| | Technical and Regulatory Guidance for the Triad Approach: A |
| | 1,09 | | MB | New Paradigm for Environmental Project Management |
| | 110 | | stron |
| | 4179 | | ID | Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council |
| | 2004 | | rok |
| | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . iii |
| | 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 |
| | 1.1 Evolution of the Current Investigation Paradigm1 |
| | 1.2 Why Change the Paradigm? 1 |
| | 2.0 THE TRIAD APPROACH .2 |
| | 2.1 Overview of the Triad Approach.2 |
| | 2.2 Resource Savings and Investigation Quality.5 |
| | 2.3 Applicability.5 |
| | 2.4 Triad Approach Perspective 6 |
| | 2.5 Systematic Project Planning17 |
| | 2.6 Dynamic Work Strategies .19 |
| | 2.7 Real-Time Measurement Technologies.23 |
| | 2.8 Other Triad Approach Considerations 28 |
| | 2.9 Summary .30 |
| | 3.0 RELATIONSHIPS TO EXISTING GUIDANCE31 |
| | 3.1 The Triad Approach and the DQO Process.32 |
| | 3.2 The Triad Approach and PBMS33 |
| | 3.3 The Triad Approach and the Dynamic Field Activities Guidance34 |
| | 3.4 The Triad Approach and MARSSIM 34 |
| | 3.5 The Triad Approach versus the “Sediment Quality Triad” 35 |
| | 3.6 The Triad Approach and the Technical Project Planning Approach.35 |
| | 3.7 The Triad Approach and Early ITRC Guidance .35 |
| | 4.0 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES.36 |
| | 4.1 Advantages 36 |
| | 4.2 Disadvantages37 |
| | 5.0 REGULATORY AND OTHER BARRIERS.38 |
| | 5.1 Organizational Barriers .38 |
| | 5.2 Concerns with Real-Time Measurement Technologies 42 |
| | 5.3 Conflicts with State Law, Policy, or Guidance .48 |
| | 5.4 Lack of Guidance for State Regulators .48 |
| | 5.5 Defining Action Levels During Systematic Project Planning.49 |
| | 5.6 Associating Uncertainty to Specific Decisions .50 |
| | 5.7 Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers.51 |
| | 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF TRIAD IN A STATE REGULATORY AGENCY.52 |
| | 6.1 New Jersey Policy Statement Supporting the Triad Approach .52 |
| | 6.2 New Jersey Triad Approach Training .52 |
| | 6.3 New Jersey Regulations Pertinent to the Triad Approach 53 |
| | 7.0 STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS.55 |
| | 8.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS.56 |
| | 9.0 CASE STUDY SUMMARIES .57 |
| | 9.1 Fernald Uranium Processing Facility 57 |
| | 9.2 Varsity Cleaners 57 |
| | 9.3 Wanatchee Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Test Plot57 |
| | 9.4 Assunpink Creek Brownfields.58 |
| | 9.5 McGuire Air Force Base C-17 Hangar Site 58 |
| | 9.6 Pine Street Barge Canal.58 |
| | 10.0 REFERENCES .58 |
| | 11.0 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION62 |
| | APPENDICES |
| | APPENDIX A. Acronyms |
| | APPENDIX B. Case Studies |
| | APPENDIX C. Response to Comments |
| | APPENDIX D. ITRC Contacts, Fact Sheet, and Product List |