#50 - Case History - You can do the right thing, but it can still go wrong!

Liz 00:55

So what's really fascinating about this case is the number of players involved and how their interests almost completely derailed this cleanup.

Abi 01:03

It sounds like there's gonna be a lot of drama going on.

Liz 01:06

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.

Abi 01:31

Oh, you mean those Fortune 500 companies that might end up having to pay for the whole thing?

Liz 01:36

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.

Abi 01:54

Okay, so the GBA member firm got to work preparing that proposal. They included a work 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.

Liz 02:11

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.

Abi 02:28

Geez, that's a lot of hours. I wish I had that many hours I could budget for a lot of my projects.

Liz 02:35

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.

Abi 02:51

That seems like a reasonable timeframe to me.

Liz 02:54

Yeah, I agree. But the state water Commission took five months to approve their plan.

Abi 03:02

Me five.

Liz 03:06

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.

Abi 03:24

That's not really a good way to start a project.

Liz 03:26

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.

Abi 03:46

Oh, right. None of these individuals had any involvement with that proposal or the work plan. That's a tough place to be in.

Liz 03:55

Yeah, exactly. But it gets even worse. So the 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.

Abi 04:11

This really just isn't shaping up to be an easy project.

Liz 04:15

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.

Abi 04:33

Oh good. More parties. Let's add to the drama.

Liz 04:37

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.

Abi 04:50

Yeah, that's pretty normal, like a no big deal. You just adjust as needed thing, right?

Liz 04:55

True and the project manager did just that. They directed the 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.

Abi 05:16

Oh, that is a big no no.

Liz 05:19

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.

Abi 05:31

That sounds like a lot of miscommunication going on.

Liz 05:35

Yeah, pretty much. And this wasn't the only issue brewing. So remember those 200 soil samples they were gonna take? It turns out that the lab that they chose had their own problems.

Abi 05:49

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.

Liz 05:58

Oh yeah, that would be bad. So 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.

Abi 06:11

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.

Liz 06:19

Exactly. So the results might not be reliable, but that wasn't the only issue with the lab,

Abi 06:25

Seriously, as if that isn't bad enough. What else happened?

Liz 06:30

right? So it was determined that some of the lab's testing procedures didn't meet the quality assurance standards.

Abi 06:37

Uh, cutting corners.

Liz 06:39

Uh, it kind of seemed that way. Not exactly a confidence inspiring, right?

Abi 06:45

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?

Liz 06:58

Well, they tried to salvage the situation. They spent six months arguing that most of the lab results were still valid.

Abi 07:06

Arguing, how did that turn out?

Liz 07:09

Well, the damage was already done. But remember the Circla, everything has to be done by the book.

Abi 07:18

Oh, right. So I bet those responsible parties were super thrilled.

Liz 07:23

Not exactly. And that brings us to the Oversight Contractor's bombshell report. I.

Abi 07:29

The drama continues,

Liz 07:31

Exactly. So remember all of those unapproved changes the project manager made. The report highlighted over a dozen deviations from the work plan.

Abi 07:43

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.

Liz 07:56

Yeah, pretty much.

Abi 07:57

So what happens next? Do you just throw in the towel?

Liz 08:01

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.

Abi 08:30

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?

Liz 08:47

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. It like really could have been the end for this firm.

Abi 09:03

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? 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.

Okay. So the cleanup team basically just needed a cleanup of its own.

Liz 09:42

Exactly. And this new project manager, this guy, he ran a tight ship.

Abi 09:48

So did the whole team change?

Liz 09:51

He just brought in some new faces, but more importantly, he overhauled the entire process. Remember how the state Water 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.

Abi 10:24

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?

Liz 10:37

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 compliance. So no more exceeding those holding times, and for sure, no more deviating from the approved testing protocols.

Abi 11:08

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. Legal challenges, delays in the remediation. Even risk to the public health if the contaminated sites aren't addressed properly.

Liz 11:38

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.

Abi 11:48

But what about the deviations from the work plan? How do you avoid making those mistakes?

Liz 11:53

So the new project manager took those criticisms to heart. He implemented strict protocols to 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,

Abi 12:16

Whoa. Day. That kind of seems like a lot.

Liz 12:20

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.

Abi 12:33

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.

Liz 12:51

Oh, absolutely. Remember how their initial proposal had an estimated 660 hours for the work plan. The second time around, it took 'em 1600 hours.

Abi 13:03

That's like more than double the hours.

Liz 13:06

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.

Abi 13:25

Oh my gosh. Ouch. So instead of that easy breezy, 4,400 hours, they ended up spending like over 17,000.

Liz 13:37

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 were practically identical to the first investigation.

Abi 14:04

You've got to be kidding me. They did all of that for nothing.

Liz 14:09

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.

Abi 14:41

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 a delicious result every time, and in this case, a delicious result means a legally defensible scientifically sound environmental investigation.

Liz 15:10

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.

Abi 15:28

Okay, so after all this drama and all their back and forth, what do we have for big takeaways here?

Liz 15:35

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. They need to know the ins and outs of rcla, the relationships between different entities and potential legal and financial consequences of non-compliance.

Abi 16:11

Okay, so it's not enough to just be a brilliant scientist. You also need to be a savvy project manager.

Liz 16:17

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.

Abi 16:39

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.

Liz 16:48

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 environmental remediation being scientifically correct just isn't enough.

Abi 17:05

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.

Liz 17:17

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.

Abi 17:47

This is feeling like a lot to manage.

Liz 17:51

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 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.

Abi 18:19

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.

Liz 18:33

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?

Abi 18:55

A good question, and it's honestly mind boggling. Thousands of hours, especially extra hours and a boatload of money to essentially just end up at the same result.

Liz 19:07

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.

Abi 19:24

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. So you gotta find that sweet spot where innovation thrives within a framework of accountability.

Liz 19:52

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 accept that these projects are always gonna be slow and expensive because we need all of this documentation?

Abi 20:06

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.

Liz 20:31

Okay. Yeah, I guess that's true. So really we're talking. About using technology to work smarter, not harder,

Abi 20:38

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.

Liz 20:57

right? And who doesn't wanna save time and money? 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.

Abi 21:10

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.

Liz 21:36

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.

Abi 21:54

Definitely hit the nail on the head there. Honestly, I believe it's a really exciting time to be 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.

Liz 22:15

So what's the final takeaway? For our listeners today what should they be thinking about as they go about their day?

Abi 22:22

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.

Liz 22:47

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, 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.