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?
The original notation of drinking water matrix appears to have been incorrect and the correction of the matrix to groundwater appears appropriate. Some lab report narratives stated that the Navy’s contractor requested a matrix change from drinking water to groundwater. The samples were collected from a sampling point in Red Hill Shaft but located below the drinking water pumps. The results do not represent finished drinking water. The samples were collected as part of the groundwater monitoring program, from groundwater monitoring sample points, using groundwater monitoring methods. In this case, EPA considers the matrix classification of groundwater appropriate.
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 does it take so long before laboratory reports are finalized?
- Why are sample numbers missing from the groundwater samples collected between May and November 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?
- Why are sample numbers missing from the groundwater samples collected between May and November of 2021?