DSHW-2024-004499

DUGWAY PROVING GROUND
DUGWAY, UTAH
FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING
AT THE ENGLISH VILLAGE LANDFILL
THE SECOND SEMIANNUAL
EVENT OF 2023
Select Engineering Services (SES)
Contract Number: W9132T19C0016
Submitted to:
US Army Dugway Proving Ground
Dugway, UT 84022-5000
November 18, 2023
Prepared by:
AQS Environmental
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

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 ................................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 4.0 MONITORING RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 16
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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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 10/3/2023 and 10/4/2023. 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 2023-2

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 15.9 7.77 6.73 727 4846.38 209.85 4636.5
EGLEVL-MW002 14.6 8.13 2.35 703 4813.9 173.36 4640.5
EGLEVL-MW003 14.8 7.94 7.81 1187 4828.95 192.75 4636.2
EGLEVL-MW004 14.9 7.96 5.47 872 4781.73 142.81 4638.9
EGLEVL-MW005 14.1 7.74 4.37 899 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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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-MW008
Manganese, Total
Copper, Total
Selenium, Total
Field duplicate RPD was outside
method requirements for these
analytes but at least one of the
results was lower than 4x the
method detection limit.
None required

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
homogeneity for specific analytes, and the MS/MSD is used to evaluate precision for each analytical
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

batch. MS/MSD relative percent difference (RPD) results were within project and method limits, with
the following exceptions:

Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
EVL-MW005 Bromomethane MS/MSD RPD was high for
this analyte.
Flag detects
and non-
detects as
estimated (J or
UJ)

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
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
n-Butyl Alcohol
Bromomethane
LCS recovery was low for these
analytes.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
estimated (J and
UJ)
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
2-Nitropropane LCS recovery was high for this
analyte. All sample results were
non detect.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW005 n-Butyl Alcohol
Bromomethane
LCS recovery was low for these
analytes.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

estimated (J and
UJ)
EVL-MW005 2-Nitropropane LCS recovery was high for this
analyte. All sample results were
non detect.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)

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 Cyclohexanone
n-Butyl Alcohol
Bromomethane
MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag detects
and non-
detects as
estimated (J or
UJ)
EVL-MW001 2-Nitropropane MS and/or MSD recovery
was high for this analyte.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW005 Bromomethane
Cyclohexanone
Bromomethane
n-Butyl Alcohol
MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag detects
and non-
detects as
estimated (J or
UJ)
EVL-MW005 Sodium, Total MS and/or MSD recovery
was high for this analyte but
the amount spiked was
<0.25 the sample
concentration.
None required

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.
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

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
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
Arsenic, Total
Calcium, Total
Lead, Total

These analytes were detected in
the method blank.
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Calcium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
These analytes were detected in
the equipment blank (EB-1).
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW005 Arsenic, Total
Calcium, Total
Lead, Total
Selenium, Total
These analytes were detected in
the method blank.
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW005 Arsenic, Total
Calcium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Manganese, Total
Selenium, Total
Vanadium, Total
These analytes were detected in
the equipment blank (EB-2).
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)

Overall representativeness for this sampling event is considered acceptable.

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
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

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 2023-2

Table 4.1 Summary of Analytical Results for Dugway EVL Wells, Fall 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 196 206 399 228 242
Nitrate as N 0.07 0.10 mg/L 2.88 3.45 3.16 0.45 ND
Sulfate 0.64 1.00 mg/L 29.4 33.1 25.1 62.3 51.5
EDB 0.015 0.022 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
DBCP 0.021 0.044 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Beryllium, Total 0.0006 0.0010 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Calcium, Total 0.0713 2.00 mg/L 45.6 53.2 42.8 29.6 34.7
Iron, Total 0.0836 0.200 mg/L 0.0305 0.153 0.0096 ND 0.0960
Magnesium, Total 0.174 2.00 mg/L 9.44 8.16 10.4 13.5 23.3
Manganese, Total 0.009 0.050 mg/L 0.003 J 0.009 0.003 J 0.002 J 0.016 J
Potassium, Total 2.04 5.00 mg/L 10.1 8.56 13.0 9.62 9.75
Sodium, Total 2.58 5.00 mg/L 121 103 235 177 162
Zinc, Total 0.0025 0.0100 mg/L ND 0.0037 J ND ND ND
Antimony, Total 0.0001 0.0005 mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 ND
Arsenic, Total 0.00007 0.0005 mg/L 0.0054 0.0033 0.0095 0.0063 0.0028
Barium, Total 0.00008 0.0005 mg/L 0.120 0.0850 0.171 0.0438 0.0619
Cadmium, Total 0.00008 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Cobalt, Total 0.00002 0.0005 mg/L 0.0002 0.0039 0.0002 0.0002 0.00005
Chromium, Total 0.00005 0.0005 mg/L 0.0022 0.0115 0.0014 0.0014 0.0012
Copper, Total 0.0001 0.0005 mg/L 0.0002 0.0041 0.0003 0.0003 0.0005
Lead, Total 0.00005 0.0005 mg/L 0.00005 0.0002 0.00008 ND 0.0002
Nickel, Total 0.00006 0.0005 mg/L 0.0004 0.0025 0.0006 0.0006 0.0002
Selenium, Total 0.0002 0.0005 mg/L 0.0021 0.0043 0.0076 0.0009 0.0017 B
Silver, Total 0.00009 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Thallium, Total 0.00005 0.0005 mg/L ND ND ND ND ND
Vanadium, Total 0.0001 0.0005 mg/L 0.0105 0.0042 0.0176 0.0100 0.0022
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
1,2,3-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
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

ANALYTE DL RL UNITS EVL-
MW001 Q EVL-
MW002 Q EVL-
MW003 Q EVL-
MW004 Q EVL-
MW005 Q
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
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 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-Nitropropane 1.5 2.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
4-Chlorotoluene 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
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 J-LOW-L ND J-LOW-L ND J-LOW-L ND J-LOW-L ND J-LOW-L
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
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.3 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 ND ND ND ND
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 ND ND ND ND
Dibromochloromethane 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromomethane 0.1 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0.6 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
Ethylbenzene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

ANALYTE DL RL UNITS EVL-
MW001 Q EVL-
MW002 Q EVL-
MW003 Q EVL-
MW004 Q EVL-
MW005 Q
Ethyl Ether 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.4 1.0 ug/L ND 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
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.6 1.0 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 J-LOW-C ND J-LOW-C ND J-LOW-C ND J-LOW-C ND J-LOW-C
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
1,1-Dichloroethene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene 0.5 1.0 ug/L ND 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 ND ND ND ND
Xylenes, total 0.6 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 0.2 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
2-Hexanone 4.8 10.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.3 1.0 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 0.2 1.0 mg/L 112 77.2 91.7 142 194
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 112 77.2 91.7 142 194
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 20 20 mg/L 548 612 984 728 676
Ammonia as N 0.06 0.20 mg/L 0.07 J ND ND ND ND
Total Organic Carbon 0.3 0.5 mg/L 0.4 0.3 ND ND 0.3
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

20

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 Fall 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 Fall 2023. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved
software ProUCL version 5.2 was used to derive the UPLs (Singh and Maichle 2022). Tables 4.2 and 4.3
show the resulting UPLs used for comparison with the groundwater monitoring event for Fall 2023. The
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

21

distribution of the dataset and statistic method used to derive the selected UPLs for both wells MW001
and MW003 are provided in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. 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 Well EGLEVL-MW001

Analyte UPL Method UPL (µg/L) Result (µg/L) Flag > UPL?
Alkalinity Normal 115235 112000 no
Ammonia Lognormal 117.7 70 no
Antimony Normal KM 0.215 0.1 no
Arsenic NonPar 6.38 5.4 no
Barium NonPar CH 129.4 120 no
Beryllium Max ND 0.6 0.6 U no
Cadmium NonPar 0.85 0.08 U no
Calcium Normal 51223 45600 no
Chloride Normal 222086 196000 no
Chromium NonPar 12.19 2.2 no
Cobalt NonPar 3.4 0.2 no
Copper Lognormal KM 1.414 0.2 no
Iron Lognormal 292.2 30.5 no
Lead Normal KM 1.13 0.05 no
Magnesium Normal 10477 9440 no
Manganese Lognormal 11.02 3 no
Mercury Normal KM 0.117 0.08 U no
Nickel Lognormal 2.315 0.4 no
Nitrate Normal 3299 2880 no
Potassium Normal 10849 10100 no
Selenium Normal KM 3.249 2.1 no
Silver Normal KM 0.667 0.09 U no
Sodium Normal 131744 121000 no
Sulfate Normal 32787 29400 no
Thallium Normal KM 0.277 0.05 no
TDS NonPar 1350292 548000 U no
Vanadium Normal 12.6 10.5 no
Zinc NonPar 52.7 2.5 U no

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

22

Table 4.3. Upper Prediction Limit for Downgradient Well EGLEVL-MW003

Analyte UPL Method UPL (µg/L) Result (µg/L) Flag > UPL?
Alkalinity Normal 102265 91700 no
Ammonia Lognormal 100.1 60 U no
Antimony NonPar 4 0.2 no
Arsenic Normal 10.87 9.5 no
Barium NonPar CH 346.1 171 no
Beryllium Max ND 0.6 0.6 U no
Cadmium Normal KM 0.115 0.08 U no
Calcium Normal 47222 42800 no
Chloride Normal 431061 399000 no
Chromium Lognormal 10.72 1.4 no
Cobalt Lognormal 1.519 0.2 no
Copper Lognormal 2.279 0.3 no
Iron Lognormal 302.6 9.6 no
Lead Max ND 1 0.08 no
Magnesium Normal 11741 10400 no
Manganese Normal KM 5.563 3 no
Mercury Normal KM 0.177 0.08 U no
Nickel Lognormal KM 4.592 0.6 no
Nitrate NonPar CH 3836 3160 no
Potassium Normal 14507 13000 no
Selenium Normal 7.695 7.6 no
Silver NonPar 0.5 0.09 U no
Sodium Normal 255235 235000 no
Sulfate NonPar CH 35377 25100 no
Thallium Normal KM 0.395 0.05 U no
TDS Normal 923533 984000 yes
Vanadium NonPar CH 34.96 17.6 no
Zinc Normal KM 24.19 2.5 U no

Notes:
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
µg/L – micrograms per liter
U – non-detect (value listed is the reported detection limit)

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

23

The UPLs listed in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 were compared with the results from the Fall 2023 sampling event.
As shown in these tables, one analyte slightly exceeded the UPL in MW003: TDS.

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 Fall 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

Analyte Comments
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.
Ammonia Data show a decreasing trend in concentration.
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, entirely due to increasing
detection limits.
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.
Chloride Shows a slightly decreasing trend in concentration.
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 2023-2

24

Mercury Data exhibits 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.
Nitrate Exhibits a 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.
Sulfate Shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
Thallium Shows a clear decrease in concentration over time.
TDS Show a decreasing trend in concentration.
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.

MW003

Analyte Comments
Alkalinity Exhibits a clear decreasing trend in concentration.
Ammonia Shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
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, entirely due to increasing
detection limits.
Cadmium Shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration.
Calcium Shows a relatively flat trend line.
Chloride Shows a decreasing trend in concentration.
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
Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

25

chemistry rather than 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 was detected in Fall 2023 but
below the UPL.
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.
Nitrate Shows a slightly increasing 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.
Sulfate Shows a relatively unchanged trend line for concentration.
Thallium Shows a clear decreasing trend in concentration.
TDS Show a decreasing trend in concentration.
Vanadium Exhibits a relatively flat trend.
Zinc Shows slight decrease in 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 or releases from the landfill.

Du
Dugway Proving Ground
English Village Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring Event 2023-2

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 Fall 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 2023-2

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 2023-2

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: 23J0325
Project: EV Landfill
10/17/2023
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 48
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AQS
Project: EV Landfill
Project Manager: Joel Workman
Laboratory ID Sample Name
23J0325-01 EVL-MW001
23J0325-02 EVL-MW002
23J0325-03 EVL-MW003
23J0325-04 EVL-MW004
23J0325-05 EVL-MW008
23J0325-06 FB-1
23J0325-07 EB-1
23J0325-08 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: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
Page 2 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW001
Lab ID: 23J0325-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 13:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B112Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B112Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L J10/6/2310/6/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 H0.07Ammonia as N
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/2310.0 EPA 300.0196Chloride
mg/L 10/4/23 23:3310/4/23 14:030.10 EPA 300.02.88Nitrate as N
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/231.00 EPA 300.029.4Sulfate
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/2320SM 2540 C548Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 10/5/2310/5/230.5 SM 5310 C0.4Total Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0001Antimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0054Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.120Barium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A45.6Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0022Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Cobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0200 EPA 6010D/3010A0.0305Iron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.00005Lead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A9.44Magnesium, Total
mg/L J10/9/2310/6/230.005 EPA 6010D/3010A0.003Manganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0004Nickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A10.1Potassium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0021Selenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A121Sodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0105Vanadium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010ANDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 3 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW001 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 13:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 4 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW001 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 13:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 5 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW002
Lab ID: 23J0325-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 8:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B77.2Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B77.2Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/2310.0 EPA 300.0206Chloride
mg/L 10/5/23 0:2710/4/23 14:030.10 EPA 300.03.45Nitrate as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/231.00 EPA 300.033.1Sulfate
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/2320SM 2540 C612Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.5 SM 5310 C0.3Total Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Antimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0033Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0850Barium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A53.2Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0115Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0039Cobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0041Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0200 EPA 6010D/3010A0.153Iron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Lead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A8.16Magnesium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.005 EPA 6010D/3010A0.009Manganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0025Nickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A8.56Potassium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0043Selenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A103Sodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0042Vanadium, Total
mg/L J10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010A0.0037Zinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 6 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW002 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 8:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 7 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW002 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 8:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 8 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW003
Lab ID: 23J0325-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 15:15
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B91.7Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B91.7Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/2310.0 EPA 300.0399Chloride
mg/L 10/5/23 0:4110/4/23 14:030.10 EPA 300.03.16Nitrate as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/231.00 EPA 300.025.1Sulfate
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/2320SM 2540 C984Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.5 SM 5310 CNDTotal Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Antimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0095Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.171Barium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A42.8Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0014Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Cobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0003Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0200 EPA 6010D/3010A0.0096Iron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.00008Lead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A10.4Magnesium, Total
mg/L J10/9/2310/6/230.005 EPA 6010D/3010A0.003Manganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0006Nickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A13.0Potassium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0076Selenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A235Sodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0176Vanadium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010ANDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 9 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW003 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 15:15
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 10 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW003 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 15:15
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 11 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW004
Lab ID: 23J0325-04Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 11:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B142Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B142Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/2310.0 EPA 300.0228Chloride
mg/L 10/5/23 1:0810/4/23 14:030.10 EPA 300.00.45Nitrate as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/231.00 EPA 300.062.3Sulfate
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/2320SM 2540 C728Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.5 SM 5310 CNDTotal Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Antimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0063Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0438Barium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A29.6Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0014Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Cobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0003Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0200 EPA 6010D/3010ANDIron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDLead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A13.5Magnesium, Total
mg/L J10/9/2310/6/230.005 EPA 6010D/3010A0.002Manganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0006Nickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A9.62Potassium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0009Selenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A177Sodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0100Vanadium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010ANDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 12 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW004 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-04Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 11:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 13 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW004 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-04Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 11:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 14 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW008
Lab ID: 23J0325-05Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 12:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B147Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B147Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/2310.0 EPA 300.0224Chloride
mg/L 10/5/23 2:0210/4/23 14:030.10 EPA 300.00.45Nitrate as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/231.00 EPA 300.061.9Sulfate
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/2320SM 2540 C696Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.5 SM 5310 CNDTotal Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Antimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0062Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0434Barium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A29.2Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0014Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Cobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0200 EPA 6010D/3010ANDIron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.00007Lead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A13.4Magnesium, Total
mg/L J10/9/2310/6/230.005 EPA 6010D/3010A0.004Manganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0005Nickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A9.48Potassium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0007Selenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010A174Sodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0098Vanadium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010ANDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 15 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW008 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-05Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 12:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 16 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW008 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-05Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 12:30
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 17 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: FB-1
Lab ID: 23J0325-06Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 13:40
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 18 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: FB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-06Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 13:40
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 19 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EB-1
Lab ID: 23J0325-07Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 11:45
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0001Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.00008Barium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A0.0747Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0003Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0200 EPA 6010D/3010ANDIron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.00007Lead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010ANDMagnesium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.005 EPA 6010D/3010ANDManganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDNickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010ANDPotassium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSelenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010ANDSodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDVanadium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010ANDZinc, Total
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 20 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-07Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 11:45
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 21 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: EB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-07Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 11:45
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 22 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: TB-1
Lab ID: 23J0325-08Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 8:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 23 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
Sample ID: TB-1 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0325-08Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/3/23 8:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 24 of 48
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 5.8 °C
10/17/2023
EV Landfill
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
J-LOW-L = Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
Project Name: EV Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 25 of 48
Page 26 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Chloride 1.00 1.00ND
Nitrate as N 0.10 1.00ND
Sulfate 1.00 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-BS1 Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Chloride 96.2 1.00 1.0048.1 50.090 - 110
Nitrate as N 98.9 0.10 1.004.95 5.0090 - 110
Sulfate 98.0 1.00 1.0049.0 50.090 - 110
Matrix Spike - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Chloride 104 11.0 1.0030010080 - 120 196
Nitrate as N 94.0 1.10 1.0012.3 10.080 - 120 2.88
Sulfate 99.3 11.0 1.0012910080 - 120 29.4
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Chloride 82.5 11.0 1.0032410080 - 120 242
Nitrate as N 91.8 1.10 1.009.18 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 97.5 11.0 1.0014910080 - 120 51.5
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Chloride 102 0.699 20 11.0 1.0029810080 - 120 196
Nitrate as N 92.8 1.01 20 1.10 1.0012.2 10.080 - 120 2.88
Sulfate 97.8 1.17 20 11.0 1.0012710080 - 120 29.4
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Chloride 85.9 1.05 20 11.0 1.0032810080 - 120 242
Nitrate as N 92.6 0.811 20 1.10 1.009.26 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 98.7 0.820 20 11.0 1.0015010080 - 120 51.5
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 27 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 0.022 1.00ND
DBCP 0.044 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-BS1 Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 108 0.022 1.000.27 0.25070 - 130
DBCP 130 0.044 1.000.32 0.25070 - 130
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-BS2 Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 113 0.022 1.000.28 0.25070 - 130
DBCP 128 0.044 1.000.32 0.25070 - 130
Matrix Spike - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 108 0.022 1.000.27 0.25070 - 130 ND
DBCP 127 0.044 1.000.32 0.25070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 101 0.022 1.000.25 0.25070 - 130 ND
DBCP 117 0.044 1.000.29 0.25070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 28 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 0.0010 1.00ND
Calcium, Total 0.200 1.000.041
Iron, Total 0.0200 1.00ND
Magnesium, Total 0.200 1.00ND
Manganese, Total 0.005 1.00ND
Potassium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Sodium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Zinc, Total 0.0100 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-BS1 Batch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 102 0.0010 1.002.05 2.0085 - 115
Calcium, Total 99.2 0.200 1.0011.9 12.085 - 115
Iron, Total 104 0.0200 1.002.08 2.0085 - 115
Magnesium, Total 99.1 0.200 1.0011.9 12.085 - 115
Manganese, Total 101 0.005 1.002.03 2.0085 - 115
Potassium, Total 101 0.500 1.0010.1 10.085 - 115
Sodium, Total 103 0.500 1.0010.3 10.085 - 115
Zinc, Total 99.3 0.0100 1.001.99 2.0085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 104 0.0010 1.002.08 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 100 0.200 1.0057.7 12.075 - 125 45.6
Iron, Total 103 0.0200 1.002.10 2.0075 - 125 0.030
Magnesium, Total 99.8 0.200 1.0021.4 12.075 - 125 9.44
Manganese, Total 101 0.005 1.002.02 2.0075 - 125 0.003
Potassium, Total 102 0.500 1.0020.3 10.075 - 125 10.1
Sodium, Total 111 0.500 1.0013210.075 - 125 121
Zinc, Total 100 0.0100 1.002.00 2.0075 - 125 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 103 0.743 20 0.0010 1.002.06 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 103 0.643 20 0.200 1.0058.0 12.075 - 125 45.6
Iron, Total 103 0.402 20 0.0200 1.002.09 2.0075 - 125 0.030
Magnesium, Total 101 0.823 20 0.200 1.0021.6 12.075 - 125 9.44
Manganese, Total 101 0.0148 20 0.005 1.002.02 2.0075 - 125 0.003
Potassium, Total 104 1.06 20 0.500 1.0020.6 10.075 - 125 10.1
Sodium, Total 106 0.353 20 0.500 1.0013110.075 - 125 121
Zinc, Total 99.8 0.400 20 0.0100 1.002.00 2.0075 - 125 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 29 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0347-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0347
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Arsenic, Total 0.0005 1.000.0001
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 1.000.0002
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
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Arsenic, Total 0.0005 1.000.0003
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 1.000.0001
Nickel, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Selenium, Total 0.0005 1.000.0005
Silver, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Thallium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Vanadium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0347-BS1 Batch: BXJ0347
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Arsenic, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Barium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Cadmium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Chromium, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Cobalt, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Copper, Total 104 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Lead, Total 100 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040085 - 115
Nickel, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Selenium, Total 109 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040085 - 115
Silver, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Thallium, Total 108 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Vanadium, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-BS1 Batch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Arsenic, Total 104 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Barium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Cadmium, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 30 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
LCS - EPA 6020A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-BS1 Batch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Chromium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Cobalt, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Copper, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Lead, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Nickel, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Selenium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
B - Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample (CLP B-flag).
Silver, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Thallium, Total 110 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040085 - 115
Vanadium, Total 109 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0347-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0347
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.0004
Arsenic, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.0007
Barium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.088 0.040070 - 130 0.047
Cadmium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 104 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.0003
Cobalt, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.00005
Copper, Total 99.4 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Lead, Total 97.7 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.0003
Nickel, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Selenium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040070 - 130 0.0008
Silver, Total 86.2 0.0005 1.000.034 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
QC Sample ID: BXJ0347-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0347
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Arsenic, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.0005
Barium, Total 101 0.0005 1.000.067 0.040070 - 130 0.027
Cadmium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.0004
Cobalt, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.00002
Copper, Total 98.1 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.0004
Lead, Total 98.3 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Nickel, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Selenium, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.0006
Silver, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 108 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 108 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 108 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Arsenic, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040070 - 130 0.003
Barium, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.104 0.040070 - 130 0.062
Cadmium, Total 101 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Cobalt, Total 98.7 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.00005
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 31 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 6020A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Copper, Total 94.9 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0005
Lead, Total 94.2 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Nickel, Total 98.4 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Selenium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.002
B - Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample (CLP B-flag).
Silver, Total 95.7 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.045 0.040070 - 130 0.002
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0347-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0347
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 109 1.78 20 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040070 - 130 0.0004
Arsenic, Total 106 2.69 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.0007
Barium, Total 107 1.65 20 0.0005 1.000.090 0.040070 - 130 0.047
Cadmium, Total 105 2.12 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 106 1.79 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.0003
Cobalt, Total 103 1.09 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.00005
Copper, Total 102 2.79 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Lead, Total 100 2.28 20 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.0003
Nickel, Total 103 0.715 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Selenium, Total 109 1.42 20 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040070 - 130 0.0008
Silver, Total 84.9 1.44 20 0.0005 1.000.034 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 108 1.34 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 109 2.84 20 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
QC Sample ID: BXJ0347-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0347
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 107 0.0912 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Arsenic, Total 102 0.136 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.0005
Barium, Total 99.1 1.07 20 0.0005 1.000.066 0.040070 - 130 0.027
Cadmium, Total 103 0.230 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 105 0.460 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.0004
Cobalt, Total 102 0.437 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.00002
Copper, Total 98.5 0.325 20 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.0004
Lead, Total 98.1 0.170 20 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Nickel, Total 103 0.386 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Selenium, Total 106 0.736 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.0006
Silver, Total 102 0.103 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 108 0.139 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 107 1.03 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 105 3.37 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 ND
Arsenic, Total 101 1.29 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.003
Barium, Total 97.8 3.21 20 0.0005 1.000.101 0.040070 - 130 0.062
Cadmium, Total 99.0 2.45 20 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 98.4 3.98 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Cobalt, Total 96.1 2.66 20 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.00005
Copper, Total 93.5 1.43 20 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0005
Lead, Total 91.8 2.52 20 0.0005 1.000.037 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 32 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6020A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Nickel, Total 95.5 2.94 20 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Selenium, Total 99.6 2.22 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.002
B - Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample (CLP B-flag).
Silver, Total 91.4 4.65 20 0.0005 1.000.037 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 97.3 4.69 20 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 103 3.59 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.002
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 33 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 0.0002 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-BS1 Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 98.9 0.0002 1.000.0049 0.0050085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 99.1 0.0002 1.000.0050 0.0050075 - 125 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 98.9 0.0002 1.000.0049 0.0050075 - 125 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 99.3 0.242 20 0.0002 1.000.0050 0.0050075 - 125 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 100 1.27 20 0.0002 1.000.0050 0.0050075 - 125 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 34 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 8260D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
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#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 35 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
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
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BS1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 94.5 1.0 1.009.45 10.070 - 130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 99.1 1.0 1.009.91 10.070 - 130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 88.6 1.0 1.008.86 10.070 - 130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 88.7 1.0 1.008.87 10.070 - 130
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 110 1.0 1.0011.0 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethane 93.2 1.0 1.009.32 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethene 91.4 1.0 1.009.14 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloropropene 97.4 1.0 1.009.74 10.070 - 130
2-Hexanone 96.2 10.0 1.009.62 10.070 - 130
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 105 1.0 1.0010.5 10.070 - 130
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 95.6 1.0 1.009.56 10.070 - 130
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 99.6 1.0 1.009.96 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 82.4 1.0 1.008.24 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)92.2 1.0 1.009.22 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 94.9 1.0 1.009.49 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichloroethane 93.0 1.0 1.009.30 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichloropropane 92.7 1.0 1.009.27 10.070 - 130
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 100 1.0 1.0010.0 10.070 - 130
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 98.7 1.0 1.009.87 10.070 - 130
1,3-Dichloropropane 88.2 1.0 1.008.82 10.070 - 130
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 107 1.0 1.0010.7 10.070 - 130
2,2-Dichloropropane 104 1.0 1.0010.4 10.070 - 130
2-Chlorotoluene 87.4 1.0 1.008.74 10.070 - 130
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 36 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
LCS - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BS1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
2-Nitropropane 135 2.0 1.0040.6 30.070 - 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.
4-Chlorotoluene 95.8 1.0 1.009.58 10.070 - 130
Acetone 95.3 10.0 1.0095.3 10070 - 130
Acrylonitrile 92.0 10.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130
Benzene 91.5 0.4 1.009.15 10.070 - 130
Bromobenzene 91.8 1.0 1.009.18 10.070 - 130
Bromochloromethane 87.6 1.0 1.008.76 10.070 - 130
Bromodichloromethane 91.2 1.0 1.009.12 10.070 - 130
Bromoform 88.1 1.0 1.008.81 10.070 - 130
Bromomethane 61.9 1.0 1.006.19 10.070 - 130
J-LOW-L - Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
Carbon Disulfide 99.0 2.0 1.009.90 10.070 - 130
Carbon Tetrachloride 99.5 1.0 1.009.95 10.070 - 130
Chlorobenzene 93.2 1.0 1.009.32 10.070 - 130
Chloroethane 91.7 1.0 1.009.17 10.070 - 130
Chloroform 93.1 1.0 1.009.31 10.070 - 130
Chloromethane 79.1 1.0 1.007.91 10.070 - 130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 93.5 1.0 1.009.35 10.070 - 130
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 95.0 1.0 1.009.50 10.070 - 130
Cyclohexanone 103 10.0 1.0010310070 - 130
Dibromochloromethane 89.5 1.0 1.008.95 10.070 - 130
Dibromomethane 94.3 1.0 1.009.43 10.070 - 130
Dichlorodifluoromethane 92.6 1.0 1.009.26 10.070 - 130
Ethyl Acetate 89.8 2.0 1.0018.0 20.070 - 130
Ethylbenzene 92.0 1.0 1.009.20 10.070 - 130
Ethyl Ether 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
Hexachlorobutadiene 100 1.0 1.0010.0 10.070 - 130
Isobutanol 89.9 20.0 1.0018020070 - 130
Isopropylbenzene 97.0 1.0 1.009.70 10.070 - 130
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 80.0 1.0 1.008.00 10.070 - 130
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 101 5.0 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
Methylene Chloride 86.7 2.0 1.008.67 10.070 - 130
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)101 0.4 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
Naphthalene 97.0 1.0 1.009.70 10.070 - 130
n-Butyl Alcohol 54.4 50.0 1.0054.4 10070 - 130
J-LOW-L - Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
n-Butylbenzene 101 1.0 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
n-Propyl Benzene 96.9 1.0 1.009.69 10.070 - 130
Pentachloroethane 124 1.0 1.0012.4 10.070 - 130
p-Isopropyltoluene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
sec-Butyl Benzene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
Styrene 94.2 1.0 1.009.42 10.070 - 130
tert-Butylbenzene 104 1.0 1.0010.4 10.070 - 130
Tetrachloroethene 78.6 1.0 1.007.86 10.070 - 130
Toluene 90.9 1.0 1.009.09 10.070 - 130
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 88.6 1.0 1.008.86 10.070 - 130
Trichloroethene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
Trichlorofluoromethane 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 37 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
LCS - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BS1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Vinyl Chloride 95.8 1.0 1.009.58 10.070 - 130
Xylenes, total 92.6 1.0 1.0027.8 30.070 - 130
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 89.9 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 94.0 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 86.9 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 89.7 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 98.4 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 91.3 5.0 1.0045.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 85.6 5.0 1.0042.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 92.6 5.0 1.0046.3 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 91.4 50.0 1.0045.7 50.070 - 130 ND
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 95.2 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 92.0 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 92.4 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 92.3 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 80.1 5.0 1.0040.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)89.7 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 88.4 5.0 1.0044.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 91.6 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 93.4 5.0 1.0046.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 90.5 5.0 1.0045.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 90.9 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 87.5 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 5.0 1.0050.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 101 5.0 1.0050.6 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 77.9 5.0 1.0039.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 131 10.0 1.0019715070 - 130 ND
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.
4-Chlorotoluene 87.8 5.0 1.0043.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 93.0 50.0 1.0046550070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 92.2 50.0 1.0023125070 - 130 ND
Benzene 89.4 2.0 1.0044.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 84.2 5.0 1.0042.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 89.1 5.0 1.0044.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 92.1 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 86.7 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 66.4 5.0 1.0033.2 50.070 - 130 ND
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.
Carbon Disulfide 94.7 10.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 94.5 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 87.3 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 104 5.0 1.0051.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 91.3 5.0 1.0045.6 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 38 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Chloromethane 77.4 5.0 1.0038.7 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 91.3 5.0 1.0045.6 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 93.1 5.0 1.0046.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 31.8 50.0 1.0015950070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 84.5 5.0 1.0042.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 92.8 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 91.4 5.0 1.0045.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 87.8 10.0 1.0087.8 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 87.5 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 92.3 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 92.3 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 78.8 100 1.00788100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 90.9 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 71.7 5.0 1.0035.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 102 25.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 87.6 10.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)101 2.0 1.0050.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 85.1 5.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 59.3 250 1.0029750070 - 130 ND
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.
n-Butylbenzene 93.5 5.0 1.0046.8 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 88.7 5.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 119 5.0 1.0059.3 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 93.0 5.0 1.0046.5 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 93.4 5.0 1.0046.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 89.1 5.0 1.0044.6 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 95.0 5.0 1.0047.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 71.7 5.0 1.0035.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 87.7 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 89.6 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 89.7 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 96.3 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 90.5 5.0 1.0045.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 87.2 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 86.9 5.0 1.0013015070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 99.7 5.0 1.0049.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 96.3 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 96.4 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 98.5 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 110 5.0 1.0055.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 110 5.0 1.0055.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 100 5.0 1.0050.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 94.1 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 39 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
2-Hexanone 99.2 50.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 107 5.0 1.0053.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 104 5.0 1.0052.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 104 5.0 1.0051.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 97.6 5.0 1.0048.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 87.0 5.0 1.0043.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)100 5.0 1.0050.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 97.0 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 102 5.0 1.0050.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 98.9 5.0 1.0049.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 97.1 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 98.2 5.0 1.0049.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 99.2 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 108 5.0 1.0054.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 86.1 5.0 1.0043.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 107 5.0 1.0053.5 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 113 10.0 1.0017015070 - 130 ND
4-Chlorotoluene 97.0 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 122 50.0 1.0061150070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 113 50.0 1.0028325070 - 130 ND
Benzene 95.7 2.0 1.0047.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 96.5 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 94.0 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 93.4 5.0 1.0046.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 97.9 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 29.8 5.0 1.0014.9 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Carbon Disulfide 123 10.0 1.0061.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 73.3 5.0 1.0036.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 95.3 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 109 5.0 1.0054.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 97.9 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 72.7 5.0 1.0036.4 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 99.4 5.0 1.0049.7 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 90.0 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 34.8 50.0 1.0017450070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 93.0 5.0 1.0046.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 99.2 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 82.6 5.0 1.0041.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 96.6 10.0 1.0096.6 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 94.0 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 115 5.0 1.0057.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 98.5 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 81.6 100 1.00816100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 95.2 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 82.5 5.0 1.0041.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 109 25.0 1.0054.6 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 40 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Methylene Chloride 107 10.0 1.0053.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)127 2.0 1.0063.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 101 5.0 1.0050.4 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 70.1 250 1.0035050070 - 130 ND
n-Butylbenzene 96.1 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 94.6 5.0 1.0047.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 130 5.0 1.0065.2 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 97.3 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 98.2 5.0 1.0049.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 97.1 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 101 5.0 1.0050.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 75.3 5.0 1.0037.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 92.4 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 111 5.0 1.0055.3 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 85.3 5.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 102 5.0 1.0050.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 97.9 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 85.5 5.0 1.0042.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 94.3 5.0 1.0014115070 - 130 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 89.9 0.00 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 92.0 2.15 20 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 88.9 2.28 20 5.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 91.0 1.44 20 5.0 1.0045.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 94.9 3.62 20 5.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 89.9 1.55 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 82.6 3.57 20 5.0 1.0041.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 89.0 3.96 20 5.0 1.0044.5 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 105 13.6 20 50.0 1.0052.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 102 6.80 20 5.0 1.0051.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 97.3 5.60 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 95.8 3.61 20 5.0 1.0047.9 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 90.6 1.86 20 5.0 1.0045.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 80.6 0.622 20 5.0 1.0040.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)92.6 3.18 20 5.0 1.0046.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 89.7 1.46 20 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 92.4 0.870 20 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 92.3 1.18 20 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 91.6 1.21 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 91.5 0.658 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 89.4 2.15 20 5.0 1.0044.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 0.200 20 5.0 1.0050.1 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 99.3 1.90 20 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 78.7 1.02 20 5.0 1.0039.4 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 141 7.27 20 10.0 1.0021215070 - 130 ND
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.
4-Chlorotoluene 89.8 2.25 20 5.0 1.0044.9 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 41 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Acetone 96.5 3.70 20 50.0 1.0048350070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 93.9 1.76 20 50.0 1.0023525070 - 130 ND
Benzene 87.1 2.61 20 2.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 87.1 3.39 20 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 89.3 0.224 20 5.0 1.0044.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 89.8 2.53 20 5.0 1.0044.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 89.4 3.07 20 5.0 1.0044.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 65.9 0.756 20 5.0 1.0033.0 50.070 - 130 ND
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.
Carbon Disulfide 88.7 6.54 20 10.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 94.2 0.318 20 5.0 1.0047.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 87.2 0.115 20 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 95.0 8.66 20 5.0 1.0047.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 90.2 1.21 20 5.0 1.0045.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 74.3 4.09 20 5.0 1.0037.2 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 90.9 0.439 20 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 92.8 0.323 20 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 33.4 4.87 20 50.0 1.0016750070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 86.9 2.80 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 95.8 3.18 20 5.0 1.0047.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 83.4 9.15 20 5.0 1.0041.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 90.4 2.86 20 10.0 1.0090.4 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 86.7 0.918 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 95.0 2.88 20 5.0 1.0047.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 89.0 3.64 20 5.0 1.0044.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 73.9 6.41 20 100 1.00739100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 89.9 1.11 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 74.1 3.29 20 5.0 1.0037.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 100 1.97 20 25.0 1.0050.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 85.1 2.90 20 10.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)102 1.08 20 2.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 92.9 8.76 20 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 61.7 3.95 20 250 1.0030950070 - 130 ND
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.
n-Butylbenzene 87.6 6.52 20 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 86.2 2.86 20 5.0 1.0043.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 119 0.421 20 5.0 1.0059.6 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 91.9 1.19 20 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 90.3 3.38 20 5.0 1.0045.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 89.8 0.783 20 5.0 1.0044.9 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 96.3 1.36 20 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 70.1 2.26 20 5.0 1.0035.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 86.7 1.15 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 88.0 1.80 20 5.0 1.0044.0 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 87.8 2.14 20 5.0 1.0043.9 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 42 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Trichloroethene 95.5 0.834 20 5.0 1.0047.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 86.8 4.17 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 88.7 1.71 20 5.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 86.1 0.924 20 5.0 1.0012915070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 97.3 2.44 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 96.1 0.208 20 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 96.0 0.416 20 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 97.0 1.53 20 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 96.5 13.3 20 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 96.8 12.8 20 5.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 87.4 13.6 20 5.0 1.0043.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 93.3 0.854 20 5.0 1.0046.6 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 105 5.49 20 50.0 1.0052.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 109 1.39 20 5.0 1.0054.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 101 3.12 20 5.0 1.0050.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 104 0.577 20 5.0 1.0052.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 96.6 1.03 20 5.0 1.0048.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 89.9 3.28 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)99.1 1.40 20 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 96.8 0.206 20 5.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 98.9 2.69 20 5.0 1.0049.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 94.2 4.87 20 5.0 1.0047.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 97.5 0.411 20 5.0 1.0048.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 97.8 0.408 20 5.0 1.0048.9 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 96.1 3.17 20 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106 1.31 20 5.0 1.0053.2 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 85.8 0.349 20 5.0 1.0042.9 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 106 0.468 20 5.0 1.0053.2 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 128 12.4 20 10.0 1.0019215070 - 130 ND
4-Chlorotoluene 95.5 1.56 20 5.0 1.0047.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 106 14.6 20 50.0 1.0052850070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 97.7 14.7 20 50.0 1.0024425070 - 130 ND
Benzene 94.0 1.79 20 2.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 94.5 2.09 20 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 93.1 0.962 20 5.0 1.0046.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 94.8 1.49 20 5.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 99.8 1.92 20 5.0 1.0049.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 48.9 48.5 20 5.0 1.0024.4 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Carbon Disulfide 104 16.9 20 10.0 1.0051.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 80.8 9.73 20 5.0 1.0040.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 94.9 0.421 20 5.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 96.7 12.1 20 5.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 97.3 0.615 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 74.2 2.04 20 5.0 1.0037.1 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 97.7 1.73 20 5.0 1.0048.8 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 91.6 1.76 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 43 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Cyclohexanone 37.5 7.55 20 50.0 1.0018850070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 93.0 0.00 20 5.0 1.0046.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 97.9 1.32 20 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 81.6 1.22 20 5.0 1.0040.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 94.0 2.68 20 10.0 1.0094.0 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 92.8 1.28 20 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 97.8 16.3 20 5.0 1.0048.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 98.6 0.101 20 5.0 1.0049.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 80.0 1.99 20 100 1.00800100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 95.2 0.00 20 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 82.0 0.608 20 5.0 1.0041.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 113 3.07 20 25.0 1.0056.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 91.4 15.6 20 10.0 1.0045.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)108 15.8 20 2.0 1.0054.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 102 1.48 20 5.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 66.4 5.30 20 250 1.0033250070 - 130 ND
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.
n-Butylbenzene 98.3 2.26 20 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 93.8 0.849 20 5.0 1.0046.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 130 0.307 20 5.0 1.0065.0 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 97.3 0.00 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 97.2 1.02 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 98.4 1.33 20 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 99.7 1.10 20 5.0 1.0049.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 72.9 3.24 20 5.0 1.0036.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 92.0 0.434 20 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 95.1 15.1 20 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 85.2 0.117 20 5.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 102 0.0984 20 5.0 1.0050.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 86.6 12.2 20 5.0 1.0043.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 80.2 6.40 20 5.0 1.0040.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 93.3 1.10 20 5.0 1.0014015070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 44 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 2320 B
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
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: BXJ0337-DUP1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)2.07 20 1.0 1.00110112
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)2.07 20 1.0 1.00110112
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-DUP2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)0.0516 20 1.0 1.00194194
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)0.0516 20 1.0 1.00194194
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-DUP3 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)0.0366 20 1.0 1.00274274
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)0.0366 20 1.0 1.00274274
LCS - SM 2320 B
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-BS1 Batch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)99.2 1.0 1.0023423690 - 110
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 45 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)20 1.00ND
Duplicate - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-DUP1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)0.7 10 20 1.00552548
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-DUP2 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)0.6 10 20 1.00672676
LCS - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-BS1 Batch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)94 20 1.0037640090 - 110
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 46 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0303-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0303
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 0.20 1.00ND
LCS - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0303-BS1 Batch: BXJ0303
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 104 0.20 1.005.19 5.0090 - 110
Matrix Spike - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0303-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0303
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 108 0.20 1.000.61 0.50080 - 120 0.07
Matrix Spike Dup - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0303-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0303
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 108 0.0987 20 0.20 1.000.61 0.50080 - 120 0.07
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 47 of 48
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0325
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0235-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0235
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Total Organic Carbon 0.5 1.00ND
LCS - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0235-BS1 Batch: BXJ0235
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Total Organic Carbon 100 0.5 1.005.0 5.0085 - 115
Matrix Spike - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0235-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0235
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Total Organic Carbon 82.7 0.5 1.004.6 5.0070 - 130 0.4
Matrix Spike Dup - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0235-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0325-01Batch: BXJ0235
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Total Organic Carbon 79.1 4.04 20 0.5 1.004.4 5.0070 - 130 0.4
MRL Check - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0235-MRL1 Batch: BXJ0235
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Total Organic Carbon 95.4 0.5 1.000.5 0.50050 - 150
QC Sample ID: BXJ0235-MRL2 Batch: BXJ0235
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Total Organic Carbon 135 0.5 1.000.7 0.50050 - 150
CtF WO#: 23J0325
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 48 of 48
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: 23J0342
Project: English Village Landfill
10/17/2023
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 33
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
AQS
Project: English Village Landfill
Project Manager: Joel Workman
Laboratory ID Sample Name
23J0342-01 EVL-MW005
23J0342-02 EB-2
23J0342-03 TB-2
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
Page 2 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW005
Lab ID: 23J0342-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 9:10
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Inorganic
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B194Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 BNDAlkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/231.0 SM 2320 B194Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)
mg/L 10/6/2310/6/230.20 SM 4500 NH3 HNDAmmonia as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/2310.0 EPA 300.0242Chloride
mg/L 10/5/23 2:4210/4/23 14:030.10 EPA 300.0NDNitrate as N
mg/L 10/5/2310/4/231.00 EPA 300.051.5Sulfate
mg/L 10/4/2310/4/2320SM 2540 C676Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/L 10/7/2310/6/230.5 SM 5310 C0.3Total Organic Carbon
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0028Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0619Barium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/232.00 EPA 6010D/3010A34.7Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0012Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.00005Cobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0005Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A0.0960Iron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Lead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/232.00 EPA 6010D/3010A23.3Magnesium, Total
mg/L J10/9/2310/6/230.050 EPA 6010D/3010A0.016Manganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Nickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/235.00 EPA 6010D/3010A9.75Potassium, Total
mg/L B10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0017Selenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/235.00 EPA 6010D/3010A162Sodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0022Vanadium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010ANDZinc, Total
EDB/DBCP
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.022 EPA 504.1NDEDB
ug/L 10/14/2310/13/230.044 EPA 504.1NDDBCP
Volatile Organic Compounds
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 3 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW005 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0342-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 9:10
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 4 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: EVL-MW005 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0342-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 9:10
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 5 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: EB-2
Lab ID: 23J0342-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 8:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Metals
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDAntimony, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0003Arsenic, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDBarium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0010 EPA 6010D/3010ANDBeryllium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCadmium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010A0.0419Calcium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Chromium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDCobalt, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0002Copper, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0200 EPA 6010D/3010ANDIron, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0001Lead, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.200 EPA 6010D/3010ANDMagnesium, Total
mg/L J10/9/2310/6/230.005 EPA 6010D/3010A0.001Manganese, Total
mg/L 10/6/2310/5/230.0002 EPA 7470ANDMercury, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDNickel, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010ANDPotassium, Total
mg/L B10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0006Selenium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDSilver, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.500 EPA 6010D/3010ANDSodium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010ANDThallium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0005 EPA 6020A/3010A0.0001Vanadium, Total
mg/L 10/9/2310/6/230.0100 EPA 6010D/3010ANDZinc, Total
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 6 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: EB-2 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0342-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 8:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 7 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: EB-2 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0342-02Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 8:00
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 8 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: TB-2
Lab ID: 23J0342-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 8:10
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L J-LOW-L10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 9 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
Sample ID: TB-2 (cont.)
Lab ID: 23J0342-03Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 10/4/23 8:10
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Client
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroform
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2310.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/2320.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/235.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/232.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/230.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L J-LOW-C10/12/2310/12/2350.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTetrachloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichloroethene
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 10/12/2310/12/231.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 10 of 33
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:
10/4/23 12:50 @ 8.9 °C
10/17/2023
English Village Landfill
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
B = Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample (CLP B-flag).
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
J-LOW-L = Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
Project Name: English Village Landfill CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 11 of 33
Page 12 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Chloride 1.00 1.00ND
Nitrate as N 0.10 1.00ND
Sulfate 1.00 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-BS1 Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Chloride 96.2 1.00 1.0048.1 50.090 - 110
Nitrate as N 98.9 0.10 1.004.95 5.0090 - 110
Sulfate 98.0 1.00 1.0049.0 50.090 - 110
Matrix Spike - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Chloride 104 11.0 1.0030010080 - 120 196
Nitrate as N 94.0 1.10 1.0012.3 10.080 - 120 2.88
Sulfate 99.3 11.0 1.0012910080 - 120 29.4
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Chloride 82.5 11.0 1.0032410080 - 120 242
Nitrate as N 91.8 1.10 1.009.18 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 97.5 11.0 1.0014910080 - 120 51.5
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 300.0
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Chloride 102 0.699 20 11.0 1.0029810080 - 120 196
Nitrate as N 92.8 1.01 20 1.10 1.0012.2 10.080 - 120 2.88
Sulfate 97.8 1.17 20 11.0 1.0012710080 - 120 29.4
QC Sample ID: BXJ0189-MSD2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0189
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/05/2023
Chloride 85.9 1.05 20 11.0 1.0032810080 - 120 242
Nitrate as N 92.6 0.811 20 1.10 1.009.26 10.080 - 120 ND
Sulfate 98.7 0.820 20 11.0 1.0015010080 - 120 51.5
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 13 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 0.022 1.00ND
DBCP 0.044 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-BS1 Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 108 0.022 1.000.27 0.25070 - 130
DBCP 130 0.044 1.000.32 0.25070 - 130
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-BS2 Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 113 0.022 1.000.28 0.25070 - 130
DBCP 128 0.044 1.000.32 0.25070 - 130
Matrix Spike - EPA 504.1
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 108 0.022 1.000.27 0.25070 - 130 ND
DBCP 127 0.044 1.000.32 0.25070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0687-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0687
Date Prepared: 10/13/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/14/2023
EDB 101 0.022 1.000.25 0.25070 - 130 ND
DBCP 117 0.044 1.000.29 0.25070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 14 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 0.0010 1.00ND
Calcium, Total 0.200 1.000.041
Iron, Total 0.0200 1.00ND
Magnesium, Total 0.200 1.00ND
Manganese, Total 0.005 1.00ND
Potassium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Sodium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Zinc, Total 0.0100 1.00ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0348-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0348
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 0.0010 1.00ND
Calcium, Total 0.200 1.000.008
Iron, Total 0.0200 1.00ND
Magnesium, Total 0.200 1.00ND
Manganese, Total 0.005 1.00ND
Potassium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Sodium, Total 0.500 1.00ND
Zinc, Total 0.0100 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-BS1 Batch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 102 0.0010 1.002.05 2.0085 - 115
Calcium, Total 99.2 0.200 1.0011.9 12.085 - 115
Iron, Total 104 0.0200 1.002.08 2.0085 - 115
Magnesium, Total 99.1 0.200 1.0011.9 12.085 - 115
Manganese, Total 101 0.005 1.002.03 2.0085 - 115
Potassium, Total 101 0.500 1.0010.1 10.085 - 115
Sodium, Total 103 0.500 1.0010.3 10.085 - 115
Zinc, Total 99.3 0.0100 1.001.99 2.0085 - 115
QC Sample ID: BXJ0348-BS1 Batch: BXJ0348
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 102 0.0010 1.002.04 2.0085 - 115
Calcium, Total 100 0.200 1.0012.0 12.085 - 115
Iron, Total 104 0.0200 1.002.08 2.0085 - 115
Magnesium, Total 100 0.200 1.0012.1 12.085 - 115
Manganese, Total 100 0.005 1.002.01 2.0085 - 115
Potassium, Total 102 0.500 1.0010.2 10.085 - 115
Sodium, Total 104 0.500 1.0010.4 10.085 - 115
Zinc, Total 99.0 0.0100 1.001.98 2.0085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 104 0.0010 1.002.08 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 100 0.200 1.0057.7 12.075 - 125 45.6
Iron, Total 103 0.0200 1.002.10 2.0075 - 125 0.030
Magnesium, Total 99.8 0.200 1.0021.4 12.075 - 125 9.44
Manganese, Total 101 0.005 1.002.02 2.0075 - 125 0.003
Potassium, Total 102 0.500 1.0020.3 10.075 - 125 10.1
Sodium, Total 111 0.500 1.0013210.075 - 125 121
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 15 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 6010D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Zinc, Total 100 0.0100 1.002.00 2.0075 - 125 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0348-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0348
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 100 0.0100 10.002.00 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 113 2.00 10.0048.2 12.075 - 125 34.7
Iron, Total 101 0.200 10.002.12 2.0075 - 125 0.096
Magnesium, Total 108 2.00 10.0036.3 12.075 - 125 23.3
Manganese, Total 97.7 0.050 10.001.97 2.0075 - 125 0.016
Potassium, Total 104 5.00 10.0020.1 10.075 - 125 9.75
Sodium, Total 177 5.00 10.0018010.075 - 125 162
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 0.100 10.002.02 2.0075 - 125 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6010D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0346-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0346
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 103 0.743 20 0.0010 1.002.06 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 103 0.643 20 0.200 1.0058.0 12.075 - 125 45.6
Iron, Total 103 0.402 20 0.0200 1.002.09 2.0075 - 125 0.030
Magnesium, Total 101 0.823 20 0.200 1.0021.6 12.075 - 125 9.44
Manganese, Total 101 0.0148 20 0.005 1.002.02 2.0075 - 125 0.003
Potassium, Total 104 1.06 20 0.500 1.0020.6 10.075 - 125 10.1
Sodium, Total 106 0.353 20 0.500 1.0013110.075 - 125 121
Zinc, Total 99.8 0.400 20 0.0100 1.002.00 2.0075 - 125 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0348-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0348
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Beryllium, Total 100 0.150 20 0.0100 10.002.00 2.0075 - 125 ND
Calcium, Total 112 0.154 20 2.00 10.0048.1 12.075 - 125 34.7
Iron, Total 100 1.09 20 0.200 10.002.10 2.0075 - 125 0.096
Magnesium, Total 107 0.304 20 2.00 10.0036.2 12.075 - 125 23.3
Manganese, Total 97.0 0.713 20 0.050 10.001.96 2.0075 - 125 0.016
Potassium, Total 104 0.397 20 5.00 10.0020.2 10.075 - 125 9.75
Sodium, Total 179 0.0922 20 5.00 10.0018010.075 - 125 162
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 0.248 20 0.100 10.002.02 2.0075 - 125 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 16 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Arsenic, Total 0.0005 1.000.0003
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 1.000.0001
Nickel, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Selenium, Total 0.0005 1.000.0005
Silver, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Thallium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
Vanadium, Total 0.0005 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-BS1 Batch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Arsenic, Total 104 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Barium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Cadmium, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Chromium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Cobalt, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Copper, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Lead, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040085 - 115
Nickel, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Selenium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
B - Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample (CLP B-flag).
Silver, Total 105 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040085 - 115
Thallium, Total 110 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040085 - 115
Vanadium, Total 109 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 6020A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 108 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 ND
Arsenic, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.044 0.040070 - 130 0.003
Barium, Total 106 0.0005 1.000.104 0.040070 - 130 0.062
Cadmium, Total 101 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 103 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Cobalt, Total 98.7 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.00005
Copper, Total 94.9 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0005
Lead, Total 94.2 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Nickel, Total 98.4 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Selenium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.002
B - Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample (CLP B-flag).
Silver, Total 95.7 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 102 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 107 0.0005 1.000.045 0.040070 - 130 0.002
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6020A
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 17 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 6020A (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0349-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0349
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/09/2023
Antimony, Total 105 3.37 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 ND
Arsenic, Total 101 1.29 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.003
Barium, Total 97.8 3.21 20 0.0005 1.000.101 0.040070 - 130 0.062
Cadmium, Total 99.0 2.45 20 0.0005 1.000.040 0.040070 - 130 ND
Chromium, Total 98.4 3.98 20 0.0005 1.000.041 0.040070 - 130 0.001
Cobalt, Total 96.1 2.66 20 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.00005
Copper, Total 93.5 1.43 20 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0005
Lead, Total 91.8 2.52 20 0.0005 1.000.037 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Nickel, Total 95.5 2.94 20 0.0005 1.000.038 0.040070 - 130 0.0002
Selenium, Total 99.6 2.22 20 0.0005 1.000.042 0.040070 - 130 0.002
B - Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample (CLP B-flag).
Silver, Total 91.4 4.65 20 0.0005 1.000.037 0.040070 - 130 ND
Thallium, Total 97.3 4.69 20 0.0005 1.000.039 0.040070 - 130 ND
Vanadium, Total 103 3.59 20 0.0005 1.000.043 0.040070 - 130 0.002
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 18 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 0.0002 1.00ND
LCS - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-BS1 Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 98.9 0.0002 1.000.0049 0.0050085 - 115
Matrix Spike - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 99.1 0.0002 1.000.0050 0.0050075 - 125 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 98.9 0.0002 1.000.0049 0.0050075 - 125 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 7470A
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 99.3 0.242 20 0.0002 1.000.0050 0.0050075 - 125 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0264-MSD2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0264
Date Prepared: 10/05/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Mercury, Total 100 1.27 20 0.0002 1.000.0050 0.0050075 - 125 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 19 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 8260D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
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#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 20 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
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
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BS1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 94.5 1.0 1.009.45 10.070 - 130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 99.1 1.0 1.009.91 10.070 - 130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 88.6 1.0 1.008.86 10.070 - 130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 88.7 1.0 1.008.87 10.070 - 130
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 110 1.0 1.0011.0 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethane 93.2 1.0 1.009.32 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloroethene 91.4 1.0 1.009.14 10.070 - 130
1,1-Dichloropropene 97.4 1.0 1.009.74 10.070 - 130
2-Hexanone 96.2 10.0 1.009.62 10.070 - 130
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 105 1.0 1.0010.5 10.070 - 130
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 95.6 1.0 1.009.56 10.070 - 130
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 99.6 1.0 1.009.96 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 82.4 1.0 1.008.24 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)92.2 1.0 1.009.22 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 94.9 1.0 1.009.49 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichloroethane 93.0 1.0 1.009.30 10.070 - 130
1,2-Dichloropropane 92.7 1.0 1.009.27 10.070 - 130
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 100 1.0 1.0010.0 10.070 - 130
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 98.7 1.0 1.009.87 10.070 - 130
1,3-Dichloropropane 88.2 1.0 1.008.82 10.070 - 130
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 107 1.0 1.0010.7 10.070 - 130
2,2-Dichloropropane 104 1.0 1.0010.4 10.070 - 130
2-Chlorotoluene 87.4 1.0 1.008.74 10.070 - 130
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 21 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
LCS - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BS1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
2-Nitropropane 135 2.0 1.0040.6 30.070 - 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.
4-Chlorotoluene 95.8 1.0 1.009.58 10.070 - 130
Acetone 95.3 10.0 1.0095.3 10070 - 130
Acrylonitrile 92.0 10.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130
Benzene 91.5 0.4 1.009.15 10.070 - 130
Bromobenzene 91.8 1.0 1.009.18 10.070 - 130
Bromochloromethane 87.6 1.0 1.008.76 10.070 - 130
Bromodichloromethane 91.2 1.0 1.009.12 10.070 - 130
Bromoform 88.1 1.0 1.008.81 10.070 - 130
Bromomethane 61.9 1.0 1.006.19 10.070 - 130
J-LOW-L - Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
Carbon Disulfide 99.0 2.0 1.009.90 10.070 - 130
Carbon Tetrachloride 99.5 1.0 1.009.95 10.070 - 130
Chlorobenzene 93.2 1.0 1.009.32 10.070 - 130
Chloroethane 91.7 1.0 1.009.17 10.070 - 130
Chloroform 93.1 1.0 1.009.31 10.070 - 130
Chloromethane 79.1 1.0 1.007.91 10.070 - 130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 93.5 1.0 1.009.35 10.070 - 130
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 95.0 1.0 1.009.50 10.070 - 130
Cyclohexanone 103 10.0 1.0010310070 - 130
Dibromochloromethane 89.5 1.0 1.008.95 10.070 - 130
Dibromomethane 94.3 1.0 1.009.43 10.070 - 130
Dichlorodifluoromethane 92.6 1.0 1.009.26 10.070 - 130
Ethyl Acetate 89.8 2.0 1.0018.0 20.070 - 130
Ethylbenzene 92.0 1.0 1.009.20 10.070 - 130
Ethyl Ether 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
Hexachlorobutadiene 100 1.0 1.0010.0 10.070 - 130
Isobutanol 89.9 20.0 1.0018020070 - 130
Isopropylbenzene 97.0 1.0 1.009.70 10.070 - 130
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 80.0 1.0 1.008.00 10.070 - 130
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 101 5.0 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
Methylene Chloride 86.7 2.0 1.008.67 10.070 - 130
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)101 0.4 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
Naphthalene 97.0 1.0 1.009.70 10.070 - 130
n-Butyl Alcohol 54.4 50.0 1.0054.4 10070 - 130
J-LOW-L - Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
n-Butylbenzene 101 1.0 1.0010.1 10.070 - 130
n-Propyl Benzene 96.9 1.0 1.009.69 10.070 - 130
Pentachloroethane 124 1.0 1.0012.4 10.070 - 130
p-Isopropyltoluene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
sec-Butyl Benzene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
Styrene 94.2 1.0 1.009.42 10.070 - 130
tert-Butylbenzene 104 1.0 1.0010.4 10.070 - 130
Tetrachloroethene 78.6 1.0 1.007.86 10.070 - 130
Toluene 90.9 1.0 1.009.09 10.070 - 130
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 88.6 1.0 1.008.86 10.070 - 130
Trichloroethene 102 1.0 1.0010.2 10.070 - 130
Trichlorofluoromethane 95.3 1.0 1.009.53 10.070 - 130
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 22 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
LCS - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-BS1 Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Vinyl Chloride 95.8 1.0 1.009.58 10.070 - 130
Xylenes, total 92.6 1.0 1.0027.8 30.070 - 130
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 89.9 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 94.0 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 86.9 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 89.7 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 98.4 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 91.3 5.0 1.0045.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 85.6 5.0 1.0042.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 92.6 5.0 1.0046.3 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 91.4 50.0 1.0045.7 50.070 - 130 ND
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 95.2 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 92.0 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 92.4 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 92.3 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 80.1 5.0 1.0040.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)89.7 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 88.4 5.0 1.0044.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 91.6 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 93.4 5.0 1.0046.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 90.5 5.0 1.0045.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 90.9 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 87.5 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 5.0 1.0050.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 101 5.0 1.0050.6 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 77.9 5.0 1.0039.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 131 10.0 1.0019715070 - 130 ND
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.
4-Chlorotoluene 87.8 5.0 1.0043.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 93.0 50.0 1.0046550070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 92.2 50.0 1.0023125070 - 130 ND
Benzene 89.4 2.0 1.0044.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 84.2 5.0 1.0042.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 89.1 5.0 1.0044.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 92.1 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 86.7 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 66.4 5.0 1.0033.2 50.070 - 130 ND
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.
Carbon Disulfide 94.7 10.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 94.5 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 87.3 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 104 5.0 1.0051.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 91.3 5.0 1.0045.6 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 23 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Chloromethane 77.4 5.0 1.0038.7 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 91.3 5.0 1.0045.6 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 93.1 5.0 1.0046.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 31.8 50.0 1.0015950070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 84.5 5.0 1.0042.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 92.8 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 91.4 5.0 1.0045.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 87.8 10.0 1.0087.8 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 87.5 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 92.3 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 92.3 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 78.8 100 1.00788100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 90.9 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 71.7 5.0 1.0035.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 102 25.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 87.6 10.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)101 2.0 1.0050.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 85.1 5.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 59.3 250 1.0029750070 - 130 ND
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.
n-Butylbenzene 93.5 5.0 1.0046.8 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 88.7 5.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 119 5.0 1.0059.3 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 93.0 5.0 1.0046.5 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 93.4 5.0 1.0046.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 89.1 5.0 1.0044.6 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 95.0 5.0 1.0047.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 71.7 5.0 1.0035.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 87.7 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 89.6 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 89.7 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 96.3 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 90.5 5.0 1.0045.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 87.2 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 86.9 5.0 1.0013015070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 99.7 5.0 1.0049.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 96.3 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 96.4 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 98.5 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 110 5.0 1.0055.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 110 5.0 1.0055.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 100 5.0 1.0050.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 94.1 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 24 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
2-Hexanone 99.2 50.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
J - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J-Flag).
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 107 5.0 1.0053.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 104 5.0 1.0052.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 104 5.0 1.0051.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 97.6 5.0 1.0048.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 87.0 5.0 1.0043.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)100 5.0 1.0050.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 97.0 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 102 5.0 1.0050.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 98.9 5.0 1.0049.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 97.1 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 98.2 5.0 1.0049.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 99.2 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 108 5.0 1.0054.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 86.1 5.0 1.0043.0 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 107 5.0 1.0053.5 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 113 10.0 1.0017015070 - 130 ND
4-Chlorotoluene 97.0 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 122 50.0 1.0061150070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 113 50.0 1.0028325070 - 130 ND
Benzene 95.7 2.0 1.0047.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 96.5 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 94.0 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 93.4 5.0 1.0046.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 97.9 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 29.8 5.0 1.0014.9 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Carbon Disulfide 123 10.0 1.0061.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 73.3 5.0 1.0036.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 95.3 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 109 5.0 1.0054.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 97.9 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 72.7 5.0 1.0036.4 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 99.4 5.0 1.0049.7 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 90.0 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 34.8 50.0 1.0017450070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 93.0 5.0 1.0046.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 99.2 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 82.6 5.0 1.0041.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 96.6 10.0 1.0096.6 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 94.0 5.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 115 5.0 1.0057.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 98.5 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 81.6 100 1.00816100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 95.2 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 82.5 5.0 1.0041.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 109 25.0 1.0054.6 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 25 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MS2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Methylene Chloride 107 10.0 1.0053.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)127 2.0 1.0063.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 101 5.0 1.0050.4 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 70.1 250 1.0035050070 - 130 ND
n-Butylbenzene 96.1 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 94.6 5.0 1.0047.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 130 5.0 1.0065.2 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 97.3 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 98.2 5.0 1.0049.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 97.1 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 101 5.0 1.0050.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 75.3 5.0 1.0037.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 92.4 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 111 5.0 1.0055.3 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 85.3 5.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 102 5.0 1.0050.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 97.9 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 85.5 5.0 1.0042.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 94.3 5.0 1.0014115070 - 130 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 89.9 0.00 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 92.0 2.15 20 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 88.9 2.28 20 5.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 91.0 1.44 20 5.0 1.0045.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 94.9 3.62 20 5.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 89.9 1.55 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 82.6 3.57 20 5.0 1.0041.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 89.0 3.96 20 5.0 1.0044.5 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 105 13.6 20 50.0 1.0052.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 102 6.80 20 5.0 1.0051.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 97.3 5.60 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 95.8 3.61 20 5.0 1.0047.9 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 90.6 1.86 20 5.0 1.0045.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 80.6 0.622 20 5.0 1.0040.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)92.6 3.18 20 5.0 1.0046.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 89.7 1.46 20 5.0 1.0044.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 92.4 0.870 20 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 92.3 1.18 20 5.0 1.0046.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 91.6 1.21 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 91.5 0.658 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 89.4 2.15 20 5.0 1.0044.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 0.200 20 5.0 1.0050.1 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 99.3 1.90 20 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 78.7 1.02 20 5.0 1.0039.4 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 141 7.27 20 10.0 1.0021215070 - 130 ND
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.
4-Chlorotoluene 89.8 2.25 20 5.0 1.0044.9 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 26 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Acetone 96.5 3.70 20 50.0 1.0048350070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 93.9 1.76 20 50.0 1.0023525070 - 130 ND
Benzene 87.1 2.61 20 2.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 87.1 3.39 20 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 89.3 0.224 20 5.0 1.0044.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 89.8 2.53 20 5.0 1.0044.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 89.4 3.07 20 5.0 1.0044.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 65.9 0.756 20 5.0 1.0033.0 50.070 - 130 ND
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.
Carbon Disulfide 88.7 6.54 20 10.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 94.2 0.318 20 5.0 1.0047.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 87.2 0.115 20 5.0 1.0043.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 95.0 8.66 20 5.0 1.0047.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 90.2 1.21 20 5.0 1.0045.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 74.3 4.09 20 5.0 1.0037.2 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 90.9 0.439 20 5.0 1.0045.4 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 92.8 0.323 20 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Cyclohexanone 33.4 4.87 20 50.0 1.0016750070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 86.9 2.80 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 95.8 3.18 20 5.0 1.0047.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 83.4 9.15 20 5.0 1.0041.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 90.4 2.86 20 10.0 1.0090.4 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 86.7 0.918 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 95.0 2.88 20 5.0 1.0047.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 89.0 3.64 20 5.0 1.0044.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 73.9 6.41 20 100 1.00739100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 89.9 1.11 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 74.1 3.29 20 5.0 1.0037.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 100 1.97 20 25.0 1.0050.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 85.1 2.90 20 10.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)102 1.08 20 2.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 92.9 8.76 20 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 61.7 3.95 20 250 1.0030950070 - 130 ND
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.
n-Butylbenzene 87.6 6.52 20 5.0 1.0043.8 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 86.2 2.86 20 5.0 1.0043.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 119 0.421 20 5.0 1.0059.6 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 91.9 1.19 20 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 90.3 3.38 20 5.0 1.0045.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 89.8 0.783 20 5.0 1.0044.9 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 96.3 1.36 20 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 70.1 2.26 20 5.0 1.0035.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 86.7 1.15 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 88.0 1.80 20 5.0 1.0044.0 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 87.8 2.14 20 5.0 1.0043.9 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 27 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Trichloroethene 95.5 0.834 20 5.0 1.0047.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 86.8 4.17 20 5.0 1.0043.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 88.7 1.71 20 5.0 1.0044.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 86.1 0.924 20 5.0 1.0012915070 - 130 ND
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 97.3 2.44 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 96.1 0.208 20 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 96.0 0.416 20 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 97.0 1.53 20 5.0 1.0048.5 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 96.5 13.3 20 5.0 1.0048.2 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 96.8 12.8 20 5.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 87.4 13.6 20 5.0 1.0043.7 50.070 - 130 ND
1,1-Dichloropropene 93.3 0.854 20 5.0 1.0046.6 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Hexanone 105 5.49 20 50.0 1.0052.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 109 1.39 20 5.0 1.0054.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 101 3.12 20 5.0 1.0050.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 104 0.577 20 5.0 1.0052.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 96.6 1.03 20 5.0 1.0048.3 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 89.9 3.28 20 5.0 1.0045.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)99.1 1.40 20 5.0 1.0049.6 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 96.8 0.206 20 5.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 98.9 2.69 20 5.0 1.0049.4 50.070 - 130 ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 94.2 4.87 20 5.0 1.0047.1 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 97.5 0.411 20 5.0 1.0048.8 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 97.8 0.408 20 5.0 1.0048.9 50.070 - 130 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 96.1 3.17 20 5.0 1.0048.0 50.070 - 130 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106 1.31 20 5.0 1.0053.2 50.070 - 130 ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 85.8 0.349 20 5.0 1.0042.9 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Chlorotoluene 106 0.468 20 5.0 1.0053.2 50.070 - 130 ND
2-Nitropropane 128 12.4 20 10.0 1.0019215070 - 130 ND
4-Chlorotoluene 95.5 1.56 20 5.0 1.0047.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Acetone 106 14.6 20 50.0 1.0052850070 - 130 ND
Acrylonitrile 97.7 14.7 20 50.0 1.0024425070 - 130 ND
Benzene 94.0 1.79 20 2.0 1.0047.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromobenzene 94.5 2.09 20 5.0 1.0047.2 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromochloromethane 93.1 0.962 20 5.0 1.0046.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromodichloromethane 94.8 1.49 20 5.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromoform 99.8 1.92 20 5.0 1.0049.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Bromomethane 48.9 48.5 20 5.0 1.0024.4 50.070 - 130 ND
MS-Low - Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
Carbon Disulfide 104 16.9 20 10.0 1.0051.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 80.8 9.73 20 5.0 1.0040.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Chlorobenzene 94.9 0.421 20 5.0 1.0047.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroethane 96.7 12.1 20 5.0 1.0048.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloroform 97.3 0.615 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Chloromethane 74.2 2.04 20 5.0 1.0037.1 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 97.7 1.73 20 5.0 1.0048.8 50.070 - 130 ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 91.6 1.76 20 5.0 1.0045.8 50.070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 28 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Matrix Spike Dup - EPA 8260D (cont.)
QC Sample ID: BXJ0660-MSD2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0660
Date Prepared: 10/12/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/12/2023
Cyclohexanone 37.5 7.55 20 50.0 1.0018850070 - 130 ND
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.
Dibromochloromethane 93.0 0.00 20 5.0 1.0046.5 50.070 - 130 ND
Dibromomethane 97.9 1.32 20 5.0 1.0049.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 81.6 1.22 20 5.0 1.0040.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Acetate 94.0 2.68 20 10.0 1.0094.0 10070 - 130 ND
Ethylbenzene 92.8 1.28 20 5.0 1.0046.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Ethyl Ether 97.8 16.3 20 5.0 1.0048.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 98.6 0.101 20 5.0 1.0049.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Isobutanol 80.0 1.99 20 100 1.00800100070 - 130 ND
Isopropylbenzene 95.2 0.00 20 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 82.0 0.608 20 5.0 1.0041.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 113 3.07 20 25.0 1.0056.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Methylene Chloride 91.4 15.6 20 10.0 1.0045.7 50.070 - 130 ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)108 15.8 20 2.0 1.0054.0 50.070 - 130 ND
Naphthalene 102 1.48 20 5.0 1.0051.2 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Butyl Alcohol 66.4 5.30 20 250 1.0033250070 - 130 ND
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.
n-Butylbenzene 98.3 2.26 20 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
n-Propyl Benzene 93.8 0.849 20 5.0 1.0046.9 50.070 - 130 ND
Pentachloroethane 130 0.307 20 5.0 1.0065.0 50.070 - 130 ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 97.3 0.00 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
sec-Butyl Benzene 97.2 1.02 20 5.0 1.0048.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Styrene 98.4 1.33 20 5.0 1.0049.2 50.070 - 130 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 99.7 1.10 20 5.0 1.0049.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Tetrachloroethene 72.9 3.24 20 5.0 1.0036.4 50.070 - 130 ND
Toluene 92.0 0.434 20 5.0 1.0046.0 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 95.1 15.1 20 5.0 1.0047.6 50.070 - 130 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 85.2 0.117 20 5.0 1.0042.6 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichloroethene 102 0.0984 20 5.0 1.0050.8 50.070 - 130 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 86.6 12.2 20 5.0 1.0043.3 50.070 - 130 ND
Vinyl Chloride 80.2 6.40 20 5.0 1.0040.1 50.070 - 130 ND
Xylenes, total 93.3 1.10 20 5.0 1.0014015070 - 130 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 29 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 2320 B
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
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: BXJ0337-DUP1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)2.07 20 1.0 1.00110112
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)2.07 20 1.0 1.00110112
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-DUP2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)0.0516 20 1.0 1.00194194
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)0.0516 20 1.0 1.00194194
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-DUP3 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)0.0366 20 1.0 1.00274274
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)20 1.0 1.00NDND
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)0.0366 20 1.0 1.00274274
LCS - SM 2320 B
QC Sample ID: BXJ0337-BS1 Batch: BXJ0337
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)99.2 1.0 1.0023423690 - 110
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 30 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)20 1.00ND
Duplicate - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-DUP1 QC Source Sample: XXXXXXX-XXBatch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)0.7 10 20 1.00552548
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-DUP2 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)0.6 10 20 1.00672676
LCS - SM 2540 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0196-BS1 Batch: BXJ0196
Date Prepared: 10/04/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/04/2023
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)94 20 1.0037640090 - 110
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 31 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0304-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0304
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 0.20 1.00ND
LCS - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0304-BS1 Batch: BXJ0304
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 101 0.20 1.005.06 5.0090 - 110
Matrix Spike - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0304-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0304
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 116 0.20 1.000.58 0.50080 - 120 ND
Matrix Spike Dup - SM 4500 NH3 H
QC Sample ID: BXJ0304-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0304
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/06/2023
Ammonia as N 115 0.346 20 0.20 1.000.58 0.50080 - 120 ND
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 32 of 33
QC Report for Work Order (WO) - 23J0342
% Rec RPD RPD Max MRL DFResultSpk ValueLimitsSource ConcAnalyte
Blank - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0371-BLK1 Batch: BXJ0371
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/07/2023
Total Organic Carbon 0.5 1.00ND
LCS - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0371-BS1 Batch: BXJ0371
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/07/2023
Total Organic Carbon 99.5 0.5 1.005.0 5.0085 - 115
Matrix Spike - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0371-MS1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0371
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/07/2023
Total Organic Carbon 84.3 0.5 1.004.5 5.0070 - 130 0.3
Matrix Spike Dup - SM 5310 C
QC Sample ID: BXJ0371-MSD1 QC Source Sample: 23J0342-01Batch: BXJ0371
Date Prepared: 10/06/2023 Date Analyzed: 10/07/2023
Total Organic Carbon 79.0 5.94 20 0.5 1.004.3 5.0070 - 130 0.3
CtF WO#: 23J0342
www.ChemtechFord.com Page 33 of 33

Data Validation Report

Sample Delivery Groups (SDGs): 23J0325, 23J0342
Laboratory: Chemtech-Ford Laboratories, Salt Lake City
Project/Site Name: Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring 2023-2
AQS Report Date: 10/30/2023
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 23J0325-01 10/3/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW002 23J0325-02 10/3/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW003 23J0325-03 10/3/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW004 23J0325-04 10/3/2023 EVL Landfill List
EVL-MW008 23J0325-05 10/3/2023 EVL Landfill List
FB-1 23J0325-06 10/3/2023 VOCs
EB-1 23J0325-07 10/3/2023 VOCs, Metals
TB-1 23J0325-08 10/3/2023 VOCs

EVL-MW005 23J0342-01 10/4/2023 EVL Landfill List
EB-2 23J0342-02 10/4/2023 VOCs, Metals
TB-2 23J0342-03 10/4/2023 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.

AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 2
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.

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:

AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 3
Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
Arsenic, Total
Calcium, Total
Lead, Total

These analytes were detected in
the method blank.
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Calcium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
These analytes were detected in
the equipment blank (EB-1).
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW005 Arsenic, Total
Calcium, Total
Lead, Total
Selenium, Total
These analytes were detected in
the method blank.
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW005 Arsenic, Total
Calcium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Manganese, Total
Selenium, Total
Vanadium, Total
These analytes were detected in
the equipment blank (EB-2).
Flag low-level
detects as
estimated (J)

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
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
n-Butyl Alcohol
Bromomethane
LCS recovery was low for these
analytes.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
estimated (J and
UJ)
EVL-MW001
EVL-MW002
EVL-MW003
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
2-Nitropropane LCS recovery was high for this
analyte. All sample results were
non detect.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)
AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 4
EVL-MW005 n-Butyl Alcohol
Bromomethane
LCS recovery was low for these
analytes.
Flag detects and
non-detects as
estimated (J and
UJ)
EVL-MW005 2-Nitropropane LCS recovery was high for this
analyte. All sample results were
non detect.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)

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 Cyclohexanone
n-Butyl Alcohol
Bromomethane
MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag detects
and non-
detects as
estimated (J or
UJ)
EVL-MW001 2-Nitropropane MS and/or MSD recovery
was high for this analyte.
Flag detects as
estimated (J)
EVL-MW005 Bromomethane
Cyclohexanone
Bromomethane
n-Butyl Alcohol
MS and/or MSD recovery
was low for these analytes.
Flag detects
and non-
detects as
estimated (J or
UJ)
EVL-MW005 Sodium, Total MS and/or MSD recovery
was high for this analyte but
the amount spiked was
<0.25 the sample
concentration.
None required
EVL-MW005 Bromomethane MS/MSD RPD was high for
this analyte.
Flag detects
and non-
detects as
estimated (J or
UJ)

3.8 Field Duplicates

Field duplicates are shown in Appendix 1. For this project, where the results are greater than four times
the detection 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 5
Sample(s) Analyte(s) Notes Qualifiers
EVL-MW004
EVL-MW008
Manganese, Total
Copper, Total
Selenium, Total
Field duplicate RPD was outside
method requirements for these
analytes but at least one of the
results was lower than 4x the
method detection limit.
None required

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 6
Appendix 1. Field Duplicates

Method Parameter
EVL-MW004 EVL-MW008
RPD Flag 23J0325-04 23J0325-05
EPA 300.0 Chloride 228 224 1.8
EPA 300.0 Nitrate as N 0.45 0.45 0.0
EPA 300.0 Sulfate 62.3 61.9 0.6
EPA 504.1 EDB ND ND ---
EPA 504.1 DBCP ND ND ---
EPA 6010D Beryllium, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6010D Calcium, Total 29.6 29.2 1.4
EPA 6010D Iron, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6010D Magnesium, Total 13.5 13.4 0.7
EPA 6010D Manganese, Total 0.002 0.004 66.7 <4x
EPA 6010D Potassium, Total 9.62 9.48 1.5
EPA 6010D Sodium, Total 177 174 1.7
EPA 6010D Zinc, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Antimony, Total 0.0002 0.0002 0.0
EPA 6020A Arsenic, Total 0.0063 0.0062 1.6
EPA 6020A Barium, Total 0.0438 0.0434 0.9
EPA 6020A Cadmium, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Cobalt, Total 0.0002 0.0002 0.0
EPA 6020A Chromium, Total 0.0014 0.0014 0.0
EPA 6020A Copper, Total 0.0003 0.0002 40.0 <4x
EPA 6020A Lead, Total ND 0.00007 ---
EPA 6020A Nickel, Total 0.0006 0.0005 18.2
EPA 6020A Selenium, Total 0.0009 0.0007 25.0 <4x
EPA 6020A Silver, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Thallium, Total ND ND ---
EPA 6020A Vanadium, Total 0.0100 0.0098 2.0
EPA 7470A Mercury, Total ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 2-Chlorotoluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 2-Nitropropane ND ND ---
AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 7
Method Parameter
EVL-MW004 EVL-MW008
RPD Flag 23J0325-04 23J0325-05
EPA 8260D 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Acetone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Acrylonitrile ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Benzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Bromobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Bromochloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Bromodichloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Bromoform ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Bromomethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Carbon Disulfide ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Carbon Tetrachloride ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Chlorobenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Chloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Chloroform ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Chloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Cyclohexanone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Dibromochloromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Dibromomethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Ethyl Acetate ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Ethylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Ethyl Ether ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Hexachlorobutadiene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Isobutanol ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Isopropylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Methyl Ethyl Ketone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Methylene Chloride ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Naphthalene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D n-Butyl Alcohol ND ND ---
EPA 8260D n-Butylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D n-Propyl Benzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Pentachloroethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D p-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D sec-Butyl Benzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Styrene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Tetrachloroethene ND ND ---
AQS, Inc. Data Validation Report

Page 8
Method Parameter
EVL-MW004 EVL-MW008
RPD Flag 23J0325-04 23J0325-05
EPA 8260D Toluene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Trichloroethene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Vinyl Chloride ND ND ---
EPA 8260D Xylenes, total ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 2-Hexanone ND ND ---
EPA 8260D 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ---
SM 2320 B Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 142 147 3.5
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) 142 147 3.5
SM 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 728 696 4.5
SM 4500 NH3 H Ammonia as N ND ND ---
SM 5310 C Total Organic Carbon ND ND ---

APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
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
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
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
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
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
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
-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
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
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
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
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
-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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
-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
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
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
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 TREND PLOTS

27000
28000
29000
30000
31000
32000
33000
34000
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, MW001
Spring 2023
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
APPENDIX F-1
MW001 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
Alkalinity Trend, MW001
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
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Antimony Trend, MW003
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Arsenic Trend, MW003
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Barium Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Beryllium Trend, MW003
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Cadmium Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Calcium Trend, MW003
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Chromium Trend, MW003
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Cobalt Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Copper Trend, MW003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Iron Trend, MW003
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Lead Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Magnesium Trend, MW003
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Manganese Trend, MW003
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Mercury Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Nickel Trend, MW003
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Potassium Trend, MW003
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Selenium Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Silver Trend, MW003
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Sodium Trend, MW003
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Thallium Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Vanadium Trend, MW003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Zinc Trend, MW003
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Chloride Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Nitrate Trend Line, MW003
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Sulfate Trend, MW003
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
TDS Trend, MW003
APPENDIX F-2
MW003 TREND PLOTS

88000
90000
92000
94000
96000
98000
100000
102000
104000
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Alkalinity Trend, MW003
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00 Jan-00
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Date
Ammonia Trend, MW003
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 0
9
10 15
6 4
40 20
240 100
3668 60%
73 60.56
4.112 0.552
2.292 2.663
0.581
0.781
0.354
0.304
43.22 44.53
145.3 120.9
100.3 116.5
146.8 161.8
42.4 46.42
148.8 123.4
101.9 118.7
150.4 166
1.151
0.732
0.262
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
ProUCL 5.2 11/1/2023 8:13:42 AM
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
Ammonia
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
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
51
52
53
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.269
2.96 2.139
24.66 34.13
59.21 42.78
73
49.91 9.935
0.01 30.99
240 0.01
51.75 1.67
0.181 0.186
171.7 167.1
9.026 9.276
30.99 71.96
1.949 93.59
162.8 355.6
WH HW WH HW
259 358.6 148.8 177.7
358.3 542.7
43.22 44.53
1983 9.521
0.942 0.856
47.1 42.78
45.88 50.51
70.34 103.4
136.8 215.5
WH HW WH HW
136.8 137.5 104.4 103.2
99.1 97.76 162.2 165.2
0.77
0.869
0.221
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
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
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
101
102
103
104
105
106
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.241
40.57 3.342
46.5 0.818
184.2 208
240 117.7
80.62 108.5
189.5 249.5
3.5 144
0.641 101.4
95.09 182.6
42.4 3.402
46.42 0.8
187.7 121.2
83.68 111.9
193 252.6
25 240
1.316 0.723
59 198
240 241.1
25 0
11
13 12
7 6
0.01 0.032
0.3 4
0.00686 48%
0.107 0.0828
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
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 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
Mean Detected SD Detected
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
-2.593 0.994
2.292 2.663
0.871
0.814
0.303
0.271
0.0823 0.0762
0.257 0.215
0.18 0.208
0.26 0.285
0.476 0.781
2.266 1.839
1.477 1.761
2.293 2.556
0.547
0.75
0.194
0.241
1.546 1.241
0.0692 0.0862
40.2 32.26
0.107
0.096 6.894
0.01 0.0781
0.3 0.0615
0.0727 0.93
1.253 1.129
0.0624 0.0692
SD of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Mean of Detected Logged Data
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
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
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
62.63 56.45
0.0781 0.0735
6.482 0.175
0.224 0.339
WH HW WH HW
0.321 0.349 0.232 0.242
0.394 0.439
0.0823 0.0762
0.0058 0.0186
1.168 1.055
58.42 52.74
0.0705 0.0781
0.132 0.187
0.242 0.369
WH HW WH HW
0.338 0.367 0.243 0.254
0.228 0.236 0.414 0.462
0.893
0.889
0.23
0.215
0.0774 -2.945
0.0714 0.917
0.431 0.28
0.3 0.261
0.17 0.238
0.444 0.605
-2.972 0.557
1.041 0.315
0.284 0.819
0.476 -2.039
0.781 1.621
5.347 2.202
1.039 1.873
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
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)
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
5.654 9.755
25 4
1.316 0.723
59 4
4 0.421
25 13
0.57 4.7
6.1 5.1
6.5 5.4
4.927 1.08
0.219 -2.804
1.537 0.452
2.292 2.663
0.729
0.886
0.226
0.201
7.401 6.31
6.81 6.703
7.802 7.438
3.846
0.745
0.32
0.175
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 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
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
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
8.794 7.765
0.56 0.634
439.7 388.3
4.927 1.768
8.189 7.285
8.542 8.149
9.523 9.94
10.1
10.5 11.27
0.436
0.931
0.351
0.159
13.11 8.303
10.24 9.786
15.51 13.32
25 6.5
1.316 0.723
59
6.5 6.5
6.38 5.62
8.23 6.02
9.726 6.404
6.5
25 8
100 100
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 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.
Ba
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
128 100
130 110
106.9 10.55
0.0986 1.215
4.668 0.094
2.292 2.663
0.688
0.886
0.384
0.201
131.1 120.4
125.3 124.3
135 131.5
3.615
0.742
0.391
0.174
114.3 100.6
0.935 1.062
5716 5032
106.9 10.66
125.4 120.8
125.4 125
131.7 133.3
131.8
136.1 136.2
0.69
0.931
0.387
0.159
132 120.1
Second Largest 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% UTL with 95% Coverage
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
125.4 124.3
136.7 132.5
25 130
1.316 0.723
59
130 130
129.4 125.4
139.2 127.8
153.8 129.5
130
25 0
7
0 25
0 7
N/A 0.018
N/A 0.6
N/A 100%
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
25 0
11
7 18
5 9
0.02 0.03
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
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 Observations
Number of Non-Detects
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
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
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.3 1
0.0101 72%
0.0729 0.101
-3.08 0.878
2.292 2.663
0.545
0.73
0.447
0.35
0.0423 0.0615
0.183 0.15
0.121 0.143
0.185 0.206
0.115 0.128
0.408 0.338
0.279 0.325
0.412 0.455
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 0.033
0.3 0.01
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
Variance Detected Percent Non-Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Maximum 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)
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S 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
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)
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
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
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.0586 1.78
1.036 0.939
0.0318 0.0351
51.82 46.94
0.033 0.034
5.752 0.0771
0.101 0.157
WH HW WH HW
0.138 0.137 0.0975 0.0944
0.171 0.174
0.0423 0.0615
0.00378 0.0153
0.473 0.443
23.64 22.13
0.0895 0.0955
0.0689 0.117
0.17 0.3
WH HW WH HW
0.143 0.138 0.107 0.102
0.101 0.0962 0.172 0.168
0.767
0.838
0.319
0.28
0.0365 -3.685
0.0563 0.722
0.131 0.3
0.3 0.0884
0.0633 0.0822
0.134 0.171
-3.505 0.127
0.629 0.0901
0.0846 0.161
0.115 -2.79
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 Mean in Log Scale
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
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.128 1.17
0.896 0.473
0.275 0.421
0.933 1.383
25 1
1.316 0.723
59 0.85
1 0.316
25 21
35000 43500
51500 45300
51500 46900
45076 3523
0.0782 -0.588
10.71 0.0807
2.292 2.663
0.956
0.886
0.0925
0.201
53151 49591
51223 50871
54458 53272
0.38
0.742
SD in Original Scale
95% UTL95% Coverage
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
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)
Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
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
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.0957
0.174
163.8 144.1
275.3 312.7
8188 7207
45076 3755
51543 49950
51589 51424
53725 54267
53807
55237 55351
0.933
0.931
0.103
0.159
54073 49837
51736 51321
55717 54224
25 51500
1.316 0.723
59
51500 51500
51500 48880
55855 51000
60737 51500
51500
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S 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
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
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Cr
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
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 0
13
23 2
11 2
1 0.015
12.7 5
8.116 8%
3.343 2.849
1.007 0.573
2.292 2.663
0.588
0.881
0.331
0.209
3.168 2.763
9.5 7.988
6.709 7.712
9.595 10.52
3.176 2.811
9.62 8.082
6.779 7.801
9.717 10.66
2.552
0.752
0.269
0.183
2.657 2.34
1.258 1.429
122.2 107.6
3.343
2.186 10.57
General Statistics
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
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)
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
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
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.01 3.169
12.7 2
2.813 0.888
1.469 1.32
2.157 2.402
73.46 65.98
3.169 2.759
7.179 6.814
8.62 12.73
WH HW WH HW
11.42 12.89 8.517 9.226
13.72 15.94
3.168 2.763
7.632 0.566
1.315 1.184
65.76 59.21
2.409 2.676
5.023 6.997
8.946 13.42
WH HW WH HW
11.16 12.47 8.348 8.976
7.893 8.427 13.38 15.37
0.802
0.928
0.248
0.165
3.201 0.951
2.781 0.604
10.34 12.7
12.7 7.427
5.614 6.992
10.56 12.94
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 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
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
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
796
797
798
799
800
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.782 32.27
1.174 16.97
15.09 49.88
3.176 0.768
2.811 1.301
42.47 20.84
11.41 18.3
44.41 68.8
25 12.7
1.316 0.723
59 12.19
12.7 15.45
25 0
13
15 10
8 6
0.09 0.01
4 2
0.996 40%
0.586 0.998
-1.201 1.03
2.292 2.663
0.51
0.835
0.374
0.255
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
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
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
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
849
850
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.386 0.793
2.203 1.769
1.402 1.69
2.23 2.497
0.457 0.816
2.327 1.88
1.503 1.799
2.355 2.629
1.535
0.769
0.309
0.229
0.879 0.748
0.667 0.784
26.38 22.43
0.586
0.678 4.971
0.01 0.366
4 0.2
0.812 2.222
0.452 0.425
0.808 0.861
22.62 21.24
0.366 0.561
3.457 1.021
1.487 2.652
WH HW WH HW
2.163 2.399 1.372 1.418
2.843 3.307
0.386 0.793
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
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)SD (KM)
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.628 0.165
0.237 0.235
11.86 11.77
1.628 1.64
0.548 1.163
1.902 3.886
WH HW WH HW
2.064 2.243 1.349 1.381
1.24 1.256 2.67 3.022
0.867
0.901
0.234
0.202
0.382 -1.869
0.805 1.236
2.623 4
4 1.334
0.752 1.179
2.736 4.148
-2.109 4.858
1.61 2.013
1.714 8.825
0.457 -1.763
0.816 1.579
6.398 2.697
1.298 2.303
6.755 11.49
25 4
1.316 0.723
59 3.4
4 3.91
Variance (KM)
k hat (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 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
901
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 0
13
15 10
9 5
0.1 0.026
2.6 2
0.535 40%
0.548 0.732
-1.16 1.001
2.292 2.663
0.632
0.835
0.364
0.255
0.402 0.604
1.787 1.456
1.176 1.396
1.807 2.01
0.514 0.629
1.956 1.611
1.32 1.549
1.977 2.189
1.212
0.762
0.26
0.228
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)
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
951
952
953
954
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
1.031 0.869
0.532 0.631
30.92 26.07
0.548
0.588 5.473
0.01 0.371
2.6 0.2
0.615 1.656
0.535 0.497
0.695 0.747
26.74 24.87
0.371 0.527
3.828 1.006
1.43 2.472
WH HW WH HW
2.157 2.459 1.402 1.492
2.799 3.34
0.402 0.604
0.365 0.131
0.444 0.417
22.2 20.87
0.906 0.964
0.652 1.128
1.647 2.948
WH HW WH HW
1.829 1.908 1.266 1.27
1.178 1.173 2.293 2.46
0.886
0.901
0.207
0.202
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
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
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
Data Not Lognormal at 10% 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
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.387 -1.59
0.599 1.058
2.308 2.6
2.6 1.293
0.792 1.163
2.393 3.417
-1.593 2.599
1.112 1.414
1.266 3.925
0.514 -1.311
0.629 1.215
4.366 2.246
1.279 1.989
4.552 6.85
25 2.6
1.316 0.723
59 2.42
2.6 3.087
25 0
16
14 11
12 6
10 1.8
470 120
18031 44%
100.9 134.3
3.865 1.271
2.292 2.663
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
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
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)d2max (for USL)
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.716
0.825
0.29
0.263
59.44 107.8
306.5 247.5
197.6 236.7
310.2 346.5
62.68 108.7
311.8 252.3
202 241.5
315.5 352.1
0.716
0.769
0.255
0.237
0.794 0.671
127.1 150.3
22.22 18.79
100.9
123.1 4.639
0.01 56.49
470 10
111.3 1.969
0.19 0.194
296.8 290.9
9.518 9.709
56.49 128.2
2.016 170.8
293.3 632.2
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
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution 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
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
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
WH HW WH HW
435.9 583.7 252.8 294.8
600.3 874.6
59.44 107.8
11619 22.42
0.304 0.294
15.21 14.71
195.5 202
90.72 175.7
273.6 528.6
WH HW WH HW
347.9 384.6 221.2 227.9
202.1 205.5 456.7 529.3
0.921
0.895
0.204
0.208
58.87 2.772
110.1 1.665
726.7 470
470 292.2
135.1 247.4
769.5 1348
2.672 831.8
1.768 316.2
265 1602
62.68 3.099
108.7 1.472
647.1 289.1
146.2 249.6
680.6 1117
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
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
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 470
1.316 0.723
59 413
470 538.6
25 0
12
5 20
5 8
0.05 0.01
1.9 1
0.637 80%
1.03 0.798
-0.5 1.483
2.292 2.663
0.906
0.686
0.233
0.396
0.223 0.52
1.415 1.13
0.89 1.078
1.433 1.608
0.286 0.525
1.49 1.203
0.96 1.151
1.509 1.685
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
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
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
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.401
0.691
0.229
0.364
1.08 0.565
0.953 1.821
10.8 5.655
1.03
1.37 4.157
0.01 0.214
1.9 0.01
0.529 2.471
0.306 0.296
0.698 0.722
15.32 14.82
0.214 0.393
2.722 0.632
0.983 1.896
WH HW WH HW
1.305 1.301 0.771 0.709
1.781 1.873
0.223 0.52
0.27 0.118
0.184 0.189
9.197 9.426
1.213 1.183
0.285 0.674
1.167 2.537
WH HW WH HW
1.326 1.333 0.789 0.732
0.71 0.65 1.802 1.912
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
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% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.818
0.806
0.297
0.319
0.216 -4.232
0.528 2.363
3.268 1.9
1.9 0.897
0.3 0.708
3.545 7.851
-3.702 1.462
1.781 0.552
0.462 2.831
0.286 -3.16
0.525 2.14
5.73 1.776
0.659 1.434
6.167 12.67
25 1.9
1.316 0.723
59 1.87
1.9 2.535
25 15
7700 9400
10200 9600
10200 9700
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
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
Mg
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
9492 564.7
0.0595 -1.533
9.156 0.0625
2.292 2.663
0.858
0.886
0.207
0.201
10786 10215
10477 10420
10995 10805
1.249
0.742
0.215
0.174
276 242.9
34.39 39.08
13800 12145
9492 609
10533 10280
10541 10515
10879 10966
10892
11118 11135
0.829
0.931
0.223
0.159
10934 10264
10566 10500
11190 10957
Mean SD
Skewness
SD of logged Data
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
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
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
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 10200
1.316 0.723
59
10200 10200
10200 10160
11219 10200
12002 10200
10200
25 0
15
18 7
11 4
0.6 0.03
16 8
13.2 28%
3.972 3.633
1.049 0.855
2.292 2.663
0.762
0.858
0.275
0.235
3.324 3.296
10.88 9.075
7.548 8.745
10.99 12.1
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
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
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
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
A B C D E F G H I J K L
3.431 3.261
10.9 9.12
7.609 8.794
11.02 12.11
0.346
0.755
0.171
0.207
1.659 1.42
2.394 2.798
59.73 51.11
3.972
3.334 7.535
0.01 3.269
16 2.459
3.354 1.026
0.814 0.743
4.018 4.402
40.68 37.13
3.269 3.794
4.949 8.093
10.89 17.55
WH HW WH HW
15.79 19.07 11 12.46
19.73 24.84
3.324 3.296
10.86 0.698
1.017 0.922
50.84 46.08
3.269 3.607
5.383 7.809
10.25 15.95
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)
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
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
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
A B C D E F G H I J K L
WH HW WH HW
15.35 18.12 10.77 11.99
10.05 11.07 19.1 23.45
0.967
0.914
0.134
0.185
3.297 0.811
3.296 0.911
18.14 16
16 11.02
7.227 10.06
18.72 25.43
0.525 62.4
1.574 26.36
22.53 111.9
3.431 0.734
3.261 1.348
45.73 21.87
11.72 19.12
47.9 75.39
25 16
1.316 0.723
59 13.6
16 17.98
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
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
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)
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
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
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
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
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 0
9
5 20
4 6
0.03 0.015
0.2 0.1
0.00377 80%
0.112 0.0614
-2.352 0.705
2.292 2.663
0.958
0.686
0.223
0.396
0.0401 0.0441
0.141 0.117
0.0966 0.113
0.143 0.157
0.057 0.0393
0.147 0.126
0.107 0.122
0.148 0.162
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
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)
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
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.01 0.0351
0.2 0.01
0.0482 1.375
0.965 0.876
0.0364 0.0401
48.23 43.78
0.0351 0.0375
5.5 0.0835
0.11 0.173
WH HW WH HW
0.158 0.163 0.11 0.11
0.197 0.209
0.0401 0.0441
0.00194 0.0109
0.829 0.756
41.43 37.79
0.0484 0.0531
0.0657 0.0988
0.133 0.213
WH HW WH HW
0.142 0.144 0.105 0.104
0.0994 0.0981 0.171 0.176
0.883
0.806
0.328
0.319
0.0377 -3.83
0.047 1.046
0.239 0.186
0.2 0.135
0.0829 0.121
0.247 0.352
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
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
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
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
A B C D E F G H I J K L
-3.567 0.153
0.738 0.102
0.095 0.201
0.057 -3.047
0.0393 0.63
0.201 0.143
0.107 0.134
0.206 0.254
25 0.2
1.316 0.723
59 0.179
0.2 0.236
25 0
13
17 8
9 5
0.03 0.033
3.7 2
1.026 32%
0.739 1.013
-1.029 1.291
2.292 2.663
0.659
0.851
0.358
0.241
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
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
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
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
1697
1698
1699
1700
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.58 0.862
2.555 2.083
1.684 1.997
2.584 2.874
0.695 0.864
2.676 2.203
1.803 2.117
2.706 2.996
1.039
0.774
0.252
0.217
0.815 0.71
0.907 1.04
27.71 24.15
0.739
0.877 4.81
0.01 0.563
3.7 0.3
0.882 1.565
0.603 0.557
0.934 1.011
30.16 27.87
0.563 0.755
4.119 1.49
2.082 3.524
WH HW WH HW
3.112 3.502 2.056 2.174
4.002 4.698
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
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
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
1750
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.58 0.862
0.743 0.182
0.453 0.425
22.64 21.25
1.281 1.364
0.942 1.62
2.359 4.205
WH HW WH HW
2.882 3.131 1.951 2.014
1.806 1.848 3.656 4.117
0.91
0.91
0.209
0.19
0.567 -1.322
0.871 1.239
4.56 3.7
3.7 2.315
1.304 2.046
4.758 7.218
-1.387 5.652
1.361 2.684
2.343 9.362
0.695 -1.063
0.864 1.355
7.714 3.674
1.961 3.209
8.082 12.75
25 3.7
1.316 0.723
59 3.37
3.7 4.41
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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 13
8800 9800
10700 10100
11000 10200
10042 462.5
0.0461 -0.428
9.214 0.0466
2.292 2.663
0.958
0.886
0.143
0.201
11102 10635
10849 10803
11274 11118
0.515
0.742
0.149
0.174
483.4 425.4
20.77 23.6
24171 21272
10042 486.9
10871 10671
10873 10856
11142 11210
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
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
1801
1802
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
11147
11328 11335
0.949
0.931
0.153
0.159
11164 10650
10882 10832
11358 11182
25 11000
1.316 0.723
59
11000 10940
10910 10660
11457 10700
12098 10928
11000
25 0
16
22 3
13 3
1.6 0.03
3.2 0.5
0.171 12%
2.136 0.414
0.742 0.187
2.292 2.663
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.
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
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.937
0.878
0.126
0.214
1.884 0.782
3.677 3.249
2.886 3.171
3.704 3.967
1.894 0.775
3.671 3.246
2.887 3.169
3.697 3.958
0.359
0.741
0.122
0.185
29.47 25.48
0.0725 0.0838
1297 1121
2.136
0.423 68.62
1.283 2.034
3.2 2
0.479 0.236
18.64 16.43
0.109 0.124
931.9 821.4
2.034 0.502
47.23 2.698
2.924 3.38
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
95% Percentile
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
90% Percentile
99% Percentile
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
WH HW WH HW
3.297 3.326 2.947 2.96
3.549 3.592
1.884 0.782
0.612 0.16
5.796 5.127
289.8 256.3
0.325 0.367
2.525 2.997
3.427 4.335
WH HW WH HW
6.97 8.551 5.201 6.028
4.915 5.635 8.373 10.66
0.96
0.926
0.113
0.169
2.044 0.69
0.464 0.226
3.348 3.2
3.2 2.958
2.664 2.892
3.374 3.641
0.232 30.6
1.391 14.29
12.44 51.26
1.894 0.326
0.775 1.233
23.36 11.9
6.723 10.52
24.37 36.9
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
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)
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)
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 3.2
1.316 0.723
59 3.05
3.2 5.362
25 0
11
6 19
5 9
0.03 0.018
1.6 0.5
0.379 76%
0.395 0.616
-1.926 1.531
2.292 2.663
0.684
0.713
0.351
0.373
0.112 0.318
0.842 0.667
0.52 0.636
0.853 0.96
0.161 0.324
0.903 0.726
0.576 0.694
0.914 1.023
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 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)
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 1% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
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
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
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
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
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 0.102
1.6 0.01
0.327 3.197
0.392 0.372
0.261 0.275
19.61 18.59
0.102 0.168
3.168 0.293
0.436 0.8
WH HW WH HW
0.543 0.508 0.334 0.296
0.726 0.705
0.112 0.318
0.101 0.0698
0.124 0.135
6.182 6.774
0.905 0.826
0.111 0.326
0.628 1.521
WH HW WH HW
0.546 0.513 0.352 0.318
0.322 0.289 0.712 0.688
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)
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
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.911
0.826
0.264
0.298
0.0985 -5.195
0.329 2.339
1.181 1.38
1.6 0.328
0.111 0.26
1.28 2.811
-3.423 0.436
1.131 0.235
0.21 0.662
0.161 -2.883
0.324 1.408
1.409 0.652
0.34 0.567
1.479 2.375
25 1.6
1.316 0.723
59 1.27
1.6 1.527
25 15
90000 110000
130000 116000
130000 121000
116120 8955
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
Na
Mean SD
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
First Quartile
Median
Third Quartile
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.0771 -0.836
11.66 0.0803
2.292 2.663
0.943
0.886
0.148
0.201
136645 127596
131744 130850
139966 136953
0.447
0.742
0.154
0.174
166.5 146.5
697.5 792.5
8324 7326
116120 9593
132641 128571
132768 132336
138209 139594
138434
142070 142375
0.918
0.931
0.153
0.159
139154 128314
133174 132111
143358 139538
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 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
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Skewness
SD of logged Data
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
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
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 130000
1.316 0.723
59
130000 130000
130000 126800
143517 129600
155927 130000
130000
25 0
10
7 18
4 8
0.05 0.011
0.4 1
0.0187 72%
0.193 0.137
-1.89 0.777
2.292 2.663
0.839
0.73
0.323
0.35
0.0785 0.114
0.339 0.277
0.224 0.265
0.343 0.381
0.179 0.191
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
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
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
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.617 0.512
0.424 0.493
0.624 0.688
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 0.0699
0.4 0.01
0.109 1.566
0.617 0.569
0.113 0.123
30.84 28.47
0.0699 0.0926
4.176 0.184
0.256 0.432
WH HW WH HW
0.383 0.408 0.252 0.254
0.493 0.547
0.0785 0.114
0.0129 0.0277
0.476 0.446
23.81 22.29
0.165 0.176
0.128 0.217
0.314 0.554
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
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
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
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
A B C D E F G H I J K L
WH HW WH HW
0.41 0.439 0.273 0.277
0.252 0.253 0.525 0.583
0.878
0.838
0.274
0.28
0.076 -3.276
0.105 1.172
0.555 0.38
0.4 0.292
0.17 0.26
0.577 0.857
-3.485 0.634
1.321 0.307
0.269 1.034
0.179 -2.427
0.191 1.318
1.809 0.88
0.478 0.771
1.893 2.95
25 1
1.316 0.723
59 1
1 0.584
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
V
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
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)
95% UTL95% Coverage
Mean in Log Scale
SD in Log Scale
95% UPL (t)
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
95% USL
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
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
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 19
7.4 9.5
11.9 10
14 11.2
10.26 1.341
0.131 0.496
2.32 0.13
2.292 2.663
0.962
0.886
0.113
0.201
13.33 11.97
12.6 12.46
13.83 13.38
0.33
0.742
0.102
0.174
61.66 54.29
0.166 0.189
3083 2714
10.26 1.392
12.7 12.08
12.71 12.65
13.56 13.77
13.59
14.16 14.21
0.973
0.931
0.1
0.159
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 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
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
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
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
A B C D E F G H I J K L
13.71 12.02
12.77 12.6
14.39 13.77
25 14
1.316 0.723
59
14 13.58
13.37 11.5
14.36 11.82
16.22 13.5
14
25 0
10
10 15
8 3
5 2.5
53 10
363.6 60%
16.48 19.07
2.376 0.87
2.292 2.663
0.596
0.781
0.413
0.304
8.37 13.27
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
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
KM Mean KM SD
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
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
A B C D E F G H I J K L
38.78 31.52
25.37 30.19
39.23 43.7
8.442 13.5
39.37 31.99
25.74 30.64
39.84 44.38
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 6.834
53 0.01
14.22 2.081
0.21 0.211
32.56 32.33
10.5 10.57
6.834 14.86
2.147 20.66
34.7 73
WH HW WH HW
51.98 66.03 29.99 33.41
71.76 98.86
8.37 13.27
176 2.805
0.398 0.377
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
Variance (KM)
k hat (KM)
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
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
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
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
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
A B C D E F G H I J K L
19.9 18.85
21.03 22.2
13.41 23.88
35.49 64.87
WH HW WH HW
34.68 34.56 24.51 23.77
22.9 22.12 42.97 43.71
0.75
0.869
0.29
0.241
7.71 1.149
13.83 1.306
62.96 53
53 30.8
16.82 27.04
65.85 102.2
1.562 35.74
0.879 22.1
20.24 49.51
8.442 1.583
13.5 0.899
38.21 23.36
15.41 21.36
39.41 53.32
25 53
1.316 0.723
59 52.7
53 67.34
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 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
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
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
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 16
187000 195000
222000 200000
231000 210000
202360 11306
0.0559 0.764
12.22 0.055
2.292 2.663
0.936
0.886
0.143
0.201
228273 216849
222086 220957
232466 228661
0.484
0.742
0.139
0.174
341.4 300.4
592.8 673.5
17069 15022
202360 11675
222285 217459
222313 221938
228862 230506
228941
233391 233517
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
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 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 95% WH USL
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
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
2598
2599
2600
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.945
0.931
0.134
0.159
229189 216809
222399 221181
233909 229622
25 231000
1.316 0.723
59
231000 231000
228300 216400
236949 221600
252617 228840
231000
25 12
2700 2920
3200 3000
3300 3130
3024 157.4
0.0521 -0.349
8.013 0.0526
2.292 2.663
0.951
0.886
0.158
0.201
Lognormal GOF Test
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.
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 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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
3385 3226
3299 3283
3444 3391
0.563
0.742
0.164
0.174
379.2 333.7
7.975 9.062
18961 16687
3024 165.6
3307 3238
3308 3302
3400 3423
3402
3464 3466
0.946
0.931
0.169
0.159
3408 3231
3311 3293
3475 3414
25 3300
1.316 0.723
59
3300 3186
3270 3200
3506 3200
3724 3276
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
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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
3300
25 14
28000 29300
32700 30000
32800 31000
30220 1471
0.0487 0.337
10.32 0.0484
2.292 2.663
0.93
0.886
0.199
0.201
33592 32106
32787 32640
34138 33643
0.595
0.742
0.195
0.174
443 389.8
68.22 77.52
22149 19492
30220 1531
32826 32197
32831 32781
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
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
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
90% Percentile
95% 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
Skewness
SD of logged Data
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Distinct Observations
First Quartile
Median
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
2701
2702
2703
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
33680 33894
33692
34268 34285
0.934
0.931
0.191
0.159
33728 32118
32846 32688
34339 33784
25 32800
1.316 0.723
59
32800 32800
32770 32460
34722 32660
36761 32776
32800
25 17
520000 548000
860000 808000
860000 840000
722640 141197
0.195 -0.526
13.47 0.209
2.292 2.663
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.
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
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 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
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
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.748
0.886
0.288
0.201
1046263 903591
968995 954888
1098630 1051113
2.994
0.743
0.303
0.174
25.14 22.15
28747 32627
1257 1107
722640 153551
999243 925081
1003862 992355
1102582 1126944
1111598
1176521 1189390
0.738
0.931
0.304
0.159
1142400 925336
1019187 998170
1234267 1150613
25 860000
1.316 0.723
59
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
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
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Shapiro Wilk GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic
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
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
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
2849
2850
A B C D E F G H I J K L
860000 860000
860000 853600
1154620 859200
1350292 860000
860000
25 15
92000 98000
113000 100000
115000 111000
102688 7191
0.07 0.404
11.54 0.0693
2.292 2.663
0.885
0.886
0.246
0.201
119170 111904
115235 114516
121837 119417
1.242
0.742
0.242
0.174
215.5 189.7
476.5 541.4
10775 9483
102688 7456MLE 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)
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 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
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Data Not Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
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
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)
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
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL 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
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
A B C D E F G H I J K L
115484 112352
115517 115253
119761 120826
119841
122719 122840
0.892
0.931
0.237
0.159
120091 111967
115621 114823
123218 120377
25 115000
1.316 0.723
59
115000 114600
114400 112000
124689 112800
134654 114520
115000
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
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.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
99% Percentile
95% USL
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
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
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
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
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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
24 1
9
13 11
5 7
0.01 0.01
2 4
0.268 45.83%
0.295 0.517
-1.947 1.26
2.309 2.644
0.424
0.814
0.496
0.271
0.2 0.422
1.174 0.938
0.741 0.894
1.182 1.315
0.509 0.785
2.323 1.883
1.516 1.801
2.336 2.586
1.726
0.767
0.402
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
ProUCL 5.2 11/15/2023 6:46:07 AM
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
Anderson-Darling GOF Test
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
51
52
53
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.245
0.817 0.68
0.361 0.433
21.24 17.67
0.295
0.357 4.677
0.01 0.185
2 0.0972
0.401 2.174
0.515 0.479
0.358 0.386
24.73 22.98
0.185 0.267
3.735 0.504
0.721 1.255
WH HW WH HW
1.064 1.164 0.68 0.697
1.351 1.537
0.2 0.422
0.178 0.0983
0.225 0.225
10.79 10.78
0.89 0.891
0.279 0.604
0.999 2.067
WH HW WH HW
1.088 1.179 0.703 0.717
0.643 0.649 1.373 1.545
0.794
0.889
0.318
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level5% K-S Critical Value
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
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
101
102
103
104
105
106
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.215
0.183 -2.694
0.397 1.413
1.765 1.737
2 0.8
0.413 0.691
1.809 2.833
-2.774 2.299
1.562 0.959
0.815 3.878
0.509 -2.052
0.785 1.906
10.46 3.601
1.477 2.951
10.82 19.81
24 4
1.263 0.708
59 4
4 2.077
24 17
1
8.1 8.8
10.8 9.2
11.7 9.6
9.404 0.84
0.0893 1.103
2.238 0.0861
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non-Detects
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level10% Lilliefors Critical Value
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
As
Minimum
Second Largest
Number of Missing Observations
First Quartile
Median
Mean
Maximum Third Quartile
SD
Skewness
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged Data
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
2.309 2.644
0.913
0.884
0.199
0.205
11.34 10.48
10.87 10.79
11.62 11.36
0.72
0.742
0.185
0.177
137.7 120.5
0.0683 0.0781
6608 5783
9.404 0.857
10.88 10.52
10.89 10.86
11.4 11.51
11.41
11.71 11.73
0.936
0.93
0.181
0.162
11.43 10.46
10.89 10.8
11.77 11.45
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 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
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 Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
24 11.7
1.263 0.708
59
11.7 11.7
11.48 10.57
11.97 10.77
13.14 11.49
11.7
24 9
1
40 196.5
210 200
227 200
188.4 35.45
0.188 -3.478
5.203 0.334
2.309 2.644
0.543
0.884
0.378
0.205
270.3 233.9
250.4 246.7
282.2 270.9
5.144
0.743
0.374
0.178
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.
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
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
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
14.12 12.38
13.35 15.22
677.6 594.2
188.4 53.55
286.1 259.5
293.9 284.3
325.1 334.8
337.7
350.1 366.2
0.396
0.93
0.362
0.162
393.3 279
326.2 315
439.9 395.6
24 227
1.263 0.708
59
227 224.5
222.8 200
297 208.5
346.1 223.1
227
24 1
7
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 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
Number of Missing ObservationsTotal Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
1 23
1 7
0.03 0.018
0.03 0.6
N/A 95.83%
0.03 N/A
-3.507 N/A
24 1
10
8 16
6 8
0.03 0.03
0.2 1
0.00311 66.67%
0.0675 0.0557
-2.888 0.597
2.309 2.644
0.658
0.749
0.304
0.333
0.0474 0.0384
0.136 0.115
0.0966 0.111
0.137 0.149
0.0989 0.122
0.38 0.312
0.255 0.299
0.382 0.42
SD of Detected Logged Data
Number of Distinct Non-Detects
Minimum Non-Detect
Maximum Non-Detect
Number of Non-DetectsNumber 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
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
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
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 0.0329
0.2 0.0106
0.0414 1.259
1.235 1.109
0.0266 0.0296
59.3 53.22
0.0329 0.0312
6.406 0.0738
0.095 0.144
WH HW WH HW
0.134 0.139 0.0959 0.0962
0.161 0.17
0.0474 0.0384
0.00148 0.00954
1.52 1.358
72.96 65.17
0.0312 0.0349
0.0741 0.101
0.128 0.188
WH HW WH HW
0.124 0.123 0.099 0.0973
0.0947 0.0929 0.142 0.141
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
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
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
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.844
0.851
0.21
0.265
0.0373 -3.585
0.039 0.729
0.149 0.2
0.2 0.0992
0.0706 0.0919
0.151 0.19
-3.207 0.121
0.474 0.0927
0.0882 0.142
0.0989 -2.93
0.122 1.106
0.687 0.37
0.22 0.329
0.7 0.995
24 1
1.263 0.708
59 0.875
1 0.218
24 22
1
32000 38750
46000 40450
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
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
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
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
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
A B C D E F G H I J K L
53100 41375
40579 3798
0.0936 1.184
10.61 0.0908
2.309 2.644
0.869
0.884
0.195
0.205
49348 45446
47222 46826
50620 49414
0.975
0.742
0.182
0.177
124.6 109
325.7 372.2
5980 5234
40579 3886
47305 45632
47321 47176
49645 50163
49692
51081 51153
0.896
0.93
0.177
0.162
49849 45407
47377 46930
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)
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
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
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)
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 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)
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
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
A B C D E F G H I J K L
51389 49928
24 53100
1.263 0.708
59
53100 53100
51325 43010
52207 45565
57474 51467
53100
24 1
17
20 4
15 3
0.2 0.015
20 5
19.14 16.67%
3.03 4.375
0.498 1.097
2.309 2.644
0.576
0.868
0.26
0.223
2.63 4.013
11.9 9.65
7.773 9.231
11.97 13.24
99% Percentile (z) 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.
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
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
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
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
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
A B C D E F G H I J K L
2.739 4.064
12.12 9.847
7.946 9.423
12.19 13.48
0.889
0.77
0.16
0.2
0.951 0.842
3.185 3.599
38.05 33.68
3.03
3.302 5.363
0.01 2.593
20 1.2
4.11 1.585
0.569 0.526
4.554 4.93
27.33 25.25
2.593 3.575
3.968 6.94
9.781 16.73
WH HW WH HW
14.67 17.41 9.633 10.63
18.4 22.77
2.63 4.013
16.1 0.843
0.43 0.404
20.62 19.38
6.123 6.516
4.249 7.417
10.89 19.63
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
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
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)
95% gamma percentile (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
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
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
A B C D E F G H I J K L
WH HW WH HW
13.32 14.97 8.955 9.496
8.264 8.672 16.51 19.21
0.95
0.92
0.132
0.176
2.62 0.249
4.091 1.214
21.15 20
20 10.72
6.078 9.445
21.6 31.75
0.0866 41.55
1.577 17.19
14.58 70.45
2.739 0.201
4.064 1.572
46.06 19.11
9.163 16.22
47.33 77.97
24 20
1.263 0.708
59 16.3
20 20.48
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
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
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
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
A B C D E F G H I J K L
24 1
14
15 9
9 5
0.06 0.01
4 2
0.966 37.5%
0.584 0.983
-1.19 1.055
2.309 2.644
0.51
0.835
0.308
0.255
0.419 0.791
2.246 1.803
1.433 1.721
2.26 2.511
0.546 0.822
2.444 1.984
1.6 1.898
2.459 2.72
1.052
0.768
0.222
0.229
0.897 0.762
0.651 0.766
26.91 22.86
0.584
0.669 5.031
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
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)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
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
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.01 0.408
4 0.2
0.814 1.994
0.501 0.467
0.814 0.875
24.07 22.39
0.408 0.598
3.674 1.12
1.607 2.813
WH HW WH HW
2.409 2.728 1.539 1.623
3.06 3.613
0.419 0.791
0.626 0.169
0.28 0.273
13.45 13.1
1.495 1.535
0.626 1.248
1.974 3.885
WH HW WH HW
2.215 2.441 1.456 1.512
1.338 1.373 2.776 3.17
0.937
0.901
0.188
0.202
0.414 -1.683
0.803 1.201
2.976 4
4 1.519
0.866 1.34
3.038 4.449
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
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
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
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
796
797
798
799
800
A B C D E F G H I J K L
-1.908 5.607
1.573 2.324
1.972 9.496
0.546 -1.541
0.822 1.68
10.36 4.046
1.844 3.395
10.67 18.19
24 4
1.263 0.708
59 3.5
4 3.94
24 1
13
17 7
10 4
0.1 0.026
3 2
0.777 29.17%
0.806 0.881
-0.665 0.941
2.309 2.644
0.715
0.851
0.342
0.241
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
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)
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
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
849
850
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.661 0.782
2.466 2.028
1.663 1.947
2.48 2.728
0.751 0.78
2.552 2.116
1.751 2.034
2.566 2.814
0.99
0.761
0.279
0.214
1.253 1.071
0.643 0.752
42.61 36.42
0.806
0.779 6.265
0.01 0.644
3 0.35
0.801 1.244
0.729 0.666
0.883 0.967
34.99 31.95
0.644 0.789
4.614 1.635
2.232 3.662
WH HW WH HW
3.367 3.885 2.27 2.463
4.168 4.988
Data Not 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
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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.661 0.782
0.611 0.17
0.714 0.652
34.26 31.31
0.926 1.013
1.088 1.686
2.307 3.797
WH HW WH HW
2.968 3.221 2.069 2.148
1.924 1.982 3.613 4.031
0.936
0.91
0.218
0.19
0.653 -0.939
0.785 1.008
4.007 3
3 2.279
1.423 2.052
4.077 5.615
-1.024 5.476
1.18 2.829
2.501 8.129
0.751 -0.824
0.78 1.21
7.17 3.642
2.068 3.21
7.322 10.75
24 3
1.263 0.708
59 2.925
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
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
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% UPL
901
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
3 4.139
24 1
14
16 8
12 4
9.6 1.8
920 40
49787 33.33%
109.5 223.1
3.786 1.234
2.309 2.644
0.463
0.844
0.356
0.248
75.81 182.8
497.8 395.5
310 376.4
501 559
76.69 186.4
507 402.7
315.5 383.3
510.3 569.5
1.163
0.782
0.224
0.225
95% USL 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
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
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
951
952
953
954
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.668 0.585
163.8 187.3
21.39 18.71
109.5
143.2 4.247
0.01 73.01
920 20
187.8 2.572
0.22 0.22
332.4 331.9
10.54 10.56
73.01 155.7
2.209 220.6
366.7 762.9
WH HW WH HW
521.2 681.3 305.8 352.5
688.8 964.8
75.81 182.8
33406 38.55
0.172 0.178
8.258 8.559
440.7 425.2
93.5 228.5
401.9 888.8
WH HW WH HW
404.1 420.4 259 254.6
236.5 230.2 512.6 552.1
0.93
0.906
0.144
0.196
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
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
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
95% Approx. Gamma UPL95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% Gamma USL
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
75.17 3.053
186.9 1.52
708.7 920
920 302.6
148.6 258.2
727.7 1179
3.086 705.5
1.504 304
259.8 1168
76.69 3.2
186.4 1.436
676.2 302.6
154.6 260.5
693.2 1094
24 920
1.263 0.708
59 745
920 888.9
24 1
9
4 20
3 8
0.006 0.006
0.5 1
0.0563 83.33%
0.148 0.237
-3.363 2.158
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
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 DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected SD Detected
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
2.309 2.644
0.733
0.687
0.363
0.413
0.0348 0.108
0.284 0.224
0.173 0.213
0.286 0.321
0.127 0.202
0.594 0.481
0.386 0.459
0.597 0.661
0.429
0.687
0.312
0.412
0.445 0.278
0.332 0.532
3.563 2.224
0.148
0.281 2.606
0.006 0.038
0.5 0.01
0.101 2.646
0.643 0.59
0.0592 0.0644
30.85 28.33
0.038 0.0495
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
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)
nu star (bias corrected)
Mean
Median
CV
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
4.273 0.0993
0.138 0.231
WH HW WH HW
0.184 0.175 0.121 0.112
0.231 0.225
0.0348 0.108
0.0117 0.0279
0.104 0.119
4.989 5.698
0.335 0.293
0.0302 0.0984
0.199 0.507
WH HW WH HW
0.171 0.155 0.107 0.0934
0.0974 0.0844 0.218 0.203
0.863
0.792
0.292
0.346
0.0293 -5.59
0.102 1.815
0.247 0.5
0.5 0.0894
0.0383 0.074
0.255 0.454
-4.75 0.111
1.104 0.0597
0.0532 0.16
0.127 -3.727
0.202 1.923
2.042 0.696
0.283 0.569
2.112 3.889
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)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)
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
24 1
1.263 0.708
59 1
1 0.516
24 14
1
8700 9690
12000 10150
12100 10400
10218 871.1
0.0853 0.464
9.228 0.0844
2.309 2.644
0.942
0.884
0.209
0.205
12229 11334
11741 11650
12521 12244
0.554
0.742
0.196
0.177
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
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 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)
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
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
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
145.8 127.6
70.09 80.09
6997 6124
10218 904.6
11780 11393
11785 11750
12320 12439
12333
12651 12669
0.95
0.93
0.193
0.162
12374 11346
11803 11699
12729 12392
24 12100
1.263 0.708
59
12100 12100
12075 11340
12885 11910
14093 12077
12100
24 1
10
17 7
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 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 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
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
8 4
0.2 0.03
7.1 5
4.301 29.17%
2.612 2.074
0.419 1.285
2.309 2.644
0.894
0.851
0.19
0.241
2.096 1.982
6.672 5.563
4.636 5.356
6.707 7.336
2.282 1.921
6.718 5.642
4.744 5.442
6.751 7.361
1.046
0.765
0.269
0.215
1.06 0.912
2.464 2.863
36.04 31.01
2.612
2.735 5.646
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
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
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
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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.165 2.111
7.1 1.782
1.952 0.925
0.958 0.866
2.205 2.439
45.97 41.56
2.111 2.269
5.46 5.036
6.658 10.46
WH HW WH HW
10.04 11.35 6.968 7.478
12.25 14.29
2.096 1.982
3.929 0.436
1.118 1.006
53.64 48.27
1.875 2.084
3.371 4.818
6.265 9.623
WH HW WH HW
11.39 13.62 7.621 8.505
7.027 7.739 14.14 17.62
0.823
0.91
0.29
0.19
2.02 -0.00268
1.995 1.38
24.13 5
7.1 11.15
5.846 9.652
24.72 38.31
-0.169 43.68
1.709 16.78
14.04 77.42
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
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
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)
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
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
A B C D E F G H I J K L
2.282 0.121
1.921 1.578
43.13 17.83
8.525 15.12
44.33 73.16
24 7.1
1.263 0.708
59 6.575
7.1 10.91
24 1
8
4 20
3 6
0.1 0.015
0.3 0.1
0.00667 83.33%
0.2 0.0816
-1.681 0.456
2.309 2.644
0.944
0.687
0.25
0.413
0.0458 0.0747
0.218 0.177
0.142 0.169
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
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
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
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% KM Percentile (z)
KM SD
95% KM UPL (t)
95% KM Percentile (z)
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
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.22 0.243
0.0694 0.0676
0.225 0.188
0.156 0.18
0.227 0.248
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
0.01 0.0432
0.3 0.01
0.0778 1.803
0.667 0.612
0.0647 0.0706
32.04 29.36
0.0432 0.0552
4.372 0.112
0.154 0.257
WH HW WH HW
0.223 0.226 0.147 0.142
0.28 0.291
0.0458 0.0747
0.00559 0.0176
0.376 0.357
18.05 17.13
0.122 0.128
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
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)
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
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.0728 0.132
0.198 0.366
WH HW WH HW
0.209 0.208 0.143 0.137
0.132 0.127 0.256 0.261
0.913
0.792
0.313
0.346
0.0551 -3.535
0.0745 1.117
0.385 0.285
0.3 0.206
0.122 0.183
0.392 0.559
-3.78 0.206
0.952 0.121
0.109 0.283
0.0694 -2.964
0.0676 0.753
0.294 0.193
0.135 0.178
0.298 0.378
24 0.3
1.263 0.708
59 0.275
0.3 0.378
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
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
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
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
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
A B C D E F G H I J K L
24 1
17
22 2
16 2
0.3 0.033
7.7 1
3.201 8.333%
1.7 1.789
0.139 0.885
2.309 2.644
0.716
0.878
0.248
0.214
1.578 1.723
5.557 4.592
3.787 4.413
5.587 6.134
1.58 1.759
5.641 4.656
3.834 4.473
5.671 6.23
0.59
0.761
0.157
0.189
1.419 1.256
1.198 1.353
62.45 55.27
1.7
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 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
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)
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
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
A B C D E F G H I J K L
1.517 6.95
0.01 1.562
7.7 1.1
1.773 1.135
0.939 0.85
1.663 1.839
45.08 40.78
1.562 1.695
5.394 3.743
4.958 7.816
WH HW WH HW
7.232 8.172 5.038 5.408
8.808 10.27
1.578 1.723
2.969 0.36
0.839 0.762
40.27 36.57
1.881 2.071
2.586 3.883
5.211 8.358
WH HW WH HW
6.621 7.201 4.708 4.914
4.398 4.556 7.982 8.904
0.964
0.926
0.0934
0.169
1.582 0.00788
1.756 0.971
9.487 7.7
7.7 5.509
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
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
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
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
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
A B C D E F G H I J K L
3.498 4.978
9.648 13.13
-0.0589 12.64
1.124 6.736
5.991 18.42
1.58 -0.0728
1.759 1.217
15.44 7.812
4.422 6.88
15.77 23.2
24 7.7
1.263 0.708
59 7.125
7.7 9.244
24 17
1
11000 12000
14000 12650
15900 13025
12725 1019
0.08 1.135
9.448 0.0776
2.309 2.644
0.922
0.884
0.148
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
99% Percentile (z)
90% Percentile (z)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
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
1% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
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
1697
1698
1699
1700
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.205
15077 14030
14507 14400
15418 15095
0.449
0.742
0.134
0.177
170 148.8
74.83 85.51
8162 7143
12725 1043
14522 14079
14524 14488
15140 15277
15149
15518 15532
0.947
0.93
0.132
0.162
15179 14015
14533 14416
15579 15199
24 15900
1.263 0.708
59
15900 15900
15425 13770
15844 13970
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Data appear Normal at 1% Significance Level1% 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
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
1750
A B C D E F G H I J K L
17257 15463
15900
24 21
1
3.9 5.125
7.6 5.75
8.2 6.525
5.846 1.057
0.181 0.331
1.75 0.182
2.309 2.644
0.986
0.884
0.0771
0.205
8.287 7.201
7.695 7.585
8.641 8.305
0.11
0.742
0.0685
0.177
31.98 28.01
0.183 0.209
1535 1345
5.846 1.105
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
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
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)
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
7.82 7.298
7.84 7.773
8.56 8.717
8.604
9.024 9.087
0.991
0.93
0.0683
0.162
8.755 7.264
7.908 7.76
9.304 8.783
24 8.2
1.263 0.708
59
8.2 8.11
8.05 7.21
9.082 7.555
10.55 8.062
8.2
24 1
14
7 17
5 9
0.04 0.018
0.4 0.5
0.0169 70.83%
0.107 0.13
-2.599 0.793
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 Detected
SD of Detected Logged DataMean of Detected Logged Data
Mean Detected
Variance Detected
1801
1802
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
2.309 2.644
0.564
0.73
0.44
0.35
0.055 0.0842
0.249 0.202
0.163 0.193
0.251 0.278
0.0987 0.11
0.353 0.292
0.24 0.28
0.355 0.39
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 0.0432
0.4 0.01
0.0813 1.88
0.802 0.729
0.0539 0.0593
38.49 35.01
0.0432 0.0506
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
d2max (for USL)
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
MLE Mean (bias corrected)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
4.892 0.107
0.145 0.234
WH HW WH HW
0.206 0.21 0.14 0.137
0.255 0.265
0.055 0.0842
0.00709 0.0211
0.427 0.401
20.49 19.26
0.129 0.137
0.0888 0.155
0.228 0.412
WH HW WH HW
0.216 0.215 0.154 0.15
0.144 0.14 0.259 0.263
0.76
0.838
0.32
0.28
0.0467 -3.634
0.0789 0.971
0.249 0.4
0.4 0.144
0.0917 0.131
0.253 0.344
-3.374 0.225
0.816 0.143
0.131 0.296
0.0987 -2.93
0.11 1.164
0.784 0.409
0.237 0.362
0.8 1.158
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)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)
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)
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
24 0.5
1.263 0.708
59 0.5
0.5 0.429
24 20
1
180000 205250
245000 226000
260000 236000
222250 18857
0.0848 -0.225
12.31 0.0862
2.309 2.644
0.968
0.884
0.114
0.205
265791 246416
255235 253267
272106 266118
0.442
0.742
0.123
0.177
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
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
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
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
142.2 124.4
1563 1786
6824 5973
222250 19924
256675 248136
256877 256006
268588 271209
268985
275888 276430
0.961
0.93
0.122
0.162
270249 247341
257517 255210
278166 270654
24 260000
1.263 0.708
59
260000 257750
256250 240700
279988 244400
306141 256550
260000
24 1
11
8 16
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
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Gamma Statistics
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)
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
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
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
5 8
0.05 0.011
0.6 1
0.0294 66.67%
0.265 0.171
-1.574 0.835
2.309 2.644
0.871
0.749
0.294
0.333
0.116 0.16
0.484 0.395
0.32 0.378
0.487 0.538
0.193 0.2
0.654 0.542
0.449 0.522
0.658 0.721
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
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
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
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
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.01 0.107
0.6 0.01
0.155 1.452
0.547 0.507
0.195 0.211
26.27 24.32
0.107 0.15
3.875 0.288
0.409 0.704
WH HW WH HW
0.637 0.707 0.408 0.424
0.807 0.932
0.116 0.16
0.0255 0.0384
0.524 0.486
25.16 23.34
0.221 0.238
0.19 0.315
0.448 0.779
WH HW WH HW
0.657 0.726 0.426 0.441
0.39 0.399 0.829 0.952
0.849
0.851
0.296
0.265
0.115 -2.88
0.148 1.214
0.926 0.3
0.6 0.469
0.266 0.413
0.945 1.39
-3.259 1.257
1.511 0.54
0.461 2.085
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
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
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)
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.193 -2.415
0.2 1.427
2.412 1.085
0.556 0.935
2.473 3.891
24 1
1.263 0.708
59 1
1 0.826
24 20
1
0.2 16
20.1 17.35
24 18.35
16.94 4.051
0.239 -3.046
2.68 0.919
2.309 2.644
0.655
0.884
0.275
0.205
26.29 22.13
24.02 23.6
27.65 26.36
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
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
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
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
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
5.778
0.75
0.442
0.179
3.493 3.084
4.849 5.491
167.7 148.1
16.94 9.644
34.47 29.87
38.55 35.26
42.52 46.94
49.48
47.89 57.04
0.306
0.93
0.471
0.162
121.8 47.36
72.8 66.14
165.7 123.8
24 24
1.263 0.708
59
24 24
23.03 19.6
29.34 20.07
34.96 23.1
24
Gamma GOF Test
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
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
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
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
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
A B C D E F G H I J K L
24 1
10
6 18
3 7
6 0.23
50 34
292.8 75%
18 17.11
2.546 0.892
2.309 2.644
0.764
0.713
0.287
0.373
5.032 10.95
30.33 24.19
19.07 23.05
30.52 34
7.251 10.66
31.87 25.9
20.91 24.79
32.05 35.44
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
General Statistics
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
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)MLE Sd (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
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
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.01 4.508
50 0.01
11.27 2.5
0.174 0.18
25.92 25.05
8.349 8.638
4.508 10.63
1.904 13.59
23.85 52.58
WH HW WH HW
31.85 35.3 17.33 16.69
43.55 52.1
5.032 10.95
120 2.481
0.211 0.212
10.13 10.19
23.85 23.69
6.832 15.21
25.52 53.61
WH HW WH HW
31.13 33.21 18.78 18.48
16.91 16.4 40.62 45.45
0.821
0.826
0.301
0.298
5.459 0.608
10.91 1.407
47.3 45.5
50 21.52
11.14 18.58
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
90% Percentile (z)
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
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
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
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
A B C D E F G H I J K L
48.47 75.78
-0.288 53
1.844 18.88
15.57 98.29
7.251 1.34
10.66 1.186
59.09 30.42
17.47 26.87
60.32 87.91
24 50
1.263 0.708
59 46
50 53.77
25 19
360000 385000
421000 390000
473000 399000
393400 21585
0.0549 2.033
12.88 0.0525
2.292 2.663
0.828
0.886
0.185
0.201
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 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
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
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
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
A B C D E F G H I J K L
442873 421062
431061 428904
450878 443614
0.989
0.742
0.172
0.174
367.3 323.2
1071 1217
18364 16162
393400 21881
430710 421690
430673 430070
443002 446086
443029
451465 451553
0.862
0.931
0.171
0.159
443124 420220
430569 428315
451841 443924
25 473000
1.316 0.723
59
473000 473000
457400 409600
459438 418800
489351 460520
473000
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 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
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
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
95% USL
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
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 12
2800 3000
3500 3070
3550 3100
3069 172.5
0.0562 1.295
8.028 0.0546
2.292 2.663
0.867
0.886
0.228
0.201
3464 3290
3370 3353
3528 3470
1.066
0.742
0.219
0.174
342.9 301.7
8.951 10.17
17143 15087
3069 176.7
3370 3297
3370 3365
3470 3495
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.
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)
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
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
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
A B C D E F G H I J K L
3471
3538 3540
0.887
0.931
0.216
0.159
3473 3287
3371 3352
3544 3480
25 3550
1.316 0.723
59
3550 3540
3535 3200
3597 3440
3836 3538
3550
25 13
23000 25000
30700 25100
31300 26000
25992 2111
0.0812 1.319
10.16 0.0779
2.292 2.663
0.845
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
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)
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
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
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.886
0.258
0.201
30831 28698
29676 29465
31614 30904
1.481
0.742
0.248
0.174
167.3 147.2
155.4 176.6
8363 7361
25992 2142
29680 28772
29681 29613
30924 31233
30937
31786 31810
0.869
0.931
0.243
0.159
30978 28634
29686 29456
31886 31061
25 31300
1.316 0.723
59
31300 31300
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
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% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
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
2598
2599
2600
A B C D E F G H I J K L
31120 29200
32451 30560
35377 31156
31300
25 18
660000 808000
884000 830000
984000 844000
824880 56542
0.0685 -0.369
13.62 0.0703
2.292 2.663
0.852
0.886
0.2
0.201
954475 897342
923533 917884
975445 956417
1.544
0.742
0.204
0.174
215.2 189.4
3833 4355
10760 9470
824880 59936
95% Chebyshev UPL
90% Chebyshev UPL
95% UPL 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
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)
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
927723 902564
928334 925880
962098 970682
963204
985870 987389
0.837
0.931
0.213
0.159
966759 900504
930294 923786
992282 969095
25 984000
1.316 0.723
59
984000 964000
954000 860000
997866 879200
1076223 960000
984000
25 17
89400 92600
100000 95700
103000 98800
95964 3611
0.0376 -0.0638
11.47 0.0377
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
Mean of logged Data
Coefficient of Variation
SD of logged 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
Skewness
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
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
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
2.292 2.663
0.962
0.886
0.114
0.201
104241 100592
102265 101904
105580 104365
0.394
0.742
0.12
0.174
733.6 645.6
130.8 148.6
36682 32282
95964 3777
102367 100835
102380 102260
104447 104968
104474
105872 105911
0.961
0.931
0.117
0.159
104557 100648
102421 102036
106030 104693
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
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
d2max (for USL)
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
2701
2702
2703
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
25 103000
1.316 0.723
59
103000 99760
102100 100000
107012 100000
112017 102280
103000
25 0
8
7 18
5 5
40 20
240 100
5290 72%
77.14 72.74
4.115 0.642
2.292 2.663
0.587
0.73
0.396
0.35
37.72 43.83
138.2 114.2
93.89 109.8
139.7 154.4
37.8 45.67
142.5 117.5
96.33 112.9
144 159.4
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
99% Percentile (z)
Mean
95% UTL95% Coverage
90% Percentile (z)
SD
95% UPL (t)
95% Percentile (z)
95% USL
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
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
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 22.36
240 0.01
50.52 2.26
0.154 0.162
145.1 137.8
7.703 8.112
22.36 55.5
1.757 66.91
121.1 275.9
WH HW WH HW
171.8 212.1 94.93 100.4
242.5 328.4
37.72 43.83
1921 9.582
0.741 0.678
37.03 33.92
50.93 55.6
62.06 95.37
129.8 212.3
WH HW WH HW
118.2 116.7 90.24 87.95
85.67 83.34 140.1 139.9
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% KM Gamma Percentile
95% Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Gamma USL
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
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)
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
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)
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
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
A B C D E F G H I J K L
0.731
0.838
0.274
0.28
31.53 2.929
46.99 0.961
169.5 240
240 100.1
64.15 90.97
175.2 242.1
3.363 114.3
0.601 82.32
77.52 142.9
37.8 3.29
45.67 0.757
152.2 100.6
70.81 93.23
156.2 201.5
25 240
1.316 0.723
59 198
240 232.5
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)
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 10% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
10% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
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
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic