Full Text
www.terragraphics.com Corporate Office: 121 S. Jackson St., Moscow, Idaho 83843 Ph: (208) 882-7858; Fax: (208) 883-3785 Other Office Locations: Kellogg, Idaho Boise, Idaho Helena, Montana Deer Lodge, Montana Las Vegas, Nevada Richland, Washington TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Steve Gill, IDEQ Regional Office, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho Bruce Wicherski, IDEQ State Office, Boise, Idaho Eric Traynor, IDEQ Regional Office, Boise, Idaho CC: Kyle Steele, City of Moscow, Idaho Bill Belknap, City of Moscow, Idaho Alisa Anderson, City of Moscow, Idaho From: On behalf of the City of Moscow, Idaho Jon Munkers, TerraGraphics, Boise, Idaho Rachel Gibeault, TerraGraphics, Boise, Idaho Date: August 3, 2015 Subject: Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho 1 Introduction This Risk Evaluation (RE) has been prepared for the 6th and Jackson Site located at 217 and 317 East 6th Street in Moscow, Idaho (or “the Site”), in accordance with the Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual (REM) (IDEQ 2004). The purpose of this RE is to assess potential risk and hazards to human health and the environment from exposure to contaminated media at the Site. Section 2 below describes the background of the Site. Section 3 describes the Contaminants of Concern (COCs) identified in the Phase II Environmental Assessment Report for 217 & 317 East 6th Street Moscow, Idaho (TerraGraphics 2015). Uncertainty analyses, conclusions, and further recommendations are presented in Sections 5 and 6. 2 Site Background Historical documents from 1928 through 1960 depict a grain warehouse, flour mill, feed mill, and retail grain sales on site, with a gap between the buildings for the railroad tracks. In 1971, the flour mill is gone, bulk fertilizer tanks are present in the north central portion of the property, and the railroad easement is still visible. Photographs from 2008 show commercial storage of pesticides inside the old grain warehouse. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) awarded the City of Moscow a Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant (for hazardous substances contamination and petroleum ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 2 of 10 contamination) in August 2010. The City is using the USEPA grant funds to conduct environmental assessments for multiple Brownfield properties along a former railroad/industrial corridor, future industrial park property, and other negatively impacted and/or stigmatized areas. The Greater Moscow Area Coalition Brownfield Project includes the 6th and Jackson site. Strata Inc. (Strata) conducted Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in 2008 and 2010 which identified bulk storage of agricultural chemicals and a small heating oil underground storage tank (UST) in the eastern area of the site as recognized environmental conditions (RECs; Strata 2008 and 2010). Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) conducted a Phase II ESA in 2012 for soil and groundwater contamination based on these RECs (Tetra Tech 2013). Tetra Tech’s Phase II ESA findings indicate that DDT and dieldrin in the central portion of the site were contaminants of concern (COCs) in soil that exceeded their corresponding Idaho Initial Default Target Levels (IDTLs) listed in Appendix A of IDEQ’s REM (IDEQ 2004). Results from the Tetra Tech Phase II ESA groundwater sampling indicate the IDTLs are exceeded for nitrite/nitrate as nitrogen at all wells except S2-MW-01 (located in the southeast of the site), arsenic at all wells, and lead at S2-MW-03 (located in the northwest of the site). TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics) conducted follow-up sampling in the central portion of the site in November 2013 to evaluate DDT and dieldrin concentrations in various soil depths (TerraGraphics 2014). Dieldrin was not detected above the reporting limit. DDT, however, exceeded the IDTL in soil depths ranging from 0-48 inches below ground surface (bgs). In December 2014, TerraGraphics collected additional soil samples from borings in the central and western portions of the site to further delineate nutrients, pesticides, and metals. TerraGraphics also installed two additional monitoring wells and collected groundwater samples from all six onsite wells. The Phase II Environmental Assessment Report (TerraGraphics 2015) concluded the following for the site. 2.1 Site Soil • Arsenic, mercury, and lead exceeded the IDTLs. However, arsenic and mercury concentrations are below background levels for eastern Washington as found in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State (Ecology 1994). Lead concentrations are below the USEPA regional screening level (RSL). Therefore, these analytes are eliminated from further evaluation. • DDT concentrations in soils were not above reporting limits. Dieldrin remains at the site but did not exceed the IDTL during this sampling event. • Ammonia and nitrate were found in soils at concentrations exceeding the IDTLs. Nitrite was detected in one soil sample (BH-3 in the southwestern portion of the property) above the IDTL. Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and total phosphorus were detected throughout the central and western portions of the site; however, there are no IDTLs from that area. • Naphthalene was detected in one soil sample (BH-7 southwest of the bulk fertilizer tanks) at 0.405 mg/kg, which exceeded the IDTL of 0.12 mg/kg. ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 3 of 10 2.2 Site Groundwater In 2012, Tetra Tech calculated the groundwater gradient to be towards the northwest. The 2014 assessment calculated the groundwater gradient to be towards the west and that the groundwater gradient in the western portion of the site is shallow with almost no change in water levels. Although the general gradients are similar, the data show that the gradient may fluctuate seasonally. • DDT and dieldrin were not detected in the groundwater samples. Previous sampling showed MW-1 was the only well to show DDT concentrations; however, the concentration was qualified as an estimate and was below the IDTL. Therefore, these analytes are eliminated from further evaluation. • Ammonia, TKN, and phosphorus (all without IDTLs) were greatest near the former bulk fertilizer tanks and the northwest corner of the site. Ammonia and phosphorus were detected in all wells. TKN was only detected in MW-5, the well located near the bulk fertilizer tanks, and MW-6, the well in the northwest corner. • Nitrate concentrations exceed the IDTL in the western third of the site. The highest nitrate concentration is in the northwest corner of the site (MW-6). However, nitrate was found in all site wells. • Arsenic concentrations exceed IDTL. Comparative background concentrations are not available. 3 Conceptual Site Model A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) describes Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs), release mechanisms, exposure routes, and receptors at the site. The purpose of a CSM is to describe the routes or pathways by which humans may be exposed to contaminants at the site. Figure 1 displays the sources of COCs (DDT and dieldrin in soil; ammonia nitrate, and nitrite in soil and groundwater; naphthalene in soil; and arsenic in groundwater), release and transport mechanisms, exposure routes, and potentially exposed receptor scenarios. A complete exposure pathway consists of four necessary elements: i) a source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment, ii) an environmental transport medium for a released chemical, iii) a point of potential human contact with the impacted medium (referred to as the exposure point), and iv) an exposure route soil ingestion) at the exposure point. The CSM for the site, based on information that has been collected to date, is discussed in the sub-sections below. 3.1 Exposure Point Concentrations TerraGraphics developed EPCs for each COC in soil and groundwater to quantify exposures to humans at the Site. The EPC represents the concentrations to which a receptor may be exposed over a long period of time as the individual randomly moves over the Site. TerraGraphics determined the EPCs for both mediums: subsurface soil and groundwater using data collected from the site under an approved QAPP since 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 4 of 10 When there are six or more detections in the data set, the EPC is the 95th percent upper confidence limit (95% UCL) of the mean concentration for each medium, calculated with ProUCL software (version 5.0.00 [USEPA 2013]). ProUCL incorporates undetected values by assigning values based on the distribution of detected values. ProUCL uses this substituted data set to determine the overall data distribution. The ProUCL software makes UCL recommendations based on the distribution of data. The UCL recommended by ProUCL is used as the EPC when six or more detected values exist. When the data set consists of fewer than six detections, the maximum concentration is used as the EPC. Table 1 at the end of this memorandum presents the calculated 95% UCL for site COCs, where applicable, that were used in the Risk Evaluation calculations. Appendix A provides the 95% UCL calculations. 3.2 Release Mechanisms Figure 1 provides a visual example of the CSM. The COCs are found in the soil due to leaks and spills from onsite storage (ASTs), onsite chemical mixing and handling, and onsite use. Secondary releases have occurred that resulted in spreading COCs to other areas of the site and to local groundwater via aerial deposition, physical disturbance, degradation through precipitation and migration, and degradation through infiltration and leaching. 3.3 Exposure Routes The Site is currently vacant; however, potential future site uses include commercial businesses on the ground level and residential sites starting on the second floor. Current and future Site uses are likely to result in contact with subsurface soils while groundwater resources will not be developed at the Site. Completed exposure pathways were evaluated as part of this Risk Evaluation. 3.3.1 Dermal Contact and Ingestion Future development activities may result in direct contact with subsurface soils by Site remediation and construction workers. Dermal contact and ingestion of soil particulates are complete pathways at the site. 3.3.2 Inhalation Remediation and development activities that could stir up the soil would result in remediation and construction workers coming in contact with site COCs. Additionally, due to the volatile nature of some of the COCs, any future occupational uses could result in completion of the indoor air inhalation pathway. Therefore, the inhalation exposure pathway for soils is considered complete. 3.3.3 Groundwater Groundwater elevations (expressed in feet above mean sea level) at each monitoring ranged from 2,560.43 at MW-1 and MW-6, to 2,560.62 at MW-1. The groundwater gradient is very shallow in the western area of the site with almost no change in water levels. In the southeastern area of ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 5 of 10 the site, the gradient is 1.05x10-3 towards the west. In the northeastern area of the site, the gradient is steeper, 2.11x10-3 towards the northwest. Past hydraulic gradients have been toward the northwest suggesting the gradient may vary somewhat seasonally (TerraGraphics 2015). Future site use does not include the use of groundwater as a drinking water source or for irrigation. Additionally, surrounding properties are mainly commercial properties that do not use the shallow groundwater for drinking water or irrigation. However, some site COCs could migrate off site; therefore, the groundwater ingestion pathway is partially complete following the Ground Water Quality Rule (IDAPA 58.01.011). This rule establishes minimum requirements for protection of ground water quality through standards and an aquifer categorization process. The requirements of this rule shall serve as a basis for the administration of programs which address ground water quality. This rule does not in and of itself create a permit program. 3.4 Receptors TerraGraphics completed a risk evaluation that considers the Residential (child and age- adjusted), Non-Residential, and Construction Worker scenarios based on current and future commercial/residential uses of the site and future construction/development of the site. TerraGraphics completed risk and hazard calculations for the COCs using the standard set of equations and default settings provided by the REM software (IDEQ 2004). For combined exposure to all carcinogens and routes of exposure (ROEs), individual excess lifetime cancer risk (IELCR) must be less than or equal to 1.0x10-5 (acceptable Risk) for a receptor at a reasonable maximum exposure. Additionally, the summation of hazard quotients (HQs) for all chemicals that have noncarcinogenic health effects and ROEs must be less than or equal to 1.0 (acceptable Hazard Index 4 Risk Evaluation-1 TerraGraphics used the 95% UCL, where applicable, or the highest recorded concentration of COCs found at the Site to estimate cancer and noncancer risks associated with site exposures. For all three receptor scenarios, TerraGraphics used soil concentrations collected from the entire site for sub-surface samples. Although Tetra Tech separated surface soils (0-6 inches bgs) from sub-surface soils (greater than 6 inches), TerraGraphics, with the recommendation from IDEQ, defined surface soils as 0-24 inches bgs and sub-surface soils as greater than 24 inches bgs for DDT samples only. Otherwise, TerraGraphics defined surface soils as 0-5 feet bgs and sub- surface soils as greater than 5 feet bgs. Therefore, all calculated 95 percent UCL concentrations were entered for surface and sub-surface soils. For exposure factors, fate and transport parameters, and decay rates, TerraGraphics used software default values. Based on this evaluation, the estimated cancer risk for the resident-child receptor was 7.60x10-7, for the resident-age-adjusted receptor was 1.13x10-6, for the non-resident receptor was 4.55x10-8, and for the construction worker receptor was 5.57x10-9; all of which are below the acceptable risk level (Table ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 6 of 10 Estimated noncancer risk for the resident-child receptor was 106, the estimated noncancer risk for the resident-age-adjusted receptor was 20.0, and the estimated noncancer risk for the non- residential receptor was 2.88. These HIs exceed the acceptable noncancer risk level and ammonia is the main contributor to these exceedences. The estimated noncancer risk for the construction worker receptor, however, was 0.581, which is acceptable (Table The REM calculated Remedial Action Target Levels (RATLs) for the Residential and Non- residential receptors. Construction Worker RATLs were not calculated since they were below the acceptable Risk and HI. The following COCs have suggested cleanup levels for surface soil and sub-surface soil based on available toxicity and/or physical-chemical properties for the Resident and Non-resident receptors: ammonia, DDT, dieldrin, and naphthalene. Based on future site use, TerraGraphics recommends using the RATLs as cleanup thresholds for these constituents. Ammonia in groundwater also had a calculated RATL. Based on future site use, TerraGraphics recommends using the RATLs as cleanup thresholds for these constituents. Attachment A contains an output of RATLs for based on the REM calculations. For nitrate and nitrite, TerraGraphics recommends using the USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) (USEPA 2015). 5 Uncertainty Estimating and evaluating health risks from exposure to environmental chemicals is a complex process with inherent uncertainties. Uncertainty reflects limitations in knowledge and simplifying assumptions that must be made in order to quantify health risks. The uncertainty analysis plays a key role in understanding the implications for the remedy and devising strategies to achieve a safe, effective, and efficient remedy in the cleanup process. In this assessment, uncertainties relate to the development of media concentrations and assumptions about exposure, the assumptions about toxicity, and the characterization of health risks. This section qualitatively evaluates each of these potential sources of uncertainty to determine the likely degree of uncertainty associated with the risk estimates, and whether the uncertainty is more likely to over- or under-estimate risk. In general, when quantifying exposure and toxicity, REM risk assessment procedures are conservative in order to protect human health. REM risk assessment procedures are more likely to indicate that chemicals exceed target risk goals when health risks may actually be negligible, rather than indicate that chemicals are not a health risk when in fact they may be. This conservative approach is used to ensure that false-negative conclusions about health risk do not occur. Measurement errors and random and/or systematic errors arise from the inability to measure variables precisely and accurately field equipment and laboratory protocols), or because the quantity being measured varies spatially or temporally. Basic methodological (laboratory processing and equipment) errors were less of a problem for the data set in this Risk Evaluation, given the reliance on standardized protocols and other quality assurance/quality control dictated criteria. The principal uncertainties with the data used in this Risk Evaluation lie more with spatial and temporal errors in sampling. ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 7 of 10 It is not possible to sample every square inch of potentially impacted media at a site. Instead, a limited number of samples were obtained to represent the contaminant characteristics of a larger medium. This introduces uncertainty in the development of media concentrations. The sampling strategies were, in general, designed to prevent underestimation of media concentrations, thus avoiding an underestimation of human health risks. In addition to the available data and the spatial and temporal error, there is inherent uncertainty in calculating an EPC. First, there are a variety of methods for determining the UCL of a population. In this Risk Evaluation, the recommended UCL calculated by ProUCL (version 5.0.00) was used, even if it was not a 95 percent UCL. Difficulty in estimating underlying data distributions can also occur with a large number of non-detected results. When there were fewer than six detected sample results for a specific medium, the maximum concentration was used as the EPC. This is likely an overestimate of the exposure, but again, is conservative in protecting human health. 6 Conclusion Based on a screening evaluation, nutrients, DDT and dieldrin, naphthalene, and arsenic were identified as COCs in soils and groundwater at the Site. EPCs were defined based on the UCLs of the mean concentrations, or in instances where too few data points were available, the maximum concentration of each COC within soil and groundwater. These EPCs were compared to REM carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic cleanup levels to calculate risk. Specific pathways were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively based on the CSM to evaluate carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks. Soil and groundwater poses unacceptable noncarcinogenic risk primarily due to ammonia. 7 References Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.011. Ground Water Quality Rule. Available at http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0111.pdf, accessed May 28, 2015. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 2004. Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual. 1410 North Hilton, Boise, Idaho 83706, April. Strata, 2008. Environmental Site Assessment – Phase I ESA, 217 West 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho 83843. Prepared for Mr. Duane Breslford, Corporate Pointe Developers, June 9. Strata, 2010. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 217 West Sixth Street, Moscow, Idaho. Prepared for Moscow Urban Renewal Agency, August 5. TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics), 2014. Technical Memorandum from TerraGraphics to the City of Moscow re. Analysis for Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) Update for 317 W. 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho. January 17. TerraGraphics, 2015. Final Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report for 217 & 317 East 6th Street Moscow, Idaho. Prepared for the City of Moscow. April 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 8 of 10 Tetra Tech, 2013. Final Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 217 West 6th Street Moscow, Idaho. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2013. ProUCL Version 5.0.00 Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Set with and without Nondetect Observations. Prepared for USEPA Office of Research and Development, USEPA/600/R-07/041. Software released September 2013. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software, accessed May 27, 2015. USEPA, 2015. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Resident Soil Table. January. http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/, accessed February 12, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Page 9 of 10 Table 1. Site Contaminants of Concern Concentrations Matrix Analyte IDTLa Critical Pathwayb Site Wide (calculated 95% UCL) Soil (mg/kg) DDT surface (0-24 inches) 0.403 GWP 1.678 DDT sub- surface(<24 inches) 0.403 GWP 0.0415 Dieldrin 0.00133 GWP 0.011c Ammonia 4.15 SS 424.6 Nitrate 18.4 GWP 16.07 Nitrite 1.84 GWP 3.11 Naphthalene 0.12 VI 0.405 Water (mg/L) Ammonia Not established Not established 81.13 Nitrate 10.0 I 34.26 Nitrite 1.0 I 0.451 Notes: Concentrations in BOLD exceed the IDTL. a = Initial Default Target Level (IDTL) is established in the Risk Evaluation Manual (IDEQ 2004). b = The exposure pathway that is likely to be affected by the contaminant as established in the Risk Evaluation Manual (IDEQ 2004). c = Concentration is from Tetra Tech, 2013. Final Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. 95% UCL = 95th percentile upper confidence limit calculated using site data gathered from 2012 through 2014. USEPA’s ProUCL software (version 5.0.00). Dieldrin in soil, naphthalene in soil, and nitrite in soil and groundwater had too few data points to calculate a UCL; therefore, the highest recorded concentration is represented. bgs = below ground surface mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter GWP = groundwater protection via soils leaching to groundwater SS = subsurface soils via volatilization to indoor and outdoor air I = ingestion of water on or off site VI = vapor intrusion Table 2. Summary of Cumulative Risk and Hazard Index Receptor Calculated Risk Calculated Hazard Index Child 1.02x10-6 106 Age-adjusted 1.51x10-6 20.0 Non-residential 6.66x10-8 2.88 Construction Worker 8.38x10-9 0.582 Acceptable Risk or Hazard Index 1.0x10-5 1.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT - 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho Conceptual Site Model Primary Source Release/ Transport Mechanisms Potential Secondary Sources Release/ Transport Mechanisms Resident-Child Resident-Age Adjusted Non-resident Construction Worker Key: X = complete pathway / = partially complete pathway Leaks Spills Inhalation Degradation/ Infiltration & Leaching Aerial Deposition X X X / X X X X X X X X / Potentially Exposed Receptor Scenarios On Site Use Potential Exposure Route Dermal Contact Ingestion: AST/Storage Physical Disturbance/ Tracking Degradation/ Precipitation & Migration Chemical Mixing & Handling Soil Human Health / Particulates Water X / ---PAGE BREAK--- Risk Evaluation for 217 & 317 East 6th Street, Moscow, Idaho A Attachment A Risk Evaluation Supporting Documents ---PAGE BREAK--- RE-1 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE RISK AND HAZARD INDEX RECEPTOR RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER CHILD AGE-ADJUSTED Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Surface Soil: Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion 1.00E-06 9.63E-01 1.48E-06 1.88E-01 6.60E-08 5.45E-01 8.38E-09 5.82E-01 Subsurface Soil: Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions 2.20E-08 1.03E+02 3.71E-08 1.92E+01 5.69E-10 2.29E+00 Not Applicable Not Applicable Groundwater: Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions NA 1.93E+00 NA 6.51E-01 NA 4.42E-02 Not Applicable Not Applicable Soil-Vapor: Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions from Soil and/or Groundwater NA NA NA NA NA NA Not Applicable Not Applicable Site Risk 1.02E-06 1.51E-06 6.66E-08 8.38E-09 Site Hazard Index 1.06E+02 2.00E+01 2.88E+00 5.82E-01 Routes of Exposure RATL-1/RATL-2 Required? NO YES NO YES NO YES NO NO Notes: NA: Not applicable because the chemical is not a COC for the pathway (no representative concentration entered) or its properties (toxicity and/or physical-chemical) are not available. ---PAGE BREAK--- RE-1 REPRESENTATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS SURFICIAL SOIL SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER SOIL-VAPOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Ammonia 4.25E+02 4.25E+02 8.11E+01 8.11E+01 DDT 1.68E+00 4.15E-02 Dieldrin 1.10E-02 1.10E-02 Naphthalene 4.05E-01 4.05E-01 Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) 1.61E+01 1.61E+01 3.43E+01 Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) 3.11E+00 3.11E+00 4.51E-01 3.43E+01 Notes: GROUNDWATER AND/OR SURFACE WATER PROTECTION Representative Soil Concentration at the Source [mg/kg] Representative Groundwater Concentration at the Source [mg/L] Representative Groundwater Concentration at the POC [mg/L] NOT USED IN CALCULATIONS Representative Concentration [mg/kg] Representative Concentration [mg/L] Representative Concentration [mg/kg] USE OF SOIL-VAPOR DATA IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER RE-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- RE-1 RISK/HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS CHILD SURFICIAL SOIL SURFICIAL SOIL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Ammonia NTOX 9.08E-01 NTOX 1.02E+02 NTOX 1.93E+00 NTOX 1.72E-01 NTOX 1.91E+01 NTOX 6.51E-01 DDT 6.68E-07 4.59E-02 1.36E-09 9.33E-05 9.83E-07 1.35E-02 2.30E-09 3.15E-05 Dieldrin 3.33E-07 4.86E-03 2.06E-08 3.01E-04 4.93E-07 1.44E-03 3.48E-08 1.02E-04 Naphthalene NTOX 3.57E-03 NTOX 3.54E-01 NTOX 7.04E-04 NTOX 1.18E-01 Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) NTOX 1.11E-04 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP NTOX 3.28E-05 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) NTOX 3.44E-04 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP NTOX 1.01E-04 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP Notes: Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions SOIL-VAPOR Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions SOIL-VAPOR Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions AGE-ADJUSTED SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER Notes: NPCP: A physical-chemical parameter, required in the calculation of the value, is not available. NTOX: The toxicity parameter(s) required in the calculation of the value, is not available. NCOC: The chemical is not a COC for the pathway because it was selected, but no representative concentration was entered. ---PAGE BREAK--- RATL-1 FOR RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS CHILD AGE-ADJUSTED SURFICIAL SOIL SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER SOIL-VAPOR SURFICIAL SOIL SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER SOIL-VAPOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN [mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/L] [ug/m3] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/L] [g/m3] Ammonia 4.25E+01 3.77E-01 3.83E+00 NA 2.25E+02 2.02E+00 1.13E+01 NA DDT 3.33E+00 4.04E+01 NA NA 4.27E+00 4.51E+01 NA NA Dieldrin 8.26E-02 1.33E+00 NA NA 5.58E-02 7.90E-01 NA NA Naphthalene 1.03E+01 1.04E-01 NA NA 5.23E+01 3.13E-01 NA NA Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) 1.31E+04 NA NA NA 4.46E+04 NA NA NA Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) 8.22E+02 NA NA NA 2.79E+03 NA NA NA Notes: NA: Not applicable because the chemical is not a COC for the pathway (no representative concentration entered) or its properties (toxicity and/or physical-chemical) are not available. Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions (toxicity and/or physical chemical) are not available. ---PAGE BREAK--- RE-1 REPRESENTATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS SURFICIAL SOIL SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER SOIL-VAPOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Ammonia 4.25E+02 4.25E+02 8.11E+01 DDT 1.68E+00 4.15E-02 Dieldrin 1.10E-02 1.10E-02 Naphthalene 4.05E-01 4.05E-01 Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) 1.61E+01 1.61E+01 3.43E+01 Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) 3.11E+00 3.11E+00 4.51E-01 Note: Representative Concentration [mg/kg] Representative Concentration [mg/L] Representative Concentration [mg/kg] USE OF SOIL-VAPOR DATA IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER RE-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- RE-1 RISK/HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS CHILD SURFICIAL SOIL SURFICIAL SOIL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Risk HQ Ammonia NTOX 9.08E-01 NTOX 1.02E+02 NTOX 1.93E+00 NTOX 1.72E-01 NTOX 1.91E+01 NTOX 6.51E-01 DDT 6.68E-07 4.59E-02 1.36E-09 9.33E-05 9.83E-07 1.35E-02 2.30E-09 3.15E-05 Dieldrin 3.33E-07 4.86E-03 2.06E-08 3.01E-04 4.93E-07 1.44E-03 3.48E-08 1.02E-04 Naphthalene NTOX 3.57E-03 NTOX 3.54E-01 NTOX 7.04E-04 NTOX 1.18E-01 Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) NTOX 1.11E-04 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP NTOX 3.28E-05 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) NTOX 3.44E-04 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP NTOX 1.01E-04 NTOX NTOX NPCP NPCP Notes: Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions SOIL-VAPOR Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions SOIL-VAPOR Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions AGE-ADJUSTED SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER Notes: NPCP: A physical-chemical parameter, required in the calculation of the value, is not available. NTOX: The toxicity parameter(s) required in the calculation of the value, is not available. NCOC: The chemical is not a COC for the pathway because it was selected, but no representative concentration was entered. ---PAGE BREAK--- RATL-1 FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS SURFICIAL SOIL SUB-SURFACE SOIL GROUNDWATER SOIL-VAPOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN [mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/L] [g/m3] Ammonia 7.16E+01 1.69E+01 1.67E+02 NA DDT 5.07E+01 1.71E+03 NA NA Dieldrin 1.55E+00 5.15E+01 NA NA Naphthalene 1.87E+01 4.61E+00 NA NA Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) 2.00E+05 NA NA NA Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) 1.25E+04 NA NA NA Notes: Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions NA: Not applicable because the chemical is not a COC for the pathway (no representative concentration enetered) or its properties (toxicity and/or physical-chemical) are not available. Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions Indoor Inhalation of Vapor Emissions ---PAGE BREAK--- RE-1 REPRESENTATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKER SOIL TO TYPICAL DEPTH OF CONSTRUCTION CHEMICALS OF CONCERN Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion Ammonia 4.25E+02 DDT 1.68E+00 Dieldrin 1.10E-02 Naphthalene 4.05E-01 Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) 1.61E+01 Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) 3.11E+00 Note: Representative Concentration [mg/kg] ---PAGE BREAK--- RE-1 RISK/HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS SURFICIAL SOIL Risk HQ Ammonia NTOX 5.77E-01 DDT 6.12E-09 2.52E-03 Dieldrin 2.26E-09 1.98E-04 Naphthalene NTOX 2.11E-03 Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) NTOX 5.87E-06 Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) NTOX 1.82E-05 Notes: NTOX: The toxicity parameter(s) required in the calculation of the value, is not available. CHEMICALS OF CONCERN Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion NCOC: The chemical is not a COC for the pathway because it was selected, but no representative concentration was entered. NPCP: A physical-chemical parameter, required in the calculation of the value, is not available. ---PAGE BREAK--- RATL-1 FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS RATLs NOT REQUIRED SURFICIAL SOIL [mg/kg] Ammonia 1.23E+02 DDT 1.11E+02 Dieldrin 9.27E+00 Naphthalene 3.20E+01 Nitrate (as Sodium Nitrate) 4.57E+05 Nitrite (as Sodium Nitrite) 2.85E+04 Notes: CHEMICALS OF CONCERN Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates, Dermal Contact, and Accidental Ingestion NA: Not applicable because the chemical is not a COC for the pathway (no representative concentration enetered) or its properties (toxicity and/or physical-chemical) are not available. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A B C D E F G H I J K L 20 6 1 19 1 5 UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 5/27/2015 12:26:14 PM From File ProUCL_6J_RE.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% dieldrin soil General Statistics Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects 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 EPC, BTV). The data set for variable dieldrin soil was not processed! ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.006 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1.567 Theta hat (MLE) 2.168 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2.441 nu hat (MLE) 12.99 nu star (bias corrected) 11.54 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 0.464 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.412 K-S Test Statistic 0.113 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.243 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.248 Anderson-Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.8 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 2.408 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 3.418 95% KM UCL 1.153 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 1.603 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 1.523 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 1.893 SD 1.175 95% KM (BCA) UCL 1.186 95% KM UCL 1.176 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 1.176 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs Mean 0.705 Standard Error of Mean 0.273 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.286 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.237 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.759 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.874 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Mean of Logged Detects -1.38 SD of Logged Detects 2.246 Median Detects 0.508 CV Detects 1.334 Skewness Detects 1.58 Kurtosis Detects 1.575 Variance Detects 1.8 Percent Non-Detects 30% Mean Detects 1.006 SD Detects 1.342 Minimum Detect 0.004 Minimum Non-Detect 4.1000E-4 Maximum Detect 4.23 Maximum Non-Detect 0.005 Number of Detects 14 Number of Non-Detects 6 Number of Distinct Detects 14 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 2 General Statistics Total Number of Observations 20 Number of Distinct Observations 16 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 DDT soil sur From File ProUCL_6J_RE_DDTupdate_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 8/3/2015 12:42:12 PM ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Detected Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SD in Original Scale 1.206 SD in Log Scale 3.052 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 1.171 95% H-Stat UCL 469.7 DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale 0.705 Mean in Log Scale -2.889 KM SD (logged) 3.153 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 6.453 KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.772 UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally Distributed KM Mean (logged) -3.021 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 747.2 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1.273 95% Bootstrap t UCL 1.51 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 459.5 SD in Original Scale 1.206 SD in Log Scale 3.043 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 1.171 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1.149 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale 0.705 Mean in Log Scale -2.861 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.194 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.237 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.918 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.874 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 1.57 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 1.678 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.038 Approximate Chi Square Value (12.83, α) 5.775 Adjusted Chi Square Value (12.83, β) 5.404 nu hat (MLE) 13.52 nu star (bias corrected) 12.83 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.707 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1.248 k hat (MLE) 0.338 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.321 Theta hat (MLE) 2.092 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2.205 Maximum 4.23 Median 0.111 SD 1.204 CV 1.704 For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Minimum 0.004 Mean 0.707 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 Approximate Chi Square Value (14.37, α) 6.826 Adjusted Chi Square Value (14.37, β) 6.417 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 1.483 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 1.578 Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics k hat (KM) 0.359 nu hat (KM) 14.37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 A B C D E F G H I J K L Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. 95% Adjusted Gamma KM-UCL 1.578 Suggested UCL to Use 95% KM (BCA) UCL 1.186 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 1.678 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0766 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.0984 Theta hat (MLE) 0.0649 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.126 nu hat (MLE) 11.82 nu star (bias corrected) 6.061 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.182 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.606 K-S Test Statistic 0.218 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.363 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.28 Anderson-Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.69 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.0992 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.147 95% KM UCL 0.0405 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 0.0598 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.0578 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.0751 SD 0.0511 95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.0422 95% KM UCL 0.0415 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.0407 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs Mean 0.0194 Standard Error of Mean 0.0128 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.333 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.396 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.774 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Mean of Logged Detects -3.048 SD of Logged Detects 1.1 Median Detects 0.0452 CV Detects 1.138 Skewness Detects 1.915 Kurtosis Detects 3.839 Variance Detects 0.00761 Percent Non-Detects 75% Mean Detects 0.0766 SD Detects 0.0873 Minimum Detect 0.0116 Minimum Non-Detect 3.6000E-4 Maximum Detect 0.228 Maximum Non-Detect 0.005 Number of Detects 5 Number of Non-Detects 15 Number of Distinct Detects 5 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 6 General Statistics Total Number of Observations 20 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 DDT soil sub From File ProUCL_6J_RE_DDTupdate_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 8/3/2015 12:45:24 PM ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Detected Data appear Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level SD in Original Scale 0.0521 SD in Log Scale 2.138 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 0.0405 95% H-Stat UCL 0.224 DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale 0.0203 Mean in Log Scale -6.018 KM SD (logged) 2.17 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 4.615 KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.543 UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally Distributed KM Mean (logged) -6.709 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 0.128 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.0541 95% Bootstrap t UCL 0.0905 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 0.597 SD in Original Scale 0.0523 SD in Log Scale 2.487 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 0.0401 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.04 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale 0.0199 Mean in Log Scale -6.573 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.165 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.396 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.991 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 0.0417 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 0.0432 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.038 Approximate Chi Square Value (34.61, α) 22.15 Adjusted Chi Square Value (34.61, β) 21.36 nu hat (MLE) 39.15 nu star (bias corrected) 34.61 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0267 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.0287 k hat (MLE) 0.979 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.865 Theta hat (MLE) 0.0272 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0308 Maximum 0.228 Median 0.01 SD 0.0498 CV 1.868 For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Minimum 0.01 Mean 0.0267 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 Approximate Chi Square Value (5.78, α) 1.528 Adjusted Chi Square Value (5.78, β) 1.363 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 0.0735 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 0.0824 Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics k hat (KM) 0.144 nu hat (KM) 5.778 ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 A B C D E F G H I J K L Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Suggested UCL to Use 95% KM UCL 0.0415 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.0407 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L 22 19 18 4 18 1 11.3 4.5 864 4.5 77615 18.18% 216.3 278.6 83.55 1.288 1.506 1.093 4.49 1.453 0.743 0.897 0.262 0.209 177.8 56.64 258.2 270.4 275.2 273.3 270.9 316.8 347.7 424.6 531.5 741.3 0.577 0.784 0.155 0.212 0.684 0.607 316.3 356.4 24.61 21.84 216.3 277.7 UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 5/27/2015 12:26:14 PM ammonia soil Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 From File ProUCL_6J_RE.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs Mean Standard Error of Mean SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling GOF Test 95% KM UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 5% A-D Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF 5% K-S Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L 0.474 20.87 11.49 10.97 322.8 338 0.01 177 864 48.4 264.8 1.496 0.295 0.285 599 619.9 13 12.56 177 331.2 0.0386 5.598 5.254 397 423.1 0.943 0.897 0.104 0.209 177.6 3.865 264.4 1.9 274.6 278.9 301.7 327.6 1530 3.947 912.7 1.72 3.706 0.377 177.4 3.821 264.5 1.954 274.4 1773 k hat (KM) nu hat (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (20.87, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (20.87, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics Minimum Mean Maximum Median SD CV 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 MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) Adjusted Level of Significance Approximate Chi Square Value (12.56, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (12.56, β) k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally Distributed KM Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Detected Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 A B C D E F G H I J K L 424.6 423.1 338 Suggested UCL to Use Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 95% Adjusted Gamma KM-UCL Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L 11 11 9 2 9 2 12.2 0.05 163 0.2 3790 18.18% 58.66 61.56 26.6 1.05 1.228 -0.0707 3.574 1.056 0.748 0.829 0.254 0.295 48 18.28 57.16 79.85 81.13 77.29 78.07 120.4 102.8 127.7 162.2 229.9 0.694 0.741 0.245 0.286 1.142 0.835 51.38 70.23 20.55 15.03 58.66 64.18 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 From File ProUCL_6J_RE.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 5/27/2015 12:26:14 PM Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect ammonia gw General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Median Detects CV Detects Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level 95% KM UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs Mean Standard Error of Mean SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF 5% K-S Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L 0.705 15.51 7.62 6.737 97.72 110.5 0.01 47.99 163 15.2 59.96 1.249 0.373 0.332 128.7 144.6 8.205 7.301 47.99 83.31 0.0278 2.337 1.906 149.9 183.8 0.853 0.829 0.235 0.295 48.53 3.122 59.49 1.38 81.04 80.39 84.76 125.2 304.6 2.379 125326 2.689 6.755 0.86 48 2.379 59.95 2.837 80.76 354380 Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics k hat (KM) nu hat (KM) 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 Mean Approximate Chi Square Value (15.51, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (15.51, β) 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) Maximum Median SD CV k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Adjusted Level of Significance Approximate Chi Square Value (7.30, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (7.30, β) 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level KM Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally Distributed SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons DL/2 Statistics DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 A B C D E F G H I J K L 81.13 77.29 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Suggested UCL to Use 95% KM UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L 22 22 9 13 9 13 2.91 2.92 48.5 27.8 253.2 59.09% 16.47 15.91 9.41 0.966 1.333 0.707 2.394 0.964 0.809 0.829 0.32 0.295 9.287 2.655 11.5 13.74 13.86 13.61 13.65 17.47 17.25 20.86 25.87 35.71 0.429 0.737 0.255 0.285 1.371 0.988 12.01 16.66 24.68 17.79 16.47 16.56 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 From File ProUCL_6J_RE.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 5/27/2015 12:26:14 PM Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect nitrate soil General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs Mean Standard Error of Mean Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL 95% KM UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95% KM UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 5% K-S Critical Value 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) k star (bias corrected MLE) A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L 0.653 28.71 17.49 16.83 15.25 15.84 0.01 7.083 48.5 0.858 12.67 1.789 0.331 0.316 21.43 22.43 14.55 13.9 7.083 12.6 0.0386 6.5 6.125 15.14 16.07 0.942 0.829 0.196 0.295 8.681 1.655 11.87 0.902 13.04 13.03 15.02 18.47 12.73 1.765 13.27 0.86 2.397 0.216 10.03 1.829 11.61 0.994 14.29 17.84 Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics k hat (KM) nu hat (KM) Approximate Chi Square Value (28.71, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (28.71, β) 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 Mean Maximum Median 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 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 nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) Adjusted Level of Significance SD CV k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test Approximate Chi Square Value (13.90, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (13.90, β) 95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) DL/2 Statistics 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally Distributed KM Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Detected Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 A B C D E F G H I J K L 13.86 16.07 15.84 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness. These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Suggested UCL to Use 95% KM UCL 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 95% Adjusted Gamma KM-UCL ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L 11 11 0 0.39 22.58 62.5 18.1 21.37 6.442 0.946 0.726 0.898 0.85 0.219 0.267 34.26 34.68 34.49 0.362 0.765 0.178 0.265 0.722 0.586 31.28 38.56 15.88 12.88 22.58 29.51 5.815 0.0278 5.062 50.03 57.48 0.856 UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 5/27/2015 12:26:14 PM nitrate gw General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 From File ProUCL_6J_RE.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% SD Std. Error of Mean Coefficient of Variation Skewness Normal GOF Test Number of Missing Observations Minimum Mean Maximum Median 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Assuming Normal Distribution 95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test 95% Student's-t UCL 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) Gamma GOF Test Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected) MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5% K-S Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE) 95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Assuming Gamma Distribution ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 A B C D E F G H I J K L 0.85 0.181 0.267 -0.942 2.284 4.135 1.771 630.1 96.79 124.5 162.9 238.4 33.18 34.26 32.59 36.68 35.13 33.32 34.77 41.91 50.66 62.81 86.68 34.26 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lognormal Statistics Minimum of Logged Data Mean of logged Data Maximum of Logged Data SD of logged Data 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Assuming Lognormal Distribution 95% H-UCL 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs 95% CLT UCL 95% Jackknife UCL 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and Iaci (2002) and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets. For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. Suggested UCL to Use 95% Student's-t UCL Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A B C D E F G H I J K L 22 21 1 21 1 20 UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 5/27/2015 12:26:14 PM From File ProUCL_6J_RE.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects nitrite soil Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects 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 EPC, BTV). The data set for variable nitrite soil was not processed! ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A B C D E F G H I J K L 7 3 2 5 2 1 0.151 0.1 0.451 0.1 0.045 71.43% 0.301 0.212 0.301 0.705 N/A N/A -1.343 0.774 UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 5/27/2015 12:26:14 PM nitrite gw Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 From File ProUCL_6J_RE.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% General Statistics Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects Mean Detects SD Detects Median Detects CV Detects This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates. Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.