&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
      AQUABOX 50 and MARABU
      Packed Biological Reactor
      System Technology Evaluation

      Innovative Technology
      Evaluation Report
       Gas ExJumsl
      Reserve ,
      Activated |
      Carbon }
      Air Fill,
   Air Flow
  Reserve Activated
  Carbon Filter
                              Contamination Plume with Recovery Wells
       Infiltration
        Well
                Treatment System Schematic
               SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
              TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------
                                              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.

-------
                                        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
poly cyclic 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
                                              in

-------
                              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   System Operations	9
       1.4     KEY CONTACTS	9

2.0  BIOLOGICAL REACTOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS	10
       2.1     BACKGROUND	11
             2.1.1   Site Background	11
             2.1.2   Demonstration Objectives and Approach	12
       2.2     DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES	15
             2.2.1   Evaluation Design	15
             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)
Section                                                                        Page

      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

-------
                                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
Number                                                             Page

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           3 2
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
• C            Degrees Celsius
Ca            Calcium
CCC          Calibration check compound
CERCLA      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Cr            Chloride
CS2           Carbon disulfide
DFTPP        Decafluorotriphenylphosphine
DFiHS        U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F"             Fluoride
Fe            Iron
GC/MS        Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
HC1           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
m3            Meters cubed
m3/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
                                           vn

-------
                      ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

MSB         Matrix spike duplicate
Na           Sodium
NBM         NBM Petrol Stations & Industry
NIOSH       National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NO3"          Nitrate
NO2"          Nitrite
NPL          National Priorities List
NRMRL      National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ORD         Office of Research and Development
PAH         Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PO43"         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      Qualitatsmanagement-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"         Sulfate
SPCC         System performance check compounds
SWD         Stadtwerke Duesseldorf AG
                                             Vlll

-------
                     ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
Tetra Tech    Tetra Tech EM Inc.
UBA         Umweltbundesamt
• G/L         Micrograms per liter
VOA         Volatile organic analysis
VOC         Volatile organic compounds
                                           IX

-------
To Convert

Centimeters

Centimeters

Cubic meters

Cubic meters

Cubic meters

Degrees Celsius


Kilograms per square meter

Kilograms

Kilograms per liter

Kilometers

Liters

Liters per second

Meters

Millimeters

Square meters
                                    CONVERSION TABLE
                                   (Metric to English Units)
Into

Feet

Inches

Cubic feet

Gallons

Cubic yards

Degrees Fahrenheit


Pounds per square inch, absolute

Pounds

Pounds per cubic foot

Miles (statute)

Gallons

Cubic feet (standard) per minute

Feet

Inches

Square feet
Multiply By

0.0328

0.394

35.3

264

1.31

multiply by 1.80; add
32

0.00142

2.20

12.8

0.622

0.260

2.12

3.28

0.0394

10.8

-------
                                  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 poly cyclic
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
PI     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


SI     Determine the percent of total BTEXand 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.
       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.

       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 97.5percentto 98.9 percent, respectively.  The removal efficiency for total
       BTEX of 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 O.lpercentto  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.

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 WAS 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.

-------
                                                                 Koszalin
                                                 m
                                                          ^
         AKingston-upon-Hul!.?/Oflrff  I£
             a     r
                                        Hamburg
                                                  ~~
                                                Hannover
               ,   ..
F )N 6 > A W  D lpswlch
              @
                                                    .0  Leipzi
                                                 sse'
Diisseldorf
          i
 A.        ,
 Bournemouth
                                             Frankfurt am MaW
  Cherbourg   A1™60^ .,
        Rouen
                                                               FIGURE 1
                                                             SITE LOCATION

-------
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.

-------
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 "select 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:

           Identify and remove impediments to development and commercial use of innovative
           technologies, where possible

    ••     Conduct evaluations of the more promising innovative technologies to establish reliable
           performance and cost information for site characterization and cleanup decision-making

           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.

-------
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:
               Facilitate an understanding of each country's approach to remediation of
               contaminated sites
               Demonstrate innovative remedial technologies as if the demonstrations had taken
               place in each country
               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,
"Quality Assurance Project Plan for the SWD AQUABOX 50 and MARABU Packed Biological

-------
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.

-------
                                           BMBF
                                     PROJECT MANAGER
                                    Dr. Karlheinz Huebenthal
                                           UBA
                                  TECHNICAL COORDINATOR
                                   Dr. Annett Weiland-Wascher I
             SWD FACILITY &
           AQUABOX50/MARABU
           PROJECT MANAGER
           Dr. Hans-Peter Rohns
ARGE focon-PROBIOTEC
  PROJECT MANAGER
    Dr. Jorg Siebert
                                    INSTITUTFRESENIUS
                                     PROJECT MANAGER
                                       Dr. Reiner Kurz
INSTITUT FRESENIUS
   QA MANAGER
 Dr. Jurgen Ehmann
                                                 Laboratory Staff
                                                  to be assigned
                                               EPA
                                        PROGRAM MANAGER
                                          Annette Gatchett
                                                                                                                EPA
                                                                                                       DIVISIONAL QA MANAGER
                                                                                                              Ann Vega
                                                                                  EPA
                                                                            PROJECT MANAGER
                                                                               Dr. Ron Lewis
  TETRATECH
SITE QA MANAGER
 Dr. Greg Swanson
                                                                              TETRATECH
                                                                           PROJECT MANAGER
                                                                               Roger Argus
                                           TETRATECH
                                        Technical Support Staff
                                          Jennifer Guigliano
  TETRA TECH
 Field Support Staff
 Sarah Woodland
                                                                                                        FIGURE 2
                                                                                           BILATERAL PROJECT ORGANIZATION

-------
                                                               Gas Exhaust

                                                                   I
                  Air Filter
                                                            Reserve
                                                            Activated
                                                            Carbon
                                                            Air Filter
1
                                  Gas Exhaust

                                       I
        Activated
il     I i  Carbon
!™   ' ! Air Filter
 Reserve
Activated j
 Carbon
Air Filter
III
j Activated
j  Carbon
• Air Filter
      Air Flow
Reserve Activated
  Carbon Filter
                                                                                                        WAI 1 f WA2 \ I WA3 \ I WA4
                      Infiltration
                        Well
                                                                                                                        Contamination Plume with Recovery Wells
                                                                                                                                     FIGURE 3
                                                                                                                              TREATMENT SYSTEM
                                                                                                                                   SCHEMATIC

-------
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 (10m3 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:

-------
              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
poly cyclic 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
PI         Demonstrate greater than 95 percent average removal efficiency for total BTEXand
           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 WAI
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 PI, a removal efficiency (PvE) 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:
                                           Qd
Where:

RE    =       Removal efficiency (%)

C;     =       Calculated contaminant concentration in the influent to the system (a single flow-
               weighted average concentration was calculated based on the measured contaminant
               concentrations in the flow lines from the five influent wells - WAI through WA4 and
               WM1)
Ce     =       Measured concentration in the effluent from the gravel filter (WK)
                                              12

-------
Q     =      Flow rate of groundwater through the system (sum of flows for each of the five
              influent flow lines - WAI 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
C;     =      Contaminant concentration in the influent to each of the bioreactors and the sand
              filter (a single weighted average concentration was calculated for the AQUABOX 50
              based on the detected contaminant concentrations of the four influent wells - WAI
              through 4; the concentration at WM1 was used for the MARABU; the concentration
              at WZ was used for the sand filter)

Ce     =      Contaminant concentration in the effluent from each of the bioreactors (WA5 and
              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 PI, with the  following  variable description

substitutions:
RE    =      Removal efficiency (%) of each of the bioreactors and the sand filter
C;     =      Contaminant concentration in the influent to each of the bioreactors and the sand
              filter (a single weighted average concentration was calculated for the AQUABOX 50
              based on the detected contaminant concentrations of the four influent wells - WAI
              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 (WAS and
              WM2) and the sand filter (WK)

Secondary Objectives

SI     Determine the percent of total BTEXand 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 SI, the percentage of total BTEX and naphthalene removed by the aeration
component of the treatment system was calculated using the following equation:
                                            Q»,iC»,i
Where:
SE    =       Stripping efficiency (%)
Qa e    =       Air flow rate at emission sampling point
CS)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.
    •   WAI:   Influent water from recovery well 1905 9 into AQUABOX 5 0 (flow rate of ~5 m3/h)
    •   WA2:   Influent water from recovery well 19124 into AQUABOX 50 (flow rate of ~3 m3/h)
    •   WA3:   Influent water from recovery well 19123 into AQUABOX 50 (flow rate of ~3 m3/h)
    •   WA4:   Influent water from recovery well 19071 into AQUABOX 5 0 (flow rate of ~9 m3/h)
    •   WM1:  Influent water from recovery well 19125 into MARABU (flow rate of ~ 3 m3/h)
    •   WAS:   Effluent water from AQUABOX 50
    •   WM2:  Effluent water from MARABU
    •   WZ:    Effluent water from intermediate storage tank/influent to sand filter
    •   WK:    Effluent water from sand filter; total system (except carbon)  effluent sampling
              location
    •   GA1:   Exhaust gas stream from AQUABOX 50
    •   GM1:   Exhaust gas stream from MARABU
    •   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 (HC1) 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
Water
Gas
Parameter
BTEX
PAH
PH
Major Cations
Major Anions
BTEX
Naphthalene
Reference Method
SW-846
5030B/8260B
SW-846
3520C/8270C
MCAWW 150.1
SW-846
3010A/6010B
SM4110B
NIOSH1501
SW-846 8260B
NIOSH5515
SW-846 8270C
Method Name
Purge-and-trap; Capillary
Column; GC/MS
Continuous Liquid-Liquid
Extraction; Capillary Column;
GC/MS
PH
Metals by ICP/Atomic Emission
Spectroscopy
(Na, K, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn)
Ion Chromatography (Cl~, F",
NO2~, NO3', PO4-3, SO4-2)
Extraction of Charcoal
Adsorbent with CS2;
BTEX by GC/MS
Extraction of XAD Resin with
Toluene;Naphthalene by
GC/MS
2.2.3
        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
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

-------
      Sample Receipt
    Sample Preparation
      Sample Analysis
    Data Acquisition and
        Reduction
   Raw Data Analysis By
       Lab Analysis
     Analytical/QC Data
       Review by Lab
       Group Leader
 Data
                  Approved
    Final Data Review By
        QA Manager
Data
                 Approved
     Report Preparation
   Final Report Review By
      Project Manager
Data
                 Approved
      Release Report
                                       Report
                                    Unacceptable
                     Review Raw Data,
                 Reanalyze Where Indicated
Report
                                  Unacceptable
    Review Data, Take
    Corrective Action,
Reanalyze Where Indicated
                                    Report
                                 Unacceptable
                    Review Report, Take
                     Corrective Action,
                 Reanalyze Where Indicated
                                                                       FIGURE 4
                                                        DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND
                                                                REPORTING SCHEME
                                    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

PI  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 ">". Using the removal efficiency formula in Section 2.1.2, an influent
concentration minus a less than the detection limit ("<") effluent concentration is presented as 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 - WAI 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
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Total BTEX
Range (Percent)
>99.7->99.9
>98.9->99.4
>99.6->99.9
>99.5->99.7
Mean (Percent)
>99.7
>99.1
>99.8
>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
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Total BTEX
Sampling Event No. 1
Influent
Cone.
(• g/L)
193
57
208.5
76.6
494.5
26.6
222.8
820
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.8
<1.0
1.0
3.8
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
>99.7
>99.1
>99.8
>99.3
99.6
>98.1
99.6
>99.5
Sampling Event No. 2
Influent
Cone.
(• g/L)
171.4
45.3
129
48.1
420
22.1
182
672
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
2.5
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
>99.7
>98.9
>99.6
>99.0
>99.9
>97.7
99.5
>99.6
Sampling Event No. 3
Influent
Cone.
(• g/L)
184
52.1
248
88.6
403
27.9
206
726
Effluent
Cone.
(•g/L)
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
2.5
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
>99.9
>99.5
>99.9
>99.4
>99.9
>98.2
99.5
>99.7
Sampling Event No. 4
Influent
Cone.
(•g/L)
157
42.1
184
47.8
462
28.2
245
783
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
2.5
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
>99.8
>99.4
>99.9
>99.0
>99.9
>98.2
99.6
>99.7
Notes:
Cone.    Concentration
• g/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
Total (sum of the 4 influent flow rates) to the
AQUABOX 50 unit
One influent flow rate to the MARABU unit
Total (sum of the 5 influent flow rates) to the system
Sampling Event No. 1
Influent Flow Rate (mVhr)
20.7
2.99
23.7
Sampling Event No. 2
Influent Flow Rate (m3/hr)
19.9
2.95
22.9
Sampling Event No. 3
Influent Flow Rate (mVhr)
17.7
2.96
20.7
Sampling Event No. 4
Influent Flow Rate (mVhr)
19.3
3.00
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, <2,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.

SI     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
Compound
Percent Removal Efficiencies
Range (Percent)
Mean (Percent)
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Total BTEX
76.0->99.8
80.7->99.3
91.0->99.8
92.1->97.1
>84.6
>87.7
>94.8
>94.8
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Total BTEX
47.0-66.1
53.6-71.5
75.3 - 90.2
67.6 - 74.6
52.8
64.4
82.6
71.7
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Total BTEX
>99.0->99.4
>95.7->97.2
>97.5->98.9
>40.5->94.6
>99.2
>96.5
>98.2
>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
Influent
Cone.
(•g/L)
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
Sampling Event No. 2
Influent
Cone.
(• g/L)
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
Sampling Event No. 3
Influent
Cone.
(•g/L)
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
Sampling Event No. 4
Influent
Cone.
(• g/L)
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Total BTEX
171
50.5
134
42.2
555
24.9
234
856
40.9
9.3
8.3
2.7
39.6
3.1
22.1
67.5
76.1
86.1
93.8
93.6
92.9
87.5
90.5
92.1
163
47.1
114
35.9
527
24.0
216
803
39.1
9.1
10.3
2.1
32.1
2.7
20.3
57.2
76
80.7
91.0
94.1
93.9
88.8
90.6
92.9
142.0*
41.0
114.3*
24.4
491.1
24.8
224.9
765.2
19.3*
4.5
6.1*
<1.0
13.0
1.4
8.1
23.0
86.4*
89.0
94.7*
>97.9
97.4
94.4
96.4
97.0
139
38.0
126.7
21.3
499
27.1
254.9
802
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
13.3
1.4
8.4
23.6
>99.8
>99.3
>99.8
>97.7
97.3
94.8
96.7
97.1
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes

347.3
101.2
720.7
312.0
79.4
38.5
149.3

173.6
33.8
95.3
72.5
16.9
13.2
48.2

50.0
66.6
86.8
76.8
78.7
65.7
67.7

394.9
111.9
848.6
346.1
68.0
40.0
149.1

204.5
38.3
186.0
94.3
14.6
15.1
54.2

48.2
65.8
78.1
72.8
78.5
62.3
63.6

354.2*
96.8
787.4*
347.0
48.3
40.3
131.8

120.1*
27.6
77.1*
109.9
15.0
13.8
45.3

66.1*
71.5
90.2*
68.3
68.9
65.8
65.6

356.4
88.2
836.2
487
129.2
48.2
167.2

189.0
40.9
206.8
115
22.9
17.2
55.7

47.0
53.6
75.3
76.4
82.3
64.3
66.7

                                  28

-------
                         Table 6 - Summary of Mass Removal Efficiency Calculations for System Components (Continued)
Compound
Total BTEX
Sampling Event No. 1
Influent
Cone.
(•g/L)
579.2
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
150.8
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
74.0
Sampling Event No. 2
Influent
Cone.
(• g/L)
603.2
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
178.2
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
70.5
Sampling Event No. 3
Influent
Cone.
(•g/L)
567.4
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
184.0
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
67.6
Sampling Event No. 4
Influent
Cone.
(• g/L)
831.9
Effluent
Cone.
(• g/L)
211.0
Mass
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
74.6
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Total BTEX
49.4
11.8
20.4
7.4
25.8
3.0
18.7
54.9
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.8
<1.0
1.0
3.8
>99.0
>95.8
>97.5
>93.2
93.0
>83.3
94.7
>93.1
50.1
11.5
20.6
6.6
19.1
3.1
17.2
46.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
2.5
>99.0
>95.7
>97.6
>92.4
>97.4
>83.9
94.2
>94.6
37.7*
9.0
23.0*
9.9
8.8
2.3
9.9
30.9
<0.5*
<0.5
<0.5*
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
2.5
>99.3*
>97.2
>98.9*
>94.9
>94.3
>78.3
89.9
>91.9
39.6
8.6
23.4
<1.0
2.2
<1.0
1.0
4.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
2.5
>99.4
>97.1
>98.9
>0
>77.3
>0
0
>40.5
Notes:
*     MS/MSDs for these compounds did not meet the QA objectives during this event.
• g/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
(WAI 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.SVyear).
                                              30

-------
                Table 7 Stripping Efficiencies for Each Component of the Treatment System
Compound
Sampling Event No. 1
Inf. H2O
mg/hr
Gas
mg/hr
SE
%
Sampling Event No. 2
Inf.
H2O
mg/hr
Gas
mg/h
SE
%
Sampling Event No. 3
Inf. H2O
mg/hr
Gas
mg/hr
SE
%
Sampling Event No. 4
Inf.
H2O
mg/hr
Gas
mg/hr
SE
%
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Total BTEX
3510
1040
2740
866
11400
511
4790
17600
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
2.7
43.9
3.8
22.0
72.4
<0.01
<0.04
<0.02
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.4
1810
525
1270
400
5870
268
2410
8950
<1.0
<0.4
<1.1
3.4
54.4
5.0
26.6
89.5
<0.06
<0.08
<0.08
0.9
0.9
0.4
1.1
1.0
1690
488
1360
290
5840
295
2680
9110
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1.2
25.0
2.88
13.0
42.0
<0.02
<0.1
<0.04
<0.4
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.5
4720
1290
4300
724
16900
919
8650
27200
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1.3
25.0
2.9
14.8
44.0
<0.01
<0.04
<0.02
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Total BTEX
1040
304
2160
936
238
116
448
1740
1.4
<0.2
7.1
50.3
13.4
11.1
30.3
139
0.1
<0.06
0.3
5.4
5.6
9.6
6.8
8.0
1160
330
2500
1020
201
118
440
1780
1.6
<0.2
6.2
54.1
12.1
12.6
30.1
152
0.1
<0.06
0.2
5.3
6.0
10.7
6.8
8.5
1050
287
2330
1030
143
119
390
1680
2.4
<0.2
9.2
63.9
11.8
10.6
26.8
138.6
0.2
<0.06
0.4
6.2
8.3
8.9
6.9
8.3
1070
265
2510
1460
388
145
502
2500
2.4
<0.2
9.4
92.8
21.5
17.6
44.0
173.0
0.2
<0.08
0.4
6.4
5.5
12.1
8.8
6.9
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
Total BTEX
1160
278
480
174
607
71
440
1290
<0.3
<0.3
1.5
7.3
18.8
3.0
12.4
41.5
<0.02
<0.1
0.3
4.2
3.1
4.2
2.8
3.2
706
162
290
93
269
44
243
649
<0.3
<0.3
1.5
10.2
23.5
4.1
14.4
52.2
<0.04
<0.2
0.5
11.0
8.7
9.3
5.9
8.0
560
134
342
147
131
34
147
459
<0.3
<0.3
1.6
15.7
12.7
3.6
11.9
44.0
<0.06
<0.2
0.5
10.7
9.7
10.6
8.1
9.6
1460
318
864
<18
<81
<18
37
155
<0.3
<0.3
1.6
15.7
12.7
3.6
11.9
44.0
<0.02
<0.1
0.2
<87
<15.7
<20.0
32.2
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
Compound
Percent Stripping Efficiencies
Range (Percent)
Mean (Percent)
AQUABOX 50 Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Total BTEX
>0.005->0.03
>0.02 - >0.05
>0.009 - >0.04
0.2-1.0
>0.01
>0.03
>0.02
0.5
MARABU Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Total BTEX
0.1-0.2
>0.03 - >0.04
0.2 - 0.4
6.9-8.8
0.2
>0.03
0.3
8.0
Sand Filter Unit
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Total BTEX
>0.01 ->0.03
>0.05->0.1
0.2-0.5
3.2-28.4
>0.02
>0.7
0.4
12.3
Notes:
BTEX   Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
                                  32

-------
Table 9 - Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Treated Water
Parameter
PH
Temp.
Conductivity
Redox-potential
Dissolved O2
Na
K
Ca
Fe
Mg
Mn
Cl
F
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphate

Units

• e
high 4th
• 6/cm
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

Sampling Location
Influent - WAI
Range
7.01-7.18
13.7-14.2
649-864
-210- -102
0.1-0.5
59.7-61.1
13.0-17.3
143-149
3.8-4.1
16.4-17.1
0.77-0.79
86-93
0.36-0.37
<0.02-<0.02
<0.3-<0.3
0.3-0.5

Mean
7.11
13.9
718
-149
0.3
60.3
14.6
146
4.0
16.7
0.78
88
0.37
<0.02
<0.3
0.4

Influent -WA2
Range
6.88-6.95
13.7-14.6
647-859
-159- -90
0.14-0.5
60.3-62.6
12.9-13.5-
141-144
6.2-6.6
16.3-16.6
1.5-1.5
73-78
0.63-0.68
<0.02-0.06
1.3-1.4
0.1-0.6

Mean
6.92
14.0
712
-113
0.3
61.4
13.1
142
6.4
16.5
1.5
75
0.65
0.02
1.3
0.4

Influent - WA3
Range
6.95-7.03
13.9-14.1
754-1010
-139 --87
0.2-0.99
63.8-64.8
21.9-22.4
172-179
10.3-11.2
18.3-19.2
2.1-2.1
68-73
0.73-0.75
0.04-0.12
1.5-1.9
0.4-0.7

Mean
6.99
14.0
835
-115
0.6
64.3
22.0
175
10.6
18.7
2.1
71
0.74
0.08
1.7
0.6

Influent - WA 4
Range
6.94-7.98
14.6-14.9
697-927
-153- -100
0.1-0.4
62.6-64.6
9.0-9.8
147-152
7.8-8.9
18.8-19.8
1.5-1.5
85-89
0.3-0.3
<0.02-.ll
0.9-1.6
0.5-0.7

Mean
7.24
14.7
766
-122
0.2
63.9
9.3
149
8.4
19.4
1.5
87
0.3
0.05
1.3
0.6

Influent - WM1
Range
6.95-6.99
13.4-13.8
626-831
-215--118
0.1-0.7
58.0-60.7
13.0-13.9
134-138
6.0-6.2
15.5-15.9
1.1-1.1
75-79
.66-.70
0.1-0.1
<0.3-<0.3
0.9-1.1

Mean
6.97
13.6
689
-163
0.3
59.5
13.5
137
6.1
15.8
1.1
77
0.68
0.1
<0.3
1.0

Effluent - WK
Range
7.18-7.26
14.6-15.0
672-896
110-250
3.35-5.8
61.5-64.2
13.1-13.3
143-148
0.024-0.049
17.2-17.6
0.024-0.054
82-85
0.45-0.47
<0.02-<0.02
7.7-8.2
<0.02-0.1

Mean
7.23
14.9
734
174
4.2
62.9
13.2
146
0.041
17.5
0.041
84
0.46
<0.02
7.9
0.03

                             33

-------
                             Table 9 - Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Treated Water (Continued)
Parameter
Sulfate
CaCO3
Lead
Copper
Cadmium
Zinc
Nickel
Chromium
Arsenic
Mercury
Units
mg/L
mmol/L
•g/L
•g/L
•g/L
•g/L
•g/L
•g/L
•g/L
•g/L
Sampling Location
Influent - WAI
Range
185-192
5.11-5.17
<5-<5
<5- 16
<0.5 - <0.5
80-193
<5-<5
<5- <5
2-3
<0.2-<0.2
Mean
189
5.15
<5
6
<0.5
117
<5
<5
2
<0.2
Influent -WA2
Range
193-204
4.9-5.0
<5-<5
<5-<5
<0.5 - <0.5
204-639
<5-13
<5-<5
1-1
<0.2-<0.2
Mean
199
5.0
<5
<5
<0.5
360
5
<5
1
<0.2
Influent - WA3
Range
298-313
5.23-5.28
<5-<5
<5-<5
<0.5 - <0.5
343-690
<5-5
<5-<5
2-2
<0.2-<0.2
Mean
308
5.26
<5
<5
<0.5
446
3
<5
2
<0.2
Influent - WA 4
Range
187-199
5.61-5.66
<5-<5
<5-<5
<0.5 - <0.5
250-310
<5-6
<5-<5
3-4
<0.2-<0.2
Mean
193
5.64
<5
<5
<0.5
268
3
<5
4
<0.2
Influent - WM1
Range
167-173
5.27-5.46
<5-<5
<5-20
<0.5-<0.5
129-990
<5-<5
<5-<5
3-3
<0.2-<0.2
Mean
170
5.37
<5
7
<0.5
420
<5
<5
3
<0.2
Effluent - WK
Range
201-209
4.99-5.04
<5-<5
<5-<5
<0.5 - <0.5
5-52
<5-<5
<5-<5

-------
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 • g/L and 1.8 micrograms per liter (• g/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
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.24
0.00
0.00
9.0
2.0
5.8
0.5
0.9
MS
(•g/L)
8.37
8.25
6.87
17.9
11.6
15.3
19.4
9.9
MSB
(•g/L)
9.04
8.61
7.28
19.4
11.2
15.6
19.8
10.0
MS
Recovery
(%)
81.3
82.5
68.7
89.9
92.9
96.8
94.9
93.8
MSB
Recovery
(%)
88.8
86.1
72.8
105.3
88.4
99.8
96.5
95.7
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
7.7
4.3
5.8
8.2
4.0
1.9
1.6
1.8
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
        Notes:

        • g/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
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.1
32.1
2.7
13.4
6.9
MS
(' g/L)
9.36
8.99
8.01
41.9
74.0
43.1
96.5
48.1
MSB
(•g/L)
8.30
8.00
7.47
42.0
71.8
41.6
93.5
44.9
MS
Recovery
(%)
93.6
89.9
80.1
100.4
101.4
103.3
104.3
107.3
MSB
Recovery
(%)
83.0
80.0
74.7
100.4
96.0
99.4
100.6
99.0
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
12.0
12.0
7.0
0.2
3.0
3.6
3.1
6.9
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
MS
MS
RPD
Microgram per liter
Percent
Outside acceptance criteria
Matrix spike
Matrix spike duplicate
Relative percent difference
           Table 12  Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 3
Compound
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.24
0.00
0.00
9.1
7.1
2.1
5.4
3.7
MS
(• g/L)
8.37
8.25
6.87
32.3
26.6
25.8
54.7
26.9
MSB
(•g/L)
9.04
8.61
7.28
15.1
8.2
13.4
18.7
9.8
MS
Recovery
(%)
81.3
82.5
68.7
234.3*
189.7*
242.5*
247.7*
242.2*
MSB
Recovery
(%)
88.8
86.1
72.8
60.7*
11.4*
115.7*
67.0*
63.9*
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
7.7
4.3
5.8
72.5*
105.6*
63.3*
98.1*
93.1*
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
Notes:
• g/L Microgram per liter MS Matrix spike
         Percent
         Outside acceptance criteria
                                   MSD     Matrix spike duplicate
                                   RPD     Relative percent difference
                                               37

-------
             Table 13 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 3 Retest
Compound
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
37.70
8.95
22.95
9.9
8.8
2.3
6.0
3.9
MS
(•g/L)
54.94
25.77
39.71
1.3
30.0
22.9
48.1
24.0
MSB
(•g/L)
44.67
21.76
23.65
28.7
29.3
22.3
46.5
23.1
MS
Recovery
(%)
86.2
84.1
83.8
108.1
102.6
105.1
105.7
104.6
MSB
Recovery
(%)
34.9*
64.1
3.5*
95.0
99.3
102.0
101.7
99.9
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
20.6
16.9
50.7*
8.7
2.3
2.7
3.4
3.9
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
  Notes:

  • g/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
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m-,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.3
2.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.08
0.01
0.01
MS
(•g/L)
19.0
18.9
20.2
42.0
20.3
8.39
8.08
8.22
MSB
(•g/L)
17.5
19.9
19.1
39.7
19.4
8.68
8.52
8.37
MS
Recovery
(%)
94.3
81.2
102.3
104.6
103.1
83.1
80.7
82.1
MSB
Recovery
(%)
86.7
85.9
96.5
98.9
98.8
86.0
85.1
83.6
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
60-132
71-108
35-120
RPB
8.3
5.0
5.8
5.6
4.2
3.4
5.3
1.8
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
Notes:
ug/L    Microgram per liter
%      Percent
*       Outside acceptance criteria
MS      Matrix spike
MSD     Matrix spike duplicate
RPD     Relative percent difference
                                                 38

-------
          Table 15 Gas Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results, Event 1
Compound
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.06
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.01
MS
(•g/L)
8.01
7.72
7.99
19.04
19.64
18.91
54.9
MSB
(•g/L)
7.94
7.94
7.82
19.04
20.06
19.46
55.24
MS
Recovery
(%)
99.4
96.5
98.8
96.1
95.0
96.5
92.3
MSB
Recovery
(%)
98.5
99.3
96.6
96.1
97.0
99.3
92.9
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
0.88
2.81
2.15
0.00
2.12
2.87
0.32
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
Notes:
• g/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
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.06
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MS
(•g/L)
7.82
7.75
7.60
19.08
20.26
19.63
54.03
MSB
(•g/L)
7.93
7.40
7.88
18.96
19.94
19.45
53.0
MS
Recovery
97.0
96.9
94.0
96.3
98.1
100.2
91.5
MSB
Recovery
98.4
92.5
97.5
95.7
96.6
99.3
89.7
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
1.40
4.62
3.62
0.63
1.59
0.92
0.99
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
Notes:

• g/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
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
MS
(•g/L)
6.33
6.10
6.52
36.29
39.02
38.36
113.21
MSB
(«g/L)
6.40
6.28
6.92
37.33
38.93
38.57
113.59
MS
Recovery
(%)
105.5
101.7
107.2
91.5
94.4
97.9
95.8
MSB
Recovery
(%)
106.7
104.7
113.8
94.2
94.2
98.4
96.2
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
1.10
2.91
5.95
2.83
0.23
0.55
0.21
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
Notes:

• g/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
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Field
Sample
(•g/L)
0.09
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.03
MS
(•g/L)
8.25
7.90
8.37
38.39
41.07
41.55
120.41
MSB
(•g/L)
8.21
7.89
8.47
38.58
39.87
40.82
117.04
MS
Recovery
(%)
102.0
98.8
103.8
96.8
99.4
106.0
101.9
MSB
Recovery
(%)
101.5
98.6
105.0
97.3
96.5
104.2
86.3
Recovery
Acceptance
Criteria
60-132
71-108
35-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
RPB
0.49
0.13
1.19
0.49
2.97
1.77
8.29
RPB
Acceptance
Criteria
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
•30
 Notes:

 • g/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 O.lpercentto 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
               WAS 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:

        ••  Site preparation
        ••  Permitting and regulatory requirements
        ••  Capital equipment
        ••  Startup
        ••  Labor
        ••  Consumables and supplies
        ••  Utilities
        • •  Effluent treatment and disposal
        ••  Residuals and waste shipping and handling
        ••  Analytical services
        ••  Maintenance and modifications
        ••  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 "residuals 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). 1987. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volumes
       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

-------