CaseHistory-50
===

[00:00:00] Liz: Welcome to the GBA case history series brought to you by the GBA podcast. My name is Elizabeth Brown and I'm a geotechnical practice manager at Atlas Technical Consultants.

[00:00:13] Abi: And I am Abby Corbett, a project consultant at SME.

[00:00:17] Liz: Today we are gonna discuss GBA case history number 50, which is a detailed account of a complex environmental project. This case history tells the story of how poor project manager of an already challenging project led the firm to learning a very expensive and valuable lesson.

[00:00:35] Abi: That's right. This project consisted of an 80 acre Superfund site that was in a really marshy area. 10 acres of the site were contaminated by industrial waste, like tars, volatile organics and chlorinated hydrocarbons that were dumped there during the 1950s and sixties.

[00:00:55] Liz: So what's really fascinating about this case is the number of players involved and how their [00:01:00] interests almost completely derailed this cleanup.

[00:01:03] Abi: It sounds like there's gonna be a lot of drama going on.

[00:01:06] Liz: Oh, you know it, it's gonna be fun. So you've got the EPA obviously involved in this project 'cause it's a cleanup, but also the State Water Commission is actually the one that's funding this entire project. Then you have this GBA member firm that was tasked with conducting a remedial investigation and a feasibility study, and let's not forget the potential responsible parties.

[00:01:31] Abi: Oh, you mean those Fortune 500 companies that might end up having to pay for the whole thing?

[00:01:36] Liz: Yeah, exactly. So they were all operating under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, which is a mouthful. So we're just gonna call it circla. So this, , document dictates how these cleanups are actually supposed to be handled.

[00:01:54] Abi: Okay, so the GBA member firm got to work preparing that proposal. They included a work [00:02:00] plan, field services, quality assurance, remediation report. You know what you name it, they had it, they planned to analyze like 200 soil samples, and it felt like they really knew what they were doing.

[00:02:11] Liz: Yeah, I'd say so. They had 660 hours just for the work plan. They had over 2000 hours for field services and 220 hours for quality assurance, and then another 1300 hours just to prepare the remediation report.

[00:02:28] Abi: Geez, that's a lot of hours. I wish I had that many hours I could budget for a lot of my projects.

[00:02:35] Liz: Yeah, I agree with you there. So the GBA member firm submitted their proposal to the State Water Commission and received the go ahead two months later. So as these things go, the project manager prepared and submitted the work plan and schedule as required four weeks later.

[00:02:51] Abi: That seems like a reasonable timeframe to me.

[00:02:54] Liz: Yeah, I agree. But the state water Commission took five months [00:03:00] to approve their plan.

[00:03:02] Abi: Me five.

[00:03:06] Liz: Yeah, I agree. Absolutely. Because it took five months for this approval to happen, the project manager and the project team that were supposed to be on this project, they were then busy with other projects and they weren't available to implement this work plan.

[00:03:24] Abi: That's not really a good way to start a project.

[00:03:26] Liz: Seriously. So what that meant is a new project manager and team were assigned to the project. Now, this team, they were totally capable of handling the project. They had all the technical know-how to get this done, but they didn't have the same knowledge of the site and the plan as the original team.

[00:03:46] Abi: Oh, right. None of these individuals had any involvement with that proposal or the work plan. That's a tough place to be in.

[00:03:55] Liz: Yeah, exactly. But it gets even worse. So the [00:04:00] principal overseeing the project, the one who's ultimately responsible, she didn't even give the new team a proper briefing on the project and the history. I.

[00:04:11] Abi: This really just isn't shaping up to be an easy project.

[00:04:15] Liz: Right, exactly. To add to it, the team wasn't aware of the rocky relationship between the EPA and the State Water Commission or the potentially responsible parties, those Fortune 500 companies we talked about earlier. They hired their own oversight contractor.

[00:04:33] Abi: Oh good. More parties. Let's add to the drama.

[00:04:37] Liz: As you might expect things happen 'cause things always happen. The field services began as described in the work plan. However, as expected things changed in the field.

[00:04:50] Abi: Yeah, that's pretty normal, like a no big deal. You just adjust as needed thing, right?

[00:04:55] Liz: True and the project manager did just that. They directed the [00:05:00] field staff to change the boring locations and the drilling and sampling procedures, but there's a kicker. The project manager failed to, what the project manager failed to do was obtained proper approvals from the client and EPA for the deviations from the approved work plan.

[00:05:16] Abi: Oh, that is a big no no.

[00:05:19] Liz: Yeah, to make it worse 'cause there's always a worse, the changes made, they weren't properly documented and the oversight contractor wasn't notified of the changes either.

[00:05:31] Abi: That sounds like a lot of miscommunication going on.

[00:05:35] Liz: Yeah, pretty much. And this wasn't the only issue brewing. So remember those 200 soil samples they were gonna take?

[00:05:43] It turns out that the lab that they chose had their own problems.

[00:05:49] Abi: Oh, that doesn't sound great. Please. Please don't tell me that they mixed up the samples or they like lost them or something.

[00:05:58] Liz: Oh yeah, that would be bad. So [00:06:00] not quite that traumatic, but still a major issue. The oversight contractor discovered that the lab they were using was exceeding the sample holding times.

[00:06:11] Abi: Oof. That's for sure. Not good. So the lab was just waiting too long to analyze the samples and that can really skew with some results. I.

[00:06:19] Liz: Exactly. So the results might not be reliable, but that wasn't the only issue with the lab,

[00:06:25] Abi: Seriously, as if that isn't bad enough. What else happened?

[00:06:30] Liz: right? So it was determined that some of the lab's testing procedures didn't meet the quality assurance standards.

[00:06:37] Abi: Uh, cutting corners.

[00:06:39] Liz: Uh, it kind of seemed that way. Not exactly a confidence inspiring, right?

[00:06:45] Abi: No, not at all. So now they've got a project manager who's basically going rogue and a lab that's cutting corners. So it basically is a disaster. What did they do?

[00:06:58] Liz: Well, they tried to [00:07:00] salvage the situation. They spent six months arguing that most of the lab results were still valid. 

[00:07:06] Abi: Arguing, how did that turn out?

[00:07:09] Liz: Well, the damage was already done. But remember the Circla, everything has to be done by the book.

[00:07:18] Abi: Oh, right. So I bet those responsible parties were super thrilled.

[00:07:23] Liz: Not exactly. And that brings us to the Oversight Contractor's bombshell report. I.

[00:07:29] Abi: The drama continues,

[00:07:31] Liz: Exactly. So remember all of those unapproved changes the project manager made. The report highlighted over a dozen deviations from the work plan.

[00:07:43] Abi: so this basically invalidated the entire investigation since the work plan wasn't followed. And the lab data, even if it was accurate, that's probably legally questionable too.

[00:07:56] Liz: Yeah, pretty much.

[00:07:57] Abi: So what happens next? Do you just throw in the [00:08:00] towel?

[00:08:01] Liz: You would think maybe somebody would do that, but in this case, this is where the things take a very interesting turn. So faced with potential lawsuits and a tarnished reputation, which we all know that's difficult to come back from. The principal in charge makes a bold move. She goes before the State Water Commission and offers to do the entire investigation again in just 110 days, and at no additional cost.

[00:08:30] Abi: What? Whoa. Okay. Talk about a Hail Mary, but 110 days. Is it even possible to redo that whole thing in 110 days? It's less than four months to fix a mess that feels like it's years in the making. What was she even thinking?

[00:08:47] Liz: Yeah, I know, right? Like total gamble, a big one, but. The alternative was potentially worse, years of litigation mounting legal fees, reputation in tatters. [00:09:00] It like really could have been the end for this firm.

[00:09:03] Abi: Okay. I can see that point. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and fix the problem even if it hurts. So how do you even start to tackle that massive of an undertaking? Do you just try and throw more people at it?

[00:09:19] They knew they couldn't just repeat the same mistakes as the first time because that wouldn't end well. So they brought in a new project manager, someone that was really known for being like super  meticulous. Great attention to detail and really strict adherence to protocols. 

[00:09:37] Okay. So the cleanup team basically just needed a cleanup of its own.

[00:09:42] Liz: Exactly. And this new project manager, this guy, he ran a tight ship.

[00:09:48] Abi: So did the whole team change?

[00:09:51] Liz: He just brought in some new faces, but more importantly, he overhauled the entire process. Remember how the state Water [00:10:00] commission, the EPA, the Fortune a hundred companies, they were all breathing down their necks? This time the firm invited them in. They made them partners in the process. They had daily updates, onsite visits, like complete transparency, like almost over communication. They pulled out all of the stops 'cause they knew that they really had to regain that trust.

[00:10:24] Abi: Oh, okay. Wow, that sounds like they're being a lot more communicative, which I feel like is a good start. But what about the lab? Did they end up ditching that company and just go with a different one?

[00:10:37] Liz: Instead of switching labs, which would've been super costly and time consuming. This new pm he just, he laid down the law. He demanded a complete overhaul of their entire quality control procedures. He brought in independent auditors to monitor their every move, implemented a strict sample testing schedule with dedicated staff and to ensure [00:11:00] compliance. So no more exceeding those holding times, and for sure, no more deviating from the approved testing protocols.

[00:11:08] Abi: Wow. Okay. That's a turnaround. So it sounds like basically they took over the lab, whipped him into shape, and it was a necessary intervention. Remember those lab failures? They have far reaching consequences. In environmental remediation, if the data is questionable, the entire cleanup effort is in jeopardy.

[00:11:30] Legal challenges, delays in the remediation. Even risk to the public health if the contaminated sites aren't addressed properly.

[00:11:38] Liz: Yeah, exactly. It's a sobering thought. So they've got a new sheriff in town and everyone's on high alert, and the lab is finally playing by the rules.

[00:11:48] Abi: But what about the deviations from the work plan? How do you avoid making those mistakes?

[00:11:53] Liz: So the new project manager took those criticisms to heart. He implemented strict protocols to [00:12:00] prevent cross-contamination of samples, which can happen if you're not careful. I. Any changes to the work plan, no matter how small, he made sure that those were documented, approved, and signed off on by all stakeholders daily,

[00:12:16] Abi: Whoa. Day. That kind of seems like a lot.

[00:12:20] Liz: every day. And remember those unapproved modifications to the boring locations. This time the EPA and the State Water Commission were practically signing off on where each blade of grass was trimmed.

[00:12:33] Abi: Okay. Talk about micromanagement. But I guess when you messed up as badly as they did, you have to earn your trust back inch by inch. All this extra care and attention must have come at a price though, right? With all those hours, the costs had to have started piling up.

[00:12:51] Liz: Oh, absolutely. Remember how their initial proposal had an estimated 660 hours for the work plan. The second time around, it took [00:13:00] 'em 1600 hours.

[00:13:03] Abi: That's like more than double the hours.

[00:13:06] Liz: Yeah it gets worse. The field work ballooned from 2200 hours to 6,000 hours, and the quality control and assurance went from a measly 200 hours to 2,600. Even the final report took 6,500 hours compared to the original estimate of 1300.

[00:13:25] Abi: Oh my gosh. Ouch. So instead of that easy breezy, 4,400 hours, they ended up spending like over 17,000.

[00:13:37] Liz: Yeah. Crazy, right? Almost four times the original estimate. That's so much. So it was definitely a costly lesson for sure. But here's where it gets really interesting. After all that extra effort, all those painstaking hours, the results of the second investigation [00:14:00] were practically identical to the first investigation.

[00:14:04] Abi: You've got to be kidding me. They did all of that for nothing.

[00:14:09] Liz: Not exactly. While the scientific findings were similar, the difference was the process. This time. The results were accepted without question because they were flawless. They spent all that time, the meticulous documentation, the rigorous adherence to protocol, the constant communication, it all added up to a level of credibility that was simply missing that first time around. So it wasn't really about changing the science, it was all about the approach.

[00:14:41] Abi: Okay. Okay, so then it's a bit more like following like a recipe. You might be able to throw all the ingredients together and still end up with a cake, but if you follow those instructions, measure precisely and carefully bake at the right temperature. I, you're basically guaranteed [00:15:00] a delicious result every time, and in this case, a delicious result means a legally defensible scientifically sound environmental investigation.

[00:15:10] Liz: Exactly. And now I want cake. Thanks. And just that just like in, just like a perfectly baked cake. A successful environmental remediation project requires both technical expertise and a disciplined approach to processes and documentation.

[00:15:28] Abi: Okay, so after all this drama and all their back and forth, what do we have for big takeaways here?

[00:15:35] Liz: I'm glad you asked, right? We always wanna be learning. This case study is a gold mine of lessons for anyone involved in environmental remediation and or really frankly, any field where precision and regulations and stakeholder management are critical. I. So first and foremost, you need a team that's not just technically proficient, but also understands the business and regulation side of things. [00:16:00] They need to know the ins and outs of rcla, the relationships between different entities and potential legal and financial consequences of non-compliance.

[00:16:11] Abi: Okay, so it's not enough to just be a brilliant scientist. You also need to be a savvy project manager.

[00:16:17] Liz: Exactly. So second, and this is a big one, you need to be aware of your own limitations. Remember the principal who failed to brief the new team properly? She didn't even realize she was missing crucial information. So how was she supposed to tell her team? The lack of self-awareness had a ripple effect throughout the project.

[00:16:39] Abi: It is a good reminder that we all have blind spots and realistically, it's better to ask for help than just pretend you know everything.

[00:16:48] Liz: Absolutely. Even though that's sometimes hard, we gotta put our egos away. The third key takeaway is the absolute necessity of following regulatory requirements because [00:17:00] environmental remediation being scientifically correct just isn't enough.

[00:17:05] Abi: Every step, every sample, every deviation has to get documented. It's gotta get approved, and then it's defensible in a court of law. It's like that saying, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

[00:17:17] Liz: Yeah, exactly. So another key takeaway that this case highlights is the potential for conflicting interests among various parties involved in these projects. So there is the EPA, the State Water Commission, the potentially. Responsible parties, they all had their own agendas, and being able to navigate those relationships requires a delicate balance of diplomacy, assertiveness, and really a firm commitment of making sure that you're gonna do things by the book.

[00:17:47] Abi: This is feeling like a lot to manage.

[00:17:51] Liz: Yeah, it can be, but remember everything. It's manageable with the right approach. Once that new project manager got in and put the approach in place, it all went [00:18:00] smoothly. Finally this case demonstrates the importance of financial fortitude. The firm's willingness to redo the entire project at their own expense, while undoubtedly a financial hit ultimately saved them from greater financial and reputational damage in the long run.

[00:18:19] Abi: It really is a powerful example of how doing the right thing, even when it hurts, can pay off in the long run. It shows a commitment to integrity and accountability that builds your trust with clients and stakeholders.

[00:18:33] Liz: Okay, so they dodged a bullet. They learned some valuable lessons and they lived to tell the tell. But this story raises some interesting questions, doesn't it like. How do we balance the need for meticulous documentation and rigorous oversight with the need for innovation and efficiency?

[00:18:55] Abi: A good question, and it's honestly mind boggling. Thousands of [00:19:00] hours, especially extra hours and a boatload of money to essentially just end up at the same result.

[00:19:07] Liz: But as we said, it wasn't about the science, it was about the process. And that got me thinking, how do we reconcile the need for all of this documentation and rigor? The oversight with the need for innovation and efficiency kind of feels a bit like a paradox.

[00:19:24] Abi: Yeah, it's that tension that exists in a lot of fields, especially the ones with high stakes and strict regulations. Think. Almost like building a bridge. You need to follow strict engineering principles and safety protocols to make sure it's structurally sound. But you also wanna encourage creative design and efficient construction methods.

[00:19:46] So you gotta find that sweet spot where innovation thrives within a framework of accountability.

[00:19:52] Liz: I like that analogy. That's a good one. So in the context of environmental remediation, how do we strike that balance? Do we just [00:20:00] accept that these projects are always gonna be slow and expensive because we need all of this documentation?

[00:20:06] Abi: Yeah, I don't think necessarily there are ways to streamline the process without, sacrificing quality or compliance. For example, there's advancements in technology that can play a huge role. Things like remote sensing, data analytics, even artificial intelligence, can help improve efficiency and accuracy in site assessment and data collection.

[00:20:31] Liz: Okay. Yeah, I guess that's true. So really we're talking. About using technology to work smarter, not harder,

[00:20:38] Abi: Yes, that is my favorite thing. Imagine employing machine learning algorithms to analyze huge data sets, and then you can identify areas that need further investigation. These technologies can save time and money while also improving the quality of the data.

[00:20:57] Liz: right? And who doesn't wanna save time and money? [00:21:00] But technology alone really isn't a silver bullet. We still need people on the ground, making decisions and making sure everything's done properly.

[00:21:10] Abi: Oh, absolutely. I agree. Technology is like a tool, and like any tool, it's only as good as the person using it. That's why it's so crucial to invest in training and development for professionals in our field. We need people who are not just technically skilled. But they understand regulations. They understand the importance of communication, and honestly, they get that ethical implications of their work.

[00:21:36] Liz: Yeah, that's a tall order. But it sounds like the future of environmental remediation needs a new breed of professional, someone you know, like part scientist, part engineer, maybe a little diplomat they definitely are gonna have to have some tech savviness to 'em.

[00:21:54] Abi: Definitely hit the nail on the head there. Honestly, I believe it's a really exciting time to be [00:22:00] in the field with these challenges and opportunities emerging all the time. And with case studies like these as messy as. They are, they offer some really valuable lessons that we can learn to navigate this evolving landscape.

[00:22:15] Liz: So what's the final takeaway? For our listeners today what should they be thinking about as they go about their day?

[00:22:22] Abi: I think the key takeaway is this, even in a field as technical and complex as environmental remediation, the human element is huge. Communication, collaboration, attention to detail, a commitment to just doing the right thing. Those are the things that determine success. It's not just about the science, it's really about the people.

[00:22:47] Liz: Wow, that's a powerful message and one that really resonates beyond just environmental cleanups like we've talked about today. It's a reminder that in any endeavor, integrity, transparency, [00:23:00] communication, and really a willingness to learn from our mistakes are essential for our success. And that concludes this episode of the Case History Series, brought to you by the GBA podcast. I hope you're able to take away some useful information that will help you and others at your firm make good risk-based decisions in the future.