Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for 

Quality-of-Water Activities, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho 

Open-File Report 2008–1165

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy DOE/ID-22206

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Field Methods and Quality-Assurance 

Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho

By LeRoy L. Knobel, Betty J. Tucker, and Joseph P. Rousseau

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy DOE/ID-22206

Open-File Report 2008–1165

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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:

Knobel, L.L., Tucker, B.J., and Rousseau, J.P., 2008, Field methods and quality-assurance plan for quality-of-water 

activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2008–1165, 36 p.
iii

Contents

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purposes of and Responsibility for Maintaining the Quality-Assurance Plan ...........................1

Scope......................................................................................................................................................1

Description of Water-Quality Monitoring Networks.......................................................................2

Field Methods for Quality-of-Water Activities ..........................................................................................2

Sample Containers and Preservation Methods...............................................................................3

Field Equipment.....................................................................................................................................4

Calibration Procedure for pH.....................................................................................................4

Calibration Procedure for Specific Conductance ..................................................................4

Calibration Procedure for Dissolved Oxygen..........................................................................4

Decontamination Procedures at the Well Head..............................................................................4

Sample Collection.................................................................................................................................7

Quality Assurance for Quality-of-Water Activities.................................................................................12

Analytical Methods and Quality-Control Samples ........................................................................12

Data-Quality Objectives............................................................................................................14

Review of Analyses ............................................................................................................................14

Performance Audits ..................................................................................................................17

Corrective Actions.....................................................................................................................17

Reporting of Data.......................................................................................................................17

Training Requirements and Site Safety...........................................................................................17

Selected References...................................................................................................................................18

Appendix A. Field Schedule ......................................................................................................................21

Appendix B. Data-Quality Objectives for Routine Water Samples Analyzed by the 

National Water Quality Laboratory..............................................................................................29

Appendix C. Data-Quality Objectives for Radionuclides in Water Samples Analyzed 

by the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory................................................30

Appendix D. Data-Quality Objectives for Water Samples Analyzed by Test America 

Laboratories ....................................................................................................................................32

Appendix E. Inventory of Water-Quality Field Equipment..................................................................33

Appendix F. Auditor’s Checklist for Quality-Assurance Field Audits ...............................................34
iv

Figures

Figure 1. Sheet from water-quality field logbook ................................................... 5

Figure 2. Sheet from instrument calibration logbook ............................................. 6

Figure 3. Label attached to each sample bottle ................................................... 8

Figure 4. Analytical services request form for the National Water Quality Laboratory ...... 9

Figure 5. Sample record sheet for the Radiological and Environmental Sciences 

Laboratory .................................................................................... 10

Figure 6. Sample request and chain-of-custody record for the TestAmerica 

Laboratories ................................................................................. 11

Figure 7. Chain-of-custody record .................................................................. 13

Tables

Table 1. Containers and preservatives used for water samples, Idaho National

Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho ............................................................ 3

Table 2. Maximum contaminant levels of types of radioactivity and selected

radionuclides in drinking water............................................................ 15

Table 3. Maximum contaminant levels, secondary maximum contaminant levels, long

term method detection limits, and laboratory reporting levels of selected

trace elements in drinking water ......................................................... 15

Table 4. Maximum contaminant levels, secondary maximum contaminant levels, long

term method detection limits, and laboratory reporting levels of selected

common ions in drinking water ............................................................ 15

Table 5. Maximum contaminant levels, long term method detection limits, and

laboratory reporting levels of selected nutrients, and organic carbon in

drinking water .............................................................................. 15

Table 6. Maximum contaminant levels and minimum reporting levels of selected

volatile organic compounds in drinking water .......................................... 16
v

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

Pressure

inch of mercury at 60oF (in Hg) 3.377 kilopascal (kPa) 

Radioactivity

millirem (mrem) 0.01 millisievert

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

This page intentionally left blank.
Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for 

Quality-of-Water Activities, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

By LeRoy L. Knobel, Betty J. Tucker, and Joseph P. Rousseau

Introduction

Water-quality activities conducted by the staff of the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL) Project Office coincide with the USGS mission of 

appraising the quantity and quality of the Nation’s water 

resources. The activities are conducted in cooperation with the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Idaho Operations Office. 

Results of the water-quality investigations are presented in 

various USGS publications or in refereed scientific journals. 

The results of the studies are highly regarded, and they 

are used with confidence by researchers, regulatory and 

managerial agencies, and interested civic groups.

In its broadest sense, quality assurance refers to doing the 

job right the first time. It includes the functions of planning for 

products, review and acceptance of the products, and an audit 

designed to evaluate the system that produces the products. 

Quality control and quality assurance differ in that quality 

control ensures that things are done correctly given the “stateof-the-art” technology, and quality assurance ensures that 

quality control is maintained within specified limits.

Purposes of and Responsibility for 

Maintaining the Quality-Assurance Plan

The purposes of the Quality-Assurance Plan (QAP) 

for water-quality activities performed by the USGS INL 

Project Office are to maintain and improve the quality of 

technical products and to provide formal standardization, 

documentation, and review of the activities that lead to these 

products. The principles of this plan are as follows:

1. Water-quality programs will be planned in a competent 

manner, and activities will be monitored for compliance 

with stated objectives and approaches. The objectives and 

approaches are defined in an annual project work plan.

2. Field, laboratory, and office activities will be performed 

in a conscientious and professional manner in accordance 

with specified USGS Water Resources Discipline (WRD) 

practices and procedures by qualified and experienced 

employees who are well trained and supervised. If 

or when USGS WRD practices and procedures are 

unspecified or inadequate, data will be collected in a 

manner such that its quality will be documented.

3. All water-quality activities will be reviewed for 

completeness, reliability, credibility, and conformance to 

specified standards and guidelines.

4. A record of actions will be kept to document the activities 

and the assigned responsibilities.

5. Remedial action will be taken to correct activities that are 

deficient.

The Chief of the USGS INL Project Office has overall 

responsibility for maintaining this QAP. However, the 

principal investigator for geochemistry and the lead personnel 

for the water-quality monitoring network are directly 

responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the QAP. The 

QAP will be formally revised and reprinted every 5 to 7 years; 

changes that take place in the interim will be communicated 

by memoranda to project-office personnel on an as-needed 

basis, and copies of those memoranda will be stored in the 

USGS INL Project Office quality-assurance file.

Scope

The QAP for the water-quality activities of the USGS 

INL Project Office defines procedures and tasks performed 

by project-office personnel that ensure the reliability of 

water-quality data. Virtually all principles of the plan have 

been in effect during past and current operations, but the 

QAP provides a method for formalizing and communicating 

the plan to all employees of the project office and to users 

of the hydrologic data and interpretive reports. The QAP 

was implemented in 1989, and was revised in 1992, 1996 

(Mann, 1996), and 2003 (Bartholomay and others, 2003). This 

revision of the QAP incorporates the revisions made to the 

water-quality monitoring program since 2003. 
2 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

A comprehensive list of references that contains guidelines 

used in data collection is given in the Selected References

section. Tasks not described by the references owing to 

field conditions are detailed in the following sections or in 

the Idaho Water Science Center Quality-Assurance Plan 

for Water-Quality Activities (Mark Hardy, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., October, 2003).

Information on water-quality sampling schedules, dataquality objectives, and water-quality field equipment are 

included in appendixes A-E.

Description of Water-Quality 

Monitoring Networks

The USGS has maintained a water-quality monitoring 

program at the INL since 1949 to define the (1) quality and 

availability of water for human consumption, (2) usability 

of the water for supporting construction of facilities and for 

industrial purposes such as cooling systems and diluting 

concentrated waste streams, (3) sources of recharge to the 

eastern Snake River Plain aquifer (ESRPA), (4) processes 

controlling the origin and distribution of contaminants and 

naturally-occurring constituents in the ESRPA, (5) location 

and movement of contaminants in the ESRPA that were 

contained in wastewater discharged at the INL, either to the 

ESRPA or to the overlying perched ground-water zones, and 

(6) early-detection network for contaminants moving past 

the INL boundaries. Disposal of contaminants at the INL has 

taken place through deep disposal wells, shallow infiltration 

ponds, and disposal ditches (Naval Reactors Facility Waste 

Ditch).

A large network of about 300 wells has been sampled in 

the past, and the current routine sampling network consists 

of 159 wells and 7 surface-water sites. Additional monitoring 

sites will be selected if and when they are needed to better 

document the distribution and migration of solutes. Most of 

the 159 wells were constructed as open-borehole wells that are 

open to the aquifer through their entire depth below the water 

table. This type of construction is adequate for identifying the 

time of arrival of contaminant plumes and for delineating the 

horizontal extent of contaminants; however, it is not conducive 

to identifying the vertical distribution of contaminants. 

To better identify the vertical distribution of contaminants 

in the aquifer, multi-depth water-quality sampling, along with 

pressure and temperature profiling programs, were initiated 

in 2005. WestbayTM, packer-based, vertical sampling systems 

were installed in two wells—Middle 2050A and Middle 

2051. Each well was configured so that water samples could 

be collected at 5 discrete depths (at both wells), and pressure 

and temperature measurements could be made at 15 and 13 

discrete depths, respectively. In 2006, wells USGS 132 and 

USGS 134 were configured so that water samples could be 

collected at 6 and 5 discrete depths, respectively, and pressure 

and temperature measurements could be made at 23 and 20 

discrete depths, respectively. In 2007, wells USGS 103 and 

USGS 133 were configured so that water samples could be 

collected at 7 and 4 discrete depths, respectively, and pressure 

and temperature measurements could be made at 23 and 13 

discrete depths, respectively. Additional sites near the southern 

boundary of the INL will be added to these programs during 

2008 and beyond. As with open-borehole construction, the 

packer-based construction allows for identifying the time 

of arrival of contaminant plumes and for delineating the 

horizontal extent of contaminants. In addition, this type of 

construction provides the capability for identifying the vertical 

distribution of contaminants, pressure, and temperature. 

The wells and streams in the INL routine network and in 

the multi-depth sampling network are sampled annually. The 

RWMC Production Well also is sampled for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) on a monthly basis. In addition to the 

routine sampling, some wells may be sampled periodically 

for other constituents, including chlorine-36, iodine-129, trace 

metals, VOCs, dissolved gases, and compounds used for age 

dating. Pressure and temperature measurements at the multilevel sites are made semiannually; however, supplemental 

measurements are made from time to time to identify seasonal 

or climatic effects on pressure and temperature in the aquifer. 

In addition to the 166 ground-water and surface-water 

sites sampled for the routine-monitoring program and the sites 

sampled for vertical definition of contaminants in the aquifer, 

the USGS INL Project Office staff collects water samples 

from 13 wells near the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) on a 

semiannual basis. The purpose of this data-collection program 

is to provide the DOE’s Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office, 

Idaho Branch Office, with chemical and radiochemical data to 

evaluate the effect of NRF activities on the water quality of the 

ESRPA.

Field Methods for Quality-of-Water 

Activities

Sample containers, sample preservation methods, field 

equipment, and well-head decontamination and samplecollection procedures are crucial components in assuring that 

data-quality objectives are achieved at the field level. Equally 

important are the analytical methods and the quality-control 

and quality-assurance activities exercised by the laboratories 

that analyze the samples.
Field Methods for Quality-of-Water Activities 3

Sample Containers and Preservation Methods

Sample containers and preservation methods differ 

depending on the chemistry of the constituents being 

analyzed. Samples analyzed by the USGS National 

Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) are containerized and 

preserved in accordance with laboratory requirements that 

are summarized by U.S. Geological Survey (variously dated, 

chapter A5). Containers and chemical preservatives are 

supplied by the NWQL, where they undergo rigorous quality 

control to ensure that they are free of contamination (Pritt, 

1989, p. 75). Samples analyzed by the U.S. Department 

of Energy’s Radiological and Environmental Sciences 

Laboratory (RESL) are containerized and preserved in 

accordance with requirements specified by the laboratory’s 

Analytical Chemistry Measurements Team; changes in 

procedures are documented in writing. Samples analyzed 

as part of the USGS Department of Defense Environmental 

Conservation (DODEC) program are containerized and 

preserved in accordance with requirements specified by the 

contract laboratory. Containers and preservatives for selected 

constituents are summarized in table 1.

Table 1. Containers and preservatives used for water samples, Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho.

[Analyzing laboratory: NWQL, U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory; RESL, U.S. Department of Energy Radiological and 

Environmental Sciences Laboratory. Abbreviations: L, liter; mL, milliliter; N, normal. HCl, hydrochloric acid; HNO3, nitric acid; °C, degrees Celsius]

Type of constituent

Container Preservative Other

treatment

Analyzing

laboratory Type Size Type Volume

Anions, dissolved Polyethylene 250 mL None None Filter NWQL

Cations, dissolved Polyethylene, acid rinsed 250 mL Ultrex HNO3 2 mL Filter NWQL

Metals, dissolved Polyethylene, acid rinsed 250 mL Ultrex HNO3 2 mL Filter NWQL

Mercury, dissolved Glass, acid rinsed 250 mL 6N OmniTrace HCl 2 mL Filter NWQL

Mercury, total Glass, acid rinsed 250 mL 6N OmniTrace HCl 2 mL None NWQL

Chromium, dissolved Polyethylene, acid rinsed 250 mL Ultrex HNO3 2 mL Filter NWQL

Nutrients, dissolved Polyethylene, brown 125 mL None None Filter, chill 

4°C

NWQL

Volatile organic compounds Glass, baked 40 mL None None Chill, 4°C NWQL

Total organic carbon Glass, baked 125 mL None None Chill, 4°C NWQL

Gross alpha- and beta-particle 

radioactivity

Polyethylene, acid rinsed 2 L HNO3 4 mL/bottle Filter NWQL

Polyethylene, acid rinsed 500 mL HNO3 2 mL None RESL

Pesticides Glass, baked 1 L None None Chill, 4°C NWQL

Tritium Polyethylene 1 L None None None NWQL

Polyethylene 500 mL None None None RESL

Strontium-90 Polyethylene, acid rinsed 1 L HNO3 4 mL Filter NWQL

Polyethylene, acid rinsed 500 mL HNO3 2 mL None RESL

Gamma spectroscopy Polyethylene, acid rinsed 1 L HNO3 4 mL/bottle Filter NWQL

Polyethylene, acid rinsed 500 mL HNO3 2 mL None RESL

Transuranics Polyethylene, acid rinsed 1 L HNO3 4 mL None RESL

Isotopic uranium Polyethylene, acid rinsed 1 L Ultrex HNO3 4 mL Filter Eberline

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 

and hydrogen-2/hydrogen-1

Glass 60 mL None None None Reston Isotope 

Laboratory

Carbon-13/carbon-12 Glass with Teflon/Silicone 

septum

250 mL None None None NWQL

Dissolved gases Glass with rubber stopper 150 mL None None Relieve 

pressure 

with needle

Reston

CFC-Age dating Glass, white plastic caps 

with aluminum foil liner

125 mL None None None Reston

Iodine-129 Glass, amber 1 L None None Filter PRIME Lab
4 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Field Equipment

Analytical and other associated equipment used in 

the field include pH meters, thermometers, multiparameter 

instruments, titrators for alkalinity measurements, peristaltic 

pumps, in-line disposable filter capsules with a 0.45-micron 

filter that is certified to be analyte free, and associated 

glassware. The analytical equipment is housed and usually 

operated in mobile field laboratories. The purpose of the 

mobile laboratories is threefold: (1) they provide a relatively 

clean area to measure field parameters while minimizing the 

potential for contamination or degradation of the samples 

from the wind, dust, rain, snow, and sunlight; (2) they are 

used as storage for sample and shipping containers, chemical 

reagents and preservatives, analytical instrumentation, and 

deionized water used for decontaminating equipment in the 

field; and (3) they provide a place where samples can be 

containerized, preserved, and placed in a secured refrigerator 

or transportation container within minutes after withdrawal 

from a well or stream.

The multiparameter instruments used to measure field 

water-quality parameters, such as pH, specific conductance, 

and dissolved oxygen are maintained and calibrated in 

accordance with procedures specified by the instrument 

manufacturer; calibration data is permanently recorded in 

the water-quality field logbook (fig. 1) and in the instrument 

calibration logbook (fig. 2). Changes to equipment—for 

example, changing batteries or the dissolved oxygen 

membrane—is recorded in the instrument calibration logbook. 

An inventory of field equipment is given in appendix E.

Calibration Procedure for pH

The INL Project Office calibrates pH meters each day 

during which water-quality samples are collected. Calibration 

of the meter can be performed in the laboratory or at the first 

well site where water-quality samples are collected that day. 

The calibration data is recorded in the instrument calibration 

logbook (fig. 2). If the calibration is done in the laboratory 

and the meter is then transported to the well site, the meter 

is checked with a pH 7 buffer prior to sampling. The pH also 

is checked for accuracy with a pH 7 buffer before sampling 

at each subsequent well where water-quality samples are 

collected that day. The measured value of the pH 7 buffer is 

recorded in the water-quality field logbook (fig. 1) for the 

appropriate well site. A pH reading is taken after sampling 

the last well of the day for the end-of-day check and recorded 

in the instrument calibration logbook (fig. 2). The pH meter 

is recalibrated if at any time the meter reading is off by more 

than ±0.1 pH unit.

Calibration Procedure for Specific Conductance

The INL Project Office calibrates specific conductance 

meters each day during which water-quality samples are 

collected. Calibration of the meters can be performed in the 

laboratory or at the first well site where water-quality samples 

are collected that day. The calibration data is recorded in the 

instrument calibration logbook (fig. 2). If the calibration is 

done in the laboratory and the meter is then transported to 

the well site, the specific conductance meter is checked with 

the appropriate buffer prior to sampling. The buffer solution 

should have a specific conductance similar to the water that 

is being sampled. The specific conductance is checked for 

accuracy with a buffer before sampling at each subsequent 

well where water-quality samples are collected that day. The 

measured value of the buffer is recorded in the water-quality 

field logbook (fig. 1) for the appropriate well site. A specific 

conductance reading is taken after sampling the last well of 

the day for the end-of-day check, and the reading is recorded 

in the instrument calibration logbook (fig. 2). The specific 

conductance meter is recalibrated if at any time the meter 

reading is off by ±5 percent for conductivity <100 μS/cm or 

±3 percent for conductivity >100 μS/cm (U.S. Geological 

Survey, variously dated, chapter 6.3).

Calibration Procedure for Dissolved Oxygen

After the dissolved oxygen meter is calibrated, it is 

ready for the day. The temperature at the time of calibration 

is recorded in the instrument calibration logbook (fig. 2). 

The temperature and the atmospheric pressure will be used 

to obtain the solubility of oxygen in water (U.S. Geological 

Survey, variously dated, table 6.2-6). The meter should be 

checked throughout the day to make sure that no bubbles 

are inside the membrane and that no tears or wrinkles are 

in the membrane. If bubbles are present or the membrane is 

damaged, the membrane needs to be changed.

Decontamination Procedures at the Well Head

Wells equipped with dedicated submersible or lineshaft turbine pumps do not require decontamination except 

for the equipment that is attached to the discharge pipe to 

accommodate the collection of a water sample. However, one 

wellbore volume of water is pumped from the well to remove 

stagnant water and to rinse and equilibrate the pump and 

delivery line. 
Field Methods for Quality-of-Water Activities 5

Figure 1. Sheet from water-quality field logbook.
6 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

1

Method

Date__________________ Employee Name ______________________

Thermistor

Step Buffer 

Circle one

Lot # Exp.

Date

Buffer

 Temp

Initial 

Reading

Adj. 

pH

mVolts Slope End of Day 

Check Value

1 calibrate 7  ̊C

2 set slope 4 or 10  ̊C

3 check 10 or 4  ̊C

Special  ̊C

Special  ̊C

Specific Conductance Calibration

Standard 

Value

Lot # Exp. Date Standard

Temp

Initial 

Reading

Adjusted 

Reading

End of Day 

Check Value

 ̊C

 ̊C

 ̊C

Dissolved Oxygen Calibration

Air Calibration in Water

Air Calibration Chamber in Air

Air-Saturated Water 

Calibration by Winkler Titration

Date of last check/calibration ____________

Schedule

s2-point check: 3-4 months

s5-point check: annually and when thermistor 

is changed

pH Calibration

Barometer ID # Date of last 

barometer 

calibration

D.O. Zero Check

using zero D.O. solution

mg/L % sat

Measurement Initial End of Day Check Value

Barometric pressure mm Hg* mm Hg*

Temperature  ̊C  ̊C

D.O. Saturation or Winkler mg/L mg/L

Meter reading mg/L mg/L

Meter adjusted to mg/L

*mm=inches x 25.4 

Temperature  ̊C

ASTM Thermometer Meter Thermistor Adjusted to

Remarks and Repairs

Multiparameter Meter Calibration and Maintenance Log

Figure 2. Sheet from instrument calibration logbook.
Field Methods for Quality-of-Water Activities 7

Sample collection is facilitated and excess water is 

diverted away from the well head by fitting wells equipped 

with dedicated pumps with a portable discharge pipe about 

2 ft long. The discharge pipe has a 1.5-in. inside diameter 

and is equipped with a gate valve to control the flow rate. A 

series of joints, nipples, pipe sections, and valves to control 

the flow rate of the sampling ports are attached to the portable 

discharge line to enable splitting of the well discharge into 

three streams. The diameters of two of the streams are reduced 

to 0.25-in. and have TygonTM tubing attached to the discharge 

pipe. The first tube is attached to a flow-through chamber 

used for measuring pH, specific conductance, and dissolved 

oxygen. The second tube is used for filling sample bottles. The 

third discharge stream is excess water and is diverted away 

from the well. 

All fittings and pipes are stainless steel and are rinsed 

with deionized water before installation at the well head. 

Subsequent flushing with several hundred to thousands of 

gallons of purged well water further reduces the possibility 

of cross contamination with water from previously sampled 

wells. After sample collection, the fittings and pipes are rinsed 

with deionized water prior to storage to further reduce the 

chance of cross contamination between wells. In an attempt to 

extend the longevity of pumps, an amperage reduction system 

is installed between the generator and the well pump to reduce 

the speed of 5 horsepower pumps. 

Production wells generally have a spigot at or near 

the well head and do not require special sample-collection 

equipment; decontamination consists of thoroughly rinsing the 

spigot with pumped ground water to remove foreign materials.

A bailer is used for collecting water samples from the 

following well types: (1) wells without dedicated pumps, (2) 

wells with only a few feet of water in the well-bore, and (3) 

wells that do not produce much water. The bailer and that part 

of the bailer line that enters the well are washed with water 

and detergent and rinsed with deionized water prior to use; 

samples of the rinsate are periodically collected and analyzed 

to document whether the equipment is contaminated by 

constituents of interest. At some wells, bailers are dedicated to 

and stored in the well casing. This eliminates the possibility of 

cross contamination of samples from different wells.

At the sites sampled for vertical definition of 

contaminants in the aquifer, stainless-steel thief sampling 

devices (bottles) are used to collect samples. For some 

samples, refrigerator-grade copper tubing is attached to the 

stainless-steel thief sampling bottles to deliver sample water 

to the appropriate sample containers. For samples that do 

not require refrigerator-grade copper tubing as part of the 

sampling process, a sample is delivered directly from the 

stainless-steel thief sampling bottles to a precleaned container, 

which is used for filling the appropriate sample containers. 

Prior to sampling at each sampling port, the stainless-steel 

thief sampling bottles and the refrigerator-grade copper tubing 

(if required for sampling) are washed with water and detergent 

and rinsed with deionized water. At the end of the day, the 

equipment is washed with water and detergent and rinsed with 

deionized water prior to storage to further reduce the chance of 

cross contamination.

Sample Collection

Sample collection by the USGS at the INL generally 

follows protocols outlined in the U.S. Geological Survey 

National Field Manual (U.S. Geological Survey (variously 

dated, chapter A4)) or in the USGS Idaho Water Science 

Center Quality-Assurance Plan for water-quality activities 

(Mark Hardy, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2003); however, protocols sometimes are modified to collect 

the best representative water sample possible. At wells 

equipped with a dedicated pump, a volume of water equivalent 

to a minimum of one wellbore volume is pumped prior to 

collecting the samples; at many wells, more than one wellbore 

volume is pumped. The diameter of the wellbore, rather than 

the volume of the casing, is used to calculate the minimum 

volume because of the potentially great difference between 

the two. In addition, temperature, specific conductance, pH, 

and dissolved oxygen are monitored periodically during 

pumping using methods described by Wood (1981), Hardy and 

others (1989), and U.S. Geological Survey (variously dated, 

chapter A6). Field measurements made immediately prior to 

sample collection are used to represent those for the sample. 

When pH measurements are within ±0.1 standard units, water 

temperature is ±0.2°C, and specific conductance readings are 

within 5 percent of each other for three consecutive readings 

taken between 3 and 5 minutes apart, indicating probable 

hydraulic and chemical stability, a water sample is collected 

using the following steps: 

1. The field person responsible for collecting the water 

sample wears disposable gloves and stands in a position 

where neither the collector nor the sample can become 

contaminated.

2. The outside of the sample delivery line is thoroughly 

rinsed with water pumped from the well.

3. If appropriate, sample containers and filtration equipment 

are thoroughly rinsed with water pumped from the well or 

surface-water site before being used. A new, disposable 

capsule filter with a 45-micron membrane filter is used 

at each site. The capsule filter is inverted to clear trapped 

air bubbles and one liter of deionized water or water from 

the well is used to rinse the capsule filter prior to sample 

collection. This removes any surfactants that are adhered 

to the filter.
8 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

4. For ground-water samples from wells equipped with 

dedicated pumps, the capsule filter is connected to the 

sample port with precleaned TygonTM tubing; unfiltered 

samples are collected directly from the sample port. For 

surface-water samples, thief samples, and bailer samples, 

a grab sample is collected in a precleaned container and 

the precleaned inlet tubing of a peristaltic pump is placed 

into the container to supply sample water to the capsule 

filter. Unfiltered samples are collected by submersing the 

sample container into the surface-water body or drawing 

water from a precleaned container.

5. Samples are capped and are moved into the mobile field 

laboratory where they are uncapped and preserved (if 

appropriate) as described in table 1. A new pair of gloves, 

safety glasses, and a laboratory apron are worn while 

preserving samples.

6. The bottles are capped, and the caps are sealed with 

laboratory film except for VOC samples (laboratory film 

interferes with the analytical measurement method for 

VOC analysis). The bottles are then labeled (see fig. 3

for example of label). An alternate method for labeling 

containers is to record information directly on the 

sample container using a permanent marker. Recording 

the information on a label and directly on the bottle is 

preferable.

7. Field measurements are made again after samples 

are collected. If the temperature differs by more than 

0.5°C, the pH differs by more than 0.1 unit, or the 

specific conductance differs by more than 5 percent, the 

measurements are verified and a second set of samples is 

collected. The second set of samples replaces the original 

set of samples.

8. A laboratory request schedule is completed for use by 

each laboratory to which the sample(s) will be sent for 

analysis (see figs. 4–6 for examples).

9. The water samples are chilled to 4°C if necessary, and 

stored in the field laboratory until they can be transferred 

to a secured storage area. Samples are transported to 

the analyzing laboratory as soon as reasonably possible. 

Samples sent to the USGS NWQL for analysis are 

transported in a sealed ice chest by a contract carrier; 

overnight delivery is stipulated for water samples for 

analyses of nutrients, total organic carbon, VOCs, and 

other time-sensitive constituents. Samples sent to the 

DOE RESL for analysis are hand carried to the laboratory. 

10. All equipment is decontaminated with deionized water 

and, if necessary, organic-free water.

Some wells completed in the perched-water zones do 

not contain or produce enough water to be sampled with a 

pump. For these wells, either a 1,000-mL TeflonTM bailer or 

a 1,000-mL galvanized bailer is used for sample collection. 

The well is bailed until enough water is collected for all 

the samples required or until the well is bailed dry. When 

the bailer is retrieved, its contents are placed either directly 

in bottles for raw samples or in a precleaned container as 

described in step 4 above. Field measurements are made on 

excess water from the bailer or in the precleaned container. 

After the sample bottle is filled with either raw or filtered 

water, samples are preserved appropriately, labeled, stored, 

and shipped as described in steps 6, 8 and 9 above.

At the sites sampled for vertical definition of 

contaminants in the aquifer, the evacuated stainless-steel 

thief sampling devices (bottles) are lowered to the zone to be 

sampled, mated to the sampling port, and filled with formation 

water. The stainless-steel bottles are raised to the surface and 

emptied into a precleaned container; the water is processed 

to fill sample containers as described in step 4 above. Field 

measurements are made on excess water from the precleaned 

container. After the sample bottle is filled with either raw or 

filtered water, samples are preserved appropriately, labeled, 

stored, and shipped as described in steps 6, 8, and 9 above. 

This process is repeated until sufficient water has been 

collected to fill all required sample containers and to make all 

necessary field measurements. For some samples, refrigeratorgrade copper tubing is attached to the stainless-steel thief 

sampling bottles to deliver sample water to the appropriate 

sample containers. 

At sites where containerization of purge water is required, 

the sampling stream is split to accommodate measurement of 

the field-water-quality indicators (temperature, pH, specific 

conductance, and dissolved oxygen) and to collect samples. 

In addition, excess purge water is collected at the discharge 

point and routed through canvas hoses to the trailer-mounted 

containers. The containerized purge water is subsequently 

transported to an approved disposal site. 

Figure 3. Label attached to each sample bottle.
Field Methods for Quality-of-Water Activities 9

Figure 4. Analytical services request form for the National Water Quality Laboratory.

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY – NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY 

ANALYTICAL SERVICES REQUEST 

THIS SECTION MANDATORY FOR SAMPLE LOGIN 

NWIS RECORD NUMBER LAB USE ONLY 

 

SAMPLE TRACKING ID User Code Project Account NWQL LABORATORY ID 

 2 0 

STATION ID Begin Date (YYYYMMDD) Begin Time Medium Code Sample Type

 

District Contact Phone Number End Date (YYYYMMDD) End Time District Contact Email 

SITE / SAMPLE / SPECIAL PROJECT INFORMATION (Optional)

 Sample Set 

State County Geologic 

Unit Code 

 Analysis 

Status* 

 Analysis 

Source* 

 Hydrologic 

Condition*

 Hydrologic 

Event* 

 Chain of 

Custody

 

NWQL Proposal Number NWQL Contact Name NWQL Contact Email Program/Project 

Station Name: Field ID: 

Comments to NWQL: 

 

Hazard (please explain): 

ANALYTICAL WORK REQUESTS: SCHEDULES AND LAB CODES (CIRCLE A=add D=delete) 

SCHED 1: SCHED 2: SCHED 3: SCHED 4: SCHED 5: SCHED 6: 

Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D

Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D

Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D Lab Code: A D

SHIPPING INFORMATION (Please fill in number of containers sent)

 ALF COD FA FCN IQE IRM RA RU SUR TPCN

 BGC CRB FAM FU IQL MBAS RAM RUR SUSO UAS 

 C18 CU FAR FUS IQM OAG RAR RURCT TBI WCA 

 CC CUR FCA GCC IRE PHE RCB RURCV TBY 

 CHL DOC FCC GCV IRL PIC RCN RUS TOC 

NWQL Login Comments: 

 

Collected by: Phone No. Date Shipped: 

FIELD VALUES 

Lab/P Code Value Remark Lab/P Code Value Remark Lab/P Code Value Remark

 21/00095 51/00400 2/39086 

Specific Conductance 

uS/cm @ 25 deg C 

 pH Standard Units Alkalinity – IT mg/L as 

CaCO3

 

 

 / / / 

Field Comments: 

*MANDATORY FOR NWIS Form 9-3094 

(August 2000) 
10 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Figure 5. Sample record sheet for the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory.
Field Methods for Quality-of-Water Activities 11

Figure 6. Sample request and chain-of-custody record for the TestAmerica Laboratories.
12 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Wells inside the Reactor Technology Complex and the 

boundary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Listed Waste Polygon (Knobel, 2006) require containerization 

of all purge water. These wells are purged at slow rates 

to minimize the amount of purge water. After three stable 

readings of temperature, pH, specific conductance, and 

dissolved oxygen are obtained, and at least one wellbore 

volume has been purged, samples are collected.

Production wells at the INL generally are connected 

to water distribution systems, and they cycle on and off in 

response to system water demand. Because of the frequent 

pumping cycles, water in the system is representative of 

aquifer water, and only sample collection lines require purging 

prior to sampling. In many cases, the production wells cycle 

off before the multi-parameter field measurement instruments 

can stabilize after a pH 7 buffer check. In this case, the 

requirement for a pH 7 buffer check is waived; however, an 

end of day check must be satisfactory, or the well should be 

resampled. 

An added precaution against cross contamination is used 

at wells that are sampled with a bailer. The concentrations of 

most contaminants are greatest in wells nearest disposal sites, 

and these concentrations decrease with increasing distance. 

Therefore, when conditions permit, the most distant wells 

are sampled first. This method of sampling minimizes the 

potential for cross contamination.

Conditions at the well during sample collection are 

recorded in a bound water-quality field logbook (fig. 1), and a 

chain-of-custody record (fig. 7) is used to track samples from 

the time of collection until delivery to the DOE RESL or until 

mailing to the USGS NWQL. These records are available 

for inspection at the USGS INL Project Office. The chainof-custody record for the current NRF contract laboratory, 

TestAmerica Laboratories, is shown in figure 6. The original is 

returned to NRF.

Quality Assurance for Quality-of-Water 

Activities

The USGS Quality-Assurance Program at the INL 

Project Office incorporates the previously described methods 

of sample collection and processing with several other 

elements: (1) analytical methods used by the laboratories; (2) 

quality-control samples; (3) review of analytical results of 

chemical constituents provided by the laboratories; (4) audits 

of performance in the field and in the laboratory; (5) corrective 

actions to resolve problems with field and laboratory 

methods; (6) reporting of data; and (7) training and site safety 

requirements for personnel. These elements are included to 

assure the following: (1) reliability of the water-quality data; 

(2) compatibility of the data with data collected by other 

organizations at the INL; and (3) applicability of the data to 

the programmatic needs of the DOE, its contractors, and the 

scientific and regulatory communities. 

Analytical Methods and Quality-Control 

Samples

A detailed description of internal quality control and 

of the overall quality-assurance practices used by the USGS 

NWQL is provided by Friedman and Erdmann (1982) 

and Pritt and Raese (1995); quality-control practices at 

the laboratory are described by Jones (1987); and qualityassurance data for routine water analyses are presented in 

Maloney and others (1993, 2005) and Ludtke and others 

(2000). Additional quality assurance instituted by the 

INL Project Office includes collection and analysis of the 

following: (1) duplicate samples—two or more samples 

collected concurrently or sequentially and sent to different 

laboratories; (2) blind replicate samples—duplicate samples 

with different sample identification numbers submitted to 

a laboratory; (3) replicate samples—samples with the same 

sample identification numbers submitted to a laboratory; 

(4) blank samples—samples of deionized water, organicfree water, or inorganic-free water sent to a laboratory and 

identified as routine samples; (5) equipment blanks—rinsate 

collected during decontamination procedures; (6) splits—large 

sample volumes divided into two or more equal volumes and 

sent to different laboratories for analysis; (7) trip blanks—

laboratory supplied samples of boiled deionized water that 

travel with water samples from time of collection to time of 

analysis; and (8) spiked samples—samples to which a known 

concentration of a constituent is added. Analytical methods 

used by the USGS NWQL for selected organic and inorganic 

constituents are described by Goerlitz and Brown (1972), 

Thatcher and others (1977), Skougstad and others (1979), 

Wershaw and others (1987), Fishman and Friedman (1989), 

Faires (1993), Fishman (1993), and Rose and Schroeder 

(1995). A list of some analytical methods currently used at 

the USGS NWQL can be found on the World Wide Web at 

http://nwql.usgs.gov/pubs-tm.shtml. Other analytical methods 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

that are currently used at the USGS NWQL can be found on 

the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/methods/

analyticalmethods.html. Analytical methods from ASTM 

International that are currently used at the USGS NWQL can 

be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.astm.org. The 

type of analysis and the analytical procedure are specified on 

the USGS NWQL analytical services request form (fig. 4).

A discussion of procedures used by the DOE RESL for 

the analysis of radionuclides in water is provided by Bodnar 

and Percival [eds.] (1982) and the U.S. Department of Energy 

(1995). Additional quality assurance implemented by the INL 
Quality Assurance for Quality-of-Water Activities 13

Long.

Remarks Date/Time

Relinquished by: (Signature) Date/TimeRelinquished by: (Signature) Date/Time

Received by: (Signature)Received for Lab by: (Signature) Relinquished by: (Signature) Date/Time

Received by: (Signature) Date/Time Relinquished by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature)

Location

No. of 

containers

Relinquished by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Date/Time

Remarks Lat. Seq.

no.

Local I.D.

Date

Collected

Time

Collected Type

Scoville, IDAHO 83415Proj. No.Samplers: (Signatures)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD

_____ pages

U.S. Geological SurveyINL CF 690 Room 173 Page_____ of 

Figure 7. Chain-of-custody record.
14 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Project Office for samples sent to the DOE RESL is consistent 

with procedures used for samples sent to the USGS NWQL. 

The type of analysis to be performed on a water sample is 

specified on the DOE RESL sample record sheet (fig. 5).

Generally, about 10 percent of the samples collected are 

dedicated to quality assurance. That is, for every 10 samples 

submitted to one of the laboratories for analysis, at least 

one is a replicate, a blank, a split, or another type of qualityassurance sample. For samples that are to be analyzed for 

nonroutine constituents, 15 to 20 percent of the samples are 

dedicated to quality assurance.

Comparative studies to determine agreement among 

analytical results for water-sample pairs analyzed by 

laboratories involved in the INL Project Office qualityassurance program are summarized by Wegner (1989), 

Williams (1996, 1997), Williams and others (1998), Knobel 

and others (1999), Carkeet and others (2001), Swanson and 

others (2002, 2003), Rattray and Campbell (2004), and Rattray 

and others (2005). Additional quality-assurance studies by 

personnel at the INL Project Office include an evaluation of 

field-sampling and preservation methods for strontium-90 

(Cecil and others, 1989), a comparison of different pump 

types used for sampling VOCs (Knobel and Mann, 1993), 

an analysis of tritium and strontium-90 concentrations in 

water from wells after purging different borehole volumes 

(Bartholomay, 1993), an analysis of the effect of different 

preservation methods on nutrient concentrations (Bartholomay 

and Williams, 1996), an analysis of two analytical methods 

for the determination of gross alpha- and beta-particle 

radioactivity (Bartholomay and others, 1999), and an 

evaluation of well-purging effects on water-quality of samples 

collected from the ESRPA (Knobel, 2006).

Data-Quality Objectives

Data-quality objectives are qualitative and quantitative 

criteria that describe the data needed by (1) managers or 

regulators to support environmental decisions and actions or 

(2) scientists to study natural or induced chemical processes in 

the Snake River Plain aquifer. The first steps of the scientific 

method are somewhat analogous to and are supported by 

data-quality objectives. Identifying problems is followed by 

hypothesizing solutions. Unbiased and thorough scientific 

experiments are proposed and then conducted, analyzed, and 

reported in the literature for peer review and use by others.

Data-quality objectives for routine water samples 

analyzed by the USGS NWQL are included in appendix B, 

and data-quality objectives for radionuclides in water samples 

analyzed by the DOE RESL are in appendix C.

Review of Analyses

After the analytical results are obtained from the 

analyzing laboratory, the concentration of each constituent 

of interest is reviewed by personnel at the INL Project Office 

for consistency, precision, and accuracy. Factors considered 

during the review are:

•	 Historical concentration of the solute at the site where 

the sample was collected;

•	 Concentration of the solute in replicate, split, blank, or 

other quality-assurance samples;

•	 Concentrations of the solute in nearby wells that obtain 

water from the same aquifer or perched-water zone;

•	 Review of waste-disposal records and changes in 

disposal techniques, land use, and recharge that may 

influence the concentration of a solute(s);

•	 Cation-anion balance of analyses for which common 

ions are analyzed; and

•	 Other accepted tests for accuracy of analytical results, 

when appropriate (Hem, 1985, p. 163-165). 

Constituents for which previous analyses have been 

made are reviewed for consistency with the first three factors. 

Under certain circumstances, a re-analysis by the laboratory 

is requested or a second sample is collected and analyzed 

to verify the concentration of the solute in the water. These 

circumstances include: (1) a constituent differs from historical 

data, (2) a constituent differs markedly from the concentrations 

in water from nearby wells, or (3) an initial analysis for a 

solute exceeds 80 percent of the maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) for that constituent set by the USEPA. If resampling is 

necessary, replicates or split samples generally are collected 

to evaluate laboratory precision. Spiked and reference samples 

are used to measure accuracy. Constituents for which MCLs 

have been proposed or established are shown in tables 2-6.

If analytical results indicate that concentrations in 

samples from one site vary by more than 50 percent from 

historical record for no obvious reason, reruns are requested 

and the results are also evaluated by replicate sampling 

during the next sample period. If the analytical results for the 

replicates do not agree, the analyzing laboratory is contacted 

to resolve the problem.
Quality Assurance for Quality-of-Water Activities 15

Table 2. Maximum contaminant levels of types of radioactivity 

and selected radionuclides in drinking water.

[The maximum contaminant levels (MCL) were established pursuant to the 

recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000, p. 344) 

for community water systems and are included for comparison purposes only. 

The maximum contaminant level given for gross alpha-particle radioactivity 

includes radium-226, but excludes radon and uranium. The maximum 

contaminant level given for gross beta-particle and gamma radioactivity 

excludes radioactivity from natural sources and is included for comparison 

purposes only. Maximum contaminant levels given for strontium-90 and 

tritium are average concentrations assumed to produce a total body or 

organ dose of 4 millirem per year (mrem/yr) of beta-particle radiation. 

Abbreviation: pCi/L, picocurie per liter]

Radionuclide or type of radioactivity MCL

Gross alpha-particle radioactivity 15 pCi/L

Gross beta-particle and gamma radioactivity 4 mrem/yr

Strontium-90 8 pCi/L

Tritium 20,000 pCi/L

Table 3. Maximum contaminant levels, secondary maximum 

contaminant levels, long term method detection limits, and laboratory 

reporting levels of selected trace elements in drinking water.

[The maximum contaminant levels (MCL) are for total measurements and 

were established pursuant to the recommendations of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (1994b; 2000, p 343, 421) for community water systems 

and are for comparison purposes only. Secondary maximum contaminant 

levels (SMCL)—in brackets—are from U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2000, p. 613). The long term method detection limits and the 

laboratory reporting levels are taken from the Laboratory Information 

Management System (LIMS) used by the National Water Quality Laboratory, 

U.S. Geological Survey (Mark Hardy, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 

2007). Units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Symbols: .., MCL has not 

been established; *, lead has an action level of 15 μg/L]

Trace element MCL or 

SMCL

Long-term method

detection limits

Laboratory 

reporting levels

Aluminum [50–200] 0.8 1.6

Antimony 6 .07 .14

Arsenic 10 .06 .12

Barium 2,000 .04 .08

Beryllium 4 .03 .06

Boron .. 4 8

Cadmium 5 .07 .14

Chromium 100 .20 .40

Cobalt .. .01 .02

Copper [1,000] .2 .4

Iron [300] 3 6

Lead * .04 .08

Lithium .. .5 1.0

Manganese [50] .4 .8

Mercury 2 .005 .010

Molybdenum .. .10 .20

Nickel .. .10 .20

Silver [100] .008 .016

Strontium .. .4 .8

Thallium 2 .04 .08

Uranium .. .01 .02

Vanadium .. .2 .4

Zinc [5,000] .9 1.8

Table 4. Maximum contaminant levels, secondary maximum 

contaminant levels, long term method detection limits, and laboratory 

reporting levels of selected common ions in drinking water.

[The maximum contaminant levels (MCL) are for total measurements and 

were established pursuant to the recommendations of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (1994b; 2000, p 343, 421) for community water systems 

and are for comparison purposes only. Secondary maximum contaminant 

levels (SMCL)—in brackets—are from U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2000, p. 613). The long term method detection limits and the 

laboratory reporting levels are taken from the Laboratory Information 

Management System (LIMS) used by the National Water Quality Laboratory, 

U.S. Geological Survey (Mark Hardy, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 

2007). Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Symbols: –, maximum 

contaminant level has not been established]

Constituent MCL or 

SMCL

Long- term method 

detection limit

Laboratory 

reporting level

Bromide – 0.01 0.02

Calcium – .01 .02

Chloride [250] .06 .12

Fluoride 4 [2] .05 .10

Magnesium – .007 .014

Potassium – .002 .004

Silica – .10 .20

Sodium – .10 .20

Sulfate [250] .09 .18

Table 5. Maximum contaminant levels, long term method 

detection limits, and laboratory reporting levels of selected 

nutrients, and organic carbon in drinking water.

[The maximum contaminant levels (MCL) are for total measurements and 

were established pursuant to the recommendations of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (1994b; 2000, p 343, 421) for community water systems 

and are for comparison purposes only. The long term method detection limits 

and the laboratory reporting levels are taken from the Laboratory Information 

Management System (LIMS) used by the National Water Quality Laboratory, 

U.S. Geological Survey (Mark Hardy, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 

2007). Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Symbols: –, maximum 

contaminant level has not been established]

Constituent MCL or 

SMCL

Long- term 

method 

detection limit

Laboratory 

reporting 

level

Ammonia (as nitrogen) – 0.01 0.02

Nitrite (as nitrogen) 1 .001 .002

Nitrite plus nitrate (as 

nitrogen)

10 .030 .060

Orthophosphate (as 

phosphorus)

– .003 .006

Dissolved organic carbon – .2 .4

Total organic carbon – .20 .40
16 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Compound MCL MRL

Acrylonitrile -- 2.5

Benzene 5 .1

Bromobenzene -- .2

Bromochloromethane -- .2

Bromoform * .2

Bromomethane -- .3

n-Butylbenzene -- .2

sec-Butylbenzene -- .2

tert-Butylbenzene -- .2

Carbon tetrachloride

(Tetrachloromethane)

5 .2

Chlorobenzene 100 .1

Chlorodibromomethane

(Dibromochloromethane)

* .2

Chloroethane

(Xylenes)

-- .2

Chloroform * .1

Chloromethane -- .2

2-Chlorotoluene -- .2

4-Chlorotoluene -- .2

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane .2 5

1,2-Dibromoethane .05 .2

Dibromomethane -- .2

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 .1

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 .1

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 .1

Dichlorobromomethane

(Bromodichloromethane)

* .2

Dichlorodifluoromethane -- .2

1,1-Dichloroethane -- .1

1,2-Dichloroethane 5 .2

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

(cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene)

70 .1

1,1-Dichloroethene

(cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene)

7 .1

trans-1,2-dichloroethene

(trans-1,2-dichloroethylene)

100 .1

Compound MCL MRL

1,2-Dichloropropane 5 0.1

1,3-Dichloropropane -- .2

2,2-Dichloropropane -- .2

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene -- .2

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene -- .2

1,1-Dichloropropene -- .2

Ethylbenzene 700 .1

Hexachlorobutadiene -- .2

Isopropylbenzene -- .2

p-Isopropyltoluene

(4-Isopropyl-1-methylbenzene)

-- .2

Methylene chloride

(Dichloromethane)

-- .2

Methyl tert-butylether

(tert-Butyl methyl ether)

-- .2

Naphthalene -- .5

n-Propylbenzene -- .2

Styrene 100 .1

1,1,1,2- Tetrachloroethane -- .2

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethan -- .2

Tetrachloroethylene 5 .1

Toluene 1,000 .1

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene -- .2

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 .2

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 .1

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 .2

Trichloroethene

(Trichloroethylene)

5 .1

Trichlorofluoromethane -- .2

1,2,3-Trichloropropane -- .2

1,1,2-Trichloro 1,2,2-trifluoroethane -- .1

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene -- .2

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene -- .2

Vinyl chloride 2 .2

Xylenes,

total ortho, meta, and para

10,000 .2

Table 6. Maximum contaminant levels and minimum reporting levels of selected volatile organic compounds in drinking water.

[Analyses performed by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory using an analytical method equivalent to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency method 524.2. Abbreviations: MCL, maximum contaminant level; MRL, minimum reporting level. MCL’s were established pursuant 

to the recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994b; 2000, p. 419) for community water systems and are included for comparison 

purposes only. Long term method detection limits are not applicable to volatile organic compounds. MRL’s are from the Laboratory Information Management 

System (LIMS) used by the National Water Quality Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey (Mark Hardy, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2007). 

Units are in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Symbols: --, MCL has not been established or proposed; *, total trihalomethanes, which include bromoform, 

chlorodibromomethane, chloroform, and dichlorobromomethane, in community water systems serving 10,000 or more persons cannot exceed 100 μg/L (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, p. 343)]
Quality Assurance for Quality-of-Water Activities 17

Performance Audits

Performance audits are conducted routinely at three 

levels: (1) at the field level, (2) at the laboratory level, and (3) 

through National Field Quality-Assurance Tests. At the field 

level, the Project Chief or a designee routinely accompanies 

the field personnel to a selected number of sites to ascertain 

whether proper field techniques are used to collect and 

preserve the samples; to ensure that proper safety procedures 

are followed; and, when necessary, to evaluate the training 

of new employees. The field auditor’s checklist is shown in 

appendix F. Written results of the field audits are provided to 

the employee, and copies of the field audits are stored in the 

office quality-assurance files. 

The USGS INL Project Office participates in the National 

Field Quality-Assurance Program established by the USGS 

to evaluate the accuracy of water-quality field measurements. 

Quality-assurance blind samples are sent to field personnel for 

testing. The results are sent back to the water-quality service 

unit for evaluation. If field personnel or equipment do not pass 

the test, corrective action is taken. The program is described in 

detail by Erdmann and Thomas (1985).

In addition to the routine performance audits, waterquality activities at the INL Project Office are periodically 

monitored and reviewed by other USGS personnel: the 

Water-Quality Specialist for the USGS Idaho Water Science 

Center, Boise, Idaho; personnel at the Office of the Regional 

Hydrologist, Western Region, Menlo Park, California; 

and personnel at the Office of Water Quality at USGS 

Headquarters, Reston, Virginia. Reviews by personnel at 

the USGS Idaho Water Science Center take place at 1- to 

2-year intervals; reviews by the Western Region Office of 

the Water-Quality Specialist and by the Headquarters Office 

of Water Quality take place at 2- to 3-year intervals. The 

reviews are summarized in writing, and the reports distributed 

to the USGS INL Project Office, Western Region Office of 

the Regional Hydrologist, and the Headquarters Office of 

Water Quality. If deficiencies are documented, the Chief of 

the USGS INL Project Office must submit a written reply 

outlining the necessary corrective action.

Corrective Actions

If the performance audits indicate inconsistencies 

or inadequacies in field methods or in analytical results 

by the laboratories, the problems are documented and the 

field personnel or laboratories are notified in writing of the 

inconsistencies or inadequacies. Training is provided to the 

field personnel as needed, and the frequency of performance 

audits is increased until the performance is judged by the 

USGS INL Project Office Chief to be suitable and consistent 

with written guidelines.

Inconsistencies and inadequacies in laboratory analyses 

are discussed with or submitted in writing to the appropriate 

laboratory director, who is responsible for initiating the 

appropriate action to resolve the problem. To evaluate whether 

appropriate actions are taken, the frequency and numbers 

of replicate, blank, split, or other quality-assurance samples 

are increased until it is demonstrated that problems in the 

laboratory methods are resolved.

If USGS INL Project Office personnel discover a 

problem with sampling procedures, equipment calibration, or 

data review analysis and interpretation that cannot be resolved 

at the project level, the USGS Idaho Water Science Center 

Water-Quality Specialist is notified of the problem. If the 

specialist cannot resolve the problem in consultation with the 

USGS Regional Water-Quality Specialist, the problem may 

be referred to the USGS Office of Water Quality or National 

Research Program, where research hydrologists and chemists 

will aid in resolving the problem.

Reporting of Data

All data collected by the USGS INL Project Office are 

publicly available, after review, and most data are published 

in data reports and used in interpretive reports. Water-quality 

information, subsequent to its review, is entered into the 

National Water Information System (NWIS) and periodically 

merged with a nationally-accessible database. Data that 

suggest a possible human health or environmental problem 

are provided to managerial agencies such as the DOE and to 

regulatory agencies, such as the State of Idaho’s Department 

of Health and Welfare and the USEPA, Region 10. After 

data have been reviewed and verified—by resampling if 

necessary—they are available to the general public either upon 

request or through the USGS National Water Information 

System Web portal at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

Training Requirements and Site Safety

Training and site safety are important components of 

the USGS INL Project Offices QAP. Employees are not 

assigned tasks for which they are not adequately trained, and 

all employees have a stop-work authority if they feel that 

work conditions are unsafe. The responsibility for ensuring 

that employees are adequately trained is shared jointly by the 

employee and the employee’s supervisor. A more detailed 

description of USGS INL Project Office personnel training 

requirements and site safety requirements are given in the 

USGS INL Site Safety and Job Hazard Analysis Document 

(J. Rousseau, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2008).
18 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

USGS INL Project Office personnel are called on from 

time to time to sample wells for which no USGS-collected 

data are available. When this situation occurs, an effort will 

be made to ascertain if samples have been collected by other 

environmental monitoring programs to determine if there 

is any potential health risk to sample-collection personnel 

or laboratory-analysis personnel. To minimize the risk of 

contaminating low-level environmental laboratories, the 

laboratory analytical request form and the sample bottles 

will be noted as containing either samples with unknown or 

expected concentrations of contaminants that are potentially 

large. 

Selected References

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 bore-hole volumes: U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 93-4201 (DOE/ID-22111), 

21 p.

Bartholomay, R.C., Hill, G.H., and Randolph, R.B., 1999, 

Statistical comparison of gross alpha- and gross betaparticle activity in water analyzed using two analytical 

methods [abs.]: Rocky Mountain Conference on Analytical 

Chemistry, 41st, Denver, Colo., 1999 Program and 

Abstracts, p. 132.

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 Environmental Laboratory, Idaho: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-42 (DOE/

ID-22182), 45 p. 

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.

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].

Carkeet, Colleen, Rosentreter, J.J., Bartholomay, R.C., and 

Knobel, L.L., 2001, Geochemistry of the Big Lost River 

drainage basin, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 01-4031 (DOE/ID-22174), 

31 p. 

Cecil, L.D., Knobel, L.L., Wegner, S.J., and Moore, L.L., 

1989, Evaluation of field sampling and preservation 

methods for strontium-90 in ground water at the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4146 

(DOE/ID-22083), 24 p.

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.

Currie, L.A., 1968, Limits for qualitative detection and 

quantitative determination—application to radiochemistry: 

Analytical Chemistry, v. 40, no. 3, p. 586-593.

Erdmann, D.E., and Thomas, J.D., 1985, Quality assurance 

of the U.S. Geological Survey water-quality field 

measurements, in Taylor, J.K., and Stanley, T.W., eds., 

Quality assurance for environmental measurements: 

American Society for Testing and Materials Special 

Technical Testing Publication 867, p. 110-115.

Faires, L.M., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

determination of metals in water by inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 92-634, 28 p.

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.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. Al, 545 p.

Friedman, L.C., and Erdmann, D.E., 1982, Quality assurance 

practices for the chemical and biological analyses of water 

and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A6, 181 p.

Garbarino, J.R., 2000, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

determination of whole-water recoverable arsenic, boron, 

and vanadium using inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99-464, 15 p.

Garbarino, J.R., and Damrau, D.L., 2001, Methods of analysis 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—determination of organic plus inorganic 

mercury in filtered and unfiltered natural water with 

cold vapor—automatic fluorescence spectrometry: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01-4132, 16 p.
Selected References 19

Garbarino, J.R., and Hoffman, G.L., 1999, Methods of 

analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory—comparison of a nitric acid in-bottle 

digestion procedure to other whole-water digestion 

procedures: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99-094, 21 p.

Garbarino, J.R., and Struzeski, T.M., 1998, Methods of 

analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory—determination of elements in wholewater digests using inductively coupled plasma-optical 

emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98-165, 101 p.

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.

Hardy, M.A., Leahy, P.P., and Alley, W.M., 1989, Well 

installation and documentation and ground-water sampling 

protocols for the pilot National Water-Quality Assessment 

Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-396, 

36 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of chemical 

characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p.

Jones, B.E., 1987, Quality control manual of the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-457, 17 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.

Knobel, L.L., Bartholomay, R.C., Tucker, B.J., Williams, 

L.M., and Cecil, L.D., 1999, Chemical constituents in 

ground water from 39 selected sites with an evaluation 

of associated quality assurance data, Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-246 

(DOE/ID-22159), 58 p.

Knobel, L.L., and Mann, L.J., 1993, Sampling for volatile 

organic compounds using positive-displacement piston 

and centrifugal submersible pumps—a comparative study: 

Ground Water Monitoring Review, Spring 1993, p. 142-148.

Ludtke, A.S., Woodworth, M.T., and Marsh, P.S., 2000, 

Quality-assurance results for routine water analyses in U.S. 

Geological Survey Laboratories, water year 1998: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

00-4176, 198 p.

Maloney, T.J., ed., 2005, Quality management system, U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1263, version 

1.3, 9 November 2005, chapters and appendixes variously 

paged.

Maloney, T.J., Ludtke, A.S., Krizman, T.L., 1993, Quality 

assurance for routine water analysis in the laboratories 

of the U.S. Geological Survey for water year 1990: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

93-4082, 145 p.

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.

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.

Pritt, J.W., and Raese, J.W., eds., 1995, Quality assurance/

quality control manual—National Water Quality 

Laboratory: U.S. Geological U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 95-443, 35 p.

Rattray, G.W., and Campbell, L.J., 2004, Radiochemical 

and chemical constituents in water from selected wells 

and springs from the southern boundary of the Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to the 

Hagerman area, Idaho, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2004-1004 (DOE/ID-22190), 22 p.

Rattray, G.W., Wehnke, A.J., Hall, L.F., and Campbell, L.J., 

2005, Radiochemical and chemical constituents in water 

from selected wells and springs from the southern boundary 

of the Idaho National Laboratory to the Hagerman area, 

Idaho, 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2005-1125 (DOE/ID-22193), 25 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2005/1125/.

Rose, D.L., and Schroeder, M.P., 1995, Methods of analysis 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—determination of volatile organic compounds 

in water by purge and trap capillary gas chromatography/

mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 94-708, 26 p.

Severn Trent Laboratories, 2007, Laboratory Quality Manual, 

STL Denver, Revision 2: Severn Trent Laboratories 

[variously paged].
20 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Skougstad, M.W., Fishman, M.J., Friedman, L.C., Erdmann, 

D.E., and Duncan, S.S., 1979, Methods for determination 

of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 626 p.

Stevens, H.H., Jr., 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 5, chap. Dl, 65 p.

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 WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4120 (DOE/ID-22179), 

29 p.

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 03-4272 (DOE/ID-22188), 

36 p.

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.

Timme, P.J., 1995, National Water Quality Laboratory, 1995 

services catalog: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95-352, 120 p.

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. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994a, Guidance for 

the data quality objectives process: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Report No. 600R-96/005 [variously 

paged].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994b, EPA 

drinking water regulations and health advisories: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Report 

No. 822R-94-001, 11 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Annual Report, 

fiscal year 1986—methods validation report (radiation): 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. 

EPA/600/x-87/128, 55 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Protection 

of environment, Code of Federal Regulations 40: Office 

of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records 

Administration, pts. 136-149, 901 p.

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,. Available online at URL: http://pubs.

water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

Wegner, S.J., 1989, Selected quality assurance data for water 

samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory, 1980 to 1988: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

89-4168 (DOE/ID-22085), 91 p.

Wershaw, R.L., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, L.E., 

1987, Methods for the determination of organic substances 

in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, 

chap. A3, 80 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), 115 p.

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. 

Williams, L.M., Bartholomay, R.C., and Campbell, L.J., 

1998, Evaluation of quality-assurance/quality control 

data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey from wells 

and springs between the southern boundary of the Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

and the Hagerman area, Idaho, 1989 through 1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

98-4206 (DOE/ID-22150), 83 p.

Wood, W.W., 1981, Guidelines for collection and field analysis 

of ground-water samples for selected unstable constituents: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 1, chap. D2, 24 p.
Appendixes A–F 21

Appendix A. Field Schedule
22 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Date Time Local site identifier Method of sampling Hole diameter (inches) Total depth (feet) Analysis type (see code) RESL NQWL Field value Apr Oct

500 mL RU

500 mL RA

1000 ml RA SH. or lab code

Temperature pH SC

ANP 6 Pump 45 gpm 10 305 10

ANP 9 Pump 20 gpm 8 322 24

Arbor Test Pump 20 gpm 10 790 2

AREA II Pump 18 gpm 16 877 10

Atomic City1 Spigot 8 639 5

Badging Facility Pump 35 gpm 8 644 10

BLR (near Mackay) Surface water 3

BLR (near Arco) Surface water 3

BLR (INEL Div.) * Surface water 3

BLR (Dairy Farm) * Surface water 3Birch Creek* Surface water 1

CFA 1* Pump 1,000 gpm 16 639 10

CFA 2* Pump 1,400 gpm 16 681 10

CFA LF 2-10 Pump 8.3 gpm 6 716 20

CPP 1 Pump 3000 gpm 16 586 21

CPP 2 Pump 3000 gpm 16 605 28

CPP 4 Pump 400 gpm 16 700 28

Crossroads Well Pump 35 gpm 8 607

CWP 1 Bail @55 feet 6 58.0 4

CWP 3 Bail @50 feet 6 55.0 4

CWP 8 Bail @63 feet 6 64.0 4

EBR-I Pump 25 gpm 10 1,075 26 1Highway 3 Spigot 8 750 26

ICPP-MON-A-166 Pump 6 gpm 6 527 31

ICPP-MON-A-167 Pump 4 gpm 6 504 31

IET Disp Pump 46 gpm 12 324 10

Leo Rogers 1 Pump 20 gpm 20 720 11

Little Lost River Surface water 1

MTR Test Pump 26 gpm 8 588 8

Mud Lake* Surface 1

Middle 2050A^ Multi-depth thief sampler // 1,376

Middle 2051^ Mutli-depth thief sampler // 1,175No Name 1 (Tan Expl.) Pump 42 gpm 12 550 24

NRF 6*** Pump 30 gpm 8 417

Appendix A. Field schedule showing well and pump information and sampling schedules for selected wells and streamflow sites. 
Appendix A 23

Date Time Local site identifier Method of sampling

Hole

diameter

(inches)

Total 

depth 

(feet)

Analysis type

 (see code) RESL NQWL Field value

Apr Oct

500 mL RU

500 mL RA

1000 ml RA SH. or lab code

Temperature pH SC

NRF 7*** Pump 2.5 gpm# 10 417

NRF 8*** Pump 30 gpm 8 423

NRF 9*** Pump 30 gpm 8 422

NRF 10*** Pump 30 gpm 8 427

NRF 11*** Pump 30 gpm 8 417

NRF 12*** Pump 30 gpm 8 421

NRF 13*** Pump 1 gpm# 8 425

NPR Test Pump 28 gpm 6 599 26

PSTF Pump 44 gpm 10 319 24

P&W 2* Pump 35 gpm 10 386 19

PW-1 Bail @ 115 6 117 9

PW-4 Bail @ 126 6 150 9

PW-6 Bail @125 feet 6 125 9

PW-8 Pump 8 gpm 6 166 13

PW-9 Pump 5 gpm 6 200 13

Rifle Range Well Pump 25 gpm 5 620 13

RWMC M1SA Pump 3.4 gpm 6 638 29

RWMC M3S Pump 3.7 gpm 6 633 18

RWMC M7S Pump 4.1 gpm 6 628 18

RWMC M11S Pump 6 gpm 6 624 19

RWMC M12S Pump 6 gpm 6 572 19

RWMC M13S Pump 6 gpm 6 643 19

RWMC M14S Pump 6 gpm 6 635 19

RWMC Production** Pump 200 gpm 14>658

10<658

685 17

Site 4 Pump 500 gpm 8 495 7

Site 9 Pump 25 gpm 10 1,057 10

Site 14* Pump 40 gpm 8 >313

12 <313

717 19

Site 17 Pump 25 gpm 15 600 10

Site 19 Pump 30 gpm 8>550

10<550

860 7

SPERT 1 Pump 400 gpm 14 653 6

TRA 1 Pump 3,400 gpm 18 600 7

Appendix A. Field schedule showing well and pump information and sampling schedules for selected wells and streamflow sites.—Continued
24 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Date Time Local site identifier Method of sampling Hole diameter (inches) Total depth (feet) Analysis type (see code) RESL NQWL Field value Apr Oct

500 mL RU

500 mL RA

1000 ml RA SH. or lab code

Temperature pH SC

TRA 3 Pump 3,800 gpm 20 602 7

TRA 4 Pump 2,000 gpm 16>705

18<705

965 7

TRA A-13 Bail from bottom of well 2 59 13

TRA A-77 Bail from bottom of well 2 34 13

TRA Disp. Pump 25 gpm 6>1114

8<1114

1,267 14

W.S. for INEL-1 Pump 30 gpm 6 490 7

USGS 1 Pump 19 gpm 5 636 19

USGS 2 Pump 16 gpm 5 686 10

USGS 4 Pump 40 gpm 6 553 19

USGS 5 Pump 5 gpm# 6 494 26

USGS 6 Pump 25 gpm 4 620 10

USGS 7 Pump 45 gpm 4 >760

6 <760

903 24

USGS 8* Pump 16 gpm 6 812 19

USGS 9 Pump 19 gpm 6 632 19

USGS 11* Pump 23 gpm 6 704 19

USGS 12*** Pump 32 gpm 10 563 22

USGS 14* Pump 16 gpm 5 751 3

USGS 15 Pump 40 gpm 10 610 10

USGS 17 Pump 32 gpm 5 >365

6 <365

498 19

USGS 18 Pump 30 gpm 4 329 10

USGS 19* Pump 33 gpm 6 399 19

USGS 20 Pump 30 gpm 6 658 10

USGS 22 Pump 2.5 gpm# 6 657 5

USGS 23 Pump 25 gpm 5>430

6<430

463 19

USGS 26 Pump 40 gpm 6 266 24

USGS 27* Pump 20 gpm# 6 312 19

USGS 29 Pump 32 gpm 6 426 10

USGS 31 Pump 40 gpm 10 >306

8 <306

428 10

Appendix A. Field schedule showing well and pump information and sampling schedules for selected wells and streamflow sites.—Continued
Appendix A 25

Date Time Local site identifier Method of sampling

Hole

diameter

(inches)

Total 

depth 

(feet)

Analysis type

 (see code) RESL NQWL Field value

Apr Oct

500 mL RU

500 mL RA

1000 ml RA SH. or lab code

Temperature pH SC

USGS 32 Pump 28 gpm 5.5 >324

6 <324

392 10

USGS 34 Pump 30 gpm 10 700 21

USGS 35 Pump 25 gpm 7 579 10

USGS 36 Pump 25 gpm 6 567 10

USGS 37 Pump 25 gpm 6 573 15

USGS 38 Pump 4 gpm# 4 612 21

USGS 39 Pump 25 gpm 8 493 10

USGS 40 Pump 8 gpm 4 483 15

USGS 41 Pump 25 gpm 6 674 10

USGS 42 Pump 25 gpm 6 678 10

USGS 43 Pump 6 gpm 6 676 15

USGS 44 Pump 25 gpm 6 650 12

USGS 45 Pump 25 gpm 6 651 10

USGS 46 Pump 25 gpm 6 651 12

USGS 47 Pump 8 gpm 6 652 15

USGS 48 Pump 29 gpm 6 750 10

USGS 50 Pump 0.5 gpm# 6 405 12

USGS 51 Pump 4 gpm 6 647 10

USGS 52 Pump 30 gpm 6 602 10

USGS 53 Bail 6 71 13

USGS 54 Pump 4 gpm 6 91 13

USGS 55 Pump 1 gpm 6 81 13

USGS 56 Pump 1 gpm 6 80 13

USGS 57 Pump 30 gpm 6 582 12

USGS 58 Pump 26 gpm 6 503 13

USGS 59 Pump 1 gpm 6 657 10

USGS 60 Pump 6 gpm 6 117 13

USGS 61 Pump 6 gpm 4 123 13

USGS 62 Pump 5 gpm 8 165 13

USGS 63 Pump 5 gpm 10 97 13

USGS 65* Pump 8 gpm 4 498 25

USGS 66 Bail @ 214 feet 4 475 13

Appendix A. Field schedule showing well and pump information and sampling schedules for selected wells and streamflow sites.—Continued
26 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Date Time Local site identifier Method of sampling Hole diameter (inches) Total depth (feet) Analysis type (see code) RESL NQWL Field value Apr Oct

500 mL RU

500 mL RA

1000 ml RA SH. or lab code

Temperature pH SC

USGS 67 Pump 8 gpm 4>465

6<465

694 10

USGS 68 Pump 1 gpm# 10 128 30

USGS 69 Pump 5 gpm 4 115 13

USGS 70 Pump 6 gpm 8 100 13

USGS 71 Bail @ 165 feet 5 171 13

USGS 72 Pump 1 gpm 4 175 30

USGS 73 Pump 6 gpm 6 127 13

USGS 76 Pump 29 gpm 6 718 14

USGS 77 Pump 25 gpm 6 586 21

USGS 78 Bail @ 160 feet 7 204 13

USGS 79 Pump 30 gpm 6 702 7

USGS 82 Pump 25 gpm 6 693 10

USGS 83 Pump 28 gpm 6 752 26

USGS 84 Pump 5 gpm 6 505 25

USGS 85* Pump 23 gpm 6 614 10

USGS 86 Pump 19 gpm 8 691 19

USGS 87* Pump 2 gpm 4 673 23

USGS 88 Pump 2 gpm 4 662 17

USGS 89 Pump 5 gpm 6 637 17

USGS 92 Bail @ 213 feet 3.5 214 16

USGS 97*** Pump 27 gpm 4 510 25

USGS 98*** Pump 25 gpm 4 505 25

USGS 99*** Pump 25 gpm 4 440 7

USGS 100* Pump 10 gpm# 6 750 7

USGS 101 Pump 13 gpm 4>750

6<750

842 19

USGS 102*** Pump 29 gpm 6 445 10

USGS 103^ Multi-depth thief sampler // 1,297

USGS 104* Pump 26 gpm 8 700 6

USGS 105 Pump 24 gpm 4 800 19

USGS 106 Pump 24 gpm 8 760 5

USGS 107 Pump 30 gpm 8 690 26

USGS 108 Pump 24 gpm 8 760 19

Appendix A. Field schedule showing well and pump information and sampling schedules for selected wells and streamflow sites.—Continued
Appendix A 27

Date Time Local site identifier Method of sampling

Hole

diameter

(inches)

Total 

depth 

(feet)

Analysis type

 (see code) RESL NQWL Field value

Apr Oct

500 mL RU

500 mL RA

1000 ml RA SH. or lab code

Temperature pH SC

USGS 109 Pump 22 gpm 4 800 19

USGS 110A Pump 24 gpm 6 644 19

USGS 111 Pump 15 gpm# 8 560 10

USGS 112* Pump 30 gpm 8 563 10

USGS 113 Pump 25 gpm 6 564 12

USGS 114 Pump 10 gpm# 6 560 10

USGS 115* Pump 5 gpm 6 581 10

USGS 116 Pump 20 gpm 6 572 10

USGS 117 Pump 12 gpm# 6.5 655 17

USGS 119 Pump 3 gpm# 6.5 705 17USGS 120* Pump 27 gpm 6.5 705 23

USGS 121 Pump 8 gpm 6 475 10

USGS 123 Pump 3 gpm 6 481 10

USGS 124* Pump 19 gpm 4 800 6

USGS 125* Pump 21 gpm 5 774 19

USGS 126A Pump 5 648 19

USGS 126B Pump 6 452 19

USGS 127 Pump 25 gpm 6 596 20

USGS 128 Pump 23 gpm 4.5 615 18

USGS 131 Pump 6 797 32

USGS 132^ Multi-depth thief sampler // 1,238

USGS 133^ Multi-depth thief sampler // 798

USGS 134^ Multi-depth thief sampler // 894

*Well is sampled with someone from the State of Idaho’s INL Oversight Program**Well is sampled monthly for organics - SH1380***Well is sampled 2 times a year for the NRF study—May and November.#Indicates well needs to be cut back to pump rate indicated; all other pump rates are approximate.^Site sample schedules for the mutli-depth sampler are subject to change from year to year so no code will be used.

6// Hole diameter is not required for bore hole volumn calculations with Multi-depth thief samplers.

Appendix A. Field schedule showing well and pump information and sampling schedules for selected wells and streamflow sites.—Continued
28 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Codes for types of analyses 

(number of bottles needed in parenthesis)

1. 3H, Cl- (2)

2. 3H, Cl-, Cr (3)

3. 3H, Cl-, α, β, Υ Spec (4)

4. 3H, 90Sr, Cl-, Cr, SO4

-2 (4)

5. 3H, Cl-, Na+ (3)

 6. 3

H, Cl-, Na+, NO3

-

 (4)

 7. 3

H, Cl-, Cr, Na+,SO4

-2 (3)

 8. 3

H, Cl-, Cr, Na+, NO3

-

, SO4

-2 (4)

 9. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, SO4

-2 (4)

10. 3

H, 90Sr, Cl-, Na+, NO3

-

, SO4

-2 (5)

11. 3

H, α, β, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+ (5)

12. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, NO3

-

, SO4

-2 (5)

13. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, Cl-, Cr, Na+, SO4

-2 (4)

14. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, Cl-, Cr, Na+, NO3

-

, SO4

-2 (5)

15. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, Cl-, Na+, NO3

-

, SO4

-2 (5)

16. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, Cl-, VOC’s (6)

17. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, Cl-, Na+, NO3

-

, VOC’s, 

SO4

-2 (8)

18. 3

H, 90Sr, Cl-, NO3

-

 (4)

19. 3

H, α, β, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, Cr, NO3

-

, TOC (7)

Codes for types of analyses 

(number of bottles needed in parenthesis)

20. 3

H, 90Sr, α, β, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, Cr, NO3

-

, TOC (7)

21. 3

H, 90Sr, α, β, Υ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, Cl-, Na+, Cr, NO3

-

, 

SO4

-2, F-

, VOC’s, TOC (10)

22. 3

H, α, β, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, Cr, NO3 

-

, SO4

-2, VOC’s, TOC (10)

23. 3

H, 90Sr, α, β, Υ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, Cl-, Na+, Cr, 

NO3

-

, VOC’s, TOC, SO4

-2 (10)

24. 3H, 90Sr, α, β, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, NO3

-

, VOC’s, TOC, Sb, Ar, Cr, 

Pb, Hg, Ni, Tl, Zn (13)

25. 3

H, 90Sr, α, β, Υ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, Cl-, Na+, NO3

-

, 

SO4

-2, VOC’s, TOC, Al, Ar, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Ni, Hg, 

Se, Ag, Zn (13)

26. 3

H, α, β, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, Cr, NO3

-

, TOC, VOC’s (10)

27. VOC’s (3)

28. 3

H, 90Sr, Cl-, Cr, Na+, NO3

-

 (5)

29. 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu (1)

30. 3

H, 90Sr, α, β, Υ Spec, Cl-, Na+, SO4

-2, + SH 1281 metals: Ar, 

Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag (8)

31. 3

H, 90Sr, Υ Spec, Cl-, Cr, Na+, SO4

-2, NO3-

, TOC (6)

32. 3H, 90Sr, α, β, Υ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, Cl-, Na+, Cr, NO3

-

, 

SO4

-2, TOC (7)

Appendix A. Field schedule showing well and pump information and sampling schedules for selected wells and streamflow sites. 

Constituent and type of sample

Type of analyses Lab Size of sample and 

schedule or lab code Type of sample treatment

3

H (Ru) RESL 500 mL (Apr, Oct) Raw water, unacidified, rinse bottle

90Sr (RA) RESL 500 mL Raw water, preserved with 2 mL HNO3

, no rinse

90Sr, γ Spec (RA) RESL 500 mL Raw water, preserved with 2 mL HNO3

, no rinse

α, β (RA) RESL 500 mL Raw water, preserved with 2 mL HNO3

, no rinse

241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu (RA) RESL 500 mL Raw water, preserved with 2 mL HNO3

, no rinse

90Sr, γ Spec, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,240Pu (RA) RESL 1L Raw water, preserved with 4 mL HNO3

, no rinse

γ Spec (RA) RESL 500 mL Raw water, preserved with 2 mL HNO3

, no rinse

Cl-

 (FU)2 NWQL 250 mL; LC 1571 Filtered, unacidified, rinse poly bottle

Cr (FA)1 NWQL 250 mL; LC 722 Filtered, preserved with 2mL Ultrex HNO3

, rinse poly bottle

Na+

 (FA)1 NWQL 250 mL; LC 675 Filtered, preserved with 2 mL Ultrex HNO3, rinse poly bottle

NO3

-

 (FCC) NWQL 125 mL; SH101 Filtered, chilled, brown poly bottle, rinse bottle

VOC’s (GCV) NWQL (3) 40 mL; SH1380 Raw water, chilled, unacidified, rinse glass bottle, amber

SO4

-2 (FU)2 NWQL 250 mL; LC 1572 Filtered, unacidified, rinse poly bottle

F-

 (FU)2 NWQL 250 mL; LC 31 Filtered, unacidified, rinse poly bottle

TOC (TOC) NWQL 125 mL; LC 114 Raw water, chilled, unacidified, amber glass bottle, no rinse

Sb, Cr, Pb, Ni, Zn (FA)

Ar, Tl (FA)

Sp. cond. (RU)

NWQL 250 mL; SH 1050 and

LC 3122 and 2508

250 mL; SH 1050

Filtered, preserved with 2 mL ultrex HNO3

, rinse poly bottle

Raw water, unacidified, rinse poly bottle

Hg (FAM) NWQL 250 mL; LC 2707 Filtered, preserved with 2 mL 6N HCl, rinse, clear glass bottle

Al, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Ni, Ag, Zn (FA)

Ar, Se (FA)

Sp. cond. (RU)

NWQL 250 mL; SH 1050 and

LC 3122 and 3132

250 mL; SH 1050

Filtered, preserved with 2 mL Ultrex HNO3

 rinse poly bottle

Raw water, unacidified, rinse, poly bottle

129I PRIME 1 L Filtered, unacidified, rinse, polyseal cap, no head space, amber 

glass

36Cl EML l L Raw water, unacidified, polyseal cap, amber glass

SH 1254 metals ( FU, FA, RU) NWQL 250 mL; SH 1254

250 mL; SH 1254+LC 

3122, 1794, + 3134

125 mL; SH 1254

Filtered, unacidified, rinse poly bottle

Filtered, preserved with 2 ml Ultrex HNO3

, rinse poly bottle

Raw water, unacidified, rinse poly bottle

SH 1281 TLCP metals (RA, RAM) NWQL 250 mL; SH 1281

250 mL; SH 1281

Raw, preserved with 2 mL Ultrex HNO3

, rinse poly bottle

Raw water, preserved with 2 ml 6N HCl, rinse clear glass bottle

1

Analysis can be requested from the same bottle.

2

Analysis can be requested from the same bottle.
Appendix B 29

Appendix B. Data-Quality Objectives for Routine Water Samples 

Analyzed by the National Water Quality Laboratory

Table B1. Data-quality objectives for routine water samples analyzed by the National Water Quality Laboratory.

[Accuracy: coefficient of variance measured by replicate analysis; precision at 10 percent level. Abbreviations: N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus]

Constituent Laboratory reporting level 

(micrograms per liter)

Precision 

(+/- percent)

Accuracy

(percent) Lab code/schedule

I. Volatile organic compounds Variable 30 70-130 SH 1380

II. Organic carbon 400 10 90-110 LC 113/LC 114

III. Inorganic compounds (filtered)

Aluminum 1.6 10 90-110 SH 1050

Antimony 0.14 10 90-110 SH 1050

Arsenic 0.12 10 90-110 LC 3122

Barium 0.08 10 90-110 SH 1050

Beryllium 0.06 10 90-110 SH 1050

Cadmium 0.14 10 9-110 SH 1050

Calcium 20 10 90-110 SH 1254

Chromium 0.40 10 90-110 LC 722

Cobalt 0.02 10 90-110 SH 1050

Copper 0.4 10 90-110 SH 1050

Fluoride 100 10 90-110 LC 31

Iron 6 10 90-110 SH 1254

Lead 0.08 10 90-110 SH 1050

Magnesium 14 10 90-110 SH 1254

Manganese 0.8 10 90-110 SH 1050

Molybdenum 0.2 10 90-110 SH 1050

Nickel 0.20 10 90-110 SH 1050

Potassium 4 10 90-110 SH 1254

Selenium 0.04 10 90-110 LC 3132

Silica 200 10 90-110 SH 1254

Silver 0.016 10 90-110 SH 1050

Sodium 200 10 90-110 LC 675

Thallium 0.08 10 90-110 LC 2508

Uranium 0.02 10 90-110 SH 1050

Zinc 1.8 10 90-110 SH 1050

Mercury 0.010 10 90-110 LC 2707

Sulfate 180 10 90-110 LC 1572

Chloride 120 10 90-110 LC 1571

Nitrate (as N) 40 10 90-110 SH 101

Nitrite (as N) 2 10 90-110 SH 101

Phosphate (as P) 6 10 90-110 SH 101

Ammonia (as N) 20 40 60-140 SH 101
30 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Appendix C. Data-Quality Objectives for Radionuclides in Water Samples 

Analyzed by the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory

For each radionuclide concentration, an associated 

analytical uncertainty, s, is calculated such that there is 

a 67-percent probability that the true concentration of a 

radionuclide in a sample is in the range of the reported 

concentration plus or minus the analytical uncertainty. 

For example, given an analytical result of 1.0±0.2 pCi/L 

(picocuries per liter), there is a 67-percent probability that the 

true concentration is in the range of 0.8 to 1.2 pCi/L. Some 

laboratories report the analytical uncertainty as 2s, at which 

there is a 95-percent probability that the true concentration 

is in the range of 0.6 to 1.4 pCi/L. Therefore, unlike analyses 

for most inorganic or organic constituents, the analytical 

uncertainty is specified for each analysis for a specified 

radionuclide. The following guidelines for interpreting 

analytical results are based on an extension of the method 

described by Currie (1968).

In the analysis for a selected radionuclide, laboratory 

measurements are made on a target sample and a prepared 

blank. Instrument signals for the sample and the blank vary 

randomly. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between two 

key aspects of the problem of detection: (1) the instrument 

signal for the sample must be greater than the signal 

observed for the blank to make the decision that a selected 

radionuclide was detected; and (2) an estimation must be 

made of the minimum radionuclide concentration that will 

yield a sufficiently large observed signal to make the correct 

decision of detection or nondetection of that radionuclide most 

of the time. The first aspect of the problem is a qualitative 

decision based on an observed signal and a definite criterion 

for detection. The second aspect of the problem is an intuitive 

estimation of the detection capabilities of a given measurement 

process.

In the laboratory, instrument signals must exceed 

a critical level to make the qualitative decision whether 

a selected radionuclide was detected. Radionuclide 

concentrations that equal 1.6s meet this criterion; at 1.6s, 

there is a 95-percent probability that the correct decision—not 

detected—will be made. Given a large number of samples, 

up to 5 percent of the samples with true concentrations 

greater than or equal to 1.6s, which were concluded as being 

detected, might not contain the selected radionuclide. These 

measurements are referred to as false positives and are errors 

of the first kind in hypothesis testing.

Once the critical level of 1.6s has been defined, the 

minimum detectable concentration may be established. 

Radionuclide concentrations that equal 3s represent a 

measurement of the minimum detectable concentration. For 

true concentrations of 3s or greater, there is a 95-percentor-more probability of correctly concluding that a selected 

radionuclide was detected in a sample. Given a large 

number of samples, up to 5 percent of the samples with 

true concentrations greater than or equal to 3s, which were 

concluded as being nondetected, could contain the selected 

radionuclide at the minimum detectable concentration. These 

measurements are referred to as false negatives and are errors 

of the second kind in hypothesis testing. Inclusion of the 

3s criterion reduces the probability of a false negative to 5 

percent or less.

True radionuclide concentrations between 1.6s and 

3s have larger errors of the second kind. That is, there is a 

greater-than-5-percent probability of false negative results 

for samples with true concentrations between 1.6s and 3s, 

and although the selected radionuclide might not have been 

detected, such nondetection may not be reliable; at 1.6s, the 

probability of false negative is about 50 percent.

These guidelines are based on counting statistics alone 

and do not include systematic or random errors inherent in 

laboratory procedures. The values 1.6s and 3s vary slightly 

with background or blank counts and with the number of 

gross counts for individual analyses and for different selected 

radionuclides. The use of the critical level and minimum 

detectable concentration aid in the interpretation of analytical 

results and do not represent absolute concentrations of 

radioactivity which may or may not have been detected. The 

minimum detectable concentration should not be confused 

with the detection limit, which is based on instrument 

sensitivity, sample volumes, analytical procedures and 

counting times used in the laboratory.

Bodnar and Percival (1982) summarized detection limits 

normally available from the Radiological and Environmental 

Sciences Laboratory. Special arrangements can be made to 

achieve smaller detection limits for selected constituents. For 

example, by using a 5-fold counting time for tritium in water, 

that is, increasing the counting time from 20 to 100 minutes, 

the detection limit can be reduced from 0.5 to 0.2 pCi/mL.

Detection limits for selected types of radioactivity and 

nuclides as a function of sample size and detection method are 

shown in table C1; the limits are intended as guides to orderof-magnitude sensitivities and, in practice, can easily change 

by a factor of two or more even for the conditions specified.
Appendix C 31

Table C1. Data-quality objectives for radionuclides in water samples analyzed by the Radiological and Environmental 

Sciences Laboratory.

[Data source: Doug Carlson, U.S. Department of Energy, written commun., 2007. Abbreviation: bkgd, background]

Type of 

radioactivity or 

nuclide

Sample material Size of sample 

(milliliter)

Counting time 

(minutes)

Detection method 

or instrument

Detection limit 

(picocuries per 

milliliter)

Gross alpha Water 100 60 Alpha Scintillation 3×10-3

Gross beta Water 250 20 Low bkgd counter 5×10-3

Water 100 20 Low bkgd counter 4×10-3

Water 5 20 Low bkgd counter 0.1

Sr-90 Water 400 50 Liquid Scintillation 2×10-3

Tritium Water 10 20 Liquid Scintillation 0.5

Th-230 Water 500 1,000 Alpha Spectrometry 4×10-5

U-234 Water 500 1,000 Alpha Spectrometry 4×10-5

Pu-238 + 

Pu-239/240 Water 500 1,000 Alpha Spectrometry 2×10-5

Am-241 Water 500 1,000 Alpha Spectrometry 3×10-5

Tc-99 Water 400 100 Liquid Scintillation 1.0

Te-132 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

Pb-212 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.1

Se-75 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 8×10-2

Sb-125 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.2

Ru-103 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 1×10-2

Tl-108 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.2

Sb-124 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.1

Co-60 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

K-40 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 1.0

La-140 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 7×10-2

Ce-144 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.4

Ce-141 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 9×10-2

Cr-51 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.6

I-131 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

Ba-140 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.2

Ru-106 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.5

Cs-137 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

Bi-212 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 1.0

Nb-95 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

Cs-134 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

Mo-99 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 5×10-2

Hg-203 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

Kr-85 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 21

Bi-214 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.4

Zr-95 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 9×10-2

Co-58 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 6×10-2

Mn-54 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 5×10-2

Ag-110 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 7×10-2

Ac-228 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.2

Fe-59 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.1

Zn-65 Water 400 60 Ge(Li) 0.1
32 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Appendix D. Data-Quality Objectives for Water Samples Analyzed by Test 

America Laboratories

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994a) 

has established six primary analytical data-quality objectives 

for environmental studies. These objectives are precision, 

accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability, 

and detectability. TestAmerica Laboratories’ (TAL) approach 

to each data-quality objective is given in a report by Severn 

Trent Laboratories (2007, revision 2). The method of analyses, 

minimum reporting levels, and method detection limits for 

constituents analyzed by TAL for the U.S. Geological Survey 

Idaho National Laboratory Project Office are given in table 

D1.

Table D1. Data-quality objectives for water samples analyzed by TestAmerica Laboratories.

[Abbreviation: N, nitrogen]

Constituent Method for analyses Minimum reporting level 

(micrograms per liter)

Method detection limit 

(micrograms per liter)

Volatile organic compounds 524.2 Variable Variable

Semi-volatile organic 

compounds

525.2 Variable Variable

Total organic halogens 9020B 10 30

Inorganic compounds

Aluminum 6010B 100 20

Antimony 6010B 10 0.15

Arsenic 6010B 15 4.9

Barium 6010B 10 0.37

Beryllium 6010B 5 0.41

Cadmium 6010B 5 0.27

Calcium 6010B 200 76

Chloride 300.0A 3,000 1,000

Chromium 7191 2 0.23

Copper 6010B 20 0.97

Iron 6010B 100 19

Lead 6010B 9 2.1

Magnesium 6010B 200 27

Manganese 6010B 10 0.54

Mercury 7470A 0.2 0.025

Nickel 6010B 40 4.2

Potassium 6010B 5,000 460

Selenium 6010B 15 4.6

Silver 6010B 10 0.7

Sodium 6010B 5,000 1,100

Sulfate 300.0A 5,000 500

Thallium 6010B 1 0.047

Zinc 6010B 20 7.1

Nitrate (as N) 354.1 10 1,000

Nitrite (as N) 353.2 100 1.3
Appendix E 33

Appendix E. Inventory of Water-Quality Field Equipment

Table E1. Inventory of water-quality field equipment.

Type of meter Model Manufacturer Serial number

Conductivity 122 Orion 0905040

Digital thermometer Traceable Memory Data-log 50 Fisher Scientific 61733069

Digital thermometer Traceable Memory

Data-log 50

Fisher Scientific 72068284

Multi-parameter Quanta Hydrolab QD01427

Multi-parameter Quanta Hydrolab QD02191

Multi-parameter Quanta Hydrolab QD02194

pH 250A+ Orion 014620

pH 250A+ Orion 016070

pH 250A+ Orion 015522

Turbidity 2100P Hach 971200016277
34 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

QUALITY-ASSURANCE FIELD AUDITS 

AUDITOR’S CHECKLIST 

Auditor’s name ____________________________________ 

1. Date __________ Sampler’s name ________________________ Site Name___________________

2. Vehicle: 

 Was the vehicle clean and well maintained? Yes No 

 Was the vehicle well stocked? Yes No 

 Were the field computer and printer working properly? Yes No 

3. Site Inspection? Yes No Details _______________________________________ 

 Steel tape Electric tape

4. Water-level measurement? Yes No Hold1 __________ Depth1 below MP______ 

 Cut1 __________ Tape correction1 ______ 

 Recorded on WL sheet or Hold2 __________ Depth2 below MP______ 

 Personal Data Assistant (PDA)? Yes No Cut2 __________ Tape correction2 ______ 

 MP __________ MP ______ 

 

5. Portable discharge lines rinsed with DI water? Yes No 

6. Generator: 

Grounded? Yes No 

Parked downwind from well? Yes No 

7. Time pump started? ________ 

 Discharge measured? Yes No Q = _________ gpm 

 Well-bore volume calculated? Yes No = _________ min/vol 

 Time readings stabilized? _________ 

8. Field safety equipment: 

 Shovel? Yes No Site-safety Plan? Yes No 

 Bucket? Yes No QA Plan? Yes No 

 First-Aid Kit? Yes No Body-fluids Kit? Yes No 

 Fire Extinguisher? Yes No Safety Vest (If required)? Yes No 

Eye-wash Kit? Yes No Pager and Cell Phone? Yes No 

 Hearing Protection? Yes No Jumper Cables and Ice Scrapper? Yes No 

 

9. Constituents? ______________________________________________________________________ 

Number of bottles and designations ________________________________________________ 

10. Calibrations: 

 Specific Conductance? Yes No 

 pH? Yes No 

 DO? Yes No 

 Recorded in log books? Yes No 

 Other? Yes No Specify__________________________ 

Appendix F. Auditor’s Checklist for Quality-Assurance Field Audits
Appendix F. Auditor’s Checklist for Quality-Assurance Field Audits 35

11. Field Measurements: 

 Temperature, water? Yes No Value = ____________ 

 Temperature, air? Yes No Value = ____________ 

 Specific Conductance? Yes No Value = ____________ 

 pH? Yes No Value = ____________ 

 DO? Yes No Value = ____________ 

 Other (Specify)? Yes No Value = ____________ 

12. Sample Collection: 

 Time started ___________________________ 

 Gloves Yes No 

 Filter rinsed with sample water or DI (Circle type of rinsate)? Yes No 

 Air purged from filter? Yes No 

 Bottles rinsed with sample if appropriate? Yes No 

 Order of Filling Bottles? Correct Incorrect List ________________________ 

 Number of rinses? List ________________________ 

13. Preservation: 

 Safety Equipment? 

 Eye Shielding? Yes No 

 Rubber Apron? Yes No 

 Protective Gloves? Yes No 

 Correct Preservatives Added? Yes No 

 Was the Correct Order Followed? Yes No 

14. Sample Handling: 

 Were Sample Bottles Properly Sealed? Yes No 

 Were Sample Bottles Properly Labeled? Yes No 

 Were Sample Bottles Properly Stored? Yes No 

 Was Proper Security of Sample Bottles Maintained? Yes No 

15. Decontamination:

Were Portable Discharge Lines Rinsed with DI Water Prior to Storage? Yes No 

16. Site Clean-up and Security: 

 Was the well properly secured after sampling? Yes No 

 Was the Site properly cleaned prior to departure? Yes No 

17. Paperwork copies? 

 Requested? Delivered? 

 Logbook sheet? Yes No Yes No 

 Custody forms? Yes No Yes No 

 Analytical request forms? Yes No Yes No 

 Water-level sheet? Yes No Yes No 

 Calibration logbook sheets? Yes No Yes No 

Other? (Specify______________) Yes No Yes No 

18. Comments: 
36 Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

This page intentionally left blank.
Manuscript approved for publication, May 2, 2008

Prepared by the USGS Publishing Network

Debra Grillo

Bobbie Jo Richey

Sharon Wahlstrom

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
Knobel and others— Field Methods and Quality-Assurance Plan for Quality-of-Water Activities, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho—Open-File Report 2008–1165