Evaluation of Background Metal Soil

Concentrations in Cuyahoga County –

Cleveland Area
Summary Report

*Generalized soil map for the State of Ohio,

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization

Voluntary Action Program
March 2013
 Acknowledgements

This summary report was developed by a workgroup representing Ohio EPA staff from
the Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization (DERR) and environmental
consultants, some of whom are Certified Professionals (CPs) for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary
Action Program (VAP).

Workgroup members include:

Ohio EPA Environmental Consultants

Timothy Christman JoAnn Bartsch, URS Corporation

Jeff Martin Craig Cox, Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc.
Fred Myers Peggy Schuler, URS Corporation
Carrie Rasik Valerie Weir, Partners Environmental Consulting,
Eric Sainey Inc.
Vanessa Steigerwald-Dick

Disclaimer

This summary report document was developed solely for sites participating in the Ohio
Voluntary Action Program, DERR, Ohio EPA. Use of this summary report for other
Ohio EPA programs or state agencies may not be appropriate.

The summary report serves as a tool in the aide of investigation and evaluation of
environmentally impacted sites in Ohio. It is not meant as a regulatory document and any
statements provided herein are not legally binding.

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡‹‹
ACRONYMS

amsl Above mean sea level

BCMP Brecksville Cleveland Metroparks
bgs Below ground surface
BHME Bratenahl Mather Estate
BSR Brookside Reservation, Cleveland Metropark (Cleveland)
CHFH Cleveland Heights Forest Hills Park
Cv Coefficient of variation
DERR Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization
ECR Euclid Creek Reservation, Cleveland Metropark (Euclid)
ft Feet
FP-XRF Field Portable X-ray Fluorescence
GOF Goodness-of-fit
GPR Garfield Park Reservation, Cleveland Metropark (Garfield Heights)
HSP Holy Spirit Cemetery (Parma)
KM Kaplan-Meier
mg/kg Milligram per kilogram
nb Number of background observations
OAC Ohio Administrative Code
ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources
OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act
RFP Rockefeller Park (Cleveland)
RRN Rocky River Reservation North (Lakewood)
RRS Rocky River Reservation South (Lakewood)
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
Sb Standard deviation
SIFU Site Investigation Field Unit
STG St. Gregory Parish (Lakewood)
STN St. Nicholas Parish (Cleveland)
TAL Target Analyte List
TBA Targeted Brownfields Assessment
TOC Total Organic Carbon
UCL Upper confidence level
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UPL Upper prediction limit
UTL Upper tolerance limit
VAP Voluntary Action Program
VAP UL Voluntary Action Program Upper Limit
WCR West Creek Reservation, Cleveland Metropark (Parma)

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡‹‹‹
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ohio EPA Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization (DERR) sampled and
analyzed surface soils at 10 Cleveland-area properties for background concentrations of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se and Ag).
Soil sample locations met the location restriction requirements of OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(b).

A reconnaissance was performed whereby one preliminary soil boring was installed at each
property. The reconnaissance evaluated the shallow soil horizon (less than four feet deep) to
ensure that areas of the property where samples were collected met location restrictions. Select
soil samples from the preliminary borings were screened for metals concentrations using Ohio
EPA’s mobile laboratory field-portable X-ray fluorescence (FP-XRF) analyzer. Screening
results were used to further evaluate the suitability of the sampling locations and depth intervals.

Ten soil samples per targeted soil horizon at each property were collected to provide a
statistically representative data set as described by OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(d)(i). Ohio EPA
collected all surficial soil samples between the ground surface and depth of two feet using a hand
auger. Sample locations were within a 15-foot radius of the preliminary soil boring location.
Upon sample collection completion all samples were sent to a fixed-base, VAP-certified
laboratory for analyses of each soil sample.

Statistical evaluations were performed to determine the representative background

concentrations. Additional metal data collected from a targeted brownfield assessment titled
“Background Soil Determination for Three Locations in Cuyahoga County, Ohio” were included
with the larger data set collected during this study. With the inclusion of these three additional
locations, a total of 13 locations (and 151 total data points) were used in the statistical
determination of Cuyahoga County background values. Data collected from all 13 property
locations were incorporated into a single data set.

Background soil concentrations were calculated in accordance with the VAP rules effective April
23, 2012, found in OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(d)(ii). All statistical analyses, including outlier
tests, were run using ProUCL version 4.1. A summary of the background determination results
for Cuyahoga County are provided in tablular format as part of this report. Seven of the eight
original RCRA metals are presented, however silver was removed from statistical analyses due
to the high number of nondetects. Therefore, silver was determined not to be a significant
contributor to elevated background concentrations across the Cuyahoga County region.
Representative background soil concentrations of metals calculated for Cuyahoga County are as
follows:

Arsenic 24.0 mg/kg

Barium 98.9 mg/kg
Cadmium 0.834 mg/kg
Chromium 21.1 mg/kg
Lead 51.7 mg/kg
Mercury 0.097 mg/kg
Selenium 0.943 mg/kg

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡‹˜
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

2.0 SCOPE......................................................................................................................................2

3.0 CLEVELAND AREA SOIL TYPES........................................................................................4

4.0 PROPERTY USE AND REGULATORY HISTORY .............................................................4

5.0 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING STRATEGY AND FIELD ACTIVITIES ...............................5

5.1 PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY SOIL BORING
EVALUATION ...............................................................................................................5
5.2 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................6
5.3 FIELD SAMPLING EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION ........................................7
5.4 LABORATORY ANALYSES .................................................................................................7

6.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS ......................................................................................................7

6.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONS .......................................................7
6.2 SUPPLEMENTAL LOCATIONS .................................................................................8
6.3 SUMMARY RESULTS COMBINATION .....................................................................8

7.0 METHOD OF BACKGROUND VALUE DETERMINATION .............................................9

7.1 OUTLIER TEST..............................................................................................................9
7.2 NONDETECT TEST .......................................................................................................9
7.3 SOIL BACKGROUND MEAN.....................................................................................10
7.4 STANDARD DEVIATION ..........................................................................................10
7.5 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION.................................................................................10
7.6 DISTRIBUTION ...........................................................................................................10
7.7 VAP UPPER LIMIT ......................................................................................................11

8.0 CLEVELAND-AREA BACKGROUND VALUES ..............................................................11

8.1 ARSENIC ......................................................................................................................12
8.2 BARIUM .......................................................................................................................12
8.3 CADMIUM ...................................................................................................................12
8.4 CHROMIUM.................................................................................................................12
8.5 LEAD ..........................................................................................................................13
8.6 MERCURY ...................................................................................................................13
8.7 SELENIUM ...................................................................................................................13

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡˜
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

9.0 APPLICATTION OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................14

10.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................15

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: LOCATIONS OF PROPERTIES EVALUATED FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY

BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLING
FIGURE 2: GENERAL SOIL MAP, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1A: SOIL SAMPLING PROPERTY INFORMATION SUMMARY: LOCATIONS,

SETTINGS & TOPOGRAPHY
TABLE 1B: SOIL SAMPLING PROPERTY INFORMATION SUMMARY: SOIL
MAPPING UNITS, PARENT MATERIALS & SOIL TYPES
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF SOIL GEOTECHNICAL TESTING RESULTS
TABLE 3: BACKGROUND STATISTICS FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY
TABLE 4: PROPERTY ABBREVIATION KEY
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF ARSENIC DATA
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF BARIUM DATA
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF CADMIUM DATA
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF CHROMIUM DATA
TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF LEAD DATA
TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF MERCURY DATA
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF SELENIUM DATA

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: BORING LOGS (PRELIMNARY SOIL BORINGS)

APPENDIX B: FP-XRF SOIL ANALYTICAL SCREENING RESULTS

APPENDIX C: USCS AND USDA SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND TEXTURAL COMPOSITION ANALYSES

APPENDIX D: PROUCL RUNS

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡˜‹
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Evaluation of metals in soils for the assessment and remediation of brownfield sites often
requires that “background” concentrations be determined. Background metal
concentrations are typically attributed to the natural composition of soil and not from the
impact of hazardous substances or petroleum, hazardous or solid wastes, or wastewater.
Background concentrations are assumed to be largely dependent on soil texture and
composition (i.e., the percentages of sand, silt and clay; the specific mineral components
present; and the naturally occurring organic matter present) and also the types of geologic
material from which the soil has been derived (e.g., sand and gravel outwash, shale
bedrock, till, etc.).

Background metal concentrations in urban soils are challenging to characterize. Urban

soils often have been subjected to decades of various unregulated anthropogenic activities
that can elevate background metal concentrations. For example aerial deposition of
particulate matter from fuel combustion or industrial activities in urban areas may
increase the concentrations of lead, arsenic, zinc and certain other metals in soils.
Construction activities, demolition activities, and surface water runoff from roofs and
paved areas may also increase soil metal concentrations.

This investigation evaluates background metal concentrations in urban surface soils to

provide a dataset that may be used as a reference to help satisfy the requirements of, in
part, Ohio Voluntary Action Program (VAP) rules (OAC Chapter 3745-300).
Specifically, this summary report applies to Cuyahoga County and Cleveland-area
brownfield properties being assessed and remediated under the Ohio VAP. For the
purposes of this investigation, “Cuyahoga County – Cleveland area urban soils” means
surficial soils within the City of Cleveland or adjacent municipalities, including suburban
areas and metro parks within urban or suburban areas.

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͳ
2.0 SCOPE

Under the direction of Ohio EPA – VAP Central Office, the Ohio EPA Site Investigation
Field Unit (SIFU) sampled and analyzed surface soils at 10 Cleveland-area properties for
background concentrations of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals
(As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se and Ag). The property locations are shown on Figure 1, and
Tables 1A and 1B provide additional location information and property characteristics
including setting (land use), topography and general soil data. The properties were
selected based on the following criteria:

x The ability to obtain access from local governments or private property

owners.

x Compliance with the VAP location restrictions for background soil sampling
investigations [OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(b)].

x Design of an investigation that provided representative data for the major

soil mapping units within Cuyahoga County as described on the “General
Soil Map, Cuyahoga County, Ohio” of the Soil Survey of Cuyahoga County,
Ohio (USDA Soil Conservation Service) to the extent possible given
limitations imposed by the first two criteria.

In addition, at each property one representative sample of the targeted soil horizon was
submitted to a contract soil laboratory for USCS and USDA soil texture classification
based on sieve, hydrometer and Atterberg limits analyses.

Prior to performing sampling activities, SIFU performed a reconnaissance and collected

one preliminary soil boring at each property. The objectives of the reconnaissance were
to evaluate the shallow (less than four feet deep) soil horizons present and select a target
sampling horizon, ensure that areas of the property where samples were collected met
location restrictions, and select a general sampling area. Each preliminary soil boring
(one per sampling area) was field logged in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and the USDA soil classification system to evaluate the
soil types present and screen the sampling location for fill or waste materials. In
addition, selected soil samples from the preliminary borings were screened for metals
concentrations using Ohio EPA’s mobile laboratory field-portable X-ray fluorescence
(FP-XRF) analyzer. The screening results were used to further evaluate the suitability of
the sampling locations and depth intervals for background data.

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ʹ
 Data quality objectives (DQOs) for this project included the following:

1. Soil samples from Cleveland-area urban properties meeting the location

restriction requirements of OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(b)

2. USCS field classification of each preliminary soil boring per ASTM D2488,
Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual–
Manual Procedure)

3. USDA field classification of each preliminary soil boring using “texture-by-

feel” analysis (Presley and Thien, 2008)

4. FP-XRF analyzer screening of each preliminary soil boring for selected

metals (As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Sr and Zn) meeting the requirements of
SW-846 Method 6200

5. Analysis of 10 soil samples per targeted soil horizon at each property to

provide a statistically representative data set as described by OAC 3745-
300-07(H)(1)(d)(i)

6. Fixed-base, VAP-certified laboratory analyses of each soil sample for

RCRA metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se and Ag) meeting the
requirements of Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program

7. USCS and USDA classification and textural composition of one selected

soil sample per property based on soil laboratory testing in accordance with
ASTM D422, Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils
(modified to provide USDA soil particle size classes); ASTM D4318, Test
Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils; and
ASTM D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡͵
3.0 CLEVELAND-AREA SOIL TYPES

Figure 2 (“General Soil Map, Cuyahoga County, Ohio” from the Soil Survey of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio) shows the general soil mapping units present in the Cleveland-area (USDA
Soil Conservation Service, 1980). These include the following:

1. Deep soils on uplands and the higher parts of the lake plains

2. Moderately deep soils on uplands and lake plains

3. Deep soils on beach ridges, outwash terraces and lake plains

4. Deep soils on flood plains and low stream terraces

5. Urban land soils (level and gently sloping areas that are predominantly covered by
buildings, pavement and other structures)

In summary, properties were selected to incorporate as many of these general soil mapping
units as possible to provide a background metal data set that is representative with respect
to the soils present in the Cleveland-area. Three properties underlain by “urban land soil”
(Table 1B) were selected for sampling, as metal concentrations in these soils were the most
representative of long-term background exposure to heavily urban-characteristic activities.

4.0 PROPERTY USE AND REGULATORY HISTORY

Properties evaluated for soil sampling included public parks and private properties (e.g.,
cemeteries or church properties) that were not underlain by engineered or structural fill
[OAC 3745-300-01(A)(43)] or industrial fill [OAC 3745-300-01(A)(72)] and where
industrial or waste disposal activities have not occurred (Tables 1A and 1B and Figure 1).
Soil types where disposal has occurred must be excluded from background determinations
by rule. The reconnaissance effort conducted prior to the actual sampling event prevented
sampling of these prohibited soil types.

Properties underlain by native fill may be sampled [OAC 3745-300-01(A)(83)]. “Native

fill” is soil material derived from the property and transferred from one area of the property
to another area in such a manner that the original soil structure and physical properties may
be altered from the initial pre-excavation conditions, but the chemical and physical
properties remain consistent with other undisturbed native soils at the property. Native fill
was encountered and sampled at two locations (St. Nicholas Church and St. Gregory
Church).

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡Ͷ
5.0 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING STRATEGY AND FIELD ACTIVITIES

5.1 Property Reconnaissance and Preliminary Soil Boring Evaluation

SIFU performed a property reconnaissance to evaluate potential sampling areas and inspect
the property soils. The results of the reconnaissance were used to select the general area
where samples were ultimately collected as well as determine the soil horizon sampled for
chemical (metals) and soil texture analysis (classification).

Prior to each property reconnaissance, a review of property soil descriptions provided by

the Soil Survey of Cuyahoga County, Ohio was conducted. During site reconnaissance,
field staff evaluated sampling location restrictions based on OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(b),
which include:

(i) Areas underlain by engineered fill, structural fill or industrial fill

(ii) Areas where the management, treatment, handling, storage or disposal of
hazardous substances or petroleum, solid or hazardous wastes, waste
waters or material handling areas are known or are suspected to have
occurred
(iii) Areas within three feet of a roadway
(iv) Parking lots or areas surrounding parking lots or other paved areas
(v) Railroad tracks or railway areas or other areas affected by their runoff
(vi) Areas of concentrated air pollution depositions or areas affected by their
runoff
(vii) Storm drains or ditches presently or historically receiving industrial or
urban runoff
(viii) Spill areas

The sampling locations were evaluated based on visual inspection of the property,
interviews with the property owners or representatives, review of Sanborn Maps and other
historical records, and sampling and inspection of property soils.

A hand auger was used to install a preliminary soil boring at each proposed sampling area
to evaluate the upper two (2) to four (4) feet of surficial soils, which were field-classified in
accordance the USCS (ASTM D2488) and the USDA soil classification system (Presley
and Thien, 2008). Soil boring logs are included in Appendix A.

Ohio EPA analyzed selected soil samples from each preliminary soil boring for selected
metals (As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Sr and Zn) using the FP – XRF analyzer in accordance
with SW-846 Method 6200. The results were used to evaluate the influence of
anthropogenic activities on the soil metal concentrations. Based on the screening results,
the soil metal concentrations did not appear to be elevated by anthropogenic activities with
the exception of lead (> 50 and < 230 mg/kg) at two urban properties (St. Nicholas Church
and St. Gregory Church) and four parks (Brookside Reservation, Garfield Park

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͷ
 Reservation, Rockefeller Park, and West Creek Reservation). The elevated lead
concentrations were generally detected in the upper 0.5 to 1.0 ft. of soil.

The FP-XRF results also were used to examine the vertical distributions of metal
concentrations in the soil profile at each preliminary soil boring location. The results
appear to indicate that some metal concentrations tend to increase with depth (e.g., arsenic)
and other some metals tend to be concentrated near the surface of the soil horizon (e.g.,
lead). The trends were not tested for statistical significance. However, based on these
results, a sampling interval of ground surface to two feet deep (or until refusal on shallow
bedrock) was selected for all analytical samples to avoid introducing additional variation in
the analytical data set due to potential variability associated with an inconsistent sampling
depth interval.

The XP-XRF analytical results are considered ‘screening’ level data quality under the
current VAP rules. As such, these results cannot be used as part of a background
demonstration where comparison to soil applicable standards is required. However, the
results are provided in Appendix B for general reference purposes.

5.2 Soil Sampling and Analysis

Based on the results of the preliminary field investigation, the team selected 10 soil
sampling localities (properties) to collect soil samples for RCRA metal laboratory analysis.
At each locality, Ohio EPA collected 10 surficial soil samples between the ground surface
and depth of two feet using a hand auger. At a few locations auger refusal was encountered
on shallow bedrock or cobbles before reaching the target depth of two feet, and the
sampling interval was slightly smaller (e.g., ground surface to 1.5 feet), but was never less
than one foot.

The sample locations were within a 15 ft. radius of the preliminary soil boring location (the
sampling area circular with an approximate diameter of 30 ft. with the preliminary soil
boring location in the center). Cleveland Metroparks required Ohio EPA to collect the
geotechnical and 10 analytical samples within an area approximately 30 feet in diameter to
minimize disturbance to native plant species. The Ohio EPA SIFU sampling team used this
approach at all sampling localities for a consistent investigative approach across all
properties sampled.

The first of the 10 samples at each locality (e.g., BSR-1, GPR-1, HSP-1, etc.) was collected
adjacent to the preliminary soil boring location, and included analytical sample for RCRA
metals and a soil sample for geotechnical analysis. The other nine analytical samples were
collected at random locations within a radius of 15 ft. of the preliminary soil boring. Upon
completion, each sampling location was backfilled with native soil.

Each soil sample was homogenized in a stainless steel mixing pan and split into three
subsamples. One subsample was preserved on ice at 4o C and submitted to Ohio EPA’s
contract laboratory for RCRA metals analysis and the other two subsamples were retained

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡͸
 for future reference if required. Two ounces of soil were collected for each RCRA metal
sample and four ounces of soil were collected for each of the retained samples.
Approximately two (2) pounds of soil were collected for laboratory USCS and USDA
classification and soil texture composition based on sieve, hydrometer, and Atterberg limits
testing.

5.3 Field Sampling Equipment Decontamination

Hand augers, sampling spoons, mixing bowls, and other field equipment used to sample
soils were decontaminated between properties by washing with a solution of non-phosphate
detergent and potable water and rinsing with deionized water.

5.4 Laboratory Analyses

Ohio EPA’s contract laboratory (TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.) analyzed 100 soil
samples (10 per site) for RCRA metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se and Ag) using
Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) and/or Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry (GFAAS) via U.S. EPA Method 6010 and Method 7471. Geotechnics,
subcontracted by Test America, Inc. performed the USCS and USDA classification (see
Table 2 and Appendix C) and soil texture composition in accordance with ASTM D422,
Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils (modified to provide USDA soil
particle size classes); ASTM D4318, Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index of Soils; and ASTM D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils
for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). Data received from
TestAmerica Laboratories are considered certified under the Ohio EPA VAP certified
laboratory program.

6.0 Sampling Locations

6.1 Property Descriptions and Locations

Details for the 10 locations sampled for this investigation are included in Tables 1A and
1B. Information contained in Table 1A provides property information such as site
location (latitude/longitude), generalized setting (e.g., urban or suburban), and the
topography (e.g., level, gently sloping, etc.). Surveying the location of each sampling
point was determined not to be practical; therefore the longitude and latitude coordinates
represent the generalized property location. As noted in Section 5.0, samples were
collected within a 15-foot radius of the original preliminary sample boring. Table 1B
provides information relative to the soil survey for Cuyahoga County. Specific details on
the table includes the mapping (soil type) unit at each property and the underlying parent
material (e.g., bedrock, lake deposits, etc.) underlying each property. As noted in Section
2.0, all major soil types represented in Cuyahoga County were sampled.

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡͹
 6.2 Supplemental Locations

OEPA and US EPA Region 5 performed a targeted brownfield assessment project in July
2011 titled “Background Soil Determination for Three Locations in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.” The assessment set out to address soil background concentrations of various
metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in three locations selected in
Cuyahoga County. The study selected locations that were anticipated to be reliable and
reasonably representative of background soil levels for metals and PAHs. OEPA and US
EPA Region 5 relied on another study (Dike 14 CDF background study) to provide aerial
photographs, historical maps, deed records, and associated site visits at each of the
background sample sites. The following three Cuyahoga County Background Study Sites
were identified for this background soil study:

x Cleveland Heights – Forest Hills Park (CHFH),

x Brecksville – Cleveland Metro Parks (BCMP), and
x Bratenahl – Mather Estate – Western Land Conservancy (BHME).

Details on these locations are included in Tables 1A and 1B.

6.3 Summary Results Combination

As with the 10 locations selected for this current study, the three background sampling
locations, CHFH, BCMP, and BHME, were also selected in accordance with VAP siting
criteria; such that each were areas that had not been directly impacted by development,
filling, covering, roadways, or other alterations. There was no reason to suspect that
hazardous substances or petroleum were regularly treated, stored, or disposed at these
sampling locations, which would have biased the sampling results.

Sample collection protocol was nearly identical to that used in this study whereby
shallow soil samples (e.g., 0-2 feet and 2-4 feet bgs) were selected and analyzed. One
significant difference was that the targeted brownfield assessment study used a
Geoprobe® for soil collection, while soil samples in this study were manually collected
via hand auger. Remaining field logging, sample preservation, and decontamination
procedures were identical. Data analyzed by the laboratory were certified under the VAP
certified laboratory program.

Metal data (0-2 foot depth interval only) collected from the targeted brownfield
assessment were included into the larger data set collected during this study. With the
inclusion of these three additional locations, a total of 13 locations (and 151 total data
points) were used in the statistical determination of Cuyahoga County background values.
With the inclusion of the additional data, a more statistically robust data set has been
generated.

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͺ
7.0 METHOD OF BACKGROUND VALUE DETERMINATION

Upon receipt of all laboratory data, statistical evaluations were performed to determine
the representative background concentrations. It was determined that data collected from
all 13 property locations (10 from the current study and three from the supplemental
study) would be incorporated into a single data set. Preliminary evaluations were
perfomed whereby a comparison of properties was performed. Using this method
statistically similar sites were combined into a single data set. Though statistically
correct, this method was found to be cumbersome such that multiple background values
were generated per metal. Therefore, the more direct approach was selected whereby all
data points were combined into a single data set and outliers were removed as the entire
data set was analyzed. The result was that a single, representative background number
was generated for each metal.

Background values were determined for the 0-2 ft bgs interval from all 10 property
locations. Only the 0-2 ft bgs interval data from the supplemental study “Background
Soil Determination for Three Locations in Cuyahoga County, Ohio” were included into
the larger data set. Samples collected from the 2-4 ft bgs interval as part of that study
were excluded from incorporation into the larger data set.

7.1 Outlier test

The data set was evaluated for the presence of outliers in accordance with the VAP Rule
OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(d)(ii)(d). The presence of outliers in the background data sets
could yield higher or lower estimates of the upper limits. Statistical outlier tests give
evidence that a value does not fit with the distribution of the remainder of the data and is,
therefore, a statistical outlier. The outlier identification was performed by the Rosner
outlier test utilizing ProUCL. All outliers were removed prior to completing background
calculations.

7.2 Nondetect test

According to the ProUCL user’s guide, when the percentage of nondetects in a data set is
high (greater than 40 percent (%) to 50%) or when multiple detection limits are present, it
is hard to reliably perform goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests to determine data distribution. In
those cases, the uncertainty associated with the GOF tests is high, especially with smaller
data sets (less than 10 to 20 samples). In those situations, the use of nonparametric
methods such as the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method to compute statistics such as upper
confidence limits, upper prediction limits (UPLs), and upper tolerance limits (UTLs) is
preferred because nonparametric methods do not require any distributional assumptions
about the data sets.

By example, Table 3 shows that cadmium results had approximately 32.8% non-
detectable values (depending on the data set) and therefore the KM method was used by
ProUCL to calculate the statistics associated with this data set, even though the data were

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͻ
 normally distributed. Further evaluation of the data set detailed below shows that this
provides an acceptable representation of the data obtained.

7.3 Soil Background Mean

The background mean (Xb) for data sets without nondetects was calculated by ProUCL
by dividing the sum of the total background values (Xn) by the total number of
background readings (nb):

Xb = X1 + X2 + X3 (etc.)
nb
The background mean for data sets with nondetects was calculated by ProUCL using the
appropriate method based on the distribution (e.g., the KM method for nonparametric
data sets with multiple detection limits).

7.4 Standard Deviation

The standard deviation (Sb) for data sets without nondetects was calculated by ProUCL
by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of each value (Xn) minus the mean
(Xb), divided by the degrees of freedom (number of background soil samples minus one):

Sb = [ (X1 – Xb)2 + (X2 – Xb)2 + (X3-Xb)2 (etc.)] ½

nb - 1

For data sets with nondetects, the standard deviation was calculated by ProUCL using the
appropriate method based on the distribution (e.g., the KM method for nonparametric
data sets with multiple detection limits).

7.5 Coefficient of Variation

The Cv is the ratio of the standard deviation (Sb) to the mean (Xb) and describes the
magnitude of sample values and the variation within them:

Cv = Sb
Xb
The Cv is used to evaluate the distribution of the data, where generally a Cv of less than
0.5 indicates a normal distribution. A Cv was calculated only for data sets without
nondetects.

7.6 Distribution

The distribution of each data set was also evaluated using ProUCL to determine if the
distributions were normal, lognormal, or gamma distributed. The upper limits for the
data sets that were normal were then calculated as described below. Data sets that were
not normally distributed were evaluated for the upper limits using nonparametric

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͳͲ
 methods. Nonparametric methods do not assume a particular population probability
distribution, and are therefore valid for data from any population with any probability
distribution, which can remain unknown.

7.7 VAP Upper Limit (UL)

In accordance with the VAP background soil determination requirements in OAC 3745-
300-07(H)(1), the background mean plus two standard deviations is the maximum
allowable limit or upper limit for normally distributed data. The background upper limit
for normally distributed data sets was calculated by multiplying the standard deviation by
two and adding the background mean such that:

VAP UL = Xb + (2 x Sb)

If the data follows a lognormal, nonparametric, or gamma distribution, the upper limit
was calculated using ProUCL to determine the 95% upper prediction limit (UPL) based
on the best fit distribution. This is noted in Table 3.

8.0 CLEVELAND-AREA SOIL BACKGROUND VALUES

Background soil concentrations were calculated in accordance with the VAP rules
effective March 1, 2009, found in OAC 3745-300-07(H)(1)(d)(ii). As noted in Section
7.7, for normally distributed data, the background mean plus two standard deviations is
the maximum allowable limit, or UL, which was calculated by multiplying the standard
deviation by two and then adding the mean concentration. Normally distributed data
were only observed in the cadmium and chromium data sets. The remaining datasets
were non-normal. The 95% upper prediction limit was used as the representative
background concentrations for the remaining, non-normal data sets.

A summary of the background determination results for Cuyahoga County are provided
in Table 3. Seven of the eight original RCRA metals are presented. Silver was removed
from statistical analyses due to the high number of nondetects. Therefore, silver has been
determined not to be a significant contributor to elevated background concentrations
across the Cuyahoga County region.

The ProUCL output data sheets are provided in Appendix D. Analytical results for each
metal are provided in Tables 4 through 10. Metal concentrations for each sample at each
location are provided. Summary statistics including maximum, minimum, average, and
standard deviation are also provided. The following sections are a narrative of the
summary results.

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͳͳ
 8.1 Arsenic

Concentrations of arsenic ranged from 4.6 to 33.1 mg/kg with no nondetects. There were
150 valid data points, with only one outlier removed. The data set mean was calculated
to be 14.06 mg/kg, with a standard deviation of 4.5 mg/kg. The VAP UL was determined
to be 23.1 mg/kg, however the data set was not normally distributed. Therefore the VAP
UL cannot be used as the representative concentration. The 95% UTL with 90%
coverage was determined to be 22.3 mg/kg. The 95% UPL based on the best fit of the
data distribution was calculated to be 24.0 mg/kg. This value is determined to be the
representative soil background concentration.

8.2 Barium

Concentrations of barium ranged from 16.4 to 317.0 mg/kg with no nondetects. There
were 143 valid data points, with eight outliers removed. Five of the outliers came from
the WCR (West Creek Reservation – Cleveland Metropark) location. The data set mean
was calculated to be 51.86 mg/kg, with a standard deviation of 19.8 mg/kg. The VAP UL
was determined to be 91.5 mg/kg, however the data set was not normally distributed.
Therefore the VAP UL cannot be used as the representative concentration. The 95%
UTL with 90% coverage was determined to be 89.3 mg/kg. The 95% UPL based on the
best fit of the data distribution was calculated to be 98.9 mg/kg. This value is determined
to be the representative soil background concentration.

8.3 Cadmium

Detected concentrations of cadmium ranged from 0.223 to 1.36 mg/kg. There were 128
valid data points, with one outlier removed. Additionally, data from the BCMP and
BHME sites were removed from the data set due to elevated reporting limits. There were
42 nondetects, or 32.8%, in the final data set. As noted in Table 3, the KM method was
recommended by ProUCL due to multiple reporting limits in the data set. The data set
mean was calculated to be 0.452 mg/kg, with a standard deviation of 0.191 mg/kg. The
VAP UL was determined to be 0.834 mg/kg. The data were calculated to be normally
distributed. The 95% UTL with 90% coverage was determined to be 0.737 mg/kg. The
95% UPL based on the best fit of the data distribution was calculated to be 0.770 mg/kg.
The VAP UL is determined to be the representative soil background concentration.

8.4 Chromium

Detected concentrations of chromium ranged from 6.1 to 26.8 mg/kg. There were 151
valid data points, with no outliers removed. There were no nondetects in the entire data
set. The data set mean was calculated to be 14.76 mg/kg, with a standard deviation of
3.151 mg/kg. The VAP UL was determined to be 21.1 mg/kg. The data were calculated
to be normally distributed. The 95% UTL with 90% coverage was determined to be 19.4
mg/kg. The 95% UPL based on the best fit of the data distribution was calculated to be

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͳʹ
 20.0 mg/kg. The VAP UL is determined to be the representative soil background
concentration.

8.5 Lead

Concentrations of lead ranged from 8.2 to 203.0 mg/kg with no nondetects. There were
132 valid data points, with 19 outliers removed. Nine of the outliers came from the STG
(St. Gregory Church) location and another eight of the outliers came from the STN (St.
Nicholas Church) location. The data set mean was calculated to be 23.81 mg/kg, with a
standard deviation of 13.5 mg/kg. The VAP UL was determined to be 50.8 mg/kg,
however the data set was not normally distributed. Therefore the VAP UL cannot be
used as the representative concentration. The 95% UTL with 90% coverage was
determined to be 49.7 mg/kg. The 95% UPL based on the best fit of the data distribution
was calculated to be 51.7 mg/kg. This value is determined to be the representative soil
background concentration.

8.6 Mercury

Detected concentrations of mercury ranged from 0.01 to 2.77 mg/kg. There were 115
valid data points, with 14 outliers removed. Eight of the outliers came from the STN (St.
Nicholas Church) location and another four of the outliers came from the RFP
(Rockefeller Park) location. Additionally, data from the BCMP and BHME sites were
removed from the data set due to elevated reporting limits. There were two nondetects,
or 1.7%, in the final data set. The data set mean was calculated to be 0.0483 mg/kg, with
a standard deviation of 0.029 mg/kg. The VAP UL was determined to be 0.106 mg/kg,
however the data set was not normally distributed. Therefore the VAP UL cannot be
used as the representative concentration. The 95% UTL with 90% coverage was
determined to be 0.092 mg/kg. The 95% UPL based on the best fit of the data
distribution was calculated to be 0.097 mg/kg. This value is determined to be the
representative soil background concentration.

8.7 Selenium

Detected concentrations of selenium ranged from 0.41 to 1.13 mg/kg. There were 100
valid data points, with no outliers removed. As noted in Table 3, data from the BCMP,
BHME, and CHFH sites were removed from the data set due to elevated reporting limits.
There were 32 nondetects, or 32.0%, in the final data set. The data set mean was
calculated to be 0.647 mg/kg, with a standard deviation of 0.177 mg/kg. The VAP UL
was determined to be 1.00 mg/kg. The data were calculated to be normally distributed.
The 95% UTL with 90% coverage was determined to be 0.917 mg/kg. The 95% UPL
based on the best fit of the data distribution was calculated to be 0.943 mg/kg. This value
is determined to be the representative soil background concentration.

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͳ͵
9.0 APPLICATION OF THIS REPORT AND SUMMARY OF
BACKGROUND DETERMINATION

Background results generated in this report are specific to Cuyahoga County. Users of
this report may elect to utilize the results presented in Section 8.0 and Table 3 for direct
comparison purposes to other properties in Cuyahoga County in accordance with VAP
soil background rule requirements (OAC 3745-300-07(H)(2)). It is generally
inappropriate to apply these background values to properties located in non-adjacent or
surrounding counties. Exceptions to this provision may be allowable if the user can
demonstrate that the subject property has a similar soil provenance and type to one or
more soil types listed for properties within this study. Geotechnical analysis of the
subject property soil type is advisable to make the soil type comparison. Additionally,
samples collected at the subject property must be representative of the zone (e.g., 0-2 ft.
bgs.) assessed in this study.

The following results are the background upper limits for metal soil concentrations in
Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area:

Arsenic 24.0 mg/kg

Barium 98.9 mg/kg
Cadmium 0.834 mg/kg
Chromium 21.1 mg/kg
Lead 51.7 mg/kg
Mercury 0.097 mg/kg
Selenium 0.943 mg/kg

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͳͶ
10.0 REFERENCES

ASTM D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)

ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual –
Manual Procedure)

ASTM D422, Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils

ASTM D4318, Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Background Soil Determination for Three Locations in Cuyahoga County, U.S. EPA
Region V and Ohio EPA, December 2011

Presley, D., and S. Thien, September 2008, Estimating Soil Texture By Feel, Kansas
State University Department of Agronomy, MF-2852

USDA Soil Conservation Service, December 1980, Soil Survey of Cuyahoga County,
Ohio

U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 6200 (Revision 0, February 2007), Field Portable X-ray
Fluorescence Spectrometry for the Determination of Elemental Concentrations in Soil or
Sediment

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA Statistical Software ProUCL 4.1 for Environmental Applications for
Data Sets With and Without Non-detect Observations

Evaluation of Background Metal Soil Concentrations in Cuyahoga County – Cleveland Area

Summary Report for Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program ƒ‰‡ͳͷ
FIGURE 2: GENERAL SOIL MAP, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
 Table3
Background Statistics for Cuyahoga County
Summary Results for Seven Metals
 

Number of 95% UTL

Sites Number of Data with 90% 95%
Metal Included Outliers % ND points Maximum Mean SD Distribution VAP UL Coverage UPL Units Comments
No defined
Arsenic 13 1 0.0% 150 28.8 14.06 4.5 {23.1} 22.3 24.0 mg/kg
distribution
No defined
Barium 13 8 0.0% 143 118 51.86 19.8 {91.5} 89.3 98.9 mg/kg 5 outliers from WCR
distribution
(1) KM method (recommended due to
Cadmium 12 1 32.8% 128 1.04 0.452 0.191 Normal 0.834 0.737 0.770 mg/kg
multiple RLs)
Chromium 13 0 0.0% 151 26.8 14.76 3.151 Normal 21.1 19.4 20.0 mg/kg
No defined
Lead 13 19 0.0% 132 70.1 23.81 13.5 {50.8} 49.7 51.67 mg/kg 9 outliers from STG, 8 from STN
distribution
(1) No defined
Mercury 12 14 1.7% 115 0.146 0.0483 0.029 {0.106} 0.092 0.097 mg/kg 8 outliers from STN, 4 from RFP
distribution
(2) No defined
Selenium 10 0 32.0% 100 1.13 0.647 0.177 {1.00} 0.917 0.943 mg/kg
distribution

(1) Does not include BCMP or BHME 2011 (all nondetects with elevated reporting limits). BHME 2008 data are { } = mean + 2SD calculated, but dataset is not normal or lognormal and value
included. may not be appropriate for use as the MAL.
(2) Does not include BCME, BHME, or CHFH (elevated reporting limits). 
Bold Number = Representative background value for associated metal
KM method = Kaplan-Meier method
 Table4
PropertyAbbreviationKey

Abbreviation Property&GeneralLocation

BSR BrooksideReservation,ClevelandMetropark(Cleveland)

ECR EuclidCreekReservation,ClevelandMetropark(Euclid)

GPR GarfieldParkReservation,ClevelandMetropark(GarfieldHeights)

HSP HolySpiritCemetery(Parma)

RFP RockefellerPark(Cleveland)

RRN RockyRiverReservationNorth(Lakewood)

RRS RockyRiverReservationSouth(Lakewood)

STG St.GregoryParish(Lakewood)

STN St.NicholasParish(Cleveland)

WCR WestCreekReservation,ClevelandMetropark(Parma)

BHME BratenahlMatherEstate

CHFH ClevelandHeightsForestHillsPark

BCMP BrecksvilleClevelandMetroparks
 Table5
SummaryofArsenicData
CuyahogaCountyBackgroundSoilsSummaryReport
Location BSR ECR GPR HSP RFP RRN RRS STG STN WCR BHME CHFH BCMP
Sample
Units             
1 mg/kg 12.4 18.5 13.6 12.1 14.7 15.9 21.8 8.56 12.4 12.1 6.68 12.9 15.9
2 mg/kg 23.5 18.2 10.6 7.17 8.45 16 24.6 11.6 13.9 10.6 9.28 18.1 13.9
3 mg/kg 8.71 19.2 12 10.9 11.7 19.8 22.3 9.37 14.1 11.3 8.41 10.3 12.9
4 mg/kg 11.4 17.2 13.9 10.1 9.59 11.2 25.2 16.6 12.3 9.99 13.1 17.3 12.2
5 mg/kg 13.3 21.9 12.6 12 10.7 14.7 22.9 12.2 11.8 12.8 9.61 11.7 14.4
6 mg/kg 16.4 23 13.3 14.6 13 14.6 28.8 7.86 12 11.2 20.3 9.03 18.1
7 mg/kg 9.64 17.9 12.5 11.8 10.3 15.8 33.1 13.4 14.8 9.95 16.6 25.2 12.9
8 mg/kg 26.7 17.4 15.7 12.5 12.8 18.1 24.5 6.53 14.6 11.8 16.1 8.64 12.7
9 mg/kg 19.2 18.5 11.4 12.6 10.5 14.1 28.8 10.7 11.8 11.4 15.4 13.2 13.4
10 mg/kg 11.8 19 9.2 12.7 12 16 20.2 10.8 13 8.98 16.2 16.8 13.7
11 mg/kg           10.6 13 12.6
12 mg/kg           15.1 9.11 12.8
13 mg/kg           13.3 12.1 
14 mg/kg           8.5 14.7 
15 mg/kg           16.5 11.6 
16 mg/kg           17 18.7 
17 mg/kg           14.8 18.9 
18 mg/kg           10.8 9.3 
19 mg/kg           4.6 16.1 
20 mg/kg            10.9 
              
              
              
              

Notes:
mg/kg=milligramsperkilogram
BHME,CHFH,andBCMPfromthe“BackgroundSoilDeterminationforThreeLocationsinCuyahogaCounty,Ohio”study,OhioEPAandUSEPA(2011)
 Table6
SummaryofBariumData
CuyahogaCountyBackgroundSoilsSummaryReport
Location BSR ECR GPR HSP RFP RRN RRS STG STN WCR BHME CHFH BCMP
Sample
Units             
1 mg/kg 129 21.7 53.2 50.7 37.9 59.8 38.7 143 59.5 127 16.4 41.5 49.8
2 mg/kg 69.5 44.3 49.6 53.6 28 56.9 51.6 86.9 64.8 112 34.6 48.1 53.1
3 mg/kg 45.9 24.4 41.3 59.7 34.1 54.5 42 79.2 51.3 118 29 42.2 53.6
4 mg/kg 45.4 33.1 50.6 52.1 33 61.1 43.8 99.7 43.4 87.6 33.1 48.9 42.1
5 mg/kg 317 25.2 45.7 55.5 44.2 62 73.8 95.9 53.7 143 41.9 49.5 57
6 mg/kg 114 21.9 40.8 56.3 43.7 58.6 46.8 63.2 62.5 106 42 45.6 45.6
7 mg/kg 57.3 24.8 44.3 55 37 65.4 38.8 54.1 38.7 101 32.4 33.5 30.7
8 mg/kg 56.8 28.4 55.2 54.3 43 57.7 46.4 54.5 69 147 34.8 29.6 43.3
9 mg/kg 77.4 30.3 45.9 66.9 31.9 60.7 54.7 72.6 56.9 148 39.5 43.9 30.5
10 mg/kg 89.3 22.3 42.3 78.2 38.3 61 92.3 116 55.7 145 54.9 34.1 41.1
11 mg/kg           61.8 46 38.5
12 mg/kg           51.6 39.3 46.1
13 mg/kg           62.3 40.4 
14 mg/kg           80.1 45.6 
15 mg/kg           55.1 47.3 
16 mg/kg           40.4 28.1 
17 mg/kg           54.6 28.8 
18 mg/kg           55.2 49.7 
19 mg/kg           48.9 52.4 
20 mg/kg            41.3 
              
              
              
              
Notes:
mg/kg=milligramsperkilogram
BHME,CHFH,andBCMPfromthe“BackgroundSoilDeterminationforThreeLocationsinCuyahogaCounty,Ohio”study,OhioEPAandUSEPA(2011)
 Table7
SummaryofCadmiumData
CuyahogaCountyBackgroundSoilsSummaryReport
Location BSR ECR GPR HSP RFP RRN RRS STG STN WCR BHME CHFH BCMP
Sample
Units             
1 mg/kg <0.453 0.278 <0.465 <0.445 0.463 0.517 <0.402 0.323 0.488 <0.483 0.335 0.596 <2.2
2 mg/kg 0.254 0.471 <0.463 <0.412 0.383 0.605 0.236 0.286 0.482 <0.487 0.495 0.617 <2.0
3 mg/kg <0.445 0.356 <0.472 <0.435 0.503 0.474 <0.422 0.307 0.573 <0.495 0.421 0.497 <2.2
4 mg/kg <0.413 0.364 <0.449 <0.429 0.623 0.331 0.23 0.613 0.469 <0.473 0.614 0.658 <2.3
5 mg/kg <0.459 0.37 <0.442 <0.441 1.04 0.493 0.262 0.332 0.605 <0.510 0.562 0.512 <2.2
6 mg/kg <0.411 0.314 <0.443 <0.406 0.843 0.572 <0.46 0.334 0.527 <0.515 0.912 0.701 <2.1
7 mg/kg <0.428 0.309 <0.438 <0.443 0.952 0.764 0.243 <0.427 0.53 <0.505 0.755 1.01 <2.1
8 mg/kg <0.456 0.388 <0.448 <0.447 1.36 0.589 0.344 0.236 0.802 <0.582 0.846 0.734 <2.2
9 mg/kg <0.421 0.294 <0.448 <0.426 0.359 0.508 0.296 0.354 0.692 <0.485 0.881 0.618 <2.2
10 mg/kg 0.254 0.262 <0.420 <0.43 0.402 0.615 0.249 0.558 0.597 <0.448 <2.2 0.94 <2.3
11 mg/kg           <2.3 0.773 <2.2
12 mg/kg           <2.3 0.465 <2.2
13 mg/kg           <2.3 0.68 
14 mg/kg           <2.1 0.802 
15 mg/kg           <2.3 0.527 
16 mg/kg           <2.3 0.539 
17 mg/kg           <2.0 0.647 
18 mg/kg           <2.4 0.402 
19 mg/kg           <2.1 0.687 
20 mg/kg            0.487 
              
              
              
              
              
Notes:
mg/kg–milligramsperkilogram
BHME,CHFH,andBCMPfromthe“BackgroundSoilDeterminationforThreeLocationsinCuyahogaCounty,Ohio”study,OhioEPAandUSEPA(2011)
 Table8
SummaryofChromiumData
CuyahogaCountyBackgroundSoilsSummaryReport
Location BSR ECR GPR HSP RFP RRN RRS STG STN WCR BHME CHFH BCMP
Sample
Units             
1 mg/kg 18.5 13.2 14.8 15.9 11.5 14.2 10.4 15.1 11.5 15.4 6.11 20.2 19.3
2 mg/kg 14.1 14.1 9.69 14.3 8.19 13.3 11.3 10.5 11.1 20.2 11.4 18.9 16.7
3 mg/kg 17.2 13 12.1 13 10.2 13.2 13.5 10.5 14.1 15.6 12.1 20.1 14.9
4 mg/kg 16 12.4 14.3 12.4 11.5 13.2 11.7 12.6 10.7 13.3 15.4 26.8 18.3
5 mg/kg 18.1 14 15.4 16.5 18 14.7 8.73 12.9 13.1 17.1 15.7 15.1 20.2
6 mg/kg 17.6 14 12.1 14.9 14.4 14 13.3 14.2 11.8 13.3 17.8 17.9 20.9
7 mg/kg 17.8 13.1 12.2 16.2 14.2 14.7 12.4 12.2 10.8 22.3 15.2 17 12.1
8 mg/kg 14.1 11.6 10.6 16.4 19.6 12.6 14.1 12 15 16.7 15.9 15.1 15.2
9 mg/kg 16.7 13.7 12.4 15.5 9.56 13.3 11.9 11 13.3 19.3 14.8 19 14.3
10 mg/kg 15.4 14.2 10.2 18 10.1 14 9.23 12.8 12.7 18.6 16.1 17.3 14.8
11 mg/kg           14.1 17.4 14
12 mg/kg           17.1 16.8 11.8
13 mg/kg           17.7 17 
14 mg/kg           16.5 17.4 
15 mg/kg           15.5 18.9 
16 mg/kg           17.9 17.3 
17 mg/kg           16.8 19.2 
18 mg/kg           16.7 18.8 
19 mg/kg           14.3 20.8 
20 mg/kg            21.7 
              
              
              
              
Notes:
mg/kg–milligramsperkilogram
BHME,CHFH,andBCMPfromthe“BackgroundSoilDeterminationforThreeLocationsinCuyahogaCounty,Ohio”study,OhioEPAandUSEPA(2011)
 Table9
SummaryofLeadData
CuyahogaCountyBackgroundSoilsSummaryReport
Location BSR ECR GPR HSP RFP RRN RRS STG STN WCR BHME CHFH BCMP
Sample
Units             
1 mg/kg 25.2 21.8 18.4 16.9 38.3 33.2 14.8 134 176 52.9 48 11.6 14.6
2 mg/kg 35.3 16.1 19.9 15 37.7 30.2 18.5 95.2 170 43.3 26.2 11.8 17.2
3 mg/kg 22 19.6 18.4 19.6 44.1 22 14.9 74.2 86.5 49.3 12.0 13 19.5
4 mg/kg 27.4 19 32.5 14.2 40.2 30.6 16.6 186 59.5 47.4 15.8 14.4 13.5
5 mg/kg 14.3 28.1 18.3 14.1 48.2 36.7 25.1 155 103 54.3 10.2 11.1 14.4
6 mg/kg 41.7 22.7 18 12.5 41 32.4 14.7 86.8 112 49.7 21.8 9.66 17.7
7 mg/kg 26 18.5 26.6 15.2 51.8 36.4 13.2 63.9 48.8 76 13.1 10.2 13.1
8 mg/kg 23.5 20.5 23.7 14.2 48.5 24.9 21.5 79.6 170 70.1 16.8 11.4 13.1
9 mg/kg 36.5 17.5 20.4 15.3 25.6 29.7 18.6 114 138 81.5 19.0 10.3 14
10 mg/kg 25.7 21.2 20 13.9 51 31 20.5 203 134 51.6 10.0 18.3 14.2
11 mg/kg           8.2 22.5 13.5
12 mg/kg           14.5 14.5 12.3
13 mg/kg           11.8 14.3 
14 mg/kg           11.4 42.4 
15 mg/kg           26.2 12.6 
16 mg/kg           14.6 11.6 
17 mg/kg           14.9 11.6 
18 mg/kg           10.1 9.41 
19 mg/kg           21.9 13.8 
20 mg/kg            12.9 
              
              
              
              
              
Notes:
mg/kg–milligramsperkilogram
BHME,CHFH,andBCMPfromthe“BackgroundSoilDeterminationforThreeLocationsinCuyahogaCounty,Ohio”study,OhioEPAandUSEPA(2011)
 Table10
SummaryofMercuryData
CuyahogaCountyBackgroundSoilsSummaryReport
Location BSR ECR GPR HSP RFP RRN RRS STG STN WCR BHME CHFH BCMP
Sample
Units             
1 mg/kg 0.0432 0.0199 0.042 0.0314 0.0873 0.0693 0.0216 0.0885 0.275 0.0358 0.068 0.037 <0.41
2 mg/kg 0.0512 0.015 0.049 0.0178 0.128 0.0586 0.0338 0.0657 0.363 0.0254 0.065 0.0218 <0.38
3 mg/kg 0.0449 0.0321 0.0456 0.0342 0.113 0.0411 0.0218 0.0883 0.218 0.023 0.042 0.0363 <0.38
4 mg/kg 0.0619 0.0414 0.047 0.0314 0.135 0.0812 0.031 0.12 0.146 0.0682 0.04 0.0261 <0.37
5 mg/kg 0.0689 <0.303 0.0535 0.0222 0.237 0.0672 0.0319 0.0726 0.308 0.0435 0.035 0.0196 <0.4
6 mg/kg 0.0434 0.0372 0.0406 0.0303 0.231 0.0727 0.0227 0.115 2.77 0.0303 0.029 0.0199 <0.36
7 mg/kg 0.0468 0.0312 0.0453 0.0242 0.183 0.0698 0.0218 0.0777 0.112 0.0455 0.037 0.0333 <0.36
8 mg/kg 0.046 0.0295 0.058 0.0299 0.225 0.0618 0.0431 0.0823 0.515 0.0349 0.038 0.0244 <0.39
9 mg/kg 0.0433 0.0229 0.0409 0.0294 0.0829 0.0702 0.0295 0.105 0.375 0.0447 0.037 0.0219 <0.39
10 mg/kg 0.0584 0.0207 0.0412 0.0194 0.117 0.0814 0.0364 0.109 0.406 0.0392 <0.37 0.0337 <0.39
11 mg/kg           <0.38 0.0171 <0.42
12 mg/kg           <0.4 0.0059 <0.37
13 mg/kg           <0.39 0.00915 
14 mg/kg           <0.40 0.221 
15 mg/kg           <0.42 0.0058 
16 mg/kg           <0.42 0.0129 
17 mg/kg           <0.39 0.0131 
18 mg/kg           <0.38 0.0206 
19 mg/kg           <0.39 0.0366 
20 mg/kg            0.0298 
              
              
              
              
              
Notes:
mg/kg–milligramsperkilogram
BHME,CHFH,andBCMPfromthe“BackgroundSoilDeterminationforThreeLocationsinCuyahogaCounty,Ohio”study,OhioEPAandUSEPA(2011)
 Table11
SummaryofSeleniumData
CuyahogaCountyBackgroundSoilsSummaryReport
Location BSR ECR GPR HSP RFP RRN RRS STG STN WCR BHME CHFH BCMP
Sample
Units             
1 mg/kg 0.478 0.5 <0.929 0.911 0.645 0.773 0.571 0.719 0.535 <0.965 <2.2 0.942 <2.2
2 mg/kg 0.451 0.672 0.650 <0.812 0.55 0.846 0.566 0.545 <0.819 0.456 <2.1 nd <2.0
3 mg/kg 0.502 0.56 <0.944 0.491 <0.775 0.846 0.992 0.721 <0.773 <0.973 <2.3 nd <2.2
4 mg/kg 0.499 0.451 0.707 0.598 0.505 0.516 0.884 0.533 <0.825 0.681 <2.0 nd <2.3
5 mg/kg <0.918 0.731 <0.844 0.657 0.411 0.875 <0.884 1.09 <0.776 0.793 <2.4 nd <2.2
6 mg/kg <0.821 0.488 <0.866 0.7 0.434 0.899 0.95 1.01 <0.808 <1.02 <2.1 nd <2.1
7 mg/kg <0.857 0.652 0.832 <0.894 0.471 0.938 0.838 0.808 0.413 0.85 <2.3 1.3 <2.1
8 mg/kg <0.912 0.445 <0.896 0.447 <0.858 0.903 0.975 0.512 <0.835 <1.01 <2.0 nd <2.1
9 mg/kg <0.842 <0.816 0.551 <0.852 <0.807 0.876 1.13 0.721 0.418 0.593 <2.1 nd <2.2
10 mg/kg <0.827 0.467 0.531 <0.86 <0.836 0.9 0.525 0.764 <0.918 0.774 <2.0 nd <2.2
11 mg/kg           <2.2 nd <2.3
12 mg/kg           <2.3 nd <2.0
13 mg/kg           <2.0 nd 
14 mg/kg           <2.1 nd 
15 mg/kg           <2.0 nd 
16 mg/kg           <2.2 nd 
17 mg/kg           <2.1 nd 
18 mg/kg           <2.0 nd 
19 mg/kg           <2.0 nd 
20 mg/kg            nd 
              
              
              
              
Notes:
mg/kg–milligramsperkilogram
BHME,CHFH,andBCMPfromthe“BackgroundSoilDeterminationforThreeLocationsinCuyahogaCounty,Ohio”study,OhioEPAandUSEPA(2011)
nd=nondetect,methoddetectionlimitvaluesnotreportedinoriginalreport
 APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS (PRELIMINARY SOIL BORINGS)

 APPENDIX B

FP-XRF SOIL ANALYTICAL SCREENING RESULTS

 Screening Titanium, ppm Chromium, ppm Manganese, ppm Iron, ppm Cobalt, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Ti Ti +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/-
Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/17/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

QA/QC High Cal Standard N/A 7/17/12 1 2,724.61 462.34 <LOD <LOD 10,145.58 209.85 39,745.84 568.68 <LOD <LOD

QA/QC Low Cal Standard N/A 7/17/12 1 2,679.44 360.79 <LOD <LOD 403.51 45.93 33,532.33 432.16 <LOD <LOD

QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

1 5,553.58 422.28 172.46 52.53 176.60 38.71 29,927.85 380.05 <LOD <LOD
HSPS/W 0.0-2.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
Holy Spirit 2 5,533.37 426.32 <LOD <LOD 202.80 38.61 30,322.88 379.60 198.63 60.12
Cemetery West,
PSB-1 1 5,063.46 429.14 <LOD <LOD 367.15 45.26 35,439.70 443.91 236.19 66.30
HSPS/W 2.0-4.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 5,091.15 407.58 <LOD <LOD 343.32 42.82 33,932.37 413.95 <LOD <LOD

1 4,759.39 396.37 <LOD <LOD 123.07 36.94 30,442.95 380.72 <LOD <LOD
SGPS 0.0-2.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
St. Gregory 2 4,525.73 401.21 <LOD <LOD 142.34 38.00 30,064.99 384.80 <LOD <LOD
Church, PSB-2 1 5,559.43 442.08 <LOD <LOD 310.07 46.49 42,968.44 531.95 <LOD <LOD
SGPS 3.5-4.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 5,797.79 452.30 <LOD <LOD 283.24 46.60 42,271.69 533.05 229.90 73.85
1 4,438.17 372.57 <LOD <LOD 327.30 39.90 27,695.74 342.68 <LOD <LOD
SNPS 0.0-1.5 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
St. Nicholas 2 4,149.19 374.57 164.02 50.24 460.95 43.79 27,950.85 351.35 <LOD <LOD
Church, PSB-3 1 2,993.00 352.52 <LOD <LOD 301.01 38.45 24,522.85 308.41 <LOD <LOD
SNPS 1.5-3.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 2,881.35 349.90 <LOD <LOD 176.52 35.01 22,490.96 292.34 <LOD <LOD

QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 3 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/27/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/27/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

Euclid Creek
Reservation, ECPS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
PSB-9
 Screening Titanium, ppm Chromium, ppm Manganese, ppm Iron, ppm Cobalt, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Ti Ti +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/-
Euclid Creek 1 4,063.44 396.04 <LOD <LOD 233.41 40.53 33,672.79 414.99 <LOD <LOD
Reservation, ECPS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
PSB-9 2 3,913.44 388.04 <LOD <LOD 237.57 40.28 33,666.17 409.07 230.57 62.43

1 6,151.70 441.90 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 32,966.52 412.52 257.63 63.63
HNPS 0.0-1.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
Huntington 2 5,856.06 442.95 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 33,766.56 420.63 246.28 64.15
Reservation,
PSB-6 1 5,496.72 462.64 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 41,822.93 528.64 297.38 74.03
HNPS 2.0-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 4,877.92 456.46 218.17 60.06 <LOD <LOD 39,253.22 499.70 <LOD <LOD

1 4,195.37 368.41 <LOD <LOD 259.88 39.34 29,156.67 362.47 <LOD <LOD
RFPS 0.0-1.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 3,868.76 363.85 <LOD <LOD 203.91 36.33 24,336.02 311.99 <LOD <LOD

Rockefeller 1 4,768.43 399.46 <LOD <LOD 130.25 37.36 31,210.84 392.39 <LOD <LOD
RFPS 1.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
Park, PSB-8 2 4,568.52 385.12 <LOD <LOD 171.82 37.55 30,146.56 373.26 <LOD <LOD

1 3,565.62 332.86 <LOD <LOD 141.87 29.80 16,290.89 211.66 <LOD <LOD
RFPS 2.0-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 3,337.16 328.47 <LOD <LOD 117.76 29.59 16,322.03 216.57 <LOD <LOD

1 7,546.70 499.07 <LOD <LOD 193.11 43.52 37,931.29 487.77 247.92 70.79
RR1PS 0.0-1.5 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
Rocky River 2 6,753.46 472.94 <LOD <LOD 271.17 44.74 39,203.45 491.90 <LOD <LOD
Reservation
(South), PSB-4 1 5,291.81 482.04 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 48,313.57 614.50 261.30 80.59
RR1PS 1.5-3.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
2 5,566.18 482.70 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 48,157.93 605.64 306.82 79.86
1 4,686.08 420.62 <LOD <LOD 364.10 44.86 35,105.10 441.22 <LOD <LOD
RR2PS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
Rocky River 2 5,151.89 412.70 <LOD <LOD 396.83 44.56 34,167.15 422.96 <LOD <LOD
Reservation
(North), PSB-5 1 4,110.21 418.73 <LOD <LOD 195.73 42.02 38,266.59 472.24 <LOD <LOD
RR2PS 2.0-4.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
2 4,948.21 427.13 <LOD <LOD 279.49 43.88 37,506.04 467.38 <LOD <LOD
1 4,614.82 398.13 <LOD <LOD 438.05 43.95 30,525.34 378.51 <LOD <LOD
WCPS 0.0-1.5 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
West Creek 2 5,000.10 414.65 <LOD <LOD 828.24 52.18 31,747.13 392.68 <LOD <LOD
Reservation,
PSB-7 1 6,113.82 443.31 <LOD <LOD 133.24 41.13 40,292.91 495.39 215.59 70.02
WCPS 1.5-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 5,632.34 444.28 169.02 56.13 <LOD <LOD 39,195.97 483.55 <LOD <LOD

QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/27/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 8/13/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 8/13/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
 Screening Titanium, ppm Chromium, ppm Manganese, ppm Iron, ppm Cobalt, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Ti Ti +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/-
1 3,534.42 362.48 <LOD <LOD 265.32 38.70 30,638.02 367.96 <LOD <LOD
BSPS 0.0-0.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 3,744.00 364.64 <LOD <LOD 342.46 41.11 32,758.82 390.10 <LOD <LOD
Brookside 1 4,498.33 416.28 <LOD <LOD 159.35 41.28 38,985.43 482.57 296.84 69.72
Reservation, BSPS 0.5-1.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
PSB-11 2 4,321.98 422.08 <LOD <LOD 306.77 45.01 39,889.22 489.95 215.25 69.56
1 4,408.04 416.99 <LOD <LOD 303.58 44.56 38,764.81 478.64 <LOD <LOD
BSPS 2.5-3.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 4,340.84 433.79 <LOD <LOD 461.77 49.80 40,493.42 511.76 <LOD <LOD

1 4,213.54 384.44 <LOD <LOD 473.96 43.48 27,512.19 345.09 <LOD <LOD
HSPS/E 0.0-1.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
Holy Spirit 2 4,796.65 391.19 <LOD <LOD 431.65 41.75 25,834.62 322.81 <LOD <LOD
Cemetery East,
PSB-10 1 3,821.63 401.43 <LOD <LOD 242.90 42.77 38,606.90 471.08 <LOD <LOD
HSPS/E 1.0-2.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 4,885.60 421.70 <LOD <LOD 357.73 45.88 39,633.16 485.46 277.95 69.58
1 4,404.64 376.94 <LOD <LOD 646.11 46.00 22,584.27 291.65 <LOD <LOD
GRPS 0.0-0.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 4,397.32 377.83 <LOD <LOD 760.51 47.95 22,845.60 292.19 <LOD <LOD

1 5,324.98 393.03 <LOD <LOD 166.68 36.22 26,781.91 336.41 <LOD <LOD
GRPS 0.5-1.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 4,432.97 395.79 <LOD <LOD 130.43 35.43 27,278.26 340.59 <LOD <LOD

1 4,937.14 423.66 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 39,507.30 487.77 239.25 69.69
GRPS 1.0-1.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
Garfield Park 2 4,492.39 417.85 <LOD <LOD 143.94 40.93 40,724.16 491.88 <LOD <LOD
Reservation,
PSB-12 1 5,086.73 439.92 <LOD <LOD 299.13 46.16 41,884.66 522.51 232.05 72.75
GRPS 1.5-2.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 5,418.41 432.18 <LOD <LOD 302.28 45.23 39,820.39 493.39 <LOD <LOD

1 5,095.54 439.14 <LOD <LOD 320.04 47.00 41,739.66 525.72 <LOD <LOD
GRPS 2.0-2.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 5,532.38 436.52 <LOD <LOD 318.65 46.32 40,972.86 511.28 299.46 72.31
1 5,376.69 444.99 <LOD <LOD 405.64 48.33 41,089.26 511.99 <LOD <LOD
GRPS 2.5-3.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 4,993.19 427.11 <LOD <LOD 424.96 48.26 41,631.31 513.04 258.19 71.83
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 8/13/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
 Screening Nickel, ppm Copper, ppm Zinc, ppm Arsenic, ppm Selenium, ppm Rubidium, ppm Strontium, ppm Zirconium, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Zr Zr +/-
Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/17/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

QA/QC High Cal Standard N/A 7/17/12 1 <LOD <LOD 3,055.69 59.44 7,138.94 106.77 802.10 33.58 <LOD <LOD 120.17 4.19 324.82 6.99 97.29 4.17
QA/QC Low Cal Standard N/A 7/17/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 110.43 7.32 15.87 2.84 <LOD <LOD 96.54 3.08 232.76 4.97 131.92 3.83
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

1 <LOD <LOD 39.97 9.36 64.79 5.91 10.02 3.06 <LOD <LOD 162.00 3.92 76.12 2.72 222.47 4.53
HSPS/W 0.0-2.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
Holy Spirit 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 69.01 5.94 13.89 2.94 <LOD <LOD 151.27 3.73 80.48 2.75 205.50 4.30
Cemetery West,
PSB-1 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 93.56 6.79 14.88 2.91 <LOD <LOD 122.43 3.40 98.11 3.07 253.79 4.93
HSPS/W 2.0-4.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 87.61 6.41 19.50 2.86 <LOD <LOD 112.52 3.15 95.36 2.94 230.30 4.53
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 105.53 6.96 11.35 3.35 <LOD <LOD 97.75 2.96 113.56 3.23 276.61 5.08
SGPS 0.0-2.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
St. Gregory 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 102.29 7.00 12.74 3.48 <LOD <LOD 96.81 3.01 100.87 3.11 276.98 5.18
Church, PSB-2 1 64.78 19.15 32.04 9.61 110.79 7.35 17.76 3.05 <LOD <LOD 132.33 3.58 121.98 3.45 213.68 4.56
SGPS 3.5-4.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 86.92 6.79 20.48 3.10 <LOD <LOD 139.51 3.74 123.84 3.53 213.46 4.64
1 <LOD <LOD 43.30 9.15 165.42 8.20 11.98 3.51 <LOD <LOD 63.88 2.36 108.54 3.08 263.46 4.81
SNPS 0.0-1.5 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
St. Nicholas 2 <LOD <LOD 37.87 9.13 178.46 8.61 14.17 3.71 <LOD <LOD 64.70 2.42 96.70 2.96 276.24 5.02
Church, PSB-3 1 <LOD <LOD 47.83 9.24 164.76 8.18 20.90 5.56 <LOD <LOD 54.67 2.22 131.45 3.38 246.55 4.65
SNPS 1.5-3.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 <LOD <LOD 55.72 9.57 167.03 8.38 25.40 5.71 <LOD <LOD 53.19 2.23 121.42 3.31 222.14 4.47
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 3 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/27/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/27/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
Euclid Creek
Reservation, ECPS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
PSB-9
 Screening Nickel, ppm Copper, ppm Zinc, ppm Arsenic, ppm Selenium, ppm Rubidium, ppm Strontium, ppm Zirconium, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Zr Zr +/-
Euclid Creek Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/17/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 93.27 6.60 17.89 3.02 <LOD <LOD 120.66 3.30 71.75 2.62 207.08 4.30
Reservation, Standardization
ECPS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
PSB-9 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 91.60 6.47 18.89 3.08 <LOD <LOD 122.89 3.28 61.16 2.41 192.05 4.07

1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 52.12 5.50 26.49 3.45 <LOD <LOD 175.09 4.10 69.65 2.62 188.97 4.16
HNPS 0.0-1.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
Huntington 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 56.76 5.63 24.15 3.25 <LOD <LOD 175.49 4.09 64.73 2.54 177.12 4.02
Reservation,
PSB-6 1 <LOD <LOD 33.01 9.65 42.09 5.40 22.69 3.32 <LOD <LOD 211.59 4.75 78.15 2.86 166.99 4.08
HNPS 2.0-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD 32.36 9.66 42.22 5.40 18.51 3.15 <LOD <LOD 212.56 4.76 72.72 2.78 169.53 4.11
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 110.34 7.00 12.93 3.51 <LOD <LOD 68.20 2.47 111.88 3.16 281.86 5.07
RFPS 0.0-1.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 87.45 6.39 15.54 3.32 <LOD <LOD 60.87 2.35 108.57 3.13 273.62 4.99

Rockefeller 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 86.08 6.48 18.25 2.99 <LOD <LOD 84.43 2.78 93.19 2.96 275.78 5.09
RFPS 1.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
Park, PSB-8 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 89.72 6.43 17.47 2.86 <LOD <LOD 86.21 2.75 91.18 2.87 269.39 4.93
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 58.79 5.19 9.13 2.20 <LOD <LOD 64.06 2.25 105.29 2.89 262.17 4.58
RFPS 2.0-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 58.58 5.29 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 60.11 2.24 101.48 2.90 266.65 4.72
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 105.81 7.35 28.26 3.44 <LOD <LOD 150.67 3.93 78.26 2.87 207.63 4.56
RR1PS 0.0-1.5 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
Rocky River 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 102.29 7.10 26.26 3.30 <LOD <LOD 147.85 3.81 83.25 2.89 209.84 4.50
Reservation
(South), PSB-4 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 97.54 7.25 20.59 3.18 <LOD <LOD 189.05 4.54 81.95 2.98 185.59 4.38
RR1PS 1.5-3.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 89.65 6.95 25.96 3.23 <LOD <LOD 173.62 4.27 75.75 2.84 168.07 4.13
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 122.35 7.56 17.76 3.38 <LOD <LOD 130.56 3.52 89.79 2.96 235.68 4.73
RR2PS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
Rocky River 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 125.32 7.49 16.30 3.27 <LOD <LOD 123.67 3.36 84.87 2.83 257.97 4.88
Reservation
(North), PSB-5 1 <LOD <LOD 28.20 9.15 94.85 6.79 22.82 3.43 <LOD <LOD 140.89 3.65 96.96 3.04 184.11 4.15
RR2PS 2.0-4.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
2 66.28 18.47 <LOD <LOD 102.72 7.06 20.00 3.42 <LOD <LOD 137.23 3.62 96.35 3.05 202.77 4.38
1 <LOD <LOD 40.01 9.14 88.32 6.45 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 182.40 4.11 66.96 2.53 172.66 3.90
WCPS 0.0-1.5 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
West Creek 2 <LOD <LOD 27.01 8.91 85.58 6.38 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 184.85 4.16 65.12 2.51 171.26 3.90
Reservation,
PSB-7 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 63.79 5.90 15.11 2.97 <LOD <LOD 171.41 4.07 64.83 2.56 217.35 4.49
WCPS 1.5-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 83.75 6.50 17.82 3.07 <LOD <LOD 171.75 4.08 67.57 2.61 224.12 4.57
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/27/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 8/13/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 8/13/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
 Screening Nickel, ppm Copper, ppm Zinc, ppm Arsenic, ppm Selenium, ppm Rubidium, ppm Strontium, ppm Zirconium, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Zr Zr +/-
Pass Internal 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 105.58 6.67 25.82 3.64 <LOD <LOD 106.98 2.98 89.08 2.77 158.72 3.66
QA/QC N/A 7/17/12 1
BSPS 0.0-0.5 ft
Standardization 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 51.05 16.61 <LOD <LOD 105.99 6.70 17.03 3.68 <LOD <LOD 112.27 3.06 97.59 2.89 166.83 3.76
Brookside 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 75.32 6.26 12.08 2.63 <LOD <LOD 143.33 3.70 103.69 3.16 223.18 4.60
Reservation, BSPS 0.5-1.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
PSB-11 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 72.98 6.17 10.31 2.70 <LOD <LOD 143.35 3.68 100.78 3.10 189.35 4.21
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 75.79 6.25 17.59 2.81 <LOD <LOD 134.02 3.55 118.36 3.35 185.71 4.20
BSPS 2.5-3.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD 38.28 9.82 85.49 6.75 10.23 2.93 <LOD <LOD 140.92 3.75 117.92 3.44 193.43 4.40
1 <LOD <LOD 29.00 8.82 63.52 5.71 9.01 2.71 <LOD <LOD 102.54 3.00 94.37 2.92 254.01 4.76
HSPS/E 0.0-1.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
Holy Spirit 2 53.78 16.25 37.53 9.00 71.16 5.88 11.82 2.63 <LOD <LOD 101.63 2.94 94.38 2.88 255.77 4.72
Cemetery East,
PSB-10 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 86.39 6.49 17.00 2.75 <LOD <LOD 124.67 3.38 102.60 3.09 211.98 4.41
HSPS/E 1.0-2.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD 30.89 9.30 78.84 6.34 12.98 2.68 <LOD <LOD 126.53 3.43 109.54 3.21 197.93 4.30
1 <LOD <LOD 34.92 9.01 93.44 6.57 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 72.85 2.53 99.89 2.99 461.25 6.92
GRPS 0.0-0.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 99.25 6.65 12.43 3.25 4.69 1.44 70.93 2.48 95.28 2.90 445.26 6.70
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 64.33 5.77 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 83.74 2.71 89.11 2.84 471.12 7.02
GRPS 0.5-1.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 72.59 5.96 11.80 2.53 <LOD <LOD 81.01 2.65 96.08 2.93 471.19 7.00
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 73.26 6.22 17.02 2.81 <LOD <LOD 109.30 3.20 89.85 2.95 283.46 5.23
GRPS 1.0-1.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
Garfield Park 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 67.88 5.96 14.47 2.85 <LOD <LOD 105.07 3.08 86.40 2.84 304.96 5.36
Reservation,
PSB-12 1 <LOD <LOD 43.59 9.87 98.29 7.06 13.20 2.87 <LOD <LOD 138.33 3.68 102.35 3.18 216.75 4.60
GRPS 1.5-2.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD 33.53 9.51 97.83 6.95 19.05 2.92 <LOD <LOD 135.75 3.60 100.84 3.12 211.21 4.48
1 63.58 19.16 32.57 9.72 81.60 6.64 17.07 2.85 <LOD <LOD 140.14 3.74 110.22 3.33 190.87 4.36
GRPS 2.0-2.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD 41.44 9.75 91.31 6.84 19.31 2.91 <LOD <LOD 147.66 3.81 106.36 3.24 204.69 4.46
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 102.86 7.14 15.55 2.84 <LOD <LOD 138.13 3.67 104.64 3.21 227.29 4.70
GRPS 2.5-3.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 111.65 7.29 13.92 2.90 <LOD <LOD 142.17 3.69 109.23 3.24 204.92 4.42
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 8/13/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
 Screening Molybdenum, ppm Silver, ppm Cadmium, ppm Tin, ppm Antimony, ppm Mercury, ppm Lead, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/-
Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/17/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

QA/QC High Cal Standard N/A 7/17/12 1 22.94 3.61 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 89.39 12.36 5,518.61 80.92
QA/QC Low Cal Standard N/A 7/17/12 1 10.69 3.10 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 18.22 3.65
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

1 11.71 3.08 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 39.15 4.21
HSPS/W 0.0-2.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
Holy Spirit 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 30.80 3.89
Cemetery West,
PSB-1 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 24.52 3.77
HSPS/W 2.0-4.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 20.81 3.56
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 56.15 4.62
SGPS 0.0-2.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
St. Gregory 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 58.46 4.75
Church, PSB-2 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 25.18 3.89
SGPS 3.5-4.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 21.99 3.86
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 70.62 4.83
SNPS 0.0-1.5 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
St. Nicholas 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 77.24 5.08
Church, PSB-3 1 <LOD <LOD 49.76 14.47 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 230.70 7.95
SNPS 1.5-3.0 ft 6/27/12 7/17/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 230.60 8.10
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/17/12 3 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/27/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/27/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

Euclid Creek
Reservation, ECPS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
PSB-9
 Screening Molybdenum, ppm Silver, ppm Cadmium, ppm Tin, ppm Antimony, ppm Mercury, ppm Lead, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/-
Euclid Creek Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 7/17/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 29.88 3.87
Reservation, Standardization
ECPS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
PSB-9 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 34.32 3.94

1 52.43 3.35 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 40.26 4.25
HNPS 0.0-1.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
Huntington 2 48.57 3.31 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 32.36 4.03
Reservation,
PSB-6 1 34.32 3.33 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 14.54 4.49 29.58 4.14
HNPS 2.0-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 34.94 3.33 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 13.41 4.43 26.40 4.04
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 66.74 4.81
RFPS 0.0-1.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 51.80 4.41

Rockefeller 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 26.91 3.78
RFPS 1.0-2.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
Park, PSB-8 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 24.35 3.62
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 11.97 2.96
RFPS 2.0-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 13.29 3.06
1 13.02 3.22 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 28.80 4.09
RR1PS 0.0-1.5 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
Rocky River 2 15.06 3.17 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 27.23 3.98
Reservation
(South), PSB-4 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 20.94 3.98
RR1PS 1.5-3.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 18.91 3.83
1 15.36 3.15 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 45.40 4.42
RR2PS 0.0-2.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
Rocky River 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 44.24 4.31
Reservation
(North), PSB-5 1 13.47 3.08 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 42.95 4.34
RR2PS 2.0-4.0 ft 7/3/12 7/27/12
2 14.03 3.12 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 43.92 4.41
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 71.78 4.99
WCPS 0.0-1.5 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
West Creek 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 81.32 5.23
Reservation,
PSB-7 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 27.03 3.90
WCPS 1.5-3.0 ft 7/11/12 7/27/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 28.28 3.96
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 7/27/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD

Pass Internal
QA/QC N/A 8/13/12 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 8/13/12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
 Screening Molybdenum, ppm Silver, ppm Cadmium, ppm Tin, ppm Antimony, ppm Mercury, ppm Lead, ppm
Sample Sample Sampling Reading
(Analysis) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 50-150 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm) (LOD 10-100 ppm)
Location Identification Date Number
Date Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/-
Pass Internal 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 65.41 4.65
QA/QC N/A 7/17/12 1
BSPS 0.0-0.5 ft
Standardization 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 78.88 4.97
Brookside 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 14.67 3.46
Reservation, BSPS 0.5-1.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
PSB-11 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 20.41 3.65
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 16.71 3.53
BSPS 2.5-3.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 27.06 3.99
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 27.43 3.73
HSPS/E 0.0-1.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
Holy Spirit 2 <LOD <LOD 44.91 14.48 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 21.95 3.49
Cemetery East,
PSB-10 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 15.92 3.47
HSPS/E 1.0-2.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 16.66 3.52
1 11.35 3.16 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 49.24 4.35
GRPS 0.0-0.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 53.03 4.43
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 26.35 3.69
GRPS 0.5-1.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 15.72 3.35
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 16.44 3.54
GRPS 1.0-1.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
Garfield Park 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 23.89 3.71
Reservation,
PSB-12 1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 21.29 3.79
GRPS 1.5-2.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD 47.16 15.25 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 18.67 3.63
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 14.81 3.61
GRPS 2.0-2.5 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 16.60 3.61
1 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 17.85 3.65
GRPS 2.5-3.0 ft 8/1/12 8/13/12
2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 23.66 3.81
QA/QC SiO2 Blank N/A 8/13/12 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
 APPENDIX C

USCS AND USDA SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND TEXTURAL COMPOSITION ANALYSES
 APPENDIX D

PROUCL DATASET RUNS

 Background Statistics for 7 Metals
(Cuyahoga County multiple sites)

Number of Number 95% UTL

Sites of with 90%
Metal Included Outliers % ND Datapoints Maximum Mean SD Distribution VAP MAL Coverage 95% UPL Units Comments
Arsenic 13 1 0.0% 150 28.8 14.06 4.5 No defined distribution {23.1} 22.3 24.0 mg/kg
Barium 13 8 0.0% 143 118 51.86 19.8 No defined distribution {91.5} 89.3 98.9 mg/kg 5 outliers from WCR
Cadmium 12(1) 1 32.8% 128 1.04 0.452 0.191 Normal 0.834 0.737 0.770 mg/kg KM method (recommended due to multiple RLs)
Chromium 13 0 0.0% 151 26.8 14.76 3.151 Normal 21.1 19.4 20.0 mg/kg
Lead 13 19 0.0% 132 70.1 23.81 13.5 No defined distribution {50.8} 49.7 51.7 mg/kg 9 outliers from STG, 8 from STN
Mercury 12(1) 14 1.7% 115 0.146 0.0483 0.029 No defined distribution {0.106} 0.092 0.097 mg/kg 8 outliers from STN, 4 from RFP
Selenium 10(2) 0 32.0% 100 1.13 0.647 0.177 No defined distribution {1.00} 0.917 0.943 mg/kg

(1) Does not include BCMP or BHME 2011 (all nondetects with elevated reporting limits). BHME 2008 data are included. { } = mean + 2SD calculated, but dataset is not normal or lognormal and value may not be
(2) Does not include BCME, BHME, or CHFH (elevated reporting limits). appropriate for use as the MAL.
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File 0-2 for ProUCL - 13 SITES.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers with Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Arsenic

Mean 14.18
Standard Deviation 4.745
Number of data 151
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 14.18 4.729 33.1 117 4 3.522 3.892
2 14.06 4.5 28.8 116 3.276 3.512 3.892
3 13.96 4.348 28.8 119 3.413 3.512 3.892
4 13.86 4.187 26.7 58 3.068 3.512 3.882
5 13.77 4.063 25.2 7 2.813 3.512 3.882
6 13.69 3.964 25.2 114 2.903 3.51 3.88
7 13.61 3.86 24.6 121 2.846 3.508 3.878
8 13.54 3.762 24.5 118 2.914 3.506 3.876
9 13.46 3.661 23.5 61 2.743 3.504 3.874
10 13.39 3.574 23 66 2.689 3.502 3.872

For 5% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier

Therefore, Observation 33.1 is a Potential Statistical Outlier

For 1% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier

Therefore, Observation 33.1 is a Potential Statistical Outlier
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers with Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Barium

Mean 57.71
Standard Deviation 34.25
Number of data 151
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 57.71 34.14 317 4 7.595 3.522 3.892
2 55.98 26.96 148 98 3.413 3.512 3.892
3 55.37 25.96 147 97 3.529 3.512 3.892
4 54.75 24.92 145 99 3.621 3.512 3.882
5 54.13 23.86 143 71 3.725 3.512 3.882
6 53.52 22.77 143 94 3.93 3.51 3.88
7 52.91 21.59 129 1 3.525 3.508 3.878
8 52.38 20.7 127 91 3.605 3.506 3.876
9 51.86 19.8 118 92 3.341 3.504 3.874
10 51.39 19.07 116 79 3.388 3.502 3.872

For 5% significance level, there are 8 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
317, 148, 147, 145, 143, 143, 129, 127

For 1% Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
317, 148, 147, 145, 143, 143
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers for Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Cadmium

Mean 0.528
Standard Deviation 0.218
Number of data 87
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 0.528 0.217 1.36 19 3.844 3.338 3.705
2 0.518 0.199 1.04 16 2.618 3.328 3.698
3 0.512 0.192 1.01 79 2.592 3.328 3.695
4 0.506 0.185 0.952 18 2.407 3.325 3.688
5 0.501 0.18 0.912 64 2.289 3.318 3.685
6 0.496 0.175 0.881 67 2.204 3.319 3.687
7 0.491 0.171 0.846 66 2.082 3.32 3.688
8 0.486 0.167 0.843 17 2.137 3.321 3.69
9 0.482 0.163 0.831 69 2.143 3.322 3.691
10 0.477 0.159 0.802 55 2.041 3.323 3.693

For 5% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier

Therefore, Observation 1.36 is a Potential Statistical Outlier

For 1% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier

Therefore, Observation 1.36 is a Potential Statistical Outlier
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File 0-2 for ProUCL - 13 Sites Indiv.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers with Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Chromium

Mean 14.74
Standard Deviation 2.929
Number of data 149
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 14.74 2.919 22.3 145 2.591 3.517 3.887
2 14.69 2.872 21.7 19 2.443 3.507 3.887
3 14.64 2.822 8.19 99 2.285 3.507 3.887
4 14.68 2.78 20.9 33 2.236 3.507 3.877
5 14.64 2.741 20.8 18 2.248 3.507 3.877
6 14.6 2.702 8.73 113 2.172 3.505 3.875
7 14.64 2.666 20.2 1 2.087 3.503 3.873
8 14.6 2.634 20.2 32 2.127 3.501 3.871
9 14.56 2.6 20.2 149 2.17 3.499 3.869
10 14.52 2.565 20.1 3 2.176 3.497 3.867

For 5% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier

For 1% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier

 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File WorkSheet.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers with Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Lead

Run 1

Mean 36.54
Standard Deviation 38.74
Number of data 151
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 36.54 38.62 203 130 4.311 3.522 3.892
2 35.43 36.39 186 124 4.138 3.512 3.892
3 34.42 34.33 176 132 4.124 3.512 3.892
4 33.46 32.39 170 138 4.215 3.512 3.882
5 32.53 30.46 170 141 4.513 3.512 3.882
6 31.59 28.34 155 125 4.355 3.51 3.88
7 30.74 26.5 138 139 4.048 3.508 3.878
8 29.99 25.02 134 122 4.156 3.506 3.876
9 29.27 23.53 134 140 4.45 3.504 3.874
10 28.53 21.9 114 129 3.903 3.502 3.872

For 5% significance level, there are 10 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
203, 186, 176, 170, 170, 155, 138, 134, 134, 114

For 1% Significance Level, there are 10 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
203, 186, 176, 170, 170, 155, 138, 134, 134, 114
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File WorkSheet.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers with Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Lead

Run 2 (10 outliers already removed)

Mean 27.92
Standard Deviation 20.74
Number of data 141
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 27.92 20.67 112 130 4.068 3.495 3.865
2 27.32 19.55 103 129 3.871 3.487 3.865
3 26.78 18.52 95.2 126 3.694 3.487 3.865
4 26.28 17.64 86.8 123 3.43 3.485 3.855
5 25.84 16.92 86.5 127 3.584 3.485 3.855
6 25.39 16.16 81.5 139 3.472 3.482 3.852
7 24.98 15.47 79.6 125 3.531 3.48 3.85
8 24.57 14.78 76 137 3.479 3.478 3.848
9 24.18 14.14 74.2 122 3.536 3.475 3.845
10 23.81 13.5 70.1 138 3.429 3.473 3.843

For 5% significance level, there are 9 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
112, 103, 95.2, 86.8, 86.5, 81.5, 79.6, 76, 74.2

For 1% Significance Level, there are 2 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
112, 103
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers for Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Mercury

Run 1

Mean 0.0941
Standard Deviation 0.254
Number of data 126
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 0.0941 0.253 2.77 84 10.56 3.453 3.823
2 0.0727 0.0836 0.515 86 5.288 3.448 3.823
3 0.0691 0.0738 0.406 88 4.564 3.448 3.823
4 0.0664 0.0675 0.375 87 4.572 3.443 3.813
5 0.0639 0.0616 0.363 89 4.853 3.443 3.813
6 0.0614 0.0555 0.308 83 4.444 3.44 3.81
7 0.0593 0.0509 0.275 80 4.238 3.437 3.807
8 0.0575 0.0471 0.237 43 3.814 3.434 3.804
9 0.056 0.0442 0.231 44 3.957 3.431 3.801
10 0.0545 0.0413 0.225 46 4.127 3.428 3.798

For 5% significance level, there are 10 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
2.77, 0.515, 0.406, 0.375, 0.363, 0.308, 0.275, 0.237, 0.231, 0.225

For 1% Significance Level, there are 10 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
2.77, 0.515, 0.406, 0.375, 0.363, 0.308, 0.275, 0.237, 0.231, 0.225
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers for Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Mercury

Run 2 (10 outliers already removed)

Mean 0.053
Standard Deviation 0.0383
Number of data 116
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 0.053 0.0381 0.221 103 4.405 3.425 3.795
2 0.0516 0.0351 0.218 77 4.746 3.422 3.795
3 0.0501 0.0315 0.183 43 4.217 3.422 3.795
4 0.0489 0.029 0.146 78 3.343 3.415 3.785
5 0.0481 0.0277 0.135 42 3.143 3.415 3.785
6 0.0473 0.0265 0.128 46 3.045 3.411 3.781
7 0.0466 0.0255 0.12 69 2.884 3.408 3.778
8 0.0459 0.0246 0.117 45 2.893 3.405 3.775
9 0.0452 0.0237 0.115 71 2.943 3.401 3.771
10 0.0446 0.0228 0.113 41 2.997 3.398 3.768

For 5% significance level, there are 3 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
0.221, 0.218, 0.183

For 1% Significance Level, there are 3 Potential Outliers

Therefore, Potential Statistical Outliers are
0.221, 0.218, 0.183
 Outlier Tests for Selected Variables
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Test for Suspected Outliers with Dixon test 1
Test for Suspected Outliers for Rosner test 10

Rosner's Outlier Test for Selenium

Mean 0.596
Standard Deviation 0.193
Number of data 100
Number of suspected outliers 10

Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical

# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 0.596 0.192 1.13 68 2.775 3.38 3.75
2 0.591 0.187 1.09 74 2.675 3.38 3.75
3 0.586 0.181 1.01 75 2.35 3.38 3.75
4 0.581 0.176 0.992 62 2.331 3.37 3.74
5 0.577 0.172 0.975 67 2.314 3.37 3.74
6 0.573 0.168 0.95 65 2.246 3.366 3.736
7 0.569 0.164 0.938 56 2.249 3.362 3.732
8 0.565 0.16 0.911 31 2.158 3.358 3.728
9 0.561 0.157 0.903 57 2.176 3.354 3.724
10 0.557 0.154 0.9 59 2.228 3.35 3.72

For 5% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier

For 1% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier

 General Background Statistics for Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
From File 0-2 for ProUCL - 13 SITES.wst
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 90%
Different or Future K Values 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Arsenic

General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 150 Number of Distinct Observations 97
Tolerance Factor 1.476 Number of Missing Values 1

Raw Statistics Log-Transformed Statistics

Minimum 4.6 Minimum 1.526
Maximum 28.8 Maximum 3.36
Second Largest 28.8 Second Largest 3.36
First Quartile 11.23 First Quartile 2.418
Median 12.9 Median 2.557
Third Quartile 16.18 Third Quartile 2.783
Mean 14.06 Mean 2.595
SD 4.5 SD 0.309
Coefficient of Variation 0.32
Skewness 1.041

Background Statistics
Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.131 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0736
Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0723 Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0723
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% UTL with 90% Coverage 20.7 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 21.14
95% UPL (t) 21.53 95% UPL (t) 22.38
90% Percentile (z) 19.82 90% Percentile (z) 19.91
95% Percentile (z) 21.46 95% Percentile (z) 22.27
99% Percentile (z) 24.53 99% Percentile (z) 27.48

Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution Test

k star 10.45 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 1.345
MLE of Mean 14.06
MLE of Standard Deviation 4.348
nu star 3135
 A-D Test Statistic 1.177 Nonparametric Statistics
5% A-D Critical Value 0.752 90% Percentile 19.84
K-S Test Statistic 0.0942 95% Percentile 23.28
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0765 99% Percentile 27.77
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 22.3

90% Percentile 19.84 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 22.37
95% Percentile 21.89 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 22.9
99% Percentile 26.09 95% UPL 23.95
95% Chebyshev UPL 33.74
95% WH Approx. Gamma UPL 21.91 Upper Threshold Limit Based upon IQR 23.6
95% HW Approx. Gamma UPL 22.01
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 20.86
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 20.91
 General Background Statistics for Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 90%
Different or Future K Values 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Barium

General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 143 Number of Distinct Observations 129
Tolerance Factor 1.481 Number of Missing Values 8

Raw Statistics Log-Transformed Statistics

Minimum 16.4 Minimum 2.797
Maximum 118 Maximum 4.771
Second Largest 116 Second Largest 4.754
First Quartile 40.4 First Quartile 3.699
Median 48.9 Median 3.89
Third Quartile 57.5 Third Quartile 4.052
Mean 51.86 Mean 3.883
SD 19.8 SD 0.362
Coefficient of Variation 0.382
Skewness 1.308

Background Statistics
Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.14 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0748
Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0741 Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0741
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% UTL with 90% Coverage 81.18 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 82.96
95% UPL (t) 84.75 95% UPL (t) 88.55
90% Percentile (z) 77.23 90% Percentile (z) 77.19
95% Percentile (z) 84.42 95% Percentile (z) 88.02
99% Percentile (z) 97.92 99% Percentile (z) 112.6

Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution Test

k star 7.625 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 6.801
MLE of Mean 51.86
MLE of Standard Deviation 18.78
nu star 2181
 A-D Test Statistic 1.402 Nonparametric Statistics
5% A-D Critical Value 0.753 90% Percentile 78.04
K-S Test Statistic 0.0921 95% Percentile 95.54
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0784 99% Percentile 115.2
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 89.3

90% Percentile 76.91 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 88.96
95% Percentile 86.11 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 88.82
99% Percentile 105.2 95% UPL 98.94
95% Chebyshev UPL 138.5
95% WH Approx. Gamma UPL 86.18 Upper Threshold Limit Based upon IQR 83.15
95% HW Approx. Gamma UPL 86.63
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 81.55
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 81.8
 General Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 90%
Different or Future K Values 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Cadmium

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 128 Number of Detected Data 86
Number of Distinct Detected Data 81 Number of Non-Detect Data 42
Tolerance Factor 1.493 Percent Non-Detects 32.81%
Number of Missing Values 1

Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics

Minimum Detected 0.223 Minimum Detected -1.501
Maximum Detected 1.04 Maximum Detected 0.0392
Mean of Detected 0.518 Mean of Detected -0.733
SD of Detected 0.199 SD of Detected 0.396
Minimum Non-Detect 0.402 Minimum Non-Detect -0.911
Maximum Non-Detect 0.582 Maximum Non-Detect -0.541

Data with Multiple Detection Limits Single Detection Limit Scenario

Note: Data have multiple DLs - Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non-Detect with Single DL 97
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected with Single DL 31
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non-Detect Percentage 75.78%

Background Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.085 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.102
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0955 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0955
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.422 Mean (Log Scale) -0.983
SD 0.214 SD (Log Scale) 0.485
95% UTL 90% Coverage 0.741 95% UTL 90% Coverage 0.773
95% UPL (t) 0.778 95% UPL (t) 0.839
90% Percentile (z) 0.696 90% Percentile (z) 0.697
95% Percentile (z) 0.774 95% Percentile (z) 0.832
99% Percentile (z) 0.919 99% Percentile (z) 1.158

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method

 Mean 0.401 Mean in Original Scale 0.457
SD 0.258 SD in Original Scale 0.185
95% UTL with 90% Coverage 0.786 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 0.739
95% BCA UTL with 90% Coverage 0.811
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL with 90% Coverage 0.811
95% UPL (t) 0.83 95% UPL (t) 0.787
90% Percentile (z) 0.732 90% Percentile (z) 0.683
95% Percentile (z) 0.825 95% Percentile (z) 0.781
99% Percentile (z) 1.001 99% Percentile (z) 1.005

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 6.575 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 0.0788
nu star 1131

A-D Test Statistic 0.538 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A-D Critical Value 0.753 Kaplan-Meier (KM) Method
K-S Test Statistic 0.0768 Mean 0.452
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0965 SD 0.191
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.0175
95% KM UTL with 90% Coverage 0.737
Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1.289
Gamma ROS Statistics with Extrapolated Data 95% KM UPL (t) 0.77
Mean 0.473 90% Percentile (z) 0.697
Median 0.404 95% Percentile (z) 0.766
SD 0.176 99% Percentile (z) 0.897
k star 8.061
Theta star 0.0587 Gamma ROS Limits with Extrapolated Data
Nu star 2064 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.777
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 26.45 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.78
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 0.739
90% Percentile 0.695 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 0.74
95% Percentile 0.776
99% Percentile 0.944

Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.

 General Background Statistics for Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
From File WorkSheet.wst
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 90%
Different or Future K Values 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Chromium

General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 151 Number of Distinct Observations 86
Tolerance Factor 1.475

Raw Statistics Log-Transformed Statistics

Minimum 6.11 Minimum 1.81
Maximum 26.8 Maximum 3.288
Second Largest 22.3 Second Largest 3.105
First Quartile 12.5 First Quartile 2.526
Median 14.3 Median 2.66
Third Quartile 16.9 Third Quartile 2.827
Mean 14.76 Mean 2.669
SD 3.151 SD 0.219
Coefficient of Variation 0.214
Skewness 0.405

Background Statistics
Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0679 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0619
Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0721 Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0721
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% UTL with 90% Coverage 19.41 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 19.92
95% UPL (t) 19.99 95% UPL (t) 20.74
90% Percentile (z) 18.8 90% Percentile (z) 19.09
95% Percentile (z) 19.94 95% Percentile (z) 20.67
99% Percentile (z) 22.09 99% Percentile (z) 23.99

Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution Test

k star 21.34 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 0.692
MLE of Mean 14.76
MLE of Standard Deviation 3.195
nu star 6446
 A-D Test Statistic 0.184 Nonparametric Statistics
5% A-D Critical Value 0.75 90% Percentile 18.9
K-S Test Statistic 0.0474 95% Percentile 20.15
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0761 99% Percentile 22
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 19.3

90% Percentile 18.97 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 19.3
95% Percentile 20.38 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 19.3
99% Percentile 23.19 95% UPL 20.2
95% Chebyshev UPL 28.54
95% WH Approx. Gamma UPL 20.4 Upper Threshold Limit Based upon IQR 23.5
95% HW Approx. Gamma UPL 20.47
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 19.68
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 19.73
 General Background Statistics for Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
From File WorkSheet.wst
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 90%
Different or Future K Values 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Lead

General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 132 Number of Distinct Observations 109
Tolerance Factor 1.49 Number of Missing Values 19

Raw Statistics Log-Transformed Statistics

Minimum 8.2 Minimum 2.104
Maximum 70.1 Maximum 4.25
Second Largest 63.9 Second Largest 4.157
First Quartile 14.19 First Quartile 2.652
Median 18.8 Median 2.934
Third Quartile 29.83 Third Quartile 3.395
Mean 23.81 Mean 3.034
SD 13.5 SD 0.506
Coefficient of Variation 0.567
Skewness 1.294

Background Statistics
Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.182 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.114
Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0771 Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0771
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% UTL with 90% Coverage 43.92 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 44.18
95% UPL (t) 46.26 95% UPL (t) 48.22
90% Percentile (z) 41.11 90% Percentile (z) 39.76
95% Percentile (z) 46.01 95% Percentile (z) 47.78
99% Percentile (z) 55.22 99% Percentile (z) 67.46

Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution Test

k star 3.766 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 6.32
MLE of Mean 23.81
MLE of Standard Deviation 12.27
nu star 994.3
 A-D Test Statistic 3.705 Nonparametric Statistics
5% A-D Critical Value 0.757 90% Percentile 47.94
K-S Test Statistic 0.122 95% Percentile 51.27
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0815 99% Percentile 62.54
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 49.7

90% Percentile 40.25 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 49.66
95% Percentile 46.89 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 49.66
99% Percentile 61.12 95% UPL 51.67
95% Chebyshev UPL 82.88
95% WH Approx. Gamma UPL 46.9 Upper Threshold Limit Based upon IQR 53.28
95% HW Approx. Gamma UPL 47.14
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 43.66
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 43.73
 General Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 90%
Different or Future K Values 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Mercury

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 115 Number of Detected Data 113
Number of Distinct Detected Data 104 Number of Non-Detect Data 2
Tolerance Factor 1.506 Percent Non-Detects 1.74%
Number of Missing Values 14

Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics

Minimum Detected 0.0131 Minimum Detected -4.335
Maximum Detected 0.146 Maximum Detected -1.924
Mean of Detected 0.0489 Mean of Detected -3.168
SD of Detected 0.029 SD of Detected 0.542
Minimum Non-Detect 0.0116 Minimum Non-Detect -4.457
Maximum Non-Detect 0.0118 Maximum Non-Detect -4.44

Data with Multiple Detection Limits Single Detection Limit Scenario

Note: Data have multiple DLs - Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non-Detect with Single DL 2
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected with Single DL 113
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non-Detect Percentage 1.74%

Background Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.199 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0917
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0833 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0833
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.0482 Mean (Log Scale) -3.203
SD 0.0293 SD (Log Scale) 0.597
95% UTL 90% Coverage 0.0924 95% UTL 90% Coverage 0.0999
95% UPL (t) 0.097 95% UPL (t) 0.11
90% Percentile (z) 0.0858 90% Percentile (z) 0.0873
95% Percentile (z) 0.0964 95% Percentile (z) 0.108
99% Percentile (z) 0.116 99% Percentile (z) 0.163

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method

 Mean 0.048 Mean in Original Scale 0.0483
SD 0.0295 SD in Original Scale 0.0292
95% UTL with 90% Coverage 0.0924 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 0.0966
95% BCA UTL with 90% Coverage 0.112
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL with 90% Coverage 0.113
95% UPL (t) 0.0971 95% UPL (t) 0.106
90% Percentile (z) 0.0858 90% Percentile (z) 0.0851
95% Percentile (z) 0.0965 95% Percentile (z) 0.105
99% Percentile (z) 0.117 99% Percentile (z) 0.154

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 3.379 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 0.0145
nu star 763.8

A-D Test Statistic 1.735 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A-D Critical Value 0.758 Kaplan-Meier (KM) Method
K-S Test Statistic 0.13 Mean 0.0483
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0866 SD 0.029
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.00272
95% KM UTL with 90% Coverage 0.092
Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.175
Gamma ROS Statistics with Extrapolated Data 95% KM UPL (t) 0.0967
Mean 0.0481 90% Percentile (z) 0.0855
Median 0.0406 95% Percentile (z) 0.0961
SD 0.0295 99% Percentile (z) 0.116
k star 1.677
Theta star 0.0287 Gamma ROS Limits with Extrapolated Data
Nu star 385.8 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.11
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 8.421 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.121
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 0.102
90% Percentile 0.0975 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 0.11
95% Percentile 0.121
99% Percentile 0.173

Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.

 General Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
User Selected Options
From File All Data - 13 Sites.wst
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 90%
Different or Future K Values 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Selenium

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 100 Number of Detected Data 68
Number of Distinct Detected Data 65 Number of Non-Detect Data 32
Tolerance Factor 1.524 Percent Non-Detects 32.00%

Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics

Minimum Detected 0.411 Minimum Detected -0.889
Maximum Detected 1.13 Maximum Detected 0.122
Mean of Detected 0.672 Mean of Detected -0.436
SD of Detected 0.191 SD of Detected 0.281
Minimum Non-Detect 0.773 Minimum Non-Detect -0.257
Maximum Non-Detect 1.02 Maximum Non-Detect 0.0198

Data with Multiple Detection Limits Single Detection Limit Scenario

Note: Data have multiple DLs - Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non-Detect with Single DL 98
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected with Single DL 2
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non-Detect Percentage 98.00%

Background Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.144 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.113
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.107 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.107
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.596 Mean (Log Scale) -0.564
SD 0.193 SD (Log Scale) 0.301
95% UTL 90% Coverage 0.891 95% UTL 90% Coverage 0.9
95% UPL (t) 0.919 95% UPL (t) 0.94
90% Percentile (z) 0.844 90% Percentile (z) 0.836
95% Percentile (z) 0.914 95% Percentile (z) 0.933
99% Percentile (z) 1.046 99% Percentile (z) 1.145

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

Mean in Original Scale 0.647
 SD in Original Scale 0.162
Mean in Log Scale -0.464
SD in Log Scale 0.236
95% UTL 90% Coverage 0.9
95% UPL (t) 0.932
90% Percentile (z) 0.85
95% Percentile (z) 0.926
99% Percentile (z) 1.088

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 12.42 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 0.0541
nu star 1690

A-D Test Statistic 1.259 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A-D Critical Value 0.75 Kaplan-Meier (KM) Method
K-S Test Statistic 0.125 Mean 0.647
5% K-S Critical Value 0.108 SD 0.177
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.02
95% KM UTL with 90% Coverage 0.917
Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1.423
Gamma ROS Statistics with Extrapolated Data 95% KM UPL (t) 0.943
Mean 0.67 90% Percentile (z) 0.874
Median 0.657 95% Percentile (z) 0.938
SD 0.157 99% Percentile (z) 1.059
k star 18.3
Theta star 0.0366 Gamma ROS Limits with Extrapolated Data
Nu star 3660 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.948
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 51.72 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 0.951
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 0.92
90% Percentile 0.877 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 90% Coverage 0.922
95% Percentile 0.946
99% Percentile 1.087

Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.