Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites - Revision history

Admin at 21:17, 3 February 2025

2025-02-03T21:17:37Z

Admin at 21:15, 3 February 2025

2025-02-03T21:15:19Z

Show changes

Jhurley at 16:25, 14 August 2019

2019-08-14T16:25:09Z

Jhurley at 16:09, 14 August 2019

2019-08-14T16:09:49Z

Jhurley at 13:54, 23 August 2018

2018-08-23T13:54:29Z

Jhurley at 13:37, 23 August 2018

2018-08-23T13:37:55Z

Debra Tabron at 16:18, 22 August 2018

2018-08-22T16:18:48Z

Debra Tabron: /* Total Project Costs by Technology */

2018-08-22T16:11:59Z

‎Total Project Costs by Technology

Debra Tabron: /* Cost Results from the 235 Site Study */

2018-08-22T16:11:23Z

‎Cost Results from the 235 Site Study

Debra Tabron: /* Unit Costs by Technology */

2018-08-22T16:10:33Z

‎Unit Costs by Technology

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Remediation performance evaluations at multiple sites can provide useful information about the performance remediation technologies can achieve and their costs.  While the results from a multiple site study only provide a general indication of what might happen at a particular site, the results can help guide remediation technology selection and set realistic expectations about the end points remediation can and cannot achieve.  Overall, an average chlorinated solvent in-situ remediation project reduces the maximum groundwater concentrations in a source zone by about 0.2 to 1.4 [[wikipedia: Orders of magnitude (numbers) | Orders of Magnitude]] (OoM), which is equivalent to 41% to 96% reduction in concentration, due to remediation. The [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/00/RemediationPerformance.mp4  video] shown in Figure 1 presents a summary of remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.
+Remediation performance evaluations at multiple sites can provide useful information about the performance remediation technologies can achieve and their costs.  While the results from a multiple site study only provide a general indication of what might happen at a particular site, the results can help guide remediation technology selection and set realistic expectations about the end points remediation can and cannot achieve.  Overall, an average chlorinated solvent in-situ remediation project reduces the maximum groundwater concentrations in a source zone by about 0.2 to 1.4 [[wikipedia: Orders of magnitude (numbers) | Orders of Magnitude]] (OoM), which is equivalent to 41% to 96% reduction in concentration, due to remediation. The [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/00/RemediationPerformance.mp4 video] shown in Figure 1 presents a summary of remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.
 <div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 [[File:RemediationPerformance.mp4 | 400px | thumb | left | Figure 1. Remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.]]
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
-'''Contributor(s):''' [[Travis McGuire]], [[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E.]], [[Dr. David Adamson, P.E.]], and [[Poonam Kulkarni|Poonam Kulkarni, P.E.]]
+'''Contributor(s):''' [[Travis McGuire]], [[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E.]], [[Dr. David Adamson, P.E.]] and [[Poonam Kulkarni|Poonam Kulkarni, P.E.]]
 '''Key Resource(s):'''
-*[//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7f/2016-McGuire-ER-201120_Final_Report.pdf  Development of an Expanded, High-Reliability Cost and Performance Database for In-Situ Remediation Technologies]<ref name="McGuire2016a">McGuire, T., Adamson, D., Newell, C., Kulkarni, P., 2016a. Development of an Expanded, High-Reliability Cost and Performance Database for In-Situ Remediation Technologies.  Environmental Security Technology and Certification Program, ER-201120. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7f/2016-McGuire-ER-201120_Final_Report.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref>
+*[//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7f/2016-McGuire-ER-201120_Final_Report.pdf Development of an Expanded, High-Reliability Cost and Performance Database for In-Situ Remediation Technologies]<ref name="McGuire2016a">McGuire, T., Adamson, D., Newell, C., Kulkarni, P., 2016a. Development of an Expanded, High-Reliability Cost and Performance Database for In-Situ Remediation Technologies.  Environmental Security Technology and Certification Program, ER-201120. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7f/2016-McGuire-ER-201120_Final_Report.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>
 ==Introduction==
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 [[wikipedia: Data mining | Data mining]] works on the simple principle that the more data included in the analysis, especially data from multiple sources, the more powerful are the conclusions that can be made from it. Data mining allows a user to test a hypothesis, or alternatively, to develop new hypotheses based on patterns that may not have been apparent from individual datasets.
-The data mining projects described in this article focused on in-situ groundwater remediation technologies, with a secondary emphasis on untreated (monitored natural attenuation) sites as a basis for comparison<ref>Newell, C.J., Cowie, I., McGuire, T.M. and McNab Jr, W.W., 2006. Multiyear temporal changes in chlorinated solvent concentrations at 23 monitored natural attenuation sites. Journal of Environmental Engineering, American Society of Environmental Engineers, 132(6), pp.653-663. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2006)132:6(653) doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2006)132:6(653)][//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/09/Newell_2006_Multiyear_Temporal_Changes.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref>. The studies focused on the following technologies: [[Bioremediation_-_Anaerobic| anaerobic bioremediation]]; [[Chemical_Oxidation_(In_Situ_-_ISCO)| in situ chemical oxidation]]; [[Thermal Remediation | thermal treatment]]; and [[Chemical_Reduction_(In_Situ_-_ISCR)| in situ chemical reduction]].
+The data mining projects described in this article focused on in-situ groundwater remediation technologies, with a secondary emphasis on untreated (monitored natural attenuation) sites as a basis for comparison<ref>Newell, C.J., Cowie, I., McGuire, T.M. and McNab Jr, W.W., 2006. Multiyear temporal changes in chlorinated solvent concentrations at 23 monitored natural attenuation sites. Journal of Environmental Engineering, American Society of Environmental Engineers, 132(6), pp.653-663. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2006)132:6(653) doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2006)132:6(653)][//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/09/Newell_2006_Multiyear_Temporal_Changes.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. The studies focused on the following technologies: [[Bioremediation_-_Anaerobic| anaerobic bioremediation]]; [[Chemical_Oxidation_(In_Situ_-_ISCO)| in situ chemical oxidation]]; [[Thermal Remediation | thermal treatment]]; and [[Chemical_Reduction_(In_Situ_-_ISCR)| in situ chemical reduction]].
 ===Performance Metric Calculations===
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 Many studies use either the [[Wikipedia: Geometric mean | geometric mean]] (geomean) of measured concentrations or else the maximum value from each time period to provide a single “before” concentration and a single “after” concentration for each well. The before and after data points from multiple wells are often further reduced by calculating the median value, resulting in a single before treatment concentration and a single after treatment concentration for each site.
-Several studies have reported performance as the Order of Magnitude (OoM) reduction in concentration achieved by the remedial technology using equation 1 to determine a single performance metric for each site<ref name="McGuire2016a" /><ref name="ITRC2011">ITRC, 2011. Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy. Technology/Regulatory Guidance. ITRC Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy Team. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d9/ITRC-2011-Integrated_DNAPL.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref>:
+Several studies have reported performance as the Order of Magnitude (OoM) reduction in concentration achieved by the remedial technology using equation 1 to determine a single performance metric for each site<ref name="McGuire2016a" /><ref name="ITRC2011">ITRC, 2011. Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy. Technology/Regulatory Guidance. ITRC Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy Team. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d9/ITRC-2011-Integrated_DNAPL.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>:
 [[File:McGuire1w2Equation1.PNG| center]]
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ==Overview of Key Multiple Site Performance Studies==
-*In 2004, Geosyntec and the Navy used a web-based survey to provide information on site characteristics, source zone characteristics, technologies used, remediation cost, treatment duration, and remediation outcomes.  A 2007 report provided additional data analysis from the 2004 project<ref>GeoSyntec Consultants, 2004. Assessing the feasibility of DNAPL source zone remediation: Review of case studies. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b2/2004-Geosyntec_Consultants-Assessing_the_feasibility_of_DNPL_Source_Zone_Remediaton.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref>.
+*In 2004, Geosyntec and the Navy used a web-based survey to provide information on site characteristics, source zone characteristics, technologies used, remediation cost, treatment duration, and remediation outcomes.  A 2007 report provided additional data analysis from the 2004 project<ref>GeoSyntec Consultants, 2004. Assessing the feasibility of DNAPL source zone remediation: Review of case studies. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b2/2004-Geosyntec_Consultants-Assessing_the_feasibility_of_DNPL_Source_Zone_Remediaton.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.
-*Funded by [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/ SERDP], McGuire et al. (2006)<ref name="McGuire2006">McGuire, T.M., McDade, J.M. and Newell, C.J., 2006. Performance of DNAPL source depletion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent‐impacted sites. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 26(1), pp.73-84. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00054.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00054.x][//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/80/McGuire_2006_Performance_of_DNAPL_Source_Depletion.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref> summarized performance and cost information for 56 chlorinated solvent remediation studies.  The paper indicated that median concentrations of chlorinated solvents in groundwater are reduced by about 1 OoM as a result of in-situ remediation and that chemical oxidation sites are more prone to rebound.
+*Funded by [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/ SERDP], McGuire et al. (2006)<ref name="McGuire2006">McGuire, T.M., McDade, J.M. and Newell, C.J., 2006. Performance of DNAPL source depletion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent‐impacted sites. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 26(1), pp.73-84. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00054.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00054.x][//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/80/McGuire_2006_Performance_of_DNAPL_Source_Depletion.pdf Report.pdf]</ref> summarized performance and cost information for 56 chlorinated solvent remediation studies.  The paper indicated that median concentrations of chlorinated solvents in groundwater are reduced by about 1 OoM as a result of in-situ remediation and that chemical oxidation sites are more prone to rebound.
 *Krembs et al. (2010)<ref>Krembs, F.J., Siegrist, R.L., Crimi, M.L., Furrer, R.F. and Petri, B.G., 2010. ISCO for groundwater remediation: analysis of field applications and performance. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 30(4), pp.42-53. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2010.01312.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2010.01312.x]</ref> reported performance data from 55 chemical oxidation projects.  Results indicated that chemical oxidation at most sites achieves about 0.2 to 0.8 OoM reduction in the maximum concentrations of chlorinated solvents in groundwater.
@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 *The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) summarized the McGuire cost and performance data in their “Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy” technology/regulatory guidance in 2011<ref name="ITRC2011" />.
-*Stroo et al. (2012)<ref name="Stroo2012">Stroo, H.F., Leeson, A., Marqusee, J.A., Johnson, P.C., Ward, C.H., Kavanaugh, M.C., Sale, T.C., Newell, C.J., Pennell, K.D., Lebrón, C.A. and Unger, M., 2012. Chlorinated ethene source remediation: Lessons learned. Environmental Science & Technology 46, 6438-6447. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es204714w doi: 10.1021/es204714w][//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ef/Stroo_2012_Chlorinated_Ethene_Source_Remediation.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref> published '' “Chlorinated Ethene Source Remediation: Lessons Learned” '' which recognized the limitations to in-situ treatment of chlorinated solvent sites and discussed how improving characterization and enhancing treatment technologies were key strategies for managing chlorinated solvent sites.
+*Stroo et al. (2012)<ref name="Stroo2012">Stroo, H.F., Leeson, A., Marqusee, J.A., Johnson, P.C., Ward, C.H., Kavanaugh, M.C., Sale, T.C., Newell, C.J., Pennell, K.D., Lebrón, C.A. and Unger, M., 2012. Chlorinated ethene source remediation: Lessons learned. Environmental Science & Technology 46, 6438-6447. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es204714w doi: 10.1021/es204714w][//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ef/Stroo_2012_Chlorinated_Ethene_Source_Remediation.pdf Report.pdf]</ref> published '' “Chlorinated Ethene Source Remediation: Lessons Learned” '' which recognized the limitations to in-situ treatment of chlorinated solvent sites and discussed how improving characterization and enhancing treatment technologies were key strategies for managing chlorinated solvent sites.
 *McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name="McGuire2016a" /> expanded their 2006 study<ref name="McGuire2006" /> to 235 sites. The results of this “235-Site Study” are summarized below.
@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 *Several different multiple-site studies have examined the cost and performance in-situ remediation at chlorinated solvent sites.
-*Although remediation does provide important benefits, complete restoration is rare<ref name="McGuire2006" /><ref>NAVFAC. 2007. DNAPL Management Overview, Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center, Port Hueneme, CA.[//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b7/NAVFAC_2007_DNAPL_Management_Overview.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Stroo2012" />. The 235-Site Study found that only 7% of these sites achieved drinking water standards for the parent compound at all wells in the treatment zone.
+*Although remediation does provide important benefits, complete restoration is rare<ref name="McGuire2006" /><ref>NAVFAC. 2007. DNAPL Management Overview, Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center, Port Hueneme, CA.[//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b7/NAVFAC_2007_DNAPL_Management_Overview.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Stroo2012" />. The 235-Site Study found that only 7% of these sites achieved drinking water standards for the parent compound at all wells in the treatment zone.
 *Two key metrics are commonly used to evaluate concentration changes from before- to after-remediation: geometric means and maximum concentrations.  Geomeans are more useful for evaluating treatment performance throughout the treatment zone.  However, regulators are more likely to focus on the maximum groundwater concentrations.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Remediation performance evaluations at multiple sites can provide useful information about the performance remediation technologies can achieve and their costs.  While the results from a multiple site study only provide a general indication of what might happen at a particular site, the results can help guide remediation technology selection and set realistic expectations about the end points remediation can and cannot achieve.  Overall, an average chlorinated solvent in-situ remediation project reduces the maximum groundwater concentrations in a source zone by about 0.2 to 1.4 [[wikipedia: Orders of magnitude (numbers) | Orders of Magnitude]] (OoM), which is equivalent to 41% to 96% reduction in concentration, due to remediation. The [[Media:RemediationPerformance.mp4 | video]] shown in Figure 1 presents a summary of remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.
 <div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
-<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div><br/>
+[[File:RemediationPerformance.mp4 | 400px | thumb | left | Figure 1. Remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.]]
 '''Related Article(s):'''
 *[[Chlorinated Solvents]]
@@ Line 18: / Line 17: @@
 ==Introduction==
-[[File:RemediationPerformance.mp4 | 600px | thumb | left | Figure 1. Remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.]]The United States has a potential environmental remediation liability of $200 billion, and a need for quantitative, accurate, and reliable performance and cost data for common remediation technologies. The National Research Council, in their report ''Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites''<ref>National Research Council (NRC), 2013. Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites. The National Academies Press, Washington DC.  [http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/14668 doi:10.17226/14668]</ref>, stated that:
+The United States has a potential environmental remediation liability of $200 billion, and a need for quantitative, accurate, and reliable performance and cost data for common remediation technologies. The National Research Council, in their report ''Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites''<ref>National Research Council (NRC), 2013. Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites. The National Academies Press, Washington DC.  [http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/14668 doi:10.17226/14668]</ref>, stated that:
 *“The Committee could identify only limited data upon which to base a scientifically supportable comparison of remedial technology performance,”
@@ Line 78: / Line 77: @@
 ==Performance Results from the 2016 235-Site ESTCP Study==
-[[File:McGuire1w2Fig1.PNG|right|thumbnail| 800 px| Figure 1. “Triangle Plots” showing the before-treatment concentration on the X-axis and the after-treatment concentration on the Y-axis. Because each axis has a logarithmic scale, the dashed diagonal lines represent orders of magnitude (OoMs) of reduction achieved as indicated by the diagonal labels on the secondary Y-axis. The different color symbols represent different treatment technologies. The left panel is the geomean of the before- and after-treatment concentrations in groundwater while the right panel shows the before- and after-treatment maximum concentrations in groundwater.]]
+[[File:McGuire1w2Fig1.PNG|right|thumbnail| 800 px| Figure 2. “Triangle Plots” showing the before-treatment concentration on the X-axis and the after-treatment concentration on the Y-axis. Because each axis has a logarithmic scale, the dashed diagonal lines represent orders of magnitude (OoMs) of reduction achieved as indicated by the diagonal labels on the secondary Y-axis. The different color symbols represent different treatment technologies. The left panel is the geomean of the before- and after-treatment concentrations in groundwater while the right panel shows the before- and after-treatment maximum concentrations in groundwater.]]
 McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name= "McGuire2016a"/> reviewed thousands of pages of reports from hundreds of sites to develop a high-quality, reliable dataset of remediation projects that targeted chlorinated solvents in groundwater. This effort resulted in the accumulation of these data:
@@ Line 93: / Line 92: @@
 Performance results were evaluated based on both geomean concentrations and maximum concentrations of parent compounds in treatment zone groundwater before and after treatment (Fig. 1). Geomeans were used instead of arithmetic averages because groundwater characteristics are generally better represented by a log-normal statistical distribution rather than the “bell curve” type distribution that is assumed when using arithmetic averages. Each symbol on the graphic represents a remediation project. The overall performance, in terms of “OoM Reduction” achieved by each project, is determined using the diagonal axis.
-When using geomeans for evaluating performance (left panel in Fig. 1), the middle 50% range of all projects achieved 0.5 to 2 OoMs (between 71% and 99% reduction), with a median of 1.1 OoMs (91% reduction).  When using site maximums (right panel in Fig. 1), the middle 50% of all remediation projects achieved between 0.2 and 1.4 OoMs reduction of the parent compound (between 41% and 96% reduction), with a median reduction of 0.8 OoM (83% reduction).  The results are shown using both the geomean concentrations and maximum concentrations because an expert review panel for this project concluded:
+When using geomeans for evaluating performance (left panel in Figure 2), the middle 50% range of all projects achieved 0.5 to 2 OoMs (between 71% and 99% reduction), with a median of 1.1 OoMs (91% reduction).  When using site maximums (right panel in Figure 2), the middle 50% of all remediation projects achieved between 0.2 and 1.4 OoMs reduction of the parent compound (between 41% and 96% reduction), with a median reduction of 0.8 OoM (83% reduction).  The results are shown using both the geomean concentrations and maximum concentrations because an expert review panel for this project concluded:
 *Design engineers for a remediation project are more likely to be interested in geomean concentrations, as this metric better represents the overall performance throughout the treatment zone based on the geometric average data from all the wells.
@@ Line 101: / Line 100: @@
 ===Performance by Technology===
-Performance results varied little between technologies as shown in Figure 2.  Chemical oxidation appeared to have the worst average performance (lowest OoM reduction) and thermal the best (highest OoM reduction), but there was no statistical difference in their performance at the 0.05 confidence level.  Thermal remediation projects did appear to be applied at higher concentration sites (median before treatment concentration of 10 mg/L for the parent compound), while bioremediation was applied at lower concentration sites (median before treatment concentration of 0.74 mg/L).
+Performance results varied little between technologies as shown in Figure 3.  Chemical oxidation appeared to have the worst average performance (lowest OoM reduction) and thermal the best (highest OoM reduction), but there was no statistical difference in their performance at the 0.05 confidence level.  Thermal remediation projects did appear to be applied at higher concentration sites (median before treatment concentration of 10 mg/L for the parent compound), while bioremediation was applied at lower concentration sites (median before treatment concentration of 0.74 mg/L).
-[[File:McGuire1w2Fig2.png| left| 800 px|thumbnail|Figure 2.  Order of Magnitude (OoM) reduction in the source zone geometric mean concentration for four different remediation technologies. Scale is reverse so better performance is towards the bottom of the graph.  The grey box represents the middle 50% of the data (25<sup>th</sup> to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile) with maximums shown as “whiskers” extending from the top and bottom of the grey boxes.  The median is shown as the small black square. ]]
+[[File:McGuire1w2Fig2.png| left| 800 px|thumbnail|Figure 3.  Order of Magnitude (OoM) reduction in the source zone geometric mean concentration for four different remediation technologies. Scale is reverse so better performance is towards the bottom of the graph.  The grey box represents the middle 50% of the data (25<sup>th</sup> to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile) with maximums shown as “whiskers” extending from the top and bottom of the grey boxes.  The median is shown as the small black square. ]]
 For site restoration, an important metric is for all the monitoring wells to achieve concentrations below [https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants Maximum Contaminant Levels] (MCLs), or the drinking water standard. The prevalence in achieving MCLs in all monitoring wells at sites was evaluated using maximum concentrations. The results indicate that the attainment of MCLs across an entire site is rarely achieved (i.e., only 7% of sites achieved MCLs in all treatment zone monitoring wells) as shown in Table 1.
@@ Line 132: / Line 131: @@
 ===Unit Costs by Technology===
-[[File:McGuire1w2Fig3.png|right| thumbnail|500 px|Figure 3.  Unit treatment costs showing the middle 50% of all sites (25<sup>th</sup> percentile to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile) for five different in-situ remediation technologies for chlorinated solvent source zones.  The median cost is shown by the small black square. ]]
+[[File:McGuire1w2Fig3.png|right| thumbnail|500 px|Figure 4.  Unit treatment costs showing the middle 50% of all sites (25<sup>th</sup> percentile to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile) for five different in-situ remediation technologies for chlorinated solvent source zones.  The median cost is shown by the small black square. ]]
-McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name= "McGuire2016a"/> found that the unit cost for a typical in-situ remediation project ranges between $100 and $300 per cubic yard, with some projects below $10 and some over $1,000 per cubic yard (Fig. 3). The median thermal project (n=34) was about 50% more expensive than enhanced bioremediation and chemical oxidation projects.
+McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name= "McGuire2016a"/> found that the unit cost for a typical in-situ remediation project ranges between $100 and $300 per cubic yard, with some projects below $10 and some over $1,000 per cubic yard (Figure 4). The median thermal project (n=34) was about 50% more expensive than enhanced bioremediation and chemical oxidation projects.
 ===Total Project Costs by Technology===
-In terms of overall project costs, thermal projects had the highest total costs compared to bioremediation, chemical oxidation, and chemical reduction, with most of the thermal projects exceeding $1 million (Fig. 4). Only a few projects exceeded $1 million in total costs for the other three technologies.
+In terms of overall project costs, thermal projects had the highest total costs compared to bioremediation, chemical oxidation, and chemical reduction, with most of the thermal projects exceeding $1 million (Figure 5). Only a few projects exceeded $1 million in total costs for the other three technologies.
-[[File:McGuire1w2Fig4.png|left|600 px| thumbnail| Figure 4. Total Treatment Cost ($) as a function of treatment volume (cubic yards).]]
+[[File:McGuire1w2Fig4.png|left|600 px| thumbnail| Figure 5. Total Treatment Cost ($) as a function of treatment volume (cubic yards).]]
 ==Dataset from the 235 Site Study==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Remediation performance evaluations at multiple sites can provide useful information about the performance remediation technologies can achieve and their costs.  While the results from a multiple site study only provide a general indication of what might happen at a particular site, the results can help guide remediation technology selection and set realistic expectations about the end points remediation can and cannot achieve.  Overall, an average chlorinated solvent in-situ remediation project reduces the maximum groundwater concentrations in a source zone by about 0.2 to 1.4 [[wikipedia: Orders of magnitude (numbers) | Orders of Magnitude]] (OoM), which is equivalent to 41% to 96% reduction in concentration, due to remediation.
+Remediation performance evaluations at multiple sites can provide useful information about the performance remediation technologies can achieve and their costs.  While the results from a multiple site study only provide a general indication of what might happen at a particular site, the results can help guide remediation technology selection and set realistic expectations about the end points remediation can and cannot achieve.  Overall, an average chlorinated solvent in-situ remediation project reduces the maximum groundwater concentrations in a source zone by about 0.2 to 1.4 [[wikipedia: Orders of magnitude (numbers) | Orders of Magnitude]] (OoM), which is equivalent to 41% to 96% reduction in concentration, due to remediation. The [[Media:RemediationPerformance.mp4 | video]] shown in Figure 1 presents a summary of remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.
 <div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div><br/>
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==Introduction==
-The United States has a potential environmental remediation liability of $200 billion, and a need for quantitative, accurate, and reliable performance and cost data for common remediation technologies. The National Research Council, in their report ''Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites''<ref>National Research Council (NRC), 2013. Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites. The National Academies Press, Washington DC.  [http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/14668 doi:10.17226/14668]</ref>, stated that:
+[[File:RemediationPerformance.mp4 | 600px | thumb | left | Figure 1. Remediation performance at 235 chlorinated solvent sites.]]The United States has a potential environmental remediation liability of $200 billion, and a need for quantitative, accurate, and reliable performance and cost data for common remediation technologies. The National Research Council, in their report ''Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites''<ref>National Research Council (NRC), 2013. Alternatives for Managing the Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites. The National Academies Press, Washington DC.  [http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/14668 doi:10.17226/14668]</ref>, stated that:
 *“The Committee could identify only limited data upon which to base a scientifically supportable comparison of remedial technology performance,”

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 For site restoration, an important metric is for all the monitoring wells to achieve concentrations below [https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants Maximum Contaminant Levels] (MCLs), or the drinking water standard. The prevalence in achieving MCLs in all monitoring wells at sites was evaluated using maximum concentrations. The results indicate that the attainment of MCLs across an entire site is rarely achieved (i.e., only 7% of sites achieved MCLs in all treatment zone monitoring wells) as shown in Table 1.
-{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
+{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 50%;"
 |+ colspan="4" | Table 1.  Percent of Sites that Achieved Drinking Water Standards (MCLs)
 |-

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 ==Performance Results from the 2016 235-Site ESTCP Study==
 McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name= "McGuire2016a"/> reviewed thousands of pages of reports from hundreds of sites to develop a high-quality, reliable dataset of remediation projects that targeted chlorinated solvents in groundwater. This effort resulted in the accumulation of these data:
@@ Line 89: / Line 90: @@
 ===Overall Performance===
 Performance results were evaluated based on both geomean concentrations and maximum concentrations of parent compounds in treatment zone groundwater before and after treatment (Fig. 1). Geomeans were used instead of arithmetic averages because groundwater characteristics are generally better represented by a log-normal statistical distribution rather than the “bell curve” type distribution that is assumed when using arithmetic averages. Each symbol on the graphic represents a remediation project. The overall performance, in terms of “OoM Reduction” achieved by each project, is determined using the diagonal axis.
 When using geomeans for evaluating performance (left panel in Fig. 1), the middle 50% range of all projects achieved 0.5 to 2 OoMs (between 71% and 99% reduction), with a median of 1.1 OoMs (91% reduction).  When using site maximums (right panel in Fig. 1), the middle 50% of all remediation projects achieved between 0.2 and 1.4 OoMs reduction of the parent compound (between 41% and 96% reduction), with a median reduction of 0.8 OoM (83% reduction).  The results are shown using both the geomean concentrations and maximum concentrations because an expert review panel for this project concluded:
@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 [[File:McGuire1w2Fig3.png|right| thumbnail|500 px|Figure 3.  Unit treatment costs showing the middle 50% of all sites (25<sup>th</sup> percentile to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile) for five different in-situ remediation technologies for chlorinated solvent source zones.  The median cost is shown by the small black square. ]]
 McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name= "McGuire2016a"/> found that the unit cost for a typical in-situ remediation project ranges between $100 and $300 per cubic yard, with some projects below $10 and some over $1,000 per cubic yard (Fig. 3). The median thermal project (n=34) was about 50% more expensive than enhanced bioremediation and chemical oxidation projects.
 ===Total Project Costs by Technology===
 In terms of overall project costs, thermal projects had the highest total costs compared to bioremediation, chemical oxidation, and chemical reduction, with most of the thermal projects exceeding $1 million (Fig. 4). Only a few projects exceeded $1 million in total costs for the other three technologies.
 [[File:McGuire1w2Fig4.png|left|600 px| thumbnail| Figure 4. Total Treatment Cost ($) as a function of treatment volume (cubic yards).]]
 ==Dataset from the 235 Site Study==

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 ==Cost Results from the 235 Site Study==
 ===Unit Costs by Technology===
 McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name= "McGuire2016a"/> found that the unit cost for a typical in-situ remediation project ranges between $100 and $300 per cubic yard, with some projects below $10 and some over $1,000 per cubic yard (Fig. 3). The median thermal project (n=34) was about 50% more expensive than enhanced bioremediation and chemical oxidation projects.
 <BR CLEAR="right">

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 McGuire et al. (2016a)<ref name= "McGuire2016a"/> found that the unit cost for a typical in-situ remediation project ranges between $100 and $300 per cubic yard, with some projects below $10 and some over $1,000 per cubic yard (Fig. 3). The median thermal project (n=34) was about 50% more expensive than enhanced bioremediation and chemical oxidation projects.
-[[File:McGuire1w2Fig3.png|center| thumbnail|500 px|Figure 3.  Unit treatment costs showing the middle 50% of all sites (25<sup>th</sup> percentile to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile) for five different in-situ remediation technologies for chlorinated solvent source zones.  The median cost is shown by the small black square. ]]
+[[File:McGuire1w2Fig3.png|left| thumbnail|500 px|Figure 3.  Unit treatment costs showing the middle 50% of all sites (25<sup>th</sup> percentile to 75<sup>th</sup> percentile) for five different in-situ remediation technologies for chlorinated solvent source zones.  The median cost is shown by the small black square. ]]
 <BR CLEAR="right">