Why are sample numbers missing from the groundwater samples collected between May and November of 2021?
EPA reviewed Navy analytical data for sample IDs that were skipped by comparing results from lab reports to samples listed on Chain of Custody forms (CoCs). We did not find sample IDs listed on the CoCs missing from the laboratory results. Sample numbering isn’t always sequential because sample IDs may be preassigned, cancelled, or reserved for quality control needs. Although this can look like “gaps,” our review did not find any deviation from the required sampling frequency that would indicate samples were missing.
Related Questions
- Is the Navy required to investigate and remediate all confirmed releases from the Red Hill Facility, even those before the 2021 JP-5 releases?
- Will remedial options besides natural attenuation be considered?
- Is the Navy currently considering any active remediation technologies?
- Where is the Navy required to sample for historical releases during site assessment?
- What data governance practices are in place to avoid irregularities and to build trust in the data?
- Is there a remediation standard the Navy must comply with?
- Why are sample numbers missing from the groundwater samples collected between May and November of 2021?
- Why did the Navy’s lab change the sample matrix on the laboratory reports from “drinking water” to “groundwater” in September and October of 2021?
- Why would regulators allow a drinking water well to operate or reopen within a mile of the Red Hill Release?
- Navy labs modified reports after they were issued – is this normal?
- Did delays in reporting results between May and November 2021 prevent regulators from conducting in-depth analysis of water contaminants and impacts to Red Hill Shaft?