mmat ospheric transport

at ospheric transport Long-range Long-range

of deposition and evaporation

of deposition and evaporation

Mid-latitude seasonal cycling

Mid-latitude seasonal cycling

S

o

u

rces

of

Persistent Organic Pollutants

S

o

u

rces

of

Persistent Organic Pollutants

ooff deposition aa -llaattiittuudde

Hig De

t n

anic P

Second 

nts

n and evaporation

dde seasonal cycling

ollutants

pp erric transporrtt ng rra

nngge

st

S

o

u

rces

of

ersist

of

-l

Midd ll

sten

at os hh

Lo

S

nn

Reference Guide to Non-combustion 

T

ollutants in Soil,

Second Edition - 2010

Reference Guide to Non-combustion 

opp ng” effect

o

om

gnificatio

n

tio

o

of

i

tt

ud

c P

ts

yc ng y c 

c

t

S

t 

echnologies for Remediation of

Persistent Organic P

Technologies for Remediation of

Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil,

Second Edition - 2010 

Long-range

oceanic

transport

Long-range

oceanic 

transport 

Low latitudes

Deposition > evaporation

Low latitudes 

Deposition > evaporation 

High latitudes

Deposition > evaporation

High latitudes

Deposition > evaporation 

“Grassh

i

“Grassh pping” effect 

High mobility High mobility

Relatively high mobility Relatively high mobility

Low mobility Low mobility

Bioaccumulation

and

Bi

a

Bioaccumulation

and

Bi

magnification 

Degradation

Degradation 

Physical-Chemical

Physical-Chemical 

Phytotechnology

Bio

Phytotechnology

remediation

Bioremediation 

Thermal

Thermal 

RReemmeediation Technologies

diation Technologies 

of deposi

n a 

ddeeppoossii iioonn a 

d -lat t de 

dd -l aa t t ii ttuu e 

Hi Hig DDe 

Organi

P 

nt Org anic P 

Second Edition Edition Edition

n s

n and evaporation

nn aanndd eevvaappoorraattiioonn 

e seasonal c li 

ti 

d 

dee sseeaassoonnaall cc ycc ll ii n 

n gg 

Pollutants Pollutants 

ph eric t ranspor p hheeriicc ttrraannssppoor ng-range nngg--rraa

nnggee 

o

u

rces

of

Persi

o

u

rces 

of 

Persis t 

tt

oo 

M

ff

id Mi d-l l a 

i stent 

i s ten 

at osph aatt oosspph 

Lon Lo

S 

n
 

Solid Waste EPA 542-R-09-007 

and Emergency Response September 2010 

(5203P) www.clu-in.org/POPs 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation 


of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, 


Second Edition – 2010
 

Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov
 

Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper (minimum 50% Post consumer)
 
CONTENTS 


Section	 Page 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................... iii
 

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................... vi
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ vii
 

1.0	 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1
 

1.1	 Purpose of Report................................................................................................................4
 

1.2	 Methodology .......................................................................................................................5
 

1.3	 Report Organization ............................................................................................................6
 

2.0	 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................7
 

2.1	 Stockholm Convention on POPs .........................................................................................7
 

2.2	 Basel Convention ................................................................................................................7
 

2.3	 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) – Protocol on POPs.8 

2.4	 Sources of POPs..................................................................................................................8
 

2.5	 Characteristics and Health Effects of POPs ........................................................................9
 

2.6	 Review of Chemical Characteristics of POPs Listed and Under Review for the 2009 


Stockholm Convention......................................................................................................13
 

2.7	 Treatment of POPs ............................................................................................................15
 

2.8	 Related Documents ...........................................................................................................15
 

3.0	 NON-COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................18
 

3.1	 Full-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs...............................................................18
 

3.1.1	 Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal.....................................................25
 

3.1.2	 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition ...........................................................................26
 

3.1.3	 DARAMEND®.....................................................................................................27
 

3.1.4	 Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction ...........................................................................30
 

3.1.5	 Gene Expression Factor .......................................................................................31
 

3.1.6	 GeoMeltTM .............................................................................................................32
 

3.1.7	 Mechanochemical Dehalogenation ......................................................................35
 

3.1.8	 Plasma Arc ...........................................................................................................38
 

3.1.9	 Radicalplanet® Technology..................................................................................39
 

3.1.10	 Solvated Electron Technology .............................................................................40
 

3.1.11	 Sonic Technology.................................................................................................41
 

3.1.12	 Thermal Desorption..............................................................................................42
 

3.2	 Pilot-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs..............................................................45
 

3.2.1	 Phytotechnology...................................................................................................45
 

3.2.2	 Reductive Heating and Sodium Dispersion..........................................................47
 

3.2.3	 Subcritical Water Oxidation.................................................................................48
 

3.3	 Bench-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs...........................................................49
 

3.3.1	 Self-Propagating High-Temperature Dehalogenation..........................................49
 

3.3.2	 TDT-3RTM .............................................................................................................49
 

4.0	 INFORMATION SOURCES.........................................................................................................51
 

5.0	 VENDOR CONTACTS .................................................................................................................52
 

6.0	 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................55
 

i 
Appendix 

A Chemical Structures, Uses and Effects of POPs listed under the Stockholm Convention and 

LRTAP 

B Fact Sheet on Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in 

Soil and Sediment 

C Fact Sheet on Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and 

Sediments 

D Fact Sheet on In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

E Additional Technologies Identified but Not Commercially Available 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1-1 POPs Identified by the Stockholm Convention and Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 


Convention .......................................................................................................................................3 


2-1 Toxicology and Chemical Properties of POPs Listed and Under Review by the Stockholm
 

Convention and LRTAP.................................................................................................................10 


3-1 Summary of Full-Scale Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic 


Pollutants........................................................................................................................................19 


3-2 Performance of Pilot/Bench-Scale Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of POPs......22 


3-3 Performance of Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of POPs....................................23 


3-4 Performance of Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for Toxaphene Treatment............26 


3-5 Performance of DARAMEND® Technology .................................................................................29 


3-6 Performance of GPCRTM Technology .............................................................................................30 


3-7 Performance of Gene Expression Factor........................................................................................32 


3-8 Performance of GeoMeltTM Technology..........................................................................................34 


3-9 Soil Acceptance Criteria for the Mapua Site..................................................................................36 


3-10 Performance of MCDTM Technology at the Mapua Site..................................................................37 


3-11 Performance of Radicalplanet® Technology at Various Japanese Sites.........................................40 


3-12 Performance of ISTD Technology .................................................................................................44 


3-13 Results of Plant Uptake from the Royal Military College Study ...................................................46 


ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ART Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

BCD Base-catalyzed decomposition 

BDE Bromodiphenyl ether 

BHC Hexachlorobenzene 

BFR Brominated flame retardants 

CaO Calcium oxide 

CB Chlorobenzene 

CCMS Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society 

CD Catalytic dechlorination 

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon 

CHD Catalytic hydrodechlorination 

CLU-IN Clean-Up Information 

COP Conference of the Parties 

cy Cubic yard 

DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DDX Total Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, and 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

Dioxins Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins 

DNT Di-nitro toluene 

DRE Destruction and removal efficiency 

EDL Environmental Decontamination Ltd. 

US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Environmental Response Team 

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization 

FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 

ft Foot 

Furans Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans 

GEF Global Environmental Facility 

GPCR Gas-phase chemical reduction 

gpd Gallon per day 

GRB Gila River Boundary 

GRIC Gila River Indian Community 

HBCDD Hexabromocyclododecane 

HCB Hexachlorobenzene 

HCBD Hexachlorobutadiene 

HCH Hexachlorocyclohexane 

HEPA High-efficiency particulate air 

HMX High melting explosive, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7 tetrazocine 

HTTD High temperature thermal desorption 

ICV In Container Vitrification 

IHPA International HCH and Pesticides Association 

ISTD In situ thermal desorption 

ISV In situ vitrification 

JESCO Japan Environmental Safety Corporation 

kg Kilogram 

LRTAP Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LTR Liquid tank reactor 

LTTD Low temperature thermal desorption 

M Meter 

MCD Mechanochemical dehalogenation 

MDL Method detection limit 

MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether 

μg/kg Microgram per kilogram 

mg/kg Milligram per kilogram 

mm Millimeter 

ng-TEQ/g Nanogram Toxic Equivalent of Dioxins per gram 

NA Not available 

NAPL Nonaqueous-phase liquid 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

ND Not detected (indicating concentration below detection limit) 

NIP National Implementation Plan 

OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

Pa Pascal 

PACT Plasma Arc Centrifugal Treatment 

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl 

PCD Photochemical dechlorination 

PCN Polychlorinated naphthalenes 

PCNB Pentachloronitrobenzene 

PCP Pentachlorophenol 

PCS Plasma Converter System 

PFOS Perfluorooctane 

pg-TEQ/g Picogram Toxic Equivalent of Dioxins per gram 

POP Persistent organic pollutant 

POPRC Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee 

ppb Part per billion 

ppm Part per million 

ppt Part per trillion 

PVC Polyvinyl chloride 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

REACHIT Remediation and Characterization Innovative Technologies 

rpm Revolutions per minute 

SCCP Short-chained chlorinated paraffins 

SCWO Supercritical water oxidation 

SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 

SOx Sulfur oxide 

SP Sodium Powder Dispersion Dechlorination Process 

SPHTD Self-propagating high-temperature dehalogenation 

SPV Subsurface Planar Vitrification 

SR Sodium reduction 

STAP Science and Technology Advisory Panel 

SVOC Semivolatile organic compound 

t-BuOK Potassium tert-butoxide 

TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act 

TNT Trinitrotoluene 

iv 
 

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 

UNR University of Nevada at Reno 

USD United States Dollar 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

WCS Wasatch Chemical Superfund 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER 


This report compiles information about non-combustion technologies for remediation of persistent 

organic pollutants, including technology applications at both domestic and international sites, but is not a 

comprehensive review of all the current non-combustion technologies or vendors. This report also does 

not provide guidance regarding the selection of a specific technology or vendor. Use or mention of trade 

names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

This report has undergone U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and external review by 

experts in the field. However, information in this report is derived from many references (including 

personal communications with experts in the field), some of which have not been peer-reviewed. 

This report was prepared by the US EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

(OSRTI), with support provided under Contract Numbers 68-W-02-034 and EP-W-07-078. For further 

information about this report, please contact Michele Mahoney at US EPA’s Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology Innovation, at (703) 603-9057, or by e-mail at mahoney.michele@epa.gov. 

A PDF version of “Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent 

Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Edition-2010” is available for viewing or downloading at the 

Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information System website at http://www.clu-in.org/POPs. A limited number 

of printed copies of the report are available free of charge and may be ordered via the website, by mail, or 

by fax from the following source: 

US EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications 

P.O. Box 42419 USEPA 

Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419 

Telephone: 800-490-9198 

Fax: 301-604-3408 

Website: www.epa.gov/nscep 

vi 
 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

This report is the second edition of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA’s) 2005 report 

and provides a high level summary of information on the applicability of existing and emerging noncombustion technologies for the remediation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in soil. POPs are 

chemicals that are demonstrated to be toxic, persist in the environment for long periods of time, and 

bioaccumulate and biomagnify as they move through the food chain. POPs are linked to adverse effects 

on humans and animals, such as cancer, damage to the nervous system, reproductive disorders, and 

disruption of the immune system. In addition, restrictions and bans on the use of POPs have resulted in a 

significant number of unusable stockpiles of POP-containing materials, largely located outside the United 

States (US). Deterioration of storage facilities used for the stockpiles, improper storage practices, and past 

production and use of POPs also have resulted in contamination of soils around the world. Since the 

publication of this report in 2005, nine (9) additional chemicals have been listed in the Stockholm 

Convention; this brings the total number of chemicals currently listed as POPs under the Stockholm 

Convention to twenty-one (21)1

. In addition, three (3) POPs are currently under consideration. 

Historically, POP-contaminated soil has been widely treated by combustion systems using high 

temperature incineration to destroy the contaminants. Incineration is widely used because hightemperature incinerators can address large volumes of contaminated material and can treat most POPs 

contaminants. Modern incinerators operating with highly controlled combustion environments can 

achieve a high destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for POP contaminants. In the US, DREs as high 

as 99.9999% are achievable for incinerators treating non-liquid polychlorinated biphenyl compounds 

(PCBs). The US EPA has approved the use of incinerators to treat PCB-contaminated material with PCB 

concentrations greater than 50 parts per million (ppm). However, US EPA requires that incinerators meet 

stringent operating conditions. For example, incinerators treating liquids contaminated with PCBs are 

required to meet either (1) a 2-second residence time for the liquid waste at a temperature of 1200 0C and 

with 3 percent excess oxygen in the stack gases or (2) a 1.5-second residence time at 1200 0C, with 2 

percent excess oxygen. 

Though incinerators can be used to treat POPs, they have several technology limitations, which are 

addressed in the body of this report. Also, many interested parties have expressed concern about potential 

environmental and health effects associated with this type of treatment technology (Ref. 8). The 

combustion of POPs can create by-products such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (i.e., dioxins) and 

polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (i.e., furans) – two known human carcinogens. Due to concerns about 

their safety, incinerators also can face negative public opinion and attract public opposition. However, 

because alternative treatment approaches have been limited to date, incineration continues to be most 

commonly used technology for the treatment of POPs (including in developing countries). Additional 

information about incineration and other combustion technologies can be obtained from the US EPA’s 

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) website 

(http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/3_6.html). 

As a result of widespread interest in alternate technologies, numerous international organizations have 

developed reports that identify and discuss non-combustion technologies for POPs, including: 

• Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Remedial Action Technologies for the Treatment of 

Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III), 2002. IHPA. 

1 http://chm.pops.int/Convention/ThePOPs/tabid/673/language/en-US/Default.aspx 

vii 
 

 

 

 

http://www.ihpa.info/resources/library 

•	 Review of Emerging, Innovative Technologies for the Destruction and Decontamination of POPs 

and the Identification of Promising Technologies for Use in Developing Countries, 2004. UNEP. 

http://www.basel.int/techmatters/review_pop_feb04.pdf 

•	 Destruction and Decontamination Technologies for PCBs and Other POPs Wastes (Part III 

Annexes) A Training Manual for Hazardous Waste Project Managers, Volume C, 2005. Basel 

Convention. http://www.basel.int/meetings/sbc/workdoc/TM-A.pdf 

•	 Non-Combustion Technologies for POPs Destruction – Review and Evaluation, 2007. 


International Centre for Science and High Technology. http://www.ics.trieste.it
 

•	 Updated general technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of wastes 

consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants (POPs). 2007. Basel 

Convention. http://www.basel.int/pub/techguid/tg-PCBs.pdf 

•	 Disposal Technology Options Study – review and update of technology Annex C: Review and 

Update of Technology, 2008. Africa Stockpiles. http://www.africastockpiles.net 

Some of the technologies discussed in these documents have progressed from the development stage to a 

commercial stage; other technologies presented as commercial stage are no longer being developed. In 

addition, promising destruction technologies for POPs continue to be developed. This Reference Guide 

to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of POPs in Soil is intended to summarize and update 

the First Edition prepared by US EPA in 2005, and build on these more recent studies. Updated 

information for this document was obtained primarily by (1) reviewing various websites and documents, 

(2) contacting technology vendors and experts in the field, and (3) working closely with the International 

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and Pesticides Association, IHPA (John Vijgen), which has published 

several factsheets that are used as references for this report. 

This Second Edition Report also provides new performance data of the non-combustion technologies. 

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize full-scale and pilot/bench-scale technologies and provide information on 

waste strength treated, ex situ or in situ treatment applicability, contaminants treated, available cost 

information, pretreatment requirements, power requirements, configuration needs, and links to individual 

fact sheets. Fact sheets prepared by US EPA are provided as appendices to this report. Additional fact 

sheets for the various technologies are available through the IHPA website. Technologies identified in 

the first edition (2005) of this report that are not currently commercially available are described in 

Appendix E. This document is not intended as a roadmap for technology selection; however it is intended 

to present the current state of knowledge for non-combustion technologies for treatment of POPs in soils. 

viii 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 


Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are toxic chemicals that are chemically stable, do not easily degrade 

in the environment, and tend to bioaccumulate and biomagnify as they move through the food chain. 

Serious human health problems are associated with exposure to POPs, including cancer, neurological 

damage, birth defects, sterility, and immune system suppression. Restrictions and bans on the use of 

POPs chemicals have resulted in a significant number of unusable stockpiles of POP-containing materials 

internationally. In addition, deterioration of storage facilities used for the stockpiles, improper storage 

practices, and waste/releases associated with past production and use of POPs have resulted in 

contamination of soils around the world. The Programme on the Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete 

Pesticides by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations is creating an 

inventory of obsolete pesticides stockpiled around the 

world. Information about pesticides inventories by country 

can be obtained from FAO of the United Nations at 

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Disposal/en/492 

FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE 

LOCATION OF STOCKPILES IS 

AVALABLE AT 

74/index.html. Because of their chemical stability, tendency http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/P 

to bioaccumulate, adverse health effects, and widespread esticid/Disposal/en/49274/index.html 

distribution and presence, remediation technologies are 

needed to treat these pollutants. 

The international community has responded to the health concerns posed by these unusable stockpiles of 

POPs by developing various treaties and organizations to address POPs chemicals and waste. Under the 

Stockholm Convention on POPs (Stockholm Convention), which was adopted in 2001 and enacted in 

2004, parties committed to reduce or eliminate the production, use, and release of the 12 POPs of greatest 

concern to the global community. The US is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on POPs – but has 

not yet ratified the Convention. The initial list of 12 POPs was identified by the Intergovernmental Forum 

on Chemical Safety and the International Programme on Chemical Safety. Another treaty regulating 

POPs internationally is the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 

Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention). The Basel Convention was adopted on March 22, 1989 by 

the Conference of Plenipotentiaries convened at Basel, Switzerland and entered into force in 1992. In 

response to Stockholm Convention provisions requiring coordination with the Basel Convention on POPs 

waste issues, the Basel convention developed guidance on the environmentally sound management of 

POPs waste. In 2004, the Basel Convention invited signatories of the Stockholm Convention to consider 

its recommendations on environmentally sound 

management for POPs wastes (Refs. 69 and 70). The US FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE is a signatory to the Basel Convention on POPs – but has STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON POPS IS not yet ratified the Convention. PROVIDED AT http://chm.pops.int/ 

The Stockholm Convention’s subsidiary body – the POPs 

Review Committee (POPRC2

) – includes environmental experts that review proposals to add new 

chemicals to the Convention. The POPRC uses criteria set forth in the Convention3

 to review a chemical’s 

characteristics as well as human health and environment effects. If the chemical meets the Convention’s 

screening criteria in Annex D to the Convention, then the POPRC develops a risk profile for the chemical 

(according to Annex E of the Convention) and, if warranted, prepares risk management evaluation 

2

 Additional information about POPRC meeting can be found at: 

http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/poprc.htm 

3

 See Article 8 and Annexes D, E, and F of the Stockholm Convention. 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

(according to Annex F of the Convention). Upon 

completion of the risk management evaluation, FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE 

the POPRC makes the recommendation to the CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDRY 

Conference of the Parties (COP) whether or not to AIR POLLUTION IS PROVIDED AT 

add the chemical to one (or more) of the http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/welcome.html 

Convention’s Annexes (i.e., Annexes A, B, and/or 

C). In addition, part of the listing process is to aid in creating a plan to reduce the chemical from current 

and future environmental applications or uses (Ref. 61). 

In October 2008, the POPRC held its fourth meeting (POPRC-4) and an outcome of that meeting was that 

it recommended to the May 2009 COP that nine (9) additional chemicals be added to the Stockholm 

Convention (Ref. 27). In October 20094

 at POPRC-5 meeting, several chemicals underwent a review 

process by the Committee. However, no new chemicals were recommended by the POPRC to the COP 

for listing. Future COP and POPRC meetings in 2010 and 2011 will continue to review chemicals and 

possibly add new chemicals to the Stockholm Convention. 

In addition to the (global) Stockholm Convention, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air 

Pollution (LRTAP) is a regional international treaty that addresses environmental issues of the United 

Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) with a primary focus on air emissions. The US is a 

Party to the LRTAP Convention (i.e., the US has signed and ratified the LRTAP Convention). The 

LRTAP Convention has been extended by eight (8) Protocols that include specific requirements for 

countries to reduce air pollution including long-range air pollution. In 1998, the LRTAP Convention 

adopted a Protocol on POPs to regulate the production and use of 16 chemicals that were singled out 

according to agreed risk criteria. The US is a signatory to the LRTAP’s Protocol on POPs – but has not 

yet ratified the Protocol and, therefore, not yet a Party to the LRTAP’s Protocol on POPs. The LRTAP 

POPs Protocol originally listed the following 16 chemicals when it was adopted in 1998: aldrin, 

chlordane, chlordecone, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxins/furans, endrin, 

heptachlor, hexabromobiphenyl, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), lindane (i.e., gamma-HCH), mirex, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and toxaphene. On 

December 18, 20095

, the parties to the LRTAP POPs Protocol adopted amendments to the protocol to 

include seven (7) additional chemicals, which are: octabromodiphenyl ether, pentabromodiphenyl ether, 

pentachlorobenzene, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCP), 

polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCN) and hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD). PCN and HCBD are the only two 

chemicals listed in the LRTAP’s Protocol on POPs that are not already listed (or under review for listing) 

by the Stockholm Convention. 

Table 1-1 lists all of the 26 chemicals identified under the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the 

LRTAP’s Protocol on POPs - both currently listed and under review. 

4

 The final report from the POPRC-5 meeting can be found at: http://chm.pops.int/ 5

 The final report from the LRTAP’s Executive Body meeting can be found at: 

http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ExecutiveBody/welcome.27.html 

2 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Table 1-1. POPs Identified by the Stockholm Convention and Long-Range 

Transboundary Air Pollution Convention 

POP 

Stockholm Convention Long-Range 

Transboundary Air 

Pollution 

Convention 

Currently 

Listed 

Under 

Review 

(2009) 

Pesticides 

Aldrin  

Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane  

Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane  

Chlordane  

Chlordecone  

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)  

Dieldrin  

Endosulfan 

Endrin  

Heptachlor  

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)  

Lindane  

Mirex  

Toxaphene  

Industrial Chemicals or By-Products 

Dioxins  

Furans  

Hexabromobiphenyl  

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)  

Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) 

Octabromodiphenyl ether  

Pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE)  

Pentachlorobenzene  

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)  

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)  

Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCN) 

Short-chained chlorinated paraffins 

(SCCP)  

Sources: Refs. 27, 61and 68 

Note: Nine additional chemicals that were recently listed by the Stockholm Convention in May 2009 are shown in 

bold. 

Historically, POP-contaminated soil and stockpiles have been widely treated using combustion systems 

using high temperature incineration to destroy the contaminants. Incineration is widely used because 

high-temperature incinerators can address large volumes of contaminated material and can treat most 

contaminants. Modern incinerators operating with highly controlled combustion environments can 

achieve a high destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for POP contaminants. In the US, DREs as high 

as 99.9999% are achievable for incinerators treating non-liquid PCBs. US EPA has approved the use of 

incinerators to treat PCB-contaminated material with PCB concentrations greater than 50 parts per million 

3 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

(ppm). The US EPA requires that incinerators meet stringent operating conditions. For example, 

incinerators treating liquids contaminated with PCBs are required to meet a either: (1) a 2-second 

residence time for the liquid waste at a temperature of 1200o

C and with 3 percent excess oxygen in the 

stack gases or (2) a 1.5-second residence time at 1200o

C, with 2 percent excess oxygen (40 C.F.R. 

§ 761.70). Because of its capabilities, incineration is a viable option for the treatment of materials 

containing POPs. 

There are several limitations in the reliance on incineration as the sole alternative for POPs waste 

treatment. For example, incinerators cannot destroy inorganic constituents (metals) in waste streams, and 

these maybe released in air emissions or retained in solid residues; therefore, waste containing POPs and 

certain metals may not be suitable for incineration in some cases. Some heavy metals (including lead, 

cadmium, mercury, and arsenic) may partially vaporize and leave the combustion unit of the incinerator 

with the flue gases; this can require additional off-gas treatment systems for removal of these gaseous 

combustion products. Incinerators treating waste streams contaminated with heavy metals can also 

produce a bottom ash with high concentrations of metals. These bottom ashes then require 

characterization to determine whether they are Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

hazardous waste, may require stabilization, and must be disposed of appropriately. Also, combustion 

technologies that have historically been used for the destruction of POPs may fail to meet the stringent 

environmental standards or DRE requirements established for POPs if the incinerator is not operated 

under stringent technical requirements. 

In addition, site owners and operators, remedial project managers, and other interested parties have 

expressed concern about the potential environmental and health effects associated with combustion of 

POPs. One concern arises because combustion technologies can create polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins 

(dioxins) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (furans). Dioxins and furans have been characterized by 

US EPA as “possible” human carcinogens and are associated with serious human health problems 

(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs104.html). 

Most of the POPs-containing stockpiles are located in developing countries whose incinerators do not, in 

general, provide high DREs. Therefore, these developing countries must ship obsolete POPs stockpiles to 

developed countries for treatment and disposal. International regulations on transporting contaminated 

material are strict and transporting obsolete POPs from developing countries to developed countries can 

be cost prohibitive. Due to human health and environmental concerns associated with waste incineration, 

some countries (e.g., Australia and the Philippines) have non-incineration policies. Based on limitations 

associated with combustion technology, concerns with incineration, and an ongoing desire to find more 

cost effective solutions, environmental professionals are examining the application of non-combustion 

technologies to remediate POPs in stockpiles and soil (Ref. 71). 

1.1 Purpose of Report 

This report is intended to provide a high level summary of information for federal, state, and local 

regulators, site owners and operators, consultants, and other stakeholders on the applicability of existing 

and emerging, non-combustion technologies for the remediation of POPs in soil. The report provides 

short descriptions of these technologies and presents them based on the POPs treated, media treated, 

pretreatment requirements, performance and cost. Case studies are provided to illustrate various 

considerations associated with selecting a non-combustion technology. However, the report is not 

intended as a step-wise, or complete guide to selecting remediation technologies for POPs. This report is 

a second edition of a report initially published by US EPA in 2005 (EPA-542-R-05-006). 

4 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Because of international interest in POP waste management using alternate technologies, several 

organizations have published documents on this topic. Additional information on non-combustion 

technologies for the remediation of POPs waste is available in documents presented in Section 2.8 of this 

report. Some of the technologies discussed in these documents have progressed from the development 

stage to a commercial stage; other commercial technologies discussed in these reports are no longer being 

developed. Also, additional promising destruction technologies for POPs have been developed since the 

first edition of this report and other POPs treatment technology reports were prepared. The purpose of this 

US EPA report is to summarize and update the older reports in a reader’s guide format, with links to 

sources of further information. 

1.2 Methodology 

In developing the 2005 report, US EPA identified non-combustion technologies for remediation of POPs 

in soil by reviewing technical literature, US EPA reports, and US EPA databases such as the Federal 

Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) (www.frtr.gov) (Ref. 18) and the Remediation and 

Characterization Innovative Technologies (REACHIT) system, and by contacting technology vendors and 

experts in the field. For this edition of the report, US EPA contacted technology vendors listed in the 

2005 report for technology updates. Additional research was conducted to locate new technologies for 

the treatment of all 26 POPs identified by the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP. The US EPA 

REACHIT system could not be searched since its use was discontinued in 2008. Limited but concise data 

about remediation technologies is located in US EPA’s Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) (http://www.cluin.org/vendor/vendorinfo/). In addition, a key source of information for this report was communications 

with John Vijgen of the IHPA. While this report has been reviewed by experts in the field, some of the 

information sources cited have not been peer-reviewed. 

From this research, non-combustion technologies for POPs were identified. For each technology, the 

following information was identified: commercial availability; the processes used; advantages and 

limitations; POPs treated; sites where the technology was applied at full-, pilot- or bench-scale; 

technology performance results; cost information; and lessons learned. This report discusses technologies 

that have treated one or more of the 26 POPs presented in Table 1-1. Some technologies previously 

discussed in other sources are no longer commercially available or have not been used to treat POPs; 

therefore, these technologies are not included. Technologies identified in the first edition (2005) of this 

report that are not currently commercially available are described in Appendix E. 

Based on the available information, 

US EPA reviewed the types of waste INTERNATIONAL HCH AND PESTICIDES ASSOCIATION 

and contaminants treated, and PUBLISHED 15 FACT SHEETS ABOUT EMERGING NON- summarized the results from use of COMBUSTION ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ECONOMICAL 

the technology. Performance data DESTRUCTION OF POPS 

were evaluated based on the (http://www.ihpa.info/resources/library/). THESE FACT 

concentrations of specific POPs SHEETS WERE USED AS A KEY INFORMATION SOURCE DURING 

before- and after-treatment. For DEVELOPMENT OF THIS REPORT. 

many of the specific projects 

described in this report, gaps existed in the information available. For example, for some projects, little 

or no performance data were provided. US EPA did not perform independent evaluations of technology 

performance to support this report. However, where feasible, data gaps were addressed by contacting 

specific vendors, technology users, and representatives of the IHPA. 

5 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

1.3 Report Organization 

This report includes six sections and several appendices. 

•	 Section 1.0 is an introduction discussing the purpose, methodology, and organization of the 

report. 

•	 Section 2.0 provides background information about international treaties and organizations that 

address POPs issues and about the sources, characteristics, and health effects of POPs, including 

chemical structures and toxicology profiles. 

•	 Section 3.0 presents technology overviews; more detailed information for some technologies is 

then provided in technology-specific fact sheets in the appendices to this report. Seventeen 

technologies for POP treatment are described in Section 3.0, organized into three subsections 

based on the scale of application. Section 3.1 contains descriptions of full-scale technologies that 

have treated POPs. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 contain descriptions of pilot-scale and benchscale technologies, respectively, that have been tested on POPs. 

•	 Section 4.0 lists web-based information sources used to prepare this report. 

•	 Section 5.0 contains contact details for technology vendors. 

•	 Section 6.0 lists references used in the preparation of this report. 

•	 Appendix A provides chemical structures, uses and effects of POPs listed under the Stockholm 

Convention and LRTAP. 

•	 Appendices B, C, and D provide fact sheets
 

prepared by US EPA for anaerobic bioremediation 
 FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT NONCOMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR using blood meal for the treatment of toxaphene in 

REMEDIATION OF POPS IS PROVIDED AT soil, DARAMEND®, and in situ thermal desorption www.clu-in.org/POPs. (ISTD), respectively, which were modeled after the 

fact sheets prepared by IHPA and are described 

below. Fact sheets for 10 other POP treatment technologies presented in this report were 

previously published in “Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Remedial Action 

Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III),” which was 

issued by the IHPA in 2002. US EPA reviewed the 10 technologies as part of work for this report, 

as well as three additional technologies for which fact sheets were prepared by IHPA (see list in 

Section 2.8). Technologies identified in the first edition (2005) of this report that are not 

currently commercially available are provided in Appendix E. This review was implemented to 

evaluate whether additional, more recent information was available for these technologies. 

Through 2008, four additional fact sheets for other POP treatment technologies were prepared by 

IHPA. In addition, other technologies in this report were updated with site-specific performance 

data and included in their respective sections, as appropriate. 

•	 Appendix E provides technologies identified in the first edition (2005) of this report that are not 

currently commercially available. 

6 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

2.0 BACKGROUND 


This section provides background information about the Stockholm Convention, Basel Convention and 

LRTAP. It also provides information about the sources, characteristics, and health effects of POPs. It 

also identifies technology categories and documents that address the treatment of POPs. 

2.1 Stockholm Convention on POPs 

The Stockholm Convention is a global treaty intended to protect human health and the environment from 

POPs. As of July 2010, 184 countries and one regional economic integration organization (i.e., the 

European Union) are Parties to the Convention. The US signed the Stockholm Convention on May 23, 

2001 but as of July 2010 has not yet ratified the Convention (Ref. 61). 

The Stockholm Convention has had a large impact on various countries around the world. For example, 

the Stockholm Convention designates the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) as the principal entity 

entrusted with the operations of the financial mechanism of the Convention. The GEF was originally 

established in 1991 and is the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment6

. Currently, it 

unites 182 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, nongovernmental 

organizations, and the private sector — to address global environmental issues. 

The Stockholm Convention’s COP has established guidance for the GEF financial mechanism that 

emphasizes capacity building and establishes the country-specific National Implementation Plan (NIP) as 

the main driver for implementation activities. Specifically, the COP recommended that resources should 

be allocated to activities “that are in conformity with, and supportive of, the priorities identified in 

[Parties’] respective NIPs. This guidance has been reaffirmed and updated at subsequent COP meetings. 

In sum, the GEF has distributed grants to Parties to the Convention to support their development of their 

NIP. The NIP will: 

(1) Include an initial inventory of POP stockpiles (including their location), 

(2) Provide a framework for developing national laws on POPs, and 

(3) Provide an action plan that details how to prioritize POPs, monitor the POPs inventory, and design a 

plan to eliminate POPs (short term and long-term plans). 

2.2 Basel Convention 

The Basel Convention is a global environmental agreement that focuses on the international 

transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. The convention, by means of a treaty, was first put into 

effect in May 1992. In 2004, the Basel Convention invited signatories of the Stockholm Convention to 

consider the development of information on best available techniques and environmental practices with 

respect to POPs (Refs. 69 and 70). As of June 2010, 173 parties have either signed, or signed and ratified 

the treaty. The US signed the treaty on March 22, 1990, but, like the Stockholm Convention, as of June 

2010 has not ratified it (Ref. 12). 

6

 More on the GEF can be found at: http://www.thegef.org/gef/ 

7 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

2.3 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) – Protocol on POPs 

The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP 7

) was signed in 1979 by 34 

governments and the European Community to address issues with air pollution on a regional basis. 

LRTAP entered into force in 1983 and has been implemented through eight (8) Protocols that provide 

specific requirements for countries to reduce air emissions and pollution. In 1998, the LRTAP adopted 

the Protocol on POPs that focuses on a list of 16 compounds that have been singled out according to 

agreed risk criteria. The US is a Party to the LRTAP Convention but has not yet ratified the POPs 

Protocol. The compounds consist of eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three byproducts/contaminants. The ultimate objective is to eliminate any discharges, emissions and losses of 

POPs. As of April 2010, 51 parties had ratified LRTAP. The US is a signatory to the LRTAP’s Protocol 

on POPs – but has not yet ratified the Protocol. 

2.4 Sources of POPs 

Most POPs originate from man-made sources associated with the production, use, and disposal of certain 

organic chemicals. Some POPs are intentionally produced, while others are unintentional by-products of 

industrial processes or result from the combustion of organic chemicals. The 24 POPs currently within 

the scope of the Stockholm Convention (or under review) include 14 pesticides and 10 industrial 

chemicals or by-products (Ref. 24). Table 1-1 lists these POPs. 

The 14 pesticides targeted by the Stockholm Convention were produced intentionally and used on 

agricultural crops or for public health vector control. Over time, significant human health and 

environmental impacts were identified for these pesticides. By the late 1970s, these pesticides had been 

banned or subjected to severe use restrictions in many countries. However, some of these 14 pesticides 

are still used in parts of the world where they are considered essential for protecting public health (Ref. 

24). 

The 10 industrial chemicals and by-product POPs within the scope of the Stockholm Convention include 

PCBs, dioxins, furans, brominated flame retardants (BFRs), PFOS and pentachlorobenzene. 

PCBs were produced intentionally but typically have been released into the environment unintentionally. 

The most significant use of PCBs was as a dielectric fluid (a fluid which can sustain a steady electrical 

field and act as an electrical insulator) in transformers and other electrical and hydraulic equipment. Most 

countries stopped producing PCBs in the 1980s; for example, equipment manufactured in the US after 

1979 usually does not contain PCBs. However, older equipment containing PCBs is still in use. Most 

capacitors manufactured in the US before 1979 also contained PCBs. 

Dioxins and furans are usually produced and released unintentionally. They may be generated by 

industrial processes or by combustion, including fuel burning in vehicles, municipal and medical waste 

incineration, open burning of trash, and forest fires (Ref. 24). 

7

 More on LRTAP can be found at: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ 

8 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

2.5 Characteristics and Health Effects of POPs 

POPs are synthetic chemicals with the following properties (Ref. 24): 

•	 They are toxic and can have adverse effects on human health and animals. 

•	 They are chemically stable and do not readily degrade in the environment. 

•	 They are lipophillic (possessing an affinity for fats) and easily soluble in fat. 

•	 They accumulate and biomagnify as they move through the food chain. 

•	 They move over long distances in nature and can be found in regions far from their points of 

manufacture, use, or disposal. 

POPs are associated with serious human health problems, including cancer, neurological damage, birth 

defects, sterility, and immune system defects. US EPA has 

classified certain chemicals as “probable” human FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT 

carcinogens8

, including aldrin, alpha- and beta-HCH, dieldrin, THE TOXICOLOGICAL AND 

chlordane, DDT, heptachlor, HCB, toxaphene, chlordecone, CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF POPS 

lindane (i.e., gamma-HCH), dioxins and furans, HCBD and IS AVAILABLE AT 

PCBs. Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of HTTP://WWW.ATSDR.CDC.GOV/ 

certain POPs can adversely affect organ systems. Chronic 

exposure to low doses of certain POPs may affect the immune and reproductive systems. Exposure to 

high levels of certain POPs can cause serious health effects or death. The primary potential human health 

effects associated with certain POPs are listed below (Refs. 16 and 24): 

•	 Cancer 

•	 Immune system suppression 

•	 Nervous system disorders 

•	 Reproductive damage 

•	 Altered sex ratio 

•	 Reduced fertility 

•	 Birth defects 

•	 Liver, thyroid, kidney, blood, and immune system damage 

•	 Endocrine disruption 

•	 Developmental disorders 

•	 Shortened lactation in nursing women 

•	 Chloracne and other skin disorders 

In addition, studies have linked POP exposure to diseases and abnormalities in a number of wildlife 

species, including various species of fish, birds, and mammals. For example, in certain birds of prey, 

high levels of DDT caused eggshells to thin to the point that the eggs could not produce live offspring 

(Ref. 24). 

Table 2-1 provides toxicological and chemical properties of the POPs listed and under review by the 

Stockholm Convention and LRTAP. Appendix A provides chemical structures, uses and effects of 

chemicals listed under the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP. 

8

 Based on the 1986 USEPA classification of carcinogens, “probable” carcinogens (Group B) include those agents 

for which the weight of evidence of human carcinogenicity based on epidemiological studies is “limited” and those 

agents for which the weight of evidence of human carcinogenicity based on animal studies is “sufficient” (Ref. 56). 

9 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 2-1. Toxicology and Chemical Properties of POPs Listed and Under Review by the Stockholm Conventi

POPs Molecular Formula LD50 (mg/kg) Half Life Water Solubility (mg/L) Solubility in other Solvents Log Kow Vapor Pressure@ 25°C (mm Hg) L

Pesticides Aldrin C12

H8Cl6 39.0­ 64.0 53 days 0.01 Very soluble in most organic solvents 6.50 1.20x10-4 

AlphaHexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 

C6H6Cl6 1,000­ 4,000 54.4-56.1 days 6.95 Soluble in alcohol, ethanol and ether 3.80 4.50x10-5 

Beta-HCH 

C6H6Cl6 <900 100-184 days 5.00 Soluble in ethanol, ether and benzene 3.78 3.60x10-7 @20°C 

Chlordane 

C10

H6Cl8 83.0­ 590 93.2-154 days 0.06 Miscible in hydrocarbon solvents 5.54 2.20x10-5 3.4

Chlordecone C10Cl10O 91.3­ 132 10 days 3.00 Soluble in hydrocarbon solvents, alcohols and ketones 4.50 3.00x10-7 3.3

Dichlorodiphenyl Trichloroethane (DDT) 

C14

H9Cl5 45.0­ 63.0 22 days-1 year 0.03 Slightly soluble in ethanol, very soluble in acetone and ethyl ether 6.91 1.60x10-7 @ 20 ° C 

Dieldrin C12

H8Cl6O 37-46 5 years 0.05 

Soluble in most organic solvents, except aliphatic petroleum solvents and methyl alcohol 

6.20 6.00 

Endosulfan C9H6Cl6O3S 40-121 39.5-42.1 days 0.060-0.100 

Soluble in dichloromethane, ethanol, ethyl acetate, hexane, toluene, acetone, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, ethanol, kerosene, methanol, xylene 

3.55-3.62 1.00x10-5 

Endrin C12

H8Cl6O 7.0-43.0 14 years 0.20 

Soluble in acetone, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, hexane and xylene 

5.34-5.60 2.00x10-7 

Heptachlor 

C10

H5Cl7 39-144 38-44.8 days 0.05 Soluble in most organic solvents 6.10 3.00x10-4 

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 

C6Cl6 1,700­ 4,000 53 days 0.01 Insoluble in water, slightly soluble in ethanol, very soluble in benzene 6.50 1.20x10-4 

10 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 2-1. Toxicology and Chemical Properties of POPs Listed and Under Review by the Stockholm Conventi

POPs Molecular Formula LD50 (mg/kg) Half Life Water Solubility (mg/L) Solubility in other Solvents Log Kow Vapor Pressure@ 25°C (mm Hg) L

Lindane (Gamma ­HCH) 

C12

H4Br6 900­ 1,000 3-6 years 0.01 Soluble in ether and benzene 5.73 1.09x10-5 @ 20 ° C 

Mirex C10Cl12 365-740 62.1-107 days 17.00 Soluble in dioxane, xylene, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone 3.72 4.20x10-5 @ 20°C Toxaphene C10

H10Cl8 80-293 10 days 0.60 

Freely soluble in aromatic hydrocarbons, readily soluble in organic solvents including petroleum oils 

5.28 3.00x10-7 

Industrial Chemicals or By-Products Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) 

C12

H10-xClx 1,010­ 4,250 9 years 0.42 Very soluble in organic solvents 5.60 4.00x10-4 

Dioxins (numerical data for tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) 

C12

HxClxO2 0.022­ 0.045 7-12 years 0.001 Soluble in dichlorobenzene, chlorobenzene, benzene, chloroform and n-octanol 7.02-8.70 7.50x10-9 

Furans C4H4O 0.916 2.6 days 0.010 Soluble in toluene 4.00-5.00 No data 

Hexabromobiphenyl C12

H4Br6 65-149 >6 months 0.011 Soluble in acetone and benzene 6.39 5.20x10-8 3.3

Octabromodiphenyl ether 

C12

H2Br8O 65-149 76 days2 0.0005 Soluble in acetone, methanol and benzene 6.29 6.59x10-6 @ 21°C 

Pentabromodiphenyl ether 

C12

H5Br5O 65-149 150 days 0.013 Soluble in methanol, miscible in toluene 6.64-6.97 2.20x10-7 - 5.50x10-7 4.

Pentachlorobenzene 

C6HCl5 33-330 260-7300 days 0.56 Low solubility in water 4.88-6.12 1.65x10-2 

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

C8F17SO3 199-318 > 41 years3 519-680 Soluble in ethanol and methanol NA 2.40x10-6 

Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) 

C4Cl6 200-580 1.6 years5 2.00-2.55 @ 20◦C Soluble in ethanol and ether 4.78 0.15 

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) 

C12

H18Br6 500­ 1,000 66-101 days4 0.066 Low water solubility 5.62 4.70x10-6 

11 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 2-1. Toxicology and Chemical Properties of POPs Listed and Under Review by the Stockholm Conventi

POPs Molecular Formula LD50 (mg/kg) Half Life Water Solubility (mg/L) Solubility in other Solvents Log Kow Vapor Pressure@ 25°C (mm Hg) L

Polychlorinated Naphthalenes (PCN) 

C10

H10-nCln 530-710 2-12 days 31.7 Soluble in benzene, alcohol, ether and acetone 3.29-3.37 0.087 2

Short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCP) 

CxH(2x-y+2)Cly 0.34 >1 year 0.003-0.994 

Soluble in chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, ketones, esters, ethers, mineral oils and some cutting oils 

4.48-8.69 2.10x10-9 - 1.88x10-2 

Notes: 1: Data and definitions used in this table are derived from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) website at h

 and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants website at http://chm.pops.int/. 2: Half life for Octabromodiphenyl ether in air. 3: Half life for Perfluorooctane sulfonate in water. 4: Half life for Hexabromocyclododecane in sediments 5: Half life for Hexachlorobutadiene in air. mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
 LD50 = Lethal Dose 50% is the dose of a substance required to kill 50% of the exposed test subjects. 


Half Life = The rate at which a chemical breaks down is usually defined by how long it takes for half of the chemical to break down. 


Log Kow = The octanol/water partition coefficient is used as a measurement of a compound’s bioaccumulation potential. 


mm Hg = millimeters of mercury (unit for standard air pressure)
 mg/L = milligram per liter
 Log Koc = The organic carbon partition coefficient is used as a measurement of soil adsorption potential. 


Henry’s Law Constant = A measurement that is used to estimate the tendency of a chemical to partition between its vapor phase and wa

NA = Not available 


12 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

2.6 Review of Chemical Characteristics of POPs Listed and Under Review for the 2009 

Stockholm Convention 

To determine if the POPs listed and under review in the Stockholm Convention of 2009 would be 

amenable to treatment using similar non-combustion technologies identified for the POPs listed by the 

2001 Stockholm Convention, these new POPs were grouped and compared. For classification purposes, 

physical organic chemistry principles and “structure-activity relationships” (which is a major tool for new 

drug development) are used in this analysis. Both fields of analysis are based on types of constituents, 

structures, and reaction rates (Ref. 14 and 49). 

Chemicals Added at the May 2009 Stockholm Convention Conference of Parties (COP) meeting 

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) isomers: Lindane (i.e., Gamma-HCH), Alpha-HCH, and BetaHCH 

Based on the types of chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, Lindane (i.e., gamma-HCH) 

and 2 other HCH isomers (i.e., alpha-HCH and beta-HCH) will react with other chemicals and produce 

combustion products much like toxaphene (Ref. 14 and 49). Complete combustion products are expected 

to include the usual organic compound products (carbon dioxide and water) and hydrochloric acid. 

Incomplete combustion products include carbon monoxide, acrolein, phosgene, chlorinated dioxins and 

chlorinated furans. The products of non-combustion chemical technologies will depend on proprietary 

chemicals and their reactions under the specific treatment conditions of the technology. 

Chlordecone 

Chlordecone (commonly know as its tradename Kepone®) is an isomer of mirex. Based on the types of 

chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, chlordecone will react essentially identically to mirex 

(Ref. 14 and 49). Complete combustion products are expected to include the usual organic compound 

products (carbon dioxide and water) and hydrochloric acid. Incomplete combustion products include 

carbon monoxide, acrolein, phosgene, chlorinated dioxins and chlorinated furans. The products of noncombustion chemical technologies will depend on proprietary chemicals and their reactions under the 

specific treatment conditions of the technology. 

Brominated compounds (octabromodiphenyl ether, penta-BDE, and hexabromobiphenyl) 

Based on the types of chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, these three brominated 

compounds will react similarly to PCBs (Ref. 14 and 49). However, these brominated compounds will 

probably be more reactive (less time/energy required for given amount of reaction) since bromine is a 

better “leaving group” than chlorine. A “leaving group” is the atom or functional group that breaks its 

bond with a carbon atom during the reaction. Complete combustion products are expected to include the 

usual organic compound products (carbon dioxide and water) and hydrobromic acid. Incomplete 

combustion products include carbon monoxide, carbonyl bromide, and brominated dioxins and furans. 

The products of non-combustion chemical technologies will depend on proprietary chemicals and their 

reactions under the specific treatment conditions of the technology. 

Pentachlorobenzene 

Based on the types of chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, pentachlorobenzene will be 

very similar to HCB (Ref. 14 and 49). Complete combustion products are expected to include the usual 

organic compound products (carbon dioxide and water) and hydrochloric acid. Incomplete combustion 

products include carbon monoxide, acrolein, phosgene, chlorinated dioxins and chlorinated furans. The 

13 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

products of non-combustion chemical technologies will depend on proprietary chemicals and their 

reactions under the specific treatment conditions of the technology. 

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

PFOS is the only new POP with no close similarity to any of the previously listed POPs. Based on the 

types of chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, it would undergo the same reactions as 

chlordane, lindane, toxaphene, and other aliphatic chlorinated compounds, but will be considerably less 

reactive (more time/energy required for a given amount of reaction), since fluorine is a very poor “leaving 

group” (Ref. 14 and 49). There is also one special case: PFOS is relatively water-soluble, especially in 

alkaline environments. Therefore a base-catalyzed reaction in aqueous media may proceed relatively 

rapidly because the PFOS is more available to the other reactants. In contrast, other non-combustion 

chemical technologies will be much less effective with PFOS than with previously discussed POPs. 

Complete combustion products are expected to include the usual organic compound products (carbon 

dioxide and water), hydrofluoric and sulfuric acids. Incomplete combustion products include carbon 

monoxide, carbonyl difluoride, sulfur oxides (SOx) and fluorinated dioxins and furans. 

Chemicals under Review at the May 2009 Stockholm Convention Conference of Parties (COP) meeting 

Endosulfan 

Based on the types of chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, endosulfan will be similar to 

aldrin/dieldrin (Ref. 14 and 49). It includes a sulfur atom, but that will be relatively labile; therefore, the 

sulfur atom should have no real effect on the properties that affect decomposition to a less toxic 

compound. Complete combustion products are expected to include the usual organic compound products 

(carbon dioxide and water), hydrochloric and sulfuric acids. Incomplete combustion products include 

carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides (SOx), phosgene, and chlorinated dioxins and furans. The products of 

non-combustion chemical technologies will depend on proprietary chemicals and their reactions under the 

specific treatment conditions of the technology. 

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) 

Based on the types of chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, hexabromocyclododecane 

(HBCDD) will be like PCB, but probably a bit easier to break down, similar to the other brominated 

compounds (Ref. 14 and 49). Complete combustion products are expected to include the usual organic 

compound products (carbon dioxide and water) and hydrochloric acid. Incomplete combustion products 

include carbon monoxide, carbonyl dibromide, and brominated dioxins and furans. The products of noncombustion chemical technologies will depend on proprietary chemicals and their reactions under the 

specific treatment conditions of the technology. 

Short-Chained Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCP) 

Based on the types of chemical constituents, structures, and reaction rates, the chlorinated paraffins will 

be most like toxaphene, with similarity depending on factors such as the ratio of chlorine to carbon atoms 

and the overall size of the molecule (Ref. 14 and 49). Complete combustion products are expected to 

include the usual organic compound products (carbon dioxide and water) and hydrochloric acid. 

Incomplete combustion products include carbon monoxide, phosgene, and chlorinated dioxins and furans. 

The products of non-combustion chemical technologies will depend on proprietary chemicals and their 

reactions under the specific treatment conditions of the technology. 

14 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

2.7 Treatment of POPs 

As mentioned before, POP-contaminated soil has been widely treated using combustion systems 

employing high temperature incineration to destroy the contaminants. Incineration is widely used 

because high-temperature incinerators can address large volumes of contaminated material and can treat 

most contaminants. Though incineration can be used to treat POPs, there are several limitations 

associated with this technology, as discussed in Section 1.0. Other technology categories that can be used 

to treat POPs include: (1) thermal desorption and degradation, (2) chemical degradation, (3) physicalchemical degradation, (4) thermal-chemical degradation, (5) biodegradation, and (6) phytoremediation. 

Technologies under these categories are discussed further in Section 3.0. 

2.8 Related Documents 

Three organizations, UNEP, Africa Stockpiles Programme and IHPA, have developed summary/overview 

reports and fact sheets about non-combustion technologies for POPs treatment. These documents are 

provided below, with a list of the technologies addressed by each report. 

•	 IHPA, 2002. IHPA and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Committee on the 

Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) Pilot Study Fellowship Report: “Evaluation of 

Demonstrated and Emerging Remedial Action Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated 

Land and Groundwater (Phase III).” Online Address: http://www.ihpa.info/resources/library/. 

This report (Ref. 44) describes emerging non-combustion alternatives for the destruction of POPs. 

Mr. John Vijgen of IHPA gathered the technology data and prepared the report and the fact sheets 

for the 12 technologies listed below: 

1. Base-catalyzed decomposition 7. Plasma arc (PLASCONR

) 

(BCD) 8. Self-propagating high2.	 CerOxTM temperature dehalogenation 

3.	 Gas-phase chemical reduction (SPHTD) 

process (GPCR) 9. Silver IITM 

4.	 GeoMeltTM 10. Solvated electron technology 

5.	 In situ thermal destruction 11. Supercritical Water Oxidation 

6.	 Mechanochemical (SCWO) 

dehalogenation (MCDTM) 12. TDT-3RTM 

•	 IHPA, 2009. Provisional Fact Sheets prepared by IHPA (POPs Technology Specification and 

Data Sheets) for the Secretariat of the Basel Convention. IHPA prepared and updated six fact 

sheets describing non-combustion technologies in 2009. The six technologies are listed below: 

1.	 Catalytic hydrodechlorination 4. Supercritical water oxidation 

(CHD) (SCWO) 

2.	 Potassium tert-butoxide (t- 5. Radicalplanet Technology 

BuOK) method (Mechanochemical Principle) 

3.	 GeoMeltTM 6. Waste to gas conversion 

•	 UNEP, Science and Technology Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global Environmental Facility 

(GEF). 2004. “Review of Emerging, Innovative Technologies for the Destruction and 

Decontamination of POPs and the Identification of Promising Technologies for Use in 

Developing Countries.” GF/8000-02-02-2205. January. Online Address: 

http://www.basel.int/techmatters/review_pop_feb04.pdf. This report (Ref. 72) provides a 

15 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

summary overview of non-combustion technologies that are considered to be innovative and 

emerging and that have been identified as potentially promising for the destruction of POPs in 

soil. The report was a background document for the STAP-GEF workshop held in Washington, 

DC, in October 2003 and was based on work by the International Centre for Sustainability 

Engineering and Science, Faculty of Engineering, at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. 

The report contains overviews of the following 27 non-combustion technologies: 

1.	 BCD 

2.	 Bioremediation/Fenton reaction 

3.	 Catalytic hydrogenation 

4.	 DARAMEND® bioremediation 

5.	 Enzyme degradation 

6.	 Fe (III) photocatalyst 

degradation 

7.	 GPCR 

8.	 GeoMeltTM process 

9.	 In situ bioremediation of soils 

10. MCD 

11. Mediated electrochemical 

oxidation (AEA Silver II) 

12. Mediated electrochemical 

oxidation (CerOxTM) 

13. MnOx/TiO2 – Al2O3 catalyst 

degradation 

14. Molten metal 

15. Molten salt oxidation 

16. Molten slag process 

17. Ozonation/electrical discharge 

destruction 

18. Photochemically enhanced 

microbial degradation 

19. Phytoremediation 

20. Plasma arc (PLASCONTM) 

21. Pyrolysis 

22. SPHTD 

23. Sodium reduction (SR) 

24. Solvated electron technology 

25. SCWO 

26. TiO2 – based V2O5/WO3 

catalysis 

27. White rot fungi bioremediation 

•	 The International Centre for Science and High Technology - United Nations Industrial 

Development Organization, 2007. “Non-Combustion Technologies for POPs Destruction – 

Review and Evaluation.” Trieste, Italy. March. Online Address: www.ics.trieste.it. This report 

(Ref. 42) provides information about alternative non-combustion technologies for the treatment of 

POPs. The report contains summaries for the following 15 technologies: 

1.	 Ball Milling – MCD and DMCR 9. PLASCONR 

2.	 BCD 10. PWCTM 

3.	 CeroxTM 11. SCWO 

4.	 GeomeltTM 12. SETTM 

5.	 GPCRTM 13. Silver IITM 

6.	 HydroDecTM 14. SPHTD 

7.	 MSO 15. SR 

8.	 PACT

•	 Africa Stockpiles Programme, 2008. “Review and Update of Technology.” Online Address: 

http://www.africastockpiles.net/ This report provides an overview of various non-combustion 

technologies and includes fact sheets for the seven technologies listed below: 

1.	 BCD 5. GeoMeltTM 

2.	 GPCR 6. Ball Milling (Radical Planet) 

3.	 Plasma arc (PLASCONR

) 7. Thermopower (Thermal Retorting) 

4.	 SCWO Process 

• Japan Environmental Safety Corporation (JESCO), 2005. JESCO is a primary technology 

provider for the treatment of PCB contaminated wastes. Dr. Noma of National Institute for 

16 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Environmental Studies developed fact sheets for the following six technologies; the fact sheets 

are available at http://www.ihpa.info/resources/library/ 

1.	 Radicalplanet® (Mechanochemical 4. Supercritical Water Oxidation of 

Principle) Organo Corporation 

2.	 SP process (Sodium Powder 5. Supercritical Water Oxidation of 

Dispersion Dechlorination Process) Kurita Industries 

3.	 Sub-critical water oxidation 6. Vacuum Heating Decomposition 

•	 Basel Convention, 2005. “Destruction and Decontamination Technologies for PCBs and Other 

POPs Wastes (Part III Annexes) A Training Manual for Hazardous Waste Project Managers, 

Volume C.” Online address: http://www.basel.int/meetings/sbc/workdoc/TM-A.pdf . This report 

contains seven fact sheets prepared by IHPA (listed as POP Technology Specification and Data 

Sheets) for the Secretariat of Basel Convention. Four of these published fact sheets, listed below, 

pertain to non-combustion technologies for the treatment of POPs: 

1.	 Alkali metal reduction 3. Gas-phase chemical reduction 

2.	 Base-catalyzed decomposition (GPCR)
 

(BCD) 4. Plasma Arc (PLASCON)
 

•	 Basel Convention, 2007. “Updated general technical guidelines for the environmentally sound 

management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic 

pollutants (POPs)” Online address: http://www.basel.int/pub/techguid/tg-POPs.pdf. This report 

contains summaries for the following technologies for the treatment of POPs. 

1.	 Alkali metal reduction 5. Gas-phase chemical reduction 

2.	 Base-catalysed decomposition (GPCR)
 

(BCD) 6. Plasma arc 


3.	 Catalytic hydrodechlorination 7. Potassium tert-butoxide (t­

(CHD) BuOK) method 

4.	 Photochemical dechlorination 8. Supercritical water oxidation 

(PCD) and catalytic (SCWO) and subcritical water 

dechlorination (CD) reaction oxidation 

9.	 Waste to gas conversion 

17 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

3.0 NON-COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES 


This section provides a review of selected non-combustion technologies for POPs remediation, including 

their implementation at both domestic and international sites. In this report, POPs include the 26 

chemicals listed or under review in the Stockholm Convention on POPs and/or the LRTAP’s Protocol on 

POPs. Non-combustion technologies are defined as processes that operate in a starved or ambient oxygen 

atmosphere (including thermal processes). For this report, treatment technology is defined as the primary 

process through which contaminant destruction occurs. Pretreatment is defined as any process that 

precedes the primary treatment technology to prepare the contaminated material for treatment, typically 

via transfer of contaminants from one media/phase to another (e.g., solid to liquid phase). 

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list the technologies addressed in this report and summarize available technologyspecific information, including: capability to handle waste strength, whether treatment is ex situ or in situ, 

scale, contaminant treated, cost, pre-treatment needs, power requirements, technology configuration, and 

location of any fact sheets available for the technology. Waste strength refers to high- and low-strength 

wastes. High-strength waste includes soil contaminated with high concentrations of POPs. Low-strength 

waste includes soil contaminated with low concentrations of POPs. Table 3-1 provides information about 

full-scale9

 technologies and Table 3-2 provides information about pilot-scale10 and bench-scale11 

technologies for treatment of POPs. Table 3-3 presents performance data for the technologies. The 

performance data include site location, contaminants treated, untreated and treated contaminant 

concentrations, and percent reduction of the contaminants (as available). Section 5.0 contains contact 

information for vendors of these various technologies. 

3.1 Full-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs 

This section presents 12 technologies that have been implemented to treat POPs at full scale. Each 

subsection focuses on a single technology and includes a description of the technology and information 

about its application at specific sites. Fact sheets developed by US EPA and IHPA provide additional 

details for some of these technologies and their applications. Appendix B, C, and D of this report provide 

fact sheets prepared by US EPA for anaerobic bioremediation using blood meal for the treatment of 

toxaphene in soil, DARAMEND®, and in situ thermal desorption (ISTD), respectively. Links to the IHPA 

fact sheets are included in the appropriate subsections of this report. 

9

 A full-scale project involves use of a commercially available technology to treat industrial waste and to remediate 


an entire area of contamination.
 

10 A pilot-scale project is usually conducted in the field to test the effectiveness of a technology and to obtain
 

information for scaling up a treatment system to full scale. 


11 A bench-scale project is conducted on a small scale, usually in the laboratory, to evaluate a technology’s ability to
 

treat soil, waste, or water. Such a project often occurs during the early phases of technology development. 


18 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 3-1. Summary of Full-Scale Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic 

Contaminant(s) Treated 

POPs Technology Commercial Availability Waste Strength 2 Ex/In situ 3

 Pesticide(s) 4 PCBs Dioxin/ Furans 

Non-POPs5 

Cost Pre- Treatment 

R

Full-Scale Technologies Anaerobic bioremediation using blood meal for the treatment of toxaphene in soil and sediment 

Yes Low Ex situ Toxaphene, DDT None None None $130 to $271 per cubic yard (in 2007) None 

Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) 

Yes Low/High Ex situ 

Chlordane, 

Heptachlor, 

DDT, HCB, 

Lindane, HCH 

Yes Yes 

PCP, herbicides, 

pesticides, 

insecticides 

1,400-1,700 Euros/ton 

(in 2004) 

$500,000 to $2 million 

for one reactor 

(physical plant facility 

only) 

Thermal 

desorption 

Debris 

removal 

pH or 

moisture 

content 

adjustment 

DARAMEND® Yes Low Ex/In situ 

Toxaphene, 

DDT, HCB, 

Dieldrin, a-HCH, 

B-HCH, Lindane 

None None 

DDD, DDE, 

RDX, HMX, 

DNT, TNT, 2,4­

D; 2,4,5-T 

Metoachlor, 

Atrizine 

$55 per ton (ex situ), 

$12.50 per cubic yard 

(in situ), $30,000 per 

acre (in situ full-scale) 

(in 2005) 

None 

Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR

TM) 

No 6 High Ex 

situ 

DDT, HCB, 

Dieldrin, 

Lindane, Aldrin 

Yes Yes 

PAH, 

chlorobenzene 

Capital cost estimate 

for two-Thermal 

Reduction Batch 

Procesor plants (solid 

feed): $10.8M for fullscale, $5M for semimobile, and one 

estimate for one TRBP 

plant (liquid/gaseous 

feed): $10.3M for fullscale, $4.75M for 

semi-mobile 

Minimum set-up costs: 

$10.5M for full-scale, 

$5M for semi-mobile 

Thermal 

desorption 

19 

In/Ex 

situ 

Toxaphene, 

Dieldrin, DDT Yes NA 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 3-1. Summary of Full-Scale Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic 

Contaminant(s) Treated 

POPs Technology Commercial Availability Waste Strength 2 Ex/In situ 3

 Pesticide(s) 4 PCBs Dioxin/ Furans 

Non-POPs5 

Cost Pre- Treatment 

R

Gene Expression Factor® (bioremediation) 

Yes Low DDE 

Initial cost for benchscale study was 

$30,000. 

$30 to $60 per ton of 

contaminated soil 

depending on site 

conditions 

None 

GeoMeltTM Yes Low/High In/Ex situ 

DDT, Chlordane, 

Dieldrin, 

Heptachlor, 

HCB 

Yes Yes Metals and radioactive waste NA 

Dewatering 

/drying 

may be 

required 

Mechanochemical Dehalogenation (MCDTM) 

Yes7 Low/High Ex situ Aldrin, Dieldrin DDT, Lindane Yes No 

DDD, DDE, 

HCH, PCP, 

PAHs, organic 

pesticides, 

hydrocarbons 

NA Grinding, drying 

Plasma Arc (PLASCON) Yes8 Low/High Ex situ 

DDT, Chlordane, 

Endosulfan, 

Aldrin, HCB, 

Dieldrin, 

Lindane 

Yes Yes NA $1M for standard 150 kW plant Thermal desorption 

Radicalplanet® 

Technology 

Yes9 Low/High Ex situ Chlordane, DDT, Endrin, HCH, Lindane Yes Yes PCP, PCNB, PVC (Asbestos) 

2.8 million Euros for 

E-200 (one machine 

with 105 tons/y) 

3.3 million Euros for 

E-500 (one machine 

with 210 tons/y) 

None 

Solvated Electron TechnologyTM 

Yes Low/High Ex situ NA Yes Yes Explosives, CFC, Halons NA 

Shredding/ 

grinding, 

dewatering/ 

drying 

Sonic Technology Yes Low/High Ex situ DDT Yes Yes PAH, VOCs, Pesticides NA 

Mixing 

with 

solvent to produce a 

slurry 

20 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 3-1. Summary of Full-Scale Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic 

Contaminant(s) Treated 

POPs Technology Commercial Availability Waste Strength 2 Ex/In situ 3

 Pesticide(s) 4 PCBs Dioxin/ Furans 

Non-POPs5 

Cost Pre- Treatment 

R

Thermal In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD) 

Yes Low/High In situ NA10 Yes Yes 

VOCs, SVOCs, 

oils, creosote, 

coal tar, 

gasoline, MTBE, 

volatile metals 

$200 to $600 per cubic 

yard (data from 1996 

to 2005) 

Dewatering 

may be 

required 

Notes: 1: 	 Data in these tables are derived from various documents, vendor information, and other sources - both peer reviewed and not, provided in the late

sections. 

2:	 Waste strength refers to high- and low-strength wastes. High-strength waste includes stockpiles of POP-contaminated materials and highly conta

waste includes soil contaminated with low concentrations of POPs. 

3:	 Ex/In situ refers to ex situ or in situ application of the technology. 4:	 Pesticides include the 13 pesticides addressed within the scope of the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP. 5:	 Non-POPs include contaminants outside the scope of Stockholm Convention and LRTAP. 6: 	 Technology is not commercially available and is currently being modifying to improve its cost effectiveness 7:	 Technology is commercially available from EDL in Auckland, New Zealand and Tribochem in Wunstrof, Germany. No technology vendor is ava

8:	 SRL Plasma Pty. Ltd., an Australian company, is the patent holder of this technology. Technology commercially used in Japan. 9:	 Technology is commercially available only in Japan 10:	 According to TerraTherm, laboratory-scale work indicates that this technology can also effectively treat other POPs, including aldrin, dieldrin, en

DDT, mirex, HCB, and toxaphene, but these contaminants have not yet been treated using ISTD at full or pilot scale. 

HCB: Hexachlorobenzene MTBE: Methyl tert-butyl ether HCH: Hexachlorocyclohexane NA: Not available 

BFRs: Bromated Flame Retardants – Octabromobiphenyl ether, PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

Pentabromodiphenyl ether, Hexabromobiphenyl & Penta-CB: Pentachlorobenzene Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) PCNB: Pentachloronitrobenzene 

DDD: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane PCNs: Polychlorinated napthalenes DDE: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene SCCPs: Short-chained chlorinated paraffins DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane SVOC: Semivolatile organic compound DNT: Di-nitro toluene VOC: Volatile organic compound 

HMX: High melting explosive, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7 tetrazocine PCB: Polychlorinated biphenyls PCP: Pentachlorophenol PVC: Polyvinyl chloride CFC: Chlorofluorocarbon TNT: 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 

21 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 3-2. Summary of Pilot/Bench-Scale Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic P

Technology Waste Strength 2 Ex/In situ 3

Contaminant(s) Treated 

Cost Pre-Treatment Power Requirement 

POPs Non-POPs 5 

 Pesticide(s) 4 PCBs Dioxin/ Furans 

Pilot-Scale Technologies Phytoremediation Low In/Ex situ DDT, Chlordane Yes No DDE NA None None 

Reductive Heating and Sodium Dispersion 

Low/High Ex situ DDT, Chlordane, Aldrin, B-HCH Yes Yes PCNB NA None NA 

Sub-critical Water Oxidation NA Ex situ Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane Yes Yes BHC NA Extraction into a solvent NA 

Bench-Scale Technologies Self Propagating High Temperature Dehalogenation 

High Ex situ HCB No No None NA None NA 

TDR-3R

TM High Ex situ HCB No No PAH, VOCs, SVOCs NA Thermal desorption High 

Notes: 

1: 	 Data in these tables are derived from various documents, vendor information, and other sources - both peer reviewed and not, provided in the late

sections. 

2:	 Waste strength refers to high- and low-strength wastes. High-strength waste includes stockpiles of POP-contaminated materials and highly conta

waste includes soil contaminated with low concentrations of POPs. 

3:	 Ex/In situ refers to ex situ or in situ application of the technology. 4:	 Pesticides include the 13 pesticides addressed within the scope of the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP. 5:	 Non-POPs include contaminants outside the scope of Stockholm Convention and LRTAP. B-HCH: beta- hexachlorocyclohexane HCB: Hexachlorobenzene SVOC: Semivolatile 

BHC: Hexa-Chloro Benzene (BHC/Lindane) NA: Not available VOC: Volatile organ

DDE: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane PCNB: Pentachloronitrobenzene 

22 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 3-3. Performance of Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollu

Examples of Treatment Performance2 

Technology 

Site Name or Location Contaminant 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 3 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Full-Scale Applications Anaerobic bioremediation using blood Gila River Indian Community, Arizona Toxaphene 29-34 4-5 meal for the treatment of toxaphene in soil and sediment Gila River Boundary, Arizona Toxaphene 23-110 5-20 

Toxaphene 189 (Mean) 10 (Mean) 

DARAMEND® T.H. Agricultural and Nutrition Superfund Site, Montgomery, Alabama DDT 81 (Mean) 9 (Mean) 

Former North American Transformer South Yard Area, Milpitas, California PCBs 156 (Max) <1 

Dieldrin 0.48 0.00354 (Mean

Borello Property, Morgan Hill, California Toxaphene 6.2 0.130 

DDT 9.0 (Max) <0.5 

Gene Expression Factor 

Mantegani Property, South San Francisco, California Dieldrin 1.0 (Max) 0.5 

DDT 340 (Max) <0.016 

Chlordane 89 (Max) <0.08 

Parsons Chemical Works, Inc. Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan Dieldrin 87 (Max) <0.016 TSCA Spokane, Spokane, Washington PCBs 17,860 ND 

Dioxins 38 (Max) ND 

Wasatch Chemical, Salt Lake City, Utah DDT 1.091 (Max) ND 

Chlordane 535 (Max) ND 

GeoMeltTM 

WCS-Commercial TSCA cleanup, Andrews, Texas PCBs 496 ND 

Aldrin +Dieldrin+ Lindane 

(ADL) 73.245 (Mean) 20.612 (Mean) 

Mechanochemical Dehalogenation (MCD

TM) 

Fruitgrowers Chemical Company Site, Mapua, New Zealand 

DDX (total DDT, DDD, and 

DDE) 717 (Mean) 64.8 (Mean) 

Ibraki, Japan PCBs 42,800 0.01 

Radicalplanet® Technology Ibraki, Japan (with Geo-Environmental Protection 

Center) PCBs 75,000 ng-TEQ 0.13 ng-TEQ 

Solvated Electron Technology Pennsylvania Air National Guard Site, Harrisburg International Airport, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania PCBs 17-560 <1 

PCBs (from soil) 400-1,600 <25 

Sonic Technology Juker Holdings Site, Vancouver, British Columbia 

PCB (concentrate in kerosene) 46,000 (Max) <3 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Ed

Table 3-3. Performance of Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollu

Examples of Treatment Performance2 

Technology 

Site Name or Location Contaminant 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 3 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Tanapag Village, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands PCBs 10,000 (Max) <10 Former South Glens Falls Dragstrip, Moreau, New York PCBs 5,000 (Max) 0.8 

PCBs .15–860 <0.17 

Centerville Beach, Ferndale, California Dioxin/Furans 0.0032 (Max) 0.00006 

In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD) 

Alhambra “Wood Treater”, Alhambra, California Dioxins .0194 <.001 

Pilot-Scale Applications 

Warren County Landfill, Warren County, North Carolina PCBs 81,100 <5 

Heptachlor 0.648 ND2 

Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) FCX Superfund Site, Statesville, North Carolina Chlordane .02 ND2 

Former Agricultural Site, Florida Dieldrin .046 (Mean) .015 

DARAMEND® Hot-Spot Treatment, Former Manufacturing 

Facility, Southeastern US Toxaphene 127.7 (Mean) 8.7 (Mean) 

Missouri Electric Works, Cape Girardeau, Missouri PCBs 20,000 (Max) <0.033 

In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD) Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, 

California PCBs 2,200 (Max) <0.033 

Bench-Scale Applications DARAMEND® Former obsolete pesticide warehouse, Moldova Lindane 17 (Mean) 10 (Mean) TDT-3RTM Gare Site, Hungary HCB 1,215 0.1 

Notes: 1: Data in this table are derived from various document, vendor information, and other sources, cited in the later technology-specific sections. 2: Treatment examples were selected to illustrate the types of treatment performance data available. 3: The concentrations are maximum concentrations unless otherwise indicated in parenthesis. 4: The specific limits for the MDL and ND were not provided in the source document. 5: Full-scale data are present in this table but available pilot-scale data can be found in Section 3 under each specific technology. DDD: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDE: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane HCB: Hexachlorobenzene PCBs: Polychlorinated biphenyls ND: Not detected (concentration below meth

Max: Maximum Concentration Mean: Mean Concentration MDL: Method detection limit 

mg/kg: Milligram per kilogram ng-TEQ/g = Nanogram Toxic Equivalent of Dioxins per gram NA: Not available 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

3.1.1 Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal 

This technology claims to use biostimulation with amendments to promote degradation of toxaphene in 

soil or sediment by native anaerobic microorganisms. For treatment, biological amendments such as 

blood meal (dried and powdered animal blood), which is used as a nutrient, and phosphates, which are 

used as a pH buffer are added to the contaminated material (Ref. 3). In some applications, starch is also 

used. The contaminated soil is mixed with the amendments and water. The technology can use several 

methods to produce soil-amendment mixtures, including blending in a dump truck, mechanical mixing in 

a pit, and mixing in a pug mill. The soil mixture is transferred to a lined cell, and water is added to 

produce a slurry. Up to a foot of water cover is provided above the settled solids. The water cover is 

intended to minimize the transfer of atmospheric oxygen to the soil amendment mixture so that anaerobic 

conditions are maintained. The lined cell is covered with a plastic sheet and the slurry is incubated for 

several months. 

The slurry is then sampled periodically to measure THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY US EPA contaminant concentration. The process continues until IS INCLUDED IN APPENDIX B. the treatment goals are achieved, at which time the cell
 

is drained. The treated slurry is usually left in the cell;
 

however, the slurry may be dried and used as fill material on site or as a source of microorganisms for 


other applications of the technology.
 

Anaerobic bioremediation using blood meal has been used 

to treat low-strength waste contaminated with toxaphene. TECHNOLOGY TYPE: BIODEGRADATION 

Essential components such as mixing troughs are typically POPS TREATED: TOXAPHENE constructed and left in place. Other components such as 

MEDIUM mixing equipment and biological amendments have been : SOIL AND SEDIMENT 

procured locally. 

PRETREATMENT: NONE 

The technology has been used to treat toxaphene at several RESIDUALS: LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF 

livestock dip vat sites and one site with a pesticide spill. TOXAPHENE AND CAMPHENES WITH 

VARYING DEGREES OF CHLORINATION Dip vats are trenches with a pesticide formulation used to 

treat livestock infested with ticks. In 2007, cleanup costs in COSTS: $130 TO $271 PER CUBIC YARD US Dollar (USD) for full-scale implementation ranged from (COST IN 2007 USD) $130 to $271 per cubic yard (Ref. 29). Performance data 

FULL SCALE
 from applications at nine dip vat sites and one pesticide site 

EX SITU are presented in Table 3-4. 


Anaerobic bioremediation using blood meal was developed by US EPA’s Environmental Response Team 

(ERT). The technology has been used at sites with toxaphene contaminated soil and sediments. Bench 

scale testing is recommended to determine if the technology will be effective at a particular site, as well 

as to evaluate amendment types and quantities, possible removal, and whether degradation products are 

formed and persist. Differences between unamended live, killed, and amended live units may also help to 

evaluate treatment effectiveness. Bench testing should be conducted in gas tight units to reduce volatile 

losses. Based on structural similarity of toxaphene to other POPs described in section 2.6 of this report, 

this technology may potentially be used to treat other POPs. However, because of the specificity of 

biochemical reactions, this technology may or may not be effective in treating other similar POPs. This 

technology is publicly available and is currently not patented (Ref. 4). The most recent application was in 

2004 at the Gila River Boundary (GRB) site in Laveen, Arizona. Further technology information can be 

obtained by contacting the technology developer using the information provided in Section 5.0. 

25
 
 

Scale 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Table 3-4. Performance of Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for Toxaphene Treatment 

Site Location Period 

(Days) 

Quantity 

of Soil 

Treated 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) 

GRIC Cell 1 

Chandler, 

Arizona 

272 

3,500 cy 

Full 59 4 

GRIC Cell 2 272 Full 31 4 

GRIC Cell 3 272 Full 29 2 

GRIC Cell 4 272 Full 211 3 

Navajo Vats Chapter 

Laahty Family 

Dip Vat 

Zuni Nation, 

New Mexico 31 253 cy Full 29 (Mean) 4 

Henry O Dip 

Vat 

Zuni Nation, 

New Mexico 68 660 cy Full 23 (Mean) 8 

Nazlini NA 108 3.5 tons Pilot 291 71 

Whippoorwill NA 110 3.5 tons Pilot 40 17 

Blue Canyon 

Road NA 106 NA NA 100 17 

Jeddito Island NA 76 NA NA 22 3 

Ojo Caliente Zuni Nation, 

New Mexico 14 200 cy NA 14 4 

Poverty Tank NA 345 NA NA 33 8 

Gila River Boundary (GRB) 

GRB (6 cells) Laveen, 

Arizona 180 8,000 cy Full 23-110 5-20 

Sources: Refs. 3 and 29 

Notes: 

cy = Cubic yard NA = Not available 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

3.1.2 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition 

Base-Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) is an ex situ technology that has been used to treat high-strength 

soil containing POP contamination. The technology is available in both transportable and fixed 

configurations. 

The use of BCD technology may require pre- THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS treatment using thermal desorption when AVAILABLE AT 

pollutants are in ppm rather than percent http://www.ihpa.info/resources/library/. concentrations in contaminated matrices. 

Depending on the concentration of the 

contaminants, a selected amount of an alkali such as sodium bicarbonate is mixed with the contaminated 

soil in the pre-treatment stage of the process and the mixture is heated in a thermal desorption reactor to 

temperatures ranging from 315 to 500o

C. The heat separates the halogenated compounds from the soil by 

evaporation. In the second stage of the pre-treatment process, the volatilized contaminants pass through a 

condenser. The condensate is then sent to a BCD liquid tank reactor (LTR). Sodium hydroxide, a 

proprietary catalyst, and carrier oil are added to the LTR, which is then heated to above 326o

C for three to 

six hours. The carrier oil serves both as a suspension medium and a hydrogen donor. The heated oil is 

then cooled and sampled to determine whether it meets disposal criteria. If the oil does not meet the 

disposal criteria, it is returned to the LTR, reagents are added, and the reactor is reheated (Ref. 48). The 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: CHEMICAL 

DEGRADATION 

POPS TREATED: PCBS, 

CHLORDANE, HEPTACHLOR, DDT, 

HCB, HCH, LINDANE, DIOXINS, 

AND FURANS 

PRETREATMENT: THERMAL 

DESORPTION 

MEDIUM: SOIL AND LIQUIDS 

FULL SCALE
 

EX SITU
 

treated soil can be used as backfill on site. BCD was developed by 

US EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory in 

Cincinnati, Ohio. US EPA holds the patent rights to this 

technology in the US. The foreign rights are held by BCD Group 

Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. The technology has been licensed by BCD 

Group Inc., to environmental firms in Spain, Australia, Japan, 

Czech Republic, and Mexico. Since its initial development in 

1990, considerable technology advancements have been made 

with the development of a new catalyst, which reduces the 

reaction time in the BCD reactor (Ref. 56). This second 

generation technology has been applied in Australia, Mexico and 

Spain to treat PCB-contaminated oil. 

Several full-scale applications of BCD have addressed POPcontaminated wastes. Two commercial facilities operated in 

Australia and treated approximately 8,000 to 10,000 tons of PCB 

contaminated waste, PCB-contaminated oil, 25 tons of pesticide 

chemicals and pesticide wastes, and 15 tons of pesticide 

concentrates generated and collected as a result of soil remediation. Another commercial facility has been 

operating in Mexico since 1998 and has treated 1,400 tons of liquids and solids contaminated with PCBs. 

In the Czech Republic, a full-scale BCD unit has been operating since 2006 and has treated 29,000 to 

38,000 tons of soil and building debris contaminated with dioxins, furans, HCB, lindane, and HCH, as 

well as nearly 200 tons of waste chemicals. In addition, 300 tons of concentrated contaminants from the 

thermal desorption process have been treated using BCD. A system also operated between 2000 and 

2002 in Spain to treat 3,500 tons of pure HCH waste. The performance data for these applications could 

not be obtained from the technology vendor. 

BCD is a non-combustion technology that uses sodium hydroxide, a proprietary catalyst, carrier oil and 

heat to treat POPs contaminated soil and liquids. BCD has been used to treat PCBs, HCB, HCH, lindane, 

dioxins and furans. Based on structural similarity of known POPs treated using BCD to other similar 

POPs described in section 2.6 of this report, this technology can potentially be used to treat other POPs. 

However, the potential of BCD technology to treat other POPs is dependent on the proprietary chemical 

catalyst used and the specific reactions under the treatment conditions of this technology. BCD is 

licensed by BCD Group Inc. and has been used at full-scale in various countries around the world 

including Spain, Australia, Japan, Czech Republic and Mexico. The most recent application of this 

technology was in 2006 at a site in the Czech Republic. The performance data for this technology were 

provided by John Vijgen (IHPA). No performance data could be obtained directly from the technology 

vendor. Currently, no full-scale applications of this technology exist in the US. Contact information for 

the technology vendor is provided in Section 5.0. 

3.1.3 DARAMEND® 

DARAMEND® has been used to treat low-strength wastes contaminated with toxaphene and DDT. It is 

an amendment-enhanced bioremediation technology that involves the creation of sequential anoxic and 

oxic conditions (Ref. 54). The treatment process involves the following steps: 

1.	 Addition of a solid-phase DARAMEND® organic soil amendment of a specific particle size 

distribution and nutrient profile, zero valent iron, and water to contaminated soil to produce 

anoxic conditions 

2.	 Periodic tilling of the soil to promote oxic conditions 

3.	 Repetition of the anoxic-oxic cycle until cleanup goals are achieved 

27
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

The addition of the DARAMEND® 

organic amendment, zero valent iron, 

and water stimulates the biological and 

chemical depletion of oxygen, 

generating strong reducing (anoxic) 

conditions in the soil matrix. Diffusion 

of replacement oxygen into the soil 

matrix is prevented by near saturation of 

the soil pores with water. The depletion 

of oxygen creates a very low reductionoxidation (redox) potential, which 

promotes dechlorination of 

organochlorine compounds. The soil 

matrix (contaminated soil and the 

amendments) is left undisturbed for the 

duration of the anoxic phase of the 

treatment cycle (typically 1 to 2 weeks). 

In the next (oxic) phase, periodic tilling 

of the soil increases diffusion of oxygen 

and distribution of irrigation water in the 

soil. The dechlorination products formed during the anoxic degradation process are then removed 

through aerobic (oxic) biodegradation processes, which are initiated and promoted by the air drying and 

tilling of the soil. Addition of the DARAMEND® amendment and the anoxic-oxic cycle continue until 

cleanup goals are achieved (Ref. 21). 

® The DARAMEND® technology can be implemented ex situ or THE DARAMEND FACT SHEET in situ. In both cases, the treatment layer is 2 feet (ft) deep, PREPARED BY US EPA IS INCLUDED IN which is the typical depth reached by the specialized deep- APPENDIX C. tillage equipment. For treatment to greater depths, the 

technology can be implemented in sequential 2-ft lifts. The 

DARAMEND® technology may be technically or economically infeasible for excessively high 

contaminant concentrations in soils (Ref. 21). 

DARAMEND® has been used to treat soil and 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: BIODEGRADATION sediment containing low concentrations of pesticides 

such as toxaphene, HCB, and DDT as well as other POPS TREATED: TOXAPHENE, HCB, contaminants. The technology has not been used for DIELDRIN, DDT, A-HCH, B-HCH AND treatment of other POPs such as PCBs, dioxins, or LINDANE 

furans. 

PRETREATMENT: NONE 

DARAMEND® has been used to treat POPs at several MEDIUM: SOIL AND SLURRY sites in the US, Canada, Europe and Brazil. In the US, 

COSTS: $55 PER TON (EX SITU, COST IN the technology has been implemented at the T.H. 2004 USD) AND $30,000 PER ACRE (IN Agriculture and Nutrition Superfund site in SITU, FULL-SCALE COST IN 2007) Montgomery, Alabama, and the W.R. Grace site in 

Charleston, South Carolina. Table 3-5 presents FULL SCALE 

performance data from these applications. The EX SITU AND IN SITU 

average treatment cost (in 2004 USD) at the site in 

Montgomery was $55 per ton; the vendor did not 

specify the components included in this cost (Refs. 1 

and 55). According to the vendor, Adventus Group, costs for in situ treatment have ranged from 

Bioremediation using DARAMEND® process. Ref. 1 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

approximately $40,000 per acre for a pilot study to approximately $30,000 per acre for full-scale 

applications (in 2007 USD). In addition, the vendor estimates that ex situ treatment costs approximately 

$55 per ton of soil (Ref. 2). 

Table 3-5. Performance of DARAMEND® Technology 

Site Location Year 

Implemented 

Period 

(Months) POP 

Quantity of 

Soil Treated 

(Tons) 

Scale 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

T.H. 

Agriculture 

and Nutrition 

Superfund site 

Montgomery, 

Alabama 2003 5 

Toxaphene 

4,500 Full 

189 (Mean) 10 (Mean) 

DDT 81 (Mean) 9 (Mean) 

W.R. Grace 

site 

Charleston, 

South Carolina 1995 8 Toxaphene 250 Pilot 239 5.1 

DDT 89.7 16.5 

Uniroyal 

Chemical 

Ontario, 

Canada NA 9 DDT NA NA 53.5 4.7 

Unknown 

Future 

Residential 

Development 

Canada NA <1 

DDT

2 acres Pilot 

2.0 0.33 

Dieldrin .064 .040 

ATOFINA 

Chemicals Kentucky NA <4 

HCB

NA NA 

 10.9 1.3 

a-HCH 7,647 446 

b-HCH 1,200 373 

Lindane 567 14 

Former 

obsolete 

pesticide 

warehouse 

Moldova NA <2 Lindane NA Bench 17 (Mean) 10 (Mean) 

Former 

Agricultural 

Site 

Florida 2004 <1 Dieldrin 2,600 Pilot .046 (Mean) .015 

Hot-Spot 

Treatment, 

Former 

Manufacturing 

Facility 

Southeastern 

US 2003 8 Toxaphene NA Pilot 127.7 (Mean) 8.7 (Mean) 

Confidential 

Client 

Ontario, 

Canada 2007 <1 DDT 147,000 Full 2.2 0.5 

Source: Ref. 1 

Notes: 

DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

HCB = Hexachlorobenzene NA = Not available 

HCH = Hexachlorocyclohexane 

DARAMEND® is a proprietary technology provided by Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. (ART) 

in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. In the US, the technology is provided by ART’s sister company, 

Adventus Americas, Inc. in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Contact information for the technology vendor is 

provided in Section 5.0. 

The technology has been used to treat toxaphene, HCB, dieldrin, DDT, a-HCH, b-HCH and lindane 

contaminated soil. Based on structural similarity of the POPs treated by DARAMEND® to other POPs 

described in section 2.6 of this report, this technology can potentially be used to treat other POPs. 

However, because of the specificity of biochemical reactions, this technology may or may not be effective 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

in treating similar POPs. The most recent application of this technology to treat POPs was in 2007 at a 

confidential site in Ontario Canada. 

3.1.4 Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction 

Gas-phase chemical reduction (GPCRTM) has been used to treat high-strength wastes containing POPs. 

GPCRTM is an ex situ technology and has been operated in both fixed and transportable configurations. 

The technology uses a two-stage process to treat soil contaminated with POPs. In the first stage, 

contaminated soil is heated in a thermal reduction batch processor in the absence of oxygen to 

temperatures around 600o

C. At high temperature the organic compounds desorb from the solid matrix 

and enter the gas phase. The treated soil is allowed to cool prior to its appropriate disposal on or off site. 

In the second stage, the desorbed gaseous-phase contaminants pass to a GPCRTM reactor, where they react 

with introduced hydrogen gas at temperatures ranging from 850 to 900o

C. This reaction converts organic 

contaminants into primarily methane and water. Acid gases such as hydrogen chloride may also be 

produced when chlorinated organic contaminants are present. The gases produced in the second stage are 

scrubbed by caustic scrubber towers to cool the gases, neutralize acids, and remove fine particulates. The 

off-gas exiting the scrubber is rich in methane and is 

collected and stored for reuse as fuel. Methane is also TECHNOLOGY TYPE: THERMALused to generate hydrogen for the GPCRTM process in a CHEMICAL DEGRADATION 

catalyzed high-temperature reaction. Spent scrubber 

water is treated by granular activated carbon filters prior POPS TREATED: HCB, DDT, DIELDRIN, 

to its discharge (Refs. 43 and 44). PCBS, ALDRIN, DIOXINS, AND FURANS 

PRETREATMENT: THERMAL GPCRTM has been implemented at both full and pilot DESORPTION scales to treat solids and liquids contaminated with 

POPs. The POPs treated include HCB, DDT, dieldrin, MEDIUM: SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND LIQUID 

WASTE aldrin, PCBs, dioxins, and furans. Table 3-6 presents 

performance information for the technology. In 1992, FULL SCALE GPCRTM was field-tested by US EPA’s Superfund EX SITU Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program to 

evaluate the performance of the technology at the Bay 

City Middleground Landfill located in Bay City, Michigan (Ref. 19). 

Table 3-6. Performance of GPCRTM Technology 

Site Location Period POP Quantity of 

Soil Treated Scale Destruction 

Efficiency 

Kwinana Commercial Australia 1995 to 2000 PCBs 2,000 tonnes Full > 99.9999% 

Operations DDT (2,200 tons) > 99.9999% 

Kwinana Hex Waste 

Trials Australia April 1999 HCB 8 tonnes 

(9 tons) Full > 99.9999% 

General Motors of Canada 1996 to 1997 PCB 1,000 tonnes Full > 99.99999% 

Canada Limited Dioxins (1,100 tons) > 99.9995% 

Source: Ref. 43 

Notes: 

DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl 

HCB = Hexachlorobenzene 

The technology has been selected by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization for a pilotscale project to treat approximately 1,000 tons of PCB-contaminated waste in Slovakia. The technology 

has also been licensed in Japan for treatment of PCB- and dioxin-contaminated wastes (Refs. 44 and 71). 

30
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

GPCR is a thermal-chemical degradation technology 

that combines high temperature and hydrogen gas to 

treat POPs. Based on available information, the 

technology has treated DDT, HCB, PCBs and dioxin 

in contaminated soil, sediments, and liquids. Due to 

the high temperature requirement of this technology, GPCR could potentially treat other POPs. This 

technology was developed by Eco Logic International, Inc. of Ontario, Canada. Bennett Environmental 

Inc. of Oakville, Ontario, acquired exclusive patent rights to the technology and is currently modifying 

the technology to improve its cost effectiveness (Ref. 53). The most recent application of this technology 

was in 2000 to treat PCBs and DDT at a site in Australia. The performance data for this technology was 

provided by John Vijgen (IHPA). No performance data, process details, or costs for this technology 

could be obtained directly from the technology vendor. This technology has not been implemented at a 

full-scale in the US and is currently not commercially available in the US. Contact information for the 

technology vendor is provided in Section 5.0. 

3.1.5 Gene Expression Factor 

Gene Expression Factor (or simply Factor) is a new 

technology available to treat soils and sediments 

contaminated with POPs. The vendor claims that 

Factor is a site-specific protein that restores the initial 

protein within the native bacteria species that was 

either damaged or removed by site contamination. 

The Factor enhanced bacteria then metabolically 

transform chlorine attached to hydrocarbon molecules 

into inert substances. The vendor claims that Factor is 

non-hazardous and is applied with other soil 

amendments, such as lime, organic matter (manure, 

charcoal, etc.), and fertilizers. Once thoroughly 

mixed, the amended soil is irrigated for approximately two months at least twice a day during warm days 

and every other day during cooler days until confirmation sampling indicates that the chemicals of 

concern have been removed. In theory, this treatment can be conducted either in situ or ex situ. 

According to the vendor, BioTech Restorations, a bench-scale study must be performed on site-specific 

soil collected from a potential bioremediation site prior to treatment. This study involves sending 

approximately 3 gallons of soil to BioTech Restorations laboratory for analysis where detailed soil 

chemistry, biological oxygen demand, biologically available carbon, indigenous bacteria survey and 

contaminants are analyzed and identified before conducting the bench study. A variety of Factor proteins 

are then applied to the soil to determine the most cost effective and efficient Factor for that site. The cost 

for conducting a bench study is $30,000. Actual treatment costs for Factor range from $30 to $60 per ton 

of contaminated soil, depending on access and site complexity (Ref. 32). Factor has been applied at 

several sites in California; performance data are included in Table 3-7. 

Gene Expression Factor is a bioremediation technology that has been used to treat PCBs, DDT, dieldrin 

and toxaphene contaminated soil and sediments. Based on structural similarity of the POPs treated by this 

technology to other POPs described in section 2.6 of this report, Gene Expression Factor may potentially 

be used to treat other POPs. However, because of the specificity of biochemical reactions involved with 

this technology, it may or may not be effective in treating similar POPs. This technology was most 

recently implemented at the Mantegani Property, in South San Francisco, California and was completed 

in 2007. A fact sheet is not available for this technology. Further technology information can be obtained 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/. 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: BIODEGRADATION 

POPS TREATED: DIELDRIN, DDT, 

TOXAPHENE, AND PCBS 

PRETREATMENT: NONE 

MEDIUM: SOIL AND SEDIMENTS 

FULL SCALE
 

EX SITU AND IN SITU
 

31
 
 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

by contacting the vendor BioTech Restorations. Contact information for the vendor is provided in Section 

5.0. 

Table 3-7. Performance of Gene Expression Factor 

Site, Location Period Type 

Quantity 

of Soil 

Treated 

(cy) 

POP 

Initial 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Final 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Former North 

American Nov 2005 

Transformer to Ex situ 15,000 PCBs 156 (Max) <1 

South Yard Area, Oct 2006 

Milpitas, CA 

Borello Property, 

Morgan Hill, CA 

June 2005 

to 

Aug 2005 

In situ 14,200 Dieldrin 0.48 0.00354 

(Mean) 

Toxaphene 6.2 0.130 

Mantegani May 2005 DDT 9.0 (Max) <0.5 

Property, South 

San Francisco, 

CA 

to Jan 

2007 

In situ 2,200 Dieldrin 1.0 (Max) 0.5 

GeoMeltTM has been used to treat high-strength 

wastes containing POPs. The technology is 

available for both in situ and ex situ 

applications and in both fixed and 

transportable configurations. GeoMeltTM 

vitrification is a high-temperature technology 

that uses heat to destroy POPs and to reduce 

mobility of residual contaminants by 

incorporating them into a vitrified end 

product. GeoMeltTM’s in situ process is 

available in two primary configurations: (1) 

In Situ Vitrification (ISV) and (2) Subsurface 

Planar Vitrification (SPVTM). Both 

configurations use electrical current to heat, 

melt, and vitrify material in place. ISV is 

suitable for treatment to depths exceeding 10 

feet below the ground surface. SPV is suitable 

for more shallow applications. GeoMeltTM also Geomelt TM ICV process. Ref. 30 provides a variation of SPV called Deep-SPV, 

which can vitrify narrow treatment zones 

deeper than 30 feet. 

Source: Ref. 32 

Notes: 

cy = cubic yard mg/kg = milligrams/kilograms 

DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl 

3.1.6 GeoMeltTM 

32
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

For treatment, an electric current is passed through soil using an array of electrodes inserted vertically 

into the surface of the contaminated zone. Because soil is not electrically conductive, a starter pattern of 

electrically conductive graphite and glass frit is placed in the soil between the electrodes. When power is 

fed to the electrodes, the graphite and glass frit conduct 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: HIGH TEMPERATURE a current through the soil, heating the area and melting 

DEGRADATION directly adjacent soil. Once molten, the soil becomes 

conductive. The melting proceeds outward and 

POPS TREATED: DIELDRIN, CHLORDANE, downward. Typical operating temperatures range from 

HEPTACHLOR, DDT, HCB, PCBS, DIOXINS, 1,400 to 2,000o

C. As the temperature increases, 

AND FURANS contaminants may begin to volatilize. When 

sufficiently high temperatures are attained, most organic PRETREATMENT: NONE contaminants are destroyed in situ through thermally 

MEDIUM mediated chemical reactions, yielding carbon dioxide, : SOIL AND SEDIMENTS 

water vapor, and sometimes hydrogen chloride gas (if 

chlorinated contaminants are present). Gaseous reaction FULL SCALE products (such as hydrogen chloride) and volatilized EX SITU AND IN SITU 

contaminants that escape in situ destruction are 

collected by an off-gas hood and are processed through 

an aboveground off-gas treatment system before discharge to the atmosphere. When the heating stops, 

the medium cools to form a crystalline monolith vitrified end product, which encapsulates the nonorganic 

contaminants that were not destroyed or volatilized (Ref. 40). 

GeoMeltTM’s ex situ process, which is called In THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS Container Vitrification (ICVTM), involves heating AVAILABLE AT contaminated material in a refractory-lined container. HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/.

A hood placed over the container collects off-gases. 

The heat is generated by either two or four 12-inchdiameter, graphite electrodes positioned vertically in the container. Typical operating temperatures range 

from 1,400 to 2,000o

C. At these temperatures, the waste matrix melts and organic contaminants are 

destroyed or volatilized. The off-gas from the process enters an off-gas treatment system, which includes 

a baghouse particulate filter, high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) prefiltration, a NOx (oxides of 

nitrogen) scrubber, a hydrosonic scrubber, a mist eliminator, a heater, and one or two HEPA filters. After 

treatment, the hood is removed and a lid is installed on the refractory-lined container. When the melt has 

solidified, the vitrified waste-filled container is disposed in an appropriate landfill based on the results of 

US EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis. 

GeoMeltTM is a full-scale thermal degradation technology that uses high temperature (up to 2,000°C) to 

treat soil and sediments contaminated with POPs such as dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, DDT, HCB, 

PCBs, dioxins, and furans (Ref. 40). GeoMeltTM has also been used to treat radioactive waste. Table 3-8 

provides performance information for the technology. The use of high temperature destroys and 

volatilizes the POPs found in contaminated media. The contaminants that are not destroyed are 

encapsulated in the crystalline monolith vitrified end product. Due to the high temperature requirement of 

this technology, other POPs could also be potentially treated using GeoMeltTM. This technology was 

originally commercially available from AMEC Earth and Environmental, the sole licensee of this 

technology in the US. In 2009, IMPACT Services, Inc. (http://www.impactservicesinc.net/ ), a waste 

processing facility located at the East Tennessee Technology Park, acquired all assets relating to the 

GeoMeltTM business of AMEC Earth and Environmental. The most recent application of this technology 

to treat POPs in the US was in 2005 at a Wasatch Chemical Superfund. However, GeoMeltTM has been 

extensively used in Japan to treat POP contaminated soil, and it was most recently used to treat POPs in 

2008 at MCK facility in Mie Prefecture, Japan. Further information about this technology can be 

33
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

obtained by contacting the vendor (IMPACT Services, Inc.). Vendor contact information is provided in 

Section 5.0. 

Table 3-8. Performance of GeoMeltTM Technology 

Site Location Period POP 

Quantity 

of Soil 

Treated 

Scale 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Parsons 

Chemical/ ETM 

Enterprises 

Superfund Site 

Grand Ledge, 

Michigan 

1993 to 

1994 

DDT 

4,350 tons Full 

340 (Max) <0.016 

Chlordane 89 (Max) <0.08 

Dieldrin 87 (Max) <0.016 

TSCA Spokane Spokane, 

Washington 

1994 to 

1996 PCBs 5,375 tons Full 17,860 ND 

Wasatch 

Chemical 

Salt Lake 

City, Utah 

1995 to 

1996 

Dioxins

5,440 tons Full 

 38 (Max) ND 

DDT 1.091 (Max) ND 

Chlordane 535 (Max) ND 

HCB 17 <0.08 

WCSCommercial 

TSCA cleanup 

Andrews, 

Texas 2005 PCBs 5 tons Full 496 ND 

WCS-Rocky 

Flats 

Andrews, 

Texas 2005 PCBs 11 tons Pilot 130 ND 

POPs 

Agricultural 

Treatment 

Project 

MCK, Mie 

Prefecture, 

Japan 

2006 

Aldrin

161 tons 

9.5 

tonne/ 

batch 

26 <0.0003 mg/l 

HCH 4,000 <0.0025 mg/l 

DDT 1100 <0.0125 mg/l 

Dieldrin 240 <0.0003 mg/l 

Endrin 2 <0.005 mg/l 

Dioxins 9.3 ng-TEQ/g 0.002 pgTEQ/g 

Nose Dioxin 

Contaminated 

Waste 

Treatment 

Project 

MCK, Mie 

Prefecture, 

Japan 

2006 Dioxin 51 tons 

9.5 

tonne/ 

batch 

81 ng-TEQ/g 0.019 pgTEQ/g 

POPs 

Agricultural 

Treatment 

Project 

MCK, Mie 

Prefecture, 

Japan 

2007 

Aldrin

209 tons 

9.5 

tonne/ 

batch 

 0.0047 mg/l <0.00000005 

mg/l 

HCH 0.55 mg/l <0.000007 mg/l 

DDT 0.094 mg/l <0.0000022 

mg/l 

Dieldrin 0.0005mg/l <0.0000002 

mg/l 

Endrin 0.04 mg/l <0.0000003 

mg/l 

Dioxins 0.0086 ngTEQ/g 

0.00045 pgTEQ/g 

Dioxin 

Contaminated 

Sludge 

Treatment 

Nose, Osaka 

Prefecture, 

Japan 

2007 Dioxins 5.4 tons 

1 

tonne/ 

batch 

1.6 ng-TEQ/g 0 pg-TEQ/g 

34
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Quantity Untreated Treated 

Site Location Period POP of Soil Scale Concentration Concentration 

Treated (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 

POPs MCK, Mie HCH 9.5 210 0.000089 

Agricultural 

Treatment 

Project 

Prefecture, 

Japan 

2008 DDT 71 tons tonne/ 

batch 130 0.00011 

Source: Ref. 30 and 44 

Notes: 

DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl 

HCB = Hexachlorobenzene pg-TEQ/g = Picogram Toxic Equivalent of 

HCH = Hexachlorocyclohexane Dioxins per gram 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram TSCA = Toxic Substance Control Act 

ND = Below detection limit WCS = Wasatch Chemical Superfund 

ng-TEQ/g = Nanogram Toxic Equivalent of 

Dioxins per gram 

3.1.7 Mechanochemical Dehalogenation 

Mechanochemical Dehalogenation (MCDTM) has been 

used to treat high-strength wastes containing POPs. The THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

MCDTM technology uses mechanical energy to promote AVAILABLE AT 

reductive dehalogenation of contaminants. In this HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/. 

process, contaminants react with a base metal and a 

hydrogen donor to generate reduced organics and metal salts. The base metal is typically an alkali-earth 

metal, an alkaline-earth metal, aluminum, zinc, or iron. Hydrogen donors include alcohols, ethers, 

hydroxides, and hydrides. The process occurs ex situ in an enclosed ball mill, with a grinding medium to 

provide mechanical energy and mixing. The 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL technology is applicable to soil, sediments, and mixed 

DEGRADATION solid-liquid phases. The by-products generated by the 

process are reportedly nonhazardous organics and POPS TREATED: DDT, ALDRIN, DIELDRIN, metal salts (Ref. 66). LINDANE AND PCBS 

MEDIUM: SOIL, SEDIMENT AND LIQUID WASTES 

PRETREATMENT: SOIL DRYING AND SCREENING 

FULL SCALE
 

EX SITU
 

One MCDTM process developed by 

Environmental Decontamination Ltd. (EDL) is 

being used at full scale to treat soil at the 

Fruitgrowers Chemical Company site in Mapua, 

New Zealand. The site is a former pesticide and 

herbicide manufacturing plant that operated 

from 1950 to 1980. The site is approximately 

8.4 acres in area and contains about 710,000 

cubic feet of soil contaminated with DDT, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), MCD process at the Mapua Site. Ref. 66 

35
 
 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), aldrin, dieldrin, and lindane. Proof of performance testing of 

the MCDTM process was conducted at the site between February 16 and April 23, 2004. The objective of 

the testing was to demonstrate the technology’s ability to treat the contaminated soil to meet cleanup 

standards for commercial land use. The cleanup criteria are listed in Table 3-9 and the proof of 

performance testing results are listed in Table 3-10. The criteria are based on the concentration of DDX 

(the sum of the concentrations of DDT, DDD, and DDE) and the sum of the concentrations of aldrin, 

dieldrin, and lindane. 

Table 3-9. Soil Acceptance Criteria for the Mapua Site 

Land Use 

Depth 

(meters) 

DDX (Total DDT, DDD, and DDE) 

(mg/kg) 

Aldrin + Dieldrin + Lindane 

(mg/kg) 

Commercial 0 to 0.5 5 3 

Below 0.5 200 60 

Source: Ref. 66 

Notes: 

DDD = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDX = Total DDD, DDE, and DDT 

DDE = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

At the Mapua site, soil with greater than a 10-millimeter (mm) size has contaminant concentrations below 

the soil acceptance criteria for the site and requires no treatment. EDL receives contaminated soil that is 

less than 10 mm in size. The 10 mm size fraction is dried and passed through a 2-mm screen to segregate 

soil particles less than and greater than 2 mm size. Contaminated soil less than 2-mm size is treated using 

the MCDTM process. Additional information on the soil drying, soil screening, and MCDTM processing 

are described below. 

Soil Drying: Contaminated soil with a size of 10 mm or less enters a temperature controlled, diesel-fired 

rotary drum unit. As the soil passes through the dryer, the soil particles undergo size reduction. The 

moisture content in soil exiting the dryer is typically less than 2 percent. Gaseous emissions from the 

dryer are treated by an air quality control system consisting of cyclones, a baghouse, a scrubber and an 

activated carbon filter. 

Soil Screening: Soil exiting the dryer is passed through a rotary screen to separate soil particles by size. 

Soil particles less than 2 mm in size are separated from soil particles between 2 and 10 mm in size. Soil 

samples are collected from the 2- to 10-mm fraction stream and analyzed. Thus far, DDX concentrations 

in this size fraction have been at or below cleanup standards and have consequently not required treatment 

(Ref. 66). The less than 2-mm size fraction and the fines from the cyclones and baghouse are fed into the 

MCDTM reactor. 

MCDTM Processing: Dried contaminated soil (the less than 2-mm fraction) and fines from the cyclones and 

baghouse are fed into the MCDTM reactor and are mixed with metered quantities of a combination of metal 

salts and a hydrogen donor at a rate of around 3 percent by mass. The reactor is a vibratory mill with two 

horizontally mounted cylinders containing a grinding medium. The grinding medium provides the 

mechanical impact energy required to drive the chemical reaction. Treated soil exits the base of the 

MCDTM reactor through enclosed screw conveyors and enters a paddle mixer, where the treated material is 

wetted to minimize dust generation. The required residence time within the reactor is about 15 minutes. 

The treated soil is then analyzed. Once treatment of soil to cleanup standards has been completed, treated 

soil is placed in a clean backfill area. 

36
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

During proof of performance testing at the Fruitgrowers Chemical Company site in Mapua, New Zealand, 

the MCDTM system treated a maximum of 139 cubic meters per week. Table 3-10 lists the initial and final 

contaminant concentrations in the soil treated by the MCDTM reactor. The concentrations listed in Table 3­

10 are mean concentrations in samples collected. The treated soil met the cleanup criteria for soil taken 

from a depth of over 0.5 meter (m) below ground surface, but did not meet the criteria for surface soil 

taken from between 0 and 0.5 m below ground surface. 

Table 3-10. Performance of MCDTM Technology at the Mapua Site 

POP 

Untreated 

Concentration 

Treated 

Concentration Percent 

Reduction 

Soil Acceptance Criteria (mg/kg) 

by Depth Below Ground Surface 

(mg/kg) (mg/kg) 0 to 0.5 meters > 0.5 meters 

DDX 717 (Mean) 64.8 (Mean) 91% 5 200 

Aldrin 7.52 (Mean) 0.798 (Mean) 89% NA NA 

Dieldrin 65.6 (Mean) 19.8 (Mean) 70% NA NA 

Lindane 1.25 (Mean) 0.145 (Mean) 88% NA NA 

Aldrin+Dieldrin 

+Lindane 73.245 (Mean) 20.612 (Mean) 72% 3 60 

Source: Ref. 66 

Notes: 

DDX = Total Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), and 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

NA = Not available 

Subsequent to the proof of performance testing, EDL began a full-scale application later in 2004. By 

early December 2006, a total soil/sediment volume of 55,250 cubic meters was excavated, screened, 

relocated, or treated. Of this volume, approximately 5,500 cubic meters were treated using MCDTM. 

Cleanup completion was scheduled for March 2007 with a total project cost of $8 million, including 

construction and continuous operation for 2.5 years (Ref. 28). 

EDL has conducted two treatability studies at Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco, California. The 

initial study was conducted in 2006 to evaluate the feasibility of remediating PCB contaminated soils. A 

supplemental study was also conducted from August to November 2007 to evaluate treatment of 

additional on-site soils. Initial PCB concentrations of approximately 300 mg/kg were reduced to less than 

1 mg/kg during the first and supplemental studies. The supplemental study also evaluated post-treatment 

stabilization of soils to (1) stabilize heavy metals in the soil matrix and (2) restore the physical 

characteristics of the treated soil converting it from a powdery form to a texture similar to garden soil. 

Based on results from these studies, a full-scale MCDTM system with a capacity of 10 metric tons per hour 

could be used at this site (Ref. 57). The performance data for this application could not be obtained from 

the technology vendor. 

MCDTM uses mechanical energy in combination with a base metal and a hydrogen donor to promote 

dehalogenation of POPs. This technology has been used to treat DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and lindane. Based 

on structural similarity of known POPs treated using MCD to other similar POPs described in section 2.6 

of this report, this technology can potentially be used to treat other POPs. However, the potential of 

MCDTM technology to treat other POPs is highly dependent on the base metals and hydrogen donors used 

and the specific chemical reactions that occur under the treatment conditions. The most recent application 

of this technology to treat POPs in the US was in 2005 at Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco, 

California. The technology was also implemented in 2004 to treat POPs contaminated soil at the 

Fruitgrowers Chemical Company site in Mapua, New Zealand. The MCDTM technology is available from 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

EDL in Auckland, New Zealand (http://www.edl-asia.com/home.html) and from Tribochem in Wunstrof, 

Germany (http://www.tribochem.com) (Ref. 13). Information for this section of the report was provided 

by EDL. Contact information for EDL is provided in Section 5.0. Tribochem has not provided process 

details, performance data, or costs for its technology. Currently, no vendor is available in the US for this 

technology. 

3.1.8 Plasma Arc 

Plasma arc technologies use a thermal plasma field to treat TECHNOLOGY TYPE: THERMAL contaminated wastes. The plasma field is created by directing DEGRADATION electric current through a gas stream under low pressure to 

form a plasma with a temperature ranging from 1,600 to POPS TREATED: PCBS, CHLORDANE, 20,000o

C. Bringing the plasma into contact with the waste DDT, ENDOSULFAN, DIOXINS, AND FURANS 

causes contaminants to dissociate into their atomic elements. 

MEDIUM: SOLID AND LIQUID WASTES The separated elements are subsequently cooled, which causes 

them to recombine to form inert compounds. The process PRETREATMENT: THERMAL DESORPTION may also destroy organic compounds through pyrolysis. The 

end products are typically gases, such as carbon monoxide, FULL SCALE 

carbon dioxide, hydrogen and inert solids. If chlorinated EX SITU 

compounds are present in the waste, acid gas is also generated 

as an end product. The off-gas from the plasma arc system passes through an off-gas treatment system 

and is then discharged. The plasma arc technologies that are used to treat organic wastes include 

PLASCONTM, Plasma Arc Centrifugal Treatment (PACT), and the Plasma Converter System (PCS). 

This report focuses on PLASCONTM, which has been used at full scale to treat POPs. PLASCONTM is an 

ex situ technology that can treat both solid and liquid waste streams. It is potentially applicable to both 

low- and high-strength wastes containing POP contamination. The PLASCONTM technology passes a 

direct current discharge through argon gas to create plasma with a temperature greater than 10,000o

C. 

Liquid or gaseous waste is injected directly into the plasma. Solid waste is pretreated using thermal 

desorption to extract volatile contaminants. The extracted vapors are then condensed and injected into the 

plasma as liquid waste. Liquid waste is vaporized by heat transfer from the plasma. Organic compounds 

present in the waste pyrolize. The products formed during pyrolysis pass through a reaction tube 

providing sufficient residence time to ensure complete decomposition of the feed material. Gases exit the 

tube at a temperature of about 1,500o

C and are rapidly cooled to less than 100oC in a spray condenser 

using an alkaline spray solution. The gases are further 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY cooled and scrubbed of any remaining acid gases in a IHPA IS 


AVAILABLE AT packed tower. Off-gases, which contain mainly
 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/. carbon monoxide and argon, are then thermally
 

oxidized to convert carbon monoxide to carbon 


dioxide (Ref. 44). 


Several full-scale applications of this technology have been performed to treat POPs around the world. 

At least nine commercial plants are in operation (four in Japan, four in Australia, and one in the United 

Kingdom). One plant in Japan operated by the Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation treated more than 1,000 

tons of PCB contaminated waste from May through July 2004 (Ref. 42). A facility in Brisbane, Australia 

treats concentrated PCB solutions (>10 %) as well as a range of POP pesticides. Information about these 

applications was provided by John Vijgen (IHPA). No performance data could be obtained directly from 

the technology vendor. 

PLASCONTM uses high temperatures and heated plasma to degrade POP contaminants found in soil and 

liquid waste into their individual atomic elements. This technology has been used to treat various POPs 

38
 
 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

such as PCBs, DDT, chlordane, endosulfan, dioxins and furans. Due to the high temperature requirement 

of this technology (temperature ranging from 1,600 to 20,000o

C), other POPs could also be potentially 

treated using PLASCONTM. SRL Plasma Pty. Ltd., an Australian company, is the patent holder of this 

technology. The most recent application of this technology to treat POPs was in 2004 in Japan. Currently, 

no know vendors for this technology exist in the US. Contact information for SRL Plasma Pty. Ltd. is 

provided in Section 5.0. 

3.1.9 Radicalplanet® Technology 

Radicalplanet® technology is an ex situ process that uses 

mechanochemical principle to treat POPs (Ref. 51). It has been 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: PHYSICALCHEMICAL DEGRADATION 

used to treat PCBs, chlordane, DDT, endrin, dioxins, and furans. 

This process transforms POPs molecules into their “radical” POPS TREATED: PCBS, CHLORDANE, 

state by use of the “planetary mill.” The treatment occurs in a DDT, ENDRIN, DIOXINS, AND FURANS 

reaction vessel where steel balls and a reagent chemical, such as 

calcium oxide (CaO), are placed prior to the placement of the MEDIUM: SOLID WASTE, SOIL, ASH 

wastes. The vessels are then sealed and placed on the 

Radicalplanet® machine where the vessels are rotated (rotation PRETREATMENT: NONE 

speed: 70 to 100 revolutions per minute [rpm]). As the steel 

balls crash into each other, the bonds of the POPs are broken by FULL SCALE 

the mechanical energy. At a rotation speed of 100 rpm, the EX SITU 

dechlorination reaction is complete in about three to six hours. 

The reaction vessel is cooled externally by circulating cooling water. The treatment technology does not 

require pretreatment and does not require a high amount of power to operate. No effluent or off-gases are 

generated from this treatment process. The reaction vessels are mobile and are available in two different 

sizes; an E-200 Type reaction vessel that can hold up to 750 liters of contaminated material and an A-500 

Type reaction vessel that can hold up to 1500 liters of contaminated material. 

Radicalplanet® technology uses mechanical energy in the presence 

of chemicals like CaO to promote dehalogenation of contaminants. 

This technology has been used to treat BHC, DDT, endrin, HCH, 

PCBs and Dioxin. Based on structural similarity of known POPs 

treated using Radicalplanet® to other similar POPs described in 

section 2.6 of this report, this technology can potentially be used to 

treat other POPs. However, the potential of Radicalplanet® 

technology to treat other POPs is highly dependent on the 

chemicals used and the specific chemical reactions that occur 

under the treatment conditions. According to the technology’s 

vendor, Radicalplanet® technology was evaluated and approved by 

three Japanese Ministries of Government. Currently, this 

technology is available only in Japan and further information can 

be obtained from the technology’s vendor, Radicalplanet® 

Research Institute Co. Ltd. Performance data is provided in Table 

3-11. Vendor contact information is provided in Section 5.0. 

Radicalplanet® Technology Ref. 51 

39
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Table 3-11. Performance of Radicalplanet® Technology at Various Japanese Sites 

Contaminant(s) and 

Medium Site Location 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Percent 

Reduction 

Treated Dioxin 

Toxic Equivalent 

(pg-TEQ/g) 

BHC (powder) Ibraki, Japan 

(with Institute 

of 

Environmental 

Toxicology) 

970,000 0.16 99.9999% <1 

DDT (powder) 50,000 0.001 99.9999% <1 

Endrin (powder) 20,000 0.01 99.9999% <1 

HCH (powder) 50,000 0.01 99.9999% <1 

PCB (soil) Ibraki, Japan 42,800 0.01 99.9999% <1 

PCB (soil) Ibraki, Japan 

(with GeoEnvironmental 

Protection 

Center) 

75,000 ng-TEQ 0.13 ng-TEQ 99.9999% <1 

Dioxin (ash) 81,000 ng-TEQ 0.15 ng-TEQ 99.9999% <1 

Source: Ref. 58 

Notes: 

BHC = Hexachlorobenzene pg-TEQ/g = Picogram Toxic Equivalent of 

DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane Dioxins per gram 

HCH = Hexachlorocyclohexane ng-TEQ/g = Nanogram Toxic Equivalent of 

PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl Dioxins per gram 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

3.1.10 Solvated Electron Technology 

Solvated Electron Technology (SETTM) is a non-thermal chemical degradation treatment process that has 

been used to treat PCB contaminated soil. The SETTM process occurs in a closed system and uses solvated 

electron solutions to reduce organic compounds to metal salts and the parent dehalogenated molecules. 

Solvated electron solutions are formed by dissolving alkali or alkaline earth metals such as sodium, 

calcium, and lithium in solvents such as anhydrous liquid 

ammonia. The solvated electron solution is added to the 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: CHEMICAL treatment cell containing the waste and ammonia solution. DEGRADATION A chemical reaction occurs in the treatment cell between 

the solvated electrons and the contaminants instantly. POPS TREATED: PCBS 

After the reaction is complete, hot water or steam is MEDIUM: SOIL circulated through the jacket of the treatment cell. The 

warmed ammonia is then removed from the treatment cell PRETREATMENT: NONE 

and recovered for reuse through the ammonia recovery 

system. At the end of the reactions, the treated material FULL SCALE 

left behind in the treatment cell may have a high pH and is EX SITU 

adjusted using a dilute acid solution prior to disposal. 

According to the vendor of this technology, the 

technology does not produce regulated by-products such 

as dioxins or furans or their precursors. 

SETTM has been used to treat PCB contaminated oil, mixed waste and soil. It was used at full-scale to treat 

PCB contaminated soil at the Pennsylvania Air National Guard Site in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The site 

was contaminated with PCBs from an electrical transformer dielectric spill that occurred in 1979. PCB 

40
 
 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

concentrations in the soil ranged from 17 to 560 ppm. Approximately, 340 tons of soil was excavated 

from the spill area and treated using the SETTM process from May 2000 to July 2001. Post treatment 

sampling indicated that the PCB concentrations were less than 1 ppm and the treated soil was used to 

backfill the excavated area (Ref. 33). 

SETTM is a chemical degradation process that uses solvated electron solutions to treat POP-contaminated 

soils. Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc., based in Washington State, developed and holds the patent 

for this technology. This technology has been used to treat PCBs. Based on structural similarity of PCBs 

to other similar POPs described in section 2.6 of this 

report, this technology can potentially be used to treat 

other POPs. However, the potential of SETTM to treat other 

POPs is dependent on the solvated electron solution used 

and the specific reactions that occur under the treatment 

conditions of the technology. The most recent application 

of this technology to treat POPs, PCB-contaminated soil, 

was in 2001 at the Pennsylvania Air National Guard Site 

in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. No fact sheet is available for 

this technology. Further information about this technology 

can be obtained by contacting the vendor (Commodore 

Advanced Sciences, Inc). Vendor contact information is 

provided in Section 5.0. 

3.1.11 Sonic Technology 

Sonic Technology is an ex situ process used to treat low- and high-strength soils containing PCB 

contamination. Pretreatment is performed using the Terra-Kleen process, which involves mixing 

contaminated soil with a solvent to produce a slurry. The solvent extracts the contaminants from the soil 

and concentrates them in a residual waste stream, which is collected in a receiving tank. After the 

extraction is completed, the waste stream with PCB concentrate is diluted, mixed with proprietary method 

for creating a self-regenerated sodium dispersion chemical destruction and subjected to the sonic energy 

generated by a proprietary low-frequency generator (SonoprocessTM). The sonic energy activates 

dechlorination of the PCBs in the solvent. The spent solvent can then be recycled through the system. 

Any off-gas from the process is treated using condensation, demisting, and multistage carbon filtration 

(Ref. 59). 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: PHYISCALCHEMICAL DEGRADATION
 In 2006, the technology was implemented at full scale to 

treat approximately 3,000 tons of PCB-contaminated soil at POPS TREATED: PCBS the Juker Holdings site in Vancouver, British Columbia, 

MEDIUM: SOIL Canada. At this site, PCB concentrations in soil were 

reduced from an initial range of 400 to 1,600 ppm to <25 PRETREATMENT: TERRA-KLEEN ppm. The modified Terra-Kleen solvent extraction process 

isolated the PCB fraction in an oil matrix. The final FULL SCALE concentration of the oil contained 46,000 ppm of PCB at the EX SITU 

start of the application of the sonic, low frequency sonicator 

process. The process uses ordinary solid sodium ingots and 

creates an in situ, self-generating sodium dispersion that is 

much lower in cost and more effective than purchasing premade sodium dispersions. The final treatment process treated approximately 11,000 gallons of PCB 

concentrate to <3 mg/kg within two weeks. This project was completed in its entirety in 2007. The 

equipment is skid-mounted and transportable. 

 Typical SETTM Plant 

41

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Sonic Technology process. Ref. 59 

Sonic Technology is a physical-chemical 

degradation process that uses solvent extraction 

process as a pre-treatment stage to extract the 

contaminants in solution and uses low frequency 

sonic energy to dehalogenate chlorinated 

compounds. This technology has been used to 

treat PCB-contaminated soil. The potential of 

Sonic Technology to treat other POPs is 

dependent on the proprietary solvent used to 

extract the POPs in solution and the frequency of 

sonic energy generated by the SonoprocessTM. 

The most recent application of this technology to 

treat POPs was in 2006 at Juker Holdings site in 

Canada. Vendor contact information is provided 

in Section 5.0. 

3.1.12 Thermal Desorption 

Thermal desorption is a physical separation process which heats wastes to volatilize water and organic 

contaminants. A vacuum system or a carrier gas transports the volatilized organic contaminants to an offgas treatment system. In the off-gas treatment system, particulates, if present, are removed by 

conventional particulate removal equipment (such as wet scrubbers or fabric filters) and contaminants are 

removed either through condensation followed by carbon adsorption, or they are destroyed in a secondary 

combustion chamber or a catalytic oxidizer. Three types of conventional mobile or fixed thermal 

desorption units are available, including: direct fire, indirect fire, and indirect heat. In the direct fire type, 

fire is applied directly upon the surface of contaminated media to desorb contaminants from the soil. In 

the indirect fire type, a direct-fired rotary dryer heats an air stream which, by direct contact, desorbs water 

and organic contaminants from the soil. In the 

indirect heat type, an externally fired rotary 

dryer volatilizes the water and organics from 

the contaminated media into an inert carrier 

gas stream. The carrier gas is later treated to 

remove or recover the contaminants. Based 

on the operating temperature of the desorber, 

conventional thermal desorption processes can 

be categorized into two groups: high 

temperature thermal desorption (HTTD) and 

low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD). 

HTTD is a full-scale technology in which 

wastes are heated to 320 to 560°C (600 to 

1,000°F). In LTTD, wastes are heated to 

between 90 and 320°C (200 to 600°F). 

This report focuses on in situ thermal ISTD process at the Alhambra site. Ref. 63 

desorption (ISTD), which has been used to 

treat both high- and low-strength wastes containing POPs. 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY US EPA ISTD is primarily an in situ technology but has also been 

IS INCLUDED IN APPENDIX D. used ex situ on constructed soil piles. ISTD is a thermally 

enhanced, in situ treatment technology that uses conductive 

42
 
 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

heating to transfer heat directly to environmental media. Although there are other in-situ thermal 

technologies commercially available, ISTD is the only in situ technology that can reach the elevated 

temperatures (greater than 100o

C) required for treatment of low volatility POPs such as dioxins and DDT. 

ISTD, sometimes also known as “In Situ Thermal Destruction,” is a patented technology developed by 

Shell Oil Co., and the patent was donated to The University of Texas at Austin. TerraTherm holds the 

exclusive license to the technology in the United States and is the only vendor. TerraTherm partners with 

other companies abroad to apply the technology internationally. 

The ISTD process includes three basic elements (Ref. 63): 

1. Application of heat to contaminated media by thermal conduction 

2. Collection of desorbed contaminants through vapor extraction 

3. Treatment of collected vapors 

In the most common setup, ISTD uses a vertical array of electrically powered heaters placed in wells 

drilled into the remediation zone. The heaters reach temperatures in excess of 600o

C and heat 

contaminated media by thermal conduction. Surface heating blankets or in pile desorption units are less 

commonly used. As the matrix is heated, adsorbed and liquid-phase contaminants begin to vaporize. For 

treatment of POPs, after target soil temperatures (typically 335◦

C) are achieved, a portion of the organic 

contaminants either oxidizes (if sufficient air is present) or pyrolizes. In order to reach the treatment 

temperatures required for the least volatile POPs, the treatment must be above the water table or the influx 

of water must be significantly reduced. 

A network of vapor extraction wells is used to recover 

volatilized contaminants. Contaminant vapors captured TECHNOLOGY TYPE: THERMAL REMEDIATION 

by the extraction wells are conveyed to an off-gas 

treatment system for treatment before discharge to the POPS TREATED: PCBS, DIOXINS, AND FURANS 

atmosphere. TerraTherm offers two different methods MEDIUM: SOIL AND SEDIMENT 

of vapor treatment. One method treats extracted vapor 

without phase separation and uses a thermal oxidizer to PRETREATMENT: NONE 

break down organic vapors to primarily carbon dioxide 

and water. Thermal oxidation may be followed by COSTS: $200 TO $600 PER CUBIC YARD (COST 

vapor phase activated carbon adsorption. The second IN USD, DATA FROM 1996 TO 2009) 

method uses a heat exchanger to cool extracted vapors. 

The resulting liquid phase is then separated into aqueous FULL SCALE 

and nonaqueous phases. The nonaqueous-phase liquid IN SITU 

(NAPL) is usually disposed of at a licensed treatment, 

storage, or disposal facility. The aqueous phase is 

passed through liquid-phase activated carbon adsorption units and is then discharged. Cooled, 

uncondensed vapor is passed through vapor-phase activated carbon adsorption units and is then vented to 

the atmosphere (Refs. 10, 26 and 63). 

Pilot- and full-scale applications of ISTD have been used to address PCBs, dioxins, and furans. 

According to TerraTherm, laboratory-scale work indicates that this technology can also effectively treat 

other POPs, including aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, heptachlor, DDT, mirex, HCB, and toxaphene. 

However, these contaminants have not yet been treated using ISTD at pilot or full scale. ISTD was fieldtested by US EPA’s SITE Program to evaluate the performance of the technology at the Rocky Mountain 

Arsenal site near Denver, Colorado. The site was contaminated with hexachlorocyclopentadiene, aldrin, 

chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, and isodrin. After 12 days of operation, the ISTD system was shut down 

because portions of the aboveground piping had been corroded by hydrochloric acid that was generated 

during the heating of the contaminants. Shutdown of the system prevented the evaluation of the 

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

effectiveness of the technology at this site (Ref. 25). Thus, highly concentrated chlorinated wastes that 

can decompose at the temperatures required for treatment may require expensive materials to reduce 

corrosion. 

Four full-scale and two pilot-scale ISTD projects at POP-contaminated sites were identified. In general, 

treatment costs in USD at these sites ranged from $200 to $600 per cubic yard (cy). Projects involving 

ISTD treatment of larger volumes of waste may have lower unit costs. Available performance 

information for the technology is presented in Table 3-12. 

Table 3-12. Performance of ISTD Technology 

Site Location Period POP 

Quantity of 

Soil Treated 

(cy) 

Scale 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Former South 

Glens Falls 

Dragstrip 

Moreau, 

New York 1996 PCBs NA Full 5,000 (Max) 0.8 

Tanapag Village 

Saipan, 

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands 

July 1997 to 

August 1998 PCBs 1,000 Full 500 (Mean) <10 

Centerville 

Beach 

Ferndale, 

California 

September to 

December 

1998 

PCBs 

667 Full 

0.15-860 <0.17 

Dioxins 

and 

Furans 

3.2 μg/kg 

(Max) 0.006 μg/kg 

Missouri 

Electric Works 

Cape 

Girardeau, 

Missouri 

March to 

June 1997 

PCBs 

NA Pilot 

20,000 (Max) <0.033 

Dioxins 

and 

Furans 

6.5 μg/kg .003 μg/kg 

Former Mare 

Island Naval 

Shipyard 

Vallejo, 

California 

September to 

December 

1997 

PCBs 222 Pilot 2,200 (Max) <0.033 

Alhambra 

“Wood Treater” 

Alhambra, 

California 

May 2002 to 

September 

2005 

Dioxins 

and 

Furans 

16,200 Full 19.4 μg/kg 

(Max) <.11 μg/kg 

Source: Refs. 9, 11, 38, 60, 62 and 63 

Notes: 

cy = Cubic yard NA = Not available 

μg/kg = Microgram per kilogram PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

ISTD is a physical separation process that uses high temperatures to desorb and volatilize contaminants. 

Some recovered contaminants may oxidize or pyrolize, during the process. The contaminant vapors are 

then captured and treated using an off-gas treatment system. ISTD has been used to treat POPs such as 

PCBs, dioxins and furans. Due to the high temperature requirement of this technology, other POPs could 

also be potentially treated using ISTD. The most recent full-scale application of this technology to treat 

POPs was at the Alhambra “Wood Treater” Site in California and was completed in 2005. In 2009, 

TerraTherm and SheGoTec Japan completed a demonstration under the sponsorship of the Japan Ministry 

of the Environment on dioxin-contaminated soils. The remedial goal of less than 1,000 pg-TEQ/g was 

44
 
 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

achieved while meeting all vapor emission standards in Japan. Further information about this technology 

can be obtained by contacting the vendor (TerraTherm; http://www.terratherm.com/). Vendor contact 

information is provided in Section 5.0. 

3.2 Pilot-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs 

This section describes technologies that have been implemented to treat POPs at the pilot scale. Each 

subsection focuses on a single technology and includes a description of the technology and information 

about its application at specific sites. Fact sheets developed by IHPA provide additional details on some 

of these technologies and their applications. Links to the IHPA fact sheets are included in the appropriate 

subsections of this report. 

3.2.1 Phytotechnology 

Phytotechnology is a process that uses plants to remove, TECHNOLOGY TYPE: transfer, stabilize, or destroy contaminants in soil, sediment, PHYTOREMEDIATION and groundwater. It may be applied in situ or ex situ to treat 

low-strength soils, sludges, and sediments contaminated POPS: DDT, CHLORDANE, AND 

with POPs. The mechanisms include: PCBS 

•	 Enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation (degradation MEDIUM: SOIL AND SEDIMENT
 

in the soil immediately surrounding plant roots), 


PRETREATMENT: NONE •	 Phytovolatilization (the transfer of the pollutants to 


air via the plant transpiration stream), 
 PILOT SCALE 

•	 Phytoextraction (also known as phytoaccumulation, EX SITU AND IN SITU the uptake of contaminants by plant roots and the 


translocation/accumulation of contaminants into 


plant shoots and leaves), 


•	 Phytodegradation (metabolism of contaminants within plant tissues), 

•	 Phytostabilization (production of chemical compounds by plants to immobilize contaminants at 

the interface of roots and soil), 

•	 Hydraulic control (the use of trees to intercept and transpire large quantities of groundwater or 

surface water for plume control), and 

•	 Evapotranspiration (the use of the ability of plants to intercept rain to prevent infiltration and take 

up and remove significant volumes of water after it has entered the subsurface to minimize the 

percolation into the contained waste). 

In general, more data are available for field studies that have been conducted using phytostabilization and 

hydraulic control mechanisms. Other proven uses of phytotechnologies include use as alternative landfill 

caps, the use of wetlands to improve water quality, and treatment of certain contaminants (such as 

petroleum products and chlorinated solvents). 

Phytoremediation of POPs is not feasible for highly contaminated soil, since high concentrations of POPs 

are toxic to plants, but it can be used as an appropriate polishing technology for residual contamination in 

soils. Initial laboratory research identified enhanced degradation of PCBs in the rhizosphere (Refs. 17, 

34, and 47). Other researchers are finding promising results for phytoextraction in the laboratory and at 

the pilot scale. The Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station’s preliminary data have shown that a 

narrow range of plant species (certain cucurbitas) can effectively accumulate significant amounts of 

highly weathered pesticide residues such as DDE and chlordane from soil (Ref. 73). 

45
 
 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

In 2002, the Royal Military College (RMC) of Canada 

performed a three-part study to evaluate the treatment 

of PCB contaminated soil by phytotechnology (Ref. 

75). Initially, a Greenhouse Treatability Study was 

conducted to determine the uptake of PCBs by 

pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo cv. Howden), tall fescue 

(Festuca Arundinacea) and Sedge. Initial PCBs 

concentrations in soil used for the greenhouse study 

ranged from 27.5 to 3050 ug/g. Plant uptake for the 

treatability study is provided in Table 3.13. Based on 

the success of the treatability study, a field study was 

conducted using larger containers and no coverings. 

The results of this study indicated an increased uptake 

of PCBs by all three species. The results of the field 

experiment showed that a significant amount of PCBs 

were not released into the environment through 

volatilization. In 2004, a full-scale application was 

started at a site in Etobicoke, Ontario. The soil was 

contaminated with PCBs at an average concentration 

of 21 ppm. The PCB concentrations in the plant stem 

and leaf in the second season were higher (11 and 8.9 

ppm, respectively) than the concentrations in the first 

season (5.7 and 3.9 ppm, respectively). Consistent 

uptake has been observed, however, no difference was noticed in the soil PCB concentration before and 

after the field study took place (Ref. 74). 

Table 3-13. Results of Plant Uptake from the Royal Military College Study 

Greenhouse Treatability Study Small Field Experiment 

Roots (μg/g) Shoots(μg/g) Roots(μg/g) Shoots(μg/g) 

Pumpkin 730 16.8 790 370 

Fescue 440 6.2 805 580 

Sedge 1200 470 785 410 

Source: Ref. 75 

Note: μg/g = Microgram per gram 

Research has also been conducted in Ukraine and Kazakhstan on the use of plants to remediate soils laced 

with pesticides. In the Ukraine, laboratory experiments have shown that bean plants can accumulate and 

decompose DDT (Ref. 50). In Kazakhstan, native vegetation that can tolerate and accumulate pesticides 

has been identified (Ref. 52). While research is still active and needed, field-scale projects are also being 

implemented. A cleanup project was conducted at a 40-year-old scrap yard site with PCB contaminated 

soils at 225 ppm. The site contamination was approximately 2 acres in area and 3 feet deep. The project 

demonstrated that PCB concentrations decreased over 90% within 2 years, in the presence of red 

mulberry trees and bermuda grasses (Ref. 39). 

46
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

In 2001, phytotechnology was demonstrated by US EPA’s SITE Program to evaluate the performance of 

the technology at the Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility Site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In this 

demonstration, four different treatments were evaluated for treating PCB contaminated soil. Three plantbased (corn, willow and natural vegetation) and one microbe-based treatment were planted at the site. The 

initial PCB soil concentrations in the test plots ranged from 2.0 to 3.6 mg/kg. At the end of the 

demonstration in September 2002, the final results indicated that none of the treatments produced a final 

mean concentration of total PCBs below the cleanup standard of 1 ppm. Further information about the 

Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility Site can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/540r04508/540r04508.htm. 

Furthermore, two US EPA Superfund sites have utilized phytotechnology as a treatment for POPs: 

•	 Aberdeen Pesticides Dumps in North Carolina is using phytotechnology for residual 

contaminants (dieldrin, DDT, HCB and HCH) (plantings of poplar trees and grasses over 7.5 

acres). This technology was selected in 2003 and continues at this site. Updated information is 

not available for this project. 

•	 Fort Wainwright in Alaska used ex situ phytotechnology for aldrin, dieldrin and DDT with Felt 

Leaf Willow trees. After treatment, the soil was deposited in the site landfill. This project was 

completed in 2002. 

In general, the science of using phytotechnologies to FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT remediate PCB soil has not had major advancements since PHYTOTECHNOLOGY CAN BE FOUND AT the previous edition of this report in 2005. Researchers are HTTP://WWW.CLU­ still working with Cucurbita pepo species and looking at IN.ORG/TECHFOCUS/DEFAULT.FOCUS/SEC/ 

ways such as fertilizer and manipulation of vegetation to PHYTOTECHNOLOGIES/CAT/OVERVIEW/ 

enhance the biomass of the plants. 

3.2.2 Reductive Heating and Sodium Dispersion 

Reductive heating and sodium dispersion is an ex situ thermochemical technology for treating POPs. In the first part of the TECHNOLOGY TYPE: 

process, POP-contaminated wastes are indirectly heated using THERMAL-CHEMICAL 

a reductive heating kiln at temperatures ranging from 350 to DEGRADATION 

600°C in an oxygen-controlled atmosphere, and POPs are 

decomposed and evaporated from the wastes. The POPS: DDT, CHLORDANE, 

decomposed and evaporated POPs are collected via the oil ALDRIN, PCBS, B-HCH, 

DIOXINS AND FURANS scrubber, and at the same time evaporated water from the 

wastes is also condensed. The decomposed and evaporated MEDIUM: SOIL POPs are dissolved in an oil phase, and the condensed water is PRETREATMENT: NONE accumulated at the bottom of the scrubber. The scrubbing oil 

containing dissolved POPs and their decomposed substance is PILOT SCALE 

treated by a batch method using metallic sodium powder EX SITU 

dispersion at a temperature of about 90°C for one hour. After 

the reaction, water is added to remove excess sodium and 

settled to separate the treated oil and alkali solution. Separated, treated oil is recycled to serve as the 

scrubbing oil (Ref. 44). 

In a pilot-scale demonstration in Okinawa, Japan, a 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS mobile system was used to treat soil contaminated 

AVAILABLE AT with BHC and PCBs. The reductive heating kiln had a 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/ diameter and length of 400 mm each. The system 

operated at a maximum capacity of 500 kg/day and 

47
 
.

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

each batch was heated at 600°C in an oxygen deficient atmosphere for 1 hour. The exhaust gas from the 

kiln was passed through a scrubber. The POPs retained were condensed in oil and then treated using 

sodium dispersion at 90°C for 1 hour. BHC was reduced from 10 mg/kg to less than 0.001 mg/kg in each 

type of soil, and PCBs were reduced from 53 mg/kg to less than 0.5 ug/kg by reductive heating. The 

treated soil was then tested for its use as a recycled planting material, and results confirmed its 

applicability (Ref. 45). Information about this application was provided by John Vijgen (IHPA). 

Reductive heating and sodium dispersion combines thermal degradation with sodium dispersion to treat 

POPs. The initial heating process removes POPs from the contaminated soil followed by the use of 

metallic sodium to decompose the POP contaminant. This technology has been used at a pilot-scale to 

treat BHC and PCBs. Due to the high temperature requirement of this technology in the reductive heating 

process, other POPs could also be potentially treated using this technology. Powertech Labs Inc. from 

British Columbia, Canada is the developer of this technology. Kobelco-Eco Solutions Co., Ltd. based in 

Japan is the exclusive licensee for this technology. Currently, this technology is only available in Japan. 

Powertech Labs Inc. indicated that that there are no plans at this time to license the technology in North 

America. No information regarding process details, performance data, or costs could be obtained directly 

from the technology vendor. Vendor contact information is provided in Section 5.0. 

3.2.3 Subcritical Water Oxidation 

Subcritical water oxidation is an ex situ process used to treat TECHNOLOGY TYPE: 

POPs. For this process, POPs must be in a liquid form and may THERMAL-CHEMICAL 

require extraction into acetone prior to treatment. Within the DEGRADATION 

treatment system, preheated water and sodium hydroxide 

solution, high-pressure oil and oxygen react in a reaction tower, 

at specific temperature and pressure (to 370°C and 26.7 

megapascal). Carbon dioxide generated by the oxidation of the 

POPS: ALDRIN, DIELDRIN, 

CHLORDANE, PCBS, DIOXINS 

AND FURANS 

oil reacts with sodium hydroxide to produce sodium carbonate. MEDIUM: SOLID WASTE 

When the specified conditions are reached inside the reaction PRETREATMENT: EXTRACTION 

tower, the contaminated waste stream to be treated replaces the INTO A SOLVENT 

oil, and decomposition of the contaminants occurs. Processed 

liquid that has completed the decomposition process is cooled PILOT SCALE 

and after depressurization, the liquid and gas are separated. The EX SITU 

treated liquid is tested to confirm decomposition, while the gas 

is passed through an activated carbon unit prior to discharge. 

A pilot plant in Japan has processed PCB contaminated waste streams for more than 3,500 hours without 

encountering difficulties. In 2005, a full-scale system 

was being constructed in Japan with a capacity of 2 THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT tons per day. However, the current status of this 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/ system is not documented in the information identified 

and reviewed for this report (Ref. 44). 

Subcritical water oxidation is a thermochemical technology that uses thermal degradation and sodium 

hydroxide to treat POPs. A pre-treatment stage is needed for treating contaminated soil to extract the 

contaminants in solution. This technology has been used at a pilot-scale to treat PCBs. Due to the high 

temperature requirement of this technology, other POPs could also be potentially treated using Subcritical 

water oxidation. The most recent application of this technology was in 2005 to treat a PCB-contaminated 

waste stream in Japan. The information for this technology was provided by John Vijgen (IHPA). No 

performance data, process details, or costs for this technology could be obtained directly from the 

48
 
 

 

 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

technology vendor. Currently, this technology is available only through the technology vendor 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan. Vendor contact information is provided in Section 5.0. 

3.3 Bench-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs 

This section describes the technologies that have been implemented to treat POPs at the bench scale. 

Each subsection focuses on a single technology and includes a description of the technology and 

information about its application at specific sites. Fact sheets developed by IHPA contain additional 

details on some of these technologies and their applications. Links to the IHPA fact sheets are included in 

the appropriate subsections of this report. 

3.3.1 Self-Propagating High-Temperature Dehalogenation 

Self-propagating high-temperature dehalogenation THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS (SPHTD) is an ex situ technology that has been tested AVAILABLE AT to treat soil containing HCB contamination. HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/. 

For SPHTD to operate, HCB containing soil would be 

mixed with calcium hydride or calcium metal, and the mixture is placed in a reaction chamber containing 

a tungsten coil. Addition of purified argon gas causes the reaction chamber to become pressurized, and 

an electrical pulse to the tungsten coil initiates the reaction. Once initiated, the reductive reactions that 

occur in the reaction chamber are exothermic and self-propagating. The reaction mixture can reach a 

temperature of 1,400o

C, which creates thermochemical conditions that 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE convert HCB to calcium chloride, carbon, and hydrogen (Ref. 71). : 

THERMAL-CHEMICAL 

DEGRADATION SPHTD has been tested at bench scale using materials contaminated 

with HCB, but no bench-scale test results were available in the 

POPS TREATED: HCB information identified and used for this report (Ref. 41). The 

MEDIUM: POP STOCKPILES information sources identified and used to prepare this report also did 

not provide information about application of the technology at the pilot 

BENCH SCALE or full scale. 

EX SITU 

Self-propagating high-temperature dehalogenation is a thermalchemical degradation technology that has been used to treat HCB-contaminated soil at bench scale. The 

SPHTD technology is being developed by Centro Studi Sulle Reazioni Autopropaganti, University of 

Cagliari in Italy and is not currently commercially available. Further technology information can be 

obtained by contacting the technology developer using the information provided in Section 5.0. 

3.3.2 TDT-3RTM 

TDT-3RTM is an ex situ technology that has been tested for treatment of high- and low-strength soils 

containing HCB contamination. 

The TDT-3RTM technology uses a continuous low- TECHNOLOGY TYPE: THERMAL temperature thermal desorption process conducted in the DEGRADATION absence of air. The main component of this process is a 

specially designed, indirectly fired, horizontally arranged POPS TREATED: HCB 

rotary kiln. Contaminated soil is heated in the kiln to a PRETREATMENT: THERMAL DESORPTION temperature typically between 300 and 350o

C under an 

MEDIUM: SOIL applied vacuum of 0 to 50 Pascal (Pa). In some instances, 

the kiln is heated to higher temperatures when POPs are BENCH SCALE
 

EX SITU
 

49
 
 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

being treated. The contaminants in the soil desorb and vaporize in the kiln. The vaporized contaminants 

are recovered from the kiln and combusted in a thermal oxidizer for at least 2 seconds at a temperature 

exceeding 1,250o

C. Off-gas from the thermal oxidizer is rapidly cooled, passed through a wet gas multiventuri scrubber, and discharged. Process water from the scrubber is treated and discharged. Treated soil 

exiting the kiln is cooled indirectly and removed (Refs. 44 and 64). 

TDT-3RTM has been implemented at a bench scale in THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

Gare, Hungary, to treat 100 kilograms (kg) of soil AVAILABLE AT 

contaminated with HCB. Treatment occurred at a HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/. 

temperature of 450o

C under a vacuum of 30 Pa. The 

technology reduced the soil’s HCB concentration from 1,215 to 0.1 mg/kg (Ref. 65). 

TDT-3RTM is a thermal degradation technology that uses continuous low-temperature desorption and a 

thermal oxidizer to treat contaminated soil. The technology has been used at bench scale to treat HCB 

contaminated soil. Due to the high temperature (temperature exceeding 1,2500

C) requirement of this 

technology, other POPs could also be potentially treated using TDT-3RTM. TDT-3RTM is marketed by 

Thermal Desorption Technology Group LLC in the US and its European subsidiaries. This firm has 

developed pilot-scale kilns that operate with throughput of 0.1 tons per hour. A larger thermal desorption 

technology kiln that would operate with a throughput of 4 m3

/hour has been engineered and designed. 

According to the vendor, a conceptual design has been developed for a kiln with a throughput of 70 tons 

per hour (Ref. 64). Further technology information can be obtained by contacting the vendor using the 

information provided in Section 5.0. 

50
 
 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

4.0 INFORMATION SOURCES 


The following web-based information sources were used during the preparation of this report. Additional 

information on POPs can be obtained from the websites identified below as well as from the references 

listed in Section 6.0. 

Stockholm Convention 

http://www.pops.int/ 

International HCH and Pesticides Association 

http://www.ihpa.info/resources/library/ 

Science and Technology Advisory Panel of the Global Environmental Facility 

http://stapgef.unep.org/ 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

http://www.clu-in.org/POPs 

http://www.clu-in.org/acwaatap 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfod01/international/pops.htm 

United Nations 

http://www.basel.int 

http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/ 

http://www.gpa.unep.org/pollute/organic.htm 

http://www.who.int/iomc/groups/pop/en/ 

http://www.unido.org/doc/29487 

http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/welcome.html 

Other Sources 

http://www.africastockpiles.org/ 

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Disposal/index_en.htm 

http://www.sdpi.org/research_Programme/environment/Hazardous_Waste_Management.htm#2 

http://www.ipen.org 

51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

5.0 VENDOR CONTACTS 


Full-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs 

Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal 

for Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and 

Sediment 

Mr. Harry L. Allen III, Ph.D. 

US EPA Environmental Response Team 

MS-101, Building 18 

2890 Woodbridge Avenue 

Edison, NJ 08837 

Telephone: (732) 321-6747 

Fax: (732) 321-6724 

Email: allen.harry@epa.gov 

Base Catalyzed Decomposition 

Mr. Terrence Lyons 

US EPA National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory 

26 West Martin Luther King Drive 

Cincinnati, OH 45268 

Telephone: (513) 569-7589 

Fax: (513) 569-7676 

Mr. Charles Rogers 

BCD Group Inc. 

Cincinnati, OH 

Telephone: (513) 385-4459 

DARAMEND® 

Dr. Alan G. Seech or Mr. David Raymond 

Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 

1345 Fewster Drive 

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L4W 2A5 

Telephone: (905) 273-5374, Extension 221 

Mobile: (416) 917-0099 

Fax: (905) 273-4367 

Email: info@AdventusGroup.com 

Website: http://www.adventusgroup.com/ 

Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCRTM) 

Bennett Environmental Inc. 

1540 Cornwall Road, Suite 208 

Oakville, Ontario, Canada L6J 7W5 

Telephone: (905) 339-1540 

Fax: (905) 339-0016 

Email: info@bennettenv.com 

Website: http://www.bennettenv.com 

Gene Expression Factor (bioremediation) 

Christopher Young 

GeoSolve, Inc. 

137 Cross Center Road, #143 

Denver, North Carolina 28037 

Telephone: 704-489-6538 

Email: cyoung2281@aol.com 

GeoMeltTM 

Mr. Bret Campbell or Mr. Keith Witwer 

IMPACT Services, Inc. 

GeoMelt Division 

1135 Jadwin Avenue 

Richland, WA 99352 

Telephone: (509) 942-1114 

Fax: (509) 99942-1122 

Email: Bret.Campbell@impactserviceinc.com 

or Keith.Witwer@impactserviceinc.com 

In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD) 

Mr. Ralph Baker 

TerraTherm, Inc. 

356 Broad Street 

Fitchburg, MA 01420 

Telephone: (978) 343-0300 

Fax: (978) 343-2727 

Email: rbaker@terratherm.com 

Website: www.terratherm.com 

Mechanochemical Dehalogenation (MCDTM) 

Mr. Bryan Black
 

Environmental Decontamination Ltd.
 

P.O. Box 58-609 

Greenmount 

Aukland, New Zealand 

Telephone: (649) 274-9862 

Fax: (649) 274-7393 

Email: bryan@manco.co.nz 

Website: http://edl.net.nz 

Mr. Volker Birke 

Tribochem 

Georgstrasse 14, D-31515 Wunstdrof, Germany 

Telephone: 49 5031 6 73 93 

Fax: 49 5031 88 07 

Email: birke@tribochem.com 

Website: www.tribochem.com 

52
 
 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

SRL Plasma Pty Ltd 

PO Box 119 Narangba 

Qld. 4504 Australia 

Telephone: 61 7 3203 3400 

Fax: +61 7 3203 3450 

 Email: nevillet@srlplasma.com.au 

Website: http://www.plascon.com.au/ 

Radicalplanet® Technology 

Head Office: 1-21-8 Sakae Naka-ku, 

Nagoya City, Aichi 460-0008 

Telephone: +81-52-222-8333 

Fax: +81-52-702-6620 

info@radicalplanet.co.jp 

Solvated Electron Technology 

Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc 

Jonathan Rogers 

507 Knight Street 

Suite B 

Richland, WA 99352 

Telephone: 865.483.9619 

Fax: 509.943.2910 

Email: jonrogers@commodore.com 

Website: http://www.commodore.com 

Sonic Technology 

Mr. Claudio Arato 

Sonic Environmental Solutions Inc. 

1066 West Hastings Street, Suite 2100 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 

V6E 3X2 

Telephone: (604) 736-2552 

Fax: (604) 736-2558 

Email: carato@sonictsi.com 

Website: www.sonicenvironmental.com 

Pilot-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs 

Reductive Heating and Sodium Dispersion 

Keith Lee 

Powertech Labs 

12388 88th Ave, Surrey, 

BC V3W 7R7, Canada 

Telephone: 604-590-7438 

Email: keith.lee@powertechlabs.com 

Bench-Scale Technologies for Treatment of 

POPs 

Self-Propagating High-Temperature 

Dehalogenation 

Dr. Ing. Giacomo Cao Centro Studi Sulle 

Reazioni Autopropaganti Dipartimento di 

Ingegneria Chimica e Materiali Piazza d’armi 

09123 Cagilari Italy 

Telephone: 39-070-6755058 

Fax: 39-070-6755057 

Email: cao@crs4.it 

TDT-3RTM 

Mr. Edward Someus 

Terra Humana Clean Technology Engineering 

Ltd. 

1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59 

Hungary 

Telephone: (36-20) 201 7557 

Fax: (36-1) 424 0224 

Email: edward@terrenum.net 

Website: http://www.terrenum.net 

Technologies Identified in 2005 Report to 

Treat POPs but Not Commercially Available 

XenoremTM 

Mr. Brad Yops 

Technology Transfer Corporation 

University of Delaware 

Newark, DE 19716 

Telephone: (302) 831-0147 

Website: http://www.udel.edu/ 

Supercritical Water Oxidation 

Dave Ordway 

Telephone: 858-455-3568 

Email: david.ordway@gat.com 

Email: info@turbosynthesis.com 

53
 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

Special acknowledgment is given to members of the International HCH and Pesticides Association 

(IHPA), and other remediation professionals for their cooperation, thoughtful suggestions, and support 

during the preparation of this report. Contributors to the report include the following individuals: 

Alan G. Seech, Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 

Brad Yops, Technology Transfer Corporation, University of Delaware 

Bryan Black, Environmental Decontamination Ltd. 

Bret Campbell, IMPACT Services, Inc. 

Carl V. Mackey, Washington Group International 

Charles Rogers, BCD Group, Inc. 

Christine Parent, California Department of Toxic Substances ControlChristopher Young, BioTech Restorations 

Claudio Arato, Sonic Environmental Solutions, Inc. 

Edward Someus, Terra Humana Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. 

Giacomo Cao, Centro Studi Sulle Reazioni Autopropaganti 

John Fairweather, Thermal and Chemical Soil Remediation Ltd 

John Vijgen, IHPA 

Kevin Finucane, AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 

Jonathan Rogers, Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc 

Ralph Baker, TerraTherm, Inc. 

Tedd E. Yargeau, California Department of Toxic Substances Control 

Volker Birke, Tribochem 

54
 
 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

6.0 REFERENCES 

1.	 Adventus Americas, Inc. 2009. “Representative DARAMEND® Project Summaries.” Online 

Address: http://www.adventusgroup.com/projects/proj_daramend.shtml. 

2.	 Adventus Americas, Inc. April 2009. “Bioremediation of Pesticides.” Online Address: 

http://www.adventusgroup.com/pdfs/tech_bullet/DARAMEND%20Bioremediatoin%20of%20PES 

TICIDES.pdf. 

3.	 Allen, H.L., and others. 2002. “Anaerobic Bioremediation of Toxaphene Contaminated Soil – A 

Practical Solution.” 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Symposium No. 42, Paper No. 1509. 

Thailand. August 14 through 21. 

4.	 Allen, H.L., US EPA Environmental Response Team. January 25, 2005. Email to Younus Burhan, 

Tetra Tech EM Inc., Regarding US EPA Comments on Draft Blood Meal Fact Sheet. 

5.	 American Chemical Society. May 2000. “Herbicide and Pesticide Destruction.” Symposium on 

Emerging Technologies: Waste Management in the 21st Century. San Francisco, California. 

6.	 Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative (ACWA). 2009. “About ACWA.” Online Address: 

http://www.pmacwa.army.mil/about/index.html. 

7.	 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2009. Website for ATSDR. Online 

Address: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov. 

8.	 ATSDR. March 2002. “Public Health Reviews of Hazardous Waste Thermal Treatment 

Technologies.” Online Address: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/thermal/thermal1.html. 

9.	 Baker, R., TerraTherm, Inc. October 27 and November 8, 15, 24, and 29, 2004. Emails to 

Chitranjan Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

10.	 Baker, R., and M. Kuhlman. 2002. “A Description of the Mechanisms of In Situ Thermal 

Destruction (ISTD) Reactions.” Second International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction 

Technologies for Soil and Groundwater (ORTs-2). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. November 17 

through 21. 

11.	 Baker, R.S., D. Tarmasiewicz, J.M. Bierschenk, J. King, T. Landler and D. Sheppard. 2007. 

Completion of In Situ Thermal Remediation of PAHs, PCP and Dioxins at a Former Wood 

Treatment Facility. 2007 International Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment 

Technologies (IT3), May 14-18, 2007, Phoenix, AZ. Air & Waste Management Association, 

Pittsburgh, PA. 

12.	 The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their 

Disposal. 2010. Website for the Basel Convention. Online Address: http://www.basel.int. 

13.	 Birke, V. 2002. “Reductive Dehalogenation of Recalcitrant Polyhalogenated Pollutants Using Ball 

Milling.” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and 

Recalcitrant Compounds. Monterey, California. 

14.	 Boethling, R.S. and D. Mackay. 2000. “Handbook of Property Estimation Methods for 

Chemicals.” Environmental and Health Sciences. Boca Raton, Florida. Lewis Publishers 

15.	 CerOxTM Corporation. 2005. Process Technology Overview. Online address is not available. 

55
 
 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

16.	 Donnelly, P.K., Hedge, R.S., and Fletcher, J.S. 1994. “Growth of PCB-Degrading Bacteria on 

Compounds from Photosynthetic Plants.” Chemosphere. Volume 28, Number 5. Pages 981-988. 

17.	 The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). 2009. “Remediation Technologies 

Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.” Online Address: 

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

18.	 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 2005. “Toxicological Profile 

Information Sheet.” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Online 

Address: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html. 

19.	 US EPA. September 1994. “Eco Logic International Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process-The 

Thermal Desorption Unit.” Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. EPA/540/AR94/504. Online Address: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lrpcd/site/reports/540ar93522/540ar93522.pdf. 

20.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1996. “Cost and Performance Summary 

Report, Bioremediation at the Stauffer Management Company Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida.” 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

21.	 US EPA. 1996. Site Technology Capsule: “GRACE Bioremediation Technologies 

DARAMEND® Bioremediation Technology.” Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 

Program. EPA/540/R-95/536. 

22.	 US EPA. September 2000. “Cost and Performance Summary Report, Bioremediation at the 

Stauffer Management Company Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida.” Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology Innovation. 

23.	 US EPA. August 2000. “Potential Applicability of Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment 

Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media.” Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. EPA-R-00-004. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/acwatechreport.pdf. 

24.	 US EPA. April 2002. “Persistent Organic Pollutants. A Global Issue. A Global Response.” Office 

of International Affairs. EPA160-F-02-001. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/oia/toxics/pop.pdf. 

25.	 US EPA. July 2004. “Field Evaluation of TerraTherm In Situ Thermal Destruction (ISTD) 

Treatment of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.” Office of Research and Development, Superfund 

Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. EPA/540/R-05/007. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/540r05007/540R05007.pdf. 

26.	 US EPA. March 2004. “In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and 

Field Applications.” EPA 542-R-04-010. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/epa542r04010.pdf. 

27.	 US EPA. 2005. Website on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP). Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Information Downloaded on January 5. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/international/toxics/pop.htm. 

28.	 US EPA. January 2007. “Combined Mechanical/Chemical Process Removes POPs from Soil and 

Sediment.” Technology News and Trends. Issue 28. EPA 542-N-06-007. Online Address: 

http://www.clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/tnandt/view.cfm?issue=0107.cfm. 

29.	 US EPA. January 2007. “EPA Evaluates Cost and Performance of Blood Meal-Enhanced 

Anaerobic Bioremediation of Toxaphene-Contaminated Soil.” Technology News and Trends. EPA 

542-N-06-007. Issue 28. Online Address: 

http://www.clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/tnandt/view.cfm?issue=0107.cfm. 

56
 
 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

30.	 Finucane, K., Geomelt. May 23, 2005. Emails to Ellen Rubin, US EPA, Office of Superfund 

Remediation Technology Innovation, Regarding Geomelt ICV Process Description and Photo, and 

Results for WCS Rock Flats and WCS Commercial TSCA Cleanup. 

31.	 General Atomics. 2005. “Advanced Process Systems Division.” Online Address: 

http://www.ga.com/atg/aps. 

32.	 GeoSolve, Inc. 2009. “Factor Description.” Online Address: http://www.geosolveinc.com/biotech.html. 

33.	 Getman, G.D. 2001. “Closure Report for SoLV Process Treatment of Soils Excavated from the 

Pennsylvania Air National Guard Site At Harrisburg International Airport Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania.” 

34.	 Gilbert, E.S. and D.E. Crowley. 1997. “Plant Compounds that Induce Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

Biodegradation by Anthrobacter sp. Strain B1B.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 

Volume 63, Number 5. Pages 1933-1938. 

35.	 Global Security. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Army Facilities. 2005. “Newport Chemical Depot 

(NECD), Newport, Indiana.” Online Address: 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/newport.htm. 

36.	 Gray, N.C.C., AstraZeneca Group PLC. December 15, 2004. Telephone Conversation with 

Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

37.	 Gray, N.C.C., P.R. Cline, A.L. Gray, B. Byod, G.P. Moser, H.A. Guiler, and D.J. Gannon. 2002. 

“Bioremediation of a Pesticide Formulation Plant.” Proceedings of the Third International 

Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Monterey, California. 

38.	 Haley & Aldrich, 1997. Demonstration Test Report, Thermal Wells, In Situ Thermal Desorption 

Technology, Missouri Electric Works Site, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Nov. 1997, Rochester, New 

York. p. 31 and Appendix B, p. 2. 

39.	 Hurt, K. 2005. “Successful Full Scale Phytoremediation of PCB and TPH Contaminated Soil,” 

The Third International Phytotechnologies Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. April 19 - 22. 

40.	 Impact Services, Inc. 2005. “GeoMelt® Technology Description.” Online Address: 

http://www.impactservicesinc.com/divisions/geomelt.html. 

41.	 Ing, G.C., Centro Studi sulle Reazioni Autopropaganti. December 12, 2004. Email to Younus 

Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

42.	 International Centre for Science and High Technology. 2007. Website for International Centre for 

Science and High Technology; United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Online 

Address: http://www.ics.trieste.it. 

43.	 International HCH and Pesticides Association (IHPA). June 2005. “Gas-Phase Chemical 

Reduction.” Online Address: 

http://www.ihpa.info/docs/library/reports/Pops/FactSheet%20SBC_GPCR%20_251105_DEF.pdf. 

44.	 IHPA. 2002. “NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Fellowship Report.” Evaluation of Demonstrated and 

Emerging Remedial Action Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and 

Groundwater (Phase III). Online Address: http://www.ihpa.info/docs/library/libraryNATO.php. 

45.	 Ishii, Y., Kawai, T., Nobuaki, H., Takehara, H., Yara, H., and Y. Tokashiki. March 2007. “POPs 

Contaminated Soil Treatment with ‘Reductive Heating and Sodium Dispersion Method’ and Its 

Recycling for Material of Green Planting.” Journal of Environmental Science for Sustainable 

Society. Volume 1. Pages 11 through 14. 

57
 
 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

46.	 Johnson, L., General Atomics. February 15, 2005. Telephone Conversation with Chitranjan 

Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

47.	 Leigh, M., Fletcher, J., Nagle, D.P., Prouzova P., Mackova, M. and Macek, T. 2003. 

“Rhizoremediation of PCBs: Mechanistic and Field Investigations.” Proceedings of the 

International Applied Phytotechnologies Conference. Chicago, Illinois. 

48.	 Lyons, T., US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory. January 19 and August 10, 

2005. Email to Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

49.	 March, J. 1985. “Advanced Organic Chemistry. Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure.” Third 

Edition. New York. John Wiley & Sons. 

50.	 Moklyachuk, L., Sorochinky, B. and Kulakow, P.A. 2005. “Phytotechnologies for Management of 

Radionucleide and Obsolete Pesticide Contaminated Soil in Ukraine,” The Third International 

Phytotechnologies Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. April 19 - 22. 

51.	 Noma, Y. 2009. Japanese Pesticides Treatment Fact Sheets, National Institute for Environmental 

Studies, Research Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management, Ibaraki, Japan. 

http://www.ihpa.info/docs/library/other/jp_factsheet/Fact_sheet%28Radicalplanet_Technology%29 

1.pdf. 

52.	 Nurzhanova, A., Kulakow, P., Rubin, E., Rakhimbaev, I., Sedlovsky, A., Zhambakin, K., Kalygin, 

S., Kalmykov, E. L. and Erickson. L. 2005. “Monitoring Plant Species Growth in Pesticide 

Contaminated Soil,” The Third International Phytotechnologies Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. 

April 19 - 22. 

53.	 Pan, D., Bennett Environmental Inc. January 18, 2005. Telephone Conversation with Younus 

Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

54.	 Phillips, T., G. Bell, D. Raymond, K. Shaw, and A. Seech. 2001. “DARAMEND® Technology for 

In Situ Bioremediation of Soil Containing Organochlorine Pesticides.” 6th International HCH and 

Pesticides Forum, Poznan, Poland. March 20 - 22. 

55.	 Raymond, D., Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. August 25, 2004. Telephone 

Conversation with Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

56.	 Rogers, C., BCD Group Inc. December 9 and 13, 2005. Email correspondence with Younus 

Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

57.	 Shaw Environmental Inc. and Environmental Decontamination Ltd. May 15, 2008. 

“MechanoChemical Destruction Supplemental Treatability Study, PCB Hot Spot – Soil Stockpiles 

12 and 15, Hunters Point Shipyard, San Francisco, California.” Final Report. 

58.	 Shimme, K., Radicalplanet Research Institute Co. Ltd. October 8, 2009. E-mail correspondence 

with Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

59.	 Sonic Environmental Solutions Inc. 2005. Website for Sonic Technology. Online Address: 

http://www.sesi.ca. 

60.	 Stegemeier, G.L., and Vinegar, H.J. 2001. “Thermal Conduction Heating for In Situ Thermal 

Desorption of Soils,” Chapter 4.6, pages 1-37. Chang H. Oh (ed.), Hazardous and Radioactive 

Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

61.	 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). 2009. Website for the Stockholm 

Convention. Online Address: http://www.pops.int. 

62.	 TerraTherm Environmental Services. November 1999. “Naval Facility Centerville Beach, 

Technology Demonstration Report, In Situ Thermal Desorption.” 

58
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Soil, Second Edition - 2010 

63.	 TerraTherm, Inc. 2005. “Process Description In Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD).” Online 

Address: http://www.terratherm.com. 

64.	 Thermal Desorption Technology Group LLC of North America. 2005. Website for Terra Humana 

Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. Online Address: http://www.terrenum.net. 

65.	 Thermal Desorption Technology Group, Terra Humana Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. 

December 10, 2004. “Summary Report of the TDT-3R Treatment - Latest Five Years – Projects 

2000-2004.” 

66.	 Thiess Services NSW. June 2004. “Proof of Performance Report, FCC Remediation, Mapua, New 

Zealand.” 

67.	 Turbosystems Engineering Inc. 2005. Web Page for Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology. 

Online Address: http://www.turbosynthesis.com/summitresearch/sumhome.htm. 

68.	 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2009. Website for the United 

Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Online Address: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap. 

69.	 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2005. Website for the Secretariat of the Basel 

Convention. Online Address: http://www.basel.int. 

70.	 UNEP. May 2005. “Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of 

Persistent Organic Pollutant Wastes.” UNEP/POPS/COP.1/11. Online Address: 

http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_1/meetingdocs/en/cop1_11/COP_1_11.pdf. 

71.	 UNEP. January 2004. STAP of the GEF. “Review of Emerging, Innovative Technologies for the 

Destruction and Decontamination of POPs and the Identification of Promising Technologies for 

Use in Developing Countries.” GF/8000-02-02-2205. Online Address: 

http://www.basel.int/techmatters/review_pop_feb04.pdf. 

72.	 UNEP. October 2003. Science and Technology Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global 

Environmental Facility. “Report of the STAP/GEF POPs Workshop on Non-Combustion 

Technologies for the Destruction of POPs Stockpiles.” Online Address: 

http://www.basel.int/techmatters/review_pop_feb04.pdf. 

73.	 White, J. C., Mattina, M. I., Eitzer, B. D., Isleyen, M., Parrish, Z. D. and Gent, M. P.N. 2005. 

“Enhancing the Uptake of Weathered Persistent Organic Pollutants by Cucurbita pepo,” The Third 

International Phytotechnologies Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. April 19 - 22. 

74.	 Whitfield, M., Rutter, A., Reimer, K. J., and Zeeb, B., 2008. “The Effects of Repeated Planting, 

Planting Density, and Specific Transfer pathways on PCB uptake by Cucurbita pepo grown in field 

conditions,” Science of the Total Environment, September 10. 

75.	 Zeeb, B., Whitfield, M. and Reimer, K. J. 2005. “In situ Phytoextraction of PCBs from Soil: Field 

Study,” The Third International Phytotechnologies Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. April 19 - 22. 

59
 
APPENDIX A 


Chemical Structures, Uses and Effects of POPs listed 

under the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP 
 

Appendix A 

Chemical Structures, Uses and Effects of POPs listed under the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP 

PESTICIDES
 

Aldrin & Dieldrin 

Aldrin and Dieldrin are chemical compounds that were once used as insecticides. 

Aldrin and Dieldrin are persistent in the environment and resistant to 

biodegradation and abiotic transformation. They both undergo bioaccumulation 

and bio-magnify in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Aldrin and Dieldrin are toxic 

to humans and cause damage to the liver and immune system. They are also 

carcinogenic to certain animals (Ref. 7). 

Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane & Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 

Alpha and beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) are by-products from the production of Lindane. Alpha 

and beta-HCH are both persistent in the environment; however, beta-HCH is found to be more persistent 

than alpha-HCH. Both HCHs bioaccumulate in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and can transport over 

long ranges in the atmosphere. Alpha-HCH and beta-HCH are considered to be human carcinogens that 

affect the human reproductive, neurological and immune systems (Ref. 7). 

 alpha-HCH beta-HCH 

Chlordane 

Chlordane is an organochlorine compound that was once used as a pesticide. It is 

extremely persistent in the environment and has the potential to bioaccumulate in 

aquatic ecosystems. There is not sufficient evidence to consider chlordane as a 

human carcinogen; however, chlordane is toxic to humans and affects the liver, 

digestive and nervous systems (Ref. 7). 

Chlordecone 

Chlordecone is a manufactured chemical that is present in pesticides and 

insecticides. Chlordecone is persistent in the environment, has a tendency to 

bioaccumulative and bio-magnify in terrestrial and aquatic food chains, is 

readily absorbed in soil and sediments, and has a high resistance to 

biodegradation. Chlordecone is highly toxic to humans, as well as aquatic 

organisms, and damages the musculoskeletal, liver, neurological and 

immune systems. Chlordecone is considered as a human carcinogen (Ref. 7). 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was a widely used pesticide and 

insecticide that controlled agricultural crop pests as well as insects that 

carried human diseases. DDT is persistent in the environment, which 

contributes to the bioaccumulation and bio-magnification effect that DDT 

has on organisms in the environment. DDT also has the potential to undergo long-range global transport 

A-1
 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Chemical Structures, Uses and Effects of POPs listed under the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP 

through the air. DDT is listed as a “probable” carcinogen to humans and can cause damage to the lungs 

and respiratory system if inhaled (Ref. 7). 

Endosulfan 

Endosulfan is a synthetic organochlorine compound that is widely used in 

agricultural insecticides. It is persistent in the environment, bioaccumulative, and 

has the potential for long-range environmental transport. Endosulfan is highly 

toxic to all organisms and humans; it affects the neurological, reproductive and 

developmental systems in humans (Ref. 7). Based on recent data and evaluations, 

as of June 2010, EPA is taking action to eliminate all uses of endosulfan in the 

US; additional information is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/endosulfan/endosulfan-cancl-fs.html. 

Endrin 

Endrin was primarily used as an insecticide and a rodenticide. Endrin is 

extremely persistent in the environment because it adsorbs strongly to soil 

particles and is practically immobile, which contributes to endrin’s high 

bioaccumulation capabilities. Unlike other organochlorines, endrin has a 

relatively low bio-magnification factor. Endrin affects the nervous system in 

humans, but is not considered to be a human carcinogen (Ref. 7). 

Heptachlor 

Heptachlor is an organochlorine that has been used as an insecticide. Heptachlor is 

persistent in the environment and adsorbs strongly to soil sediments, which 

contributes to a high bioaccumulation factor. Heptachlor has a relatively low biomagnification factor. It is listed as a “possible” human carcinogen that affects the 

liver, nervous and reproductive systems (Ref. 7). 

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is classified as a chlorinated hydrocarbon and was used as a 

fungicide for agricultural seed treatment. HCB is one of the most persistent chemicals 

found in the environment due to its chemical stability and high resistance to 

degradation. HCB significantly bioaccumulates in both terrestrial and aquatic food 

chains. For humans, HCB is considered a “probable” human carcinogen and is also an 

animal carcinogen (Ref. 7). 

Lindane 

Lindane is an organochlorine that was used in agricultural insecticides and in the 

pharmaceutical treatment of lice or scabies. Lindane is persistent in the environment 

and has the potential to bioaccumulate and bio-magnify in terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems. There is significant evidence for lindane to be considered as 

carcinogenic but is currently listed as a “possible” human carcinogen (Ref. 7). 

Mirex 

Mirex is a chlorinated hydrocarbon that was used as an insecticide and is also found 

in flame retardants. Mirex, like HCB, is very persistent in the environment due to its 

high resistance to chemical and biological degradation. This contributes to high 

A-2 
 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

Chemical Structures, Uses and Effects of POPs listed under the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP 

bioaccumulation and bio-magnification factors in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Mirex is considered 

to be an animal carcinogen and can affect the liver in humans (Ref. 7). 

Toxaphene 

Toxaphene, a complex mixture of hundreds of organic compounds, was used as an 

insecticide. It is persistent in the environment and has the potential to bioaccumulate 

and bio-magnify in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Toxaphene can be transported 

over very long distances in the atmosphere. Toxaphene is a human carcinogen, which 

affects the kidneys, lungs and nervous system (Ref. 7). 

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS OR BY-PRODUCTS 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were one of the most widely manufactured 

industrial chemicals in the US. PCBs are extremely persistent in the 

environment, bioaccumulate significantly in terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, and have a very high resistance to environmental degradation. In 

humans and animals, PCBs are considered to be a carcinogen and can affect 

the liver and kidneys (Ref. 7). 

Dioxins & Furans 

Dioxins and furans are by-products associated with the production of organochlorides. Dioxins and furans 

are persistent in the environment and are resistant to biodegradation. They also have a great potential to 

bioaccumulate in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Several different forms of dioxins and furans are 

considered to be “possible” human carcinogens (Ref. 7). 

Dioxin 

Furan 

Octabromodiphenyl ether, Pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE), Hexabromobiphenyl & 

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) 

Octabromodiphenyl ether, pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE), hexabromobiphenyl and 

hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) are all classified as brominated flame retardants (BFRs). BFRs have 

been used as industrial chemicals to produce foam for furniture and upholstery and casings for electronic 

goods. BFRs are toxic and persistent in the environment. 

Under the Stockholm Convention, the POPs review 

committee provided experimental evidence that the 

bioaccumulation of high blood level of BFRs in women of 

childbearing age could potentially harm the women and their 

unborn children. 

. 

Pentachlorobenzene 

Pentachlorobenzene is persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to humans and 

aquatic organisms. Pentachlorobenzene also has a high bio-magnification 

A-3 
 

 

Appendix A 

Chemical Structures, Uses and Effects of POPs listed under the Stockholm Convention and LRTAP 

potential and can undergo long-range transport in the air. In humans, pentachlorobenzene affects the 

central nervous system, liver, kidneys and reproductive system (Ref. 7). 

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is a widely used industrial chemical 

that is found in paints, polishes, leathers and fire retardants in the form 

of a fire fighting foam. PFOS is easily absorbed, bioaccumulative, 

persistent in the environment and toxic to humans and wildlife. PFOS 

also has the ability to transport over long distances in the environment (Ref. 7). 

Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) 

Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) is mainly used to make rubber compounds. 

It is also used as a solvent, and to make lubricants, in gyroscopes, as a heat 

transfer liquid, and as a hydraulic fluid. HCBD is also a by-product of 

chemical processing. HCBD has the potential to transport over long 

distances through water, soil or the atmosphere. Limited data is available 

about the bioaccumulation and biomagnification abilities of HCBD but it 

is predicted to bioaccumulate only in aquatic ecosystems. HCBD is 

considered a “possible” human carcinogen (Ref. 7). 

Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCN) 

Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) are chemical by-products that are created 

when chlorine reacts with naphthalene. This may occur during the production 

of coal tar. Limited data is available for PCNs, but available information 

indicates that PCNs likely have a low potential for bioaccumulation and 

biomagnification. PCNs are harmful to humans and affect the liver (Ref. 7). 

Short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCP) 

Short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) are industrial chemicals 

found in flame retardants, metal working fluids and in polyvinyl 

chlorinated (PVC) plastics. SCCPs are persistent, toxic (particularly 

to aquatic organisms), and undergo long-range transport in the 

environment. In humans, SCCPs have the potential to harm a breastfed child through bioaccumulation (Ref. 7). 

A-4
 
 

APPENDIX B 


Fact Sheet on
 

Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the 


Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 


Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 


POPS-WASTES APPLICABILITY (REFS. 1 AND 5): 

Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal was able to rapidly degrade toxaphene in soil to achieve 

cleanup goals in bench- and pilot-scale tests. Bench-scale tests have indicated that the technology is 

also effective in treating dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Full-scale implementations have 

successfully treated several toxaphene-contaminated sites. The quantity of soil treated at these sites 

ranged from 250 to 8,000 cubic yards. This technology does not typically achieve greater than 90 

percent contaminant reduction. 

POPs Treated: Toxaphene and DDT 

Other Contaminants Treated: 

Application: 

None 

Ex-situ 

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION (REFS. 1 AND 5): 

OVERVIEW 

This technology uses biostimulation to accelerate the degradation of toxaphene in soil or sediment. It 

involves the addition of biological amendments, including blood meal (nutrient) and phosphates (pH 

buffer), to stimulate native anaerobic microorganisms. Blood meal is a black powdery fertilizer made 

from animal blood. The typical dosage of blood meal and sodium phosphate is one percent by weight 

of contaminated soil. This is sometimes augmented with one percent by weight of starch to rapidly 

establish anaerobic conditions. The standard recipe uses monobasic and dibasic phosphate salts in 

equal proportions (monobasic:dibasic - 1:1) to maintain soil pH around 6.7. The low phosphate/starch 

recipe uses three times more dibasic than monobasic phosphates (monobasic:dibasic – 1:3) and 

maintains soil pH around 7.8. 

The soil to be treated is mixed with amendments and water. Mixing methods including blending in a 

dump truck, mechanical mixing in a pit, and mixing in a pug mill have been used to produce 

homogeneous soil-amendment mixtures. The mixture is transferred to a cell with a plastic liner, and 

excess water is added to provide up to a foot of cover above the settled solids. The water provides a 

barrier that minimizes the transfer of atmospheric oxygen to microorganisms in the slurry, which helps 

maintain anaerobic conditions. The lined cell is covered with a plastic sheet to isolate the cell from the 

environment, and the slurry is incubated for several months. The slurry may be sampled periodically to 

measure treatment progress. Once treatment goals have been met, the cell is drained. The slurry is 

usually left in place, but it may be dried and used as fill material on site. The slurry also serves as a 

source of acclimated microorganisms for use at another toxaphene-contaminated site. 

Anaerobic degradation of toxaphene usually results in the production of intermediates such as less 

chlorinated congeners of toxaphene. Further degradation of intermediates results in the production of 

carbon dioxide, methane, water, inorganic chlorides, and cell mass. 

STATUS AND AVAILABILITY (REFS. 2 AND 6): 

The technology has been implemented at full scale to treat toxaphene-contaminated sites. Four such 

sites are: 

(1) The Laahty Family Dip Vat (LDV) site (253 cubic yards in one cell) 

(2) The Henry O Dip Vat (HDV) site (660 cubic yards in two cells) 

(3) The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC 1) site (3,500 cubic yards in four cells) 

(4) The GRIC 2 site (8,000 cubic yards in five cells) 

 B-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 


Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 


US EPA’s Environmental Response Team (ERT) is the developer of the technology. The technology is 

unlicensed and is available through the ERT. The biological amendments (blood meal and monobasic 

and dibasic phosphates) are inexpensive and commercially available. 

Design (Refs 1, 5): 

Factors that need to be considered when designing an anaerobic bioremediation process using blood 

meal include: 

• The presence of active toxaphene-degrading bacteria 

• Soil characteristics 

• Volume of soil to be treated 

• Concentration of toxaphene in contaminated soil 

• Cleanup goal 

• Availability of space on site for the construction of treatment cells 

• Odor mitigation requirements as determined by surrounding land use and the proximity of 

residences 

• Need for agreements with landowners and community leaders 

• Climate 

• Security issues 

• Availability of water 

THROUGHPUT (REFS. 1 AND 5): 

Throughput of a technology that does not operate like a batch processing plant is hard to define. 

Remediation involves a series of steps including construction, mix preparation, and treatment. 

Treatment is usually the slowest step. Factors that can influence treatment time include, the type of 

microbial communities present, amendment dosage, contaminant concentration, treatment goals, and 

the presence of inhibitors (such as very cold environments). In general, treatment time can vary from 

five weeks to two years. 

WASTES/RESIDUALS (REFS 2, 3 AND 6): 

Products of toxaphene degradation include lower-chlorinated chlorobornane congeners, chloride ions, 

cell mass, carbon dioxide, and methane. Chlorobornane congeners have been shown to degrade 

completely during treatment. However, treated soil can contain low concentrations (below cleanup 

goals) of unutilized toxaphene and lower-chlorinated chlorobornane congeners. 

Gaseous wastes produced can include methane and hydrogen sulfide. Therefore, odor concerns 

should be considered. If treatment cells are not left in place at the end of remediation, solid wastes can 

include debris from the demolition of treatment cells and associated temporary facilities. Debris 

potentially contaminated with toxaphene will require testing to determine its hazardous nature in 

compliance with local, State, and Federal requirements prior to disposal. 

MAINTENANCE (REFS. 2 AND 6): 

• Periodic addition of water to treatment cells to maintain water level 

• Maintaining treatment cells to prevent leaks 

• Maintaining cover integrity 

• Monitoring for gas buildup 

• Monitoring for fugitive odors 

• Soil sampling to monitor remedial progress 

LIMITATIONS (REFS. 2 AND 6): 

• The anaerobic process is affected by temperature. Spring and summer are the best periods 

for operation. This technology cannot be used in extremely cold climates. 

• This technology requires a bench scale test to determine applicability at a given site, and to 

estimate treatment duration. 

• At a minimum, five weeks are required for treatment. 

• This technology typically does not achieve greater than 90 percent contaminant destruction. 

 B-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 


Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 


• Blood meal accelerates the rate of reductive dechlorination of toxaphene, but does not affect 

the extent of dechlorination. 

• Unfavorable soil chemistry can inhibit the process. Unfavorable soil chemistry may result from 

the presence of bioavailable heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, and chromium; solvents; 

and pesticides (including toxaphene). 

• Level C personal protective equipment is required when working with blood meal. 

FULL-SCALE TREATMENT EXAMPLES (REFS. 1, 2, 5 AND 6): 

Anaerobic bioremediation using blood meal and phosphate amendments has been implemented at a 

full scale at 22 Dip Vat sites in the Navajo Nation. Other sites where this technology has been applied 

at a full scale to remediate toxaphene-contaminated soil include: 

(1) The Ojo Caliente Dip Vat site 

(2) The Laahty Family Dip Vat site 

(3) The Henry O Dip Vat site 

(4) The Acoma Reservation at Sky City 

(5) The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC 1) crop duster site 

(6) The GRIC 2 crop duster site 

The resources used for this fact sheet contain performance data on nine applications of this 

technology. Performance data for each of these sites is presented in Table 1 at the end of this fact 

sheet. Three of these sites are discussed below in greater detail. The unit cost of implementation at 

these sites in USD ranged from $98 to $296 per cubic yard. 

Laahty Family Dip Vat (LDV) site 

The LDV site is located in The Zuni Nation, New Mexico. Soil at the site was contaminated with 

toxaphene at an average concentration of 29 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). A total of 253 cubic 

yards (cy) of soil was excavated and stockpiled on site. A cell with dimensions, 73 feet (ft) by 30 ft by 4 

ft (deep) was constructed and lined with a plastic liner. Contaminated soil was placed in a concrete 

mixer and mixed with biological amendments and water. Blood meal and monobasic phosphate were 

added, each at a dosage rate of 10 grams per kilogram (g/kg) of contaminated soil. Dibasic phosphate 

salts were also added at a dosage rate of 3.3 g/kg soil. The nutrient-amended soil slurry was then 

placed in the lined cell. Water was added to provide one foot of cover above the solids in the cell. The 

cell was then covered with a plastic sheet and incubated. Samples were collected periodically to 

monitor progress. The toxaphene concentration decreased in the anaerobic cell from an initial 

concentration of 29 mg/kg to 4 mg/kg in 31 days. This corresponded to an overall reduction of 86 

percent. The post-treatment concentrations were below the 17 mg/kg action level established for the 

site. In 2004, the total cost of treatment in USD was $75,000. Consequently, the unit cost of treatment 

at this site was $296 per cubic yard. 

Henry O Dip Vat (HDV) Site 

The HDV site is located in The Zuni Nation, New Mexico. Approximately 660 cy of soil at this site was 

contaminated with toxaphene at an average concentration of 23 mg/kg. Two cells were constructed for 

soil treatment: 

• The north cell (Cell 1) was 75 ft by 35 ft by 5 ft (deep). 

• The south cell (Cell 2) was 65 ft by 30 ft by 5 ft (deep). 

Both cells were lined with plastic liners. Blood meal and sodium phosphate were added to 

contaminated soil and placed in a mixing pit using a backhoe. The dosage rate of blood meal was 5 

g/kg of contaminated soil, while that of monobasic phosphate was 10 g/kg of contaminated soil. 

Dibasic phosphate salts were also added at a dosage rate of 3.3 g/kg. Water was added to the soil in 

the mixing pit, and the resulting soil slurry was extensively mixed. Once mixed, the soil slurry was 

 B-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 


Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 


transferred to anaerobic cells 1 and 2. Water was added to provide one foot of additional cover above 

the solids in each cell. Each cell was then covered with a plastic sheet and incubated for 61 to 76 

days. Samples were collected on day 1 and day 61 from Cell 1 and on day 1 and 76 from Cell 2. 

Analysis of the samples indicated that the average toxaphene concentration was reduced from 23 

mg/kg to 8 mg/kg. This corresponds to a percent removal of approximately 67 percent removal in 68 

days. The post-treatment concentrations were below the 17 mg/kg action level established for the site. 

In 2004, the total cost of treatment in USD was $65,000. Consequently, the unit cost of treatment at 

this site was $98 per cubic yard. 

Gila River Indian Community Site 

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) site is located in Chandler, Arizona. Approximately 3,500 cy 

of toxaphene-contaminated soil required treatment at this site. Four lined cells were constructed with 

dimensions of 178 ft by 43 ft by 7 ft (deep). This dosage rate was lower than for other sites to reduce 

costs. The dosage rate of blood meal, sodium phosphate, and dibasic phosphates was 5 g/kg of 

contaminated soil. Blood meal and phosphates were first mixed in a pit, and then blended with 

contaminated soil using a pug mill (100-300 cy/hr throughput). The mixture was then transferred to 

cells filled with water to 25 percent capacity. Additional water was then added to the cells to provide 

one foot of cover above the solids. Each cell was then covered with a plastic sheet. Samples were 

collected from the cells after initial setup and at the end of 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months. The 

removal of toxaphene in GRIC site soil took longer than usual due to the reduced amendment dosage 

rates. The average toxaphene concentration at the end of 180 days ranged between 4 mg/kg and 5 

mg/kg demonstrating 83 to 88 percent toxaphene removal. The samples collected at day 272 showed 

residual levels of 2 to 4 mg/kg corresponding to a percent removal between 87 and 98 percent. The 

post-treatment concentrations were below the 17 mg/kg action level established for the site. In 2004, 

the total cost of treatment in USD was $793,000. Consequently, the unit cost of treatment at this site 

was $226 per cubic yard. 

 B-4 
 

 

 

Appendix B 


Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 


Table 1 

Performance Data for Anaerobic Bioremediation of Toxaphene Using Blood Meal at Selected 

Sites 

Site Name 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Period 

(Days) 

Percent 

Reduction 

Volume 

Treated 

(cy) 

Navajo Vats Chapter 

Nazlini 291 71 108 76 NA 

Whippoorwill 40 17 110 58 NA 

Blue Canyon Road 100 17 106 83 NA 

Jeddito Island 22 3 76 77 NA 

Poverty Tank 33 8 345 76 NA 

Ojo Caliente 14 4 14 71 200 

Laahty Family Dip 

Vat 29 4 31 86 253 

Henry O Dip Vat 23 8 68 67 660 

Gila River Indian Community 

Gila River Indian 

Community (Cell 1) 59 4 272 94 

3,500 

Gila River Indian 

Community (Cell 2) 31 4 272 87 

Gila River Indian 

Community (Cell 3) 29 2 272 94 

Gila River Indian 

Community (Cell 4) 211 3 272 98 

Note: 

mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram 

NA: Not available 

Source: Refs. 1, 2 and 6 

 B-5 
 

 

Appendix B 


Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 


U.S. EPA CONTACT: 

U.S. EPA Environmental 

Response Team 

Harry L. Allen III, Ph.D. 

Phone: (732) 321-6747 

Email: allen.harry@epa.gov 

LAAHTY FAMILY AND HENRY O DIP 

VAT SITES: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Southwest Region 

Zuni Nation 

Phone: (505) 563-3106 

Gila River Indian Community 

CONTACT: 

GRIC Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Hazardous Waste Program 

Manager 

Dan Marsin 

Email: hazmat@gilnet.net 

Phone: (520) 562-2234 

PATENT NOTICE: 

This technology has not been patented. 

REFERENCES: 

1. Allen L., Harry and others. 2002. Anaerobic bioremediation of toxaphene-contaminated soil – 

a practical solution. 17th WCCS, Symposium No. 42, Paper No. 1509, Thailand. August 14 – 

21. 

2. Allen L., Harry, US EPA Environmental Response Team. 2005. Email to Younus Burhan, 

Tetra Tech EM Inc., Regarding Comments from Harry L. Allen on Draft (January 5, 2005) 

Blood Meal Fact Sheet. January 25. 

3. Allen L., Harry, US EPA Environmental Response Team. 2005. Memo to Ellen Rubin, US 

EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Response to Questions on 

Toxaphene Fact Sheet. February 24. 

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Office of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Innovation. 2004. Cost and Performance Summary Report. The Legacy of the 

Navajo Vats Superfund Site, Arizona and New Mexico. October. 

5. US EPA. 2000. Fact Sheet - Gila River Indian Community Toxaphene Site. October. 

6. Rubin, Ellen, US EPA Environmental Response Team. 2005. Email to Younus Burhan, Tetra 

Tech EM Inc., Regarding Comments from Dr. T. Ferrell Miller on Draft (January 5, 2005) Blood 

Meal Fact Sheet. February 7. 

 B-6 
 

 

APPENDIX C 


Fact Sheet on
 

Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of
 

POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 


Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 


POPS - WASTES APPLICABILITY (REFS. 1, 6, AND 10): 

DARAMEND® is a bioremediation technology that has been used to treat soils and sediments 

containing low concentrations of pesticides such as toxaphene and DDT as well as other contaminants. 

POPs Treated: Toxaphene and DDT 

Other Contaminants Treated: DDD, DDE, RDX, HMX, DNT, and TNT 

DARAMEND® particle colonization as viewed 

through an electron-microscope 

Source: Adventus Americas, Inc. 

Application of DARAMEND®

 at the T.H. Agricultural and 

Nutrition Superfund Site (Source: Adventus Americas, Inc.). 

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION (REFS. 4, 5 AND 10): 

OVERVIEW 

DARAMEND®

 is an amendment-enhanced 

bioremediation technology for the treatment of 

POPs that involves the creation of sequential 

anoxic and oxic conditions. The treatment 

process involves the following: 

1. Addition of solid phase DARAMEND® 

organic soil amendment of specific 

particle size distribution and nutrient 

profile, zero valent iron, and water to 

produce anoxic conditions. 

2. Periodic tilling of the soil to promote 

oxic conditions. 

3. Repetition of the anoxic-oxic cycle until 

the desired cleanup goals are 

achieved. 

The addition of DARAMEND®

 organic 

amendment, zero valent iron, and water 

stimulates the biological depletion of oxygen 

generating strong reducing (anoxic) conditions 

within the soil matrix. The diffusion of replacement oxygen into the soil matrix is prevented by near 

saturation of the soil pores with water. The depletion of oxygen creates a very low redox potential, 

which promotes dechlorination of organochlorine compounds. A cover may be used to control the 

moisture content, increase the temperature of the soil matrix and eliminate run-on/run off. The soil 

matrix consisting of contaminated soil and the amendments is left undisturbed for the duration of the 

anoxic phase of treatment cycle (typically 

1- 2 weeks). 

In the oxic phase of each cycle, periodic 

tilling of the soil increases diffusion of 

oxygen to microsites and distribution of 

irrigation water in the soil. The 

dechlorination products formed during the 

anoxic degradation process are 

subsequently removed trough aerobic 

(oxic) biodegradation processes, initiated 

by the passive air drying and tilling of the 

soil to promote aerobic conditions. 

Addition of DARAMEND®

 and the anoxicoxic cycle continues until the desired 

cleanup goals are achieved. The 

frequency of irrigation is determined by 

weekly monitoring of soil moisture 

conditions. Soil moisture is maintained 

within a specific range below its water 

 C-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 


Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 


holding capacity. Maintenance of soil moisture content within a specified range facilitates rapid growth 

of an active microbial population and prevents the generation of leachate. The amount of 

DARAMEND®

 added in the second and subsequent treatment cycles is generally less than the amount 

added during the first cycle. 

DARAMEND®

 technology can be implemented using land farming practices either ex situ or in situ. In 

both cases, the treatment layer is 2 feet (ft) deep, the typical depth reached by tilling equipment. 

However, the technology can be implementation in 2-ft sequential lifts. In the ex situ process, the 

contaminated soil is excavated and sometimes mechanically screened in order to remove debris that 

may interfere with the distribution of the organic amendment. The screened soil is transported to the 

treatment unit, which is typically an earthen or concrete cell lined with a high-density polyethylene liner. 

In situ, the soil may be screened to a depth of 2-ft using equipment such as subsurface combs and 

agricultural rock pickers. 

STATUS AND AVAILABILITY (REF. 1): 

DARAMEND® is a proprietary technology and is available only through one vendor - Adventus 

Remediation Technologies (ART), Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. In the U.S., the technology is 

provided by ART’s sister company, Adventus Americas Inc., Bloomingdale, IL. The technology has 

been used for the treatment of POPs (toxaphene and DDT) since 2001. Table 1 lists performance data 

for DARAMEND® technology application at selected sites. Through 2005, DARAMEND®

 has been 

implemented at two POPs contaminated sites. 

Table 1: Performance Data of DARAMEND at Selected Sites 

Site Name Scale 

Quantity 

Treated 

(tons) 

No. of 

treatment 

cycles 

Duration 

of each 

cycle 

Cost 

per 

ton* 

Performance 

Contaminant 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

POPs Contaminated Sites 

T.H. Agricultural & 

Nutrition (THAN) 

Superfund Site, 

Montgomery, 

Alabama 

Full 4,500 15 10 days $55 Toxaphene 

DDT 

DDE 

DDD 

See Table 2 for 

performance data 

W.R. Grace, 

Charleston, South 

Carolina 

Pilot 250 8 1 month $95 Toxaphene 239 5.1 

DDT 89.7 16.5 

Non-POPs Contaminated Sites 

Naval Weapons 

Station,Yorktown, 

Virginia 

Full 4,800 12 7-10 

days 

$90 TNT 15,359 14 

RDX 1,090 1.6 

DNT 1,002 13 

Iowa Army 

Ammunition Plant, 

Burlington, Iowa 

Full 8,000 5 7-10 

days 

$150 RDX 1,530, 16.2 

HMX 1,112, 84.5 

TNT 95.8 8 

Confidential Site, 

Northwest U.S.A. 

(applied in multiple 

2-ft lifts) 

Full 6,000 Aerobic 

treatment 

NA $37 PCP 359 8 

PCP 760 31 

Source: Ref. 1 

* Treatment costs are as reported by vendor. The vendor did not specify what was included in this cost. 

 C-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 


Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 


DESIGN (REF. 5): 

The major design factor for the implementation of this technology is the amount and type of soil 

amendments required for bioremediation. This is dependent on site conditions and the physical 

(textural variation, percent organic matter, and moisture content) and chemical (soil pH, macro and 

micronutrients, metals, concentration and nature of contaminants of concern) properties of the target 

soil. The duration of the treatment cycle is based on soil chemistry, concentration of contaminants of 

concern and soil temperature. The number of treatment cycles is based on the required cleanup levels 

of the contaminant. 

THROUGHPUT (REF. 4): 

For ex situ treatment, the amount of POPs contaminated soil/sediment that can be treated is 

dependent on the available surface area to spread contaminated soil. The technology can also be 

applied ex situ in windrows. For in situ application, the tillage equipment limits the depth (2-ft) to which 

the soil can be remediated. However, the technology can be used in situ at depth greater than 2-ft 

using alternative soil mixing equipment or injection techniques. 

WASTES/RESIDUALS (REF. 4): 

The primary wastes generated are debris, stone, and construction material that are removed in the 

pretreatment process. No leachate is generated if a treatment area cover is used. If no cover is used, 

precipitation in the treatment area may generate leachate or storm water run-off. 

Sampling and monitoring activities of the treatment pile will generate personal protective equipment 

(PPE) and contaminated water from decontamination activities. 

MAINTENANCE: 

Implementation of the DARAMEND®

 technology to treat POPs requires limited maintenance such as 

the upkeep of tilling, soil moisture control, and other industrial equipment. Because the specific 

amendments and application rate of DARAMEND®

 are site and soil-specific, the ongoing maintenance 

will vary by site and type of soil treated. 

LIMITATIONS (REFS. 4 AND 9): 

DARAMEND®

 technology may become technically or economically infeasible when treating soils with 

excessively high contaminant concentration. The technology has not been used for the treatment of 

other POPs such as PCBs, dioxins, or furans. ART, the developer of the technology, indicated that it 

has been only marginally successful in bench scale treatment of PCB-contaminated soil. Bench scale 

or pilot scale studies are typically conducted before field application of this technology; the type and 

amount of soil amendments required are then based on the results of these studies. 

In situ application of this technology using tilling equipment is limited to a depth of 2-ft. However, the 

technology can be used in situ at depths greater than 2-ft using alternative soil mixing equipment or 

injection techniques. This technology requires that the treatment area be free of surface and 

subsurface obstructions that would interfere with the soil tilling. Ex situ application of this technology 

requires a large surface area to treat large quantities of the contaminated soil. Implementation of this 

technology in 2-ft sequential lifts would increase the total time required to treat the contaminated soil. 

The technology can also be applied ex situ in windrows. 

Application of this technology requires a source of water (either city, surface, or subsurface). 

This technology cannot be applied to sites that are prone to seasonal flooding or have a water table 

that fluctuates to within 3-ft of the site surface. These conditions make it difficult to maintain the 

appropriate range of soil moisture required for effective bioremediation, and may redistribute 

contamination across the site. 

Volatile organic compound emissions may increase during soil tilling. Other factors that could interfere 

 C-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 


Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 


with the process would be large amounts of debris in the soil, which would interfere with the 

incorporation of organic amendments and reduce the effectiveness of tilling. Presence of other toxic 

compounds (heavy metals) may be detrimental to soil microbes. Soils with high humic content may 

slow down the cleanup through increased organic adsorption and oxygen demand. 

FULL-SCALE TREATMENT EXAMPLES (REF. 3): 

Bioremediation of pesticides-impacted soil/sediment, T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition (THAN) Superfund 

Site, Montgomery, Alabama. 

The THAN site is located on the west side of Montgomery, Alabama, about 2 miles south of the 

Alabama River. The site is approximately 16 acres in area. Previous site operations involved the 

formulation, packing and distribution of pesticides, herbicides, and other industrial/waste treatment 

chemicals. The site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on August 30, 1990. In 1991, US 

EPA entered into a consent agreement with Elf Atochem North America Inc., the Potentially 

Responsible Party (PRP) for the site, to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study for the site. 

The final Record of Decision (ROD) for the site was signed on September 28, 1998, and 

bioremediation was selected as the remedy for treating the contaminated soils and sediments. 

DARAMEND® was selected as the bioremediation technology. 

The contaminated soil and excavated sediments (approximately 4,500 tons) were treated using 

anaerobic/aerobic bioremediation cycle using DARAMEND® . Implementation of the technology 

involved the following steps: 

1. DARAMEND®

 amendment and powdered iron application and incorporation 

2. Determination of water holding capacity (first cycle only) 

3. Determination of treatment matrix moisture content 

4. Irrigation 

5. Measurement of soil redox potential 

6. Soil allowed to stand undisturbed for anoxic phase (approximately 7 days) 

7. Soil tilled daily to generate oxic condition (approximately 4 days) 

8. Steps 1, and 3 to 7 were repeated for each subsequent cycle. Fifteen treatment cycles were 

implemented in some treatment areas on site. 

Two agricultural tractors (Model: Massey-Ferguson 394 H) mounted with deep rotary tillers were used 

for amendment application and tilling the treatment area. The target soil moisture content at the 

beginning of each cycle was approximately 33% (dry wt. basis) or 90% of the soil’s water holding 

capacity. The optimal pH range (6.6 to 8.5) of the treatment area was maintained by adding hydrated 

lime at a rate of 1,000 mg/kg during the oxic phase of the third, sixth, and twelfth cycle. Following the 

application of each treatment cycle, samples were collected from the treatment area. The treatment 

area was divided into 12 sampling zones and one composite sample (composite of four grab samples) 

was collected from each zone. The samples were collected from the full 2-ft soil profile of treatment 

area. Fifteen treatment cycles were applied to some areas of the site. Table 2 lists the initial and final 

concentration of the samples collected from these 12 zones. 

Based on the final sampling event DARAMEND®

 reduced the concentration of all the contaminants of 

concern to less than the specified performance standards. The average treatment cost in USD at the 

THAN site was $55 per ton. The vendor did not specify what was included in this cost. 

 C-4 
 

 

 

Appendix C 


Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 


Table 2: DARAMEND® performance at the THAN Site 

Toxaphene 

(29 mg/kg) 1 

DDT 

(94 mg/kg)1 

DDD 

(94 mg/kg)1 

DDE 

(133 mg/kg)1 

Sampling 

Zone 

Initial 2 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

Final 3 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

Initial 2 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

Final 3 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

Initial 2 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

Final 3 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

Initial 2 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

Final 3 

Conc. 

(mg/kg) 

1 77 < 20 126 10.2 52 26.4 33 6 

2 260 < 21 227 15 133 73 35.3 8.4 

3 340 < 21 33.2 4.5 500 89 49 7.8 

4 45 < 21 55.1 14.7 34 37 15.8 7.2 

5 230 < 21 216 16.1 93 53 22.4 6.8 

6 90 < 21 13.3 2.2 130 59 17 5.7 

7 100 < 20 151 15.3 85 38 25.2 6.3 

8 13 < 20 9.1 5.2 44 24.3 6.9 2.8 

9 330 < 21 45 5.7 312 85 28.2 7.2 

10 48 < 20 44.4 5.7 146 25.5 20.1 4.2 

11 20 < 20 12.6 2.9 46 25.1 6.9 3.0 

12 720 < 21 78 6.3 590 87 59.6 8.6 

Notes: 

1. Performance Standard as specified in the Record of Decision, Summary of Remedial 

Alternatives Selection, THAN Site. 

2. Initial concentration reported from samples collected by responsible party. 

3. Final concentration reported from splits samples collected by US EPA. 

U.S. EPA RPM FOR THAN SITE: 

Brian Farrier 

EPA Region 4 

Telephone: 404-562-8952 

Fax: 404-562-8955 

Email: farrier.brian@epa.gov 

VENDOR CONTACT DETAILS: 

David Raymond 

Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 

1345 Fewster Drive 

Mississauga, Ontario L4W 2A5 

Telephone: 905-273-5374, Extension 224 

Mobile: 416-818-0328 

Fax: 905-273-4367 

Email: info@AdventusGroup.com 

Website: http://www.adventusgroup.com/ 

PATENT NOTICE: 

DARAMEND® is a patented technology with U.S. Patent No. 5,618,427. 

 C-5 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 


Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 


REFERENCES: 

1. 	 Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. DARAMEND project summaries. Online Address: 

http://www.adventusremediation.com. 

2. 	 Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. March 2002. Draft Final Report, Ex-Situ 

DARAMEND Bioremediation of Soil Containing Organic Explosive Compounds, Iowa Army 

Ammunition Plant, Middletown, Iowa. 

3. 	 Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. November 2003. Final Report, Bioremediation of 

Soil and Sediment Containing Chlorinated Organic Pesticides, THAN Superfund Site, 

Montgomery, Alabama. 

4. 	 US EPA. 1996. Site Technology Capsule, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies 

DARAMEND® Bioremediation technology. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation. 

EPA/540/R-95/536. 

5. 	 US EPA. 1997. Site Technology Capsule, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies 

DARAMEND® Bioremediation technology. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation. 

EPA/540/R-95/536a. 

6. 	 US EPA. 2002. Technology News and Trends, Full-Scale Bioremediation of Organic
 

Explosive contaminated soil. EPA 542-N-02-003. July. 


7. 	 US EPA. 2004. TH Agricultural & Nutrition Company Site Information and Source Data. 

Online Address: http://www.epareachit.org. 

8. 	 US EPA. 2004. TH Agricultural & Nutrition Company Site, RODS Abstract information, 

Superfund Information Systems. Online Address: http://www.epa.gov/superfund. 

9. 	 Farrier, Brian, US EPA Region 4. 2004. Telephone Conversation with Younus Burhan, Tetra 

Tech EM Inc. August 31 and October 19. 

10. Phillips, T., Bell, G., Raymond, D., Shaw, K., and Seech, A.	 2001. “DARAMEND®

 technology 

for in situ bioremediation of soil containing organochlorine pesticides.” 

11. Raymond, David, Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc.	 2004. Telephone Conversation 

with Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. August 25. 

 C-6 
 

APPENDIX D 


Fact Sheet on
 

In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in 


Soils and Sediments 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 


In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments
 

POPS-WASTES APPLICABILITY (REFS. 4 AND 16): 

ISTD is a thermally enhanced in Situ treatment technology that uses conductive heating elements to 

directly transfer heat to environmental media. ISTD can heat soil or sediment in situ to average 

temperatures of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and as a result has been used to treat compounds with 

relatively high boiling points. Some of these include semivolatile organic contaminants (SVOCs) such as 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and herbicides. 

Pilot- and full-scale applications have been performed where ISTD has been used to remove PCBs, and 

where dioxins and furans were trace contaminants. TerraTherm is the sole vendor for ISTD. According 

to TerraTherm, laboratory-scale work and extrapolation techniques have suggested the potential 

applicability of ISTD to POPs other than PCBs, dioxins, and furans (including aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, 

chlordane, heptachlor, DDT, mirex, hexachlorobenzene, and toxaphene); however, these contaminants 

have not yet been treated using ISTD on a full- or pilot-scale basis. ISTD has been used to treat 

contaminants in most hydrogeologic settings, including beneath structures. 

POPs Treated: PCBs, dioxins, and furans, aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin 

Other Contaminants Treated: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, isodrin, VOCs, SVOCs, oils, creosotes, 

coal tar PAHs, gasoline and diesel range organics, and MTBE 

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION (REFS. 2, 4, 13 AND 16): 

OVERVIEW 

ISTD involves simultaneous application of heat and vacuum to subsurface soils. There are three basic 

elements in an ISTD process: (1) application of heat to contaminated media; (2) collection of desorbed 

contaminants through vapor extraction; and (3) treatment of collected vapors. Figure 1 presents a typical 

ISTD system. 

ISTD has been used at full scale 

to treat PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, 

and chlorinated volatile organic 

compounds (CVOC). At the 

temperatures achieved by the 

ISTD process, volatiles metals 

such as mercury may also be 

recovered. 

In Situ Heating 

ISTD uses surface or buried 

electrically powered heaters to heat contaminated media. The most common setup uses a vertical array 

of heaters placed inside wells drilled into the remediation zone. A less common setup uses the same 

type of heaters installed horizontally on the surface of the contaminated zone. This method of heating 

(often called blanket heating) is typically used when contamination is shallow (usually 1 to 3 feet below 

ground surface (bgs)). Figure 2 illustrates the two different methods of heating. 

ISTD heaters can attain temperatures as high as 1,600°F, and can produce average media temperatures 

exceeding 1,000°F. Heat originates from a heating element and is transferred to the subsurface largely 

via thermal conduction and radiant heat transport, which dominates near the heat sources. There is also 

a contribution through convective heat transfer that occurs during the formation of steam from pore water 

present in the soil or sediment. 

The thermal conductivity values of a wide range of soil types (e.g., clay, silt, sand, gravel) vary only by a 

factor of approximately four. Therefore, the rate of heat transfer from the linear heaters to the 

surrounding media is radially uniform. When heating commences, the temperature profile in the 

remediation zone is characterized by large gradients, and temperatures decrease sharply with distance 

from the source. Over time, superposition of heat from adjacent heaters tends to even out these 

differences. 

Figure 1 

Typical ISTD System 

Source: TerraThermTM Inc. 

D-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blanket 

Heating

Thermal Well

Heating

Appendix D 


In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments
 

Source: TerraThermTM Inc. 

Vapor Extraction 

Figure 2 

Blanket and Thermal Well Heating	 As the matrix is heated, adsorbed and liquidphase contaminants begin to vaporize. A 

significant portion of organic contaminants either 

oxidize (if sufficient air is present) or pyrolize 

once high soil temperatures are achieved. 

Desorbed contaminants are recovered through 

a network of vapor-extraction wells. 

Vapor extraction wells are also heated to Blanket prevent condensation of contaminants inside the Heating well. A vacuum is applied to these wells to 

induce air flow through the contaminated media 

creating a zone of capture. Contaminant vapors 

captured by the extraction wells are conveyed to 

an offgas treatment system for treatment prior to 

discharge to the atmosphere. 

Thermal Well 

Heating Offgas Treatment (Ref. 2) 

TerraTherm offers two different methods of 

vapor treatment. One treats extracted vapor 

without phase separation (Figure 1), and the 

other cools heated vapor, separates the 

resulting phases, and manages each phase 

separately. 

The vapor treatment option depicted by Figure 1 uses a thermal oxidizer to break down organic vapors to 

primarily carbon dioxide and water. Stack sampling has demonstrated that toxic pollutants in offgas, 

including dioxins, are substantially below regulatory standards. When influent vapors contain chlorinated 

compounds, hydrogen chloride (HCl) gas is produced. In such cases, the exhaust from the thermal 

oxidizer is passed through an acid gas scrubber to capture HCl gas. 

The other vapor treatment option uses a heat exchanger to cool extracted vapors. The resulting liquid 

phase is then separated into aqueous and nonaqueous phases. The nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) is 

usually disposed of at a licensed treatment storage and disposal facility. The aqueous phase is passed 

through liquid-phase activated carbon adsorption units and then released into the environment. Cooled, 

uncondensed vapor is passed through vapor-phase activated carbon adsorption units and then vented to 

atmosphere. 

Although setup varies from site to site, several components of the remediation system including heaters, 

blowers, and offgas treatment equipment are either standard or adaptable to new situations, with 

equipment reused from site to site. Downhole wells may not be salvageable and may be plugged and 

abandoned in place. 

STATUS AND AVAILABILITY (REFS. 4 AND 5): 

ISTD is a patented technology originally developed by Shell Oil. While U.S. Patent rights were donated 

to the University of Texas (UT), patent rights outside the U.S. were retained by Shell. TerraTherm holds 

the exclusive license to this technology from both UT and Shell, and is currently the only vendor. ISTD 

has been commercial for several years. Its ability to remove PCBs from contaminated soil was first 

demonstrated more than 6 years ago. As shown on Table 1, ISTD has been used at six POPcontaminated sites. Implementation at four of these sites was full scale, and the other two were pilot 

scale. 

D-2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 


In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments
 

Table 1 

Performance of ISTD at POPs Contaminated Sites (Refs. 2, 4 and 7) 

Concentration 

Site Name Year Scale Contaminant 

Initial Final Goal Units 

Former South 

Glens Falls 

Dragstrip, 

Moreau, New 

York 

1996 Full PCB 

1248/1254 

5,000 

(Max) 

< 0.8 2 mg/kg 

Tanapag 

Village, Saipan, 

NMI 

1997 ­

1998 

Full PCB 

1254/1260 

10,000 

(Max) 

< 1 10 mg/kg 

PCB 1254 860 

(Max) 

Centerville < 0.17 1 mg/kg 

Beach, 

Ferndale, CA 

1998 ­

1999 

Full 

Dioxins and 

Furans 

3.2 (Max) 0.006 1 1 ug/kg 

TCDD 

Missouri 

Electric Works, 

Cape 

Girardeau, MO 

1997 Pilot PCB 1260 20,000 

(Max) 

< 0.033 2 mg/kg 

Former Mare 

Island Naval 

Shipyard, 

Vallejo, CA 

1997 Pilot PCB 

1254/1260 

2,200 

(Max) 

< 0.033 1 mg/kg 

Former Wood 

Treatment 

Area, 

Alhambra, CA 

2002 ­

2005 

Full Dioxins and 

Furans 

18 

(Mean) 

0.01 1 ug/kg 

Note: 

Avg Average concentration 

Max Maximum concentration 

mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram (or parts per million) 

NMI Northern Mariana Islands 

ND Below detection limit 

TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin equivalents 

ug/kg Micrograms per kilogram (or parts per billion) 

1 Final concentration presented as average of residual concentrations in treatment area. 

DESIGN (REF. 12): 

Key design factors for ISTD include the number and depth of heater wells and vacuum wells, as well as 

the requirements for electrical power and treatment of off gasses. These factors are affected by the type 

of contaminants present, concentration of the contaminants, extent of contamination, soil type, hydraulic 

conductivity, permeability, thermal properties, location of the water table, availability of site facilities such 

as electrical power supply, and regulatory issues. 

D-3
 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 


In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments
 

THROUGHPUT (REF. 5): 

ISTD has been used to treat volumes as low as a few hundred cubic yards to greater than 20,000 cubic 

yards in 6 to 9 months. Factors affecting cleanup durations can include type of contaminants, 

cleanup/remedial goals, and site geology. 

WASTES/RESIDUALS (REFS. 3 AND 5): 

Wastes produced by ISTD are likely to result from the treatment of extracted vapors, and vary according 

to the type of treatment they are subjected to. Offgas treatment options that employ phase separation 

techniques could produce process wastes such as NAPL, spent liquid- and vapor-phase activated 

carbon, and inorganic salts as waste products. For example, the treatment of chlorinated vapors in a 

thermal oxidizer results in the production of HCL gas. A wet or dry acid gas scrubber used to neutralize 

HCl gas will produce inorganic salts as a waste product. 

NAPL is typically transported off site for disposal at a licensed facility. Spent activated carbon may either 

be disposed of, or regenerated at a licensed facility. Inorganic salts produced from neutralization 

processes are typically considered nonhazardous and are consequently disposed of as nonhazardous 

waste. 

MAINTENANCE (REF. 4): 

Maintenance associated with ISTD includes the occasional replacement of heater elements. ISTD 

operation is typically characterized by less than 5% downtime. Other maintenance needs include 

treatment media replacement and thermal oxidizer refueling. 

LIMITATIONS (REF. 4): 

The following are some of the limitations of this technology: 

• ISTD cannot address contaminants that do not volatilize with in the temperature range of 

approximately 15-1000°C. 

• As long as liquid water remains within the remediation zone, the temperature that can be attained 

is limited to the boiling point of water (212°F). Once the water is boiled off, higher temperatures 

can be attained. A continuing source of water influx into the treatment zone will undermine the 

ability of this technology to produce temperatures necessary for the removal of POPs. For this 

reason, formation dewatering and implementation of water control measures are needed prior to 

the implementation of ISTD in high-permeability, water-saturated zones. 

• Though not always the case, cost can be a limiting factor. Unit costs for treatment are influenced 

by several factors including scale of the project, depth of the treatment zone, depth to water 

table, air emission controls, cost of labor and cost of power. However, in general, unit costs in 

USD range from $200 to $600 per cubic yard corresponding to treatment volumes ranging from 

less than 5,000 to approximately 15,000 cubic yards for POP-type contaminants. Larger 

volumes may have lower unit costs. Treatment costs for VOC contaminants are lower. 

FULL-SCALE TREATMENT EXAMPLES: 

Centerville Beach (Refs. 6, 8, 10 and 14) 

The Centerville Beach Naval Facility is a 30-acre site in Ferndale, California that was used for 

oceanographic research and undersea surveillance. The site was decommissioned in 1993. Operations 

at the site lead to contamination of a particular area with PCBs. The PCB of concern was Aroclor 1254 

which was present in concentrations ranging from 0.15 to 860 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Dioxins 

and furans were also present at a maximum concentration of 3.2 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) as 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) equivalents. The contaminated medium was primarily silty clay. 

Groundwater was encountered below the contaminated zone at depths exceeding 60 feet bgs. 

From September 1998 through February 1999, approximately 1,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated 

soil was treated using ISTD. Heater and vapor extraction wells were installed in a zone measuring 40 

D-4
 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 


In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments
 

feet long, 30 feet wide, and 15 feet deep. The wells were installed 6 feet apart. Two sealed vacuum 

blowers were used in parallel for vapor extraction. Offgas was treated using a flameless thermal oxidizer 

(with greater than 99.99% demonstrated treatment efficiency), and two granular activated carbon units 

configured in series. The total cost of the implementation in USD was approximately $650,000. 

The treatment goal was 1 mg/kg for PCBs and 1 μg/kg TCDD equivalent for dioxins and furans. 

Remediation took place between September 1998 and February 1999. Treatment goals were met in the 

bulk of the treatment area; however, one portion (178 cubic yards) still contained elevated concentrations 

of PCBs. This was found to be caused by a previously undiscovered bank of PCB-containing electrical 

conduits emanating from outside the treatment zone and passed into the treatment area. Excavation and 

disposal was subsequently used to remove this area of contaminated soil and the associated conduits. 

Alhambra (Refs. 3, 9, 17 and 18) 

Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Alhambra Combined Facility occupies approximately 33 acres and is 

currently used for storage, maintenance, and employee training. SCE carried out wood treatment 

operations in SCE’s 2-acre former wood treatment area between 1921 and 1957. The total volume of 

contaminated soil was estimated to be 16,200 cubic yards of soil. The contaminated zone included a 

variety of buried features including treatment tanks, the structural remains of the former boiler house and 

tank farm, and various buried utilities. The contaminants of concern were PAHs, pentachlorophenol 

(PCP), and dioxins. Total PAHs were present in site soils at a maximum concentration of 35,000 mg/kg 

and an average concentration of 2,306 mg/kg. PCP was present at a maximum concentration of 58 

mg/kg and an average concentration of less than 1 mg/kg. Dioxins were present at a maximum 

concentration of 0.194 mg/kg and an average concentration of 0.018 mg/kg (expressed as 2,3,7,8­

tetrachloro-dibenzodioxin [TCDD] Toxic Equivalency Quotient [TEQ]). The soil in the remediation zone 

was composed of silty sands, inter-bedded with sands, silts, and clays. The average thermal treatment 

depth was approximately 20 feet bgs and extended to 100 feet bgs in some areas. The depth to the 

water table was greater than 240 feet bgs. The treatment goals were 0.065 mg/kg (expressed as 

benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P] toxic equivalents) for PAHs; 2.5 mg/kg for PCP, and 0.001 mg/kg for dioxins 

(expressed as TEQ). 

Remedial action at the site was conducted in two phases. Each phase addressed a different area of the 

site. The overall ISTD system for the two phases consisted of 785 thermal wells (131 heater-vacuum 

and 654 heater-only wells) at a 7.0-ft 

spacing between thermal wells, as well as 

an insulated surface seal, thermal oxidizer, 

heat exchanger, and granular activated 

carbon for off-gas treatment. 

The ISTD began cleanup operations for 

Phase I of the remediation of Area of 

Concern (AOC)-2 in February 2003. 

Confirmation soil samples were submitted 

to DTSC in July 2004 which confirmed that 

the cleanup goals for Phase I of AOC-2 

had been achieved. Phase 2 of the 

cleanup began in July 2004 and was 

scheduled for completion by October 2004. 

However, a previously undiscovered 

volume of free product made it necessary to reduce in Situ temperatures in order to control organic 

contaminant concentrations in the offgas treatment system influent. This resulted in an anticipated 10­

month increase in the cleanup duration. Phase 2 of the cleanup was completed in August 2005. The 

results showed a 99% decrease in contaminant concentration from 18 ug/kg initially to .01 ug/kg. In 

February 2007, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued a letter of closure to the 

Figure 3

Phase-1 Soil Sampling Results

Source: TerraThermTM Inc.

Figure 3 

Phase-1 Soil Sampling Results 

Source: TerraThermTM Inc. 

D-5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 


In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments
 

SCE Alhambra Combined Facility that states the site needed “No further action.” The total cost of the 

implementation in USD was approximately $10 million. 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal Hex Pit (Ref. 15) 

The Hex Pit was a former disposal pit at the U.S. Department of Army’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Shell 

Oil Company leased a portion of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal from 1952 to 1982 to manufacture 

pesticides. The pit was used from 1947 to 1975 to dispose of residues from distillation and other 

processes used in the production of hexachlorocyclopentadiene (hex), an ingredient in the manufacture 

of pesticides. 

The main part of the Hex Pit measured approximately 94 ft by 45 ft, and varied from 8 to 10 ft deep. The 

pit contained a total of 2,005 cubic yards of waste-contaminated materials, of which 833 cubic yards was 

estimated to be waste. 

The Hex Pit consisted primarily of soil and waste material originally disposed of in the pit. The impacted 

soil (silty sand) was stained dark brown, rust orange, or black, and at times included granules or globules 

of hex. Black, tar-like, relatively pure hex residue occurred in distinct solid layers of waste (approximately 

1-foot thick). Hex was not detected in groundwater downgradient of the Hex Pit boundaries. 

The contaminants of concern were hex, aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, and isodrin. Only hex, 

chlordane, and dieldrin had treatment goals. The treatment goals were 760 mg/kg, 67 mg/kg and 335 

mg/kg respectively. Laboratory tests indicated that Hex Pit wastes could be effectively treated by the 

ISTD process. 

ISTD at the Hex Pit was designed to heat a treatment soil volume of 3,198 cubic yards, extending from 0 

to 12 ft bgs and 5 ft laterally beyond the boundaries of the Hex Pit. Thermal wells on 6-foot centers were 

installed in a hexagonal arrangement. A total of 266 wells were installed, of which 210 were heater-only 

and 56 were heater-vacuum wells. 

The target treatment temperature based on the boiling point of COCs was 325o

C. All heater-only wells 

reached their operating temperatures in early March 2002. Treatment was expected to last 85 days and 

end in May 2002. However, 12 days after commencement, corrosion was observed in some of the well 

manifolds. Subsequent investigation and assessment determined that unforeseen concentration of HCL 

gas and production of HCL (liquid) in the vapor conveyance system, resulting from the highly 

concentrated wastes in the Hex Pit, had caused corrosion. Corrosion damage to the ISTD system was 

significant. A determination was made that replacements with necessary corrosion resisting matrices 

was cost prohibitive. Wastes were excavated and capped. 

STATE CONTACT (CENTERVILLE 

BEACH): 

California EPA 

Dept. of Toxic Substances 

Control (DTSC) 

Ms. Christine Parent 

Phone: (916) 255-3707 

Email: CParent@dtsc.ca.gov 

STATE CONTACT (ALHAMBRA): 

California EPA 

DTSC 

Mr. Tedd E. Yargeau 

Phone: (818) 551-2864 

Email: tyargeau@dtsc.ca.gov 

VENDOR CONTACT: 

Mr. Ralph Baker 

TerraThermTM, Inc. 

Tel: (978) 343-0300 

Email: rbaker@terratherm.com 

D-6
 
 

 

 

Appendix D 


In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments
 

PATENT NOTICE: 

ISTD is covered by a total of 22 U.S. patents, with 6 patents pending. TerraTherm is the exclusive 

licensee through the University of Texas and Shell. 

REFERENCES: 

1. 	 Baker, Ralph and Kuhlman, Myron. 2002. 2nd International Conf. on Oxidation and Reduction 

Technologies for Soil and Groundwater, ORTs-2, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. A Description of the 

Mechanisms of In Situ Thermal Destruction (ISTD) Reactions. Nov. 17-21 

2. 	 Baker, Ralph, TerraTherm, Inc. 2004. Email to Chitranjan Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc., 

Regarding Questions on ISTD. October 27, November 8, 15, 24 and 29. 

3. 	 Baker, Ralph, TerraTherm, Inc. 2004. Telephone Conversation with Chitranjan Christian, Tetra 

Tech EM Inc., Regarding Questions on ISTD. October 29. 

4. 	 Heron, Gorm, TerraTherm, Inc. 2004. Email to Chitranjan Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc., 

Regarding Questions on ISTD. October 15. 

5. 	 Heron, Gorm, TerraTherm, Inc. 2004. Telephone Conversation with Chitranjan Christian, Tetra 

Tech EM Inc., Regarding Questions on ISTD. October 15. 

6. 	 Parent, Christine, California EPA, DTSC. 2004. Telephone Conversation with Chitranjan 

Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc., Regarding Questions on ISTD implementation at Centerville 

Beach. November 2. 

7. 	 Stegemeier, G.L., and Vinegar, H.J. 2001. “Thermal Conduction Heating for In Situ Thermal 

Desorption of Soils,” Chapter 4.6, pages 1-37. Chang H. Oh (ed.), Hazardous and Radioactive 

Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

8. 	 TerraTherm Environmental Services. 1999. Naval Facility Centerville Beach, Technology 

Demonstration Report, In Situ Thermal Desorption. November. 

9. 	 TerraTherm Inc. Case Study – Alhambra. Online Address:
 

http://www.terratherm.com/CaseStudies/WS%20Final%20Alhambra%20Sheet.pdf. 


10. TerraTherm Inc.	 Case Study – Centerville Beach Naval Facility. Online Address:
 

http://www.terratherm.com/CaseStudies/WS%20Centrvll-Tesi.pdf. 


11. TerraTherm Inc.	 Case Study – Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Online Address:
 

http://www.terratherm.com/CaseStudies/WS%20BADCAT.pdf. 


12. TerraTherm Inc. Feasibility Screening. Online Address: http://www.terratherm.com/default.htm. 

13. TerraTherm Inc.	 ISTD Process Description. Online Address:
 

http://www.terratherm.com/default.htm. 


14. Tetra Tech EM Inc.	 2000. Draft Final Closeout Report. Naval Facility Centerville Beach, 

Ferndale, California. February. 

15. Todd, Levi. Year. 	Publication or Report. Lessons Learned from the Application of In Situ 

Thermal Destruction of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Waste at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. 

Month. 

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.	 2004. In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated
 

Solvents Fundamentals and Field Applications. EPA 542-R-04-010. March. 


17. Yargeau, Tedd, California EPA, DTSC. 	2004. Email to Chitranjan Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc., 

Regarding Questions on ISTD implementation at Alhambra. December 22. 

18. Yargeau, Tedd, California EPA, DTSC. 	2004. Telephone Conversation with Chitranjan 

Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Response to Questions on ISTD implementation at Alhambra. 

November 2. 

D-7
 
D-0

Appendix E 


Additional Technologies Identified but Not Commercially Available 


APPENDIX E 


Additional Technologies Identified but Not 


Commercially Available 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 


Additional Technologies Identified but Not Commercially Available


This Appendix presents technologies that were identified in the first edition (2005) of this report that are 

not currently commercially available. 

E-1 XenoremTM 

XenoremTM is an ex situ bioremediation technology that has 

been used to treat low-strength wastes containing chlordane, TECHNOLOGY TYPE: BIODEGRADATION 

DDT, dieldrin, and toxaphene contamination. XenoremTM uses 

an enhanced composting technology consisting of aerobic and POPS TREATED: CHLORDANE, DDT, 

DIELDRIN, AND TOXAPHENE anaerobic treatment cycles. Organic amendments such as 

manure and wood chips are added to contaminated soil, which 

can increase the final amended soil volume by as much as 40 MEDIUM: SOIL 

percent (Ref. 37). 

PRETREATMENT: NONE 

A self-propelled SCAT windrow incorporates the amendments 

into the soil and provides aeration to create aerobic conditions. COSTS: $132 PER CUBIC YARD (COST IN 

High levels of available nutrients from the amendment 2000 USD) 

increase the metabolic activity in the amended soil and deplete FULL SCALE the oxygen content, creating anaerobic conditions. The EX SITU anaerobic conditions promote dechlorination of 

organochlorine compounds. The length of the anaerobic 

phase is determined by bench-scale studies. At the end of the 

anaerobic phase, the SCAT unit is used to mix the amended soil, creating aerobic conditions again. The 

anaerobic and aerobic cycles are repeated until the desired contaminant reductions are achieved. 

Typically, by the end of 14 weeks of treatment the organic amendments are spent. Soil samples are 

collected from the treated soil, and if the contaminant concentrations do not meet the cleanup goals, more 

organic amendments are added; the treatment is continued as long as necessary. 

This technology was applied for a full-scale cleanup at the Stauffer Management Company Superfund site 

in Tampa, Florida. The site is a former pesticide manufacturing and distribution facility that operated 

from 1951 to 1986 (Ref. 20). Soil on the 40-acre site was contaminated with chlordane, DDD, DDE, 

DDT, dieldrin, molinate, and toxaphene. The XenoremTM technology was applied to two 4,000-cy batches 

of soil. The first batch was completed in 2001 and the second batch was completed in 2002. The 

contaminated soil was excavated; screened; mixed; and amended with dairy cow manure, chicken litter, 

and wood chips. The amended soil matrix was then placed in a compost windrow. The temperature, 

oxidation-reduction potential, and moisture level of the amended soil matrix were continuously monitored 

(Ref. 20). Table 3-13 presents the performance data for both batches. Batch 1 was treated for a total of 

24 weeks and achieved the site cleanup goals for chlordane, DDD, DDE, dieldrin, and molinate. After 12 

weeks of treatment, Batch 2 achieved the site cleanup goals for chlordane, DDE, dieldrin, and molinate. 

The treatment of Batch 2 extended beyond 12 weeks; the final performance data for Batch 2 are not yet 

available from the vendor. Neither batch achieved the site cleanup goals for DDT and toxaphene. 

Typical treatment costs in USD using XenoremTM were provided by the vendor and are approximately 

$132 per cy of contaminated soil (Ref. 22). 

The XenoremTM technology also was applied to a third batch of contaminated site soil at the site. Batch 3 

was treated for one year but did not achieve the cleanup goals for chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, and 

toxaphene. Because the selected remedy did not fully meet the cleanup goals, the remedial design for the 

site is being modified. US EPA is awaiting details of the modification proposal. US EPA will prepare an 

Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) fact sheet explaining the selection of a new remedy (Ref. 

36). 

 E-1
 
D-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 


Additional Technologies Identified but Not Commercially Available 


Table E-1. Performance of XenoremTM Technology at the Tampa Site 

Pesticide 

Site 

Cleanup 

Goal 

(mg/kg) 

Batch 1 a Batch 2 b 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Percent 

Reduction 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Percent 

Reduction 

Chlordane 2.3 3.8 < MDL NA 4.5 1.2 75% 

DDD 12.6 26 9.3 65% 24 14 42% 

DDE 8.91 6.6 2.1 68% 6.1 2.6 57% 

DDT 8.91 82 9.8 88% 196 14 93% 

Dieldrin 0.19 2.4 <MDL NA 2.7 0.7 74% 

Molinate 0.74 0.2 <MDL NA 0.4 <MDL NA 

Toxaphene 2.75 129 7.8 94% 139 23 83% 

Source: Ref. 37 

Notes:
 

MDL = Method detection limit (the MDL was not provided in the source document) 


mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram
 

NA = Not available 


a

 For Batch 1, treated concentrations are at the end of a 24-week period. 


b

 For Batch 2, treated concentrations are at the end of a 12-week period. 


Quantity treated: 4,000-cy of soil (Batch 1 and Batch 2). 


XenoremTM is a biodegradation process that uses an enhanced composting technology to treat various 


POPs in contaminated soil. The XenoremTM process includes stages of aerobic and anaerobic treatments. 


Based on structural similarity of DDT, chlordane, toxaphene and dieldrin to other POPs described in 


section 2.6 of this report, this technology can potentially be used to treat other POPs. However, because 


of the specificity of biochemical reactions, this technology may or may not be effective in treating similar
 

POPs. The last technology application occurred in 2002 at the Stauffer Superfund Site in Florida.
 

XenoremTM is a patented technology developed by Stauffer Management Company, a subsidiary of 


AstraZeneca Group PLC in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Recently, this technology was sold to the 


University of Delaware (Ref. 36). Additional information on the technology can be obtained from the 


Technology Transfer Corporation at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware. No fact sheet for
 

this technology is currently available. Vendor contact information is provided in Section 5.0. 


E-2 Supercritical Water Oxidation 

Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is an ex situ 

technology that has been used to treat solid and liquid THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

wastes. It is potentially applicable to both low- and 

high-strength wastes containing POP contamination. 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/ 

SCWO occurs in an enclosed system at a temperature 

and pressure above the critical point of water (374o

C and 22.1 x 106 Pascal). Under these conditions, the 

gas-liquid phase boundary ceases to exist, and water is supercritical (that is, present in a fluid state that is 

neither liquid nor gas). Organic compounds have a higher solubility in supercritical water. An added 

oxidant such as oxygen or hydrogen peroxide reacts with dissolved organic contaminants in the 

supercritical water to form carbon dioxide, water, inorganic acids, and salts (Refs. 23 and 46). 

The specifics of SCWO system design and operation vary. In general, currently available SCWO systems 

operate continuously, use corrosion-resistant materials in their reactors and process only fluid influents. 

One system marketed by Turbosystems Engineering Inc. blends a contaminated aqueous stream with an 

oxidant from a storage tank. The blended stream is pressurized, preheated, and passed into the SCWO 

E-2
 
D-3

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 


Additional Technologies Identified but Not Commercially Available 


reactor. Contaminants are destroyed inside the reactor, and the effluent is cooled, depressurized, 

separated into liquid and gas streams and discharged. SCWO technology is also available from General 

Atomics’ Advanced Process Systems Division (Ref. 31). 

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: THERMALCHEMICAL DEGRADATION 

POPS TREATED: CHLORDANE, DDT, 

PCBS, DIOXINS AND FURANS 

PRETREATMENT: EXTRACTION/ 

GRINDING, DILUTION 

MEDIUM: SOLID AND LIQUID WASTES 

PILOT SCALE 

EX SITU 

The Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) 

Program was established by the Department of Defense 

(DoD) in 1997 to test and demonstrate at least two 

alternative technologies to the baseline incineration 

process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical 

weapons (Ref. 6). In 2003, the Bechtel Parsons Blue 

Grass Team was awarded a contract to design, construct, 

test, operate, and close the Blue Grass Army Depot 

Destruction Pilot Plant using SCWO. The SCWO system 

is currently being constructed. SCWO was also selected 

for use at the Newport Army Depot to destroy 1,269 tons 

of liquid agent VX. Existing SCWO systems are limited 

to treating liquids and solids with a particle size of less 

than 200 microns suspended in a liquid. The process is 

best suited to wastes with less than 20 percent organic content (Ref. 44). SCWO treatment of solid 

wastes after they have been ground into a fine slurry has been demonstrated using feed materials 

containing up to 25 percent suspended solids (Refs. 6, 35, 44, 46 and 71). 

Information regarding the SCWO technology is available from General Atomics’ Advanced Process 

Systems Division (General Atomics) (Refs. 31 and 46). The SCWO process developed by General 

Atomics was selected for use as an ACWA technology to treat non-POPs such as GB, VX, H, HD, and 

TNT. However, no further information regarding process details, performance data, or costs could be 

obtained directly from General Atomics. Turbosystems Engineering Inc. also designs and markets 

SCWO systems in the US (Ref. 67). Turbosystems Engineering Inc. claims that its system can treat DDT 

and HCB; however, no performance data substantiating this claim are available in the information sources 

identified and used to prepare this report. 

Supercritical Water Oxidation is a thermal-chemical degradation process that uses both, high 

temperatures and chemical additions to treat POP contaminated material. This technology has been 

proven to treat certain pesticides and industrial chemicals that are listed as POPs. Due to the high 

temperature requirement and the specific reactions under the treatment conditions of the technology, other 

POPs could also be potentially treated using Supercritical Water Oxidation. A commercial SCWO system 

developed by SRI International, USA and licensed to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has been operational in 

Japan since 2002. The system is treating PCBs and uses sodium carbonate as an oxidant, which allows 

operation at a moderate temperature (380-420 °C) and mitigates potential corrosion problems. The most 

recent application of Supercritical Water Oxidation occurred in 2003. Currently, no further information 

regarding process details, performance data, or costs could be obtained directly from the technology 

vendor. Further technology information can be obtained by contacting the vendor using the information 

provided in Section 5.0. 

E-3
 
.

D-4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 


Additional Technologies Identified but Not Commercially Available 


E-3 Vacuum Heating Decomposition 

Vacuum heating decomposition is an ex situ technology for treating POP contaminated soil. This 

treatment is based on a technology used to remove zinc from zinc-plated steel by vacuum heating. Pretreatment is not required for POPs prior to decomposition by vacuum heating. The wastes are heated 

under vacuum conditions, where POPs are decomposed by pyrolysis and dechlorination reactions. The 

heating is regulated so the pressure ranges from 0.5 to 2,000 Pascals (Pa). Gaseous emissions pass 

through activated carbon prior to discharge. 

POPs-related pesticides have been treated at one TECHNOLOGY TYPE: THERMALcommercial site in Japan since 2004; however, no PHYSICAL DEGRADATION 

information is available for any full-scale projects 

POPS TREATED: CHLORDANE, ALDRIN, treating POPs in the information identified and used to 

DIELDRIN, ENDRIN, HCB, PCBS, DIOXINS prepare this report (Ref. 44). AND FURANS 

Vacuum Heating Decomposition technology uses high 

MEDIUM: SOIL temperatures for thermal degradation under regulated 

pressure conditions to treat POPs such as; HCBs, PCBs PRETREATMENT: NONE and dioxins and furans. Due to the high temperature and 

pressure requirement of this technology other POPs PILOT SCALE could also be potentially treated using Vacuum Heating EX SITU 

Decomposition. The vendor of this technology is HoeiShokai Co., Ltd. of Japan. This technology is not 

commercially available in the US. Currently, no further information regarding process details, 

performance data, or costs could be obtained directly 

from the technology vendor. Technology information THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS can be obtained by contacting the vendor using the AVAILABLE AT 

information provided in Section 5.0. HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/ 

E-4 CerOxTM 

CerOxTM is an ex situ electrochemical reaction technology 

that has been used in pilot tests to treat low-strength liquids 

containing POP 

contamination. 


AND PCBS CerOxTM uses
 

cerium in its 


POPS TREATED: CHLORDANE, DIOXINS, 

PRETREATMENT: SOIL AND SEDIMENT 

highest valence ARE MIXED WITH WATER TO PRODUCE A 


FLUID INFLUENT 
 state (IV) to 

oxidize organic MEDIUM: LIQUIDS compounds, 

including PILOT SCALE
 

EX SITU
 POPs, to form 

carbon dioxide, 

water, and inorganic acid gases. The technology uses an 

electrochemical cell to produce cerium (IV) from cerium 

(III). Prior to treatment, solid waste such as soil or sediment 

is mixed with water to produce a fluid waste stream. This 

waste stream is injected with cerium (IV) from the 

electrochemical cell, agitated through sonication, and CerOxTM treatment system, 

Source: Ref. 15 

E-4
 
D-5

 

 

Appendix E 


Additional Technologies Identified but Not Commercially Available 


transferred to a liquid-phase reactor. The liquid-phase reaction takes place at a temperature between 90 

and 95o

C and results in the destruction of organic compounds in the waste stream. During this process, 

cerium (IV) is reduced to cerium (III). Cerium (III) and unreacted cerium (IV) are returned to the 

electrochemical cell for recycling, and the treated medium is removed from the system. Gases produced 

during the liquid-phase reaction usually include carbon dioxide, chlorine gas, and unreacted volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). These gases are processed through a gaseous-phase reactor that uses cerium 

(IV) to destroy VOCs. The remaining gases are passed through a scrubber to remove acid gases and are 

then vented to the atmosphere. Liquid from the scrubber is discharged (Ref. 15). 

The information sources used to prepare this report did not describe any applications of CerOxTM systems 

at a pilot or full scale for treatment of POP-contaminated soil or sediment. CerOxTM systems have been 

used to treat POP-contaminated liquids. The first CerOxTM system was installed at the University of 

Nevada at Reno (UNR) to destroy surplus chlorinated pesticides and herbicides from the university’s 

agricultural departments. Prior to use of this system by UNR, CerOx Corporation conducted proof of 

performance tests in May 2000. The medium treated was a pesticide-water emulsion. In one test, 71 

percent by mass chlordane was mixed with water and 

fed to the system. The system is reported to have THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

achieved a chlordane destruction efficiency of 99.995 AVAILABLE AT 

percent in the gaseous-phase reactor (Ref. 5). HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/RESOURCES/LIBRARY/ 

Chlordane concentrations in the liquid effluent were 

not reported. 

The vendor later performed additional tests of the UNR system to determine the ability of CerOxTM to 

treat PCBs and dioxins (Ref. 71). A treatment test was performed on August 29, 2000, using a feed 

stream consisting of three commercially available dioxins dissolved in isopropyl alcohol. The dioxins in 

the feed stream were present at a concentration of 5 parts per billion (ppb). Two of three samples 

collected from the system’s effluent contained dioxins at concentrations lower than their detection limit of 

0.397 part per trillion (ppt). One sample had a dioxin concentration of 0.432 ppt. The UNR system was 

tested again on August 30, 2000, using a liquid sample from a remedial operation being performed in 

Fayetteville, North Carolina. The sample consisted of an isopropyl alcohol solution containing about 2 

parts per million (ppm) PCBs. The system effluent contained PCB concentrations less than the minimum 

detection limit of 0.4 ppb PCBs (Ref. 15). 

The technology was developed by CerOxTM Corporation in Santa Maria, California. CerOxTM Corporation 

offers a variety of CerOxTM treatment systems for commercial use. The systems range in size from 

modules with 25-gallon per day (gpd) treatment capacities to multimodular plants with 100,000-gpd 

treatment capacities (Ref. 15). This technology was included in the 2005 report; however, no information 

about this vendor could be found for this report. 

E-5
 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Office of Solid Waste and EPA 542-R-09-007 

Technologies for Remediation of Emergency Response September 2010 Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, www.clu-in.org/POPs Second Edition – 2010 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (5203P) Washington, D.C. 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300