Site Assessment and Characterization

Chapter

Abstract

The applied use of plant and groundwater interactions (as described in Part I) to achieve remediation goals at sites characterized by contaminated groundwater is a direct extension of these long-observed natural interactions. The specific application of plants to achieve remedial goals is, however, relatively new. The installation of plants at sites to affect the flow of contaminated groundwater in response to regulatory-driven site-restoration mandates was initiated in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Relative to the total number of sites in the United States that have documented groundwater contamination and require some type of corrective action, the number of published case studies of phytoremediation that specifically addresses groundwater flow issues is few. In most cases at sites characterized by contaminated groundwater, the chosen corrective action involves conventional pump-and-treat of contaminated groundwater or groundwater flow interception by trenching. This is despite the efforts made by various state and federal regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as well as other federal agencies, to promote phytoremediation as an alternative corrective action.

Keywords

Water Table Groundwater Flow Source Area Unsaturated Zone Groundwater Contamination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Taylor, M. R., & Simon, E. J. (2006). Biology–Concepts and Connections. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  2. Chaney, R. L., Malik, M., Li, Y. M., Brown, S. L., Bewer, E. P., Angle, J. S., & Baker, A. J. M. (1997). Phytoremediation of soil metals. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 8, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapelle, F. H. (1993). Groundwater microbiology and geochemistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 424 p.Google Scholar
  4. Cunningham, S. D., & Ow, D. W. (1996). Promises and prospects of phytoremediation. Plant Physiology, 110, 715–719.Google Scholar
  5. Darcy, H. P. G. (1856). Les Fountaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon. Paris, France: Victon Dalmont.Google Scholar
  6. Fletcher, J. S. 1991. Keynote speech: A brief overview of plant toxicity testing. In: J. W. Gorsuch, W. R. Lower, W. Wang, M. A. Lewis (Eds.), Plants for toxicity assessment: Second volume (ASTM STP 1115, pp. 5–11). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  7. Gatliff, E. G. (1994, Summer). Vegetative remediation process offers advantages over traditional pump-and-treat technologies. Remediation, 4, 343–352.Google Scholar
  8. Haitjema, H. M., & Mitchell-Bruker, S. (2005). Are water tables a subdued replica of the topography? Groundwater, 43, 781–786.Google Scholar
  9. Harr, J. (1995). Civil Action. New York: Random House, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Healy, R. W., Winter, T. C., LaBaugh, J. W., Franke, O. L. (2007). Water budgets: Foundations for effective water-resources and environmental management (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1308, 90p.).Google Scholar
  11. Hruska, J., Cermák, J., & Sustek, S. (1999). Mapping tree root systems with ground-penetrating radar. Tree Physiology, 19, 125–130.Google Scholar
  12. Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). (1999). Decision tree – Phytoremediation (Multiple pagination). Washington, DC: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council.Google Scholar
  13. Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). (2001). Phytoremediation technical and regulatory guidance document (Multiple pagination). Washington, DC: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council.Google Scholar
  14. Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). (2009). Phytotechnology technical and regulatory guidance and decision trees, revised. Washington, DC: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council.Google Scholar
  15. Kucera, C. L. (1954). Some relationships of evaporation rate to vapor pressure deficit and low wind velocity. Ecology, 35, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landmeyer, J. E. (1994). Description and application of capture zone delineation for a wellfield at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina (U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4012, 33 p.).Google Scholar
  17. Landmeyer, J. E., & Bradley, P. M. (2003). Effect of hydrologic and geochemical conditions on oxygen-based bioremediation of gasoline-contaminated groundwater. Bioremediation Journal, 7, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landmeyer, J. E., Chapelle, F. H., Petkewich, M. D., & Bradley, P. M. (1998a). Assessment of natural attenuation of aromatic hydrocarbons in groundwater near a former manufactured gas plant. South Carolina, USA: Environmental Geology, 34, 279–292.Google Scholar
  19. Landmeyer, J. E., Pankow, J. F., Chapelle, F. H., Bradley, P. M., Church, C. D., & Tratnyek, P. G. (1998b). Fate of MTBE relative to benzene in a gasoline-contaminated aquifer (1993–98). Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 18, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marion, W., & Wilcox, S. (1994). Solar radiation data manual for flat-plate and concentrating collectors (NREL/TP–463–5607). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (1994). Alternatives for groundwater cleanup: Washington. Washington, D.C: D.C. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. Rock, S. A. (2003). Vegetative covers for waste containment. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, 78, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Theis, C.V. 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage: American Geophysical Union Transactions, 16th Annual Meeting (16):519–524.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Introduction to phytoremediation: EPA/600/R–99/107.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001. Cost analysis for selected groundwater cleanup projects: Pump and treat systems and permeable reactive barriers: EPA 542–R–00–013.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, J. T., Ross, R. P., & Acree, S. (2005). Using direct-push tools to map hydrostratigraphy and MTBE plume diving. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 25, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Carolina Water Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations