DSHW-2024-004500

DUGWAY PROVING GROUND
DUGWAY, UTAH

FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING
AT THE ENGLISH VILLAGE LANDFILL

THE FIRST SEMIANNUAL
EVENT OF 2023

Select Engineering Services (SES)
Contract Number: W9132T19C0016

Submitted to:
US Army Dugway Proving Ground
Dugway, UT 84022-5000

August 7, 2023

Prepared by:
AQS Environmental

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

Contents

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................... 4
2.1 Mobilization Activities ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Groundwater Sampling Activities ...................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Sample Handling ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Decontamination ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Portable Submersible Bladder Pump .......................................................................................... 8
2.4.2 Instrumentation for Field Monitoring ......................................................................................... 8
2.4.3 Groundwater Level Meter ........................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Groundwater Sampling Quality Control ............................................................................................. 9
2.6 Investigation-Derived Waste Management ....................................................................................... 9
SECTION 3.0 LABORATORY DATA QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION ......................................................... 11
3.1 Precision ........................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Accuracy ........................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Representativeness .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Comparability ................................................................................................................................... 15
3.5 Completeness ................................................................................................................................... 15
SECTION 4.0 MONITORING RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 15
SECTION 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 26
SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 27
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 28

Appendices

APPENDIX A FIELD EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION LOG
APPENDIX B FIELD NOTEBOOK
APPENDIX C SAMPLING LOGS
APPENDIX D LABORATORY REPORT
APPENDIX E DATA VALIDATION REPORT
APPENDIX F TREND PLOTS
APPENDIX G PRO UCL OUTPUT
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The English Village Landfill (EVL) at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) is located approximately three (3)
miles west of English Village, along Stark Road. English Village is located at the eastern entrance of the
installation and is the command, support services, and residential area for DPG. As specified in DPG’s
Ground Water Discharge Permit, samples were collected from wells EGLEVL-MW001, EGLEVL-MW002,
EGLEVL-MW003, EGLEVL-MW004 and EGLEVL-MW005 associated with the EVL. The direction of
groundwater flow near the landfill is complex. Flow generally is in a north-northwest direction with a
component on the west side of the landfill flowing to the east.

Figure 1-1 shows the location of the EVL and associated sampling locations. Also shown in Figure 1-1 are
the wells associated with the English Village Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP wells are
sampled, analyzed, and reported independently.

Figure 1-1. Sampling Locations

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

SECTION 2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

2.1 Mobilization Activities

Mobilization for monitoring activities included obtaining equipment and materials and conducting
initial-phase inspections. The preparatory meetings with AQS personnel discussed the project scope,
status of prerequisites required to start field work, health and safety requirements, field procedures,
submittals, and quality control (QC) protocols.

Mobilization also included delivering the required equipment, tools, supplies, and miscellaneous articles
to the job site. Qualified AQS personnel inspected all applicable equipment prior to use to verify that the
equipment was in good working order and that there were no visible signs of damage or chemical
contamination.

Additionally, AQS personnel conducted a daily Safety and Health Briefing prior to commencement of
daily field activities. The objective of the Safety and Health Briefings was to alert site personnel to
potential hazards and safety protocols.

2.2 Groundwater Sampling Activities

Groundwater sampling activities for wells EVL-MW001, EVL-MW002, EVL-MW003, EVL-MW004, and
EVL-MW005 were conducted on 6/15/2023. All field sampling activities were conducted in general
accordance with Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 18, Low-Flow (Micro-Purge) Groundwater
Sampling (Shaw 2011).

All wells were sampled using low-flow sampling methods with a portable submersible bladder pump,
operated with compressed nitrogen gas. Table 2-1, “Final Field Measured Groundwater Parameters,”
provides a summary of the stabilized temperature, specific conductivity, pH, DO, ORP, and the depth to
groundwater measurements.

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

Table 2-1. Final Field Measured Groundwater Parameters

Well ID
Temp pH DO
Specific
Cond-
uctivity
Top of
Casing
Elevation
Initial
Depth to
GW
GW
Elevation
(oC) (units) (mg/L) (uS/cm) (feet) (feet) (feet)
EGLEVL-MW001 16.5 7.76 8.28 870 4846.38 209.78 4636.6
EGLEVL-MW002 15.3 7.77 9.90 850 4813.9 173.38 4640.5
EGLEVL-MW003 15.7 7.43 10.58 1423 4828.95 192.61 4636.3
EGLEVL-MW004 15.2 7.97 5.20 1040 4781.73 142.8 4638.9
EGLEVL-MW005 19.1 7.65 6.02 1086 4817.62 173.72 4643.9

Notes:
oC = degrees Celsius
DO = dissolved oxygen
GW = groundwater
mg/L = milligrams per liter
uS/cm = micro-Siemens per centimeter

Note that the top of the casing elevations for MW0001 and MW0003 were revised in 2018 following a
re-survey of the landfill wells (Semper Environmental 2018).

Each day prior to going into the field, the turbidity and water quality meter were calibrated following
approved SOPs. For this monitoring event, the water quality meter was initially calibrated using a
calibration solution supplied with the meter. If any problems occurred with the calibration, the pH probe
on the water quality meter was then calibrated to pH calibration standards of 4.0, 7.0, and 10.0 pH
units. Calibration records are provided in Appendix A. Field sampling activities were conducted in the
following order for each monitoring well:

1. The sampling crew approached each well from the upwind side, wells were checked for visual damage
or other conditions, which might have compromised the well integrity, and any deficiencies were
recorded on the Low-Flow Groundwater Purge and Sample Log.

2. The depth-to-groundwater was measured with a water-level meter and the depth was recorded on
the Low-Flow Groundwater Purge and Sample Log. Then the water level measurement was compared to
the previous events water level measurement. All water levels were within expected variation.

3. The well purge volume was calculated and recorded on the Low-Flow Groundwater Purge and Sample
Log. The minimum purge volume required was two times the volume of the tubing, pump, and flow-
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

through cell. The tubing volume was determined by multiplying the volume per foot of tubing (available
from the manufacturer) by the total length of tubing. Purge water was containerized and managed as
investigation derived waste (see Section 2.6).

4. Well-specific boring logs and well construction logs were reviewed prior to mobilizing to the field to
determine the correct depth placement of the bladder pump. The pump inlet was set to correspond to
the middle of the water column within the screened interval. Pump inlet depths were recorded on the
Low-Flow Groundwater Purge and Sample Log.

5. The bladder pump with a dedicated airline/sample tube, and the water level meter were slowly
lowered to the identified pump inlet depth to cause minimal disturbance to the water column.

6. Once the pump inlet was set to proper depth, the water level meter was raised to the top of water
and the water level recorded. To allow any possible stirred up sediments to resettle, purging did not
commence until the water level was allowed to equilibrate to static conditions or until a minimum of 15
minutes had transpired after the pump was set.

7. The airline and the tubing were connected to the pump controller and water quality parameter flow-
through cell. Due to the depth to water at the site, the wells were sampled using a high-pressure
nitrogen gas cylinder assisted flow controller.

8. Initial well purging rates were based on previous monitoring events. The purge flow rate was
measured using a graduated cylinder and timer. The water level depth was measured at a minimum of
five-minute intervals and recorded on the Low-Flow Groundwater Purge and Sample Log. The flow rate
was adjusted to stabilize water level drawdown to no greater than 0.3 foot.

9. A minimum purge volume (two times the volume of the tubing, pump, and flowthrough cell) was
removed from the well and pumped into waste containers.

10. In addition to the minimum purge volume, groundwater parameters were measured at three-minute
intervals until stabilized using a water quality meter connected to a flowthrough cell. The water quality
meter measured pH, temperature, DO, specific conductivity, and ORP. These measurements were
recorded on the Low-Flow Groundwater Purge and Sample Log (Appendix B). Purging continued until all
five groundwater parameters stabilized. The parameters were considered stable when three
consecutive readings, collected at intervals of at least three minutes, were within the following
tolerances:
• Conductivity plus or minus 10 percent of reading,
• pH plus or minus 0.2 pH units,
• Temperature plus or minus 1 °C, and
• DO plus or minus 0.2 mg/L.

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

11. After the minimum purge volume was removed and the groundwater quality parameters stabilized
to the tolerances listed above, samples were collected.

12. Environmental and field QC samples were collected from the pump discharge.

13. Laboratory sample bottles were filled in the order of most volatile analyses first. The collection order
was as follows:
• VOCs,
• EDB/DBCP,
• TOC,
• Ammonia as nitrogen,
• Chloride/sulfate/nitrate,
• Alkalinity,
• TDS, and
• Metals (including mercury).

14. Once the sample was collected, the sample container was capped, sealed, and labeled. A unique
sample label was attached to each sample container and the Chain of Custody (COC) form was updated.
The sample container was immediately placed in a cooler containing a trip blank and wet ice. A trip
blank was placed in each cooler each morning before leaving the field trailer for the sample location.

15. The pump, tubing, and water level meter were removed from the well. Any remaining water in the
tubing was drained into the purge water investigation derived waste (IDW) drum.

16. The well cap was replaced and locked on the well.

17. All non-dedicated submersible equipment (groundwater level meter and portable bladder pump)
and water quality meter equipment (probe and flow-through cell) were decontaminated between wells
(Section 2.4).

18. All purge and decontamination water were contained in a U.S. Department of Transportation-
approved drum, which was labeled and recorded on an IDW Drum Inventory Form. The drum used to
contain purge/decontamination water from this monitoring event was transported to and placed into
the 90-day yard at the Central Hazardous Waste Storage Facility (CHWSF) to await waste code
determination and disposition in accordance with SOP 16, Management of IDW (Shaw 2011).

19. The area was cleaned and expendable materials (i.e., paper towels, gloves) were disposed of in a
trash receptacle. After sampling was completed for the day, the sample coolers, with their associated
COC forms were taken to a field trailer located at the CHWSF and prepared for shipment. Preparation
consisted of conducting a QC check of the sample containers and COC forms, placing bubble wrap on the
bottom of the cooler, and placing the appropriate amount of double-bagged wet ice (to maintain a
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

cooler temperature of 4°C plus or minus 2°C). The COC form was placed in a Ziploc® bag and placed
inside the sample cooler. The sample cooler was then sealed and secured for shipment with tape and
custody seals.

2.3 Sample Handling

Samples collected for this sampling event were transported directly to Chemtech-Ford Analytical
Laboratory in Sandy, Utah. Copies of the signed COC forms are included in Appendix C.

2.4 Decontamination

Procedures used for the decontamination of field equipment during the monitoring activities are
outlined below. Decontamination was conducted to minimize cross-contamination between samples
and sampling locations, and to prevent contamination of personnel handling the equipment or sample
containers. Sealed containers of distilled water were used for the decontamination activities.

2.4.1 Portable Submersible Bladder Pump

The portable submersible bladder pump was decontaminated using the following steps:

1. Three plastic buckets were set-up in a decontamination line. The decontamination line consisted of a
wash, rinse, and final rinse bucket.

2. The bladder pump was disassembled, and the disposable plastic bladder was disposed as non-
hazardous refuse. Each part of the bladder pump was thoroughly washed with diluted non-phosphate
detergent (Liquinox) and rinsed in water. All pump parts were then sprayed with distilled water as a final
rinse.

3. The pump was reassembled with a new clean disposable plastic bladder and placed in a clean plastic
bag.

2.4.2 Instrumentation for Field Monitoring

Equipment for measuring pH, specific conductivity, temperature, DO, and ORP were carefully
decontaminated using the following procedures:

1. The flow-through cell was decontaminated by washing with diluted Liquinox, rinsing with water, and
then final rinsed by spraying with distilled water.

2. The pH, specific conductivity, temperature, DO, and ORP meter probes were carefully cleaned by
rinsing thoroughly with distilled water.
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

3. The equipment was then secured for transport (e.g., placed in a transport case so as not to introduce
any contamination) to the next location.

2.4.3 Groundwater Level Meter

The groundwater level meter was decontaminated prior to use and between individual well locations to
prevent cross contamination. The measurement tape was washed with diluted Liquinox and water,
rinsed with clean water, and then rinsed a third time by spraying with distilled water before being rolled
up on the spool.

2.5 Groundwater Sampling Quality Control

Quality control efforts were employed by the field team leader for this sampling event. Follow-up
inspections consisted of reviewing daily logbooks, Low-Flow Groundwater Purge and Sample Logs and
the COC forms.

The following describes the follow-up inspection process:
• Field equipment calibration and maintenance documents are maintained in project files and are
also included in Appendix A.
• Follow-up inspections for field equipment calibration and maintenance consisted of
instrumentation checks, inspecting the standards, and having the field crews do a check of the
instrumentation at each well. Also, the data collected from the wells were compared with the
data from previous rounds for those wells.
• Follow-up inspections for well purging consisted of observing the activity to ensure that the
groundwater parameters had stabilized, the volume calculations were correct, and the correct
volume was removed.
• Follow-up inspections for groundwater sampling consisted of directly observing all samples
collected. The order of sample collection and flow rates was observed. Additionally, sample
bottles were physically inspected to ensure proper filling, closing, and labeling.
• Follow-up inspections for field equipment decontamination (water level meter and portable
bladder pump) consisted of observing the methodology used for decontamination of the
equipment.
• Follow-up inspections for sample packing and transport consisted of checking the cooler
contents against the COC and the planned sample table. In addition, reports were received from
the laboratory indicating if there were any problems.

2.6 Investigation-Derived Waste Management

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

Generated IDW was managed in accordance with SOP 16 (Shaw 2011). The IDW generated from well
purging and equipment decontamination activities was managed by containerizing the waste fluids in a
U.S. Department of Transportation-approved drum. For this sampling event, one IDW drum, which
contained purge and decontamination water, was generated. The drum was transported to the CHWSF
90-day yard for staging pending waste determination and disposal. The drum was labeled with the
following information:

• Drum number,
• Site name,
• Date of first use and last use,
• Location number (well number) (e.g., EGLEVW-MW004),
• Waste type (i.e., “Purge water awaiting analysis”), and
• Personal protective equipment level.

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

SECTION 3.0 LABORATORY DATA QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION

This section of the monitoring report documents the quality of the analytical data produced for this
monitoring event. Quality assurance protocols for groundwater monitoring are established within the
DPG document “Quality Assurance Project Plan Sampling and Analysis Plan (QAPP/SAP) for the English
Village Solid Waste Landfill,” prepared by Shaw Environmental Inc. (Shaw 2011a).

Monitoring well samples were analyzed for alkalinity, ammonia, anions (chloride, nitrate as N, and
sulfate), TDS, TOC, total metals, DBCP and EDB, and VOCs. The trip blanks were analyzed for VOCs, and
the field and equipment blanks were analyzed for VOCs and total metals. Laboratory reports are
provided in Appendix D.

Analyses were conducted by Chemtech-Ford Laboratories in Sandy, Utah. Chemtech-Ford is certified by
the State of Utah Department of Health through the NELAC Institute (TNI) for the required analyses. The
following samples were analyzed by the laboratory:

Sample ID* Lab ID Date Sampled Parameters
EVL-MW001 23F1403-01 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW002 23F1403-02 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW003 23F1403-03 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW004 23F1403-04 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW005 23F1403-05 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW006 23F1403-06 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
FB-1 23F1403-07 6/15/2023 VOCs
EB-1 23F1403-08 6/15/2023 VOCs, Metals
TB-1 23F1403-09 6/15/2023 VOCs
* Highlighted samples are field duplicates

Analytical reports presented in Appendix D identify the samples collected and present groundwater and
field QC sample results, including the field, trip, and equipment blanks collected on each sample day.
Appendix D also provides detection and reporting limits, analysis dates and time, the analytical method
used, laboratory-assigned data flags, and QC data for all analyses. Electronic Data Deliverables (EDDs)
for these data are available on request, as are complete data package submissions.

Data validation (level III review) was conducted for all the analyses. The data review was performed in
accordance with the following documents:
• QAPP/SAP (Shaw 2011a),
• US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Functional Guidelines for Organic and Inorganic
Data Review (EPA 1999 and 2004)

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

The level III validation report is provided in Appendix E. The following QC elements were included in the
Level III review:
• Sample receipt
• Holding times
• Initial and continuing calibration
• Field and laboratory blanks
• Surrogate recoveries
• Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
• Laboratory control samples
• Field duplicates
• Other QC elements

Analyses in this SDG appear to have been conducted according to project and method requirements.
Several results were qualified as estimated (J-flag) due to various QA issues described in the validation
report. With appropriate qualifiers added, all other associated data are acceptable for use.

A discussion of data precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness
presented below.

3.1 Precision

Precision is controlled using field duplicates, LCS duplicates and MS duplicates. When the relative
percent difference (RPD) among duplicate results exceeds established acceptance criteria for the various
analytes, the data are qualified accordingly.

Field Duplicate RPD – The analysis of field duplicates provides a measure of sample homogeneity plus
the variability of field and laboratory processes. Generally, for groundwater where the results are
greater than four times the reporting limit, field duplicates are considered acceptable if the RPD is less
than 20%. A sample duplicate was collected, and results were within project limits, with the following
exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW006
Chromium, Total
Cobalt, Total
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
Nickel, Total
Field duplicate RPD was outside
method requirements for these
analytes.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
estimated (J and
UJ)

MS/MSD RPD – The MSs and MSDs are field samples spiked with target analytes, and an MS/MSD is
prepared for each analytical batch. The MS is used to evaluate potential matrix interference and sample
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

homogeneity for specific analytes, and the MS/MSD is used to evaluate precision for each analytical
batch. MS/MSD relative percent difference (RPD) results were within project and method limits.

Overall precision for this sampling event is considered acceptable.

3.2 Accuracy

Accuracy is controlled by monitoring LCSs and MS samples. In addition, for organic analyses, accuracy is
demonstrated through recovery of chemical surrogates from each field and QC sample. The recovery of
target analytes is compared with acceptance criteria as established in the QAPP/SAP and in other
guidance documents (e.g., DoD QSM), or if not available from these documents, by comparing
recoveries to laboratory in-house control limits. If these criteria are not met, sample results are
qualified.

Surrogate recoveries – Surrogate standards are non-target compounds added to field and QC samples
for organic analyses to evaluate matrix effects and analyst/method performance on an individual sample
basis. Surrogate recoveries were within project and method limits.

LCS recoveries – The LCS is an analyte-free matrix spiked with target analytes and is prepared as a check
for sample extraction, digestion, and analysis for analytical batches. The recovery of target analytes from
the LCS/LCSD is a measurement of analyst and method performance. Laboratory control samples result
were within project and method limits, with the following exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
All samples 2-Nitropropane LCS recovery was low for this
analyte.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
estimated (J and
UJ)
All samples Methyl-tert-butyl ether
(MTBE)
Pentachloroethane
Isobutanol
LCS recovery was high for these
analytes. All sample results were
non detect.
None required

MS recoveries – The MS is a field sample spiked with target analytes and are analyzed with each
analytical batch. MS and MSD results are indicative of matrix interference and are used to evaluate
potential bias in sample results. MS and MSD results were within project and method limits, with the
following exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
EVL-MW001 Sodium, total MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag non-
detects as
estimated (UJ)
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

EVL-MW001 2-Nitropropane
Chloromethane
Cyclohexanone
Hexachlorobutadiene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag non-
detects as
estimated (UJ)
EVL-MW001 2,2-Dichloropropane
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
Pentachloroethane
MS/MSD RPD was high for
this analyte.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)

Overall accuracy for this sampling event is considered acceptable.

3.3 Representativeness

Representativeness is evaluated by examining holding and extraction times, trip blanks, equipment
blanks, and laboratory blanks. Representativeness is a measure of adherence to standard sampling and
analytical method protocols.

Holding and Preparation Times – Holding time is the maximum amount of time a sample may be stored
before analysis. Preparation time is the maximum amount of time a sample may be stored before
sample preparation. Holding and preparation times were within project and method limits.

Field Blanks – Trip blanks accompany the samples to and from the field, never opened, until all samples
are readied for analysis. Its purpose is to assess the potential for in-transit contamination of samples.
Field blanks are exposed to the same field conditions as the sample, opened in the field. Its purpose is to
assess the potential for field contamination. An equipment blank is a rinsate from the equipment used
to take the sample. The purpose of the equipment blank is to assess the potential of cross
contamination of samples due to insufficient decontamination of sampling equipment. Field blanks were
within project and method limits.

Laboratory Blanks – Method blanks are an analyte-free matrix (water, soil, etc.) subjected to the entire
analytical process to demonstrate that the analytical system itself does not introduce contamination.
The method blank results should be below the Method Reporting Limit (MRL). Laboratory blanks were
within project and method limits with the following exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
All samples Calcium, Total
Manganese, Total
Manganese, Total
Zinc, Total
These analytes were detected in
the method blank.
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)

Overall representativeness for this sampling event is considered acceptable.
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

3.4 Comparability

As opposed to precision, accuracy, and representativeness, which are quantitative QC factors,
comparability is a qualitative evaluation factor. The term "comparability" is an umbrella term that
encompasses an array of sampling and analysis characteristics that individually may or may not be
comparable when contrasting two different sampling/analytical procedures and their results, or two
different datasets describing the same characteristic. One common means for evaluating data
comparability (or the lack of it) is using split samples and regression analysis or correlation coefficients.

With respect to comparability for this solid waste landfill monitoring event, there are no split samples
available. There is, however, a wealth of historical monitoring data for the solid waste landfill, going
back to 2009, to which the data for this sampling event may be compared.

For the other analytes measured, the non-metals, comparison of this dataset with historical data for this
site shows the data to be generally comparable.

3.5 Completeness

Completeness is a measure of the data required versus the data that was collected and is often further
broken down into data required versus data collected that are usable. It is often expressed as a
percentage or ratio. In addition, completeness can be further broken down into:

• Contractual completeness – data required by contract versus data received.
• Technical completeness – data required versus data qualified as unusable.

Contractual completeness – All requested data was delivered. Contractual completeness was 100%.

Technical Completeness – No results were rejected due to validation findings. Technical completeness
for all analyses is 100%.

SECTION 4.0 MONITORING RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A summary of analytical results for the second semiannual Groundwater Monitoring event of 2023 is
presented in Table 4.1. A complete listing of the analytical results is provided in Appendix D. The
tolerance criteria for VOCs, DBCP, and EDB are non-detect at the sample-specific minimum detection
limit (MDL). There were no detectable concentrations of DBCP or EDB in the analytical samples collected
during this monitoring event. There were no detectable concentrations of VOCs.
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

Table 4.1 Summary of Analytical Results for Dugway EVL Wells, Spring 2023

ANALYTE DL RL UNITS EVL-
MW001 Q EVL-
MW002 Q EVL-
MW003 Q EVL-
MW004 Q EVL-
MW005 Q
Chloride 4.34 10.0 mg/L 187 204 388 219 216
Nitrate as N 0.07 0.10 mg/L 2.76 3.36 3.07 0.4 ND
Sulfate 0.64 1.00 mg/L 29.4 32.8 31.3 60.5 50.8
DBCP 0.021 0.044 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
EDB 0.015 0.022 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Beryllium, Total 0.0006 0.0010 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Calcium, Total 0.0071 0.200 mg/L 44.5 50.7 40.4 29.2 34.6
Iron, Total 0.0084 0.0200 mg/L 0.280 0.127 0.0416 0.902 0.230
Magnesium, Total 0.0174 0.200 mg/L 9.44 7.71 9.72 13.5 22.6
Manganese, Total 0.0009 0.005 mg/L 0.016 0.003 J 0.005 0.022 0.005
Potassium, Total 0.204 0.500 mg/L 10.1 7.87 11.6 8.94 8.97
Sodium, Total 0.258 0.500 mg/L 108 95.8 203 156 142
Zinc, Total 0.0025 0.0100 mg/L 0.0073 J 0.0026 J ND 0.0055 J ND
Antimony, Total 0.0001 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Arsenic, Total 0.00007 0.0005 mg/L 0.0051 0.0029 0.0089 0.0068 0.0025
Barium, Total 0.00008 0.0005 mg/L 0.123 0.0794 0.158 0.0491 0.0628
Cadmium, Total 0.00008 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Chromium, Total 0.00005 0.0005 mg/L 0.0127 0.0143 0.0035 0.0777 0.0047
Cobalt, Total 0.00002 0.0005 mg/L 0.0012 0.0027 0.0008 0.0023 ND
Copper, Total 0.0001 0.0005 mg/L 0.0026 0.0045 0.0005 0.0026 ND
Lead, Total 0.00005 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Nickel, Total 0.00006 0.0005 mg/L 0.0017 0.0025 0.0012 0.0070 0.0005
Selenium, Total 0.0002 0.0005 mg/L 0.0017 0.0031 0.0066 0.0007 ND
Silver, Total 0.00009 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND 0.0015 ND
Thallium, Total 0.00005 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Vanadium, Total 0.0001 0.0005 mg/L 0.0100 0.0043 0.0164 0.0102 0.0024
Mercury, Total 0.00008 0.0002 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.7 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
2-Chlorotoluene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
2-Hexanone 4.8 10.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
2-Nitropropane 1.5 2.0 ug/L ND
J-LOW-
C, MS-
Low
ND J-LOW-C ND J-LOW-C ND J-LOW-C ND J-LOW-C
4-Chlorotoluene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Acetone 7.6 10.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Acrylonitrile 1.6 10.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Benzene 0.2 0.4 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Bromobenzene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Bromochloromethane 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Bromodichloromethane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Bromoform 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Bromomethane 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Carbon Disulfide 1.2 2.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroethane 0.7 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroform 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Chloromethane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND MS-Low ND MS-Low ND MS-Low ND MS-Low ND MS-Low
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Cyclohexanone 9.4 10.0 ug/L ND MS-Low ND MS-Low ND MS-Low ND MS-Low ND MS-Low
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

Dibromochloromethane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromomethane 0.1 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.7 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Ethyl Acetate 0.6 2.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Ethyl Ether 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND MS-Low ND ND ND ND
Isobutanol 7.5 20.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Isopropylbenzene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.9 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 3.8 5.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Methylene Chloride 0.7 2.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.4 0.4 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Naphthalene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 40.4 50.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
n-Butylbenzene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
n-Propyl Benzene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Pentachloroethane 0.8 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Styrene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
tert-Butylbenzene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene 0.5 1.0 ug/L ND MS-Low ND ND ND ND
Toluene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Trichloroethene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Vinyl Chloride 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND MS-Low ND ND ND ND
Xylenes, total 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 0.2 1.0 mg/L 107 77.5 93.8 149 190
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3) 0.2 1.0 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3) 0.2 1.0 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3) 0.2 1.0 mg/L 107 77.5 93.8 149 190
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 20 20 mg/L 540 600 884 688 636
Ammonia as N 0.06 0.20 mg/L 0.08 J ND ND ND ND
Total Organic Carbon 0.3 0.5 mg/L 0.3 0.3 ND ND 0.3

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

19

As required in UAC (2020) R315-308-2(8), a determination of whether a significant change in
groundwater chemistry has occurred must be completed by comparing analytical results to background
concentrations. However, as discussed in the FAR for the First Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring
Event of 2010 for the English Village Landfill, Shaw noted that the standard downgradient-to-upgradient
comparison approach is not appropriate at the landfill because of natural differences in groundwater
chemistry in each of the wells (Shaw 2011b). In the noted FAR, an alternative approach based on intra-
well evaluations of the concentrations of 28 inorganic constituents at each of the two downgradient
wells (landfill wells MW001 and MW003) was recommended instead. The recommended intra-well
approach consists of the following two procedures:

• Construction of time-trend plots to allow the visual examination and identification of increasing
trends; and
• Calculation of 95th Upper Prediction Limits (UPLs) to establish expected limits on future
samples.

As a result, the Spring 2023 monitoring results are compared to historical, using the intra-well
evaluation approach employed since the 2010 FAR to determine if a change in groundwater chemistry
may have occurred as a result of the English Village Solid Waste Landfill.

This intra-well approach, which has been used to evaluate groundwater monitoring data for the landfill
since the first semiannual groundwater monitoring event of 2010, is used herein for the evaluation of
data collected in 2023 to date.

Time-trend plots were prepared for 28 analytes [22 metals (totals) plus TDS, alkalinity, chloride, nitrate,
ammonia, and sulfate] at each of the two downgradient wells for sampling episodes that occurred in
June 2023. The source of the data included past FARs (Parsons 2014; AQS, and Argonne 2014, 2015a,
2015b, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b). Appendix F provides the time-trend plots. Note that the trend
plots and statistical comparison for metals are based on total metals results. Data collected for fall 2013
through Spring 2015 only included dissolved metals. To ensure data integrity for statistical analysis,
dissolved metals data were not substituted for total metals. There is a data gap with respect to metals
for those dates. This data gap does not appear problematic, as the concentrations for metals have been
relatively static.

The upper predictive limit (UPL) provides an upper bound on the expected value of a specific number of
future samples at a specified confidence level. Concentrations in the samples from the 2023
groundwater monitoring events have a 95-percent probability of being below the UPLs in the absence of
any landfill leakage. The 95-percent UPLs (95UPLs) were calculated from sample analyses obtained from
May 2010 through Spring 2023. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved
software ProUCL version 5.2 was used to derive the UPLs (Singh and Maichle 2022). Table 4.2 shows the
resulting UPLs used for comparison with the groundwater monitoring event for Spring 2023. The
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

20

distribution of the dataset and statistic method used to derive the selected UPLs for both wells MW001
and MW003 are provided in Table 4-2. The UPL was selected based on the distribution of the data and
the recommended approach listed in the output files. The ProUCL output files are provided in Appendix
G. Where sufficient data were not available to estimate a UPL (e.g., a predominance of non-detects or all
non-detects), the maximum method detection limits was used for comparison to the 2023 data.

Table 4.2. Upper Prediction Limit for Downgradient Wells EGLEVL-MW001, and EGLEVL-MW003

ANALYTE
95% Upper
Prediction Limit
(UPL) Calculation
Methoda
MW001
UPL
(µg/L)
95% Upper
Prediction Limit
(UPL) Calculation
Methoda
MW003 UPL
(µg/L)
Alkalinity Normal 114,673 Normal 102,396
Ammonia Lognormal 115.9 Lognormal 103.9
Antimony Normal KM 0.223 NonPar 4.0
Arsenic NonPar 6.4 Normal 10.91
Barium NonPar CH 129.5 NonPar CH 349.7
Beryllium Max ND 0.6 Max ND 0.6
Cadmium NonPar 0.875 Normal KM 0.117
Calcium Normal 51,346 Normal 51,680
Chloride Normal 222,688 Normal 431,679
Chromium NonPar 12.28 Lognormal 11.35
Cobalt NonPar 3.64 Lognormal 1.62
Copper Lognormal KM 1.49 Lognormal 2.481
Iron Lognormal 313.5 Lognormal 331.1
Lead Normal KM 1.157 Max ND 1.0
Magnesium Normal 10,503 Normal 11,770
Manganese Lognormal 11.36 Normal KM 5.58
Mercury Normal KM 0.119 Normal KM 0.181
Nickel Lognormal 2.39 Lognormal KM 7.813
Nitrate Normal 32,866 NonPar CH 3,844
Potassium Normal 10,866 Normal 14,537
Selenium Normal KM 3.269 Normal 7.543
Silver Normal KM 0.683 NonPar 0.5
Sodium Normal 131,814 Normal 256,163
Sulfate Normal 32,949 NonPar CH 35,586
TDS NonPar 1,349,913 Normal 900,096
Thallium Normal KM 0.284 Normal KM 0.405
Vanadium Normal 12.64 NonPar CH 35.34
Zinc NonPar 52.75 Normal KM 24.81
Notes:
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

21

Normal, Gamma or Lognormal= Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) assuming normal, Gamma or
Lognormal distribution
NonPar =Nonparametric UPL
CH=Chebyshev (CH) Method
WH (or HW) = modifications using either Wilson Hilferty (WH) or Hawkins Wixley (HW)
methods
KM = Kaplan Meier (KM) modifications
Not calculated –detection limit applied

The UPLs listed in Table 4.2 were compared with the results from the Spring 2023 sampling event. Table
4.3 compares the results from the Spring 2023 sampling event to the UPLs for MW001 while Table 4-4
compares the results from the Spring 2023 event to the UPLs for MW003.

As shown in Table 4.3, three analytes slightly exceeded the UPL in MW001: chromium, copper, and
manganese. However, none of the constituents in MW003 had sampling results for Spring 2023 that
exceeded the respective UPLs.

Table 4.3. Spring 2023 Results Compared to 95UPL, MW001
ANALYTE
Spring 2023 Result
MW001 (µg/L)
95UPL
MW001 (µg/L)
Result >
95UPL?
Alkalinity 107,000 114,673 No
Ammonia 80.0 115.9 No
Antimony 0.1 U 0.223 No
Arsenic 5.1 6.4 No
Barium 123 129.5 No
Beryllium 0.6 U 0.6 No
Cadmium 0.08 U 0.875 No
Calcium 44,500 51,346 No
Chloride 187,000 222,688 No
Chromium 12.7 12.28 Yes
Cobalt 1.2 3.64 No
Copper 2.6 1.49 Yes
Iron 280 313.5 No
Lead 0.05 U 1.157 No
Magnesium 9,440 10,503 No
Manganese 16.0 11.36 Yes
Mercury 0.08 0.119 No
Nickel 1.7 2.39 No
Nitrate 7,630 32,866 No
Potassium 10,100 10,866 No
Selenium 1.7 3.269 No
Silver 0.09 0.683 No
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

22

ANALYTE
Spring 2023 Result
MW001 (µg/L)
95UPL
MW001 (µg/L)
Result >
95UPL?
Sodium 108,000 131,814 No
Sulfate 29,400 32,949 No
TDS 540,000 1,349,913 No
Thallium 0.05 U 0.284 No
Vanadium 10.0 12.64 No
Zinc 7.3 52.75 No
Notes:
µg/L – micrograms per liter
U – non-detect (value listed is the reported detection limit)

Table 4.4. Spring 2023 Results Compared to 95UPL, MW003
ANALYTE
Fall 2022 Result
MW003 (µg/L)
95 UPL
MW003 (µg/L)
Result >
95UPL?
Alkalinity 93,800 102,396 No
Ammonia 60.0 U 103.9 No
Antimony 0.1 U 4.0 No
Arsenic 8.9 10.91 No
Barium 15.8 349.7 No
Beryllium 0.6 U 0.6 No
Cadmium 0.08 U 0.117 No
Calcium 40,400 51,680 No
Chloride 388,000 431,679 No
Chromium 3.5 11.35 No
Cobalt 0.8 1.62 No
Copper 0.5 2.481 No
Iron 41.6 331.1 No
Lead 0.05 U 1.0 No
Magnesium 9,720 11,770 No
Manganese 5.0 5.58 No
Mercury 0.08 U 0.181 No
Nickel 1.2 7.813 No
Nitrate 3,070 3,844 No
Potassium 11,600 14,537 No
Selenium 6.6 7.543 No
Silver 0.09 U 0.5 No
Sodium 203,000 256,163 No
Sulfate 31,300 35,586 No
TDS 884,000 900,096 No
Thallium 0.05 U 0.405 No
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

23

ANALYTE
Fall 2022 Result
MW003 (µg/L)
95 UPL
MW003 (µg/L)
Result >
95UPL?
Vanadium 16.4 35.34 No
Zinc 2.5 U 24.81 No
Notes:
µg/L – micrograms per liter
U – non-detect (value listed is the reported detection limit)

The time trend plots for MW001 and MW003 are provided in Appendix F. A linear trend line (in red) is
provided on each graph, showing the general pattern of concentrations. A summary of the trend
analyses conducted from Spring 2010 through Spring 2023 is summarized below for monitoring wells
MW001 and MW003. As discussed below, the data are relatively consistent and are not indicative that a
release has occurred from the landfill.

MW001

• Antimony shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration. Concentrations have been relatively
stable since 2014.
• Arsenic concentrations show a minimal increasing trend. However, the slight increase appears
to be related to natural variation and is not indicative that a release has occurred from the
landfill.
• Barium shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Beryllium shows a flat slightly increasing trend in concentration.
• Cadmium shows a clear decreasing trend in concentrations. However, only seven of the 23
results are positive detections. The trend line is reflective of decreases in detection limits over
time rather than decreases in the magnitude of detection.
• Calcium exhibits a slightly decreasing trend line. This is likely due to drought conditions and
natural fluctuations in groundwater.
• Chromium was detected above the UPL in Spring 2023. However, chromium shows a clear
decreasing trend in concentration.
• Cobalt exhibits a decrease in the concentration trend line.
• Copper was detected above the UPL in Spring 2023. However, Copper exhibits a clear
decreasing in concentration.
• Iron shows a flat to slight increase in concentration based on the linear trend line.
• Lead shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration. However, only four of the 22 results are
positive detections. The trend line is reflective of decreases in detection limits over time rather
than decreases in the magnitude of detection.
• Magnesium exhibits flat to slightly decreasing trend.
• Manganese was detected in Spring 2023 above the UPL. However, Manganese shows a flat,
unchanging trend.
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

24

• Mercury data exhibit an increasing trend. Much of the sporadic spread of the data is reflective
of the number of non-detects, with 17 out of the 23 detections are equivalent to MDLs. The data
do not indicate a release has occurred from the landfill.
• Nickel shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration.
• Potassium shows relatively no changes in concentration over time.
• Selenium exhibits an increasing trend line. For the first three years of sampling, the detection
limit was very low. Since 2011, the concentrations have been consistent, with no increases in
concentration.
• Silver shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration. However, only six of the 23 results are
positive detections. The trend line is reflective of decreases in detection limits over time rather
than decreases in the magnitude of detection.
• Sodium data exhibit little change over time, as shown by the flat to slightly decreasing trend
line.
• Thallium shows a clear decrease in concentration over time.
• Vanadium data show a slight increasing trend line, attributable to natural variation in
groundwater.
• Zinc shows a decreasing trend in concentration. However, only nine of the 23 results are
positive detections. The trend line is reflective of decreases in detection limits over time rather
than decreases in the magnitude of detection.
• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) show a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Alkalinity data show relatively flat to slightly increasing trend in concentration. The data are
indicative of normal variations and are not reflective of a release from the landfill.
• Chloride shows a slightly decreasing trend in concentration.
• Ammonia data show a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Nitrate exhibits a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Sulfate shows a decreasing trend in concentration.

MW003

• Antimony exhibits a clear decreasing trend in concentration; mostly due to changing detection
limits.
• Arsenic shows a relatively flat trend line with a slight increase over time. The increase is minor
indicating a relative stable concentration and not indicative of a release from the landfill.
• Barium shows a relatively flat trend line, with slightly decreasing concentrations.
• Beryllium shows a flat to slightly increasing trend in concentration.
• Cadmium shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration.
• Calcium shows a relatively flat trend line.
• Chromium shows an increasing trend in concentration due to the Spring 2022 detection.
However, in looking at the data for the upgradient well MW-002, there is also a slow increase in
concentrations. This is likely due to natural fluctuation in groundwater chemistry rather than
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

25

from a release from the landfill. In addition, no other parameters, include those with higher
mobility, were noted. The data do not indicate a release of chromium from the landfill.
• Cobalt shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Copper exhibits a slow decrease in concentration, indicative of steady conditions.
• Iron exhibits a minimally decreasing concentration trend. This is likely due to the single
detection in 2016, skewing the trend line. The last several years show consistent concentrations.
There is no indication that the iron data are reflective of a release from the landfill.
• Lead shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration. Lead has not been detected since 2007.
• Magnesium shows a relatively flat/unchanging trend in concentration.
• Manganese shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Mercury exhibits an increase in concentration over time. However, all the data except for one,
are non-detects. The single detection is equivalent to other MDLs. The trend line is
representative of changes in laboratory sensitivity and is reflective of changing MDLs rather than
being a result of a release from the landfill.
• Nickel shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Potassium shows a relatively flat trend line indicating uniformity of concentrations.
• Selenium shows a relatively flat trend line indicating uniformity of concentrations.
• Silver shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration. Only seven detections out of the past 23
results were noted; the decreasing trend is reflective of changes in detection limits rather than
decreasing magnitude of detections.
• Sodium shows a decreasing to flat trend in concentration.
• Thallium shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration.
• Vanadium exhibits a relatively flat trend.
• Zinc shows slight decrease in concentration.
• TDS show a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Alkalinity exhibits a clear decreasing trend in concentration.
• Chloride shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Ammonia shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
• Nitrate shows a relatively unchanged trend line for concentration.
• Sulfate shows a relatively unchanged trend line for concentration.

In reviewing all the trend line plots summarized above and as provided in Appendix F, the trend lines do
not indicate any significant upward trends in data. Despite minimal detections for chromium, copper
and manganese above the UPLs in MW001, the trend lines indicate that there have been no releases
from the landfill. The detections in MW001 are likely attributed to natural fluctuations in groundwater
and not a release from the landfill. It is recommended that no resampling be conducted and the data
evaluated in Fall 2023.

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

26

SECTION 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

No VOCs were detected and comparison of current data to historical data do not indicate increasing
trends in concentrations based on the Spring 2023 data. Concentrations are relatively consistent and do
not indicate a release from the landfill has occurred. It is recommended that groundwater monitoring
continue as specified in the 2010 Second Quarter FAR (Shaw 2011b).

As has been mentioned in previous reports, it is recommended that analysis of the fumigants EDB and
DBCP be discontinued and removed from the monitored constituent list for the EVL. This change can be
made through the process described in the Permit (Shaw 2009).

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

27

SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES

AQS and SES (AQS Environmental and Select Engineering Services) 2019-present, Field activity reports
for each of the semiannual groundwater monitoring events, Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah,
Final.

AQS and Argonne (AQS Environmental and Argonne National Laboratory) 2014-2019, Field activity
reports for each of the semiannual groundwater monitoring events, Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway,
Utah, Final.

Semper Environmental 2018, Report of Resurvey of Monitoring Wells at the English Village Landfill,
Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, prepare for AQS and Argonne, Dugway, Utah, July.

Parsons 2015, Final Five-Year Evaluation Report for the English Village Groundwater Management Area,
Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, September.

Parsons 2014, Final Field Activity Report (FAR) for the Second Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring
Event of 2013 for the English Village Landfill, Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, December.

Shaw (Shaw Environmental Inc.) 2009, Permit Renewal Application for the English Village Landfill,
Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, May.

Shaw 2011a, Quality Assurance Project Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan (QAPP/SAP) for the English
Village Solid Waste Landfill, Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, April (Includes Standard Operating
Procedures).

Shaw 2011b, Field Activity Report (FAR) for the First Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Event of
2010, Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, Final, Concord, California, March.

Singh, A., and R. Maichle 2022, ProUCL Version 5.2.0 User Guide: Statistical Software for Environmental
Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations, June.

UDEQ (Utah Department of Environmental Quality) 2011, Permit Renewal for Dugway English Village
Class II Landfill, January 14.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).  ProUCL: Statistical Software for
Environmental Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. Version 5.2.
https://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software,  2022.

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-1

28

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIELD EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION LOG
APPENDIX B FIELD NOTEBOOK
APPENDIX C SAMPLING LOGS
APPENDIX D LABORATORY REPORT
APPENDIX E DATA VALIDATION REPORT
APPENDIX F TREND PLOTS
APPENDIX G PRO UCL OUTPUT
The analyses presented on this report were performed in accordance with the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) unless
noted in the comments, flags, or case narrative. If the report is to be used for
regulatory compliance, it should be presented in its entirety, and not be
altered.
Client Service Contact: 801.262.7299
AQS
Attn: Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
Work Order: 23F1403
Project: Dugway Groundwater
6/28/2023
Approved By:
Mark Broadhead, Project Manager
9632 South 500 West Sandy, Utah 84070
Serving the Intermountain West since 1953
801.262.7299 Main 866.792.0093 Fax www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 1 of 52
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AQS
Project: Dugway Groundwater
Project Manager: Joel Workman
Laboratory ID Sample Name
23F1403-01 EVL-MW001
23F1403-02 EVL-MW002
23F1403-03 EVL-MW003
23F1403-04 EVL-MW004
23F1403-05 EVL-MW005
23F1403-06 EVL-MW006
23F1403-07 FB-1
23F1403-08 EB-1
23F1403-09 TB-1
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Work Order Report Narrative
Sample Preparation
All samples were prepared within method specified holding times. No preparation issues were noted.
Method Blanks
All blank values were within method acceptance criteria. No blank values exceeded the minimum reporting limit for any
analysis in this work order.
Laboratory Control Samples
All laboratory control samples were within method acceptance criteria.
Method Spikes
All method spike recoveries were within method acceptance criteria, except as noted by qualifying flags.
Method Spike Duplicates
All method spike duplicates were within method acceptance criteria, except as noted by qualifying flags.
Corrective Actions
There are no corrective actions associated with this work order.
www.ChemtechFord.com
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
Page 2 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW001
Lab ID: 23F1403-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 13:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B107Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B107Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L J6/21/236/21/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 H0.08Ammonia as N
mg/L 6/16/236/16/2310.0 EPA 300.0187Chloride
mg/L 6/16/23 22:536/16/23 14:190.10 EPA 300.02.76Nitrate as N
mg/L 6/16/236/16/231.00 EPA 300.029.4Sulfate
mg/L 6/20/236/20/2320SM 2540 C540Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/230.5 SM 5310 C0.3Total Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0051Arsenic, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.123Barium, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0010 EPA 6010B/C/DNDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D44.5Calcium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0127Chromium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0012Cobalt, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0026Copper, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0200 EPA 6010B/C/D0.280Iron, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDLead, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D9.44Magnesium, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.005 EPA 6010B/C/D0.016Manganese, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0017Nickel, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D10.1Potassium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0017Selenium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D108Sodium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0100Vanadium, Total
mg/L J6/21/236/21/230.0100 EPA 6010B/C/D0.0073Zinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 3 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW001 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 13:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C, MS-Low6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 4 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW001 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 13:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 5 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW002
Lab ID: 23F1403-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 12:05
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B77.5Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B77.5Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 6/16/236/16/2310.0 EPA 300.0204Chloride
mg/L 6/16/23 23:346/16/23 14:190.10 EPA 300.03.36Nitrate as N
mg/L 6/16/236/16/231.00 EPA 300.032.8Sulfate
mg/L 6/20/236/20/2320SM 2540 C600Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/230.5 SM 5310 C0.3Total Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0029Arsenic, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0794Barium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0010 EPA 6010B/C/DNDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D50.7Calcium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0143Chromium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0027Cobalt, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0045Copper, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0200 EPA 6010B/C/D0.127Iron, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDLead, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D7.71Magnesium, Total
mg/L J6/22/236/21/230.005 EPA 6010B/C/D0.003Manganese, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0025Nickel, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D7.87Potassium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0031Selenium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D95.8Sodium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0043Vanadium, Total
mg/L J6/22/236/21/230.0100 EPA 6010B/C/D0.0026Zinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 6 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW002 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 12:05
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 7 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW002 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 12:05
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 8 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW003
Lab ID: 23F1403-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 14:35
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B93.8Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B93.8Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/2310.0 EPA 300.0388Chloride
mg/L 6/16/23 23:476/16/23 14:190.10 EPA 300.03.07Nitrate as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/231.00 EPA 300.031.3Sulfate
mg/L 6/20/236/20/2320SM 2540 C884Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/230.5 SM 5310 CNDTotal Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0089Arsenic, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.158Barium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0010 EPA 6010B/C/DNDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D40.4Calcium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0035Chromium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0008Cobalt, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0005Copper, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0200 EPA 6010B/C/D0.0416Iron, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDLead, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D9.72Magnesium, Total
mg/L 6/27/236/26/230.005 EPA 6010B/C/D0.005Manganese, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0012Nickel, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D11.6Potassium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0066Selenium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D203Sodium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0164Vanadium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0100 EPA 6010B/C/DNDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 9 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW003 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 14:35
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 10 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW003 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 14:35
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 11 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW004
Lab ID: 23F1403-04Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 10:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B149Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B149Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/2310.0 EPA 300.0219Chloride
mg/L 6/17/23 0:156/16/23 14:190.10 EPA 300.00.40Nitrate as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/231.00 EPA 300.060.5Sulfate
mg/L 6/20/236/20/2320SM 2540 C688Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/230.5 SM 5310 CNDTotal Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0068Arsenic, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0491Barium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0010 EPA 6010B/C/DNDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D29.2Calcium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0777Chromium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0023Cobalt, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0026Copper, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0200 EPA 6010B/C/D0.902Iron, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDLead, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D13.5Magnesium, Total
mg/L 6/27/236/26/230.005 EPA 6010B/C/D0.022Manganese, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0070Nickel, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D8.94Potassium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0007Selenium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0015Silver, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D156Sodium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0102Vanadium, Total
mg/L J6/22/236/21/230.0100 EPA 6010B/C/D0.0055Zinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 12 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW004 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-04Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 10:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 13 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW004 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-04Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 10:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 14 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW005
Lab ID: 23F1403-05Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 16:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B190Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B190Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/2310.0 EPA 300.0216Chloride
mg/L 6/17/23 0:426/16/23 14:190.10 EPA 300.0NDNitrate as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/231.00 EPA 300.050.8Sulfate
mg/L 6/20/236/20/2320SM 2540 C636Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 6/21/236/20/230.5 SM 5310 C0.3Total Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0025Arsenic, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0628Barium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0010 EPA 6010B/C/DNDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D34.6Calcium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0047Chromium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCobalt, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCopper, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0200 EPA 6010B/C/D0.230Iron, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDLead, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D22.6Magnesium, Total
mg/L 6/27/236/26/230.005 EPA 6010B/C/D0.005Manganese, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0005Nickel, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D8.97Potassium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSelenium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D142Sodium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0024Vanadium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0100 EPA 6010B/C/DNDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 15 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW005 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-05Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 16:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 16 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW005 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-05Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 16:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 17 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW006
Lab ID: 23F1403-06Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 10:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B149Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 SM 2320 B149Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/2310.0 EPA 300.0217Chloride
mg/L 6/17/23 1:366/16/23 14:190.10 EPA 300.00.38Nitrate as N
mg/L 6/17/236/16/231.00 EPA 300.060.6Sulfate
mg/L 6/20/236/20/2320SM 2540 C704Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 6/21/236/20/230.5 SM 5310 C0.3Total Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0059Arsenic, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0440Barium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0010 EPA 6010B/C/DNDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D28.1Calcium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0076Chromium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0015Cobalt, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0006Copper, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0200 EPA 6010B/C/D0.0792Iron, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDLead, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/D12.9Magnesium, Total
mg/L 6/27/236/26/230.005 EPA 6010B/C/D0.014Manganese, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0028Nickel, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D8.61Potassium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0006Selenium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/D153Sodium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020A0.0092Vanadium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0100 EPA 6010B/C/DNDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 6/21/236/20/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 18 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW006 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-06Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 10:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 19 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EVL-MW006 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-06Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 10:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 20 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: FB-1
Lab ID: 23F1403-07Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 12:47
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 21 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: FB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-07Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 12:47
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 22 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EB-1
Lab ID: 23F1403-08Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 11:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Metals
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDArsenic, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDBarium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0010 EPA 6010B/C/DNDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/DNDCalcium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDChromium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCobalt, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDCopper, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0200 EPA 6010B/C/DNDIron, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDLead, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.200 EPA 6010B/C/DNDMagnesium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.005 EPA 6010B/C/DNDManganese, Total
mg/L 6/21/236/21/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDNickel, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/DNDPotassium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSelenium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.500 EPA 6010B/C/DNDSodium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 6/26/236/23/230.0005 EPA 6020ANDVanadium, Total
mg/L 6/22/236/21/230.0100 EPA 6010B/C/DNDZinc, Total
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 23 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-08Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 11:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 24 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: EB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-08Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 11:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 25 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: TB-1
Lab ID: 23F1403-09Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 11:55
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-C6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030AND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcetone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromoform
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDBromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 26 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Sample ID: TB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23F1403-09Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/15/23 11:55
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloroform
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDChloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L MS-Low6/20/236/20/2310.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDibromomethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2320.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/235.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/20/236/20/232.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/230.4 EPA 8260D /5030ANDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/2350.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDStyrene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDToluene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichloroethene
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/20/236/20/231.0 EPA 8260D /5030ANDXylenes, total
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 27 of 52
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:[phone] F: [phone]
www.ChemtechFord.com
AQS
Joel Workman
2112 Deer Run Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/16/23 13:21 @ 11.9 °C
6/28/2023
Dugway Groundwater
Report Footnotes
Abbreviations
ND = Not detected at the corresponding Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL).
1 mg/L = one milligram per liter or 1 mg/kg = one milligram per kilogram = 1 part per million.
1 ug/L = one microgram per liter or 1 ug/kg = one microgram per kilogram = 1 part per billion.
1 ng/L = one nanogram per liter or 1 ng/kg = one nanogram per kilogram = 1 part per trillion.
Flag Descriptions
J = Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
J-LOW-C = Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
MS-Low = Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Project Name: Dugway Groundwater CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 28 of 52
Page 29 of 52
Page 30 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXF0800-BLK1 Batch: BXF0800
Date Prepared: 06/16/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/16/2023
Chloride 1.00 1.00ND
Nitrate as N 0.10 1.00ND
Sulfate 1.00 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXF0800-BS1 Batch: BXF0800
Date Prepared: 06/16/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/16/2023
Chloride 96.6 1.00 1.0048.3 50.090 - 110
Nitrate as N 98.9 0.10 1.004.94 5.0090 - 110
Sulfate 96.7 1.00 1.0048.4 50.090 - 110
Matrix Spike - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXF0800-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0800
Date Prepared: 06/16/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/16/2023
Chloride 97.8 11.0 1.0014310080 - 120 45.5
Nitrate as N 94.1 1.10 1.009.41 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 95.2 11.0 1.0013310080 - 120 38.0
QC Sample ID: BXF0800-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0800
Date Prepared: 06/16/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/16/2023
Chloride 146 11.0 1.0014610080 - 120
Nitrate as N 88.4 1.10 1.008.84 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 131 11.0 1.0013110080 - 120
QM-RPD - The recovery was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The RPD between the MS and MSD was
acceptable and indicates the recovery is due to matrix interference. The batch was accepted based on the acceptable
recovery of the LCS and the RPD.
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXF0800-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0800
Date Prepared: 06/16/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/16/2023
Chloride 102 2.94 20 11.0 1.0014810080 - 120 45.5
Nitrate as N 97.7 3.73 20 1.10 1.009.77 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 99.0 2.87 20 11.0 1.0013710080 - 120 38.0
QC Sample ID: BXF0800-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0800
Date Prepared: 06/16/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/16/2023
Chloride 147 0.759 20 11.0 1.0014710080 - 120
Nitrate as N 89.6 1.38 20 1.10 1.008.96 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 132 0.414 20 11.0 1.0013210080 - 120
QM-RPD - The recovery was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The RPD between the MS and MSD was
acceptable and indicates the recovery is due to matrix interference. The batch was accepted based on the acceptable
recovery of the LCS and the RPD.
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 31 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXF0822-BLK1 Batch: BXF0822
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
EDB 0.022 1.00ND
DBCP 0.044 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXF0822-BS1 Batch: BXF0822
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
EDB 84.0 0.022 1.000.21 0.25070 - 130
DBCP 70.8 0.044 1.000.18 0.25070 - 130
Matrix Spike - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXF0822-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0822
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
EDB 84.8 0.022 1.000.21 0.25070 - 130 ND
DBCP 87.2 0.044 1.000.22 0.25070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 32 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 6010B/C/D
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-BLK1 Batch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Beryllium, Total 0.0010 1.00ND
Calcium, Total 0.200 1.000.092
Iron, Total 0.0200 1.00ND
Magnesium, Total 0.200 1.00ND
Manganese, Total 0.005 1.000.0009
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
Potassium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Sodium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Zinc, Total 0.0100 1.000.004
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
QC Sample ID: BXF0986-BLK1 Batch: BXF0986
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/22/2023
Beryllium, Total 0.0010 1.00ND
Calcium, Total 0.200 1.00ND
Iron, Total 0.0200 1.00ND
Magnesium, Total 0.200 1.00ND
Manganese, Total 0.005 1.000.034
HB - Recovery for this parameter exceeded the upper acceptance limit. Associated sample(s) were all non-detect and
therefore accepted and reported for this parameter.
Potassium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Sodium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Zinc, Total 0.0100 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 6010B/C/D
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-BS1 Batch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Beryllium, Total 107 0.0010 1.002.15 2.0085 - 115
Calcium, Total 105 0.200 1.0012.5 12.085 - 115
Iron, Total 111 0.0200 1.002.22 2.0085 - 115
Magnesium, Total 106 0.200 1.0012.8 12.085 - 115
Manganese, Total 105 0.005 1.002.11 2.0085 - 115
Potassium, Total 111 0.500 1.0011.1 10.085 - 115
Sodium, Total 110 0.500 1.0011.0 10.085 - 115
Zinc, Total 105 0.0100 1.002.11 2.0085 - 115
QC Sample ID: BXF0986-BS1 Batch: BXF0986
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/22/2023
Beryllium, Total 96.7 0.0010 1.001.93 2.0085 - 115
Calcium, Total 93.9 0.200 1.0011.3 12.085 - 115
Iron, Total 97.2 0.0200 1.001.94 2.0085 - 115
Magnesium, Total 94.1 0.200 1.0011.3 12.085 - 115
Manganese, Total 97.4 0.005 1.001.95 2.0085 - 115
Potassium, Total 93.1 0.500 1.009.31 10.085 - 115
Sodium, Total 96.7 0.500 1.009.67 10.085 - 115
Zinc, Total 94.5 0.0100 1.001.89 2.0085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 6010B/C/D
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Beryllium, Total 104 0.0010 1.002.08 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 79.0 0.200 1.0054.0 12.075 - 125 44.5
Iron, Total 107 0.0200 1.002.43 2.0075 - 125 0.280
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 33 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 6010B/C/D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Magnesium, Total 96.1 0.200 1.0021.0 12.075 - 125 9.44
Manganese, Total 102 0.005 1.002.06 2.0075 - 125 0.016
Potassium, Total 102 0.500 1.0020.3 10.075 - 125 10.1
Sodium, Total 13.2 0.500 1.0011010.075 - 125 108
QM-4X - The spike recovery was outside of QC acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD due to analyte concentration at 4
times or greater the spike concentration. The QC batch was accepted based on LCS and/or LCSD recoveries within the
acceptance limits.
Zinc, Total 103 0.0100 1.002.06 2.0075 - 125 0.007
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Beryllium, Total 92.8 0.0050 1.000.928 1.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 82.1 1.00 1.0099.1 51.075 - 125 57.2
Iron, Total 67.5 0.100 1.005.11 1.0075 - 125 4.44
QM-4X - The spike recovery was outside of QC acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD due to analyte concentration at 4
times or greater the spike concentration. The QC batch was accepted based on LCS and/or LCSD recoveries within the
acceptance limits.
Magnesium, Total 87.0 1.00 1.0069.6 51.075 - 125 25.2
Manganese, Total 88.0 0.025 1.001.12 1.0075 - 125 0.238
Potassium, Total 79.2 2.50 1.0030150.075 - 125 262
Sodium, Total 84.9 2.50 1.0022950.075 - 125 187
Zinc, Total 90.6 0.0500 1.001.16 1.0075 - 125 0.254
QC Sample ID: BXF0986-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-02Batch: BXF0986
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/22/2023
Beryllium, Total 97.2 0.0010 1.001.94 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 105 0.200 1.0063.2 12.075 - 125 50.7
Iron, Total 99.3 0.0200 1.002.11 2.0075 - 125 0.127
Magnesium, Total 94.2 0.200 1.0019.0 12.075 - 125 7.71
Manganese, Total 98.3 0.005 1.001.97 2.0075 - 125 0.003
Potassium, Total 96.1 0.500 1.0017.5 10.075 - 125 7.87
Sodium, Total 104 0.500 1.0010610.075 - 125 95.8
Zinc, Total 92.8 0.0100 1.001.86 2.0075 - 125 0.003
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6010B/C/D
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Beryllium, Total 103 0.843 20 0.0010 1.002.07 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 90.9 2.62 20 0.200 1.0055.4 12.075 - 125 44.5
Iron, Total 120 9.44 20 0.0200 1.002.67 2.0075 - 125 0.280
Magnesium, Total 99.4 1.85 20 0.200 1.0021.4 12.075 - 125 9.44
Manganese, Total 101 0.917 20 0.005 1.002.04 2.0075 - 125 0.016
Potassium, Total 105 1.27 20 0.500 1.0020.6 10.075 - 125 10.1
Sodium, Total 25.2 1.09 20 0.500 1.0011110.075 - 125 108
QM-4X - The spike recovery was outside of QC acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD due to analyte concentration at 4
times or greater the spike concentration. The QC batch was accepted based on LCS and/or LCSD recoveries within the
acceptance limits.
Zinc, Total 101 1.99 20 0.0100 1.002.02 2.0075 - 125 0.007
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Beryllium, Total 93.3 0.537 20 0.0050 1.000.933 1.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 81.3 0.432 20 1.00 1.0098.7 51.075 - 125 57.2
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 34 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6010B/C/D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0951-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0951
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Iron, Total 37.9 5.95 20 0.100 1.004.81 1.0075 - 125 4.44
QM-4X - The spike recovery was outside of QC acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD due to analyte concentration at 4
times or greater the spike concentration. The QC batch was accepted based on LCS and/or LCSD recoveries within the
acceptance limits.
Magnesium, Total 86.9 0.0568 20 1.00 1.0069.5 51.075 - 125 25.2
Manganese, Total 88.1 0.134 20 0.025 1.001.12 1.0075 - 125 0.238
Potassium, Total 70.3 1.49 20 2.50 1.0029750.075 - 125 262
QM-4X - The spike recovery was outside of QC acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD due to analyte concentration at 4
times or greater the spike concentration. The QC batch was accepted based on LCS and/or LCSD recoveries within the
acceptance limits.
Sodium, Total 83.6 0.276 20 2.50 1.0022850.075 - 125 187
Zinc, Total 87.0 3.07 20 0.0500 1.001.12 1.0075 - 125 0.254
QC Sample ID: BXF0986-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-02Batch: BXF0986
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/22/2023
Beryllium, Total 96.2 0.962 20 0.0010 1.001.92 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 94.9 1.85 20 0.200 1.0062.1 12.075 - 125 50.7
Iron, Total 97.4 1.84 20 0.0200 1.002.07 2.0075 - 125 0.127
Magnesium, Total 91.8 1.49 20 0.200 1.0018.7 12.075 - 125 7.71
Manganese, Total 97.2 1.07 20 0.005 1.001.95 2.0075 - 125 0.003
Potassium, Total 94.1 1.16 20 0.500 1.0017.3 10.075 - 125 7.87
Sodium, Total 89.8 1.35 20 0.500 1.0010510.075 - 125 95.8
Zinc, Total 92.1 0.772 20 0.0100 1.001.84 2.0075 - 125 0.003
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 35 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXF1119-BLK1 Batch: BXF1119
Date Prepared: 06/23/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/26/2023
Antimony, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Arsenic, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Barium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Cadmium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Chromium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Cobalt, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Copper, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Lead, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Nickel, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Selenium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Silver, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Thallium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Vanadium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXF1119-BS1 Batch: BXF1119
Date Prepared: 06/23/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/26/2023
Antimony, Total 101 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Arsenic, Total 101 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Barium, Total 98.3 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040085 - 115
Cadmium, Total 100 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Chromium, Total 100 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Cobalt, Total 99.3 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Copper, Total 104 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Lead, Total 98.8 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Nickel, Total 99.8 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Selenium, Total 101 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Silver, Total 94.3 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040085 - 115
Thallium, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Vanadium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXF1119-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF1119
Date Prepared: 06/23/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/26/2023
Antimony, Total 104 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.0001
Arsenic, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.046 0.040070 - 130 0.005
Barium, Total 98.3 0.0005 1.000.162 0.040070 - 130 0.123
Cadmium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 99.1 0.0005 1.000.052 0.040070 - 130 0.013
Cobalt, Total 94.9 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Copper, Total 90.5 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.003
Lead, Total 94.0 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0003
Nickel, Total 92.9 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.002
Selenium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.002
Silver, Total 91.1 0.0005 1.000.037 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Thallium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 99.8 0.0005 1.000.050 0.040070 - 130 0.010
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXF1119-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF1119
Date Prepared: 06/23/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/26/2023
Antimony, Total 104 0.276 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.0001
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 36 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6020A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF1119-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF1119
Date Prepared: 06/23/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/26/2023
Arsenic, Total 102 0.368 20 0.0005 1.000.046 0.040070 - 130 0.005
Barium, Total 100 0.511 20 0.0005 1.000.163 0.040070 - 130 0.123
Cadmium, Total 102 0.734 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 100 1.06 20 0.0005 1.000.053 0.040070 - 130 0.013
Cobalt, Total 95.5 0.652 20 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Copper, Total 92.3 1.83 20 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.003
Lead, Total 95.0 1.07 20 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0003
Nickel, Total 95.1 2.20 20 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.002
Selenium, Total 102 0.525 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.002
Silver, Total 90.2 0.983 20 0.0005 1.000.036 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Thallium, Total 102 0.175 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 102 1.99 20 0.0005 1.000.051 0.040070 - 130 0.010
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 37 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXF0965-BLK1 Batch: BXF0965
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Mercury, Total 0.0002 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXF0965-BS1 Batch: BXF0965
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Mercury, Total 105 0.0002 1.000.0053 0.0050085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXF0965-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0965
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Mercury, Total 102 0.0002 1.000.0051 0.0050075 - 125 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXF0965-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0965
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Mercury, Total 101 1.06 20 0.0002 1.000.0051 0.0050075 - 125 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 38 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 8260D /5030A
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-BLK1 Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1.0 1.00ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 1.0 1.00ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 1.0 1.00ND
2-Hexanone 10.0 1.00ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1.0 1.00ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1.0 1.00ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.0 1.00ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.0 1.00ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1.0 1.00ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)1.0 1.00ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.0 1.00ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 1.0 1.00ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.0 1.00ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.0 1.00ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 1.0 1.00ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.0 1.00ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 1.0 1.00ND
2-Chlorotoluene 1.0 1.00ND
2-Nitropropane 2.0 1.00ND
4-Chlorotoluene 1.0 1.00ND
Acetone 10.0 1.00ND
Acrylonitrile 10.0 1.00ND
Benzene 0.4 1.00ND
Bromobenzene 1.0 1.00ND
Bromochloromethane 1.0 1.00ND
Bromodichloromethane 1.0 1.00ND
Bromoform 1.0 1.00ND
Bromomethane 1.0 1.00ND
Carbon Disulfide 2.0 1.00ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 1.0 1.00ND
Chlorobenzene 1.0 1.00ND
Chloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
Chloroform 1.0 1.00ND
Chloromethane 1.0 1.00ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.0 1.00ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.0 1.00ND
Cyclohexanone 10.0 1.00ND
Dibromochloromethane 1.0 1.00ND
Dibromomethane 1.0 1.00ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 1.00ND
Ethyl Acetate 2.0 1.00ND
Ethylbenzene 1.0 1.00ND
Ethyl Ether 1.0 1.00ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 1.0 1.00ND
Isobutanol 20.0 1.00ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 39 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-BLK1 Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Isopropylbenzene 1.0 1.00ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 1.0 1.00ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 5.0 1.00ND
Methylene Chloride 2.0 1.00ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)0.4 1.00ND
Naphthalene 1.0 1.00ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 50.0 1.00ND
n-Butylbenzene 1.0 1.00ND
n-Propyl Benzene 1.0 1.00ND
Pentachloroethane 1.0 1.00ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 1.0 1.00ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 1.0 1.00ND
Styrene 1.0 1.00ND
tert-Butylbenzene 1.0 1.00ND
Tetrachloroethene 1.0 1.00ND
Toluene 1.0 1.00ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.0 1.00ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.0 1.00ND
Trichloroethene 1.0 1.00ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 1.0 1.00ND
Vinyl Chloride 1.0 1.00ND
Xylenes, total 1.0 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 8260D /5030A
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-BS1 Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 101 1.0 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 92.6 1.0 1.009.26 10.070 - 130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 98.6 1.0 1.009.86 10.070 - 130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 88.6 1.0 1.008.86 10.070 - 130
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 123 1.0 1.0012.3 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethane 80.7 1.0 1.008.07 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethene 86.1 1.0 1.008.61 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloropropene 94.3 1.0 1.009.43 10.070 - 130
2-Hexanone 110 10.0 1.0011.0 10.070 - 130
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 108 1.0 1.0010.8 10.070 - 130
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 98.2 1.0 1.009.82 10.070 - 130
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 109 1.0 1.0010.9 10.070 - 130
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 107 1.0 1.0010.7 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 95.1 1.0 1.009.51 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)94.9 1.0 1.009.49 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 101 1.0 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichloroethane 90.0 1.0 1.009.00 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichloropropane 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 104 1.0 1.0010.4 10.070 - 130
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 113 1.0 1.0011.3 10.070 - 130
1,3-Dichloropropane 95.2 1.0 1.009.52 10.070 - 130
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 108 1.0 1.0010.8 10.070 - 130
2,2-Dichloropropane 127 1.0 1.0012.7 10.070 - 130
2-Chlorotoluene 106 1.0 1.0010.6 10.070 - 130
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 40 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
LCS - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-BS1 Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
2-Nitropropane 48.8 2.0 1.0014.6 30.070 - 130
J-LOW-L - Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
4-Chlorotoluene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
Acetone 93.2 10.0 1.0093.2 10070 - 130
Acrylonitrile 96.7 10.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130
Benzene 92.7 0.4 1.009.27 10.070 - 130
Bromobenzene 100 1.0 1.0010.0 10.070 - 130
Bromochloromethane 82.4 1.0 1.008.24 10.070 - 130
Bromodichloromethane 95.5 1.0 1.009.55 10.070 - 130
Bromoform 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
Bromomethane 99.2 1.0 1.009.92 10.070 - 130
Carbon Disulfide 121 2.0 1.0012.1 10.070 - 130
Carbon Tetrachloride 105 1.0 1.0010.5 10.070 - 130
Chlorobenzene 100 1.0 1.0010.0 10.070 - 130
Chloroethane 86.1 1.0 1.008.61 10.070 - 130
Chloroform 90.4 1.0 1.009.04 10.070 - 130
Chloromethane 79.8 1.0 1.007.98 10.070 - 130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 86.3 1.0 1.008.63 10.070 - 130
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 96.4 1.0 1.009.64 10.070 - 130
Cyclohexanone 113 10.0 1.0011310070 - 130
Dibromochloromethane 97.0 1.0 1.009.70 10.070 - 130
Dibromomethane 83.1 1.0 1.008.31 10.070 - 130
Dichlorodifluoromethane 110 1.0 1.0011.0 10.070 - 130
Ethyl Acetate 99.5 2.0 1.0019.9 20.070 - 130
Ethylbenzene 94.1 1.0 1.009.41 10.070 - 130
Ethyl Ether 103 1.0 1.0010.3 10.070 - 130
Hexachlorobutadiene 96.1 1.0 1.009.61 10.070 - 130
Isobutanol 185 20.0 1.0037120070 - 130
HB - Recovery for this parameter exceeded the upper acceptance limit. Associated sample(s) were all non-detect and
therefore accepted and reported for this parameter.
Isopropylbenzene 105 1.0 1.0010.5 10.070 - 130
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 124 1.0 1.0012.4 10.070 - 130
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 116 5.0 1.0011.6 10.070 - 130
Methylene Chloride 80.6 2.0 1.008.06 10.070 - 130
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)141 0.4 1.0014.1 10.070 - 130
HB - Recovery for this parameter exceeded the upper acceptance limit. Associated sample(s) were all non-detect and
therefore accepted and reported for this parameter.
Naphthalene 96.3 1.0 1.009.63 10.070 - 130
n-Butyl Alcohol 87.9 50.0 1.0087.9 10070 - 130
n-Butylbenzene 101 1.0 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
n-Propyl Benzene 104 1.0 1.0010.4 10.070 - 130
Pentachloroethane 142 1.0 1.0014.2 10.070 - 130
HB - Recovery for this parameter exceeded the upper acceptance limit. Associated sample(s) were all non-detect and
therefore accepted and reported for this parameter.
p-Isopropyltoluene 103 1.0 1.0010.3 10.070 - 130
sec-Butyl Benzene 106 1.0 1.0010.6 10.070 - 130
Styrene 97.1 1.0 1.009.71 10.070 - 130
tert-Butylbenzene 110 1.0 1.0011.0 10.070 - 130
Tetrachloroethene 76.9 1.0 1.007.69 10.070 - 130
Toluene 90.7 1.0 1.009.07 10.070 - 130
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 89.1 1.0 1.008.91 10.070 - 130
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 97.7 1.0 1.009.77 10.070 - 130
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 41 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
LCS - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-BS1 Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Trichloroethene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
Trichlorofluoromethane 89.4 1.0 1.008.94 10.070 - 130
Vinyl Chloride 88.3 1.0 1.008.83 10.070 - 130
Xylenes, total 96.8 1.0 1.0029.0 30.070 - 130
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D /5030A
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 110 125 1.001380125070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 107 125 1.001340125070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 104 125 1.001310125070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 95.0 125 1.001190125070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 137 125 1.001710125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
1,1-Dichloroethane 88.9 125 1.001110125070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 99.6 125 1.001240125070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 108 125 1.001350125070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 105 1250 1.001320125070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 107 125 1.001340125070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 101 125 1.001270125070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 113 125 1.001410125070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 116 125 1.001460125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96.2 125 1.001200125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)98.0 125 1.001220125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 108 125 1.001360125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 96.0 125 1.001200125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 102 125 1.001280125070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 115 125 1.001440125070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 119 125 1.001480125070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 98.8 125 1.001240125070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 119 125 1.001490125070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 143 125 1.001790125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
2-Chlorotoluene 118 125 1.001480125070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 50.0 250 1.001880375070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
4-Chlorotoluene 110 125 1.001380125070 - 130 ND
Acetone 83.2 1250 1.00104001250070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 96.7 1250 1.006040625070 - 130 ND
Benzene 103 50.0 1.001290125070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 109 125 1.001370125070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 89.5 125 1.001120125070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 102 125 1.001270125070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 95.4 125 1.001190125070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 100 125 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
Carbon Disulfide 129 250 1.001610125070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 123 125 1.001530125070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 108 125 1.001340125070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 89.6 125 1.001120125070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 99.8 125 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 76.0 125 1.00950125070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 42 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 96.2 125 1.001200125070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 102 125 1.001270125070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 56.0 1250 1.0070001250070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Dibromochloromethane 101 125 1.001260125070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 91.2 125 1.001140125070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 102 125 1.001280125070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 102 250 1.002550250070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 105 125 1.001310125070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 108 125 1.001360125070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 101 125 1.001260125070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 133 2500 1.00331002500070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Isopropylbenzene 121 125 1.001510125070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 124 125 1.001550125070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 104 625 1.001300125070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 87.7 250 1.001100125070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)135 50.0 1.001690125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Naphthalene 96.8 125 1.001210125070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 78.2 6250 1.0097701250070 - 130 ND
n-Butylbenzene 114 125 1.001430125070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 120 125 1.001500125070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 157 125 1.001960125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
p-Isopropyltoluene 116 125 1.001450125070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 116 125 1.001450125070 - 130 ND
Styrene 106 125 1.001320125070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 124 125 1.001560125070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 82.5 125 1.001030125070 - 130 ND
Toluene 101 125 1.001260125070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 101 125 1.001260125070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 103 125 1.001290125070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 116 125 1.001450125070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 99.7 125 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 90.9 125 1.001140125070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 109 125 1.004080375070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 98.7 5.0 1.0049.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 94.0 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 102 5.0 1.0050.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 90.7 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 109 5.0 1.0054.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 80.2 5.0 1.0040.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 83.8 5.0 1.0041.9 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 90.2 5.0 1.0045.1 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 103 50.0 1.0051.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 105 5.0 1.0052.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 104 5.0 1.0052.0 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 43 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 105 5.0 1.0052.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 103 5.0 1.0051.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 93.7 5.0 1.0046.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)93.6 5.0 1.0046.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 101 5.0 1.0050.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 90.1 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 94.3 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 100 5.0 1.0050.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 107 5.0 1.0053.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 89.7 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 107 5.0 1.0053.4 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 137 5.0 1.0068.6 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
2-Chlorotoluene 107 5.0 1.0053.4 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 48.8 10.0 1.0073.2 15070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
4-Chlorotoluene 100 5.0 1.0050.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 79.8 50.0 1.0039950070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 98.1 50.0 1.0024525070 - 130 ND
Benzene 91.4 2.0 1.0045.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 103 5.0 1.0051.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 87.8 5.0 1.0043.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 94.4 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 93.2 5.0 1.0046.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 88.9 5.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Disulfide 108 10.0 1.0054.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 104 5.0 1.0052.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 96.6 5.0 1.0048.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 79.7 5.0 1.0039.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 90.2 5.0 1.0045.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 68.6 5.0 1.0034.3 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 86.3 5.0 1.0043.2 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 94.5 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 26.7 50.0 1.0013350070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Dibromochloromethane 94.9 5.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 85.8 5.0 1.0042.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 84.6 5.0 1.0042.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 98.2 10.0 1.0098.2 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 90.9 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 101 5.0 1.0050.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 74.9 5.0 1.0037.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 78.8 100 1.00788100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 104 5.0 1.0052.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 94.4 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 113 25.0 1.0056.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 80.9 10.0 1.0040.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)137 2.0 1.0068.4 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Naphthalene 99.0 5.0 1.0049.5 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 44 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
n-Butyl Alcohol 88.3 250 1.0044250070 - 130 ND
n-Butylbenzene 91.6 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 102 5.0 1.0051.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 142 5.0 1.0071.2 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
p-Isopropyltoluene 97.2 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 97.6 5.0 1.0048.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 91.5 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 108 5.0 1.0053.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 65.0 5.0 1.0032.5 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Toluene 91.0 5.0 1.0045.5 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 89.1 5.0 1.0044.6 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 96.8 5.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 101 5.0 1.0050.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 83.1 5.0 1.0041.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 77.5 5.0 1.0038.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 91.5 5.0 1.0013715070 - 130 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D /5030A
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 106 3.78 20 125 1.001330125070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 105 1.60 20 125 1.001320125070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 102 2.23 20 125 1.001280125070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 94.1 0.952 20 125 1.001180125070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 133 2.97 20 125 1.001660125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
1,1-Dichloroethane 89.3 0.449 20 125 1.001120125070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 95.4 4.31 20 125 1.001190125070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 104 3.67 20 125 1.001300125070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 108 2.34 20 1250 1.001350125070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 111 3.67 20 125 1.001390125070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 107 5.75 20 125 1.001340125070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 114 0.971 20 125 1.001420125070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 116 0.430 20 125 1.001450125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 104 7.79 20 125 1.001300125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)93.2 5.02 20 125 1.001160125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 109 0.460 20 125 1.001360125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 94.3 1.79 20 125 1.001180125070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 99.7 2.38 20 125 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 116 1.04 20 125 1.001460125070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 120 0.839 20 125 1.001500125070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 95.4 3.50 20 125 1.001190125070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 116 2.04 20 125 1.001460125070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 152 6.24 20 125 1.001900125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
2-Chlorotoluene 120 1.85 20 125 1.001500125070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 52.3 4.43 20 250 1.001960375070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
4-Chlorotoluene 107 3.50 20 125 1.001330125070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 45 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Acetone 84.3 1.35 20 1250 1.00105001250070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 98.1 1.38 20 1250 1.006130625070 - 130 ND
Benzene 99.9 3.44 20 50.0 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 107 1.94 20 125 1.001340125070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 88.0 1.69 20 125 1.001100125070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 100 1.58 20 125 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 97.4 2.07 20 125 1.001220125070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 102 2.27 20 125 1.001280125070 - 130 ND
Carbon Disulfide 126 2.67 20 250 1.001570125070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 117 4.41 20 125 1.001470125070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 105 2.35 20 125 1.001310125070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 89.0 0.672 20 125 1.001110125070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 99.7 0.100 20 125 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 76.0 0.00 20 125 1.00950125070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 94.0 2.31 20 125 1.001180125070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 99.5 2.09 20 125 1.001240125070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 58.3 4.00 20 1250 1.0072901250070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Dibromochloromethane 98.7 2.01 20 125 1.001230125070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 88.7 2.78 20 125 1.001110125070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 99.3 2.78 20 125 1.001240125070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 99.8 2.18 20 250 1.002500250070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 103 2.02 20 125 1.001280125070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 108 0.370 20 125 1.001350125070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 98.6 2.40 20 125 1.001230125070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 125 5.78 20 2500 1.00313002500070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 118 2.85 20 125 1.001470125070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 116 7.17 20 125 1.001450125070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 91.5 13.0 20 625 1.001140125070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 87.8 0.114 20 250 1.001100125070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)137 1.39 20 50.0 1.001720125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Naphthalene 102 4.74 20 125 1.001270125070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 82.0 4.80 20 6250 1.00102001250070 - 130 ND
n-Butylbenzene 115 0.349 20 125 1.001430125070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 118 1.43 20 125 1.001480125070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 154 1.80 20 125 1.001930125070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
p-Isopropyltoluene 116 0.432 20 125 1.001440125070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 115 1.04 20 125 1.001440125070 - 130 ND
Styrene 103 2.20 20 125 1.001290125070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 123 1.05 20 125 1.001540125070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 79.1 4.21 20 125 1.00989125070 - 130 ND
Toluene 100 0.797 20 125 1.001250125070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 98.9 2.20 20 125 1.001240125070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 102 1.66 20 125 1.001270125070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 112 3.60 20 125 1.001400125070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 97.1 2.64 20 125 1.001210125070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 87.4 3.93 20 125 1.001090125070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 104 4.22 20 125 1.003920375070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 46 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MSD2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 96.6 2.15 20 5.0 1.0048.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 88.1 6.48 20 5.0 1.0044.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 102 0.882 20 5.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 91.6 0.987 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 104 4.87 20 5.0 1.0052.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 76.6 4.59 20 5.0 1.0038.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 76.9 8.59 20 5.0 1.0038.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 86.5 4.19 20 5.0 1.0043.2 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 105 1.63 20 50.0 1.0052.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 104 0.670 20 5.0 1.0052.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 101 2.73 20 5.0 1.0050.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 102 2.60 20 5.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 99.5 3.55 20 5.0 1.0049.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 97.0 3.46 20 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)92.1 1.62 20 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 98.0 3.31 20 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 89.4 0.780 20 5.0 1.0044.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 91.2 3.34 20 5.0 1.0045.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 97.3 2.84 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 106 0.658 20 5.0 1.0053.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 92.2 2.75 20 5.0 1.0046.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 103 4.01 20 5.0 1.0051.3 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 126 8.35 20 5.0 1.0063.1 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 104 2.37 20 5.0 1.0052.2 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 48.6 0.548 20 10.0 1.0072.8 15070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
4-Chlorotoluene 95.8 4.69 20 5.0 1.0047.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 81.4 1.99 20 50.0 1.0040750070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 96.9 1.25 20 50.0 1.0024225070 - 130 ND
Benzene 88.3 3.45 20 2.0 1.0044.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 97.9 4.79 20 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 83.1 5.50 20 5.0 1.0041.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 91.5 3.12 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 96.5 3.48 20 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 85.4 4.02 20 5.0 1.0042.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Disulfide 102 5.61 20 10.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 99.6 4.80 20 5.0 1.0049.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 95.5 1.15 20 5.0 1.0047.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 71.2 11.3 20 5.0 1.0035.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 85.5 5.35 20 5.0 1.0042.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 63.5 7.72 20 5.0 1.0031.8 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 81.4 5.84 20 5.0 1.0040.7 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 92.6 2.03 20 5.0 1.0046.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 28.2 5.65 20 50.0 1.0014150070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Dibromochloromethane 94.1 0.847 20 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 83.7 2.48 20 5.0 1.0041.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 76.0 10.7 20 5.0 1.0038.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 97.4 0.818 20 10.0 1.0097.4 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 88.5 2.68 20 5.0 1.0044.2 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 47 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D /5030A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXF0945-MSD2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0945
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Ethyl Ether 100 0.698 20 5.0 1.0050.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 68.4 9.07 20 5.0 1.0034.2 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Isobutanol 73.6 6.90 20 100 1.00736100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 98.0 6.32 20 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 106 11.8 20 5.0 1.0053.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 113 0.265 20 25.0 1.0056.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 77.2 4.68 20 10.0 1.0038.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)133 2.66 20 2.0 1.0066.6 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Naphthalene 99.9 0.905 20 5.0 1.0050.0 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 82.0 7.38 20 250 1.0041050070 - 130 ND
n-Butylbenzene 88.2 3.78 20 5.0 1.0044.1 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 95.8 6.27 20 5.0 1.0047.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 145 1.53 20 5.0 1.0072.4 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-High - Estimated high due to Matrix Spike recovery.
p-Isopropyltoluene 92.4 5.06 20 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 94.3 3.44 20 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 91.5 0.00 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 103 4.66 20 5.0 1.0051.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 63.0 3.12 20 5.0 1.0031.5 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Toluene 88.3 3.01 20 5.0 1.0044.2 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 81.9 8.42 20 5.0 1.0041.0 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 96.2 0.622 20 5.0 1.0048.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 97.0 3.74 20 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 75.7 9.32 20 5.0 1.0037.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 68.9 11.7 20 5.0 1.0034.4 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Xylenes, total 89.5 2.25 20 5.0 1.0013415070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 48 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 2320 B
QC Sample ID: BXF0895-BLK1 Batch: BXF0895
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
QC Sample ID: BXF0896-BLK1 Batch: BXF0896
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)1.0 1.00ND
Duplicate - SM 2320 B
QC Sample ID: BXF0895-DUP1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0895
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)0.264 20 1.0 1.00189190
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)0.264 20 1.0 1.00189190
QC Sample ID: BXF0896-DUP1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0896
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)2.94 20 1.0 1.00111107
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)2.94 20 1.0 1.00111107
LCS - SM 2320 B
QC Sample ID: BXF0895-BS1 Batch: BXF0895
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)92.5 1.0 1.0021823690 - 110
QC Sample ID: BXF0896-BS1 Batch: BXF0896
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)93.2 1.0 1.0022023690 - 110
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 49 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXF0891-BLK1 Batch: BXF0891
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)10 1.00ND
Duplicate - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXF0891-DUP1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0891
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)4 10 20 1.0016701730
QC Sample ID: BXF0891-DUP2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0891
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)1 10 20 1.00532540
LCS - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXF0891-BS1 Batch: BXF0891
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)91 20 1.0036440090 - 110
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 50 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXF0963-BLK1 Batch: BXF0963
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Ammonia as N 0.20 1.00ND
LCS - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXF0963-BS1 Batch: BXF0963
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Ammonia as N 101 0.20 1.005.05 5.0090 - 110
Matrix Spike - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXF0963-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0963
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Ammonia as N -10.5 20.0 100.0014.5 0.50080 - 120 14.6
QM-RPD, J -
QC Sample ID: BXF0963-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0963
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Ammonia as N 102 0.20 1.000.59 0.50080 - 120 0.08
Matrix Spike Dup - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXF0963-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXF0963
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Ammonia as N 16.0 0.908 20 20.0 100.0014.6 0.50080 - 120 14.6
QM-RPD, J -
QC Sample ID: BXF0963-MSD2 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0963
Date Prepared: 06/21/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/21/2023
Ammonia as N 103 0.456 20 0.20 1.000.59 0.50080 - 120 0.08
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 51 of 52
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23F1403
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXF0897-BLK1 Batch: BXF0897
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Organic Carbon 0.5 1.00ND
LCS - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXF0897-BS1 Batch: BXF0897
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Organic Carbon 99.0 0.5 1.004.9 5.0085 - 115
Matrix Spike - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXF0897-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0897
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Organic Carbon 94.8 0.5 1.004.7 5.0070 - 130 0.3
Matrix Spike Dup - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXF0897-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23F1403-01Batch: BXF0897
Date Prepared: 06/20/2023 Date Analyzed: 06/20/2023
Total Organic Carbon 92.0 2.96 20 0.5 1.004.6 5.0070 - 130 0.3
CtF WO#: 23F1403
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 52 of 52

Data Validation Report

Sample Delivery Group (SDG): 23F1403
Laboratory: Chemtech-Ford Laboratories, Salt Lake City
Project/Site Name: Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring 2023-1
AQS Report Date: 7/26/23
Matrix: Groundwater
Validation Level: Dugway Level III
Validated By: Joel Workman

1.0 Introduction

This validation report includes the samples listed below:

Sample ID* Lab ID Date Sampled Parameters
EVL-MW001 23F1403-01 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW002 23F1403-02 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW003 23F1403-03 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW004 23F1403-04 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW005 23F1403-05 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW006 23F1403-06 6/15/2023 EVL Landfill List
FB-1 23F1403-07 6/15/2023 VOCs
EB-1 23F1403-08 6/15/2023 VOCs, Metals
TB-1 23F1403-09 6/15/2023 VOCs
* Highlighted samples are field duplicates

2.0 Project Overview

Data validation was based on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Functional Guidelines
for Organic and Inorganic Data Review (EPA 1999 and 2004), the referenced EPA methods and project-
specific control limits, where applicable. Where specific guidance is not available, the data has been
evaluated in a conservative manner consistent with industry standards using professional experience.

This review was based exclusively on data reports, Quality Control (QC) summaries and raw data
provided by the laboratory. The following are definitions of the data qualifiers, in addition to the
laboratory qualifiers, that may be used in this report.

AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 2
J+ Data are qualified as estimated, with a high bias likely to occur. False positives or false
negatives are unlikely to have been reported.
J- Data are qualified as estimated, with a low bias likely to occur. False positives or false
negatives are unlikely to have been reported.
J Data are qualified as estimated; it is not possible to assess the direction of the potential bias.
False positives or false negatives are unlikely to have been reported.
R Data are qualified as rejected. There is a significant potential for the reporting of false
negatives or false positives.
UJ Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection
limit is an estimated value.
B The compound or analyte was found in an associated blank as well as in the sample.
None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was
not required.

3.0 Validation Report

3.1 Sample Receipt

Copies of the chain-of-custody (COC) forms were included in the laboratory data package. COCs were
reviewed for accuracy, completeness and evidence of correct sample preservation. No sample receipt
problems were noted.

3.2 Holding Times

All samples were analyzed within required holding times.

3.3 Initial and Continuing Calibration

The laboratory did not provide initial or continuing calibration information but did indicate that analyses
were performed in accordance with accreditation standards.

3.4 Blanks

Field and laboratory blanks for this data set were free of contamination with the following exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
All samples Calcium, Total
Manganese, Total
Manganese, Total
Zinc, Total
These analytes were detected in
the method blank.
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)

AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 3
3.5 Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate recoveries were within method and/or laboratory limits.

3.6 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs)

Laboratory control samples result were within method and/or laboratory limits, with the following
exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
All samples 2-Nitropropane LCS recovery was low for this
analyte.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
estimated (J and
UJ)
All samples Methyl-tert-butyl ether
(MTBE)
Pentachloroethane
Isobutanol
LCS recovery was high for these
analytes. All sample results were
non detect.
None required

3.7 Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicates (MS/MSDs)

Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate results were within method and/or laboratory limits, with the
following exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
EVL-MW001 Sodium, total MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag non-
detects as
estimated (UJ)
EVL-MW001 2-Nitropropane
Chloromethane
Cyclohexanone
Hexachlorobutadiene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag non-
detects as
estimated (UJ)
EVL-MW001 2,2-Dichloropropane
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
Pentachloroethane
MS/MSD RPD was high for
this analyte.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)

3.8 Field Duplicates

Field duplicates are shown in Appendix 1. For this project, where the results are greater than four times
the reporting limit, field duplicates are considered acceptable if the RPD is less than 20%. Duplicate RPDs
met project requirements, with the following exceptions:

AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 4
Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW006
Chromium, Total
Cobalt, Total
Iron, Total
Manganese, Total
Nickel, Total
Field duplicate RPD was outside
method requirements for these
analytes.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
estimated (J and
UJ)

3.9 Other QC Elements

No other QC problems were noted.

4.0 Validation Summary

Analyses in this SDG appear to have been conducted according to project and method requirements.
Several results were qualified as estimated due to various QA issues described herein. With appropriate
qualifiers added, all other associated data are acceptable for use.
AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 5
Appendix 1. Field Duplicates

Method Parameter EVL-MW004 EVL-MW006 RPD Flag
EPA 300.0 Chloride 219 217 0.9
EPA 300.0 Nitrate as N 0.40 0.38 5.1
EPA 300.0 Sulfate 60.5 60.6 0.2
EPA 504.1 DBCP ND ND ---
EPA 504.1 EDB ND ND ---
EPA 6010B/C/D Beryllium, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6010B/C/D Calcium, Total 29.2 28.1 3.8
EPA 6010B/C/D Iron, Total 0.902 0.0792 167.7 J
EPA 6010B/C/D Magnesium, Total 13.5 12.9 4.5
EPA 6010B/C/D Manganese, Total 0.022 0.014 44.4 J
EPA 6010B/C/D Potassium, Total 8.94 8.61 3.8
EPA 6010B/C/D Sodium, Total 156 153 1.9
EPA 6010B/C/D Zinc, Total 0.0055 ND ---
EPA 6020A Antimony, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Arsenic, Total 0.0068 0.0059 14.2
EPA 6020A Barium, Total 0.0491 0.0440 11.0
EPA 6020A Cadmium, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Chromium, Total 0.0777 0.0076 164.4 J
EPA 6020A Cobalt, Total 0.0023 0.0015 42.1 J
EPA 6020A Copper, Total 0.0026 0.0006 125.0 <4x
EPA 6020A Lead, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Nickel, Total 0.0070 0.0028 85.7 J
EPA 6020A Selenium, Total 0.0007 0.0006 15.4
EPA 6020A Silver, Total 0.0015 ND ---
EPA 6020A Thallium, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Vanadium, Total 0.0102 0.0092 10.3
EPA 7470A Mercury, Total ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ---
AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 6
Method Parameter EVL-MW004 EVL-MW006 RPD Flag
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 2-Chlorotoluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 2-Hexanone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 2-Nitropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Acetone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Acrylonitrile ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Benzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Bromobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Bromochloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Bromodichloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Bromoform ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Bromomethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Carbon Disulfide ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Carbon Tetrachloride ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Chlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Chloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Chloroform ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Chloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Cyclohexanone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Dibromochloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Dibromomethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Ethyl Acetate ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Ethyl Ether ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Ethylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Isobutanol ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Isopropylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Methyl Ethyl Ketone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Methylene Chloride ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Naphthalene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A n-Butyl Alcohol ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A n-Butylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A n-Propyl Benzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Pentachloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A p-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A sec-Butyl Benzene ND ND ---
AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 7
Method Parameter EVL-MW004 EVL-MW006 RPD Flag
EPA 8260D /5030A Styrene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Tetrachloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Toluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Trichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Vinyl Chloride ND ND ---
EPA 8260D /5030A Xylenes, total ND ND ---
SM 2320 B Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 149 149 0.0
SM 2320 B Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3) ND ND ---
SM 2320 B Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3) ND ND ---
SM 2320 B Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3) 149 149 0.0
SM 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 688 704 2.3
SM 4500 NH3 H Ammonia as N ND ND ---
SM 5310 C Total Organic Carbon ND 0.3 ---

App F trend Plots

-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Antimony Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Arsenic Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Barium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Beryllium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Cadmium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Calcium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Chromium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Cobalt Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Copper Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Iron Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Lead Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Magnesium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Manganese Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Mercury Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Nickel Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Potassium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Selenium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Silver Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Sodium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Thallium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Vanadium Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Zinc Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Chloride Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Nitrate Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
TDS Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Alkalinity Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Ammonia Trend, MW001
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Antimony Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Arsenic Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Barium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Beryllium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Cadmium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Calcium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
5
10
15
20
25
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Chromium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Copper Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Iron Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Lead Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Magnesium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Manganese Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Mercury Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Nickel Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Potassium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Selenium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Silver Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Sodium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Thallium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Vanadium Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Zinc Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Chloride Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Nitrate Trend Line, MW003
Spring 2023
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Sulfate Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
TDS Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
88000
90000
92000
94000
96000
98000
100000
102000
104000
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Alkalinity Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
App F trend Plots

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Ammonia Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Jun-20 Mar-23 Dec-25
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Cobalt Trend, MW003
Spring 2023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 1
9
12 11
5 7
0.01 0.01
2 4
0.291 47.83%
0.303 0.54
-1.975 1.312
2.328 2.624
0.441
0.805
0.492
0.281
0.2 0.433
1.208 0.959
0.755 0.912
1.207 1.336
0.522 0.8
2.386 1.926
1.548 1.839
2.384 2.622
1.478
0.765
0.394
0.255
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
ProUCL 5.2 8/4/2023 4:22:19 PM
Number of Bootstrap Operations
Different or Future K Observations
Coverage
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
95%
1
2000
MW003 Input File ProUCL.xls
OFF
95%
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Sb
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.766 0.63
0.395 0.48
18.39 15.13
0.303
0.381 4.456
0.01 0.183
2 0.0776
0.411 2.24
0.495 0.46
0.37 0.399
22.78 21.14
0.183 0.27
3.638 0.504
0.726 1.274
WH HW WH HW
1.081 1.178 0.68 0.692
1.339 1.511
0.2 0.433
0.187 0.104
0.213 0.214
9.796 9.852
0.938 0.933
0.272 0.604
1.011 2.119
WH HW WH HW
1.114 1.203 0.708 0.717
0.644 0.645 1.373 1.533
0.819
0.883
0.307
0.223
0.18 -2.815
0.406 1.489
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.92 1.824
2 0.817
0.404 0.694
1.915 2.983
-2.839 2.309
1.579 0.933
0.785 3.685
0.522 -2.072
0.8 1.946
11.69 3.827
1.526 3.094
11.66 20.8
23 4
1.211 0.693
59 4
4 2.127
23 17
1
8.1 8.8
10.8 9.2
11.7 9.6
9.4 0.858
0.0913 1.1
2.237 0.088
2.328 2.624
0.91
0.881
0.19
0.209
95% UTL95% Coverage 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
As
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
ABCDEFGHI JKL
11.4 10.5
10.91 10.81
11.65 11.4
0.739
0.74
0.176
0.181
132 114.8
0.0712 0.0819
6073 5282
9.4 0.877
10.92 10.54
10.92 10.89
11.46 11.56
11.47
11.74 11.76
0.933
0.928
0.171
0.165
11.49 10.48
10.93 10.82
11.8 11.49
23 11.7
1.211 0.693
59
11.7 11.7
11.52 10.58
12.03 10.78
13.22 11.5
11.7
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 8
1
40 200
210 200
227 200
189.2 36.05
0.191 -3.535
5.205 0.341
2.328 2.624
0.514
0.881
0.401
0.209
273.1 235.4
252.4 248.5
283.8 273
5.298
0.743
0.399
0.181
13.61 11.86
13.9 15.95
626 545.7
189.2 54.92
289.7 262.1
297.8 287.6
330.9 339.8
344.2
353.6 370.2
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
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Ba
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Mean
Maximum
Second Largest Median
Third Quartile
SD
SD of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation Skewness
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.382
0.928
0.39
0.165
403.6 282.3
331.8 319.6
446.5 403.4
23 227
1.211 0.693
59
227 225.3
223.6 200
299.7 209
349.7 223.3
227
23 1
7
1 22
1 7
0.03 0.018
0.03 0.6
N/A 95.65%
0.03 N/A
-3.507 N/A
23 1
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Be
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
The data set for variable Be was not processed!
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected! ProUCL (or any other software) should not be used on such a data set!
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Cd
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
ABCDEFGHI JKL
10
8 15
6 8
0.03 0.03
0.2 1
0.00311 65.22%
0.0675 0.0557
-2.888 0.597
2.328 2.624
0.658
0.749
0.304
0.333
0.048 0.0393
0.14 0.117
0.0984 0.113
0.14 0.151
0.101 0.124
0.389 0.318
0.26 0.305
0.389 0.426
0.825
0.722
0.245
0.297
2.749 1.801
0.0246 0.0375
43.98 28.82
0.0675
0.0503 8.836
0.01 0.0333
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
MeanMinimum
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.2 0.01
0.0423 1.269
1.194 1.067
0.0279 0.0313
54.91 49.08
0.0333 0.0323
6.248 0.0756
0.0976 0.149
WH HW WH HW
0.14 0.145 0.0989 0.0993
0.165 0.175
0.048 0.0393
0.00155 0.01
1.491 1.325
68.57 60.96
0.0322 0.0362
0.0753 0.103
0.13 0.193
WH HW WH HW
0.129 0.128 0.101 0.0998
0.0968 0.0951 0.144 0.144
0.844
0.851
0.21
0.265
0.0378 -3.576
0.0398 0.739
0.156 0.2
0.2 0.102
0.0721 0.0943
0.156 0.194
-3.199 0.126
0.483 0.0952
0.0903 0.145
0.101 -2.917
0.124 1.129
0.75 0.392
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.23 0.347
0.748 1.047
23 1
1.211 0.693
59 0.9
1 0.223
23 21
1
32000 38500
46000 40400
53100 41050
40483 3853
0.0952 1.263
10.6 0.092
2.328 2.624
0.858
0.881
0.219
0.209
49452 45420
47241 46820
50592 49445
1.041
0.74
0.204
0.181
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Ca
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
ABCDEFGHI JKL
121.3 105.5
333.8 383.7
5580 4853
40483 3941
47313 45609
47328 47176
49747 50211
49794
51033 51102
0.888
0.928
0.2
0.165
49950 45363
47380 46906
51330 49943
23 53100
1.211 0.693
59
53100 53100
51680 43000
52289 45710
57637 51538
53100
23 1
16
19 4
14 3
0.2 0.015
20 5
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Cr
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Gamma Statistics
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
ABCDEFGHI JKL
20.05 17.39%
3.116 4.478
0.507 1.127
2.328 2.624
0.585
0.863
0.268
0.229
2.683 4.092
12.21 9.86
7.927 9.413
12.2 13.42
2.797 4.145
12.45 10.07
8.109 9.614
12.44 13.67
0.869
0.772
0.182
0.205
0.925 0.814
3.368 3.827
35.15 30.94
3.116
3.453 5.249
0.01 2.642
20 1
4.195 1.588
0.551 0.508
4.792 5.197
25.36 23.39
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
ABCDEFGHI JKL
2.642 3.706
3.883 7.124
10.09 17.37
WH HW WH HW
15.41 18.41 9.977 11.05
18.86 23.4
2.683 4.092
16.74 0.88
0.43 0.403
19.77 18.52
6.242 6.662
4.333 7.568
11.12 20.05
WH HW WH HW
13.98 15.81 9.275 9.865
8.52 8.958 16.94 19.77
0.944
0.917
0.147
0.18
2.669 0.238
4.176 1.249
23.25 20
20 11.35
6.291 9.904
23.2 33.64
0.0718 45.94
1.613 18.2
15.26 74.04
2.797 0.195
4.145 1.607
51.19 20.36
9.528 17.08
51.05 82.35
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 20
1.211 0.693
59 17.04
20 20.9
23 1
14
14 9
9 5
0.06 0.01
4 2
1.028 39.13%
0.611 1.014
-1.16 1.088
2.328 2.624
0.527
0.825
0.297
0.263
0.429 0.807
2.309 1.845
1.464 1.757
2.307 2.548
0.561 0.837
2.51 2.03
1.634 1.938
2.509 2.758
0.876
0.765
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Co
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.215
0.236
0.878 0.737
0.697 0.829
24.58 20.64
0.611
0.712 4.926
0.01 0.417
4 0.2
0.831 1.992
0.486 0.451
0.859 0.924
22.35 20.77
0.417 0.621
3.596 1.152
1.662 2.928
WH HW WH HW
2.537 2.889 1.597 1.688
3.141 3.714
0.429 0.807
0.652 0.177
0.282 0.274
12.98 12.62
1.52 1.564
0.642 1.277
2.018 3.966
WH HW WH HW
2.338 2.594 1.515 1.577
1.384 1.424 2.86 3.278
0.95
0.895
0.16
0.208
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.422 -1.701
0.821 1.245
3.31 3.7
4 1.62
0.9 1.414
3.303 4.784
-1.929 6.225
1.614 2.465
2.067 10.04
0.561 -1.538
0.837 1.718
11.71 4.371
1.941 3.623
11.68 19.47
23 4
1.211 0.693
59 3.6
4 4.024
23 1
13
16 7
10 4
0.1 0.026
3 2
0.811 30.43%
0.838 0.9
-0.631 0.962
2.328 2.624
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Cu
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.733
0.844
0.334
0.248
0.677 0.796
2.53 2.074
1.698 1.987
2.529 2.766
0.771 0.792
2.613 2.159
1.785 2.073
2.612 2.848
0.826
0.759
0.273
0.22
1.241 1.05
0.675 0.798
39.72 33.6
0.838
0.817 6.184
0.01 0.659
3 0.4
0.816 1.239
0.7 0.638
0.942 1.034
32.19 29.33
0.659 0.825
4.489 1.691
2.32 3.834
WH HW WH HW
3.57 4.161 2.372 2.589
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
ABCDEFGHI JKL
4.321 5.206
0.677 0.796
0.634 0.177
0.724 0.659
33.32 30.31
0.935 1.028
1.115 1.725
2.357 3.873
WH HW WH HW
3.127 3.42 2.154 2.247
1.996 2.063 3.727 4.179
0.945
0.906
0.213
0.196
0.668 -0.931
0.799 1.034
4.378 3
3 2.418
1.483 2.16
4.37 5.945
-1.019 6.069
1.212 3.026
2.651 8.688
0.771 -0.807
0.792 1.234
7.895 3.888
2.17 3.397
7.879 11.38
23 3
1.211 0.693
59 2.94
3 4.222
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 1
13
15 8
11 4
10 1.8
920 40
52583 34.78%
116.2 229.3
3.887 1.206
2.328 2.624
0.474
0.835
0.36
0.255
78.01 186.4
512 405
316.9 384.7
511.7 567.2
79.6 190
521.9 412.9
323.1 392.1
521.6 578.2
1.112
0.779
0.221
0.231
0.697 0.602
166.7 193
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Fe
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
ABCDEFGHI JKL
20.91 18.06
116.2
149.7 4.327
0.01 75.76
920 20
191.5 2.527
0.214 0.215
353.3 351.6
9.865 9.912
75.76 163.2
2.177 229
382.7 800.8
WH HW WH HW
557.6 738.8 322.7 374.9
714.1 1007
78.01 186.4
34760 40.25
0.175 0.181
8.054 8.336
445.6 430.5
97.19 235.3
412 906.6
WH HW WH HW
440.9 472.1 276.1 276.6
250.4 247.7 546.9 606.2
0.935
0.901
0.153
0.202
77.89 3.071
190.6 1.557
809.4 920
920 331.1
158.6 279.3
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
nu hat (MLE)nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
ABCDEFGHI JKL
807.3 1283
2.965 987
1.688 374.6
311.6 1626
79.6 3.241
190 1.454
754.8 327.6
164.8 279.5
752.9 1161
23 920
1.211 0.693
59 780
920 908.2
23 1
8
3 20
2 8
0.006 0.006
0.5 1
0.0813 86.96%
0.171 0.285
-3.642 2.554
2.328 2.624
0.75
0.753
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z) 95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Pb
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
SD of Detected Logged Data
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.385
0.429
0.032 0.11
0.289 0.225
0.173 0.213
0.289 0.321
0.129 0.206
0.61 0.491
0.394 0.469
0.609 0.671
0.594
0.664
0.433
0.454
0.358 N/A
0.477 N/A
2.146 N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
0.006 0.0424
0.5 0.01
0.105 2.474
0.602 0.553
0.0705 0.0768
27.7 25.42
0.0424 0.0571
4.097 0.112
0.157 0.267
WH HW WH HW
0.218 0.212 0.141 0.131
0.268 0.266
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.032 0.11
0.0122 0.031
0.0842 0.102
3.871 4.7
0.38 0.313
0.0229 0.0859
0.185 0.503
WH HW WH HW
0.151 0.13 0.0933 0.0779
0.0844 0.0701 0.188 0.165
0.75
0.789
0.385
0.389
0.0276 -5.829
0.103 1.874
0.231 0.454
0.5 0.0787
0.0325 0.0641
0.23 0.402
-4.883 0.0755
0.988 0.0428
0.0384 0.101
0.129 -3.779
0.206 1.949
2.135 0.698
0.278 0.564
2.128 3.8
23 1
1.211 0.693
59 1
1 0.523
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 14
1
8700 9660
12000 10100
12100 10400
10210 889.8
0.0872 0.486
9.228 0.0862
2.328 2.624
0.942
0.881
0.198
0.209
12281 11350
11770 11673
12544 12280
0.525
0.74
0.185
0.181
140 121.8
72.94 83.86
6439 5601
10210 925.3
11810 11412
11816 11778
12377 12485
12390
12676 12695
0.951
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.
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Mg
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.928
0.182
0.165
12434 11361
11834 11723
12755 12432
23 12100
1.211 0.693
59
12100 12090
12080 11360
12936 11940
14172 12078
12100
23 1
10
16 7
8 4
0.2 0.03
7.1 5
4.577 30.43%
2.588 2.139
0.377 1.314
2.328 2.624
0.892
0.844
0.174
0.248
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Mn
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
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
General Statistics
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Variance Detected
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
ABCDEFGHI JKL
2.038 2.019
6.738 5.58
4.625 5.359
6.735 7.336
2.251 1.958
6.809 5.685
4.76 5.471
6.806 7.388
0.91
0.763
0.249
0.221
1.005 0.858
2.575 3.015
32.16 27.46
2.588
2.793 5.429
0.0669 2.04
7.1 1.443
2.006 0.984
0.818 0.74
2.494 2.755
37.63 34.05
2.04 2.371
4.939 5.053
6.804 10.97
WH HW WH HW
10.57 12.19 7.134 7.751
12.7 15.11
2.038 2.019
4.077 0.454
1.018 0.915
46.85 42.07
2.001 2.228
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
ABCDEFGHI JKL
3.302 4.796
6.301 9.818
WH HW WH HW
11.42 13.65 7.527 8.37
6.904 7.571 13.87 17.2
0.833
0.906
0.271
0.196
1.961 -0.0855
2.037 1.421
25.09 5
7.1 11.1
5.672 9.504
25.03 38.2
-0.243 43.8
1.728 16.25
13.45 73.04
2.251 0.0784
1.958 1.599
44.76 17.88
8.397 15.01
44.65 71.85
23 7.1
1.211 0.693
59 6.68
7.1 11.03
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
Hg
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 1
8
4 19
3 6
0.1 0.015
0.3 0.1
0.00667 82.61%
0.2 0.0816
-1.681 0.456
2.328 2.624
0.944
0.687
0.25
0.413
0.0472 0.0761
0.224 0.181
0.145 0.172
0.224 0.247
0.0706 0.0688
0.231 0.191
0.159 0.184
0.231 0.251
0.357
0.658
0.3
0.395
7.115 1.945
0.0281 0.103
56.92 15.56
0.2
0.143 9.31
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.01 0.0448
0.3 0.01
0.0792 1.768
0.667 0.609
0.0672 0.0736
30.66 27.99
0.0448 0.0574
4.357 0.116
0.16 0.267
WH HW WH HW
0.237 0.241 0.154 0.15
0.289 0.301
0.0472 0.0761
0.00579 0.0183
0.385 0.363
17.69 16.72
0.123 0.13
0.0752 0.135
0.203 0.373
WH HW WH HW
0.219 0.219 0.148 0.143
0.137 0.131 0.263 0.269
0.913
0.792
0.313
0.346
0.057 -3.488
0.0756 1.112
0.407 0.29
0.3 0.215
0.127 0.19
0.406 0.565
-3.762 0.222
0.969 0.127
0.114 0.295
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.0706 -2.953
0.0688 0.768
0.312 0.201
0.14 0.185
0.311 0.391
23 0.3
1.211 0.693
59 0.28
0.3 0.386
23 1
17
21 2
16 2
0.3 0.033
7.7 1
3.298 8.696%
1.752 1.816
0.17 0.894
2.328 2.624
0.726
0.873
0.244
0.219
1.62 1.748
5.69 4.687
3.861 4.496
5.687 6.208
1.622 1.786
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Ni
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
Mean SD
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
ABCDEFGHI JKL
5.779 4.755
3.911 4.56
5.776 6.308
0.523
0.76
0.155
0.193
1.421 1.25
1.233 1.402
59.69 52.5
1.752
1.567 6.928
0.01 1.602
7.7 1.1
1.802 1.125
0.888 0.801
1.804 2
40.84 36.85
1.602 1.79
5.195 3.894
5.194 8.265
WH HW WH HW
7.717 8.873 5.3 5.758
9.209 10.9
1.62 1.748
3.057 0.374
0.859 0.776
39.5 35.68
1.887 2.089
2.652 3.969
5.314 8.499
WH HW WH HW
6.929 7.587 4.881 5.116
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 95% Approx. Gamma UPL
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
ABCDEFGHI JKL
4.543 4.724 8.18 9.165
0.964
0.923
0.0926
0.173
1.624 0.029
1.783 0.987
10.25 7.7
7.7 5.817
3.648 5.223
10.24 13.73
-0.0421 13.88
1.148 7.183
6.336 19.5
1.622 -0.0537
1.786 1.24
17.01 8.349
4.646 7.291
16.98 24.56
23 7.7
1.211 0.693
59 7.24
7.7 9.405
23 16
1
11000 12000
14000 12600
15900 13000
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% KM Gamma Percentile 95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
K
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Median
Maximum Third Quartile
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
ABCDEFGHI JKL
12713 1040
0.0818 1.156
9.447 0.0792
2.328 2.624
0.92
0.881
0.168
0.209
15134 14046
14537 14423
15441 15132
0.452
0.74
0.155
0.181
163.5 142.2
77.74 89.39
7522 6542
12713 1066
14552 14097
14555 14516
15200 15324
15209
15541 15556
0.946
0.928
0.151
0.165
15241 14028
14563 14438
15602 15239
Mean SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 15900
1.211 0.693
59
15900 15900
15520 13780
15900 13980
17343 15482
15900
23 20
1
3.9 5.05
7.3 5.7
8.2 6.35
5.77 1.011
0.175 0.385
1.738 0.176
2.328 2.624
0.986
0.881
0.0743
0.209
8.123 7.065
7.543 7.433
8.422 8.122
0.118
0.742
0.0695
0.181
34.24 29.8
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Se
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Mean
Maximum
Second Largest Median
Third Quartile
SD
SD of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation Skewness
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)k star (bias corrected MLE)
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.169 0.194
1575 1371
5.77 1.057
7.657 7.159
7.675 7.611
8.377 8.509
8.418
8.766 8.822
0.993
0.928
0.0773
0.165
8.558 7.121
7.737 7.59
9.015 8.555
23 8.2
1.211 0.693
59
8.2 8.2
8.02 6.94
8.868 7.27
10.27 8.002
8.2
23 1
13
7 16
5 8
0.04 0.018
0.4 0.5
0.0169 69.57%
0.107 0.13
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Ag
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Percent Non-Detects
SD DetectedMean Detected
Variance Detected
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
ABCDEFGHI JKL
-2.599 0.793
2.328 2.624
0.564
0.73
0.44
0.35
0.0561 0.0862
0.257 0.207
0.167 0.198
0.257 0.282
0.101 0.112
0.362 0.298
0.245 0.285
0.362 0.395
1.09
0.721
0.382
0.317
1.513 0.96
0.0708 0.112
21.18 13.44
0.107
0.109 5.835
0.01 0.0448
0.4 0.01
0.0828 1.849
0.8 0.724
0.056 0.0618
36.79 33.33
0.0448 0.0526
4.871 0.112
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.151 0.244
WH HW WH HW
0.218 0.223 0.146 0.143
0.263 0.274
0.0561 0.0862
0.00743 0.0221
0.423 0.397
19.46 18.25
0.133 0.141
0.0904 0.159
0.234 0.422
WH HW WH HW
0.224 0.224 0.159 0.155
0.148 0.144 0.264 0.268
0.76
0.838
0.32
0.28
0.0477 -3.633
0.0806 0.998
0.27 0.4
0.4 0.152
0.0951 0.137
0.27 0.363
-3.367 0.236
0.826 0.147
0.134 0.301
0.101 -2.923
0.112 1.189
0.857 0.433
0.247 0.38
0.856 1.219
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile 99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 0.5
1.211 0.693
59 0.5
0.5 0.44
23 19
1
180000 204500
245000 225000
260000 236000
221696 19080
0.0861 -0.147
12.31 0.0872
2.328 2.624
0.972
0.881
0.099
0.209
266113 246147
255163 253079
271759 266082
0.381
0.74
0.106
0.181
139 120.9
1595 1834
6393 5561
221696 20164
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Na
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
ABCDEFGHI JKL
256578 247898
256777 255872
268936 271282
269337
275460 275991
0.966
0.928
0.105
0.165
270616 247016
257406 254966
277689 270577
23 260000
1.211 0.693
59
260000 260000
257000 240800
280166 244600
306651 256700
260000
23 1
11
8 15
5 8
0.05 0.011
0.6 1
0.0294 65.22%
0.265 0.171
-1.574 0.835
2.328 2.624
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Tl
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
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
General Statistics
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Variance Detected
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.871
0.749
0.294
0.333
0.121 0.162
0.498 0.405
0.329 0.388
0.498 0.546
0.2 0.201
0.668 0.553
0.458 0.531
0.668 0.728
0.628
0.724
0.285
0.297
2.186 1.449
0.121 0.183
34.97 23.19
0.265
0.22 7.639
0.01 0.112
0.6 0.01
0.158 1.404
0.553 0.51
0.203 0.22
25.45 23.47
0.112 0.157
3.891 0.302
0.428 0.736
WH HW WH HW
0.679 0.762 0.432 0.453
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.837 0.972
0.121 0.162
0.0262 0.04
0.562 0.518
25.87 23.83
0.216 0.234
0.2 0.326
0.46 0.79
WH HW WH HW
0.697 0.778 0.449 0.469
0.41 0.422 0.856 0.987
0.849
0.851
0.296
0.265
0.12 -2.795
0.15 1.183
0.959 0.3
0.6 0.486
0.278 0.427
0.957 1.36
-3.185 1.423
1.52 0.595
0.504 2.232
0.2 -2.36
0.201 1.433
2.653 1.166
0.592 0.997
2.647 4.054
23 1
1.211 0.693
59 1
1 0.842
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 19
1
0.2 16
20.1 17.1
24 18.5
16.91 4.139
0.245 -2.974
2.671 0.939
2.328 2.624
0.661
0.881
0.279
0.209
26.54 22.21
24.17 23.72
27.77 26.54
5.515
0.75
0.444
0.183
3.355 2.946
5.04 5.739
154.3 135.5
16.91 9.851
34.93 30.12
39.16 35.67
43.46 47.72
50.78
48.36 57.7
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL 95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
V
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Median
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.312
0.928
0.472
0.165
128.7 48.18
75.09 67.77
170 128.5
23 24
1.211 0.693
59
24 24
23.22 19.7
29.59 20.08
35.34 23.14
24
23 1
10
6 17
3 7
6 0.23
50 34
292.8 73.91%
18 17.11
2.546 0.892
2.328 2.624
0.764
0.713
0.287
0.373
Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Zn
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
ABCDEFGHI JKL
5.265 11.14
31.2 24.81
19.54 23.59
31.18 34.5
7.512 10.82
32.71 26.5
21.38 25.31
32.69 35.91
0.617
0.707
0.314
0.337
1.6 0.911
11.25 19.75
19.2 10.93
18
18.86 5.643
0.01 4.703
50 0.01
11.48 2.441
0.175 0.181
26.85 25.94
8.058 8.34
4.703 11.05
1.915 14.19
24.84 54.64
WH HW WH HW
34.4 38.83 18.52 18.1
45.3 54.72
5.265 11.14
124.1 2.579
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.223 0.223
10.27 10.27
23.58 23.59
7.312 15.9
26.34 54.58
WH HW WH HW
33.33 36.02 19.93 19.8
17.87 17.48 42.13 47.5
0.821
0.826
0.301
0.298
5.702 0.691
11.1 1.387
50.36 47
50 22.72
11.8 19.53
50.24 75.91
-0.224 62.13
1.87 21.24
17.32 108
7.512 1.388
10.82 1.188
63.74 32.23
18.38 28.31
63.62 90.6
23 50
1.211 0.693
59 46.8
50 54.87
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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
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
k hat (KM)k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM)nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 19
360000 384250
421000 390000
473000 399250
393167 22017
0.056 2.04
12.88 0.0536
2.309 2.644
0.827
0.884
0.177
0.205
444004 421383
431679 429382
451378 444386
0.973
0.742
0.164
0.177
353.7 309.5
1112 1270
16977 14856
393167 22348
431315 422065
431275 430634
444154 447016
444184
451956 452044
0.861
0.93
0.163
0.162
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Chloride
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
ABCDEFGHI JKL
444287 420502
431166 428763
452328 444700
24 473000
1.263 0.708
59
473000 473000
460000 409700
460580 419350
491116 461040
473000
24 11
2800 3000
3500 3035
3550 3100
3065 175.1
0.0571 1.361
8.026 0.0554
2.309 2.644
0.855
0.884
0.254
0.205
3469 3289
3371 3353
3528 3472
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Nitrate
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.151
0.742
0.244
0.177
333.3 291.6
9.197 10.51
15997 13999
3065 179.5
3372 3297
3372 3366
3475 3498
3476
3538 3539
0.876
0.93
0.242
0.162
3478 3286
3372 3352
3543 3482
24 3550
1.263 0.708
59
3550 3543
3538 3200
3601 3455
3844 3539
3550
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Sulfate
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 12
23000 25000
30700 25150
31300 26275
26029 2148
0.0825 1.258
10.16 0.0793
2.309 2.644
0.855
0.884
0.255
0.205
30990 28782
29787 29563
31709 31027
1.323
0.742
0.245
0.177
161.9 141.7
160.7 183.7
7773 6803
26029 2186
29798 28868
29801 29727
31097 31384
31112
31891 31917
0.878
0.93
0.24
0.162
31160 28723
29808 29562
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
ABCDEFGHI JKL
31998 31203
24 31300
1.263 0.708
59
31300 31300
31150 29400
32607 30595
35586 31162
31300
24 17
660000 808000
860000 827000
884000 844000
818250 46790
0.0572 -2.081
13.61 0.0609
2.309 2.644
0.798
0.884
0.205
0.205
926289 878214
900096 895213
941959 927100
1.696
0.742
0.214
0.177
99% Percentile (z) 95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
TDS
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
ABCDEFGHI JKL
294 257.3
2783 3180
14113 12350
818250 51011
905519 884267
906269 903925
935023 941575
936246
952978 954533
0.763
0.93
0.222
0.162
940119 883127
908626 902873
959479 941112
24 884000
1.263 0.708
59
884000 880400
878000 858800
961515 860000
1026410 878480
884000
24 16
89400 93500
100000 96050
103000 99100
96142 3576
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
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Alkalinity
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Gamma Statistics
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.0372 -0.151
11.47 0.0373
2.309 2.644
0.964
0.884
0.115
0.205
104398 100724
102396 102023
105595 104460
0.371
0.742
0.122
0.177
750.9 657.1
128 146.3
36045 31541
96142 3751
102503 100978
102517 102393
104611 105081
104640
105886 105925
0.963
0.93
0.119
0.162
104726 100786
102561 102162
106044 104794
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 103000
1.263 0.708
59
103000 99820
102250 100000
107089 100000
112048 102310
103000
24 0
8
7 17
5 5
40 20
240 100
5290 70.83%
77.14 72.74
4.115 0.642
2.309 2.644
0.587
0.73
0.396
0.35
38.25 44.62
141.3 116.3
95.43 111.6
142 156.2
38.13 46.62
145.8 119.7
97.87 114.8
146.6 161.4
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Ammonia
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
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
General Statistics
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Variance Detected
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.082
0.714
0.327
0.315
2.317 1.419
33.3 54.36
32.44 19.87
77.14
64.76 7.532
0.01 23.34
240 0.01
51.38 2.202
0.156 0.164
149.5 142
7.492 7.889
23.34 57.57
1.775 69.94
126.1 286
WH HW WH HW
185 232.7 101.4 109
252 344.8
38.25 44.62
1991 9.943
0.735 0.671
35.27 32.2
52.05 57.02
62.95 96.97
132.2 216.6
WH HW WH HW
121.9 120.5 92.32 90.02
87.4 85.05 142.3 142.1
0.731
0.838
0.274
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
99% Percentile
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
Minimum
Maximum
SD
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.28
32.2 2.944
47.86 0.972
178.9 240
240 103.9
65.94 93.85
182 247.7
3.371 118.6
0.608 84.36
79.17 145.4
38.13 3.285
46.62 0.773
159.2 103.3
71.94 95.26
161.3 206.2
24 240
1.263 0.708
59 205
240 236.7
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
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% USL
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
10% Lilliefors Critical Value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
ABCDEFGHI JKL
23 1
10
12 11
7 5
0.01 0.032
0.3 4
0.00748 47.83%
0.108 0.0865
-2.617 1.035
2.328 2.624
0.88
0.805
0.285
0.281
0.0842 0.0793
0.269 0.223
0.186 0.215
0.269 0.292
0.511 0.806
2.387 1.925
1.544 1.837
2.386 2.626
0.426
0.747
0.172
0.25
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
ProUCL 5.2 8/4/2023 4:02:17 PM
Number of Bootstrap Operations
Different or Future K Observations
Coverage
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
95%
1
2000
MW001 Input File ProUCL.xls
OFF
95%
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Sb
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.437 1.134
0.0748 0.0948
34.5 27.21
0.108
0.101 6.5
0.01 0.0799
0.3 0.0621
0.0753 0.942
1.2 1.073
0.0666 0.0745
55.2 49.34
0.0799 0.0772
6.269 0.181
0.234 0.356
WH HW WH HW
0.343 0.376 0.243 0.254
0.405 0.453
0.0842 0.0793
0.00628 0.0204
1.128 1.01
51.89 46.46
0.0746 0.0834
0.135 0.193
0.251 0.386
WH HW WH HW
0.358 0.391 0.253 0.264
0.236 0.244 0.423 0.471
0.908
0.883
0.203
0.223
0.0788 -2.948
0.074 0.947
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.476 0.29
0.3 0.276
0.177 0.249
0.475 0.629
-2.969 0.605
1.06 0.33
0.294 0.828
0.511 -1.985
0.806 1.679
6.839 2.61
1.181 2.172
6.82 11.24
23 4
1.211 0.693
59 4
4 0.437
24 13
0.57 4.65
6.1 5.05
6.5 5.4
4.907 1.098
0.224 -2.735
1.531 0.461
2.309 2.644
0.736
0.884
0.23
0.205
95% UTL95% Coverage 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
As
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
ABCDEFGHI JKL
7.443 6.314
6.828 6.713
7.811 7.462
3.656
0.745
0.322
0.178
8.474 7.443
0.579 0.659
406.8 357.3
4.907 1.799
8.238 7.307
8.601 8.191
9.636 10.03
10.24
10.54 11.32
0.442
0.93
0.352
0.162
13.4 8.343
10.35 9.864
15.64 13.51
24 6.5
1.263 0.708
59
6.5 6.5
6.4 5.64
8.27 6.04
9.793 6.408
6.5
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 7
100 100
128 100
130 110
106.4 10.41
0.0978 1.401
4.663 0.0926
2.309 2.644
0.657
0.884
0.397
0.205
130.4 119.7
124.6 123.5
133.9 130.6
3.837
0.742
0.403
0.177
117.5 102.9
0.905 1.034
5641 4937
106.4 10.49
124.6 120
124.5 124.2
130.9 132.3
131
134.8 134.9
0.661
0.93
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
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Ba
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.4
0.162
131.2 119.3
124.5 123.3
135.3 131.4
24 130
1.263 0.708
59
130 130
129.5 125.8
138.2 127.9
152.7 129.5
130
24 0
7
0 24
0 7
N/A 0.018
N/A 0.6
N/A 100%
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
24 0
11
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Be
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Be was not processed!
Warning: All observations are Non-Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDs!
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
General Statistics
Cd
Number of Missing ObservationsTotal Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
ABCDEFGHI JKL
7 17
5 9
0.02 0.03
0.3 1
0.0101 70.83%
0.0729 0.101
-3.08 0.878
2.309 2.644
0.545
0.73
0.447
0.35
0.0431 0.0631
0.189 0.153
0.124 0.147
0.19 0.21
0.118 0.129
0.417 0.344
0.284 0.331
0.419 0.46
1.174
0.725
0.389
0.318
1.224 0.795
0.0595 0.0917
17.14 11.13
0.0729
0.0817 5.168
0.01 0.0334
0.3 0.01
Number of Non-DetectsNumber of Detects
Variance Detected Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.0599 1.797
0.999 0.902
0.0334 0.037
47.97 43.31
0.0334 0.0351
5.607 0.0788
0.104 0.162
WH HW WH HW
0.144 0.143 0.1 0.0971
0.175 0.178
0.0431 0.0631
0.00398 0.0161
0.467 0.436
22.41 20.94
0.0923 0.0988
0.0702 0.12
0.174 0.308
WH HW WH HW
0.149 0.144 0.11 0.105
0.104 0.0989 0.176 0.172
0.767
0.838
0.319
0.28
0.037 -3.68
0.0575 0.73
0.136 0.3
0.3 0.0903
0.0642 0.0837
0.138 0.174
-3.498 0.133
0.641 0.0929
0.0869 0.165
0.118 -2.772
0.129 1.191
0.979 0.502
0.288 0.444
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.999 1.459
24 1
1.263 0.708
59 0.875
1 0.324
24 21
35000 43350
51500 45300
51500 46925
45054 3597
0.0798 -0.559
10.71 0.0824
2.309 2.644
0.96
0.884
0.0859
0.205
53360 49664
51346 50971
54565 53423
0.323
0.742
0.0905
0.177
157.4 137.7
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Ca
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)k star (bias corrected MLE)
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
ABCDEFGHI JKL
286.3 327.1
7553 6611
45054 3839
51677 50039
51724 51549
53960 54463
54046
55357 55472
0.938
0.93
0.0992
0.162
54325 49914
51875 51431
55845 54402
24 51500
1.263 0.708
59
51500 51500
51500 48910
56068 51125
61057 51500
51500
24 0
12
22 2
10 2
1 0.015
12.7 5
8.438 8.333%
3.395 2.905
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Cr
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Percent Non-Detects
SD DetectedMean Detected
Variance Detected
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.017 0.584
2.309 2.644
0.598
0.878
0.327
0.214
3.209 2.813
9.703 8.128
6.813 7.835
9.752 10.64
3.217 2.864
9.831 8.227
6.888 7.928
9.88 10.79
2.38
0.752
0.267
0.187
2.59 2.267
1.311 1.498
114 99.76
3.395
2.255 10.34
0.01 3.209
12.7 2
2.867 0.893
1.424 1.273
2.254 2.52
68.34 61.13
3.209 2.844
7.013 6.961
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
ABCDEFGHI JKL
8.836 13.12
WH HW WH HW
11.85 13.44 8.752 9.507
14.01 16.32
3.209 2.813
7.91 0.589
1.302 1.167
62.48 56
2.465 2.75
5.095 7.112
9.107 13.69
WH HW WH HW
11.57 12.99 8.573 9.242
8.079 8.644 13.65 15.72
0.809
0.926
0.256
0.169
3.242 0.957
2.833 0.618
10.84 12.7
12.7 7.672
5.747 7.193
10.96 13.34
0.782 34.88
1.2 17.82
15.72 52.12
3.217 0.767
2.864 1.329
46.28 22
11.82 19.15
47.36 72.22
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile 99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 12.7
1.263 0.708
59 12.28
12.7 15.72
24 0
13
14 10
8 6
0.09 0.01
4 2
1.061 41.67%
0.614 1.03
-1.172 1.062
2.309 2.644
0.528
0.825
0.368
0.263
0.394 0.808
2.261 1.808
1.43 1.724
2.275 2.531
0.468 0.832
2.388 1.922
1.533 1.836
2.402 2.666
1.316
0.766
0.299
0.237
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Co
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.86 0.723
0.713 0.848
24.08 20.25
0.614
0.721 4.866
0.01 0.372
4 0.15
0.829 2.228
0.438 0.411
0.849 0.905
21.03 19.74
0.372 0.58
3.384 1.046
1.531 2.748
WH HW WH HW
2.259 2.513 1.413 1.459
2.899 3.369
0.394 0.808
0.654 0.173
0.237 0.236
11.4 11.31
1.659 1.673
0.559 1.187
1.94 3.964
WH HW WH HW
2.162 2.36 1.394 1.429
1.275 1.292 2.734 3.099
0.882
0.895
0.226
0.208
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.388 -1.898
0.822 1.281
2.884 4
4 1.408
0.774 1.232
2.949 4.428
-2.134 5.257
1.643 2.096
1.765 9.115
0.468 -1.769
0.832 1.612
7.058 2.862
1.346 2.419
7.258 12.11
24 4
1.263 0.708
59 3.5
4 3.99
24 0
13
14 10
9 5
0.1 0.026
2.6 2
0.567 41.67%
0.573 0.753
-1.128 1.031
2.309 2.644
0.652
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Cu
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.825
0.361
0.263
0.412 0.616
1.834 1.489
1.201 1.425
1.845 2.04
0.527 0.639
2.003 1.645
1.346 1.578
2.014 2.217
1.019
0.76
0.259
0.235
1.011 0.842
0.567 0.681
28.3 23.57
0.573
0.624 5.362
0.01 0.379
2.6 0.195
0.627 1.656
0.517 0.48
0.732 0.788
24.83 23.06
0.379 0.547
3.744 1.033
1.476 2.569
WH HW WH HW
2.265 2.596 1.452 1.548
2.872 3.434
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.412 0.616
0.379 0.137
0.447 0.419
21.45 20.1
0.921 0.983
0.668 1.153
1.684 3.011
WH HW WH HW
1.921 2.015 1.314 1.322
1.218 1.216 2.361 2.543
0.898
0.895
0.18
0.208
0.395 -1.591
0.611 1.086
2.502 2.6
2.6 1.362
0.82 1.216
2.549 3.599
-1.594 2.821
1.14 1.491
1.323 4.132
0.527 -1.298
0.639 1.239
4.775 2.386
1.337 2.097
4.879 7.232
24 2.6
1.263 0.708
59 2.45
2.6 3.152
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 0
15
13 11
11 6
10 1.8
470 120
19089 45.83%
106.3 138.2
3.9 1.316
2.309 2.644
0.739
0.814
0.274
0.271
60.46 109.9
314.3 252.7
201.3 241.3
316.2 351.1
64.02 110.8
319.9 257.9
206 246.3
321.8 357
0.578
0.769
0.229
0.246
0.777 0.649
136.7 163.7
20.21 16.88
106.3
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.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Fe
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
ABCDEFGHI JKL
131.9 4.541
0.01 57.57
470 10
113.5 1.972
0.184 0.189
312.9 305
8.832 9.061
57.57 132.5
1.974 173.9
301 654.3
WH HW WH HW
454.2 607.8 259.1 300.3
608.1 879.2
60.46 109.9
12085 23.41
0.302 0.292
14.52 14.04
199.9 206.7
92.12 178.8
278.8 539.5
WH HW WH HW
363.5 403.1 227.7 234.4
206.9 210.1 466.1 539.9
0.924
0.889
0.177
0.215
59.77 2.685
112.4 1.751
835.3 470
470 313.5
138.2 261.1
861.1 1501
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
ABCDEFGHI JKL
2.624 884.4
1.802 322.5
267.2 1617
64.02 3.085
110.8 1.502
701.9 302.7
150 258.8
720.4 1161
24 470
1.263 0.708
59 422.5
470 549.5
24 0
12
4 20
4 8
0.6 0.01
1.9 1
0.449 83.33%
1.275 0.67
0.124 0.579
2.309 2.644
0.836
0.687
0.283
0.413
0.23 0.53
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Pb
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
KM Mean KM SD
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.454 1.157
0.909 1.102
1.463 1.631
0.296 0.534
1.53 1.231
0.981 1.175
1.539 1.709
0.479
0.659
0.321
0.396
4.36 1.257
0.292 1.015
34.88 10.05
1.275
1.137 6.953
0.01 0.224
1.9 0.01
0.538 2.399
0.308 0.297
0.728 0.754
14.78 14.27
0.224 0.411
2.727 0.662
1.029 1.983
WH HW WH HW
1.41 1.43 0.826 0.769
1.866 1.987
0.23 0.53
0.281 0.126
0.188 0.192
9.033 9.237
1.222 1.195
0.297 0.695
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)80% gamma percentile (KM)
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.196 2.586
WH HW WH HW
1.4 1.413 0.82 0.76
0.733 0.669 1.852 1.964
0.856
0.792
0.288
0.346
0.324 -1.843
0.504 1.126
2.134 1.9
1.9 1.136
0.671 1.01
2.176 3.112
-3.761 1.536
1.815 0.556
0.46 2.821
0.296 -3.167
0.534 2.186
6.559 1.929
0.694 1.536
6.813 13.64
24 1.9
1.263 0.708
59 1.875
1.9 2.588
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM) 99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
Mg
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 15
7700 9375
10200 9600
10200 9725
9494 576.8
0.0608 -1.519
9.157 0.0638
2.309 2.644
0.86
0.884
0.202
0.205
10825 10233
10503 10442
11019 10835
1.178
0.742
0.21
0.177
265.1 232
35.82 40.93
12723 11134
9494 623.4
10561 10301
10570 10542
10924 11004
10937
11144 11162
0.832
0.93
0.218
0.162
10981 10284
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z) 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
ABCDEFGHI JKL
10595 10525
11218 10993
24 10200
1.263 0.708
59
10200 10200
10200 10170
11260 10200
12060 10200
10200
24 0
15
17 7
11 4
0.6 0.03
16 8
13.96 29.17%
4.029 3.736
1.046 0.881
2.309 2.644
0.77
0.851
0.268
0.241
3.327 3.37
11.11 9.223
7.647 8.871
11.17 12.24
3.449 3.33
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Mn
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
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
General Statistics
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Variance Detected
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
Mean SD
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
ABCDEFGHI JKL
11.14 9.273
7.716 8.925
11.19 12.25
0.335
0.755
0.163
0.213
1.583 1.343
2.545 3
53.83 45.67
4.029
3.477 7.263
0.01 3.264
16 2.309
3.432 1.051
0.762 0.695
4.282 4.698
36.59 33.35
3.264 3.916
4.743 8.208
11.14 18.15
WH HW WH HW
16.49 20.08 11.3 12.86
20.25 25.65
3.327 3.37
11.36 0.73
0.975 0.881
46.79 42.27
3.414 3.778
5.406 7.904
10.43 16.35
WH HW WH HW
15.89 18.83 11 12.26
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 95% Approx. Gamma UPL
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
ABCDEFGHI JKL
10.22 11.26 19.41 23.86
0.966
0.91
0.122
0.19
3.292 0.785
3.373 0.941
19.24 16
16 11.36
7.319 10.3
19.56 26.37
0.49 67.31
1.611 27.32
23.09 115.5
3.449 0.718
3.33 1.375
49.03 22.71
11.94 19.68
50.21 77.69
24 16
1.263 0.708
59 14
16 18.32
24 0
9
5 19
4 6
0.03 0.015
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% KM Gamma Percentile 95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Hg
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.2 0.1
0.00377 79.17%
0.112 0.0614
-2.352 0.705
2.309 2.644
0.958
0.686
0.223
0.396
0.0408 0.0448
0.144 0.119
0.0982 0.114
0.145 0.159
0.0577 0.04
0.15 0.128
0.109 0.123
0.151 0.163
0.355
0.682
0.296
0.359
3.224 1.423
0.0347 0.0787
32.24 14.23
0.112
0.0939 7.546
0.01 0.0361
0.2 0.01
0.049 1.355
0.962 0.87
0.0376 0.0416
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
ABCDEFGHI JKL
46.2 41.76
0.0361 0.0388
5.477 0.0861
0.114 0.179
WH HW WH HW
0.165 0.171 0.114 0.114
0.202 0.214
0.0408 0.0448
0.00201 0.0112
0.831 0.755
39.91 36.25
0.0491 0.0541
0.0669 0.101
0.135 0.217
WH HW WH HW
0.147 0.149 0.108 0.107
0.102 0.101 0.174 0.179
0.883
0.806
0.328
0.319
0.0386 -3.811
0.0478 1.054
0.253 0.19
0.2 0.14
0.0855 0.125
0.257 0.359
-3.555 0.16
0.747 0.106
0.0977 0.206
0.0577 -3.039
0.04 0.642
0.211 0.147
0.109 0.138
0.213 0.261
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
nu star (bias corrected)nu hat (MLE)
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 0.2
1.263 0.708
59 0.183
0.2 0.24
24 0
13
16 8
9 5
0.03 0.033
3.7 2
1.086 33.33%
0.76 1.042
-1.036 1.333
2.309 2.644
0.671
0.844
0.349
0.248
0.586 0.88
2.618 2.125
1.713 2.033
2.633 2.912
0.708 0.881
2.741 2.248
1.836 2.156
2.756 3.036
0.949
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Ni
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Anderson-Darling GOF TestA-D Test Statistic
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.773
0.247
0.223
0.781 0.677
0.973 1.123
25.01 21.65
0.76
0.924 4.663
0.01 0.567
3.7 0.3
0.902 1.589
0.57 0.527
0.995 1.077
27.38 25.29
0.567 0.782
3.973 1.518
2.139 3.658
WH HW WH HW
3.254 3.68 2.114 2.237
4.1 4.824
0.586 0.88
0.775 0.19
0.443 0.415
21.25 19.92
1.323 1.411
0.949 1.643
2.402 4.303
WH HW WH HW
3 3.271 2.003 2.068
1.845 1.887 3.731 4.204
0.913
0.906
0.209
0.196
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.571 -1.357
0.89 1.274
4.877 3.7
3.7 2.39
1.318 2.093
4.986 7.471
-1.42 6.016
1.392 2.76
2.386 9.59
0.708 -1.069
0.881 1.384
8.385 3.864
2.023 3.344
8.589 13.33
24 3.7
1.263 0.708
59 3.425
3.7 4.501
24 13
8800 9800
10700 10100
11000 10225
10040 472.3
0.047 -0.404
9.213 0.0476
2.309 2.644
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
K
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.963
0.884
0.133
0.205
11131 10645
10866 10817
11289 11139
0.424
0.742
0.139
0.177
464.4 406.4
21.62 24.71
22291 19506
10040 498
10888 10683
10891 10873
11172 11235
11177
11344 11351
0.955
0.93
0.142
0.162
11195 10660
10900 10846
11375 11204
24 11000
1.263 0.708
59
11000 10955
10925 10670
11486 10700
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
ABCDEFGHI JKL
12141 10931
11000
24 0
16
21 3
13 3
1.6 0.03
3.2 0.5
0.179 12.5%
2.138 0.424
0.742 0.192
2.309 2.644
0.933
0.873
0.142
0.219
1.875 0.797
3.715 3.269
2.896 3.186
3.729 3.982
1.885 0.791
3.711 3.268
2.898 3.186
3.725 3.976
0.401
0.742
0.138
0.189
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Se
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
ABCDEFGHI JKL
28.15 24.16
0.076 0.0885
1182 1015
2.138
0.435 65.54
1.266 2.029
3.2 1.95
0.493 0.243
17.51 15.35
0.116 0.132
840.7 736.9
2.029 0.518
44.63 2.715
2.949 3.424
WH HW WH HW
3.347 3.379 2.975 2.989
3.584 3.629
1.875 0.797
0.636 0.167
5.528 4.865
265.4 233.5
0.339 0.385
2.528 3.013
3.455 4.392
WH HW WH HW
7.127 8.781 5.264 6.112
4.957 5.691 8.429 10.75
0.955
0.923
0.128
0.173
2.04 0.687
0.476 0.233
3.403 3.125
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
ABCDEFGHI JKL
3.2 2.987
2.679 2.915
3.416 3.678
0.211 32.47
1.416 14.7
12.68 52.18
1.885 0.309
0.791 1.256
24.75 12.25
6.809 10.75
25.29 37.69
24 3.2
1.263 0.708
59 3.075
3.2 5.421
24 0
10
6 18
5 8
0.03 0.018
1.6 0.5
0.379 75%
0.395 0.616
-1.926 1.531
2.309 2.644
0.684
0.713
0.351
0.373
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Missing Observations
Ag
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Number of Non-Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Variance Detected
Maximum Detect
Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Percent Non-Detects
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) d2max (for USL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.116 0.324
0.865 0.683
0.532 0.649
0.87 0.973
0.166 0.33
0.928 0.743
0.588 0.708
0.933 1.038
0.526
0.729
0.332
0.346
0.617 0.42
0.64 0.941
7.408 5.037
0.395
0.61 3.43
0.01 0.106
1.6 0.01
0.334 3.142
0.39 0.369
0.272 0.288
18.73 17.72
0.106 0.175
3.153 0.304
0.454 0.833
WH HW WH HW
0.578 0.544 0.352 0.313
0.75 0.733
0.116 0.324
0.105 0.0726
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.128 0.139
6.127 6.694
0.908 0.831
0.118 0.34
0.646 1.55
WH HW WH HW
0.577 0.545 0.368 0.334
0.336 0.302 0.734 0.712
0.911
0.826
0.264
0.298
0.103 -5.105
0.335 2.35
1.38 1.435
1.6 0.37
0.123 0.29
1.437 3.031
-3.4 0.474
1.149 0.249
0.221 0.697
0.166 -2.874
0.33 1.437
1.559 0.697
0.356 0.6
1.598 2.523
24 1.6
1.263 0.708
59 1.325
1.6 1.559
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
k hat (KM) k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
90% Percentile (z)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
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
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 15
90000 110000
130000 116000
130000 121250
115917 9089
0.0784 -0.771
11.66 0.0814
2.309 2.644
0.948
0.884
0.132
0.205
136902 127564
131814 130866
139946 137060
0.383
0.742
0.139
0.177
161.8 141.6
716.6 818.8
7764 6795
115917 9743
132716 128564
132844 132394
138501 139778
138731
142041 142345
0.924
0.93
0.137
0.162
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Na
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
ABCDEFGHI JKL
139469 128273
133253 132125
143326 139666
24 130000
1.263 0.708
59
130000 130000
130000 127100
143745 129700
156350 130000
130000
24 0
10
7 17
4 8
0.05 0.011
0.4 1
0.0187 70.83%
0.193 0.137
-1.89 0.777
2.309 2.644
0.839
0.73
0.323
0.35
0.0823 0.115
0.349 0.284
0.23 0.272
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Tl
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
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
General Statistics
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Variance Detected
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.351 0.388
0.186 0.192
0.63 0.522
0.432 0.502
0.633 0.694
0.612
0.714
0.311
0.315
2.202 1.354
0.0876 0.142
30.83 18.95
0.193
0.166 7.301
0.01 0.0732
0.4 0.01
0.111 1.522
0.618 0.568
0.118 0.129
29.66 27.28
0.0732 0.0971
4.171 0.193
0.268 0.453
WH HW WH HW
0.408 0.44 0.266 0.271
0.513 0.572
0.0823 0.115
0.0133 0.0289
0.509 0.473
24.42 22.7
0.162 0.174
0.135 0.225
0.323 0.563
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z) 95% KM USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
ABCDEFGHI JKL
WH HW WH HW
0.435 0.47 0.288 0.294
0.265 0.268 0.544 0.606
0.878
0.838
0.274
0.28
0.0798 -3.186
0.106 1.137
0.571 0.385
0.4 0.302
0.178 0.268
0.583 0.836
-3.421 0.71
1.333 0.336
0.293 1.109
0.186 -2.375
0.192 1.319
1.956 0.935
0.504 0.815
2.001 3.043
24 1
1.263 0.708
59 1
1 0.596
24 18
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z) 95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
V
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
ABCDEFGHI JKL
7.4 9.45
11.9 9.9
14 11.2
10.25 1.369
0.134 0.512
2.318 0.133
2.309 2.644
0.959
0.884
0.128
0.205
13.41 12
12.64 12.5
13.87 13.43
0.363
0.742
0.117
0.177
59.29 51.9
0.173 0.197
2846 2491
10.25 1.422
12.75 12.11
12.76 12.69
13.65 13.84
13.68
14.2 14.26
0.971
0.93
0.107
0.162
13.81 12.05
12.82 12.64
14.44 13.84
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
ABCDEFGHI JKL
24 14
1.263 0.708
59
14 13.69
13.48 11.5
14.44 11.84
16.34 13.52
14
24 0
9
10 14
8 2
5 5
53 10
363.6 58.33%
16.48 19.07
2.376 0.87
2.309 2.644
0.596
0.781
0.413
0.304
9.919 12.94
39.8 32.56
26.5 31.21
40.03 44.14
8.742 13.7
40.38 32.71
26.3 31.28
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Zn
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
ABCDEFGHI JKL
40.61 44.96
1.541
0.743
0.353
0.272
1.314 0.986
12.54 16.71
26.27 19.72
16.48
16.59 5.938
0.01 7.146
53 0.01
14.46 2.023
0.215 0.215
33.31 33.16
10.3 10.34
7.146 15.39
2.177 21.6
36.1 75.53
WH HW WH HW
55.56 71.66 31.87 35.98
74.19 102.9
9.919 12.94
167.5 2.788
0.587 0.542
28.19 26
16.89 18.31
16.33 26.38
37.03 63
WH HW WH HW
34.37 33.63 25.43 24.51
23.96 23.04 40.61 40.18
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)95% USL
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.75
0.869
0.29
0.241
8.028 1.218
14.04 1.292
66.78 53
53 32.4
17.7 28.31
68.29 102.9
1.95 31.5
0.65 21.89
20.46 39.15
8.742 1.64
13.7 0.871
38.53 23.66
15.74 21.6
39.12 51.59
24 53
1.263 0.708
59 52.75
53 67.49
24 15
187000 194250
222000 200000
231000 210000
202625 11469
0.0566 0.699
12.22 0.0558
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)95% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% USL
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
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.
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
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations
Chloride
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
ABCDEFGHI JKL
2.309 2.644
0.94
0.884
0.132
0.205
229108 217324
222688 221491
232949 229307
0.445
0.742
0.128
0.177
332.5 291
609.4 696.4
15960 13966
202625 11879
222919 217990
222951 222552
229760 231279
229848
233919 234050
0.948
0.93
0.124
0.162
230123 217308
223050 221756
234461 230346
24 231000
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.263 0.708
59
231000 231000
228750 217300
237743 221700
253650 228930
231000
50 24
24 14
28000 29225
32700 30000
32800 31150
30254 1493
0.0493 0.271
10.32 0.0491
2.309 2.644
0.934
0.884
0.193
0.205
33701 32167
32866 32710
34201 33727
0.537
0.742
0.188
0.177
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
Nitrate
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
General Statistics
Number of Detect EntriesNumber of Data Entries
Sulfate
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL 99% Percentile
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
ABCDEFGHI JKL
431.2 377.4
70.16 80.18
20699 18113
30254 1557
32908 32266
32914 32861
33797 33995
33810
34337 34355
0.937
0.93
0.184
0.162
33850 32183
32931 32763
34411 33878
24 32800
1.263 0.708
59
32800 32800
32775 32470
34825 32670
36896 32777
32800
24 17
520000 551000
860000 810000
860000 840000
729917 139363
0.191 -0.651
13.48 0.206
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
TDS
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
ABCDEFGHI JKL
2.309 2.644
0.744
0.884
0.297
0.205
1051706 908518
973692 959149
1098380 1054124
2.951
0.742
0.312
0.177
26.01 22.78
28066 32037
1248 1094
729917 152918
1005372 931463
1010225 998301
1110184 1131912
1119581
1176244 1189112
0.733
0.93
0.313
0.162
1151757 932133
1026361 1004540
1233990 1155879
24 860000
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
Order of Statistic, order 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
ABCDEFGHI JKL
1.263 0.708
59
860000 860000
860000 854200
1156627 859400
1349913 860000
860000
24 15
92000 97600
113000 100000
115000 109500
102300 7073
0.0691 0.516
11.53 0.0682
2.309 2.644
0.889
0.884
0.252
0.205
118633 111365
114673 113935
121002 118755
1.151
0.742
0.249
0.177
222.4 194.6
460 525.7
10674 9341
102300 7333
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC

Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Alkalinity
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
ABCDEFGHI JKL
114888 111803
114917 114653
119179 120128
119253
121796 121905
0.897
0.93
0.243
0.162
119484 111396
115007 114191
122245 119625
24 115000
1.263 0.708
59
115000 114700
114500 112000
123958 112850
133768 114540
115000
24 0
9
9 15
6 4
40 20
240 100
4125 62.5%
73.33 64.23
4.097 0.583
2.309 2.644
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
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
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
95% USL
General Statistics
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Ammonia
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
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
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
95% HW USL
Lognormal GOF Test
95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic

95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, order
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
ABCDEFGHI JKL
0.582
0.764
0.348
0.316
41.88 45.08
146 120.7
99.65 116
146.7 161.1
41.25 47.05
149.9 123.5
101.5 118.6
150.7 165.6
1.16
0.728
0.253
0.282
2.68 1.861
27.36 39.41
48.24 33.49
73.33
53.76 9.033
0.01 29.12
240 0.01
52.15 1.791
0.172 0.179
169 163.1
8.272 8.571
29.12 68.9
1.893 87.77
154.3 341.1
WH HW WH HW
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
1% Lilliefors Critical Value
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
99% KM Percentile (z)
KM Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
95% KM USL
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
ABCDEFGHI JKL
245.6 335.8 138.3 162.2
330.6 490.8
41.88 45.08
2032 9.886
0.863 0.783
41.44 37.59
48.51 53.48
68.52 102.4
136.9 218.6
WH HW WH HW
134.1 134.2 101.6 100
96.21 94.48 156.6 158.4
0.751
0.859
0.242
0.252
38.18 3.231
47.55 0.87
188.7 216
240 115.9
77.17 105.9
191.6 252.5
3.464 138
0.634 96.79
90.59 170.6
41.25 3.367
47.05 0.797
182.5 116.8
80.48 107.5
185 238.3
24 240
1.263 0.708
59 205
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95% UTL with95% Coverage
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
KM Mean of Logged Data
KM SD of Logged Data
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
theta hat (KM)
nu hat (KM) nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
ABCDEFGHI JKL
240 242.4
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
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
95% USL 95% KM Chebyshev UPL