DOE/ID-22219

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy

Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites 

At and Near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5169

1990 1995 2000 2005

USGS 9 (432740113044501)

1990 1995 2000 2005

USGS 32 (434444112322101)

Orthophosphate as P, in milligrams per liter Chloride, in milligrams per liter

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

10

15

20

25

30

35 Theil-Sen line

p-value < 0.001

Akritas-Theil-Sen line

p-value = 0.01
Cover: Graphical presentation showing decreasing trending uncensored chloride data for 

well USGS 9 and increasing trending censored orthophosphate data for well USGS 32.
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected 

Sites At and Near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 

1949–2009

By Roy C. Bartholomay, Linda C. Davis, Jason C. Fisher, Betty J. Tucker, and Flint A. Raben

DOE/ID-22219

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5169

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Bartholomay, R.C., Davis, L.C., Fisher, J.C., Tucker, B.J., and Raben, F.A., 2012, Water-quality characteristics and trends 

for selected sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2012–5169 (DOE/ID 22219), 68 p. plus appendixes.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Geohydrologic Setting .........................................................................................................................2

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................4

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................6

Sample Collection and Analyses........................................................................................................6

Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................................8

Guidelines for Interpretation of Analytical Results ........................................................................8

Statistical Data Analysis Methods...................................................................................................11

Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends ..............................................................................................12

Significance of Trends at Each Well or Site............................................................................................27

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................34

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................35

Appendix A. Package ‘Trends’...................................................................................................................67

Appendix B. Plots of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature from selected sites, 

1950–2009.........................................................................................................................................67

Appendix C. Plots of selected constituents from selected sites, 1949–2009 .....................................67

Appendix D. Theil-Sen slope line and p-values for selected constituents for uncensored data 

from selected sites.........................................................................................................................67

Appendix E. Theil-Sen slope line and p-values for selected constituents for censored data from 

selected sites..................................................................................................................................67
iv

Figures

 Figure 1. Map showing location of surface-water sites and selected facilities, Idaho 

National Laboratory, Idaho ............................................................... 3

 Figure 2. Map showing location of wells at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho 7

 Figure 3. Map showing areal distribution of specific conductance trends in water from 

selected wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 13

 Figure 4. Map showing areal distribution of water temperature trends in water from 

selected wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 15

 Figure 5. Map showing areal distribution of sodium concentration trends in water from 

selected wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 17

 Figure 6. Map showing areal distribution of chloride concentration trends in water from 

selected wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 19

 Figure 7. Graphs showing chloride trends using the entire dataset versus data collected 

since pumps were installed in wells USGS 6, 27, and 101 at the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 20

 Figure 8. Graphs showing variable increases and decreases of chloride, sodium, and 

sulfate concentrations relative to water-level changes at wells USGS 12 and 32 

and changes in flow from the Big Lost River, Idaho .................................... 22

 Figure 9. Map showing areal distribution of sulfate concentration trends in water from 

selected wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 24

 Figure 10. Map showing areal distribution of nitrate concentration trends in water from 

selected wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 25

Tables

 Table 1. Summary of selected previous investigations on geology, hydrology, and water 

characteristics of groundwater and perched groundwater, Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1961–2008 ............................................................ 5

 Table 2. Site information for sampling sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho ........................................................................... 9

 Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results 

for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and 

near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009 ................................. 40

 Table 4. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of censored water-quality results for 

selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near 

the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1980–2009 ....................................... 48

 Table 5. Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, 

specific conductance, and water temperature for wells after installation of 

dedicated pumps and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009 ............................................................ 54

 Table 6. Summary of water-quality results for selected radiochemical constituents in 

water in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho 

National Laboratory, Idaho ............................................................... 61
v

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Abbreviations and Acronyms

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

Hydraulic conductivity

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

Hydraulic gradient

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

Transmissivity*

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d)

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Volume

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

Mass

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound avoirdupois (lb)

Radioactivity

picocurie per liter (pCi/L) 0.037 Becquerel per liter Bq/L

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm 

at 25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
vi

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation 

or Acronym Definition

ATRC Advanced Test Reactor Complex (formerly RTC, Reactor 

Technology Complex, and TRA, Test Reactor Area)

CFCs chlorofluorocarbons

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

ESRP eastern Snake River Plain

E-value estimated value

INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (1974–97)

INL Idaho National Laboratory

INTEC Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

LRL laboratory reporting level

LT-MDL long-term method detection level

MCL maximum contaminant level

NRF Naval Reactors Facility

NWIS National Water Information System

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory (USGS)

PBF Power Burst Facility

RESL Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (DOE)

QA quality assurance

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex

s sample standard deviation

SDA Subsurface Disposal Area

TAN Test Area North

TOC total organic carbon

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected 

Sites At and Near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 

1949–2009

By Roy C. Bartholomay, Linda C. Davis, Jason C. Fisher, Betty J. Tucker, and Flint A. Raben

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

U.S. Department of Energy, analyzed water-quality data 

collected from 67 aquifer wells and 7 surface-water sites 

at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) from 1949 through 

2009. The data analyzed included major cations, anions, 

nutrients, trace elements, and total organic carbon. The 

analyses were performed to examine water-quality trends that 

might inform future management decisions about the number 

of wells to sample at the INL and the type of constituents 

to monitor. Water-quality trends were determined using 

(1) the nonparametric Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient, 

p-value, Theil-Sen slope estimator, and summary statistics 

for uncensored data; and (2) the Kaplan-Meier method for 

calculating summary statistics, Kendall’s tau correlation 

coefficient, p-value, and Akritas-Theil-Sen slope estimator for 

robust linear regression for censored data. 

Statistical analyses for chloride concentrations indicate 

that groundwater influenced by Big Lost River seepage has 

decreasing chloride trends or, in some cases, has variable 

chloride concentration changes that correlate with aboveaverage and below-average periods of recharge. Analyses of 

trends for chloride in water samples from four sites located 

along the Big Lost River indicate a decreasing trend or no 

trend for chloride, and chloride concentrations generally 

are much lower at these four sites than those in the aquifer. 

Above-average and below-average periods of recharge also 

affect concentration trends for sodium, sulfate, nitrate, and 

a few trace elements in several wells. Analyses of trends for 

constituents in water from several of the wells that is mostly 

regionally derived groundwater generally indicate increasing 

trends for chloride, sodium, sulfate, and nitrate concentrations. 

These increases are attributed to agricultural or other 

anthropogenic influences on the aquifer upgradient of the INL. 

Statistical trends of chemical constituents from several 

wells near the Naval Reactors Facility may be influenced 

by wastewater disposal at the facility or by anthropogenic 

influence from the Little Lost River basin. Groundwater 

samples from three wells downgradient of the Power Burst 

Facility area show increasing trends for chloride, nitrate, 

sodium, and sulfate concentrations. The increases could be 

caused by wastewater disposal in the Power Burst Facility 

area. 

Some groundwater samples in the southwestern part of 

the INL and southwest of the INL show concentration trends 

for chloride and sodium that may be influenced by wastewater 

disposal. Some of the groundwater samples have decreasing 

trends that could be attributed to the decreasing concentrations 

in the wastewater from the late 1970s to 2009. The young 

fraction of groundwater in many of the wells is more than 20 

years old, so samples collected in the early 1990s are more 

representative of groundwater discharged in the 1960s and 

1970s, when concentrations in wastewater were much higher. 

Groundwater sampled in 2009 would be representative of the 

lower concentrations of chloride and sodium in wastewater 

discharged in the late 1980s. Analyses of trends for sodium 

in several groundwater samples from the central and southern 

part of the eastern Snake River aquifer show increasing trends. 

In most cases, however, the sodium concentrations are less 

than background concentrations measured in the aquifer. Many 

of the wells are open to larger mixed sections of the aquifer, 

and the increasing trends may indicate that the long history of 

wastewater disposal in the central part of the INL is increasing 

sodium concentrations in the groundwater.
2 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Introduction

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL), operated by 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), encompasses 

about 890 mi2 of the eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP) 

in southeastern Idaho (fig. 1). The INL was established 

in 1949 to develop atomic energy, nuclear safety, defense 

programs, environmental research, and advanced energy 

concepts. Wastewater disposal sites at the Test Area North 

(TAN), the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF), the Advanced 

Test Reactor Complex (ATRC), and the Idaho Nuclear 

Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) (fig. 1) have 

contributed radioactive- and chemical-waste contaminants to 

the ESRP aquifer. These sites incorporated various wastewater 

disposal methods, including lined evaporation ponds, unlined 

infiltration ponds and ditches, drain fields, and injection wells. 

Waste materials buried in shallow pits and trenches within 

the Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) at the Radioactive 

Waste Management Complex (RWMC) also have contributed 

contaminants to groundwater. 

Since 1949, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

has worked in cooperation with the DOE at the INL to 

define: (1) the quality and availability of water for human 

consumption, (2) the usability of the water for supporting 

construction and cooling of facilities and for diluting 

concentrated waste streams, (3) the location and movement of 

contaminants in the ESRP aquifer, (4) the sources of recharge 

to the aquifer, (5) an early detection network for contaminants 

moving past the INL boundaries, and (6) the processes 

controlling the origin and distribution of contaminants and 

naturally occurring constituents in the aquifer (Ackerman and 

others, 2010).

Since its inception, this water-quality monitoring program 

at the INL has included a network that once numbered as 

many as 200 wells. The network of wells has been sampled 

over the years for tritium, strontium-90, iodine-129, 

cesium-137, plutonium-238, plutonium-239, -240 (undivided), 

americium-241, gross alpha- and gross beta-radioactivity, 

sodium, bromide, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, chromium 

and other trace elements, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

and total organic carbon (TOC) (Bartholomay, 2009; Davis, 

2010). Most of the wells in this network were constructed as 

open boreholes, and many are open to the aquifer throughout 

their entire depth below the water table. 

Purpose and Scope

This report presents an analysis of water-quality data 

characteristics and trends collected from selected wells 

and surface-water sites at and near the INL. Water-quality 

trends are examined to aid future management decisions 

regarding the number of wells to sample at the INL and the 

type of constituents to monitor. The criteria for selecting the 

sampling sites analyzed in this report were (1) that at least 

10 years of data were available for each site, and (2) that the 

sites represented water that probably was not affected by INL 

wastewater disposal as related to radionuclide concentrations. 

Future work will examine water-quality trends in aquifer 

wells and in perched groundwater known to be affected by 

wastewater disposal. 

Selected constituents were analyzed in water collected 

from 67 aquifer wells and 7 surface-water sites. The selected 

constituents were tritium, strontium-90, cesium-137, 

plutonium-238, plutonium-239, -240 (undivided), 

americium-241, gross alpha- and beta-particle radioactivity, 

calcium, magnesium, potassium, silica, sodium, bromide, 

chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate (as N), orthophosphate 

(as P), chromium and other trace elements, and total organic 

carbon. For uncensored data, concentrations of selected 

constituents were plotted against time to evaluate the data; 

further trend analyses were performed using the nonparametric 

Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient and the Theil-Sen 

slope estimator; and summary statistics were calculated. 

For censored data, Kaplan-Meier estimates for calculating 

summary statistics, Kendall’s tau, and the Akritas-Theil-Sen 

slope estimator for robust linear regression were calculated.

Because nonparametric methods were used, the assumption of 

normality was not required. 

Geohydrologic Setting

The INL is located on the west-central part of the ESRP. 

The ESRP is a northeast-trending structural basin about 

200 mi long and 50 to 70 mi wide (fig. 1). The basin, bounded 

by faults on the northwest and by downwarping and faulting 

on the southeast, has been filled with basaltic lava flows 

interbedded with terrestrial sediments. The basaltic rocks 

and sedimentary deposits combine to form the ESRP aquifer, 

which is the primary source of groundwater on the plain. 

The ESRP aquifer is one of the most productive aquifers 

in the United States (U.S. Geological Survey, 1985, p. 193). 

Groundwater generally moves from northeast to southwest, 

and eventually discharges to springs along the Snake River 

downstream of Twin Falls, Idaho, about 100 mi southwest 

of the INL (fig. 1). Groundwater moves horizontally through 

basalt interflow zones and vertically through joints and 

interfingering edges of interflow zones. Infiltration of surface 

water, heavy pumpage, geohydrologic conditions, and 

seasonal fluxes of recharge and discharge locally affect the 

movement of groundwater (Garabedian, 1986). The ESRP 

aquifer is recharged primarily from infiltration of applied 

irrigation water, infiltration of streamflow, groundwater inflow 

from adjoining mountain drainage basins, and infiltration of 

precipitation (Ackerman and others, 2006). 
Introduction 3

tac12-0715_fig01.ai

26

93

20

26

33

22

28

20

93 Mud

Lake

Big

Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Mackay

Reservoir

Camas

Creek

Birch Creek

sinks

Big Lost 

River

playas 

and sinks

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

PIONEER MOUNTAINS

WHITE KNOB

MOUNTAINS

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

Mackay

TAN

ATRC

INTEC

CFA

NRF

RWMC

MFC

PBF

Spreading

areas 13132520

Big Lost River below INL 

diversion, near Arco

13132500

Big Lost River

near Arco

13127000

Big Lost River below 

Mackay Reservoir,

near Mackay

13132545

Big Lost River at 

Experimental Dairy

Farm, near Howe

13119000

Little Lost River

near Howe

13115000

Mud Lake

near Terreton

13117020

Birch Creek at

Blue Dome Inn

near Reno 

13132520

MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

USGS surface-water site sampled and No.

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

44°

45’

43°30’

113°30’ 15’ 113° 45’ 30’ 112°15’

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927 0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

,

Figure 1. Location of surface-water sites and selected facilities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
4 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

At the INL, depth to water in wells completed in the 

ESRP aquifer ranges from about 200 ft below land surface 

in the northern part of the INL to more than 900 ft below 

land surface in the southeastern part of the INL. A significant 

proportion of the groundwater moves through the upper 200 

to 800 ft of basaltic rock (Mann, 1986, p. 21). Ackerman 

(1991a, p. 30) and Bartholomay and others (1997, table 3) 

reported transmissivity values for basalt in the upper part of 

the aquifer ranging from 1.1 to 760,000 ft2/d. The hydraulic 

gradient at the INL ranges from 2 to 10 ft/mi, with an average 

of 4 ft/mi (Davis, 2010, fig. 9). Horizontal flow velocities of 

2 to 25 ft/d have been calculated based on the movement of 

various constituents in different areas of the aquifer at and 

near the INL (Robertson and others, 1974; Mann and Beasley, 

1994; Cecil and others, 2000; Plummer and others, 2000; and 

Busenberg and others, 2001). These flow rates equate to a 

travel time of about 60 to 700 years for water beneath the INL 

to travel to springs that discharge at the terminus of the ESRP 

groundwater-flow system. Localized tracer tests at the INL 

have shown that vertical- and horizontal-transport rates are 

as high as 60 to 150 ft/d (Nimmo and others, 2002; Duke and 

others, 2007).

Olmsted (1962), Robertson and others (1974), and 

Busenberg and others (2001) classified groundwater at the 

INL based on chemical types derived from dissolution of 

the rocks and minerals within the recharge source areas. 

Olmsted’s type A water consisted of calcium and magnesium 

concentrations that constituted at least 85 percent of the 

cations and bicarbonate constituted at least 70 percent of the 

anions. Type A water is present in the central and western part 

of the INL. Type A water is attributed to seepage loss from the 

Big Lost River and from groundwater underflow from the Big 

Lost River, Little Lost River, and Birch Creek drainage basins 

to the west and northwest of the INL (fig. 1) that contain 

alluvium derived from Paleozoic carbonate rocks from the 

surrounding mountains. 

Olmsted’s type B water, which is characterized by 

higher equivalent fractions of sodium, potassium, fluoride, 

and silica than type A water, underlies much of the eastern 

part of the INL and is often referred to as regional water. The 

groundwater originates from the area northeast of the INL 

that is composed of a much higher fraction of rhyolitic and 

andesitic volcanic rocks than mountains surrounding the INL 

that contribute to Type A water. Busenberg and others (2001) 

used age dating techniques of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 

sulfur hexafluoride, and tritium/helium to further classify 

the regional water at the INL into two types based on the 

recharge type of the young fraction of groundwater. Water in 

the southeastern part of the INL represented a binary mixture 

of old (water greater than 40 and 55 years old that did not 

contain tritium or CFCs, respectively) regional groundwater 

underflow with young water derived from rapid, focused 

recharge, probably from precipitation infiltration. Water in 

the northeastern part of the INL is old, regional groundwater 

underflow that is mixed with local rapid, focused recharge; 

slow, diffuse areal recharge through the unsaturated zone; 

and agricultural return flow from the Mud Lake and Terreton 

areas (fig. 1). 

Previous Investigations

Hydrologic conditions and the distribution of selected 

wastewater constituents in groundwater and perched 

groundwater are discussed in a series of reports describing 

the INL. Table 1 summarizes selected previous investigations 

of the geology, hydrology, and water characteristics at and 

near the INL, specifies the periods covered by some of those 

investigations, and lists report citations. Full references 

for these citations are available in the section, “References 

Cited.” Numerous previous investigations on the hydrology 

and geology at the INL have been done by INL contractors, 

state agencies, and the USGS. The USGS provides a list 

of references and hyperlinks to published reports from its 

previous INL studies at the USGS INL Project Office Web 

site, accessed May 7, 2012, at http://id.water.usgs.gov/

projects/INL/index.html.

Some qualitative information about trends of selected 

constituents for selected wells is given in the more recent 

hydrologic conditions reports listed in table 1, and trend data 

are given for wastewater constituents from several wells 

that are affected by wastewater disposal in Davis (2010). 

Trends for most of the constituents plotted show decreasing 

concentrations because of the changes in the methods of 

disposal, dilution, and dispersion in the aquifer, and reductions 

of amounts of constituents being discharged. One exception 

is an increasing trend in carbon tetrachloride in a well at the 

RWMC (Davis, 2010, fig. 29). 

Knobel (2006) plotted water-quality data from 1990 

through 2003 for 30 wells downgradient of the INTEC to 

visually compare historical data collected after purging three 

well volumes with data collected after purging one well 

volume. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations indicated that 

the data were comparable for the 30 wells studied. 

Concentration trends for selected wells not affected by 

wastewater disposal at the INL are given for iron, zinc, and 

nitrate in U.S. Department of Energy (2010). That study 

indicated that the use of galvanized pipes in some of the wells 

probably is responsible for elevated zinc concentrations. 

Concentrations for nitrate were plotted for wells USGS 2, 100, 

and 101, and the increasing trends were attributed to long-term 

agricultural practices northeast of the INL. 
Introduction 5

Table 1. Summary of selected previous investigations on geology, hydrology, and water characteristics of groundwater and perched 

groundwater, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1961–2008.

[Modified from Davis (2010). Summary: ICPP, Idaho Chemical Processing Plant; INEL, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; INEEL, Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; INL, Idaho National Laboratory; INTEC, Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center; NRTS, National 

Reactor Testing Station; RTC, Reactor Technology Complex; RWMC, Radioactive Waste Management Complex]

Reference Investigation 

period Summary

Groundwater

Jones (1961) Hydrology of waste disposal at the NRTS, Idaho.

Olmsted (1962) Chemical and physical character of groundwater at the NRTS, Idaho.

Morris and others (1963, 1964, 1965) Hydrology of waste disposal at the NRTS, Idaho.

Barraclough and others (1967a) 1965 Hydrology of the NRTS, Idaho.

Barraclough and others (1967b) 1966 Hydrology of the NRTS, Idaho.

Nace and others (1975) Generalized geologic framework of the NRTS, Idaho.

Robertson and others (1974) Effects of waste disposal on the geochemistry of groundwater at the NRTS, Idaho.

Barraclough and others (1976) Hydrology of the solid waste burial ground (now the RWMC).

Barracough and Jenson (1976) 1971–73 Hydrologic data for the Idaho INEL, Idaho.

Barraclough and others (1981) 1974–78 Hydrologic conditions for the INEL, Idaho.

Lewis and Jensen (1985) 1979–81 Hydrologic conditions for the INEL, Idaho.

Pittman and others (1988) 1982–85 Hydrologic conditions for the INEL, Idaho.

Ackerman (1991a) Analyzed data from 183 aquifer tests conducted in 94 wells to estimate 

transmissivity of basalts and sedimentary interbeds containing groundwater 

beneath the INL.

Orr and Cecil (1991) 1986–88 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected chemical constituents in water 

at the INEL, Idaho.

Bartholomay and others (1995) 1989–91 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in water, INEL, Idaho.

Bartholomay and others (1997) 1992–95 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in water, INEL, Idaho.

Bartholomay and others (2000) 1996–98 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected constituents in water, INEEL, 

Idaho.

Davis (2006b) 1999–2001 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in water, INL, Idaho.

Ackerman and others (2006) Conceptual model of groundwater flow in the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, 

INL, with implications for contaminant transport.

Davis (2008) 2002–05 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in groundwater and perched groundwater, INL, Idaho.

Davis (2010) 2006–08 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in groundwater and perched groundwater, INL, Idaho.

Perched groundwater

Barraclough and others (1967a) 1965 Extent of perched groundwater and distribution of selected wastewater 

constituents in perched groundwater at the RTC.

Barraclough and others (1967b) 1966 Extent of perched groundwater and distribution of selected wastewater 

constituents in perched groundwater at the RTC.

Robertson and others (1974) Analysis of perched groundwater and conditions related to the disposal of 

wastewater to the subsurface at the INEL.

Barraclough and Jensen (1976) Extent of perched groundwater and distribution of selected wastewater 

constituents in perched groundwater at the RTC.

Robertson (1976) Numerical model simulating flow and transport of chemical and radionuclide 

constituents through perched water at the RTC.

Barraclough and others (1981) 1974–78 Hydrologic conditions for the INEL, Idaho.

Lewis and Jensen (1985) 1979–81 Hydrologic conditions for the INEL, Idaho.

Pittman and others (1988) 1982–85 Hydrologic conditions for the INEL, Idaho.

Hull (1989) Conceptual model that described migration pathways for wastewater and 

constituents from the radioactive-waste infiltration ponds at the RTC.

Anderson and Lewis (1989) Correlation of drill cores and geophysical logs to describe a sequence of basalt 

flows and sedimentary interbeds in the unsaturated zones underlying the 

RWMC.
6 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Table 1. Summary of selected previous investigations on geology, hydrology, and water characteristics of groundwater and perched 

groundwater, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1961–2008.—Continued

[Modified from Davis (2010). Summary: ICPP, Idaho Chemical Processing Plant; INEL, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; INEEL, Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; INL, Idaho National Laboratory; INTEC, Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center; NRTS, National 

Reactor Testing Station; RTC, Reactor Technology Complex; RWMC, Radioactive Waste Management Complex]

Reference Investigation 

period Summary

Perched groundwater—Continued

Anderson (1991) Correlation of drill cores and geophysical logs to describe a sequence of basalt 

flows and sedimentary interbeds in the unsaturated zones underlying the RTC 

and INTEC.

Ackerman (1991b) Analyzed data from 43 aquifer tests conducted in 22 wells to estimate 

transmissivity of basalts and sedimentary interbeds containing perched 

groundwater beneath the RTC and INTEC.

Cecil and others (1991) 1986–88 Mechanisms for formation of perched water at the RTC, ICPP, and RWMC, INEL, 

Idaho; distribution of chemical and radiochemical constituents in perched water 

at the RTC, ICPP, and RWMC.

Tucker and Orr (1998) Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in perched groundwater, INEL, Idaho.

Bartholomay (1998) 1992–95 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in perched groundwater, INEL, Idaho.

Orr (1999) Transient numerical simulation to evaluate a conceptual model of flow through 

perched water beneath wastewater infiltration ponds at the RTC.

Bartholomay and Tucker (2000) 1996–98 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in perched groundwater, INEEL, Idaho.

Davis (2006a) 1999–2001 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in perched groundwater, INL, Idaho.

Davis (2008) 2002–05 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in groundwater and perched groundwater, INL, Idaho.

Davis (2010) 2006–08 Hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in groundwater and perched groundwater, INL, Idaho.

Methods

Sample Collection and Analyses

Water samples analyzed for this study were collected 

at seven surface-water sites (fig. 1) and 67 wells (fig. 2). 

Since 1989, water samples have been analyzed for chemical 

constituents at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory 

(NWQL) in Lakewood, Colorado. Prior to 1989, water 

samples were analyzed by various laboratories for chloride, 

chromium, sodium, and nitrate (Wegner, 1989). Water samples 

have been analyzed for radiochemical constituents at the 

DOE Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory 

(RESL) at the INL since samples were first collected. Many 

of the samples collected in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were 

collected during or immediately after cable-drilling, and some 

of the samples had a high probability of containing impurities 

introduced by the drilling (Robertson and others, 1974, 

appendix B). Some chemical and radiochemical analyses for 

special studies have been done at the NWQL and by contract 

laboratories throughout the history of the USGS monitoring 

program at the INL, but those data were not considered in this 

study because of the variability of method detection levels and 

the analytical methods used. Until 2008, the RESL reported 

an uncertainty of 2s, where s is the sample standard deviation, 

for water samples analyzed for radionuclides, and data were 

entered into the USGS National Water Information System 

(NWIS) database with that uncertainty. In 2008, the RESL 

began reporting the uncertainty as 1s, and data are now entered 

into NWIS with the 1s uncertainty. Analytical uncertainties in 

this report are reported as 1s for consistency. 

Methods used to sample and analyze for selected 

constituents generally follow the guidelines established by 

the USGS (Goerlitz and Brown, 1972; Stevens and others, 

1975; Wood, 1976; Thatcher and others, 1977; Claassen, 1982; 

Wershaw and others, 1987; Fishman and Friedman, 1989; 

Faires, 1993; Fishman, 1993; and U.S. Geological Survey, 

variously dated). Water samples were collected according to a 

quality-assurance plan for water-quality activities conducted 

by personnel at the USGS INL Project Office. The plan was 

finalized in June 1989 and revised in March 1992, in 1996 

(Mann, 1996), in 2003 (Bartholomay and others, 2003), and 

in 2008 (Knobel and others, 2008). The plan is available for 

inspection at the USGS INL Project Office. 
Methods 7

tac12-0715_fig02.ai

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

33

22

28

26

26

20

20

Mud

Lake

Big

Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big Lost 

River

playas 

and 

sinks

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

Spreading

areas

ATRC

CFA

INTEC

TAN

NRF

RWMC

MFC

PBF

Atomic City 

11 

125 

109 103 

14 

9 

86 

8 

22 

Highway 3 

EBR 1 83 107 

Badging

Facility Well 

Site 9 

SPERT 1 AREA 2 

NPR Test 

5 

Leo Rogers 1 

110A 

1 

2 

100 ARBOR Test 

101 

6 

17 

Site 14 

18 

7 PSTF Test 

No Name 1 

ANP 6 

ANP 9 

IET 1 Disp 

26 

27 

31 

32 

4 

29 

P and W 2 

19 

12 

15 

23 Site 17 

Site 4 

102 

97 

WS INEL 1 

98 99 

 126A 

126B 

110 

Site 19 

119 117 

Fire Station 2 

CPP 4 

TRA 3 

TRA 1 

121 

TRA 4 

ANP 9

14

Well in the USGS aquifer water-quality 

monitoring network and identifier

Local well identifier—Number only 

shows USGS well; other names are 

local well names. See table 2 for 

more information MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

44°

43°30’

45’

113°15’ 113° 45’ 112°30’ 112°15’

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

Figure 2. Location of wells at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
8 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Field processing of water samples differed depending 

on the constituents for which analyses were requested. Water 

samples analyzed by the NWQL were placed in containers 

and preserved in accordance with laboratory requirements 

specified by Timme (1995) and Knobel and others (2008, 

appendix A). Containers and preservatives for samples 

collected since 1989 were supplied by the NWQL and were 

processed using a rigorous quality-control procedure (Pritt, 

1989, p. 75) to minimize sample contamination. Water 

samples requiring filtration were filtered through a disposable 

0.45-μm filter cartridge that was pre-rinsed with at least 1 L 

of deionized water or sample water. Water samples analyzed 

by the RESL were placed in containers and preserved in 

accordance with laboratory requirements specified by Bodnar 

and Percival (1982), U.S. Department of Energy (1995), and 

Knobel and others (2008, appendix A).

Sample collection methods varied for several of the 

wells during the history of sampling. Many of the wells were 

sampled using either a portable thief sampler or a portable 

pump until permanent pumps were installed in the early 1990s 

(table 2). Some of the samples collected with thief samplers 

were collected at different depths in the aquifer during 

the same sampling event. When the depths at which thief 

samples were collected were known, the data from the depth 

similar to the depth the current pump is set to were used in 

the analyses. After pumps were installed, wells were purged 

for at least three well volumes prior to sample collection 

until October 2003, when procedures were changed to allow 

sample collection after one well volume was purged and 

readings were stable for water temperature, pH, and specific 

conductance. Studies by Bartholomay (1993) and Knobel 

(2006) indicated that different purge rates used at the INL did 

not affect the analytical results for the respective studies. 

The methods used to preserve samples collected for 

nutrient analyses also changed over time. Until October 1994, 

samples collected for nutrients were analyzed at the NWQL 

and preserved with mercuric chloride and chilling. After that 

date, samples were preserved only by chilling. Bartholomay 

and Williams (1996) compared preservation methods, and 

their results indicated that data were comparable between the 

two methods. 

Sample collection frequency varied for all sites used in 

this study. Since 2003, all sites have been sampled annually, 

but prior to that timeframe, wells and surface-water sites 

were sampled annually, semi-annually, quarterly, or even 

more frequently depending on the purpose of the sampling 

program. Some gaps in data occur when pumps were out for 

repair, samples were lost, or program changes did not call for 

sampling of the constituent in question. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

Beginning in 1980, about 10 percent of water samples 

were collected for quality assurance (QA) purposes. Quality 

control (QC) water samples collected by the USGS INL 

Project Office generally include equipment blanks, splits, and 

blind replicates; however, other types of QC samples also 

have been collected throughout the history of the program. 

Comparative studies to determine agreement between 

analytical results for water-sample pairs by laboratories used 

by the INL Project Office QA program were summarized by 

Wegner (1989) and Williams (1996, 1997). Wegner (1989) 

also statistically compared analytical results among different 

laboratories used from 1980 to 1988. Analyses of watersample pairs were in statistical agreement for more than 

95 percent of the samples compared. Some outliers occurred; 

in cases where replicates were collected, data from the 

samples with the most reasonable result compared with the 

long-term trend were used in the trend analyses. 

Guidelines for Interpretation of Analytical 

Results 

Concentrations of radionuclides are reported with an 

estimated sample standard deviation, s, which is obtained by 

propagating sources of analytical uncertainty in measurements. 

McCurdy and others (2008) provided details on interpreting 

radiological data used by the USGS. The guidelines for 

interpreting analytical results are based on an extension 

of a method proposed by Currie (1984) and are given in 

Davis (2010). In this report, radionuclide concentrations 

of less than 3s are considered to be less than the “reporting 

level.” The reporting level should not be confused with the 

analytical method detection limit, which is based on laboratory 

procedures. 
Methods 9

Table 2. Site information for sampling sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.

[Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well 

data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Location of sampling sites are shown in figures 1 and 2. Well depth: ft bls, feet 

below land surface. NA, not applicable]

Sampling sites

Local name Site identifier Well depth

(ft bls)

Period of 

record

Pump 

installation 

date

Wells

ANP 6 435152112443101 305 1956–2009 01-10-1986

ANP 9 434856112400001 322 1956–2009 04-12-1994

ARBOR Test 433509112384801 790 1957–2009 110-01-1988

AREA 2 433223112470201 877 1960–2009 08-07-1990

Atomic City 432638112484101 639 1953–2009 11953

Badging Facility Well 433041112535101 644 1985–2009 11985

CPP 4 433440112554401 700 1983–2009 11983

EBR 1 433051113002601 1,075 1949–2009 11949

Fire Station 2 433548112562301 510 1957–1996 12-04-1957

Highway 3 433256113002501 750 1977–2009 11977

IET 1 Disp 435153112420501 242 1953–2009 01-13-1986

Leo Rogers 1 432533112504901 720 1970–2009 11970

No Name 1 435038112453401 550 1984–2009 07-31-1990

NPR Test 433449112523101 600 1986–2009 01-23-1986

P and W 2 435419112453101 386 1957–2009 01-10-1986

PSTF Test 434941112454201 319 1957–2009 07-30-1990

Site 4 433617112542001 495 1957–2009 11957

Site 9 433123112530101 1,057 1969–2009 08-31-1990

Site 14 434334112463101 717 1956–2009 10-01-1975

Site 17 434027112575701 600 1977–2009 09-06-1990

Site 19 433522112582101 860 1960–2009 01-16-1986

SPERT 1 433252112520301 653 1956–2009 11956

TRA 1 433521112573801 600 1950–2009 11950

TRA 3 433522112573501 602 1972–2009 11972

TRA 4 433521112574201 965 1972–2009 11972

USGS 1 432700112470801 636 1949–2009 07-30-1990

USGS 2 433320112432301 699 1950–2009 07-28-1990

USGS 4 434657112282201 553 1950–2009 07-31-1990

USGS 5 433543112493801 494 1950–2009 09-08-1990

USGS 6 434031112453701 620 1950–2009 09-05-1990

USGS 7 434915112443901 903 1950–2009 07-11-1990

USGS 8 433121113115801 812 1950–2009 07-10-1990

USGS 9 432740113044501 654 1951–2009 07-30-1987

USGS 11 432336113064201 704 1950–2009 09-12-1989

USGS 12 434126112550701 563 1950–2009 05-10-1990

USGS 14 432019112563201 752 1951–2009 09-11-1989

USGS 15 434234112551701 610 1952–2009 01-11-1990

USGS 17 433937112515401 498 1951–2009 09-08-1989

USGS 18 434540112440901 329 1951–2009 08-29-1990

USGS 19 434426112575701 399 1951–2009 09-07-1990

USGS 22 433422113031701 657 1952–2009 07-27-1990
10 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Table 2. Site information for sampling sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.—

Continued

[Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well 

data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Location of sampling sites are shown in figures 1 and 2. Well depth: ft bls, feet 

land surface. NA, not applicable]

Sampling sites

Local name Site identifier Well depth

(ft bls)

Period of 

record

Pump 

installation 

date

Wells–Continued

USGS 23 434055112595901 458 1952–2009 08-29-1990

USGS 26 435212112394001 266 1952–2009 07-31-1990

USGS 27 434851112321801 312 1952–2009 08-28-1990

USGS 29 434407112285101 426 1953–2009 08-28-1990

USGS 31 434625112342101 428 1953–2009 08-24-1990

USGS 32 434444112322101 392 1953–2009 08-24-1990

USGS 83 433023112561501 752 1965–2009 108–1980

USGS 86 432935113080001 691 1971–2009 08-03-1987

USGS 97 433807112551501 510 1972–2009 01-22-1986

USGS 98 433657112563601 508 1973–2009 01-21-1986

USGS 99 433705112552101 440 1975–2009 01-23-1986

USGS 100 433503112400701 750 1975–2009 01-28-1986

USGS 101 433255112381801 842 1975–2009 01-29-1986

USGS 102 433853112551601 445 1990–2009 05-09-1990

USGS 103 432714112560701 760 1980–2009 111–1986

USGS 107 432942112532801 690 1980–2009 11-21-1983

USGS 109 432701113025601 800 1980–2009 07-30-1987

USGS 110 432717112501501 780 1980–1992 11–1983

USGS 110A 432717112501502 644 1995–2010 10-24-1995

USGS 117 432955113025901 655 1987–2009 10-13-1987

USGS 119 432945113023401 705 1987–2009 10-24-1987

USGS 121 433450112560301 475 1991–2009 11991

USGS 125 432602113052801 774 1995–2009 04-26-1995

USGS 126 A 435529112471301 648 2000–2009 10-25-2000

USGS 126 B 435529112471401 472 2000–2009 11-21-2000

WS INEL 1 433716112563601 490 1981–2009 01-18-1986

Surface-water sites

Big Lost River at Experimental 

Dairy Farm, near Howe

13132545 NA 1981–2009 NA

Big Lost River below INL 

diversion, near Arco

13132520 NA 1981–2009 NA

Big Lost River below Mackay 

Reservoir, near Mackay 

13127000 NA 1985–2009 NA

Big Lost River near Arco 13132500 NA 1965–2009 NA

Birch Creek at Blue Dome 

Inn, near Reno

13117020 NA 1970–2009 NA

Little Lost River near Howe 13119000 NA 1965–2009 NA

Mud Lake near Terreton 13115000 NA 1965–2009 NA

1

Estimated date based on month or year of installation.
Methods 11

Concentrations of inorganic and organic constituents 

are reported with reference to laboratory reporting levels 

(LRLs). Childress and others (1999) provided details about 

the approach used by the USGS regarding detection limits and 

reporting levels. The method detection limit is the minimum 

concentration of a substance that can be measured and 

reported with 99 percent confidence that the concentration 

is greater than zero. The LRL is the concentration at which 

the false negative error rate is minimized to be no more than 

1 percent of the reported results. The LRL generally is equal to 

twice the yearly determined long-term method detection level 

(LT-MDL), which is a detection level derived by determining 

the standard deviation of a minimum of 24 MDL spike-sample 

measurements over an extended time period. The LT-MDL 

controls false positive error; it is the concentration at which 

the false positive risk is minimized to be no more than 1 

percent of the reported values (Childress and others, 1999). 

These reporting levels may be described as preliminary for 

a developmental method if the levels have been based on a 

small number of analytical results. These levels also may vary 

from sample to sample for the same constituent and the same 

method if matrix effects or other factors arise that interfere 

with the analysis. Concentrations measured between the 

LT-MDL and the LRL are described as estimated values. For 

most of the constituents in this report, reported concentrations 

generally are greater than LRLs, but some concentrations 

are given as less than the LRL, and some concentrations are 

estimated. 

Statistical Data Analysis Methods

Water-quality data collected for the monitoring program 

were analyzed using the summary statistics of mean, median, 

minimum, maximum, and standard deviation. The data 

were processed using custom computer scripts developed 

in the R programming language (R Development Core 

Team, 2011). All R functions written for this report are 

stored in an R-package called “Trends” (Fisher and Davis, 

2011); function documentation for this package is given in 

appendix A. The “Trends” package identifies statistical trends 

in water-quality data for multiple constituents and sample 

sites using nonparametric statistical tests for both censored 

data (values reported as less than a LRL) and uncensored 

data. Nonparametric tests were used for INL data because no 

specific distributions of the data were expected. This package 

also calculates summary statistics for multiple constituents, 

and automates plotting the data and trend lines for uncensored 

data. Because nonparametric tests were used, the assumption 

of normality is not required.

For uncensored data, the Theil-Sen slope estimator—the 

median of all possible slopes between pairs of data (Helsel, 

2005)—and Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient were 

calculated. The R functions used to calculate these statistics 

were developed by Wilcox (2012) and are included in the 

section, “Trends.” Summary statistics for uncensored data are 

shown in table 3 (at back of report).

Censored data were analyzed using functions provided 

in the R Package “NADA” (Nondetects and Data Analysis) 

(Lee, 2012), which were called from “Trends.” The “NADA” 

package uses methods described by Helsel (2005) to deal 

with statistics for censored environmental data. The summary 

statistics based on the Kaplan-Meier method, the p-value 

for the test for significance of Kendall’s tau correlation 

coefficient, and the slope of the associated Akritas-Theil-Sen 

nonparametric regression line (Helsel, 2005, p. 212) are given 

in table 4 (at back of report). The Akritas-Theil-Sen slope 

estimator calculates a slope that produces a zero value for tau

(Helsel, 2005). 

For datasets with estimated (E) concentrations, the 

E-value was treated the same as a concentration for an 

uncensored value. Summary statistics were not calculated for 

constituents that had all concentrations less than the reporting 

level. 

For both uncensored and censored datasets, the test 

statistic used was Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient. The 

null hypothesis was that no correlation existed between time 

and concentration; the alternate hypothesis was that time 

and concentration were correlated. A significance level of 

0.05 was chosen to determine whether the result of the test 

for significance of Kendalls’s tau correlation coefficient was 

statistically significant. A two-sided p-value that was less 

than or equal to 0.05 indicated that there was a statistically 

significant correlation in the data, and the null hypothesis was 

rejected. The sign of the slope indicated whether there was 

an increasing or decreasing trend if a significant correlation 

existed. P-values greater than 0.05 indicated that there was 

no statistically significant correlation between time and 

concentration, and the null hypothesis was accepted. 
12 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Water-Quality Characteristics and 

Trends

Concentrations of constituents reported in this study 

represent water samples collected during different time 

intervals, starting in 1949 at well USGS 1, and continuing 

at this and other sites through 2009. Data used for selected 

plots and trend analyses (appendixes B–E) included all data 

that was in the NWIS database as of August 2010, except 

for some outlier data that were removed because it did not 

correlate with field-specific conductance or because replicate 

values represented more reasonable data. Data analyzed by 

the NWQL is routinely uploaded to the NWIS database; 

however, data from INL laboratories were manually entered 

from paper copies until 2009. Some data (especially prior 

to 1990) may still need to be entered and checked for some 

wells used in this study. Trends were initially analyzed for 

entire datasets, but analyses of some wells seemed to indicate 

that pump installation created a change in the concentrations 

of some constituents. Therefore, trends were determined for 

the period of record when a pump was installed. Some well 

pumps were installed for the entire period of record, but trends 

were analyzed only for data collected from 1980 to 2009 for 

those wells because some of the earlier data appeared suspect; 

1980 represented the start of quality-assurance data collection 

to support data validity. Trends in surface-water constituent 

concentrations were determined for the entire period of record. 

The trends described in the report were based on statistical 

methods previously described. For some datasets, the slope 

of the line or the visual appearance of the data based on 

scale make it appear like there is a trend, when statistically 

speaking, there is no trend. 

Wells were completed at various depths in the aquifer 

and with different well completions (for example, single and 

multiple screened intervals and open boreholes). Physical 

properties of water measured during sampling events included 

specific conductance, water temperature, and pH.

Samples collected from sites included in this study 

were analyzed for some combination of radiochemical and 

chemical constituents tritium, strontium-90, cesium-137, 

plutonium-238, plutonium-239, -240 (undivided), 

americium-241, gross alpha- and beta-particle radioactivity, 

calcium, magnesium, potassium, silica, sodium, bromide, 

chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate (as N), orthophosphate (as 

P), chromium and other trace elements, and total organic 

carbon. Other constituents have been sampled at some of the 

wells and surface-water sites, but data were not used because 

concentrations were either less than the reporting levels (in 

the case of volatile organic compounds) or because data were 

insufficient to determine a statistically significant trend.

pH, Specific Conductance, and Temperature.—Field 

measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water 

temperature were measured in all 67 aquifer wells and 

7 surface-water sites used for this study (figs. 1 and 2). 

Summary statistics for the field measurements for the entire 

period of record at each surface-water site, and the period 

of record used to calculate trends in each well are given in 

table 5 (at back of report). Plots of analyses for pH, specific 

conductance, and water temperature for the entire datasets are 

shown in appendix B.

Analyses of trends for pH indicate that some sites have 

statistically significant trends based on the p-values calculated 

(table 5). The pH is an indicator of hydrogen ion activity, and 

is collected to understand the acid-base properties of water. 

Many factors affect the degree of precision of pH readings 

including careful attention to the electrode maintenance, buffer 

solutions, temperature corrections, instrument electronics, use 

of different meter brands, and collection methods. Because 

of all the variability of these factors throughout the history 

of sample collection, it is difficult to specifically assess 

whether or not the trends in the pH are due to changing aquifer 

conditions or other considerations. Four wells (ANP 9, PSTF 

Test, USGS 18, and USGS 97) appear to have been affected 

by the change in methods and meter type between April and 

October 2004 (appendix B). Measurements of pH were taken 

by a single parameter pH meter by placing water in a cup and 

submerging the probe prior to October 2004 and have since 

been taken from a flow through chamber with a multiple 

parameter instrument. Site 9 was affected by the change of 

sample method from thief sampling to pumping in 1990.

Specific conductance is a measure of the electrical 

conductivity of water and is proportional to the quantities of 

dissolved chemical constituents in the water so trends in this 

measurement should be similar to the trends for chloride, 

sulfate, and sodium concentrations. Analyses of specific 

conductance in a few wells (Site 9, USGS 2, 9, 14, and 17) 

show a discernible change (appendix B) when the sampling 

method changed from collecting a thief sample to installation 

of a dedicated pump in the well around 1990. The pump 

sample represents a mixture of all water in the open interval 

of the well versus the thief sample that was collected from 

a discrete depth, and the marked change is an indication 

of different water types present in the aquifer at the well 

locations. Well USGS 98 shows a discrete decrease in specific 

conductance when the pump was lowered in 2005. Several 

wells (Badging Facility Well, CPP 4, PSTF Test, TRA 3 and 

4, USGS 17, 27, 117, and 119) appear to have discernible 

changes when the collection method changed from taking 

readings in a cup to taking them from a flow through chamber. 

Figure 3 shows specific conductance trends by well for the 

period of record used for trend analyses. Analyses of trends 

generally show similarities to trends of chemical constituents. 

Trends for individual chemical constituents are discussed later 

in this section.
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends 13

tac12-0715_fig03.ai

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

33

26

26

20

20

22

28

Mud

Lake

Big Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big Lost 

River

playas 

and 

sinks

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

Spreading

areas

ATRC

INTEC

NRF

TAN

RWMC

PBF

MFC

CFA

Atomic City 

11 

125 

109 103 

14 

9 

86 

8 

22 

Highway 3 

EBR 1 

83 

107 

Badging

Facility Well

Site 9 

SPERT 1 AREA 2 

NPR Test 

5 

Leo Rogers 1 

110A 

1 

2 

100 ARBOR Test 

101 

6 

17 

Site 14 

18 

7 PSTF Test 

No Name 1 

ANP 6 

ANP 9 

IET 1 Disp 

26 

27 

31 

32 

14

4 

29 

P and W 2 

19 

12 

15 

23 Site 17 

Site 4 

102 

97 

WS INEL 1 

98 99 

 126A 

126B 

110 

Site 19 

119 117 

Mud Lake 

near Terreton 

Big Lost River

near Arco 

Big Lost River at

Experimental Dairy 

Farm, near Howe 

Birch Creek at 

Blue Dome Inn,

near Reno 

Little Lost River 

near Howe 

Fire Station 2 

CPP 4 

TRA 3 

TRA 1 

121 

TRA 4 

Big Lost River below 

INL diversion, 

near Arco

Surface-water site identifier, Big Lost River near 

Arco—Color of identifier is indicator of specific 

conductance trend; red color indicates 

increasing trend; blue indicates decreasing 

trend; and black indicates no trend

ANP 9

14

Well in the USGS aquifer water-quality 

monitoring network and identifier

Local well identifier—Number only shows 

USGS well; other names are local well names. 

See table 2 for more information

MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

44°

43°30’

45’

113°15’ 113° 45’ 112°30’ 112°15’

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Figure 3. Areal distribution of specific conductance trends in water from selected wells and surface-water sites at and near 

the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
14 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Water temperature shows a few changes that may be 

related to sample methods and not to general changes in the 

aquifer condition. Wells ANP 9, Site 9, USGS 7, and 17 all 

show a change in temperature that corresponds with pump 

installation (appendix B, table 2). Because of this factor, 

trend analyses were done on datasets from samples from 

pumped wells for the 67 aquifer wells. Figure 4 shows water 

temperature trends by site for the period of record used for 

trend analyses. Water temperatures at most of the sites show 

no trend. 

Tritium.—Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen 

that is formed in nature by interactions of cosmic rays with 

gases in the upper atmosphere (Orr and others, 1991). Tritium 

also is produced in thermonuclear detonations, and it has 

been discharged in wastewater at several facilities at the INL 

from the early 1950s to the present. Tritium has a half-life of 

12.3 years (Walker and others, 1989, p. 20). Samples were 

routinely collected and analyzed for tritium from all sites used 

in this study. The number of samples collected from each 

site and the number of samples with tritium concentrations 

greater than the reporting level are shown in table 6 (at back 

of report). The sites selected for this study were considered 

to be in areas where the water does not appear to have 

been influenced by wastewater disposal; therefore, tritium 

concentrations are less than the reporting levels for almost 

all samples and no trend analyses were done. A few samples 

had spurious concentrations that were equal to or greater 

than the reporting level, or were extremely high outliers. In 

almost all cases for the high outliers, the results were from 

samples collected when background concentrations were much 

higher because of nuclear testing (in the late 1950s and early 

1960s), so the results may have been influenced by the higher 

background concentrations. Some of the more recent samples 

with analytical results at reporting levels of 3s could be due to 

statistical fluctuations because the counting data are close to 

background concentrations (Guy Backstrom, U.S. Department 

of Energy, written commun., July 8, 2009). 

Strontium-90.—Strontium-90 is a fission product of 

nuclear weapons tests, and is present in wastewater discharged 

at several facilities at the INL (Davis, 2010). Strontium-90 

has a half-life of 29.1 years (Walker and others, 1989, 

p. 29). Water samples have routinely been collected and 

analyzed for strontium-90 from 25 of the wells used in this 

study. The number of samples collected and the number of 

samples with concentrations greater than the reporting level 

are shown in table 6. The wells selected for this study were 

considered to be in areas where the water does not appear 

to have been influenced by wastewater disposal. Because 

strontium-90 concentrations are less than the reporting levels 

for all samples, no trend analyses were done. The USGS may 

discontinue sampling for strontium-90 for some of these sites. 

Cesium-137.—The radionuclide cesium-137 is identified 

using gamma spectrometry. Cesium-137 is a product of 

nuclear weapons tests, and is present in wastewater discharged 

at several facilities at the INL. Cesium-137 has a half-life 

of 30.17 years (Walker and others, 1989). Gross gamma has 

routinely been collected from 37 of the wells and 4 surfacewater sites used in this study. The number of samples collected 

and the number of samples with concentrations greater than 

the reporting level are shown in table 6. The wells selected for 

this study were considered to be in areas where the water does 

not appear to have been influenced by wastewater disposal. 

Because cesium-137 concentrations are less than the reporting 

levels for all samples, no trend analyses were done. Future 

sampling for cesium-137 for some of these sites may be 

discontinued.

Plutonium.—In 1974, the USGS began monitoring 

plutonium-238 and plutonium-239, -240 (undivided) in 

water from selected wells around TAN, INTEC, and RWMC 

because of waste disposal practices. The half-lives of 

plutonium-238, plutonium-239, and plutonium-240 are 87.7, 

24,100, and 6,560 years, respectively (Walker and others, 

1989, p. 46). Water from four wells used in this study was 

routinely sampled and analyzed for plutonium isotopes. The 

number of samples collected and the number of samples with 

concentrations greater than the reporting level are shown in 

table 6. Because plutonium-238 and plutonium-239, -240 

(undivided) concentrations were less than the reporting levels 

for all samples, no trend analyses were done. 

Americium-241.—Americium-241 is a decay product 

of plutonium-241. Plutonium isotopes have been detected in 

wastewater discharged to the ESRP aquifer at the INL and in 

wastes buried at the RWMC. The half-life of americium-241 is 

432.7 years (Walker and others, 1989, p. 46). Water from four 

wells used in this study was routinely sampled and analyzed 

for plutonium isotopes. The number of samples collected 

and the number of samples with concentrations greater than 

the reporting level are shown in table 6. Because americium241concentrations were less than the reporting levels for all 

samples, no trend analyses were done. 

Gross Alpha- and Beta-Particle Radioactivity.—Gross 

alpha- and beta-particle radioactivity is a measure of the 

total radioactivity emitted as alpha and beta particles during 

the radioactive decay process. The radioactivity usually is 

reported as if it occurred as one radionuclide. Gross alpha and 

beta measurements are used to screen for radioactivity in the 

aquifer as a possible indicator of groundwater contamination, 

but measurable concentrations also can occur from the natural 

decay of radioactive material in aquifer material. In 2008, the 

RESL increased the sensitivity of the analyses, and as a result, 

concentrations greater than the reporting level for natural 

background concentrations in the aquifer were sometimes 

measured, although those same concentrations may not have 

been reported in the past. 
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends 15

tac12-0715_fig04.ai

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

33

26

26

20

20

22

28

Mud

Lake

Big Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big Lost 

River

playas 

and

sinks

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

Spreading

areas

ATRC

INTEC

NRF

TAN

RWMC

MFC

PBF CFA

Big Lost River

near Arco 

Birch Creek at 

Blue Dome Inn,

near Reno 

Little Lost River 

near Howe 

Mud Lake 

near Terreton 

Big Lost River at

Experimental Dairy 

Farm, near Howe 

Atomic City 

11 

125 

109 103 

14 

9 

86 

8 

22 

Highway 3 

EBR 1 

83 

107 

Badging

Facility Well 

Site 9 

SPERT 1 AREA 2 

NPR Test 

5 

Leo Rogers 1 

110A 

1 

2 

100 ARBOR Test 

101 

6 

17 

Site 14 

18 

7 PSTF Test 

No Name 1 

ANP 6 

ANP 9 

IET 1 Disp 

26 

27 

31 

32 

4 

29 

P and W 2 

19 

12 

15 

23 Site 17 

Site 4 

102 

97 

WS INEL 1 

98 99 

 126A 

126B 

110 

Site 19 

119 117 

Fire Station 2 

CPP 4 

TRA 3 TRA 4 TRA 1 

121 

Big Lost River below 

INL diversion, 

near Arco

Surface-water site identifier, Big Lost River near 

Arco—Color of identifier is indicator of water 

temperature trend; red color indicates 

increasing trend; blue indicates decreasing 

trend; and black indicates no trend

ANP 9

14

Well in the USGS aquifer water-quality 

monitoring network and identifier

Local well identifier—Number only shows 

USGS well; other names are local well names. 

See table 2 for more information

MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

44°

43°30’

45’

113°15’ 113° 45’ 112°30’ 112°15’

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Figure 4. Areal distribution of water temperature trends in water from selected wells and surface-water sites at and near the 

Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
16 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Water samples have routinely been collected and 

analyzed for gross alpha- and beta-particle activity from 35 

of the wells and 4 surface-water sites used in this study. The 

number of samples collected and the number of samples with 

concentrations greater than the reporting level are shown in 

table 6. The wells selected for this study were considered 

to be in areas where the water does not appear to have been 

influenced by wastewater disposal. Because gross alpha- and 

beta-particle activity are less than the reporting levels for most 

of the samples, no statistical trend analyses were done. A few 

of the samples had concentrations equal to or greater than the 

reporting level. Some of the samples with results at reporting 

levels of 3s could be due to statistical fluctuations because the 

counting data are close to background concentrations. Other 

concentrations may represent background concentrations 

in the aquifer that have been detected because of increased 

sensitivity of the analyses, and some may be false positives 

(Davis, 2010, p. 28). 

Calcium.—Calcium is a common cation in water that 

results from dissolution of minerals in the rock material that 

the water has contacted. Samples are not routinely analyzed 

for calcium at the INL because calcium is not considered a 

major by-product of wastewater disposal practices; however, 

calcium was collected routinely from three surface-water sites 

from 1965 to 1985. 

Plots of calcium concentrations for the three surfacewater sites (Big Lost River near Arco, Little Lost River near 

Howe, and Mud Lake near Terreton, fig. 1) are shown in 

appendix C. Summary statistics and trends calculated are 

given in table 3. No significant trend is observable from 

the data.

Magnesium.—Magnesium is a common cation in 

water that results from dissolution of minerals in the rock 

material that the water has contacted. Samples are not 

routinely analyzed for magnesium at the INL because it is 

not considered a by-product of wastewater disposal practices; 

however, magnesium was collected routinely from three 

surface-water sites from 1965 to 1985. 

Plots of magnesium concentrations for the three surfacewater sites (Big Lost River near Arco, Little Lost River near 

Howe, and Mud Lake near Terreton, fig. 1) are shown in 

appendix C. Summary statistics and trends calculated are 

given in table 3. No significant trend is observable from 

the data. 

Potassium.—Potassium is a common cation in water 

that results from dissolution of minerals in the rock material 

that the water has contacted. Samples are not routinely 

analyzed for potassium at the INL because it is not considered 

a by-product of wastewater disposal practices; however, 

potassium was collected routinely from three surface-water 

sites from 1965 to 1985. 

Plots of potassium concentrations for the three surfacewater sites (Big Lost River near Arco, Little Lost River near 

Howe, and Mud Lake near Terreton, fig. 1) are shown in 

appendix C. Summary statistics and trends calculated are 

given in table 3. No significant trend is observable from 

the data. 

Silica.—Dissolved silica is present in water from 

dissolution of minerals in the rock material that the water has 

contacted. Samples are not routinely analyzed for silica at the 

INL because it is not considered a by-product of wastewater 

disposal practices; however, silica was collected routinely 

from three surface-water sites from 1965 to 1985.

Plots of silica concentrations for the three surface-water 

sites (Big Lost River near Arco, Little Lost River near Howe, 

and Mud Lake near Terreton, fig. 1) are shown in appendix C. 

Summary statistics and trends calculated are given in table 3. 

No significant trend is observable from the data. 

Sodium.—Sodium has been discharged in wastewater at 

INL facilities since they were established. The background 

concentration of sodium in water from the ESRP aquifer near 

the INL generally is less than 10 mg/L (Robertson and others, 

1974, p. 155). Samples were routinely collected and analyzed 

for sodium from 66 aquifer wells and 3 surface-water sites 

used in this study. Summary statistics and trends calculated are 

given in table 3.

Plots of sodium concentrations for 66 wells and 3 

surface-water sites are shown in appendix C. Sodium analyses 

were performed by various laboratories until 1989, and most 

analyses since have been done at the NWQL. The datasets 

include some outlier values, and if the value did not seem 

reasonable compared with the specific conductance, the outlier 

value was not used in the trend analyses. Sodium trends in 

water from sites at the INL are shown in figure 5. Results 

indicate that most of the sites show no statistical trend. A 

few of the wells influenced mostly by regional groundwater 

indicate an increasing trend that may indicate an influence 

from upgradient agricultural activities. A few wells (USGS 

5, 12, and 15, appendix C) show variable increasing and 

decreasing patterns that probably are due to above-average 

and below-average periods of recharge to the aquifer. Analyses 

of trends for sodium in water from several of the wells near 

the NRF, ATRC, and INTEC indicate increasing trends, and 

although other data from these wells do not seem to show a 

direct influence of wastewater disposal practices, the increases 

possibly are due to long-term disposal practices.

Bromide.—Bromide has not been a major constituent 

discharged in wastewater at the INL; however, about 500 

kg of bromine was discharged in liquid effluent at the INL 

from 1971 to 1998 (French and others, 1999). Bromide was 

routinely analyzed for water samples collected from eight 

wells on a quarterly basis as part of a NRF groundwater study 

from 1989 to 1995. Summary statistics and trends calculated 

are given in table 3.
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends 17

tac12-0715_fig05.ai

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

33

26

26

20

20

22

28

Mud

Lake

Big Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big Lost 

River

playas 

and 

sinks

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake

Terreton

Spreading

areas

ATRC

INTEC

RWMC

TAN

MFC

PBF

NRF

CFA

Big Lost River

near Arco 

Mud Lake 

near Terreton 

Little Lost River 

near Howe 

Atomic City

11 

125 

109 103 

14 

9 

86 

8 

22 

Highway 3 

EBR 1 

83 107 

Badging

Facility Well 

Site 9 

SPERT 1 AREA 2 

NPR Test 

5 

Leo Rogers 1 

110A 

1 

2 

100 

101 

6 

17 

Site 14 

18 

7 PSTF Test 

No Name 1 

ANP 6 

ANP 9 

IET 1 Disp 

26 

27 

31 

32 

4 

29 

P and W 2 

19 

12 

15 

23 

Site 17 

Site 4 

102 

97 

WS INEL 1 

98 99 

 126A 

126B 

110 

Site 19 

119 117 

Fire Station 2 

CPP 4 

TRA 3 

TRA 1 

121 

TRA 4 

Surface-water site identifier, Big Lost River near 

Arco—Color of identifier is indicator of sodium 

concentration trend; red color indicates 

increasing trend; blue indicates decreasing 

trend; and black indicates no trend

ANP 9

14

Well in the USGS aquifer water-quality 

monitoring network and identifier

MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

Local well identifier—Number only shows 

USGS well; other names are local well names. 

See table 2 for more information

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

44°

43°30’

45’

113°15’ 113° 45’ 112°30’ 112°15’

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Figure 5. Areal distribution of sodium concentration trends in water from selected wells and surface-water sites at and near 

the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
18 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Plots of bromide concentrations for eight wells are 

shown in appendix C. Results for all but one site show 

an increasing trend in bromide concentration (table 3, 

appendix C). Hem (1989) indicates bromide is present at high 

concentrations in natural waters from seawater, geothermal 

sources, and from anthropogenic inputs, such as gasoline 

additives, fumigants, and fire-retardant agents. The increasing 

trends could be due to anthropogenic influences from the 

upgradient Little Lost River basin, or could be an indication of 

the influence of geothermal water in the NRF area. Analyses 

of trends for bromide in water from well WS INEL 1 indicate 

a decreasing trend, which is consistent with other constituents 

(chloride, sulfate, sodium, and nitrate) sampled from this 

well (table 3). A radioactive source was lost in the well after 

completion and initial sampling in 1978. The source had to be 

cemented in the bottom of the well and the decreasing trends 

possibly are not representative of the aquifer conditions, but 

are a remnant of contamination of the well from cementing in 

the source or from drilling fluids used to drill the nearby well 

INEL 1 (fig. 2).

Chloride.—Chloride has been discharged in wastewater 

at INL facilities since they were established. The background 

chloride concentration in water from the ESRP aquifer at 

the INL generally is about 15 mg/L (Robertson and others, 

1974, p. 150). The secondary maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) for chloride in drinking water is 250 mg/L (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Samples were 

routinely collected and analyzed for chloride from all 67 

aquifer wells and 7 surface-water sites used in this study. 

Summary statistics and trends calculated are given in table 3.

Plots of chloride concentrations for all sites used in 

this study are shown in appendix C. Chloride analyses were 

performed by various laboratories until 1989, and most 

analyses since 1989 have been done at the NWQL. The 

datasets include some outlier values, and if the value did not 

seem reasonable compared with the specific conductance of 

the well, the outlier value was not used in the trend analyses. 

Chloride trends in water from sites at the INL are shown 

in figure 6. Results indicate that water influenced by Big 

Lost River seepage has decreasing trends or, in some cases, 

has trends that correlate with above-average and belowaverage periods of recharge. Water samples from four sites 

on the Big Lost River also show a decreasing trend, or no 

trend, and concentrations generally are much less (mean 

concentrations of 3–6 mg/L) than those in the aquifer 

(about 15 mg/L). As large fluxes of Big Lost River seepage 

mix with the groundwater, the overall concentration in the 

groundwater near the river also likely will decrease if the 

well is obtaining water from the upper part of the aquifer. 

Analyses of trends for chloride in water from several of the 

wells that is mostly regionally derived groundwater generally 

indicate an increasing trend. These increasing trends are 

attributed to agricultural or other anthropogenic influences 

upgradient of the INL. Well USGS 4 shows a decreasing trend 

and the decrease probably is because the well was used for 

a sodium chloride tracer study after originally being drilled 

in 1950 (Jack Barraclough, U.S. Geological Survey, retired, 

oral commun., May 25, 2011); therefore, the decreasing 

concentration trends are a result of the sodium chloride still 

being diluted in the well by regional groundwater. 

The effect of the particular laboratory and/or the 

method used to collect samples is evident when evaluating 

concentration trends in a few wells. Chloride concentrations 

in wells USGS 6, 27, and 101 for the full period of record 

were compared to data collected since the late 1980s and early 

1990s (fig. 7), when dedicated pumps were installed in the 

wells. Wells USGS 6 and 101 show increasing trends similar 

to other regional wells when only data collected since pump 

installation are considered, but show no trend when all data 

are considered. Well USGS 27 shows a decreasing trend when 

only more recent data are considered, but no trend when all 

data are considered. 

The influence of seepage losses from the Big Lost River 

is especially evident in well USGS 12. Chloride concentrations 

(along with sodium and sulfate) plotted with water-level 

changes are shown in figure 8. Concentrations of chloride, 

sodium, and sulfate in water from well USGS 12 decrease 

during wetter periods when water levels rise, probably due to 

recharge from the river, and increase during drought periods 

when no recharge from the Big Lost River occurs. Figure 8

also shows how above-average and below-average periods 

of recharge (as indicated by flow in the Big Lost River) 

may affect concentration trends. Well USGS 32 is located 

in the northeastern part of the INL, far from any influence 

from the Big Lost River. Busenberg and others (2001, p. 84) 

indicated that the young fraction of water in this well was 

recent recharge from infiltration water, so periodic increases 

and decreases in this well are more likely influenced by the 

amount of infiltration, with above-average infiltration periods 

corresponding to decreases in constituent concentrations. 

Busenberg and others (2001) calculated relative ages of the 

young fraction of water for most of the wells sampled for this 

study and a more detailed comparison with ages are discussed 

in the section, “Significance of Trends at Each Well or Site.” 

Fluoride. —Fluoride in wastewater was discharged to 

percolation ponds at the INTEC during 1971–98 (Bartholomay 

and others, 2000). Background concentrations of fluoride in 

the ESRP aquifer in the southwestern part of the INL range 

from about 0.1 to 0.3 mg/L (Robertson and others, 1974, 

p. 75). The MCL for fluoride in drinking water is 4 mg/L 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Samples were 

routinely collected and analyzed for fluoride from nine wells 

and three surface-water sites used in this study. Summary 

statistics and trends calculated are given in tables 3 and 4.

Plots of fluoride concentrations for 12 sites are shown in 

appendixes C–E. Fluoride analyses were performed by various 

laboratories until 1989, and most analyses since then have 

been done at the NWQL. Results for all but one sample site 

(well USGS 15) show no trend. 
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends 19

tac12-0715_fig06.ai

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

33

26

26

20

20

22

28

Mud

Lake

Big Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big Lost 

River

playas 

and

sinks

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

Spreading

areas

ATRC

INTEC

RWMC

MFC

NRF

PBF CFA

TAN

Birch Creek at 

Blue Dome Inn,

near Reno 

Mud Lake 

near Terreton 

Little Lost River 

near Howe 

Big Lost River

near Arco 

Big Lost River at

Experimental Dairy 

Farm, near Howe 

Big Lost River below 

INL diversion, 

near Arco

Atomic City 

11 

125 

109 103 

14 

9 

86 

8 

22 

Highway 3 

EBR 1 

83 107 

Badging

Facility Well 

Site 9 

SPERT 1 AREA 2 

NPR Test 

5 

Leo Rogers 1 

110A 1 

2 

100 ARBOR Test 

101 

6 

17 

Site 14 

18 

7 PSTF Test 

No Name 1 

ANP 6 

ANP 9 

IET 1 Disp 

26 

27 

31 

32 

4 

29 

P and W 2 

19 

12 

15 

23 

Site 17 

Site 4 

102 

WS INEL 1 97 

98 99 

 126A 

126B 

110 

Site 19 

119 117 

TRA 3 

TRA 1 

121 

TRA 4 

CPP 4 

Fire Station 2 

Surface-water site identifier, Big Lost River near 

Arco—Color of identifier is indicator of chloride 

concentration trend; red color indicates 

increasing trend; blue indicates decreasing 

trend; and black indicates no trend

ANP 9

14

Well in the USGS aquifer water-quality 

monitoring network and identifier

Local well identifier—Number only shows 

USGS well; other names are local well names. 

See table 2 for more information

MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

44°

43°30’

45’

113°15’ 113° 45’ 112°30’ 112°15’

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

Figure 6. Areal distribution of chloride concentration trends in water from selected wells and surface-water sites at and near 

the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
20 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

tac12-0715_fig07a.ai

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Theil−Sen line (p = 0.000)

EXPLANATION

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

USGS 27 (434851112321801)

EXPLANATION

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

5

10

15 Theil−Sen line (p = 0.027)

EXPLANATION

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

USGS 6 (434031112453701)

Theil−Sen line (p = 0.958)

EXPLANATION

Chloride concentration

Chloride concentration

Theil−Sen line (p = 0.998)

Chloride concentration

Chloride concentration

Pump installed

Pump installed

Pump installed

Pump installed

Figure 7. Chloride trends using the entire dataset versus data collected since pumps were 

installed in wells USGS 6, 27, and 101 at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends 21

tac12-0715_fig07b.ai

1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

6

7

8

9

10

11

Theil−Sen line (p = 0.000)

EXPLANATION

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

5

10

15

20

25

USGS 101 (433255112381801)

Theil−Sen line (p = 0.578)

EXPLANATION

Chloride concentration

Chloride concentration

Pump installed

Pump installed

Figure 7.—Continued

Sulfate.—Sulfate has been discharged in wastewater at 

the INL facilities since they were established. The background 

sulfate concentrations in water from the ESRP aquifer in the 

south-central part of the INL range from about 10 to 40 mg/L 

(Robertson and others, 1974, p. 72). The secondary MCL for 

sulfate in drinking water is 250 mg/L (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2001). Sulfate was routinely analyzed for 

water samples from 29 wells and 3 surface-water sites used in 

this study. Summary statistics and trends calculated are given 

in table 3.

Plots of sulfate concentrations for 32 sites are shown 

in appendix C. Sulfate analyses were performed by various 

laboratories until 1989, and most analyses since then have 

been done at the NWQL. The datasets include some outlier 

values, and if the value did not seem reasonable compared 

with the specific conductance of the well, the outlier value was 

not used in the trend analyses. Sulfate trends in water from 

sites at the INL are shown in figure 9.

Results indicate that wells influenced by seepage from 

the Big Lost River show variable responses, with some wells 

showing increases, some wells showing decreases, some wells 

showing influence from above-average and below-average 

periods of recharge, and some wells showing no trend. The 

Big Lost River water samples from one location (Big Lost 

River near Arco) did not show a trend. Analyses of trends 

for sulfate in water from several of the wells in the eastern 

part of the INL that is mostly regionally derived groundwater 

indicate an increasing trend. These increased concentrations 

are attributed to agricultural or other anthropogenic influences 

upgradient of the INL.

Nitrate Plus Nitrite (as N).—Wastewater containing 

nitrate was injected into the ESRP aquifer through the INTEC 

disposal well from 1952 to February 1984, and was discharged 

to the INTEC percolation ponds after February 1984 (Orr 

and Cecil, 1991). Because nitrite analyses indicate that 

almost all nitrite plus nitrate concentrations are nitrate (as N), 

concentrations will be referred to as nitrate in this report. 

Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater not affected by 

wastewater disposal from INL facilities generally are less than 

1 mg/L (as N) (Robertson and others, 1974, p. 73). The MCL 

for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/L (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2001). Nitrate (as N) was routinely 

analyzed for water samples from 55 wells and 3 surfacewater sites used in this study. Plots of nitrate concentrations 

for 58 sites are shown in appendix C. Summary statistics 

and trends calculated are given in table 3. Nitrate analyses 

were performed by various laboratories until 1989, and most 

analyses since then have been done at the NWQL. Nitrate 

trends in water from sites at the INL are shown in figure 10.
22 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Figure 8. Variable increases and decreases of chloride, sodium, and sulfate concentrations relative to water-level changes at wells 

USGS 12 and 32 and changes in flow from the Big Lost River, Idaho.

tac12-0715_fig8a

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

290 70 

300 

310 

320 

330 

340 

350 

Depth to water level, in feet below land surface

Concentration, in milligrams per liter

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

280 60 

290 

300 

310 

320 

330 

340 

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

EXPLANATION

Water level

Chloride

Sodium

Sulfate

Well USGS 12

Well USGS 32
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends 23

Figure 8.—Continued

tac12-0715_fig08b.ai

1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009

Streamflow, in thousands of acre-feet per water year

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100

200

300

400

0 0 0 0

2.0

0

Water year

Station 13127000 Big Lost River below 

Mackay Reservoir, near Mackay

Streamflow, in thousands of acre-feet per water year 100

200

300

400

500

0

94-year average:

219,000 acre-feet per year

1904 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009

Water year

Big

Lost

Big Lost River below

Mackay Reservoir,

near Mackay

13127000

Mackay

Reservoir

Spreading

areas

13132513

INL diversion at head,

near Arco

13132520

Idaho National

Laboratory

Arco

Mackay

River

Big Lost River below

INL diversion,

near Arco

EXPLANATION

13132520 Big Lost River below

INL diversion, near Arco

13132513 INL diversion at head,

near Arco

Total streamflow above diversion

Partial water year

EXPLANATION
24 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

tac12-0715_fig09.ai

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

33

26

26

20

20

22

28

Mud

Lake

Big Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big Lost 

River

playas 

and

sinks

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

Spreading

areas

ATRC

INTEC

RWMC

MFC

TAN

NRF

CFA PBF

Little Lost River 

near Howe 

Mud Lake 

near Terreton 

Big Lost River

near Arco 

Badging

Facility Well

Site 9 

AREA 2 

2 

100 

6 

17 

18 

ANP 6 

IET 1 Disp 

31 

32 29 

12 

15 

Site 17 

Site 4 

102 

97 WS INEL 1 

98 99 

Site 19 

119 117 

TRA 3 

TRA 1 

121 

TRA 4 

Surface-water site identifier, Big Lost River near 

Arco—Color of identifier is indicator of sulfate 

concentration trend; red color indicates 

increasing trend; blue indicates decreasing 

trend; and black indicates no trend

ANP 9

14

Well in the USGS aquifer water-quality 

monitoring network and identifier

Local well identifier—Number only shows 

USGS well; other names are local well names. 

See table 2 for more information

MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

44°

43°30’

45’

113°15’ 113° 45’ 112°30’ 112°15’

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Figure 9. Areal distribution of sulfate concentration trends in water from selected wells and surface-water sites at and near 

the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends 25

tac12-0715_fig10.ai

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

33

26

26

20

20

22

28

Mud

Lake

Big

Lost River

Little

Lost River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big Lost 

River

playas

and 

sinks

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

Spreading

areas

ATRC

INTEC

RWMC

MFC

NRF

PBF CFA

TAN

Big Lost River

near Arco 

Mud Lake 

near Terreton 

Little Lost River 

near Howe 

11 

125 

109 103 9 

86 

8 

Highway 3 

EBR 1 

83 

107 

Badging

Facility Well 

Site 9 

SPERT 1 AREA 2 

NPR Test 

5 

110A 1 

2 101 

6 

17 

Site 14 

18 

7 PSTF Test 

No Name 1 

ANP 6 

ANP 9 

IET 1 Disp 

26 

27 

31 

32 

4 

29 

P and W 2 

19 

12 

15 

23 Site 17 

102 

WS INEL 1 97 

98 

99 

 126A 

126B 

119 117 

121 

CPP 4 

Fire Station 2 

Surface-water site identifier, Big Lost River near 

Arco—Color of identifier is indicator of nitrate 

concentration trend; red color indicates 

increasing trend; blue indicates decreasing 

trend; and black indicates no trend

ANP 9

14

Well in the USGS aquifer water-quality 

monitoring network and identifier

Local well identifier—Number only shows 

USGS well; other names are local well names. 

See table 2 for more information

MFC—Materials and Fuels Complex 

CFA—Central Facilities Area

INTEC—Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

NRF—Naval Reactors Facility

RWMC—Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN—Test Area North

PBF—Power Burst Facility

EXPLANATION

Selected facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory

ATRC—Advanced Test Reactor Complex—formerly known as

Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) and Test Reactor

Area (TRA)

Boundary of Idaho National Laboratory

IDAHO

Boise

Eastern 

Snake River

Idaho Plain

National

Laboratory

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

44°

43°30’

45’

113°15’ 113° 45’ 112°30’ 112°15’

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 and 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

Figure 10. Areal distribution of nitrate concentration trends in water from selected wells and surface-water sites at and near 

the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.
26 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Results indicate that water influenced by seepage from 

the Big Lost River shows no trend or, in some cases, has 

trends that may correlate with above-average flow or no 

flow in the Big Lost River and the spreading areas south of 

the RWMC. The water samples from one location on the 

Big Lost River (Big Lost River near Arco) did not show a 

trend; however, the Big Lost River has mean concentrations 

of nitrate (0.283 mg/L for Big Lost River near Arco, table 3) 

that are much less than aquifer wells near the Big Lost River. 

Nitrate concentrations appear to fluctuate periodically in some 

wells, which may be due to above-average and below-average 

recharge to the groundwater (appendix C). Analyses of trends 

for nitrate in water from several of the wells that is mostly 

regionally derived groundwater indicate increasing trends. 

These increasing trends are attributed to agricultural and other 

anthropogenic influences upgradient of the INL.

Orthophosphate (as P).—Orthophosphate (as P) has not 

been a major constituent discharged in wastewater at the INL; 

only about 9 kg was discharged in liquid effluent at the INL 

from 1971 to 1998 (French and others, 1999). Orthophosphate 

(as P) was routinely analyzed for water samples from 55 

wells and 3 surface-water sites. Summary statistics and trends 

calculated are given in tables 3 and 4.

Plots of orthophosphate (as P) concentrations for the 58 

sites are given in appendixes C–E. Because orthophosphate 

(as P) concentrations were equal to or less than the reporting 

levels for many of the samples, trend analyses were done for 

censored and uncensored datasets. Trend results indicate no 

trend for most of the sites sampled. 

Trace Elements.—A suite of trace elements including 

aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, 

cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, 

silver, uranium, and zinc were routinely collected from 

seven wells analyzed for this study. Chromium was analyzed 

for water samples from these 7 wells along with 37 other 

wells so general discussion will be included in the section, 

“Chromium.” Thallium was collected from five wells and 

selenium was collected from two wells. These trace elements 

are sampled for upgradient and downgradient wells at TAN 

and ATRC because they were considered constituents of 

concern in the 1993 INL groundwater-monitoring plan at those 

facilities (Sehlke and Bickford, 1993). 

Plots of concentrations of trace elements from wells with 

both uncensored and censored data are shown in appendixes 

D and E. Summary statistics and trends calculated are 

given in tables 3 and 4. Lead concentrations decreased in 

well USGS 98. Molybdenum concentrations decreased in 

three wells near TAN (ANP 9, PSTF Test, and USGS 26). 

Molybdenum showed an increasing trend in well USGS 97. 

Barium concentrations decreased in wells USGS 7 and USGS 

97. Selenium concentrations increased in well USGS 98. 

Uranium concentrations decreased in the No Name 1 well and 

increased in well ANP 9. Zinc concentrations in well ANP 9 

decrease, increase, and then decrease again throughout the 

15-year history of sampling, and the fluctuations may be due 

to above-average and below-average periods of recharge. Zinc 

concentrations show a decreasing trend in well USGS 26. 

Zinc concentrations in well USGS 98 decreased substantially 

in 2005 when galvanized pipe was replaced with stainless 

steel pipe in the well. Barium concentrations also showed a 

decrease in 2005 and this decrease may be due to either the 

change in the pipe type or the deepening of the pump. All 

other trace elements showed no trends (tables 3 and 4).

Chromium.—Documented disposal of chromium in 

wastewater has occurred at ATRC, INTEC, and the Power 

Burst Facility (PBF) (Davis, 2010, p. 37). Background 

concentrations of chromium in water from the ESRP aquifer 

at the INL range from 2 to 3 μg/L (Orr and others, 1991, 

p. 41). The MCL for chromium in drinking water is 100 μg/L 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Samples 

were routinely collected and analyzed for chromium from 44 

wells analyzed for this study. Summary statistics and trends 

analyzed for chromium are shown in tables 3 and 4.

Plots of chromium concentrations for wells with both 

uncensored and censored data are shown in appendixes C–E. 

Five wells located in the northern part of the INL near TAN 

(ANP 9, No Name 1, PSTF test, USGS 7, and USGS 26) show 

decreasing trends. Well WS INEL 1 shows a decreasing trend, 

which is consistent with most other constituents in water 

from that well. Well USGS 98 shows an increasing trend and 

all other sites sampled for chromium show no trend (tables 3

and 4).

Total Organic Carbon.—Water samples analyzed 

for total organic carbon (TOC) are used to screen for 

organic compounds in the aquifer as a general indicator of 

groundwater contamination. As part of the INL groundwatermonitoring program adopted in 1994, the USGS began 

collecting and analyzing water from several wells at the INL 

for TOC. TOC was routinely analyzed for water samples from 

37 wells used in this study. Summary statistics for TOC results 

are shown in tables 3 and 4.

Plots of concentrations of TOC for water from wells with 

both uncensored and censored data are given in appendixes 

C and D. Most of the wells near the NRF (USGS 12, 17, 97, 

98, 99, and 102) show increasing trends, and well USGS 

19 at the terminus of the Little Lost River basin also shows 

an increasing trend. Increasing trends may be an indication 

of anthropogenic compounds in the Little Lost River basin 

underflow. Swanson and others (2002) were unable to model 

water from several wells in the Little Lost River basin because 

of contamination from local agricultural practices. Busenberg 

and others (2001, p. 86) indicated that the water chemistry 

in well USGS 12 was affected by agricultural chemicals. All 

other sites sampled for TOC show no trend (tables 3 and 4).
Significance of Trends at Each Well or Site 27

Significance of Trends at Each 

Well or Site

Chloride, nitrate, sodium, and sulfate are the primary 

constituents that have been discharged in wastewater at INL 

facilities and their concentrations in water samples often can 

be affected by anthropogenic influences. Because of this, these 

are the primary constituents discussed for each well or site. 

ANP 6.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate that chloride and nitrate concentrations 

generally were increasing until the late 1990s and early 2000s. 

Since then, the concentrations have decreased (appendix C). 

The gradual increases and decreases in concentrations in this 

well seem to indicate that the well is influenced by aboveaverage and below-average periods of recharge. As discussed 

previously, concentrations of constituents probably decrease 

during wet periods, when the aquifer is diluted more with 

low-concentration infiltration water, and may increase during 

drought periods when the aquifer system is influenced by older 

water that has had more time to react with chemicals in aquifer 

material. Busenberg and others (2001, p. 141) indicated that 

the age of the young fraction of water in this well during 

1995–96 probably was between 20 and 30 years old, so low 

concentrations in this well in the early 1990s and late 2000s 

likely correspond to the wet periods in the mid-1970s and 

mid-1980s, thus, future sampling should continue for these 

constituents in water from this well to further test this theory.

ANP 9.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trends for chloride, sodium, and 

nitrate concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, 

p. 81) indicated that water in this well is virtually all old 

regional water. Because of the lack of significant long-term 

temporal trends, a reduced sampling frequency may be 

considered.

ARBOR Test.—Analyses of trends for constituents 

in water from this well indicate no trend for chloride 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 80) 

indicated that water in this well is a mixture of old regional 

water and young infiltration water. Given the distance of the 

well from any streamflow infiltration and the probable small 

amount of infiltration recharge even during wet periods, a 

reduced sampling frequency may be considered. 

AREA 2.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trends for sodium, chloride, and 

nitrate concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, 

p. 80) indicated that water in this well is a mixture of old 

regional and young infiltration water. Given the distance of 

the well from streamflow infiltration and the relatively small 

amount of infiltration recharge even during wet periods, 

a reduced sampling frequency may be considered.. The 

increasing trend of sulfate is similar to overall increases of 

this constituent in the regional aquifer system, and may be the 

result of agricultural influences on the regional aquifer system. 

Atomic City.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trend for chloride concentrations, 

and an increasing trend for sodium concentrations (table 3). 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 80) indicated that water in this 

well is a mixture of old regional water somewhat influenced 

by young infiltration water. Given the distance of the well 

from streamflow infiltration and the probable small amount 

of infiltration recharge even during wet periods, a reduced 

sampling frequency may be considered. It is uncertain why 

sodium concentrations may be increasing.

Badging Facility Well.—Analyses of constituent trends 

in water from this well indicate no trends for chloride, 

sodium, and sulfate concentrations, and a decreasing trend 

for nitrate concentrations (table 3); however, some minor 

varibility in concentrations has occurred during different 

timeframes (appendix C). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 84) 

indicated that CFC concentrations may be influenced by waste 

disposal and, given the well location, the small variability in 

constituent concentrations could be due to different disposal 

rates at upgradient facilities.

CPP 4.—Analyses of constituent trends in water from this 

well indicate no trends for chloride and nitrate concentrations, 

and an increasing trend for sodium concentrations (table 3). 

This well is located near the Big Lost River; however, aboveaverage and no-flow periods seem to have little influence on 

the constituents in the water, with the possible exception of 

chloride (appendix C). The lack of significant trends may be 

because this well is open to a large section of the aquifer that 

combines a mixture of water types.

EBR 1.—Analyses of constituent trends in water from this 

well indicate no trends for chloride and nitrate concentrations, 

and an increasing trend for sodium concentrations (table 3). 

The lack of significant trends for most constituents may be 

because this well is open to a large section of the aquifer 

that combines a mixture of water types. Because this well is 

downgradient of the INTEC and the ATRC, the increasing 

sodium trend possibly could be due to wastewater disposal; 

however, no other constituents support this concept and 

sodium concentrations in the well are less than aquifer 

background concentrations. 

Fire Station 2.—Analyses of constituents in water from 

this well indicate no trend for chloride, although there has 

been some variability in concentrations over time, (appendix 

C), an increasing trend for nitrate concentrations, and no 

trend for sodium concentrations (table 3). The variability of 

chloride concentrations could be due to fluctuations related 

to above-average and below-average periods of recharge or 

changes in the amount of wastewater disposal at the NRF. 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 141) indicated that the young 

fraction of water in this well probably is between 11 and 20 

years old, so the low chloride concentrations in the late 1980s 

would correspond to above-average periods of recharge in 

the mid-1970s. Nitrate concentrations greater than 1 mg/L 

indicate some anthropogenic influence at this well, and, given 
28 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

its location, the increasing trend could be due to wastewater 

disposal at the NRF. Because power to the pump house was 

disconnected in 1997, the USGS discontinued sampling at this 

well at that time. 

Highway 3.—Analyses of constituent trends in 

water from this well indicate no trends for chloride and 

sodium concentrations, and an increasing trend for nitrate 

concentrations (table 3). This well is located near the Big Lost 

River; however, above-average and no-flow periods seem 

to have little influence other than some minor changes in 

sodium and chloride concentrations (appendix C). The lack of 

significant trends may be because this well is open to a large 

section of the aquifer that combines a mixture of water types.

IET 1 Disp.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate no trends for chloride and 

sodium concentrations, and an increasing trend for sulfate 

concentrations (table 3). The nutrient concentrations (nitrate, 

orthophosphate, and ammonia) in this well show decreasing 

trends. This well was completed with a slotted screen that has 

corroded and allowed sediment from above the water table to 

fill in the bottom of the well; thus, samples will not be able to 

be collected in the future unless well rehabilitation is done or 

water levels rise. Because of these factors, sampling has been 

discontinued. 

Leo Rogers 1.—Analyses of trends for constituents 

in water from this well indicate no trends for sodium and 

chloride concentrations. Busenberg and others (2001, p. 80) 

indicated that water in this well is a mixture of old regional 

water influenced by young infiltration water. The well initially 

was used as an irrigation well and is open to a large section 

of the aquifer. Sampling of this well has been discontinued 

because of the lack of trends and because power is no longer 

available.

No Name 1.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate no trends for chloride, nitrate, 

and sodium concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others 

(2001, p. 83) indicated that water in this well is mostly old 

slow infiltration recharge water that is different from many 

other water types in the northern area of the INL. Because of 

the lack of significant long-term temporal trends, a reduced 

sampling frequency may be considered.

NPR Test.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate decreasing trends for chloride, sodium, 

and nitrate concentrations. Geochemical modeling at this well 

(Schramke and others, 1996) indicates that the water from 

this well is partially seepage loss from the Big Lost River, and 

decreasing trends may be attributed to the dilution of the water 

from the lower concentration river water. Chloride samples 

collected prior to 1990 may show an increase until 1991 

(appendix C), prior to the overall decreasing trend. Busenberg 

and others (2001, p. 142) indicated that the age of the young 

fraction of water in this well was about 25 years and, given 

this age, the peak concentrations in 1991 would correspond 

with drought conditions in the mid-1960s.

P and W 2.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trends for chloride, sodium, and 

nitrate concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, 

p. 82) indicated that this well consists of mostly one type of 

water. The temperature of this water generally is colder than 

water in other wells in the aquifer and the colder temperature 

probably can be attributed to Birch Creek recharge.

PSTF Test.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate no trends for chloride, nitrate, 

and sodium concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others 

(2001, p. 82) indicated that water in this well is mostly old, 

slow infiltration recharge water that is different from water 

in the nearby well P and W 2 in the northern area. Because of 

the lack of significant long-term temporal trends, a reduced 

sampling frequency may be considered.

Site 4.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water from 

this well indicate decreasing trends for chloride and sodium, 

and no trend for sulfate; however, there has been considerable 

variability in the concentrations of all three constituents over 

time (appendix C). The variable decreases and increases in this 

well may indicate that the well is influenced by above-average 

and below-average periods of recharge. The well is located 

near the Big Lost River, and the young fraction of water is 

believed to be about 25 years old (Busenberg and others, 2001, 

p. 142). 

Site 9.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water from 

this well indicate increasing trends for sodium, sulfate, and 

nitrate concentrations, and no trend for chloride concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 142) indicate that the 

age of the young fraction of water was greater than 35 years 

old, but probably a much younger age near the surface of 

the water table. Concentration increases could be due to 

anthropogenic influences on the regional aquifer system, or 

could be due to wastewater disposal in the PBF area. 

Site 14.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trends for chloride, nitrate, and 

sodium concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, 

p. 82) indicated that water in this well is mostly old water. 

The well is open to a large section of the aquifer, so a reduced 

sampling frequency may be considered.

Site 17.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate no trends for concentrations of chloride, nitrate, 

sodium, and sulfate; however, there has been considerable 

variability in the concentrations of all four constituents over 

time (appendix C). The temporal variability in water-quality 

conditions in this well seem to indicate that the well is 

influenced by above-average and below-average periods of 

recharge, possibly from the Big Lost River. Busenberg and 

others (2001, p. 142) indicate that the young fraction of water 

is about 21–22 years old, so high concentrations in the 2000 

timeframe probably correspond with the drought in the early 

1980s.
Significance of Trends at Each Well or Site 29

Site 19.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate a decreasing trend for chloride 

concentrations, and no trends for sodium and sulfate 

concentrations (table 3). Concentrations of chloride, 

sodium, and sulfate increased for a couple of samples in the 

early 2000s, but no other indications of above-average or 

below-average periods of recharge are evident in this well 

(appendix C). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 85) indicated 

that water in this well probably contains no regional water, 

so water from this well probably is representative of mixed 

tributary valley underflow. 

SPERT 1.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate increasing trends for chloride, sodium, 

and nitrate concentrations (table 3). Because some wastewater 

disposal has occurred throughout the history of all facilities 

in the SPERT 1 area, the increasing trends possibly are 

from infiltration of wastewater discharged in the past finally 

reaching the aquifer or from anthropogenic influences on the 

regional aquifer system. 

TRA 1.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate a decreasing trend for chloride 

concentrations, and an increasing trend for sodium and 

sulfate concentrations (table 3). The decreasing chloride 

concentrations are consistent with other long-term decreasing 

trends associated with Big Lost River seepage in this part of 

the aquifer. The increasing trend for sodium and sulfate could 

be due to wastewater discharge at the ATRC.

TRA 3.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water from 

this well show a decreasing trend for chloride concentrations, 

an increasing trend for sodium concentrations, and no trend 

for sulfate concentrations (table 3). The decreasing chloride 

concentrations are consistent with other long-term decreasing 

trends associated with Big Lost River seepage in this part of 

the aquifer. The increasing trend for sodium could be due to 

wastewater discharge at the ATRC.

TRA 4.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate a decreasing trend for chloride 

concentrations, and increasing trends for sodium and 

sulfate concentrations (table 3). The decreasing chloride 

concentrations are consistent with other long-term decreasing 

trends associated with Big Lost River seepage in this part 

of the aquifer. The increasing trends for sodium and sulfate 

concentrations could be due to wastewater discharge at the 

ATRC.

USGS 1.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate increasing trends for chloride and 

nitrate concentrations, and no trend for sodium concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 80) indicated that 

water in this well is about 40 percent young recharge water 

and 60 percent regional recharge water, and the increasing 

trends for chloride and nitrate concentrations may be due to 

regional anthropogenic influence on the aquifer. 

USGS 2.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trend for chloride and sodium 

concentrations, and increasing trends for sulfate and nitrate 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 80) 

indicated that water in this well is about 40–50 percent young 

recharge water, and the remainder is regional recharge water.

The increasing trends for sulfate and nitrate concentrations 

may be due to regional anthropogenic influences on the 

aquifer. 

USGS 4.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate a decreasing trend for chloride 

concentrations, and no trend for the other constituents 

(table 3). The decreasing trend for chloride probably is 

because the well was used for a sodium chloride tracer 

study after originally being drilled (Jack Barraclough, U.S. 

Geological Survey retired, oral commun., May 25, 2011); 

however, the reason for the lack of a similar trend for sodium 

concentrations is unknown. 

 USGS 5.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate an increasing trend for chloride; 

however, concentrations have been quite variable over time. 

(appendix C). There are no trends for sodium and nitrate 

concentrations (table 3). The variable changes for chloride 

probably are due to above-average and below-average periods 

of recharge. Busenberg and other (2001, p. 82 and 142) 

indicated that water in this well is about 27 percent regional 

recharge water, and the remainder is mostly younger (about 

16 years old) recharge water from Big Lost River sinks. The 

increasing chloride concentrations in the late 2000s correlate 

well with drought conditions in the early 1990s.

USGS 6.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate an increasing trend for chloride 

concentrations, and no trends for nitrate, sodium, and sulfate 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 83) 

indicated that water in this well is all old water, so it is 

uncertain as to why the chloride concentrations are increasing.

USGS 7.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trends in concentrations for most of 

the constituents (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 83) 

indicated that water in this well is all old water from a large 

section of the aquifer, so a reduced sampling frequency may 

be considered.

USGS 8.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate a decreasing trend in chloride 

concentrations, and no trends for sodium and nitrate 

concentrations (table 3). Variability of sodium and chloride 

concentrations is evident in the datasets (appendix C). 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 92) indicated that the young 

fraction of water in this well was about 8–9 years old and was 

related to Big Lost River streamflow, so it seems probable that 

some response from seepage when flow occurs in the river 

would be evident.
30 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

USGS 9.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate decreasing trends for chloride and 

sodium concentrations, and no trend for nitrate concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 86) indicated that 

most of the water from this well was younger water with a 

recharge age of 21–23 years, and about 20 percent was old 

regional water. They also speculated that the young recharge 

water was from the INTEC disposal well, so decreasing trends 

in chloride and sodium concentrations could be representative 

of decreased discharge of wastewater constituents at the 

INTEC from earlier time periods. This well is located in the 

INL Spreading Areas (fig. 2), but water levels do not show any 

major fluctuation when there is flow in the Spreading Areas, 

so decreases in chloride and sodium concentrations related to 

decreased wastewater disposal is more likely than decreases 

due to seepage from the Spreading Areas.

USGS 11.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate decreasing trends for chloride and sodium 

concentrations, and no trend for nitrate concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 86) indicated that 

most of the water from this well was younger water with 

a recharge age of 17 years, and only a small fraction was 

regional groundwater. They also speculated that the young 

recharge water was from the INTEC disposal well, suggesting 

that decreasing chloride and sodium concentrations could 

be representative of decreased discharge of wastewater 

constituents at the INTEC. 

USGS 12.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate decreasing trends for chloride 

and sulfate, and no trend for sodium or nitrate; however, 

concentrations for all four constituents have experienced 

considerable variability over time (appendix C). The gradual 

increases and decreases in concentrations in this well seem to 

indicate that the well is influenced by above-average seepage 

and no seepage from the Big Lost River, and this well shows 

large water-level fluctuations in response to seepage (fig. 8). 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 86) indicated a discrepancy 

in the results from methods used to date the young fraction 

of water from this well, with tritium/helium ages of about 

3–5 years and CFC ages of about 17 years. The rapid response 

of water-level changes when flow in the Big Lost River occurs 

seem to indicate the younger age may be more accurate 

as high and low concentrations correlate fairly well with 

low and high water levels, respectively (fig. 8). Schramke 

and others (1996) indicate that water in this well also was 

influenced geochemically by Little Lost River underflow, so 

above-average and below-average periods of recharge from 

the Little Lost River basin also may be a factor.

USGS 14.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well show some variability but no trends for chloride 

and sodium concentrations (appendix C, table 3). Busenberg 

and others (2001, p. 86) indicated that most of the water from 

this well was local recharge with a recharge age of about 

27 years. They also speculated that the young recharge water 

was from the INTEC disposal well, so variability of chloride 

and sodium concentrations could be representative of variable 

discharge of wastewater containing these constituents at the 

INTEC. 

USGS 15.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate no trend for chloride, sodium, sulfate, and 

bromide and an increasing trend for nitrate concentrations; 

however, concentrations for all constituents have exhibited 

considerable variability over time (appendix C). The gradual 

increases and decreases in concentrations in this well seem 

to indicate that the well is influenced by above-average and 

below-average periods of seepage from the Big Lost River. 

However, Busenberg and others (2001, p. 86) indicated that 

water in this well is mostly old water, with only a small 

fraction of young water that is between 22 and 26 years old. 

The increases and decreases do not correlate well with Big 

Lost River seepage and the corresponding young water age. 

Schramke and others (1996) indicated that the nearby well 

USGS 12 (fig. 2) was influenced geochemically by Little Lost 

River underflow, so above-average and below-average periods 

of recharge from the Little Lost River basin may be a factor 

affecting the variability of the concentrations.

USGS 17.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate increasing trends for sodium, nitrate, and TOC 

concentrations, no trend for sulfate concentrations, and a 

decreasing trend for chloride concentrations (tables 3 and 4). 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 86) indicated that most of the 

water from this well was local recharge with a recharge age of 

about 16 years. The increasing trends for sodium, nitrate, and 

TOC concentrations could be due to anthropogenic influences 

from the Little Lost River basin. 

USGS 18.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate increasing trends for chloride and 

sulfate concentrations, but no trends for other constituents 

(tables 3 and 4). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 83) indicated 

that most of the water from this well was old water. The 

increasing trends of chloride and sulfate concentrations 

probably are due to anthropogenic influences on the regional 

aquifer system northeast of the INL. 

USGS 19.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate no trend for chloride and decreasing trends for 

sodium and nitrate concentrations (table 3); however, all 

concentrations of all constituents have exhibited considerable 

variability over time (appendix C). Busenberg and others 

(2001) indicated that the young fraction of water was about 

15–16 years old, but did not speculate on the source of water. 

Given the location of the well, the groundwater probably 

is influenced by Little Lost River seepage and underflow 

from the Little Lost River Valley. The variable changes for 

chloride could be due to above-average and below-average 

periods of recharge; however, since 1995 the concentrations 

have remained consistent. The decreasing sodium and nitrate 

concentrations could be an indication of greater influence of 

lower concentration surface-water seepage.
Significance of Trends at Each Well or Site 31

USGS 22.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trends in chloride and sodium 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 90) 

indicated that the water chemistry of this well is very different 

from other water at the INL, and probably is local recharge 

of both rapid-focused recharge and slow-infiltration recharge. 

Because of these recharge mechanisms, trends are not 

expected to change much in the future and sampling may be 

discontinued. 

USGS 23.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate no trend in chloride and nitrate concentrations 

and an increasing trend for sodium concentrations (table 3); 

however, there has been considerable variability in the 

concentrations of all three constituents over time. Busenberg 

and others (2001) indicated that water in this well is mostly 

old water and, given its location, probably is Little Lost River 

groundwater underflow. The variability implies changes due to 

above-average and below-average periods of recharge. Sodium 

increases may be due to anthropogenic influences from the 

Little Lost River valley. 

USGS 26.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate increasing trends for sodium and 

nitrate concentrations, and no trend for chloride concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 83) indicated that 

water in this well is mostly all old water, so the increasing 

concentration trends probably are due to anthropogenic 

influences on regional recharge from northeast of the INL. 

USGS 27.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate a decreasing trend in chloride concentrations 

and no trends for nitrate and sodium concentrations (table 3); 

however, the concentrations of all three constituents have 

exhibited considerable variability over time. Busenberg and 

others (2001, p. 83) indicated that water in this well is mostly 

all old water with the young fraction about 10–13 years old. 

The general increase in chloride until about 1991, and then 

decrease since 1991 (appendix C, table 3) does not correlate 

well with above-average and below-average periods of 

recharge, so the variability could be due to pump installation 

in 1990. 

USGS 29.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate no trends for all constituents (table 3); 

however, there appears to be some variability in nitrate 

concentrations (appendix C). Busenberg and others (2001, 

p. 83) indicated that the young fraction was about 28 years old 

and that samples showed a strong agricultural influence. The 

variability of nitrate concentrations may be due to variable 

agricultural influences.

USGS 31.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate increasing trends for chloride, 

nitrate, and sulfate concentrations, and no trend for sodium 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 84) 

indicated that water in this well is mostly old water with 

slow infiltration, so the increasing trends probably are due to 

anthropogenic influences on regional recharge from northeast 

of the INL. 

USGS 32.—Analyses of constituents in water from 

this well indicate no trend in any constituent concentrations 

(table 3); however, concentrations for all four constituents 

have exhibited considerable variability over time. 

Concentrations tended to increase until about 2000, decrease 

until 2004, and then mostly increase again (appendix C). 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 84) indicated that water in this 

well is mostly old water with slow infiltration, so the variable 

changes probably are due to agricultural influences on regional 

recharge from northeast of the INL and responses to aboveaverage and below-average periods of recharge. This probably 

explains why higher concentrations of sodium, sulfate, and 

chloride in the 1997–2000 timeframe shown in figure 8 do 

not correlate with low water levels in the aquifer because the 

water sampled during that wet period probably was recharged 

during a previous dry period.

USGS 83.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate no trends for any constituent (table 3); however, 

chloride and nitrate concentrations variably decreased until 

about 2000, increased until 2004, and then decreased again 

(appendix C). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 87) indicated 

that water in this well is mostly deep water, and there were 

no CFCs present so the well is not influenced by wastewater 

discharge. The variable concentrations may be due to response 

to above-average and below-average periods of recharge 

influencing the deeper part of the aquifer at this well location. 

USGS 86.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate decreasing trends for chloride and 

nitrate concentrations, and no trend for sodium concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 92) indicated that the 

young fraction of water in this well was about 12 years old and 

was related to Big Lost River streamflow, so the decreasing 

chloride and nitrate concentrations could be due to dilution by 

Big Lost River water.

USGS 97.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate increasing trends for chloride, sodium, nitrate, 

bromide, and molybdenum concentrations, a decreasing trend 

in sulfate and and barium concentrations, and no trend for 

arsenic (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 87) indicated 

that the young fraction of water in this well was about 6 years 

old and probably was related to wastewater disposal at the 

NRF, which could account for the variable and increasing 

concentration trends for the constituents in the well. 

USGS 98.—Analyses of trends for constituents 

in water from this well indicate a decreasing trend for 

chloride concentrations, and no trends for most of the other 

constituents (table 3). Almost all constituents show a small 

decrease in concentration when the pump was lowered in 

2005 (appendix C), which may account for the decreasing 

concentration trends. Busenberg and others (2001, p. 87) 

indicated that the young fraction of water in this well was 

about 7 years old and probably was related to wastewater 

disposal at the NRF, so decreasing chloride concentrations 

in wastewater could account for the decreasing chloride 

concentration trend.
32 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

USGS 99.—Analyses of constituents in water from 

this well indicate increasing trends for chloride and sodium 

concentrations and no trends for sulfate, bromide, and nitrate 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 88) 

indicated that the young fraction of water in this well was 

about 4 years old and probably was related to wastewater 

disposal at the NRF, which could account for the variable and 

increasing concentration trends for chloride and sodium 

USGS 100.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate increasing trends for sodium 

and sulfate concentrations, and no trend for chloride 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 81) 

indicates that the water in this well is about 40–50 percent 

young recharge water, and the remainder is regional 

recharge water. The increasing trends may be due to regional 

anthropogenic influences on the aquifer. 

USGS 101.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate increasing trends for chloride and 

nitrate concentrations, and no trend for sodium concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 81) indicated that 

water in this well is about 20–40 percent young recharge 

water, and the remainder is regional recharge water. The 

increasing trends may be due to regional anthropogenic 

influences on the aquifer. 

USGS 102.—Analyses of constituents in water from this 

well indicate no trend but variable changes (appendix C) 

for chloride and sulfate and increasing trends for sodium, 

bromide, nitrate, orthophosphate, and TOC concentrations 

(tables 3 and 4). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 88) indicated 

that the young fraction of water in this well was about 6 years 

old and probably was related to wastewater disposal at the 

NRF, which could account for the variable changes and 

increasing concentration trends for the constituents. 

USGS 103.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate no trends for chloride and 

sodium concentrations, and an increasing trend for nitrate 

concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 88) 

indicated that the young fraction of water in this well was 

about 26 years old and probably was related to wastewater 

disposal at INTEC, which could account for the increasing 

concentration trend for nitrate. 

USGS 107.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate increasing trends for chloride, nitrate, 

and sodium concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others 

(2001, p. 88) indicated that the young fraction of water in 

this well probably was older than 15 years. The increasing 

concentrations may be due to the overall increases occurring 

in the regional aquifer system due to agricultural practices 

northeast of the INL, or could be the result of wastewater 

disposal from facilities (possibly the PBF) finally reaching the 

well and elevating the concentrations. 

USGS 109.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate a decreasing trend for chloride 

concentrations, no trend for sodium concentrations, and 

an increasing trend for nitrate concentrations (table 3). 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 88–89) indicated that the 

young fraction of water in this well was about 18–20 years old 

and probably was related to wastewater disposal at INTEC, so 

variable concentrations in wastewater discharge may explain 

why chloride decreases and nitrate increases. The higher 

concentrations of chloride in the mid-1980s (appendix C) 

support this wastewater disposal theory. 

USGS 110 and 110A.—Analyses of trends for constituents 

in water from this well (USGS 110) and the replacement 

well (USGS 110A, redrilled next to USGS 110) indicate an 

increasing trend for chloride concentrations in well USGS 110, 

but no trend for well USGS 110A; no trends for sodium 

concentrations in either well; and no trend for nitrate in well 

110A (table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 81) indicated 

that water in well USGS 110A is about half young recharge 

water, and the remainder is regional recharge water.

USGS 117.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate decreasing trends for chloride 

and nitrate concentrations, an increasing trend for sodium 

concentrations, and no trend for sulfate concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 89) indicated that 

although this well is downgradient of the RWMC, it does not 

contain CFCs and the young fraction of water probably is 

greater than 33 years old. It is not clear why the concentration 

trends for the different constituents are variable.

USGS 119.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate an increasing trend for sulfate 

concentrations, and no trends for chloride, sodium, and 

nitrate concentrations (table 3). Busenberg and others 

(2001, p. 89) could not date the young fraction of water 

because of contamination with CFCs. The increasing sulfate 

concentrations could be due to waste disposal practices either 

at the RWMC, or at the ATRC, but it is unclear why the other 

constituents do not show any trend.

USGS 121.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate a decreasing trend for chloride 

concentrations, and no trends for nitrate, sulfate, and 

sodium concentrations (table 3). Although overall chloride 

concentrations show a decreasing trend, concentrations 

decrease and increase with time. This well is located next 

to the Big Lost River; so above-average seepage and no 

seepage from the river may cause the variable concentrations. 

Busenberg and others (2001, p. 89) calculated an age of 

15.5 years for the young fraction of water, and speculated 

that the young fraction was related to wastewater discharge at 

the NRF.
Significance of Trends at Each Well or Site 33

USGS 125.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from this well indicate decreasing trends for chloride and 

sodium concentrations, and no trend for nitrate concentrations 

(table 3). Busenberg and others (2001, p. 90) indicated a 

recharge age of 17 years for the young fraction of water. They 

also attributed the young fraction to the INTEC disposal well, 

so decreasing trends for chloride and sodium concentrations 

(appendix C) could be representative of decreased discharge of 

wastewater constituents at the INTEC. 

USGS 126A.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate no trends for chloride, nitrate, 

and sodium concentrations (table 3). Swanson and others 

(2003) indicated that water from this well could be modeled 

from upgradient wells in the Birch Creek basin. Because this 

water can be attributed to Birch Creek underflow, a reduced 

sampling frequency may be considered.

USGS 126B.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate no trends for chloride, nitrate, 

and sodium concentrations (table 3). Swanson and others 

(2003) indicated that water from this well could be modeled 

from upgradient wells in the Birch Creek basin. Because this 

water can be attributed to Birch Creek underflow, a reduced 

sampling frequency may be considered.

WS INEL 1.—Analyses of trends for constituents in 

water from this well indicate decreasing trends for bromide, 

chloride, nitrate, sodium, and sulfate concentrations, and no 

trend for TOC concentrations (tables 3 and 4). Busenberg 

and others (2001, p. 85) indicated difficulty with determining 

the young fraction of water in this well. A radioactive source 

was lost in the well after completion and initial sampling in 

1978, and the source was cemented in the bottom of the well. 

Decreasing trends may not be representative of the aquifer 

conditions, but instead may be a remnant of contamination 

of the well from cementing in the source or from drilling 

fluids used to drill the nearby well INEL 1. Chloride, sodium, 

and sulfate all show increasing concentrations from the 

late 1990s until the early 2000s (appendix C). The variable 

concentrations could be due to a combination of wastewater 

disposal at the NRF and/or above-average and below-average 

periods of recharge to the aquifer, or from the previously 

listed contamination sources. The higher than background 

concentrations of bromide, chloride, nitrate, sodium, and 

sulfate seem related to contamination, and not associated with 

natural aquifer conditions. 

Big Lost River at Experimental Dairy Farm near Howe, 

Idaho.—Analyses of trends for constituents in water from this 

site indicate no trend for chloride concentrations (table 3). 

However, concentrations of chloride tended to be higher 

during wetter periods, when there is a longer period of flow at 

the site, because the water has more time to acquire dissolved 

constituents. 

Big Lost River below INL Diversion near Arco, Idaho.—

Analyses of trends for constituents in water from this site 

indicate a decreasing trend for chloride concentrations 

(table 3); however,concentrations of chloride tended to be 

higher during wetter periods, when there is a longer period of 

flow at the site, because the water has more time to acquire 

dissolved constituents. Therefore, the decreasing trend may 

be associated more with recent, shorter periods of flow (2005, 

2006, and 2009) consisting of mostly snowfall runoff with 

low chloride concentrations than with natural environmental 

influence on the river.

Big Lost River below Mackay Reservoir near Mackay, 

Idaho.—Analyses of constituents in water from this site 

indicate a decreasing trend for chloride concentrations 

(table 3). Because this site has continuous flow downstream of 

Mackay Dam, decreasing trends should be representative of 

system response to natural environmental influences and not 

associated with shorter periods of flow or periodic runoff. The 

chemical changes at this site generally appear be carried down 

throughout the other downgradient sites sampled.

Big Lost River near Arco, Idaho.—Analyses of trends for 

constituents in water from this site indicate no concentration 

trends for all constituents (table 3). Data for chloride from the 

1990 to 2009 timeframe when the river was dry for about onehalf the time indicates similar concentrations as other Big Lost 

River sites (Big Lost River below INL Diversion and Big Lost 

River near the Experimental Dairy Farm) (appendix C) that 

have periodic flow.

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn, near Reno, Idaho.—

Analyses of trends for constituents in water from this site 

indicate a decreasing trend for chloride concentrations 

(table 3). Because this site has continuous flow from springs 

and runoff in the upper basin, decreasing trends should be 

representative of system response to natural environmental 

influences.

Little Lost River near Howe, Idaho.—Analyses of trends 

for constituents in water from this site indicate an increasing 

trend for chloride concentrations, and no trends for all other 

constituents (table 3). The increasing chloride concentrations 

could be due to agricultural influences in the Little Lost River 

basin.

Mud Lake near Terreton, Idaho.—Analyses of trends 

for constituents in water from this site indicate an increasing 

trend for chloride concentrations, and no trends for all other 

constituents (table 3). The increasing chloride concentrations 

could be due to agricultural influences in the Mud Lake basin.
34 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Summary and Conclusions

The USGS, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of 

Energy, has maintained a water-quality monitoring network at 

the INL since 1949 to define the quality of water for human 

and industrial use and to better understand the location and 

movement of contaminants in the ESRP aquifer at the INL. 

Water-quality trends for 67 aquifer wells and 7 surface-water 

sites were examined for selected constituents, including major 

cations, anions, nutrients, trace elements, and total organic 

carbon for data collected from 1949 through 2009. Waterquality trends were determined using (1) the nonparametric 

Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient, p-value, Theil-Sen slope 

estimator, and summary statistics for uncensored data; and (2) 

the Kaplan-Meier method for calculating summary statistics, 

Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient, p-value, and AkritasTheil-Sen slope estimator for robust linear regression for 

censored data. Water-quality trends were determined to assist 

with future management decisions concerning which wells to 

sample and which constituent types to monitor. 

Water-quality trends were determined from groundwater 

for the period of record after the date of pump installations, 

or after 1980 through 2009, to eliminate variability associated 

with sample-collection methods and data not collected 

under a quality assurance program. Outlier data that did not 

correlate with field-specific conductance measurements and 

replicate values were not used. Water-quality trends were 

not determined for the radiochemical constituents analyzed 

because almost all concentrations were less than the reporting 

level. 

Trends for field measurements of pH, specific 

conductance, and water temperature were analyzed. It was 

difficult to assess whether or not the trends for pH were due 

to changing aquifer conditions or because of the variability 

throughout the history of the sample collection methods or 

meter types. Trends of specific conductance in water from 

a few wells were affected by collection method. Trends of 

specific conductance in water for most of the other sites 

generally were similar to trends for the chemical constituents 

chloride, sodium, and sulfate. For most of the sites, water 

temperature did not show a statistical trend.

Chloride results indicate that groundwater influenced 

by seepage loss from the Big Lost River have decreasing 

trends or, in some cases, have trends that correlate with 

periods of above-average recharge and no recharge from 

the river. Water samples from four sampling locations on 

the Big Lost River show a decreasing trend or no trend for 

chloride concentrations, and concentrations generally are 

much less than those in the aquifer. Above-average and 

below-average periods of recharge also affect concentration 

trends for sodium, sulfate, nitrate, and a few trace elements 

in several wells. Analyses of trends for constituents in water 

from several of the wells that is mostly regionally derived 

groundwater generally show an increasing trend in chloride, 

sodium, sulfate, and nitrate concentrations. These increases 

are attributed to agricultural or other anthropogenic influences 

upgradient of the INL. 

Chemical constituent trends in water from several wells 

near the NRF may be influenced by wastewater disposal at the 

facility or could be due to anthropogenic influence from the 

Little Lost River basin. Increasing sodium concentrations in 

a few wells near the ATRC and INTEC also could be affected 

by wastewater discharge, but trends of other constituents 

do not show a similar correlation. Three wells located at 

and downgradient from the PBF area (SPERT 1, Site 9, and 

USGS 107) all show increasing trends of several constituents. 

The increases could be due to wastewater disposal in the PBF 

area; more wells may need to be added to the sample program 

to fully characterize that area. 

Water from several wells located in the southwestern part 

of the INL and southwest of the INL may show concentration 

trends for chloride and sodium that were influenced by 

wastewater disposal at INTEC and ATRC, even though 

these wells were selected for this study because it was 

believed they were not influenced. Some constituents show 

decreases that could be attributed to the decreasing constituent 

concentrations in the wastewater from the late 1970s to 2009, 

and from changes in wastewater disposal practices. Ages of 

the young recharge water in many of the wells are more than 

20 years old, so samples collected in the early 1990s are more 

representative of water discharged in the 1960s and 1970s, 

when concentrations of chloride, nitrate, sodium, and sulfate 

in wastewater were much higher. Water sampled in 2009 

would be representative of the low concentrations of chloride 

and sodium in wastewater discharged in the late 1980s. 

Several wells in the central and southern part of the aquifer at 

the INL show increased sodium concentrations, and in most 

cases, the concentrations were less than what was considered 

as the background concentration for the aquifer in 1974. 

Many wells are open to large mixed sections of the aquifer, 

and increasing concentration trends may indicate that the long 

history of wastewater disposal in the central part of the INL is 

causing sodium concentrations to increase.

At several sites, a reduced sampling frequency may be 

considered because all the constituents showed no trend. Water 

samples collected for radiochemical constituents, fluoride, 

some trace elements, total organic carbon, and volatile organic 

compounds could be discontinued if trends continue as they 

currently (2009) are presented.
References Cited 35

References Cited

Ackerman, D.J., 1991a, Transmissivity of the Snake 

River Plain aquifer at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 91–4058 (DOE/ID–22097), 35 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

wri914058.) 

Ackerman, D.J., 1991b, Transmissivity of perched aquifers 

at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

91-4114 (DOE/ ID-22099), 27 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri914114.) 

Ackerman, D.J., Rattray, G.W., Rousseau, J.P., Davis, L.C., 

and Orr, B.R., 2006, A conceptual model of ground-water 

flow in the eastern Snake River Plan aquifer at the Idaho 

National Laboratory and vicinity with implications for 

contaminant transport: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006–5122, 62 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20065122.)

Ackerman, D.J., Rousseau, J.P., Rattray, G.W., and 

Fisher, J.C., 2010, Steady-state and transient models of 

groundwater flow and advective transport, eastern Snake 

River Plain aquifer, Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010–5123 (DOE/ID-22209), 220 p. (Also available 

at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20105123.)

Anderson, S.R., 1991, Stratigraphy of the unsaturated zone 

and uppermost part of the Snake River Plain aquifer at 

the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant and Test Reactors 

Area, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

91-4010 (DOE/ID–22095), 71 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri914010.) 

Anderson, S.R., and Lewis, B.D., 1989, Stratigraphy of the 

unsaturated zone at the Radioactive Waste Management 

Complex, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 89-4065 (DOE/ID-22080), 54 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri894065.)

Barraclough, J.T., and Jensen, R.G., 1976, Hydrologic data for 

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site, Idaho, 1971 

to 1973: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 75–318 

(IDO–22055), 52 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.

gov/publication/ofr75318.)

Barraclough, J.T., Lewis, B.D., and Jensen, R.G., 1981, 

Hydrologic conditions at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho, emphasis 1974–1978: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open-File Report 

81–526 (IDO-22060), 122 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr81526.)

Barraclough, J.T., Robertson, J.B., and Janzer, V.J., 1976, 

Hydrology of the solid waste burial ground as related to 

the potential migration of radionuclides, Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory, with a section on drilling and 

sample analyses, by L.G. Saindon: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 76–471 (IDO–22056), 183 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr76471.)

Barraclough, J.T., Teasdale, W.E., and Jensen, R.G., 1967a, 

Hydrology of the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, 

1965: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report (IDO–

22048), 107 p.

Barraclough, J.T., Teasdale, W.E., Robertson, J.B., and Jensen, 

R.G., 1967b, Hydrology of the National Reactor Testing 

Station, Idaho, 1966: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 67–12 (IDO–22049), 98 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr6712.)

Bartholomay, R.C., 1993, Concentrations of tritium and 

strontium-90 in water from selected wells at the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory after purging one, two, 

and three borehole volumes: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 93–4201 (DOE/

ID-22111), 21 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

usgspubs/wri/wri934201.)

Bartholomay, R.C., 1998, Distribution of selected 

radiochemical and chemical constituents in perched ground 

water, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1992–

95: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98–4026 (DOE/ID–22145), 59 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri984026.)

Bartholomay, R.C., 2009, Iodine-129 in the Snake River 

Plain aquifer at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, 

Idaho, 2003 and 2007: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5088, 28 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20095088.)

Bartholomay, R.C., Knobel, L.L., and Rousseau, J.P., 2003, 

Field methods and quality-assurance plan for quality-ofwater activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho National 

Engineering and Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003-42 (DOE/

ID–22182), 45 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr0342.) 

Bartholomay, R.C., Orr, B.R., Liszewski, M.J., and Jensen, 

R.G., 1995, Hydrologic conditions and distribution of 

selected radiochemical and chemical constituents in water, 

Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1989 through 1991: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95–4175 

(DOE/ID–22123), 47 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wri954175.)
36 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Bartholomay, R.C., and Tucker, B.J., 2000, Distribution 

of selected radiochemical and chemical constituents 

in perched ground water, Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho, 1996–98: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

2000–4222 (DOE/ID–22168), 51 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri004222.)

Bartholomay, R.C., Tucker, B.J., Ackerman, D.J., and 

Liszewski, M.J., 1997, Hydrologic conditions and 

distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical 

constituents in water, Snake River Plain aquifer, 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1992 

through 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 97–4086 (DOE/ID–22137), 57 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

wri974086.)

Bartholomay, R.C., Tucker, B.J., Davis, L.C., and Green, 

M.R., 2000, Hydrologic conditions and distribution of 

selected constituents in water, Snake River Plain aquifer, 

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 

Idaho, 1996 through 1998: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 2000–4192 (DOE/

ID–22167), 52 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri004192.)

Bartholomay, R.C., and Williams, L.M., 1996, Evaluation of 

preservation methods for selected nutrients in ground water 

at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

96–4260 (DOE/ID–22131), 16 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964260.)

Bodnar, L.Z., and Percival, D.R., eds., 1982, Analytical 

Chemistry Branch procedures manual-Radiological and 

Environmental Sciences Laboratory: U.S. Department of 

Energy Report IDO-12096 [variously paged].

Busenberg, Eurybiades, Plummer, L.N., and Bartholomay, 

R.C., 2001, Estimated age and source of the young fraction 

of ground water at the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 2001–4265 (DOE/

ID-22177), 144 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri014265.)

Cecil, L.D., Orr, B.R., Norton, T.J., and Anderson, S.R., 

1991, Formation of perched ground-water zones and 

concentrations of selected chemical constituents in water, 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1986–88: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 91–4166 (DOE/ID–22100), 53 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri914166.)

Cecil, L.D., Welhan, J.A., Green, J.R., Frape, S.K., and 

Sudicky, E.R., 2000, Use of chlorine-36 to determine 

regional-scale aquifer dispersivity, eastern Snake River 

Plain aquifer, Idaho/USA: Nuclear Instruments and 

Methods in Physics Research, section B, v. 172, issues 1–4, 

p. 679–687. 

Childress, C.J.O., Forman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, 

T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on long-term 

method detection levels and some considerations for 

interpretations of water-quality data provided by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr99193.)

Claassen, H.C., 1982, Guidelines and techniques for obtaining 

water samples that accurately represent the water chemistry 

of an aquifer: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

82–1024, 49 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr821024.)

Currie, L.A., 1984, Lower limit of detection-definition and 

elaboration of a proposed position for radiological effluent 

and environmental measurements: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission NUREG/CR–4007, 139 p.

Davis, L.C., 2006a, An update of the distribution of selected 

radiochemical and chemical constituents in perched ground 

water, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, emphasis 1999–

2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006–5236 (DOE/ID-22199), 48 p. (Also available 

at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20065236.)

Davis, L.C., 2006b, An update of hydrologic conditions 

and distribution of selected constituents in water, Snake 

River Plain aquifer, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 

emphasis 1999–2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006–5088 (DOE/ID-22197), 48 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

sir20065088.)

Davis, L.C., 2008, An update of hydrologic conditions and 

distribution of selected constituents in water, Snake River 

Plain aquifer and perched-water zones, Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho, emphasis 2002–05: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5089 (DOE/

ID-22203), 75 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/sir20085089.)

Davis, L.C., 2010, An update of hydrologic conditions and 

distribution of selected constituents in water, Snake River 

Plain aquifer and perched groundwater zones, Idaho 

National Laboratory, Idaho, emphasis 2006–08: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–

5197 (DOE/ID-22212), 80 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20105197.)
References Cited 37

Duke, C.L., Roback, R.C., Reimus, P.W., Bowman, 

R.S., McLing, T.L., Baker, K.E., and Hull, L.C., 2007, 

Elucidation of flow and transport processes in a variably 

saturated system of interlayered sediment and fractured 

rock using tracer tests: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 6, no. 4, 

p. 855–867.

Faires, L.M., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determinations of metals in water by inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 92–634, 28 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr92634.)

Fisher, J.C., and Davis, L.C., 2011, Analysis of data collected 

from a monitoring network, Package ‘Trends’: version 0.1-

2, accessed August 6, 2012, at https://github.com/jfisherusgs/Trends.

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in 

water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 93–125, 217 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr93125.)

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

twri05A1.)

French, D.L., Tallman, R.E., and Taylor, K.A., 1999, Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory nonradiological waste 

management information for 1998 and record-to-date: 

U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Management Programs 

Division, Idaho Operations Office Publication, DOE/

ID-10057 (98) [variously paged].

Garabedian, S.P., 1986, Application of a parameter-estimation 

technique to modeling the regional aquifer underlying the 

eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Supply Paper 2278, 60 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2278.)

Goerlitz, D.F., and Brown, Eugene, 1972, Methods for 

analysis of organic substances in water: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

5, chap. A3, 40 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/twri05A3_1972.)

Helsel, D.R., 2005, Nondetects and data analysis—Statistics 

for censored environmental data: Hoboken, N.J., Wiley, 

250 p.

Hem, J.D., 1989, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2254.)

Hull, L.C., 1989, Conceptual model and description of the 

affected environment for the TRA warm waste pond (Waste 

Management Unit TRA-03): EG and G Idaho Informal 

Report EGG–ER–8644, 125 p.

Jones, P.H., 1961, Hydrology of waste disposal, National 

Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, an interim report: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations Office 

Publication IDO–22042–USGS, 152 p.

Knobel, L.L., 2006, Evaluation of well-purging effects on 

water-quality results for samples collected from the eastern 

Snake River Plain aquifer underlying the Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006–5232 (DOE/ID-22200), 52 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

sir20065232.)

Knobel, L.L., Tucker, B.J. and Rousseau, J.P., 2008, Field 

methods and quality-assurance plan for quality-ofwater activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2008–1165 (DOE/ID–22206), 36 p. (Also available 

at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20081165.)

Lee, Lopaka, 2012, Nada—Nondetects and data analysis for 

environmental data; The R Project for Statistical Computing 

Web site accessed May 11, 2012, at http://cran.r-project.org/

web/packages/NADA/index.html.

Lewis, B.D., and Jensen, R.G., 1985, Hydrologic conditions 

at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 

1979–1981 update: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas HA–674, 2 sheets. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ha674.)

Mann, L.J., 1986, Hydraulic properties of rock units and 

chemical quality of water for INEL-1—A 10,365-foot 

deep test hole drilled at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 86–4020 (DOE/ID–22070), 23 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

wri864020.)

Mann, L.J., 1996, Quality-assurance plan and field methods 

for quality-of-water activities, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–615 (DOE/

ID-22132), 37 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr96615.)
38 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Mann, L.J., and Beasley, T.M., 1994, Iodine-129 in the 

Snake River Plain aquifer at and near the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1990–1991: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4053 

(DOE/ID-22115), 27 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wri944053.)

McCurdy, D.E., Garbarino, J.R., and Mullin, A.H., 2008, 

Interpreting and reporting radiological water-quality data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, 

chap. B6, 33 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/tm5B6.)

Morris, D.A., Barraclough, J.T., Chase, G.H., Teasdale, W.E., 

and Jensen, R.G., 1965, Hydrology of subsurface waste 

disposal, National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, annual 

progress report, 1964: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 

Idaho Operations Office Publication, IDO–22047–USGS, 

186 p.

Morris, D.A., Barraclough, J.T., Hogenson, G.M., Shuter, 

Eugene, Teasdale, W.E., Ralston, D.A., and Jensen, R.G., 

1964, Hydrology of subsurface waste disposal, National 

Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, annual progress report, 

1963: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations 

Office Publication, IDO–22046–USGS, 97 p.

Morris, D.A., Hogenson, G.M., Shuter, Eugene, and Teasdale, 

W.E., 1963, Hydrology of waste disposal, National Reactor 

Testing Station, Idaho, annual progress report, 1962: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations Office 

Publication, IDO–22044–USGS, 99 p.

Nace, R.L., Voegeli, P.T., Jones, J.R., and Deutsch, Morris, 

1975, Generalized geologic framework of the National 

Reactor Testing Station, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 725-B, 48 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp725B.)

Nimmo, J.R., Perkins, K.S., Rose, P.A., Rousseau, J.P., Orr, 

B.R., Twining, B.V., and Anderson, S.R., 2002, Kilometerscale rapid transport of naphthalene sulfonate tracer in the 

unsaturated zone at the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 1, issue 

1, p. 89–101. 

Olmsted, F.H., 1962, Chemical and physical character of 

ground water in the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho: 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations Office 

Publication IDO-22043-USGS, 142 p. 

Orr, B.R., 1999, A transient numerical simulation of perched 

ground-water flow at the Test Reactor Area, Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho, 1952–

94: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99–4277 (DOE/ID–22162), 54 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri994277.)

Orr, B.R., and Cecil, L.D., 1991, Hydrologic conditions and 

distribution of selected chemical constituents in water, 

Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1986 to 1988: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 91–4047 (DOE/

ID–22096), 56 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri914047.)

Orr, B.R., Cecil, L.D., and Knobel, L.L., 1991, Background 

concentrations of selected radionuclides, organic 

compounds, and chemical constituents in ground water in 

the vicinity of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 91–4015 (DOE/ID–22094), 52 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri914015.)

Pittman, J.R., Fischer, P.R., and Jensen, R.G., 1988, 

Hydrologic conditions at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, 1982 to 1985: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 89–4008 (DOE/

ID–22078), 73 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri894008.)

Plummer, L.N., Rupert, M.G., Busenberg, Eurybiades, and 

Schlosser, P., 2000, Age of irrigation water in ground water 

from the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, South-central 

Idaho: Ground Water, v. 38, no. 2, p. 264–283.

Pritt, J. W., 1989, Quality assurance of sample containers 

and preservatives at the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Quality Laboratory, in Pederson, G.L., and Smith, 

M.M., compilers, U.S. Geological Survey Second National 

Symposium on Water Quality—Abstracts of the Technical 

Sessions: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

89–409, 111 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr89409.)

R Development Core Team, 2011, A language and 

environment for statistical computing, ISBN 3-900051-

07-0: The R Project for Statistical Computing Web site, 

accessed May 11, 2012, at http://www.R-project.org.

Robertson, J.B., 1976, Numerical modeling of subsurface 

radioactive solute transport from waste seepage ponds at the 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 76–717 (IDO-22057), 68 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr76717.) 

Robertson, J.B., Schoen, Robert, and Barraclough, J.T., 1974, 

The influence of liquid waste disposal on the geochemistry 

of water at the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, 

1952–1970: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

73–238 (IDO–22053), 231 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr73238.)

Schramke, J. A., Murphy, E.M., and Wood, B. D., 1996, The 

use of geochemical mass-balance and mixing models to 

determine groundwater sources, Applied Geochemistry, v. 

11, issue 4, p. 523–539. 
References Cited 39

Sehlke, Gerald, and Bickford, F.E., 1993, Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory ground-water monitoring plan: 

E G and G Idaho, Inc., and Golder Associates, Inc., 

DOE/ID–10441, v. 1–2 [variously paged].

Stevens, H.H., Ficke, J.F., and Smoot, G.F., 1975, Water 

temperature—Influential factors, field measurement, and 

data presentation: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 1, chap. D1, 65 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

twri01D1.)

Swanson, S.A., Rosentreter, J.J., Bartholomay, R.C., and 

Knobel, L.L., 2002, Geochemistry of the Little Lost 

River drainage basin, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 2002–4120 (DOE/

ID-22179), 29 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri024120.)

Swanson, S.A., Rosentreter, J.J., Bartholomay, R.C., and 

Knobel, L.L., 2003, Geochemistry of the Birch Creek 

drainage basin, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 2003–4272 (DOE/

ID-22188), 36 p.(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri034272.)

Thatcher, L.L., Janzer, V.J., and Edwards, K.W., 1977, 

Methods for determination of radioactive substances 

in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, 

chap. A5, 95 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/twri05A5.)

Timme, P.J., 1995, National Water Quality Laboratory, 1995 

services catalog: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95–352, 120 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr95352.)

Tucker, B.J., and Orr, B.R., 1998, Distribution of selected 

radiochemical and chemical constituents in perched ground 

water, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1989–

91: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98–4028 (DOE/ID–22144), 62 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri984028.)

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995, Radiochemistry manual, 

revision 10: Idaho Falls, Idaho, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory 

[variously paged]. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2010, Waste Area Group 10, 

operable unit 10-08, annual monitoring status report 

for fiscal year 2009: U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/

ID-11417, revision 0, unpaginated.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Protection 

of environment—Code of Federal Regulations 40: 

Washington, D.C., Office of the Federal Register, National 

Archives and Records Administration, parts 136 to 149, 

833 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1985, National water summary, 

1984—Hydrologic events, selected water-quality trends, 

and ground-water resources: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2275, 467 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2275.)

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual 

for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chaps. A1–A9. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/twri09.)

Walker, F.W., Parrington, J.R., and Feiner, Frank, 1989, 

Nuclides and isotopes, chart of the nuclides (14th ed.): 

General Electric Company, Nuclear Energy Operations, 

57 p.

Wegner, S.J., 1989, Selected quality assurance data for water 

samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory Idaho, 1980 to 1988: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

89–4168 (DOE/ID–22085), 91 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri894168.)

Wershaw, R.L., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, 

L.E., eds., 1987, Methods for the determination of organic 

substances in water and fluvial sediments (revised ed.): 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resource 

Investigation, book 5, chap. A3, 80 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/twri05A3.)

Wilcox, R.R., 2012, Modern statistics for the social and 

behavioral sciences: A practical introduction: New York, 

CRC Press, 862 p.

Williams, L.M., 1996, Evaluation of quality assurance/quality 

control data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for 

water-quality activities at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1989 through 1993: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4148 

(DOE/ID–22129), 116 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964148.)

Williams, L.M., 1997, Evaluation of quality assurance/quality 

control data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for 

water-quality activities at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1994 through 1995: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4058 

(DOE/ID–22136), 87 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974058.)

Wood, W.W., 1976, Guidelines for collection and field analysis 

of ground-water samples for selected unstable constituents: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resource 

Investigation, book 1, chap. D2, 24 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/twri01D2.)
40 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Sample size Mean Median Minimum Maximum Standard deviation p value Slope Trend Wells ANP 6 435152112443101 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 22 16.8 16.6 11.0 21.8 3.24 0.037 0.325 + Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 20 10.2 10.2 9.20 11.3 0.497 0.045 0.035 + Sulfate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 15 32.7 32.7 31.4 34.1 0.852 0.020 -0.114 – Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 20 0.847 0.847 0.680 0.991 0.079 0.234 -0.006 no trend Orthophosphate as P 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 20 0.022 0.021 0.010 0.034 0.006 0.219 0.001 no trend ANP 9 434856112400001 Chloride 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 12.2 12.1 11.1 13.0 0.512 0.775 0.004 no trend Sodium 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 14.5 14.5 13.6 15.5 0.464 0.987 0.000 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 24 0.771 0.748 0.697 1.20 0.102 0.075 0.003 no trend Arsenic 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 2.30 2.28 1.62 3.00 0.374 0.538 0.011 no trend Barium 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 84.3 84.0 76.8 91.0 2.99 0.244 -0.144 no trend Chromium 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 3.90 2.92 1.93 17.1 3.05 0.000 -0.162 – Molybdenum 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 2.93 2.94 2.55 3.03 0.103 0.002 -0.010 – Uranium 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 2.23 2.24 2.00 2.53 0.178 0.000 0.029 + Zinc 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 10.7 9.58 1.16 64.0 12.5 0.010 -0.808 – ARBOR Test 433509112384801 Chloride 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 29 14.6 14.6 13.0 18.0 0.956 0.311 0.023 no trend AREA 2 433223112470201 Chloride 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 18 16.3 16.5 7.98 19.0 2.18 0.200 -0.045 no trend Sodium 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 18 15.6 16.0 9.36 17.0 1.99 0.427 -0.017 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 15 17.8 17.3 15.4 28.2 3.02 0.007 0.177 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 18 1.16 1.17 0.515 1.50 0.209 0.202 0.013 no trend Atomic City 432638112484101 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 50 17.0 17.0 13.0 22.0 1.61 0.715 0.000 no trend Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 28 15.6 16.0 7.00 18.1 2.53 0.000 0.091 + Badging Facility Well 433042112535101 Chloride 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 33 16.6 16.0 14.0 23.0 1.85 0.571 -0.025 no trend Sodium 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 25 9.75 9.90 8.00 11.0 0.736 0.339 0.021 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 16 20.8 20.8 20.0 22.0 0.699 0.252 0.044 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 22 0.687 0.696 0.600 0.750 0.042 0.000 -0.005 – CPP 4 433440112554401 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 51 17.0 17.0 12.0 29.2 2.90 0.469 -0.059 no trend Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 47 7.52 7.66 6.00 8.40 0.496 0.010 0.026 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 21 1.10 0.900 0.718 5.29 0.969 0.083 -0.010 no trend EBR 1 433051113002601 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 49 6.92 6.60 5.00 19.0 1.88 0.826 0.000 no trend Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 37 8.10 8.48 3.00 9.50 1.24 0.022 0.049 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 30 0.417 0.381 0.270 0.900 0.136 0.496 0.001 no trend Fire Station 2 433548112562301 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-1996 54 16.6 16.0 11.0 27.0 3.28 0.344 -0.145 no trend Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-1996 19 8.02 8.00 6.00 10.0 0.853 0.087 0.063 no trend

Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1980 12-31-1996 12 1.17 1.10 0.790 1.50 0.179 0.047 0.035 +

Highway 3 433256113002501 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 50 6.31 6.00 4.00 12.0 1.16 0.093 -0.018 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 35 5.74 5.89 4.00 6.60 0.511 0.554 0.007 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 29 0.373 0.372 0.296 0.570 0.060 0.003 0.004 +

Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.[Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]
Table 3 41

Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.—Continued[Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, 

manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation

Wells—Continued

IET 1 Disp 435153112420501 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 21 21.4 20.0 16.6 30.0 4.29 0.840 0.024 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 20 18.1 18.2 14.9 23.0 2.37 0.332 -0.150 no trendSulfate 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 14 34.3 31.7 25.0 66.0 9.62 0.000 0.690 +Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 19 0.547 0.634 0.048 0.840 0.272 0.027 -0.032 –Orthophosphate as P 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 19 0.147 0.165 0.018 0.220 0.055 0.000 -0.007 –Ammonia 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 18 0.518 0.512 0.049 0.910 0.237 0.000 -0.044 –

Leo Rogers 1 432533112504901 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 22 18.0 18.0 16.0 20.0 0.955 0.324 -0.030 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 21 16.8 17.0 14.0 22.0 1.42 0.728 0.002 no trend

No Name 1 435038112453401 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 19.6 19.3 18.0 23.0 1.07 0.240 0.041 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 10.3 10.2 9.56 11.6 0.549 0.633 0.009 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 0.641 0.642 0.550 0.806 0.053 0.110 -0.003 no trendArsenic 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 1.90 2.00 1.40 2.50 0.268 0.165 -0.013 no trendBarium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 68.4 68.0 60.8 73.1 2.88 0.095 0.257 no trendChromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 8.48 8.45 6.57 13.0 1.38 0.005 -0.182 –Uranium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 21 1.73 1.69 1.47 2.00 0.176 0.030 -0.025 –

NPR Test 433449112523101 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2007 28 13.0 12.1 9.36 22.0 3.17 0.000 -0.434 –

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2007 25 7.58 7.57 6.98 8.50 0.478 0.000 -0.092 –Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2007 25 0.707 0.621 0.523 1.40 0.210 0.000 -0.025 –Total organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2007 13 1.62 0.700 0.201 7.28 2.06 0.434 -0.026 no trend

P and W 2 435419112453101 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 43 10.2 7.40 5.00 66.1 9.65 0.327 -0.065 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 7.36 7.32 6.71 8.28 0.401 0.902 0.000 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 0.429 0.393 0.318 0.88 0.117 0.154 0.008 no trend

PSTF Test 434941112454201 Chloride 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 24 6.48 6.34 5.90 9.02 0.607 0.314 0.013 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 24 6.85 6.78 6.00 7.81 0.397 0.871 -0.003 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 26 0.589 0.592 0.142 0.781 0.105 0.471 -0.001 no trendBarium 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 23 67.0 67.0 61.4 71.0 2.25 0.078 -0.197 no trendMolybdenum 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 23 1.84 1.81 1.67 2.000 0.109 0.000 -0.020 –Uranium 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 22 1.62 1.58 1.00 2.00 0.234 0.245 -0.015 no trend

Site 4 433617112542001 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 26 15.0 12.7 7.87 28.0 6.61 0.000 -0.920 –

Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 18 8.64 8.70 7.03 11.0 1.27 0.000 -0.133 –Sulfate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 12 21.3 20.2 19.1 29.0 2.92 0.651 -0.046 no trend

Site 9 433123112530101 Chloride 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 13.6 13.5 12.0 16.0 1.31 0.139 0.117 no trend

Sodium 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 21 12.4 12.3 12.0 13.4 0.455 0.000 0.040 +Sulfate 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 17 23.6 24.0 21.0 25.2 1.22 0.000 0.134 +Nitrate + Nitrite as N 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 21 0.670 0.660 0.552 0.960 0.077 0.000 0.004 +

Site 14 434334112463101 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 37 8.84 8.90 8.00 10.0 0.487 0.534 0.009 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 31 14.5 14.7 12.0 16.0 0.767 0.125 -0.023 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 24 0.570 0.579 0.510 0.614 0.028 0.060 0.003 no trend
42 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.—Continued [Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing] Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation Wells—Continued Site 17 434027112575701 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 10.9 10.4 9.30 15.0 1.46 0.189 -0.039 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 10.2 10.1 9.60 11.3 0.461 0.723 0.009 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 20.1 20.2 16.0 21.8 1.40 0.050 0.152 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 1.01 1.00 0.887 1.19 0.086 0.073 -0.007 no trend Site 19 433522112582101 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 33 11.8 11.0 9.68 16.0 1.79 0.002 -0.097 – Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 8.50 8.50 7.00 9.79 0.630 0.359 0.018 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 16 23.1 21.0 19.4 35.4 4.82 0.788 0.030 no trend SPERT 1 433252112520301 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 43 23.0 21.0 12.0 43.6 7.55 0.003 0.322 + Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 30 13.3 12.5 8.00 23.5 3.20 0.002 0.201 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 23 1.01 1.04 0.210 1.45 0.273 0.000 0.028 + TRA 1 433521112573801 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 40 11.1 11.0 8.00 15.0 1.49 0.012 -0.071 – Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 27 8.51 8.69 6.00 9.52 0.735 0.000 0.039 + Sulfate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 14 20.7 20.8 18.4 24.1 1.62 0.030 0.160 + TRA 3 433522112573501 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 41 10.8 10.1 8.91 16.0 1.58 0.012 -0.069 – Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 29 8.78 8.91 5.00 11.0 1.30 0.035 0.044 + Sulfate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 15 21.6 21.7 18.3 25.4 1.59 0.968 -0.000 no trend TRA 4 433521112574201 Chloride 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 41 11.0 11.0 9.00 15.0 1.60 0.000 -0.092 – Sodium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 29 7.53 7.89 5.00 8.58 0.915 0.000 0.056 + Sulfate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 16 19.8 19.9 18.1 21.9 1.13 0.040 0.147 + USGS 1 432700112470801 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 12.9 13.0 11.0 14.0 0.654 0.022 0.060 + Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 14.8 15.0 13.7 16.2 0.610 0.457 0.013 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 0.992 0.957 0.820 1.70 0.167 0.007 0.012 + Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 14 0.710 0.454 0.200 2.03 0.563 0.093 0.017 no trend USGS 2 433320112432301 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 17 16.4 16.5 15.78 17.0 0.410 0.224 0.023 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 18 16.6 16.8 15.78 17.8 0.544 0.127 0.057 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 14.6 14.4 13.00 17.2 1.32 0.000 0.229 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 18 1.41 1.39 1.10 1.70 0.213 0.000 0.036 + USGS 4 434657112282201 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 35.8 35.64 28.3 51.0 5.10 0.000 -0.791 – Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 46.8 46.7 44.0 51.2 1.77 0.773 0.028 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 4.44 4.57 1.70 5.00 0.595 0.234 -0.016 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 1.92 1.36 0.805 4.70 1.22 0.110 -0.077 no trend USGS 5 433543112493801 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 8.95 8.98 7.10 10.4 0.745 0.002 0.096 + Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 7.59 7.54 6.99 8.34 0.363 0.083 0.035 no trend

Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 0.424 0.458 0.113 0.503 0.105 0.634 -0.001 no trend

USGS 6 434031112453701 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 18 9.66 8.64 7.60 14.3 2.26 0.027 0.286 +

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 18 13.3 13.1 12.5 14.4 0.551 0.457 0.021 no trendSulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 18.4 18.1 17.3 20.5 0.985 0.230 0.100 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 0.557 0.522 0.476 0.723 0.084 0.053 0.010 no trend
Table 3 43

Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.—Continued[Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, 

manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation

Wells—Continued

USGS 7 434915112443901 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 9.11 8.93 8.60 12.0 0.655 0.820 0.002 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 23.2 23.0 21.9 25.0 0.870 0.940 0.000 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 0.384 0.386 0.303 0.467 0.031 0.085 -0.002 no trendArsenic 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 3.37 3.20 1.99 4.16 0.560 0.204 -0.046 no trendBarium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 16.3 16.3 14.9 18.0 0.747 0.012 -0.092 –Manganese 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 2.88 2.65 1.88 5.06 0.901 0.357 0.039 no trendUranium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 22 2.10 2.11 1.91 2.32 0.117 0.684 -0.003 no trend

USGS 8 433121113115801 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 8.16 7.85 6.92 11.0 0.933 0.000 -0.078 –

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 6.668 6.70 6.08 7.24 0.280 0.689 0.003 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 0.875 0.90 0.650 0.941 0.062 0.139 0.003 no trend

USGS 9 432740113044501 Chloride 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 42 21.3 20.0 12.0 37.0 6.01 0.000 -0.777 –

Sodium 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 33 12.3 12.1 7.00 19.0 1.99 0.000 -0.170 –Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 25 0.698 0.657 0.373 1.90 0.260 0.653 -0.001 no trend

USGS 11 432336113064201 Chloride 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 38 11.6 11.1 8.55 16.0 1.99 0.000 -0.275 –

Sodium 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 39 8.22 8.14 7.61 9.36 0.380 0.000 -0.030 –Nitrate + Nitrite as N 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 30 0.675 0.644 0.550 1.60 0.180 0.105 0.003 no trend

USGS 12 434126112550701 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 44 31.2 33.5 12.4 42.0 8.32 0.018 -0.661 –

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 15.3 16.0 11.3 19.0 2.14 0.972 0.000 no trendSulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 43 31.9 33.0 22.3 38.0 4.41 0.000 -0.454 –Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 47 1.76 1.89 0.460 2.20 0.411 0.656 0.000 no trendBromide 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 0.080 0.080 0.060 0.100 0.011 0.007 0.004 +

USGS 14 432019112563201 Chloride 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 40 21.2 21.0 18.0 25.0 1.45 0.554 -0.015 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 8 16.1 17.0 12.0 17.0 1.73 0.781 0.000 no trend

USGS 15 434234112551701 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 38 17.0 15.5 4.80 46.2 9.55 0.119 0.384 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 17 16.0 15.1 7.90 26.9 5.36 0.755 -0.183 no trendSulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 38 23.7 23.9 15.0 40.0 5.72 0.112 0.277 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 37 1.06 0.991 0.260 3.19 0.699 0.013 0.044 +Bromide 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 0.037 0.040 0.020 0.080 0.016 0.860 0.000 no trend

USGS 17 433937112515401 Chloride 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 6.05 5.73 5.020 7.90 0.714 0.000 -0.078 –

Sodium 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 24 7.05 7.06 6.30 7.73 0.343 0.035 0.022 +Sulfate 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 23 19.1 19.0 18.0 22.0 1.25 0.753 0.000 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 0.416 0.352 0.250 2.00 0.319 0.003 0.004 +Fluoride 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 24 0.229 0.200 0.100 0.300 0.055 0.992 0.000 no trend

USGS 18 434540112440901 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 18 10.3 10.2 8.94 12.0 0.784 0.017 0.092 +

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 18 12.1 12.0 11.57 13.3 0.428 0.204 0.018 no trendSulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 25.2 25.3 23.0 26.7 0.965 0.000 0.166 +Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 0.616 0.613 0.573 0.750 0.040 0.641 0.000 no trend
44 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.—Continued [Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing] Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation Wells—Continued USGS 19 434426112575701 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 31 10.6 10.1 9.04 15.0 1.52 0.279 -0.067 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 11.1 11.1 9.57 13.0 0.869 0.000 -0.145 – Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 0.903 0.885 0.802 1.10 0.093 0.003 -0.007 – USGS 22 433422113031701 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 63.3 62.5 59.9 73.0 3.31 0.150 -0.127 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 22.3 22.2 20.7 24.0 0.787 0.828 0.000 no trend USGS 23 434055112595901 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 9.92 10.0 9.20 10.6 0.331 0.379 -0.010 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 9.39 9.21 8.28 10.8 0.713 0.037 0.083 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 0.646 0.630 0.471 0.854 0.114 0.043 -0.010 – USGS 26 435212112394001 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 13.4 13.2 12.0 15.0 0.631 0.060 0.056 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 15.1 15.0 14.0 16.2 0.625 0.028 0.062 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 0.812 0.842 0.210 0.966 0.132 0.015 0.005 + Arsenic 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 2.34 2.41 1.46 3.00 0.462 0.750 0.000 no trend Uranium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 22 2.25 2.31 2.00 2.45 0.158 0.090 0.012 no trend USGS 27 434851112321801 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 59.6 58.9 50.0 76.0 5.37 0.000 -0.740 – Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 28.3 28.0 27.0 31.0 0.897 0.187 0.039 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 2.48 2.49 2.30 2.72 0.100 0.050 0.010 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 1.22 1.31 0.700 1.97 0.405 0.973 0.000 no trend USGS 29 434407112285101 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 28.2 26.7 22.0 53.1 6.28 0.798 0.020 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 21.1 20.1 14.5 42.2 5.37 0.676 -0.058 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 18.6 16.2 15.0 40.3 6.88 0.659 0.037 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 2.35 2.21 1.90 4.34 0.604 0.060 0.020 no trend USGS 31 434625112342101 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 24.7 24.0 19.0 29.3 3.35 0.000 0.587 + Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 15.8 15.8 15.0 17.4 0.654 0.097 0.045 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 16 29.4 29.6 26.0 32.5 1.92 0.000 0.349 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 0.919 0.899 0.810 1.06 0.081 0.000 0.014 + USGS 32 434444112322101 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 43.3 42.5 27.8 59.7 11.5 0.057 -0.707 no trend Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 18.5 18.0 16.9 21.1 1.27 0.134 -0.068 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 16 37.4 37.2 28.0 45.0 5.28 0.067 -0.560 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 1.38 1.38 1.02 1.78 0.254 0.209 -0.014 no trend USGS 83 433023112561501 Chloride 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 49 10.0 10.7 4.00 17.0 2.61 0.290 0.076 no trend Sodium 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 34 9.37 9.79 6.00 10.7 1.04 0.142 0.031 no trend

Nitrate + Nitrite as N 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 28 0.646 0.629 0.370 0.903 0.103 0.092 -0.007 no trend

USGS 86 432935113080001 Chloride 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 20.3 19.7 14.8 27.0 2.63 0.000 -0.331 –

Sodium 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 25 11.3 11.3 10.1 12.1 0.558 0.257 -0.028 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 1.40 1.45 0.758 1.70 0.199 0.045 -0.009 –
Table 3 45

Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.—Continued[Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, 

manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation

Wells—Continued

USGS 97 433807112551501 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 69 32.5 33.0 25.0 39.0 3.15 0.000 0.358 +

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 32 15.5 15.2 13.0 17.5 1.04 0.000 0.123 +Sulfate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 50 34.4 34.3 27.0 39.0 2.21 0.002 -0.247 –Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 52 1.96 2.00 0.330 2.46 0.295 0.000 0.016 +Bromide 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 27 0.078 0.080 0.060 0.090 0.010 0.042 0.003 +Arsenic 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 1.79 1.84 1.10 2.29 0.319 0.144 -0.015 no trendBarium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 137 136 122 200 14.6 0.025 -0.670 –Molybdenum 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 1.30 1.31 1.00 1.60 0.211 0.000 0.045 +Uranium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 22 2.29 2.27 2.00 3.00 0.245 0.938 -0.001 no trend

USGS 98 433657112563601 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 66 15.2 14.4 13.0 24.0 2.08 0.012 -0.114 –

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 30 10.1 9.89 9.05 13.0 0.916 0.920 0.000 no trendSulfate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 44 21.5 21.3 19.0 25.0 1.19 0.666 0.000 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 48 1.14 1.10 0.938 3.00 0.284 0.821 0.000 no trendBromide 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 0.042 0.040 0.030 0.050 0.006 0.932 0.000 no trendBarium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 51.9 52.0 38.2 100 13.6 0.399 0.394 no trendUranium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 22 1.59 1.56 1.00 2.00 0.277 0.523 0.013 no trendZinc 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 134 151 2.12 215 72.4 0.000 -12.9 –

USGS 99 433705112552101 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 68 20.6 21.0 14.0 25.0 2.24 0.000 0.193 +

Sulfate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 42 26.6 27.0 23.0 30.0 1.37 0.290 0.023 no trendSodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 13.8 14.0 8.00 16.1 1.74 0.000 0.163 +Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 29 1.56 1.60 1.40 1.70 0.068 0.900 0.000 no trendBromide 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 0.055 0.050 0.040 0.070 0.008 0.422 0.002 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 30 0.750 0.450 0.100 3.80 0.820 0.018 0.092 +

USGS 100 433503112400701 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 49 16.24 16.0 12.0 23.0 1.81 0.080 0.049 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 16.1 16.4 10.0 18.0 1.68 0.005 0.072 +Sulfate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 16 17.8 17.0 11.0 27.6 4.18 0.023 0.302 +

USGS 101 433255112381801 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 40 8.58 8.63 5.80 11.0 1.07 0.000 0.070 +

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 31 14.0 14.1 10.0 15.0 0.985 0.195 0.028 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 0.933 0.916 0.720 1.15 0.122 0.000 0.022 +

USGS 102 433853112551601 Chloride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 42 31.4 31.0 23.0 36.2 3.05 0.955 0.000 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 15.2 15.1 13.0 17.0 0.990 0.000 0.129 +Sulfate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 40 32.9 33.9 23.0 39.0 3.10 0.072 -0.214 no trendBromide 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 0.078 0.080 0.050 0.120 0.014 0.035 0.003 +Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 40 1.83 1.90 0.300 2.10 0.295 0.002 0.018 +Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 29 0.738 0.400 0.200 4.60 0.855 0.028 0.063 +

USGS 103 432714112560701 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 63 15.4 15.9 11.0 20.0 1.58 0.117 0.054 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 29 13.0 13.2 8.00 15.0 1.44 0.927 0.000 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 21 0.734 0.748 0.510 0.875 0.075 0.003 0.015 +
46 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.—Continued [Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing] Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation Wells—Continued USGS 107 432942112532801 Chloride 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 47 20.1 21.0 14.0 25.0 2.52 0.000 0.199 + Sodium 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 31 17.1 17.5 10.0 19.1 1.56 0.002 0.105 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 30 1.10 1.08 0.880 2.50 0.281 0.000 0.015 + USGS 109 432701113025601 Chloride 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 15.3 14.6 12.1 22.0 2.75 0.000 -0.256 - Sodium 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 32 11.9 12.0 10.4 14.1 0.894 0.644 0.000 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 0.602 0.605 0.418 0.679 0.059 0.000 0.007 + USGS 110 432717112501501 Chloride 01-01-1983 12-31-1992 27 18.2 18.0 13.0 25.0 3.15 0.000 0.922 + Sodium 01-01-1983 12-31-1992 11 15.6 16.0 9.00 19.0 2.50 0.053 0.455 no trend USGS 110A 432717112501502 Chloride 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 14 19.4 19.1 18.1 22.0 1.00 0.120 0.031 no trend Sodium 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 18 17.3 17.2 16.4 18.1 0.590 0.571 -0.017 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 19 1.15 1.25 0.035 1.34 0.311 0.346 0.005 no trend USGS 117 432955113025901 Chloride 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 61 13.3 13.0 10.4 16.0 1.18 0.000 -0.140 – Sodium 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 10.1 10.1 7.00 11.5 0.923 0.022 0.053 + Sulfate 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 18 18.0 17.7 16.0 21.0 1.19 0.965 0.008 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 0.682 0.677 0.615 0.780 0.041 0.002 -0.003 – USGS 119 432945113023401 Chloride 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 65 9.66 9.31 8.0 14.0 1.17 0.050 -0.058 no trend Sodium 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 26 10.8 11.0 9.97 14.0 0.787 0.853 0.000 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 17 34.1 33.8 28.0 42.5 4.45 0.000 0.863 + Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 25 1.40 1.40 1.20 1.80 0.123 0.526 0.001 no trend USGS 121 433450112560301 Chloride 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 32 12.9 12.6 9.62 21.0 2.23 0.010 -0.207 – Sodium 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 20 7.45 7.47 6.04 8.50 0.486 0.376 -0.017 no trend Sulfate 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 18 22.7 22.9 21.1 24.0 0.770 0.705 -0.017 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 21 0.788 0.764 0.711 1.10 0.088 0.254 -0.002 no trend USGS 125 432602113052801 Chloride 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 25 12.9 13.3 10.4 15.0 1.23 0.000 -0.232 – Sodium 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 23 11.8 11.8 11.0 13.0 0.529 0.037 -0.046 – Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 23 0.566 0.570 0.490 0.623 0.029 0.346 0.001 no trend USGS 126A 435529112471301 Chloride 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 7.98 7.99 7.22 8.53 0.317 0.391 0.032 no trend Sodium 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 8.70 8.63 8.00 9.66 0.458 0.561 -0.046 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 11 0.518 0.523 0.479 0.533 0.015 0.902 -0.000 no trend USGS 126B 435529112471401 Chloride 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 10 8.02 8.04 7.33 8.56 0.343 0.621 0.017 no trend Sodium 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 10 8.61 8.47 7.99 9.27 0.393 0.210 -0.025 no trend Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 11 0.590 0.524 0.483 1.30 0.236 0.688 -0.001 no trend WS INEL 1 433716112563601 Chloride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 54 83.0 81.0 32.9 145 30.6 0.000 -5.44 –

Sodium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 15.7 16.0 11.4 22.0 3.22 0.000 -0.324 –Sulfate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 38 44.0 41.7 30.0 61.0 8.79 0.000 -1.46 –Nitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 4.50 4.60 1.40 5.60 0.985 0.000 -0.383 –Total organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 0.877 0.800 0.500 3.50 0.562 0.686 0.000 no trendBromide 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 0.279 0.290 0.190 0.350 0.047 0.000 -0.023 –
Table 3 47

Table 3. Statistical summaries and trend analyses of uncensored water-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1965–2009.—Continued[Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. Site identifier: Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Constituent: Arsenic, barium, chromium, 

manganese, molybdenum, uranium, and zinc in micrograms per liter. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. P, phosphorus; N, nitrogen. Trend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation

Surface-water sites

Big Lost River at Experimental 13132545 Chloride 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 25 4.66 5.00 2.13 7.00 1.17 0.072 -0.031 no trend

Dairy Farm, near Howe

Big Lost River below INL 13132520 Chloride 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 29 4.97 4.97 2.06 9.00 1.68 0.000 -0.122 –

diversion, near Arco

Big Lost River below Mackay 13127700 Chloride 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 34 3.33 3.04 2.29 5.00 0.715 0.000 -0.085 –

Reservoir, near Mackay

Big Lost River near Arco 13132500 Chloride 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 90 6.02 5.75 2.09 14.0 2.20 0.140 -0.025 no trend

Sodium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 9.38 9.25 6.20 14.0 1.60 0.297 -0.043 no trendSulfate 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 21.6 22.0 9.60 29.0 3.72 0.808 0.000 no trendCalcium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 58.4 58.5 35.0 74.0 8.01 0.511 0.105 no trendMagnesium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 15.0 15.0 10.0 19.0 1.78 0.811 0.000 no trendSilica 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 13.7 14.0 9.60 19.0 1.76 0.644 0.000 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 23 0.283 0.230 0.020 2.00 0.395 0.244 -0.012 no trendFluoride 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 0.298 0.300 0.200 0.600 0.066 1.00 0.000 no trendPotassium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 1.77 1.70 1.20 2.80 0.346 0.780 0.000 no trend

Birch Creek at Blue Dome, 13117020 Chloride 01-01-1970 12-31-2009 50 5.18 4.70 3.69 11.0 1.30 0.002 -0.033 –

near Reno

Little Lost River near Howe 13119000 Chloride 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 86 9.49 9.03 1.00 19.7 3.65 0.030 0.081 +

Sodium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 33 8.13 7.30 4.20 15.0 2.70 0.382 -0.091 no trendSulfate 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 32 16.5 16.5 8.90 31.0 5.23 0.664 -0.045 no trendCalcium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 33 37.7 39.0 20.0 52.0 7.27 0.497 -0.202 no trendMagnesium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 33 14.9 15.0 9.20 21.0 2.97 0.648 0.000 no trendSilica 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 32 13.2 13.0 10.0 16.0 1.48 0.301 -0.108 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 23 0.721 0.180 0.030 7.50 1.70 0.634 -0.005 no trendPotassium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 31 1.41 1.30 1.00 2.50 0.391 0.813 0.000 no trend

Mud Lake near Terreton 13115000 Chloride 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 76 8.07 8.00 2.00 18.2 2.30 0.000 0.059 +

Sodium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 23 10.3 10.0 7.60 16.0 1.78 0.823 0.000 no trendSulfate 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 24 7.79 7.45 4.10 17.0 2.50 0.995 -0.020 no trendCalcium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 23 29.5 31.0 15.0 47.0 6.68 0.104 -0.682 no trendMagnesium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 23 8.81 8.60 7.30 13.0 1.13 0.472 0.023 no trendSilica 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 23 23.9 26.0 7.70 31.0 6.30 0.070 -0.434 no trendNitrate + Nitrite as N 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 15 0.382 0.250 0.030 1.30 0.361 0.065 -0.035 no trendFluoride 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 24 0.413 0.400 0.200 0.500 0.095 0.908 0.000 no trendPotassium 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 20 2.46 2.40 1.30 4.40 0.636 0.686 -0.008 no trend
48 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 -quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho : Aluminum, antimony, +, increasing; Constituentrend:T http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). . Other constituents in milligrams per liter. Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data ( Statistical summaries and trend analyses of censored water Site identifier: , Idaho, 1980–2009. Local well identifier used in this study. , manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead, thallium, and zinc in micrograms per liter Table 4. National Laboratory Local name: [arsenic, barium, cobalt, chromium, copper –, decreasing. NA, not applicable] Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date Sample size Number of censored values Mean Median Minimum Maximum Standard deviation p value Slope Trend Wells ANP 9 434856112400001 Aluminum 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 5 2.76 3.00 1.00 9.00 2.009 0.068 -0.241 no trend Antimony 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 14 0.119 0.120 0.102 1.00 0.018 0.771 -0.001 no trend Cobalt 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 15 0.061 0.067 0.012 1.00 0.058 0.584 -0.008 no trend Copper 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 17 0.354 0.334 0.238 1.00 0.192 0.970 -0.016 no trend Manganese 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 23 10 1.71 0.752 0.200 12.6 2.811 0.484 0.020 no trend Orthophosphate 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 24 10 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.021 0.004 0.110 0.000 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 16 7 0.754 0.318 0.100 6.00 1.472 0.604 -0.001 no trend Lead 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 14 12 0.113 NA 0.030 1.00 0.010 0.687 0.013 no trend ARBOR Test 433509112384801 Chromium 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 28 18 1.70 1.50 1.00 14.0 1.076 0.252 0.101 no trend AREA 2 433223112470201 Orthophosphate 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 18 7 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.024 0.005 1.00 -0.000 no trend Badging Facility Well 433042112535101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 22 1 0.016 0.014 0.010 0.030 0.006 0.424 0.000 no trend Orthophosphate 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 21 2 0.018 0.020 0.010 0.029 0.005 0.274 0.000 no trend Chromium 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 38 9 6.14 6.00 3.00 50.0 1.870 0.100 0.115 no trend EBR 1 433051113002601 Orthophosphate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 15 7 0.012 0.012 0.009 0.020 0.003 0.830 0.000 no trend Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 26 6 6.96 6.79 5.00 14.0 1.394 0.928 0.009 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 15 5 0.456 0.255 0.100 1.34 0.431 0.837 0.005 no trend Fire Station 2 433548112562301 Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-1996 37 22 5.72 4.00 1.00 50.0 3.951 0.633 0.201 no trend Highway 3 433256113002501 Orthophosphate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 29 1 0.025 0.013 0.009 0.290 0.051 0.955 0.000 no trend Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 24 16 1.80 1.57 1.00 14.0 1.145 0.724 -0.018 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 15 3 0.599 0.390 0.100 2.14 0.642 0.539 0.017 no trend No Name 1 435038112453401 Aluminum 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 3 3.13 1.82 1.02 12.0 2.524 0.027 -0.301 – Antimony 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 22 14 0.199 0.171 0.142 1.00 0.122 0.887 -0.003 no trend Cobalt 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 14 0.085 0.085 0.040 3.00 0.049 1.00 0.001 no trend Copper 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 15 0.334 0.256 0.218 10.0 0.220 0.973 0.006 no trend Nickel 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 14 0.619 0.232 0.060 10.0 0.825 0.080 0.174 no trend Thallium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 22 21 0.045 NA 0.040 0.500 NA 0.799 -0.042 no trend Zinc 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 12 1.59 0.877 0.600 6.00 1.481 0.015 -0.310 – Manganese 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 2 1.60 1.52 0.628 3.27 0.780 0.614 0.031 no trend Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 2 0.018 0.019 0.010 0.029 0.004 0.983 -0.000 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 16 3 1.36 0.511 0.221 5.77 1.641 1.00 -0.004 no trend

Molybdenum 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 1 5.98 6.00 5.65 10.0 0.264 1.00 -0.000 no trend

NPR Test 433449112523101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 27 2 0.019 0.020 0.005 0.030 0.007 0.071 -0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 6 7.05 6.90 1.20 14.0 2.545 0.185 -0.120 no trend

Total organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 15 2 1.50 0.701 0.201 7.28 1.953 0.803 -0.009 no trend

P and W 2 435419112453101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 6 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.020 0.003 0.166 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 28 17 1.99 1.82 0.749 14.0 1.509 0.798 -0.039 no trend
Table 4 49

-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho 

: Aluminum, antimony, 

 +, increasing; 

Constituent

rend:T

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. 

 Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (

Statistical summaries and trend analyses of censored water

, Idaho, 1980–2009.—Continued

Site identifier: Local well identifier used in this study. 

, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead, thallium, and zinc in micrograms per liter

Table 4.National Laboratory

Local name: [

arsenic, barium, cobalt, chromium, copper–, decreasing. NA, not applicable]

Number of Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date censored Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation values

Wells—Continued

PSTF Test 434941112454201 Aluminum 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 2 4.25 3.00 1.09 29.04 5.71 0.352 -0.133 no trend

Antimony 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 14 0.128 0.130 0.107 1.00 0.033 0.698 -0.002 no trendArsenic 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 2 1.87 1.99 1.00 2.79 0.391 0.449 -0.001 no trendChromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 1 3.54 3.00 1.00 9.00 1.43 0.001 -0.130 –Cobalt 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 15 0.051 0.041 0.021 1.00 0.038 0.584 -0.006 no trendCopper 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 17 0.233 0.231 0.141 1.00 0.167 0.911 0.025 no trendLead 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 22 0.042 0.031 0.031 1.00 0.078 0.900 0.027 no trendManganese 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 13 0.252 0.109 0.050 2.80 0.591 0.214 0.039 no trendNickel 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 13 0.376 0.265 0.060 1.19 0.425 0.951 -0.000 no trendThallium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 22 0.501 NA 0.020 0.501 NA 0.921 0.000 no trend

Zinc 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 1 2.36 2.00 1.00 5.89 1.29 0.398 -0.055 no trendOrthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 2 0.019 0.020 0.010 0.031 0.005 0.237 0.000 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 16 3 0.550 0.234 0.100 1.76 0.559 0.177 0.019 no trend

Site 4 433617112542001 Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 24 1 8.18 7.96 5.00 11.49 1.48 0.534 -0.032 no trendSite 9 433123112530101 Orthophosphate 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 21 5 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.040 0.007 0.326 0.000 no trendSite 14 434334112463101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 24 8 0.014 0.010 0.010 0.050 0.008 0.052 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 31 10 4.62 5.00 0.000 14.00 2.12 0.231 0.064 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 14 4 0.492 0.549 0.100 1.00 0.363 0.336 -0.037 no trend

Site 17 434027112575701 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 1 0.016 0.016 0.010 0.031 0.005 0.974 -0.000 no trendSite 19 433522112582101 Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 27 8 3.76 3.66 1.00 50.0 2.28 0.388 0.074 no trend

SPERT 1 433252112520301 Orthophosphate 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 23 2 0.017 0.018 0.010 0.032 0.006 0.596 0.000 no trendTRA 1 433521112573801 Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 31 17 3.03 3.00 1.00 50.0 1.91 0.688 0.017 no trendTRA 3 433522112573501 Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 32 15 3.33 3.14 0.000 50.0 1.85 0.679 0.013 no trendTRA 4 433521112574201 Chromium 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 31 15 3.57 3.67 2.00 50.0 1.44 0.665 0.039 no trendUSGS 1 432700112470801 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 18 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.020 0.004 0.140 0.001 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 14 2.33 2.00 1.09 14.0 1.20 0.807 -0.045 no trend

USGS 2 433320112432301 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 18 8 0.014 0.010 0.010 0.028 0.006 0.501 0.000 no trendUSGS 4 434657112282201 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 2 0.017 0.018 0.010 0.027 0.005 0.092 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 2 11.4 11.0 8.15 14.2 1.86 0.056 -0.185 no trend

USGS 5 433543112493801 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 10 0.011 0.011 0.004 0.090 0.006 0.253 0.000 no trend

Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 1 2.15 1.02 0.350 12.6 3.16 0.519 -0.047 no trend

USGS 6 434031112453701 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 1 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.023 0.005 0.015 0.000 +
50 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 -quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho : Aluminum, antimony, +, increasing; Constituentrend:T http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). . Other constituents in milligrams per liter. Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data ( Statistical summaries and trend analyses of censored water , Idaho, 1980–2009.—Continued Site identifier: Local well identifier used in this study. , manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead, thallium, and zinc in micrograms per liter Table 4. National Laboratory Local name: [arsenic, barium, cobalt, chromium, copper –, decreasing. NA, not applicable] Number of Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date censored Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation values Wells—Continued USGS 7 434915112443901 Aluminum 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 2 3.24 3.00 1.510 13.4 1.58 0.021 -0.236 – Antimony 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 15 0.115 0.107 0.088 1.00 0.042 0.974 -0.001 no trend Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 1 2.68 2.56 1.580 5.00 0.830 0.000 -0.117 – Cobalt 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 15 0.045 0.043 0.013 3.00 0.029 0.953 -0.001 no trend Copper 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 19 0.248 0.225 0.129 10.0 0.210 0.676 -0.064 no trend Molybdenum 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 1 3.83 3.91 3.000 10.0 0.243 0.581 -0.003 no trend Nickel 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 11 0.497 0.384 0.116 10.0 0.420 0.299 -0.011 no trend Thallium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 22 20 0.063 0.033 0.033 0.690 0.194 0.944 -0.077 no trend Zinc 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 14 2.30 0.841 0.600 29.0 5.91 0.116 -0.094 no trend Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 22 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.003 0.360 0.001 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 13 4 0.636 0.319 0.100 3.16 0.918 1.00 0.002 no trend USGS 8 433121113115801 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 7 0.013 0.011 0.010 0.020 0.003 0.187 0.000 no trend Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 14 3.16 2.73 1.881 14.0 1.70 1.00 -0.016 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 3 0.873 0.500 0.100 3.42 1.04 0.801 0.009 no trend USGS 9 432740113044501 Orthophosphate 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 25 3 0.017 0.018 0.010 0.024 0.005 0.589 0.000 no trend Chromium 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 27 12 4.85 4.30 2.408 14.0 2.44 0.947 -0.000 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 16 3 0.953 0.600 0.213 3.32 0.946 0.523 -0.020 no trend USGS 11 432336113064201 Orthophosphate 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 30 10 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.180 0.003 0.034 0.000 + Chromium 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 30 13 4.36 3.41 1.100 15.38 2.88 0.587 0.075 no trend Total organic carbon 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 16 3 0.797 0.379 0.100 3.50 0.953 0.582 0.011 no trend USGS 12 434126112550701 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 40 3 0.022 0.020 0.010 0.090 0.007 0.004 0.000 + Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 5 7.32 7.00 5.000 14.0 1.91 1.00 0.002 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 42 1 0.958 0.400 0.228 7.68 1.38 0.026 0.028 + Fluoride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 1 0.196 0.200 0.100 0.400 0.061 0.637 0.000 no trend USGS 15 434234112551701 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 35 7 0.018 0.020 0.010 0.040 0.007 0.072 0.000 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 3 0.836 0.300 0.100 3.80 1.16 0.072 0.060 no trend Fluoride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 1 0.164 0.100 0.100 0.600 0.119 0.011 -0.000 – USGS 17 433937112515401 Orthophosphate 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 37 7 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.036 0.005 0.332 0.000 no trend Total organic carbon 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 36 4 0.509 0.200 0.100 3.30 0.697 0.003 0.020 + Bromide 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 24 2 0.023 0.020 0.010 0.040 0.008 0.252 0.000 no trend USGS 18 434540112440901 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 8 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.020 0.004 0.174 0.000 no trend

USGS 19 434426112575701 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 19 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.023 0.003 0.899 -0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 14 3.20 3.00 1.752 14.0 1.54 0.684 -0.067 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 1 1.21 0.912 0.400 5.17 1.19 0.005 0.079 +

USGS 23 434055112595901 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 16 0.011 NA 0.010 0.020 0.003 0.089 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 13 3.36 3.20 1.335 14.0 2.16 0.747 -0.113 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 15 6 1.04 0.300 0.100 7.96 2.05 0.959 0.014 no trend
Table 4 51

-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho 

: Aluminum, antimony, 

 +, increasing; 

Constituent

rend:T

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. 

 Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (

Statistical summaries and trend analyses of censored water

, Idaho, 1980–2009.—Continued

Site identifier: Local well identifier used in this study. 

, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead, thallium, and zinc in micrograms per liter

Table 4.National Laboratory

Local name: [

arsenic, barium, cobalt, chromium, copper–, decreasing. NA, not applicable]

Number of Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date censored Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation values

Wells—Continued

USGS 26 435212112394001 Aluminum 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 2 4.05 3.43 2.39 10.0 1.32 0.010 -0.208 –

Antimony 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 22 16 0.109 0.100 0.096 1.00 0.023 0.886 -0.003 no trendBarium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 1 36.5 36.3 34.4 40.5 1.23 0.132 -0.076 no trendChromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 2 3.11 2.69 1.80 6.00 1.07 0.000 -0.144 –Cobalt 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 16 0.079 0.076 0.022 3.00 0.058 0.956 -0.001 no trendCopper 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 17 0.450 0.366 0.214 10.0 0.358 0.499 -0.052 no trendManganese 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 13 0.549 0.405 0.304 2.00 0.404 0.372 -0.024 no trendNickel 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 14 0.490 0.393 0.060 10.0 0.523 0.899 -0.000 no trendThallium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 22 21 0.439 NA 0.040 0.500 NA 0.799 -0.022 no trend

Zinc 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 9 15.1 1.45 0.481 331 66.6 0.046 -0.176 –Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 18 0.011 NA 0.010 0.021 0.003 0.015 0.001 +Total organic carbon 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 14 4 0.410 0.300 0.200 1.08 0.263 0.151 0.023 no trendMolybdenum 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 2 2.88 2.88 2.66 10.0 0.100 0.018 -0.011 –

USGS 27 434851112321801 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 19 0.011 NA 0.010 0.020 0.002 0.047 0.001 +

Chromium 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 7 6.17 5.30 2.00 14.0 2.85 0.758 0.063 no trend

USGS 29 434407112285101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 5 0.014 0.011 0.009 0.029 0.006 0.065 0.000 no trendUSGS 31 434625112342101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 12 0.012 0.009 0.009 0.027 0.005 0.361 0.000 no trendUSGS 32 434444112322101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 10 0.013 0.010 0.010 0.027 0.005 0.010 0.001 +USGS 83 433023112561501 Chromium 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 23 2 13.0 13.0 2.01 21.4 4.30 0.311 -0.115 no trend

Orthophosphate 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 28 16 0.012 0.010 0.010 0.021 0.004 0.341 0.000 no trend

USGS 86 432935113080001 Orthophosphate 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 3 0.017 0.017 0.010 0.028 0.006 0.002 0.001 +

Chromium 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 26 2 12.6 12.3 1.00 19.0 2.20 0.520 -0.067 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 15 2 0.549 0.300 0.100 1.70 0.470 0.960 -0.001 no trend
52 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 -quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho : Aluminum, antimony, +, increasing; Constituentrend:T http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). . Other constituents in milligrams per liter. Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data ( Statistical summaries and trend analyses of censored water , Idaho, 1980–2009.—Continued Site identifier: Local well identifier used in this study. , manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead, thallium, and zinc in micrograms per liter Table 4. National Laboratory Local name: [arsenic, barium, cobalt, chromium, copper –, decreasing. NA, not applicable] Number of Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date censored Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation values Wells—Continued USGS 97 433807112551501 Aluminum 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 1 3.52 4.00 1.602 10.0 1.63 0.160 -0.126 no trend Antimony 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 13 0.138 0.129 0.109 1.00 0.036 0.653 -0.004 no trend Cadmium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 18 0.059 0.046 0.020 1.00 0.050 0.930 -0.001 no trend Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 36 2 6.86 6.89 4.000 50.0 1.62 1.00 0.000 no trend Cobalt 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 13 0.127 0.111 0.020 1.00 0.108 0.653 -0.013 no trend Copper 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 10 0.743 0.534 0.200 1.77 0.533 0.282 0.015 no trend Lead 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 14 1.24 0.843 0.046 14.0 2.83 0.981 0.002 no trend Manganese 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 18 0.158 0.115 0.069 1.00 0.211 0.923 -0.003 no trend Mercury 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 25 0.100 NA 0.010 0.230 NA 0.621 -0.007 no trend Nickel 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 10 0.855 0.406 0.060 3.09 0.894 0.617 0.040 no trend Selenium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 1 2.01 2.00 1.129 2.60 0.292 0.615 -0.000 no trend Silver 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 24 1.00 NA 0.008 1.00 NA 0.462 -0.343 no trend Zinc 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 2 94.9 114 0.590 145 46.0 0.090 -2.87 no trend Fluoride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 28 2 0.171 NA 0.100 0.200 0.046 0.563 0.000 no trend Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 42 1 0.023 0.020 0.010 0.040 0.006 0.043 0.000 + Total organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 43 1 0.765 0.500 0.200 9.17 1.35 0.006 0.019 + USGS 98 433657112563601 Aluminum 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 1 3.322 3.83 1.345 10.0 1.38 0.088 -0.166 no trend Antimony 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 15 0.113 0.103 0.092 1.00 0.031 0.923 0.001 no trend Arsenic 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 2 1.62 1.72 1.000 2.00 0.368 0.653 0.000 no trend Cadmium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 20 0.120 0.043 0.020 1.00 0.143 0.636 -0.027 no trend Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 36 3 6.09 6.00 1.000 50.0 1.39 0.014 0.086 + Cobalt 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 14 0.081 0.071 0.020 1.00 0.078 0.700 -0.008 no trend Copper 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 5 1.93 1.32 0.250 9.70 2.32 0.769 0.000 no trend Lead 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 5 3.91 3.29 0.080 10.00 2.97 0.000 -0.525 – Manganese 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 13 1.37 0.512 0.343 10.22 2.27 0.132 0.194 no trend Mercury 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 23 0.100 NA 0.010 0.230 NA 0.929 -0.004 no trend Nickel 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 10 0.876 0.970 0.060 2.03 0.657 0.354 0.028 no trend Selenium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 6 1.24 1.18 1.000 2.60 0.326 0.009 0.029 + Silver 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 24 0.083 0.006 0.006 2.00 0.542 0.542 -0.100 no trend Fluoride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 25 2 0.208 0.200 0.100 0.400 0.070 0.258 -0.000 no trend

Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 38 4 0.015 0.016 0.009 0.024 0.005 0.990 -0.000 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 41 1 3.13 0.400 0.100 78.2 12.8 0.000 0.070 +

USGS 99 433705112552101 Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 18 3 0.017 NA 0.010 0.020 0.005 0.559 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 36 8 5.85 5.69 3.000 50.0 1.97 0.521 0.020 no trendFluoride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 27 1 0.159 0.200 0.100 0.300 0.064 0.299 0.000 no trend

USGS 100 433503112400701 Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 36 18 2.50 2.00 1.000 50.0 1.75 0.764 0.010 no trend
Table 4 53

-quality results for selected constituents in water from wells and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho 

: Aluminum, antimony, 

 +, increasing; 

Constituent

rend:T

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

. Other constituents in milligrams per liter. 

 Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (

Statistical summaries and trend analyses of censored water

, Idaho, 1980–2009.—Continued

Site identifier: Local well identifier used in this study. 

, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, lead, thallium, and zinc in micrograms per liter

Table 4.National Laboratory

Local name: [

arsenic, barium, cobalt, chromium, copper–, decreasing. NA, not applicable]

Number of Sample Standard Local name Site identifier Constituent Start date End date censored Mean Median Minimum Maximum p value Slope Trend size deviation values

Wells—Continued

USGS 101 433255112381801 Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 13 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.020 0.003 0.289 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 33 23 1.39 0.877 0.698 50.0 1.42 0.921 -0.008 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 14 2 0.851 0.526 0.190 3.84 0.957 0.824 -0.021 no trend

USGS 102 433853112551601 Orthophosphate 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 33 3 0.024 0.020 0.010 0.126 0.020 0.007 0.001 +

Fluoride 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 25 1 0.192 NA 0.100 0.200 0.028 1.00 -0.000 no trend

USGS 103 432714112560701 Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 21 10 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.020 0.003 0.795 -0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 22 8 6.70 6.400 5.00 14.0 1.44 0.099 0.200 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 10 1 1.21 0.345 0.200 5.67 1.74 0.235 0.071 no trend

USGS 107 432942112532801 Orthophosphate 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 30 13 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.020 0.004 0.131 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 24 8 6.21 5.215 4.02 14.0 2.50 0.487 -0.053 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 14 1 0.517 0.395 0.178 1.20 0.344 0.739 0.005 no trend

USGS 109 432701113025601 Orthophosphate 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 12 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.020 0.004 0.188 0.001 no trend

Chromium 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 26 7 6.15 5.358 4.00 14.0 1.88 0.229 0.075 no trendTotal organic carbon 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 15 1 0.682 0.745 0.211 1.19 0.341 0.426 0.023 no trend

USGS 110A 432717112501502 Orthophosphate 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 19 13 0.010 0.009 0.004 0.070 0.017 0.815 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 18 11 3.87 2.801 1.20 14.0 2.84 0.188 -0.454 no trend

Total organic carbon 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 13 1 1.05 0.785 0.315 3.50 0.873 0.624 -0.042 no trend

USGS 117 432955113025901 Orthophosphate 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 17 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.020 0.003 0.124 0.000 no trendUSGS 119 432945113023401 Orthophosphate 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 24 12 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.020 0.002 0.690 0.000 no trendUSGS 121 433450112560301 Orthophosphate 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 21 2 0.017 0.017 0.010 0.030 0.005 0.223 0.000 no trendUSGS 125 432602113052801 Orthophosphate 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 23 7 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.020 0.003 0.524 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 23 9 4.94 5.000 2.30 14.0 2.53 0.615 -0.140 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 15 1 0.972 0.861 0.200 3.18 0.827 0.090 0.089 no trend

USGS 126A 435529112471301 Orthophosphate 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 11 7 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.020 0.002 0.623 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 5 2.48 2.114 1.20 10.0 1.51 0.753 -0.152 no trendTotal organic carbon 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 9 3 1.04 0.615 0.150 4.51 1.40 0.668 0.098 no trend

USGS 126B 435529112471401 Orthophosphate 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 11 7 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.020 0.002 0.922 0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 11 4 2.06 1.910 1.14 10.0 0.879 0.482 -0.097 no trend

Total organic carbon 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 9 3 0.596 0.396 0.300 1.46 0.430 0.357 0.051 no trend

WS INEL 1 433716112563601 Orthophosphate 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 19 5 0.012 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.004 0.173 -0.000 no trend

Chromium 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 34 3 9.04 8.400 5.49 50.0 2.80 0.020 -0.165 –Fluoride 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 26 3 0.154 0.100 0.100 0.500 0.091 0.372 -0.000 no trend

Surface-water site

Little Lost River 13119000 Fluoride 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 34 2 0.162 0.100 0.100 0.500 0.085 0.119 -0.000 no trend

near Howe
54 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 ter installation of dedicated pumps : pH ement Field measur Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature for wells af http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data ( rend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

T

, Idaho, 1965–2009.

Site identifier:

Table 5.and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory

 Local well identifier used in this study. Local name: [All values are uncensored. 

is in standard units. Specific conductance is in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Temperature is in degrees Celsius. 

Local name Site identifier Field measurement Start date End date Number of samples Mean Median Minimum Maximum Standard deviation p_value Slope Trend

Wells

ANP 6 435152112443101 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 22 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.1 0.18 0.17 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 24 400 404 300 426 26.2 0.119 1.723 no trendTemperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 23 13.5 13.4 12.9 15.0 0.439 0.279 0.017 no trend

ANP 9 434856112400001 pH 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 24 8.0 8.0 7.7 8.2 0.14 0.02 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 24 378 379 350 398 9.28 0.624 0.164 no trendTemperature 01-01-1994 12-31-2009 24 14.2 14.2 13.9 14.4 0.128 0.008 0.018 +

ARBOR Test 433509112384801 pH 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 30 8.1 8.1 7.9 8.3 0.10 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 30 330 332 310 348 9.96 0.000 1.067 +Temperature 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 30 13.6 13.5 13.2 14.5 0.283 0.528 0.000 no trend

AREA 2 433223112470201 pH 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 18 7.9 7.9 7.8 8.1 0.08 0.04 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 18 362 364 351 366 4.20 0.349 -0.120 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 18 14.5 14.5 14.0 15.0 0.307 0.449 -0.012 no trend

Atomic City 432638112484101 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 40 8.1 8.1 7.4 8.3 0.17 0.01 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 42 350 354 290 366 15.7 0.000 0.932 +

Temperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 41 13.7 13.9 9.10 21.1 2.72 0.135 -0.110 no trend

Badging Facility Well 433042112535101 pH 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 31 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.2 0.19 0.86 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 32 349 352 305 373 12.3 0.316 -0.347 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 34 12.5 12.5 11.0 14.6 0.716 0.190 0.027 no trend

CPP 4 433440112554401 pH 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 47 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.4 0.15 0.64 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 50 405 410 320 460 29.2 0.633 0.589 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 53 12.6 12.5 11.0 17.0 1.02 0.032 -0.030 –

EBR 1 433051113002601 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 38 8.2 8.2 7.7 8.4 0.13 0.32 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 39 276 277 250 315 10.5 0.791 0.000 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 42 17.5 18.4 10.3 19.5 2.11 0.878 0.000 no trend

Fire Station 2 433548112562301 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-1996 45 8.0 8.0 7.4 8.3 0.15 0.97 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-1996 47 428 429 360 456 18.9 0.396 -0.826 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1980 12-31-1996 52 12.4 12.0 10.3 19.6 1.8 0.000 -0.134 –

Highway 3 433256113002501 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 38 7.9 7.9 7.5 8.4 0.18 0.17 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 40 342 345 280 420 19.6 0.558 -0.145 no trendTemperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 39 12.1 11.5 10.5 17.0 1.49 0.304 -0.026 no trend

IET 1 Disp 435153112420501 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 20 7.8 7.8 7.5 7.9 0.13 0.00 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 21 435 431 370 498 26.0 0.362 1.199 no trendTemperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 21 13.7 13.8 12.5 15.2 0.706 0.022 -0.055 –

Leo Rogers 1 432533112504901 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 14 7.9 8.0 7.6 8.1 0.15 0.01 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 19 372 372 360 380 4.91 0.357 -0.201 no trendTemperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 21 14.1 14.1 11.5 15.0 0.802 0.005 -0.055 –
Table 5 55

ter installation of dedicated pumps 

: pH ement Field measur

Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature for wells af

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

—Continued.

 Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (

rend: +, increasing; –, decreasing] T

, Idaho, 1965–2009

Site identifier:

Table 5.and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory

 Local well identifier used in this study. Local name: [All values are uncensored. 

is in standard units. Specific conductance is in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Temperature is in degrees Celsius. 

Number of Standard Local name Site identifier Field measurement Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p_value Slope Trend samples deviation

Wells—Continued

No Name 1 435038112453401 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 8.0 8.1 7.5 8.2 0.16 0.03 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 351 351 340 360 4.40 0.624 0.114 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 10.4 10.4 10.1 11.5 0.255 0.486 -0.007 no trend

NPR Test 433449112523101 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2007 27 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.2 0.18 0.69 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2007 27 380 375 315 442 27.5 0.000 -4.057 –Temperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2007 28 12.1 12.0 10.6 14.5 0.672 0.896 0.000 no trend

P and W 2 435419112453101 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 43 8.0 8.0 7.4 8.2 0.17 0.75 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 44 357 350 300 574 39.1 0.863 0.000 no trendTemperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 44 9.27 9.50 7.60 11.5 0.944 0.000 -0.116 –

PSTF Test 434941112454201 pH 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 26 8.1 8.1 7.9 8.2 0.11 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 26 300 302 287 312 5.68 0.174 -0.398 no trendTemperature 01-01-1992 12-31-2009 26 13.5 13.4 13.0 13.6 0.158 0.639 0.000 no trend

Site 4 433617112542001 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 25 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.2 0.16 0.90 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 25 402 387 336 535 56.4 0.000 -9.149 –Temperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 25 11.6 11.5 11.1 12.2 0.311 0.197 0.022 no trend

Site 9 433123112530101 pH 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 8.0 8.0 7.6 8.2 0.13 0.23 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 352 353 334 367 8.37 0.017 0.805 +Temperature 10-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 14.0 14.0 13.3 14.5 0.289 0.269 -0.018 no trend

Site 14 434334112463101 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 36 7.9 8.0 7.3 8.1 0.15 0.16 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 36 330 332 270 341 12.0 0.604 0.059 no trendTemperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 38 16.7 16.6 16.0 17.5 0.288 0.564 0.000 no trend

Site 17 434027112575701 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 7.8 7.8 7.3 7.9 0.13 0.01 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 419 418 374 458 20.0 0.155 -1.341 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 12.5 12.5 12.0 13.3 0.335 0.015 0.035 +

Site 19 433522112582101 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 32 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.1 0.19 0.01 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 34 391 387 340 440 20.0 0.027 -0.749 –Temperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 34 14.5 14.8 13.0 15.3 0.728 0.224 0.025 no trend

SPERT 1 433252112520301 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 31 8.0 8.0 7.6 8.2 0.14 0.17 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 32 399 390 325 485 36.3 0.082 1.402 no trendTemperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 36 12.1 12.0 11.2 16.7 0.966 0.035 -0.029 –

TRA 1 433521112573801 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 18 7.8 7.8 7.6 8.1 0.15 0.22 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 30 406 412 325 428 21.5 0.003 -1.006 –Temperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 29 13.9 13.6 13.0 17.3 1.025 0.262 -0.018 no trend

TRA 3 433522112573501 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 25 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.2 0.18 0.10 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 30 419 420 350 442 18.2 0.003 -1.246 –Temperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 29 13.6 13.2 12.8 17.6 1.07 0.083 -0.031 no trend
56 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 ter installation of dedicated pumps : pH ement Field measur Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature for wells af http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). —Continued. Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data ( rend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

T

, Idaho, 1965–2009

Site identifier:

Table 5.and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory

 Local well identifier used in this study. Local name: [All values are uncensored. 

is in standard units. Specific conductance is in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Temperature is in degrees Celsius. 

Number of Standard Local name Site identifier Field measurement Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p_value Slope Trend samples deviation

Wells—Continued

TRA 4 433521112574201 pH 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 28 7.8 7.9 7.5 8.3 0.17 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 31 399 402 340 425 14.7 0.045 -0.803 –Temperature 01-01-1980 12-31-2009 30 14.59 14.4 13.8 18.8 1.10 0.234 -0.020 no trend

USGS 1 432700112470801 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 24 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.1 0.18 0.00 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 318 320 303 333 6.21 0.000 0.670 +Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 14.3 14.4 12.3 15.0 0.46 0.873 0.000 no trend

USGS 2 433320112432301 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 7.9 8.0 7.7 8.1 0.13 0.19 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 351 354. 334 362 7.62 0.175 0.339 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 13.7 13.7 13.0 14.3 0.306 0.659 -0.012 no trend

USGS 4 434657112282201 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.8 0.15 0.00 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 715 721 685 744 17.1 0.185 -1.605 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 11.5 11.4 11.0 12.5 0.427 0.646 0.000 no trend

USGS 5 433543112493801 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.1 0.21 0.13 -0.02 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 322 331 262 338 21.9 0.002 -1.135 –Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 14.6 14.8 12.6 15.5 0.651 0.250 -0.043 no trend

USGS 6 434031112453701 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.2 0.25 0.00 -0.03 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 301 295 280 357 16.6 0.015 1.173 +Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 14.2 14.1 13.5 15.0 0.351 0.132 -0.024 no trend

USGS 7 434915112443901 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 8.0 8.1 7.7 8.2 0.13 0.74 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 303 305 290 308 4.65 0.863 0.000 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 19.4 19.4 18.8 20.0 0.242 0.788 0.000 no trend

USGS 8 433121113115801 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 8.0 8.0 7.6 8.4 0.15 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 366 370 295 378 15.2 0.870 0.000 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 11.2 11.1 10.6 12.0 0.343 0.917 0.000 no trend

USGS 9 432740113044501 pH 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 42 8.1 8.2 7.7 9.0 0.22 0.00 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 42 384 383 233 465 32.8 0.000 -1.995 –Temperature 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 42 11.4 11.4 10.0 12.5 0.407 0.150 -0.017 no trend

USGS 11 432336113064201 pH 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 8.0 8.1 7.7 8.2 0.11 0.24 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 354 354 332 370 7.22 0.002 -0.620 –Temperature 09-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 12.0 11.9 10.5 13.0 0.442 0.120 -0.017 no trend

USGS 12 434126112550701 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 81 7.8 7.8 7.4 8.0 0.14 0.01 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 81 540 540 461 610 45.7 0.000 -4.335 –Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 81 11.8 11.7 11.0 14.0 0.478 0.200 -0.018 no trend

USGS 14 432019112563201 pH 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.2 0.15 0.01 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 382 385 268 400 19.9 0.000 0.868 +Temperature 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 42 14.9 14.8 14.0 16.2 0.434 0.063 -0.026 no trend
Table 5 57

ter installation of dedicated pumps 

: pH ement Field measur

Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature for wells af

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

—Continued.

 Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (

rend: +, increasing; –, decreasing] T

, Idaho, 1965–2009

Site identifier:

Table 5.and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory

 Local well identifier used in this study. Local name: [All values are uncensored. 

is in standard units. Specific conductance is in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Temperature is in degrees Celsius. 

Number of Standard Local name Site identifier Field measurement Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p_value Slope Trend samples deviation

Wells—Continued

USGS 15 434234112551701 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 39 7.9 7.9 7.2 8.2 0.18 0.00 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 40 416 396 298 658 96.6 0.080 3.87 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 40 11.3 11.4 10.2 12.0 0.460 0.000 -0.045 –

USGS 17 433937112515401 pH 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 45 8.1 8.2 7.3 8.3 0.16 0.37 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 45 297 298 278 307 6.11 0.058 0.413 no trendTemperature 01-01-1989 12-31-2009 45 13.2 13.0 12.0 14.1 0.431 0.598 0.000 no trend

USGS 18 434540112440901 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 7.9 8.0 7.5 8.1 0.20 0.00 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 344 345 313 350 8.34 0.003 0.614 +Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 19 15.4 15.5 14.5 16.0 0.315 0.147 0.025 no trend

USGS 19 434426112575701 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 7.7 7.7 7.2 7.9 0.18 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 397 396 368 441 15.3 0.000 -1.50 –Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 17.2 17.2 16.5 17.8 0.283 0.080 0.025 no trend

USGS 22 433422113031701 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 8.0 8.0 7.7 8.2 0.13 0.17 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 402 406 359 419 15.7 0.124 0.717 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 23 18.3 18.8 14.5 20.1 1.38 0.856 0.000 no trend

USGS 23 434055112595901 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.1 0.14 0.38 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 356 354 333 380 12.0 0.379 -0.537 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 26 15.7 15.6 15.1 16.4 0.368 0.220 0.029 no trend

USGS 26 435212112394001 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 7.8 7.9 7.3 8.0 0.16 0.05 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 387 390 365 396 8.10 0.197 0.412 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 27 15.0 15.0 14.5 15.5 0.253 0.125 0.020 no trend

USGS 27 434851112321801 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 7.9 8.0 7.5 8.1 0.13 0.00 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 556 561 526 570 11.0 0.326 0.489 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 32 15.7 15.8 14.5 16.5 0.408 0.361 -0.015 no trend

USGS 29 434407112285101 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 7.8 7.9 7.3 8.0 0.24 0.00 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 436 434 411 470 19.4 0.053 -1.74 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 12.7 12.7 12.1 13.5 0.296 0.953 0.000 no trend

USGS 31 434625112342101 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 7.9 7.9 7.6 8.1 0.12 0.07 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 413 414 387 432 14.7 0.000 2.66 +Temperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 15.6 15.5 15.0 16.0 0.274 0.394 -0.013 no trend

USGS 32 434444112322101 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 7.8 7.9 7.4 8.0 0.14 0.01 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 495 484 429 577 51.4 0.162 -2.13 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 20 14.6 14.5 14.0 15.5 0.372 0.830 0.000 no trend

USGS 83 433023112561501 pH 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 38 8.1 8.1 7.4 8.3 0.21 0.83 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 40 273 275 220 291 12.6 0.818 0.000 no trendTemperature 08-01-1980 12-31-2009 47 12.0 11.9 11.2 13.5 0.44 0.002 -0.020 –
58 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 ter installation of dedicated pumps : pH ement Field measur Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature for wells af http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). —Continued. Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data ( rend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

T

, Idaho, 1965–2009

Site identifier:

Table 5.and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory

 Local well identifier used in this study. Local name: [All values are uncensored. 

is in standard units. Specific conductance is in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Temperature is in degrees Celsius. 

Number of Standard Local name Site identifier Field measurement Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p_value Slope Trend samples deviation

Wells—Continued

USGS 86 432935113080001 pH 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 8.1 8.1 7.6 8.3 0.14 0.52 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 334 334 312 350 8.21 0.000 -0.831 –Temperature 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 10.2 10.0 9.00 14.0 0.753 0.566 0.000 no trend

USGS 97 433807112551501 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 99 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.1 0.14 0.20 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 101 581 580 470 615 23.7 0.828 0.083 no trendTemperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 102 11.6 11.5 10.1 12.6 0.360 0.038 -0.012 –

USGS 98 433657112563601 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 97 7.9 8.0 7.5 8.1 0.14 0.00 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 99 420 430 376 484 21.2 0.594 0.243 no trendTemperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 100 12.2 12.1 10.5 14.0 0.380 0.725 0.000 no trend

USGS 99 433705112552101 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 101 7.9 7.9 7.5 8.1 0.14 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 103 525 528 405 560 17.7 0.000 1.166 +Temperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 104 11.5 11.5 10.0 13.2 0.417 0.000 -0.025 –

USGS 100 433503112400701 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 46 8.0 8.1 7.4 8.3 0.16 0.20 -0.01 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 49 349 352 280 383 17.3 0.000 1.32 +Temperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 50 13.7 13.5 13.1 15.0 0.336 0.626 0.000 no trend

USGS 101 433255112381801 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 38 8.1 8.1 7.8 8.3 0.14 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 40 278 281 240 295 10.3 0.000 0.796 +Temperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 41 13.9 13.9 12.5 14.9 0.402 0.624 0.000 no trend

USGS 102 433853112551601 pH 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 75 7.9 7.9 7.5 8.1 0.14 0.00 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 75 571 565 538 606 20.3 0.097 -0.862 no trendTemperature 01-01-1990 12-31-2009 75 11.6 11.5 10.5 13.0 0.338 0.110 -0.014 no trend

USGS 103 432714112560701 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 59 8.1 8.1 7.8 8.3 0.11 0.41 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 59 363 364 340 387 8.13 0.002 0.685 +Temperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2005 63 13.6 13.6 12.0 15.0 0.439 0.523 0.000 no trend

USGS 107 432942112532801 pH 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 40 8.0 8.0 7.7 8.4 0.13 0.00 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 42 394 398 330 430 17.2 0.000 1.55 +Temperature 01-01-1983 12-31-2009 51 14.8 14.7 12.6 21.1 1.04 0.299 0.010 no trend

USGS 109 432701113025601 pH 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 8.0 8.1 7.5 8.2 0.16 0.02 -0.01 –

Specific conductance 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 380 377 360 410 12.3 0.012 -0.821 –Temperature 07-01-1987 12-31-2009 40 13.6 13.6 12.2 14.5 0.430 0.017 -0.028 –

USGS 110 432717112501501 pH 01-01-1983 12-31-1992 20 8.1 8.1 7.9 8.3 0.10 0.93 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1983 12-31-1992 22 372 370 315 419 20.3 0.174 1.99 no trendTemperature 01-01-1983 12-31-1992 32 15.0 14.5 13.0 29.8 3.16 0.830 0.000 no trend

USGS 110A 432717112501502 pH 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 19 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.1 0.18 0.00 -0.03 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 20 376 378 364 382 5.74 0.229 -0.345 no trendTemperature 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 20 14.4 14.3 14.0 15.8 0.466 0.057 0.051 no trend
Table 5 59

ter installation of dedicated pumps 

: pH ement Field measur

Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature for wells af

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

—Continued.

 Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data (

rend: +, increasing; –, decreasing] T

, Idaho, 1965–2009

Site identifier:

Table 5.and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory

 Local well identifier used in this study. Local name: [All values are uncensored. 

is in standard units. Specific conductance is in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Temperature is in degrees Celsius. 

Number of Standard Local name Site identifier Field measurement Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p_value Slope Trend samples deviation

Wells—Continued

USGS 117 432955113025901 pH 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 65 8.3 8.3 7.9 8.6 0.12 0.26 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 65 271 275 234 282 10.1 0.845 0.000 no trendTemperature 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 65 13.5 13.4 12.7 15.7 0.551 0.003 -0.038 –

USGS 119 432945113023401 pH 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 66 8.4 8.4 7.9 9.1 0.22 0.52 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 66 280 281 243 309 11.4 0.219 -0.398 no trendTemperature 01-01-1987 12-31-2009 66 14.4 14.5 12.1 16.2 0.801 0.135 -0.036 no trend

USGS 121 433450112560301 pH 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 32 7.9 8.0 7.5 8.4 0.18 0.01 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 32 382 383 320 402 14.7 0.501 -0.393 no trendTemperature 01-01-1991 12-31-2009 32 11.7 11.6 11.0 13.0 0.365 0.382 0.013 no trend

USGS 125 432602113052801 pH 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 25 8.0 8.0 7.4 8.2 0.18 0.01 -0.02 –

Specific conductance 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 25 370 370 354 386 8.59 0.000 -1.57 –Temperature 01-01-1995 12-31-2009 25 12.5 12.5 11.9 12.8 0.190 0.995 0.000 no trend

USGS 126A 435529112471301 pH 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 7.9 8.0 7.5 8.1 0.23 0.05 -0.03 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 347 346 335 353 5.23 0.756 -0.091 no trendTemperature 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 11.1 11.0 10.8 11.5 0.198 0.219 -0.025 no trend

USGS 126B 435529112471401 pH 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.4 0.07 0.90 0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 344 344 337 350 3.79 0.449 -0.559 no trendTemperature 01-01-2000 12-31-2009 12 10.7 10.6 10.4 11.2 0.204 0.820 0.000 no trend

WS INEL 1 433716112563601 pH 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 55 7.9 7.9 7.4 8.2 0.15 0.78 -0.00 no trend

Specific conductance 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 57 679 686 494 910 112 0.000 -19.4 –

Temperature 01-01-1986 12-31-2009 57 12.1 12.0 10.3 13.6 0.529 0.955 0.000 no trend
60 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009 ter installation of dedicated pumps : pH ement Field measur Statistical summaries and trend analyses for field measurements of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature for wells af http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). —Continued. Unique numerical identifiers used to access well data ( rend: +, increasing; –, decreasing]

T

, Idaho, 1965–2009

Site identifier:

Table 5.and surface-water sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory

 Local well identifier used in this study. Local name: [All values are uncensored. 

is in standard units. Specific conductance is in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Temperature is in degrees Celsius. 

Number of Standard Local name Site identifier Field measurement Start date End date Mean Median Minimum Maximum p_value Slope Trend samples deviation

Surface-water sites

Big Lost River at Experimental 13132545 pH 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 13 8.3 8.5 7.3 8.7 0.44 -0.03 no trend

Dairy Farm, near Howe Specific conductance 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 15 318 346 230 393 0.868 0.000 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 22 11.4 10.9 3.70 22.0 0.127 0.200 no trend

Big Lost River below INL 13132520 pH 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 19 8.3 8.4 7.6 8.7 0.78 -0.00 no trend

diversion, near Arco Specific conductance 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 68 351 365 229 486 0.070 -1.35 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1981 12-31-2009 78 9.82 9.00 -1.00 26.0 0.038 0.225 +

Big Lost River below Mackay 13127700 pH 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 34 8.6 8.6 7.5 9.0 0.20 0.01 no trend

Reservoir, near Mackay Specific conductance 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 34 295 294 275 321 0.000 -1.05 –

Temperature 01-01-1985 12-31-2009 34 8.14 8.05 3.30 13.7 0.124 0.165 no trend

Big Lost River near Arco 13132500 pH 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 74 8.1 8.1 7.1 9.4 0.00 0.01 +

Specific conductance 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 192 393 402 222 563 0.000 -1.89 –Temperature 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 191 9.54 9.10 -1.00 26.0 0.678 0.003 no trend

Birch Creek at Blue Dome, 13117020 pH 01-01-1970 12-31-2009 31 8.4 8.5 7.6 8.8 0.03 -0.02 –

near Reno Specific conductance 01-01-1970 12-31-2009 123 330 332 111 586 0.235 0.259 no trend

Temperature 01-01-1970 12-31-2009 146 8.09 8.00 0.000 19.0 0.000 -0.115 –

Little Lost River near Howe 13119000 pH 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 70 8.3 8.4 6.8 8.8 0.00 0.01 +

Specific conductance 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 161 344 346 173 501 0.244 0.663 no trendTemperature 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 189 8.60 8.50 0.000 19.0 0.275 0.044 no trend

Mud Lake near Terreton 13115000 pH 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 58 8.4 8.4 7.6 9.5 0.01 0.02 +

Specific conductance 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 69 276 288 162 334 0.002 1.17 +Temperature 01-01-1965 12-31-2009 93 10.5 10.4 0.000 26.0 0.334 0.035 no trend
Table 6 61

Table 6. Summary of water-quality results for selected radiochemical constituents in water in water from wells and surface-water 

sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.

[Data are available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. BLR, Big Lost River; BC, Birch Creek; LLR, Little 

Lost River. Constituent: Concentrations are in picocuries per liter. Remarks: Concentrations are given for values greater than the reporting level. Uncertainty is 

1 sample standard deviation]

Local name Constituent Number of 

samples

Number 

greater than 

reporting level 

Period of 

record Remarks

Wells

ANP 6 Tritium 22 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 19 0 1987–2009

ANP 9 Tritium 24 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 23 0 1994–2009

Cesium-137 23 0 1994–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009

ARBOR Test Tritium 33 0 1960–2009

AREA 2 Tritium 22 0 1966–2009

Strontium-90 20 0 1990–2009

Atomic City Tritium 76 0 1966–2009

Badging Facility Well Tritium 33 0 1985–2009

Strontium-90 18 0 1985–2009

CPP 4 Tritium 54 1 1983–2009 2,300 ±400 in 1983

Strontium-90 55 0 1983–2009

EBR1 Tritium 77 0 1966–2009

Cesium-137 25 0 1987–2009

Gross alpha 27 0 1977–2009

Gross beta 27 0 1977–2009

Fire Station 2 Tritium 76 0 1972–1996

Highway 3 Tritium 60 0 1975–2009

Cesium-137 22 0 1994–2009

Gross alpha 22 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 22 0 1994–2009

IET 1 Disp Tritium 24 0 1982–2009

Strontium-90 21 0 1987–2009

Leo Rogers Tritium 28 1 1971–2009 7,000 ±2,000 in 1971

Gross Alpha 22 0 1971–2009

Gross Beta 22 0 1971–2009

Cesium-137 23 0 1980–2009

No Name 1 Tritium 27 0 1991–2009

Strontium-90 27 0 1991–2009

Cesium-137 25 0 1991–2009

Gross alpha 24 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 24 0 1994–2009

NPR Test Tritium 31 0 1986–2009

Cesium-137 26 0 1986–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009

P and W2 Tritium 69 0 1960–2009

Cesium-137 26 0 1987–2009

Gross alpha 24 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 24 0 1994–2009

PSTF Test Tritium 28 0 1966–2009

Strontium-90 26 0 1990–2009

Cesium-137 23 0 1990–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009
62 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Table 6. Summary of water-quality results for selected radiochemical constituents in water in water from wells and surface-water 

sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.—Continued

[Data are available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. BLR, Big Lost River; BC, Birch Creek; LLR, Little 

Lost River. Constituent: Concentrations are in picocuries per liter. Remarks: Concentrations are given for values greater than the reporting level. Uncertainty is 

sample standard deviation] 

Local name Constituent Number of 

samples

Number 

greater than 

reporting level 

Period of 

record Remarks

Wells—Continued

Site 4

Site 9

Site 14

Site 17

Site 19

SPERT 1

TRA 1

TRA 3

TRA 4

USGS 1

USGS 2

USGS 4

USGS 5

USGS 6

USGS 7

USGS 8

USGS 9

USGS 11

Tritium

Tritium

Strontium-90

Tritium

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

Tritium

Strontium-90

Tritium

Tritium

Tritium

Tritium

Tritium

Tritium

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

Tritium

Strontium-90

Tritium

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

Tritium

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

Tritium

Strontium-90

Tritium

Strontium-90

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

Tritium

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

Tritium

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

Tritium

Cesium-137

Gross alpha

Gross beta

26

76

25

44

23

22

22

23

19

73

49

64

62

64

30

23

23

24

20

18

28

24

23

23

27

24

23

23

20

19

29

26

24

23

23

54

47

47

46

84

28

28

28

70

53

46

46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

1977–2009

1967–2009

1990–2009

1975–2009

1991–2009

1995–2009

1995–2009

1977–2009

1991–2009

1972–2009

1972–2009

1960–2009

1972–2009

1972–2009

1966–2009

1991–2009

1994–2009

1994–2009

1977–2009

1991–2009

1977–2009

1991–2009

1994–2009

1994–2009

1977–2009

1990–2009

1994–2009

1994–2009

1977–2009

1990–2009

1961–2009

1991–2009

1991–2009

1994–2009

1994–2009

1966–2009

1982–2009

1971–2009

1980–2009

1966–2009

1980–2009

1969–2009

1969–2009

1960–2009

1978–2009

1971–2009

1971–2009

600 ±200 in 1975; 26,400 ±600 in 1979

3,000 ±1,000 in 1966

6 ±2 in 1994; 7 ±2 in 2003

2.9 ±0.5 in 1980; 4 ±1 in 1982
Table 6 63

Table 6. Summary of water-quality results for selected radiochemical constituents in water in water from wells and surface-water 

sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.—Continued

[Data are available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. BLR, Big Lost River; BC, Birch Creek; LLR, Little 

Lost River. Constituent: Concentrations are in picocuries per liter. Remarks: Concentrations are given for values greater than the reporting level. Uncertainty is 

sample standard deviation] 

Local name Constituent Number of 

samples

Number 

greater than 

reporting level 

Period of 

record Remarks

Wells—Continued

USGS 12 Tritium 52 0 1977–2009

Cesium-137 27 0 1994–2009

Gross alpha 22 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 22 0 1994–2009

USGS 14 Tritium 68 0 1966–2009

Cesium-137 54 0 1978–2009

Gross alpha 45 2 1971–2009 4,000 ±1000 in 1971; 6 ±2 in 1982

Gross beta 45 0 1971–2009

USGS 15 Tritium 30 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 19 0 1991–2009

USGS 17 Tritium 35 0 1977–2009

Cesium-137 26 0 1990–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009

USGS 18 Tritium 20 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 19 0 1990–2009

USGS 19 Tritium 80 0 1966–2009

Cesium-137 24 0 1991–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009

USGS 22 Tritium 59 0 1972–2009

USGS 23 Tritium 28 0 1977–2009

Cesium-137 24 0 1991–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009

USGS 26 Tritium 28 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 26 0 1991–2009

Cesium-137 24 0 1991–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009

USGS 27 Tritium 80 0 1967–2009

Cesium-137 24 0 1991–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 0 1994–2009

USGS 29 Tritium 22 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 18 0 1991–2009

USGS 31 Tritium 22 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 18 0 1991–2009

USGS 32 Tritium 22 0 1977–2009

Strontium-90 18 0 1991–2009

USGS 83 Tritium 95 1 1966–2009 9,000 ±2,000 in 1968

Cesium-137 22 0 1994–2009

Gross alpha 22 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 22 0 1994–2009

USGS 86 Tritium 79 0 1967–2009

Cesium-137 28 0 1980–2009

Gross alpha 27 0 1971–2009

Gross beta 27 0 1971–2009
64 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

Table 6. Summary of water-quality results for selected radiochemical constituents in water in water from wells and surface-water 

sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.—Continued

[Data are available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. BLR, Big Lost River; BC, Birch Creek; LLR, Little 

Lost River. Constituent: Concentrations are in picocuries per liter. Remarks: Concentrations are given for values greater than the reporting level. Uncertainty is 

sample standard deviation] 

Local name Constituent Number of 

samples

Number 

greater than 

reporting level 

Period of 

record Remarks

Wells—Continued

USGS 97 Tritium 98 3 1973–2009 800 ±200 in 1978; 600 ±200 in 1978; and 900 ±200 in 1979

Strontium-90 33 0 1973–2009

Cesium-137 27 0 1994–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 2 1994–2009 6 ±2 in 1996; 10 ±2 in 1999

Americium-241 23 0 1994–2009

Plutonium-238 23 0 1994–2009

Plutonium-239,240 23 0 1994–2009

USGS 98 Tritium 93 0 1973–2009

Strontium-90 25 0 1973–2009

Cesium-137 30 0 1973–2009

Gross alpha 22 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 22 1 1994–2009 6 ±2 in 1995

Americium-241 24 0 1989–2009

Plutonium-238 24 0 1989–2009

Plutonium-239,240 24 0 1989–2009

USGS 99 Tritium 80 1 1974–2009 600 ±200 in 1984

USGS 100 Tritium 90 1 1974–2009 4,100 ±500 in 1978

USGS 101 Tritium 65 0 1974–2009

Cesium-137 23 0 1991–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 23 1 1994–2009 7 ±2 in 1999

USGS 102 Tritium 17 0 1994–2009

Strontium-90 15 0 1995–2009

USGS 103 Tritium 104 2 1980–2005 800 ±200 in 1983; 1,200 ±300 in 1985

Cesium-137 21 0 1994–2005

Gross alpha 21 0 1994–2005

Gross beta 21 2 1994–2005 10 ±2 in 1995; 7 ±2 in 1996

USGS 107 Tritium 68 0 1980–2009

Cesium-137 23 0 1994–2009

Gross alpha 24 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 24 5 1994–2009 6 ±2 in 1995; 1997; 1999; 7 ±2 in 2000; 11 ±2 in 2007

USGS 109 Tritium 55 0 1980–2009

Cesium-137 25 0 1987–2009

Gross alpha 24 0 1994–2009

Gross beta 24 4 1994–2009 6 ±2 in 1994, 1996, 1999; 7 ±2 in 1999

USGS 110 Tritium 41 0 1980–1992

USGS 110A Tritium 20 0 1995–2009

Cesium-137 20 0 1995–2009

Gross alpha 20 0 1995–2009

Gross beta 20 3 1995–2009 10 ±2 in 1995; 7 ±2 in 1996; 6 ±2 in 2006

USGS 117 Tritium 65 0 1987–2009

Strontium-90 64 0 1987–2009

Cesium-137 39 0 1987–2009

Americium-241 39 0 1987–2009

Plutonium-238 39 0 1987–2009

Plutonium-239,240 39 0 1987–2009
Table 6 65

Table 6. Summary of water-quality results for selected radiochemical constituents in water in water from wells and surface-water 

sites at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho.—Continued

[Data are available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Local name: Local well identifier used in this study. BLR, Big Lost River; BC, Birch Creek; LLR, Little 

Lost River. Constituent: Concentrations are in picocuries per liter. Remarks: Concentrations are given for values greater than the reporting level. Uncertainty is 

sample standard deviation] 

Local name Constituent Number of 

samples

Number 

greater than 

reporting level 

Period of 

record Remarks

Wells—Continued

USGS 119 Tritium 69 0 1987–2009

Strontium-90 68 0 1987–2009

Cesium-137 45 0 1987–2009

Americium-241 44 0 1987–2009

Plutonium-238 44 0 1987–2009

Plutonium-239,240 44 0 1987–2009

USGS 121 Tritium 32 0 1991–2009

Strontium-90 32 0 1991–2009

USGS 125 Tritium 25 0 1995–2009

Cesium-137 23 0 1995–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1995–2009

Gross beta 23 2 1995–2009 6 ±2 in 1995; 1999

USGS 126 A Tritium 13 0 2000–2009

Cesium-137 12 0 2000–2009

Gross alpha 12 0 2000–2009

Gross beta 12 0 2000–2009

USGS 126 B Tritium 13 0 2000–2009

Cesium-137 12 0 2000–2009

Gross alpha 12 0 2000–2009

Gross beta 12 0 2000–2009

WS INEL-1 Tritium 50 0 1979–2009

Surface-water sites

Big Lost River at 

Experimental Dairy 

Farm, near Howe

Tritium 28 0 1976–2009

Cesium-137 27 0 1980–2009

Gross alpha 26 1 1976–2009 4.8 ±1.5 in 1995

Gross beta 26 2 1976–2009 15 ±2 in 1995; 2.5 ±0.8 in 1998

Big Lost River below 

INL diversion, near 

Arco

Tritium 29 0 1976–2009

Cesium-137 27 0 1980–2009

Gross alpha 23 0 1976–2009

Gross beta 23 1 1976–2009 13 ±2 in 1995

Big Lost River below 

Mackay Reservoir, 

near Mackay

Tritium 33 0 1990–2009

Cesium-137 32 0 1990–2009

Gross alpha 30 0 1990–2009

Gross beta 30 0 1990–2009

Big Lost River near Arco Tritium 37 0 1976–2009

Cesium-137 33 0 1979–2009

Gross alpha 31 0 1976–2009

Gross beta 31 3 1976–2009 6 ±2 in 1982, 2000; 14 ±2 in 1995

Birch Creek at Blue 

Dome, near Reno

Tritium 61 0 1972–2009

Little Lost River near 

Howe

Tritium 69 0 1972–2009

Mud Lake near Terreton Tritium 70 0 1970–2009
66 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendixes 67

Appendixes

Appendix files are available for download at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5169.

Appendix A. Package ‘Trends’

Appendix B. Plots of pH, specific conductance, and water temperature from 

selected sites, 1950–2009.

Appendix C. Plots of selected constituents from selected sites, 1949–2009.

Appendix D. Theil-Sen slope line and p-values for selected constituents for 

uncensored data from selected sites.

Appendix E. Theil-Sen slope line and p-values for selected constituents for 

censored data from selected sites.
68 Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009

This page intentionally left blank.
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey 

Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Director, Idaho Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey 

230 Collins Road

Boise, Idaho 83702

http://id.water.usgs.gov
Printed on recycled paper

Bartholomay and others—Water-Quality Characteristics and Trends for Selected Sites At and Near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1949–2009—Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5169