DOE/ID-22222

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

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. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5270
Cover: Water-quality monitoring well at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho. 

(Photograph taken by the U.S. Geological Survey, March 1997.)
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

By Gordon W. Rattray

DOE/ID-22222

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

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5270

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Rattray, G.W., 2012, Evaluation of quality-control data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for routine waterquality activities at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, 1996–2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2012-5270 (DOE/ID-22222), 74 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

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

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................7

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................7

Collection of Quality-Control Samples ..............................................................................................7

Replicates......................................................................................................................................7

Blanks ...........................................................................................................................................7

Analytical Methods and Data Reporting Conventions ...................................................................8

Statistical Methods...............................................................................................................................8

Normalized Absolute Difference...............................................................................................8

Relative Standard Deviation ......................................................................................................9

Binomial Probability ....................................................................................................................9

Quality-Control Results ...............................................................................................................................10

Variability..............................................................................................................................................10

Reproducibility............................................................................................................................10

Reliability.....................................................................................................................................11

Bias ..................................................................................................................................................13

Source-Solution Blank..............................................................................................................13

Field Blanks.................................................................................................................................13

Equipment Blanks ......................................................................................................................14

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................15

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................16

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................73

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location of selected facilities and surface water sampling sites

at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho ................................................ 3

Figure 2. Map showing location of aquifer wells in the U.S. Geological Survey routine,

site-wide, water-quality monitoring program at the Idaho National Laboratory

and vicinity, Idaho, December 2001 ...................................................... 4

Figure 3. Map showing location of aquifer wells in the U.S. Geological Survey routine,

site-wide, water-quality monitoring program at the Advanced Test Reactor

Complex, Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, and Radioactive

Waste Management Complex at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho,

December 2001 .............................................................................. 5

Figure 4. Map showing location of perched groundwater wells in the U.S. Geological

Survey routine, site-wide, water-quality monitoring program at the Idaho

National Laboratory, Idaho, December 2001 ............................................. 6

Figure 5. Graph showing variability of sodium as a function of sodium concentration ...... 12
iv

Tables

Table 1. Reporting levels and reporting level codes for constituents analyzed by the

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory, 1996–2001............... 19

Table 2. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for

gross-alpha radioactivity, gross-beta radioactivity, and cesium-137 from

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory

and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 ............................................................ 21

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and

strontium-90 from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho

National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 .................................... 26

Table 4. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for

plutonium-238, plutonium-239+240, and americium-241 from replicate pairs

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity,

Idaho, 1996–2001 ........................................................................... 37

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium,

chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs collected from selected

sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001 ........................ 39

Table 6. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not

acceptable reproducibility for ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, nitrite, and

orthophosphate from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho

National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 .................................... 52

Table 7. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not

acceptable reproducibility for selected metals from replicate pairs collected

from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 

1996–2001 .................................................................................... 57

Table 8. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not

acceptable reproducibility for total dissolved chromium and hexavalent

chromium from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho

National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 .................................... 60

Table 9. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not

acceptable reproducibility for selected volatile organic compounds from

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory

and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 ............................................................ 65

Table 10. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not

acceptable reproducibility for total organic carbon from replicate pairs

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity,

Idaho, 1996–2001 ........................................................................... 67

Table 11. Percentage of replicate pairs with concentrations with acceptable

reproducibility for radiochemical, inorganic, and organic constituents

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity,

Idaho, 1996–2001 ........................................................................... 67
v

Tables—Continued

Conversion Factors, Datum, and Abbreviations and 

Acronyms

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Radioactivity

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

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in picocuries per liter (pCi/L), 

milligrams per liter (mg/L), or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Datum

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

Table 12. Ranges of concentrations, number of replicate pairs with calculated relative

standard deviations, and pooled relative standard deviations for

radiochemical, inorganic, and organic constituents, Idaho National Laboratory

and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 ............................................................ 68

Table 13. Measured concentrations of tritium, strontium-90, cesium-137, sodium,

chloride, sulfate, chromium, hexavalent chromium, and ammonia from

source-solution, field, and equipment blanks, Idaho National Laboratory and

vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 .................................................................. 70

Table 14. Probability of success, confidence level, maximum concentration in blank

samples, and minimum concentration in environmental samples, Idaho National 

Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001 ................................................ 71
vi

Conversion Factors, Datum, and Abbreviations and 

Acronyms—Continued

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation 

or Acronym Definition

ATRC Advanced Test Reactor Complex

BC Birch Creek

BLR Big Lost River

CFA Central Facilities Area

cl confidence level

Cs-137 cesium-137

CSU combined standard uncertainty

CV coefficient of variation

DIW deionized water

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

ESRP eastern Snake River Plain

IBW inorganic blank water

INL Idaho National Laboratory

INLPO USGS Idaho National Laboratory Project Office

INTEC Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

LLR Little Lost River

LRL laboratory reporting level

LT-MDL long-term method detection level

MDC minimum detectable concentration

ML Mud Lake

MFC Materials and Fuels Complex

MRL minimum reporting level

N nitrogen

NAD normalized absolute difference

NWQL U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory

P phosphorus

Pu-239 Plutonium-239

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

RESL DOE Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory

RSD relative standard deviation

RWMC Radioactive Water Managmenet Complex

Sr-90 strontium-90
Abstract

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

Department of Energy, collects surface water and groundwater 

samples at and near the Idaho National Laboratory as part 

of a routine, site-wide, water-quality monitoring program. 

Quality-control samples are collected as part of the program 

to ensure and document the quality of environmental data. 

From 1996 to 2001, quality-control samples consisting of 

204 replicates and 27 blanks were collected at sampling sites. 

Paired measurements from replicates were used to calculate 

variability (as reproducibility and reliability) from sample 

collection and analysis of radiochemical, chemical, and 

organic constituents. Measurements from field and equipment 

blanks were used to estimate the potential contamination bias 

of constituents.

The reproducibility of measurements of constituents 

was calculated from paired measurements as the normalized 

absolute difference (NAD) or the relative standard deviation 

(RSD). The NADs and RSDs, as well as paired measurements 

with censored or estimated concentrations for which 

NADs and RSDs were not calculated, were compared to 

specified criteria to determine if the paired measurements 

had acceptable reproducibility. If the percentage of paired 

measurements with acceptable reproducibility for a 

constituent was greater than or equal to 90 percent, then 

the reproducibility for that constituent was considered 

acceptable for the period 1996–2001. The percentage of 

paired measurements with acceptable reproducibility was 

greater than or equal to 90 percent for all constituents except 

orthophosphate (89 percent), zinc (80 percent), hexavalent 

chromium (53 percent), and total organic carbon (TOC; 38 

percent). The low reproducibility for orthophosphate and zinc 

was attributed to calculation of RSDs for replicates with low 

concentrations of these constituents. The low reproducibility 

for hexavalent chromium and TOC was attributed to the 

inability to preserve hexavalent chromium in water samples 

and high variability with the analytical method for TOC.

The reliability of measurements of constituents was 

estimated from pooled RSDs that were calculated for discrete 

concentration ranges for each constituent. Pooled RSDs of 

15 to 33 percent were calculated for low concentrations of 

gross-beta radioactivity, strontium-90, ammonia, nitrite, 

orthophosphate, nickel, selenium, zinc, tetrachloroethene, 

and toluene. Lower pooled RSDs of 0 to 12 percent were 

calculated for all other concentration ranges of these 

constituents, and for all other constituents, except for one 

concentration range for gross-beta radioactivity, chloride, 

and nitrate + nitrite; two concentration ranges for hexavalent 

chromium; and TOC. Pooled RSDs for the 50 to 60 picocuries 

per liter concentration range of gross-beta radioactivity 

(reported as cesium-137) and the 10 to 60 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L) concentration range of nitrate + nitrite (reported as 

nitrogen [N]) were 17 percent. Chloride had a pooled RSD of 

14 percent for the 20 to less than 60 mg/L concentration range. 

High pooled RSDs of 40 and 51 percent were calculated for 

two concentration ranges for hexavalent chromium and of 

60 percent for TOC.

Measurements from (1) field blanks were used to 

estimate the potential bias associated with environmental 

samples from sample collection and analysis, (2) equipment 

blanks were used to estimate the potential bias from cross 

contamination of samples collected from wells where portable 

sampling equipment was used, and (3) a source-solution 

blank was used to verify that the deionized water sourcesolution was free of the constituents of interest. If more than 

one measurement was available, the bias was estimated using 

order statistics and the binomial probability distribution. 

The source-solution blank had a detectable concentration 

of hexavalent chromium of 2 micrograms per liter. If this 

bias was from a source other than the source solution, 

then about 84 percent of the 117 hexavalent chromium 

measurements from environmental samples could have a 

bias of 10 percent or more. Of the 14 field blanks that were 

collected, only chloride (0.2 milligrams per liter) and ammonia 

(0.03 milligrams per liter as nitrogen), in one blank each, 

had detectable concentrations. With an estimated confidence 

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

By Gordon W. Rattray
2 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

level of 95 percent, at least 80 percent of the 1,987 chloride 

concentrations measured from all environmental samples had 

a potential bias of less than 8 percent. The ammonia bias, 

which may have occurred at the analytical laboratory, could 

produce a potential bias of 5–150 percent in eight potentially 

affected ammonia measurements. Of the 12 equipment 

blanks that were collected, chloride was detected in 4 of 

these blanks, sodium in 3 blanks, and sulfate and hexavalent 

chromium were each detected in 1 blank. The concentration 

of hexavalent chromium in the equipment blank was the same 

concentration as in the source-solution blank collected on 

the same day, which indicates that the hexavalent chromium 

in the equipment blank is probably from a source other 

than the portable sampling equipment, such as the sample 

bottles or the source-solution water itself. The potential 

bias for chloride, sodium, and sulfate measurements was 

estimated for environmental samples that were collected using 

portable sampling equipment. For chloride, it was estimated 

with 93 percent confidence that at least 80 percent of the 

measurements had a bias of less than 18 percent. For sodium 

and sulfate, it was estimated with 91 percent confidence that at 

least 70 percent of the measurements had a bias of less than 

12 and 5 percent, respectively.

Introduction

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) was established by 

the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—which later became 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)—in 1949 for the 

development of atomic-energy applications, nuclear safety 

research, defense programs, and advanced energy concepts 

(Knobel and others, 2005, p. 1). The INL extends over 

approximately 890 mi2 of the north-central part of the eastern 

Snake River Plain (ESRP) in southeastern Idaho (fig. 1) and 

overlies about 8 percent of the ESRP aquifer, which is a 

fractured basalt sole-source aquifer of significant economic 

value to the State of Idaho. During its operations, the INL 

has produced and discharged radiochemical and chemical 

wastes from site facilities to the unsaturated zone and the 

underlying aquifer through infiltration ponds, evaporation 

ponds and ditches, drain fields, injection wells, and burial sites 

(Bartholomay and Twining, 2010, p. 1).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began studying 

the water quality of the ESRP aquifer in 1949 as part of a 

program to characterize the water resources at the INL (Nace 

and others, 1959; Olmstead, 1962; Robertson and others, 

1974). Sampling for radiochemical and chemical constituents 

was sporadic until 1964, when a water-quality monitoring 

network was established and routine (quarterly, semiannual, 

or annual) sample collection and analysis began (Knobel and 

others, 2005, p. 11). The monitoring network includes three 

separate monitoring programs: a routine, site-wide, waterquality monitoring program at and near the INL (figs. 2–4); a 

local monitoring program at the Naval Reactors Facility; and 

off-site monitoring programs. The objectives of the waterquality monitoring network, which included both the aquifer 

and the perched groundwater zones, were to (1) monitor 

the concentrations and delineate the movement of facilityrelated radiochemical and chemical wastes, (2) understand 

the processes controlling the movement of the wastes, and 

(3) understand the processes controlling the groundwater 

chemistry (Mann, 1996, p. 2; Knobel and others, 2005, p. 1, 

15, 20).

Beginning in 1980, field quality-control (QC) samples 

were routinely collected at groundwater and surface-water 

sites to ensure and document the quality of the environmental 

data. The collection of QC samples preceded documentation 

of a quality-assurance (QA) plan for water-quality activities by 

the USGS Idaho National Laboratory Project Office (INLPO) 

in 1989 (L.J. Mann, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

1989) and publication of the QA plan in 1996 (Mann, 1996). 

The QA plan described the collection of QC samples, such as 

replicates and blanks. Quality-control samples are an essential 

component of a water-quality monitoring program because 

data from QC samples can be used to identify, quantify, and 

document potential variability and bias, two types of errors 

in environmental data. The variability and bias “associated 

with environmental data must be known for the data to be 

interpreted properly and be scientifically defensible” (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2006, p. 133).

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to investigate, and 

document, the quality of environmental data collected by 

the INLPO from 1996 to 2001. About 2,000 environmental, 

204 field replicate, and 27 field blank samples were collected 

during this period. The quality of the environmental data 

was investigated by evaluating the replicate and blank data. 

Statistical analysis of constituent concentrations from 

replicates was used to calculate variability (as reproducibility 

and reliability) from sample collection and analysis of 

radiochemical, inorganic, and organic constituents. Similarly, 

statistical analysis of constituent concentrations from field 

and equipment blanks was used to estimate the potential bias 

from (1) sample collection and analysis of environmental 

samples and (2) cross contamination of environmental samples 

collected with portable sampling equipment.

Quality-control samples were collected independently 

for each of the monitoring programs, and QC data presented 

in this report were from samples collected for the routine, 

site-wide, water-quality monitoring program. However, the 

QC results and interpretations presented in this report also are 

applicable to chemical (but not radiochemical) data collected 

and analyzed for the off-site monitoring programs because 

these programs used the same field procedures, analytical 

methods, and laboratories for collecting and analyzing the 

chemical data as the routine monitoring program.
Introduction 3

tac12-0785_fig01

IDAHO

BOISE

EASTERN 

SNAKE RIVER

PLAIN

INL

Twin

Falls

Pocatello

Idaho

Falls

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

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

0

0 10

10

20 KILOMETERS

20 MILES

Mud

Lake

Big

Lost

River

Little

Lost

River

Birch

Creek

Mackay

Reservoir

Camas

Creek

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMHI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

PIONEER MOUNTAINS

13132545

BLR at exp dairy

farm nr Howe

13132520

BLR blw INL

div nr Arco

13119000

LLR nr Howe

13132500

BLR nr Arco

13127000

BLR blw Mackay 

Reservoir

13117020

BC at Blue Dome nr Reno

13115000

ML nr Terreton

26

93

20

26

33

22

28

20

93

TAN

ATRC

INTEC

CFA

NRF

RWMC

BLR playas, sinks

BC sinks

SPREADING

AREAS

MFC

113° 45’

44°

45’

43°30’

113°30’ 15’ 30’ 112°15’

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

13132513

CFA

INTEC

NRF

RWMC

ATRC

TAN

Selected facilities at the INL

 Central Facilities Area

 Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

 Naval Reactors Facility

 Radioactive Waste Management Complex

 Test Area North

 Advanced Test Reactor Complex

 Materials and Fuels Complex

EXPLANATION

MFC

INL boundary

USGS surface-water sampling 

 site and No.

Figure 1. Location of selected facilities and surface water sampling sites at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and vicinity, 

Idaho. Site names and abbreviations are listed in table 2.
4 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

tac12-0785_fig02

Atomic

City

Howe

Arco

Mud

Lake Terreton

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

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

Datum is North American Datum of 1927

Big Lost River

playas and 

sinks

SPREADING

AREAS

Mud

Lake

Big

Lost

River

Little

Lost

River

Birch

Creek

Camas

Creek

Big 

Southern

Butte

East

Butte

Middle

Butte

BITTERROOT

RANGE

LEMI RANGE

LOST RIVER RANGE

INL

BOUNDARY

33

26

26

20

20

113°15’ 113° 45’

44°

43°30’

45’

112°30’

See figures 3 and 4 

See figures 3 and 4

ATRC

INTEC

RWMC

Atomic City Well

11 124

125 109

103

108

105

14

104

9

86

8

RWMC

M14S

22

Highway 3 

RWMC

M13S

EBR 1

106

127

83

CFA 1

CFA 2

107

Badging

Facility

Site 9

SPERT 1

Area 2

NPR Test

5

Leo Rogers 1

110A 1

2

100 Arbor Test

101

6

17

Site 14

18

PSTF Test 7

No Name 1 

ANP 6 IET 1 Disp

26

27

31

32

29

P&W 2

19

12

15

23

Site 17

Site 4

102

97

WS INEL 1

98

99

 126A 

126B

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Local well identifier–Number only 

shows USGS well, other names 

are local well names

Well in the USGS water-quality

monitoring network and identifier

M14

14

ATRC

INTEC

RWMC

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

Radioactive Waste Management Complex

Advanced Test Reactor Complex

Figure 2. Location of aquifer wells in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routine, site-wide, water-quality monitoring program 

at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and vicinity, Idaho, December 2001.
Introduction 5

tac12-0785_fig03

89

87

RWMC M1SA

RWMC M3S

RWMC M7S

RWMC PROD

88

117

119

120

90

113o03’

43o30’

43o29’

113o02’

0 1,000 METERS

0 3,000 FEET

RWMC

Spreading area

43o35’

43o33’

34’

112o59’ 58’ 57’ 56’ 55’ 112o54’

ATRC

INTEC

Lincoln Boulevard

33

Big

Lost

River

Site 19

65

79

76

84

39

35

34

36

37

38

112

113

85

CFA LF 2-10

82

67

116

115

20

114

77

111

57

51

123

52

121

CPP 1

CPP 2

TRA 3

TRA

DISP

TRA 1

TRA 4

41

42

43

44

45

46 47

48

40

58

MTR TEST

CPP 5

50

72 68

73

63

54

69

60

61

62

66

CWP 3

CWP 2

CWP 1

PW 8

PW 6

PW 1

PW 2

PW 4

PW 3

PW 5

EXPLANATION

Local well identifier–Number only 

shows USGS well, other names 

are local well names

Well in the USGS water-quality

monitoring network and identifier

M14S

14

ATRC

INTEC

RWMC

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

Radioactive Waste Management Complex

Advanced Test Reactor Complex

Figure 3. Location of aquifer wells in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routine, site-wide, water-quality 

monitoring program at the Advanced Test Reactor Complex, Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering 

Center, and Radioactive Waste Management Complex at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, December 

2001. 
6 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

tac12-0785_fig04

Idaho Nuclear

Technology and

Engineering Center

Advanced Test Reactor Complex

Chemical-waste pond

Sanitary-waste pond

Evaporation ponds

Radioactive-waste ponds

Cold-waste ponds

Infiltration ponds

Big

Lost

River

Radioactive Waste

Management Complex

Subsurface

Disposal 

Area Transuranic

Storage

Area

0

0

3,000 FEET

1,000 METERS

0

0

3,000 FEET

1,000 METERS

PW 9

PW 8

PW 7

USGS 78

USGS 74

USGS 73

USGS 72

USGS 70

USGS 69

USGS 68

USGS 66

USGS 63

USGS 62

USGS 56

USGS 55

TRA A 77

USGS 60

USGS 53

USGS 61

CWP 8

CWP 5

CWP 7

CWP 6

CWP 4

CWP 3

CWP 1

CWP 2

TRA A 13

USGS 54

PW 6 PW 3

USGS 50

PW 5

PW 4

PW 2

PW 1 SWP 8

Disposal

Well

SWP 13

USGS 92

USGS 71

113°03’ 113°02’30”

43°35’

43°34’

112°58’ 112°56’

43°30’

43°29’30”

EXPLANATION

PW 6 Well in the USGS water-quality monitoring network— Entry, 

 PW 6, is local well identifier.

Figure 4. Location of perched groundwater wells in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) routine, site-wide, water-quality 

monitoring program at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, December 2001.
Methods 7

Previous Investigations

Quality-control results previously were presented in 

reports for the routine, on-site, monitoring program by 

Wegner (1989) and Williams (1996, 1997); for the local, 

on-site, monitoring program at the Naval Reactors Facility 

by Williams (1996, 1997) and Knobel and others (1999a); for 

off-site monitoring programs by Williams and others (1998) 

and Rattray and Campbell (2003); and for special on-site 

studies by Knobel and others (1999b) and Bartholomay and 

Twining (2010). Many of the results from previous reports 

are not directly comparable to the results presented in this 

report because the sample collection methods were different 

(Bartholomay and Twining, 2010) or laboratories other 

than the NWQL or the RESL were used for chemical or 

radiochemical analyses, respectively (Wegner, 1989; Williams, 

1996; Williams and others, 1998; Knobel and others, 1999a, 

1999b; Rattray and Campbell, 2003).

Methods

Collection of Quality-Control Samples

About 10 percent of the samples collected by the INLPO 

are dedicated to field QC samples (Mann, 1996, p. 12). Field 

QC samples collected from 1996 to 2001 included replicates 

and blanks.

Replicates

The INLPO generally collects a replicate from a 

sampling site with the longest interval of time, relative to all 

other sampling sites, since a replicate was last collected. This 

approximates a rotational sequence for collecting replicates 

from sampling sites and ensures that, during a period of 

several years, replicates are collected from most of the 

sampling sites. From 1996 to 2001, replicates were collected 

at 151 of the 173 sampling sites.

Replicates (also called replicate pairs) consisted of two 

water samples, an environmental sample and a replicate 

sample, with the replicate sample collected immediately after 

collection of the environmental sample. Replicates were 

submitted blind to the analytical laboratories, ensuring that the 

laboratories did not know the source of the water or that the 

samples were replicates. The replicate (and environmental) 

samples were collected in accordance with established 

sample-collection procedures and guidelines documented 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (2006) and the INLPO 

quality-assurance plan (Mann, 1996). Equipment used during 

sample collection included sample bottles, capsule filters, 

Tygon® tubing, stainless steel pipes at wells with dedicated 

submersible pumps, bailers or a portable pump and tubing 

at wells without dedicated submersible pumps, and a churn 

splitter at surface water sites. Equipment and bottles were 

cleaned and rinsed in accordance with procedures described 

in Mann (1996, p. 6). Samples from pumped water were 

collected at wells after purging at least three wellbore volumes 

of water and after stable values of pH, specific conductivity, 

and temperature were measured. After sample collection, 

preservatives were added to sample bottles (if required), and 

the bottles were capped, labeled, chilled (if required), and 

stored in the USGS laboratory at the INL until delivery to the 

analytical laboratory. Sample bottles, with chain-of-custody 

forms, were mailed twice a week to the NWQL in sealed 

coolers and delivered by hand to the RESL at the end of each 

sampling event.

Blanks

The types of blanks collected included equipment, field, 

and source-solution blanks. The source solution blank was 

collected at the USGS laboratory at the INL. Equipment and 

field blanks were collected inside a USGS field camper at a 

sampling site.

Collection of equipment blanks consisted of field 

rinsing the bailer or portable pump and tubing in the same 

manner as for environmental samples—by rinsing the bailer 

with source solution or by passing a conditioning volume of 

source solution through the portable pump and tubing. For 

equipment blanks collected using the bailer, source solution 

was poured into the rinsed bailer and then poured from the 

bailer into a pitcher. For equipment blanks collected using 

the portable pump, source solution was pumped through the 

pump and tubing into a pitcher. For field and source-solution 

blanks, deionized water (DIW) source solution was poured 

into the pitcher for samples requiring filtration. The source 

solution was not filtered if inorganic blank water (IBW) was 

the source solution. Sample bottles for equipment, field, and 

source-solution blanks were then filled by pouring the source 

solution from the pitcher or source-solution bottle directly into 

the sample bottles, or by filtering DIW source solution into 

sample bottles. Bottles for all blank samples were preserved, 

stored, handled, and shipped as described for the replicates. 

Source solutions for the blanks consisted of DIW, which had 

been previously determined to be a suitable source solution 

for blanks (Williams, 1997, p. 23), and IBW purchased from 

the USGS Ocala Water Quality and Research Laboratory and 

certified to be free of the constituents of interest.
8 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Analytical Methods and Data Reporting 

Conventions

The QC (and environmental) samples were submitted to 

the DOE Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory 

(RESL) for analysis of radiochemical constituents and the 

USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) for 

analysis of inorganic and organic constituents. Constituent 

analyses included:

• Radiochemical constituents

• gross-alpha, gross-beta, and gamma radioactivity

• tritium and strontium-90

• plutonium-238, plutonium-239+240, and 

americium-241

• Inorganic constituents

• major ions (sodium, chloride, fluoride, sulfate)

• nutrients (ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, nitrite, 

orthophosphate)

• metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, 

beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, 

manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, 

silver, thallium, uranium, zinc, total dissolved 

chromium, hexavalent chromium)

• Organic constituents

• volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

• total organic carbon (TOC).

Analytical methods used by the RESL are described by 

Bodnar and Percival (1982) and U.S. Department of Energy 

(1995). Analytical methods used by the NWQL are described 

by Goerlitz and Brown (1972), Thatcher and others (1977), 

Skougstad and others (1979), Barnett and Mallory (1971), 

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

Faires (1992), Fishman (1993), and Rose and Schroeder 

(1995). 

Laboratory QA/QC practices are described in analytical 

method documents as well as by Bodnar and Percival (1982) 

and the U.S. Department of Energy (1995) for the RESL and 

Friedman and Erdmann (1982) and Pritt and Raese (1995) for 

the NWQL. Summaries of NWQL QC data for 1996–2001 

are presented by Ludtke and others (1999, 2000) and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (2012a, b).

The RESL reports combined standard uncertainties 

(CSUs) with their analytical results. These propagated random 

uncertainties were calculated using variables such as yields, 

appropriate half-lives, counting efficiencies, and count 

times and are reported at a confidence level of one standard 

deviation (Williams, 1997, p. 10). A lower CSU relative to the 

result indicates a lower measurement uncertainty, and a higher 

CSU relative to the result indicates a higher measurement 

uncertainty.

Reporting levels used by the NWQL include minimum 

reporting levels (MRLs), long-term method detection levels 

(LT-MDLs), and laboratory reporting levels (LRLs) (Childress 

and others, 1999). The MRL is the smallest measured 

constituent concentration that can be reliably reported using 

a specific analytical method (Timme, 1995). The LT-MDL is 

determined by calculating the standard deviation of a sample 

with at least 24 spike sample measurements over an extended 

period of time (Childress and others, 1999, p. 19). The LRL 

generally is equal to twice the yearly-determined LT-MDL 

(Childress and others, 1999, p. 19). Results that are between 

the LT-MDL and the LRL, or between the LRL and the lowest 

calibration standard, are reported with the “E” remark code 

(Childress and others, 1999, p. 9), which means the result is 

estimated and has a greater uncertainty than data without the 

“E” remark. Non-detections were reported by the NWQL as 

censored values (reported with the “<” symbol) that were less 

than the MRL or LRL. Table 1 (at back of report) lists the 

MRLs and LRLs for the inorganic and organic constituents 

discussed in this report.

Statistical Methods

The normalized absolute difference (NAD) and the 

relative standard deviation (RSD) were calculated to 

estimate the reproducibility of radiochemical and chemical 

measurements, respectively. Pooled RSDs were calculated to 

estimate the reliability of measurements for all constituents. 

The potential bias of environmental samples was estimated 

from constituent concentrations from blank samples using 

order statistics and binomial probability.

Normalized Absolute Difference

Normalized absolute differences were calculated from 

radiochemical concentrations and their CSUs. The NAD 

then was used to test the null hypothesis that a pair of 

radiochemical measurements did not differ significantly when 

compared to their CSUs (Williams, 1996, p. 11–15; Parr and 

Porterfield, 1997, p. 30; McCurdy and others, 2008, p. 15). 

Instead of setting a value approximately equal to two times 

the CSU as a test of equivalence, the significance level, which 

indicates the weight of the evidence to accept or reject the 

null hypothesis of x ± CSUx = y ± CSUy, was determined 

using the NAD as the test statistic. At an NAD of 1.96, the 

significance level was 0.05 (assuming a normal distribution 

and a two-tailed test), the probability of error was 0.05, and 

the decision of whether or not concentrations were the same 

was determined at the 95-percent confidence level. Thus, 

for an NAD less than or equal to 1.96, the NAD was within 

the 95-percent confidence interval, the null hypothesis was 

accepted, and the concentrations did not differ significantly. 

Concentrations were considered significantly different when 

the NAD was greater than 1.96.
Methods 9

The equation for calculating the NAD is:

 (1)

where

x is the concentration of a radiochemical in the 

environmental sample,

y is the concentration of the same 

radiochemical in the replicate sample,

CSUx is the combined standard uncertainty of x at 

the 1σ confidence level, and

CSUy is the combined standard uncertainty of y at 

the 1σ confidence level.

Relative Standard Deviation

The RSD is the percent coefficient of variation (CV) and 

was calculated as (Taylor, 1987):

RSD C= × V p 100 ercent (2)

The CV was calculated as:

CV = s

x

(3)

where

s is the standard deviation for a constituent 

from a replicate pair, and

x is the mean concentration for the same 

constituent and replicate pair.

The standard deviations and mean concentrations for 

constituents from replicate pairs were calculated as:

s

x x

n

i

n

i = −

−

∑ =1

2

1

( ) (4)

and

x

x

n

i

n

i = ∑ =1 (5)

where

xi is a constituent concentration from the 

replicate pair, and

n is 2, the number of constituent concentrations 

from the replicate pair.

The standard deviation and mean concentration used for 

calculating pooled relative standard deviations were calculated 

as:

s

s

pooled

i

k

i i

i

k

i

= =

=

∑

∑

1

2

1

ν

ν

(6)

and

x

x

k pooled

i

k

i = =

∑

1

2

2

(7)

where

k is the number of replicate pairs with results 

for the constituent of interest, and

	 ν	 is the degrees of freedom for spooled and is 

equal to k.

Binomial Probability

The distribution of constituent concentrations from blank 

samples was highly skewed, so a non-parametric statistical 

method was used to estimate the potential bias of constituents 

from blank sample measurements. The statistical method 

used here, using order statistics (with the ranking from low 

to high concentration) and binomial probability (Mueller, 

1998, p. 5–6), determined a one-sided confidence interval, or 

a confidence level (cl) that represented “the probability that 

m observed values from a total of n observations are less than 

or equal to the 100pth percentile of the sampled population” 

(Mueller, 1998, p. 5). The confidence level was calculated as:

cl = Prob (n m, , p) (8)

At the 100cl, the concentration of the m+1 ranked observation 

represented the concentration that exceeded 100p percent of 

the values in the population. Because of the small number 

of blank samples collected, p-values of 0.70 and 0.80 were 

used instead of the more inclusive value of 0.95 and the 

m+1 ranked observation was always equal to the nth ranked 

observation. For example, for a set of 13 field blanks (n = 

13), any contamination bias in the population of field blanks 

(and associated environmental samples) was estimated with a 

confidence level (cl) of 95 percent to be below the13th-highest 

(m+1 ranked) field blank concentration for at least 80 percent 

of the samples (p = 0.80).

NAD  = −

+

x y

CSU C x y SU 2 2
10 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Quality-Control Results

Variability

Variability was evaluated with measures of 

reproducibility and reliability. Reproducibility was calculated 

from paired measurements from replicates as normalized 

absolute difference (NAD) and relative standard deviation 

(RSD). The NADs and RSDs, as well as paired measurements 

with censored or estimated values for which RSDs were not 

calculated, were compared to specified criteria to determine 

if the paired measurements had acceptable reproducibility. 

Reliability was estimated from pooled RSDs.

Reproducibility

Reproducibility was estimated from calculations of 

NADs for radiochemical constituents (tables 2–4; at back 

of report) and RSDs for inorganic and organic constituents 

(tables 5–10; at back of report). (Statistical calculations 

were done using unrounded concentration data and, because 

concentrations in results tables were rounded to the least 

significant figure, the statistical results presented in the 

tables may differ slightly from statistical calculations 

using concentration results in the tables). Relative standard 

deviations were used to determine the reproducibility of 

inorganic and organic constituents because uncertainties, 

which are necessary for calculating NADs, were not provided 

with results for these constituents. The calculated NADs 

and RSDs, as well as paired measurements with censored or 

estimated concentrations for which RSDs were not calculated, 

were compared to criteria previously used by the INLPO and 

(or) the State of Idaho INL Oversight Program to determine 

if the paired measurements had acceptable reproducibility. 

The reproducibility for a constituent from a replicate pair was 

considered acceptable if:

1. the NAD was less than or equal to 1.96 (Williams, 1996, 

p. 14; Bartholomay and Twining, 2010, p. 14–15),

2. the RSD was less than 14 percent (this corresponds to the 

relative percent difference of less than 20 percent used by 

the Idaho National Laboratory Oversight Program [2002, 

p. 5–22] and Bartholomay and Twining [2010, p. 15]),

3. both measurements were censored and (or) estimated 

because they were less than the reporting level for that 

analysis (Williams, 1996, p. 15), or

4. one measurement was censored or estimated and the 

other measurement was within one detection limit of 

the larger of the estimated value or the reporting level, 

or the measurements were within one detection limit 

of each other (Idaho National Laboratory Oversight 

Program, 2002, p. 5–22). For results reported using the 

LRL as the reporting level, the detection limit was the 

LT-MDL (one- half of the LRL). For results reported with 

the MRL as the reporting level, the detection limit was 

approximated as one-half of the MRL.

If the percentage of paired measurements with acceptable 

reproducibility for a constituent was greater than or equal to 

90 percent, then the reproducibility for that constituent was 

considered acceptable for the period 1996–2001 (table 11, 

at back of report). If the percentage was less than 90 percent 

for a constituent, then the results for that constituent were 

investigated further (Idaho National Laboratory Oversight 

Program, 2002, p. 6–4).

There were 63 replicate pairs with measurements 

of gross-alpha and gross-beta radioactivity, 93 with 

measurements of gamma radioactivity (all gamma 

radionuclide results were less than reporting levels, so 

only cesium-137 was reported by the RESL), 204 with 

measurements of tritium, 123 with measurements of 

strontium-90, and 28 with measurements of the plutonium and 

americium radionuclides (tables 2–4). All these radiochemical 

constituents had acceptable reproducibility (that is, NAD 

≤1.96) between their paired measurements except for 

one result for americium-241, two results for gross-beta 

radioactivity and cesium-137, four results for strontium-90, 

and eight results for tritium. NADs calculated for two replicate 

pairs for gross-beta radioactivity (9.10 and 8.73 in October 

1996) and two replicate pairs for tritium (8.72 and 8.01 in 

April 2001) that did not have acceptable reproducibility were 

a result of switched sample bottles at the USGS laboratory 

at the INL or at the RESL. Measurements from switched 

sample bottles are easily detected if water from the two 

sites had large differences in concentration (incorrect results 

identified in this report as resulting from switched sample 

bottles were subsequently corrected in the USGS National 

Water Information System database). The percentage of 

paired measurements with acceptable reproducibility for each 

radiochemical constituent was greater than or equal to 96 

percent (table 11).

There were 131, 202, 7, and 83 replicate pairs with 

measurements of sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate, 

respectively, and 98 with measurements of each of the nutrient 

species (tables 5, 6, and 11). All paired measurements of major 

ions and nutrients had acceptable reproducibility except for 

5 results for chloride, 7 for ammonia, 4 for nitrate + nitrite 

(the aquifer is an oxidizing environment, so nitrate + nitrite 

will hereafter be referred to as nitrate), 3 for nitrite, and 11 for 

orthophosphate. Two of the RSDs calculated for chloride (117 

and 117 percent in April 1998; table 5) and nitrate (97 and 96 

percent in October 1998; table 6) that did not have acceptable 

reproducibility were a result of switched sample bottles. 

The percentage of paired measurements with acceptable 

reproducibility was greater than or equal to 90 percent for each 

constituent except for orthophosphate (89 percent). Because 

relative variability generally increases as concentrations 

decrease, the slightly lower percentage of acceptable results 

for orthophosphate probably was a result of the consistently 

low concentrations measured for this constituent. Of 196 
Quality-Control Results 11

that the measurements for that constituent and concentration 

range met a minimum objective for reliability. However, 

pooled RSDs provide a precise measure of reliability (which 

increases as pooled RSDs decrease) that can be used to 

calculate confidence limits for water-quality measurements 

(Martin, 2002, p. 50–51).

The RSDs calculated for replicate pairs were used to 

identify appropriate concentration ranges for each constituent 

to evaluate reliability with pooled RSDs (relative standard 

deviations were calculated for radiochemical constituents to 

calculate the pooled RSDs and were calculated for a replicate 

pair only if both radiochemical concentrations equaled 

or exceeded the method detection limit and the minimum 

detectable concentration (MDC) of three times the CSU 

[Mann, 1996, p. 33–36]). Discrete concentration ranges were 

selected for each constituent by plotting the RSD and mean 

constituent concentration for each replicate pair and grouping 

concentration ranges based on differences in the ranges of 

plotted RSDs. For example, figure 5 shows a plot of RSDs and 

mean sodium concentrations from replicate pairs. The range of 

RSDs was largest, 0 to 13 percent, for a sodium concentration 

range of 5 mg/L (the lowest concentration measured) to less 

than 30 mg/L. A smaller range of RSDs, 0–4.0 percent, was 

calculated for a concentration range of 30–180 mg/L, and an 

RSD of 1.3 percent was calculated from a replicate pair with a 

mean sodium concentration of 668 mg/L (table 12).

Relative standard deviations were not calculated for 

gross-alpha radioactivity, cesium-137, plutonium-238, 

plutonium-239+240, and americium-241 because none of the 

replicate pairs had concentrations that exceeded the MDC 

for these constituents. Relative standard deviations were 

calculated from 7 replicate pairs for gross-beta radioactivity, 

74 for tritium, and 25 for strontium-90. Pooled RSDs for 

gross-beta radioactivity were 18 percent for the concentration 

range 6.0 to 12 pCi/L as Cs-137 and 17 percent for the 

concentration range 50 to 60 pCi/L as Cs-137 (table 12). 

The low concentration range was within three times the 

method detection limit of 4 pCi/L for gross-beta radioactivity 

(Mann, 1996, p. 35); therefore, the high variability and 

low measurement reliability at these concentrations was a 

reasonable result. Pooled RSDs for tritium were calculated 

for three concentration ranges: 500 to less than 2,000, 2,000 

to less than 20,000, and 20,000 to 80,000 pCi/L. The pooled 

RSDs for tritium, 8.4, 7.2, and 1.3 percent, respectively, 

decreased as concentrations increased, and indicated a 

low variability and high reliability for measurements of 

tritium across all concentration ranges. Pooled RSDs for 

strontium-90 of 6.1 and 3.4 percent were calculated for 

concentration ranges of 12 to less than 25 and 25 to 250 

pCi/L, which indicated a low variability and high reliability 

for measurements of strontium-90 at these concentrations. A 

pooled RSD for strontium-90 of 23 percent was calculated 

for the concentration range 6.0 to less than 12 pCi/L. The 

low measurement reliability for this concentration range was 

attributed to concentrations near the method detection limit of 

5 pCi/L (Mann, 1996, p. 35).

orthophosphate measurements from replicate pairs, 194 

were less than or equal to 0.045 mg/L as phosphorous and 

were less than or equal to three times the reporting level for 

orthophosphate.

There were 97 replicate pairs with measurements of 

total dissolved chromium, 19 for hexavalent chromium, 5 

for selenium and thallium, and 10 for all the other metals 

(tables 7, 8, and 11). All paired measurements of metals 

had acceptable reproducibility except one result each for 

aluminum, arsenic, manganese, and nickel, two results 

for zinc, four results for chromium, and nine results for 

hexavalent chromium. The percentage of paired measurements 

with acceptable reproducibility was greater than or equal to 90 

percent for all of the metals except for zinc (80 percent) and 

hexavalent chromium (53 percent). Zinc concentrations were 

less than or equal to 3 μg/L for the two paired measurements 

for zinc without acceptable reproducibility, which was less 

than or equal to three times the reporting level for zinc. 

This indicates that, like orthophosphate, the larger relative 

variability for zinc was a result of zinc concentrations near the 

reporting level. The large variability and low reproducibility 

for measurements of hexavalent chromium were probably 

related to the inability to preserve hexavalent chromium after 

collection of the water sample (Rogerson and others, 1997).

There were 32 replicate pairs with measurements 

of VOCs (table 11), although only 1,1-dichloroethene, 

tetrachloroethene, tetrachloromethane, toluene, 

1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and trichloromethane 

had replicate pairs with concentrations that exceeded the 

reporting level (table 9). For these VOCs, the reproducibility 

was acceptable for all the calculated RSDs except for 

one result each for tetrachloroethene, toluene, and 

1,1,1-trichloroethane. The percentage of paired measurements 

with acceptable reproducibility was 97 percent for 

tetrachloroethene, toluene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 100 

percent for all other VOCs.

There were 21 replicate pairs with measurements of TOC 

(tables 10 and 11), and reproducibility was acceptable in 8 (38 

percent) of the paired measurements. The NWQL presented 

laboratory QA results for organic constituents (available for 

December 1999–December 2001) that consistently showed 

variable recovery of TOC (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012b), 

which indicates reproducibility issues with the laboratory 

method.

Reliability

The reliability of radiochemical, inorganic, and organic 

constituents was estimated, for discrete concentration ranges, 

as a pooled RSD (table 12, at back of report). Reliability 

was estimated for discrete concentration ranges because 

(1) pooled RSDs should be calculated from samples with 

similar variability (Taylor, 1987, p. 22) and (2) variability and 

RSDs are a function of concentration (Martin, 2002, p. 35). 

Generally, variability and RSDs decrease as concentrations 

increase. Qualitatively, and using the criterion specified for 

reproducibility, pooled RSDs less than 14 percent indicated 
12 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Pooled RSDs for the major ions (from RSDs calculated 

from 131 replicate pairs for sodium, 202 for chloride, 7 for 

fluoride, and 83 for sulfate) ranged from 1.3 to 3.2 percent 

for sodium, 1.5 to 14 percent for chloride, 6.6 percent for 

fluoride, and 1.5 to 1.8 percent for sulfate. The pooled RSD 

for chloride concentrations ranging from 20 to less than 60 

mg/L was 14 percent. This result was calculated from 43 

replicate pairs, and 41 of the calculated RSDs were less than 

or equal to 3.6 percent. Additionally, the pooled RSD for 

chloride concentrations ranging from 60 to 350 mg/L, 1.5 

percent, did not include results from two replicate pairs with 

switched sample bottles (these results were excluded from the 

pooled RSD calculations because any environmental samples 

with a similar large difference in concentration because of 

switched sample bottles, when compared to the long record of 

historical concentrations for the particular site, would be easily 

detected). The pooled RSDs for the major ions indicate that 

measurements of the major ions had low variability and high 

reliability.

Pooled RSDs for nutrients were determined from RSDs 

calculated from 16 replicate pairs for ammonia, 98 for nitrate, 

7 for nitrite, and 55 for orthophosphate (table 12). One RSD 

each was calculated for ammonia and orthophosphate from 

a mean replicate concentration that exceeded three times 

their reporting levels. The RSDs, 0.9 and 7.6 percent for 

ammonia and orthophosphate, respectively, showed low 

variability and high reliability for these measurements. For 

concentrations near their reporting levels, pooled RSDs for 

ammonia, nitrite, and orthophosphate were 23, 17, and 16 

percent, respectively, and showed low measurement reliability. 

Pooled RSDs for nitrate + nitrite, for concentration ranges of 

0.3 to less than 0.7, 0.7 to 6.0, and 10 to 60 mg/L as nitrogen 

(N), were 2.0, 3.9, and 17 percent, respectively. The pooled 

RSD of 3.9 percent was calculated after excluding results 

from two replicate pairs with switched sample bottles, and 

the pooled RSD of 17 percent was calculated from two 

replicate pairs with RSDs less than or equal to 1.3 percent 

and one replicate pair with an RSD of 88 percent. Except for 

a few measurements, nitrate showed low variability and high 

reliability.

The pooled RSDs for metals were calculated from results 

of 1 to 4 replicate pairs for antimony, cadmium, cobalt, copper, 

lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium; 8 to 11 replicate 

pairs for aluminum, arsenic, barium, molybdenum, uranium, 

zinc, and hexavalent chromium; and 38 replicate pairs for 

chromium. Antimony, barium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, 

manganese, molybdenum, and uranium had pooled RSDs of 

less than or equal to 6.4, indicating low variability and high 

reliability for measurements of these metals. Pooled RSDs 

for aluminum and arsenic were 12 percent, and for nickel 

and selenium were 22 and 15 percent, respectively. The high 

variability and low reliability for measurements of nickel 

and selenium were attributed to measured concentrations 

near their reporting levels. Pooled RSDs were calculated for 

two concentration ranges of zinc and hexavalent chromium 

and three concentration ranges of chromium. The low 

concentration range for zinc, 1.0 to 3.0 μg/L, was near the 

reporting level of 1 μg/L for zinc and had a pooled RSD 

Figure 5. Variability of sodium as a function of sodium concentration. Gray rectangles indicate three discrete 

concentration ranges with different ranges of variability (shown as relative standard deviations).

tac12-0785_fig05

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 

Relative standard deviation of sodium for replicate pairs, in percent

Mean concentration of sodium in replicate pairs, in milligrams per liter
Quality-Control Results 13

of 33 percent. At the high concentration range for zinc, 10 

to 400 μg/L, the pooled RSD of 1.2 percent indicates high 

measurement reliability. The three concentration ranges for 

chromium, 2.0 to less than 13, 13 to 40, and 70 to 200 μg/L 

had pooled RSDs of 11, 5.1, and 1.2 percent, respectively. 

This indicates that reliability of chromium measurements 

was high across all concentration ranges. The reliability of 

measurements of hexavalent chromium was low, with pooled 

RSDs for the low and high concentration ranges of 40 and 

51 percent. The high variability for hexavalent chromium 

probably was related to the inability to preserve hexavalent 

chromium after collection of the water sample (see section 

“Quality Control Results”).

Pooled RSDs for the seven VOCs with replicate pair 

concentrations greater than reporting levels were calculated 

from 16 or fewer replicate pairs. The pooled RSDs for 

1,1-dichloroethene, tetrachloromethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 

trichloroethene, and trichloromethane were less than or equal 

to 5.6 percent, indicating low variability and high reliability 

for measurements of these VOCs. The pooled RSD was 21 

percent for tetrachloroethene and 30 percent for toluene. The 

higher variability for these VOCs was attributed to their low 

measured concentrations that were at or near their respective 

reporting levels.

The pooled RSD for total organic carbon (TOC), 

calculated from results of 13 replicate pairs where both TOC 

concentrations exceeded the reporting level, was 60 percent. 

The NWQL presented laboratory QA results for organic 

constituents (available for December 1999–December 2001) 

that consistently showed variable recovery of TOC (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2012b). Consequently, the high variability 

and low reliability of TOC measurements was attributed to 

variability in the laboratory method. Because the laboratory 

method was unreliable during the study period, the INLPO 

will evaluate future QC results for TOC to determine if 

collection of TOC samples should be continued.

Bias

Bias was estimated from field, equipment, and source 

solution blanks. Field blanks were collected to estimate 

the potential contamination bias of selected constituents in 

environmental samples caused by the preservation, storage, 

handling, shipping, processing, and analysis of the blanks and 

samples. The field blanks did not include any contamination 

bias from equipment, such as the dedicated pumps and casing 

present in most wells or the portable sampling equipment 

used at 21 wells (Mann, 1996, p. 21–29; Bartholomay and 

others, 2003, p. 26–34). Equipment blanks were used to 

estimate the potential bias of selected constituents from cross 

contamination of samples collected with portable sampling 

equipment. A source-solution blank was collected to confirm 

that the deionized water (DIW) used as a source solution for 

some blanks was free of the constituents of interest. 

The criterion used to determine when a detectable 

concentration from a blank was due to inadvertent sample bias, 

rather than instrument background uncertainty (sometimes 

referred to as “noise”), was a concentration exceeding the 

method detection limit of 3 times the CSU for radiochemical 

constituents (Mann, 1996, p. 33–36) or a concentration 

exceeding the reporting level for inorganic and organic 

constituents. When a detectable constituent concentration was 

measured in a field or equipment blank sample, and if more 

than one field or one equipment blank result was available for 

that constituent, order statistics and the binomial probability 

distribution were used to estimate the potential contamination 

bias of the constituent in environmental samples. These 

statistical methods were used to calculate with 91, 93, or 95 

percent confidence that contamination bias in 70 or 80 percent 

of the water-quality measurements for a constituent was less 

than a specific concentration. The potential contamination 

bias of the constituent also was estimated as the percent of the 

lowest environmental concentration potentially affected. Using 

the lowest environmental concentration potentially affected 

provided a worst-case estimate of potential contamination bias.

Source-Solution Blank

The source-solution blank was collected on October 

28, 1996, to verify that the DIW used as a source solution 

for equipment and field blanks was free of the constituents 

of interest. The source-solution blank was analyzed for 

tritium, strontium-90, cesium-137, sodium, chloride, sulfate, 

chromium, and hexavalent chromium (table 13). The only 

constituent with a detectable concentration was hexavalent 

chromium, which had a measured concentration of 2 μg/L. 

The hexavalent chromium in the source-solution blank may 

have been present in the source solution, acquired during 

the preservation, storage, handling, shipping, processing, 

and analysis of the sample, or may be an artifact of high 

variability in the analytical method. Of the 117 measurements 

of hexavalent chromium from environmental samples in 1996, 

98 measurements were less than 20 μg/L. Consequently, if the 

positive bias was from a source other than the source solution, 

a bias of 2 μg/L could produce a bias of 10 percent or more in 

about 84 percent of the hexavalent chromium measurements. 

Field Blanks

Fourteen field blanks were collected from 1996 to 2001 

(table 13). The field blanks collected at sample sites included 

sample bottles for the same constituents as were collected for 

the environmental samples. Analysis of field blanks included 

tritium and strontium-90 from all 14 blanks, chloride from 

13 blanks, sodium and sulfate from 6 blanks, cesium-137 

and chromium from 5 blanks, and hexavalent chromium and 

ammonia from 1 blank (the field blank collected on April 

20, 1999, also included most of the remaining constituents 
14 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

discussed in this report, all of which were nondetects). 

A detectable concentration was measured for only two 

constituents. Chloride was detected in the field blank from 

April 25, 1996, at a concentration of 0.2 mg/L and ammonia 

was detected in the field blank from April 20, 1999, at a 

concentration of 0.03 mg/L as N. The source of chloride in 

the field blank could have been the DIW source solution 

or some unidentified source during the storage, handling, 

shipping, processing, and analysis of the sample. The source 

of ammonia may have occurred at the NWQL, because the 

laboratory shows a positive bias for ammonia in late-April 

1999 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012c), the period of time 

when the sample was analyzed.

The potential bias of chloride in all environmental 

samples was estimated using order statistics for the chloride 

concentrations from field blanks and the binomial probability 

distribution. The order ranking for the chloride measurements 

used the LT-MDL (<0.145 and <0.15) instead of the LRL 

(<0.29 and <0.30) for measurements from field blanks 

collected in 2000 and 2001 because these measurements, 

although reported as less than LRL, were actually less than 

LT-MDL (Childress and others, 1999, p. 8–9). There were 13 

chloride measurements from field blanks, and the 13th (or 

m+1) ranked concentration (that is, the maximum measured 

concentration from the blanks) was 0.2 mg/L. Using a p-value 

of 0.8 (probability of success in table 14), it was estimated 

with a confidence level (cl) of 95 percent that at least 80 

percent (100p percent) of the environmental samples had 

a chloride bias of less than 0.2 mg/L (table 14). Because 

the minimum concentration from the 1,987 environmental 

chloride concentrations measured was 2.6 mg/L, there 

is 95 percent confidence that at least 80 percent of the 

environmental samples had a potential bias of less than 

8 percent.

In April 1999, 43 environmental samples were collected 

that included measurements of ammonia and that could have 

been affected by a potential ammonia bias at the NWQL. 

Of these 43 samples, 35 measurements were less than the 

reporting level and did not have any detectable positive bias 

for ammonia. The other eight ammonia measurements ranged 

from 0.02 to 0.55 mg/L of N, and a potential bias of 0.03 mg/L 

as N would produce a bias of ammonia of as much as 5 to 

150 percent in these measurements.

Equipment Blanks

Twelve equipment blanks were collected (table 13). 

The equipment blanks included sample bottles for the same 

constituents as were collected for environmental samples at 

the site where the blank was collected. Tritium, strontium-90, 

and chloride were analyzed from all 12 equipment blanks; 

sodium, sulfate, and chromium were analyzed from 7 

equipment blanks; cesium-137 was analyzed from 4 

equipment blanks; and hexavalent chromium was analyzed 

from 3 equipment blanks. The radionuclides and chromium 

were not detected in any of the blanks, chloride was detected 

in four blanks, sodium in three blanks, and sulfate and 

hexavalent chromium were each detected in one blank. These 

detectable concentrations were not correlated with a specific 

type of equipment or sampling personnel, but three of the four 

chloride detections were from equipment blanks collected 

following collection of environmental samples at well PW 1 

(PW 1 had measured chloride concentrations of 133 to 386 

mg/L during 1996–2001).

Hexavalent chromium was detected in an equipment 

blank collected on October 28, 1996, at a concentration of 

2 μg/L. The same concentration was measured for the sourcesolution blank collected on the same day as the equipment 

blank, which indicates that the hexavalent chromium detected 

in the equipment blank probably is not from the portable 

sampling equipment.

The potential bias of chloride in environmental samples 

collected with portable sampling equipment was estimated 

from 12 chloride measurements from equipment blanks. The 

12th (or m+1) ranked concentration (that is, the maximum 

measured concentration from the blanks) was 0.55 mg/L. 

Using a p-value of 0.8 (probability of success in table 14), 

it was estimated with a confidence level (cl) of 93 percent 

that at least 80 percent (100p percent) of the environmental 

samples had a chloride bias of less than 0.55 mg/L (table 14). 

Because the minimum chloride concentration from 365 

chloride concentrations measured from environmental samples 

collected using portable sampling equipment was 3.1 mg/L, 

there is 93 percent confidence that at least 80 percent of 

these environmental samples had a potential bias of less than 

18 percent.

The potential bias of sodium and sulfate in environmental 

samples collected with portable sampling equipment was 

estimated from seven measurements of each constituent from 

equipment blanks. The maximum measured concentration 

from the equipment blanks for sodium and sulfate was 0.73 

and 0.57 mg/L, respectively. Using a p-value of 0.7, it was 

estimated with a confidence level of 91 percent that at least 

70 percent of these environmental samples had a sodium 

bias of less than 0.73 mg/L and a sulfate bias of less than 

0.57 mg/L. From 149 and 209 measurements of sodium 

and sulfate, respectively, the minimum sodium and sulfate 

concentrations measured from environmental samples 

collected using portable sampling equipment were 6.1 for 

sodium and 13 mg/L for sulfate (table 14). Consequently, 

there is 91 percent confidence that at least 70 percent of these 

environmental samples had a potential bias of less than 12 

percent for sodium and less than 5 percent for sulfate.
Summary and Conclusions 15

Summary and Conclusions

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

Department of Energy, has been studying the water quality 

of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer at and near the Idaho 

National Laboratory (INL) since 1949. The INL extends 

over about 890 square miles of the eastern Snake River Plain 

in southeastern Idaho and overlies about 8 percent of the 

fractured basalt sole-source aquifer. The U.S. Geological 

Survey began routine collection of water-quality samples 

in 1964 to monitor the concentrations and delineate the 

movement of radiochemical and chemical wastes discharged 

to the subsurface at the INL.

Beginning in 1980, quality-control samples were 

routinely collected at groundwater and surface water sites to 

ensure and document the quality of the environmental data. 

Quality-control samples collected from 1996 to 2001 included 

204 replicates and 27 blanks. Measurements from replicates 

were used to calculate the variability (as reproducibility and 

reliability) of environmental measurements of radiochemical, 

inorganic, and organic constituents due to sample collection 

and analysis. Measurements from field and equipment 

blanks were used to estimate the potential bias of selected 

constituents from (1) sample collection and analysis of 

environmental samples and (2) from cross contamination 

of environmental samples collected with portable sampling 

equipment.

Variability was calculated from paired measurements 

from replicates as the normalized absolute difference (NAD) 

for radiochemical constituents and the relative standard 

deviation (RSD) for inorganic and organic constituents. 

The NADs and RSDs, as well as paired measurements 

with censored or estimated concentrations for which RSDs 

were not calculated, were compared to specified criteria 

to determine if the paired measurements had acceptable 

reproducibility. If the percentage of paired measurements 

with acceptable reproducibility for a constituent was greater 

than or equal to 90 percent, then the reproducibility for 

that constituent was considered acceptable for the period 

1996–2001. The percentage of paired measurements with 

acceptable reproducibility was greater than 90 percent for all 

of the constituents except orthophosphate (89 percent), zinc 

(80 percent), hexavalent chromium (53 percent), and total 

organic carbon (TOC) (38 percent). The low reproducibility 

for orthophosphate and zinc were attributed to calculation 

of RSDs from replicates with low concentrations of these 

constituents. The low reproducibility for hexavalent chromium 

was attributed to the inability to preserve hexavalent 

chromium after collection of the water sample, and the low 

reproducibility for TOC was attributed to high variability with 

the analytical method.

The reliability of radiochemical, inorganic, and 

organic measurements was estimated from pooled RSDs 

that were calculated for discrete concentration ranges for 

each constituent. For most constituents, pooled RSDs were 

inversely correlated with concentration and, as a result, 

pooled RSDs often were higher and reliability was lower 

at low concentrations. For example, pooled RSDs of 15–33 

percent were calculated for low concentrations of gross-beta 

radioactivity, strontium-90, ammonia, nitrite, orthophosphate, 

nickel, selenium, zinc, tetrachloroethene, and toluene. Low 

pooled RSDs of 0–12 percent were calculated for all other 

concentration ranges of these constituents, and for all other 

constituents, except for one concentration range for gross-beta 

radioactivity, chloride, and nitrate + nitrite; two concentration 

ranges for hexavalent chromium; and for TOC. Pooled RSDs 

for the 50–60 picocuries per liter concentration range of grossbeta radioactivity (reported as cesium-137) and the 10–60 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) concentration range of nitrate + 

nitrite (reported as nitrogen [N]) were 17 percent. Chloride 

had a pooled RSD of 14 percent for the 20 to less than 60 

mg/L concentration range. High pooled RSDs of 40 and 51 

percent were calculated for two concentration ranges for 

hexavalent chromium and of 60 percent for TOC.

Measurements from (1) field blanks were used to 

estimate the potential bias associated with environmental 

samples from sample collection and analysis, (2) equipment 

blanks were used to estimate the potential bias from cross 

contamination of samples collected from wells where portable 

sampling equipment was used, and (3) a source-solution 

blank were used to verify that the deionized water sourcesolution was free of the constituents of interest. If more than 

one measurement was available, the bias was estimated using 

order statistics and the binomial probability distribution. 

The source-solution blank had a detectable concentration of 

hexavalent chromium of 2 micrograms per liter. If this bias 

was from a source other than the source solution, then about 

84 percent of the 117 hexavalent chromium measurements 

from environmental samples could have a bias of 10 

percent or more. Fourteen field blanks were collected, and 

only chloride (0.2 mg/L) and ammonia (0.03 mg/L as N), 

in one blank each, had detectable concentrations. It was 

estimated with a confidence level of 95 percent that at least 

80 percent of the 1,987 chloride concentrations measured 

from all environmental samples had a potential chloride 

bias of less than 8 percent. The ammonia bias, which may 

have occurred at the analytical laboratory, could produce a 

potential bias of 5–150 percent in eight potentially affected 

ammonia measurements. Twelve equipment blanks were 

collected, chloride was detected in four of these blanks, 

sodium in three blanks, and sulfate and hexavalent chromium 

were each detected in one blank. The concentration of 

hexavalent chromium in the equipment blank was the same 
16 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

concentration as in the source-solution blank collected on the 

same day, which indicates that the hexavalent chromium in 

the equipment blank is probably from a source other than the 

portable sampling equipment; for example, from the sample 

bottles or the source-solution water itself. The potential bias 

for chloride, sodium, and sulfate measurements was estimated 

for environmental samples collected using portable sampling 

equipment. For chloride, it was estimated with a confidence 

level of 93 percent that at least 80 percent of the measurements 

had a chloride bias of less than 18 percent. For sodium and 

sulfate, it was estimated with a confidence level of 91 percent 

that at least 70 percent of the measurements had a sodium or 

sulfate bias of less than 12 and 5 percent, respectively.

References Cited

Barnett, P.R., and Mallory, E.C., 1971, Determination of 

minor elements in water by emission spectroscopy: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 5, chap. A2, 31 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/twri05A2.)

Bartholomay, R.C., Knobel, L.L., and Rousseau, J.P., 2003, 

Field methods and quality-assurance plan for quality-ofwater activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003–42 

(DOE/ ID-22182), 45 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr0342.)

Bartholomay, R.C., and Twining, B.V., 2010, Chemical 

constituents in groundwater from multiple zones in the 

eastern Snake River Plain aquifer at the Idaho National 

Laboratory, 2005–2008: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010–5116 (DOE/ID-22211), 82 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

sir20105116.)

Bodnar, L.Z., and Percival, D.R., eds., 1982, Analytical 

Chemistry branch procedures manual—Radiological and 

Environmental Services Laboratory: U.S. Department of 

Energy Report IDO-12096, variously paged.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Conner, B.F., and Maloney, 

T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on long-term 

method detection levels and some considerations for 

interpretations of water-quality data provided by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr99193.)

Faires, L.M., 1992, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determinations of metals in water by inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectroscopy: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 92–634, 28 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr92634.)

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 OpenFile Report 93–125, 217 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr93125.)

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1989, Methods of 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

twri05A1.)

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

practices for the chemical and biological analyses of water 

and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

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

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

twri05A6.)

Goerlitz, D.F., and Brown, Eugene, 1972, Methods for 

analysis of organic substances in water: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

5, chap. A3, 40 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/twri05A3_1972.)

Idaho National Laboratory Oversight Program, 2002, 2001 

environmental surveillance report—A compilation and 

explanation of data collected by the INEEL Oversight 

Program during 2001: State of Idaho, variously paged.

Kateman, G., and Buydens, L., 1993, Quality control in 

analytical chemistry: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 

317 p. 

Knobel, L.L., Bartholomay, R.C., and Rousseau, J.P., 2005, 

Historical development of the U.S. Geological Survey 

Hydrologic Monitoring and Investigative Programs at the 

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 

Idaho, 1949 to 2001: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2005–1223 (DOE/ID-22195), 93 p. (Also available 

at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20051223.)

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

L.M., 1999a, Chemical and radiochemical constituents 

in water from wells in the vicinity of the Naval Reactors 

Facility, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1996: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 99–272 (DOE/ID-22160), 58 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr99272.)

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

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

ground water from 39 selected sites with an evaluation 

of quality assurance data, Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–246 

(DOE/ ID-22159), 58 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr99246.)
References Cited 17

Ludtke, A.S., Woodworth, M.T., and Marsh, P.S., 1999, 

Quality-assurance results for routine water analyses in 

U.S. Geological Survey laboratories, water year 1997: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99–4057, 186 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri994057.)

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

Quality-assurance results for routine water analyses in 

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

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

2000–4176, 198 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.

gov/publication/wri20004176.)

Mann, L.J., 1996, Quality-assurance plan and field 

methods for quality-of-water activities, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–615 

(DOE/ ID-22132), 37 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr96615.)

Martin, J.D., 2002, Variability of pesticide detections and 

concentrations in field replicate water samples collected for 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 1992–97: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 2001–4178, 84 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wri20014178.)

McCurdy, D.E, Garbarino, J.R., and Mullin, A.H., 2008, 

Interpreting and reporting radiological water-quality data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, 

chap. B6, 33 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/tm5B6.)

Mueller, D.K., 1998, Quality of nutrient data from streams and 

ground water sampled during 1993–95—National WaterQuality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 98–276, 25 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr98276.)

Nace, R.L., Stewart, J.W., Walton, W.C, and others, 1959, 

Geography, geology, and water resources of the National 

Reactor Testing Station, Idaho. Part 3—Hydrology and 

water resources: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho 

Operations Publication IDO-22033-USGS, 253 p.

Olmstead, F.H., 1962, Chemical and physical character of 

ground water in the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho: 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations Office 

Publication IDO-22043-USGS, 142 p.

Parr, J.G., and Porterfield, D.R., 1997, Evaluation of 

radiochemical data usability: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Environmental Management, es/er/ms-5, 67 p.

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

control manual—National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-443, 35 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr95443.)

Rattray, G.W., and Campbell, L.J., 2003, Radiochemical 

and chemical constituents in water from selected wells 

and springs from the southern boundary of the Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to 

the Hagerman area, Idaho, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2004–1004 (DOE/ID-22190), 22 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

ofr20041004.)

Robertson, J.B., Schoen, R., and Barraclough, J.T., 1974, The 

influence of liquid waste disposal on the geochemistry of 

the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho, 1952–1970: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report IDO-22053 

(73–238), 231 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr73238.)

Rogerson, P.F., Ardourel, Harold, and White, Ralph, 1997, 

Replacement or elimination of NWQL procedures: U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water-Quality Laboratory 

Technical Memorandum 1997.09, unpaged, accessed 

November 6, 2012, at http://wwwnwql.cr.usgs.gov/dyn.

shtml?techmemo.

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

Report 94–708–W, 26 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr94708W.)

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

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

of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations (2d ed.), book 5, chap. A1, 626 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

twri05A1_1979.)

Spiegel, M.R., 1998, Schaum’s outline of theory and problems 

of probability and statistics: New York, McGraw-Hill, 

372 p.
18 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Taylor, J.K., 1987, Quality assurance of chemical 

measurements: Chelsea, Mich., Lewis Publishers, Inc., 

328 p.

Thatcher, L.L., Janzer, V.J., and Edwards, K.W., 1977, 

Methods for the determination of radioactive substances 

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

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, 

chap. A5, 95 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/twri05A5.)

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

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

95–352, 120 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr95352.)

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995, Radiochemistry manual, 

revision 10: Idaho Falls, Idaho, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory, 

variously paged.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples 

(ver. 2.0, revised September 2006): U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chap. A4. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/twri09A4.)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012a, USGS Inorganic Blind 

Sample Project (IBSP)—Monitoring and evaluating the 

National Water Quality Laboratory’s Inorganic Analytical 

Data Quality: U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed 

September 27, 2012, at http://bqs.usgs.gov/ibsp/index.shtml.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012b, USGS Organic Blind Sample 

Project: U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed 

September 28, 2012, at http://bqs.usgs.gov/obsp/rp.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012c, USGS Inorganic Blind Sample 

Project (IBSP)—QADATA summaries: U.S. Geological 

Survey database accessed September 28, 2012, at http://bqs.

usgs.gov/ibsp/qadata.shtml.

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

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

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

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

89–4168 (DOE/ID-22085), 91 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri894168.)

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

L.E., eds., 1987, Methods for the determination of organic 

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

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

5, chap. A3, 80 p. (Also available 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. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964148.)

Williams, L.M., 1997, Evaluation of quality assurance/quality 

control data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for 

water-quality activities at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, Idaho, 1994 through 1995: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4058 

(DOE/ID-22136), 87 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974058.)

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

1998, Evaluation of quality-assurance/quality-control 

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

and springs between the southern boundary of the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory and the Hagerman area, 

Idaho, 1989 through 1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 98–4206 (DOE/ID-22150), 

83 p. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

wri984206.)
Tables 19

Table 1. Reporting levels and reporting level codes for constituents analyzed by 

the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory, 1996–2001.

[Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter, N, nitrogen, P, phosphorous, μg/L, micrograms per 

liter, MRL, minimum reporting level, LRL, laboratory reporting level]

Constituent Dates Reporting

level

Reporting 

level code

Sodium (mg/L) 01-01-96–12-22-97 0.2 MRL

12-12-97–09-30-98 0.1 MRL

10-01-98–09-30-99 0.06 LRL

10-01-99–10-17-00 0.09 LRL

10-18-00–09-30-01 0.06 LRL

10-01-01–12-31-01 0.09 LRL

Chloride (mg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-99 0.1 MRL

10-01-99–11-02-00 0.29 LRL

11-03-00–09-30-01 0.08 LRL

10-01-01–12-31-01 0.33 LRL

Fluoride (mg/L) 01-01-96–10-15-00 0.1 MRL

10-16-00–09-30-01 0.16 LRL

10-01-01–12-31-01 0.11 LRL

Sulfate (mg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-99 0.1 MRL

10-01-99–11-02-00 0.31 LRL

11-03-00–12-31-01 0.11 LRL

Ammonia (mg/L as N) 01-01-96–11-13-97 0.015 MRL

11-14-97–10-03-00 0.02 MRL

10-04-00–12-31-01 0.041 LRL

Nitrate + nitrite (mg/L as N) 01-01-96–10-03-00 0.05 MRL

10-04-00–12-31-01 0.047 LRL

Nitrite (mg/L as N) 01-01-96–09-30-00 0.01 MRL

10-01-00–09-30-01 0.006 LRL

10-01-01–12-31-01 0.008 LRL

Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) 01-01-96–10-03-00 0.01 MRL

10-04-00–12-31-01 0.018 LRL

Aluminum (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 1 MRL

Antimony (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.048 LRL

Arsenic (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-99 1 MRL

10-01-99–09-30-01 2 LRL

10-01-01–12-31-01 1.8 LRL

Barium (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 1 MRL

Beryllium (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-26-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.06 LRL

Cadmium (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-00 1 MRL

10-01-00-12-31-01 0.037 LRL

Cobalt (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-00 1 MRL

10-01-00-12-31-01 0.015 LRL

Copper (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.12 LRL

Lead (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.08 LRL
20 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Constituent Dates Reporting

level

Reporting 

level code

Manganese (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.1 MRL

Mercury (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-99 0.1 MRL

10-01-99–03-31-01 0.23 LRL

04-01-01–09-30-01 0.01 MRL

10-01-01–12-31-01 0.011 LRL

Molybdenum (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-26-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.2 LRL

Nickel (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.06 LRL

Selenium (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-26-99 1 MRL

10-01-99–09-30-01 2.4 LRL

10-01-01–12-31-01 2 LRL

Silver (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 1 MRL

Thallium (μg/L) 01-01-96–11-20-00 0.5 MRL

Uranium (μg/L) 01-01-96–09-26-00 1 MRL

10-01-00–12-31-01 0.018 LRL

Zinc (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 1 MRL

Chromium (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-22-97 5 MRL

12-23-97–09-30-98 14 MRL

10-01-98–10-17-00 14 LRL

10-18-00–12-31-01 10 LRL

01-01-96–09-30-99 1.0 MRL

10-01-99–05-14-01 0.4 LRL

Hexavalent chromium (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-96 1 MRL

1,1-dichlorethene (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 0.1 MRL

Tetrachloroethene (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 0.2 MRL

Tetrachloromethane (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 0.2 MRL

Toluene (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 0.2 MRL

1,1,1-trichloroethane (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 0.2 MRL

Trichloroethene (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 0.2 MRL

Trichloromethane (μg/L) 01-01-96–12-31-01 0.2 MRL

Total organic carbon (mg/L) 01-01-96–09-30-99 0.1 MRL

10-01-99–10-19-00 0.27 LRL

10-20-00–12-31-01 0.6 LRL

Table 1. Reporting levels and reporting level codes for constituents analyzed 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter, N, nitrogen, P, phosphorous, μg/L, micrograms per 

liter, MRL, minimum reporting level, LRL, laboratory reporting level]
Tables 21

Table 2. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for gross-alpha radioactivity, gross-beta 

radioactivity, and cesium-137 from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and 

vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Concentrations in table are rounded results, 

but normalized absolute differences (NADs) were calculated using unrounded concentrations. Abbreviations: pCi/L, picocuries per liter, 

Pu-239, plutonium-239; Cs-137, cesium-137; –, no data]

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Gross-alpha 

radioactivity 

Gross-beta 

radioactivity Cesium-137

(pCi/L as 

Pu-239) (NAD) (pCi/L as Cs-137) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 125 01-09-96 1.4±0.9 0.00 6±2 0.71 8±17 0.84

1.4±0.9 4±2 30±20

USGS 87 01-16-96 – – – – 20±20 1.06

– – -10±20

USGS 120 01-17-96 – – – – -20±40 0.45

– – 0±20

USGS 83 04-01-96 1.7±0.9 0.22 2±2 1.06 40±30 0.71

2±1 5±2 10±30

USGS 34 04-02-96 1.7±0.9 0.83 10±2 1.11 -15±26 0.10

0.7±0.8 14±3 -20±40

USGS 5 04-10-96 2±1 0.46 10±2 1.11 -17±25 0.53

1.4±0.9 14±3 0±20

USGS 117 04-16-96 – – – – -60±40 1.20

– – 0±30

USGS 9 04-16-96 1.4±0.9 0.91 3±2 0.35 30±20 0.23

0.3±0.8 2±2 24±17

USGS 109 04-17-96 0.7±0.8 0.23 5±2 0.71 0±40 0.33

1±1 3±2 15±22

TRA Disposal 04-18-96 – – – – 20±20 0.00

– – 20±40

Site 14 04-24-96 2.4±1.1 0.20 6±2 1.41 30±40 0.37

2±1 2±2 13±23

Leo Rogers 1 07-17-96 1±1 0.00 5±2 1.06 13±36 0.06

1±1 2±2 10±30

Big Lost River near Arco (BLR nr Arco) 10-07-96 0.3±0.8 1.33 2±2 0.31 20±30 0.47

2±1 1.1±2.1 0±30

No Name 1 10-14-96 2±1 1.02 54±5 9.10 10±20 1.11

0.7±0.8 5±2 -30±30

USGS 27 10-15-96 1±1 0.74 6±2 0.35 0±20 0.55

2±1 7±2 -20±30

USGS 77 10-17-96 1.7±0.9 0.49 8±2 0.71 -10±30 0.16

2.4±1.1 6±2 -16±24

USGS 38 10-25-96 1±1 0.55 3±2 8.73 -40±40 1.24

0.3±0.8 50±5 30±40

USGS 43 10-28-96 – – – – -30±30 0.00

– – -30±40

USGS 60 04-02-97 – – – – -30±30 0.00

– – -30±20

USGS 109 04-03-97 1±1 0.30 3±2 0.35 -12±25 0.57

1.4±0.9 2±2 12±34

USGS 86 04-03-97 0.7±0.8 0.35 4±2 0.35 -30±30 0.28

0.3±0.8 3±2 -40±20

NPR Test 04-08-97 0.3±0.8 0.35 3±2 0.00 20±30 0.00

0.7±0.8 3±2 20±30
22 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Gross-alpha 

radioactivity 

Gross-beta 

radioactivity Cesium-137

(pCi/L as 

Pu-239) (NAD) (pCi/L as Cs-137) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

Big Lost River at Experimental Dairy 

Farm near Howe (BLR at exp dairy 

farm nr Howe)

04-09-97 1±1 0.00 2±2 0.00 -70±30 1.39

1±1 2±2 -20±20

USGS 63 04-22-97 – – – – 1±16 0.42

– – -11±24

USGS 58 05-05-97 – – – – -14±22 0.54

– – -30±20

USGS 107 10-01-97 2.8±1.2 0.93 3±2 0.35 0±30 0.83

1.4±0.9 2±2 30±20

USGS 108 10-07-97 2.4±1.1 0.49 1.3±2.1 1.28 -10±21 1.03

1.7±0.9 5±2 20±20

USGS 37 10-08-97 – – – – 0±30 0.31

– – 13±29

USGS 8 10-08-97 2±1 0.00 1.1±2.1 0.38 -30±30 2.00

2±1 0±2 70±40

USGS 101 10-16-97 2±1 0.71 4±2 0.35 0±20 0.00

1±1 3±2 0±20

ANP 9 10-27-97 0.7±0.8 1.02 3±2 0.00 -12±24 0.17

2±1 3±2 -20±40

USGS 5 03-31-98 0.7±0.8 0.83 4±2 0.35 40±40 0.52

1.7±0.9 3±2 12±36 –

USGS 117 04-01-98 – – – – -20±30 0.00

– – -20±30

USGS 14 04-07-98 1±1 0.00 3±2 0.35 40±40 0.00

1±1 4±2 40±40

USGS 19 04-08-98 0.7±0.8 0.58 4±2 1.07 13±36 0.62

1.4±0.9 1.7±0.8 -14±25

USGS 7 04-13-98 1±1 0.52 6±2 1.41 20±40 1.24

1.7±0.9 2.9±0.9 -50±40

Highway 3 04-20-98 1.4±0.9 0.58 3±2 0.14 0±40 0.21

0.7±0.8 3.3±0.9 -11±35

USGS 65 04-28-98 1.4±0.9 0.52 4±2 0.71 30±40 0.80

2.1±1.0 6±2 -10±30

USGS 90 07-21-98 – – – – 10±20 0.13

– – 4±40

USGS 97 10-14-98 1.7±0.9 0.49 3±2 0.00 20±20 0.02

2.4±1.1 3±2 19±40

USGS 1 10-20-98 0.7±0.8 0.00 3±2 0.35 -30±40 1.41

0.7±0.8 4±2 50±40

USGS 110A 10-20-98 0.7±0.8 0.35 4±2 0.35 40±20 1.44

0.3±0.8 5±2 3±16

USGS 76 10-22-98 – – – – -30±20 0.83

– – 0±30

USGS 47 10-28-98 – – – – 20±40 0.67

– – -10±20

Table 2. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for gross-alpha radioactivity, gross-beta 

radioactivity, and cesium-137 from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and 

vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Concentrations in table are rounded results, 

but normalized absolute differences (NADs) were calculated using unrounded concentrations. Abbreviations: pCi/L, picocuries per liter, 

Pu-239, plutonium-239; Cs-137, cesium-137; –, no data]
Tables 23

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Gross-alpha 

radioactivity 

Gross-beta 

radioactivity Cesium-137

(pCi/L as 

Pu-239) (NAD) (pCi/L as Cs-137) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 88 01-13-99 – – – – 16±40 0.56

– – -12±30

USGS 40 01-19-99 – – – – 39±20 0.69

– – 8±40

USGS 83 04-01-99 0.7±0.8 0.25 3±2 0.00 -11±40 1.14

1±1 3±2 46±30

USGS 12 04-05-99 1.4±0.9 0.24 2±2 0.18 -2±30 0.24

1.7±0.9 1±2 10±40

EBR 1 04-13-99 1.7±0.9 0.55 3±2 0.00 8±20 1.03

1±1 3±2 -21±20

USGS 61 04-13-99 – – – – 10±20 0.71

– – -10±20

P AND W 2 04-14-99 1±1 0.55 2±2 0.00 -19±40 0.24

0.3±0.8 2±2 -7±20

Big Lost River below INL Diversion near 

Arco (BLR blw INL div nr Arco)

04-20-99 1±0.9 0.25 2±2 0.35 10±30 0.26

0.7±0.8 3±2 21±30

PW 2 04-22-99 – – – – 30±30 1.69

– – -31±20

USGS 46 04-22-99 – – – – 49±30 0.61

– – 23±30

CPP 1 04-26-99 0.3±0.8 1.16 5±2 0.35 25±10 1.74

1.7±0.9 6±2 -14±20

USGS 11 10-07-99 1.0±0.8 0.70 2±2 0.71 30±30 0.28

0.3±0.6 4±2 20±20

Big Lost River below Mackay Reservoir 

(BLR blw Mackay Reservoir)

10-07-99 2±1

1±1

0.71 1±2

2±2

0.35 -30±20

-30±40

0.00

USGS 34 10-14-99 0.7±0.7 0.28 10±2 0.00 -10±20 0.28

1.0±0.8 10±3 -20±30

USGS 50 10-20-99 – – – – 20±20 1.05

– – -17±29

USGS 58 10-21-99 – – – – -30±30 0.55

– – -10±20

USGS 105 10-25-99 1.0±0.8 0.00 4±2 0.35 52±33 1.02

1.0±0.9 5±2 13±19

USGS 23 10-27-99 2.0±0.9 0.79 6±2 1.06 12±31 0.74

1.0±0.9 3±2 -20±30

PSTF Test 04-04-00 2±1 0.71 5±2 0.00 -16±23 0.11

1±1 5±2 -20±30

USGS 98 04-04-00 1±1 0.65 3±2 0.71 28±16 0.53

0.3±0.6 5±2 10±30

USGS 12 04-05-00 0.7±0.7 0.28 3±2 0.35 10±20 1.11

1±1 4±2 -30±30

USGS 119 04-06-00 – – – – 30±30 0.83

– – 0±20

USGS 125 04-11-00 1±0.8 0.00 3±2 0.35 0±20 0.00

1±0.8 4±2 0±20

Table 2. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for gross-alpha radioactivity, gross-beta 

radioactivity, and cesium-137 from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and 

vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Concentrations in table are rounded results, 

but normalized absolute differences (NADs) were calculated using unrounded concentrations. Abbreviations: pCi/L, picocuries per liter, 

Pu-239, plutonium-239; Cs-137, cesium-137; –, no data]
24 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Gross-alpha 

radioactivity 

Gross-beta 

radioactivity Cesium-137

(pCi/L as 

Pu-239) (NAD) (pCi/L as Cs-137) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 26 04-12-00 1±1 0.00 3±2 0.71 -50±30 2.22

1±1 5±2 30±20

USGS 27 04-12-00 2±1 1.07 3±2 0.35 10±20 0.35

0.7±0.7 4±2 0±20

USGS 97 09-27-00 1±1 0.92 3±2 0.00 10±30 0.00

0.0±0.6 3±2 10±30

USGS 58 10-04-00 – – – – 10±30 0.71

– – 40±30

USGS 11 10-05-00 1±1 0.70 3±2 0.35 -20±20 0.30

0.3±0.6 2±2 -11±22

USGS 57 10-05-00 – – – – 20±40 0.80

– – 60±30

USGS 77 10-06-00 0.7±0.7 0.43 10±3 0.00 11±25 0.40

0.3±0.6 10±3 30±40

USGS 50 10-10-00 – – – – 10±30 0.00

– – 10±30

RWMC M13S 10-17-00 0.7±0.7 0.00 4±2 0.00 0±30 0.00

0.7±0.7 4±2 0±40

USGS 88 01-23-01 – – – – 30±30 0.28

– – 20±20

USGS 73 04-02-01 – – – – 56±39 0.82

– – 20±20

USGS 103 04-04-01 0.0±0.6 1.00 1.4±2.1 0.35 -11±35 0.40

1±1 2.5±2.2 10±40

USGS 17 04-04-01 0.3±0.6 0.70 1.5±2.1 1.16 -10±20 0.83

1±1 5.2±2.3 20±30

Site 14 04-05-01 0.7±0.7 1.07 1±2 0.35 50±33 1.30

2±1 2±2 0±20

USGS 9 04-11-01 1±1 0.28 3.2±2.2 0.74 0±30 0.47

0.7±0.7 1±2 -20±30

PW 4 04-12-01 – – – – 20±30 0.00

– – 20±16

RWMC M14S 04-17-01 0.3±0.6 1.02 2±2 0.24 -30±20 1.11

1.4±0.9 2.7±2.2 10±30

USGS 127 04-18-01 1.4±0.9 0.61 2±2 0.47 -10±30 0.76

0.7±0.7 3.4±2.2 15±14

USGS 44 04-24-01 – – – – 30±30 0.42

– – 15±20

CFA LF 2-10 04-30-01 0.0±0.6 0.35 5.1±2.3 0.50 15±30 0.30

0.3±0.6 3.5±2.2 0±40

USGS 84 04-30-01 1±1 0.00 -1.6±2.0 1.00 -20±40 0.16

1±1 1.3±2.1 -30±50

USGS 126A 07-10-01 1±1 0.33 4±2 0.95 30±30 0.60

1.4±0.9 1.3±2.0 0±40

Table 2. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for gross-alpha radioactivity, gross-beta 

radioactivity, and cesium-137 from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and 

vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Concentrations in table are rounded results, 

but normalized absolute differences (NADs) were calculated using unrounded concentrations. Abbreviations: pCi/L, picocuries per liter, 

Pu-239, plutonium-239; Cs-137, cesium-137; –, no data]
Tables 25

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Gross-alpha 

radioactivity 

Gross-beta 

radioactivity Cesium-137

(pCi/L as 

Pu-239) (NAD) (pCi/L as Cs-137) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 126B 07-10-01 0.3±0.6 0.35 1.1±2.0 1.03 -20±30 1.65

0.0±0.6 4±2 50±30

USGS 120 07-12-01 – – – – 10±30 0.20

– – 20±40

USGS 38 10-11-01 0.7±0.7 0.28 45±4 1.87 40±20 0.28

1±1 57±5 30±30

USGS 43 10-22-01 – – – – 20±30 0.07

– – 17±34

Table 2. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for gross-alpha radioactivity, gross-beta 

radioactivity, and cesium-137 from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and 

vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Concentrations in table are rounded results, 

but normalized absolute differences (NADs) were calculated using unrounded concentrations. Abbreviations: pCi/L, picocuries per liter, 

Pu-239, plutonium-239; Cs-137, cesium-137; –, no data]
26 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 103 01-02-96 50±80 1.15 – –

180±80 –

USGS 125 01-09-96 190±80 0.09 – –

180±80 –

RWMC Production 01-16-96 1,500±200 1.41 0±0.8 0.78

1,900±200 -1.4±1.6

USGS 87 01-16-96 1,400±200 0.71 -2.5±1.2 1.45

1,600±200 0.4±1.6

USGS 120 01-17-96 300±200 0.00 -1.8±1.2 0.55

300±200 -0.7±1.6

USGS 112 01-18-96 14,800±700 0.71 21.2±1.3 6.79

15,500±700 -1±3

USGS 83 04-01-96 -90±90 0.47 – –

-150±90 –

USGS 34 04-02-96 3,400±300 0.94 1.5±0.9 0.00

3,800±300 1.5±0.9

USGS 79 04-02-96 -100±200 0.71 – –

100±200 –

CFA 2 04-03-96 14,700±700 0.20 0±3 0.38

14,500±700 -1.2±0.9

Atomic City 04-04-96 -90±90 0.05 – –

-100±200 –

USGS 5 04-10-96 -120±190 0.07 – –

-100±200 –

USGS 20 04-11-96 7,100±400 0.53 0±0.7 0.00

7,400±400 0±0.7

USGS 117 04-16-96 0±200 0.00 0.6±0.7 1.62

0±200 -1±1

USGS 9 04-16-96 -50±90 0.71 – –

40±90 –

MTR Test 04-17-96 2,000±300 0.47 – –

2,200±300 –

USGS 109 04-17-96 70±90 0.00 – –

70±90 –

TRA Disposal 04-18-96 6,800±400 0.35 0.5±0.7 1.13

6,600±400 -0.7±0.8

USGS 52 04-22-96 6,000±400 0.18 11±1 1.68

6,100±400 13.5±1.1

SITE 14 04-24-96 0±200 0.40 – –

-110±190 –
Tables 27

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

Leo Rogers 1 07-17-96 160±80 0.09 – –

150±80 –

IET 1 Disposal 07-18-96 300±200 0.71 1.1±0.7 0.91

500±200 0.2±0.7

TRA 1 07-18-96 100±200 0.71 – –

-100±200 –

TRA 3 07-18-96 300±200 0.71 – –

100±200 –

ANP 6 07-19-96 200±200 1.41 0.5±0.7 0.57

600±200 0±1

RWMC M3S 07-22-96 2,000±300 0.47 -1±1 1.15

2,200±300 0.3±0.8

USGS 66 07-25-96 5,100±400 0.53 0.6±0.8 0.27

5,400±400 0.9±0.8

USGS 72 07-30-96 0±200 0.35 0.12±0.75 0.98

100±200 1.2±0.8

Big Lost River near Arco (BLR nr Arco) 10-07-96 -300±200 0.71 – –

-500±200 –

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn near Reno 

(BC at Blue Dome nr Reno)

10-08-96 -300±200 1.77 – –

200±200 –

No Name 1 10-14-96 -150±220 0.50 -0.7±0.7 1.21

-300±200 0.5±0.7

USGS 27 10-15-96 -150±220 0.84 – –

-400±200 –

SPERT 1 10-16-96 150±230 0.85 – –

-120±220 –

USGS 77 10-17-96 24,000±1000 0.14 1.4±0.7 0.91

24,200±1000 0.5±0.7

USGS 48 10-21-96 10,300±500 0.28 31±2 0.00

10,100±500 31±2

PW 3 10-23-96 140±220 0.20 1.4±0.8 0.35

200±200 1±1

USGS 73 10-23-96 78,200±2700 0.29 0.3±0.7 0.40

77,100±2700 0.7±0.7

USGS 38 10-25-96 11,800±600 0.12 26±1 0.05

11,900±600 26.1±1.4

USGS 43 10-28-96 4,400±400 0.35 1.3±0.7 0.19

4,600±400 1.5±0.8

USGS 113 01-09-97 9,200±400 0.18 12.6±1.1 0.64

9,300±400 13.6±1.1

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
28 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 54 01-23-97 1,900±200 0.71 119±4 1.41

1,700±200 111±4

USGS 60 04-02-97 410±130 0.76 6.6±0.9 0.63

550±130 5.8±0.9

USGS 109 04-03-97 80±50 0.85 – –

20±50 –

USGS 86 04-03-97 0±50 0.28 – –

-20±50 –

CPP 5 04-08-97 0±110 0.54 0.2±0.7 0.71

-80±100 -0.5±0.7

NPR Test 04-08-97 -170±100 0.35 – –

-120±100 –

USGS 41 04-08-97 1,700±200 0.00 13±1 0.00

1,700±200 13±1

USGS 42 04-08-97 4,500±300 0.94 21.7±1.4 1.41

4,900±300 19±1

Big Lost River at Experimental Dairy 

Farm near Howe (BLR at exp dairy 

farm nr Howe)

04-09-97 -150±100 1.08 – –

10±110 –

USGS 124 04-10-97 60±50 0.85 – –

120±50 –

USGS 63 04-22-97 530±130 0.49 4.3±0.8 0.17

620±130 4.1±0.9

USGS 104 04-29-97 1,650±90 0.63 – –

1,570±90 –

USGS 58 05-05-97 3,900±300 1.11 -0.4±0.7 0.71

3,500±200 -1.1±0.7

USGS 6 07-01-97 -110±110 0.32 -0.6±0.7 1.72

-60±110 1.1±0.7

USGS 82 07-02-97 580±140 1.85 0.1±0.7 0.73

960±150 0.8±0.7

USGS 32 07-08-97 20±110 0.26 -0.3±0.7 1.72

-20±110 1.4±0.7

CWP 1 07-15-97 130±120 0.98 -0.2±0.7 1.01

-30±110 0.8±0.7

Badging Facility 07-22-97 -10±110 0.13 0.3±0.7 0.40

-30±110 -0.1±0.7

USGS 107 10-01-97 -40±40 0.94 – –

20±50 –

USGS 108 10-07-97 110±50 0.00 – –

110±50 –

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
Tables 29

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 39 10-07-97 2,500±200 2.12 -0.6±0.5 0.53

3,100±200 -0.1±0.8

USGS 37 10-08-97 10,200±500 1.98 9.9±1.2 0.65

11,600±500 8.9±1.2

USGS 8 10-08-97 30±50 0.28 – –

50±50 –

USGS 101 10-16-97 40±110 0.61 – –

-50±100 –

PW 8 10-21-97 580±130 0.58 19±1 0.30

690±140 19.5±1.3

SITE 4 10-21-97 40±110 0.19 – –

10±110 –

USGS 67 10-21-97 11,800±500 2.43 16±1.5 0.47

13,700±600 17±1.5

USGS 115 10-22-97 3,100±200 1.94 -0.1±0.5 0.99

3,800±300 0.6±0.5

ANP 9 10-27-97 180±120 0.68 -1.2±1.2 1.37

70±110 0.7±0.7

USGS 51 10-27-97 16,300±700 1.31 -0.5±0.6 1.30

17,600±700 0.8±0.8

USGS 119 01-13-98 -180±110 0.26 0±1 0.77

-140±110 0.6±0.5

USGS 104 01-15-98 1,520±90 1.34 – –

1,690±90 –

USGS 114 01-22-98 16,800±700 3.10 1.3±0.5 0.00

20,100±800 1.3±0.5

PW 1 01-26-98 0±120 0.24 0.5±0.6 1.02

40±120 1.3±0.5

USGS 5 03-31-98 -100±110 0.32 – –

-50±110 –

USGS 117 04-01-98 -60±110 0.32 0.9±1.6 0.88

-110±110 -0.6±0.6

USGS 121 04-02-98 -80±110 0.64 -0.6±0.6 0.12

20±110 -0.7±0.6

USGS 106 04-06-98 1,380±90 0.16 – –

1,400±90 –

USGS 111 04-06-98 7,000±400 0.18 -0.2±0.6 0.98

7,100±400 -1.1±0.7

USGS 14 04-07-98 -30±50 0.42 – –

-60±50 –

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
30 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 19 04-08-98 -150±110 0.39 – –

-90±110 –

USGS 7 04-13-98 10±110 0.71 0.9±0.6 0.71

-100±110 0.3±0.6

Highway 3 04-20-98 -40±110 0.86 – –

100±120 –

Arbor Test 04-22-98 10±110 0.51 – –

-70±110 –

USGS 65 04-28-98 17,600±700 0.61 0.2±0.4 2.71

17,000±700 -8±3

USGS 85 04-28-98 6,000±300 0.71 2.1±0.6 1.71

5,700±300 -0.5±1.4

USGS 69 07-01-98 50±110 1.14 0±1 0.54

-120±100 -0.5±0.6

RWMC M3S 07-07-98 1,600±200 0.00 -0.2±0.6 0.35

1,600±200 0.1±0.6

USGS 18 07-20-98 10±110 0.00 0.5±0.6 0.94

10±110 1.3±0.6

TRA 4 07-21-98 -70±110 0.77 – –

50±110 –

USGS 90 07-21-98 1,380±170 0.25 0.5±0.7 0.75

1,440±170 1.3±0.8

USGS 2 07-22-98 10±110 0.06 1.2±0.6 0.24

20±110 1±1

USGS 36 07-22-98 6,500±300 2.83 6.5±0.6 7.70

5,300±300 13.6±0.7

CPP 2 09-30-98 30±110 0.13 0.4±0.5 0.71

10±110 -0.1±0.5

Mud Lake near Terreton (ML nr Terreton) 10-06-98 160±120 1.23 – –

-40±110 –

USGS 97 10-14-98 110±110 0.43 -1±1 1.50

180±120 0.7±0.8

USGS 35 10-15-98 1,900±200 0.35 1.6±0.6 0.47

1,800±200 1.2±0.6

USGS 1 10-20-98 40±50 1.27 – –

-50±50 –

USGS 110A 10-20-98 10±50 0.33 – –

-13±48 –

USGS 123 10-20-98 13,900±600 0.12 30.9±1.3 0.21

14,000±600 30.5±1.4

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
Tables 31

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

WS INEL 1 10-20-98 80±110 0.51 – –

0±110 –

USGS 76 10-22-98 2,000±200 0.00 1.4±0.8 0.80

2,000±200 0.5±0.8

PW 6 10-27-98 9,700±500 0.57 0±1 0.59

10,100±500 0.5±0.6

USGS 47 10-28-98 4,600±300 0.47 41±2 1.32

4,800±300 43.9±1.6

USGS 68 12-01-98 540±130 2.94 0.7±0.5 0.57

40±110 1.1±0.5

USGS 88 01-13-99 0±120 0.59 1.1±0.8 0.00

 -100±120 1.1±0.8

USGS 40 01-19-99 2,200±200 0.71 15±1 0.00

 2,000±200 15±1

USGS 99 03-31-99 30±120 1.66 – –

 -230±100 –

USGS 79 04-01-99 770±150 0.78 – –

 610±140 –

USGS 83 04-01-99 -50±50 0.86 – –

 11±50 –

USGS 12 04-05-99 -30±110 0.49 – –

 50±120 –

EBR 1 04-13-99 -40±110 0.32 – –

 10±110 –

USGS 61 04-13-99 8,100±400 0.53 0.5±0.8 0.97

 8,400±400 1.6±0.8

P AND W 2 04-14-99 -60±110 0.39 – –

 0±110 –

USGS 100 04-19-99 -110±110 0.19 – –

 -140±110 –

Big Lost River below INL Diversion near 

Arco (BLR blw INL div nr Arco)

04-20-99 120±120 1.11 – –

 -60±110 –

PW 2 04-22-99 130±120 0.06 2±1 0.00

 140±120 2±1

USGS 46 04-22-99 760±150 0.19 9.1±0.8 0.62

 800±150 9.8±0.8

CPP 1 04-26-99 90±120 0.29 0.1±0.7 0.40

 40±120 0.5±0.7

CWP 3 06-30-99 10±120 0.12 1.8±0.7 0.75

 30±120 1.0±0.8

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
32 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 22 07-07-99 50±120 0.41 – –

 120±120 –

SPERT 1 07-08-99 -50±110 0.80 – –

 80±120 –

RWMC M7S 07-12-99 1,400±200 0.00 1.2±0.7 0.56

 1,400±200 0.6±0.8

USGS 15 07-13-99 10±120 0.41 -0.3±0.8 0.47

 80±120 0.2±0.7

TRA 1 07-21-99 -50±110 0.13 – –

 -30±110 –

PW 4 10-06-99 480±150 0.09 3.4±0.8 0.35

 460±150 3.8±0.8

USGS 114 10-06-99 16,600±700 1.01 0.6±0.7 0.00

17,600±700 0.6±0.8

USGS 11 10-07-99 -40±50 0.28 – –

-20±50 –

Big Lost River below Mackay Reservoir 

(BLR blw MacKay Reservoir)

10-07-99 -100±130 0.22 – –

-60±130 –

USGS 20 10-14-99 7,600±400 0.88 -0.1±0.8 0.37

7,100±400 0.3±0.7

USGS 34 10-14-99 1,500±200 0.35 3.1±0.8 0.27

1,400±200 3.4±0.8

CFA 1 10-20-99 13,900±600 0.12 0.4±0.8 0.28

14,000±600 0.7±0.7

USGS 50 10-20-99 35,200±1300 0.33 204±5 0.85

34,600±1300 210±5

USGS 58 10-21-99 1,600±200 0.00 0.8±0.8 0.19

1,600±200 1±1

PW 5 10-25-99 -50±130 0.30 2.3±0.8 0.18

0±100 2.1±0.8

USGS 105 10-25-99 150±60 0.64 – –

100±50 –

USGS 121 10-25-99 40±130 0.21 -0.5±0.8 1.41

80±140 1.1±0.8

USGS 52 10-25-99 2,300±200 0.00 6.5±0.8 0.09

2,300±200 6.6±0.8

USGS 23 10-27-99 -130±130 0.76 – –

10±130 –

RWMC Production 01-13-00 1,330±170 0.17 0.79±0.73 0.04

1,290±170 0.84±0.74

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
Tables 33

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

CFA 2 01-19-00 9,700±500 0.28 – –

9,900±500 –

USGS 89 01-20-00 -30±110 0.74 1.1±0.8 0.47

-140±100 0.6±0.7

PSTF Test 04-04-00 -140±110 0.26 1±1 0.55

-180±110 0.3±0.8

USGS 98 04-04-00 -80±120 0.55 0.7±0.7 0.35

-170±110 1.1±0.9

USGS 12 04-05-00 -80±120 0.06 – –

-90±120 –

USGS 119 04-06-00 -170±110 0.13 1.1±0.7 0.00

-150±110 1.1±0.8

MTR Test 04-10-00 -120±110 0.49 – –

-40±120 –

Atomic City 04-11-00 -50±50 0.66 – –

-130±110 –

Little Lost River near Howe 

(LLR nr Howe)

04-11-00 -140±110 0.06 – –

-150±110 –

USGS 125 04-11-00 -100±110 0.06 – –

-90±120 –

USGS 26 04-12-00 -210±110 0.26 2±1 0.23

-170±110 1.8±0.8

USGS 27 04-12-00 -170±110 0.06 – –

-160±110 –

USGS 102 07-10-00 -60±110 0.86 1.7±0.7 0.94

80±120 0.7±0.8

USGS 31 07-10-00 0±120 0.35 1.3±0.7 0.66

60±120 0.6±0.8

Badging Facility 07-13-00 -10±120 0.29 2±1 1.32

40±120 0.6±0.7

RWMC Production 07-13-00 1,500±200 0.35 0.8±0.7 0.09

1,400±200 0.7±0.8

SITE 19 07-13-00 620±150 1.21 – –

380±130 –

CWP 2 07-17-00 30±120 0.12 0.4±0.7 0.40

10±120 0±1

Area 2 07-18-00 -60±110 0.37 1.8±0.8 0.71

0±120 1±1

USGS 66 07-25-00 2,600±200 0.00 0.7±0.9 0.33

2,600±200 0.3±0.8

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
34 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 62 09-27-00 160±130 0.62 2.9±0.9 0.31

50±120 3.3±0.9

USGS 97 09-27-00 -150±110 0.12 1.3±0.7 1.41

-130±120 -0.1±0.7

USGS 82 09-28-00 -210±110 1.29 0.4±0.9 0.55

0±120 1.1±0.9

USGS 58 10-04-00 1,200±200 0.57 -0.7±0.7 1.41

1,050±170 0.7±0.7

USGS 60 10-04-00 120±130 0.05 8±1 0.71

130±130 7±1

USGS 11 10-05-00 11.6±53.1 0.34 – –

-13.9±52.5 –

USGS 124 10-05-00 180±60 0.35 – –

210±60 –

USGS 57 10-05-00 5,600±300 1.60 15.7±0.9 0.74

6,400±400 17±1

USGS 77 10-06-00 11,800±500 1.92 1.6±0.7 0.40

13,300±600 2±1

USGS 50 10-10-00 28,000±1100 0.06 172±4 0.71

27,900±1100 168±4

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn near Reno 

(BC at Blue Dome nr Reno)

10-17-00 -180±110 0.39 – –

-240±110 –

RWMC M13S 10-17-00 -280±110 0.86 – –

-140±120 –

USGS 104 10-23-00 1,050±170 0.12 – –

1,020±170 –

Atomic City 10-24-00 -80±50 0.57 – –

-40±50 –

USGS 116 01-10-01 2,900±200 0.35 1±1 0.24

2,800±200 0.8±0.6

USGS 88 01-23-01 40±130 1.41 0.2±0.7 1.11

-200±110 1.3±0.7

USGS 73 04-02-01 19,900±600 1.06 0.9±0.7 0.22

20,800±600 0.7±0.7

USGS 103 04-04-01 -140±50 0.77 – –

-80±60 –

USGS 17 04-04-01 -80±130 8.72 – –

2,000±200 –

SITE 14 04-05-01 -60±130 0.00 – –

-60±130 –

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
Tables 35

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn near Reno 

(BC at Blue Dome nr Reno)

04-11-01 -40±130 0.05 – –

-30±130 –

USGS 9 04-11-01 -50±60 0.24 – –

-70±60 –

PW 4 04-12-01 50±130 0.31 0.8±0.8 1.41

110±140 2.3±0.7

RWMC M14S 04-17-01 1,800±200 0.71 – –

1,600±200 –

USGS 127 04-18-01 60±140 0.31 0.3±0.7 1.31

0±130 1.6±0.7

USGS 41 04-23-01 1,700±200 0.71 12.8±0.7 0.10

1,900±200 12.9±0.7

USGS 44 04-24-01 130±140 0.40 3.9±0.7 1.01

50±140 2.9±0.7

CFA LF 2-10 04-30-01 1,800±200 8.01 1.8±0.7 2.07

-110±130 -0.4±0.8

USGS 84 04-30-01 2,600±200 0.35 0.5±0.6 0.33

2,500±200 0.8±0.7

USGS 45 05-01-01 260±150 0.24 1.4±0.6 0.12

310±150 1.3±0.6

SITE 9 07-05-01 -240±110 0.49 -0.3±0.5 0.51

-160±120 0.1±0.6

USGS 126A 07-10-01 -90±120 0.41 – –

-20±120 –

USGS 126B 07-10-01 -100±120 0.18 – –

-70±120 –

USGS 120 07-12-01 120±130 0.54 2±1 1.31

20±130 0.7±0.7

USGS 29 07-16-01 -60±120 0.00 0.1±0.6 0.13

-60±120 0±1

TRA 3 07-19-01 -150±120 0.12 – –

-130±120 –

SITE 17 07-30-01 -10±120 0.58 0.5±0.6 1.06

-110±120 -0.4±0.6

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn near Reno 

(BC at Blue Dome nr Reno)

10-04-01 0±120 0.12 – –

-20±120 –

PW 8 10-09-01 490±140 0.20 9.3±0.8 0.62

450±140 10±0.8

USGS 38 10-11-01 6,000±400 0.35 17±1 0.74

5,800±400 17.8±0.9

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
36 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Tritium Strontium-90 

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

Arbor Test 10-15-01 20±120 0.29 – –

-30±120 –

USGS 106 10-17-01 1,000±80 1.41 – –

840±80 –

USGS 42 10-17-01 760±160 0.00 7.2±0.7 0.61

760±160 6.6±0.7

USGS 43 10-22-01 2,900±200 1.06 -2.4±0.7 1.79

2,600±200 -0.5±0.8

Table 3. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for tritium and strontium-90 from 

replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—

Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, 

picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized absolute difference; –, no data]
Tables 37

Table 4. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for plutonium-238, plutonium-239+240, and americium-241 

from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001. 

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized 

absolute difference]

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Plutonium-238 Plutonium-239+240 Americium-241

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

USGS 87 01-16-96 0.01±0.01 0.31 -0.007±0.012 0.57 -0.03±0.02 1.06

0.004±0.013 0.003±0.013 0.00±0.02

USGS 120 01-17-96 -0.007±0.012 0.18 0.003±0.013 0.79 0.014±0.019 0.51

-0.004±0.012 -0.011±0.012 0.00±0.02

USGS 34 04-02-96 0.004±0.016 0.44 0.02±0.02 0.35 -0.01±0.02 0.35

0.016±0.022 0.03±0.02 -0.02±0.02

USGS 117 04-16-96 0.012±0.021 0.35 0.012±0.018 0.75 0.015±0.014 0.61

0.003±0.015 -0.005±0.014 0.00±0.02

USGS 77 10-17-96 -0.004±0.013 0.15 -0.008±0.013 0.68 0.02±0.03 0.55

-0.001±0.015 -0.02±0.012 0.00±0.02

USGS 38 10-25-96 -0.003±0.012 0.70 -0.001±0.012 0.33 0.02±0.02 0.71

-0.017±0.016 -0.007±0.014 0.00±0.02

USGS 43 10-28-96 0.01±0.01 0.92 0.006±0.012 0.17 -0.01±0.019 0.90

-0.007±0.012 0.003±0.013 0.013±0.017

USGS 37 10-8-97 -0.001±0.017 0.00 0.02±0.02 0.70 -0.01±0.02 0.24

-0.001±0.012 0.003±0.014 -0.004±0.015

USGS 117 04-01-98 0.004±0.013 0.40 0.001±0.013 0.22 0.01±0.02 1.41

-0.003±0.012 0.005±0.013 -0.03±0.02

USGS 65 04-28-98 -0.014±0.014 0.37 -0.001±0.013 0.06 -0.005±0.017 0.69

-0.007±0.013 -0.002±0.012 -0.021±0.016

USGS 90 07-21-98 0.000±0.012 0.70 -0.009±0.012 0.32 -0.006±0.016 0.23

0.01±0.01 0.00±0.01 0.00±0.02

USGS 97 10-14-98 -0.012±0.012 0.19 0.009±0.013 0.37 0.006±0.016 0.23

-0.01±0.01 0.00±0.01 0.00±0.02

USGS 47 10-28-98 0.008±0.013 0.16 -0.001±0.012 0.41 -0.005±0.013 0.68

0.011±0.013 0.006±0.012 0.008±0.014

USGS 88 01-13-99 -0.004±0.009 0.01 -0.008±0.008 0.31 0.00±0.01 0.01

-0.004±0.009 0.00±0.01 -0.003±0.009

USGS 40 01-19-99 0.003±0.008 0.06 -0.003±0.007 0.07 -0.01±0.01 2.47

-0.004±0.008 -0.0037±0.008 0.02±0.01

CPP 1 04-26-99 -0.007±0.007 0.28 -0.003±0.008 0.55 0.00±0.01 1.27

-0.004±0.008 0.00±0.01 -0.02±0.01

USGS 34 10-14-99 0.000±0.006 0.48 0.003±0.006 0.59 0.004±0.009 0.92

0.01±0.02 0.013±0.016 -0.006±0.006

USGS 98 04-04-00 -0.009±0.005 1.00 -0.006±0.004 0.42 0.009±0.008 0.39

0.004±0.012 -0.009±0.006 0.016±0.016

USGS 119 04-06-00 -0.009±0.005 1.39 -0.003±0.005 0.00 0.006±0.006 0.46

0.003±0.007 -0.003±0.006 0.011±0.009

USGS 97 09-27-00 -0.004±0.007 0.77 -0.004±0.007 0.77 0.008±0.012 0.10

0.006±0.011 0.006±0.011 0.010±0.008

USGS 77 10-06-00 0.006±0.008 0.07 0.006±0.008 0.07 0.006±0.006 0.34
38 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Plutonium-238 Plutonium-239+240 Americium-241

(pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD) (pCi/L) (NAD)

0.007±0.013 0.007±0.013 0.01±0.01

RWMC M1SA 01-16-01 0.004±0.007 0.78 0.004±0.008 0.09 0.006±0.009 0.24

-0.0016±0.0016 0.0032±0.0032 0.0084±0.0045

USGS 88 01-23-01 0.003±0.006 0.97 0.007±0.008 1.23 -0.003±0.009 0.42

-0.004±0.004 -0.004±0.004 0.003±0.011

USGS 84 04-30-01 0.003±0.005 0.00 0.006±0.006 0.33 -0.009±0.009 1.27

0.003±0.006 0.003±0.007 0.009±0.011

USGS 120 07-12-01 -0.003±0.005 1.41 0.006±0.004 0.47 0.003±0.009 0.00

0.006±0.004 0.003±0.005 0.003±0.009

RWMC M1SA 09-25-01 -0.00009±0.00011 1.03 0.003±0.003 0.79 -0.008±0.005 1.77

0.003±0.003 -0.003±0.007 0.015±0.012

USGS 38 10-11-01 0.011±0.011 0.32 -0.003±0.003 0.00 0.006±0.006 0.20

0.006±0.011 -0.003±0.005 0.008±0.008

USGS 43 10-22-01 0.006±0.013 0.18 -0.003±0.005 0.84 0.003±0.005 0.00

0.011±0.0225 0.011±0.016 0.003±0.006

Table 4. Measured concentrations and normalized absolute differences for plutonium-238, plutonium-239+240, and americium-241 

from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Uncertainties are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Abbreviations: pCi/L, picocuries per liter; NAD, normalized 

absolute difference]
Tables 39

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data]

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 103 01-02-96 – – 15 0 – – – –

– 15 – –

USGS 125 01-09-96 13 6 14 0 – – – –

12 14 – –

RWMC Production 01-16-96 – – 17 4 – – – –

– 18 – –

USGS 87 01-16-96 – – 13 0 – – – –

– 13 – –

USGS 112 01-18-96 – – 120 0 – – – –

– 120 – –

USGS 83 04-01-96 11 7 11 0 – – – –

10 11 – –

USGS 34 04-02-96 9.8 1 14 0 0.2 0 31 0

9.9 14 0.2 31

USGS 79 04-02-96 – – 12 0 – – – –

– 12 – –

CFA 2 04-03-96 26 0 120 0 – – 45 0

26 120 – 45

Atomic City 04-04-96 – – 17 0 – – – –

– 17 – –

USGS 5 04-10-96 7.3 1 8.4 1 – – – –

7.2 8.5 – –

USGS 20 04-11-96 – – 24 0 – – – –

– 24 – –

USGS 117 04-16-96 – – 13 5 – – – –

– 14 – –

USGS 9 04-16-96 13 0 21 0 – – – –

13 21 – –

MTR Test 04-17-96 31 2 13 0 – – 140 5

30 13 – 150

USGS 109 04-17-96 11 0 15 0 – – – –

11 15 – –
40 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

TRA Disposal 04-18-96 – – 10 7 – – – –

– 11 – –

USGS 52 04-22-96 – – 28 2 – – – –

– 29 – –

SITE 14 04-24-96 15 5 9.0 1 – – – –

14 8.9 – –

Leo Rogers 1 07-17-96 17 0 18 0 – – – –

17 18 – –

IET 1 Disposal 07-18-96 18 1 18 0 – – 31 0

18 18 – 31

TRA 1 07-18-96 8.3 2 10 7 – – 21 3

8.5 11 – 20

TRA 3 07-18-96 8.6 0 10 0 – – 21 0

8.6 10 – 21

ANP 6 07-19-96 9.8 1 17 0 – – 33 1

9.9 17 – 33

RWMC M3S 07-22-96 – – 12 2 – – – –

– 13 – –

USGS 66 07-25-96 15 0 19 4 – – 190 0

15 20 – 190

USGS 72 07-30-96 22 3 13 5 – – 30 0

21 14 – 30

Big Lost River near 

Arco (BLR nr Arco)

10-07-96 – – 5.8 5 – – – –

– 6.2 – –

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn 

near Reno (BC at Blue Dome 

nr Reno)

10-08-96 – – 4.8 5 – – – –

– 4.5 – –

No Name 1 10-14-96 11 0 20 0 – – – –

11 20 – –

USGS 27 10-15-96 28 3 58 4 – – – –

27 61 – –

SPERT 1 10-16-96 13 0 21 3 – – – –

13 20 – –

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
Tables 41

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 77 10-17-96 33 2 140 0 0.2 0 32 0

34 140 0.2 32

USGS 48 10-21-96 20 3 41 3 – – 28 2

21 43 – 29

PW 3 10-23-96 170 4 290 2 – – 27 0

180 300 – 27

USGS 73 10-23-96 13 5 34 2 – – 61 0

14 33 – 61

USGS 38 10-25-96 65 1 180 0 0.2 0 31 0

66 180 0.2 31

USGS 43 10-28-96 16 5 24 3 – – 25 0

15 25 – 25

USGS 113 01-09-97 – – 230 0 – – – –

– 230 – –

USGS 54 01-23-97 – – 26 3 – – 320 2

– 27 – 330

USGS 60 04-02-97 – – 21 0 – – – –

– 21 – –

USGS 109 04-03-97 10 1 14 1 – – – –

11 14 – –

USGS 86 04-03-97 10 1 20 1 – – – –

11 20 – –

CPP 5 04-08-97 7.7 0 19 3 – – 26 0

7.7 19 – 26

NPR TEST 04-08-97 7.6 1 13 1 – – – –

7.4 13 – –

USGS 41 04-08-97 – – 21 0 – – – –

– 21 – –

USGS 42 04-08-97 – – 26 0 – – – –

– 26 – –

Big Lost River at Experimental 

Dairy Farm near Howe (BLR 

at exp dairy farm nr Howe)

04-09-97 – – 4.5 4 – – – –

– 4.3 – –

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
42 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 124 04-10-97 – – 15 0 – – – –

– 15 – –

USGS 63 04-22-97 – – 23 2 – – – –

– 22 – –

USGS 104 04-29-97 – – 13 0 – – – –

– 13 – –

USGS 58 05-05-97 – – 12 3 – – – –

– 12 – –

USGS 6 07-01-97 12 0 8.7 0 – – 18 1

13 8.6 – 18

USGS 82 07-02-97 – – 19 1 – – – –

– 19 – –

USGS 32 07-08-97 20 4 60 3 – – 44 5

19 57 – 41

CWP 1 07-15-97 – – 26 0 – – 320 0

– 26 – 320

Badging Facility 07-22-97 9.5 1 17 3 – – 20 1

9.6 16 – 20

USGS 108 10-07-97 11 1 14 0 – – – –

11 14 – –

USGS 39 10-07-97 7.5 3 10 0 – – 31 1

7.8 10 – 31

USGS 37 10-08-97 48 1 140 0 – – 30 0

49 140 – 30

USGS 8 100-8-97 6.7 0 7.5 0 – – – –

6.7 7.5 – –

USGS 101 10-16-97 14 0 8.5 0 – – – –

14 8.5 – –

PW 8 10-21-97 19 2 24 1 – – 283 1

18 24 – 279

SITE 4 10-21-97 7.9 0 9.1 1 – – 19 4

7.9 9.3 – 18

USGS 67 10-21-97 52 2 160 0 – – 30 1

54 160 – 30

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
Tables 43

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 115 10-22-97 15 0 40 0 – – 22 0

15 40 – 22

ANP 9 10-27-97 14 0 12 1 – – – –

14 12 – –

USGS 51 10-27-97 27 1 140 0 – – 28 0

27 140 – 28

USGS 119 01-13-98 – – 9.1 4 – – – –

– 8.6 – –

USGS 104 01-15-98 – – 13 3 – – – –

– 12 – –

USGS 114 01-22-98 – – 71 0 – – – –

– 72 – –

PW 1 01-26-98 – – 225 1 – – – –

– 222 – –

USGS 5 03-31-98 7.2 0 9.0 0 – – – –

7.3 9.0 – –

USGS 117 04-01-98 – – 13 1 – – – –

– 13 – –

USGS 121 04-02-98 – – 11 1 – – – –

– 11 – –

USGS 106 04-06-98 – – 15 3 – – – –

– 14 – –

USGS 111 04-06-98 – – 14 117 – – – –

– 153 – –

USGS 14 04-07-98 – – 21 1 – – – –

– 20 – –

USGS 19 04-08-98 11 1 9.0 1 – – – –

11 9.1 – –

USGS 7 04-13-98 22 6 8.9 1 – – – –

24 8.8 – –

Highway 3 04-20-98 5.8 0 5.8 4 – – – –

5.8 6.2 – –

Arbor Test 04-22-98 – – 144 117 – – – –

– 14 – –

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
44 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 65 04-28-98 14 1 18 1 – – 143 0

14 18 – 144

USGS 85 04-28-98 – – 46 0 – – – –

– 46 – –

USGS 69 07-01-98 12 6 20 2 – – 154 1

11 19 – 152

RWMC M3S 07-07-98 – – 12 0 – – – –

– 12 – –

USGS 18 07-20-98 12 0 10 2 – – 24 0

12 10 – 24

TRA 4 07-21-98 8.3 10 10 3 – – 19 0

7.2 10 – 19

USGS 90 07-21-98 – – 17 1 – – – –

– 17 – –

USGS 2 07-22-98 17 1 16 0 – – 13 0

17 16 – 13

USGS 36 07-22-98 – – 68 0 – – – –

– 68 – –

CPP 2 09-30-98 7.4 0 14 0 – – – –

7.4 14 – –

Mud Lake near Terreton (ML nr 

Terreton)

10-06-98 – – 8.0 2 – – – –

– 8.2 – –

USGS 97 10-14-98 15 1 37 1 – – 34 0

14 37 – 34

USGS 35 10-15-98 7.8 1 9.4 2 – – 26 0

7.7 9.2 – 26

USGS 1 10-20-98 15 1 13 5 – – – –

15 14 – –

USGS 110A 10-20-98 17 0 19 2 – – – –

17 20 – –

USGS 123 10-20-98 48 1 111 1 – – 30 0

48 113 – 30

WS INEL 1 10-20-98 12 1 44 3 – – 32 0

12 46 – 32

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
Tables 45

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 76 10-22-98 9.5 1 12 1 – – 26 0

9.4 12 – 26

PW 6 10-27-98 112 0 160 3 – – 14 0

112 167 – – 14

USGS 47 10-28-98 15 4 26 0 – – 25 1

14 26 – 25

USGS 68 12-01-98 662 1 27 2 – – 2,280 2

674 26 – 2,340

USGS 88 01-13-99 – – 84 0 – – – –

– 84 – –

USGS 40 01-19-99 – – 17 1 – – – –

– 17 – –

USGS 99 03-31-99 – – 20 0 – – – –

– 20 – –

USGS 79 04-01-99 – – 13 1 – – – –

– 13 – –

USGS 83 04-01-99 9.5 6 11 2 – – – –

10 10 – –

USGS 12 04-05-99 13 0 16 1 – – 25 0

13 16 – 25

EBR 1 04-13-99 8.0 1 6.8 1 – – – –

8.0 6.9 – –

USGS 61 04-13-99 – – 20 1 – – – –

– 20 – –

P AND W 2 04-14-99 6.8 7 7.1 0 – – – –

6.2 7.1 – –

USGS 100 04-19-99 – – 16 3 – – – –

– 17 – –

Big Lost River below INL 

Diversion near Arco (BLR blw 

INL div nr Arco)

04-20-99 – – 5.0 0 – – – –

– 4.9 – –

PW 2 04-22-99 – – 200 0 – – – –

– 200 – –

USGS 46 04-22-99 – – 17 1 – – – –

– 17 – –

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
46 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

CPP 1 04-26-99 7.8 1 15 3 0.2 3 23 0

7.7 14 0.2 23

CWP 3 06-30-99 – – 24 0 – – 295 0

– 24 – 293

USGS 22 07-07-99 22 3 63 67 – – – –

23 23 – –

SPERT 1 07-08-99 15 1 24 0 – – – –

15 24 – –

RWMC M7S 07-12-99 – – 12 0 – – – –

– 12 – –

USGS 15 07-13-99 23 1 35 1 – – 35 2

23 35 – 34

TRA 1 07-21-99 8.5 0 11 1 – – 18 0

8.6 11 – 18

PW 4 10-06-99 152 0 316 2 – – 29 0

152 308 – 29

USGS 114 10-06-99 19 2 83 2 – – 27 0

20 81 – 27

USGS 11 10-07-99 9.4 13 11 4 – – – –

7.8 11 – –

Big Lost River below Mackay 

Reservoir (BLR blw Mackay 

Reservoir)

10-07-99 – – 3.7 19 – – – –

– 2.8 – –

USGS 20 10-14-99 8.2 0 30 1 – – 20 1

8.3 31 – 21

USGS 34 10-14-99 9.6 0 15 0 0.2 0 24 1

9.6 15 0.2 24

CFA 1 10-20-99 22 4 85 0 – – 29 0

20 86 – 29

USGS 50 10-20-99 63 4 57 1 – – 39 0

66 58 – 39

USGS 58 10-21-99 9.0 4 11 0 – – 27 0

9.6 11 – 27

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
Tables 47

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

PW 5 10-25-99 163 0 348 1 – – 27 0

164 344 – 27

USGS 105 10-25-99 14 1 13 5 – – – –

14 12 – –

USGS 121 10-25-99 6.0 12 11 1 – – 22 1

7.2 11 – 22

USGS 52 10-25-99 12 2 16 32 – – 24 11

12 25 – 27

USGS 23 10-27-99 8.9 5 10 1 – – – –

9.5 10 – –

RWMC Production 01-13-00 – – 18 0 – – – –

– 18 – –

CFA 2 01-19-00 29 1 125 2 – – 47 0

28 122 – 47

USGS 89 01-20-00 – – 37 0 – – – –

– 38 – –

PSTF Test 04-04-00 6.8 3 6.1 10 – – – –

7.0 7.0 – –

USGS 98 04-04-00 10 2 14 2 – – 21 0

10 14 – 21

USGS 12 04-05-00 12 0 13 2 – – 22 0

12 13 – 22

USGS 119 04-06-00 – – 8.7 1 – – – –

– 8.8 – –

MTR Test 04-10-00 10 1 9.2 1 – – 25 1

9.9 9.2 – 24

Atomic City 04-11-00 – – 16 2 – – – –

– 16 – –

Little Lost River Nr Howe (LLR 

nr Howe)

04-11-00 – – 9.3 8 – – – –

– 10 – –

USGS 125 04-11-00 13 4 12 1 – – – –

12 12 – –

USGS 26 04-12-00 15 1 13 0 – – – –

16 13 – –

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
48 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 27 04-12-00 28 6 58 3 – – – –

30 56 – –

USGS 102 07-10-00 15 0 31 1 – – 31 0

15 30 – 31

USGS 31 07-10-00 15 1 24 0 – – 29 1

15 23 – 29

Badging Facility 07-13-00 9.9 0 16 0 – – 22 0

9.9 16 – 22

RWMC Production 07-13-00 – – 17 1 – – – –

– 17 – –

SITE 19 07-13-00 9.4 1 13 0 – – 35 1

9.5 13 – 36

CWP 2 07-17-00 – – 17 0 – – 123 0

– 17 – 123

AREA 2 07-18-00 16 1 16 1 – – 17 0

16 16 – 17

USGS 66 07-25-00 15 3 18 1 – – 197 3

15 18 – 190

USGS 62 09-27-00 18 1 22 1 – – 262 1

18 22 – 260

USGS 97 09-27-00 16 0 31 1 – – 32 0

16 32 – 32

USGS 82 09-28-00 10 0 16 5 – – 21 0

10 17 – 21

USGS 58 10-04-00 10 0 11 2 – – 27 0

10 11 – 27

USGS 60 10-04-00 19 2 23 1 – – 282 0

18 24 – 282

USGS 11 10-05-00 8.4 0 10 1 – – – –

8.4 10 – –

USGS 124 10-05-00 9.8 2 15 1 – – – –

9.6 15 – –

USGS 57 10-05-00 44 1 91 1 – – 29 1

43 92 – 29

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
Tables 49

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 77 10-06-00 39 1 149 1 0.2 4 32 0

38 147 0.2 32

USGS 50 10-10-00 60 0 57 0 – – 41 0

61 57 – 41

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn 

near Reno (BC at Blue Dome 

nr Reno)

10-17-00 – – 5.4 0 – – – –

– 5.4 – –

RWMC M13S 10-17-00 11 0 5.6 0 – – – –

11 5.6 – –

USGS 104 10-23-00 9.2 4 12 3 – – – –

8.8 12 – –

Atomic City 10-24-00 18 5 17 0 – – – –

17 17 – –

USGS 116 01-10-01 – – 101 2 – – – –

– 98 – –

USGS 88 01-23-01 – – 79 1 – – – –

– 80 – –

USGS 73 04-02-01 – – 91 0 – – – –

– 92 – –

USGS 103 04-04-01 13 4 15 0 – – – –

13 15 – –

USGS 17 04-04-01 7.7 5 5.3 0 – – – –

7.2 5.4 – –

SITE 14 04-05-01 14 1 8.3 0 – – – –

15 8.3 – –

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn 

near Reno (BC at Blue Dome 

nr Reno)

04-11-01 – – 5.1 2 – – – –

– 5.0 – –

USGS 9 04-11-01 11 4 17 0 – – – –

12 17 – –

PW 4 04-12-01 – – 152 0 – – – –

– 153 – –

RWMC M14S 04-17-01 8.9 2 15 2 – – – –

8.6 16 – –

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
50 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

USGS 127 04-18-01 8.1 4 15 0 – – – –

7.6 15 – –

USGS 41 04-23-01 – – 18 1 – – – –

– 18 – –

USGS 44 04-24-01 – – 10 1 – – – –

– 10 – –

CFA LF 2-10 04-30-01 12 1 23 2 – – – –

12 24 – –

USGS 84 04-30-01 8.2 2 8.2 1 – – 33 0

7.9 8.3 – 33

USGS 45 05-01-01 – – 16 0 – – – –

– 16 – –

Site 9 07-05-01 12 1 14 0 – – 24 1

13 14 – 25

USGS 126A 07-10-01 8.1 2 8.2 1 – – – –

8.4 8.0 – –

USGS 126B 07-10-01 8.0 2 8.1 2 – – – –

7.8 8.3 – –

USGS 120 07-12-01 – – 19 1 – – – –

– 19 – –

USGS 29 07-16-01 21 0 28 1 – – 17 0

21 28 – 17

TRA 3 07-19-01 9.6 4 9.5 2 – – 22 0

9.0 9.8 – 22

Site 17 07-30-01 11 0 13 0 – – – –

11 13 – –

Birch Creek at Blue Dome Inn 

near Reno (BC at Blue Dome 

nr Reno)

10-04-01 – – 5.8 2 – – – –

– 5.7 – –

PW 8 10-09-01 15 1 20 0 – – 179 0

14 20 – 179

USGS 38 10-11-01 45 0 100 0 0.21 116 28 2

45 100 0.26 29

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
Tables 51

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Sodium Chloride Fluoride Sulfate 

(mg/L) RSD

(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent) (mg/L) RSD(percent)

Arbor Test 10-15-01 – – 15 0 – – – –

– 15 – –

USGS 106 10-17-01 7.5 1 15 2 – – – –

7.5 15 – –

USGS 42 10-17-01 8.6 0 18 5 – – 24 1

8.7 17 – 24

USGS 43 10-22-01 14 1 23 0 – – 23 0

14 23 – 23

1

Replicate pair concentrations were within ±0.5 times the reporting level

Table 5. Measured concentrations and relative standard deviations for sodium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; –, no data] 
52 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Table 6. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for ammonia, nitrate 

+ nitrite, nitrite, and orthophosphate from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho, 1996–2001.

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; E, estimated; 

<, less than; NC, not calculated because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level]

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Ammonia Nitrate + nitrite Nitrite Orthophosphate

(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as P)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 125 01-09-96 <0.015 NC A 0.55 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 0 A

<0.015 0.56 <0.01 0.01

USGS 83 04-01-96 <0.015 NC A 0.62 1 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.015 0.63 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 34 04-02-96 <0.015 NC A 1.1 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 0 A

<0.015 1.1 <0.01 0.02

USGS 5 04-10-96 <0.015 NC A 0.43 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.015 0.43 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 9 04-16-96 <0.015 NC A 0.57 4 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 0 A

<0.015 0.6 <0.01 0.02

USGS 109 04-17-96 <0.015 NC A 0.52 3 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.015 0.54 <0.01 <0.01

SITE 14 04-24-96 0.02 NC A 0.54 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.015 0.54 <0.01 <0.01

IET 1 

Disposal

07-18-96 0.74 1 A 0.73 0 A 0.02 0 A 0.21 3 A

0.75 0.73 0.02 0.22

ANP 6 07-19-96 0.03 0 A 0.91 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.03 0 A

0.03 0.91 <0.01 0.03

RWMC M3S 07-22-96 0.03 47 N 0.8 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 28 N

0.06 0.8 <0.01 0.03

No Name 1 10-14-96 0.02 0 A 0.56 2 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 0 A

0.02 0.58 <0.01 0.02

USGS 27 10-15-96 <0.015 NC A 2.6 0 A 0.02 NC N <0.01 NC A

<0.015 2.6 <0.01 <0.01

SPERT 1 10-16-96 <0.015 NC A 1 7 A 0.01 47 N 0.02 0 A

<0.015 1.1 0.02 0.02

USGS 77 10-17-96 <0.015 NC A 4.3 0 A 0.01 0 A 0.02 0 A

<0.015 4.3 0.01 0.02

USGS 48 10-21-96 <0.015 NC A 5.1 1 A <0.01 NC N 0.03 0 A

<0.015 5.2 0.02 0.03

USGS 38 10-25-96 0.04 0 A 2.9 2 A 0.02 0 A 0.02 0 A

0.04 3 0.02 0.02

USGS 43 10-28-96 0.02 0 A 5.1 0 A 0.02 0 A 0.01 71 N

0.02 5.1 0.02 0.03

USGS 109 04-03-97 0.02 4 A 0.63 2 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

0.02 0.61 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 86 04-03-97 0.02 11 A 1.5 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 5 A

0.02 1.5 <0.01 0.02

NPR Test 04-08-97 <0.015 NC A 0.62 2 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 3 A

<0.015 0.64 <0.01 0.02

USGS 6 07-01-97 0.03 NC N 0.52 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 13 A

<0.015 0.52 <0.01 0.02
Tables 53

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Ammonia Nitrate + nitrite Nitrite Orthophosphate

(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as P)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 32 07-08-97 <0.015 NC N 1.72 3 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 54 N

0.024 1.79 <0.01 0.03

Badging 

Facility

07-22-97 <0.015 NC A 0.73 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 8 A

<0.015 0.73 <0.01 0.02

USGS 107 10-01-97 <0.015 NC A 1.1 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 0 A

<0.015 1.1 <0.01 0.01

USGS 108 10-07-97 0.02 NC A 0.74 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.03 50 N

<0.015 0.74 <0.01 0.01

USGS 39 10-07-97 <0.015 NC A 0.84 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 0 A

<0.015 0.85 <0.01 0.02

USGS 37 10-08-97 <0.015 NC A 2.9 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 9 A

<0.015 2.9 <0.01 0.02

USGS 8 10-08-97 <0.015 NC A 0.92 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 5 A

<0.015 0.93 <0.01 0.02

USGS 101 10-16-97 0.13 NC N 0.87 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 NC A

<0.015 0.85 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 67 10-21-97 <0.015 NC A 3.3 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 5 A

<0.015 3.3 <0.01 0.01

USGS 115 10-22-97 0.04 NC N 1.4 1 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.015 1.4 <0.01 0.01

ANP 9 10-27-97 <0.015 NC A 0.92 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.015 0.92 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 51 10-27-97 <0.015 NC A 3.5 1 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.015 3.5 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 5 03-31-98 0.03 4 A 0.46 3 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

0.04 0.48 <0.01 0.01

USGS 19 04-08-98 0.02 10 A 0.87 1 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

0.02 0.87 <0.01 0.01

USGS 7 04-13-98 0.02 NC A 0.40 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 14 A

<0.02 0.39 <0.01 0.01

Highway 3 04-20-98 0.03 3 A 0.37 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 3 A

0.03 0.37 <0.01 0.02

USGS 65 04-28-98 0.05 26 N 1.5 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 17 A1

0.08 1.5 <0.01 0.02

RWMC M3S 07-07-98 0.03 2 A 0.80 2 A <0.01 NC A 0.03 0 A

0.03 0.78 <0.01 0.03

USGS 18 07-20-98 0.03 NC A 0.57 6 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 7 A

<0.02 0.62 <0.01 0.02

USGS 2 07-22-98 0.05 5 A 1.3 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 7 A

0.05 1.4 <0.01 0.02

CPP 2 09-30-98 <0.02 NC A 0.99 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 10 A

<0.02 1.0 <0.01 0.02

Table 6. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for ammonia, nitrate 

+ nitrite, nitrite, and orthophosphate from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; E, estimated; 

<, less than; NC, not calculated because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level]
54 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Ammonia Nitrate + nitrite Nitrite Orthophosphate

(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as P)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 97 10-14-98 <0.02 NC A 2.4 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.03 5 A

<0.02 2.5 <0.01 0.03

USGS 35 10-15-98 0.02 NC A 0.76 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 3 A

<0.02 0.77 <0.01 0.02

USGS 1 10-20-98 0.02 NC A 0.93 97 N <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC N

<0.02 4.9 <0.01 0.02

USGS 110A 10-20-98 <0.02 NC A 1.2 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 1.3 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 123 10-20-98 <0.02 NC A 0.94 96 N <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC N

<0.02 4.9 <0.01 0.02

USGS 76 10-22-98 0.02 4 A 1.1 1 A 0.01 NC A 0.03 3 A

0.02 1.1 <0.01 0.03

USGS 47 10-28-98 0.03 NC N 6.0 2 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 21 N

<0.02 5.8 <0.01 0.03

USGS 83 04-01-99 <0.02 NC A 0.49 1 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 0.50 <0.01 0.01

USGS 12 04-05-99 <0.02 NC A 1.0 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 6 A

<0.02 1.0 <0.01 0.02

EBR 1 04-13-99 <0.02 NC A 0.37 2 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 10 A

<0.02 0.38 <0.01 0.02

P AND W 2 04-14-99 <0.02 NC A 0.34 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 18 A1

<0.02 0.34 <0.01 0.02

SPERT 1 07-08-99 0.03 2 A 1.2 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.03 11 A

0.03 1.2 <0.01 0.02

RWMC M7S 07-12-99 <0.02 NC A 0.69 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 8 A

<0.02 0.70 <0.01 0.02

USGS 15 07-13-99 <0.02 NC A 2.3 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 0 A

<0.02 2.3 <0.01 0.02

USGS 114 10-06-99 <0.02 NC A 3.6 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 13 A

<0.02 3.6 <0.01 0.01

USGS 11 10-07-99 <0.02 NC A 0.62 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 7 A

<0.02 0.62 <0.01 0.01

USGS 20 10-14-99 <0.02 NC A 1.4 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 20 A1

<0.02 1.4 <0.01 0.02

USGS 34 10-14-99 <0.02 NC A 0.98 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 0 A

<0.02 0.99 <0.01 0.02

CFA 1 10-20-99 <0.02 NC A 3.3 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 0 A

<0.02 3.4 <0.01 0.01

USGS 50 10-20-99 <0.02 NC A 58 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.04 0 A

<0.02 58 <0.01 0.04

USGS 105 10-25-99 <0.02 NC A 0.62 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 0.62 <0.01 <0.01

Table 6. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for ammonia, nitrate 

+ nitrite, nitrite, and orthophosphate from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; E, estimated; 

<, less than; NC, not calculated because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level]
Tables 55

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Ammonia Nitrate + nitrite Nitrite Orthophosphate

(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as P)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 121 10-25-99 <0.02 NC A 0.74 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 0.75 <0.01 0.01

USGS 52 10-25-99 <0.02 NC A 2.2 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 20 A1

<0.02 2.2 <0.01 0.02

USGS 23 10-27-99 <0.02 NC A 0.82 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 0.82 <0.01 <0.01

PSTF Test 04-04-00 <0.02 NC A 0.59 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 7 A

<0.02 0.59 <0.01 0.02

USGS 98 04-04-00 <0.02 NC A 1.2 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.01 25 N

<0.02 1.2 <0.01 0.02

USGS 12 04-05-00 <0.02 NC A 0.90 0 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 6 A

<0.02 0.90 <0.01 0.02

USGS 125 04-11-00 <0.02 NC A 0.60 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 0.60 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 26 04-12-00 <0.02 NC A 0.86 1 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 0.88 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 27 04-12-00 <0.02 NC A 2.6 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 2.6 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 102 07-10-00 <0.02 NC A 1.9 1 A <0.01 NC A 0.02 4 A

<0.02 1.9 <0.01 0.02

USGS 31 07-10-00 <0.02 NC A 0.91 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 0.91 <0.01 <0.01

Badging 

Facility

07-13-00 <0.02

<0.02

NC A 0.73

0.73

0 A <0.01

<0.01

NC A 0.02

0.02

0 A

Area 2 07-18-00 <0.02 NC A 1.1 0 A <0.01 NC A <0.01 NC A

<0.02 1.1 <0.01 <0.01

USGS 97 09-27-00 <0.041 NC A 1.1 34 N <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC N

<0.041 1.8 <0.006 0.03

USGS 82 09-28-00 <0.041 NC A 0.56 1 A <0.006 NC A 0.02 E NC A

<0.041 0.57 <0.006 0.02 E

USGS 11 10-05-00 <0.041 NC A 0.64 1 A <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.041 0.64 <0.006 0.01 E

USGS 124 10-05-00 <0.041 NC A 0.77 0 A <0.006 NC A <0.018 NC A

<0.041 0.78 <0.006 <0.018

USGS 57 10-05-00 <0.041 NC A 3.4 0 A <0.006 NC A 0.02 7 A

<0.041 3.4 <0.006 0.02

USGS 77 10-06-00 <0.041 NC A 3.2 0 A <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.041 3.2 <0.006 0.02 E

USGS 50 10-10-00 <0.041 NC A 43 1 A <0.006 NC A 0.04 0 A

<0.041 44 <0.006 0.04

Table 6. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for ammonia, nitrate 

+ nitrite, nitrite, and orthophosphate from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; E, estimated; 

<, less than; NC, not calculated because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level]
56 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Ammonia Nitrate + nitrite Nitrite Orthophosphate

(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as N)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility(mg/L

as P)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

RWMC M13S 10-17-00 <0.041 NC A 0.34 1 A <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.041 0.35 <0.006 0.01 E

USGS 104 10-23-00 <0.041 NC A 0.78 0 A <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.041 0.78 <0.006 0.01 E

USGS 103 04-04-01 <0.041 NC A 0.76 0 A <0.006 NC A <0.018 NC A

<0.041 0.77 <0.006 0.01 E

USGS 17 04-04-01 <0.041 NC A 0.38 0 A <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.041 0.38 <0.006 0.01 E

Site 14 04-05-01 <0.041 NC A 0.55 1 A <0.006 NC A <0.018 NC A

<0.041 0.56 <0.006 <0.018

USGS 9 04-11-01 <0.041 NC A 0.61 4 A <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.041 0.65 <0.006 0.01 E

USGS 127 04-18-01 <0.041 NC A 0.55 0 A <0.006 NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.041 0.56 <0.006 0.01 E

CFA LF 2-10 04-30-01 <0.041 NC A 1.2 0 A <0.006 NC A 0.045 NC N

<0.041 1.2 <0.006 0.01 E

USGS 84 04-30-01 <0.041 NC A 0.74 0 A <0.006 NC A <0.018 NC A

<0.041 0.74 <0.006 0.011 E

Site 9 07-05-01 <0.04 NC A 0.64 2 A 0.02 0 A 0.01 E NC A

<0.04 0.66 0.02 0.01 E

USGS 29 07-16-01 <0.04 NC A 2.3 0 A 0.008 0 A 0.01 E NC A

<0.04 2.3 0.008 0.01 E

Site 17 07-30-01 <0.04 NC A 1.1 0 A 0.004 E NC A 0.01 E NC A

<0.04 1.1 <0.006 0.01 E

USGS 38 10-11-01 <0.04 NC A 3.1 0 A <0.008 NC A 0.02 NC A

<0.04 3.1 <0.008 0.02 E

USGS 42 10-17-01 <0.04 NC A 1.6 1 A <0.008 NC A 0.02 3 A

<0.04 1.6 <0.008 0.02

USGS 43 10-22-01 <0.04 NC A 4.8 88 N <0.008 NC A 0.02 E NC N

0.02 E 21 <0.008 0.03

1

Replicate pair concentrations were within ±0.5 times the reporting level.

Table 6. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for ammonia, nitrate 

+ nitrite, nitrite, and orthophosphate from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; E, estimated; 

<, less than; NC, not calculated because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level]
Tables 57

Table 7. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for selected metals 

from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated 

because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

No Name 1 10-01-96 12 0 A <1 NC A 2 0 A 70 1 A

12 <1 2 69

ANP 9 10-27-97 4.3 2 A <1 NC A 2 28 N 86 1 A

4.2 <1 3 85

USGS 7 04-13-98 5 7 A <1 NC A 4 0 A 16 1 A

4 <1 4 16

USGS 65 04-28-98 5 2 A <1 NC A 1 0 A 49 0 A

5 <1 1 49

USGS 97 10-14-98 5 0 A <1 NC A 1 8 A 138 1 A

5 <1 1 139

PSTF Test 04-04-00 1 8 A <1 NC A 2 1 A 68 1 A

1.3 <1 2 67

USGS 98 04-04-00 3 43 N <1 NC A 1 E NC A 56 1 A

5 <1 2 E 55

USGS 26 04-12-00 2 0 A <1 NC A 2 7 A 36 0 A

2 <1 3 36

USGS 97 09-27-00 2 5 A 0.1 4 A 2 8 A 122 0 A

2 0.1 2 123

USGS 84 04-30-01 4 3 A 0.1 3 A 2 E NC A 81 0 A

4 0.1 2 E 81

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Beryllium Cadmium Cobalt Copper

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

No Name 1 10-14-96 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A

<1 <1 <1 <1

ANP 9 10-27-97 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A

<1 <1 <1 <1

USGS 7 04-13-98 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A

<1 <1 <1 <1

USGS 65 04-28-98 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A

<1 <1 <1 <1

USGS 97 10-14-98 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A

<1 <1 <1 <1

PSTF Test 04-04-00 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A

<1 <1 <1 <1

USGS 98 04-04-00 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A 1 4 A

<1 <1 <1 1

USGS 26 04-12-00 <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A <1 NC A

<1 <1 <1 <1

USGS 97 09-27-00 <0.06 NC A 0.05 5 A 0.2 6 A 1 6 A

<0.06 0.05 0.2 1

USGS 84 04-30-01 <0.06 NC A 0.2 0 A 0.08 3 A 2 1 A

<0.06 0.2 0.09 2
58 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

No Name 1 10-14-96 <1 NC A 2 0 A <0.1 NC A 6 0 A

<1 2 <0.1 6

ANP 9 10-27-97 <1 NC A 1 NC A <0.1 NC A 2.9 1 A

<1 <1 <0.1 2.9

USGS 7 04-13-98 <1 NC A 3 4 A <0.1 NC A 4 1 A

<1 3 <0.1 4

USGS 65 04-28-98 2 1 A <1 NC A <0.1 NC A 3 1 A

2 <1 <0.1 2

USGS 97 10-14-98 <1 NC A <1 NC A <0.1 NC A 1 5 A

<1 <1 <0.1 1

PSTF Test 04-04-00 <1 NC A <1 NC A <0.23 NC A 2 1 A

<1 <1 <0.23 2

USGS 98 04-04-00 3 0 A <1 NC A <0.23 NC A <1 NC A

3 <1 <0.23 <1

USGS 26 04-12-00 <1 NC A <1 NC A <0.23 NC A 3 0 A

<1 <1 <0.23 3

USGS 97 09-27-00 0.8 1 A <1 NC A <0.23 NC A 1.5 1 A

0.8 <1 <0.23 1.5

USGS 84 04-30-01 12 0 A 0.2 26 N <0.01 NC A 2 1 A

12 0.3 <0.01 2

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium

(μg/L) RSD 

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD 

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD 

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD 

(percent)

Reproducibility

No Name 1 10-14-96 <1 NC A – – – <1 NC A <0.5 NC A

<1 – <1 <0.5

ANP 9 10-27-97 <1 NC A – – – <1 NC A <0.5 NC A

<1 – <1 <0.5

USGS 7 04-13-98 <1 NC A – – – <1 NC A <0.5 NC A

<1 – <1 <0.5

USGS 65 04-28-98 <1 NC A 2 13 A <1 NC A – – –

<1 2 <1 –

USGS 97 10-14-98 <1 NC A 2 16 A1 <1 NC A – – –

<1 2 <1 –

PSTF Test 04-04-00 <1 NC A – – – <1 NC A <0.5 NC A

<1 – <1 <0.5

USGS 98 04-04-00 <1 NC A <2.4 NC A <1 NC A – – –

<1 2.2 E <1 –

USGS 26 04-12-00 <1 NC A – – – <1 NC A <0.5 NC A

<1 – <1 <0.5

USGS 97 09-27-00 2 22 N 2.0 E NC A <1 NC A – – –

1 1.8 E <1 –

USGS 84 04-30-01 <0.06 NC A 1.7 E NC A <1 NC A – – –

<0.06 1.8 E <1 –

Table 7. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for selected metals 

from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated 

because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]
Tables 59

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Uranium Zinc

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

No Name 1 10-14-96 2 0 A 3 28 N

2 2

ANP 9 10-27-97 2.3 1 A 12 6 A

2.3 11

USGS 7 04-13-98 2.3 1 A 2 40 N

2.3 1

USGS 65 04-28-98 2 1 A 368 0 A

2 366

USGS 97 10-14-98 2 0 A 91 0 A

2 90

PSTF Test 04-04-00 2 1 A <1 NC A

2 1.5

USGS 98 04-04-00 2 0 A 123 2 A

2 119

USGS 26 04-12-00 2 1 A <1 NC A

2 <1

USGS 97 09-27-00 2 0 A 108 4 A

2 102

USGS 84 04-30-01 2 0 A 391 0 A

2 390

1

Replicate pair concentrations were within ±0.5 times the reporting level.

Table 7. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for selected metals 

from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using 

unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated 

because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]
60 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Table 8. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable 

reproducibility for total dissolved chromium and hexavalent chromium from replicate pairs collected 

from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard 

deviations (RSDs) were calculated using unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. 

Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated because one or both 

concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]

Site name

Sample 

collection

date

Total dissolved chromium Hexavalent chromium

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 125 01-09-96 6 13 A 1 NC A

5 <1

USGS 83 04-01-96 9 26 N 20 11 A

13 17

USGS 34 04-02-96 17 8 A 28 14 A

19 34

USGS 79 04-02-96 8 NC N 5 33 N

<5 8

USGS 5 04-10-96 <5 NC A 1 47 N

<5 2

USGS 9 04-16-96 5 0 A 2 0 A

5 2

MTR TEST 04-17-96 5 NC A 2 28 N

<5 3

USGS 109 04-17-96 <5 NC A 3 NC N

5 <1

TRA DISP 04-18-96 13 5 A 5 35 N

14 3

Site 14 04-24-96 <5 NC A 3 28 N

7 2

TRA 1 07-18-96 <5 NC A <1 NC N

<5 2

TRA 3 07-18-96 <5 NC A <1 NC A

<5 <1

USGS 66 07-25-96 35 9 A 24 8 A

40 27

USGS 72 07-30-96 <5 NC A <1 NC A

<5 1

No Name 1 10-14-96 8 0 A <1 NC A

8 <1

USGS 27 10-15-96 9 8 A <1 NC A

8 <1

USGS 77 10-17-96 14 5 A 3 47 N

13 6

USGS 73 10-23-96 80 3 A 54 80 N

77 15

USGS 38 10-25-96 8 9 A <1 NC A

7 <1

USGS 54 01-23-97 16 5 A – – –

15 –
Tables 61

Site name

Sample 

collection

date

Total dissolved chromium Hexavalent chromium

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 60 04-02-97 10 3 A – – –

10 –

USGS 109 04-03-97 7 11 A – – –

8 –

USGS 86 04-03-97 13 13 A – – –

11 –

CPP 5 04-08-97 <5 NC N – – –

15 –

NPR Test 04-08-97 7 7 A – – –

8 –

USGS 63 04-22-97 33 8 A – – –

30 –

USGS 101 04-28-97 <5 NC A – – –

<5 –

USGS 58 05-05-97 14 1 A – – –

14 –

CWP 1 07-15-97 5 NC A – – –

<5 –

USGS 108 10-07-97 11 5 A – – –

10 –

USGS 8 10-08-97 6 7 A – – –

7 –

PW 8 10-21-97 12 1 A – – –

11 –

SITE 4 10-21-97 7 8 A – – –

7 –

ANP 9 10-27-97 4 0 A – – –

4 –

USGS 5 03-31-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 19 04-08-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 7 04-13-98 4 7 A – – –

4 –

Highway 3 04-20-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

Arbor Test 04-22-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 65 04-28-98 174 0 A – – –

174 –

Table 8. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable 

reproducibility for total dissolved chromium and hexavalent chromium from replicate pairs collected 

from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard 

deviations (RSDs) were calculated using unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. 

Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated because one or both 

concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]
62 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection

date

Total dissolved chromium Hexavalent chromium

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 69 07-01-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

TRA 4 07-21-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

CPP 2 09-30-98 <14 NC A – – –

8 E –

USGS 97 10-14-98 8 3 A – – –

8 –

USGS 1 10-20-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 110A 10-20-98 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

WS INEL 1 10-20-98 11 E NC A – – –

10 E –

USGS 68 12-01-98 <70 NC A – – –

<70 –

USGS 99 03-31-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 79 04-01-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 83 04-01-99 11 E NC A – – –

11 E –

USGS 12 04-05-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

EBR 1 04-13-99 9 E NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 61 04-13-99 12 E NC A – – –

10 E –

P AND W 2 04-14-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 100 04-19-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

CPP 1 04-26-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

CWP 3 06-30-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

TRA 1 07-21-99 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 11 10-07-99 15 NC A – – –

7 E –

Table 8. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable 

reproducibility for total dissolved chromium and hexavalent chromium from replicate pairs collected 

from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard 

deviations (RSDs) were calculated using unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. 

Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated because one or both 

concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]
Tables 63

Site name

Sample 

collection

date

Total dissolved chromium Hexavalent chromium

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 34 10-14-99 9 E NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 58 10-21-99 16 NC A – – –

12 E –

USGS 105 10-25-99 10 E NC A – – –

8 E –

USGS 23 10-27-99 <14 NC A – – –

9 E –

CFA 2 01-19-00 13 E NC A – – –

13 E –

PSTF Test 04-04-00 2.9 4 A – – –

2.8 –

USGS 98 04-04-00 6.3 10 A – – –

5.5 –

USGS 12 04-05-00 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

MTR TEST 04-10-00 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 125 04-11-00 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 26 04-12-00 2.9 15 N – – –

2.3 –

USGS 27 04-12-00 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

CWP 2 07-17-00 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 66 07-25-00 <14 NC A – – –

<14 –

USGS 62 09-27-00 9 E NC A – – –

8 E –

USGS 97 09-27-00 6.1 0 A – – –

6.1 –

USGS 58 10-04-00 9 E NC A – – –

6 E –

USGS 60 10-04-00 7 E NC A – – –

<10 –

USGS 11 10-05-00 8 E NC A – – –

<14 –

Table 8. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable 

reproducibility for total dissolved chromium and hexavalent chromium from replicate pairs collected 

from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard 

deviations (RSDs) were calculated using unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. 

Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated because one or both 

concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]
64 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Site name

Sample 

collection

date

Total dissolved chromium Hexavalent chromium

(μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility (μg/L) RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

USGS 77 10-06-00 16 NC A – – –

10 E –

RWMC M13S 10-17-00 8 E NC A – – –

5 E –

USGS 73 04-02-01 21 2 A – – –

20 –

USGS 103 04-04-01 8 E NC A – – –

7 E –

USGS 17 04-04-01 <10 NC A – – –

7 E –

Site 14 04-05-01 8 E NC A – – –

6 E –

USGS 9 04-11-01 8 E NC A – – –

<10 –

RWMC M14S 04-17-01 17 5 A – – –

16 –

USGS 127 04-18-01 12 0 A – – –

12 –

CFA LF 2-10 04-30-01 13 13 A – – –

10 –

USGS 84 04-30-01 20 3 A – – –

20

USGS 126A 07-10-01 <10 NC A – – –

<10 –

USGS 126B 07-10-01 <10 NC A – – –

<10 –

TRA 3 07-19-01 5 E NC A – – –

<10 –

Site 17 07-30-01 <10 NC A – – –

<10 –

PW 8 10-09-01 6 E NC A – – –

7 E –

USGS 38 10-11-01 <10 NC A – – –

<10 –

Arbor Test 10-15-01 <10 NC A – – –

<10 – –

Table 8. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable 

reproducibility for total dissolved chromium and hexavalent chromium from replicate pairs collected 

from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard 

deviations (RSDs) were calculated using unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. 

Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated because one or both 

concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]
Tables 65

Table 9. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for selected volatile organic compounds from replicate pairs collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using unrounded concentration results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; 

N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]

Site name

Sample

collection

date

1,1-dichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Tetrachloromethane Toluene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Trichloroethene Trichloromethane 

(μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility

RWMC 

Production

01-16-96 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A 4.4 0 A <0.2 NC A 0.6 0 A 2.3 3 A 0.7 0 A

<0.2 <0.2 4.4 <0.2 0.6 2.4 0.7

USGS 87 01-16-96 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A 1.8 4 A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A 0.5 0 A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 1.7 <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2

USGS 34 04-02-96 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A 0.2 0 A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 117 04-16-96 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

No Name 1 10-14-96 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 77 10-17-96 0.2 0 A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A 0.4 0 A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.4 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 38 10-25-96 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A 0.3 28 N <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 107 10-01-97 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

ANP 9 10-27-97 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 117 04-01-98 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 7 04-13-98 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 65 04-28-98 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A 0.3 0 A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 90 07-21-98 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A 2.9 1 A <0.2 NC A 0.4 0 A 1.3 1 A 0.3 1 A

<0.2 <0.2 2.9 <0.2 0.4 1.3 0.4

USGS 97 10-14-98 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 88 01-13-99 <0.2 NC A 0.4 39 N 1.6 2 A 0.4 30 N 0.2 1 A 0.7 1 A 0.5 0 A

<0.2 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.5

USGS 12 04-05-99 <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A <0.2 NC A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
66 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory Site name Sample collection date 1,1-dichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Tetrachloromethane Toluene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Trichloroethene Trichloromethane (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility (μg/L) RSD (percent) Reproduc- ibility CPP 1 04-26-99 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

RWMC M7S 07-12-99 <0.2 NC

A 0.3 2 A 5.5 0 A <0.2 NC

A 0.7 0 A 2.2 0 A 0.5 2 A

<0.2 0.3 5.5 <0.2 0.7 2.2 0.6

USGS 34 10-14-99 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A 0.2 0 A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2

RWMC 

Production

01-13-00 <0.2 NC

A 0.26 1 A 5.0 1 A <0.2 NC

A 0.6 1 A 2.5 1 A 0.9 1 A

<0.2 0.26 5.0 <0.2 0.6 2.5 0.9

PSTF Test 04-04-00 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 98 04-04-00 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 12 04-05-00 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 119 04-06-00 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A 0.3 3 A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 26 04-12-00 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

RWMC 

Production

07-13-00 <0.2 NC

A 0.2 5 A 4.9 3 A <0.2 NC

A 0.5 2 A 2.3 2 A 0.9 3 A

<0.2 0.2 5.1 <0.2 0.5 2.4 0.9

USGS 97 09-27-00 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 77 10-06-00 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A 0.2 3 A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 88 01-23-01 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A 1.1 2 A <0.2 NC

A 0.1 2 A 0.5 2 A 0.4 1 A

<0.2 <0.2 1.1 <0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4

USGS 84 04-30-01 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 – A <0.2 NC

A 0.1 3 A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.1 <0.2 <0.2

USGS 120 07-12-01 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A 2.9 2 A <0.2 NC

A 0.3 0 A 0.9 1 A 0.5 0 A

<0.2 <0.2 2.9 <0.2 0.3 0.9 0.5

USGS 38 10-11-01 <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A 0.2 3 A <0.2 NC

A <0.2 NC

A

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Table 9. Measured concentrations, relative standard deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for selected volatile organic compounds from replicate pairs 

collected from selected sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated using unrounded concentration results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; 

N, not acceptable. Abbreviations: μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; NC, not calculated because one or both concentrations were below the reporting level; –, no data]
Tables 67

Table 10. Measured concentrations, relative standard 

deviations, and acceptable or not acceptable reproducibility for 

total organic carbon from replicate pairs collected from selected 

sites at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–

2001.

[Locations of sites are shown in figures 1–4. Concentrations in table are 

rounded results, but relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated 

using unrounded results. Reproducibility: A, acceptable; N, not acceptable. 

Abbreviations: mg/L, milligrams per liter; E, estimated; NC, not calculated; 

<, less than; –, no data]

Site name

Sample 

collection 

date

Total organic 

carbon

(mg/L)

RSD

(percent)

Reproducibility

NO NAME 1 10-14-96 0.6 52 N

1.3

USGS 27 10-15-96 0.7 0 A

0.7

USGS 77 10-17-96 0.5 35 N

0.3

USGS 38 10-25-96 0.5 33 N

0.8

USGS 107 10-01-97 0.3 0 A

0.3

USGS 108 10-07-97 <0.1 NC N

0.4

USGS 8 10-08-97 0.5 94 N

0.1

USGS 101 10-16-97 1.0 94 N

0.2

ANP 9 10-27-97 <0.1 NC A

<0.1

USGS 97 10-14-98 0.5 47 N

1

USGS 1 10-20-98 1.2 101 N

0.2

USGS 110A 10-20-98 1.5 20 N

2

USGS 11 10-07-99 <0.27 NC A

0.16 E

USGS 34 10-14-99 0.23 E NC N

0.41

USGS 105 10-25-99 2.2 71 N

0.73

USGS 23 10-27-99 1.38 65 N

0.51

USGS 97 09-27-00 0.91 19 N

0.69

USGS 11 10-05-00 <0.27 NC A

<0.27

USGS 77 10-06-00 0.15 E NC A

0.17 E

RWMC M13S 10-17-00 0.45 E NC A

0.51 E

USGS 38 10-11-01 0.34 E NC A

0.39 E

Table 11. Percentage of replicate pairs with concentrations 

with acceptable reproducibility for radiochemical, inorganic, and 

organic constituents collected from selected sites at the Idaho 

National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001. 

[Values in bold type indicate that the percentage of replicate pairs with 

concentrations with acceptable reproducibility was less than 90 percent]

Constituent

Number of 

replicate 

pairs

Replicate pairs with 

concentrations with 

acceptable reproducibility

Number Percentage

Gross-alpha radioactivity 63 63 100

Gross-beta radioactivity 63 61 97

Cesium-137 93 91 98

Tritium 204 196 96

Strontium-90 123 119 97

Plutonium-238 28 28 100

Plutonium-239+240 28 28 100

Americium-241 28 27 96

Sodium 131 131 100

Chloride 202 197 98

Fluoride 7 7 100

Sulfate 83 83 100

Ammonia 98 91 93

Nitrate + nitrite 98 94 96

Nitrite 98 95 97

Orthophosphate 98 87 89

Aluminum 10 9 90

Antimony 10 10 100

Arsenic 10 9 90

Barium 10 10 100

Beryllium 10 10 100

Cadmium 10 10 100

Cobalt 10 10 100

Copper 10 10 100

Lead 10 10 100

Manganese 10 9 90

Mercury 10 10 100

Molybdenum 10 10 100

Nickel 10 9 90

Selenium 5 5 100

Silver 10 10 100

Thallium 5 5 100

Zinc 10 8 80

Chromium 97 93 96

Hexavalent chromium 19 10 53

Volatile organic compounds1 32 32 100

1,1-dichloroethene 32 32 100

Tetrachloroethene 32 31 97

Tetrachloromethane 32 32 100

Toluene 32 31 97

1,1,1-trichloroethane 32 31 97

Trichloroethene 32 32 100

Trichloromethane 32 32 100

Total organic carbon 21 8 38

1

Includes all volatile organic compounds (VOCs) except for the seven 

VOCs listed in this table.
68 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Table 12. Ranges of concentrations, number of replicate pairs with 

calculated relative standard deviations, and pooled relative standard 

deviations for radiochemical, inorganic, and organic constituents, Idaho 

National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.

[Abbreviations: RSD, relative standard deviation; pCi/L, picocuries per liter; Cs-137, 

cesium-137; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter, N, nitrogen; P, 

phosphorous]

Constituent Concentration 

range

Number of 

replicate pairs 

with calculated 

RSDs

Pooled RSD 

(percent)

Gross-beta radioactivity 

(pCi/L as Cs-137)

6.0–12 6 18

50–60 1 17

Tritium (pCi/L) 500–<2,000 26 8.4

2,000–<20,000 43 7.2

20,000–80,000 5 1.3

Strontium-90 (pCi/L) 6.0–<12 8 23

12–<25 10 6.1

25–250 7 3.4

Sodium (mg/L) 5–<30 115 3.2

30–180 15 2.6

600–700 1 1.3

Chloride (mg/L) 3–<20 129 2.3

20–<60 43 14

60–350 30 1

1.5

Fluoride (mg/L) 0.2–0.3 7 6.6

Sulfate (mg/L) 10–70 69 1.6

100–400 13 1.5

2,300–2,400 1 1.8

Ammonia (mg/L as N) 0.01–0.07 15 23

0.7–0.8 1 0.9

Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L as N) 0.3–< 0.7 30 2.0

0.7–6.0 65 1

3.9

10–60 3 17

Nitrite (mg/L as N) 0.008–0.02 7 17

Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) 0.01–0.04 54 16

0.2–0.3 1 7.6

Aluminum (μg/L) 1.0–12 10 12

Antimony (μg/L) 0.1–0.2 2 3.5

Arsenic (μg/L) 1.0–5.0 8 12

Barium (μg/L) 15–150 10 0.7

Cadmium (μg/L) 0.04–0.2 2 1.4

Cobalt (μg/L) 0.08–0.3 2 6.4

Copper (μg/L) 1.0–2.0 3 3.5

Lead (μg/L) 0.8–12 4 0.6

Manganese (μg/L) 0.2–3.0 3 4.4

Molybdenum (μg/L) 1.0–6.0 9 0.9

Nickel (μg/L) 1.0–2.0 1 22

Selenium (μg/L) 1.0–2.0 2 15

Uranium (μg/L) 1.0–3.0 10 0.7

Zinc (μg/L) 1.0–3.0 2 33

10–400 6 1.2
Tables 69

Constituent Concentration 

range

Number of 

replicate pairs 

with calculated 

RSDs

Pooled RSD 

(percent)

Chromium (μg/L) 2.0–<13 23 11

13–40 13 5.1

70–200 2 1.2

Hexavalent chromium (μg/L) 1.0–<10 7 40

10–40 4 51

1,1-dichloroethene (μg/L) 0.1–0.3 1 0.0

Tetrachloroethene (μg/L) 0.2–0.4 4 21

Tetrachloromethane (μg/L) 0.2–6.0 10 1.8

Toluene (μg/L) 0.3–0.4 1 30

1,1,1-trichloroethane (μg/L) 0.1–0.7 16 5.6

Trichloroethene (μg/L) 0.4–2.5 9 2.1

Trichloromethane (μg/L) 0.3–1.0 8 2.0

Total organic carbon (mg/L) 0.3–1.8 13 60

1

Two replicate pairs with switched sample bottles were excluded from calculation of the 

pooled RSD.

Table 12. Ranges of concentrations, number of replicate pairs with 

calculated relative standard deviations, and pooled relative standard 

deviations for radiochemical, inorganic, and organic constituents, Idaho 

National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.—Continued

[Abbreviations: RSD, relative standard deviation; pCi/L, picocuries per liter; Cs-137, 

cesium-137; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter, N, nitrogen; P, 

phosphorous]
70 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

Table 13. Measured concentrations of tritium, strontium-90, cesium-137, sodium, chloride, sulfate, chromium, hexavalent chromium, 

and ammonia from source-solution, field, and equipment blanks, Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho, 1996–2001.

[Uncertainties for radionuclides are 1σ combined standard uncertainties. Values in bold indicate that contamination bias was considered present in the blank. 

Abbreviations: DIW, deionized water; IBW, certified inorganic-free blank water; pCi/L, picocuries per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per 

liter; N, nitrogen; E, estimated; <, less than; –, no data]

Blank

collection 

date

Type of 

blank

Source 

solution

Tritium

(pCi/L)

Strontium-90

(pCi/L)

Cesium-137

(pCi/L)

Sodium 

(mg/L)

Chloride 

(mg/L)

Sulfate 

(mg/L)

Chromium 

(μg/L)

Hexavalent 

chromium 

(μg/L)

Ammonia 

(mg/L

as N)

10-28-96 Source DIW 0±400 1.1±1.4 10±60 <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <5 2 –

04-25-96 Field DIW -100±400 -0.2±1.5 2±22 – 0.2 – <5 <1 –

10-28-96 Field DIW 150±460 -0.3±1.4 – <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 – – –

01-23-97 Field DIW 60±220 1.3±1.6 – – <0.10 – – – –

07-22-97 Field DIW 30±220 0.3±1.4 – – <0.10 – – – –

10-30-97 Field DIW 140±220 0.7±1.6 – <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 – – –

01-22-98 Field DIW 10±240 0.8±1 – – – – – – –

04-13-98 Field DIW -40±220 0.5±1.4 -10±80 – <0.10 – – – –

10-27-98 Field DIW 90±220 0.6±1.2 <0.06 <0.10 <0.10 <14 – –

01-14-99 Field IBW -90±240 -0.7±1.2 – – <0.10 – – – –

04-15-99 Field IBW -110±220 0.2±1.6 30±60 – <0.10 – – – –

04-20-99 Field1 IBW 0±220 0.7±1.4 13±40 <0.06 <0.10 <0.10 <1 – 0.03

07-08-99 Field IBW -40±220 -0.2±1.6 <0.06 <0.10 <0.10 <14 – –

04-24-00 Field DIW -190±220 1.4±1.6 -20±80 – <0.29 – – – –

10-10-01 Field IBW -40±240 0.1±1.3 <0.09 <0.33 E0.05 <10 – –

04-25-96 Equipment DIW 0±400 -0.8±1.4 -50±80 – <0.10 – <5 <1 –

07-25-96 Equipment DIW -100±400 0.5±1.4 0.5 0.2 <0.10 <5 <1 –

10-28-96 Equipment DIW -400±400 -0.7±1.4 -50±60 <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <5 2 –

01-23-97 Equipment DIW 70±220 -0.7±1.6 – – 0.1 – – – –

07-22-97 Equipment DIW 10±220 0.2±1.4 – – <0.10 – – – –

10-29-97 Equipment DIW 50±220 2±1.6 – <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <5 – –

10-30-97 Equipment DIW 10±220 -0.3±1.6 – <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 – – –

04-13-98 Equipment DIW -10±220 0.5±1.4 10±40 – 0.55 – – – –

10-27-98 Equipment DIW 160±240 0.6±1 – 0.73 <0.10 <0.10 <14 – –

07-08-99 Equipment IBW -10±220 -0.1±1.4 – 0.13 0.15 0.57 <14 – –

04-24-00 Equipment DIW -140±220 1.3±1.6 -20±80 – E 0.16 – – – –

10-10-01 Equipment IBW 0±240 -1.1±1.4 – <0.09 <0.33 <0.10 <10 – –

1

The field blank on April 20, 1999, also included results for gross-alpha, gross-beta, americium-241, plutonium-238, and plutonium-239 +240 radioactivity 

and nitrate + nitrite, nitrite, orthophosphate, metals, and volatile organic compound concentrations. Results for all of these constituents were less than the 

minimum detectable concentration or reporting level.
Tables 71

Table 14. Probability of success, confidence level, maximum concentration in blank samples, 

and minimum concentration in environmental samples, Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, 

Idaho, 1996–2001.

[The minimum concentration in environmental samples was the minimum concentration from all sampling sites 

(field blank) or from the 21 wells where portable sampling equipment was used to collect the water samples 

(equipment blanks). Probability of Success: Probability that each blank (or environmental) sample is less than the 

m+1 sample concentration. Abbreviation: mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Constituent Blank type

Number 

of blank 

results

(n)

Probability 

of success

(p)

Confidence 

level (cl) 

(percent)

Maximum 

concentration in 

blank samples

(m+1) 

 (mg/L)

Minimum 

concentration in 

environmental 

samples

(mg/L)

Chloride Field 13 0.8 95 0.2 2.6

Equipment 12 0.8 93 0.55 3.1

Sodium Equipment 7 0.7 91 0.73 6.1

Sulfate Equipment 7 0.7 91 0.57 13
72 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

This page intentionally blank.
Glossary 73

Bias A persistent positive or negative deviation of the mean 

value, obtained by using a specific method or procedure, from 

the true value. 

Blank samples Used to identify potential sources of sample 

contamination and assess the magnitude of contamination 

with respect to target analytes (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2006). Blanks discussed in this report include source-solution, 

equipment, and field blanks. Equipment blanks were collected 

at a sampling site and processed through portable sampling 

equipment (either a bailer or portable pump and tubing). Field 

blanks were collected at a sampling site and collected exactly 

like equipment blanks except that they were not processed 

through portable sampling equipment.

Blind sample A sample submitted for laboratory analysis 

with composition known to the submitter but unknown to the 

analyst (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006)

Combined standard uncertainty Standard uncertainty 

estimate reported at the 1σ confidence level by combining the 

standard uncertainties of the analysis (McCurdy and others, 

2008, p. 18). For analyses performed at the U.S. Department 

of Energy Radiological Environmental Services Laboratory, 

uncertainties may include yields, half-lives, counting 

efficiencies, and counting times (Williams, 1997, p. 10).

Quality assurance A term used to describe programs and 

the sets of procedures, including (but not limited to) quality 

control procedures, which are necessary to assure data 

reliability (Friedman and Erdmann, 1982).

Quality control A term used to describe the routine 

procedures used to regulate measurements and produce data of 

satisfactory quality (Friedman and Erdmann, 1982).

Quality-control data Data from blank, replicate, reference, 

or spike samples. The data are used “to identify, quantify, 

and document bias and variability in data resulting from the 

collection, processing, shipping, and handling of samples” 

from field and laboratory personnel (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2006, p. 133).

Quality-control samples Blank, replicate, reference, or 

spike samples.

Reliability “A statement of the error or precision of an 

estimate” (Spiegel, 1998, p. 194).

Replicate samples “Replicates—environmental samples 

collected in duplicate, triplicate, or greater multiples—are 

considered identical or nearly identical in composition and are 

analyzed for the same chemical properties” (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2006, p. 143).

Reproducability “The closeness of agreement between 

individual results” (Kateman and Buydens, 1993, p. 11).

Variability “The degree of random error in independent 

measurements of the same quantity” (Mueller, 1998, p. vii).

Glossary
74 Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory

This page intentionally blank.
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

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

Director, Idaho Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

230 Collins Road

Boise, Idaho 83702

http://id.water.usgs.gov
Printed on recycled paper

Rattray— Evaluation of Quality-Control Data Collected for Water-Quality Activities at the Idaho National Laboratory—Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5270