Archived
This content is available here strictly for research, reference, and/or recordkeeping and as such it may not be fully accessible. If you work or study at University of Kentucky and would like to request an accessible version, please use the SensusAccess Document Converter.
Location
Lexington, Kentucky
Start Date
6-5-2026 11:00 AM
End Date
6-5-2026 11:30 AM
Description
Due to the implementation of the CCR rule and longstanding state regulatory guidelines, many utilities have built robust historical data sets associated with their groundwater monitoring programs. Data collected through these monitoring programs are used for many purposes including generation of statistics and site evaluation along with reporting to regulators and the public. Often, trends in data are evaluated long after data reporting to look at large scale trends or movement of constituents in the groundwater across a CCR landfill or entire site, but historical data sets can be used in real time to help determine the accuracy of current data before it is even reported. The approach used to review a new data set to the historical results can be done in several ways (numerically, graphically, statistically), but the evaluation does not require a complex understanding of analytical results to identify potential issues. Doing this quickly after data reporting allows for the opportunity to do a more in-depth review of analytical data and leads to additional informed questions for your analytical laboratory or field samplers. Asking these questions early in the data flow may lead to revisions in reported results or uncovering more widespread data issues in the analytical laboratory or by a sampling contractor. This presentation will explore the ways in which this historical review can be accomplished effectively and efficiently and provide case studies of analytical results that were reviewed due to inconsistency with the historical trend. These investigations lead to results being revised shortly after reporting due to laboratory or field issues and/or uncovered large scale reporting issues.
Document Type
Presentation
Archival?
Archival
Included in
Energy Systems Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Mining Engineering Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, Structural Materials Commons, Sustainability Commons
Unlocking Data Integrity: How Historical Data Review Enhances the Accuracy of Laboratory Results
Lexington, Kentucky
Due to the implementation of the CCR rule and longstanding state regulatory guidelines, many utilities have built robust historical data sets associated with their groundwater monitoring programs. Data collected through these monitoring programs are used for many purposes including generation of statistics and site evaluation along with reporting to regulators and the public. Often, trends in data are evaluated long after data reporting to look at large scale trends or movement of constituents in the groundwater across a CCR landfill or entire site, but historical data sets can be used in real time to help determine the accuracy of current data before it is even reported. The approach used to review a new data set to the historical results can be done in several ways (numerically, graphically, statistically), but the evaluation does not require a complex understanding of analytical results to identify potential issues. Doing this quickly after data reporting allows for the opportunity to do a more in-depth review of analytical data and leads to additional informed questions for your analytical laboratory or field samplers. Asking these questions early in the data flow may lead to revisions in reported results or uncovering more widespread data issues in the analytical laboratory or by a sampling contractor. This presentation will explore the ways in which this historical review can be accomplished effectively and efficiently and provide case studies of analytical results that were reviewed due to inconsistency with the historical trend. These investigations lead to results being revised shortly after reporting due to laboratory or field issues and/or uncovered large scale reporting issues.
