PB83-188680
Analysis of Geothermal Wastes for Hazardous Components
Acurex Corp.
Mountain View, CA
Prepared for
Industrial Environmental Research
Lab.-Cincinnati, OH
Apr 83
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
PB83-138680 --
EPA-600/2-83-030
Anril 1983
ANALYSIS OF GEOTHERMAL WASTES FOR HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS
by
E.L. Hagmann, D.D. Minicucci and C.D. Wolbach
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94042
Contract No. 68-03-2567
Project Officer
Robert P. Hartley
. tioti Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Technical Advisor
Gerald Katz
Division of Geothermal Energy
Department of Energy
Oakland, California 94612
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMIXT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD, V* 22161
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instruction! on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-83-030
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO,.
PBS
.
18868ft
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ANALYSIS OF GEOTHERMAL WASTES FOR
HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS
S REPORT DATS
April 1983
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
E.L. Hagmann, D.D. Minicucci, C.D. Wolbach
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94042
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
AZJNIE
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-03-2567
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research & Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13 TYPE OP REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 600/12
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
Regulations governing the disposal of hazardous wastes led to an assessment for
geothermal solid wastes for potentially hazardous properties. Samples were
collected from three active geothermal sites in the western United States: The
Geysers, Imperial Valley, and northwestern Nevada. Approximately 20 samples were
analyzed for corrosivity, EP toxicity, radioactivity, and bioaccumulation potential.
The samples were further characterized by analysis for cations, anions, moisture
content, priority pollutants, and additional trace metals in the leachate. In
addition, an aqueous extraction was conducted at ambient pH.
None of the samples collected at The Geysers or northwestern Nevada could be
classified as hazardous as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations published May 19, 1980 in the Federal Register. However, several
samples from the Imperial Valley could be classified as hazardous. The hazardousness
of these wastes appear to be related to the high salinity of geothermal fluids in
that area.
This study characterized samples from a limited geographical area and results
cannot be extrapolated to other geothermal resource areas (GRA).
17,
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
Iflf
30 SECURITY CLASS (Thapage/
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Farm 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollution impacts on our environment
and even on our health often require that new and increasingly more
efficient pollution control methods be used. lERL-Ci assists in assessing
and developing new and improved methodologies that will meet these
needs both efficiently and economically.
This report documents a recently completed project. The purpose
of this work was to assess the potential hazardous properties of geothermal
solid wastes. Samples from active geothermal resource areas were
examined for corrosivity, EP toxicity (as determined by a specific
"Extract Procedure" defined in the Hazardous Waste Regulations), radio-
activity, and bioaccumulation potential. The findings documented
in this report showed that several samples could be classified as
hazardous. However, because of the wide variability in geothermal
resources, these results cannot be broadly extrapolated to other geothermal
resource areas. The information contained in this report also may
serve as a foundation for detailed additional work required by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in defining the character of
geothermal wastes. For further information, contact the Oil Shale
and Energy Mining Branch, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Proposed regulations governing the disposal of hazardous wastes
led to an assessment for geothermal solid wastes for potentially haz-
ardous content. The final regulations, published May 19, 1980, exempt
geothermal wastes from designation as hazardous. Samples were collected
from three active geothermal areas in the western United States:
The Geysers, Imperial Valley, and northwestern Nevada. Approximately
20 samples were analyzed for corrosivity, EP (Extract Procedure),
toxicity, radioactivity, and bioaccumulation potential. The samples
were further characterized by analysis for cations', anions, moisture
content, priority pollutants, and additional trace metals in the leachate.
In addition, an aqueous extraction was conducted at ambient pH.
None of the samples collected at The Geysers or northwestern
Nevada could be classified as hazardous as defined by the RCRA regulations
published May 19, 1980 in the Federal Register. However, several
samples from the Imperial Valley could be classified as hazardous.
These hazardous properties appear to be related to the high salinity
of geothermal fluids.
This study characterized samples from a limited geographical
area and results cannot be broadly extrapolated to other geothermal
resource areas.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1
1.1 Introduction , 1
1.1.1 Background 2
1.1.2 Objectives 2
1.1.3 Scope 3
1.2 Results 4
1.2.1 Sampling Site Survey 4
1.2.2 Field Sampling Program 4
1.2.3 Analytical Findings 5
1.2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 7
2 " SAMPLING PROGRAM 11
2.1 Selection of Sampling Sites 11
2.2 - General Sampling Methods 14
2.2.1 Sampling Protocols 15-
2.2.2 Field Equipment 17
2.2.3 Sample Preservation 18
2.3 Identification of Samples Collected 18
2.4 Method Development Needs 21
3 SAMPLE ANALYSIS 23
3.1 General Analytical Approach 23
3.1.1 Background 23
3.1.2 Analytical Scheme 26
3.1.3 Analytical Detection Limits 29
3.2 Selection of Samples for Analysis 30
3.3 Analytical Results 34
3.3.1 Corrosivity 34
3.3.2 Radioactivity 34
3.3.3 EP Toxicity 38 '
3.3.4 Organics Analysis 42
3.3.5 Bulk Composition 43
3.4 Quality Control 43
3.4.1 General Quality Assurance/Quality Control ... 43
3.4.2 Program Specific Quality Control 47
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Section Page
4 RESULTS DISCUSSION 51
4.1 RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations 51
4.2 Geothermal Resource Area 55
4.3 Acid Versus Ambient pH Extraction 57
APPENDIX A — LETTER REQUESTING PERMISSION TO SAMPLE . . 58
APPENDIX B — SPECIFIC ANALYTICAL METHODS 61
APPENDIX C — ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTING SHEETS 68
APPENDIX D — ACID AND BASE/NEUTRAL
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 91
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table . Page
1-1 Comparison of Analytical Results with RCRA Criteria
for Hazardous Wastes ................. "•
1-2 Summary of Results for Additional Metals ....... 8
2-1 Approved Sites for Collecting Samples ......... 15
2-2 Results of Geothermal Field Sampling Program ..... 19
I 3-1 Priority Listing of Samples for Analysis ....... 31
3-2 Final Selection of Samples for Analysis ........ 33
3-3 Key to Identifying Samples .............. 35
j 3-4 Corrosivity in Order of Increasing pH ......... 36
3-5 Radium 226 in Order of Increasing Activity ...... 37
3-6 RCRA'Trace Elements in Order of Decreasing Total Trace
Elements (mg/1) in Acid Extract ............ 39
3-7 Additional Metals in Order of Decreasing Total Trace
Elements (mg/1) in Acid Extract ............ 40'
3-8 Alternate Methods Employed in the Extraction
Procedure ....................... 41
3-9 Organics Analysis Results ............... 44
3-10 Bulk Composition of Total Sample (Decreasing Weight %
Silica) and Tentative Identification of Major
Components ...................... 45
3-11 Bulk Composition Extracts in Decreasing Chloride
Content (mg/L) .................... 46
3-12 Analytical Results for Extract Blank .......... 49
3-13 Percent Recovery of Spiked Samples .......... 50_
4-1 Comparison of Analytical Results with RCRA Criteria
for Hazardous Wastes ................. 52
4-2 Comparison of Geothermal Resource Areas for RCRA
Hazardous Waste Criteria ............... 56
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Acurex gratefully acknowledges the technical support and guidance
received from Mr. Robert Hartley, Project Officer, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Mr. Gerald
Katz, Co-project Officer, Department of Jnergy jn_OakUnd,^California.
Acurex also wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the individuals
responsible for geothermal activities at each resource area who allowed us
to collect samples from their facilities.
.viii
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, Acurex
Corporation is preliminarily determining the hazardous nature of solid
wastes resulting from the extraction and processing of geothermal energy
resources. TFffs" prbjecTTTs beTng~c6-sporrsorecJ^by~"tfie""UVSJ. "~Departmerrtf oT
Energy (DOE), Geothermal Energy Division in Oakland, California. The
purpose of this study has been to collect information in a manner
sufficient to allow the design and scoping of a comprehensive and detailed
project to establish whether geothermal solid wastes pose any hazardous
waste management concerns.
Our work has included the following major elements:
e Surveying geothermal development sites to identify suitable
solid waste streams and obtain permission to collect samples
• Conducting field sampling trips to sites in the Imperial
Valley, The Geysers, and northwestern Nevada
• Analyzing approximately 20 samples to identify potentially
hazardous constituents and characterize the chemical
composition of the solids
The findings of our study are documented in this report. Section 1
provides an overview of the project including this introduction and a
1
-------
presentation of results. The field sampling program is described in
Section 2. Analytical methods and results are presented in Section 3. A
discussion of the analytical results is provided in Section 4.
1.1.1 Background
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) requires
that EPA promulgate regulations for the handling and disposal of solid
wastes, including those containing hazardous substances. As part of its
obligations under RCRA, EPA is examining the hazardous potential of
various solid wastes such as those arising from geothermal activities to
determine under what sections of RCRA these should be controlled.
On December 18, 1978, EPA proposed the initial set of RCRA
regulations for managing hazardous solid wastes. The cornerstone of these
regulations was the Agency guidance on how to determine whether a solid
waste is hazardous. Four candidate characteristics were introduced which
formed the basis for identifying hazardous wastes: ignitability, corrosiv-
ity, toxicity, and reactivity. Two of these, corrosivity and toxicity, were
potentially applicable to solid wastes produced by geothermal energy develop-
ment operations. Two other properties, radioactivity and bioaccumulation
potential, were examined. These properties were included among a set of
additional criteria for listing a waste as hazardous under section 250.14
of the proposed regulations. These last two properties, radioactivity
and bioaccumulation potential, and criteria for them, were not included
in the final regulations published in May 1980, and were left to be
considered later.
1.1.2 Objecti ves
The objectives of this project are:
• To sample and analyze solid wastes representing a broad
spectrum of geothermal resource areas (GRA's) and types of
exploration and development activities
-------
• To preliminarily determine via the RCRA analytical protocols
whether such solid wastes meet the criteria for being hazardous
1.1.3 Scope
The scope of this project was dictated by its role as a screening
study to provide preliminary data and help focus the efforts of a
comprehensive project to examine geothermal solid wastes. The number of
samples analyzed was limited to approximately 20.
As recommended by EPA's Office of Solid Waste, the draft final
report, "Field and Laboratory Sampling and Analysis Manual for the
Presurvey of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Mining Industry,"
prepared by PEDCo Environmental for EPA/IERL-Ci, January 1980, was used
for protocol guidance in the field sampling program.
The analytical protocols specified in the proposed RCRA regulations
of December 18, 1978 (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations Part 250,
cited at Federal Register Volume 43, Number 243, p. 58946) were followed
with the addition of an ambient pH extraction procedure (EP) using
deionized water. During the course of the project, EPA promulgated final
regulations for the hazardous waste identification portion of the RCRA
hazardous waste management program proposed in 1978 (Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations Part 261, cited at Federal Register, Volume 45, Number
98, p. 33119, May 19, 1980). The analytical protocols employed in this
study reflect the proposed regulations. These were not significantly
altered by the May 19, 1980 promulgation. The results, however, are
compared with the final regulations for the purpose of determining the
hazardous nature of the solid wastes.
-------
1.2 RESULTS
A summary of the results for the following major tasks of this
study are presented below:
• Survey to identify sampling sites
•- Field sampling program
• Analytical findings
1.2.1 Sampling Site Survey
Major geothermal resource exploration and development sites in the
western United States and the Gulf Coast were preliminarily screened to
locate candidate sites for obtaining solid waste samples. A telephone
survey of over 20 individuals representing 15 organizations was conducted
to identify the types of solid wastes generated and procedures necessary
to obtain permission to sample.
As a result of the telephone discussions, follow-up letters, and
several site visits, the sampling program was defined and permission
granted for collecting samples in three geothermal resource areas:
• Imperial Valley — 7 sites
•- The Geysers — 11 sites
o Northwestern Nevada — 3 sites
1.2.2 Field Sampling Program
The geothermal sampling program consisted of three field trips:
Resource Area Sampling Dates No. of Samples Collected
Imperial Valley May 20-23, 1980 16
The Geysers June 3-5, 1980 13
Nevada July 1-2, 1980 _4
33
-------
The 33 samples collected were comprised of the following types:
Total Geysers Imperial Val. NV
Drilling sumps
Mud/fluid 82 33
Mud only 3 3
Fluid only 5 5
Preinjection treatment
Sediment ponds (brines) 3 3
Flash tank 1 1
Filter press 1 1
Cooling tower basins 3 3
H2S removal
Centrifuge (iron sulfide 3 3
sludge dewatering)
Stretford process 1 1
sulfur recovery stream
Miscellaneous
Pipe scale 2 2
Geological surface 1 1
expression
Landfill 2 2
1.2.3 Analytical Findings
The focus of the sample analysis program was to evaluate solid
^
proposecTTn 1978. Results of Jthis effort.are_nreseriteH-in-Table 1-1,
Of the 20 samples collected which were selected for analysis, only
five exhibited corrosivity, radioactivity, toxicity, or bioaccumulation
values which exceed the proposed (for radioactivity and bioaccumulation)
or the promulgated (for corrosivity and toxicity) RCRA criteria for being
considered hazardous solid wastes. The two samples (610 and G14) which
exceeded the maximum concentrations for the EP toxicity metals are both
geothermal brines collected at wells in the northern portion of the
-------
Table 1-1. Comparison of Analytical Results
with RCRA Criteria for
Hazardous Wastes
Sample
Number
C8*
CIO*
«t*
G14*
C16*
All
Others
**
Saaple
Type
Sludge
Brine
Solid*
Brine
Mud
Various
Waste Criteria Corroaivity
Constituent Analysed: pH
RCRA Liaite: £2 or i!2. 5 j
1.6
3.7 - 12
Radioactivity
Badium-226
5 pCi/g or250 pCi/Lb
78 pCi/g
1,320 pCi/L
5.9 pCi/L
0 - 3.3 pCi/g
C pCi/L
EP Toxic ity* (ng/L)
Aa Ba Cd Cr Pb Hg Se Ag
5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0
14
<0.020
0.3»
363
<0.3
22
4
<0.005
0.07
< 0.020
0.98
83
<0.020
0.70
<0.001
5.1
<0.020
0.18
-U). 020
Pioaccuoulation
Log P>3
positive
Peaks
Positive
Not analysed
or sero
*Value* preaented only for exceedencea of RCBA limits
**Rangea preaented for highest and lowest values (all within RCRA limita)
*Acid axtracta and liquid sample filtrate
''Radioactivity criteria proposed 12/18/78] not promulgated.
-------
Imperial Valley. Under current regulations in force in this GRA, brines
such as these are routinely disposed of in State hazardous waste disposal
sites.
In addition to the eight metals cited under the RCRA EP toxicity
characteristic, eight additional metals were analyzed in this study.
These were included because of their suspected presence in geothermal
solid wastes and their listing in the water quality standards of several
western states. Analytical results for these metals are summarized in
Table 1-2.
Additional organic analyses were conducted on three samples. The
EP extracts were solvent extracted and the acid and base/neutral fractions
analyzed for a total of 57 organic compounds by GC/MS. The solvent
extracts were also tested for bioaccumulation potential using the high
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) procedure specified in the
proposed RCRA regulations of December 18, 1978. One sample showed a
positive bioaccumulation potential.
1.2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Samples of solid wastes were obtained from The Geysers geothermal
powerplant in northern California, from several of the geothermal
exploration and development sites in -the Imperial Valley of southern
California, and from a few exploration sites in northern Nevada. The
conclusions and recommendations from the limited sampling and analysis _
effort are presented below. - - -
Conclusions
1- This study cannot be used to broadly generalize as to the hazardous
character of geothermal wastes outside the sites studied without
-------
Table 1-2. Summary of Results for Additional Metals'
Metal
Antimony
Beryllium
Boron
Copper
Lithium
Nickel
Strontium
Zinc
Range of
Concentrations
— All Samples
(mg/L)
<0.05 - 0.18
<0.020
<0.2 - 660
<0.05 - 60
<0.05 - 5.8
<0.2 - 0.90
<0.5 - 1400
< 0.020 - 6000
Average Concen-
tration — All
Values Above
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.14
—
43
9
1.1
0.50
174
203
Number of
Values Above
Detection Limit"3
3
0
26
12
19
n
16
30
alncludes results for both acid and ambient pH extracts
''Total number of possible values (analyses) equals 42
-------
considerable qualification. Each geothermal resource must be
considered unique in its chemical and physical character.
2. None of the samples of waste materials collected at the commercial
powerplant operations in The Geysers geothermal steam fields and
at the northern Nevada exploration sites could be classified as
1 hazardous as defined by the criteria in the Hazardous Waste
: regulations published May 19, 1980 in the Federal Register.
3- Several samples including brines, drilling wastes, and settling
pond solids from geothermal exploration and development sites in
the Imperial Valley could be classified as hazardous waste, with
properties exceeding the proposed Hazardous Waste. CHteria._in one or
more of the categories of pH, radioactivity, EP toxicity, and
' bioaccumulation.
4. ! The principal source of the hazardous properties in the
Imperial Valley is the geothermal brine itself. Imperial Valley
brines generally have considerably higher salinities than do
geothermal fluids elsewhere. Hazardousness of the waste
appears to be directly" related to salinity.
5' Since salinity is site-dependent, it can be concluded that the
hazardous waste character or geothermal solid wastes will be site
dependent.
&• Higher heavy metal concentrations were always associated with low
" ambient pH, but low pH did not guarantee high heavy metal content.
7. High radioactivity (Radium 226) values were associated with higher
metals content. "" ~~
-------
8. The significance of the high bioaccumulation potential in one
sample has not been determined. The bioaccumulating compounds
were not identified.
Recommendations
1. Geothermal resources should be screened for radioactivity and pH.
Samples with pH below 4.0 should be further screened for heavy
metals. The ambient or neutral toxicity EP can be used for these
low pH samples.
2. Bioaccumulating constituents should be determined and their source
identified before baoaccumulation is established as a major criterion
for geothermal hazardous waste characterization.
3. In view of the requirements of the RCRA amendments of 1980 for a
comprehensive study of the characteristics and disposal practices
for geothermal solid wastes, any further research studies should
be' directed toward satisfying those requirements as further defined
by EPA's Office of Solid Waste.
10
-------
SECTION 2
SAMPLING PROGRAM
2.1 SELECTION OF SAMPLING SITES
The process of selecting sites for sampling geothermal solid wastes
involved the following activities:
• Formulating a priority listing of desired sites
• Contacting site owners/operators to identify sampling points
and requesting permission to collect samples
0 Finalizing the group of sites to be visited
Based on discussions held at the beginning of the project with EPA,
DOE, and Acurex project management, various geothermal developments in the
United States were ranked into three groups according to their perceived
desirability as sampling sites:
Group 1 (Prime Interest) Group 3 (Least Interest)
The Geysers, California Raft River, Idaho
Imperial Valley, California Beowawe, Nevada
Gulf Coast, Texas and Louisiana
Group 2 Klamath Falls, Oregon
Puna, Hawaii
Va.lles Caldera, New Mexico Other sites in the western
Roosevelt Hot Springs, Utah United States
The location of these sites is illustrated in Figure 2-1.
Ranking criteria for the sites included consideration of the types
of solid waste streams expected, their potential for containing hazardous
11
-------
TOE 6EKSE8S
PUNA-
HAHAllAM 13UMD8
'.Figure 2-1. Potential Geothermal Solid Waste Sampling Sites ;.
-------
substances, and the extent to which the wastes may be indicative of
commercial operations. It was also important to obtain samples
representative of a variety of geothermal resource areas. The limit of
approximately 20 samples for analysis constrained the breadth of sites
considered.
Once the priority list was developed, a telephone survey of site
owners/operators was begun. Over 20 individuals representing 15
organizations were contacted to determine:
• Types' of solid wastes generated
• Operational status of processes producing these wastes
• Necessary procedures for obtaining permission to collect samples
As a result of the initial telephone calls to the Group 1 and 2
sites listed here, approximately 6 to 10 suitable sampling locations each
were identified in The Geysers and Imperial Valley. However, due to
prolonged site inactivity, no solid wastes samples were available at
either Roosevelt Hot Springs, Utah or Valles Caldera, New Mexico.
Survey efforts were then redirected to focus on the Nevada and
Idaho sites. After a series of telephone discussions with personnel
responsible for the DOE Raft River project and Phillips Petroleum
Company's three Nevada exploration sites, it was decided to request
sampling permission for the following sites:
Imperial Valley
• DOE Geothermal Test Facility (GTF), East Mesa
t Republic Geothermal wells, East Mesa and near the Niland Known
Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA)
• DOE Geothermal Loop Experimental Facility (GLEF), Sal ton Sea
near Niland
13
-------
• Imperial County Department of Public Works Class II-2 disposal
sites, Brawley and Calexico
• MAPCO well, Westmorland
The Geysers
• Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) power generation facilities
• Union Oil of California wells and sedimentation pond
• Aminoil USA wells
Nevada
0 Phillips Petroleum wells, Steamboat, Desert Peak, and Humbolt
House
To facilitate obtaining site access permission and provide
owners/operators with formal documentation of the purposes of the project,
a letter of introduction and request to sample was prepared. A sample of
this letter is presented in Appendix A.
A favorable response to our letter was received from each of the
owners/operators contacted. In several cases, presampling site visits
were conducted to discuss project objectives and sampling plans in more
detail. As a result of the telephone survey, letter transmittals, and
presampling meetings, final approval was obtained to collect samples at
the locations identified in Table 2-1.
2.2 GENERAL SAMPLING METHODS
General methods used in the field sampling program are discussed
below.
14
-------
Table 2-1. Approved Sites for Collecting Sanples
Geothermal
Resource
Area
The Geysers
Imper 1al
Valley
Nevada
Owner/Operator
PG1E
Amlnoll USA
Union 011 of
California
California Divi-
sion of Mines and
Geology
DOE /Magma Power
OOE/Wesiac Services
Republic Geothermal
MAPCO/Republ 1c
Geothermal
Imperial County
Dept. of Public
Works
Phillips
Petroleum
Sampling Site
Units 3, 4, 5, 6
Unit 11
Unit 12
Units 7. 8 or 9, 10
Unit 15
Unit 13 or 15
Drilling operations
near Unit 13
Drilling operations
near Unit 14-
Adjacent to Unit 12
Drilling operations
near Unit 18
(planned)
Callstoga
a£F near Nil and
GTF at East Mesa
East Mesa
Outside of Nil and
KGRA
Westmorland
Brawley
Calexico
Steamboat
Desert Peak
Humbolt
Sampling Point
Centrifuge
Centrifuge
Centrifuge
Cooling tower basin
Cooling tower basin
Stretford process
Aninoil #1 well
Amlnoll #2 well
Abated well
Sedimentation pond
Unabated well
Surface expression
Ditch deposits
Filter press
Flash tank
Evaporation pond
Sperry well mud pit
Sperry well fluid
Pit
Fee 11 well mud pit
Fee »1 well fluid
pit
Courier 11 well
• Class II-2 landfill
Class II-2 landfill
Well sump
Well sump
Well sump
Anticipated
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-2
1
1
1
1
1
15-
-------
2.2.1 Sampling Protocols
The Acurex field sampling plan was adapted from the following two
sources:
• "Field and Laboratory Sampling and Analysis Manual for the
Presurvey of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Mining
Industry," draft report prepared by PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio
t "Samplers and Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Waste Streams,"
prepared by E. R. deVera, et al., California Department of
Health Services, Berkeley, California, for the EPA/MERL-Ci,
EPA-600/2-80-018, January 1980.
Preliminary Considerations
In general, sampling of solid wastes requires collecting an
adequate quantity of a representative sample and maintaining its integrity
through the analytical procedure.
The following steps are essential in a successful sampling program:
• Obtain permission to conduct sampling
t Research background information about the waste
• Determine sampling point
• Select proper container
* Design a sampling plan
• Observe proper sampling and handling precautions
t Deliver samples to the laboratory
• Log-in samples and set up traveller for tracking
Sampling Procedure for Dry Sumps
The surface area was divided into an imaginary grid and equal
volumes of at least four subsamples (one from each corner) were obtained
16
-------
to provide a composite sample representative of the entire sump.
Subsamples were collected from 3 to 6 inches below the surface of the sump
using a hand trowel.
Sampling Procedure for Ponds and Wet Sumps
For collecting sediment, the surface area was divided into an
imaginary grid and equal volumes of at least four subsamples (one from
each corner) were obtained to provide a representative composite sample.
For collecting liquids, a single sample was obtained. Both types of
samples were collected using a pond sampler.
Miscellaneous Procedures
Sludge from centrifuges was collected directly in the sample
bottle. Samples in vats or tanks were collected by dipping. Pipe scale
was removed with a harraner and chisel.
2.2.2 Field Equipment
All sampling equipment and containers were transported to and from
the sites by Acurex's Mountain View, California offices. These included:
• Sample Containers -- All samples were stored in half-gallon
widetnouth polyethylene bottles (Nalgene)
t Sampling Equipment -- Most samples were collected using one of
two basic techniques:
~ Pond Sampler — A 1-liter polyethylene beaker at the end of
an 8-foot extension rod
-- Hand Trowel -- Ordinary metal trowel
• Additional Field Equipment:
— Gloves
-- Waders
-- Flashlight
17
-------
— Maps
~ Notebook
-- Labels
~ Rock hammer
~ Tape measure
~ Compass
— Funnel
— Safety equipment as required (i.e., goggles, hard hat, etc.)
— Camera
2.2.3 Sample Preservation
As this study was designed to screen geothermal wastes, elaborate
preservation procedures were not attempted. Samples were collected in the
field and quickly returned to the Acurex Environmental Analytical
Laboratory for storage at a constant temperature of 4°C.
2.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLES COLLECTED
The geothermal sampling program consisted of three field trips:
Resource Area Sampling Dates No. of Samples Collected
Imperial Valley May 20-23, 1980 16
The Geysers June 3-5, 1980 13
Nevada July 1-2, 1980 _4
33
Trip reports for each field trip are presented in Appendix B.
Tabulation of the types of solid wastes collected is given as
follows; a synopsis of the field sampling program appears in Table 2-2.
Drilling sumps ^^L GeysJIi 'imperial Val. NV
Mud/fluid 82 33
Mud only 3 3
Fluid only 5 5
18
-------
Table 2-2. Results of Geothermal Ffeld Sampling Program
Resource
Area
Imperial
Valley
Owner/Operatqr
OOE/Westec
ftepubl 1c
Geothermal
OOE/Magma
Imperial Co.
Dept. of Public
Works
MAPCO
Sampling Site
GIF at East Mesa
Sperry well at
East Mesa
Fee tl well
near Nil and KGRA
GLEF near Nil am)
N. of Brawley
Calexico
Courier 11 well at
Westmorland
Sampling Point
Flash tank
Evaporation pond
Pipe scale
Mud pit
Fluid pit
Mud pit
Fluid pit
Filter Press
Class II-2
landfill
Class II-2
landfill
Mud pit
Baker tanks
No. of '
Samples
Collected
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
Date
Collected
5/20/80
S/20/80
5/20/80
5/20/80
5/20/80
5/21/80
5/21/80
5/21/80
5/22/80
5/22/80
5/23/80
5/23/80
Comments
Sample of wet scale from bottom
of tank.
Sampled near Inlet and along
perimeter.
Interior of pond inlet pipe and
underground transfer pipe.
Fluid' low in suspended solids.
Two interconnected pits with
fluid levels below connection
point. Both samples left with
Republic (proprietary data
concern).
Sample previously collected (on
8/19/79). Reactor clarifier no
longer in operation.
Site last used about 2 years ago.
Flow test was in progress. Hot
brine collected. Analysis begun
on sample from one tank. Con-
tents of tanks should be the same.
-------
Table 2-2. Concluded
; ro
r i o
Resource
Area
The
Geysers
Nevada
Owner/Operator
PG&E
Union Oil
Aralnoil USA
California
Division of
Mines and
Geology
Phillips
Petroleum
Sampling Site
Units 5. 6
Unit 11
Unit 12
Units 7, 8
Units 9, 10
Unit IS
Unit 15
Belgel 11 well
04V *2 Unabated
well
Unit 12
Aminoil #1 well
Aminoll 12 well
Calls toga
Steamboat #1
well
Humbolt House
well
Desert Peak well
Sampling Point
Centr if uge
Centrifuge
Centrifuge
Cooling tower
basin
Cooling tower
basin
Cooling tower
basin
Stretford sulfur
product
Sump
Sump
Sedimentation pond
Sump
Sump
Surface
expression
Sump
Sump
Primary sump
Secondary sump
No. of
Samples
Collected
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Date
Collected
6/4/80
6/3/80
6/3/80
6/4/80
6/3/80
6/3/80
6/1/80
6/4/80
6/4/80
6/4/80
6/5/80
6/5/80
6/5/80
7/1/80
7/2/80
7/2/80
7/2/80
Comments
Adjoining Units 3 and 4 not in
operation.
Basin cleaned last year. About
4 Inches of sediment encountered.
Basin cleaned 2 years ago. About
8 Inches of sediment. Difficulty
experienced In mixing sample.
Very little sediment. Unit has
not been online very long.
Molten sulfur being transferred
from storage tank to tank truck
during sampling.
Steam venting and abatement (with
peroxide/caustic) in progress
while sampling.
Inactive well. Rig still in
place.
Well drilled to 5,249 feet.
Still in mud phase.
Well completed. Rig removed.
Pit drying out.
Some doubt if this is a geo thermal
mineral deposit. May be lava
flow. Sample appears to, consist
of pumice.
Flow test in progress. Sump
contained liquid.
Dry sump. Well last flow tested
11/79.
Dry sump. Well last flow tested
2/79.
-------
Total Geysers Imperial Val. ^JV
Preinjaction treatment
Sediment ponds 3 3
Flash tank 1 1
Filter press 1 1
Cooling tower basins 3 3
H«S removal
Centrifuge (iron sulfide 3 3
sludge dewatering)
Stretford process 1 1
sulfur recovery stream
Miscellaneous
Pipe scale 2 2
Geological surface 1 1
expression
Landfills 2 2
2.4 METHOD DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Problems were encountered in sampling related to obtaining a
representative sample. In some cases the samples were already homogeneous
and a simple grab sample was sufficient. However, for most locations grab
samples were composited onsite and then thoroughly mixed in the
laboratory. Water or unstable muds prevented sampling at the middle of
many ponds and sumps. In these cases, grab samples were collected at the
four corners near the edge. Sampling cooling tower sediment presented
special problems. Stratification was particularly obvious since layers of
many colors were present. Efforts were made to mix these in the field
before sample splitting, but thorough mixing in the laboratory would have
been preferred. Most of the samples taken from sumps or ponds were
21
-------
collected at a maximum depth of about 6 inches. A good representative
sample would have required a coring device mounted on a boat or suspended
from a crane. This would have permitted sampling the full depth of the
pond or sump, which in some cases was 8 feet or more.
When collecting a sediment sample in contact with water, the field
crew had to make a decision as to how much water to decant. Attempts were
made to obtain a sample with a water content that would be representative
of the waste as eventually disposed. However, standard procedures for
sampling water-covered sediment should be developed.
22
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
This section discusses the analytical scheme and how it was
formulated, criteria for choosing certain samples for analysis, results of
the various analyses performed, quality control procedures, and method
development needs.
3.1 GENERAL ANALYTICAL APPROACH
The focus of the analytical program was to perform those hazardous
waste identification tests proposed by EPA under RCRA that were
potentially applicable to geothermal solid wastes. In addition, the
chemical composition of the samples was to be determined by analyzing for
the major cations and anions.
3.1.1 Background
EPA's proposed regulations for identifying hazardous wastes were
issued on December 18, 1978 (cf 40 CFR 250, Federal Register, 43:243).
Eight candidate characteristics of hazardous waste were introduced, of
which four: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity (via an
EP) were felt by the Agency to have reliable test protocols already in
place. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published along with
the proposed regulations that sought to eventually include tests for
radioactivity, unnatural genetic activity, and toxicity via chronic
exposure to organic chemicals.
23
-------
Consideration of the potential applicability of these proposed
characteristics to geothermal solid wastes led to a decision to test for
the following:
RCRA Hazardous Waste Proposed Regulations Citation
'Property (Federal Register. 12/18/78)
Corrosivity 40CFR250.13(b)
Toxicity (EP) 40CFR250.13(d)
Radioactivity 40CFR250.15(a)(5), Appendix VIII
Bioaccumulation Potential* 40CFR250.15(a)(6)(ii), Appendix XI
*0nly for those solid wastes for which organic additives were
known or suspected to have been introduced
The EP in the toxicity test protocol was designed to simulate the
leaching action of rain and groundwater in the acidic environment present
in landfills or open dumps. It calls for the solid waste sample to be
continuously exposed for 24 hours to an acidic solution. The extract is
then analyzed for the presence of certain contaminants identified in the
EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards (DWS). Only the
eight inorganic elements listed under 40CFR250.13(d) were included in this
study as it was not anticipated that any of the organic contaminants (all
pesticides) would be found in geothermal solid wastes.
In an effort to obtain comparative data between the acidic solution
EP and alternative simulations for the leaching process, an additional
extraction (herein referred to as a neutral or ambient pH EP) was
performed using deionized water as the extracting liquid in place of the
specified acetic acid solution.
In addition to the DWS contaminants, eight elements not listed as
part of the toxicity characteristic in the proposed regulations were
included in the analytical plan. These were elements that were felt to be
24
-------
present in geothermal solid wastes and for which various western states
had adopted water quality criteria.
Because of the nature of geothermal solid wastes, only those
samples known to have been contacted with anthropogenic organic compounds
were analyzed for bioaccumulation potential. These samples were collected
from sites downstream of points of known or suspected introduction of
organic additives. Organic substances are occasionally added to drilling
muds to improve their physical properties, to blowdown streams to enhance
coagulation of ion hydroxides, and to process streams for scale
inhibition. To provide for broader indentification of organics, a
screening for the acid and base/neutral priority pollutants listed in
Appendix E was performed in conjunction with the bioaccumulation potential
test.
On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated final regulations for portions of
the RCRA hazardous waste management program proposed on December 18,
1978. The final regulations differed from those proposed in many
respects. The key changes affecting this study were:
RCRA Hazardous Waste
- Characteristic Key Changes in Final Regulations
Corrosivity pH limits changed from<3 or £12 to
s2 or 3*12.5
Toxicity Maximum concentrations changed from
10 to 100 times the DWS
Radioactivity Final regulations not promulgated
Bioaccumulation potential Final regulations not promulgated
The analytical protocols published in the December 18, 1978
proposed regulations were followed throughout this study. However, these
were not significantly changed in the final regulations. Corrosivity and
25
-------
toxicity analytical results are compared in Section 3.3.4 to the May 19,
1980 final regulations rather than to the now superceded December 18, 1978
limits. As the radioactivity and bioaccumulation potential tests were not
included in the final regulations, comparisons with the proposed
regulations were continued.
3.1.2 Analytical Scheme
The analytical scheme employed for this study is shown in
Figure 3-1. Four tests were performed on each original sample:
• Moisture content (or total suspended solids)
• Radioactivity (radium 226)
• Bulk composition (major cations and an ions)
• Corrosivity
Moisture content (or total suspended solids) was determined for
accurate quantitation. Total sample bulk composition analyses were
performed to determine the general mineral content of the material as
collected. Major cations and anions analyzed for in the bulk composition
analyses included:
Anions Cations
Chloride (Cl) Aluminum (Al)
Fluoride (F) Calcium (Ca)
Silica (Si02) Iron (Fe)
Sulfate ($04) Magnesium (Mg)
Sulfide (S) Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Radioactivity and corrosivity are tv/o of the properties o_f
hazardous wastes. Under the final RCRA regulations, a solid waste is
considered hazardous by reason of corrosivity if it exhibits a pH of less
than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5. According to the
proposed RCRA regulations, a solid waste is hazardous by virtue of
26
-------
ro
BUS species
analysis*
40 CFR 250.13
Organic
analysis**
40 CFR 260.16
U1C6)
Btoiccuaulatton
potential**
40 CFR 250.15
Bulk
composition
analysis
DUS species
analysis*
40 CFR 250.13
Organic
analysis"
40 CFR 250.15
Bioaccunilatiaa
potential**
40 CFR 250.15
Bulk
conposition
analyst!
*Plus additional water quality criteria trace elements
**For those samples with orgtntc additives only.
40 CFR references Mere those published 12/18/78. These references were, in general, replaced by final regulations dated 5/19/81.
40 CFR 250.13(b) became 40 CFR 261.22
40 CFR 2S0.13(b)(2)(1t) becaM 40 CFR 261.24, Appendix II
40 CFR 250.15{aj(6j twcaw part of 40 CFB 260.22 f,9Ure ,. ta.WM,
-------
radioactivity if it has an average radium 226 concentration equal to or
greater than 5 picocuries per gram for solids or 50 picocuries per liter
for liquids.
Phase separation and extraction were performed to simulate leaching
as part of the EP toxicity test. The liquid phase from phase separation
and the extract (either under acid pH with acetic acid or under ambient pH
with deionized water) were combined for further analyses. These analyses
included the RCRA EP toxicity and the bioaccumulation potential tests and
the bulk composition determinations on both extracts.
The eight inorganic elements in the EP toxicity test and their
maximum permissable concentrations in milligrams per liter (mg/1) are:
Element Maximum Concentration (mg/1)*
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
*These values represent 100 times the DWS (cf 40CFR261.24
in Federal Register, May 19, 1980)
In addition, the following eight elements for which state water quality
standards have been established were included in this study:
Element
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Water Quality
Standard
(mg/1)
No standard
0.1
0.5
0.005
0.01
1.0
Application
Agricultural use
All uses
All uses
Aquatic life protection
Domestic water supply
State(s)
Colorado
Oregon
Oregon
Utah
Arizona,
Colorado
28
-------
Element
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
Water Quality
Standard
(mg/1)
Application
State(s)
No standard
0.05 - 0.40* Aquatic life protection Colorado
No standard
0.01
0.05
5.0
All uses
Aquatic life protection
Domestic water supply
Oregon
Utah
Arizona,
Colorado
*Standard varies as a function of stream water hardness
The bioaccumulation potential test and screening for priority
pollutants were performed on the acid and ambient pH extracts for three
samples known or suspected to have had organic substances added to them.
Bulk composition analyses for the major cations and anions listed
above were conducted on the acid and ambient pH extracts for each sample.
3.1.3 Analytical Detection Limits
Detection limits for the analyses of the RCRA elements were
determined by considering the RCRA maximum concentrations (cf Federal
Register, May 19, 1980, p. 33122) and the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards on which they were based. These are compared
below:
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
RCRA Maximum
Concentration
(mg/L)
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
Drinking Water
Standard
(mg/L)
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.002
0.01
0.05
Analytical
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.02
0.3
0.005
0.02
0.02
0.001
0.02
0.02
29
-------
The detection limits chosen are significantly below th'e RCRA limits. For
all metals except selenium, the detection limit is less than 0.5 percent
of the RCRA level. For selenium, the detection limit is 2 percent of the
RCRA level.
3.2 SELECTION OF SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS
While the field sampling program yielded 33 samples, the project
scope permitted only about 20 samples to be analyzed. Accordingly, a
priority listing of all the samples collected was developed to facilitate
the selection process. Factors considered in ranking the samples included
the following:
• Sample quality — samples taken from waste streams containing
little material or from long, inactive sumps or landfills were
given low rankings
• Geothermal resource variability -- a mix of samples
representing the various geographic areas in the Imperial
Valley and at The Geysers was desired
t Commercial operations applicability -- samples of solid wastes
most closely associated with those expected of commercial
operations were given high rankings
The priority listing of the samples is presented in Table 3-1. As
more than one sample was collected at several of the sampling points, this
list includes 33 samples obtained at 28 sites during the three field trips.
Final selection of the samples was based on a maximum for analysis
of 20 (plus a duplicate of one sample); all 20 would be tested for radium
226 and 3 of the samples would be analyzed for organics (priority
pollutants and bioaccumulation potential). The 20 selected samples are
identified in Table 3-2.
30
-------
Table 3-1. Priority Listing of Samples for Analysis
Priority
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
1
2
3
4 & 5
6
Sampling Site
Republic Sperry well at
East Mesa
North of Brawley
MAPCO Courier #1 well at
Westmorland
GTF at East Mesa
Geysers — PG&E Units 5 & 6
Geysers — Union abated well
Geysers -- Union Unit 12
Republic Fee #1 well near
Nil and KGRA
GLEF near Nil and
Geysers -- PG&E Unit 12
Geysers -- PG&E Units 7 & 8
Geysers -- Aminoil #1 well
Nevada — Phillips Steamboat
#1 well
Nevada — Phillips Humbolt
House well
Nevada -- Phillips Desert
Peak well
Geysers — PG&E Unit 9a
Republic Fee #1 well near
Niland KGRA
Sampling Point
Mud pit
Fluid pit
Class 1 1-2 landfill
Mud pit
Baker tank
Flash tank
Evaporation pond
Centrifuge
Sump
Sediment pond
Mud pit
Filter press
Centrifuge
Cooling tower basin
Sump
Sump
Sump
Primary sump
Cooling tower basin
Fluid pit
Date
Collected
5/20/80
5/20/80
5/22/80
5/23/80
5/23/80
5/20/80
5/20/80
6/4/80
6/4/80.
6/4/80
5/20/80 '
5/21/80
6/3/80
6/4/80
6/5/80
7/1/80
7/2/80
7/2/80
6/3/80
5/21/80
aTo be analyzed in duplicate
31
-------
Table 3-1. Concluded
Priority
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Sampling Site
GIF at East Mesa
Geysers — Ami noil #2 well
Geysers -- Union unabated well
GIF at East Mesa
Geysers -- PG&E Unit 15
Geysers -- PG&E Unit 11
Calistoga
Sampling Point
Bypass pipe scale
Sump
Sump
Pond inlet
pipe scale
Stretford
sulfur product
Centrifuge
Surface expression
Date
Collected
5/20/80
6/5/80
6/4/80
5/20/80
6/3/80
6/3/80
6/5/80
32
-------
Table 3-2. Final Selection of Samples for Analysis
Priority
Group 1
group 2
Group 3
Group 4
1
2
3
445
6
Sampling Sits
Republic Sperry well at
East Mesa
N. of Brawley
MAPCO Courier 11 well at
Westmorland
STF at East MeM
Geysers — PG4E Units 516
Geysers — Union abated well
Geysers ~ Union Unit 12
Republic Fee 11 well near
Nlland KGRA
GLEF at Sal ton Sea
Geysers ~ PG&E Unit 12
Geysers - PG&E Units 7 & 8
Geysers — Amtnotl 11 well
Nevada — Phillips Steamboat
*1 well
Nevada — Phillips Humbolt
well
Nevada -- Phillips Desert
Peak well
Geysers — PG&E Unit 9a
Republic Fee t\ well near
Nlland KGRA
Sampling Point
Mud pit
Fluid pit
Class 1 1-2 landfill
Mud pit
Baker tank
Flash tank
Evaporation pond
Centrifuge
Sump
Sediment pond
Mud pit
filter press
Centrifuge
Cooling tower basin
Sump
Sump
Sump
Primary sump
Cooling tower basin
Fluid pit
Date
Collected
5/20/80
5/20/80
5/22/80
5/23/80
5/23/80
5/20/80
5/20/80
6/4/80
6/4/80
6/4/80
5/20/80
5/21/80
6/3/80
6/4/80
6/5/80
7/1/80
7/2/80
7/2/80
6/3/80
5/21/80
Date Analysis
Begun
5/29/80
5/29/80
5/29/80
5/29/80
5/29/80*
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
6/16/80
7/8/80
7/8/80
7/8/80
7/8/80
7/8/80
Radium 226
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X i
X '
Organlcs
X
X
X
^Duplicates to be analyzed. No bulk compositions to be performed.
X means that the sample was analyzed for Ra 226 and/or orgamcs.
733
-------
3.3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The analytical results are presented in this section for the
following analyses:
• Corrosivity
• Radioactivity
• EP toxicity
• Organics
• Bulk composition
In each of the above, the measurement technique employed is described, the
results obtained are tabulated, and any specific analytical problems
encountered are identified.
Detailed discussions of the analytical methods used are provided in
Appendix B. The complete set of analytical results for each sample is
included in Appendix C.
To facilitate identifying the various samples in the results tables
in this section, a key to the sample numbers and their descriptions is
presented in Table 3-3.
3.3.1 Corrosivity
Corrosivity was determined by measuring the pH of a 5 weight
percent slurry of the sample for solids. Liquids (brines) were measured
directly. Results are given in Table 3-4.
3.3.2 Radioactivity
Radium 226 analyses were performed on 20 samples as a measure of
radioactivity. Results are presented in Table 3-5 in pCi/g for all
samples except for two liquids samples which are reported in pCi/L.
Sample G10 was essentially a liquid but had high total suspended solids
(TSS) and was determined on the basis of total solids and reported as
34
-------
Table 3-3. Key to Identifying Samples
Sample Number
Field
61
63
66
G7
G8
69
G10
G12
614
G16
G19-2
G20-I
G20-V
G22-1
G23-1
G24-1
626- 1
G27-1
G30
G31
G32
Lab
1423
1430
1433
1434
1435
1436
1676
1437
1439
1441
1576
1577A
15778
1579
1580
158 1R
1585R
1587
1668
1669
1670
Sample Description
Dwell Flash Tank
Brine Holding Pond
Mud P1K, Sperry Well
Fluid P«, Sperry Well
Clarifler Reactor Sludge
Underflow
Mud Pit, Fee *1 Mall
North Brine Pit. Fee 11 Well
Class II- 2 Landfill
East Baker Tank.
Courier #1 Well
Mud Pit, Courier »1 Well
Iron Sludge from Centrifuge
Cooling Tower Sediment
Cooling Tower Sediment
Iron Sludge from Centrifuge
Cooling Tower Sediment
Abated Well Sump, Seigel
*1 Well
Sedimentation Pond
Sump In Hud Drilling Phase,
Aimnotl 11 Welt
Sump, Steamboat *1 Mel)
Sump, Humbolt House Well
Primary Sump, Desert Peak
Well
Location
Geothermal Test Facility,
East Mesa
Geothermal Test Facility,
East Mesa
East Mesa
East Mesa
Geothermal Loop Experimental
Near Nil and
Near Nlland
Near Nlland
Brawley
Westmorland
Westmorland
Unit 12
Unit 9
Unit 9
Units 5 & 6
Units 7 8, 8
Near Unit 18
Unit 12
Near Unit 13
Steamboat
H unbolt
Desert Peak
Geothermal
Resource
Area (GRA)
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
tl
N
N
Site Owner/Operator
OOE/Westec Services
DOE/Westec Services
Republic Geothermal
Republic Geothermal
OOE/Magma Power
Republic Geothermal
Republic Geothermal
Imperial County Oept.
of Public Works
MAPCO
MAPCO
PG4E
PG&E
PG&E
PG&E
PG&E
Union Oil of California
Union 011 of California
Aminoil USA
Phillips Petroleum
Phillips Petroleum
Phillips Petroleum
IV = Imperial Valley
G - The Geysers
N * Nevada
35
-------
Table 3-4. Corrosivity in Order of Increasing pH
Sample
Number
G10
G20
G14
626-1
G23-1
68
619-1
G22-1
G9
G7
G16
Gl
63
632
630
627
631
624-1
612
66
Sample Description
North Brine Pit (brine)
Cooling Tower Sediment
East Baker Tank (brine)
Sedimentation Pond
Cooling Tower Sediment
Clarifier Sludge
Iron Sludge
Iron Sludge
Mud Pit
Fluid Pit (brine)
Mud Pit
Flash Tank Scale
Brine Holding Pond
Primary Sump
Sump
Sump
Sump
Well Sump
Class II-2 Landfill
Mud Pit '"
Geothermal
Resource Area
IV
6
IV
G
6
IV
6
6
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
N
N
G
N
6
IV
IV
PH
1.6
3.7
3.8
4.2
5.1
6.1
6.2
6.6
8.4
8.7
8.8
8.8
8.8
9.1
9.3
9.6
9.8
10.0
10.0
12.0
IV = Imperial Valley site
6 = The Geysers site
N = Nevada site
36
-------
Table 3-5. Radium 226 In Order of Increasing Activity
(moisture-free basis, except as noted3)
Field
Number
G20-1
G26-1
623-1
G19-1
G22-1
G7
G10
G27-1
G24-1
630
66
612
63
631
69
61
632
616
68
614
Sample Description
Cooling Tower Sediment
Sedimentation Pond
Cooling Tower Sediment
Iron Sludge
Iron Sludge
Fluid Pit
Worth Brine Pit
Sump
Sump
Sump
Mud Pit
Class II-2 Landfill
Brine Holding Pond
Sump
Mud Pit
Flash Tank Scale
Primary Sump
Mud Pit
Clarifier Sludge
East Baker Tank
6eothermal
Resource Area
6
•r G 1
6 1
i
6 !
6
IV
IV
6 '
6 :
1
N i
IV '
IV
iv :
N ;
IV
IV
N
IV
IV
: . IV
pCi/g
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.15
1.5
1.6
2.1
3.0
3.8
5.9
78
1320a -
a - not moisture-free basis,
shown as pCi/L
IV = Imperial Valley site
6 = The Geysers site
N = Nevada site
37
-------
pCi/g. All values in Table 3-5 except for samples G7 and G14 are reported
on a dry basis.
3.3.3 EP Toxicity
Samples were prepared for analysis by the extraction procedures
described previously. The bulk sample was filtered, the residue extracted
under acid and neutral (ambient) pH conditions and filtered, and the
original and final filtrate combined. Three samples (G7, G10, and G14)
were geothermal brines with less than 0.5 percent TSS. These were not
\
extracted but were filtered and the filtrate analyzed.
Analyses were performed on the acid and ambient pH extracts for a
total of 16 elements: 8 RCRA regulated and 8 additional metals. Results
are presented in Table 3-6 for the RCRA elements and Table 3-7 for the
additional metals. All anayses except for boron were performed by atomic
absorption spectroscopy (AA). Boron was measured by the Curcumin
colorimetric method.
Because of high levels of colloidal material in a number of
samples, problems were encountered in filtration both before and after
extraction. Table 3-8 identifies alternate procedures used to circumvent
these difficulties. In all cases except for the sample G12 ambient pH
extract, the procedures recommended in Appendix II of the final RCRA
regulations (cf Federal Register, May 19, 1980, p. 33127) were followed.
Filtration after centrifugation could not be successfully performed on the
sample G12 ambient pH extract.
Difficulties encountered in analyzing the extracts included the
following:
• Interferences prevented quantitation of mercury in two
samples: G12 (ambient pH extract) and G10
38
-------
Table 3-6. RCRA Trace Elements in Order of Decreasing Total Trace
Elements (mg/1) in Acid and Ambient pH Extracts
Sample Sample
Number Type
610 Brine
614 Brine
G16 Hud
61 Scale
68 Sludge
63 Sediment
69 Mud
627-1 Hud
66 Hud
631 Hud
GI2 Hixed Sol
630 Hud
632 Hud
67 Brine
620-18 Sediment
620-1A* Sediment
623-1 Sediment
626-1 Sediment
622-1 Sludge
619-1 Sludge
624-1 Hud
GRA
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
6
IV
N
IV
N
N
IV
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Arsenic
AEP NEP
NO
- 14
0.049 0.047
0.036 0.033
0.23 0.23
0.04S 0.065
0.063 ND
NO 0.032
ND ND
ND 0.014
0.10 DA
0.06 0.26
NO ND
- 0.31
0.087 0.068
0.088 O.OS1
0.110 0.150
0.020 0.034
ND ND
NO ND
ND ND
Barium
AEP NEP
« 363
22
13 6.8
10.5 ND
5.0 5.4
3.8 0.60
1.8 NO
1.4 NO
1.4 ND
0.60 0.50
1.0 '1.4
0.60 NO
0.50 ND
NO
ND ND
NO NO
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
NO NO
NO ND
Cadmium
AEP NEP
-- 0.07
« 4
0.020 ND
ND HO
NA NA
ND ND
0.006 ND
ND NO
ND NO
0.006 0.005
NO NO
ND ND
ND ND
ND
0.010 0.010
0.013 0.014
NA NA
0.008 0.007
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
Chromium
AEP NEP
— 0.98
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND NO
, ND' ND
ND ND
0.070 ND
0.030 ND
ND 0.027
0.023 0.42
ND ND
ND 0.039
ND
0.029 0.023
0.051 0.020
ND ND
0.053 ND
NO ND
ND NO
ND ND
Lead
AEP NEP
m
- 83
0.060 NO
ND ND
0.20 . NO
ND ND
ND ND
NO ND
NO ND
0.70 0.50
NO 0.20
ND NO
NO ND
NO
0.140 0.180
0.100 0.130
0.070 0.050
ND ND
0.020 0.050
ND ND
ND NO
Mercury
AEP NEP
INT
NO
NO ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND HO
ND ND
ND ND
ND ' ND
NO INT
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND NO
ND NO
ND ND .
ND NO
HO ND
NO NO
ND NO
Selenium
AEP NEP
NO
- 5.1
0.10, 0.12
NO* ND
0.18 0.22
ND ND
0.030 0.020
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
NO NA
ND ND
0.030 ND
-- ND
ND NO
NO NO
ND NO
0.030 0.040
ND ND
NO ND
ND NO
Silver.
AEP NEP
~ NR
ND
NO ND
ND ND
NO ND
ND ND
ND ND
NO ND
NO NO
ND ND
NO ND
ND NO
ND 'NO
ND
NO NO
NO ND
ND NO
ND ND
NO ND
NO NO
ND NO
Total
AEP NEP
- 364 '
- 128
13.2 6.9
10.5 0.03
5.61 5.85
3.85 0.67
1.90 ND
1.47 0.03
1 .43 ND
1.30 1.17
I. 12 2.02
0.66 0.26
0.53 0.39
0.31
0.27 0.28
0.25 0.22
0.18 0.20
0.11 0.08
0.02 0.05
ND NO
ND NO
001
AEP Acid extraction procedure
INT Interference
IV Imperial Valley
6 The Geysers
NEP Ambient pH (neutral)
extraction procedure
NR
NB
Nevada
Not applicable
Not reported
Not detected
Duplicate analysis
-------
Table 3-7.
Additional Metals in Order of Decreasing Total Trace
Elements (mg/1) in Acid and Ambient pH Extracts
Sample
Number
614
G10
623- 1
68
G16
620-1A
626-1
622-1
U20-1B
G3
G19-1
G9
627
G31
G32
G7
G12
G6
G24-1
G30
61
Sample
Type
Brine
Brine
Sediment
Sludge
Hud
Sediment
Sediment
Sludge
Sediment
Sediment
Sludge
Mud
Mud
Hud
Mud
Brine
Mixed Sol
Hud
Hud
Hud
Scale
GBA
IV
IV
G
IV
IV
G
G
G
G
IV
G
IV
G
N
N
IV
IV
IV
G
N
IV
Antimony
AEP NEP
NO
NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO ID
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
KD NO
NO
ND NO
NO NO
ND ND
ND 0.07
0.18 0.1S
Beryllium
AEP NEP
NO
ND
ND ND
NO ND
ND ND
NO ND
ND ND
KD ND
ND ND
ND ND ,
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND NO
ND ND
ND
ND ND
NO ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
Boron
AEP NEP
~ 238
- 660
7.70 0.88
12.0 13.0
0.25 3.10
23.0 16.0
19.0 30.0
28.0 27.0
13.0 13.0
NO ND
7.6 0.52
NO 0.20
ND ND
ND ND
0.23 0.47
ND
ND 0.34
ND ND
0.87 15.0
0.30 0.57
ND ND
Copper
AEP NEP
ND
7.40
60 33
0.15 NO
NO ND
2.2 1.8
NO ND
ND NO
1.9 1.1
ND NO
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND 0.10
0.20 0.10
NO
NO 0.23
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
0.15 ND
Lithium
AEP NEP
-- 0.24
NR
NO NO
5.8 NO
3.3 3.1
ND NO
ND ND
NO 0.10
ND NO
0.17 0.13
ND ND
1.30 1.10
ND ND
0.05 NO
0.30 0.20
- 2.8
0.13 0.34
ND NO
ND NO
0.50 0.40
0.22 0.14
Nickel
AEP NEP
-p NO
— 0.30
ND NO
0.50 NO
ND NO
0.90 0.70
0.40 0.40
0.20 ND
0.7 0.6
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND NO
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
0.30 0.50
ND ND
ND ND
Strontium
AEP • NEP
- 1400
- 1290
ND NO
12.0 1S.O
23.0 20.0
ND NO
NO ND
NO NO
ND ND
8.3 ND
NO ND
5.4 1.5
3.5 ND
3.0 ND
2.6 NO
NO
2.4 NO
2.2 NO
0.60 NO
1.0 ND
ND ND
Zinc
AEP NEP
- 6000
NR
7.5 6.0
6.4 4.0
7.0 ND
6.20 6.00
9.0 14.0
0.06 0.03
5.0 4.5
0.110 ND
0.20 0.05
1.3 NO
0.08 ND
0.42 0.28
0.14 0.05
0.03
0.25 1.4
0.15 NO
0.30 NO
0.12 ND
0.70 ND
Total
AEP NEP
— 7630
- 1960
67.7 39.9
37.8 39.9
33.3 24.4
32.3 24.5
28.4 34.4
28.2 27.1
20.6 19.2
8.60 0.13
8.10 0.57
8.0 2.8
3.6 ND
3.5 0.34
3.5 0.82
2.8
2.8 2.0
2.4 ND
2.1 15.5
1.9 1.4
0.62 0.32
AEP Acid extraction procedure
IV Imperial Valley
G The Geysers
N Nevada
NEP Ambient pH (neutral) extraction procedure
Not applicable
NR Not reported
ND Not detected
-------
Table 3-8. Alternate Methods Employed in the Extraction Procedure
Sample Number
Gl (1428)
63 (1430)
G6 (1433)
G8 (1435)
69 (1436)
G12 (1437)
616 (1441)
619-1 (1576)
620-1 (1577A)
620-1 (1577B)
622-1 (1579)
623-1 (1580)
624-1 (1581)
626-1 (1585)
627-1 (1587)
630 (1668)
631 (1669)
632 (1670)
Grinding
Required
X
Acid Extraction
Extended
Extraction
X.
X
Centri-
fugation
X
X
X
X
Final
pH
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.2
5.0
5.2
4.5
4.9
4.9
5.0
3.5
5.0
4.9
5.2
4.9
5.1
5.2
Neutral Extraction
Centri-
fugation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Final
PH
7.0
8.3
11.3
5.1
6.1
9.4
8.0
5.7
5.1
5.1
5.5
3.9
9.4
5.0
6.8
9.8
9.9
9.1
X indicates specific alternate method employed
41
-------
• The acidification of the extracts with nitric acid created
interferences in the boron analysis. Also, the presence of
high dissolved solids or organic compounds in some samples
introduced additional interferences in boron measurement
• AA analyses were performed using the graphite furnace for
arsenic, cadium, chromium, lead, selenium, and antimony.
Problems developed related to inhibition signals (low
recoveries, especially lead) and false positive results caused
by smoke and high salt content. The samples which were
filtered- but not extracted (1434, 1439, 1676) and the 1437
neutral extract (high organics) tended to produce erratic
results in most furnace analyses. Flame analysis produced more
reliable results and were relied upon as a check or for
quantitation as appropriate
3.3.4 Organics Analysis
For three samples ~ 612, S22-1, G24-1 — known or suspected to
have had organic additives introduced, organics analyses were performed.
Sample G12 was collected at the Class 11-2 landfill in Brawley. This
landfill contained a mixture of fresh solid wastes, predominately drilling
muds, from the Imperial Valley. Sample G24-1 was a drilling mud sample
containing significant amounts of oil. Additives known to be present in
this mud were bentonite, sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, sodium
tetraphosphate, "Not Plug," and a polymeric material. Sample G22-1 was
selected for organics analysis because cationic polyamines and anionic
polyacrylamides are added to the iron sludge. These additives facilitate
settling of the solids.
42
-------
I
Bioaccumulation potential was determined using the HPLC method
'( specified in the proposed RCRA regulations. Priority pollutants listed in
Appendix E were screened by gas chromotography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS).
Results of these analyses are presented in Table 3-9.
3.3.5 Bulk Composition
! Bulk composition analyses were performed on the total sample and
the acid and ambient pH extracts. Metals and silica were measured by AA.
Chloride, flouride, sulfate, and sulfide were measured by standard wet
chemical analyses. Results are presented in Tables 3-10 and 3-11 for the
total sample and extract bulk compositions, respectively.
Because the zinc acetate sample preservation technique for sulfide
was not employed, it was anticipated that sulfide would not be detected.
This expectation was confirmed by the results in the tables.
3.4 QUALITY CONTROL
3.4.1 General Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Program specific quality control entailed several factors. The
objective of the laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
program was to meet EPA requirements for precise and accurate results.
The principal features of the laboratory QA/QC procedures are summarized
below.
Upon receipt at the Acurex Environmental Analytical Laboratory,
samples were assigned laboratory identification numbers and logged in. An
analysis request form was filled out by the sample control center with the
aid of the project chemist. Samples were then placed in the laboratory
cold storage room and analysis request forms turned in to the appropriate
laboratory supervisors. Thus, the samples and required analyses were
clearly specified.
43
-------
Table 3-9. Organics Analysis Results
Bioaccumulation Potential
Sample No.
G12
G22-1
624-1
Extract
Acid extract
Neutral extract
Acid extract
Neutral extract
Acid extract
Neutral extract
Percent of
Peak Area
Log P > 3
0
72
0
0
0.39
1.8
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Negative
Positive
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Priority Pollutants Screening
Sample No.
G22-1
G24-1
G12
Extract
Acid extract
Neutral extract
Acid extract
Neutral extract
Acid extract
Neutral extract
Compounds Identified
Phenol
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
None detected
Phenol
2-nitro phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
4,6-dinitro cresol
anthracene/
phenanthrene
Concentration
(ug/D
0.4
14
3
2
640
4
2
18
6
44
-------
Table 3-10. Bulk Composition of Total Sample (Decreasing Weight % Silica)
and Tentative Identification of Major Components3
Sample
Number
69
616
G6
627
G12
624-1
£30
631
632
68
63
623-1
61
626-1
622-1
619-1
Sample
Type
Hud
Mud
Mud
Mud
Nixed Solids
Hud
Hud
Hud
Hud
Sludge
Sediment
Sediment
Scale
Sediment
Sludge
Sludge
6RA
IV
IV
IV
6
IV
6
N
N
N
IV
IV
6
IV
6
6
G
Ut
% Silica
77
61
61
59
49
41
33
31
30
23
15
12
2
T
T
T
v
Other Materials (Approximate X In parentheses) <
Sodium, potassium, calcium salts {10%); Iron, magnesium, >
aluminum oxides (10%)
Sodium, calcium salts (15X); Iron, magnesium, aluminum oxides
(20X)
Calcium salts (10X); iron, magnesium, aluminum oxides (10X)
Iron, magnesium, aluminum oxides (15X)
Calcium salts (10X); Iron, magnesium, aluminum oxides (15X)
Iron, magnesium, aluminum oxides (20X) '
Iron, magnesium, aluminum oxides (10X)
Calcium salts (10X)j Iron, magnesium, aluminum oxides (10X)
?
Sodium, potassium calcium salts (35X); Iron oxides (10X)
?
Iron oxides (SOX)
Calcium carbonate (70X)
Iron oxides (70%)
Iron oxides (40X)
Iron oxides (60X)
IV Imperial Valley
6 The Geysers
N Nevada
"Percentages are on dry weight basis. Oxides are proportioned at approximately 0.3 to 0.5 times
element. Percentages In parentheses are on "as received'1 basis.
-------
Table 3-11. Bulk Composition of Extracts in Order of Decreasing Chloride
Content (mg/1)
•utter
610
GI4
68
6M
07
63
632
812
SI
M
611
61
630
627
621
624
626
622
619
T»e
Brine
Brim
Sludge
(M
Or loo
Bui
Hut
Ni»ed solid*
Suit
Mud
Hud
SedtaeM
Mud
Had
Sedterat
Mud
Sedlowt
Sludge
Sludge
SIX
IV
1*
!»
IK
1*
U
a
l«
i«
11
•
ID
n
6
a
6
6
6
6
Chloride
AEP UP
.. 895.000
- 158,700
5,000 5,370
2.260 2.200
- 1.100
1.280 1,150
487 492
115 227
57 99
54 55
u a
49 58
23 22
3.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 Ml
1.0 2.0
« ID
» 1.0
Fluoride
AEP HEP
-- It
- W
1.7 M
0.32 0.24
— 10
O.S5 0.55
0.33 0.31
0.29 0.66
6.3 0.42
0.60 0.32
O.M 0,41
1.6 0.74
0.44 0.46
0.13 0.14
O.H 0.15
0.34 0.28
0.12 0.07
0.12 0.14
0.11 0.11
unsolved
Silica
AEP HEP
- 300
— It
4 2.0
11 4.0
~ 13
4 ID
ID M
2 160
4 4.0
32 4.0
9 8.0
8 5.0
14 11
5 4.0
Ml ID
M> 16
6 4
ID ID
ID 10
SultlU
AEP dtp
M>
•* w
1 t.t
6.6 6.7
65
80 170
16 40
10 89
4.S 6.2
64 30
82 76
7 6.9
39 22
m u
300 260
32 62
1,400 1,900
9.6 85
1.0 99
Almlnue
A£P HEP
- W
~ 1.2
Ml ID
ID NO
1.6
ID ID
10 Ml
ID 190
ID 1C
1.2 1.2
«D 4.6
NO W
M> NO
ID B
1 Ml
ID Ml
Ml Ml
W Ml
M) HI
Ctlctue
A£P HEP
- 61,000
- 14,800
BOO 840
1,200 130
»
360 120
790 8.1
660 33
1,800 3.2
1,100 28
1.100 29
680 6.4
700 8.1
690 0.81
1.7 1.7
280 34
4.8 2.1
2.4 2.0
2.9 2.1
Iron
AEP HEP
- 3,200
- 2,100
1 ID
0.8 W
0.97
1.2 Ml
2.6 1.0
0.8 76
W Ml
9.8 Ml
4.6 9.2
1.8 Ml
1.6 Ml
14 0.8
44 60
32 Ml
630 710
Ml Ml
0.8 M>
Magnet 1ua
«P HEP
- 113
- 440
3.9 3.7
18 6
1.7
32 6.8
18 0.55
20 62
4.4 0.08
38 Ml
21 4
7.5 0.48
19 0.08
6 0.40
0.36 0.10
9.6 W
1.2 1.8
0.20 0.16
0.28 0.22
Potential
AEP HEP
- 18.000
- 10.000
400 400
170 160
— 91
110 120
28 20
48 86
9.4 6.1
24 18
l| 4.7
17 11
21 12
2.5 0.83
0.21 0.21
8.1 2.5
0.60 0.71
0.18 0.15
0.28 0.21
iodtue
ACP HEP
- 56,000
- 60,000
1.900 1.900
979 950
1,500
680 550
ISO 179
235 210
66 50
115 109
140 120
61 60
51 48
28 25
0.9 0.9
24 48
60 71
24 24
17 16
A£P Acid entractlon procedure
ID I«per1al ««ll«y
m
Ml
Tha 6eyser*
Nevada
toDltnt pH (itaitrel) eitrtctlon procedure
Not applicable
Hot reported
Hot detected
-------
The laboratory analysis portion of the QA/QC program involved
several phases, from glassware preparation to reporting of results, each
controlled by formalized procedures. Any alterations of these procedures
was reviewed with the project chemist.
The analytical quality procedures included blank, duplicate, and
spike analyses as well as method blanks. Reference samples and
calibration standards were of primary standard grade, National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) traceable, or of certified purity. Specific results for
duplicates and spikes are detailed in the following section. Blank and
reference sample analysis results are available, but not included in this
report.
To assure the integrity of the reported results, the project
chemist reviewed data with the analysts and discussed the results.
Reported values were transcribed directly from the laboratory books to the
laboratory reporting form. The project chemist transcribed the analytical
data to the report format. The typed draft for review was then checked
against the original laboratory forms. By using these specific procedures
and several other integral parts of the laboratory QA/QC program, the
quality of the analytical work was documented and assured.
3.4.2 Program Specific Quality Control
Quality control generally covered 10 percent of the samples
analyzed. There were several areas of quality control beyond the normal
QC built into each analytical method.
Extract Blank
A DI water blank was carried through the entire extraction
procedure including filtration of the sample. The blank was also carried
47
-------
through the priority pollutant analytical scheme. Results for these
analyses are shown in Table 3-11. Trace levels of some elements were
detected, but in most cases levels were below the accurate quantisation
limit of the method. The amounts detected can be attributed to impurities
in the DI water, laboratory contamination, or problems with the method.
Spike and Recovery Experiments
For each analysis approximately four samples were spiked with the
element of interest. Average recovery results are tabulated in
Table 3-12. Most of the values were very close to 100 percent and as such
are a good indicator of quality results.
Duplicates
Duplicate determinations were run on about four samples for each
analytical procedure. In all cases the duplicates were within
10 percent of the original. This provided a good ongoing QC check for
each analyst.
Acid and Neutral Extracts
Each of the 18 solid samples was actually extracted twice: once
under acid conditions and once under "neutral" conditions; i.e., without
adjustment to pH 5. For many parameters the concentrations were nearly
identical in both extracts. In a sense, every extract was run in
duplicate and these correlations were a good QC check.
A cross check on the QC was obtained by comparing similar samples.
Sample G20 was run twice and all results showed good agreement. Samples
619 and 622 were from identical but separate'processes in the same 6RA.
They also showed excellent agreement on EP trace element and bulk analyses.
48
-------
Table 3-12. Analytical Results for Extract Blank
Sample: Extract Blank
Number: GO
Bulk Composition
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (Si02)
Sulfate ($04)
Sulfide (S)
Extract
mg/L
1
0.4
<0.2
0.05
0.34
1.5
1.5
0.14
5
<1.0
<0.1
Trace Elements
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony -(Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (8)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
Extract
^g/L
<20
<300
<5
<20
30
<1
<20
<20
- <50
<20
340
<70
<50
<200
<500
30
ORGANICS
' ?ri°.rlty Pollutants
; Acid Fraction
i Base/Neutral Fraction
! Bioaccumulation Potential
None detected
None detected
Negative
49
-------
Table 3-13. Percent Recovery of Spiked Samples
Bulk Composition
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
Sulfide (S)
Trace Elements
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
Average Percent Recovery
102
96
94
114
108
95
95
102
106
93
~
102
95
90
95
55
90
86
98
97
91
75
100
100
89
71
101
50
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS DISCUSSION
The results presented in Section 3.3 are discussed in this section
in terras of the RCRA hazardous waste identification criteria.
Additionally, the results are compared on the basis of geothermal resource
area and by type of extraction procedure employed.
4.1 RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
There are four RCRA hazardous waste criteria for which
analytical protocols and maximum limits have either been promulgated or
proposed by EPA and which have been considered in this study:
*
t Corrosivity
• Radioactivity
• EP toxicity
• Bioaccumulation potential
Comparison of the 20 samples analyzed against the hazardous waste
identification criteria for these characteristics yielded the results
presented in Table 4-1. Five samples exceed one or more of these
criteria. Sample G8, a clarifier reactor sludge from the Imperial Valley,
exceeds the proposed (December 18, 1978) radium 226 limit. Sample G10, a
well brine sample from the Imperial Valley, has a pH below the lower limit
for corrosivity and has a barium concentration above the maximum. Sample
612, Brawley Landfill, showed a positive bioaccumulation potential and
51
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of Analytical Results
with RCRA Criteria for
Hazardous Wastes
Simple
Nuaber
C8*
CIO*
01|*
cu*
016*
Ul
Uhera
t*
Saopla
Type
Sludge
Brine
Solid*
Brine
Hud
Various
Uaate Criteria Corrosivity
Constituent Analyzed: pH
RCRA Liaite: £2oril2.5.
1.6
3.7 - 12
Radioactivity
Badiuo-226
5 pCi/g or250 pCi/tb
76 pCi/g
1,320 pCi/L
5.9 pCi/L
0-3.8 pCi/g
C pCi/L
EP Toxicity* (mg/L)
As &a Cd Cr Pb Hg Se Ag
5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0- 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0
14
<0.020
0.31
363
<0.3
22
4
•CO. 005
0.07
<.0.020
0.98
83
<0.020
0.70
<0.001
5.1
< 0.020
0.18
<0.020
lioaccumilation
potential
Log P>3
potitive
Peaka
Positive
Not analysed
or cero
01
f\J
Value* preaented only for exceedencea of RCBA limits
**Rangea preaented for bigbeat and lowett values (all within RCBA liaita)
*Acid extract! and liquid tanple filtrate
bRadioactivity criteria propoaed 12/18/78: not promulgated.
-------
further testing is recommended. Sample 614, a well brine collected while
a flow test was in progress in the Imperial Valley, exceeds the
radioactivity limit and the maximum concentrations for arsenic, cadmium,
lead, and selenium. Sample G16, a mud sample from the same well as number
614, exceeds the-radioactivity limit. The greater number of RCRA limit
exceedences for sample G14 are likely due to the fact that, unlike the
other brine samples collected, the salts in 614 had no opportunity to
settle out since the sample was collected during a well flow test.
None of the remaining 15 samples exhibited pH, radium 226, DWS
contaminant values, or log p>3 outside of the nonhazardous ranges for the
corrosivity, radioactivity, and EP toxicity, or bioaccumulation potential
criteria, as shown in Table 4-1.
The only two samples (610 and 614) that exceeded the maximum values
for criteria for which final regulations have been promulgated
(corrosivity and EP toxicity) were geothermal brine samples from wells in
the Imperial Valley. Current regulations adopted by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board require that brines produced by geothermal drilling
operations which exceed 6,000 ppm total dissolved solids be disposed of at
a state hazardous waste disposal site. Well operators in the Imperial
Valley generally maintain segregated drilling mud and brine pits. Muds
are disposed of at Class II-2 disposal sites for nonhazardous wastes while
brines are sent to Class I hazardous waste sites. Hence, the types of
geothermal solid wastes represented by the two brine samples discussed
above are already managed as hazardous wastes in the Imperial Valley.
Three samples (two drilling muds and an iron sulfide sludge) were
screened for the 11 acid compounds and the 46 base/neutral compounds
listed as priority pollutants by EPA (Appendix D) . Each sample gave two
53
-------
fractions for analysis by GC/MS. Phenol and phenol derivatives were found
in all three samples.
Drilling muds can either be water-based or oil-based. Oil-base
muds contain diesel fuel and asphalt as well as caustic soda and organic
acids to control pH. Drilling muds also contain some of the following
additives:
• pH control additives
• Bactericides
t Calcium removers
• Corrosion inhibitors
a Defoamers
• Emulsifiers
• Filtrate reducers
• Flocculants
t Foaming agents
• Plugging additives
• Lubricants
• Surface active agents
9 Dispersants
• Viscosifiers
Under the conditions of high temperature common in geothermal drilling
operations, these materials can degrade into compounds listed as priority
pollutants.
The occurrence of phenols in the drilling mud samples (G12 and
G24-1) may result from direct addition of these compounds, but more likely
come from the reaction of caustic soda (NaOH) with additives containing
phenol groups. The alkaline nature of the muds and the final pH of the
54
-------
ambient extracts, (both 9.4) suggest that the phenol is present as a sodium
salt. This is confirmed by the higher concentration of phenol in the
ambient extract (640 ug/L) compared to the acid extract (2 vg/L) in
G24-1. Polynuclear aromatic compounds (PNA's) were also detected in G-12
and G22-1. For sample G-12, these could easily have come from asphalt
(known to contain PNA's) which may have been used in an oil-based drilling
mud system.
The presence of a PNA's in the iron sludge (G22-1) cannot be
readily explained since the only known additives were polyamines and
polyacrylamides.
4.2 GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE AREA
Samples were collected from three geothermal resource areas:
• Imperial Valley
• The Geysers
• Northwestern Nevada
A comparison of the analytical results from each of these areas for
the RCRA hazardous waste criteria is presented in Table 4-2.
Collectively, the Imperial Valley samples demonstrated the widest range of
pH values and the highest radium 226 levels and DWS contaminant
concentrations. The four samples which met either proposed or promulgated
RCRA criteria for hazardous wastes were all from the Imperial Valley. The
Geysers and northwestern Nevada samples were overall much lower in
radioactivity levels and DWS contaminant concentrations. The Nevada
samples, on the whole, were much Tower in all respects than the samples
from the other GRA's. This may be real or due to the limited number of
Nevada samples analyzed.
55
-------
Table 4-2. Comparison of Geothermal Resource Areas for RCRA Hazardous Waste Criteria
Geothermal /
Resource /
Area /
/ Number of
.S Samples
Imperial 10
Valley
The Geysers 7
Nevada 3
Waste Criteria , Corrosivity
, 1
Constituent Analyzed:
RCRA Limits.
Range presented for
lowest and highest
values
PH
s 2 or 212.5
1.6 - 12.0
3.7 - 10.0
9.1 - 9.3
Radioactivity
Radium- 226
a5 pCi/g or 50 pCi/L
1.0-78 pCi/g
0 - 1320 pCi/L
0 - 0.5 pCi/g
1.0 - 3.8 pCi/g
EP Toxicity* (mg/L)
As
5.0
N0°-
14
ND-
0.110
ND-
0.06
Ba
100.0
NO-
363
ND-
.1.4
0.50-
0.60
Cd
1.0
NO-
4
NO-
0.013
NO-
0.006
Cr
5.0
ND-
0.98
NO-
0.070
NO
Pb
5.0
ND-
83
ND-
0.140
ND-
0.70
Hg
0.2
NO
NO
NO
Se
1.0
ND-
5.1
NO-
0.030
NO-
0.030
Ag
5.0
NO
NO
NO
Btoaccumulation
potential
Log P > 3
positive
Peaks
Negative
Positive
Positive
Positive
'Acid extract (except for liquid samples)
bttot Detected
-------
4.3 ACID VERSUS AMBIENT pH EXTRACTION
The proposed and final RCRA regulations specify an acidic
extraction procedure as part of the toxicity analysis. In addition to
performing the specified acetic acid EP, a neutral or ambient pH EP using
deionized water was conducted. A comparison of the results obtained by
the two procedures yields the following:
Average Percentage by Which
DWS Element Neutral EP Results Varied from Acid EP
Arsenic
Bari urn
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
+32
-64
-32
+28
+10
—
-12
—
Correlations are difficult because in some cases the ambient pH was on the
acidic side of neutral. In general, the concentrations were higher in the
acid extract. This was most apparent for calcium, magnesium, strontium,
and barium. All of these elements form relatively insoluble carbonate
salts which are more soluble under acidic conditions.
57
-------
APPENDIX A
Letter Requesting Permission to Sample
Gentlemen:
I am writing to you concerning a request to sample solid waste
materials from your geothermal installations.
Acurex Corporation is currently performing a study for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency examining the hazardous potential of solid
wastes from geothermal development and operational areas. Mr. Robert P.
Hartley of EPA's Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH is our
technical project monitor. The U.S. Department of Energy is jointly
funding this effort. Mr. Gerald Katz of the San Francisco Operations
Office is DOE's technical advisor to Mr. Hartley. This work is being
undertaken in cooperation with EPA's Office of Solid Waste. Mr. William
Kline is the contact in that office.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that EPA
promulgate regulations for the handling and disposal of solid wastes,
including those containing hazardous substances. EPA expects, as part of
its obligations under RCRA, to examine the hazardous potential of various
solid wastes such as those arising from geothermal activities in order to
determine under what sections of RCRA these should be controlled.
Congress is considering a temporary exemption from RCRA for geothermal
energy projects while studies to define the nature of the wastes are
on-going. Eventually, EPA will have to promulgate regulations and/or
waste management guidelines for geothermal-produced solid wastes.
The Acurex study is a screening study, the results of which will be
preliminary and will help focus the efforts of an anticipated
comprehensive and detailed project to define the character of potentially
hazardous wastes from geothermal energy development.
Over the next 3 months, we will sample and analyze sol id'wastes
from as representative a group of geothermal sites as access permission
and time and budget permit.
58
-------
While our study is directed at assisting EPA in formulating a
regulatory direction, it is not intended for use in conjunction with any
enforcement proceedings. EPA does not plan to publish the final report of
this preliminary study although copies may be released upon request.
Duplicates of all samples which we collect will be provided to the
facility operator for his independent analysis, if so desired. We will
withhold transmitting our analytical results for a reasonable length of
time to permit comparison with any independent analysis performed.
Significant differences in the results obtained which cannot be explained
by procedural variations will be noted in our report.
Acurex hopes to conduct the field sampling program during the
months of May and June 1980. Types of samples to be collected would
include drilling muds, holding and evaporation pond tailings, conversion
process waste streams, and other solids, slurries, and sludges. We would
identify the specific sampling points during telephone conversations with
your designated officials prior to going out in the field.
Acurex will employ sampling and analytical protocols in confortnance
with EPA's proposed regulations (40 CFR 250 in 43 FR 58946) as updated by
discussions with EPA's Offi£fi__pf Solid Waste and Las Vegas Environmental
Monitoring System Laboratory personnel. Due to the screening nature of
our study, only grab samples will be collected.
As part of our sampling program we would like to obtain information
relating to waste volumes produced over time, operational status of
processes sampled, and current waste handling and disposal practices.
I hope we can reach an agreement regarding access permission and
timing that will be mutually acceptable and consistent with your needs.
Your earliest response to this request would be greatly
appreciated. You may reach me with any questions at 415/964-3200,
extension 3383. Mr. Hartley's telephone number is 513/684-4335.
Mr. Kline's telephone number is 202/755-9200.
Sincerely yours,
David D. Minicucci
Project Engineer
DDM-.lw
cc: R. Hartley, EPA-Ci
G. Katz, DOE-San
59
-------
ATTACHMENT
Determining the hazardous character of the samples will consist
of analyzing for the following constituents:
• Inorganics listed in proposed 40 CFR 250, Section 250.13(d)
regulations. This list includes arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver.
• Boron, zinc, lithium, copper, antimony, nickel, beryllium,
and strontium
t Potentially hazardous materials known or suspected to have
been added in conversion processes, such as:
-- Scale and corrosion inhibitors
— Additives for H-S removal processes
• Radium 226
.60
-------
APPENDIX B
SPECIFIC ANALYTICAL METHODS
Acurex used EPA approved analytical methods for this program as
summarized in Table B-l., Complete descriptions of the various analyses
performed are presented below.
1. Metals
Metals were determined by atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy using
a Perkin-Elmer Model 460 equipped with heated graphite analyzer, hydride
system and 30 lamps. Samples were digested with nitric acid or mixed
acids if required. To obtain part per billion (ppb) detection limits for
some trace elements, furnace techniques were used. Mercury was determined
by the cold vapor technique.
2. Chloride
For the total sample, chloride was determined by potentiometric
titration with silver nitrate solution. The digested sample was titrated
to an end point which gave the greatest change in potential per unit
volume of silver nitrate added.
Extracts were titrated with silver nitrate using potassium chromate
as an indicator.
61
-------
Table B-l. Summary of Analytical Methods
Bulk Composition — Total Sample
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (Si02)
Sulfate (S04)
Suifide (S)
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
Potentiometric
Electrode
AA, Direct Aspiration
Gravimetric
Titrimetric (Iodine)
Method 202.1 (1)
Method 215.1 (1)
Method 236.1 (1)
Method 242.1 (1)
Method 258.1 (1)
Method 273.1 (1)
Method 408. C (2)
Method 414. B (2)
Perkin-Elmer (3)
Method 427. A (2)
Method 428. D (2)
Bulk Composition — Extracts
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (Si02)
Sulfate (S04)
Suifide (S)
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
Ar gen tome trie
Electrode
AA, Direct Aspiration
Turbidimetric
Methyl ene Blue
Method 202.1 (1)
Method 215.1 (1)
Method 236.1 (1)
Method 242.1 (1)
Method 258.1 (1)
Method 273.1 (1)
Method 408. A (2)
Method 414. B (2)
Perkin-Elmer (3)
Method 427. C (2)
Method 428. C (2)
62
-------
Table B-l. Continued
Trace Elements -- Extracts
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (In)
AA, Furnace
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
and Furnace
AA, Direct Aspiration
and Furnace
AA, Direct Aspiration
and Furnace
AA, Cold Vapor
AA, Furnace
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Furnace
AA, Direct Aspiration
Colorimetric, Curcutnin
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
AA, Direct Aspiration
Method 206.2 (1)
Method 208.1 (1)
Methods 213.1
and 213.2 (1)
Methods 218.1
and 218.2 (1)
Methods 239.1
and 239.2 (1)
Method 245.1 (1)
Method 270.2 (1)
Method 272.1 (1)
Method 204.2 (1)
Method 210.1 (1)
Method 405. A (2)
Method 220.1 (1)
Perkin-Elmer (3)
Method 249.1 (1)
Perkin-Elmer (3)
Method 289.1 (1)
Other Parameters
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
_ Radium 226
Electrode
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Scintillation or
Deemanation
Method 150.1 (1)
Method 208. A (2)
Method 208. D (2)
Method 706 (2)
Priority Pollutants — Acid and Base/Neutral Compounds
Solvent Extraction, GC/MS
Bioaccumulation Potential
HPLC, octanol/water partition coefficient
EP Toxicity
Extraction Procedure
Federal Register (4)
Federal Register (5)
Federal Register (6)
63
-------
References
(1) "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"
EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1979.
(2) "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 14th
Edition, 1975. APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington, D.C.
(3) "Standard Operating Conditions Manual," Perkin-Elmer Corporation,
Norwalk, Connecticut, September 1976.
(4) Federal Register, 40CFR Part 136, Volume 44, Number 233, December 3,
1979.
(5) Federal Register, 40CFR, Part 250, Volume 43, Number 243,
December 18, 1978.
(6) Federal Register, 40CFR, Part 261, Appendix II, Volume 45, Number 98,
May 19, 1980.
64
-------
3. Fluoride
The total sample was first distilled to separate fluoride from
interferences. The resulting fluoride in the distillate was measured
using a specific ion electrode. Extracts were analyzed directly using the
electrode.
4. Silica
Solid samples were first digested. All digests and extracts were
analyzed by flame AA. Results are reported as SiOg.
5. Sulfate
Solid samples were digested and the sulfate precipitated with
barium chloride. The resulting barium sulfate was determined
gravimetrically in the extracts. Low levels of sulfate were measured
turbidimetrically as barium sulfate using a nephelometer.
6. Sulfide
Samples were not preserved with zinc acetate and therefore levels
were expected to be low. Aliquots of the solid samples in water were
taken and treated with excess iodine. These were then back titrated with
sodium thiosulfate. Extracts were determined colorimetrically as
methylene blue at a wavelength of 625 mm on a Hitachi spectrophotometer.
7. Boron
Boron in the extracts was determined using the Curcumin method.
Boron reacts with curcumin to form a red-colored product called
rosocyanine. The color was measured photometrically.
8. Priority Pollutants
A 1-liter sample was extracted with methylene chloride using
separatory funnel techniques. Because of problems with emulsions, one
sample was extracted using a liquid-liquid continuous extractor. In each
65
-------
case, the extract was dried over sodium sulfate and concentrated to a
volume of 1 ml in a Kuderna-Danish evaporator. Each sample gave two
fractions (base/neutral and acid) which were analyzed by GC/MS following
Method 625 (Federal Register, Vol. 44, #233, p. 69540, December 3, 1979).
9. Bioaccumulation Potential
Specific correlations exist between octanol/water partition
coefficients and bioconcentration in fish. High performance liquid
chromatography is used to determine this bioaccumulation potential.
First, the instrument is calibrated with a series of compounds with known
partition coefficients. If the organic compounds in an extract nave
partition coefficients above a designated level, the sample has a positive
bioaccumultion potential.
10. Corrosivity
The pH was measured using an Orion Model 701 pH Meter. Liquids
were measured directly. Ten grams of solids (as received) were slurried
with 200 ml of DI water for 12 hours and then the pH was measured.
11. Moisture
A portion of the sample was dried at 105°C for 12 hours and the
residue determined gravimetrically.
12. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
A known volume of sample was filtered and the residue dried at
105°C for 12 hours. A gravimetric determination gave the TSS.
13. Radium 226
Radium 226 in solids was determined by garrroa spectroscopy using a
Ge(Li) scintillation counter and the radium 226 in liquid samples was
determined by deemanation techniques.
66
-------
i 14. Toxicity Extraction Procedure
i
Approximately 150g of a representative sample were used in this
procedure. The solid phase was extracted in an Acurex Rotary Extractor
for 24 hours at pH 5 to give the acid extract. Each sample was also
extracted with 01 water with no adjustment of the pH. This extract became
the neutral extract. In some cases the samples were difficult to filter
and centrifugation was necessary.
67
-------
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTING SHEETS
A Geothermal Analytical Data form was prepared for each sample
analyzed. These are presented on the following pages. Abbreviations used
on the forms include:
NA ~ Not applicable
Int — Interference (reporting of results not possible)
The following notes also apply:
• Total sample bulk composition analyses reported on an "as
received basis"
• mg/L = ppm
• ug/L = ppb
68
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
UD
Sample: Dowel 1 Flash Tank
Number: Gl (1428)
Location: Geotherraal
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Type: Scale
Test Facility, East Mesa (Imperial Valley)
Total
0.29
Calcium (Ca) 11.4
Iron (Fe) 5.1
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (U)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
Sulflde (S) <
0.13
0.035
0.11
0.080
0.040
0.9
0.01
0.01
Acid Extract Neutral Extract
mg/L mg/L
<1 <1
1,800 3.2
<0.2 <0.2
4.4 0.08
9.4 6.3
55 50
57.0 59.0
6.3 0.42
4.0 4.0
4.5 6.2
<0.1 <0.1
QRGANICS
Priority Pollutants
NA
Detected
U9/1
Site Ovmer/Qperator:
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
.Barium (Ba)
Cadmium, (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OOE/Hestec Services
Acid Extract Neutral Extract
36
10,500
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
180
<20
<200
150
220
<200
<500
70
33
300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
180
<20
<200
70
140
<200
<500
<20
OTHER PARAMETERS
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Jt._8_
61 %
NA
3.0
J*L
pCI/g
Bioaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Brine Holding Pond
Number: G3 (1430)
Location: Geothermal
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Ma)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
',) Silica (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
Type: Sediment
Test Facility, East Mesa (Imperial Valley)
Total Acid Extract- Neutral Extract
% mg/L mg/L
0.22 <1 <1
0.73 680 6.4
0.32 1.8 <0.2
0.15 7.5 0.48
0.094 17 11
0.087 63 50
0.090 49.0 58.0
0.010 1.8 0.74
9.8 8 5
0.01 7.0 5.5
Sulfide (S) <0.0002 <0.1 <0.1
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants
NA
Detected ug/L
'
Site Owner/Operator: DOE/Westect Services
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
ug/L
45
3,800
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
<2,000
<70
170
<200
8,300
110
PARAMETERS
8.8
34 *
NA
3.8
Neutral Extract
ug/L
65
600
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
<200
<70
130
<200
<500
<20
PH
pCi/g
Bioaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Mud Pit, Sperry Well
Number: G6 (1433)
Location: East Mesa
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Ma)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
Sulflde (S)
(Imperial
Total
%
1.2
1.65
0.66
0.43
0.36
0.24
0.10
0.023
24.4
0.05
<0.1
QRGAN1CS
Priority Pollutants Detected
NA
Type: Mud
Valley)
Acid Extract Neutral Extract
mg/L mg/L
1.2 1.2
1,100 28
5.8 0.2
38 0.04
24 18
115 105
54.0 55.0
0.60 0.32
32 4
64 30
0.1 0.1
ug/L
Site Owner/Operator: Republic Geothermal
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (LI)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Z1nc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
ug/L '
<20
1,400
<5
<20
30
<20
<20
<50
<20
<2,000
<70
<50
<200
2,200
150
PARAMETERS
12.0
60 %
NA
1.0
Neutral Extract
ug/L
<20
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
<200
<70
<50
<200
<500
<20
PH
pC1/g
Bioaccumulatton Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Number: G7 (1434)
Location: East Mesa
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (S102)
Sulfate (SO/))
Sulfide (S)
Type: Brine
(Imperial Valley)
Total
mg/L
1.6
30.0
0.97
1.7
91
1500
1700
10
13
65
<0.1
QRGANICS
Priority Pollutants Detected pg/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator: Republic
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (L1)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
Geothermal
Filtrate
U9/L
310
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<100
<20
<200
<70
2,800
<200
<500
30
OTHER PARAMETERS
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
8.7 pH
NA
54 mg/L
0.0 pC1/g
Bioaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Clarifier Reactor Sludge Underflow
Number: G8 (1435) Type: Sludge
Location; Geothermal Loop Experimental Facility, Near Niland (Imperial Valley) Site Owner/Operator:
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Hg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (Si02)
Sulfate ($04)
Sulflde (S)
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
X mg/L mg/L
<0.01 <1 <1
1.5 800 840
2.45 1.0 <0.2
0.020 3.5 3.7
1.1 400 400
4.3 1,900 1,900
9.3 5,000 5,370
0.34 1.7 1.8
12.4 4 2
0.007 1.0 6.5
<0.01 <0.1 <0.1
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants Detected pg/L
NA
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
ug/L
236
5,000
60
<20
200
180
<20
<50
<20
12,000
150
5,800
500
12,000
6,400
PARAMETERS
_6
46
NA
78
; DOE/Magma Power
Neutral Extract
u9/L
230
5,400
60
<20
<20
220
<20
<50
<20
13,000
<70
?,900
<200
15,000
4,000
.1 pH
X
pCI/g
Bioaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Mud Pit,
, Fee #1 Well
Number: G9 (1436) Type: Mud
Location: Near Niland (Imperial Valley) Site Owner/Operator: Republic
BULK COMPOSITION
aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (S102)
Sulfate (504)
Sulfide (S)
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
% mg/L mg/L
2.57 <1 <1
2.2 360 120
1.7 1.2 <0.2
1.15 32 5
1.1 130 120
1.25 580 550
2.0 1,280 1,150
0.042 0.95 0.55
29.2 4 <4
0.15 80 170
<0.02 <0.1 <0.1
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants Detected ug/L
NA
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Geothermal
Acid Extract
ug/L
63
1,800
6
<20
<20
30
<20
<50
<20
<2,000
<70
1,300
<200
5,400
1,300
PARAMETERS
8.4
62 %
NA
2.1
Neutral Extract
ug/L
<20
<300
<5
<20
<20
20
<20
<50
<20
200
<70
1,100
<200
1,500
<20
PH
pCi/g
Bloaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Number: G10 (1676) Type: Brine
Location: Near Niland (Imperial Valley)
Total
BULK COMPOSITION mg/L
Aluminum (Al) <1
Calcium (Ca) 51,000
Iron (Fe) 3,200
Magnesium (Mg) 313
Potassium (K) 38,000
Sodium (Na) 55,000
Chloride (Cl) 295,000
^J~; Fluoride (F) 19
I
// /„ Silica (SiO?) 300
• Sulfate ($04) <0.01
Sulflde (S) <0.1
ORGAWCS
Priority follutants Detected ^g/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator: Republic Geothermal
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Filtrate
ug/L
<250
363,000
70
980
6.300
Int '
<500
<20
<200
<20
660,000
7,400 ,
'509,000
300
1,290,000
1.130,000 !
PARAMETERS
1.6 pH
NA
5600 mg/L
0.4 pC1/g
Bioaccutnulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Class II-2 Landfill
Number: G12 (1437) Type: Mixed Solids
Location: Brawley (Imperial Valley)
Total Add Extract
BULK COMPOSITION * mg/L
Aluminum (Al) 2.3 <1
Calcium (Ca) 1.60 680
Iron (Fe) 1.2 0.8
Magnesium (Mg) 1.72 20
Potassium (K) 0.69 48
Sodium (Na) 0.50 235
Chloride (Cl) 0.40 215
' Fluoride (F) 0.033 0.29
", Silica (S102) 24.2 2
Sulfate (S04) 0.06 10
Sulfide (S) <0.01 <0.1
ORGAN ICS
Priority Pollutants Detected
Acid Extract phenol
Neutral Extract 4,6-dimtro-o-creosol
phenol
anthracene/phenanthrene
Bioaccumulatlon Potential
Acid extract
Neutral extract
I Site Owner/Operator: Imperial County Oept. of Public Works
Neutral Extract
mg/L
190
33
76
52
85
230
227
0.56
160
85
<0.1
4
18
2
6
negative '
positive ! .
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
CorrosivHy
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
U9/L
100
1,000
<5
23
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
<200
<70
130
<200
?,400
250
PARAMETERS
10 pH
51 *
NA
1.15
Neutral Extract
ug/L
<250
1,400
<5
420
200
Int
<50
<20
<100
<20
340
230
340
<200
<100
1,400
pCi/g
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: East Baker Tank, Courier #1 Well
Number: 614 (1439) Type: Brine
Location: Westmorland (Imperial Valley)
Total
BULK COMPOSITION mg/L
Aluminum (Al) 1.2
Calcium (Ca) 14,800
Iron (Fe) 3,100
Magnesium (Mg) 440
Potassium (K) 10.000
Sodium (Na) 60,000
Chloride (Cl) 158,700
Fluoride (F) 10
V ' SIHca (S102) 18
Sulfate (S04) <1
.
Sulflde (S) <0.1
ORGANiCS
Priority Pollutants Detected Mg/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator: MAPCO
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium' (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corros1»1ty
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Filtrate
ug/L
14,000
22,000
4,000
<60
83,000
<1
5,100
<20
< 1,000
<20
230,000
<100
240
<200
1,400,000
6,000,000
PARAMETERS
3.8 pH
NA
220 mg/L
1,320 pCI/L
Bloaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Number: G16 (1441)
Location: Westmorland (Imperial
Type: ' Mud
Valley!
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
BULK COMPOSITION * mg/L mg/L
Aluminum (Al) 2.1
Calcium (Ca) 2.2
Iron (Fe) 1.6
Magnesium (Mg) 0.69
Potassium (K) 0.97
Sodium (Na) 2
Chloride (Cl) 5.3
Fluoride (F) 0.029
'"-»• i
coi
, ( Silica (S102) 42.4
Sulfate (S04) < 0.001
Sulfide (S) <0.2
ORGAN ICS
Priority Pollutants Detected
NA
<1 <1
1,200 330
0.8 <0.2
18 5
170 160
975 950
2,260 2,220
0.32 0.24
11 4
6.5 5.7
<0.1 <0.1
„*
Site Owner/Operator: MAPCO
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (LI)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivlty
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
ug/L
49
13,000
20
<20
60
100
<20
<50
<20
250
<70
3,300
< 200
23,000
7,000
PARAMETERS
8.8
31 %
NA
5.9
Neutral Extract
ug/L
41
6,800
<5
<20
<20
120
<20
50
20
1,100
70
3,100
<200
20.000
<20
PH
pC1/g
Bioaccumulatlon Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Number: G19-1
Location: Unit
(1576) Type: Sludge
12 (The Geysers)
Total Acid Extract Neutral' Extract
BULK COMPOSITION % mg/L mg/L
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
' '> , Fluoride (F)
S', \!
i \ Silica (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
*
Sulflde (S)
0.01 <1 <1
<0.005 2.9 2.1
9.45 0.8 <0.2
<0.005 0.28 0.22
0.002 0.28 0.23
0.041 17 16
0.005 <1 • 1
0.003 0.11 0.11
0.004 <4 <4
0.22 <1 55
<0.2 <0.1 <0.1
ORGANJCS
Priority Pollutants Detected yg/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator; PG&E
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (L11
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER,
Corrosivlty
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
U9/L
<20
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
7,600
<70
<50
300
<500
200
jWyWETERS
_UL
BOJ6
NA
0 pC
Neutral Extract
ug/L
<20
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
520
<50
<50
<200
<500
50
£«_
m
Bioaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
CD
o
Number: 620-1 (1577A)
Location: Unit 9 (The
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Silica (Si02)
Sulfate (504)
Sulfide (S)
Geysers)
Total
%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Type: Sediment
Acid Extract
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neutral Extract
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants
NA
Detected
P9/L
Site Owner/Operator: PG&E
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
yg/L
88
<300
13
51
100
<1
<20
<20
<50
<20
23,000
2,200
<50
900
<500
6,200
PARAMETERS
3
85
NA
0
Neutral Extract
u9/L
51
<300
14
20
130
<1
<20
<20
<50
<20
16,000
1,800
<50
700
<500
6,000
.7 pH
*
pC1/g
Bioaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Cooling Tower Sediment
Number: G20-1 (1577B)
Location: Unit 9 (The
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
' Fluortde (F)
•,03-,
' I SIHca (SlOg)
Sulfate (504)
-
Sulflde (S)
Geysers)
Total
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Type: Sediment
Add Extract
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neutral Extract
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants
NA
Detected
pg/L
,
Site Owner/Operator: PG&E
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
U9/L
87
<300
10
29
140
<1
<20
-<20
<50
<20
13,000
1,900
<50
700
<500
5,000
PARAMETERS
3.7
84.6
NA
0 p(
Neutral Extract
ug/L
68
<300
10
23
180
<1
<20
<20
<50
<20
13,000
1,100
<50
600
<500
4,500
_pH_
%
:i/g
Bloaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Number: G22-1 (1579) Type: Sludge
Location: Unit 5 & 6 (The Geysers)
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
b(JLK COMPOSITION % mg/L mg/L
Aluminum (Al) 0.01 <1 <1
Calcium (Ca) 0.005 2.4 2
Iron (Fe) 7.7 <0.2 <0.2
Magnesium (Mg) < 0.005 0.20 0.16
Potassium (K) 0.004 0.18 0.15
Sodium (Na) 0.055 24 24
Chloride (Cl) <0.005 <1 <1
"V | Fluoride (F) 0.001 0.12 0.14
| SIHca (S102) 0.04 <4 <4
Sulfate (S04) 0.29 9.5 85
i
Sulfide (S) <0.2 <0.1 <0.1
ORGAN 1CS
Priority Pollutants Detected ug/L
Acid Extract phenol 0.4
benzo (k) fluoranthene 14
Neutral Extract None detected <
i
Bioaccumulation Potential :
Acid Extract negative ;
Neutral Extract negative ,
Site Owner/Operator: PG&E
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
ug/L
<20
<300
<5
<20
20
<20
<20
<50
<20
28,000
<70
<50
200
<500
60
PARAMETERS
J>JL
70 %
NA
0 pC
Neutral Extract
ug/L
<20
<300
<5
<20
50
<20
<20
<100
<20
27,000
<70
100
<200
<500
30
pH
1/g
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Cooling Tower Sediment
Number: G23-1
Location: Unit
(1580) Type: Sediment
7 & 8 (The Geysers)
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
BULK COMPOSITION X mg/L mg/L
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
\' Fluoride (F)
|U>\
[ ] SIHca (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
Sulfide (S)
0.52 1 <1
0.02 1.7 1.7
11.3 ' 44 50
0.22 0.36 0.30
0.12 0.23 0.23
0.016 0.9 0.9
<0.005 2 2
0.005 0.16 0.15
3.6 <4 <4
0.65 300 260
<0.08 <0.1 <0.1
ORGAN ICS
Priority Pollutants Detected ug/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator: PG&E
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract Neutral Extract
u9/L ug/L
110
<300
<6Q
<20
70
<20
<20
<50
<20
7,700
60,000
<50
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Abated Well Sump, Belgel tl Well
Number: G24-1 (1581R) Type: Mud
Location: Near Unit 18 (The Geysers)
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
BULK COMPOSITION % mg/L mg/L
Aluminum (Al) 1.58 <1 <1
Calcium (Ca) 0.59 280 34
Iron (Fe) 3.03 32 <0.2
Magnesium (Mg) 1.65 9.6 <0.04
Potassium (K) 0.27 6.3 2.5
Sodium (Na) 0.11 24 48
Chloride (Cl) 0.014 2 <1
V Fluoride (F) 0.024 0.34 0.28
|
1 Silica (S102) 19.4 <4 16
Sulfate (S04) 0.02 32 62
Sulfide (S) <0.02 <0.1 <0.1
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants Detected Mg/L
Acid Extract 2-nitrophenol 3
phenol 2
Neutral Extract phenol 640
Bioaccumulation Potential
Acid Extract negative
Neutral Extract negative
Site Owner/Operator: Union Oil of California
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Acid Extract
< 20
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<-20
<50
<20
870
<70
<50
300
600
300
PARAMETERS
10
53
NA
0.
Neutral Extract
ug/L
32
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
15,000
<70
<50
500
<500
<20
PH
*
,5 pCi/g
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
co
01
Sample: Sedimentation Pond
Number: G26-1
Location: Unit
(1585R) Type: Sediment
12 (The Geysers)
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
BULK COMPOSITION % mg/L mg/L
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl),
Fluoride (F)
il
'! ' S1Hca (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
Sulfide (S)
0.01 <1 <1
<0.005 4.8 2.1
6.4 630 730
<0.005 1.2 1.5
0.002 " 0.60 0.71
0.051 60 71
0.010 1 2
0.001 0.12 0.07
0.04 5 4
1.1 1,400 1,900
<0.02 <0.1 <0.1
ORGAN ICS
Priority Pollutants Detected yg/L
NA
Site Owner /Operator: Union Oil of California
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (8)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corrosivity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
Add Extract Neutral Extract
u9/L u9/L
26
<300
8
53
<20
'30
<20
<50
<20
19,000
<70
<50
400
<500
9,000
PARAMETERS
88 %
NA
0 pCi/g
34
<300
7
<20
<20
40
<20
<50
<20
30,000
<70
<50
400
<500
14,000
BioaccuRiuIation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Sump in Mud Drilling Phase, Am (no 11 tl Well
Number: G27-1 (1587) Type: Mud
Location: Near Unit
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
V Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (N4)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
co , >
€*(•
1 ' Silica (S102)
' Sulfate (S04)
Sulfide (S)
13 (The Geysers)
Total Add Extract Neutral Extract
% mg/L mg/L
2.45 <1 <1
0.93 690 0.81
3.9 14 0.8
1.78 6 0.40
0.51 2.5 0.83
0.090 28 25
0.005 3 1
0.018 0.13 0.14
45.6 5 4
0.001 <1 14
<0.0002 <0.1 <0.1
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants Detected ug/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator; Ami noil USA
Acid Extract
TRACE ELEMENTS u9/L
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (LI)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
OTHER
Corroslvlty
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
<20
1,400
<5
70
20
<20
<20
<50
<20
<200
<70
<50
<500
3,500
80
PARAMETERS
9.6
23 %
NA
0.4
Neutral Extract
yg/L
20
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
<200
<70
<50
<500
<500
<20
PH
pCI/g
Bioaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Sump, Steamboat fl Well
Number: G30 (1668)
Location: Steamboat
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
1
\ Silica (S102)
Sulfate (S04)
Type: Mud
(Nevada)
Total Acid Extract Neutral Extract
% -mg/L mg/L
1.63 <1 <1
1.8 700 8.1
1.85 1.6 <0.2
0.67 15 0.08
0.46 21 12
0.19 53 48
0.039 23 22
0.015 0.54 0.46
21.6 14 13
0.05 39 22
Sulflde (S) <0.0002 <0.1 <0.1
ORGAN ICS
Priority Pollutants Detected ug/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator:
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (8)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (LI)
Nickel (Ni),
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
Phillips Petroleum
Add Extract
ug/L
60
600
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
300
<70
500
<300
1,000
120
Neutral Extract
ug/L
260
<300
<5
<20
<20
<20
<20
70
<20
570
<70
400
<300
<500
<20
OTHER PARAMETERS
Corroslvlty
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
9.3
34 %
NA
1 pC
£H_
,
J/a
Bloaccumulation Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
Sample: Sump, Humbolt House
Number: G31 (1669)
Location: Humbolt (Nevada)
Total
BULK COMPOSITION %
Aluminum (Al) 2.02
Calcium (Ca) 1.9
Iron (Fe) 2.35
Magnesium (Mg) 0.73
Potassium (K) 0.54
Sodium (Na) 0.40
Chloride (Cl) 0.10
< Fluoride (F) 0.034
" Co -| ,
(' Silica (S102) 20.2
Sulfate (504) 0.22
, i
Sulflde (S) <0.02
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants Detected
NA
Well
Type: Mud
Acid Extract Neutral Extract
mg/L mg/L
< 1 4.5
1,300 25
4.6 9.2
27 4
13 4.7
140 120
53 53
0.64 0.61
9 9
82 78
<0.1 <0.1
Slte Owner/Operator:
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (8)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (L1)
Nickel (Ni)
Strontium (Sr)
Zinc (Zn)
Phillips Petroleum
Add Extract
yg/L
<20
600
6
<20
400
<20
<20
<50
<20
<200
<70
50
<300
3,000
420
Neutral Extract
ug/L
140
500
5
27
400
<20
<20
<50
<20
<200
100
<50
<300
<500
280
OTHER PARAMETERS
u9/L
Corroslvity
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
9.8
36 %
NA
1.6
PH
pC1/g
Bioaccumulatlon Potential
NA
-------
GEOTHERMAL ANALYTICAL DATA
yie: Primary Sump, Desert Peak Hell
Number: 632 (1670) Type: Mud
Location: Desert
BULK COMPOSITION
Aluminum (Al)
Calcium (Ca)
Iron (Fe)
Magnesium (Mg)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
" • , Fluoride (F)
8 {:
. \ K Silica (S102)
i Sulfate (504)
Sulfide (S)
Peak (Nevada)
Total Add Extract Neutral Extract
X mg/L mg/L
1.98 <1 <1
0.87 790 8.1
2.95 2.6 1
0.92 18 0.55
0.59 28 20
0.77 350 170
0.98 487 492
0.024 0.33 0.31
27.4 <4 <4
0.08 16 40
<0.0002 <0.1 <0.1
ORGANICS
Priority Pollutants Detected ug/L
NA
Site Owner/Operator!
TRACE ELEMENTS
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Antimony (Sb)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (LI)
Nickel (N1)
Strontium (Sr)
Z1nc (Zn)
Phillips Petroleum
Add Extract
<20
500
<5
<20
<20
30
<20
<50
<20
230
200
300
<300
2,600
140
Neutral Extract
ug/L
<20
<300
<5
39
<20
<20
<20
<50
<20
470
100
200
<300
<500
50
OTHER PARAMETERS
Corroslvlty
Moisture
TSS
Radium 226
9.1
9.9
NA
1.5
PH
t
nCI/g
BloaccuwulaUon Potential
-------
APPENDIX D
ACID AND BASE/NEUTRAL PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
90
-------
POU.UTAHT MO CQKEKTMUtM
CAS «J«£Ra «g/i
K/B FSiCTIOH . «C10 COWOUWH
(9S-S7-8I
2A, 2,4-Olcnlonj-
U, 2.4-Oi«*tnrl-
gnKiol (10S-07-9)
4A, 4,6-DTmtro-o- (2)
Crtiol (S34-S2-))
— — — — — — — — ^— ^—
5*. 2,4-a>nltro- U)
phenol t51-23->)
W J-BUroontnoJ
IU-'3->i
7*. 4-*ntroprjtmjI
!IOO-0<*7/
C-«w. i>3-SO-7|
M, Peftic'tioro*
Ki, Pnenol
cnlOfo-pnwo1
Cw/« PWC'IOS - 3ASE/HEJTRAL
13 Acen«o>vcncn«
^3, ActnuJnlny i«n*
33, Antnractd
(120-i2-7,
•
192-37-S)
!!, S«»o «)
(S4-S5-J)
U, IdllO l»)
fr-»« (50-32-8)
79. 3.4-tann-
f luorvitncne
SB, Sinzo (jni)
PtrylBflt
COUUTMT *«o coxcEiiiwTioii
CAS «UW£« j9/L
91. 8«mo (k)
Fluor«ntn«n«
(207-08-9)
IDS, 3l> U-CMoro-
etno.j) "»tn«nt
(111-91-1)
11B, 3l> (2-Cnloro-
cchyl) ctnir
illl-44-i)
129. t<< 12-CHloro-
ItosnjByl) Etnw
(39638-32-9)
131, lit (2-ewjI-
4117-ei.7)
14B.4-8VOM.
pn«n^rl Pnwyl
etMr (101-55-3)
158. 3utv) St^iyl
tM. 2-C»lafo-
ivtpnctvttefle
1-78. «-C»J4ro-
Etw (7305-72-3)
188, ChrvMnr
198, Sllntijo (j,n)
(53-70-3)
twutne (9S-SO-I)
atnilix (Siit»«1*t«
(131-11-3)
268. Oi-»-3«t;l
Pfunjlita
|3«-?«-2)
238, S.S'-Oloilwo-
scnzioinc
)>l-9»-l)
PfttftaUU
(8«-«-2)
talutn* (121-U-2)
t
POLi.J'anT AND C3NC'*73.T ON i
CAS »IJ«£BS _3 .
239. 2,B-3ifiitra- 1
U'Mft (606-20-2) !
296, Oi-«-Octjl i
P»>tB«l«te !
(117-84-0) i
308, l,2-3ignin>l-
hydrMin* 1 1% *zo- 1
btniwe) (122-66-7) |
313, Cla0'a*iti«n*
(206-«-0)
325. c'arent 1
(30-73-;)
333, •«„.
CftlOro3«n?t*« '
(118.71. 11
348. •<«.»- j
cnloocutrs.tn«
(S7-S3-3)
358, ««<«;i!cr3-
(77-47-4! j
368, "««acn 3'3- 1
«tn*n» i57-72-l) |
378, -oeio .-'
(1.2.3-cil Pyrtne '
(193-39.5)
383. 'woioroo*
(78-59-') [
393, >ia^fnl»"« '
(91-20-3!
(18-95-3)
413. 1.K>b-CJ3- J"" i
Oimfv mint i
U2-7S-51
423, l-f'-rcso- 12
a1.N-P--ooy!4-!Iln» '
(62T-64-'! '
433, Jl-fitt-oso- i
a]-oncny)4fflin« i
(36.30-6) |
}
185-01-8) 1
455. ?r**t |
(123-00-0!
1
»S8, !.:,»---!- |
C«lar8D»1I*ri« F
(iZO-K-n
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
91
------- |