Organic Solutes in Ground Water at the 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(U.S.) Geological Survey 

Idaho Falls, ID 

Prepared for 

Department of Energy 

Idaho Falls, ID 

Mar 82 

PB82-195280 

.. 

50272 •101 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION 

PAGE 

4. Title and Subtitle 

L_Se auential s ubmission numoer: SGS ~R /WRI 32 3 

ORGA.'H C SOLUTES I :i GROCND .J TER AT THE .!:DA..BO ATI ONAL 

:::;.;cnrEERI :1G L.;.B OR.:H ORY 

: 7. Aut~ or l 

! Ja r-y l , TePnheer ang son C. 3aibv 

I 9 Performing Organization Name and Address 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division 

Project Office 

P.O. Box 2230, INEL, CF-690, Room 164 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 

12. Spon~rinl Orcanizatlon Name and Addreu 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division 

Project Office 

P.O. Box 2230, INEL, CF-690, Room 164 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 

15. Supplementary Notes 

3. Reci oient' s Accession No. 

'; "l ~.'tl. 1 q ~ ? :). 0 l ...: • • .. ~ _, i.. {""*' 

5. Report Oate 

~1arch 1982 5. 

3. ?!!rlorm•ng Organ •zation Reot. o 

10. Protect / Task / Work Unit No 

-- -----------------------4 11. Contract(C) or GrantCGJ No. 

I

CCJ 

<GJ 

13. Ty~MJ of Report & Period Covered 

Final, 1980 

14. 

These studies have been sponsored and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. 

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) 

In August 1980, the u.s. Geological Survey started a reconnaissance survey of organic 

~elutes in drinking water sources, ground-water monitoring wells, perched water table monitoring wells, and in select waste streams at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. 

The survey was to be a two-phase program. In the first phase, 77 wells and 4 potential point sources were sampled for dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Four wells and several 

potential point sources of insecticides and herbicides were sampled for insecticides and 

herbicides. Fourteen wells and four potential organic sources were sampled for volatile 

and semivolatile organic compounds. 

The results of the DOC analyses indicate no high level organic contamination of INEL 

ground water. The only detectable insecticide or herbicide was a DDT concentration of 10 

~arts per trillion (0.01 micrograms per liter in one observation well). 

The volatile and semivolatile analyses do not indicate the presence of hazardous organic contaminants in significant amounts (>10 micrograms per liter in the samples taken). 

Due to the lack of any significant organic ground-water contamination in this reconnaissance survey, the second phase of the study, which was to follow up the first phase by 

additional sampling of any contaminated wells, was cancelled. 

17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors 

*Snake River Plain aquifer, Idaho, *Hydrogeology, *Ground-water quality, Aqueous 

chemical and radioactive waste disposal, *Organics, Herbicides, Pesticides 

Snake River Plain, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Eastern Idaho 

; 19. Security Class (This Re!)Ort) 

i UNCLASSIFIED 

lL Availability Statement 

No restriction on distribution ; 20.. Security Cl•ss (This Pacel 

tJNCLAS S IF IED 

(S .. ANSI-Z39.18) s .. Instructions on Reverse 

I 21. No. of ~ ... 

! 44 

I 22. Price 

OPTJONAL F'ORM 272 (4-77J 

(Formerly NTI5-3Sl 

Oeoartmflrt of Commerce 

I 

N', 

ORGANIC SOLUTES IN GROUND WATER AT THE 

IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 

By Jerry A. Leenheer and Jefferson c. Bagby 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigation 82-15 

Prepared on behalf of the 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

March 1982 

I. cJ 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JAMES G. WATT, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

For additional information write to: 

u.s. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

Project Office 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

CF-690, Room 164, P.O. Box 2230 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 

II 
Abstract 

Introduction ••••• 

Purpose of study • 

Acknowledgments 

CONTENTS 

Regional hydrology. • • • • • • • • • 

Organic sampling program • • • • 

Sampling site selection. 

Field sampling techniques 

Dissolved organic carbon 

Insecticides, herbicides, and semivolatiles 

Volatiles • • • • • 

Cost 

Analytical methods • • 

Results and discussion 

Dissolved organic carbon 

Insecticides and herbicides • 

Volatiles and semivolatiles • 

. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and conclusions 

Selected references • • • 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

. . . . 

Figure 1. Relief map of Idaho showing the location of the 

INEL, Snake River Plain and generalized groundwater flow lines of the Snake River Plain 

Page 

1 

1 

2 

4 

4 

5 

5 

13 

13 

15 

15 

15 

17 

17 

18 

18 

36 

36 

37 

aquifer • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 

2. Distribution of dissolved organic carbon in groundwater, INEL vicinity, August 1980 • • • • • • 6 

3. Distribution of dissolved organic carbon in ground 

water, ICPP-TRA vicinity, August 1980 7 

4. Photograph of bailer and thief sampler used for 

collecting wa~er samples from wells without 

pump • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 

TABLES 

Table 1. Organic sample collection parameters and dissolved 

organic carbon results • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 

2. Dissolved organic carbon concentrations in water 

from background wells compared to method of 

well sampling • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 

3. Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance 

survey of extractable and volatile organic 

solutes in ground water at the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory • • • • • • • • • • • 19 

III 
FACTORS FOR CONVERTING INCH-POUND UNITS TO METRIC UNITS 

The following factors can be used to convert inch-pound units 

published herein to the International System (SI) of units. 

Multiply inch-pound units To obtain metric units 

feet (ft) 0.3048 meters (m) 

inches (in.) 25.40 millimeter (mm) 

miles (mi) 2 1.609 kilometers (km) 

square miles (mi ) 2.590 square kilometers 

gallons (gal) 3.785 -3 liters (L) 3 gallons (gal) 6 3.785xl03 cubic meters (m3) 

million gallons (10 gal) 3.785xl03 cubic meters (m3) 

acre-feet (acre-ft) 1.233xl0 cubic meters (m ) 

temperature, degrees Celsius (oC)• 0.556 (°F-32) 

The use of trade names in this report is for identification purposes 

only and does not imply endorsement by the u.s. Geological Survey. 

IV 

(km2) 
ORGANIC SOLUTES IN GROUND WATER AT THE 

IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 

By 

Jerry A. Leenheer and Jefferson c. Bagby 

ABSTRACT 

In August 1980, the u.s. Geological Survey (USGS) started a reconnaissance survey of organic solutes in drinking water sources, groundwater monitoring wells, perched water-table monitoring wells, and in 

select waste streams at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). 

The survey was to be a two-phase program. In the first phase, 77 

wells and four potential point sources were sampled for dissolved 

organic carbon (DOC). Four wells and several potential point sources 

of insecticides and herbicides were sampled for insecticides and herbicides. Fourteen wells and four potential organic sources were sampled 

for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. 

The results of the DOC analyses indicate no high level (>20 mg/L 

DOC) organic contamination of ground water. The only detectable insecticide or herbicide was a dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) concentration of 10 parts per trillion (0. 01 u g/L) in one observation well. 

The volatile and semivolatile analyses do not indicate the presence 

of hazardous organic contaminants in significant amounts (>10 ug/L) in 

the samples taken. 

Due tc the lack of any significant organic ground-water contamination in this reconnaissance survey, the second phase of the study, which 

was to follow up the first phase by additional sampling of any contaminated wells, was canceled. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) formerly the · 

National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS), was established in 1949 by the 

United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (later reorganized as 

Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), and now as the 

Department of Energy (DOE)) to build-, operate, and test various types 

of nuclear reactors. The reactors are built primarily to develop 

peacetime uses of atomic energy. Fifty-two reactors have been constructed to date, of which 17 are still operable. 

1 
The INEL site covers about 890 s'quare miles on the eastern Snake 

River Plain (fig. l)" and has an average altitude of 4, 900 feet above 'sea 

level. This plain is underlain by the Snake River Plain aquifer, the 

major aquifer in Idaho. The INEL obtains its en tire water supply from 

this aquifer. Aqueous chemical and radioactive wastes are discharged to 

shallow ponds and to shallow or deep wells. The pond and shallow-well 

wastes infiltrate the ground, form perched bodies of water, and then 

percolate toward the Snake River Plain aquifer. 

For the past 30 years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water 

Resources Division (WRD), has maintained a research project office at 

the INEL. One of the primary functions of this office has been to 

investigate the geochemical conditions of the Snake River Plain aquifer 

(Barraclough and others, 1967; Robertson, 1974; Barraclough and others, 

1976; Robertson, 1977; Barraclough and others, 1981). 

Purpose of Study 

In January 1980, the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

recommended that a ground-water monitoring program for organic constituents be started at the INEL. In response to this recommendation, DOE 

requested the U.S. Geological Survey to undertake such a program. The 

purpose of the study was to deteri:line the distribution and extent of 

organic constituents in the ground water beneath the INEL. 

The U.s. Geological Survey proposed a two-phase organic sampling 

program. The first phase would be an organic reconnaissance survey of 

the ground water beneath the INEL. This would entail a large scale 

dissolved organic carbon (DOC) sampling program of INEL production and 

ground-water observation wells to identify areas containing -higher levels 

of organic constituents (>20 mg/L DOC). Many of the samples would be 

collected around the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) and the Test 

Reactor Area (TRA). The ICPP and the TRA dispose of cooling tower, 

chemical, and radioactive wastes through the use of disposal wells and/or 

waste-seepage ponds and thus are potential sources of organic contamination of ground water. Samples for specific organic analysis of pesticides, volatile, and solvent-extractable semivolatile compounds would 

also be collected near potential contamination sources to detect organic 

chemicals for which EPA has established maximum contaminant levels (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1976). 

If the first phase organic reconnaissance survey had established 

any organic contamination problem areas, the second phase of the program 

would have begun. In this phase, ground waters with high DOC values 

would have been characterized in greater detail by DOC fractionation 

analysis (Leenheer and Huffman, 1979), in order to ascertain the nature 

and origin of the DOC ground-water contamination. Additional qualitative 

and quantitative organic analyses for specific compounds would also be 

performed on whole waters and fractions from the DOC fractionation 

procedure. 

2 

/ 
A "' .... 

STATE OF IDAHO 

{j Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) 

_,. .,. Springs 

~ Approximate boundary of the eastern 

Snake River Plain 

'\__ Generalized ground-water flow line 

(from Mundorff and others. 1964\ 

0 10 20 30 MILES 

I a' s' •• 0 15 30 45 KILOMETERS 

1 , 7" 2' 111' 31 

Figure 1. Relief map of Idaho showing the la.c:ation of the INEL, 

Snake River Plain and generalized ground water flow 

lines of the Snake Riwr Plain aquifer. 

3 
In August 1980, the USGS collected · water samples for phase one. 

This report contains· a brief explanation of how the sampling locations 

were selected, how the samples were collected, and how~ the samples were 

analyzed. It also contains a complete presentation of the data collected, the interpretation thereof, and a suggestion concerning future 

organic monitoring at the INEL. 

Acknowledgments 

The U.S. Geological Survey wishes to express. appreciation to the 

DOE, EG&G Idaho, Inc., EXXON Nuclear Idaho Company, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation employees who helped, through their cooperation, to complete phase one of this study. Special thanks go to the 

employees of the National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver for 

their prompt analysis of a large number of samples and their aid in the 

interpretation of the results. 

Regional Hydrology 

The eastern Snake River Plain is a; large structural basin 12,000 

square miles in area (fig. 1). It has been filled to its present level 

with 2, 000 to 10,000 fe·et of thin basaltic lava flows, rhyolitic deposits, and interbedded sediments. A more detailed description of the 

geology is found in Robertson, Schoen, and Barraclough (1974). Nearly 

all the eastern Snake River Plain is underlain by a vast ground-water 

reservoir known as the Snake River Plain aquifer, which contains an 

estimated 1 billion acre-feet of water. The flow of ground water in the 

aquifer is principally to the south-southwest (fig. 1) at relatively high 

velocities, _generally 5 to 25 feet per day (Robertson, Schoen, and 

Barraclough, 1974, p. 13). Transmissivity of the aquifer is high, 

generally ranging from 1 million to 100 million gallons per day per foot 

or 134,000 to 13,400,000 feet squared per day (Robertson, Schoen, and 

Barraclough, 1974, p. 12). 

The basaltic volcanic rocks and interbedded sediments composing the 

aquifer are all included in the Snake River Group of Quaternary age. The 

basement rocks are probably composed of older volcanic and sedimentary 

rocks. The basalt is the principal aquifer. The water-bearing openings 

in the basalt are distributed throughout the rock system in the form of 

intercrystalline and intergranular porespace, fractures, cavities, 

interstitial voids, interflow zones, and lava tubes. The variety and 

degree of interconnection of these openings complicates the direction of 

ground-water movement locally throughout the aquifer. 

Ground-water recharge to the INEL is derived primarily as underflow 

from the northeastern part of the Plain and also from adjacent drainages 

on the west and north. Most of the ground water underlying the INEL 

enters the ground in the uplands to the north, northeast, and northwest; 

4 
moves south or southwestward through the aquifer; and discharges through 

springs along the valley of the Snake River near Hagerman (fig. 1) • 

Lesser amounts of recharge are derived from direct precipitation on the 

Plain. Some of the precipitation evaporates, and some infiltrates the 

ground surface and percolates through the unsaturated subsurface to the 

regional water table. 

ORGANIC SAMPLING PROGRAM 

Sampling Site Selection 

The sites selected for DOC sampling were placed into two separate 

groups based on two criteria. The first group, consisting .of ten wells, 

was chosen as background wells for ground-water DOC baseline data. These 

background wells were chosen because they are remote from any possible 

INEL organic input and include the Atomic City well, Fire Station 112, 

Highway 113, P&W-2, Blaine Larsen's well, Site 14, and USGS observation 

wells 4, 19, 26, and 27 (fig. 2). Five of the wells selected are 

equipped with pumps. The other five wells are not, and required a thief 

sampling to obtain a comparison of the two sampling methods. 

The second group of wells was chosen because they are used for 

drinking water or because of their close proximity to a potential source 

of organic ground-water contamination. For the purpose of this study, 

any INEL facility was considered to be a potential source of organic 

ground-water contamination. 

A total of seventy-seven DOC samples was collected from seventy-four 

surface- and ground..Water sources across the INEL. These samples provided the data base for the phase one study. Two water samples each were 

collected from the Site 14 well, well 65, and well 47, to check sampling 

repeatability. 

The locations of all wells sampled are indicated on the maps in 

figures 2 and 3. Additional information on each well is given in table 

1. 

Samples for insecticide and herbicide analyses were taken from the 

ICPP east side waste effluent and the TRA cooling tower effluent. Both 

of these effluent streams are discharged directly into the Snake River 

Plain aquifer and thus could be point sources for organic ground-water 

contamination. Samples for insecticide and herbicide analysis were also 

taken from wells 40, 43, 47, and 67. These wells are all near the ICPP 

disposal well which has had low concentrations of insecticides and 

herbicides discharged into it in the past. If insecticides or herbicides 

could be detected · in the ground water, these wells would be the most 

likely to show them (as was shown by the results). 

Volatile and semivolatile organic samples were collected for GC-MS 

analysis from the following possible organic contaminant sources: (1) 

ICPP east side waste effluent (disposal well), (2) TRA chemical waste 

pond, (3) TRA cooling tower waste effluent (-disposal well), and (4) TRA 

radioactive waste pond. Samples were also collected from observation 

wells 40, 43, 46, 47, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 65-,.._67, 68, and 70. 

5 
27/10. 

Lost River Range 

NRF·1/4.8 NRF 

NRF 314 8~ NRF-219.6 i Seehgu'03 EBRII 

EBR 11·1/3.6 .. EBR 11·2/4.7 

~ .. q 

~~ 

Highway #3/8.9 • 

East Butte 

0 (# Explanation 

I --- INEL Boundary 

_ _j Improved roads 

• Wells 

70/7.6 ·Well number/DOC 

concentration in MG/L 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MILES 

~ I I 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

I ' I 

I I 

0 2 4 6 8 10 KILOMETERS 

Big Southern Butte 

Figure 2.. Distribution of dissolved organic carbon in ground water, 

IHEL ncinity, August 1980. 

6 
0 

0 

TRA-4/8.2\ 

• 79/7.7 

• 65/8.7-3.3 

CPP-2/4.0• •CPP-1/3.9 

• 76/3.0 

::::;;-- • 52/3.8 

43/4.0 ___. 

40/7.0 

46/4.2__. 

42/5.9/ 

•8217.1 

•8415.9 

•57/3.4 •67/2.2 

Explaination 

• Well to regional 

•37/6.3 water table 

o Well to percned 

1000 2000 3000 FEET 

water 

•7716.3 70/7.6 -Well number/ DOC 

300 600 900 METERS concentration in MG/L 

Figure 3. Distribution of dissolved organic carbon in ground water, 

ICPP-TRA vicinity, August 1980. 

7 
Table 1.--Data table for organic sample collection parameters and dissolved organic carbon results 

(P, Production well in operation, pumping more than 500 gpm; NA, not available] 

Sample depth ot 

Station Collection Filtration Temperature gt Method of pump time (min)/ DOC 

Well Identification Date - Time Date - Time collection ( C) collection rate (gal/min) (mg/L) 

Number Numbet 

ARA-2 433106ll2492101 8/12/80 - 1000 8/12/80 - 1300 14.0 Pump p 5.2 

ARA-3 433156112494401 8/12/80 - 1015 8/12/80 - 1315 15.5 Pump p 10 

ARBOR test 433508112384801 8/14/80 - 0936 8/14/80 - 1030 13.0 Thief 710 feet 2.4 

Atomic City 432638112484101 8/13/80 - 1115 8/13/80 - 1220 15.0 Pump NA ).3 

Blaine Larsen Well 4 34 715112282 701 8/12/80 - 1220 8/13/80 - 0943 NA Pump p ll 

CFA-1 433204112562001 8/12/SO - 1105 8/12/80 - 1215 u.s Pump p 

00 CFA-2 433144112563501 8/12/80 - 1120 8/12/80 - 1225 12.0 Pump p 2.5 

CPP-1 433433112560201 8/15/80 - 1037 8/15/80 - 1055 15.5 Pump p ]. 9 

CPP-2 433432112 561001 8/13/80 - 1538 8/14/80 - 0840 16.0 Pump p 4 

CPP eastside waste 433413112560401 8/18/80 - 0955 8/18/80 - NA 22.0 Surface Stream 4.9 

' EBR-1 433051113002601 8/ll/80 - 0920 8/12/80 - 0950 NA Pump p 2.8 

EBR-II-1 4 3 3 546112 391601 8/14/80 - 0830 8/14/80 - 1055 n.o Pump p 3.6 

EBR-II-2 433544112391301 8/14/80 - 0842 8/14/80 - 1054 n. 5 Pump r t,. 7 

Fire Stat ton 12 433548112562301 8/11/80 - 1.522 8/12/80 - 0925 15.0 Pump p 3.6 

Highway #3 433256113002501 8/11/80 .. 1350 8/11/80 - 1450 NA Pump NA 8.9 

LOF1'-1 435120112432101 8/12/80 - 1448 8/13/80 - 0935 10.0 Pump 1/1000 6.8 

LOFT-2 435119112431801 8/12/80 - 1420 8/13/80 - 0900 10.0 Pump 1/1000 8 
Table 1.--Data table fo~ o~ganic sample collection paramete~s and dissolved organic carbon results (continued) 

(P, Production well in operation, pumping mo~e than 500 gpm; NA, not available) 

Sample depth or 

Station Collection Filtration Tempe~ature gt Method of pump time (min)/ DOC 

Well Identification Date - Time Date - Time collect ion ( C) collection rate (gal/min) (mg/L) 

Number Number 

LPFT 434946l12412401 8/12/80 - 1531 8/13/80 - 0930 13.0 Pump p 5.8 

NRF-1 433859112545401 8/13/80 - 1055 8/13/80 - 1335 13.5 Pump p 4.8 

NRF-2 433854112545401 8/13/80 - 1108 8/13/80 - 1337 lL. 5 Pump p 9.6 

NRF-l 433858112545501 8/13/80 - 1047 8/13/80 - 1417 15.0 Pump p lj. 8 

PW-2 435419ll2453101 8/12/80 - 1625 8/12/80 - 2020 u.o Thief 350 feet 5.9 

Site 14 (1) 434334112463101 8/13/80 - 1500 8/13/80 - 1550 16.0 Pump 30/8 5.1 

Site 14 (2) 434334112463101 8/13/80 - 1505 8/13/80 - 1552 t6.0 Pump 35/8 11 

SPERT-1 433252ll2520301 8/12/80 - 1042 8/12/80 - 1240 u.o Pump p 4.8 

\Q 

SPERT-4 433247112515201 8/12/80 - 1035 8/12/80 - 1255 12.0 Pump p 2.7 

TAN-1 435056112420001 8/12/80 - 1510 8/13/80 - 0912 u.o Pump p 3.8 

TAN-2 435100112420701 8/12/80 - 1517 8/13/80 - 0855 u.o Pump p 1.5 

TRA-1 433521112 5 73801 8/13/80 - 1255 8/13/80 - 1415 17.0 Pump p 3.8 

TRA-3 433521112573501 8/13/80 - 1301 8/13/80 - 1350 18.0 Pump p ]. 3 

TRA-4 433521112 5 74201 8/13/80 - 1247 8/13/80 - 1352 18.0 Pump p 8.2 

TRA chemical waste pond NA 8/18/80 - 1310 8/18/80 - 1445 NA Surface Pond 3.7 

TRA cooling tower disposal NA 8/18/80 - 1234 8/18/80 - 1446 17.0 Surface Stream 6.1 

TRA radioactive waste pond NA 8/18/80 - 1330 8/18/80 - 1400 NA Sur face Pond 3. 3 
Table 1.--Data table for organic sample collection parameters and dissolved organic carbon results (continued) 

[P, Production well in operation, pumping more than 500 gpm; NA, not available) 

---·---- - - -----------·--·--------·----- ------- Sample depth or 

Station Collect ion Filtration Temperature gt Method of pump time (min)/ DOC 

Well Identification Date - Time Date - Time collection ( C) collection rate (gal/ml n) (mg/L) 

Number Number 

------ ---- ------ --- --~--- -----

4 43465 7112282201 8/12/80 - 1200 8/12/80 - 2000 NA Thief 300 feet 9.2 

434926112444201 8/12/80 - 1350 8/12/80 - 2030 17.0 Thief 250 fe et 6. 5 

19 434430112575901 8/12/80 - 1750 8/12/80 - 1955 18.0 Thief 295 fe e t 8.7 

24 435053112420801 8/12/80 - 1456 8/12/80 - 1940 14.0 Thief 300 feet 6 

26 435215ll2394201 8/12/80 - 1341 8/12/80 - 1940 18.0 Thief 260 feet 13 

27 434854112322101 8/12/80 - 1258 8/12/80 - 2015 18.0 Thief 255 feet 10 

..... 

0 37 433326112564801 8/11/80 - 1550 8/12/80 - 0930 12.0 Pump 20/5 6.3 

40 4334131.l2561201 8/18/80 - NA 8/18/80 - 1143 21.2 Pump 20/7 7 

42 433403112561201 8/13/80 - 1604 8/14/80 - 0857 17.5 Thief 500 feet 5.9 

43 433415112561501 8/18/80 - 0945 8/18/80 - 1205 16.1 Pump 20/7 4 

46 433407112561501 8/18/80 - 1008 8/18/80 - 10110 14.0 Thief 500 feet 4.2 

47(1) 433407ll2560301 8/18/80 - 1140 8/18/80 - 1246 ]5.7 a 20/7 6.8 

47(2) 433407112560301 8/18/80 - 1145 8/18/80 ... NA 15.7 p 20/7 6.8 

48 433401112560301 8/14/80 - 1206 8/14/80 - 1414 14.0 Thief 520 feet 6.2 

50 433419ll2 560201 8/14/80 - 1223 8/14/80 - 1412 19.5 Bailer 379 feet 4.9 

52 433415112554401 8/13/80 - 1713 8/14/80 - 083 7 16.0 Thief 500 feet 3.8 

53 433503112573401 8/18/80 - 1438 8/18/80 - 1515 NA Bailer 78 feet 15 
Table 1.-- Data table for organic sample collection parameters and dissolved organic carbon results (continued) 

[P, Production well in operation, pumping more than 500 gpm; NA, not available) 

---- Sample depth or 

Station Collection Filtration Temperature gt Method of pump time (min)/ IJOC 

Well Identification Date - Time Date - Time collection ( C) collection rate (gal/min) (mg/L) 

Number Number ----

54 433503112572801 8/18/80 - 1426 8/18/80 - 1459 NA Thief 85 feet 18 

55 433508112 5 73001 8/18/80 - 1354 8/18/80 - 1515 NA Thief 78 feet 5. 2 

56 433509112573501 8/18/80 - 1302 8/18/80 - 1408 12.0 Thief 79 feet 2.6 

57 43 3344112 562601 8/18/80 - 0937 8/18/80 - 1041 NA Thief 550 feet 3.4 

58 433500112 5 72501 8/18/80 - ll41 8/18/80 - 1429 12.0 Thief 495 feet l3 

62 433446112570601 8/14/80 - 1312 8/14/80 - nso 13.0 Thief 152 feet 2.4 

..... 65(1) -ztD4 4ii 12 5'71;71it I 8/18/80 - 1225 8/18/80 - 1244 14.5 Pump 20/7 p - ..... l 

65(2) 43344711257470 \ 8/18/80 - 1220 8/18/80 - NA 14.5 Pump 20/7 8. 7 

. ~- ---·~-- -~ ·--~- i --- - i 8/18/80 - 1104 8/18/80 - 1145 67 43334411255-41·01 1). 5 Pump 25/7 2.2 

68 4335161125 73901 8/18/80 - 1211 8/18/80 - 1427 14.0 Thief 120 feet 8.7 

70 433504112571201 8/18/80 - 1335 8/18/80 - 1500 10.5 Thief 95 feet 7.6 

73 433502112575401 8/14/80 - 1255 8/18/80 - 1427 15.5 Thief 120 feet 5.6 

76 433425112573201 8/13/80 - 1732 8/14/80 - 0821 14.0 Thief 500 feet ).0 

77 433315112 560501 8/13/80 - 1305 8/13/80 - 1435 14.0 Thief 540 feet 6.3 

79 433505112581901 8/13/80 - 1801 8/14/80 - 0858 14.0 Thief 550 feet 7.7 

82 433401U2551001 8/13/80 - 1216 8/13/80 - 1500 14.0 Thief 500 feet 7.7 

83 4 3302 3112 561501 8/13/80 - 1620 8/14/80 - 08l'l n. 5 Pump 45/7 1.9 
·Table 1.--Data table for organic sample collection parameters and dissolved organic carbon results (continued) 

[P, Production well ln operation, pumping more than 500 gpm; NA, not available) 

------·- -- --- -- - ·--·--- -------- Sample depth or 

Station Collection Filtration Temperature gt Method of pump time (min)/ DOC 

Well Identiflcat ton Date - Time Date - Time collection ( C) collection rate (gal/min) (mg/L) 

Number Number 

--- - - ·- -- -------

84 433357112574201 8/13/80 - 1516 8/13/80 - 1845 NA Baller 479 feet 5.9 

85 4332461125 71201 8/13/80 - 1431 8/13/80 - 1835 14.0 Thief 570 feet 6.6 

87 433013113024301 8/11/80 - 1330 8/11/80 - 1450 14.0 Pump 45/2 7.4 

88 432940113030201 8/11/80 - 1315 8/11/80 - 1430 13.0 Pump 20/5 1.6 

..... 89 433005113032901 8/11/80 - 1330 8/11/80 - 1430 13.0 Pump 20/5 5.0 

N 

90 432954113020501 8/11/80 - 1245 8/11/80 - 1505 13.0 Pump 20/4 8. 7 

92 433000113025301 8/14/80 - 1120 8/14/80 - 1352 11.5 Bailer 209 feet 8.7 

97 433807112551501 8/13/80 - 1131 8/13/80 - 1437 1).0 Thief 440 feet 8.8 

100 433503112400701 8/14/80 - 0906 8/14/80 - 1032 13.0 Thief 710 feet 2.6 
It should be noted that some of the observation wells sampled for 

various types of organic compounds are perched water wells (fig. 3) and 

do not reflect the organic concentrations in the Snake River Plain 

aquifer (Robertson, 1977). Perched water wells 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 68, 

70, and 92 were sampled to study the leaching tendencies of surface 

disposed organic compounds at various INEL facilities. 

FIELD SAMPLING TECHNIQUES 

Special sampling techniques were employed in the organic sampling 

program. Special collection methods are required to assure that the 

sample analyzed in the laboratory is in the same organic state as it was 

when originally collected. Samples were collected in special detergentwashed, acid-rinsed, sterilized bottles. Immediately after collection, 0 all samples were placed on ice and kept at 1-4 C until time of analysis. 

Wells equipped with pumps were pumped until the water was representative of the water in the aquifer. Then a water sample was collected. 

For wells without pumps, a thief sampler (fig. 4) was used to collect 

samples from the well at a given depth. Four water samples from perchedwater wells were collected using a bailer (fig. 4). The bailer and thief 

sampler were washed with detergent, rinsed with distilled water, washed 

with acetone, and again rinsed with distilled water before sampling began 

each day. Between samples, the bailer and thief sampler were rinsed with 

distilled water. 

Dissolved Organic Carbon 

Samples for DOC analyses were collected between August 11 and 18 by 

either pump, thief sampler, or bailer. Immediately after collection, the 

sample bottles were put on ice and transported to the Radiological and 

Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) at the INEL where they were 

filtered and refrigerated prior to their shipment to the NWQL in Denver, 

Colorado. 

~e preservation of samples for DOC analyses is accomplished by the 

combined effects of filtration, chilling, and contact with silver (Ag). 

Most micro-organisms will not pass through a 0.45-micron Ag filter. 

During filtration, approximately lll g of Ag is dissolved from the filter 

per milliliter of water filtered. Silver in solution or as a colloid 

exhibits bactericidal properties (Chambers and others, 1962). In addition 

to the filtering and bactericidal effects of the Ag filter, the samples 

are sealed in a glass water-tight container and kept chilled .on ice until 

analysis. Over a four week period of testing on a variety of samples (at 

the NWQL), no losses of DOC or contamination have been observed when 

using this method. 

13 
Figure 4. Photograph of bailer (left) and thief sampler 

(right) used for collecting water samples 

frCIIl wells w1 thout pump. 

14 
Insecticides, Herbicides, Semivolatiles 

Insecticide, herbicide, and semivolatile samples were collected 

on August 18, 1980 by thief and pump sampling methods. One liter of raw 

unfiltered water was collected for each analysis. It:J.mediately after 

collection, all samples were chilled and held at between l-4°C until 

analyses were done at the NWQL. 

Volatiles · 

Samples for volatile organics were collected on August 18, 1980 by 

thief, bailer, or pump methods. 

The Volatile Class of EPA priority pollutants includes those compounds that can be sparged from a water sample at room temperature. The 

fact that these low-boiling compounds are quite easily removed from the 

sample necessitates special care in the collection, shipping and storage 

of volatile samples. Bottles used for volatile sample collection are 250 

milliliter, screw cap, septum-bottles, made of non-actinic (brown) glass. 

The septa are teflon coated. 

Samples are collected in quadruplicate because once the water is 

sub sampled during analysis, headspace is created in the bottle. This 

precludes further subsampling as the very volatile organic compounds will 

evaporate into the headspace and will no longer be present in the water 

sampl~ at the original concentration. 

During actual sample collection, the sample is collected in such 

a manner as to insure that no air bubbles pass through the bottle while 

it is being filled. The bottle is filled to overflowing and the cap is 

immediately replaced. Then the bottle is turned upside down to check 

for air bubbles. If bubbles are present, the bottle must be emptied and 

another sample taken. This process is repeated until no air bubbles are 

0 present in the sample. The sample is then kept chilled to 1-4 C until 

it is analyzed. 

For best results, analysis for volatile organics must be made within 

36 hours of sample collection. For this reason, after sample collection · 

was completed on August 18, 1980, the organic samples were removed from 

the storage refrigerator at the INEL, packed in ice, and transported to 

the NWQL in Denver where volatile organic analysis began on August 19, 

1980. 

Analytical Methods 

Dissolved organic carbon was determined by the sealed ampoule, wetoxidation procedure described by Malcolm and others, 1973. DOC results 

were reported in milligrams per liter ± 1 mg/L. 

15 
Insecticide and PCB analyses were performed by various specific gas 

chromatographic procedures (Goerlitz arid Brown, 19 73) and covered the 

following compounds: -· 

Aldrin - Total (Water) 

Chlordane - Total (Water) 

DDD - Total (Water) 

DDE - Total (Water) 

DDT - Total (Water) 

Dieldrin - Total (Water) 

Endosulfan I - Total (Water) 

Endrin - Total (Water) 

Heptachlor Epoxide - Total (Water) 

Heptachlor - Total (Water) 

Lindane - Total (Water) 

Methoxychlor - Total (Water) 

Mirex - Total (Water) 

PCB - Total (Water) 

PCN - Total (Water) 

Perthane - Total 

Silvex - Total (Water) 

Toxaphene - Total (Water) 

2,4-D -Total (Water) 

2,4-DP - Total (water) 

2,4,5-T - Total (Water) 

-2 Insecticide results were reported in J..l g/L x 10 with the exception of the E!sults for chlordane, PCB, and Toxaphene which were reported 

in 1-1g/L X 10 • 

Volatile analyses were performed by sparging a five-milliliter 

aliquot of sample for ten minutes with helium, and trapping volatile 

organic compounds on a column of Tenax GC. Trapped compounds were 

thermally desorbed and flushed onto the head of a Carbowax 20M column for 

GC~S analysis as described by Pereira and Hughes, 1980. 

Semivolatile compounds from one-liter samples were solvent extracted 

with methylene chloride first at pH 12 to isolate base-neutral semivolatile compounds, followed by a second extraction at pH-2 to isolate acid 

compounds. Methyl esters of organic acids were prepared by derivatization with diazomethane. The GC~S analyses of each fraction we~e performed on a 2 mm ID x 6 feet glass column packed with a 3 percent SP 

0 0 2100. This column was temperature-proJ.rammed with 50 to 260 C at 

6°/minute after a 5 minute hold at 50 C and was held at 260°C for 

10 minutes at the end of the program. Mass spectral scans were run from· 

60 to 450 amu. Water and reagent blanks were run, and semi-quantitative 

results were calculated by comparison of unknown chromatographic peaks 

with a 10 1J g/L internal standard. 

Mass spectral identifications of volatile and semivolatile compounds 

were performed by computer comparison with the National Bureau of Standards mass spectral• data base. Only those · identifications which have 

met vigorous comparison tests have been reported as present in the 

sample. Briefly, ·the criteria for identification are Fit ~ 800 and 

Purity ~ 400. Purity measures the resemblance of the unknown spectrum to 

a specified library entry. A Rprity value of 1000 signifies identical 

mass spectra. Fit is also a measure of spectral resemblance; however, 

peaks present in the unknown but absent in the library spectrum are not 

considered in the Fit algorithm. A Fit of 1000 would indicate that 

the unknown spectrum contains the library spectrum but possibly as an 

unresolved mixture. Those compounds which coul d not be identified with a 

high degree of certainty or which were present in the reagent blank have 

not been reported. 

16 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

In considering the results of any organic reconnaissance programs, 

it is important to remember several facts (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1976): 

1. Organic compounds, both synthetic and natural, are present in 

all drinking waters to some extent. In addition, some halogenated organic compounds are produced during the disinfection of 

drinking water wi h chlorine. 

2. The major portion of organic compounds in most waters is of 

natural origin. 

3. MOst of the specific organic compounds in drinking water have 

not been identified, and analysis for many of them is very 

difficult. 

4. MOst of the identified organic compounds in drinking water have 

not been bioassayed. 

5. The effect on humans of long-term ingestion of very low levels 

(ng/L to mg/L) of organic chemicals in drinking water is not 

known, and the portion of human exposure from drinking water 

versus the total exposure from all sources (food, air) is 

seldom known. However, the drinking water portion is usually 

considered to be small. 

Dissolved Organic Carbon 

The DOC results were more reflective of the sampling procedure 

(thief vs. um sampling) than of the presence of organic contamination 

This relationship s shown in table 2. 

Table 2.--Dependence of dissolved organic carbon 

concentration in background wells on method of well sampling 

Well designation 

Atomic City 

Blain Larson 

Fire Station 112 

Highway 113 

P&W #2 

Site 14 

4 

19 

26 

27 

Mean 

Pump sampled, 

dissolved organic carbon 

- (milligrams per liter) 

3.3 

11. 

3. 6 

8.9 

5.1' 11 

17 

Thief sampled, 

dissolved organic carbon 

(milligrams per liter) 

5.9 

9.2 

8.7 

13 

10 
Thief or bailer sampling does not . flush the well, and relatively 

high DOC values can ~sult from stagnant water and organic contamination 

remaining from drilling fluids and well casing. Pump sampling, on the 

other hand, does exchange the water in the well bore for new water from 

the aquifer, and therefore gives a more representative sample of actual 

DOC concent.rations in the ground water. 

In order to indicate any significant organic contamination, the 

DOC value for any given well should exceed twice the average DOC background value for the particular sampling method used. The average DOC 

value for background wells sampled with a thief sampler was 9.3 mg/L and 

for background wells sampled with a pump was 7.1 mg/L (table 2). Therefore, a well sampled with a thief sampler should have a DOC value of 

about 20 mg/L and a pumped well should have a DOC value of about 15 mg/L 

before any significant amount of organic contamination would be indicated. 

Generally, the INEL production wells that are pumped regularly 

had the lowest DOC concentrations (table 1). The other pumped wells also 

had low concentrations. Wells sampled with a thief sampler had higher 

concentrations. The highest DOC concentrations were measured in the 

perched water wells around the TRA chemical and radioactive-waste ponds. 

However, none of the DOC samples taken from the INEL indicated any high 

level organic contamination of ground water. 

Insecticides and Herbicides 

No insecticides or herbicides were detected in any samples except 

for observation well 40, where dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

was found to be present at 10 parts per trillion (0.01 ll g/L). This low 

level (coupled with the absence of detectable insecticides and herbicides 

in the other samples) does not indicate significant contamination in 

INEL ground water by insecticides and herbicides. 

Volatiles and Semivolatiles 

Of the eighteen water samples sent to the NWQL, seventeen were analyzed for extractable and volatile organic constituents. The eighteenth 

sample was from the TRA radioactive waste disposal pond and was not 

analyzed due to its' radioactivity. The results are presented in table 

3. 

The compounds identified as being in the analyzed sample can be 

broken down into four categories based upon the judgment of the analyst. 

1. Occurs in Blank - These compounds are present in the blank 

(distilled water) sample run prior to analysis of the other 

samples, and therefore probably do not occur in the original 

sample. 

2. Unlikely to Occur - These compounds probably result from variable sample contaminants which may or may not occur during the 

18 
'\ 

.... 

\0 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

I. ICPP Waste Effluent 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethylbenzene 

B. Acid extra~table fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethylbenzene 

Ueneicosanoic acid 

C. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Chloroform 

Trichloroethene 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Trichloroethene 

Heptane 

Hethylhexane 

Dimethylhexane 

Ethylmethylhexane 

Xylene isomers 

Tetrachloroethane 

Dichloropentane 

Tetramethylpentane 

Bromohexane isomers 

Hethyloctane 

Chlorooctane 

Diethylphthalate 

Oxybis-octane 

Octanone 

Hexanal 

Hethylhexanone 

Nitromethylbenzene 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Tentatively Identified 

Hethyldihydrofuran 

Trichloroethene 

Dihydromethylpyran 

Trimethyldodecatrienol 

Tentatively Identified 

Hethylpentanoic acid 

Pentanoic acid 

Benzoic acid 

Methylhexanoic acid isomers 

Methylnonanoic acid isomers 

Benzenedioic acid isomers 

Hethyldecanoic acid isomers 

Tridecynoic acid 

Tetradecynoic acid 

Hexadecynoic acid 

Triacontanoic acid 

Significant Concentration (>10 pg/1.}_ 

No~e of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 1,g/L) 

None of compounds repot·ted 

Undecanoic acid 

Dimethylhexanone nonanoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Cyclohexane 

Dimethyloxetane 

Hethylpropane 

Significant Concentration (>10 11S.ill 

None of compounds reported 

" 
II. 

N 

0 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

Well-70 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

Tetrachloroethene 

Ethyl benzene 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

lleneicosanoic acid Trichloroethene 

Hethylhexane 

Xylene isomers 

Dichloropentane 

Propylbenzene 

Hethoxypropanedlol 

Bromohexane isomers 

Dimethylheptane isomers 

Diethylphthalate 

Oxybis-octane 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration (>10 ~g/L) 

None of compounds reported 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration (>10 ~g/hl 

Ethanedioic acid None of compounds reported 

Hethylpentanoic acid isomers 

Benzoic ac id 

Decanoic acid 

Undecanoic acid 

Hethyldecanoic acid isomers 

Tr idecanoic acid 

Tr idecynoic acid 

llexadecenoic acid 

Tetradececynoic acid 

Octadecenoic acid 

Triacontanoic acid 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Propanone 

Dimethyloxetane 

Hethylbutanone 

Significant Concentration (>10 p~ 

None of compounds re.ported 
N 

.... 

. III. 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaisEjance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

Well-67 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs f.n Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

Diethylphthalate 

Dipropylphathalate 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Acetic acid ethyl eater 

Henetcosanoic acid 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Trichloroethene 

Heptane 

Trichloroethane nonanediol 

Bromohexane isomers 

Ethylmethylhexane 

· Diiaooctylphthalate 

Dimethylhexanal 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration (>10 1~L~ 

Tridecadiene None of compounds reported 

Undecanoic acid methyl ester 

Tetramethylhexadecatirienol 

Tentatively Identified 

Benzoic acid 

Hethylhexanoic acid 

Hethylnonanoic acid 

Decanoic acid 

Undecanoic acid 

Tetradecynoic acid 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Hexadecenoic acid 

Triacontanoic acid 

Cyclopentaneundecanoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Significant Concentration JO _~~ill 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration lO ~ill 

None of compounds report ed 
N 

N 

Table ).--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

- - -------------------

IV. Well-65 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

f.thylbenzene 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Trimethylpentene 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Acetic acid ethyl ester 

Heneicosanoic acid 

C. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Hethylhexane 

Heptane 

Methylcyclohexane 

Tetrachloroethane 

Bromohexane isomers 

Dimethylhexane 

Oxybis-octane 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Hethylpentanol 

Dec en one 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

--~------ ---- ------ --------- -- ------

Tentatively identified 

Hexylpentyl ether 

Trimethyltetracontane 

Trimethyldodecatrlenol 

Hexatriaceontane 

Tentatively Identified 

Hethylnonanoic acid 

Decanoic acid 

Tetradecanolc acid 

Methyltetradecanolc acid 

Hexadecynotc acid 

Pentadecynolc ac ld 

Cyclopentaneundecanolc acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Trimethylpentane 

Dimethyldisulfide 

Significant Concentration (>10 ~~L 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 ug/L~ 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 pg/L) 

Trimethylpentane 

Dimethyldisulfide 
N 

~ 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

v. Well-58 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

Acetic acid ethyl ester Cyclohexane 

Trichloroethene 

C. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Heptane 

Hethylcyclohexane 

Trichloroethane 

Xylene isomers 

Bromohexane isomers 

Methyltetrahydrofuranol 

Hethylpentanol 

llexanal 

Dece7wne , 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

·----·----- ----·- ----·----·-- ---------·------·---------- - - ..... - -·- ---· -·----

Tentatively Identified 

Methylnonanolc acid methyl 

ester 

Hethylethyldioxetane 

Tentatively Identified 

Significant Concentration (>l~· t>.L!..l 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration ( >_10 L•...&L!..l 

Benzoic acid None of compounds reported 

Methylhexanoic acid isomers 

Nonanoic acid 

Methylnonanoic acid isomers 

Methyldecanoic acid isomers 

Undecanoic acid 

Trldecynoic acid 

Octadecadiynoic acid 

Dimethyloctahydrophenanthrene 

carboxylic acid 

Cyclopentaneundecanoic acid 

Octadecadecynoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Cyclohexane 

Dimethyloxetane 

Hethylpropane 

Significant Concentration (>10 1~Ll2. 

None of compounds reported 
N 

,f:oTable 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

VI. Well-57 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in . Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Diethylphthalate 

Dimethylphthalate 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Acetic acid ethyl ester Trichloroethene 

Heneicosanoic acid Heptane 

C. Vo lat ll es 

Occurs in Blank 

Hethylcyclohexane 

Dimethylhexane 

Oimethyloxlrane 

Xylene isomers 

Tetrachloroethane 

Dichloropentane 

Di.methylnonane 

Bromohexane isomers 

Diethylphthalate 

Oxybis-octane 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Heptenone 

Benzeneacetaldehyde 

Octanedione 

Tetramethylhexatrlenol 

Nitromethylbenzene 

Nitropropylbenzene 

Unllk~lv Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration (~~ 

Decylhydroxylamine None of compounds reported 

Phenylmethylsydnone 

Propylheptanol 

Methylnonanoic acid methyl ester 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration (>10 ~g/L) 

Methyl pentanoic acid isomers None of compounds reported 

Benzo tc acid 

Octanoic acid 

Cyclopentaneundecanoic acid 

Decanoic acid 

Methyldecanoic acid 

Oxononanoic ac .ld 

Benzene dtcarboxylic acid isomers 

Triacontanoic acid 

Undecanolc acid 

Tridecynoic acid 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Pentadecynoic acid 

Methyltetradecanoic actd isomers 

Hexadecenoi.c acid isomers 

Octadecadlynoic acid 

Dimethyloctahydrophenanthrene 

Carboxylic acld 

Tentatively Identified 

Cyclohexane 

Di.methylpentane 

Methylethylcyclopropane 

Significant Concentration (>10 1~ 

None of compounds reported 
N 

"" 

·vxx. 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volat~le 

organic solutes in ground water a~ the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

Well-56 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethyl benzene 

Acetic acid ethyl ester 

tleneicosanoic aci4 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Diethylphthalate 

Butyl 2-methylpropylphthalate 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Hethylcyclohexane 

Trichloroethene 

Hethylhexene 

Acetic acid pentyl ester 

Bromocyclohexane isomers 

Dimethylheptane 

Diethylthahte 

Oxybis-octane 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Ethynyloxirane 

Dimethylhexanal 

Bezaldehyde 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Hethylene chloride 

___ ___... __________________ _ 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration ~1.!:.2_ 

Propionamide None of compounds reported 

rropylethylhexanol 

Hexylpentyl ether 

tlexatriacontane 

Trimethyltetracontane 

Tetratetracontane 

Tetradecynoic acid methyl ester 

Tentatively Identified 

Hethylhexanoic acid 

Benzoic acid 

Significant Concentration (>IO~l 

None of compounds reported 

Cyclopentaneundecanoic acid 

Heptanoic acid 

Benzenedicarboxylic acid isomers 

Undecanoic acid 

Hethyldecanoic acid isomers 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Docosenoic acid 

Heptadecatriynoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Cyclohexane 

Methylethyl~yclopropane 

Significant Concentntion >~.L!l 

None of compounds reported 
N 

0\ 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes ln ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

VI II. Well-55 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs i.n Blank 

B. Acld extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Acetic acid ethyl ester 

Henef.cosanoic acid 

c. Volatiles - none detected 

Unlikely Occurr~nce 

Trichloroethene 

Dimethylpentene 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Trichloroethene 

Cyclohexane 

Bromohexane isomers 

Bromocyclohexane 

Tetrahydro-dimethylpyranone 

Bezaldehyde 

Tentatively Identified 

Heptanol 

Hethylethyldioxolane 

Trimethylcyclopentane 

Trimethyldodecatrlenol 

tentatively Identified 

Benzoic acid 

Hexanoic acid 

Hethylhexanolc acid isomers 

Hethylnonanoic acid isomers 

Hethyldecanoic acid isomers 

Nonanoic acid isomers 

Trldecanoic acid 

Hexadecanoic acid 

Tetradecynoic acid 

Cyclopentaneundecanoic acid 

Significant Concentration (>1~ 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 u.&.ill 

None of compounds reported 
!4 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric re~oqnaissance survey of extractable an4 volatile 

organic solutes in ground water a~ the ldaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

IX. Well-54 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethylbenzene 

B. Ac~d extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

lleneicosanoic acid 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Ethylmethy!cyclopentane 

Tetrachloroethane 

Xylene isomers 

Dipropylphthalate 

Trimethylhexane 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Cyclohexane 

Hethylcyclohexane 

Chloroform 

Bromohexane isomers 

Oxybts-octane 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentattvely Identified Significant Concentration ( >10 pg/L}_ 

Nonana~ None of compounds reported 

Dimethylethoxyl methyl~enzene 

Hexylpentyl ether 

Uexatriacontane 

"igh-moleculor-weight hydrocarbons 

Tentatively Identified 

Hexanoic acid 

Hethylnonanoic acid 

Decanaoic acid 

Undecanoic acid 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Trfdecynoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Cyclohexane 

Methylethylcyclopropane 

Significant Concentration (>lO_JL&LkL 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 ..u.RL!J. 

None of compounds reported 
N 

co 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

x. Well-53 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Ocsurs in Blank Unlikely Occurrence 

Diethylphthalate 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Butyl 2-methylpropylphthalate 

Xylene isomers 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Dimethylpentane 

Methylcyclohexane 

Tetrachloroethane 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Tentatively Identified 

Trimethyldodecatrienol 

High-moleculor-weight 

hydrocarbons 

Tentatively Identified 

Methylnonanoic acid !.somers 

Undecanoic acid isomers 

Methyldecanolc acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Methylethylcyclopropane 

Dimethyloxetane 

Significant Concentration (>10 pg/L) 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration~~ 

None of compounds reported 

~ificant Concentratio~~!9~~ 

None of compounds reported 
~ 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and vola~~le 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineer~ng ~boratory 

XI. Well-47 

A, Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethylbenzene 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethyl benzene 

Acetic acid ethyl ester 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Xylene isomers 

Butyl 2-methylpropylphthalate 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Trlchloroethene 

Heptane 

Cyclohexane 

Dichloromethylpropane 

Xylene isomers 

Tetrachloroethane 

Dichloropentane 

Tetramethylhexane 

Bromohexane isomers 

Dimethylheptane 

Methyloctane 

Ethyl benzene 

Chlorooctane 

Dec en one 

Dimethylheptanol 

Benzaldehyde 

Trimethylpentenol 

Octadecenol 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

(continued) . 

Tentatively Identified Sisntficant Concentration (>10 !.!-Kill 

Hethylphenylhydraztne None of compounds reported 

Hexylpentyl ether 

Hethoxyhexene 

Nonanediol 

Trtdecadiene 

Dimethyldodecatrienol 

Hethylpentanol 

Methylnonanotc acid methylester isomers 

Cyc topentaneundecan'o ic ac 1 d 

He thy lester 

Tentatively Identified 

JSenzoic ~cid 

Benzene acetic acid 

Het~ylnonanoic acid isomers 

Methyldecanoic ecJ.d homere 

Tridecynoic acid · 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Cyclopentaneundecanoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Significant Concentration (>10 u.sl!:l 

None pf compounds reported 

Sisnificant Concentntton (>10 Pg/1.) 

None of compou~dt repor~ed 
...., 

0 

Table ).--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho national Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

XII. Wcll-43 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethyl benzene 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Diethylphthalate 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Trimethylhexane 

Xylene isomers 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Oc curs in Blank 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Hethylcyclohexane 

Trimethylpentenol 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentatively Identified 

Methoxyhexene 

Nonaned~ol 

Hethylnonane 

Nonanoic acid methyl ester 

Dodecanone 

Significant Concentration (>10 -~ 

Hethylpentadecanoic acid methyl es ter 

Uexadecenoic acid methyl ester 

Methylnonanoic acid methyl ester 

Phenylphenyl hydrazine 

Dodecad iene 

Cyclopentaneundecanoic acid methyl ester 

Trimethyldodecatrienol 

Hethylpentadecanoic acid methyl ester 

Hexadecenoic acid methyl ester 

Tentatively Identified 

Methylnonanoic acid isomers 

Undecanoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Significant Concentration (>10 ug/Lt 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 ug/~ 

None of compounds reported 
.~ ~ 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic- mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

9rganic a9lutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

lUU· nA ~tepoa~.l well 

*" ~se-ne~tral extractable fraction 

Qccurs in Blank 

~thylbenzene 

~~ Acid ~xtractabl~ fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Acetic acid ethy• ester 

~thylbenzene 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Diethylphthalate 

Trlchloroethene 

Xylene isomer 

Dimethylpentene 

Ethylmethylpentane 

Unlikely Occurrence 

l~thylcyclohexane 

Dichloropentane 

Bromohexane isomers 

Dimethylheptane 

Methylpentanol 

Hexenone 

Hethylbutynol 

Trimethylpentenol 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentrafion (>10 11 g/1.) 

Trime~hyldodecatrienol Trimethy1dodecatfienol 

Phenyl propanone 

Hethylethylcyclopentane Isomers 

Dimethylethyl benzene 

Hethylphenylethanone 

Tetramethylbenzene 

Dihydro-methyl-l(N)indene 

Naphthalene 

Dimethyl-methylethylbenzene 

Methylene-bis-pyrrolid!ne 

Hexylpentyl ether 

Butyl benzene 

Tentatively Identified 

Benzoic acid 

Hcthylhexanoic acid isomers 

Hethylnonanoic acid isomers 

Hethyldecanoic acid isomers 

T~tradecanolc acid 

Tetradecynolc acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Significant Concentration (>lO.l!J~ L!J 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 _.1.!..&/Lt 

None of compounds reported 
.'! 

w 

N 

Table 3.--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatlle 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

XIV. Well-40 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Bl_ank Unlikely Occurrence 

Xylene 

Diethylphthalate 

Di(methylethyl}-dimethylazlrlrline 

Tetrachloroethane 

Dimethylhexene 

Propylcyclopentane 

Trtmethylhexane 

B. Ac id extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Diethylphthalate 

Octadecenal 

Dimethyloctanol 

Tetramethyl.hexadecatrienol 

Docecanal 

Octadecenol 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

. - ----·- ------ -- ---- --------------- ------- -------------

Tentatively Identified 

Dihydromethylpyrone 

Propenylcyclopentane 

Trimethylcyclobutanone 

Ethylpropylhexanol 

llexylpentylether 

Hexatriacontane 

Trimethyl.dodecatrienol 

Hethylnonanoic acid 

methyl ester 

Cyclopentaneundecanolc acid 

methyl ester 

Tetradecynoic acirl 

methyl ester 

Tentatively Identified 

Hethylnonanolc acid 

Hethyldecanotc acid 

Undecanoic acid 

Oc tadeceno 1 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Methyltetradecanoic 

acid isomers 

llexadecenoic aclrl 

Tentatively Identified 

Significant Concentration (>10 lt_gf..!d. 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration ~~[hl 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Conc_~ntration (>10 pg/L) 

None of compounds reported 
~ 

Table 3. --Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance surv~y of extractable and •Jol at ile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

________________________ .. _________ _ ---- - ---- --·- --·--------------------------- --- -------- --- - -----· -- ---·- -- - -- - ·-

XV. TRA chemical waste pond 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

B. Acid extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Heneicosanoic acid 

c. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Xylene isomers 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Trichloroethene 

Diethylphthalate 

Hethylbutanoic acid 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylcyclohexane 

Oxybta-octane 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Tetramethylhexadecatrienol 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration IO Pi:.\. _ 

Ethylmethylcyclohex~ne Ethylmethylcyclohexane 

Ueptane 

Methyldihydropyran 

Dimethylcyclohexane 

Ethylmethylcyclohexane 

Propylcyclohexane 

Bicyclotrimethyloctanone 

(Oimethylethoxy) methyl henzene 

Tentatively Identified 

Methyldecanolc ac id isomers 

Undecanoic acid isomers 

Tetradecanoic acid isomers 

l~xadecanoic ac id isomers 

Tentatively Identified 

Dimethyloxetane 

Significant Con cent rat ion _J2_!_Q__l!JtL!:.l 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentrat l.on ( > 1 0 .J!J>.L!J_ 

~one of compounds reported 
~ 

.8:'-

XVI. 

Table ).--Gas Chromatographic-mnss Sp(' c trome tric reconnafssnnc e survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes J.n ground watf•r at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(c oot lnued) 

----- - - -- -- ___ ,.. _ ________ ___ -------·-- -- ------ - - ---

Well-46 

A. Base-neutral extractable fra c tion 

Occu t·s in Blank Unlikely Oc urre~ ~ 

Xylene 

Diethylphthalate 

Diisooctylphthalate 

B. Acid extractable fraction- lost prior to analysis 

C. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank Unlikely Occurrenc e 

Azlri.diru• 

!entatively Idel}_tifie ~ 

N-(hydroxy methyl) 

propenamidfl 

Hethylphenyl-dloxolane 

Tentative 11 ~'.!.!..!.l.!:_~ 

Ethylmethylcyclopropane 

Significant Concentration (>10 pg/L) 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>10 pg/LL_ 

None of compounds reported 
~ 

Table ).--Gas Chromatographic-mass spectrometric reconnaissance survey of extractable and volatile 

organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

(continued) 

XVII. Well-68 

A. Base-neutral extractable fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethyl benzene 

B. Acid extractabl~ fraction 

Occurs in Blank 

Ethyl benzene 

Heneicosanoic acid 

C. Volatiles 

Occurs in Blank 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Trichloroethene 

Xylene .isomer 

Dtethylphthalate 

Butyl 2-methylpropylphthalate 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Trichloroethane 

Bromocyclopentane 

Bromohexane 

Dtmethylheptane 

Diisooctylphthalate 

Dimethylhexanal 

Benzaldehyde 

Nitromethylbenzene 

Tetramethyl-hexadecatrienol 

Unlikely Occurrence 

Methylene chloride 

Tentatively Identified Significant Concentration (>10 J~fl:_l 

Hethylpentenol None of compounds reported 

Dimethylpentene 

Ethylmethylcyclopentane 

Ethylcyclopentane 

Dimethylhexane 

Trimethylcyclopentane isomers 

Butenediamide 

Ethylcyclohexane 

Propylcyclopcntane 

Ethyldodecene 

Triinethyldodecatrienol 

Tentatively Identified 

llydroxypropanoic acid 

Benzoic acid 

Methylhexanoic acid isomers 

~~thylnonanoic acid isomers 

Decanoic acid 

Hethyldecanoic acid 

Undecanoic acid 

Tetradecanoic acid 

Tetradecynoic acid 

llexadecanoic ac td 

Pentadecynoic acid 

Tentatively Identified 

Chlorofom 

Ethylmethylcycloprop~ne 

Significant Concentration (>l0_..1!£L!:.2_ 

None of compounds reported 

Significant Concentration (>JO _u~L 

Chloroform 
analytJ.cal procedure. A "clean lab" capability is required to 

avoid these contaminants and the NWQL does not have this 

capability. 

3. Tentatively Identified - These compounds were probably in 

the water samples when they were received at the NWQL. Keep in 

mind that these analyses are unconfirmed by standards and their 

source may be due to (a) organics introduced by well drilling, 

(b) organic compounds introduced by sampling, (c) organic 

compounds introduced by well casing, (d) organic compounds which 

naturally occur in the area ground water, and (e) organic 

contaminants introduced into the ground water through present 

waste disposal practices. 

4. Significant Concentration - All compounds which occur at levels 

near or above the internal standard (>10 ~g/L) were grouped at 

this level. The analysis was qualitative in nature and the 

specific concentration of the compounds in this category cannot 

be estimated except to say that they were near or above the 

internal standard. 

Only those compounds from the "Tentatively Identified" categories 

which were also found in "Significant Concentrations" will be discussed 

here. The other compounds are either unlikely to occur or else they 

occur in such low concentrations as to be negligible. 

Well 65 - Trimethylpentane and dimethyldisulfide were tentatively 

identified in the volatiles fraction. These compounds may have migrated 

from the TRA disposal well or may result, especially dimethyldisulfide, 

from microbiological transformations of natural organic substrates. The 

first compound is used as a solvent and in making fuels. 

~.Jell 43 - Methylpentadecanoic acid methyl ester and hexadecenoic 

acid methyl ester were tentatively identified in the base-neutral extractable fraction. These compounds probably occur naturally in ground 

ater. 

TRA disposal well - Trimethyldodecatrienol was tentatively identified in the base-neutral fraction. This is an alcohol, possibly used as 

detergent somewhere in the cooling tower system. 

TRA chemical waste pond Ethylmethylcyclohexane was tentatively 

identified in the base-neutral fraction. This compound may originate 

from solvents, greases, or fuels used at the TRA. 

Well 68 - Chloroform has been tentatively identified in the volatiles fraction. This is a perched water well inside the TRA compound 

where chloroform may occur from chlorinated water leaching into the well 

r it may be a result of the analytical process. 

None of these compounds reported at significant concentrations are 

reported to be hazardous except chloroform, and chloroform was an unconfirmed analysis which occurred in only one sample. 

36 
COST 

The cost for the 1980 Organic Reconnaissance Study at the INEL, 

including planning, sample collection, sample analysis, laboratory time, 

nanpower, equipment, sample transportation, result interpretation, and 

initial report publication, has amounted to about $20,000. 

Sill1MARY AND CONCLUSION 

Results of the 1980 reconnaissance survey of organic solutes in 

ground water at the INEL have indicated no significant areas of organic 

contamination of ground water. Because of this, the second phase of 

this study was canceled. It is suggested that general organic reconnaissance studies be conducted at the INEL in the future on a periodic 

basis. 

3.7 
SELECTED REFERENCES 

Barraclough, J. T., Teasdale, W. E., and Jensen, R. G., 1967, Hydrology 

of the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, 1965: u.s. Geological Survey Open-Fi~e Report ID0-22047, 107 P• 

Barraclough, J. T., Teasdale, W. E. , Robertson, J. B., and Jensen-, R. G. , 

196 7, Hydrology of the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, 

1966: u.s. Geological Survey Open-File Report ID0-22048, 95 P• 

Barraclough, J. T., and Jensen, R. G., 1976, Hydrologic data for the 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory site, Idaho, 1971 to 1973: 

U.s. Geological Survey Open-File Report 7 5-318 (ID0-22055), 52 p. 

Barraclough, J. T., Robertson, J. B., and Janzer, v. J., 1976, Hydrology 

of the solid waste burial ground, as related to the potential 

migration of radionuclides, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, 

with a section on Drilling and sample analyses, by L. G. Saindon: 

U.s. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-4 71 (ID0-22056), 183 p. 

Barraclough, J. T., Lewis, B. D., and Jensen, R. G., 1981, Hydrologic 

conditions at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, 

Eophasis: 1974-1978: U.s. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigations 81-526, 77 P• 

Chambers, C. w., Proctor, C. M., and Kabler, P. w., 1962, Bactericidal 

effect of low concentrations of silver: Journal of the American 

Water Works Association, 54: P• 28-216. 

Goerlitz, D. F., and Brown, E., eds, 1973, Methods for analysis of 

organic substances in water: u.s. Geological Survey Techniques 

Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter A3, 34 P• 

Leenheer, J. A., and Huffman, Edward, w. D. Jr. , 1979, Analytical 

method for dissolved-organic carbon fractionation, u.s. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations 79-4, 16 P• 

Malcolm, R. L., Leenheer, J. A., McKinley, P. W., and Eccles, L. A., 

1973, Supplement II - Dissolved organic carbon, wet-oxidation 

method, in Methods for analysis of organic substances in water, D. 

F. Goerlitz and E. Brown, eds: U. S. Geological Survey Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter, ~3, 34 P• 

Mundorff, M. J., Crosthwaite, E. G., and Kilburn, Chabot, 1964, Ground 

water for irrigation in the Snake River Basin in Idaho: u.s. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1654, 222 P• 

Pereira, w. E., and Hughes, B. A., 1980, Determination of selected 

volatile organic priority pollutants in water by computerized gas 

chromatography - quadrupole mass spectrometry: Journal of the 

American Water Works Association, v. 72, P• 220-230. 

38 
Robertson, J. B., 1977, Numerical modeling of subsurface .radioactive 

solute transport from waste-seepage ponds at the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory, u.s. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

ID0-22057, 68 P• 

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 ID0-22053, 231 p. 

Robertson, J. B., 1974, Digital modeling of radioactive and chemical 

waste transport in the Snake River Plain aquifer at the National 

Reactor Testing Station, Idaho: u.s. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report ID0-22054, 41 P• 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976, National interim primary 

drinking water regulations: u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water Supply Publica.tion, EPA-570/9-76-Q03, 159 p. 

3-9--