DSHW-2021-005763 - 0901a06880e6a257

Div of Waste Management and Radiation Control
APR 1 5 2021 V>tivv- 2.02-1- co5-1(0
NORTHR Pnl GRUM
Northrop Grumman Corporation
9160 North Highway 83
Promontory UT 84307
April 14, 2021
8200-FY21-08
Mr. Ty L. Howard, Director
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144880
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Re: ATK Launch Systems LLC. EPA ID number UTD009081357 1/4/
Soil Monitoring Report (Chromium Soil Resampling Report)
Dear Mr. Howard:
Enclosed is the 2021 chromium soil resampling report. In 2019 ATK submitted a Soil
Monitoring Report as required by the ATK Launch Systems hazardous waste storage and
treatment permit, conditions IV.K.2, 3, and 4. In this report there were some data issues
with the hexavalent chromium sample results. ATK and the "Division" agreed to
resample the sites and reanalyze the samples for hexavalent chromium.
These documents are in support of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the
Open Burning and Open Detonation Treatment Units at the ATK Launch Systems
Promontory Facility.
Please contact Blair Palmer at [phone] or myself at [phone], if you have
any questions concerning this report.
4
Kris H. Blauer
Manager, Environmental Services
ATK Launch Systems Inc.
cc: Jeff Vandel
Geosyntec
consultants
5670 Greenwood Plaza Blvd Suite 540
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
PH 303.790.1340
www.aeosyntec.com
Memorandum
Date: April 6, 2021
To: Paul Hancock and Blair Palmer ATK Launch Systems, Promontory
Facility
From: Stephen Foster, Ph.D., Geosyntec
Subject: Annual Review of Toxicological Dose-response Factors for Human
Health Risk Assessment Drivers and Exposure Scenarios for the
Promontoiy Open Burning Permit
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the results of an annual review of toxicological
dose-response factors for the compounds identified as risk drivers in the 2016 Promontory Open
Burn Open Detonation (OBOD) human health risk assessment (HHRA) (Geosyntec, 2016) with
the goal of determining if they have changed since the last review was conducted in 2020
(Geosyntec, 2020).
This work is conducted annually to ensure ATK's compliance with the Promontory Facility RCRA
Subpart X conditions II.G.3.h and II.G.3.i. The risk drivers, that is, the chemicals identified during
prior tests as having the highest estimated fraction of the risk in the 2016 HHRA (Geosyntec,
2016), are the chemical constituents chromium (total and hexavalent), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), and the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene. This
memorandum does not address or review changes in potential exposure assessment scenario
assumptions, such as ingestion rate assumptions, or exposure duration assumptions, or draft
documents that have not been finalized by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Consistent with the approved OBOD FIHRA, the EPA's tiered hierarchy for the selection of dose-
response values used in this review is as follows:
Tier 1 — EPA's IRIS Database — The EPA's peer reviewed on-line toxicological database.
Tier 2 — EPA's Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) — The office of Research
and Development/National Center for Environmental Assessment/Superfund Health Risk
engineers 1 scientists l innovators
HFIRA Dose-response Factor Review
April 6, 2021
Technical Support Center (STSC) develops PPRTVs on a chemical specific basis when requested
by EPA's Superfund program.
Tier 3 — Other Toxicity Values — Tier 3 includes additional EPA and non-EPA sources of toxicity
information. Priority should be given to those sources of information that are the most current, the
basis of which is transparent and publicly available, and which have been peer reviewed.
The guidance on the hierarchy for the selection of toxicological dose-response factors was
followed.
RISK DRIVER REVIEW
Tier 1 — Risk Driver Review
Table 1 is limited to documents in the EPA's Integrate Risk Information Systems (IRIS) Database,
which have undergone peer review and approval through EPA's review process. Based on the US
EPA's 2003 memorandum on the selection of dose-response information (EPA, 2003), the IRIS is
the first and primary source of toxicological information.
Table 1 shows the results of the review. There were no changes to the noncancer or cancer dose-
response values in IRIS since the last review in 2020 (Geosyntec, 2020).
Tier 2 — Risk Driver Review
An online search of the PPRTVs database (EPA, 2020a) was conducted in February 2021 to
determine whether there have been any changes to toxicity data since 2020. None of the risk
drivers at the site have additional information in the PPRTV database.
Tier 3 — Risk Driver Review
The EPA's Regional Screening Levels Tables (EPA, 2020b) was used as the primary source for
Tier 3 sources of dose-response information for the listed COCs. Additionally, the RfC for total
chromium was checked in the HHRAP (EPA, 2005). None of the values have changed since
2020.
CONCLUSION
Based on our review, the dose-response factors shown in Table 3 are the most current and inclusive
of Tiers 1, 2, and 3 of EPA's hierarchy for the risk drivers identified at OBOD.
2
HHRA Dose-response Factor Review
April 6, 2021
REFERENCES
CalEPA 2005 Toxicity criteria on chemicals evaluated by OEHHA.
https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals. Accessed February 2021.
EPA 1993 Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, EPA/600/R-93/089, July 1993, Environmental Criteria and
Assessment, Office of Health and Emergency Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 45268
EPA 1998a
EPA 1998b
EPA 2003
EPA 2005
EPA 2010
EPA 2012
Chromium; Integrated Risk Information System, EPA Online database
accessed in February 2021;
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?&substance nmbr=2
8
Chromium Hexavalent; Integrated Risk Information System, EPA Online
database accessed in February 2021;
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?&substance nmbr=1
44
Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessment, OSWER
Directive 9285.7-53, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., December
Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities, Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/520/R-05/006, 2005
Development of a Relative Potency Factor (RPF) Approach for Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Mixtures (External Review Draft). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Wasyington D.C., EPA/635/R-08/012A.
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, Integrated Risk Information System,
EPA Online database accessed in February 2021;
https ://cfpub. epa. gov/ncea/iri s2/chemicalLanding . cfm?& sub stance nmbr=1
024
EPA 2017 Benzo(a)pyrene, Integrated Risk Information System, EPA Online database,
accessed in February 2021;
3
HHRA Dose-response Factor Review
April 6, 2021
EPA 2020a
EPA 2020b
Geosyntec 2016
Geosyntec 2020
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?&substance nmbr=1
36
EPA Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund, accessed in
February 2021; https ://www. epa.gov/pprtv/provi sional-peer-revi ewed-
toxictv -values-pprtvs- assessments
Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
https://www.epa.gov/risklregional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables
Accessed February 2021.
Open Burn Open Detonation Human Health Risk Assessment, ATK Launch
Systems Promontory, Utah June 2016,
Annual Review of Toxicological Dose-response Factors for Human Health
Risk Assessment Drivers and Exposure Scenarios for the Promontory Open
Burning Permit, a Memorandum from Anne Woodland and Stephen Foster to
Paul Hancock and Blair Palmer ATK Launch Systems, Promontory Facility,
February, 2020.
4
HHRA Dose-response Factor Review
April 6, 2021
Table 1
Summary of Dose-Response Values Available in the IRIS Database for Detected Risk Drivers in the OBOD HERA
Risk Driver Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
Source Reference
Concentration
(Ing1n13)
Source Oral Cancer
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)-'
Source Inhalation Unit
Risk (pg/m3)-1
Source
2,3,7,8-TCDD 7E-10 EPA
2012
See Table 3
Chromium (hexavalent) 3E-03 EPA
1998b
1E-04 EPA
1998b See Table 3 8.4E-02 EPA
2020b
Benzo[a]anthracene NA NA 0.1 EPA
2017t
6E-05 EPA
2017t
Benzo[k]fluoranthene NA NA 0.01 EPA
2017t
6E-06 EPA
2017t
Chrysene NA NA 0.001 EPA
2017t
6E-07 EPA
20171.
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene NA NA 0.1 EPA
2017t
6E-05 EPA
2017t
Abbreviations:
mg/kg-day — milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m3 — milligrams per cubic meter
(pg/m3)-' — risk per microgram per cubic meter
2,3,7,8-TCDD — 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
t Based on B[a]13 toxic equivalent, Table 2 (EPA, 2010)
NA — Not available
5
HHRA Dose-response Factor Review
April 6, 2021
Table 2
Relative Potency of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbonstt
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Potency Relative to Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[a]pyrene 1.0
Benzo [a] anthracene 0.1
Benzo [b] fluoranthene 0.1
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1.0
Chrysene 0.001
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.1
" Based on EPA, 1998
6
HHRA Dose-response Factor Review
April 6, 2021
Table 3
Summary of the 2021 Dose-Response Values for Detected Risk Drivers in the OBOD HHRA
Risk Driver Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
Source Reference
Concentration
(mg1la3)
Source Oral Cancer
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1
Source Inhalation
Unit Risk
(pg/m3)4
Source
2,3,7,8-TCDD 7E-10 EPA
2012
4E -08 4 alEPA
2005
1.3E+05 CalEPA
2005
3.8E+01 CalEPA
2005
Chromium (hexavalent) 3E-03 EPA
1998b
1E-04 EPA
1998b
5E-01 CalEPA
2005
8.4E-02 EPA
2020b
Benzo[a]anthracene NA NA 0.1 EPA
2017t
6E-05 EPA
2017t
Benzo[k]fluoranthene NA NA 0.01 EPA
2017j
6E-06 EPA
2017j
Chrysene NA NA 0.001 EPA
2017j
6E-07 EPA
2017j
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene NA NA 0.1 EPA
2017f
6E-05 EPA
2017f
mg/kg-day — milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m3 — milligrams per cubic meter
(pg/m3)-1 — risk per microgram per cubic meter
2,3,7,8-TCDD — 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CalEPA — California Environmental Protection Agency
j Based on B[a]P toxic equivalent, Table 2 (EPA, 2010a)
NA — Not available
7
0 7 OP GRID
CHROMIUM SOIL RESAMPLING REPORT
Promontory Hazardous Waste Storage and
Subpart X Treatment Permit
Prepared for:
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Prepared by:
ATK Launch Systems LLC
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
APRIL 2021
1
Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SOIL MONITORING LOCATIONS AND ANALY I ES 2
2.1 Background Sample Locations and Analytes 2
2.2 Predicted Off-site Maximum Risk Sample Locations 2
3.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODS 3
4.0 ANALYTICAL DATA PACKAGES 3
4.1 Chromium 3
4.1.1 Method SW 7196 vs. Method SW 7199 3
4.1.2 Method SW 7199 4
4.2 Field Duplicate Samples 5
5.0 RESULTS AND SUMMARY STATISTICS 5
5.1 Background 5
5.1.1 Total Chromium Results 5
5.1.2 Hexavalent Chromium Results 6
5.2 Predicted Maximum Location 6
5.2.1 Hexayalent Chromium Results 6
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 7
7.0 REFERENCES 9
i
THROP-7 GLIZUMM N 1 Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
TABLES
Table 1. Hexavalent Chromium Results Soil 10
Table 2. Comparison of Background Chromium Concentrations - 2016, 2018, and 2020 11
Table 3. Summary Statistics for Background Soil and Off-site Maximum Risk Soil Samples 12
FIGURES
Figure 1 — 2016, 2018, and 2020 Background Soil Sample Locations
Figure 2 — Proposed Soil Sample Locations in the 2016 Soil Monitoring Plan
Figure 3 — 2020 Soil Samples — Predicted Maximum Off-site Risk
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Summary of Estimated Soil Concentrations for Chromium, Hexavalent
Chromium, Potentially Carcinogenic PAH and Dioxins/Furans
APPENDIX B: ATK Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Chromium Data Package
APPENDIX C: Summary Statistics for 2020 Hexavalent Chromium Data
11
0 G Ti-gROP-1 iii MNI Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
95UCL 95 Percent Upper Confidence Limit
ATK ATK Launch Systems
Cr(VI) Hexavalent chromium
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
OBOD Open Burning/ Open Detonation
RPD Relative Percent Difference
SMP Soil Monitoring Plan
UDWMRC Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
iii
Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit

1.0 INTRODUCTION
ATK Launch Systems (ATK) submitted the Soil Monitoring Plan (SMP) in support of the Module
IV.K.1 of the Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Permit ("the Permit") in December 2016 for
a thermal treatment unit operated as an open butm/open detonation (OBOD) unit on ATK's
Promontory Facility. The SMP was submitted to the Utah Division of Waste Management and
Remediation Control (UDWMRC) in April 2018 (ATK, 2018) and approved in May 2018. Soil
sampling for seven background surface soil locations were collected on October 29, 2018 and eleven
surface soil samples at the point of maximum predicted risk were collected on October 30, 2018.
The Soil Monitoring Report (ATK, 2019) describes the October 2018 soil sample collection and
analyses performed at the ALS laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah. Total chromium was analyzed by
Method SW 6020 and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) was analyzed by Method 7196. The Cr(VI)
concentrations were elevated for all samples (background and off-site) and were equal to or greater
than the total chromium concentrations for most of the samples. A comparison of the 2016 and 2018
metals concentrations for the background samples was provided in Table 4 of the Soil Monitoring
Report (ATK, 2019). The 2016 and 2018 total chromium concentrations were similar, while the
2018 Cr(VI) results are approximately 10 - 150 times higher than the 2016 results.
Discussions with the laboratory indicated there was a problem with the Cr(VI) analysis and a positive
interference led to results that are biased high. The 2018 Cr(VI) results are considered invalid and
were not carried forward in the summary statistics and data evaluation of the Soil Monitoring Report
(ATK, 2019). ATK decided to resample and reanalyze for Cr(VI) at their on-site laboratory using
the method described below. This report presents the data and results from the reanalysis for soil
Cr(VI).
Page 11
NO it P GRUIMM Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
2.0 SOIL MONITORING LOCATIONS AND ANALYTES
The soil sample locations for both background (Figure 1) and the point of predicted maximum risk
(Figure 2) were those identified in the SMP (ATK, 2018). Based on conclusions that the Cr(VI)
results were biased high, the analytes sampled for in 2020 included total chromium and Cr(VI).

2.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND ANALYTES
A total of seven background surface soil samples were collected on July 1, 2020. The sample
locations are consistent with those from the November 2016 and October 2018 sampling events and
represent a wide geographical range outside of ATK's property boundary and the OBOD burning
grounds (Figure 1). A single sample was collected at each location and it is assumed that the Cr(VI)
concentrations do not vary significantly at each background location. Results from November 2016
and 2018 are compared to the latest samples.

2.2 PREDICTED OFF-S1TE MAXIMUM RISK SAMPLE LOCATIONS
In addition to identifying the location of maximum potential deposition of Chemicals of Concern
(COC)s off-site, the December 2016 Human Health Risk Assessment developed soil COC
concentrations that were used to estimate human exposure from multiple routes of exposure. For
comparison purposes, estimated soil COC concentrations for the primary COCs that drive the risk
assessment are provided in Appendix A. The estimated concentrations are low, often as low as
1000-fold lower than background soil concentrations. Based on these concentrations, which are
significantly lower that the method detection limits for all the COCs, the additional contribution of
these estimated concentrations are unlikely to be distinguished for the background soil COC
concentration into which they are being deposited. A total of eleven surface soil samples were
collected on July 1, 2020 at the point of predicted maximum risk identified by the Lakes Model. The
samples include nine primary samples plus two field duplicates (M-01A and M-09A), from the
square grid pattern measuring approximately 200 meters on each side, covering 40,000 square
meters (m2) (Figures 2 and 3).
Page 12
TE OP G IIJIMIM 14 Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit

3.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODS
ATK collected the soil samples in accordance with the approved SMP (ATK, 2018). Sample jars
were provided by ATK Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, along with the appropriate preservatives,
if required under the analytical method. The samples were collected using a pre-cleaned stainless-
steel spoon. Soil was sampled down to a depth of approximately three inches and placed into a pre-
cleaned plastic bowl. Plant material, roots, and rocks were manually removed to the extent
practicable. The soil was lightly mixed before being placed into the sample jars. The only analyte of
interest for this sampling event was Cr(VI); analyte loss is likely insignificant using this collection
technique.
The jars were labeled, and sample identifications were documented on the chain-of-custody
(Appendix B). The samples were stored and shipped in an iced cooler. Any field notes recorded by
the sampler are on file with ATK, and available upon request.

4.0 ANALYTICAL DATA PACKAGES
The Cr(VI) soil analyses were performed at the ATK Analytical Chemistry. Laboratory in
Promontory, Utah. The full data package is provided in Appendix B. Total chromium was analyzed
by Method SW 6010-C and Cr(VI) was analyzed by Method 7199. Table 1 presents a summary of
the Cr(VI) results for the individual samples.
4.1 CHROMIUM
4.1.1 Method SW 7196 vs. Method SW 7199
There are two analytical methods being compared with respect to the Cr(VI) testing: Method 7196
(Hexavalent Chromium by Colorimetry) performed by ALS laboratory; and, Method 7199
(Hexavalent Chromium by Ion Chromatography) performed by ATK Launch Systems Analytical
Chemistry Laboratory.
Page i 3
NO THROPT GU iviN11 Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Both methods begin with an alkaline digestion, Method 3060, to extract the Cr(VI) from the soil
matrix. The Colorimetric procedure, Method 7196, takes a portion of the extracted solution and
adds measured reagents that form a colored complex which is then quantified colorimetrically using
a UV/Vis spectrometer. This technique has a detection limit on the order of about 0.5 milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg). There are known interference issues with this technique that may have caused
the reported results to be biased high. Specifically, any colored species present that absorbs light at
the same wavelength as the Cr(VI) colored complex will cause a higher than expected reading.
The Ion Chromatography procedure, Method 7199, works on the same principle of taking a portion
of the sample then reacting with measured reagents to form a colored complex that is quantified with
a UV/Vis Spectrometer. This technique is more sensitive and has a detection limit under 0.1 mg/kg.
While there are similarities between the techniques there is one main difference and that is the Ion
Chromatograph column. The sample is flowed through the chromatographic column which causes
the varied analytes in the sample to be spread out over time as the different species flow through the
column at different rates. The outcome is that the Cr(VI) is isolated away from many of the
interfering species know to be problematic in the colorimetric method.
4.1.2 Method SW 7199
The Cr(VI) concentrations for all samples (background and off-site) are equal to or less than the total
chromium concentrations for most of the samples. Table 2 provides a comparison of the 2016, 2018,
and 2020 chromium concentrations for the background samples. The 2016 and 2018 total chromium
concentrations are similar, while the 2018 Cr(VI) results are approximately 10 - 150 times higher
than the 2016 results.
Page l 4
RTHR G U Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
4.2 FIELD DUPLICATE SAMPLES
Field duplicates M-01A and M-09A were collected from locations M-01 and M-09, respectively, in
lieu of the blind duplicates identified in the SMP (ATK, 2018). Field duplicates are collocated
samples utilized to assess the overall precision of the field sampling procedures and analytical
method. The relative percent difference (RPD) can be calculated to provide a measure of the
variability between primary and duplicate sample pairs when both samples are detected at
concentrations greater than the reporting limit. The RPD for M-01 and M-01A was 48 percent and
for M-09 and M-09A was 30 percent. Data validation guidance does not specify an acceptable limit
for the RPD of field duplicates.
5.0 RESULTS AND SUMMARY STATISTICS
The results of the individual samples for both the background locations and the predicted maximum
off-site risk locations are presented in Table 1 for the Cr(VI) data. Table 2 provides summary
statistics including the minimum and maximum detected concentrations, the number of detected
results, the mean, the geometric mean, and the calculated 95 percent upper confidence level
(95UCL). For those analytes with at least four detected results, 95UCLs were calculated.
5.1 BACKGROUND
5.1.1 Total Chromium Results
The background results for total chromium ranged from 6.8 to 12.5 mg/kg and the 95UCL is
11.1 mg/kg (Table 3).
Table 2 presents the total chromium and Cr(VI) data for 2016, 2018, and 2020 background locations
BG#1 through BG#7 and the calculated 95UCLs. The 2020 results are very comparable, and on the
same order of magnitude as the 2018 results. Note that for the 2016 and 2018 data, samples BG#5
Page 15
MORT GRUM A Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
and BG#6 were removed from the 2018 background dataset. Therefore, the 95UCLs for both 2016
and 2018 were based on five samples. The 95 UCL for 2020 is based on seven samples.
5.1.2 Hexavalent Chromium Results
Table 1 presents the data results for Cr(VI). The data were entered into the EPA's ProUCL statistical
software program and tested for outliers. The data appear to have a lognormal distribution. The
background value for BG#4 is considerably higher than the other background concentrations, and
sample Background #4 is considered an outlier using Dixon's outliers test (Appendix C). Removal
of the highest concentration at sample location BG#4 resulted in an approximately normal
distribution.
The background concentration of Cr(VI) ranged from 0.18 to 1.34 mg/kg and the 95UCL is 1.038
mg/kg (95% HUCL). If sample BG#4 is removed from the data set the range of background Cr(IV)
is 0.18 to 0.59 mg/kg and the 95UCL is 0.425 mg/kg (95% Student's-t UCL).
5.2 PREDICTED MAXIMUM LOCATION
5.2.1 Hexavalent Chromium Results
Results are presented in Table 1 for 11 samples (M-01 to M-09 and two field duplicates) collected
from the point of predicted maximum off-site risk.
Table 1 presents the data results for Cr(VI). The data were entered into the EPA's ProUCL statistical
software program and tested for outliers. The data appear not to have a discernable distribution. The
value for offsite location M-06 is considerably higher than the other sample concentrations, and this
sample is considered an outlier using Dixon's outliers test (Appendix C). Removal of the highest
concentration at location M-06 resulted in a normal distribution.
Page l 6
T VIM Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
The sample concentration of Cr(VI) ranged from 0.16 to 1.91 mg/kg and the 95UCL is 1.099 mg/kg
(95% Chebyshev UCL). If sample M-06 is removed from the data set the range of sample Cr(IV)
concentration range is 0.18 to 0.54 mg/kg and the 95UCL is 0.362 mg/kg (95% Student's-t UCL).
Table 3 shows a comparison of the background Cr(IV) data with the data from the area of interest.
The data sets appear very similar with and without the outlier samples removed from each dataset.
The most striking similarity is the 95%UCL, which is the same in both data set. The 95%UCL is a
conservative estimate of the mean of the data and is used in the risk assessment process. It is not
used in instances where decisions concerning impacted versus unimpacted are being considered
because remediation to a mean concentration is impossible. When decisions concerning metal
impacts there are a number of methods are used, including, but not limited to comparing populations,
comparing the data for the site to the 90th or 95th measures of the UTL or UPL, and considering
inflection points in combined data sets.
Further, without this type of comparison to determine if there is a significant difference between the
two metal populations, i.e., an impact, any risks associated with the potentially impacted soil above
background should be determined relative to the background population and not on a point by point
basis.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Soil samples were collected in July 2020 in support of the OBOD HHRA. The maximum detected
concentrations and 95UCLs for background and offsite Cr(VI) were compared. One of the
background samples (BG#4) and one of the offsite samples (M-06) were removed as the
concentrations for each of these samples were considerably higher than other sample locations and
considered potential outliers. As detailed in Table 3, for the dataset with the highest samples
removed, Cr(VI) results for the concentration range for off-site risk locations (0.16 to 0.54 mg/kg)
overlap with the background concentrations (0.18 to 0.59 mg/kg). The geometric mean values for
Page I 7
NORTHROP GRUMMAN Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpait X Treatment Permit
Cr(VI) for the off-site risk locations and background locations are 0.30 and 0.28 mg/kg, respectively.
Additionally, the 95UCLs are similar, with the off-site and background location 95UCLs of 0.36
and 0.43 mg/kg, respectively. The background 95% UCL may be slightly higher due to fewer data
points available than the off-site dataset.
Based on the low concentrations detected in surface soil, as well as the similarity of concentration
ranges and 95UCL values for both off-site and background samples, there does not appear to be a
site-related concern for Cr(VI).
Based on the data and discussion that has been presented in this report, and with the statistical
evaluation that has been presented, ATK recommends that these sites be sampled again five years
from the approval of this monitoring report.
Page l 8
RTH OP'11 G LIM 134 II Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
7.0 REFERENCES
ATK, 2018. Soil Monitoring Plan Promontory Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X
Treatment Permit. April 2018.
ATK, 2019. Soil Monitoring Report Promontory Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X
Treatment Permit. January 2019.
Page l 9
N THROP11 G UMMAN I Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
TABLES
Page l 10
NORTH OP GRIMM N Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Table 1. Chromium Soil Results for 2020
Sample ID Ilexavalent Chromium Chromium (III)
pg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Background Locations
BG#1 180 0.18 12.5
BG#2 590 0.59 7
BG#3 220 0.22 10.5
BG#4 1340 1.34 11.7
BG#5 290 0.29 9.5
BG#6 220 0.22 8.7
BG#7 310 0.31 6.8
Maximum Off-site Risk Locations
M-01 540 0.54 10
M-01A 330 0.33 9.8
M-02 350 0.35 12.3
M-03 270 0.27 13.3
M-04 160 0.16 11.9
M-05 280 0.28 13.9
M-06 1910 1.91 14.5
M-07 310 0.31 13.7
M-08 270 0.27 11.7
M-09 310 0.31 17.2
M-09A 230 0.23 16
Notes:
M-01A and M-09A are field duplicates of samples M-01 and M-09, respectively.
J = estimated value between the estimated detection limit and the method reporting limit
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
tig/kg = microgram per kilogram
Page i 11
0 Ti'AR P-1 G LRAM N 3 Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Table 2. Comparison of Background Chromium Concentrations - 2016, 2018, and
2020 m /
Sample ID Total Chromium Hexavalent Chromium'
2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020
Background
1 13.5 17 12.5 0.16 J. 27 0.18
Background
2 13.2 12 7 0.14 J 2 0.59
Background
3 11.3 14 10.5 0.13 J 10 0.22
Background
4 6.6 16 11.7 0.21 J 1.4 1.34
Background
5 8.6 11 9.5 0.2 J 36 0.29
Background
6 9 10 8.7 < 0.08 9.3 0.22
Background
7 14 14 6.8 0.16 J 12 0.31
95UC1} 16.46 11.1 0.19 NA 0.43
Notes:
'The laboratory reported an analytical interference on the 2018 hexavalent chromium
results with the potential for a high bias. Hexavalent chromium was resampled and
reanalyzed by ATK Launch Systems Analytical Chemistry Laboratory.
2The 95UCLs for hexavalent chromium for 2018 was not calculated due to a potential
high bias in the data and is not shown.
J = estimated value between the estimated detection limit and the method reporting limit
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
Page l 12
RTHROPT G U Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Soil Monitoring Results
Table 3. Summary Statistics for Background Soil and Off-site Maximum Risk Soil
Samples
Analyte Name Units Number of
Samples
Number of
Detections Mini mum Maximum Mean 95UCL UCL Selected
All Samples
Background Hexavalent Chromium mg/kg 7 7 0.18 1.34 0.45 1.04 H-UCL
Off-site' Hexavalent Chromium mg/kg 11 11 0.16 1.91 0.45 1.04 95% UPL
Highest Samples Removed2
Background Hexavalent Chromium mg/kg 6 6 0.18 0.59 0.30 0.43
95% Student's-t
UCL
Off-site Hexavalent Chromium mg/kg 10 10 0.16 0.54 0.31 0.36
95% Student's-t
UCL
Notes:
1) All of the sample data were used, including the duplicate.
2) Locations BG#4 and M-06 were removed from the dataset as outliers.
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit of the
Mean
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
Page l 1
N RUH 0 G U M Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
FIGURES
Page I 1
NORTH G U Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
APPENDIX A:
Summary of Estimated Soil Concentrations for
Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Potentially
Carcinogenic PAH and Dioxins/Furans
Page 1 1
Estimated Soil Chromium Concentrations at the Point of Interest
CAS Soil Concentration Receptor Name COPC Name Number (mg COPC/kg Soil]
Adams Ranch Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 4.77E-08
ATK Ranch Pond Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 3.24E-09
Blue Creek Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 1.14E-07
Boundary 1 Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 9.44E-08
Boundary 2 Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 3.32E-08
Boundary 3 Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 1.04E-08
Boundary 4 Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 9.32E-09
Christensen Ranch Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 1.25E-08
Holmgren Ranch Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 8.31E-09
Howell Dairy Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 5.10E-09
Penrose Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 5.89E-09
Thatcher Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 4.40E-09
Maxoffsite Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 1.16E-07
Adams Ranch Chromium, hexavalent 18540-29-9 4.77E-08
CAS Soil Concentration
Receptor Name COPC Name Number (mg COPC/kg Soil]
Adams Ranch Chromium 7440-47-3 5.80E-08
ATK Ranch Pond Chromium 7440-47-3 3.94E-09
Blue Creek Chromium 7440-47-3 1.38E-07
Boundary 1 Chromium 7440-47-3 1.15E-07
Boundary 2 Chromium 7440-47-3 4.03E-08
Boundary 3 Chromium 7440-47-3 1.26E-08
Boundary 4 Chromium 7440-47-3 1.13E-08
Christensen Ranch Chromium 7440-47-3 1.52E-08
Holmgren Ranch Chromium 7440-47-3 1.01E-08
Howell Dairy Chromium 7440-47-3 6.20E-09
Penrose Chromium 7440-47-3 7.14E-09
Thatcher Chromium 7440-47-3 5.34E-09
Maxoffsite Chromium 7440-47-3 1.40E-07
Adams Ranch Chromium 7440-47-3 5.80E-08
NORT RO '1 GRUM Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Page l 1
Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Point of Maximum Deposition
Soil Concentration Receptor Name COPC Name CAS Number (mg COPC/kg Soil]
Adams Ranch Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 2.26E-09
ATK Ranch Pond Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1.59E-10
Autoliv Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 4.52E-09
bluecrk Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 5.27E-09
bound 2 Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1.55E-09
bound 3 Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 4.96E-10
bound 4 Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 4.57E-10
boundl Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 4.51E-09
Christensen Ranch Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 6.16E-10
Holmgren ranch Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 3.96E-10
Howell Dairy Benzo(a)a nthracene 56-55-3 2.51E-10
North Plant Main Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1.45E-09
Penrose Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 2.79E-10
South Plant Main Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 3.29E-09
Thatcher Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 2.25E-10
Adams Ranch Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 2.71E-10
ATK Ranch Pond Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 1.92E-11
Autoliv Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 5.44E-10
bluecrk Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 6.48E-10
bound 2 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 1.83E-10
bound 3 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 6.06E-11
bound 4 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 5.46E-11
boundl Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 5.44E-10
Christensen Ranch Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 7.29E-11
holmgren ranch Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 4.84E-11
Howell Dairy Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 3.01E-11
North Plant Main Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 1.72E-10
Penrose Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 3.45E-11
South Plant Main Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 3.87E-10
Thatcher Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 2.65E-11
Adams Ranch Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 2.11E-09
ATK Ranch Pond Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 1.43E-10
Page 2
I-0110 GR. AN II Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Point of Maximum Deposition
Autoliv Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 4.09E-09
bluecrk Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 4.21E-09
bound 2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 1.55E-09
bound 3 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 4.10E-10
bound 4 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 4.34E-10
boundl Benzo(b)fluora nthene 205-99-2 4.04E-09
Christensen Ranch Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 6.20E-10
Holmgren ranch Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 3.25E-10
Howell Dairy Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 2.35E-10
North Plant Main Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 1.44E-09
Penrose Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 2.14E-10
South Plant Main Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 3.37E-09
Thatcher Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 2.28E-10
Adams Ranch Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.60E-08
ATK Ranch Pond Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.14E-09
Autoliv Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 3.22E-08
bluecrk Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 3.84E-08
bound 2 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.08E-08
bound 3 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 3.59E-09
bound 4 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 3.23E-09
boundl Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 3.22E-08
Christensen Ranch Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 4.31E-09
Holmgren ranch Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 2.87E-09
Howell Dairy Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.78E-09
North Plant Main Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.01E-08
Penrose Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 2.05E-09
South Plant Main Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 2.29E-08
Thatcher Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.57E-09
Adams Ranch Chrysene 218-01-9 3.07E-09
ATK Ranch Pond Chrysene 218-01-9 2.13E-10
Autoliv Chrysene 218-01-9 6.07E-09
bluecrk Chrysene 218-01-9 6.77E-09
bound 2 Chrysene 218-01-9 2.16E-09
bound 3 Chrysene 218-01-9 6.45E-10
Page l 3
N RIM OP- GU MN Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Point of Maximum Deposition
bound 4 Chrysene 218-01-9 6.26E-10
boundl Chrysene 218-01-9 6.04E-09
Christensen Ranch Chrysene 218-01-9 8.63E-10
Holmgren ranch Chrysene 218-01-9 5.13E-10
Howell Dairy Chrysene 218-01-9 3.42E-10
North Plant Main Adm Chrysene 218-01-9 2.02E-09
Penrose Chrysene 218-01-9 3.54E-10
South Plant Main Chrysene 218-01-9 4.64E-09
Thatcher Chrysene 218-01-9 3.16E-10
Adams Ranch Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 7.64E-10
ATK Ranch Pond Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 5.45E-11
Autoliv Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.54E-09
bluecrk Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.87E-09
bound 2 Dibenz(a, h)a nth racene 53-70-3 5.11E-10
bound 3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.74E-10
bound 4 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.54E-10
boundl Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.55E-09
Christensen Ranch Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 2.03E-10
Holmgren ranch Dibenz(a, h )a nth race ne 53-70-3 1.39E-10
Howell Dairy Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 8.50E-11
North Plant Main Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 4.79E-10
Penrose Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.00E-10
South Plant Main Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.08E-09
Thatcher Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 7.39E-11
Adams Ranch Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 2.83E-09
ATK Ranch Pond Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 1.92E-10
Autoliv Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 5.46E-09
bluecrk Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 6.74E-09
bound 2 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 1.96E-09
bound 3 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 6.13E-10
bound 4 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 5.52E-10
boundl Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 5.59E-09
Christensen Ranch Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 7.39E-10
holmgren ranch Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 4.92E-10
Page 1 4
NORT RO ;11 G U Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Point of Maximum Deposition
Howell Dairy Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 3.02E-10
North Plant Main lndeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 1.76E-09
Penrose lndeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 3.48E-10
South Plant Main lndeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 4.07E-09
Thatcher lndeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 2.61E-10
Page I 5
ORTFOR G Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
CAS Soil Concentration
Receptor Name COPC Name Number (mg COPC/kg Soil)
Adams Ranch TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 5.03E-14
Adams Ranch HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 2.49E-13
OctaCDD, 1.53E-12 Adams Ranch 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9
Adams Ranch HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 35822-46-9 1.20E-12
Adams Ranch OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 39001-02-0 2.20E-11
Adams Ranch HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 1.43E-13
Adams Ranch PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 2.54E-13
Adams Ranch TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 7.78E-13
Adams Ranch HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 7.58E-12
Adams Ranch PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 5.62E-12
Adams Ranch PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 2.72E-12
Adams Ranch HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 6.39E-12
Adams Ranch HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 3.60E-13
Adams Ranch HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 7.57E-12
Adams Ranch HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 3.01E-11
Adams Ranch HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 1.04E-11
Adams Ranch HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 4.67E-12
ATK Ranch Pond TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 3.51E-15
ATK Ranch Pond HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 1.78E-14
ATK Ranch Pond
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 1.09E-13
ATK Ranch Pond HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 8.57E-14
ATK Ranch Pond OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 1.57E-12
ATK Ranch Pond HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 1.02E-14
ATK Ranch Pond PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 1.81E-14
ATK Ranch Pond TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 5.39E-14
ATK Ranch Pond HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 5.40E-13
ATK Ranch Pond PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 3.99E-13
ATK Ranch Pond PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 1.93E-13
ATK Ranch Pond HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 4.56E-13
ATK Ranch Pond HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 2.57E-14
ATK Ranch Pond HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 5.40E-13
ATK Ranch Pond HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 2.14E-12
ATK Ranch Pond HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 7.41E-13
Page I 6
N RTHROP Soil Monitoring Results GRUMMAN g Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
ATK Ranch Pond HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 3.32E-13
Autoliv TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 9.98E-14
Autol iv HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 5.03E-13
Autoliv
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 3.10E-12
Autol iv HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 2.43E-12
Autoliv OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 4.44E-11
Autoliv HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 2.88E-13
Autoliv PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 5.12E-13
Autoliv TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 1.54E-12
Autoliv HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 1.53E-11
Autoliv PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 1.13E-11
Autoliv PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 5.47E-12
Autoliv HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 1.29E-11
Autoliv HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 7.28E-13
Autoliv HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 1.53E-11
Autoliv HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 6.07E-11
Autoliv HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 2.10E-11
Autoliv HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 9.42E-12
bluecrk TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 1.13E-13
bluecrk HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 6.11E-13
bluecrk
bluecrk
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
3268-87-9
35822-46-9
3.77E-12
2.95E-12
bluecrk OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 5.40E-11
bluecrk HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 3.50E-13
bluecrk PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 6.18E-13
bluecrk TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 1.70E-12
bluecrk HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 1.85E-11
bluecrk PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 1.35E-11
bluecrk PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 6.52E-12
bluecrk HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 1.56E-11
bluecrk HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 8.82E-13
bluecrk HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 1.85E-11
bluecrk HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 7.37E-11
bluecrk HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 2.54E-11
bluecrk HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 1.14E-11
Page 7
Nii THR P' GRUM Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
bound 2 TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 3.50E-14
bound 2 HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 1.66E-13
bound 2
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 1.02E-12
bound 2 HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 8.01E-13
bound 2 OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 1.47E-11
bound 2 HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 9.54E-14
bound 2 PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 1.70E-13
bound 2 TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 5.49E-13
bound 2 HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 5.07E-12
bound 2 PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 3.78E-12
bound 2 PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 1.84E-12
bound 2 HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 4.28E-12
bound 2 HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 2.41E-13
bound 2 HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 5.06E-12
bound 2 HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 2.01E-11
bound 2 HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 6.95E-12
bound 2 HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 3.13E-12
bound 3 TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 1.07E-14
bound 3 HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 5.68E-14
bound 3
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 3.50E-13
bound 3 HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 2.74E-13
bound 3 OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 5.02E-12
bound 3 HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 3.26E-14
bound 3 PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 5.76E-14
bound 3 TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 1.62E-13
bound 3 HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 1.73E-12
bound 3 PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 1.26E-12
bound 3 PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 6.10E-13
bound 3 HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 1.46E-12
bound 3 HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 8.21E-14
bound 3 HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 1.72E-12
bound 3 HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 6.86E-12
bound 3 HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 2.37E-12
bound 3 HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 1.06E-12
bound 4 TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 1.02E-14
Page 1 8
N RTH 0 GRU MA Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bound 4
bo und 1
boundl
boundl
bound1
bound 1
boundl
boundl
bound1
boundl
boundl
boundl
bound 1
boundl
boundl
bound 1
boundl
boundl
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 5.00E-14
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 3.08E-13
HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 2.41E-13
OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 4.42E-12
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 2.87E-14
PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 5.11E-14
TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 1.59E-13
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 1.52E-12
PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 1.13E-12
PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 5.48E-13
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 1.29E-12
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 7.24E-14
HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 1.52E-12
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 6.04E-12
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 2.09E-12
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 9.38E-13
TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 9.94E-14
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 5.04E-13
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
3268-87-9
35822-46-9
3.11E-12
2.43E-12
OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 4.45E-11
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 2.89E-13
PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 5.13E-13
TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 1.53E-12
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 1.53E-11
PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 1.13E-11
PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 5.47E-12
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 1.29E-11
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 7.29E-13
HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851.-34-5 1.53E-11
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 6.09E-11
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 2.10E-11
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 9.43E-12
TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 1.40E-14
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 6.61E-14
Page l 9
NORTH OP - Soil Monitoring Results GUM 1
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
OctaCDD, 4.07E-13 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9
HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 3.18E-13
OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 5.83E-12
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 3.79E-14
PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 6.77E-14
TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 2.20E-13
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 2.01E-12
PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 1.51E-12
PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 7.31E-13
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 1.70E-12
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 9.56E-14
HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 2.01E-12
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 7.98E-12
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 2.76E-12
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 1.24E-12
TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 8.55E-15
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 4.55E-14
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 2.80E-13
HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 2.19E-13
OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 4.02E-12
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 2.61E-14
PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 4.61E-14
TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 1.29E-13
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 1.38E-12
PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 1.01E-12
PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 4.87E-13
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 1.17E-12
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 6.57E-14
HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 1.38E-12
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 5.49E-12
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 1.89E-12
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 8.48E-13
TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 5.59E-15
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 2.77E-14
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
Christensen Ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
holmgren ranch
Howell Dairy
Howell Dairy
Page l 10
NORTHR Soil Monitoring Results G U MAN
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X 'Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
Howell Dairy
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 1.71E-13
Howell Dairy HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 1.34E-13
Howell Dairy OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 2.45E-12
Howell Dairy HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 1.59E-14
Howell Dairy PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 2.83E-14
Howell Dairy TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 8.66E-14
Howell Dairy HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 8.43E-13
Howell Dairy PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 6.25E-13
Howell Dairy PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 3.02E-13
Howell Dairy HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 7.11E-13
Howell Dairy HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 4.01E-14
Howell Dairy HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 8.42E-13
Howell Dairy HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 3.34E-12
Howell Dairy HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 1.16E-12
Howell Dairy HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 5.19E-13
North Plant Main
Adm TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 3.28E-14
North Plant Main
Adm HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 1.56E-13
North Plant Main
Adm
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 9.59E-13
North Plant Main
Adm HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 7.51E-13
North Plant Main
Adm OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 1.37E-11
North Plant Main
Adm HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 8.94E-14
North Plant Main
Adm PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 1.60E-13
North Plant Main
Adm TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 5.13E-13
North Plant Main
Adm HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 4.75E-12
North Plant Main
Adm PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 3.54E-12
North Plant Main
Adm PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 1.72E-12
Page l 11
KU Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
North Plant Main 4.01E-12 Ad m HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9
North Plant Main 2.26E-13 Adm HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7
North Plant Main 4.74E-12 Adm HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5
North Plant Main 1.88E-11 Adm HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4
North Plant Main 6.51E-12 Adm HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9
North Plant Main 2.93E-12 Adm HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9
Penrose TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 5.95E-15
Penrose HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 3.28E-14
Penrose
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 2.02E-13
Penrose HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 1.58E-13
Penrose OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 2.89E-12
Penrose HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 1.88E-14
Penrose PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 3.31E-14
Penrose TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 8.87E-14
Penrose HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 9.93E-13
Penrose PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 7.23E-13
Penrose PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 3.48E-13
Penrose HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 8.38E-13
Penrose HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 4.73E-14
Penrose HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 9.92E-13
Penrose HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 3.96E-12
Penrose HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 1.36E-12
Penrose HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 6.10E-13
South Plant Main TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 7.49E-14
South Plant Main HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 3.50E-13
OctaCDD, 2.15E-12 South Plant Main 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9
South Plant Main HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 1.68E-12
South Plant Main OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 3.08E-11
South Plant Main HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 2.01E-13
South Plant Main PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 3.59E-13
Page I 12
Estimated Soil PAH Concentrations at the Points of Interest
South Plant Main TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 1.18E-12
South Plant Main HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 1.07E-11
South Plant Main PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 7.99E-12
South Plant Main PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 3.88E-12
South Plant Main HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 9.00E-12
South Plant Main HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 5.06E-13
South Plant Main HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 1.07E-11
South Plant Main HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 4.22E-11
South Plant Main HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 1.46E-11
South Plant Main HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 6.58E-12
Thatcher TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 1746-01-6 5.11E-15
Thatcher HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 19408-74-3 2.40E-14
Thatcher
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 3268-87-9 1.48E-13
Thatcher HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 35822-46-9 1.16E-13
Thatcher OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- 39001-02-0 2.12E-12
Thatcher HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 39227-28-6 1.38E-14
Thatcher PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8- 40321-76-4 2.46E-14
Thatcher TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8- 51207-31-9 8.03E-14
Thatcher HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 55673-89-7 7.33E-13
Thatcher PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8- 57117-31-4 5.48E-13
Thatcher PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8- 57117-41-6 2.66E-13
Thatcher HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57117-44-9 6.18E-13
Thatcher HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 57653-85-7 3.48E-14
Thatcher HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 60851-34-5 7.32E-13
Thatcher HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 67562-39-4 2.90E-12
Thatcher HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 70648-26-9 1.00E-12
Thatcher HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 72918-21-9 4.52E-13
ORMERO GRUM 14 I Soil Monitoring Results
Hazardous Waste Storage and Subpart X Treatment Permit
Page l 13
0 TH OP--11 Gil MN 0
APPENDIX B:
ATK Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
Environmental Chromium Data Package
14
N THRO -111 GRUMMAN E
APPENDIX C:
Summary Statistics for 2020
Ilexavalent Chromium Data
15
Goodness-of-Fit Test Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets without Non-Detects Background Data
2020 Background
Data Set
202 Background Data
Set Outlier Removed
RTA OP-1 G UM
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations 7 6
Number of Distinct Observations 6 5
Minimum 0.18 0.18
Maximum 1.34 0.59
Mean of Raw Data 0.45 0.302
Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.415 0.149
Khat 2.099 6.295
Theta hat 0.214 0.0479
Kstar 1.294 3.259
Theta star 0.348 0.0926
Mean of Log Transformed Data -1.055 -1.28
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.707 0.419
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.823 0.874
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.694 0.781
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.803 0.788
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00208 N/A
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.346 0.311
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.304 0.325
Data not Normal at
(0.05) Significance
Level
Data appear
Approximate Normal
at (0.05) Significance
Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.945 0.937
A-D Test Statistic 0.717 0.503
A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.715 0.698
K-S Test Statistic 0.321 0.253
K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.315 0.333
Data not Gamma
Distributed at (0.05)
Significance Level
Data appear Gamma
Distributed at (0.05)
Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.921 0.937
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.852 0.889
16
GRUMIvi N
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.803 0.788
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.121 N/A
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.279 0.231
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.304 0.325
Data appear
Lognormal at (0.05)
Significance Level
Data appear
Lognormal at (0.05)
Significance Level
Goodness-of-Fit Test Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets without Non-Detects Off-site Soil
2020 Site Data Set 202 Site Data Set
Outlier Removed
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations 11 10
Number of Distinct Observations 9 8
Minimum 0.16 0.16
Maximum 1.91 0.54
Mean of Raw Data 0.451 0.305
Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.493 0.0987
Khat 2.046 11.62
Theta hat 0.22 0.0262
Kstar 1.549 8.2
Theta star 0.291 0.0372
Mean of Log Transformed Data -1.06 -1.231
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed
Data 0.638 0.31
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.69 0.917
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.509 0.872
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.64E-06 0.0557
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.399 0.224
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 0.262
Data not Normal at
(0.05) Significance Level
Data appear Normal at
(0.05) Significance
Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.836 0.942
A-D Test Statistic 1.611 0.439
17
TR OP GTELO
A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.739 0.725
K-S Test Statistic 0.361 0.182
K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.258 0.267
Data not Gamma
Distributed at (0.05)
Significance Level
Data appear Gamma
Distributed at (0.05)
Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.856 0.951
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.766 0.936
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00238 0.296
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.312 0.2
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 0.262
Data not Lognormal at
(0.05) Significance Level
Data appear
Lognormal at (0.05)
Significance Level
Data do not follow a
discernible distribution
at (0.05) Level of
Significance
Outlier Tests
Dixon's Outlier Test for Background
Number of Observations = 7
10% critical value: 0.434
5% critical value: 0.507
1% critical value: 0.637
Dixon's Outlier Test for Off-site Soil
Number of Observations = 11
10% critical value: 0.517
5% critical value: 0.576
1% critical value: 0.679
1. Observation Value 1.34 is a Potential Outlier 1. Observation Value 1.91 is a Potential Outlier
(Upper Tail)? (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.647 Test Statistic: 0.929
For 10% significance level, 1.34 is an outlier. For 10% significance level, 1.91 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 1.34 is an outlier. For 5% significance level, 1.91 is an outlier.
18
OMER F---1 G UM A I
For 1% significance level, 1.34 is an outlier. For 1% significance level, 1.91 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.18 is a Potential Outlier 2. Observation Value 0.16 is a Potential Outlier
(Lower Tail)? (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.034
For 10% significance level, 0.18 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.18 is not an outlier.
For 1% significance level, 0.18 is not an outlier.
Test Statistic: 0.289
For 10% significance level, 0.16 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.16 is not an outlier.
For 1% significance level, 0.16 is not an outlier.
19
NO 7 =1 GRU
UCL Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Number of Bootstrap Operations
Bkg
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Coefficient of Variation
ProUCL 5.12/9/2021 3:10:04 PM
WorkSheet.xls
OFF
95%
2000
7 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Number of Missing Observations 0
0.18 Mean 0.45
1.34 Median 0.29
0.415 Std. Error of Mean 0.157
0.923 Skewness 2.137
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.694 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
20
GRUMMAN
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
0.803
0.346
0.304
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 0.755 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 0.844
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 0.776
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.717 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.715 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.321 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.315 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.099 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.294
Theta hat (MLE) 0.214 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.348
nu hat (MLE) 29.38 nu star (bias corrected) 18.12
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.45 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.396
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 9.479
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0158 Adjusted Chi Square Value 7.667
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when
n>=50)) 0.86 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 1.064
21
NO 7 P GRAMMA
0.852
0.803
0.279
0.304
-1.715
0.293
1.038
0.932
1.577
0.708
0.687
2.11
0.854
0.921
1.431
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Scl) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Mean of logged Data -1.055
SD of logged Data 0.707
90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.775
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.149
95% Jackknife UCL 0.755
95% Bootstrap-t UCL 2.089
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.72
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1.134
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2.012
Suggested UCL to Use
95% H-UCL 1.038
22
NORTHROP G LI NI N
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
ProUCL computes and outputs H-statistic based UCLs for historical reasons only.
H-statistic often results in unstable (both high and low) values of UCL95 as shown in examples in the Technical Guide.
It is therefore recommended to avoid the use of H-statistic based 95% UCLs.
Use of nonparametric methods are preferred to compute UCL95 for skewed data sets which do not follow a gamma distribution.
Bkg2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 0.1.8 Mean 0.302
Maximum 0.59 Median 0.255
SD 0.149 Std. Error of Mean 0.061
Coefficient of Variation 0.495 Skewness 1.899
Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use
guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.
For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (JTRC, 2012).
Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.781 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
23
NO TH On GRUM
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0188 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.311 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 0.425 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 0.452
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 0.432
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.503 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
5% A-D Critical Value 0.698 Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.253 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
5% K-S Critical Value 0.333 Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 6.295 k star (bias corrected MLE) 3.259
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0479 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0926
nu hat (MLE) 75.54 nu star (bias corrected) 39.1
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.302 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.167
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 25.78
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0122 Adjusted Chi Square Value 21.95
Assuming Gamma Distribution
24
ORTHROP'l GRUMMAN 1
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when
n>=50)) 0.458 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 0.537
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data

0.889 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test

0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

0.231 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test

0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

-1.715 Mean of logged Data

-0.528 SD of logged Data
-1.28
0.419
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 0.481 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.452
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.522 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.618
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.808
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
0.402
0.393
0.781
0.432
0.485
0.682
25
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Scl) UCL
0.425
0.558
0.405
0.567
0.908
0 TH 07'1 G UM
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 0.425
When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test
When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Offsite
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 9
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 0.16 Mean 0.451
Maximum 1.91 Median 0.31
SD 0.493 Std. Error of Mean 0.149
Coefficient of Variation 1.093 Skewness 3.109
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.509 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.399 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
26
0 THRIOP1 G UNMAN I
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 0.72 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 0.844
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 0.743
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

1.611 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test

0.739 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

0.361 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test

0.258 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Adjusted Level of Significance

2.046 k star (bias corrected MLE)

0.22 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)

45.01 nu star (bias corrected)

0.451 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)

0.0278 Adjusted Chi Square Value
1.549
0.291
34.07
0.362
21.72
20.12
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when
n>=50)) 0.707 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 0.763
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.766 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.312 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
27
0 'T ROP G UMMA
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data -1.833 Mean of logged Data -1.06
Maximum of Logged Data 0.647 SD of logged Data 0.638
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 0.685 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.663
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.775 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.931
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.237
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 0.695 95% Jackknife UCL 0.72
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.684 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 2.089
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 2.273 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.735
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.88
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 0.897 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1.099
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1.379 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1.93
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1.099
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
28
NORT ROP WWI MAN
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Offsite2
General Statistics

10 Number of Distinct Observations 8
Number of Missing Observations 0

0.16 Mean 0.305

0.54 Median 0.295

0.0987 Std. Error of Mean 0.0312

0.324 Skewness 1.375
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
0.872 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.224 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
0.362 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
0.371
0.364
0.439 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
0.725 Level
29
TH01013 GM; M N L
K-S Test Statistic 0.182
5% K-S Critical Value 0.267
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
k hat (MLE) 11.62 k star (bias corrected MLE) 8.2
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0262 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0372
nu hat (MLE) 232.4 nu star (bias corrected) 164
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.305 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.107
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 135.4
Adjusted Level Of Significance 0.0267 Adjusted Chi Square Value 130.9
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when
n>=50)) 0.369 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 0.382
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.936 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.2 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data -1.833 Mean of logged Data -1.231
Maximum of Logged Data -0.616 SD of logged Data 0.31
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
30
NORTH 0 '1 G UM AN
95% H-UCL 0.376 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.395
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.436 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.493
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.605
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 0.356 95% Jackknife UCL 0.362
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.354 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 0.384
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.654 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.357
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.37
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 0.399 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 0.441
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 0.5 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 0.616
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 0.362
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.12/9/2021 3:03:07 PM
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
31
NO TE1 OP' GRUMM tkg
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 95%
New or Future K Observations 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Bkg
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 7 Number of Distinct Observations 6
Minimum 0.18 First Qua rtile 0.22
Second Largest 0.59 Median 0.29
Maximum 1.34 Third Quartile 0.45
Mean 0.45 SD 0.415
Coefficient of Variation 0.923 Skewness 2.137
Mean of logged Data -1.055 SD of logged Data 0.707
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.399 d2max (for USL) 1.938
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.694 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.346 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.862 90% Percentile (z) 0.982
95% UPL (t) 1.313 95% Percentile (z) 1.133
32
NORTHROP'', G UNMAN I
95% USL 1.255 99% Percentile (z) 1.416
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.717 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.715 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.321 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.315 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.099 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.294
Theta hat (MLE) 0.214 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.348
nu hat (MLE) 29.38 nu star (bias corrected) 18.12
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.45 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.396
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.392 90% Percentile 0.972
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.414 95% Percentile 1.232
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.559 99% Percentile 1.825
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.756
95% WH USL 1.295 95% HW USL 1.309
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.852 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.279 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
33
N Ti P GIRO Nil
Order of Statistic, r
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% Chebyshev UPL
95%
USL
7 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.34
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by
0.368 UTL 0.302
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 59
1.34 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 1.34
1.34 90% Percentile 0.89
1.782 95% Percentile 1.115
2.386 99% Percentile 1.295
1.34
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95%
USL
3.848 90% Percentile (z)
1.512 95% Percentile (z)
1.37 99% Percentile (z)
0.861
1.113
1.803
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BW, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BW only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Offsite
34
NO THROP'l MUMMA I
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 9
Minimum 0.16 First Quartile 0.27
Second Largest 0.54 Median 0.31
Maximum 1.91 Third Quartile 0.34
Mean 0.451 SD 0.493
Coefficient of Variation 1.093 Skewness 3.109
Mean of logged Data -1.06 SD of logged Data 0.638
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.509 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.399 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.838 90% Percentile (z) 1.083
95% UPL (t) 1.384 95% Percentile (z) 1.262
95% USL 1.552 99% Percentile (z) 1.598
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 1.611 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.739 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.361 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.258 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
35
NO THROP G U M
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% WH USL
2.046 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.22 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
45.01 nu star (bias corrected)
0.451 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.223 90% Percentile
1.204 95% Percentile
1.907 99% Percentile
1.935
1.452 95% HW USL
1.549
0.291
34.07
0.362
0.932
1.162
1.68
1.445
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95%
USL
0.766 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0.85 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.312 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.251 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
2.088 90% Percentile (z)
1.159 95% Percentile (z)
1.441 99% Percentile (z)
0.785
0.989
1.529
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
36
NORTHR P GRU Ph71
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 11 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.91
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 0.579 UTL 0.431
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 59
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 1.91 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 1.91
95% UPL 1.91 90% Percentile 0.54
90% Chebyshev UPL 1.995 95% Percentile 1.225
95% Chebyshev UPL 2.695 99% Percentile 1.773
95%
USL 1.91
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, es pecially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted location s.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Bkg2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 6 Number of Distinct Observations 5
Minimum 0.18 First Quartile 0.22
Second Largest 0.31 Median 0.255
Maximum 0.59 Third Quartile 0.305
Mean 0.302 SD 0.149
Coefficient of Variation 0.495 Skewness 1.899
37
Mean of logged Data -1.28 SD of logged Data 0.419
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.708 d2max (for USL) 1.822
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.781 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.311 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 0.855 90% Percentile (z) 0.493
95% UPL (t) 0.627 95% Percentile (z) 0.547
95% USL 0.574 99% Percentile (z) 0.649
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.503 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.698 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.253 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.333 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 6.295 k star (bias corrected MLE) 3.259
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0479 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0926
nu hat (MLE) 75.54 nu star (bias corrected) 39.1
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.302 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.167
38
N RTE1RO "1 GRUMMA I
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
0.66
0.667
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
0.526
0.618
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.062 99% Percentile 0.818
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.109
95% WH USL 0.585 95% HW USL 0.587
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.889 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.231 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.325 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.315 90% Percentile (z) 0.476
95% UPL (t) 0.692 95% Percentile (z) 0.554
95%
USL 0.597 99% Percentile (z) 0.737
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 6 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 0.59
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 0.316 UTL 0.265
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 59
39
0 TH 0P-- G MAN 1
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% Chebyshev UPL
95%
USL
0.59 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
0.59 90% Percentile
0.786 95% Percentile
1.005 99% Percentile
0.59
0.59
0.45
0.52
0.576
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Offsite2
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 10 Number of Distinct Observations 8
Minimum 0.16 First Quartile 0.27
Second Largest 0.35 Median 0.295
Maximum 0.54 Third Quartile 0.325
Mean 0.305 SD 0.0987
Coefficient of Variation 0.324 Skewness 1.375
Mean of logged Data -1.231 SD of logged Data 0.31
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911 d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.872 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
40
NORTHROP'l GRUM AN 0
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
0.842
0.224
0.262
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 0.592 90% Percentile (z) 0.431
95% UPL (t) 0.495 95% Percentile (z) 0.467
95% USL 0.52 99% Percentile (z) 0.535
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.439 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.725 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.182 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.267 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 11.62 k star (bias corrected MLE) 8.2
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0262 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0372
nu hat (MLE) 232.4 nu star (bias corrected) 164
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.305 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.107
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.512 90% Percentile 0.447
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.516 95% Percentile 0.499
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 0.655 99% Percentile 0.606
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 0.668
95% WH USL 0.546 95% HW USL 0.552
41
T OP'11 GRUMM
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.936 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.2 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 0.72 90% Percentile (z) 0.434
95% UPL (t) 0.53 95% Percentile (z) 0.486
95%
USL 0.573 99% Percentile (z) 0.601
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 10 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 0.54
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 0.526 UTL 0.401
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 59
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 0.54 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 0.54
95% UPL 0.54 90% Percentile 0.369
90% Chebyshev UPL 0.616 95% Percentile 0.455
95% Chebyshev UPL 0.756 99% Percentile 0.523
95%
USL 0.54
42
ORTH 012--H GRUMMAN 1
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.