.46 5.37 4.99-5.04 5.01
Fg/L
Lead <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5
Fg/L
Copper <5 - 16 6 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5-20 7 <5 - <5 <5
Fg/L
Cadmium <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5
Fg/L
Zinc
80-193 117 204-639 360 343-690 446 250-310 268 129-990 420 5-52 19
Fg/L
Nickel <5 - <5 <5 <5-13 5 <5-5 3 <5-6 3 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5
Fg/L
Chromium <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5
Fg/L
Arsenic 2-3 2 1-1 1 2-2 2 3-4 4 3-3 3 <1-2 1
Fg/L
Mercury <0.2-<0.2 <0.2 <0.2-<0.2 <0.2 <0.2-<0.2 <0.2 <0.2-<0.2 <0.2 <0.2-<0.2 <0.2 <0.2-<0.2 <0.2
Notes:
Fg/L Micrograms per liter
FS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter
mg/L Milligrams per liter
EC Degree Celsius
mmol Micromole
34
2.3.3 Data Quality
This section summarizes the data quality for groundwater samples collected and analyzed during the
biological reactor system bilateral SITE demonstration. The purpose of this data quality assessment was
to identify any limitations of the data presented in this report or qualifications of the conclusions based on
known information on data quality.
2.3.3.1 Groundwater Samples
For the groundwater samples, both field and laboratory QC samples were collected. Field QC samples
included trip blanks and field blanks, as well as MS/MSDs.
Because BTEX in groundwater was one of the primary contamination concerns at the site, field blanks
and trip blanks were collected to monitor whether field techniques or sample shipping introduced VOCs
to field samples. Toluene was the only compound detected in the field blanks and trip blanks above the
detection limit at 2.9 Fg/L and 1.8 micrograms per liter (Fg/L), respectively. These results suggest that
small concentrations of toluene may have been introduced by field techniques or sample shipping. Trip
and field blank results for the remaining analytes were all less than detection limits.
One MS/MSD sample was taken during each of the four sampling events to assess the precision and
accuracy of the recoveries for the critical analytes and matrix interferences. MS/MSD sample results,
presented in Tables 10 thru 14, indicate that the recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) for the
critical analytes were within the pre-established QC limits for three of the four samples. The MS/MSD
recoveries and RPDs for 7 of the 8 critical analytes in samples taken during Event 3 were outside of the
acceptance criteria. The volatiles, BTEX, were reanalyzed and MSD recoveries were all within range.
The PAHs were not reanalyzed; acenaphthene and naphthalene were below the lower QC limit.
Therefore, the results for these two PAHs in Event 3 could be biased low.
35
2.3.3.2 Gas Samples
The primary QC samples processed in relation to the gas samples included field blanks, trip blanks and
MS/MSD samples. All the field and trip blanks had analytical results less than detection limits for
contaminants of concern. Therefore, introduction of contaminants by field or laboratory techniques was
unlikely. All the MS/MSD samples met the QA objectives, as shown in Tables 15 through 18, indicating
that general data quality was good and that the sample data are useable without qualification.
Table 10 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Results, Duplicate Event 1
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 0.24 8.37 9.04 81.3 88.8 60-132 7.7
#30
Fluorene 0.00 8.25 8.61 82.5 86.1 71-108 4.3
#30
Naphthalene 0.00 6.87 7.28 68.7 72.8 35-120 5.8
#30
Benzene 9.0 17.9 19.4 89.9 105.3 80-120 8.2
#30
Toluene 2.0 11.6 11.2 92.9 88.4 80-120 4.0
#30
Ethylbenzene 5.8 15.3 15.6 96.8 99.8 80-120 1.9
#30
m-,p-Xylene 0.5 19.4 19.8 94.9 96.5 80-120 1.6
#30
o-Xylene 0.9 9.9 10.0 93.8 95.7 80-120 1.8
Notes:
Fg/L Microgram per liter
% Percent
* Outside acceptance criteria
MS Matrix spike
MS Matrix spike duplicate
RPD Relative percent difference
36
Table 11 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Results, Duplicate Event 2
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 0.00 9.36 8.30 93.6 83.0 60-132 12.0
#30
Fluorene 0.00 8.99 8.00 89.9 80.0 71-108 12.0
#30
Naphthalene 0.00 8.01 7.47 80.1 74.7 35-120 7.0
#30
Benzene 2.1 41.9 42.0 100.4 100.4 80-120 0.2
#30
Toluene 32.1 74.0 71.8 101.4 96.0 80-120 3.0
#30
Ethylbenzene 2.7 43.1 41.6 103.3 99.4 80-120 3.6
#30
m-,p-Xylene 13.4 96.5 93.5 104.3 100.6 80-120 3.1
#30
o-Xylene 6.9 48.1 44.9 107.3 99.0 80-120 6.9
Notes:
Fg/L Microgram per liter
% Percent
* Outside acceptance criteria
MS Matrix spike
MS Matrix spike duplicate
RPD Relative percent difference
Table 12 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 3
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 0.24 8.37 9.04 81.3 88.8 60-132 7.7
#30
Fluorene 0.00 8.25 8.61 82.5 86.1 71-108 4.3
#30
Naphthalene 0.00 6.87 7.28 68.7 72.8 35-120 5.8
#30
Benzene 9.1 32.3 15.1 234.3* 60.7* 80-120 72.5*
#30
Toluene 7.1 26.6 8.2 189.7* 11.4* 80-120 105.6*
#30
Ethylbenzene 2.1 25.8 13.4 242.5* 115.7* 80-120 63.3*
#30
m-,p-Xylene 5.4 54.7 18.7 247.7* 67.0* 80-120 98.1*
#30
o-Xylene 3.7 26.9 9.8 242.2* 63.9* 80-120 93.1*
Notes:
Fg/L Microgram per liter MS Matrix spike
% Percent MSD Matrix spike duplicate
* Outside acceptance criteria RPD Relative percent difference
37
Table 13 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 3 Retest
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 37.70 54.94 44.67 86.2 34.9* 60-132 20.6
#30
Fluorene 8.95 25.77 21.76 84.1 64.1 71-108 16.9
#30
Naphthalene 22.95 39.71 23.65 83.8 3.5* 35-120 50.7*
#30
Benzene 9.9 1.3 28.7 108.1 95.0 80-120 8.7
#30
Toluene 8.8 30.0 29.3 102.6 99.3 80-120 2.3
#30
Ethylbenzene 2.3 22.9 22.3 105.1 102.0 80-120 2.7
#30
m-,p-Xylene 6.0 48.1 46.5 105.7 101.7 80-120 3.4
#30
o-Xylene 3.9 24.0 23.1 104.6 99.9 80-120 3.9
Notes:
Fg/L Microgram per liter
% Percent
* Outside acceptance criteria
MS Matrix spike
MS Matrix spike duplicate
RPD Relative percent difference
Table 14 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 4
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Benzene 0.3 19.0 17.5 94.3 86.7 80-120 8.3
#30
Toluene 2.2 18.9 19.9 81.2 85.9 80-120 5.0
#30
Ethylbenzene 0.2 20.2 19.1 102.3 96.5 80-120 5.8
#30
m-,p-Xylene 0.3 42.0 39.7 104.6 98.9 80-120 5.6
#30
o-Xylene 0.5 20.3 19.4 103.1 98.8 80-120 4.2
#30
Acenaphthene 0.08 8.39 8.68 83.1 86.0 60-132 3.4
#30
Fluorene 0.01 8.08 8.52 80.7 85.1 71-108 5.3
#30
Naphthalene 0.01 8.22 8.37 82.1 83.6 35-120 1.8
Notes:
ug/L Microgram per liter MS Matrix spike
% Percent MSD Matrix spike duplicate
* Outside acceptance criteria RPD Relative percent difference
38
Table 15 Gas Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 1
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 0.06 8.01 7.94 99.4 98.5 60-132 0.88
#30
Fluorene 0.00 7.72 7.94 96.5 99.3 71-108 2.81
#30
Naphthalene 0.09 7.99 7.82 98.8 96.6 35-120 2.15
#30
Benzene 0.00 19.04 19.04 96.1 96.1 80-120 0.00
#30
Toluene 0.03 19.64 20.06 95.0 97.0 80-120 2.12
#30
Ethylbenzene 0.00 18.91 19.46 96.5 99.3 80-120 2.87
#30
Total Xylenes 0.01 54.9 55.24 92.3 92.9 80-120 0.32
Notes:
Fg/L Microgram per liter
% Percent
* Outside acceptance criteria
MS Matrix spike
MS Matrix spike duplicate
RPD Relative percent difference
Table 16 Gas Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 2
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 0.06 7.82 7.93 97.0 98.4 60-132 1.40
#30
Fluorene 0.00 7.75 7.40 96.9 92.5 71-108 4.62
#30
Naphthalene 0.08 7.60 7.88 94.0 97.5 35-120 3.62
#30
Benzene 0.00 19.08 18.96 96.3 95.7 80-120 0.63
#30
Toluene 0.00 20.26 19.94 98.1 96.6 80-120 1.59
#30
Ethylbenzene 0.00 19.63 19.45 100.2 99.3 80-120 0.92
#30
Total Xylenes 0.00 54.03 53.0 91.5 89.7 80-120 0.99
Notes:
Fg/L Microgram per liter
% Percent
MS Matrix spike
MS Matrix spike duplicate
RPD Relative percent difference
39
Table 17 Gas Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 3
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 0.00 6.33 6.40 105.5 106.7 60-132 1.10
#30
Fluorene 0.00 6.10 6.28 101.7 104.7 71-108 2.91
#30
Naphthalene 0.09 6.52 6.92 107.2 113.8 35-120 5.95
#30
Benzene 0.00 36.29 37.33 91.5 94.2 80-120 2.83
#30
Toluene 0.03 39.02 38.93 94.4 94.2 80-120 0.23
#30
Ethylbenzene 0.00 38.36 38.57 97.9 98.4 80-120 0.55
#30
Total Xylenes 0.00 113.21 113.59 95.8 96.2 80-120 0.21
Notes:
Fg/L Micrograms per liter
% Percent
MS Matrix spike
MS Matrix spike duplicate
RPD Relative percent difference
Table 18 Gas Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 4
Compound Field MS MSD MS MSD Recovery RPD RPD
Sample (Fg/L) (Fg/L) Recovery Recovery Acceptance Acceptance
(Fg/L) (%) (%) Criteria Criteria
#30
Acenaphthene 0.09 8.25 8.21 102.0 101.5 60-132 0.49
#30
Fluorene 0.00 7.90 7.89 98.8 98.6 71-108 0.13
#30
Naphthalene 0.07 8.37 8.47 103.8 105.0 35-120 1.19
#30
Benzene 0.00 38.39 38.58 96.8 97.3 80-120 0.49
#30
Toluene 0.02 41.07 39.87 99.4 96.5 80-120 2.97
#30
Ethylbenzene 0.01 41.55 40.82 106.0 104.2 80-120 1.77
#30
Total Xylenes 0.03 120.41 117.04 101.9 86.3 80-120 8.29
Notes:
Fg/L Microgram per liter
% Percent
MS Matrix spike
MS Matrix spike duplicate
RPD Relative percent difference
40
2.4 CONCLUSIONS
This section presents the conclusions of the biological reactor system. The conclusions for each objective
are summarized below.
The removal efficiencies for the three target PAHs, acenaphthene, fluorene and
$
napthalene, and for total BTEX were all greater than 99 percent. These removal
efficiencies exceeded the target removal efficiencies of 60 percent for the PAHs and 95
percent for the total BTEX.
The removal efficiencies, for the three target PAHs and the total BTEX, were calculated
$
for three components of the system, the AQUABOX 50, the MARABU and the sand
filter. Removal efficiencies of the AQUABOX 50 for acenaphthene, fluorene and
napthalene ranged from 70.4 percent to 99.8 percent, 75.2 percent to 99.2 percent, and
91.0 percent to 99.8 percent, respectively. Removal efficiency for total BTEX of the
AQUABOX 50 ranged from 92.3 percent to 97.0 percent. Removal efficiencies of the
MARABU for acenapthene, fluorene, and napthalene ranged from 47.0 percent to 66.1
percent, 53.6 percent to 71.5 percent, and 75.3 percent to 90.2 percent, respectively.
Removal efficiency for total BTEX of the MARABU ranged from 67.6 percent to 74.6
percent. Removal efficiencies of the sand filter unit for acenaphthene, fluorene, and
napthalene ranged from 99.0 percent to 99.4 percent, 95.7 percent to 97.2 percent, and
97.5 percent to 98.9 percent, respectively. Removal efficiency for total BTEX for the
sand filter unit ranged from 28.6 percent to 94.6 percent.
The stripping efficiencies (percent of influent mass stripped into the exhaust gas) for the
$
three target PAHs and the total BTEX were calculated for the three components of the
system.
Stripping efficiencies of the AQUABOX 50 for acenaphthene, fluorene, and napthalene,
$
ranged from <0.01 percent to <0.06 percent, <0.04 percent to <0.1 percent, and <0.02
percent to <0.08 percent, respectively. Stripping efficiency for total BTEX of the
AQUABOX 50 ranged from 0.2 percent to 1.0 percent. Stripping efficiencies of the
MARABU for acenaphthene, fluorene, and napthalene, ranged from 0.1percent to 0.2
percent, <0.06 percent to <0.08 percent, and 0.2 percent to 0.4 percent, respectively.
Stripping efficiency for total BTEX of the MARABU ranged from 6.9 percent to 8.8
percent. Stripping efficiencies of the sand filter for acenaphthene, fluorene, and
napthalene, ranged from <0.02 percent to <0.06 percent, <0.1 percent to <0.2 percent,
and 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent, respectively. Stripping efficiency for total BTEX of the
sand filter ranged from 3.2 percent to 28.4 percent.
The following physical and chemical characteristics of the treated water were measured
$
at the four influent wells to the AQUABOX 50, the one influent well to the MARABU,
and the effluent well from the sand filter: pH, sodium, potassium, calcium, iron,
magnesium, manganese, chloride, floride, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, bicarbonate
(alkalinity), lead, copper, cadmium, zinc, nickel, chromium, arsenic, and mercury. The
following trends were noted:
41
Groundwater samples taken from influent sampling well to the AQUABOX 50 located at
$
WA3 had the highest sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, manganese, chloride, floride,
sulfate, and zinc concentrations.
Groundwater samples taken from the influent sampling well to the MARABU located at
$
WM1 had the lowest sodium, calcium, magnesium, nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate
concentrations.
Groundwater samples taken from the effluent sampling well located at WK had the
$
lowest iron, manganese, nitrite, phosphate, and zinc concentrations. All of these analytes
had been significantly reduced most likely due to the precipitation reactions occurring
within the biological reactive boxes and possibly biological oxidation of nitrite by
nitrifying bacteria. The highest concentration of nitrate was recorded in samples taken
from the WK sampling well.
Lead, cadmium, chromium, and mercury concentrations were less than the detection limit
$
in all monitoring wells. Copper and nickel concentrations were detected above the
detection limit in two of the influent wells at low concentrations. Arsenic was detected in
all monitoring wells at low concentrations.
The initial capital cost of the biological reactor system at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG
$
Site, including site preparation, permitting and regulatory costs, construction materials
and labor, and startup was about 218,700 DM ($113,900 U.S. assuming a 1.92 DM to $1
U.S. exchange rate). Monitoring and other periodic costs amounted to about 37,000 DM
($19,300 U.S.) per year.
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Cost estimates presented in this section are based on data provided by SWD. Because the cost of
implementing this technology at a given site depends upon various site-specific factors, costs are initially
presented below as those directly incurred by SWD in the installation and operation of the biological
reactor at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG Site in Duesseldorf, Germany.
The initial capital cost of the biological reactor system at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG Site, including
site preparation, permitting and regulatory costs, construction materials and labor, and startup was about
218,700 DM ($113,900 U.S. assuming a 1.92 DM to $1 U.S. exchange rate). Monitoring and other
periodic costs amounted to about 37,000 DM ($19,300 U.S.) per year.
42
The above overall cost estimates are approximate and were provided directly by SWD. Although
groundwater treatment costs were not independently estimated, the following cost categories (Evans
1990) should be considered when evaluating the potential cost of treating groundwater using the
biological reactor system technology:
C Site preparation
C Permitting and regulatory requirements
C Capital equipment
C Startup
C Labor
C Consumables and supplies
C Utilities
C Effluent treatment and disposal
C Residuals and waste shipping and handling
C Analytical services
C Maintenance and modifications
C Demobilization
Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG provided the following cost breakdown and explanations in accordance with
the above listed criteria.
Site Preparation: The cost for site preparation included the cost for the foundation and construction of
the workshop hall for the treatment system.
Permitting and Regulatory Costs: The permitting and regulatory cost included the cost for obtaining the
license, associated procedures necessary to comply with permitting procedures, and for the design of the
construction of the treatment system. Both the expert opinion and the quality control of the groundwater
treatment investigation were requested by the German authorities in order to obtain a permit for
construction and operation of the biological reactor system.
Capital Equipment Costs: Capital equipment costs included the rental fees for the two packed biological
reactors, the MARABU and AQUABOX 50.
43
Startup Costs: The two largest parts of the startup costs were for the sand filter and for the control
system of the facility.
Operating Costs: Operating costs were included the salaries for the project managers and engineers.
Consumables and Supplies: The cost for consumables and supplies required for this system included the
cost for replacement parts such as pumps, engines and pipes. The costs for the activated carbon are
considered in the cost for Aresiduals and waste shipping and handling@.
Utilities: This cost included the cost for electric power for the system.
Effluent Treatment and Disposal: No costs were associated with effluent treatment and disposal, since
this is an in-situ passive treatment technology.
Residuals and Waste Shipping and Handling: The cost associated with residuals and waste shipping
included the purchase of the activated carbon and the disposal of the sludge and working materials.
Analytical Service: The cost for monitoring the performance of the biological reactor system through the
sampling and analysis of groundwater from influent and effluent monitoring wells included both the
organic and inorganic analyses for the periodical monitoring of the treatment system.
Maintenance and Modification: Maintenance and modification costs included the labor costs for
maintenance of the treatment system.
Demobilization: Demobilization costs included the demobilization of the foundation and the treatment
system.
4.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section evaluates the general applicability of the biological reactor system technology to
contaminated waste sites. Information presented in this section is intended to assist decision makers in
screening specific technologies for a particular cleanup situation. This section presents the advantages,
disadvantages, and limitations of the technology and discusses factors that have a major impact on the
performance and cost of the technology. The analysis is based both on the demonstration results and on
available information from other applications of the technology.
44
4.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA
This section assesses the biological reactor system technology against the nine evaluation criteria used for
conducting detailed analyses of remedial alternatives in feasibility studies under CERCLA (EPA 1988).
4.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The biological reactor system technology provides both short-term and long-term protection of human
health and the environment by reducing the concentrations of contaminants in groundwater.
BTEX and PAHs are removed by biodegredation and air stripping the extracted groundwater. (Removal
efficiency is discussed in more detail in Section 2.0.) Treated groundwater from both bioreactors is
pumped into a storage tank which is aerated to reduce iron concentrations in the treated water. The
partially treated water flows from the storage tank through a sand filter to remove residual iron. Trapped
bacteria in the sand filter provide further contaminant biodegradation in the previously treated
groundwater. The groundwater then filters through an activated carbon unit to remove residual organic
contamination prior to infiltration back into the aquifer. Exposure from air emissions is minimized
through the removal of contaminants from the system's air process stream using carbon adsorption units
before discharge to the atmosphere.
4.1.2 Compliance with ARARs
Although general and specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) were not
specifically identified for the biological reactor system technology, compliance with chemical-, location-,
and action-specific ARARs should be determined on a site-specific basis. While location- and action-
specific ARARs generally can be met, compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends on the
efficiency of the biological reactor system in removing contaminants from the groundwater and the site-
specific cleanup level.
45
4.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The biological reactor system permanently reduces BTEX and PAH levels in groundwater through
biodegredation and air stripping. Potential long-term risks to the treatment system workers, the
community, and the environment from emissions of treated groundwater and discharge of treated
groundwater are mitigated by ensuring that established standards are met.
4.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
As discussed in Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.3, the biological reactor system offers permanent removal of BTEX
and PAHs. As such, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants are also significantly reduced.
4.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
The permanent removal of BTEX and PAHs from groundwater is achieved relatively quickly, providing
for short-term effectiveness, as well as long-term effectiveness discussed in Section 4.1.3. Potential
short-term risks presented during system operation to workers, the community, and the environment
include air emissions. Exposure from fugitive air emissions during operation, monitoring, and
maintenance are minimized through the removal of contaminants in the system's air process stream using
carbon adsorption units before discharge.
4.1.6 Implementability
Implementation of the AQUABOX 50 and MARABU biological reactor system involves (1) site
preparation, (2) system construction and configuration, (3) monitoring and maintenance. Minimal
adverse impacts to the community and the environment are anticipated during site preparation and system
installation.
4.1.7 Cost
The initial capital cost of the biological reactor system at the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG Site, including
site preparation, permitting and regulatory costs, construction materials and labor, and startup was about
218,700 DM/year ($113,900 U.S./year assuming a 1.92 DM to $1 U.S. exchange rate). Monitoring and
other periodic costs amounted to about 37,000 DM/year ($19,300 U.S./year).
46
4.1.8 State Acceptance
State acceptance is anticipated because the biological reactor system uses widely accepted processes to
remove contaminants from groundwater and to treat air emissions. If remediation was conducted as part
of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective actions, state regulatory agencies require
that permits be obtained before implementing the system, such as a permit to operate the treatment system
and an air emissions permit.
4.1.9 Community Acceptance
The system's size and space requirements, as well as the principles of operation, may raise concern in
nearby communities. However, proper management and operational controls coupled with minimal short-
term risks to the community and the permanent removal of contaminants through these processes make
this technology likely to be accepted by the public.
4.2 APPLICABLE WASTES
The biological reactor system technology demonstrated at Duesseldorf, Germany, was designed to
remove BTEX and PAHs from groundwater. The technology=s applicability to contaminants other than
BTEX and PAHs was not examined as part of this demonstration.
4.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The developer claims that high concentrations of contaminated media can be treated by the system.
However, high concentrations of contaminants may require more than one pass through the system to
achieve remediation goals. The full range of system applicability was not evaluated as part of this
demonstration.
47
5.0 BIOLOGICAL REACTOR SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY STATUS
According to SWD AG, the technology can be used for remediation of contaminated groundwater,
especially those contaminated with volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. There are currently no
commercially operating systems in the U.S.
48
6.0 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990. Water Content of Soil/Rock/Soil-Aggregate
Mixtures, D2216.
Evans, G. 1990. "Estimating Innovative Technology Costs for the SITE Program." Journal of Air and
Waste Management Assessment. Volume 40, Number 7. July.
Tetra Tech EM Inc. (TTEMI) 1999. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG
AQUABOX 50 and MARABU Packed Biological Reactor System Evaluation at the Stadtwerke
Duesseldorf AG Site in Duesseldorf, Germany. July 27.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 987. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volumes
1
IA-IC: Laboratory Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods; and Volume II: Field Manual,
Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition, (revision 0), Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1988. "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under
CERCLA." EPA/540/G-89/004. October.
49
|