All Issue

2022 Vol.27, Issue 1S1 Preview Page
31 July 2022. pp. 64-74
Abstract
References
1

BGS, 2021, BGS Groundhog v2.6, https://www.bgs.ac.uk/technologies/software/groundhog/ (Mar, 18th 2022).

2

DTSC, 2008, APPENDIX A1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL, Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency (https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/11/PT-R_Metals_Main_Text_0808\-2.pdf).

3

ITRC, 2018, TPH Risk Evaluation at Petroleum-Contaminated Sites, The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, https://tphrisk-1.itrcweb.org/5-conceptual-site-models-and-investigative-strategies/ (Jun, 24th 2021).

4

2018 Final Report on the Survey of Areas Concerned about Groundwater Pollution (Deokjin-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do)

5

NTEPA, 2013, GUIDELINES ON CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELS, Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority (https://ntepa.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/904327/draft_guidelines_conceptual_site_models.pdf).

7

USACE, 2012, CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELS, US Army Corps of Engineers, EM 200-1-12 (https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/publications/engineermanuals/em_200-1-12.pdf).

8

USEPA, 2011, Environmental cleanup best management practices: effective use of the project life cycle conceptual site model, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 542-F-11-011 (https://clu-in.org/download/techdrct/csm-life-cycle-fact-sheet-final.pdf).

Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society of Soil and Groundwater Environment
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국지하수토양환경학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
  • Journal Title(Ko) :지하수토양환경
  • Volume : 27
  • No :1
  • Pages :64-74
  • Received Date : 2022-06-24
  • Revised Date : 2022-06-28
  • Accepted Date : 2022-07-18