AS-3663_28799_G_C_20230502_Emails

From:Dan Osbourne
To:Clark, Maura
Subject:RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100
Date:Thursday, May 4, 2023 3:08:46 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Thank you Maura.

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) thatmay be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

Yes, this is acceptable. Again, a little more effort/detail by the lab in their case narrative would avoid
a lot of this!

Just re-sample MW-5. Thanks!

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 1:40 PM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Good afternoon Maura,

I reached back out to the lab to get their response on the headspace issue. Their comments are as
follows:

Dan,
For the subject project our Sample Receipt Checklist (SRC) indicates that samples -002, -003, -004,
-007, and -014 were received with bubbles >6 mm in diameter. These five samples in question were
received with three vials apiece for analysis. If only one vial is received with headspace, then that vial
is used for screening purposes and not calibrated runs. For this project, only sample -004 has been
analyzed with a vial containing headspace >6mm. The remaining four samples were able to be
analyzed from a vial that did not contain headspace.
ThanksLucas Odom
Client Services Manager | Pace South Carolina

Sample -004 correlates with MW-05. So according to Pace the headspace bubble only potentially
impacted one sample (MW-05). For the other samples there were vials that did not have the
headspace issue and those were the ones used for analysis.

Is this response from the lab acceptable? If it is acceptable then we would resample MW-05, taking
special care to minimize headspace, and issue a revised report. Let me know. Thanks Maura.

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) thatmay be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

Good morning Dan,

I find the revised lab report acceptable, they should have reported only the first run (within the hold
time) anyway. Please revise the report accordingly. However, I still can’t accept the data for wells
MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-8 and DW-1 due to the fact that the lab received these samples with a
headspace in the vials >6mm, that’s like 3 times the size of a BB in a BB gun (I googled it to get a
graphical representation of what 6mm looks like). That was a sampling error during collection.
Worse, the lab analyzed these samples at or near the end of their holding time, allowing plenty of
time for volatilization and compromise. I did read in the case narrative of the revised lab report
where for MW-5 (most critical sample) they analyzed the vial with the least headspace (although
likely still 6mm). I want us both to feel confident in this data, we are getting very close to achieving
the cleanup objectives. So, instead of re-sampling/re-testing the 7 samples I requested previously,
please re-sample the 5 wells listed above and reiterate to your sampling tech to leave no bubbles.

Looking forward, after this gets revised I will likely have you do another limited sampling event in
probably October-November, only sampling well MW-5 to confirm the impacts remain below GCLs.
We like to see sampling events conducted across the seasons to confirm there’s no rebound with
water table fluctuation. If the concentrations at MW-5 remain below GCLs in the Fall, then we can
close out with a NRP. Hooray! Let me know if you have any questions, thanks. Today will be an
even better day to be outside (warmer and less wind)!

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 5:33 PM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Good afternoon Maura,

I reached back to the lab. They responded with the attached. It is the lab results from the run prior
to the one in the report – which was completed within hold. They say final run (the one in the
report) was done only to achieve lower detection limits. In the end, they say, the lower DLs weren’t
really necessary and the laboratory technician probably shouldn't have done the final run. They also
say the attached data is completely valid and should be accepted.

So with that, please take a look at the data and let me know if it is acceptable. If it is I will update the
report with this data (there are some small differences between the two). If you don’t find the
attached data acceptable, I am sure Pace will want to provide you with information on why they
believe the data is valid.

Hope you can get out and enjoy some of this beautiful weather! I was out on a job site most of the
day today – so I have that going for me!

Take care,

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) thatmay be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately
and delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 11:18 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

Dan,

I agree that it’s frustrating, I’ve been in that situation before when I was a consultant. However, you
got the samples to the lab expediently. It is the lab’s responsibility to run your samples within the
proper holding timeframes. All labs are in the business of being time-dependent and accurate, that’s
the industry. They should be willing to reimburse you for missing the mark, that’s on them. I’m sure
they’ll get it done right next time.

Yes, always purge a well just before sampling to get a fresh, representative sample. Thanks.

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Good morning Maura,

The hold time issue is very frustrating. As you will note, it is only some compounds within those
samples that have fallen out of hold. The lab is re-running specific compounds but not doing it quick
enough. We submitted the sample to the lab on the second business day after completing the
sampling event – we can’t get the samples to them too much quicker. The lab says they are trying to
hire more staff, be more efficient, etc. etc. But in the meantime we have to deal with long
turnaround times (almost a month for this one) and then the hold issues. Very frustrating with no
good solutions on the horizon (we are encountering similar issues with other labs as well).

We can go back and resample the wells you mentioned and keep our fingers crossed. Do you want
us to re-purge the wells or because they were recently purged would a grab be considered
representative of aquifer conditions?

Thanks for understanding.

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) thatmay be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

Good morning Dan,

I’ve reviewed this report and there are a few major issues. The text states that 7 of the 14 wells that
were sampled detected impacts >2L. The 7 wells are MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-8, MW-9
and DW-1.

The lab report indicates that several wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-8 and MW-9) were analyzed
outside of the holding time. In addition, the samples collected from wells MW-2, MW-3, MW-5,
MW-8 and DW-1 were received with headspace bubbles in the vials >6mm (see sample receipt
checklist at end of lab report) and shouldn’t have been analyzed. None of this was discussed in the
text or noted on the summary tables. The data for these seven wells is unacceptable and will not be
reimbursed. The laboratory data results for wells MW-6, MW-7, MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, MW-13
and MW-14 were analyzed within the holding times and are acceptable. I am requesting that you re-
sample wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-8, MW-9 and DW-1 as soon as possible and analyze
for 6200B at your own expense. Once the results are received, please re-submit the report with the
updated summary tables and figures, lab report and field sampling logs.

Lastly, the field sampling log for well MW-1 indicated that the well is being filled with surface water.
Why? Was it missing a well cap, and was the well cap replaced so it doesn’t continue? The field
tech provided no reason or explanation on the log. Please include discussion of what was done to
remedy the problem. Thank you.

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Good morning Maura,

Please find attached the Environmental Monitoring Report for the Enmark 100 site in Brevard.

Have a good weekend.

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) that
may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

Great, thanks!

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:24 AM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Good morning Maura,

We completed the comprehensive groundwater sampling event at the Site on March 2nd,
approximately 30-days after the 10-hour MMPE event. Currently we are waiting on the lab data.
Labs have been taking 2-3 weeks to turnaround their reports. So that would put us to the week of
April 3rd for our report submittal.

Take care,

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) thatmay be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:20 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: #28799 Enmark #100

Hi Dan,

What is the status of your report submittal? It was due 2/28/23. Thanks.

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From:Clark, Maura
To:Dan Osbourne
Subject:RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100
Date:Tuesday, May 2, 2023 11:18:00 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Dan,

I agree that it’s frustrating, I’ve been in that situation before when I was a consultant. However, you
got the samples to the lab expediently. It is the lab’s responsibility to run your samples within the
proper holding timeframes. All labs are in the business of being time-dependent and accurate, that’s
the industry. They should be willing to reimburse you for missing the mark, that’s on them. I’m sure
they’ll get it done right next time.

Yes, always purge a well just before sampling to get a fresh, representative sample. Thanks.

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Good morning Maura,

The hold time issue is very frustrating. As you will note, it is only some compounds within those
samples that have fallen out of hold. The lab is re-running specific compounds but not doing it quick
enough. We submitted the sample to the lab on the second business day after completing the
sampling event – we can’t get the samples to them too much quicker. The lab says they are trying to
hire more staff, be more efficient, etc. etc. But in the meantime we have to deal with long
turnaround times (almost a month for this one) and then the hold issues. Very frustrating with no
good solutions on the horizon (we are encountering similar issues with other labs as well).

We can go back and resample the wells you mentioned and keep our fingers crossed. Do you want
us to re-purge the wells or because they were recently purged would a grab be considered
representative of aquifer conditions?

Thanks for understanding.

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) thatmay be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

Good morning Dan,

I’ve reviewed this report and there are a few major issues. The text states that 7 of the 14 wells that
were sampled detected impacts >2L. The 7 wells are MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-8, MW-9
and DW-1.

The lab report indicates that several wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-8 and MW-9) were analyzed
outside of the holding time. In addition, the samples collected from wells MW-2, MW-3, MW-5,
MW-8 and DW-1 were received with headspace bubbles in the vials >6mm (see sample receipt
checklist at end of lab report) and shouldn’t have been analyzed. None of this was discussed in the
text or noted on the summary tables. The data for these seven wells is unacceptable and will not be
reimbursed. The laboratory data results for wells MW-6, MW-7, MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, MW-13
and MW-14 were analyzed within the holding times and are acceptable. I am requesting that you re-
sample wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-8, MW-9 and DW-1 as soon as possible and analyze
for 6200B at your own expense. Once the results are received, please re-submit the report with the
updated summary tables and figures, lab report and field sampling logs.

Lastly, the field sampling log for well MW-1 indicated that the well is being filled with surface water.
Why? Was it missing a well cap, and was the well cap replaced so it doesn’t continue? The field
tech provided no reason or explanation on the log. Please include discussion of what was done to
remedy the problem. Thank you.

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Good morning Maura,

Please find attached the Environmental Monitoring Report for the Enmark 100 site in Brevard.

Have a good weekend.

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) that
may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

Great, thanks!

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:24 AM
To: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: #28799 Enmark #100

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Good morning Maura,

We completed the comprehensive groundwater sampling event at the Site on March 2nd,
approximately 30-days after the 10-hour MMPE event. Currently we are waiting on the lab data.
Labs have been taking 2-3 weeks to turnaround their reports. So that would put us to the week of
April 3rd for our report submittal.

Take care,

Dan Osbourne, P.G.
Chief Scientist
T: 864.288.1265 | M: 864.704.8178
BLECORP.com | LinkedIn | Facebook
6004 Ponders Court | Greenville, SC 29615

This electronic transmission contains information from the sender (Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.) thatmay be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not theintended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of thisinformation is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediatelyand delete this message.

From: Clark, Maura <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:20 AM
To: Dan Osbourne <[e-mail]>
Subject: #28799 Enmark #100

Hi Dan,

What is the status of your report submittal? It was due 2/28/23. Thanks.

Maura Clark
Hydrogeologist, DWM, UST Section, Asheville
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]