Solid Waste EPA-542-R-05-006 

and Emergency Response December 2005 

(5102G) http://www.clu-in.org/POPs 

Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation 

of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Stockpiles and Soil 

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)
 i 

CONTENTS 

Section Page

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

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER .....................................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................................................... vi

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

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

1.1 Purpose of Report................................................................................................................2

1.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................2

1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................3

2.0 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................4

2.1 Stockholm Convention........................................................................................................4

2.2 Sources of POPs..................................................................................................................4

2.3 Characteristics of POPs.......................................................................................................4

2.4 Health Effects of POPs........................................................................................................5

2.5 Related Documents .............................................................................................................5

3.0 NON-COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................................................7

3.1 Full-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs.................................................................7

3.1.1 Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil 

and Sediment........................................................................................................11

3.1.2 DARAMEND®.....................................................................................................12

3.1.3 Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction ...........................................................................14

3.1.4 GeoMeltTM .............................................................................................................15

3.1.5 In Situ Thermal Desorption..................................................................................16

3.1.6 Mechanochemical Dehalogenation ......................................................................18

3.1.7 XenoremTM ............................................................................................................21

3.2 Pilot-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs..............................................................22

3.2.1 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition ...........................................................................22

3.2.2 CerOxTM.................................................................................................................23

3.2.3 Phytotechnology...................................................................................................24

3.2.4 Solvated Electron Technology .............................................................................26

3.2.5 Sonic Technology.................................................................................................26

3.3 Bench-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs...........................................................27

3.3.1 Self-Propagating High Temperature Dehalogenation...................................27

3.3.2 TDR-3RTM .............................................................................................................27

3.3.3 Mediated Electrochemical Oxidation (AEA Silver IITM) ......................................28

3.4 Full-Scale Technologies with Potential to Treat POPs .....................................................28

3.4.1 Plasma Arc ...........................................................................................................28

3.4.1.1 PLASCONTM ............................................................................................28

3.4.1.2 Plasma Arc Centrifugal Treatment..........................................................29

3.4.1.3 Plasma Converter System........................................................................29

3.4.2 Supercritical Water Oxidation..............................................................................30

4.0 INFORMATION SOURCES.........................................................................................................32

5.0 VENDOR CONTACTS .................................................................................................................33

6.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................35
 ii 

Appendix

Technology Fact Sheets for Remediation of POPs 

A Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and 

Sediment 

B Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments

C In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page

1-1 POPs Identified by the Stockholm Convention................................................................................1 

3-1 Summary of Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of POPs...........................................8 

3-2 Performance of Non- combustion Technologies for Remediation of POPs...................................10 

3-3 Performance of Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for Toxaphene Treatment............12 

3-4 Performance of DARAMEND® Technology .................................................................................13 

3-5 Performance of GPCRTM Technology .............................................................................................14 

3-6 Performance of GeoMeltTM Technology..........................................................................................16 

3-7 Performance of ISTD Technology .................................................................................................18 

3-8 Soil Acceptance Criteria for the Mapua Site..................................................................................19 

3-9 Performance of MCDTM Technology at the Mapua Site..................................................................20 

3-10 Performance of XenoremTM Technology at the Tampa Site............................................................22 
 iii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

μg/kg Microgram per kilogram 

ART Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 

BCD Base-catalyzed decomposition 

CCMS Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society 

cy Cubic yard 

DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

Dioxins Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins 

DRE Destruction and removal efficiency 

EDL Environmental Decontamination Ltd. 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Environmental Response Team 

ESVE Enhanced soil vapor extraction 

FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 

Furans Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans 

GEF Global Environmental Facility 

GPCR Gas-phase chemical reduction 

gpd Gallon per day 

GRIC Gila River Indian Community 

HCB Hexachlorobenzene 

HCH Hexachlorocyclohexane 

HEPA High-efficiency particulate air 

ICV In Container Vitrification 

IHPA International HCH and Pesticides Association 

ISTD In situ thermal desorption 

LTR Liquid tank reactor 

M Meter 

MCD Mechanochemical dehalogenation 

MDL Method detection limit 

mg/kg Milligram per kilogram 

mm Millimeter 

ng/kg Nanogram per kilogram 

NAPL Nonaqueous-phase liquid 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources 

ND Below detection limit 

OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

PACT Plasma Arc Centrifugal Treatment 

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl 

PCS Plasma Converter System 

POP Persistent organic pollutant 

ppb Part per billion 

ppm Part per million 

ppt Part per trillion 

REACHIT Remediation and Characterization Innovative Technologies 

SCWO Supercritical water oxidation 

SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 
 iv 

SPHTD Self-propagating high-temperature dehalogenation 

SPV Subsurface Planar Vitrification 

STAP Science and Technology Advisory Panel 

SVOC Semivolatile organic compound 

TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 

TNT Trinitrotoluene 

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 

UNR University of Nevada at Reno 

USD United States Dollar 

VOC Volatile organic compound 
 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 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 EPA and external review by experts in the field. However, information in this 

report is derived from a variety of references (including personal communications with experts in the 

field), some of which have not been peer-reviewed. 

 

This report has been prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology Innovation, with support provided under Contract Number 68-W-02-034. 

For further information about this report, please contact Ellen Rubin at EPA’s Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology Innovation, at (703) 603-0141, or by e-mail at rubin.ellen@epa.gov. 

A PDF version of “Non- combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil” is available for viewing or downloading at the Hazardous Waste Cleanup 

Information System web site 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 web site, by mail, or by fax from the 

following source: 

EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications 

P.O. Box 42419 

Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419 

Telephone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198 

Fax: (513) 489-8695 
 vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

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: 

Bryan Black, Environmental Decontamination Ltd. 

Carl V. Mackey, Washington Group International 

Charles Rogers, BCD Group, Inc. 

Christine Parent, California Department of Toxic Substances Control 

David Raymond, Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 

Edward Someus, Terra Humana Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. 

Giacomo Cao, Centro Studi Sulle Reazioni Autopropaganti 

John Vijgen, International HCH and Pesticides Association 

Kevin Finucane, AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 

Matt Van Steenwyk, CerOx

Paul Austin, Sonic Environmental Solutions, Inc. 

Ralph Baker, TerraTherm, Inc. 

Tedd E. Yargeau, California Department of Toxic Substances Control 

Volker Birke, Tribochem 
 vii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report provides a high level summary of information on the applicability of existing and emerging 

non-combustion technologies for the remediation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in stockpiles and 

soil. POPs are a set of chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment for long periods of time, and 

biomagnify as they move up through the food chain. POPs have been linked to adverse effects on human 

health 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 internationally. 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. 

Previously, POPs have been destroyed by combustion technologies (incineration). Many interested 

parties have expressed concern about the potential environmental and health effects associated with this 

type of treatment technology. Combustion of POPs can create by-products such as polychlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (furans) - known human carcinogens. 

Two principal reports have identified the various non-combustion destruction technologies for POPs 

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

Identification of Promising Technologies for Use in Developing Countries; Evaluation of Demonstrated 

and Emerging Remedial Action Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater 

(Phase III)). 

With the passage of time, some of the technologies discussed in these comprehensive documents that 

were in the development stage are now commercialized; while other commercial technologies are no 

longer being developed. Also, new promising destruction technologies for POPs have been developed. 

This report is intended to summarize and update older reports in a concise reader’s guide, with links to 

sources of further information. The updated information was obtained by reviewing various websites and 

documents, and by contacting technology vendors and experts in the field. 

This report provides short descriptions of a range of non-combustion technologies and highlights new 

performance data showing the various considerations associated with selecting a non-combustion 

technology. Table 3-1 summarizes the selected technologies and provides information on waste strength 

treated, ex situ or in situ technology, contaminants treated, cost information when available, pretreatment 

requirements, power requirements, configuration needs, and links to individual fact sheets. Fact sheets for 

the various technologies are available through the International Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and 

Pesticides Association website; new fact sheets are available in the appendices of this report. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

POPs are toxic compounds that are chemically stable, do not easily degrade in the environment, and tend 

to accumulate and biomagnify as they move up through the food chain. Serious human health problems 

are associated with POPs, including cancer, neurological damage, birth defects, sterility, and immune 

system suppression. Restrictions and bans on the use of POPs 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 past production and use of POPs have 

resulted in contamination of soils around the world. Because of their chemical stability, tendency to 

bioaccumulate, adverse health effects associated with POPs, and widespread POP contamination, 

remediation technologies are needed to treat these pollutants. 

Previously, POP-contaminated soil and stockpiles have been treated using technologies such as 

incineration that rely on combustion to destroy the contaminants. However, 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. Combustion technologies can 

create polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (furans). 

Dioxins and furans have been characterized by EPA as human carcinogens and are associated with 

serious human health problems. Also, combustion technologies that have historically been used for the 

destruction of POPs may fail to meet the stringent environmental conditions or destruction and removal 

efficiency (DRE) requirements established for POPs. Because of these concerns and an ongoing desire to 

find more cost effective solutions, environmental professionals are examining the application of noncombustion technologies to remediate POPs in stockpiles and soil (Ref. 58). 

Under the Stockholm Convention, countries committed to reduce or eliminate the production, use, and 

release of the 12 POPs of greatest concern to the global community. In addition, the Basel Convention 

invited the bodies of the Stockholm Convention to consider the development of information on best 

available techniques and environmental practices with respect to POPs (Refs. 59 and 60). The Basel 

Convention was adopted on March 22, 1989, by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries convened at Basel. 

The Stockholm Convention obligated parties to remediate POPs stockpiles but did not obligate cleanup of 

POPs-contaminated sites. Table 1-1 lists the 12 specific POPs identified by the Stockholm Convention, 

which include nine pesticides and three industrial chemicals or by-products (Ref. 23). 

Table 1-1. POPs Identified by the Stockholm Convention 

Pesticides Industrial Chemicals or By-Products

Aldrin 

Chlordane 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

Dieldrin 

Endrin 

Heptachlor 

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 

Mirex 

Toxaphene 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) 

Dioxins 

Furans 

Source: Ref. 23 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 2 

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 stockpiles and soil. The 

report provides short descriptions of these technologies and evaluates them based on the POPs treated, 

media treated, pretreatment requirements, performance and cost. Case studies provided show the various 

considerations associated with selecting a non- combustion technology. 

Information on non- combustion technologies for the remediation of POPs is available in several more 

comprehensive documents. With the passage of time, some of the technologies discussed in these 

comprehensive documents were in the development stage and are now commercialized; while other 

commercial technologies are no longer being developed. For all of these technologies, this report is 

intended to update and summarize older reports in a relevant concise reader’s guide with links to sources 

of further information. In addition, this report provides information on several new technologies. 

1.2 Methodology 

EPA identified non- combustion technologies for 

remediation of POPs in stockpiles and soil by 

reviewing technical literature, EPA reports, and 

EPA databases such as the Federal Remediation 

Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) (www.frtr.gov) 

and the Remediation and Characterization 

Innovative Technologies (REACHIT) system 

(www.epareachit.org), as well as by contacting 

technology vendors and experts in the field. 

REACHIT is a real time vendor supplied source of 

information including data on emerging noncombustion technologies for POPs. A key source of 

information is the work done by John Vijgen of the 

International HCH and Pesticides Association (see 

box). Some of the information sources have not 

been peer-reviewed. 

A list of non- combustion technologies was prepared using the available information. For each 

technology, the following types of information were compiled: 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. Technologies that 

have treated one or more of the 12 POPs or have the potential to treat POPs are discussed in this report. 

Some technologies previously discussed in other sources were identified as no longer commercially 

available or have not been used to treat POPs. 

Based on the available information, EPA reviewed the types of waste and contaminants treated, and 

summarized the results from use of the technology. Performance data were evaluated based on the 

concentrations of specific POPs before-and after-treatment. For 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 was available. EPA did not perform independent evaluations of technology 

performance. However, where feasible, such data gaps were addressed by contacting specific technology 

vendors and users. 

INTERNATIONAL HCH AND PESTICIDES 

ASSOCIATION

IN 2002, JOHN VIJGEN, THROUGH THE 

INTERNATIONAL HCH AND PESTICIDES 

ASSOCIATION, PUBLISHED 11 FACT SHEETS 

ABOUT EMERGING NON- COMBUSTION 

ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ECONOMICAL 

DESTRUCTION OF POPS 

(HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM). 

THESE FACT SHEETS WERE USED AS A KEY 

INFORMATION SOURCE DURING DEVELOPMENT OF 

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

Stockpiles and Soil 

 3 

1.3 Report Organization 

This report includes six sections. Section 1.0 is an introduction discussing the purpose and organization 

of the report. Section 2.0 provides background information about the Stockholm Convention and about 

the sources, characteristics, and health effects of POPs. 

Section 3.0 presents technology overviews, while more 

detailed information for some technologies is provided in 

the technology-specific fact sheets in the appendices of the 

report. Seventeen technologies for POP treatment are 

described in Section 3.0. Section 3.0 is divided into four 

subsections based on the scale of application of the technologies. Section 3.1 contains descriptions of 

full-scale technologies that treat POPs. Section 3.2 contains descriptions of pilot-scale technologies that 

have treated POPs. Section 3.3 contains descriptions of bench-scale technologies that have been tested on 

POPs. Section 3.4 contains descriptions of full-scale technologies that have treated non-POPs and that 

are potentially applicable for POP treatment. Section 4.0 lists web-based information sources used for the 

preparation of this report. Section 5.0 contains contact details for technology vendors. Section 6.0 lists 

references used in the preparation of this report. 

The appendices to this report provide fact sheets prepared by EPA for three technologies: anaerobic 

bioremediation using blood meal for the treatment of toxaphene in soil, DARAMEND® technology for 

treatment of POPs in soils, and in situ thermal desorption (ISTD) for treatment of POPs in soil. Fact 

sheets for 11 other POP treatment technologies discussed 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 International HCH and 

Pesticides Association (IHPA) in 2002. EPA examined the 11 technologies for which fact sheets were 

prepared by IHPA (see list in Section 2.5) and evaluated whether additional, more recent information was 

available for these technologies. Only one technology, mechanochemical dehalogenation (MCD), was 

identified for which new information had become available after the original fact sheet was published; 

this new information is included in Section 3.1.6 of this report. All other full-scale technologies listed in 

this report were updated with site specific performance data and included in their respective sections. 

FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT NONCOMBUSTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR 

REMEDIATION OF POPS IS PROVIDED AT 

WWW.CLU-IN.ORG/POPS. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 4 

2.0 BACKGROUND 

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

characteristics, and health effects of POPs. It also identifies related documents that address technologies 

for the treatment of POPs. 

2.1 Stockholm Convention 

The Stockholm Convention (Ref. 49) is a global treaty intended to protect human health and the 

environment from POPs. On May 23, 2001, 93 countries and regional economic integration organizations 

such as the European Union signed the convention. As of April 25, 2005, 97 countries and one regional 

economic integration organization had signed or ratified the treaty. The United States signed the treaty 

but as of April 2005 has not ratified it. 

2.2 Sources of POPs 

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

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

processes or result from the combustion of organic chemicals. The POPs within the scope of the 

Stockholm Convention include nine pesticides and three industrial chemicals or by-products (Ref. 18). 

Table 1-1 lists these POPs. 

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

agricultural crops or for public health vector control. By the late 1970s, these pesticides had been either 

banned or subjected to severe use restrictions in many countries. However, some of the pesticides are still 

in use in parts of the world where they are considered essential for protecting public health (Ref. 18). 

The three industrial chemicals and by-products within the scope of the Stockholm Convention are PCBs, 

dioxins, and furans. PCBs were produced intentionally but are typically 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 United States after 1979 usually does not contain PCBs. However, older equipment containing 

PCBs is still in use. Most capacitors manufactured in the United States before 1979 also contain 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. 18). 

2.3 Characteristics of POPs 

POPs are synthetic chemicals with the following properties (Ref. 18): 

• 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 (affinity for fats) and easily soluble in fat. 

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

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

origin or use. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 5 

2.4 Health Effects of POPs 

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

defects, sterility, and immune system defects. EPA has classified certain POPs as probable human 

carcinogens1

, including aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, heptachlor, HCB, toxaphene, and PCBs. 

Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of 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 POPs are listed below (Refs. 18 and 56). 

• 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 numerous 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. 18). 

2.5 Related Documents 

Two organizations, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and IHPA, have recently 

developed summary overview reports and fact sheets about non- combustion technologies for POP 

treatment. These documents are listed below. 

• 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. 57) provides a 

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 

stockpiles. The report was originally a background document for the STAP-GEF workshop held 

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

 

1

 Based on the 1986 EPA 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). 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 6 

Sustainability Engineering and Science, Faculty of Engineering, at the University of Auckland, 

New Zealand. 

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

1. Base-catalyzed decomposition (BCD) 

2. Bioremediation/Fenton reaction 

3. Catalytic hydrogenation 

4. DARAMEND® bioremediation 

5. Enzyme degradation 

6. Fe (III) photocatalyst degradation 

7. Gas-phase chemical reduction (GPCR) 

8. GeoMeltTM process 

9. In situ bioremediation of soils 

10. Mechanochemical dehalogenation 

(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. Self-propagating high-temperature 

dehalogenation (SPHTD) 

23. Sodium reduction 

24. Solvated electron technology 

25. Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) 

26. TiO2 – based V2O5/WO3 catalysis 

27. White rot fungi bioremediation 

• 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/libraryNATO.htm . 

This report (Ref. 33) describes emerging non- combustion alternatives for the economical 

destruction of POPs. Mr. John Vijgen of IHPA collected the technology data and authored the 

report. The report contains fact sheets for the 11 technologies listed below: 

1. BCD 

2. CerOxTM

3. Gas-phase chemical reduction process 

4. GeoMeltTM

5. In situ thermal destruction 

6. MCDTM

7. SPHTD 

8. Silver IITM

9. Solvated electron technology 

10. SCWO 

11. TDR-3RTM
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 7 

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 12 

contaminants within the scope of the Stockholm Convention, and 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 where contaminant 

destruction occurs. Pretreatment is defined as any process that precedes the primary treatment technology 

wherein the contaminants are transferred from one media/phase to another. 

Table 3-1 lists the selected technologies and summarizes available technology-specific information, 

including capability to handle waste strength, ex situ or in situ application, scale, contaminant treated, 

cost, pre-treatment needs, power requirements, configuration and location of fact sheets. Waste strength 

refers to high- and low-strength wastes. High-strength waste includes stockpiles of POPs-contaminated 

materials and highly contaminated soil. Low-strength waste includes soil contaminated with low 

concentrations of POPs. The table indicates whether the technologies have been applied at a full2

, pilot3, 

or bench4

 scale for treatment of POPs. Table 3-2 provides performance data for the selected technologies. 

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

concentration, and percent reduction of the contaminants. Section 5.0 provides contact information for 

vendors of these various technologies. 

3.1 Full-Scale Technologies for Treatment of POPs 

This section describes seven 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 EPA and IHPA contain additional details 

on some of these technologies and their applications. The appendices to this report provide fact sheets 

prepared by EPA for three technologies. Links to the IHPA fact sheets are included in the appropriate 

subsections of this report. 

 

2

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

an entire area of contamination. 

3

 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. 

4

 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. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Stockpiles and S

 8 

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

Contaminant(s) Treated 

POPs 

Technology 

Waste 

Strength 2 Ex/In situ 3 Pesticide(s) 4 PCBs Dioxin/ Furans Non-POPs 5 Cost Pre- Treatment Power Requirement Configu

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

Low Ex situ Toxaphene None None None $98 to 

$296 

per 

cubic 

yard (in 

2004) 

None None Transpo

DARAMEND® Low Ex/In situ Toxaphene 

and DDT 

None None DDD, DDE, 

RDX, HMX, 

DNT, and 

TNT 

$55 per 

cubic 

yard (in 

2004) 

None None Transpo

Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCRTM)

6

High Ex situ DDT and 

HCB 

Yes Yes PAH, 

chlorobenzene

NA Thermal 

desorption 

High Fixed 

transpo

GeoMelt

TM Low/High In/Ex situ DDT, 

chlordane, 

dieldrin and 

HCB 

Yes Yes Metals and 

radioactive 

waste 

NA None High Fixed 

transpo

In-Situ Thermal Desorption (ISTD) 

Low/High In situ NA Yes Yes VOCs, 

SVOCs, oils, 

creosote, coal 

tar, gasoline, 

MTBE, 

volatile 

metals 

$200 to 

$600 

per 

cubic 

yard 

(from 

1996 to 

2005) 

None High Transpo

Mechanochemical Dehalogenation (MCD

TM) 

High Ex situ Aldrin, 

dieldrin and 

DDT 

None None Lindane, 

DDD, and 

DDE 

NA None NA NA 

Xenorem

TM Low Ex situ Chlordane, 

DDT, 

dieldrin, and 

toxaphene 

None None Molinate $132 

per 

cubic 

yard (in 

2000) 

None NA Transpo
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Stockpiles and S

 9 

Contaminant(s) Treated 

POPs 

Technology 

Waste 

Strength 2 Ex/In situ 3 Pesticide(s) 4 PCBs Dioxin/ Furans Non-POPs 5 Cost Pre- Treatment Power Requirement Configu

Pilot-Scale TechnologiesBase Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) 

Low/High Ex situ Chlordane 

and 

heptachlor 

Yes Yes a-BHC, 

endosulfan 

NA Thermal 

desorption 

High Transpo

and fi

CerOx

TM Low Ex situ Chlordane Yes Yes Aniline, 

cyclohexanone, 

and dibutyl 

phthalates 

NA Blending to 

produce liquid 

influent 

NA Modu

Phytoremediation Low In/Ex situ DDE, DDT, 

and chlordane

Yes None NA NA None None Transpo

Sonic Technology Low/High Ex situ None Yes None NA NA Mixing with 

solvent to produce a 

slurry 

NA NA 

Bench-Scale TechnologiesSelf Propagating High Temperature Dehalogenation 

High Ex situ HCB None None None NA None NA NA 

TDR-3RTM High Ex situ HCB None None PAH NA Thermal 

desorption 

High NA 

Notes: 1: Data in this table is derived from various document, vendor information, and other sources - both peer reviewed and not. 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 nine pesticides addressed within the scope of the Stockholm Convention. 5: Non-POPs include contaminants outside the scope of Stockholm Convention. 6: GPCR is currently not commercialized due to cost. BHC: Benzene hexachloride DDD: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDE: dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DNT: Di-nitro toluene HMX: High melting explosive, octahydro1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7 tetrazocine 

MTBE: Methyl tert-butyl ether NA: Not available PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons SVOC Semivolatile organic compound VOC Volatile organic compound 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 10 

Table 3-2. Performance of Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic 

Pollutants 1

Examples of Treatment Performance2

Technology 

Site Name or 

Location Contaminant 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) Percent Reduction 

Full-Scale Technologies

Anaerobic 

bioremediation using 

blood meal for the 

treatment of 

toxaphene in soil and 

sediment 

Gila River Indian 

Community, Arizona 

Toxaphene 59 4 93% 

DARAMEND Toxaphene 189 21 89% ® T.H. Agricultural and 

Nutrition Superfund 

Site, Montgomery, 

Alabama 

DDT 84.5 8.65 90% 

Gas Phase Chemical 

Reduction (GPCRTM)

3

NA NA NA NA NA 

DDT 340 < 4 99% 

Chlordane 89 < 1 99% 

GeoMeltTM Parsons Chemical 

Superfund Site, 

Grand Ledge, 

Michigan 

Dieldrin 4.6 < .008 99% 

Tanapag Village, 

Saipan, Northern 

Mariana Islands 

PCBs 10,000 (max) < 1 99.99% 

PCBs 860 (max) < 0.17 99.98% 

In-Situ Thermal 

Desorption (ISTD) 

Centerville Beach, 

Ferndale, California Dioxin/Furans 0.0032 0.00006 99.81% 

Aldrin 7.52 0.798 91% 

Dieldrin 65.6 19.8 70% 

Mechanochemical 

Dehalogenation 

(MCDTM) 

Fruitgrowers 

Chemical Company 

Site, Mapua, New 

Zealand 

DDX (total 

DDT,DDD, and 

DDE) 

717 64.8 91% 

Chlordane 3.8 < MDL4 NA 

DDT 82 9.8 88% 

Dieldrin 2.4 < MDL4 NA 

XenoremTM Stauffer Management 

Company Superfund 

Site, Tampa, Florida 

Toxaphene 129 7.8 94% 

Pilot-Scale Technologies

Warren County 

Landfill, Warren 

County, North 

Carolina 

PCBs 81,100 < 5 99.99% 

Heptachlor 0.648 ND2 NA 

Base Catalyzed 

Decomposition 

(BCD) 

FCX Superfund Site, 

Statesville, North 

Carolina 

Chlordane 9.7173 ND2

 NA 

CerOxTM NA NA NA NA NA 

Sonic Technology Juker Holdings Site, 

Vancouver, British 

Columbia 

PCBs NA NA NA 

Bench-Scale Technologies

Self Propagating 

High Temperature 

Dehalogenation 

NA NA NA NA NA 

TDR-3RTM Gare Site, Hungary HCB 1,215 0.1 99.99% 

Notes: 

1: Data in this table is derived from various document, vendor information, and other sources - both peer reviewed and not. 

2: Treatment examples were selected to illustrate the types of treatment performance data available. 

3: GPCR is currently not commercialized due to cost. 

4: The specific limits for the MDL and ND were not provided in the source document. 

DDD: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 

DDE: Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

HCB: Hexachlorobenzene 

PCBs: Polychlorinated biphenyls NA: Not available 

ND: Below detection limit MDL: Method detection limit 

mg/kg: Milligram per kilogram
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 11 

3.1.1 Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and 

Sediment 

This technology uses biostimulation with amendments to promote degradation of toxaphene in soil or 

sediment by native anaerobic microorganisms. It involves the addition of 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 (Ref. 2). In some applications, starch is also used to speed the establishment of 

anaerobic conditions. The soil to be treated is mixed with the amendments and water. The technology 

can use several methods to produce homogeneous soil-amendment mixtures, including blending in a 

dump truck, mechanical mixing in a pit, and mixing in a pug mill. The homogenized 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 helps to minimize the transfer of atmospheric oxygen to the 

slurry 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 may be sampled periodically to measure contaminant degradation. The process continues until 

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. The end products of degradation are carbon dioxide, water, and 

chlorides. Residual contamination can include low concentrations of toxaphene and camphenes with 

varying degrees of chlorination (Refs. 3 and 19). 

Anaerobic bioremediation using blood meal has been 

implemented to treat low-strength waste contaminated with 

toxaphene. Essential components such as mixing troughs 

are typically constructed and left in place. Other 

components such as mixing equipment and biological amendments are usually procured locally. 

The technology has been used to treat toxaphene at 

numerous livestock dip vat sites. Dip vats are trenches with 

a pesticide formulation used to treat livestock infested with 

ticks. In 2004, cleanup costs in United States Dollar (USD) 

for full-scale implementations ranged from $98 to $296 per 

cubic yard (Ref. 19). Performance data from nine dip vat 

site applications are presented in Table 3-3. 

The technology was developed by EPA’s Environmental 

Response Team (ERT). This technology is publicly 

available and is not patented (Ref. 3). 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY EPA IS 

INCLUDED IN APPENDIX A. 

POPS TREATED: TOXAPHENE

MEDIUM: SOIL AND SEDIMENT

RESIDUALS: LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF 

TOXAPHENE AND CAMPHENES WITH 

VARYING DEGREES OF CHLORINATION

COSTS: $98 TO $296 PER CUBIC YARD 

(COST IN 2004 USD) 

FULL SCALE

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

Stockpiles and Soil 

 12 

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

Site Location 

Period 

(Days) 

Quantity 

of Soil 

Treated 

Scale 

 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) 

GRIC Cell 1 272 Full 59 4 

GRIC Cell 2 272 Full 31 4 

GRIC Cell 3 272 Full 29 2 

GRIC Cell 4 

Chandler, 

Arizona 

272 

3,500 cy 

Full 211 3 

Navajo Vats Chapter 

Laahty Family 

Dip Vat 

Zuni Nation, 

New Mexico 

31 253 cy Full 29 4 

Henry O Dip 

Vat 

Zuni Nation, 

New Mexico 

68 660 cy Full 23 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 

Sources: Refs. 2, 3 and 19 

Notes: 

cy = Cubic yard 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

NA = Not available 

3.1.2 DARAMEND®

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

DARAMEND® technology can be implemented ex situ or in situ. It is an amendment-enhanced 

bioremediation technology for POP 

treatment that involves the creation of 

sequential anoxic and oxic conditions 

(Ref. 41). 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 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 

Bioremediation using DARAMEND® process. Source: Ref. 1 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 13 

The addition of the DARAMEND® organic amendment, zero valent iron, and water stimulates the 

biological 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 redox potential, which promotes dechlorination of 

organochlorine compounds. The soil matrix consisting of 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 

subsequently removed through aerobic (oxic) biodegradation processes, which are initiated and promoted 

by the passive air drying and tilling of the soil. Addition of the DARAMEND® amendment and the 

anoxic-oxic cycle continue until cleanup goals are achieved (Ref. 15). 

The DARAMEND® technology can be implemented ex situ or 

in situ. In both cases, the treatment layer is 2 feet (ft) deep, 

which is the typical depth reached by tilling 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 with excessively high contaminant concentrations in soils (Ref. 15). 

DARAMEND® has been used to treat soil and sediment 

containing low concentrations of pesticides such as toxaphene 

and DDT as well as other contaminants. The technology has 

not been used for treatment of other POPs such as PCBs, 

dioxins, or furans. Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 

(ART), the developer of the technology, indicated that 

DARAMEND® had not been successful in bench-scale 

treatment of PCB-contaminated soil. DARAMEND® has been 

used to treat POPs at the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition 

Superfund site in Montgomery, Alabama, and the W.R. Grace 

site in Charleston, South Carolina. Table 3-4 presents the performance data from these applications. The 

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, 22 and 42). 

Table 3-4. 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. Toxaphene 189 21

Agriculture 

and Nutrition 

Superfund site

Montgomery, 

Alabama 

2003 5 

DDT 

4,500 Full 

84.5 8.65

W.R. Grace Toxaphene 239 5.1

site

Charleston, 

South Carolina

1995 8 

DDT 

250 Pilot 

89.7 16.5

Source: Ref. 1 

Notes: 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

DARAMEND® is a proprietary technology provided by ART in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. In the 

United States, the technology is provided by ART’s sister company, Adventus Americas, Inc. in 

Bloomingdale, Illinois. 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY EPA IS 

INCLUDED IN APPENDIX B. 

POPS TREATED: TOXAPHENE AND 

DDT 

MEDIUM: SOIL AND SLURRY

COSTS: $55 PER TON (COST IN 2004

USD) 

FULL SCALE

EX SITU AND IN SITU
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 14 

3.1.3 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 is available in both fixed and transportable configurations. It is 

applicable to both solids and liquids. 

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 600 o

C. This causes organic 

compounds to desorb from the solid matrix and enter the gas 

phase. The treated soil is non- hazardous and is allowed to cool 

prior to its 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 900 o

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 used to 

generate hydrogen for the GPCRTM process in a 

catalyzed high-temperature reaction. Spent scrubber 

water is treated by granular activated carbon filters 

prior to its discharge (Refs. 12 and 33). 

GPCRTM has been implemented at both full and pilot scales to treat solids and liquids contaminated with 

POPs. The POPs treated include HCB, DDT, PCBs, dioxins, and furans. Table 3-5 presents performance 

information for the technology. In 1992, GPCR was field-tested by EPA’s Superfund Innovative 

Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program to evaluate the performance of the technology at the Bay City 

Middleground Landfill located in Bay City, Michigan (Ref. 14). 

Table 3-5. Performance of GPCRTM Technology 

Site Location Period POP 

Quantity of 

Soil Treated Scale 

Destruction 

Efficiency 

Kwinana Commercial PCBs > 99.9999% 

Operations 

Australia 1995 to 2000 

DDT 

2,000 tonnes 

(2,200 tons) 

Full 

> 99.9999% 

Kwinana Hex Waste 

Trials 

Australia April 1999 HCB 8 tonnes 

(9 tons) 

Full > 99.9999% 

General Motors of PCB > 99.99999% 

Canada Limited 

Canada 1996 to 1997 

Dioxins 

1,000 tonnes 

(1,100 tons) 

Full 

> 99.9995% 

Source: Ref. 12 

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. 33 and 58). 

The technology was developed by Eco Logic International Inc. in Ontario, Canada. Bennett 

Environmental Inc. in Oakville, Ontario, Canada, recently acquired exclusive patent rights to the 

technology. An update from previous reports is that this technology is not currently marketed, as it is 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM. 

POPS TREATED: HCB, DDT, PCBS,

DIOXINS, AND FURANS

PRETREATMENT: THERMAL 

DESORPTION

MEDIUM: SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND 

LIQUID WASTE

FULL SCALE

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

Stockpiles and Soil 

 15 

considered to be cost prohibitive. However, Bennett Environmental Inc. is modifying the technology to 

improve its cost effectiveness (Ref. 40). 

3.1.4 GeoMeltTM

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 permanently immobilize residual 

contaminants by incorporating them into the vitrified 

end product. GeoMelt’s in situ process is available in 

two main configurations, In-Situ Vitrification (ISV) and 

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. SPV is suitable for 

more shallow applications. GeoMeltTM also provides a 

variation of SPV called Deep-SPV which facilitates 

focused vitrification of limited-thickness treatment 

zones greater than 30 feet deep. 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 current through the soil, heating 

the surrounding area and melting directly adjacent soil. Once molten, the soil becomes conductive. The 

melting proceeds outward and downward. Typical operating temperatures range from 1,400 to 2,000 o

C. 

As the temperatures increase, contaminants may begin to volatilize. When sufficiently high temperatures 

are attained, most organic contaminants are destroyed in situ through thermally mediated chemical 

reactions, yielding carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sometimes hydrogen chloride gas (if chlorinated 

contaminants are present). Gaseous reaction products (such as hydrogen chloride) and volatilized 

contaminants that escape in situ destruction are collected by an off-gas hood and are processed through an 

aboveground off-gas treatment system before their discharge to the atmosphere. When the heating stops, 

the medium cools to form a crystalline monolith vitrified end product, encapsulating contaminants that 

were not destroyed or volatilized (Ref. 26). 

GeoMelt’s ex situ process, which is called In 

Container Vitrification (ICVTM), involves 

heating contaminated material in a refractorylined container. 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 2,000 oC. 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, highefficiency particulate air (HEPA) prefiltration, 

a NOx (oxides of nitrogen) scrubber, a 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM.

POPS TREATED: DIELDRIN, CHLORDANE,

HEPTACHLOR, DDT, HCB, PCBS, DIOXINS,

AND FURANS

MEDIUM: SOIL AND SEDIMENTS

FULL SCALE

EX SITU AND IN SITU

Geomelt TM ICV process. Source: Ref. 24 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 16 

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 a landfill based on the results of EPA Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis. 

GeoMeltTM is a full-scale treatment technology and has been used to treat such POPs as dieldrin, 

chlordane, heptachlor, DDT, HCB, PCBs, dioxins, and furans (Ref. 26). GeoMeltTM has also been used to 

treat radioactive waste. Table 3-6 provides performance information for the technology. 

Table 3-6. Performance of GeoMeltTM Technology 

Site Location Period POP 

Quantity 

of Soil 

Treated Scale 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

DDT 340 <4

Chlordane 89 <1 

Parsons 

Chemical/ 

ETM 

Enterprises 

Superfund 

Site

Grand 

Ledge, 

Michigan

1993 to 1994 

Dieldrin 

4,350 tons Full 

4.6 <0.08 

TSCA 

Spokane

Spokane, 

Washington

1994 to 1996 PCBs 5,375 tons Full 17,860 ND 

Dioxins 0.011 ND 

DDT 1.091 ND 

Chlordane 535 ND 

Wasatch 

Chemical

Salt Lake 

City, Utah 

1995 to 1996 

HCB 

5,440 tons Full 

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 

Source: Ref. 24 and 33 

Notes: 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

ND = Below detection limit 

TSCA = Toxic Substance Control Act 

WCS = Wasatch Chemical Superfund 

GeoMeltTM is commercially available from AMEC Earth and Environmental, the sole licensee of this 

technology in the United States. AMEC Earth and Environmental owns several GeoMeltTM systems of 

varying sizes that are currently available for use. 

3.1.5 In Situ Thermal Desorption 

ISTD has been used to treat both high- and low-strength 

wastes containing POPs. ISTD is primarily an in situ 

technology but has also been used ex situ on constructed soil 

piles. ISTD is a thermally enhanced, in situ treatment 

technology that uses conductive heating to directly transfer heat to environmental media. “ISTD” has 

been a nonspecific term used to refer to in situ technologies that use heat to enhance the removal of 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY EPA IS 

INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 17 

volatile subsurface contaminants. The most common ISTD methods include steam and resistive heating. 

Enhanced soil vapor extraction (ESVE) is a commonly used synonym for ISTD. However, this section 

uses “ISTD” to refer to a specific proprietary technology that is distinct in its methods. ISTD, sometimes 

also known as “In Situ Thermal Destruction” is a patented technology developed by Shell Oil Co. and 

TerraTherm, which holds the exclusive license to the technology and is currently the only vendor. 

There are three basic elements in the ISTD process (Ref. 51): 

1. Application of heat to contaminated media by thermal conduction 

2. Collection of desorbed contaminants through vapor extraction 

3. Treatment of collected vapors 

ISTD uses surface heating blankets or buried, 

electrically powered heaters to heat 

contaminated media. In the most common 

setup, a vertical array of heaters is placed in 

wells drilled into the remediation zone. 

Surface heating blankets are less commonly 

used. As the matrix is heated, adsorbed and 

liquid-phase contaminants begin to vaporize. 

Once high soil temperatures are achieved, a 

significant portion of the organic contaminants 

either oxidizes (if sufficient air is present) or 

pyrolizes. Desorbed contaminants are 

recovered through a network of vapor 

extraction wells. Contaminant vapors captured 

by the extraction wells are conveyed to an offgas treatment system for treatment prior to 

their discharge to the atmosphere. TerraTherm 

offers two different methods of vapor 

treatment. One method treats extracted vapor without phase separation and uses a thermal oxidizer to 

break down organic vapors to primarily carbon dioxide and water. Thermal oxidation may be followed 

by vapor phase activated carbon absorption. The second method 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, 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. 6, 21 and 51). 

Pilot- and full-scale applications of ISTD have been 

used to remove 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 full or pilot scale. 

ISTD was field-tested by EPA’s SITE Program to 

evaluate the performance of the technology at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) site near Denver, 

Colorado. The site was contaminated with hexachlorocyclopentadiene, aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, 

endrin, and isodrin (Ref. 20). 

POPS TREATED: PCBS, DIOXINS, AND FURANS

MEDIUM: SOIL AND SEDIMENT

COSTS: $200 TO $600 PER CUBIC YARD (COST 

IN USD, DATA FROM 1996 TO 2005) 

FULL SCALE

IN SITU

ISTD process at the Alhambra site. Source: Ref. 51 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 18 

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 cy. Projects involving ISTD 

treatment of larger volumes of waste will have lower unit costs. Available performance information for 

the technology is presented in Table 3-7. 

Table 3-7. Performance of ISTD Technology 

Site Location Period POP 

Quantity of 

Soil Treated Scale

Untreated 

Concentration 

Treated 

Concentration

Former South 

Glens Falls 

Dragstrip

Moreau, 

New York

1996 PCBs NA Full 5,000 mg/kg 0.8 mg/kg

Tanapag Village Saipan, 

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands 

July 1997 to 

August 1998 

PCBs 1,000 cy Full 10,000 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg

Centerville PCBs 860 mg/kg < 0.17 mg/kg 

Beach

Ferndale, 

California

September to 

December 

1998 

Dioxins 

and 

Furans 

667 cy Full

3.2 μg/kg 0.006 μg/kg 

Missouri 

Electric Works 

Cape 

Girardeau, 

Missouri

March to 

June 1997 

PCBs NA Pilot 20,000 mg/kg <0.033 mg/kg 

Former Mare 

Island Naval 

Shipyard

Vallejo, 

California

September to 

December 

1997 

PCBs 222 cy Pilot 2,200 mg/kg <0.033 mg/kg 

Alhambra 

“Wood Treater” 

Alhambra, 

California 

May 2002 to 

January 2005 

Dioxins 16,200 cy Full 194 μg/kg <1 μg/kg 

Source: Refs. 7, 48, 50 and 51 

Notes: 

cy = Cubic yard 

μg/kg = Microgram per kilogram 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

NA = Not available 

3.1.6 Mechanochemical Dehalogenation 

MCDTM has been used to treat high-strength wastes 

containing POPs. The MCDTM technology uses 

mechanical energy to promote reductive dehalogenation 

of contaminants. In this 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. The hydrogen donors used include alcohols, 

ethers, hydroxides, and hydrides. The process occurs ex 

situ in an enclosed ball mill, and the grinding medium provides the mechanical energy and mixing. The 

technology is applicable to soil, sediments, and mixed solid-liquid phases. The by-products generated at 

the end of the process are nonhazardous organics and metal salts (Ref. 54). Additional information about 

the technology is available at http://www.ihpa.info/libraryNATO.htm. 

POPS TREATED: DDT, ALDRIN, AND 

DIELDRIN

MEDIUM: SOIL, SEDIMENT AND LIQUID 

WASTES

FULL SCALE

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

Stockpiles and Soil 

 19 

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 

the location of 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 706,280 cubic feet of soil 

contaminated with DDT, DDD, 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 the cleanup standards for commercial land use. 

The cleanup criteria are listed in Table 3-8 and the 

proof of performance testing results are listed in 

Table 3-9. The criteria are based on the concentration 

of DDX (the sum of the concentrations of DDT, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane [DDD], and 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE]) and the 

sum of the concentrations of aldrin, dieldrin, and 

lindane. 

Table 3-8. 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. 54 

Notes: 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

At the Mapua site, soil greater than 10 millimeters (mm) size fraction has contaminant concentrations 

below the soil acceptance criteria for the site and requires no treatment. EDL receives contaminated soil 

which is less than 10 mm in size. The 10 mm size fraction soil is dried and then 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 and screening 

processes and the MCDTM process are described below. 

Soil Drying 

The contaminated soil enters a temperature controlled, diesel-fired rotary drum unit. As the soil passes 

through the drier, the soil particles undergo size reduction. The moisture content in soil exiting the drier 

is typically less than 2 percent. Gaseous emissions from the drier are treated by an air quality control 

system consisting of cyclones, a baghouse, a scrubber and an activated carbon filter. 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM. 

MCD process at the Mapua Site. Source: Ref. 54 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 20 

Soil Screening 

Soil exiting the drier is passed through a rotary screen to separate soil particles by size range. 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. The less than 2-mm fraction stream and the fines from the cyclones and baghouse are fed into 

the MCDTM reactor. 

MCDTM Process 

The dried contaminated soil (the less than 2-mm fraction) and the fines from the cyclones and baghouse 

fed into the MCDTM reactor 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 that has two 

horizontally mounted cylinders containing a grinding medium. The grinding medium provide 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. 

During the proof of performance testing at the Fruitgrowers Chemical Company site in Mapua, New 

Zealand, the MCDTM system exhibited a maximum treatment rate of 139 cubic meters per week. Table 3-9 

lists the initial and final mean contaminant concentrations in the soil treated in the MCDTM reactor. The 

concentrations listed in Table 3-9 are mean concentrations in samples collected between February 16 and 

April 23, 2004. The treated soil met the cleanup criteria for soil more than 0.5 m below ground surface 

but did not meet the criteria for soil from 0 to 0.5 m below ground surface. 

Table 3-9. Performance of MCDTM Technology at the Mapua Site 

Soil Acceptance Criteria by Depth 

(meters) 

POP 

Untreated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Treated 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Percent 

Reduction 0 to 0.5 > 0.5 

DDX 717 64.8 91% 5 200 

Aldrin 7.52 0.798 89% NA NA 

Dieldrin 65.6 19.8 70% NA NA 

Lindane 1.25 0.145 88% NA NA 

Aldrin+Dieldrin 

+Lindane 

73.245 20.612 72% 3 60 

Source: Ref. 54 

Notes: 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

NA = Not available 

Subsequent to the Proof of Performance testing, EDL was commissioned to remediate the site with an 

expected completion date in 2006. EDL has developed a proprietary reactor that eliminates the need for a 

vibratory ball mill. Experience has indicated that soil composition affects the performance of the process. 

Clays in particular have been shown to have a negative performance impact. EDL plans to conduct pilot 

tests on its reactor in the United States during the later part of 2005. These trials will involve DDT, 

lindane, and PCBs. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 21 

The MCDTM technology is available from EDL in Auckland, New Zealand (http://edl.net.nz/about.php), 

and from Tribochem in Wunstrof, Germany (http://www.tribochem.com) (Ref. 8). Information was 

provided by EDL. Tribochem has not provided process details, performance data, or costs for its 

technology. 

3.1.7 XenoremTM

XenoremTM is an ex situ bioremediation technology that has been used to treat low-strength wastes 

containing chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, and toxaphene contamination. XenoremTM uses an enhanced 

composting technology consisting of aerobic and 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 percent (Ref. 30). 

A self-propelled SCAT windrow incorporates 

the amendments into the soil and provides 

aeration creating aerobic conditions. The 

presence of high levels of available nutrients 

from the amendment increases the metabolic 

activity in the amended soil and depletes the 

oxygen content, creating anaerobic conditions. 

The 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 in a full-scale cleanup at the Stauffer Management Company Superfund site 

in Tampa, Florida. The site is the location of a pesticide manufacturing and distribution facility that 

operated from 1951 to 1986 (Ref. 13). 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. 13). Table 3-10 presents the performance data for Batch 1 and Batch 2. 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. 16) 

The XenoremTM technology was applied to a third batch of contaminated site soil. 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. 

EPA is awaiting details of the modification proposal. Eventually EPA will prepare an Explanation of 

Significant Difference (ESD) fact sheet explaining the selection of a new remedy (Ref. 29). 

POPS TREATED: CHLORDANE, DDT, DIELDRIN,

AND TOXAPHENE

MEDIUM: SOIL

COSTS: $132 PER CUBIC YARD (COST IN 2000

USD) 

FULL SCALE

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

Stockpiles and Soil 

 22 

Table 3-10. Performance of XenoremTM Technology at the Tampa Site 

Batch 1 a Batch 2 b

Pesticide 

Site 

Cleanup 

Goal 

(mg/kg) 

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. 30 

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 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. 29). Additional information on the technology can be obtained from the 

Technology Transfer Corporation at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware. 

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 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. 

3.2.1 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition 

BCD is an ex situ technology that has been used in pilot tests to treat high-strength soil containing POP 

contamination. The technology is available in both transportable and fixed configurations. 

The BCD technology uses a two-stage process. In the first stage of the treatment process, contaminated 

soil is mixed with an alkali such as sodium bicarbonate, and the mixture is heated in a thermal desorption 

reactor to temperatures ranging from 315 to 500 oC. The heat separates the halogenated compounds from 

the soil by evaporation. In the second stage of the 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 326 oC for 3 to 6 

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. 37). The treated 

soil can be used as backfill on site. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 23 

At the Warren County PCB Landfill site in Warren 

County, North Carolina, a full-scale demonstration 

of BCD was proposed by the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

(NCDENR). After completing the first stage, 

thermal desorption of contaminated site soil, NCDENR decided to incinerate the residual, highly 

contaminated waste oil condensate instead of performing the second-stage BCD reaction (Ref. 34). The 

off-site incineration activities were completed in June 1996. 

BCD has been implemented at a bench scale to treat soil 

contaminated with POPs. In 2004, EPA sent a sample of 

contaminated waste oil from the Warren County PCB Landfill 

site to an analytical laboratory in order to perform a bench-scale 

demonstration. Results from the bench scale study indicate that 

total PCBs were reduced from 81,100 mg/kg to below the 

detection limit of 5 mg/kg. Total tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 

(TCDD) was reduced from 5,800 nanogram per kilogram 

(ng/kg) to 9.1 ng/kg. A second bench scale study was conducted 

by EPA in 2005. The second bench scale study indicated that 

PCBs were reduced from 5,280 mg/kg to below the detection 

limit of 5 mg/kg. Total TCDD was reduced from 5,800 ng/kg to 

15.0 ng/kg (Ref. 37). 

BCD was developed by EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. 

EPA holds the patent rights to this technology in the United States. The foreign rights for this technology 

are held by BCD Group Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. The technology has been licensed by BCD Group Inc., to 

environmental firms in Spain, Australia, Japan and Mexico. Since the invention of the BCD technology 

in 1990, considerable technology advancements have been made with the discovery of a new catalyst. 

The catalyst used in the second generation BCD technology reduces the reaction time in the BCD reactor 

(Ref. 44). This second generation technology has been in Australia, Mexico and Spain to treat PCB 

contaminated oil. Two commercial BCD plants are being constructed in Czech Republic and will begin 

operation in 2006. At this time, performance data for the BCD operations in Australia, Mexico, and 

Spain are not available from the vendors. 

3.2.2 CerOxTM

CerOxTM is an ex situ electrochemical reaction technology 

that has been used in pilot tests to treat low-strength liquids 

containing POP 

contamination. 

CerOxTM uses 

cerium in its 

highest valence 

state (IV) to 

oxidize organic 

compounds, 

including 

POPs, to form 

carbon dioxide, 

water, and inorganic acid gases. The technology uses an 

electrochemical cell to produce cerium (IV) from cerium 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM. 

POPS TREATED: PCBS, DIOXINS,

AND FURANS

PRETREATMENT: THERMAL 

DESORPTION

MEDIUM: SOIL AND LIQUIDS

PILOT SCALE

EX SITU

POPS TREATED: CHLORDANE, DIOXINS,

AND PCBS

PRETREATMENT: SOIL AND SEDIMENT 

ARE MIXED WITH WATER TO PRODUCE A 

FLUID INFLUENT 

MEDIUM: LIQUIDS

PILOT SCALE

EX SITU

CerOxTM treatment system, 

Source: Ref. 9
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 24 

(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 transferred to a liquid-phase reactor. The liquid-phase reaction takes place at a 

temperature between 90 and 95 o

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 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). 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. 9). 

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 

achieved a chlordane destruction efficiency of 99.995 

percent in the gaseous-phase reactor (Ref. 4). 

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. 58). 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. 9). 

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. 9). 

3.2.3 Phytotechnology 

Phytotechnology is a process that uses plants to remove, 

transfer, stabilize, or destroy contaminants in soil, sediment, and 

groundwater. It may be applied in situ or ex situ to treat lowstrength soils, sludges, and sediments contaminated with POPs. 

The mechanisms include: 

• Enhanced rhizosphere biodegradation (degradation in the soil immediately surrounding plant 

roots), 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM.

MEDIUM: SOIL AND SEDIMENT

PILOT SCALE

EX SITU AND IN SITU
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 25 

• Phytovolatilization (the transfer of the pollutants to air via the plant transpiration stream), 

• Phytoextraction (also known as phytoaccumulation, 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), and 

• Hydraulic control (the use of trees to intercept and transpire large quantities of groundwater or 

surface water for plume control). 

In general more proven field studies have been conducted using phytostabilization and hydraulic control 

mechanisms. Other proven uses of phytotechnologies include 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 stockpiles of contamination but provides an appropriate 

polishing technology for residual contamination in soils. Initial laboratory research identified enhanced 

degradation of PCBs in the rhizosphere (Refs. 11, 27, and 36). Other researchers are finding promising 

results for phytoextraction in the laboratory and at the pilot scale phase. The Connecticut Agricultural 

Experimental Station’s preliminary data has 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. 61). The Royal Military College of Canada has also demonstrated 

that certain plants species can extract and store significant levels of PCBs and DDT (Ref. 62). Both the 

Ukraine and Kazakhstan have been conducting research 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. 38). In Kazakhstan, native vegetation that can tolerate and accumulate pesticides 

has been identified (Ref. 39). 

While research is still active and needed, field scale 

projects are also occurring. A clean-up project was 

conducted at a 40 year old scrap yard site with PCB 

contaminated soils at the 225 ppm level. The site 

contamination was approximately 2 acres in area and 

three feet deep. The clean-up project demonstrated 

that PCB concentrations decreased (over 90%) in the 

presence of red mulberry trees and bermuda grasses 

within 2 years (Ref. 31). Another example is an 

Evapotranspiration Cover that will be constructed at 

the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) National 

Wildlife Refuge near Denver, Colorado; the cover will 

address contaminants including aldrin, chlordane, 

DDT, dieldrin, and endrin. A field demonstration 

project was used as the basis of the final design, which 

will include five projects that encompass 400 acres. 

The selected seed mix for the site includes ten grass 

species and ten wildflower species native to the site 

(Ref. 34). 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 26 

Furthermore, two EPA Superfund sites have utilized phytotechnology as a treatment for POPs: 

• Aberdeen Pesticides Dumps in North Carolina is utilizing phytotechnology for residual 

contaminants (dieldrin and HCB) using poplar trees and grasses. This is an on-going project. 

• Fort Wainwright in Alaska utilized ex-situ phytotechnology for aldrin and dieldrin with willow 

trees. After treatment, the soil was deposited in the site landfill rather than a hazardous waste 

landfill. 

3.2.4 Solvated Electron Technology 

Solvated electron technology 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. 

Commodore Solution Technologies, Inc., the vendor of the technology, is not currently marketing the 

technology because of its high treatment costs. 

3.2.5 Sonic Technology 

Sonic technology is an ex situ technology that is used 

to treat low- and high-strength soils containing PCB 

contamination. 

In this process, contaminated soil is first mixed with a 

solvent. The mixture is then subjected to sonic energy 

generated by a proprietary low-frequency generator. 

Using sonic energy, the mixture is agitated and the PCBs from the soil are extracted and suspended in the 

solvent. The solvent is then separated from the mixture using multistage liquid separators. The solvent is 

then mixed with elemental sodium, and subjected to sonic energy again. 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. 45). 

In a pilot scale application of the technology to 

treat PCB-contaminated soil, the concentrations 

of PCBs before treatment were 388 to 436 

mg/kg, and the concentrations after treatment 

were 0.35 to 0.81 mg/kg. The technology is 

being implemented at full scale to treat 

approximately 3,000 tons of PCB-contaminated 

soil at the Juker Holdings site in Vancouver, 

British Columbia, Canada (Ref. 45). Additional 

performance data of the full scale application of 

this technology are not currently available. 

The technology was developed by Sonic 

Environmental Solutions Inc. in Vancouver, 

Canada. 

POPS TREATED: PCBS

PRETREATMENT: SOIL IS MIXED WITH 

SOLVENT TO PRODUCE A SLURRY

MEDIUM: SOIL

PILOT SCALE

EX SITU

Sonic technology process. Source: Ref. 45 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM.
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 27 

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 (SPHTD) is an ex situ technology used to treat 

stockpiles containing HCB contamination. 

HCB containing stockpiles are 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 chamber can reach a temperature of 

3,727 o

C, which creates thermochemical conditions that convert HCB to calcium chloride, carbon, and 

hydrogen (Ref. 58). 

SPHTD has been tested at bench scale using materials contaminated 

with HCB, but no bench-scale test results are available (Ref. 32). The 

information sources used to prepare this report did not provide 

information about application of the technology at the pilot or full 

scale. The SPHTD technology is being developed by Centro Studi 

Sulle Reazioni Autopropaganti in Italy. 

3.3.2 TDR-3RTM

TDR-3RTM is an ex situ technology used to treat highand low-strength soils containing HCB contamination. 

The TDR-3RTM technology uses a continuous lowtemperature thermal desorption process conducted in the absence of air. The main component of this 

process is a specially designed, indirectly fired, horizontally arranged rotary kiln. Contaminated soil is 

heated in the kiln to a temperature typically between 300 and 350 o

C under an applied vacuum of 0 to 50 

Pascal. In some instances, the kiln is heated to higher temperatures when POPs are 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 1,250 o

C. 

Off-gas from the thermal oxidizer is rapidly cooled, passed through a wet gas multi-venturi scrubber, and 

discharged. Process water from the scrubber is treated 

and discharged. Treated soil exiting the kiln is cooled 

indirectly and removed (Refs. 33 and 52). 

TDR-3RTM has been implemented at a bench scale in 

Gare, Hungary, to treat 100 kilograms (kg) of soil 

contaminated with HCB. Treatment occurred at a 

temperature of 450 o

C under a vacuum of 30 Pascal. 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM.

POPS TREATED: HCB 

MEDIUM: POP STOCKPILES

BENCH SCALE

EX SITU

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM.

POPS TREATED: HCB 

PRETREATMENT: THERMAL DESORPTION

MEDIUM: SOIL

BENCH SCALE

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

Stockpiles and Soil 

 28 

The technology reduced the soil’s HCB concentration from 1,215 to 0.1 mg/kg (Ref. 53). 

TDR-3RTM is marketed by Terra Humana Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. in Hungary. This firm is a 

subsidiary of Thermal Desorption Technology Group LLC in the United States. The firm has developed 

pilot scale kilns that operate at a throughput of 0.1 tons per hour. Larger kilns that operate at throughputs 

from 5 to 70 tons per hour are still conceptual (Ref. 52). 

3.3.3 Mediated Electrochemical Oxidation (AEA Silver IITM) 

AEA Silver IITM is an ex situ technology used to treat low-strength wastes containing POPs. 

The AEA Silver IITM process uses Ag2+ ions to oxidize 

organic compounds, including POPs, to form carbon 

dioxide, neutral salts, and dilute acid solutions. The 

process operates at low temperatures (60 to 90 o

C) and 

at atmospheric pressure. 

According to AEA Technologies Inc., the vendor of the technology, AEA Silver IITM is not applicable for 

soil or sediment. The contaminant has to be in an aqueous phase for the technology to be applied. 

Therefore, pretreatment is needed to extract the contaminant from the solid phase to an aqueous phase. 

AEA Technologies Inc. is not currently marketing this technology. 

3.4 Full-Scale Technologies with Potential to Treat POPs 

This section describes technologies that have been implemented to treat non-POPs at full scale and that 

are potentially applicable for treatment of POPs. 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 specific IHPA fact sheets are included in the appropriate subsections of this report. 

3.4.1 Plasma Arc 

Plasma arc technologies use a thermal plasma field to treat contaminated wastes. The plasma field is 

created by directing electric current through a gas stream under low pressure to form a plasma with a 

temperature ranging from 1,600 to 20,000 o

C. Bringing the plasma into contact with the waste causes 

contaminants to dissociate into their atomic elements. The separated elements are subsequently cooled, 

which causes them to recombine to form inert compounds. The process may also destroy organic 

compounds through pyrolysis. The end products are typically gases, such as carbon monoxide, carbon 

dioxide, hydrogen and inert solids. If chlorinated 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). The 

PLASCON and PCS may potentially remediate POPs; however, the PACT technology has treated POP 

contamination at pilot scale. These technologies are described below (Ref. 58). 

3.4.1.1 PLASCONTM

PLASCONTM is an ex situ technology that can be used to treat both solid and liquid waste streams. It is 

potentially applicable to both low- and high-strength wastes containing POP contamination. 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM.
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 29 

The PLASCONTM technology passes a direct current 

discharge through argon gas to create plasma with a 

temperature greater than 10,000 o

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 1,500 o

C and are rapidly cooled to less than 100 oC in a spray condenser using an 

alkaline spray solution. The gases are further cooled and scrubbed of any remaining acid gases in a 

packed tower. Off-gases, which contain mainly carbon monoxide and argon, are then thermally oxidized 

to convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide (Ref. 33). 

BCD Technologies Private Limited in Brisbane, Australia, purchased a PLASCONTM plant to treat PCBcontaminated wastes. This firm used a thermal desorption system in conjunction with PLASCONTM to 

treat a range of solid and semi-solid waste streams (Ref. 46). Performance data for this system are not 

available in the information sources used to prepare this report. 

PLASCONTM has been used at full scale to treat various organic contaminants. SRL Plasma Pty. Ltd., an 

Australian company, is the patent holder of this technology. 

3.4.1.2 Plasma Arc Centrifugal Treatment 

PACT is an ex situ technology that can be used to treat low- and high-strength wastes containing POP 

contamination. 

PACT uses heat generated by a plasma torch to melt and vitrify contaminated feed material. Primary 

treatment occurs inside a centrifuge tank housing the plasma torch. Centrifugal force produced by the 

rotating tank pushes the waste material away from the center and into the plasma torch’s field of 

influence. The plasma torch heats waste material within its field of influence to a temperature of about 

1,650 o

C (Ref. 10). At the end of primary treatment, the tank stops rotating and the molten waste exits the 

tank through a chute at the center of the tank. Molten waste is collected in molds and cooled to form 

vitreous solids. Volatilized contaminants pass from the centrifuge tank to a natural gas-fueled secondary 

treatment tank. Secondary treatment of gaseous contaminants occurs at a temperature of about 1,000 o

C. 

This part of the process ensures destruction of products of incomplete combustion such as dioxins and 

furans. Exhaust gases are discharged to an off-gas treatment system that cools the exhaust and scrubs it to 

remove acid gases (Ref. 43). 

PACT has been used at a pilot scale to treat waste contaminated with HCB and has been used at full scale 

to treat contaminants other than POPs. Waste containing HCB was treated in a PACT demonstration 

plant in 1991 (Ref. 43). The vendor, Retech Systems LLC, plans to ship a PACT system to Russia in 

2005 for treatment of capacitors contaminated with PCBs (Ref. 43). 

PACT is a full-scale treatment technology that is manufactured and marketed in the United States by 

Retech Systems LLC. 

3.4.1.3 Plasma Converter System 

PCS is an ex situ technology that can be used to treat soil, liquid, and gaseous waste streams. It is 

potentially applicable to both low- and high-strength wastes containing POP contamination. 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 30 

PCS uses plasma generated by a torch inside a cylindrical reaction chamber. Mixed waste fed into the 

reaction chamber passes through the plasma as the waste moves from one end of the chamber to the other. 

The arc inside the plasma can reach a temperature as high as 16,000 o

C. Contaminants dissociate into 

their constituent elements within the plasma. The elements recombine outside the plasma to form gaseous 

and molten products. Molten material formed in the reaction chamber is removed from the bottom of the 

chamber and cooled to form inert solids. These solids can include metals and inert silicate stones. 

Exhaust gases from the reaction chamber pass through an off-gas treatment system and are then 

discharged. The off-gas treatment system includes a cyclonic separator for removal of particulate matter, 

cartridge filters for dust removal, a catalytic converter for reduction of oxides of nitrogen, and a scrubber 

for removal of acid gases. The recovered gas may be used to produce polymers or fuel gas (Refs. 10 and 

47). 

The PCS is a full-scale technology that is manufactured and marketed in the United States by 

STARTECH Environmental Corp. The plasma converter vessel is available in several sizes with 

treatment capacities ranging from 5 to 100 tons per day (Ref. 47). The technology vendor, STARTECH 

Environmental Corp., has stated that the PCS could be tailored to treat PCBs and HCB. 

3.4.2 Supercritical Water Oxidation 

SCWO is an ex situ technology that has been used to treat solid and liquid wastes. It is potentially 

applicable to both low- and high-strength wastes containing POP contamination. Current SCWO systems 

are non transportable. 

SCWO occurs in an enclosed system at a temperature 

and pressure above the critical point of water (374 o

C 

and 22.1 x 106

 Pascal). Under these conditions, the 

gas-liquid phase boundary ceases to exist and water 

exists 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. 17 and 35). 

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 such 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 

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. 25). 

The Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Program was established in 1997 to test and 

demonstrate at least two alternative technologies to the baseline incineration process for the 

demilitarization of assembled chemical weapons (Ref. 5). 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 in the design phase. 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 the treating of 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. 33). SCWO treatment of solid wastes after they have been ground into a fine slurry has 

THE FACT SHEET PREPARED BY IHPA IS 

AVAILABLE AT 

HTTP://WWW.IHPA.INFO/LIBRARYNATO.HTM. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 31 

been demonstrated using feed materials containing up to 25 percent suspended solids (Refs. 5, 28, 33, 35 

and 58). 

In the United States, SCWO technology is available from General Atomics’ Advanced Process Systems 

division (Ref. 25). Although General Atomics primarily markets this technology to government clients, 

the firm has also designed and fabricated SCWO systems for commercial entities (Refs. 25 and 35). The 

SCWO process developed by General Atomics was selected for use as an Assembled Chemical Weapons 

Assessment technology to treat non-POPs such as GB, VX, H, HD, and TNT. Turbosystems Engineering 

Inc. also designs and markets SCWO systems in the United States (Ref. 55). Turbosystems Engineering 

Inc. claims that its system can treat DDT and HCB. No performance data substantiating this claim are 

available in the information sources used to prepare this report. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 32 

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 web sites 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/libraryNATO.htm

Science and Technology Advisory Panel of the Global Environmental Facility 

http://www.unep.org/stapgef/home/index.htm

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.unep.org/stapgef/documents/popsJapan2003.htm

http://www.gpa.unep.org/pollute/organic.htm

http://www.who.int/iomc/groups/pop/en/

http://www.unido.org/doc/29487

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://ipen.ecn.cz/

http://www.envirohealthaction.org/toxics/pollution/

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pops/index_en.htm

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/50ByDocName/WhatArePOPs

http://www.deh.gov.au/industry/chemicals/international/pop.html
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 33 

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. 

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

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@adventusremediation.com

Web site: http://www.adventusremediation.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

Web site: http://www.bennettenv.com

GeoMeltTM

Mr. Kevin Finucane 

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 

309 Bradely Boulevard, Suite 115 

Richland, WA 99352 

Telephone: (509) 942-1292 

Fax: (509) 942-1293 

Email: kevin.finucane@amec.com

Web site: www.geomelt.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

Web site: 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

Web site: 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

Web site: www.tribochem.com

XenoremTM

Mr. Michael Klerkin 

Technology Transfer Corporation 

University of Delaware 

Newark, DE 19716 

Telephone: (302) 831-4230 

Web site: http://www.udel.edu/
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 34 

Pilot-Scale Technologies for Treatment of 

POPs 

Base Catalyzed Decomposition 

Mr. Terrence Lyons 

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 

CerOxTM

Mr. Matt van Steenwyk or Mr. Norvell Nelson 

CerOx Corporation 

2602 Airpark Drive 

Santa Maria, CA 93455 

Telephone: (805) 925-8111 

Fax: (805) 925-8218 

Email: mattvs@cerox.com/njnelson@cerox.com

Web site: www.cerox.com

Sonic Technology 

Mr. Paul Austin 

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: paustin@sesi.ca

Web site: www.sonicenvironmental.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@visnu.dicm.unica.it

TDR-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

Web site: http://www.terrenum.net

Full-Scale Technologies with Potential to 

Treat POPs 

Plasma Arc Centrifugal Treatment 

Mr. Leroy Leland

RETECH Systems 

100 Henry Station Road 

Ukiah, CA 95482 

Telephone: (707) 467-1724 

Fax: (707) 462-4103 

Email: Leroy.b.leland@retechsystemsllc.com

Web site: www.retechsystemsllc.com

PLASCONTM

Mr. Rex Williams or Mr. Martin Krynen 

BCD Technologies Pty. Ltd. 

Narangba, Queensland, Australia 4504 

Telephone: 61 7 3203 3400 

Fax: 61 7 3203 3450 

E-mail: marius@gil.com.au

Plasma Converter System 

Startech Environmental Corp. 

15 Old Danbury Road 

Wilton, CT. 06897-2525 

Telephone: (203) 762-2499 

Toll Free: (888) 807-9443 

Fax: (203) 761-0839 

Email: starmail@startech.net

Supercritical Water Oxidation 

General Atomics 

P.O. Box 85608 

San Diego, CA 92186-5608 

Telephone: (858) 455-3000 

Fax: (858) 455-3621 

Turbosystems Engineering Inc. 

Telephone: (707) 529-7477 

Fax: (707) 581-1749 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 35 

6.0 REFERENCES 

1. Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. DARAMEND® project summaries. Online Address: 

http://www.adventusremediation.com. 

2. Allen, Harry 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. 

3. Allen, Harry L., EPA Environmental Response Team. 2005. Email to Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech 

EM Inc., Regarding EPA Comments on Draft Blood Meal Fact Sheet. January 25. 

4. American Chemical Society. 2000. “Herbicide and Pesticide Destruction.” Symposium on 

Emerging Technologies: Waste Management in the 21st Century. San Francisco, California. May. 

5. Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative. Program Summary. Online Address: 

http://www.pmacwa.army.mil/about/index.htm. 

6. Baker, Ralph, and Myron 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. 

7. Baker, Ralph, TerraTherm, Inc. 2004. Emails to Chitranjan Christian, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

October 27 and November 8, 15, 24, and 29. 

8. Birke, Volker. 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. 

9. CerOxTM Corporation. 2005. Process Technology Overview. Online Address: 

http://www.cerox.com/systems_process.html. 

10. CMPS&F - Environment Australia. 1997. “Appropriate Technologies for the Treatment of 

Scheduled Wastes.” Review Report Number 4. November. Online Address: 

http://www.oztoxics.org/research/3000_hcbweb/library/gov_fed/appteck/plasma.html#pact. 

11. Donnelly, Paul K., Hedge, Ramesh, S., and Fletcher, John S. (1994) “Growth of PCB-Degrading 

Bacteria on Compounds from Photosynthetic Plants.” Chemosphere. Volume 28, Number 5. Pages 

981-988. 

12. Eco Logic. 2002. “Contaminated Soil and Sediment Treatment Using the GPCRTM/TORBED®

Combination.” October. Online Address: http://www.torftech.com/start.htm. 

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. “Cost and Performance Summary Report, 

Bioremediation at the Stauffer Management Company Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida.” Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

14. EPA. 1994. “Eco Logic International Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process-The Thermal 

Desorption Unit.” Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. EPA/540/AR-94/504. 

September. Online Address: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/reports/540ar94504/540ar94504.pdf

15. EPA. 1996. Site Technology Capsule: “GRACE Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND®

Bioremediation Technology.” Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. 

EPA/540/R-95/536. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 36 

16. EPA. 2000. “Cost and Performance Summary Report, Bioremediation at the Stauffer Management 

Company Superfund Site, Tampa, Florida.” Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. September. 

17. EPA. 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. August. EPA-R-00-004. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/acwatechreport.pdf

18. EPA. 2002. “Persistent Organic Pollutants, A Global Issue, A Global Response.” Office of 

International Affairs. EPA160-F-02-001. 

19. EPA. 2004. “Cost and Performance Summary Report, The Legacy of the Navajo Vats Superfund 

Site, Arizona and New Mexico.” Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. 

October. 

20. EPA. 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. July. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/540r05007/540R05007.pdf

21. EPA. 2004. “In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and Field 

Applications.” EPA 542-R-04-010. March. 

22. EPA. 2004. T.H. Agricultural & Nutrition Company Site Information and Source Data. Online 

Address: http://www.epareachit.org. 

23. EPA. 2005. Web Site on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP). Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Information Downloaded on January 5. Online Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfod01/international/pops.htm. 

24. Finucane, Kevin, Geomelt. 2005. Emails to Ellen Rubin, 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. May 23. 

25. General Atomics. 2005. Website of Advanced Process Systems Division. Online Address: 

http://demil.ga.com/. 

26. GeoMelt® Technologies/AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., Richland, Washington. 2005. 

Web Page on GeoMelt® Technology Description. Online Address: 

http://www.geomelt.com/technologies/. 

27. Gilbert, Eric S. and David 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. 

28. Global Security. 2005. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Army Facilities. Web Page on Newport 

Chemical Depot (NECD), Newport, Indiana. Online Address: 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/newport.htm. 

29. Gray, N.C.C., AstraZeneca Group PLC. 2004. Telephone Conversation with Younus Burhan, 

Tetra Tech EM Inc. December 15. 

30. 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. 

31. Hurt, K. 2005. “Successful Full Scale Phytoremediation of PCB and TPH Contaminated Soil,” 

The Third International Phytotechnologies Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. April 19 - 22. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 37 

32. Ing, Giacomo Cao, Centro Studi sulle Reazioni Autopropaganti. 2004. Email to Younus Burhan, 

Tetra Tech EM Inc. December 12. 

33. International HCH and Pesticides Association. 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/libraryNATO.htm. 

34. Interstate Technology Regulatory Council. 2003. “Technology Overview Using Case Studies of 

Alternative Landfill Technologies and Associated Regulatory Topics.” 

35. Johnson, Lou, General Atomics. 2005. Telephone Conversation with Chitranjan Christian, Tetra 

Tech EM Inc. February 15. 

36. 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. 

37. Lyons, Terry, EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory. 2005. Email to Younus 

Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. January 19 and August 10. 

38. 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. 

39. 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. 

40. Pan, Danny, Bennett Environmental Inc. 2005. Telephone Conversation with Younus Burhan, 

Tetra Tech EM Inc. January 18. 

41. Phillips, T., G. Bell, D. Raymond, K. Shaw, and A. Seech. 2001. 6th International HCH and 

Pesticides Forum, Poznan, Poland. “DARAMEND® Technology for In Situ Bioremediation of Soil 

Containing Organochlorine Pesticides.” March 20 - 22. 

42. Raymond, David, Adventus Remediation Technologies, Inc. 2004. Telephone Conversation with 

Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech EM Inc. August 25. 

43. Retech Systems LLC. 2005. Web Page on Plasma Arc Centrifugal Treatment (PACT) Systems. 

Online Address: http://www.retechsystemsllc.com/PACT%20webpagesC/index.htm. 

44. Rogers, Charles, BCD Group Inc. 2005. Email correspondence with Younus Burhan, Tetra Tech 

EM Inc. December 9 and 13. 

45. Sonic Environmental Solutions Inc.2005. Sonic Technology Treatment Process, Online Address: 

http://www.sesi.ca/. 

46. SRL Plasma Pty. Ltd. 2005. Web Page on “PLASCONTM Electric-Arc Plasma Hazardous Waste 

Destruction Process.” Online Address: http://www.srlplasma.com.au/srlpages/srlframe.html. 

47. STARTECH Environmental Corp. 2005. Process Description. Web Page on Plasma Converter 

System. Online Address: http://www.startech.net/plasma.html. 

48. 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. 
Reference Guide to Non-combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in 

Stockpiles and Soil 

 38 

49. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS). 2005. Web Site for the 

Stockholm Convention. Online Address: http://www.pops.int/

50. TerraTherm Environmental Services. 1999. “Naval Facility Centerville Beach, Technology 

Demonstration Report, In-Situ Thermal Desorption.” November. 

51. TerraTherm, Inc. 2005. Web Page on Technology Process Description (ISTD). Online Address: 

http://www.terratherm.com/default.htm. 

52. Thermal Desorption Technology Group LLC of North America. 2005. Website of Terra Humana 

Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. Online Address: http://www.terrenum.net/index.htm. 

53. Thermal Desorption Technology Group, Terra Humana Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. 2004. 

“Summary Report of the TDT-3R Treatment - Latest Five Years – Projects 2000-2004.” December 

10. 

54. Thiess Services NSW. 2004. “Proof of Performance Report, FCC Remediation, Mapua, New 

Zealand.” June. 

55. Turbosystems Engineering Inc. 2005. Web Page on Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology. 

Online Address: http://www.turbosynthesis.com/summitresearch/sumhome.htm. 

56. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. Toxicological Profile Information Sheet. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Online Address: 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html. 

57. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2003. Science and Technology Advisory Panel 

(STAP) of the Global Environmental Facility. “Report of the STAP/GEF POPs Workshop on NonCombustion Technologies for the Destruction of POPs Stockpiles.” October. Online Address: 

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

58. UNEP. 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. January. Online Address: 

http://www.unep.org/stapgef/home/index.htm. 

59. UNEP. 2005. “Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Persistent 

Organic Pollutant Wastes.” UNEP/POPS/COP.1/11. May. Online Address: 

http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_1/meetingdocs/en/cop1_11/COP_1_11.pdf. 

60. UNEP. 2005. Web Site of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention. Online Address: 

http://www.basel.int/

61. 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. 

62. 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. 
 

APPENDIX A 

Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for the 

Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 
Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for 

Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 

 A-1 

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 serve 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) 
Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for 

Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 

 A-2 

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. 
Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for 

Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 

 A-3 

• This technology typically does not achieve greater than 90 percent contaminant destruction.

• 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 twenty two (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. 
Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for 

Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 

 A-4 

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 

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. 
Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for 

Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 

 A-5 

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 

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 3,500 

Note: 

mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram 

NA: Not available 

Source: Refs. 1, 2 and 6 
Anaerobic Bioremediation Using Blood Meal for 

Treatment of Toxaphene in Soil and Sediment 

 A-6 

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, 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, EPA Environmental Response Team. 2005. Memo to Ellen Rubin, EPA Office 

of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Response to Questions on Toxaphene 

Fact Sheet. February 24. 

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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. EPA. 2000. Fact Sheet - Gila River Indian Community Toxaphene Site. October. 

6. Rubin, Ellen, 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.
 

APPENDIX B 

Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for Treatment of 

POPs in Soils and Sediments 
Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 B-1 

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

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 runon/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 

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® particle colonization as 

viewed through an electron-microscope 
Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 B-2 

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

Performance 

Site Name Scale 

Quantity 

Treated 

(tons) 

No. of 

treatment 

cycles 

Duration 

of each 

cycle 

Cost 

per 

ton* 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, Toxaphene 239 5.1 

Charleston, South 

Carolina 

Pilot 250 8 1 month $95 

DDT 89.7 16.5 

Non-POPs Contaminated Sites 

TNT 15,359 14 

RDX 1,090 1.6 

Naval Weapons 

Station,Yorktown, 

Virginia 

Full 4,800 12 7-10 

days 

$90 

DNT 1,002 13 

RDX 1,530, 16.2 

HMX 1,112, 84.5 

Iowa Army 

Ammunition Plant, 

Burlington, Iowa 

Full 8,000 5 7-10 

days 

$150 

TNT 95.8 8 

Confidential Site, PCP 359 8 

Northwest U.S.A. 

(applied in multiple 

2-ft lifts) 

Full 6,000 Aerobic 

treatment 

N/A $37 

PCP 760 31 

Source: Ref. 1 

* Treatment costs are as reported by vendor. The vendor did not specify what was included in this cost.
Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 B-3 

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. 
Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 B-4 

Volatile organic compound emissions may increase during soil tilling. Other factors that could interfere 

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, 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. 
Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 B-5 

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 EPA. 

U.S. EPA RPM FOR THAN SITE: 

Brian Farrier 

EPA Region 4 

Telephone: 404-562-8952 

Fax: 404-562-8955 

Email: farrier.brain@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@adventusremediation.com 

Web Site: http://www.adventusremediation.com

PATENT NOTICE:

DARAMEND®

 is a patented technology with U.S. Patent No. 5,618,427. 
Bioremediation Using DARAMEND® for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 B-6 

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. EPA. 1996. Site Technology Capsule, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND®

Bioremediation technology. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation. EPA/540/R-95/536. 

5. EPA. 1997. Site Technology Capsule, GRACE Bioremediation Technologies DARAMEND®

Bioremediation technology. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation. EPA/540/R95/536a. 

6. EPA. 2002. Technology News and Trends, Full-Scale Bioremediation of Organic Explosive 

contaminated soil. EPA 542-N-02-003. July. 

7. EPA. 2004. TH Agricultural & Nutrition Company Site Information and Source Data. Online 

Address: http://www.epareachit.org. 

8. EPA. 2004. TH Agricultural & Nutrition Company Site, RODS Abstract information, Superfund 

Information Systems. Online Address: http://www.epa.gov/superfund. 

9. Farrier, Brian, 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.
 

APPENDIX C 

In Situ Thermal Desorption for Treatment of POPs in 

Soils and Sediments 
In Situ Thermal Desorption for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 C-1 

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 degrees °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.
In Situ Thermal Desorption for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 C-2 

Vapor Extraction

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 vaporextraction wells. 

Vapor extraction wells are also heated to 

prevent condensation of contaminants inside 

the 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. 

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. 

Blanket 

Heating

Thermal Well

Heating

Figure 2

Blanket and Thermal Well Heating

Source: TerraThermTM Inc.

Blanket 

Heating

Thermal Well

Heating

Figure 2

Blanket and Thermal Well Heating

Source: TerraThermTM Inc.
In Situ Thermal Desorption for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 C-3 

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 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. 
In Situ Thermal Desorption for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 C-4 

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. 
In Situ Thermal Desorption for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 C-5 

Figure 3

Phase-1 Soil Sampling Results

Source: TerraThermTM Inc.

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 

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 PCBcontaining 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 heatervacuum 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. 
In Situ Thermal Desorption for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 C-6 

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 is expected to end in August 2005. 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 

(RMA). Shell Oil Company leased a portion of the RMA 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 325 o

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, twelve 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 
In Situ Thermal Desorption for 

Treatment of POPs in Soils and Sediments 

 C-7 

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.