U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2016–1083

DOE/ID-22238

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

Purgeable Organic Compounds at or near the 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, 

Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015
Cover: U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist collecting a purgeable organic compound sample at a well.

(Photograph by Roy Bartholomay, USGS Idaho National Laboratory Project Office, April 13, 2015.)
Purgeable Organic Compounds at or near the Idaho 

Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho 

National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015

By Neil V. Maimer and Roy C. Bartholomay

DOE/ID-22238

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

Open-File Report 2016-1083

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit

http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). 

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

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

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

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may

contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items

must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Maimer, N.V., and Bartholomay, R.C., 2016, Purgeable organic compounds at or near the Idaho Nuclear 

Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 2016–1083 (DOE/ID 22238), 17 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161083. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope................................................................................................................................................. 3

Geohydrologic Setting............................................................................................................................................. 5

Previous Investigations ........................................................................................................................................... 5

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

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................................................... 6

Guidelines for Interpreting Results of Chemical Analysis........................................................................................ 7

Purgeable Organic Compounds in Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 7

Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

References Cited...................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location of the Idaho National Laboratory and selected facilities, Idaho.............................. 2

Figure 2. Map showing location of wells sampled for purgeable organic compounds at and near the 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015 .................................. 4

Tables

Table 1. Reporting limits and maximum contaminant levels for purgeable organic compounds in groundwater 

at or near the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015. ........... 8

Table 2. Concentrations of selected purgeable organic compounds in groundwater at or near the Idaho Nuclear 

Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015.......................................................... 9
iv

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Hydraulic conductivity

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

Hydraulic gradient

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

Transmissivity*

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

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this 

report, the mathematically reduced form, foot squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Datum

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

Abbreviations

ATRC Advanced Test Reactor Complex (formerly RTC, Reactor Technology Complex; and TRA, Test Reactor Area)

CFA Central Facilities Area

CWI CH2M-WG, Idaho, LLC

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DLDQC Detection limit by DQCALC software

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DQCALC Detection and quantitation calculation

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESRP eastern Snake River Plain

INL Idaho National Laboratory

INTEC Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

LT-MDL long-term method detection limit

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDL minimum detectable level

MFC Materials and Fuels Complex

MRL minimum reporting level

NLCID No Longer Contained In Decision

NRF Naval Reactors Facility

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

PBF Power Burst Facility

POC purgeable organic compound

QA Quality assurance

QC Quality control

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RL reporting level

RLDQC reporting limit by DQCALC software

RPD Relative percent difference

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN Test Area North

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
vi 

This page left intentionally blank 
1 

Purgeable Organic Compounds at or near the Idaho 

Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho 

National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015

By Neil V. Maimer and Roy C. Bartholomay

Abstract

During 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, 

collected groundwater samples from 31 wells at or near the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering 

Center (INTEC) at the Idaho National Laboratory for purgeable organic compounds (POCs). The 

samples were collected and analyzed for the purpose of evaluating whether purge water from wells 

located inside an areal polygon established downgradient of the INTEC must be treated as a Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act listed waste. 

POC concentrations in water samples from 29 of 31 wells completed in the eastern Snake River 

Plain aquifer were greater than their detection limit, determined from detection and quantitation 

calculation software, for at least one to four POCs. Of the 29 wells with concentrations greater than their 

detection limits, only 20 had concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit as calculated with 

detection and quantitation calculation software. None of the concentrations exceeded any maximum 

contaminant levels established for public drinking water supplies. Most commonly detected compounds 

were 1,1,1-trichoroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene. 

Introduction

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL), operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 

encompasses about 890 mi2 of the eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP) in southeastern Idaho (fig. 1). The 

INL was established in 1949 to develop atomic energy, nuclear safety, defense programs, environmental 

research, and advanced energy concepts. Wastewater disposal sites at the Test Area North (TAN), the 

Naval Reactors Facility (NRF), the Advanced Test Reactor Complex (ATR Complex), and the Idaho 

Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) (fig. 1) have contributed radioactive- and 

chemical-waste contaminants to the ESRP aquifer. These sites incorporated various wastewater disposal 

methods, including lined evaporation ponds, unlined percolation (infiltration) ponds and ditches, drain 

fields, and injection wells. Waste materials buried in shallow pits and trenches within the Subsurface 

Disposal Area at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) also have contributed 

contaminants to groundwater. 
2 

Figure 1. Map showing location of the Idaho National Laboratory and selected facilities, Idaho. 
3 

Since 1949, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has worked in cooperation with the DOE at the 

INL to define: (1) the quality and availability of water for human consumption, (2) the usability of the 

water for supporting construction and cooling of facilities, (3) the location and movement of 

contaminants in the ESRP aquifer and perched groundwater zones, (4) the sources of recharge to the 

aquifer, (5) an early detection network for contaminants moving past the INL boundaries, and (6) the 

processes controlling the origin and distribution of contaminants and naturally occurring constituents in 

the aquifer (Ackerman and others, 2010). 

In 2000, an areal polygon was established downgradient of the INTEC with groundwater that 

contained Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) listed waste from the INTEC disposal well 

(fig. 2). In August 2000, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) granted a conditional 

No Longer Contained In Decision (NLCID) to DOE, which allowed for groundwater removed from 

specific wells in the polygon to be discharged to the ground surface (Brian Monson, Idaho Department 

of Environmental Quality, written commun., August 21, 2000). The conditional NLCID was renewed 

by the DEQ in June 2002 (Brian Monson, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, written 

commun., June 19, 2002), but was withdrawn in June 2003 (Brian Monson, Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality, written commun., May 19, 2003). Beginning in October 2003, the USGS was 

no longer allowed to discharge purge water to the ground surface. DEQ required that purge water inside

the areal polygon (fig. 2) be treated as RCRA-listed waste, which necessitated pumping it into 

containers and transporting it to an approved disposal site. 

In 2015, INL contractor CH2M-WG, Idaho, LLC (CWI) in discussions with DOE, DEQ, and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided it was time to revisit the management decision 

made to include all the wells in the areal polygon in the RCRA “Contained In” listed hazardous waste. 

CWI evaluated the management approach, discussed it with DOE, EPA, and DEQ, and the agencies 

determined that if sufficient data became available, the size of the polygon (and number of wells 

containerized) could be reduced if analytical data showed that INTEC listed waste constituents are not 

present at concentrations greater than the minimum detectable levels (MDL) in the groundwater from 

those wells (Scott Reno, CH2M-WG, Idaho, LLC, written commun., February 10, 2015). It was 

determined that recent data were needed for carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethene, 

1,1,1-trichloroethane, benzene, carbon disulfide, and toluene. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present results of purgeable organic compound (POC) sampling 

from wells the USGS sample at and near INTEC to determine whether concentrations of benzene, 

carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, and 

trichloroethene, are equal to or greater than current MDLs. Samples were collected from 31 wells in 

2015 to determine POCs. A sample schedule was used that included the seven compounds needed for a 

NLCID determination along with 42 other POCs. Samples were analyzed at the USGS National Water 

Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Lakewood, Colorado. Results will be used to determine if future 

containerization of wells in the USGS sample program is needed. 
4 

Figure 2. Map showing location of wells sampled for purgeable organic compounds at and near the Idaho Nuclear 

Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015.
5 

Geohydrologic Setting

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

structural basin about 200 mi long and 50–70 mi wide. The basin has been filled with basaltic lava flows 

interbedded with terrestrial sediments. The basaltic rocks and sedimentary deposits combine to form the 

ESRP aquifer, which is the primary source of groundwater for the ESRP. 

The ESRP aquifer is one of the most productive aquifers in the United States (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 1985, p. 193). Groundwater generally moves from northeast to southwest and discharges to 

springs along the Snake River downstream of Twin Falls, Idaho, about 100 mi southwest of the INL 

(fig. 1). Groundwater moves horizontally through basalt interflow zones and vertically through joints 

and inter-fingering edges of basalt flows. Infiltration of surface water, pumpage from groundwater 

wells, geohydrologic conditions, and seasonal fluxes of recharge and discharge locally affect the 

movement of groundwater (Garabedian, 1986). The ESRP aquifer is recharged primarily from 

infiltration of applied irrigation water, infiltration of streamflow, groundwater inflow from adjoining 

mountain drainage basins, and infiltration of precipitation (Ackerman and others, 2006). 

At the INL, depth to water in wells completed in the ESRP aquifer ranges from about 200 ft 

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

southeastern part of the INL. Depth to water near INTEC is about 475 ft below land surface. A 

significant proportion of the groundwater moves through the upper 200–800 ft of basaltic rock (Mann, 

1986, p. 21). Ackerman (1991, p. 30) and Bartholomay and others (1997, table 3) reported 

transmissivity values for basalt in the upper part of the aquifer ranging from 1.1 to 760,000 ft2

/d. The 

hydraulic gradient at the INL ranges from 2 to 10 ft/mi, with an average of 4 ft/mi (Davis and others, 

2013, fig. 9). Horizontal flow velocities of 2–26 ft/d have been calculated based on the movement of 

various constituents in different areas of the aquifer at and near the INL (Robertson and others, 1974; 

Mann and Beasley, 1994; Cecil and others, 2000; Plummer and others, 2000; and Busenberg and others, 

2001). These flow rates equate to a travel time of about 50–700 years for water beneath the INL to 

travel to springs that discharge at the terminus of the ESRP groundwater-flow system near Twin Falls, 

Idaho. Localized tracer tests at the INL have shown that vertical- and horizontal-transport rates are as 

high as 60–150 ft/d (Nimmo and others, 2002; Duke and others, 2007). 

Previous Investigations

Hydrologic conditions and the distribution of selected wastewater constituents in groundwater 

are discussed in a series of reports describing the INL. A list of all reports published by the USGS on 

project work done at the INL is available at http://id.water.usgs.gov/INL/Pubs/. 

Previous investigations of the POCs in groundwater at the INL have been done by Leenheer and 

Bagby (1982), Mann and Knobel (1987), Mann (1990), Liszewski and Mann (1992), and Greene and 

Tucker (1998). Hydrologic conditions reports that discuss POCs in the ESRP aquifer at the INL include 

Bartholomay and others (1995, 1997, and 2000); Davis (2006, 2008, and 2010); and Davis and others 

(2013). Davis and others (2015) described water quality trends for POCs at and near INTEC and 

RWMC and found wells near INTEC had decreasing trends for 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,1-

dichloroethene. 
6 

Methods

Sample Collection and Analyses

Water samples were collected according to procedures described in the USGS National Field 

manual (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated) and the USGS INL Project Office quality assurance 

plan (Bartholomay and others, 2014). After collection, samples were chilled and sent to the NWQL for 

analyses. Methods used to analyze the samples followed guidelines outlined in Goerlitz and Brown 

(1972), Wershaw and others (1987), Fishman (1993), and Rose and Schroeder (1995).

Water samples were placed in containers and preserved in accordance with laboratory 

requirements specified by the NWQL. Containers and preservatives used for this study were supplied by 

the NWQL and were processed using a rigorous quality-control procedure to minimize sample 

contamination (Pritt, 1989, p. 75). 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Beginning in 1980, about 10 percent of water samples were collected for quality assurance (QA) 

purposes. Quality control (QC) water samples collected by the USGS INL Project Office generally 

include equipment blanks, splits, and replicates; however, other types of QC samples also have been 

collected throughout the history of the program. Comparative studies to determine agreement between 

analytical results for water-sample pairs by laboratories used by the INL Project Office QA program 

were summarized by Wegner (1989), Williams (1996, 1997), Rattray (2012), Davis and others, (2013), 

and Rattray (2014). 

For this study, three replicate pairs were collected. The NWQL does not provide uncertainty for 

POCs, therefore the relative percent difference (RPD) was selected to compare equivalency of replicate 

pairs. The RPD is calculated based on the formula:

RPD = ((ABS(X1-X2)) / ((X1+X2)/2)) * 100 (1) 

where 

RPD is the relative percent difference,

ABS is the absolute value,

X1 is the result for primary environmental sample, and

X2 is the result for field-replicate sample.

A typical data-quality objective for field-replicate samples is a maximum RPD of 20 percent 

(Taylor, 1987). Sample pairs that had both concentrations less than the reporting limits were considered 

statistically equivalent. For the constituents (1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and 1,1-

dichloroethene) with concentrations greater than the detection limits, using equation 1, RPDs ranged 

from 0.2 to 16.4 percent for all eight sample pairs (100 percent) and can be considered statistically 

equivalent using this test. 
7 

Guidelines for Interpreting Results of Chemical Analysis

Water samples were analyzed for POCs at the NWQL in Lakewood, Colorado. NWQL reporting 

levels (RL) for ambient POC analytical results are determined using detection and quantitation 

calculation (DQCALC) software and are presented as a reporting limit by DQCALC (RLDQC) and 

minimum reporting level (MRL). The MRL is the smallest measured constituent concentration that can 

be reliably reported using a specific analytical method (Timme, 1995). The RLDQC is one of four new 

reporting level codes adopted by the NWQL to replace the long-term method detection limit (LT-MDL) 

and is equal to (or greater than) two times the detection limit DQCALC (DLDQC) (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2015, p. 11). DLDQC is described as the lowest concentration that with 90 percent confidence 

will be exceeded no more than 1 percent of the time when a blank sample is measured (≤ 1 percent false 

positive risk.) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, p. 11). DQCALC is a Microsoft® Excel-based software 

package used to compute a method detection estimate (Standard Practice D7510-10; American Society 

for Testing Materials International, 2010). A more detailed explanation of the DQCALC procedures is 

available in U.S. Geological Survey (2015). Childress and others (1999) provide details about the 

approach used by the USGS regarding detection limits and reporting limits.

Purgeable Organic Compounds in Groundwater

The 49 POCs for which analyses were performed along with their respective reporting limit 

(RLDQC) and EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for public drinking water supplies are shown in 

table 1. None of the POC concentrations greater than the RLDQC exceeded MCLs or proposed MCLs 

established by the EPA. 

Concentrations in water samples from 29 of the 31 wells completed in the ESRP aquifer were 

greater than the DLDQC of at least one of the eight constituents in table 2. None of the concentrations 

exceeded any MCLs established for public drinking water supplies. Concentrations for all other 

constituents sampled were less than their RLDQC. Concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroethane were greater 

than the DLDQC in 28 wells and ranged from 0.013 to 0.093 μg/L. Concentrations of 1,1-

dichloroethene were greater than the DLDQC in 25 wells and ranged from 0.011 to 0.183 μg/L. 

Concentrations of trichloroethene were greater than the DLDQC in six wells and ranged from 0.011 to 

0.076 μg/L. Concentrations of chloroform were detected in two wells and tetrachloroethylene in one 

well (table 2). Concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroethane were greater than the RLDQC in 21 of 29 wells, 

and had an additional 8 wells with concentrations greater than the DLDQC but less than the RLDQC. 

The RLDQC is two times the DLDQC. There were two wells with a concentration greater than the 

RLDQC for trichloroethene and four wells greater than the DLDQC but less than the RLDQC. The two 

chloroform concentrations and one tetrachloroethylene concentration were less than the RLDQC. Onehalf the wells were sampled in April when seasonal water levels in the aquifer are highest and one-half 

the wells were sampled in October when seasonal water levels are at their lowest (Bartholomay and 

Twining, 2015). No temporal variability was evident. 
8 

Table 1. Reporting limits and maximum contaminant levels for purgeable organic compounds in groundwater at or 

near the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015. 

[Analyses were performed by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Laboratory using an analytical method 

that conforms to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency method 524 (Pritt and Jones, 1989). Reporting limit by detection 

and quantitation calculation (DQCALC) and maximum contamination levels are expressed in micrograms per liter (μg/L). 

RLDQC: Reporting limit by DQCALC. MCL: Maximum contaminant level. --, no data available] 

Compound RLDQC MCL Compound RLDQC MCL

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.040 -- Chloroform 0.03 (

1

)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.030 200 Chloromethane 20.1 --

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.046 5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.022 70

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.022 -- cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.1 --

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.022 7 Dibromochloromethane 0.12 (

1

)

1,1-Difluoroethane 0.022 -- Dichlorofluoromethane 0.05 --

1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronapthalene 0.08 -- Dichloromethane 20.04 5

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.08 70 Ethylbenzene 0.036 700

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.032 -- Hexane 0.024 --

1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 0.03 -- n-Pentane 0.022 --

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.028 600 n-Propylbenzene 0.036 --

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.08 5 Naphthalene 0.26 --

1,3-Butadiene 0.08 -- sec-Butylbenzene 0.034 --

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.026 75 Styrene 0.042 100

1-Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane 0.034 -- methyl tert-butyl ether 0.1 --

2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane 0.014 Tetrachloroethylene 0.026 5

Benzene 0.026 5 Tetrachloromethane 0.06 5

Bromochloromethane 0.06 -- Toluene 20.02 1,000

Bromodichloromethane 0.034 (

1

) trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.0018 100

Bromoform 0.1 (

1

) trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.24 --

Bromomethane 0.2 -- Trichloroethylene 0.022 5

Butane 0.038 -- Vinyl chloride 0.06 2

Carbon disulfide 0.1 -- m- and p-Xylene 0.08 (

3

)

Chlorobenzene 0.026 100 o-Xylene 0.032 (

3

)

Chlorodifluoromethane 0.18 --

1

Sum of the concentrations of all four trihalomethanes—bromoform, chloroform, bromodichloromethane and 

dibromochloromethane—cannot exceed 80 μg/L as an annual average. 

2

Minimum reporting level (MRL). 

3

Sum of the concentrations of all three xylenes—ortho-xylene, meta-xylene and para-xylene—cannot exceed 10,000 μg/L, 

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectionbyproducts.cfm. 
9

Table 2. Concentrations of selected purgeable organic compounds in groundwater at or near the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, 

Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015.

[Analyses were performed by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Laboratory using an analytical method that conforms to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency method 524 (Pritt and Jones, 1989). Concentrations are given in micrograms per liter (μg/L). < 0.02 indicates the concentration was less than the 

reporting level of 0.02 μg/L. Concentrations in bold indicate value exceeds the reporting level. Value Qualifier Codes: b, value extrapolated below the lowest 

calibration standard; c, see laboratory comments for this result (the reporting level was increased due to interference/the parameter 77041 (carbon disulfide) is a 

highly variable compound in schedule 4436); m, highly variable compound using this method (flake); questionable precision, and/or accuracy; n, less than the 

reporting level but equal to or greater than the detection level; t, less than the detection level. Replicate, a second sample submitted for analysis using a different 

identifier. Abbreviations: NA, not applicable. RPD, relative percent difference]

Station 

name

Station ID Date sampled Benzene RPD Carbon 

disulfide RPD Carbon tetrachloride RPD 1,1,1-Trichloroethane RPD

CPP 1 433433112560201 04/09/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.013 b,t NA

CPP 2 433432112560801 10/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA < 0.030 NA

USGS 20 433253112545901 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.041 NA

USGS 34 433334112565501 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.050 NA

USGS 35 433339112565801 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.047 b NA

USGS 36 433330112565201 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.055 NA

USGS 37 433326112564801 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.054 NA

USGS 38 433322112564301 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.058 NA

USGS 41 433409112561301 10/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.036 NA

USGS 42 433404112561301 04/09/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.043 NA

USGS 43 433415112561501 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.013 b,t NA

USGS 44 433409112562101 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.050 NA

USGS 45 433402112561801 10/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.0657 NA

USGS 46 433407112561501 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.022 b,n NA

USGS 47 433407112560301 10/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.019 b,n NA

USGS 47 433407112560301 10/08/15 < 0.026 0 < 0.1 c,m 0 < 0.06 0 0.016 b,n 16.4

USGS 48 433401112560301 04/09/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.030 n NA
10

Station 

name

Station ID Date sampled Benzene RPD Carbon 

disulfide RPD Carbon tetrachloride RPD 1,1,1-Trichloroethane RPD

USGS 48 433401112560301 04/09/15 < 0.026 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.06 0 0.030 n 0.2

USGS 51 433350112560601 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.076 NA

USGS 51 433350112560601 04/08/15 < 0.026 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.06 0 0.072 5.8

USGS 52 433414112554201 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.017 b,n NA

USGS 57 433344112562601 10/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.040 NA

USGS 59 433354112554701 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA < 0.030 NA

USGS 67 433344112554101 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.041 b NA

USGS 77 433315112560301 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.065 NA

USGS 82 433354112554701 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA < 0.030 NA

USGS 85 433246112571201 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.048 NA

USGS 111 433331112560501 04/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.026 n NA

USGS 112 433314112563001 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.049 NA

USGS 113 433314112561801 04/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.042 NA

USGS 114 433318112555001 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.093 NA

USGS 115 433320112554101 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.031 NA

USGS 116 433331112553201 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 NA < 0.06 NA 0.037 NA

USGS 123 433352112561401 10/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.1 c,m NA < 0.06 NA 0.019 b,n NA
11

Table 2. Concentrations of selected purgeable organic compounds in groundwater at or near the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, 

Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 2015.—Continued

[Analyses were performed by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Laboratory using an analytical method that conforms to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency method 524 (Pritt and Jones, 1989). Concentrations are given in micrograms per liter (μg/L). < 0.02 indicates the concentration was less than the 

reporting level of 0.02 μg/L. Concentrations in bold indicate value exceeds the reporting level. Value Qualifier Codes: b, value extrapolated below the lowest 

calibration standard; c, see laboratory comments for this result (the reporting level was increased due to interference/the parameter 77041 (carbon disulfide) is a 

highly variable compound in schedule 4436); m, highly variable compound using this method (flake); questionable precision, and/or accuracy; n, less than the 

reporting level but equal to or greater than the detection level; t, less than the detection level. Replicate, a second sample submitted for analysis using a different 

identifier. Abbreviations: NA, not applicable. RPD, relative percent difference]

Station 

name

Station ID Date sampled Tetrachloroethylene RPD Toluene RPD Trichloroethene RPD

1,1-

DichloroethaneRPD Remarks

CPP 1 433433112560201 04/09/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA < 0.022 NA

CPP 2 433432112560801 10/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA < 0.022 NA

USGS 20 433253112545901 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.040 NA

USGS 34 433334112565501 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.013 b,n NA

USGS 35 433339112565801 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA < 0.022 NA

USGS 36 433330112565201 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.011 b,n NA

USGS 37 433326112564801 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.017 b,n NA

USGS 38 433322112564301 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.013 b,n NA

USGS 41 433409112561301 10/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.017 b,n NA

USGS 42 433404112561301 04/09/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.019 b,n NA

USGS 43 433415112561501 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA < 0.022 NA

USGS 44 433409112562101 04/08/15 0.013 b,t NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.014 b,n NA

USGS 45 433402112561801 10/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.034 NA

USGS 46 433407112561501 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA < 0.022 NA

USGS 47 433407112560301 10/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.015 b,n NA

USGS 47 433407112560301 10/08/15 < 0.026 0 < 0.02 0 < 0.022 0 0.016 b,n 6.6 Replicate

USGS 48 433401112560301 04/09/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA 0.013 b,n NA 0.024 b NA
12

Station 

name

Station ID Date sampled Tetrachloroethylene RPD Toluene RPD Trichloroethene RPD

1,1-

DichloroethaneRPD Remarks

USGS 48 433401112560301 04/09/15 < 0.026 0 < 0.02 0 0.013 b,n 2.9 0.025 b 0.8 Replicate

USGS 51 433350112560601 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA 0.076 NA 0.097 NA

USGS 51 433350112560601 04/08/15 < 0.026 0 < 0.02 0 0.072 4.9 0.093 4.8 Replicate

USGS 52 433414112554201 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.021 b,n NA

USGS 57 433344112562601 10/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.011 b,n NA

USGS 59 433354112554701 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.013 b,n NA

USGS 67 433344112554101 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA 0.022 b,n NA 0.061 NA Chloroform: 

0.014 b,t

USGS 77 433315112560301 10/05/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA 0.030 NA 0.110 NA

USGS 82 433354112554701 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA < 0.022 NA

USGS 85 433246112571201 04/08/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.019 b,n NA

USGS 111 433331112560501 04/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.025 NA

USGS 112 433314112563001 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.019 b,n NA

USGS 113 433314112561801 04/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA 0.011 b,t NA 0.027 NA

USGS 114 433318112555001 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.183 NA Chloroform: 

0.018 b,n

USGS 115 433320112554101 10/06/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.017 b,n NA

USGS 116 433331112553201 04/21/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA < 0.022 NA 0.032 NA

USGS 123 433352112561401 10/07/15 < 0.026 NA < 0.02 NA 0.014 b,n NA 0.046 NA
13

Summary

During 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, 

sampled groundwater from 31 wells completed in the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer at or near the 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) at the Idaho National Laboratory for 49 

purgeable organic compounds (POCs). Water samples were collected for the purpose of evaluating 

whether purge water from wells located inside an areal polygon established downgradient of the INTEC 

must be treated as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listed waste. 

POC concentrations in water samples from two wells were less than their DLDQC; five wells

contained one POC concentration greater than the DLDQC; 16 wells contained two different POCs 

greater than their DLDQC; 7 wells contained three different POCs greater than their DLDQC; and 1

well contained four different POCs greater than their DLDQC. Of the 29 wells with concentrations

greater than their DLDQCs, only 20 had concentrations greater than their RLDQC. None of the 

concentrations exceeded any maximum contaminant levels established for public drinking water 

supplies.

References Cited

Ackerman, D.J., 1991, Transmissivity of the Snake River Plain aquifer at the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91–

4058 (DOE/ID–22097), 35 p., accessed December 29, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri914058.

Ackerman, D.J., Rattray, G.W., Rousseau, J.P., Davis, L.C., and Orr, B.R., 2006, A conceptual model of 

ground-water flow in the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer at the Idaho National Laboratory and 

vicinity with implications for contaminant transport: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006-5122 (DOE/ID-22198), 62 p., accessed December 28, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20065122.

Ackerman, D.J., Rousseau, J.P., Rattray, G.W., and Fisher, J.C., 2010, Steady-state and transient models 

of groundwater flow and advective transport, eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho National 

Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5123

(DOE/ID-22209), 220 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5123/.

American Society for Testing Materials International, 2010, Standard practice for performing detection 

and quantitation estimation and data assessment utilizing DQCALC software, based on ASTM 

practices D6091 and 20 D6512 of Committee D19 on water: ASTM D7510-10, 2 p. (Also available at 

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D7510.htm.)

Bartholomay, R.C., Orr, B.R., Liszewski, M.J., and Jensen, R.G., 1995, Hydrologic conditions and 

distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical constituents in water, Snake River Plain aquifer, 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1989 through 1991: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95–4175 (DOE/ID–22123), 47 p., accessed January 27, 2016, at 

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/152647.

Bartholomay, R.C., Tucker, B.J., Ackerman, D.J., and Liszewski, M.J., 1997, Hydrologic conditions 

and distribution of selected radiochemical and chemical constituents in water, Snake River Plain 

aquifer, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1992 through 1995: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4086 (DOE/ID–22137), 57 p., accessed December 28, 

2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974086.
14

Bartholomay, R.C., Tucker, B.J., Davis, L.C., and Green, M.R., 2000, Hydrologic conditions and 

distribution of selected constituents in water, Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho, 1996 through 1998: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 2000–4192 (DOE/ID–22167), 52 p., accessed January 27, 2016, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri004192.

Bartholomay, R.C., and Twining, B.V., 2015, Hydrologic influences on water-level changes in the 

eastern Snake River Plain aquifer at and near the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho 1949-2014: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5085 (DOE/ID-22236), 36 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155085.

Bartholomay, R.C., Maimer, N.V., and Wehnke, A.J., 2014, Field methods and quality-assurance plan 

for water-quality activities and water-level measurements: U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho National 

Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1146 (DOE/ID-22230), 66 p.,

http://dx.doi.org/ofr20141146.

Busenberg, Eurybiades, Plummer, L.N., and Bartholomay, R.C., 2001, Estimated age and source of the 

young fraction of ground water at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 2001–4265 (DOE/ID-22177), 144 p., 

accessed December 29, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri014265.

Cecil, L.D., Welhan, J.A., Green, J.R., Frape, S.K., and Sudicky, E.R., 2000, Use of chlorine-36 to 

determine regional-scale aquifer dispersivity, eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho/USA: Nuclear 

Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, section B, v. 172, issues 1–4, p. 679–687, accessed 

December 28, 2015, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223443615.

Childress, C.J.O., Forman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures 

based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of waterquality data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p., accessed November 24, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr99193.

Davis, L.C., 2006, An update of hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected constituents in water, 

Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, emphasis 1999–2001: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5088 (DOE/ID-22197), 48 p., accessed January 27, 

2016, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5088/.

Davis, L.C., 2008, An update of hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected constituents in water, 

Snake River Plain aquifer and perched-water zones, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, emphasis 

2002–05: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5089 (DOE/ID-22203), 

75 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5089/.

Davis, L.C., 2010, An update of hydrologic conditions and distribution of selected constituents in water, 

Snake River Plain aquifer and perched groundwater zones, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 

emphasis 2006–08: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5197 (DOE/ID22212), 80 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5197/.

Davis, L.C., Bartholomay, R.C., Fisher, J.C., and Maimer, N.V., 2015, Water-quality characteristics and 

trends for selected wells possibly influenced by wastewater disposal at the Idaho National Laboratory, 

Idaho, 1981–2012: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5003 (DOE/ID22233, 106 p., http://dx.doi.org.10.3133/sir20155003.

Davis, L.C., Bartholomay, R.C., and Rattray, G.W., 2013, An update of hydrologic conditions and 

distribution of selected constituents in water, eastern Snake River Plain aquifer and perched 

groundwater zones, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, emphasis 2009–11: U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report: 2013-5214 (DOE/ID 22226), 89 p., http://dx.doi.org/sir20135214.
15

Duke, C.L., Roback, R.C., Reimus, P.W., Bowman, R.S., McLing, T.L., Baker, K.E., and Hull, L.C., 

2007, Elucidation of flow and transport processes in a variably saturated system of interlayered 

sediment and fractured rock using tracer tests: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 6, no. 4, p. 855–867, accessed 

December 31, 2015, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250129853.

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., accessed March 25, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr93125.

Garabedian, S.P., 1986, Application of a parameter-estimation technique to modeling the regional 

aquifer underlying the eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2278, 60 p., accessed December 28, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2278.

Goerlitz, D.F., and Brown, Eugene, 1972, Methods for analysis of organic substances in water: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation, Book 5, Chap. A3, 40 p., accessed 

March 25, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/twri05A3_1972.

Greene, M.R., and Tucker, B.J., 1998, Purgeable organic compounds in water at or near the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1992–95: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98–51

(DOE/ID-22146), 21 p., accessed January 4, 2016, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr9851.

Leenheer, L.J., and Bagby, J.C., 1982, Organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 82–15 

(DOE/ID-22061), 39 p., accessed March 25, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri8215.

Liszewski, M.J., and Mann, L.J., 1992, Purgeable organic compounds in ground water at the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1990 and 1991: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

92–174 (DOE/ID-22104), 19 p., accessed March 25, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr92174.

Mann, L.J., 1986, Hydraulic properties of rock units and chemical quality of water for INEL-1—A 

10,365-foot deep test hole drilled at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86–4020 (DOE/ID-22070), 23 p., accessed 

March 25, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri864020.

Mann, L.J., 1990, Purgeable organic compounds in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho—1988 and 1989: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90–367 (DOE/ID22089), 17 p., accessed March 25, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr90367.

Mann, L.J., and Beasley, T.M., 1994, Iodine-129 in the Snake River Plain aquifer at and near the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 1990–1991: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94–4053 (DOE/ID-22115), 27 p., accessed December 28, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri944053.

Mann, L.J., and Knobel, L.L., 1987, Purgeable organic compounds in ground water at the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87–766 (DOE/ID22074), 23 p., accessed March 25, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr87766.

Nimmo, J.R., Perkins, K.S., Rose, P.A., Rousseau, J.P., Orr, B.R., Twining, B.V., and Anderson, S.R., 

2002, Kilometer-scale rapid transport of naphthalene sulfonate tracer in the unsaturated zone at the 

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 1, issue 1, p. 89–

101, accessed December 31, 2015 at 

http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/uzf/abs_pubs/papers/VZJ.1.89.pdf
16

Plummer, L.N., Rupert, M.G., Busenberg, Eurybiades, and Schlosser, P., 2000, Age of irrigation water 

in ground water from the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, South-central Idaho: Ground Water, v. 

38, no. 2, p. 264–283, accessed December 29, 2015, at 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227652135.

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, 150 p., accessed March 25, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr89409.

Pritt, J.W., and Jones, B.E., eds., 1989, 1990 National Water Quality Laboratory services catalog: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-386, parts 1-5. 

Rattray, G.W., 2012, Evaluation of quality-control data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for 

routine water-quality activities at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1996–2001: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5270, (DOE/ID-22222), 74 p., 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20125270.

Rattray, G.W., 2014, Evaluation of quality-control data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for 

routine water-quality activities at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, southeastern Idaho, 

2002–08: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5027, (DOE/ID-22228), 66 

p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145027.

Robertson, J.B., Schoen, Robert, and Barraclough, J.T., 1974, The influence of liquid waste disposal on 

the geochemistry of water at the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, 1952–1970: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 73–238 (IDO–22053), 231 p., accessed December 22, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr73238.

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-

W, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/0708w/report.pdf.

Taylor, J.K., 1987, Quality assurance of chemical measurements: Chelsea, Michigan, Lewis Publisher, 

328 p.

Timme, P.J., 1995, National Water Quality Laboratory, 1995 services catalog: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 95–352, 120 p., accessed December 29, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr95352.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1985, National water summary, 1984—Hydrologic events, selected waterquality trends, and ground-water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275, 467 p. 

[Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2275.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Changes to National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) procedures 

used to establish and verify laboratory detection and reporting limits: Office of Water Quality 

Technical Memorandum 15.02., accessed December 22, 2015, at http://wwwnwql.cr.usgs.gov/rapinotes/15-14_NWQL_TM_15-02_(DQCALC).pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, [variously dated], The national field manual for the collection of water-quality 

data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Method, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, [Available at: 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A/.]
17

Wegner, S.J., 1989, Selected quality assurance data for water samples collected by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Idaho, 1980 to 1988: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 89–4168 (DOE/ID–22085), 91 p., accessed December 29, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri894168.

Wershaw, R.L., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, L.E., eds., 1987, Methods for the 

determination of organic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation, Book 5, Chap. A3, 80 p., accessed March 25, 2015, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/twri05A3.

Williams, L.M., 1996, Evaluation of quality assurance/quality control data collected by the U.S. 

Geological Survey for water-quality activities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 

1989 through 1993: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4148 

(DOE/ID-22129), 116 p., accessed February 11, 2016, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964148.)

Williams, L.M., 1997, Evaluation of quality assurance/quality control data collected by the U.S. 

Geological Survey for water-quality activities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 

1994 through 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4058 

(DOE/ID-22136), 87 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974058.)
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey 

Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Director, Idaho Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey 

230 Collins Road

Boise, Idaho 83702

http://id.water.usgs.gov
Maimer and Bartholomay—Purgeable Organic Compounds at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Idaho, 2015—Open-File Report 2016–1083

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161083