NC0004979_Allen CAP Part 1_Appx B_Final_20151120

This page intentionally left blank

Background Monitoring Well Determinations
Allen Steam Station
Allen is a coal-fired electricity generating facility along the Catawba River. The five -unit station
began commercial operation in 1957 with Units 1 and 2. Unit 3 was placed into commercial
operation in 1959, followed by Unit 4 in 1960, and Unit 5 in 1961. The Allen ash basin is situated
between the Allen powerhouse to the north and topographic divides to the west (along South
Point Road) and south (along Reese Wilson Road).
Coal ash residue from the coal combustion process has historically been disposed of in the
Allen ash basin system, which comprises the inactive ash basin and the active ash basin. A
lined Retired Ash Basin (RAB) dry ash landfill, two unlined Distribution of Residuals Solids
(DORS) structural fill units, and two unlined dry ash storage areas are also located on top of the
inactive ash basin. The active ash basin is located on the southern portion of the property. The
inactive ash basin is located between the generating units and the active ash basin.
The inactive ash basin was commissioned in 1957 and is located adjacent to and north of the
active ash basin. The active ash basin was constructed in 1973.
Natural topography at the site generally slopes from west to east. A topographic high is located
50 to 100 yards west of South Point Road on the west side of the site. Topography at the Allen
site ranges from approximately 650 feet to 680 feet elevation near the west and southwest
boundaries of the site to an approximate low elevation of 570 feet at the shoreline of Lake Wylie
over a distance of approximately 0.8 miles.
In June 2015, groundwater elevations were collected from onsite National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) compliance wells, voluntary wells, and newly installed
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) monitoring wells. Groundwater elevations were
measured in shallow and fractured bedrock flow layers (S/D and BR/BRU wells, respectively),
and groundwater flow direction was estimated by contouring elevations in each flow layer.
Generalized groundwater contours for all three flow layers are shown in Figures 3-3, 3-4, and
3-5.
The CSA submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in
August 2015 indicated the active ash basin and the inactive ash basin at Allen as potential
source areas for groundwater contamination.
Existing ash basin compliance monitoring well AB-1 R has been considered by Duke Energy to
represent background water quality at the site since being installed in 2010. AB-1 R is located to
the northwest of the inactive ash basin at the compliance boundary. AB-1 R was installed to a
total depth of 70.89 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a 20-foot well screen to monitor water
quality in saprolite. Historical groundwater data for AB-1 R date back to March 2011. This
compliance monitoring well is sampled three times per year.

Shallow groundwater contours (see Figure 3-3) indicate groundwater flow in the vicinity of
AB-1 R is to the north from the ash basin toward the Station Discharge Canal. Compliance
monitoring results indicate increasing concentrations of calcium, sulfate, and total dissolved
solids (TDS) at AB-1 R since the March 2014 sampling event. These three constituents are
included in the list of detection monitoring constituents per the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (USEPA's) Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Final Rule. The USEPA selected
constituents for detection monitoring that are present in CCR that would be expected to migrate
rapidly and provide early detection as to whether contaminants were migrating from a coal ash
disposal unit. Although measured concentrations have not previously exceeded 2L Standards at
AB-1 R, concentrations of calcium, sulfate, and TDS have increased. Boron, another constituent
selected by the USEPA for detection monitoring, has not been detected in this well. Although
boron has not been detected above laboratory reporting limits, the direction of groundwater flow
and increasing concentration trends of calcium, sulfate, and TDS may be an early indication of
groundwater in the vicinity of AB-1 R being influenced by the northwest portion of the inactive
ash basin.
During the CSA work plan preparation, three well groups, BG-1, BG-2, and BG-3 were chosen
for likely background locations for installation of new wells. Once wells were installed and
groundwater elevations and flow directions established from the first round of sampling in 2015,
the location of BG-2 became suspect for its use as a background well. It is possible that this well
may be influenced by old ash fills on the west side of South Point Road in the vicinity of River
Run. Additional wells are planned for installation in the vicinity of BG-2 well cluster to further
define groundwater flow direction and groundwater quality. Once this is accomplished, the use
of this well cluster for background water quality will be re-evaluated. The well cluster BG-1 on
the south side of the property, approximately 1,200 feet south of the active ash basin had
groundwater elevations that are at or lower than porewater levels in the ash basin. Additional
wells are planned for installation in the vicinity of the BG-1 cluster to further define groundwater
flow direction and groundwater quality. Once this is accomplished, the use of this well cluster for
background water quality will be re-evaluated.
The remaining well cluster, BG-3, is located on the north side of the Station Discharge Canal
north of the facility. This location, following LeGrand's conceptual model of the Piedmont
groundwater system, is across a groundwater divide formed by the Station Discharge Canal.
Based on the location and groundwater quality exhibited in this well, it appears to be suitable for
a background location.
Background groundwater concentrations in the BG-1, BG-2 and BG-3 were developed from
samples with turbidity less than 10 NTU. As a result, only three samples could be used to
develop PPBCs. Due to the small sample size, the PPBC is the highest reported value or
highest laboratory reporting limit for non -detects. These values are shown in Table B-1.
Background concentrations identified for new background wells will be incorporated into
statistical background analysis once a statistically valid data set has been obtained.
2

Table B-1. Proposed Provisional Background Concentrations
Constituent
2L Standard/
IMAC
PPBC
Units
Aluminum
NS
860
u /L
Antimony
1
0.5
u /L
Arsenic
10
2.3
ug/L
Barium
700
99
u /L
Beryllium
4*
0.2
ug/L
Boron
700
50
u /L
Cadmium
2
0.08
ug/L
Chloride
250
5.7
m /L
Chromium
10
16
u /L
Cobalt
1*
0.74
ug/L
Copper
1000
3
u /L
Iron
300
960
ug/L
Lead
15
0.38
u /L
Manganese
50
38
u /L
Molybdenum
NS
5.6
ug/L
Mercury
1
0.2
u /L
Nickel
100
7.3
ug/L
Nitrate
10
0.52
m /L
pH
6.5-8.5
6.5-8.5
SU
Selenium
20
0.7
u /L
strontium
NS
210
u /I
Sulfate
250
30.3
mg/L
TDS
500
198
m /L
Thallium
0.2
0.1
ug/L
Vanadium
0.3*
22.5
u /L
Zinc
1000
10
u /L
NOTES:
1. All PPBCs are highest detected value or highest ND reporting
limit. Too few values to develop statistics
2. * = I MAC
Wells were chosen to represent background groundwater quality based on factors such as their
horizontal distance from the source area or waste boundary, the relative topographic and
groundwater elevation difference compared to the nearest ash basin surface or porewater, and
the calculated groundwater flow direction. A summary table of information regarding the well
construction, well location, and water elevations is provided in Table B-2.

Table B-2. Background Monitoring Well Information
Distance and Direction from
Ground
Elevation
Closest
Pore
Well
Source Area
Groundwater
Surface
of
Elevation of
Water
ID
Flow
Elevation
Screened
Groundwater
Elevation
Direction
(feet)
Interval
(feet)
to Well
Active Ash
Inactive Ash
(feet)
Basin
Basin
(feet)
BG-1S
1,275feet SE
---
SE
692
628-643
635.48
644
BG-1 D
1,275 feet SE
---
SE
692
573-578
635.67
644
BG-3S
2,700 feet NE
SE
672
587-602
605.53
631
BG-3D
---
2,700 feet NE
SE
672
574-579
607.76
631
Note:
1. Elevations presented in North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 88.
The methodology applied to determine if a well represents background water quality is
explained in detail below for each monitoring well listed in the above table.
BG-1 S and BG-1 D
Monitoring wells BG-1S and BG-1D were installed onsite as a background monitoring wells
during the CSA. The well pair is located in the southeast area of the site, near the intersection of
South Point Road and Reese Wilson Road. The June 2015 groundwater gauging event was
considered for determining groundwater flow direction.
• The ground surface elevation at this monitoring well pair is approximately 692 feet. The
ground surface elevation of the active ash basin waste boundary is approximately 645
feet (ground surface at the wells is 47 feet higher than the edge of the active ash basin
waste boundary).
• The monitoring well pair is located approximately 1,275 feet from the southwestern edge
of the active ash basin.
• BG-1 S is screened from approximately 49 feet to 64 feet below ground surface in the
shallow flow layer. BG-1 S well screen interval elevation is approximately 628 to 643 feet
with a water elevation of approximately 635 feet in June 2015.
• BG-1 D is screened from approximately 114 feet to 119 feet below ground surface in the
deep flow layer. BG-1 S well screen interval elevation is approximately 573 to 578 feet
with a water elevation of approximately 637 feet in June 2015.
• The porewater elevation in the active basin (measured in ash basin monitoring well
AB-21 S) in June 2015 was approximately 636 feet.
• Based on extrapolation of groundwater flow data from onsite wells and evaluation of
topographic data, groundwater in well BG-1 S and BG-1 D originates from the residential
area to the south and southwest. These properties are not expected to contribute
site -specific COls to groundwater at this location.
The well cluster BG-1 had groundwater elevation at the same or lower elevation than porewater
levels in the ash basin. Additional wells are planned for installation in the vicinity of the BG-1

cluster to further define groundwater flow direction and groundwater quality. Once this is
accomplished, the use of this well cluster for background water quality will be re-evaluated.
BG-3D
Monitoring well BG-3D was installed as a background monitoring well during the CSA. It is
located on beyond the Station Discharge Canal northwest of Allen. The June 2015 groundwater
gauging event was considered for determining groundwater flow direction.
• The ground surface elevation at this monitoring well is approximately 672 feet.
• The ground surface elevation at the northwestern edge of the inactive ash basin waste
boundary is approximately 635 feet (ground surface at the well is 37.5 feet higher than
the edge of the waste boundary).
• The monitoring well is located approximately 2,700 feet northwest of the inactive ash
basin waste boundary.
• BG-3D is screened from approximately 93 feet to 98 feet bgs in the deep flow layer. BG-
3D well screen interval elevation is approximately 574 to 579 feet with a water level
elevation (from June 2015) of 672 feet.
• There is no free water in the inactive ash basin. Porewater in the basin was measured in
ash basin monitoring well AB-35S at 619.80 feet in June 2015. This basin is located
across the Station Discharge Canal, which is a groundwater divide.
• BG-3D is separated from the site by the Station Discharge Canal, which serves as both
a topographic and hydrogeologic divide between the inactive ash basin and the
monitoring well. The normal water elevation within the Station Discharge Canal is
approximately 569 feet (ground surface elevation at the well is 103 feet higher than the
Station Discharge Canal).
• Based on extrapolation of groundwater flow data from onsite wells and evaluation of
topographic data, groundwater in well BG-3D originates from the north; this area is rural
and residential in nature and is not expected to contribute site -specific Cols to
groundwater at this location.
Based on the horizontal distance from the waste boundary to the monitoring well, the
relative topographic and groundwater elevations, measured elevation differences between
the monitoring well and the nearest ash basin surface water, and the determined
groundwater flow direction, monitoring well cluster BG-3D represents background water
quality relative to the ash disposal areas at the site.
Turbidity and pH Observations in Background Wells
Turbidity and pH were evaluated at each well to determine its suitability for use in monitoring. In
some cases, turbidity was elevated above 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) and pH was
above 8.5 Standard Units (SU). Analytical data from those wells have not been used to
establish Proposed Provisional Background Concentrations (PPBCs) at this time. Each well will

be evaluated, re -developed as necessary, and new determinations made as to its continued
suitability in future groundwater sampling events.
BG-1 S and BG-1 D
• The turbidity in BG-1 S was less than 10 NTU during the June 2015 sampling event. The
pH value in BG-1S was 4.7 SU during the June 2015 sampling event. The relatively low
pH reading indicates that the monitoring well is not being affected by grout/well
construction issues.
• The turbidity in BG-1 D did not exceed 10 NTU during the June 2015 sampling event.
The pH value in BG-1 D was 10.22 SU during the June 2015 sampling event. The
relatively high pH reading indicates that the monitoring well may be being affected by
grout/well construction issues. This well is scheduled for re -development. If pH values do
not decrease, this well will be considered for replacement. The analytical results from the
June 2015 sampling event at this well will not be utilized to establish proposed
provisional background concentrations.
BG-3S
The turbidity in BG-3S was 41.2 NTU during the June sampling event. Because of the
turbidity in this well, it was not used to establish PPBCs for the site. However, additional
development and sampling may show that turbidities in the well may come down to a
point where its data can be used. The pH in this well was 7.9 SU during the June 2015
sampling event. The relatively low pH reading indicates that the monitoring well is not
being affected by grout/well construction issues.
BG-3D
The turbidity in BG-3D was less than 10 NTU during the June 2015 sampling event. The
pH value in BG-31D was 6.43 SU during the June 2015 sampling event. The relatively low
pH reading indicates that the monitoring well is not being affected by grout/well
construction issues.

Regional Background
In addition to reviewing the pH and turbidity readings to assess water quality in the monitoring
wells, the data from the proposed background wells were compared to the regional background
concentrations of constituents, where available, and the 2-10 Private Well data. The 2-10
Private Wells are Duke Employee private water supply wells that are located between 2 and 10
miles of the Allen site. These values are shown in Table 2-2. The source of the regional
background concentrations are presented in Section 2.2.1. In general, the concentrations of
constituents in the newly installed background wells are within the range of available regional
background and 2-10 data, with the exception of the following:
• Aluminum concentrations in the newly installed background wells are greater than the
regional background concentrations and the 2-10 data.
• Arsenic is within the range of regional background concentrations, but higher than the
2-10 data.
• Barium concentrations in the newly installed background wells are greater than the
regional background concentrations.
• Chromium is within the range of regional background concentrations, but higher than the
2-10 data.
The water quality in the proposed background wells appears to be similar in many respects to
the regional published background concentrations for many constituents. Additional background
groundwater data being collected in 2015 (for a total of four sampling rounds in 2015) will help
future decision -making and also provide a better understanding of the constituent
concentrations noted above.

Soil Background Statistics for Allen
Steps for determining background threshold values (BTV) for soils:
Step 1: Collect an appropriate number of soil samples from the designated background or
reference areas. Assume same population. Conduct data validation on analytical data to
assess suitability of data for statistical analysis and decision making.
Step 2: Determine the data distribution. Depending upon the data distribution, uses parametric
or nonparametric methods to estimate BTVs.
Step 3: Check for outliers in data set. Remove outliers if it can be justified.
Step 4: Calculate BTVs
• Upper percentiles
• Upper prediction limits (UPLs)
• Upper tolerance limits (UTLs)
• Upper simultaneous limits (USLs) — New in ProUCL 5.0
Each BTV is described below (USEPA 2013):
• Upper Percentile, x0.95: Based upon an established background data set, a 95th
percentile represents that statistic such that 95% of the sampled data will be less than or
equal to (<_) x0.95 . It is expected that an observation coming from the background
population (or comparable to the background population) will be <_ x0.95 with probability
0.95.
Upper Tolerance Limit (UTL): Based upon an established background data set, a
UTL95-95 represents that statistic such that 95% observations (current and future) from
the target population (background, comparable to background) will be less than or equal
to the UTL95-95 with CC of 0.95. A UTL95-95 represents a 95% UCL of the 95th
percentile of the data distribution (population). A UTL95-95 is designed to
simultaneously provide coverage for 95% of all potential observations (current and
future) from the background population (or comparable to background) with a CC of
0.95. A UTL95-95 can be used when many (unknown) current or future onsite
observations need to be compared with a BTV. A parametric UTL95-95 takes the data
variability into account.
Upper Prediction Limit (UPL): Based upon an established background data set, a 95%
UPL (UPL95) represents that statistic such that an independently collected new/future
observation from the target population (e.g., background, comparable to background)
will be less than or equal to the UPL95 with confidence coefficient (CC) of 0.95. We are
95% sure that a single future value from the background population will be less than the
UPL95 with CC= 0.95. A parametric UPL takes data variability into account.
• Upper Simultaneous Limit (USL): Based upon an established background data set free
of outliers and representing a single statistical population, a USL95 represents that
statistic such that all observations from the "established" background data set are less

than or equal to the USL95 with a CC of 0.95. A parametric USL takes the data
variability into account. It is expected that all current or future observations coming from
the background population (comparable to background population, unimpacted site
locations) will be less than or equal to the USL95 with CC, 0.95. The use of a USL as a
BTV estimate is suggested by the USEPA when a large number of onsite observations
(current or future) need to be compared with a BTV.
Approach:
• Attachment A presents the Allen soil dataset. HDR completed a quality assurance and
quality control (QA/QC) data validation assessment (presented in separate document)
and has determined that the data meets project data quality objectives and is suitable for
statistical analysis and for establishing BTVs. Table 1 list the constituents (16 samples
and 30 constituents per sample)
Next, HDR conducted Dixon's outlier test for each constituent using ProUCL Version 5.0
software (USEPA 2013). Statically significant outliers were identified for 4 out of 30
constituents at the 5% significant level. Outliers can inflate background concentration
estimates (over estimate), where USEPA (2013) defines an outlier as Measurements
(usually larger or smaller than the majority of the data values in a sample) that are not
representative of the population from which they were drawn. The presence of outliers
distorts most statistics if used in any calculations. However, an outlier should only be
removed if there is justification for doing so (e.g., sample collected an area not
representative of background conditions). Allen samples represent subsurface soils
collected from drilling operations. HDR has determined that samples meet data quality
objectives. As stated by the USEPA (2013), since the treatment and handling of outliers
is a controversial and subjective topic, it is suggested that the outliers be treated on a
site -specific basis using all existing knowledge about the site; and regional and site -
specific background areas. Because soil samples were collected at depths greater than
5 feet below ground surface, and there is no evidence of anthropogenic impacts at
depths greater than 5 feet below ground surface, the entire dataset was utilized for
establishing BTV (assumes no outliers).
• HDR used ProUCL Version 5.0, to calculate summary statistics, goodness of fit
(population distribution), and the BTV upper limits (UTL, UPL, and USL). Results are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The Kaplan Meier (KM) method was used for
estimating statistics with censored data (data with non -detections). ProUCL printouts are
presented in Attachment B.

Table 1. Summary Statistics for Subsurface Soils Allen
Variable
n'
Detect
Non-
Detects
KM Mean
Detect
Mean
Detect
Median
KM SD
Detect
SD
Detect
Min
Detect
Max
mg/Kg
Aluminum
16
16
0
13,000
13,000
13,400
5,560
5,560
2,500
21,700
Antimony
16
0
16
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Arsenic
16
1
15
0.68
0.68
0.68
0
NS
0.68
0.68
Barium
16
16
0
148
148
146
69.8
69.8
26.3
269
Beryllium
16
15
1
0.53
0.55
0.36
0.39
0.41
0.07
1.60
Boron
16
4
12
10.9
24.9
19.0
11.6
16.2
13.4
48.2
Cadmium
16
1
15
0.21
0.35
0.35
0.10
NS
0.35
0.35
Calcium
16
14
2
2,860
3,260
2,890
3,040
3,170
59.8
11,100
Chloride
16
0
16
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Chromium
16
15
1
11.0
11.6
4.60
16.2
17.1
1.00
58.1
Cobalt
16
15
1
14.1
14.6
14.5
7.59
7.78
3.90
28.7
Copper
16
16
0
26.2
26.2
27.9
14.3
14.3
3.2
55.7
Iron
16
16
0
26,100
26,100
24,500
13,400
13,400
6,400
53,600
Lead
16
11
5
5.57
6.71
3.90
7.00
8.54
1.60
31.6
Magnesium
16
16
0
7,340
7,340
8,220
3,890
3,890
433
14,400
Manganese
16
16
0
592
592
523
305
305
172
1.340
Mercury
16
3
13
0.008
0.010
0.008
0.002
0.005
0.007
0.016
Molybdenum
16
1
15
0.61
0.69
0.69
0.04
NS
0.69
0.69
Nickel
16
13
3
6.52
7.78
2.10
8.95
9.89
0.78
29.2
Nitrate
16
0
16
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
H field
16
16
0
6.22
6.22
6.35
0.63
0.63
5.30
7.50
Potassium
16
15
1
5,950
6,330
6,870
2,860
2,630
752
10,100
Selenium
16
1
15
1.72
4.30
4.30
1.16
NS
4.30
4.30
Sodium
16
5
11
117
134
140
66.2
66.9
33.3
221
Strontium
16
14
2
19.5
22.1
17.8
17.6
18.0
1.30
62.8
Sulfate
16
0
16
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Thallium
16
0
16
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
TOC
15
6
9
697
1,030
494
747
1,206
415
3,470
Vanadium
16
16
0
60.6
60.6
51.6
32.3
32.3
15.3
143
Zinc
16
16
0
48.0
48.0
47.3
22.4
22.4
13.2
88.2
n = number of observations, KM = Kaplan Meier method (addresses data with non -detections, see USEPA 2013);
NS = No statistical analysis run due to too few detections; SD = standard deviation; TOC = total organic carbon

Table 2. Subsurface Soil Background Concentration Estimates Allen
Constituent
Distribution
95916
Percentile
95% UTL
95% UPL
95% USL
(Mg /K
Aluminum
Normal
22,100
27,000
23,000
26,600
Antimony
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Arsenic
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Barium
Normal
263
324
274
319
Beryllium
Normal
1.19
1.54
1.04
1.47
Boron
Normal
26.9
40.1
31.8
39.2
Cadmium
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Calcium
Normal
7,860
10,500
8,360
10,300
Chloride
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Chromium
Log Normal
35.9
106
43.8
95.6
Cobalt
Normal
26.6
33.2
27.8
32.6
Copper
Normal
49.8
62.3
52.1
61.2
Iron
Normal
48,100
59,800
50,200
58,800
Lead
Log Normal
13.2
25.5
14.9
24.0
Magnesium
Normal
13,700
17,200
14,400
16,800
Manganese
Normal
1,090
1,360
1,140
1,340
Mercury
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Molybdenum
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Nickel
Log Normal
21.0
69.5
27.9
62.7
Nitrate
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
pH (field)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Potassium
Normal
10,800
5,950
11,100
13,022
Selenium
Normal
NS
NS
NS
NS
Sodium
Normal
226
284
237
279
Strontium
Normal
48.0
63.9
51.3
62.5
Sulfate
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Thallium
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
TOC
Log Normal
1,370
2,090
1,430
1,930
Vanadium
Normal
114
142
119
139
Zinc
Normal
84.9
105
88.5
103
'NS = No statistical analysis run due to too few detections; UTL = upper tolerance limit; UPL = upper tolerance limit;
USL = upper simultaneous limit

References
U.S. EPA. ProUCL Version 5.0.00 Technical Guide, EPA/600/R-07/041

Attachment A
Allen Dataset

BG-3D
Location ID
Sample ID
Sample Depth
Aluminum:) Aluminum
Antimony Antimony
Arsenic
D Arsenic
Barium
D_Barium Beryllium 3_Beryllium
Boron
D Boron
BG-lD
BG-1D(19-20.5)
19-20.5
4990
1
6.2
0
6.20
0
46.2
1
0.360
1
15.5
0
BG-lD
BG-1D(45-50)
45-50
20100
1
7.6
0
7.60
0
203.0
1
0.910
1
23.4
1
BG-lD
BG-1D(56-57)
56-57
21700
1
7.2
0
7.20
0
219.0
1
1.600
1
48.2
1
BG-lD
BG-1D(84-85.5)
84-85.5
18500
1
6.1
0
6.10
0
269.0
1
1.000
1
15.4
0
BG-1D
BG-1D(9-10.5)
9-10.5
6450
1
6.8
0
6.80
0
42.8
1
0.610
1
16.9
0
BG-2D
BG-2D(18-20)
18-20
15500
1
7.0
0
7.00
0
233.0
1
0.950
1
17.6
0
BG-2D
BG-2D(48.5-50)
48.5-50
11500
1
6.4
0
6.40
0
141.0
1
0.340
1
16.1
0
BG-2D
BG-2D(8.5-10)
8.5-10
17800
1
6.4
0
6.40
0
208.0
1
0.350
1
16.1
0
BG-2S
BG-2S(48.5-50)
48.5-50
13300
1
6.1
0
6.10
0
161.0
1
0.360
1
15.1
0
BG-2S
BG-2S(58.5-60)
58.5-60
14700
1
7.3
0
7.30
0
118.0
1
0.430
1
18.3
0
BG-2S
BG-2S(66-68)
66-68
17400
1
6.4
0
6.40
0
146.0
1
0.580
1
16.1
0
BG-3D
BG-3D (83-85)
83-85
9140
1
1.2
0
0.68
1
130.0
1
0.160
1
2.9
0
BG-3D
BG-3D(13.5-15)
13.5-15
8570
1
1.2
0
3.00
0
109.0
1
0.360
0
3.0
0
BG-3D
BG-3D(18.5-20)
18.5-20
2500
1
1.2
0
1.20
0
26.3
1
0.071
1
3.0
0
BG-3D
BG-3D(62-64)
62-64
13500
1
3.0
0
3.00
0
168.0
1
0.260
1
13.4
1
BG-3D(78.5-80)
78.5-80
11800
1
3.4
0
3.40
0
146.0
1
0.300
1
14.6
1

BG-3D
Location ID
Sample ID Cadmium
D_Cadmium
Calcium
D Calcium
Chloride
D_Chloride
Chromium
D_Chromium
Cobalt
D_Cobalt
Copper
D_Copper
Iron
D_Iron
Lead
BG-lD
BG-1D(19-20.5)
0.74
0
155.0
0
304
0
14.7
1
14.5
1
11.9
1
27600
1
7.6
BG-lD
BG-1D(45-50)
0.92
0
245.0
1
363
0
6.2
1
18.7
1
29.0
1
33600
1
6.9
BG-lD
BG-1D(56-57)
0.86
0
2020.0
1
363
0
5.6
1
28.7
1
30.0
1
51900
1
5.0
BG-lD
BG-1D(84-85.5)
0.74
0
11100.0
1
308
0
19.9
1
17.0
1
32.0
1
35600
1
6.1
BG-1D
BG-1D(9-10.5)
0.81
0
169.0
0
357
0
4.6
1
6.8
0
26.7
1
53600
1
7.1
BG-2D
BG-2D(18-20)
0.84
0
1260.0
1
336
0
2.7
1
19.4
1
55.7
1
32400
1
3.9
BG-2D
BG-2D(48.5-50)
0.77
0
3060.0
1
304
0
1.6
0
10.0
1
23.5
1
16300
1
6.4
BG-2D
BG-2D(8.5-10)
0.77
0
195.0
1
315
0
3.1
1
9.7
1
3.2
1
23100
1
3.6
BG-2S
BG-2S(48.5-50)
0.73
0
2710.0
1
294
0
1.9
l
6.6
1
4.9
1
18200
1
6.1
BG-2S
BG-2S(58.5-60)
0.88
0
6410.0
1
352
0
43.9
1
18.3
1
40.9
1
25800
1
7.3
BG-2S
BG-2S(66-68)
0.77
0
7470.0
1
312
0
58.1
1
20.5
1
42.5
1
31400
1
6.4
BG-3D
BG-3D (83-85)
0.14
0
3400.0
1
297
0
1.6
1
6.7
1
29.2
1
12300
1
1.6
BG-3D
BG-3D(13.5-15)
0.35
1
59.8
1
311
0
1.7
1
28.5
1
10.3
1
13600
1
31.6
BG-3D
BG-3D(18.5-20)
0.14
0
773.0
1
291
0
7.6
1
3.9
1
18.2
1
6400
1
1.7
BG-3D
BG-3D(62-64)
0.36
0
3130.0
1
295
0
1.0
1
8.8
1
37.7
1
17800
1
2.6
BG-3D(78.5-80)
0.40
0
3800.0
1
326
0
1.5
1
8.2
1
24.0
1
17200
1
2.2

BG-3D
Location ID
Sample ID
D_Lead
Magnesium Magnesium
Manganese _Manganese
Mercury D_Mercury
Molybdenum Molybdenum Nickel
D_Nickel Nitrate
D_Nitrate nt Moisture : Moisture
BG-lD
BG-1D(19-20.5)
1
903
1
436
1
0.0094
0
3.10
0
1.80
1
30.4
0
17.7 1
BG-lD
BG-1D(45-50)
1
10000
1
1060
1
0.0110
0
3.80
0
5.30
1
36.3
0
31.8 1
BG-lD
BG-1D(56-57)
1
8860
1
805
1
0.0110
0
3.60
0
12.00
1
36.3
0
31.0 1
BG-lD
BG-1D(84-85.5)
0
14400
1
537
1
0.0100
0
3.10
0
16.80
1
30.8
0
18.8 1
BG-1D
BG-1D(9-10.5)
1
433
1
293
1
0.0160
1
3.40
0
1.70
0
35.7
0
29.8 1
BG-2D
BG-2D(18-20)
1
9490
1
1340
1
0.0110
0
3.50
0
1.80
0
33.6
0
25.9 1
BG-2D
BG-2D(48.5-50)
0
7110
1
426
1
0.0096
0
3.20
0
1.60
0
30.4
0
19.2 1
BG-2D
BG-2D(8.5-10)
1
8930
1
587
1
0.0082
1
3.20
0
1.40
1
31.5
0
19.8 1
BG-2S
BG-2S(48.5-50)
0
8480
1
574
1
0.0096
0
3.00
0
1.70
1
29.4
0
14.9 1
BG-2S
BG-2S(58.5-60)
0
9850
1
468
1
0.0120
0
3.70
0
25.10
1
35.2
0
28.6 1
BG-2S
BG-2S(66-68)
0
11600
1
522
1
0.0110
0
3.20
0
29.20
1
31.2
0
21.2 1
BG-3D
BG-3D (83-85)
1
6160
1
376
1
0.0100
0
0.59
0
0.93
1
29.7
0
16.4 1
BG-3D
BG-3D(13.5-15)
1
4890
1
962
1
0.0071
1
0.60
0
2.10
1
31.1
0
20.0 1
BG-3D
BG-3D(18.5-20)
1
1160
1
172
1
0.0100
0
0.69
1
0.78
1
29.1
0
14.9 1
BG-3D
BG-3D(62-64)
1
7190
1
524
1
0.0100
0
0.60
0
1.80
1
29.5
0
16.3 1
BG-31)(78.5-80)
1
7950
1
397
1
0.0100
0
0.67
0
2.20
1
32.6
0
23.6 1

Location ID
BG-lD
BG-1 D
BG-lD
BG-1 D
BG-1D
BG-2D
BG-2D
BG-2D
BG-2 S
BG-2S
BG-2 S
BG-3D
BG-3D
BG-3D
BG-3D
BG-3D
Sample ID pH (field) pH (field) otassium tassium
BG-1D(19-20.5)
5.3
1
752 1
BG-1D(45-50)
5.7
1
10100 1
BG-1D(56-57)
6.2
1
6870 1
BG-1D(84-85.5)
6.3
1
9230 1
BG-1D(9-10.5)
5.5
1
339 0
BG-2D(18-20)
6.0
1
7790 1
BG-2D(48.5-50)
6.5
1
6200 1
BG-2D(8.5-10)
5.4
1
8720 1
BG-2S(48.5-50)
6.5
1
7250 1
BG-2S(58.5-60)
6.8
1
4570 1
BG-2S(66-68)
6.5
1
6390 1
BG-3D (83-85)
7.5
1
5800 1
BG-3D(13.5-15)
5.4
1
5220 1
BG-3D(18.5-20)
6.9
1
1110 1
BG-3D(62-64)
6.4
1
7420 1
BG-3D(78.5-80)
6.6
1
7460 1
Selenium Selenium
6.2 0
7.6 0
4.3 1
6.1 0
6.8 0
5.3 0
4.8 0
4.8 0
4.5 0
5.5 0
4.8 0
1.2 0
3.0 0
1.2 0
3.0 0
3.4 0
Sodium D_Sodium
310.0 0
384.0 0
359.0 0
307.0 0
339.0 0
351.0 0
322.0 0
322.0 0
303.0 0
365.0 0
221.0 1
145.0 1
33.3 1
59.5 0
140.0 1
130.0 1
Strontium Strontium
3.1 0
10.1 1
27.4 1
62.8 1
3.4 0
16.7 1
21.3 1
5.5 1
21.3 1
40.5 1
50.0 1
17.3 1
1.5 1
1.3 1
15.5 1
18.3 1
Sulfate
304
363
363
308
357
336
304
315
294
352
312
297
311
291
295
326

BG-3D
Location ID
Sample ID D_Sulfate Thallium
_Thallium Total Organic Carbon;anic Carbon
BG-1D
BG-1D(19-20.5)
0
6.2
0
475 1
BG-1D
BG-1D(45-50)
0
7.6
0
878 0
BG-1D
BG-1D(56-57)
0
7.2
0
871 0
BG-1D
BG-1D(84-85.5)
0
6.1
0
499 1
BG-1D
BG-1D(9-10.5)
0
6.8
0
798 1
BG-2D
BG-2D(18-20)
0
7.0
0
415 1
BG-2D
BG-2D(48.5-50)
0
6.4
0
BG-2D
BG-2D(8.5-10)
0
6.4
0
744 0
BG-2S
BG-2S(48.5-50)
0
6.1
0
701 0
BG-2S
BG-2S(58.5-60)
0
7.3
0
837 0
BG-2S
BG-2S(66-68)
0
6.4
0
761 0
BG-3D
BG-3D (83-85)
0
1.2
0
716 0
BG-3D
BG-3D(13.5-15)
0
1.2
0
488 1
BG-3D
BG-3D(18.5-20)
0
1.2
0
3470 1
BG-3D
BG-3D(62-64)
0
3.0
0
716 0
BG-3D(78.5-80)
0
3.4
0
786 0
Vanadium /anadium
Zinc
D Zinc
68.1 1
13.2
1
79.3 1
88.2
1
116.0 1
82.4
1
68.1 1
74.7
1
143.0 1
14.7
1
77.5 1
64.3
1
36.8 1
41.4
1
49.0 1
59.4
1
32.3 1
48.0
1
49.2 1
41.5
1
59.1 1
51.5
1
34.5 1
39.5
1
40.9 1
36.4
1
15.3 1
16.8
1
45.9 1
46.5
1
54.0 1
50.1
1

Attachment 6
ProUCL 5.0.00 Printout

User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Coverage
Different or Future K Observatior
Number of Bootstrap Operations
Aluminum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
########
ProUCL data Allen - REVISED 20151029104252.xls
OFF
95%
95%
1
2000
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
16
2500 First Quartile
8998
20100 Median
13400
21700 Third Quartile
17500
12966 SD
5560
0.429 Skewness
-0.29
9.346 SD of logged Data
0.577
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.976 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.0999 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
27000 90% Percentile (z) 20091
23013 95% Percentile (z) 22111
26551 99% Percentile (z) 25901
A-D Test Statistic 0.436 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.742 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.157 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.216 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 4.186 k star (bias corrected MLE) 3.442
Theta hat (MLE) 3098 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 3766
nu hat (MLE) 133.9 nu star (bias corrected) 110.2
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 12966 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 6988
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 27055 90% Percentile 22336
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 28032 95% Percentile 26175
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 35429 99% Percentile 34437
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 37665
95% WH USL 34410 95% HW USL 36472
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.878 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.19 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.222 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 49169 90% Percentile (z) 23998
95% UPL (t) 32503 95% Percentile (z) 29598
95% USL 46930 99% Percentile (z) 43867
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 21700
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 21700 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 21700
95% UPL 21700 90% Percentile 19300
90% Chebyshev UPL 30160 95% Percentile 20500
95% Chebyshev UPL 37948 99% Percentile 21460
95% USL 21700
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Antimony
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
16 Number of Missing Observations
11
0 Number of Non -Detects
0 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
N/A Minimum Non -Detect
N/A Maximum Non -Detect
N/A Percent Non -Detects
N/A SD Detected
N/A SD of Detected Logged Data
Warning: All observations are Non -Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDsI
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPLs, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Antimony was not processed!
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
16 Number of Missing Observations
12
1 Number of Non -Detects
1 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
0.68 Minimum Non -Detect
0.68 Maximum Non -Detect
N/A Percent Non -Detects
0.68 SD Detected
-0.386 SD of Detected Logged Data
0
16
11
1.2
7.6
100%
N/A
N/A
0
15
11
1.2
7.6
93.75%
N/A
N/A
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).
The data set for variable Arsenic was not processed I

Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
15
26.3 First Quartile
115.8
233 Median
146
269 Third Quartile
204.3
147.9 SD
69.83
0.472 Skewness
-0.214
4.837 SD of logged Data
0.663
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.963 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.115 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
324.1 90% Percentile (z) 237.4
274.1 95% Percentile (z) 262.8
318.5 99% Percentile (z) 310.3
A-D Test Statistic 0.712 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.744 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.18 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.217 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 3.297 k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.72
Theta hat (MLE) 44.86 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 54.37
nu hat (MLE) 105.5 nu star (bias corrected) 87.05
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 147.9 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 89.67
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 332.2 90% Percentile 268.1
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 347 95% Percentile 319.3
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 446.2 99% Percentile 431
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 480.8
95% WH USL 432.3 95% HW USL 464.1
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.847 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.225 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.222 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 671.9 90% Percentile (z) 294.9
95% UPL (t) 417.8 95% Percentile (z) 375.2
95% USL 636.9 99% Percentile (z) 589.4
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 269
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 269 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 269
95% UPL 269 90% Percentile 226
90% Chebyshev UPL 363.8 95% Percentile 242
95% Chebyshev UPL 461.6 99% Percentile 263.6
95% USL 269
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Beryllium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Number of Detects
15 Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
14 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.071 Minimum Non -Detect
0.36
Maximum Detect
1.6 Maximum Non -Detect
0.36
Variance Detected
0.164 Percent Non -Detects
6.25%
Mean Detected
0.552 SD Detected
0.405
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.851 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.794
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.867 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.881 Data Not Normal at 5%Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.218 Lilliefors GOF Test
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
0.229 Detected Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5%Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.533 SD
0.387
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.51 95% KM UPL (t)
1.232
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.029 95% KM Percentile (z)
1.169
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.433 95% KM USL
1.478
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.529 SD
0.402
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.544 95% UPL (t)
1.256
90% Percentile (z)
1.044 95% Percentile (z)
1.191
99% Percentile (z)
1.465 95% USL
1.512
DL/2 is not a recommended method.
DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic
0.325 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5%A-D Critical Value
0.747 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.166 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5%K-S Critical Value
0.224 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MILE)
2.101 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.725
Theta hat (MLE)
0.263 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
0.32
nu hat (MILE)
63.02 nu star (bias corrected)
51.75
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
0.552
MILE Sd (bias corrected)
0.42 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
8.581
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has> 50%NDs with many tied observations at multiple DI
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small
such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated
values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum
0.071 Mean
0.53
Maximum
1.6 Median
0.36
SO
0.402 CV
0.758
k hat (MLE)
2.038 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.697
Theta hat (MILE)
0.26 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
0.312
nu hat (MILE)
65.21 nu star(bias corrected)
54.32
MILE Mean (bias corrected)
0.53 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.406
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
8.489 90% Percentile
1.071
95% Percentile
1.324 99% Percentile
1.891
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS
Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley
(HW) Methods
WH
HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 1.976
2.113 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 1.388
1.433
95% Gamma USL 1.902
2.026
The following statistics are computed usinggamma distribution
and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty(WH) and Hawkins WIxIey(HW)
Methods
k hat (KM)
1.898 nu hat (KM)
60.72
WH
HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 1.91
2.04 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 1.353
1.396
95% Gamma USL 1.841
1.958
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
0.959 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.881 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
0.13 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.229 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
0.531 Mean in Log Scale
-0.894
SO in Original Scale
0.401 SD in Log Scale
0.777
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.909 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
1.6
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
1.6 95% UPL (t)
1.666
90% Percentile (z)
1.107 95% Percentile (z)
1.469
99% Percentile (z)
2.495 95% USL
2.732
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
-0.893 95% KM UTL(Lognormal)95%.Coverage
2.82
KM SD of Logged Data
0.764 95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
1.63
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
1.44 95% KM USL (Lognormal)
2.651
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
0.529 Mean in Log Scale
-0.905
SO in Original Scale
0.402 SO in Log Scale
0.788
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.954 95% UPL (t)
1.68
90% Percentile (z)
1.11 95% Percentile (z)
1.478
99% Percentile (z)
2.529 95% USL
2.772
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method.
DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 1.6
Approximate f
0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL
1.6 95% USL 1.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.271
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Boron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Detects
4 Number of Non -Detects
12
Number of Distinct Detects
4 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
9
Minimum Detect
13.4 Minimum Non -Detect
2.9
Maximum Detect
48.2 Maximum Non -Detect
18.3
Variance Detected
261.2 Percent Non -Detects
75%
Mean Detected
24.9 SD Detected
16.16
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.076 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.587
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.823 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.287 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.443 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 10.9 SD 11.57
95% UTL95% Coverage 40.09 95% KM UPL (t) 31.8
90% KM Percentile (z) 25.72 95% KM Percentile (z) 29.92
99% KM Percentile (z) 37.81 95% KM USL 39.16
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 11.1 SD 11.26
95% UTL95% Coverage 39.52 95% UPL (t) 31.45
90% Percentile (z) 25.53 95% Percentile (z) 29.62
99% Percentile (z) 37.3 95% USL 38.61
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.415 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.659 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.28 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.396 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
3.762 k star (bias corrected MLE)
6.62 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
30.09 nu star (bias corrected)
24.9
23.67 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean
Maximum 48.2 Median
SD 13.08 CV
k hat (MLE) 0.278 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 25.45 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 8.904 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.081 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 2.539 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 33.57 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
1.107
22.49
8.856
6.4
7.081
0.487
1.848
0.268
26.45
8.568
13.69
21.14
66.37
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 62.92 79.58 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 32.77 36.08
95% Gamma USL 58.86 73.34
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 0.887 nu hat (KM) 28.4
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 50.02 53.57 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 32.94 33.71
95% Gamma USL 47.85 50.98
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.891 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.748 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.25 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.443 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 11.44 Mean in Log Scale 2.19
SD in Original Scale 10.96 SD in Log Scale 0.649
95% UTL95% Coverage 45.93 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 48.2
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 48.2 95% UPL (t) 28.85
90% Percentile (z) 20.51 95% Percentile (z) 25.97
99% Percentile (z) 40.4 95% USL 43.59
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data 1.922 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 74.81
KM SD of Logged Data 0.948 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 37.9
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 32.5 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 69.29
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
11.1 Mean in Log Scale
2.024
SD in Original Scale
11.26 SD in Log Scale
0.949
95% UTL95% Coverage
83.03 95% UPL (t)
42.04
90% Percentile (z)
25.53 95% Percentile (z)
36.04
99% Percentile (z)
68.82 95% USL
76.9
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 48.2
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL 48.2 95% USL 48.2
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 62.87
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Cadmium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
12
Number of Detects
1 Number of Non -Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects
1 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
11
Minimum Detect
0.35 Minimum Non -Detect
0.14
Maximum Detect
0.35 Maximum Non -Detect
0.92
Variance Detected
N/A Percent Non -Detects
93.75%
Mean Detected
0.35 SD Detected
N/A
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.05 SD of Detected Logged Data
N/A
Warning: Only one distinct data value was detected Pro UCL (or any other software) should not be used on such ad a ta sett
It is suggested to use alternative site specific values determined by the Project Team to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data setfor variable Cadmium was not processed!

Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
16
Number of Detects
14 Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
14 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
59.8 Minimum Non -Detect
155
Maximum Detect
11100 Maximum Non -Detect
169
Variance Detected
10017792 Percent Non -Detects
12.50%
Mean Detected
3259 SD Detected
3165
Mean of Detected Logged Data
7.401 SD of Detected Logged Data
1.517
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.867 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.874 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.218 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.237 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 2860 SD 3043
95% UTL95% Coverage 10540 95% KM UPL (t) 8358
90% KM Percentile (z) 6759 95% KM Percentile (z) 7865
99% KM Percentile (z) 9938 95% KM USL 10294
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 2862 SD 3140
95% UTL95% Coverage 10788 95% UPL (t) 8536
90% Percentile (z) 6886 95% Percentile (z) 8027
99% Percentile (z) 10167 95% USL 10534
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.281 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.766 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.152 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.237 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.855 k star (bias corrected MLE)
3811 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
23.94 nu star (bias corrected)
3259
3843 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean
Maximum 11100 Median
SD 3150 CV
k hat (MLE) 0.33 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 8635 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 10.57 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2852 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 2.806 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 12909 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
0.72
4530
20.15
4.85
2852
2365
1.104
0.31
9200
9.921
5122
8378
24638
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 22563 33368 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 12949 16688
95% Gamma USL 21300 31041
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 0.883 nu hat (KM) 28.26
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 18280 22449 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 11005 12344
95% Gamma USL 17336 21077
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.904 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.874 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.201 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.237 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2865 Mean in Log Scale 7.057
SD in Original Scale 3137 SD in Log Scale 1.696
95% UTL95% Coverage 84021 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 11100
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 11100 95% UPL (t) 24898
90% Percentile (z) 10211 95% Percentile (z) 18910
99% Percentile (z) 60086 95% USL 73268
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data 6.988 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 90051
KM SD of Logged Data 1.751 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 25652
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 19310 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 78178
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
2862 Mean in Log Scale
7.025
SD in Original Scale
3140 SD in Log Scale
1.746
95% UTL95% Coverage
92300 95% UPL (t)
26390
90% Percentile (z)
10543 95% Percentile (z)
19883
99% Percentile (z)
65359 95% USL
80164
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 11100
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL 11100 95% USL 11100
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 16531
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Number of Detects
0 Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
0 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
14
Minimum Detect
N/A
Minimum Non -Detect
291
Maximum Detect
N/A
Maximum Non -Detect
363
Variance Detected
N/A
Percent Non -Detects
100%
Mean Detected
N/A
SD Detected
N/A
Mean of Detected Logged Data
N/A
SD of Detected Logged Data
N/A
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!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specifcvalues to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Chloride was not processedl

Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Detects
15 Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
15 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
1 Minimum Non -Detect
1.6
Maximum Detect
58.1 Maximum Non -Detect
1.6
Variance Detected
290.9 Percent Non -Detects
6.25%
Mean Detected
11.61 SD Detected
17.05
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.653 SD of Detected Logged Data
1.255
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.654 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.881 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.326 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.229 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 10.96 SD 16.15
95% UTL95% Coverage 51.72 95% KM UPL (t) 40.14
90% KM Percentile (z) 31.66 95% KM Percentile (z) 37.52
99% KM Percentile (z) 48.53 95% KM USL 50.42
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 10.93 SD 16.7
95% UTL95% Coverage 53.07 95% UPL (t) 41.1
90% Percentile (z) 32.33 95% Percentile (z) 38.39
99% Percentile (z) 49.77 95% USL 51.73
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.888 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.775 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.211 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.23 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.75 k star (bias corrected MLE)
15.48 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
22.49 nu star (bias corrected)
11.61
14.46 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean
Maximum 58.1 Median
SD 16.73 CV
k hat (MLE) 0.556 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 19.59 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 17.78 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 10.88 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 3.807 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 42.01 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
0.644
18.02
19.33
4.519
10.88
3.85
1.537
0.493
22.07
15.78
15.5
29.53
72.76
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 73.29 86.81 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 43.03 46.66
95% Gamma USL 69.34 81.32
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 0.461 nu hat (KM) 14.74
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 63.22 68.18 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 38.45 38.97
95% Gamma USL 60.01 64.26
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.929 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.881 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.128 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.229 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 10.93 Mean in Log Scale 1.53
SD in Original Scale 16.7 SD in Log Scale 1.309
95% UTL95% Coverage 125.6 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 58.1
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 58.1 95% UPL (t) 49.15
90% Percentile (z) 24.71 95% Percentile (z) 39.75
99% Percentile (z) 96.98 95% USL 113
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data 1.562 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 105.5
KM SD of Logged Data 1.227 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 43.78
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 35.88 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 95.56
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
10.93 Mean in Log Scale
1.536
SD in Original Scale
16.7 SD in Log Scale
1.3
95% UTL95% Coverage
123.7 95% UPL (t)
48.7
90% Percentile (z)
24.59 95% Percentile (z)
39.44
99% Percentile (z)
95.68 95% USL
111.4
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 58.1
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL 58.1 95% USL 58.1
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 83.52
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
16
Number of Detects
15 Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
15 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
3.9 Minimum Non -Detect
6.8
Maximum Detect
28.7 Maximum Non -Detect
6.8
Variance Detected
60.49 Percent Non -Detects
6.25%
Mean Detected
14.63 SD Detected
7.777
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.536 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.585
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.923 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.881 Detected Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.191 Lilliefors GOF Test
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
0.229 Detected Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
14.08 SO
7.594
95% UTL95% Coverage
33.24 95% KM UPL (t)
27.8
90% KM Percentile (z)
23.81 95% KM Percentile (z)
26.57
99% KM Percentile (z)
31.74 95% KM USL
32.63
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
13.93 SD
8.021
95% UTL95% Coverage
34.18 95% UPL (t)
28.43
90% Percentile (z)
24.21 95% Percentile (z)
27.12
99% Percentile (z)
32.59 95% USL
33.53
DL/2 is not a recommended method.
DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic
0.355 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5%A-D Critical Value
0.742 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.155 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
59/K-5 Critical Value
0.223 Detected data. appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
3.551 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.885
Theta hat (MLE)
4.121 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
5.072
nu hat (MLE)
106.5 nu star (bias corrected)
86.56
MILE Mean (bias corrected)
14.63
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
8.615 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
12.25
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > SO% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated
values of UCIs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum
3.9 Mean
14.04
Maximum
28.7 Median
12.25
SO
7.877 CV
0.561
k hat (MILE)
3.246 k star (bias corrected MILE)
2.679
Theta hat (MILE)
4.326 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
5.241
nu hat (MILE)
103.9 nu star (bias corrected)
85.73
VILE Mean (bias corrected)
14.04 MILE Sd (bias corrected)
8.579
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
11.62 90% Percentile
25.54
95% Percentile
30.46 99% Percentile
41.18
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS
Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley
(HW) Methods
WH
HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 42.67
44.87 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 31.66
32.45
95% Gamma USL 41.32
43.32
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution
and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty(WH) and Hawkins Wixley(HW)
Methods
k hat (KM)
3.436 nu hat (KM)
110
WH
HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 41.22
43.2 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 30.83
31.54
95% Gamma USL 39.95
41.75
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.948 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.881 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.161 Lilliefors GOF Test
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
0.229 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
14.07 Mean in Log Scale
2.486
SO in Original Scale
7.841 SO in Log Scale
0.6
95% UTL95% Coverage
54.63 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
28.7
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
28.7 95% UPL (t)
35.53
90% Percentile (z)
25.92 95% Percentile (z)
32.23
99% Percentile (z)
48.52 95% USL
52.04
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
2.485 95% KM UTL(Lognormal)95%Coverage
52.64
KM SD of Logged Data
0.586 95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
34.58
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
31.45 95% KM USL (Lognormal)
50.21
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
13.93 Mean in Log Scale
2.454
SO in Original Scale
8.021 SD in Log Scale
0.654
95% UTL95% Coverage
60.6 95% UPL (t)
37.92
90% Percentile (z)
26.89 95% Percentile (z)
34.11
99% Percentile (z)
53.25 95% USL
57.48
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method.
DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 28.7
Approximate f
0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL
28.7 95% USL 28.7
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
48.2
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
16
3.2 First Quartile
16.63
42.5 Median
27.85
55.7 Third Quartile
33.43
26.23 SD
14.3
0.545 Skewness
0.141
3.05 SD of logged Data
0.789
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.974 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.112 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
62.31 90% Percentile (z) 44.55
52.06 95% Percentile (z) 49.75
61.16 99% Percentile (z) 59.49
A-D Test Statistic 0.561 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.748 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.206 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.217 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.459 k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.04
Theta hat (MLE) 10.67 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 12.86
nu hat (MLE) 78.69 nu star (bias corrected) 65.27
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 26.23 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 18.37
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 64.81 90% Percentile 50.78
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 68.47 95% Percentile 61.83
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 89.99 99% Percentile 86.32
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 98.82
95% WH USL 86.88 95% HW USL 94.97
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.866 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.241 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.222 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 154.9 90% Percentile (z) 58.08
95% UPL (t) 87.93 95% Percentile (z) 77.37
95% USL 145.3 99% Percentile (z) 132.5
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 55.7
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 55.7 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 55.7
95% UPL 55.7 90% Percentile 41.7
90% Chebyshev UPL 70.44 95% Percentile 45.8
95% Chebyshev UPL 90.46 99% Percentile 53.72
95% USL 55.7
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95%UTLwith 95%Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
16
6400 First Quartile
16975
51900 Median
24450
53600 Third Quartile
32700
26050 SD
13389
0.514 Skewness
0.797
10.04 SD of logged Data
0.554
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.929 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
0.159 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
59843 90% Percentile (z) 43208
50243 95% Percentile (z) 48072
58762 99%Percentile (z) 57196
A-D Test Statistic
0.211 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5%A-D Critical Value
0.742 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.128 Kolmogrov-Sm irnoff Gamma GOF Test
5%K-S Critical Value
0.216 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
3.938 k star (bias corrected MILE) 3.241
Theta hat (MLE)
6615 Theta star (bias corrected MILE) 8037
nu hat (MLE)
126 nu star (bias corrected) 103.7
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
26050 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 14469
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty(WH) Approx.
Gamma UPL
55282 90% Percentile
45452
95% Hawkins Wixley(HW) Approx.
Gamma UPL
56532 95% Percentile
53480
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with
95%Coverage
72923 99% Percentile
70811
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with
95%Coverage
76261
95%WH USL
70773 95%HW USL
73814
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.965 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.887 Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0961 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
0.222 Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95%UTLwith 95%.Coverage
92338 90% Percentile (z) 46405
95% UPL (t)
62078 95% Percentile (z) 56747
95% USL
88301 99% Percentile (z) 82764
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
16
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
53600
Approximate f
0.842
Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL
0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
536G0
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95%Coverage
53600
95% UPL
53600
90% Percentile
43750
90% Chebyshev UPL
67452
95% Percentile
52325
95% Chebyshev UPL
86205
99% Percentile
53345
95% USL
53600
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Lead
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Number of Detects
11 Number of Non -Detects
5
Number of Distinct Detects
11 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Detect
1.6 Minimum Non -Detect
6.1
Maximum Detect
31.6 Maximum Non -Detect
7.3
Variance Detected
72.94 Percent Non -Detects
31.25%
Mean Detected
6.709 SD Detected
8.541
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.488 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.859
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.581 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.368 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.267 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 5.571 SD 7
95% UTL95% Coverage 23.24 95% KM UPL (t) 18.22
90% KM Percentile (z) 14.54 95% KM Percentile (z) 17.09
99% KM Percentile (z) 21.86 95% KM USL 22.68
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 5.622 SD 7.171
95% UTL95% Coverage 23.72 95% UPL (t) 18.58
90% Percentile (z) 14.81 95% Percentile (z) 17.42
99% Percentile (z) 22.3 95% USL 23.14
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.746 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.745 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.241 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.261 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.346 k star (bias corrected MLE)
4.984 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
29.61 nu star (bias corrected)
6.709
6.58 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.559 Mean
Maximum 31.6 Median
SD 7.336 CV
k hat (MLE) 1.153 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 4.615 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 36.91 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 5.323 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 5.909 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 16.07 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
1.04
6.454
22.87
6.144
5.323
3.641
1.378
0.979
5.439
31.32
5.381
12.32
24.78
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 25.47 26.99 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 16.57 16.8
95% Gamma USL 24.34 25.66
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 0.633 nu hat (KM) 20.27
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 22.51 22.86 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 15.29 15.08
95% Gamma USL 21.61 21.86
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.913 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.85 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.174 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.267 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 5.544 Mean in Log Scale 1.354
SD in Original Scale 7.21 SD in Log Scale 0.746
95% UTL95% Coverage 25.45 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 31.6
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 31.6 95% UPL (t) 14.91
90% Percentile (z) 10.08 95% Percentile (z) 13.21
99% Percentile (z) 21.96 95% USL 23.96
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data 1.344 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 25.51
KM SD of Logged Data 0.751 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 14.89
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 13.18 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 24.01
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
5.622 Mean in Log Scale
1.389
SD in Original Scale
7.171 SD in Log Scale
0.718
95% UTL95% Coverage
24.58 95% UPL (t)
14.69
90% Percentile (z)
10.07 95% Percentile (z)
13.07
99% Percentile (z)
21.33 95% USL
23.2
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 31.6
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL 31.6 95% USL 31.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 37.02
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Distinct Observations
16
Minimum
433 First Quartile
5843
Second Largest
11600 Median
8215
Maximum
14400 Third Quartile
9580
Mean
7338 SD
3893
Coefficient of Variation
0.531 Skewness
-0.47
Mean of logged Data
8.601 SD of logged Data
1.019
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.931 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.164 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95%UTLwith 95%Coverage
17163 90% Percentile (z) 12327
95% UPL (t)
14372 95% Percentile (z) 13741
95% USL
16849 99% Percentile (z) 16394
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
1.493 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5%A-D Critical Value
0.752 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.27 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.218 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MILE)
1.816 k star (bias corrected MILE) 1.517
Theta hat (MLE)
4041 Theta star (bias corrected MILE) 4837
nu hat (MILE)
58.1 nu star (bias corrected) 48.54
MILE Mean (bias corrected)
7338 MILE Sd (bias corrected) 5958
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx.
Gamma UPL
20157 90% Percentile
15249
95% Hawkins Wixley(HW) Approx.
Gamma UPL
22049 95% Percentile
19043
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTLwith
95%Coverage
28965 99% Percentile
27604
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with
95%Coverage
33423
95% WH USL
27866 95% HW USL
31961
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.738 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.887 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.299 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
0.222 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95%UTLwith 95%.Coverage
71151 90% Percentile (z) 20063
95% UPL (t)
34269 95% Percentile (z) 29050
95% USL
65532 99% Percentile (z) 58172
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
16 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
14400
Approximate f
0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL
0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
14400 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95%Coverage
14400
95% UPL
14400 90% Percentile
10800
90% Chebyshev UPL
19376 95% Percentile
12300
95% Chebyshev UPL
24828 99% Percentile
13980
95% USL
14400
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
16
172 First Quartile
418.8
1060 Median
523
1340 Third Quartile
641.5
592.4 SD
304.6
0.514 Skewness
1.214
6.268 SD of logged Data
0.504
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.887 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.257 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
1361 90% Percentile (z) 982.8
1143 95% Percentile (z) 1093
1337 99% Percentile (z) 1301
A-D Test Statistic 0.412 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.742 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.194 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.216 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MILE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
95% WH USL
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
4.445 k star (bias corrected MILE)
133.3 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
142.2 nu star (bias corrected)
592.4 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1212 90% Percentile
1230 95% Percentile
1579 99% Percentile
1632
1534 95% HW USL
0.965 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.166 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1881 90% Percentile (z)
95% UPL (t) 1310 95% Percentile (z)
95% USL 1806 99% Percentile (z)
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 1340 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL 1340 90% Percentile
90% Chebyshev UPL 1534 95% Percentile
95% Chebyshev UPL 1961 99% Percentile
95% USL 1340
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Mercury
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
16 Number of Missing Observations
8
3 Number of Non -Detects
3 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
0.0071 Minimum Non -Detect
0.016 Maximum Non -Detect
2.35E-05 Percent Non -Detects
0.0104 SD Detected
-4.629 SD of Detected Logged Data
Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values.
This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
2.524 d2max (for USL)
0.841 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.767 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.344 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.512 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.00817 SD
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.0134 95% KM UPL (t)
90% KM Percentile (z) 0.0109 95% KM Percentile (z)
99% KM Percentile (z) 0.013 95% KM USL
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.00616 SD
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.0132 95% UPL (t)
90% Percentile (z) 0.00973 95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z) 0.0126 95% USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
7.731 k star (bias corrected MILE)
0.00135 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
46.39 nu star (bias corrected)
N/A
N/A 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.0071 Mean
Maximum 0.016 Median
SD 0.00179 CV
k hat (MLE) 39.53 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 2.57E-04 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
nu hat (MLE) 1265 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0102 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 84.03 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 0.0133 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
3.653
162.2
116.9
310
1008
1177
1539
1583
1006
1208
1702
1340
0.56
1340
1011
1130
1298
N
13
5
0.0094
0.012
81.25 %
0.00485
0.434
2.443
0.00209
0.0119
0.0116
0.0133
0.00278
0.0112
0.0107
0.013
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0102
0.01
0.176
32.16
3.16E-04
1029
0.00179
0.0125
0.0148
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 0.0149 0.0149 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.0134 0.0134
95% Gamma USL 0.0147 0.0147
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 15.29 nu hat (KM) 489.1
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 0.0131 0.0131 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.0115 0.0115
95% Gamma USL 0.0129 0.0129
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.878 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.767 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.323 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.512 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 0.00835 Mean in Log Scale -4.819
SD in Original Scale 0.00246 SD in Log Scale 0.254
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.0153 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 0.016
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 0.016 95% UPL (t) 0.0128
90% Percentile (z) 0.0112 95% Percentile (z) 0.0123
99% Percentile (z) 0.0146 95% USL 0.015
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data -4.829 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 0.013
KM SD of Logged Data 0.192 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 0.0113
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 0.011 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 0.0128
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
0.00616 Mean in Log Scale
-5.147
SD in Original Scale
0.00278 SD in Log Scale
0.309
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.0127 95% UPL (t)
0.0102
90% Percentile (z)
0.00864 95% Percentile (z)
0.00967
99% Percentile (z)
0.0119 95% USL
0.0124
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 0.016
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL 0.016 95% USL 0.016
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.0176
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
12
Number of Detects
I Number of Non -Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects
1 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
11
Minimum Detect
0.69 Minimum Non -Detect
0.59
Maximum Detect
0.69 Maximum Non -Detect
3.8
Variance Detected
N/A Percent Non -Detects
93.75%
Mean Detected
0.69 SD Detected
N/A
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.371 SD of Detected Logged Data
N/A
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).
The data set for variable Molybdenum was not processed!

Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
16 Number of Missing Observations
13
13 Number of Non -Detects
12 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
0.78 Minimum Non -Detect
29.2 Maximum Non -Detect
97.72 Percent Non -Detects
7.778 SD Detected
1.294 SD of Detected Logged Data
2.524 d2max (for USL)
0.724 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.866 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.329 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.246 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 6.521 SD
95% UTL95% Coverage 29.12 95% KM UPL (t)
90% KM Percentile (z) 17.99 95% KM Percentile (z)
99% KM Percentile (z) 27.35 95% KM USL
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 6.479 SD
95% UTL95% Coverage 29.88 95% UPL (t)
90% Percentile (z) 18.36 95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z) 28.05 95% USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.057 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
0.768 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.315 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
0.245 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.786 k star (bias corrected MLE)
9.899 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
20.43 nu star (bias corrected)
7.778
9.605 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean
Maximum 29.2 Median
SD 9.38 CV
k hat (MLE) 0.398 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 15.89 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 12.73 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 6.321 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 3.129 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 27.11 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
n
3
3
1.6
1.8
18.75 %
9.885
1.266
2.443
8.953
22.7
21.25
28.39
9.272
23.23
21.73
29.13
0.656
11.86
17.05
4.57
6.321
1.8
1.484
0.365
17.33
11.67
10.47
18.14
49.89
WH
HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag
50.03
64.71 95% Approx. Gamma UPL
28.01
32.2
95% Gamma USL
47.12
60.17
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution
and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley
(HW) Methods
k hat (KM)
0.53 nu hat (KM)
16.98
WH
HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag
37.69
40.68 95% Approx. Gamma UPL
22.95
23.29
95% Gamma USL
35.78
38.35
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.873 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.866 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.271 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.246 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 6.472 Mean in Log Scale 1.012
SD in Original Scale 9.277 SD in Log Scale 1.285
95% UTL95% Coverage 70.5 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 29.2
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 29.2 95% UPL (t) 28.06
90% Percentile (z) 14.28 95% Percentile (z) 22.78
99% Percentile (z) 54.69 95% USL 63.56
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data 1.058 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 60.66
KM SD of Logged Data 1.207 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 25.52
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 20.99 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 55.03
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
6.479 Mean in Log Scale
1.021
SD in Original Scale
9.272 SD in Log Scale
1.276
95% UTL95% Coverage
69.53 95% UPL (t)
27.85
90% Percentile (z)
14.24 95% Percentile (z)
22.64
99% Percentile (z)
54.03 95% USL
62.73
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 29.2
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL 29.2 95% USL 29.2
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 46.75
Note: The use of USLto estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Nitrate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Number of Detects
0 Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
0 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
14
Minimum Detect
N/A
Minimum Non -Detect
29.1
Maximum Detect
N/A
Maximum Non -Detect
36.3
Variance Detected
N/A
Percent Non -Detects
100%
Mean Detected
N/A
SD Detected
N/A
Mean of Detected Logged Data
N/A
SD of Detected Logged Data
N/A
Warning: All observations are Non -Detects (NDs), therefore all statistics and estimates should also be NDsI
Specifically, sample mean, UCLs, UPts, and other statistics are also NDs lying below the largest detection limit!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Nitrate was not processed)

pH (field)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
13
5.3 First Quartile
5.65
6.9 Median
6.35
7.5 Third Quartile
6.525
6.219 SD
0.626
0.101 Skewness
0.108
1.823 SD of logged Data
0.101
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.945 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.124 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
7.8 90% Percentile (z) 7.021
7.351 95% Percentile (z) 7.249
7.749 99% Percentile (z) 7.676
A-D Test Statistic 0.443 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.736 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.135 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.214 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 104.9 k star (bias corrected MLE) 85.25
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0593 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0729
nu hat (MLE) 3356 nu star (bias corrected) 2728
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 6.219 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.674
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 7.4 90% Percentile 7.096
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 7.407 95% Percentile 7.366
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 7.917 99% Percentile 7.892
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 7.934
95% WH USL 7.857 95% HW USL 7.873
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.941 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.132 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.222 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 7.988 90% Percentile (z) 7.045
95% UPL (t) 7.43 95% Percentile (z) 7.309
95% USL 7.923 99% Percentile (z) 7.83
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 7.5
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 7.5 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 7.5
95% UPL 7.5 90% Percentile 6.85
90% Chebyshev UPL 8.156 95% Percentile 7.05
95% Chebyshev UPL 9.033 99% Percentile 7.41
95% USL 7.5
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
16
Number of Detects
15 Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
15 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
752 Minimum Non -Detect
339
Maximum Detect
30300 Maximum Non -Detect
339
Variance Detected
6933063 Percent Non -Detects
6.25%
Mean Detected
6325 SD Detected
2633
Mean of Detected Logged Data
8.581 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.749
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.908 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.881 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.154 Lilliefors GOF Test
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
0.229 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
5951 SD
2858
95% UTL95% Coverage
13164 95% KM UPL (t)
11115
90% KM Percentile (z)
9614 95% KM Percentile (z)
10652
99% KM Percentile (z)
12599 95% KM USL
12933
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
5941 SD
2973
95% UTL95% Coverage
13445 95% UPL (t)
11313
90% Percentile (z)
9751 95% Percentile (z)
10831
99% Percentile (z)
12857 95% USL
13205
DL/2 is not a recommended method.
DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic
1.514 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5%A-D Critical Value
0.744 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.25 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K-S Critical Value
0.223 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.081 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.509
Theta hat (MLE) 2053 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
2521
nu hat (MILE) 92.42 nu star (bias corrected)
75.27
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 6325
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 3993 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
11.1
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as <0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 752 Mean
6077
Maximum 10100 Median
6630
SD 2732 CV
0.45
k hat (MLE) 2.9 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.398
Theta hat (MLE) 2096 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
2534
nu hat (MILE) 92.79 nu star (bias corrected)
76.73
MILE Mean (bias corrected) 6077 MILE Sd (bias corrected)
3924
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 10.75 90% Percentile
11332
95% Percentile 13625 99% Percentile
18658
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 19336 21322 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 14212
15093
95% Gamma USL 18706 20538
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 4.337 nu hat (KM)
138.8
WH HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 21985 25221 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 15532
16935
95% Gamma USL 21183 24162
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.69 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.881 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.289 Lilliefors GOFTest
0.229 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
6006 Mean in Log Scale
8,489
SO in Original Scale
2846 SD in Log Scale
0.813
95% UTL95% Coverage
37802 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
10100
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
10100 95% UPL (t)
21109
90% Percentile (z)
13773 95% Percentile (z)
18503
99% Percentile (z)
32193 95% USL
35401
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale 5941 Mean in Log Scale 8.366
SD in Original Scale 2973 SD in Log Scale 1.126
95% UTL95% Coverage 73665 95% UPL (t) 32863
90% Percentile (z) 18189 95% Percentile (z) 27380
99% Percentile (z) 58969 95% USL 67266
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 10100
Approximate f
0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL
10100 95% USL 10100
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
18791
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Selenium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
12
1 Number of Non -Detects
15
1 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
11
4.3 Minimum Non -Detect
1.2
4.3 Maximum Non -Detect
7.6
N/A Percent Non -Detects
93.75%
4.3 SD Detected
N/A
1.459 SD of Detected Logged Data
N/A
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).
The data set for variable Selenium was not processed!

Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Detects
5 Number of Non -Detects
11
Number of Distinct Detects
5 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
10
Minimum Detect
33.3 Minimum Non -Detect
59.5
Maximum Detect
221 Maximum Non -Detect
384
Variance Detected
4471 Percent Non -Detects
68.75%
Mean Detected
133.9 SD Detected
66.86
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.738 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.719
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.921 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.277 Lilliefors GOF Test
5%Ulliefors Critical Value 0.396 Detected Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
117.1 SD
66.22
95% UTL95% Coverage
294.2 95% KM UPL (t)
236.8
90% KM Percentile (z)
202 95% KM Percentile (z)
226
99% KM Percentile (z)
271.1 95% KM USL
278.9
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
148.8 SD
50.74
95% UTL95% Coverage
276.8 95% UPL (t)
240.4
90% Percentile (z)
213.8 95% Percentile (z)
232.2
99% Percentile (z)
266.8 95% USL
272.7
DL/2 is not a recommended method.
DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic
0.56 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5%A-D Critical Value
0.682 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.353 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5%K-S Critical Value
0.359 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MILE)
3.305 k star (bias corrected MILE)
1.455
Theta hat (MLE)
40.51 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
91.99
nu hat (MILE)
33.05 nu star (bias corrected)
14.55
MILE Mean (bias corrected)
133.9
MILE Sd (bias corrected)
111 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
7.659
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has> 50%NDs with many tied observations at multiple DI
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small
such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated
values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum
33.3 Mean
114.5
Maximum
221 Median
110.9
SO
42.12 CV
0.368
k hat (MILE)
6.582 k star (bias corrected MILE)
5.39
Theta hat (MILE)
17.4 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
21.25
nu hat (MILE)
210.6 nu star (bias corrected)
172.5
MILE Mean (bias corrected)
114.5 MILE Sd (bias corrected)
49.33
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
19.38 90% Percentile
180.5
95% Percentile
205.8 99% Percentile
259.1
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS
Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley
(HW) Methods
WH
HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 264.2
274.9 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 210.8
215.5
95% Gamma USL 257.8
267.6
The following statistics are computed usinggamma distribution
and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty(WH) and Hawkins WIxley(HW)
Methods
k hat (KM)
3.127 nu hat (KM)
100.1
WH
HW WH
HW
95%Approx. Gamma UTL with 95%Coverag 400.2
432.6 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 287.6
300.1
95% Gamma USL 386.2
415.9
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5%Ulliefors Critical Value
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
0.797 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.762 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
0.371 Ulliefors GOF Test
0.396 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
106.1 Mean in Log Scale
4.575
SO in Original Scale
44.11 SD in Log Scale
0.46
95% UTL95% Coverage
309.6 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
221
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
221 95% UPL (t)
222.7
90% Percentile (z)
174.9 95% Percentile (z)
206.7
99% Percentile (z)
282.7 95% USL
298.4
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged. Data
4.533 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95%. Coverage
610.6
KM SD of Logged Data
0.746 95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
357.8
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
317 95% KM USL (Lognormal)
574.9
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
148.8 Mean in Log Scale
4.894
SO in Original Scale
50.74 SO in Log Scale
0.579
95% UTL95% Coverage
574.9 95% UPL (t)
379.7
90% Percentile (z)
280.1 95% Percentile (z)
345.7
99% Percentile (z)
512.8 95% USL
548.7
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method.
DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 384
Approximate IF
0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL
384 95% USL 384
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
414.6
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Detects
14 Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
13 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
1.3 Minimum Non -Detect
3.1
Maximum Detect
62.8 Maximum Non -Detect
3.4
Variance Detected
322.3 Percent Non -Detects
12.50%
Mean Detected
22.11 SD Detected
17.95
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.656 SD of Detected Logged Data
1.163
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.524 d2max (for USL)
2.443
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.894 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.874 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.232 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.237 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 19.52 SD 17.57
95% UTL95% Coverage 63.87 95% KM UPL (t) 51.27
90% KM Percentile (z) 42.04 95% KM Percentile (z) 48.42
99% KM Percentile (z) 60.4 95% KM USL 62.45
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 19.55 SD 18.12
95% UTL95% Coverage 65.28 95% UPL (t) 52.29
90% Percentile (z) 42.77 95% Percentile (z) 49.35
99% Percentile (z) 61.69 95% USL 63.81
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.374 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.755 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.185 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.234 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.277 k star (bias corrected MLE)
17.31 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
35.75 nu star (bias corrected)
22.11
21.57 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.854 Mean
Maximum 62.8 Median
SD 18.22 CV
k hat (MLE) 0.883 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 22.03 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 28.25 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 19.45 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 5.018 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 64.3 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
1.051
21.04
29.42
6.187
19.45
17
0.937
0.759
25.63
24.29
22.33
47.9
103.2
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 111 132.4 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 69.68 77.09
95% Gamma USL 105.7 125
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 1.234 nu hat (KM) 39.49
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 101.9 118.5 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 65.19 70.85
95% Gamma USL 97.24 112.2
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.878 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.874 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.243 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.237 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 19.64 Mean in Log Scale 2.434
SD in Original Scale 18.02 SD in Log Scale 1.241
95% UTL95% Coverage 261.3 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 62.8
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 62.8 95% UPL (t) 107.3
90% Percentile (z) 55.92 95% Percentile (z) 87.77
99% Percentile (z) 204.5 95% USL 236.4
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data 2.366 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 283
KM SD of Logged Data 1.3 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 111.5
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 90.29 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 254.8
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
19.55 Mean in Log Scale
2.384
SD in Original Scale
18.12 SD in Log Scale
1.312
95% UTL95% Coverage
297.8 95% UPL (t)
116.2
90% Percentile (z)
58.33 95% Percentile (z)
93.95
99% Percentile (z)
229.8 95% USL
267.9
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with95% Coverage 62.8
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% UPL 62.8 95% USL 62.8
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 98.47
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
16 Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Number of Detects
0 Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
0 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
14
Minimum Detect
N/A
Minimum Non -Detect
291
Maximum Detect
N/A
Maximum Non -Detect
363
Variance Detected
N/A
Percent Non -Detects
100%
Mean Detected
N/A
SD Detected
N/A
Mean of Detected Logged Data
N/A
SD of Detected Logged Data
N/A
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!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specificvalues to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Sulfate was not processed]

Thallium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
16 Number of Missing Observations
11
0 Number of Non -Detects
0 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
N/A Minimum Non -Detect
N/A Maximum Non -Detect
N/A Percent Non -Detects
N/A SD Detected
N/A SD of Detected Logged Data
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!
The Project Team may decide to use alternative site specific values to estimate environmental parameters (e.g., EPC, BTV).
The data set for variable Thallium was not processed!
Total Organic Carbon
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
15 Number of Missing Observations
14
6 Number of Non -Detects
6 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
415 Minimum Non -Detect
3470 Maximum Non -Detect
1453839 Percent Non -Detects
1024 SD Detected
6.571 SD of Detected Logged Data
2.566 d2max (for USL)
0.582 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.788 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.408 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.362 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 697.2 SD
95% UTL95% Coverage 2615 95% KM UPL (t)
90% KM Percentile (z) 1655 95% KM Percentile (z)
99% KM Percentile (z) 2436 95% KM USL
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 643.3 SD
95% UTL95% Coverage 2669 95% UPL (t)
90% Percentile (z) 1655 95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z) 2480 95% USL
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.113 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
0.708 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.362 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
0.337 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
1.533 k star (bias corrected MLE)
667.9 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
18.4 nu star (bias corrected)
1024
1093 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
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 detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 157.9 Mean
Maximum 3470 Median
SD 791.3 CV
k hat (MLE) 1.928 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 339 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 57.85 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 653.7 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 8.115 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 1671 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
n
16
11
1.2
7.6
100 %
N/A
N/A
1
9
8
701
878
60%
1206
0.806
2.409
747.3
2057
1926
2497
789.6
2080
1942
2546
0.878
1167
10.53
5.509
653.7
450.7
1.21
1.587
411.9
47.61
518.9
1344
2408
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 2472 2468 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1703 1664
95% Gamma USL 2295 2279
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 0.87 nu hat (KM) 26.11
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverag 2279 2233 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1631 1578
95% Gamma USL 2131 2081
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.705 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.339 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.362 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 715.7 Mean in Log Scale 6.365
SD in Original Scale 767.7 SD in Log Scale 0.521
95% UTL95% Coverage 2213 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 3470
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 3470 95% UPL (t) 1500
90% Percentile (z) 1133 95% Percentile (z) 1369
99% Percentile (z) 1953 95% USL 2039
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data 6.327 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 2092
KM SD of Logged Data 0.514 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 1425
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 1303 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 1930
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
643.3 Mean in Log Scale
6.205
SD in Original Scale
789.6 SD in Log Scale
0.576
95% UTL95% Coverage
2172 95% UPL (t)
1413
90% Percentile (z)
1037 95% Percentile (z)
1278
99% Percentile (z)
1892 95% USL
1984
DL/2 is not a Recommended Method. DL/2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 15 95% UTL with95% Coverage 3470
Approximate f 0.789 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.537
95% UPL 3470 95% USL 3470
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 4061
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95%UTLwith 95%Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
15
15.3 First Quartile
39.88
116 Median
51.6
143 Third Quartile
70.45
60.56 SD
32.27
0.533 Skewness
1.32
3.977 SD of logged Data
0.532
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.894 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
0.158 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
142
90% Percentile (z)
101.9
118.9
95% Percentile (z)
113.6
139.4
99% Percentile (z)
135.6
A-D Test Statistic
0.25 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5%A-D Critical Value
0.742 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
K-5 Test Statistic
0.107 Kolmogrov-Sm irnoff Gamma GOF Test
5%K-S Critical Value
0.216 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5%Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at
5%Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MILE)
4.092 k star (bias corrected MILE) 3.367
Theta hat (MLE)
14.8 Theta star (bias corrected MILE) 17.99
nu hat (MILE)
131 nu star (bias corrected) 107.7
MILE Mean (bias corrected)
%S6 MILE Sd (bias corrected) 33.01
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx.
Gamma UPL
126.9 90% Percentile
104.8
95% Hawkins Wixley(HW) Approx.
Gamma UPL
129.1 95% Percentile
123
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with
95%Coverage
166.6 99% Percentile
162.2
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with
95%Coverage
173.1
95% WH USL
161.8 95%HW USL
167.7
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.971 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5%Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.887 Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.111 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5%Lilliefors Critical Value
0.222 Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5%Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95%UTLwith 95%.Coverage
204.3 90% Percentile (z) 105.5
95% UPL (t)
139.5 95% Percentile (z) 128
95% USL
195.8 99% Percentile (z) 183.9
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5%Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
16 95%UTLwith 95%Coverage
143
Approximate f
0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL
0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
143 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95%Coverage
143
95% UPL
143 90% Percentile
97.65
90% Chebyshev UPL
160.4 95% Percentile
122.8
95% Chebyshev UPL
205.6 99% Percentile
139
95% USL
143
Note: The use of USLto estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL (t)
95% USL
Gamma GOF Test
16 Number of Distinct Observations
16
13.2 First Quartile
38.73
82.4 Median
47.25
88.2 Third Quartile
60.63
48.04 SD
22.38
0.466 Skewness
0.119
3.739 SD of logged Data
0.58
2.524 d2max (for USL) 2.443
0.953 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.887 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.126 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.222 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
104.5 90% Percentile (z) 76.72
88.48 95% Percentile (z) 84.85
102.7 99% Percentile (z) 100.1
A-D Test Statistic 0.548 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.742 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.175 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.216 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 3.926 k star (bias corrected MLE) 3.232
Theta hat (MLE) 12.24 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 14.87
nu hat (MLE) 125.6 nu star (bias corrected) 103.4
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 48.04 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 26.72
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 102.2 90% Percentile 83.87
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 105.5 95% Percentile 98.7
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 134.8 99% Percentile 130.7
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 142.7
95% WH USL 130.9 95% HW USL 138.1
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.88 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.214 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.222 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 181.8 90% Percentile (z) 88.45
95% UPL (t) 120 95% Percentile (z) 109.2
95% USL 173.5 99% Percentile (z) 162.1
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 16 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 88.2
Approximate f 0.842 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.56
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 88.2 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 88.2
95% UPL 88.2 90% Percentile 78.55
90% Chebyshev UPL 117.2 95% Percentile 83.85
95% Chebyshev UPL 148.6 99% Percentile 87.33
95% USL 88.2
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.