United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-138 Oct. 1981
Project Summary
Sampling and Analysis of
Potential Geothermal Sites
R. Sung, G. Houser, D. Strehler, and K. Scheyer
This sampling and analysis effort
yielded information on the geophysical,
chemical, and radiochemical param-
eters associated with geothermal
manifestations (wells and springs) in
geographical areas with the greatest
potential for resource development.
This information, together with other
data, can be used to evaluate control
technologies and, ultimately, to
establish emission and discharge
standards for the emerging geothermal
industry. An assessment of existing
geothermal data was the first step
taken. Information required for the
evaluation of sites as well as sampling
and analysis methodologies included
identification of: (1) geothermal
potential of and sampling accessibility
and availability of each site; (2)
sampling and analysis methodologies
used in previous data collection
efforts; and (3) validity and accuracy
of historical data and gaps in that data.
Sites were selected for sampling
based on the following criteria; high
temperature and/or flow, insufficient
data base, recommendations by fed-
eral and state agencies, and regional
interest in fluid characterization.
Sampling and analysis methodologies
were evaluated in order to verify
historical data and to determine the
requirements for designing sampling
and analysis equipment and procedures
for use in the project.
Sampling apparatus was designed
to collect aqueous and non-condens-
ible gas samples from both geothermal
wells and springs. Analysis methodol-
ogies for aqueous samples were
developed to measure pH, conductiv-
ity, temperature, alkalinity, major
cations and anions, silica, phosphates,
sulfide, total dissolved and suspended
solids, and trace metals. In order to
maintain the integrity of the geo-
thermal samples, some analyses were
performed in the field. The more stable
constituents were preserved and
shipped to the laboratory for analysis.
A total of 121 sites were sampled
(six wells and 115 springs). Water
samples were obtained from each site,
gas samples from 25 of the sites and
algae samples from 72 of the sites. A
comprehensive data base, consisting
of 40 analytical parameters for each
site, has been compiled by state and
tabulated along with historical data
for comparison. Because of the wide
variation in data for each state, little
correlation of data within and among
states could be demonstrated. For the
states in which samples were gathered,
the quality of geothermal fluids varied
from better than a potable water
supply to worse than brackish water.
The pH values of most geothermal
fluids lie between 7.4 and 8.0. In
terms of water quality, Idaho and
Montana appear to be the best, with
constituent concentrations approxi-
mating those of surface water supplies.
In comparing the data collected during
this project with historical data, it was
found that the correlation was quite
good. Only a few deviations (50%)
were observed—due to hydrologic
changes, sampling site differences, or
variations in analytical techniques.
Trace elements were not, in general,
comparable.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory. Cincin-
-------
nati. OH, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully
documented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
One of the resources that has received
increasing scientific attention and
public interest in the United States is
geothermal energy. The development of
geothermal conversion technology is
progressing rapidly as demonstration
plants are being designed and con-
structed. But the extraction of heat from
geothermal fluids can result in undesir-
able air emissions, contamination of
surface and subsurface waters, noise
pollution, and possibly, subsidence and
seismic activities.
The principal objective of this sam-
pling program was to obtain chemical
and radiochemical characteristics of
geothermal manifestations (wells and
springs) in areas with the greatest
potential for development. This study
does not attempt to characterize each
geothermal reservoir in detail, but
attempts to establish an initial general
knowledge of the overall geothermal
resource base in the western United
States.
Technical Approach
Data Assessment
An initial step in this research was an
evaluation of existing data, performed
for identified geothermal sites. To this
end, all available physical, chemical and
radiochemical data were compiled and
evaluated. Data were reviewed, infor-
mation gaps and sampling and analysis
methodologies were identified, and the
adequacy of the data base was evaluated.
The data were separated into two
major categories. The first category,
consisting of geophysical (resource
type, flow, temperature, well depth, use
and accessibility, sampling interface,
etc.) and location data, was assessed to
determine the geothermal potential and
the actual sampling accessibility and
availability of each site. The second
category, consisting of existing chemi-
cal and radiochemical data (cations,
anions, gross parameters, radioactivity,
etc.), was evaluated to identify all data
gaps, to determine the accuracy and
validity of these data and to assess the
methodologies utilized in sampling and
analyzing the data. The potential
geothermal sites (based on their geo-
physical and locational data) were
grouped according to state and were
evaluated with regard to the adequacy
of their chemical and radiochemical
data base. Data for each site were
classified either as excellent, adequate,
insufficient or no data. This classifica-
tion was first applied to both categories
and was subsequently combined to
yield a single assessment value of the
data for a given site.
Selection of Sites for Sampling
There are approximately 1200 thermal
springs (with temperatures of at least
15°F above ambient air temperature) in
the conterminous United States, with
about 95 percent of them in the western
part of the country. The evaluation and
selection of geothermal sampling sites
for this program concentrated on the
western resources. Two hundred and
twenty-five potential geothermal sites
(liquid dominated resources) were
surveyed and identified; and subse-
quently 170 wells and springs were
prioritized on the basis of available
geophysical characteristics and geo-
chemical data. Originally, the sampling
program was to collect and analyze
geothermal fluid samples from approxi-
mately 16 wells and 114 hot springs.
During the initial site selection effort, an
attempt was made to gain access to
company owned wells. Access was
denied, however, and the project was
redirected to concentrate on spring
sampling and to collect samples only on
government sites or from interested
private concerns. A revised list of 121
sampling sites was ultimately selected.
The locations of these sites are shown
in Figure 1.
Sample Collection
Two basic sampling approaches, one
for well sampling and one for spring
sampling, were utilized. Well sampling
was more elaborate than spring sampling
because of the higher temperature and
pressure of the geothermal fluids at the
well head.
Figure 2 is a schematic representation
of the equipment designed for geo-
thermal well sampling. In general, for
well sampling, the pressurized fluid
from the well was collected either from
a sample port or from the side of a
silencer through a stainless steel
coupling. The geothermal fluid was
diverted from the well head through
1/4-inch steel flexihose into a steam-
water tangential separator. The liquid
(brine) from the separator flowed by
gravity into a stainless steel collectior
flask through 1/4-inch stainless stee
tubing chilled in an ice bath. The stean
emanating from the separator ther
proceeded through an ice bath into <
condensate trap via 1 /8-inch stainless
steel tubing. The condensate was
combined with the brine solution while
the non-condensed gases from th<
condensate trap flowed into a gas
collection flask.
Figure 3 is a schematic representa
tion of the equipment designed foi
geothermal spring sampling. In this
case an inverted funnel, connected tc
an evacuated flask, was used to codec
the non-condensible gases. In order tc
obtain a liquid sample from the spring
the sample was manually collected with
a 3-gallon stainless steel containei
immersed directly under the watei
surface at or near the mouth of the
spring.
Algae samples were collected near a
stagnant area of the spring pool or from
rocks close to the edge of the spring,
Approximately 5 grams of algae were
collected at each of 72 sampling sites.
Each sample was placed in a labeled
petri dish and excess water was a I lowed
to drain from the sample. The petri dish
was then prepared for shipment to thd
laboratory for analysis.
Field Analysis
On-site analysis was required foi
unstable parameters that could not be
reasonably preserved. Measurement
and analysis of constituents most sus-
ceptible to rapid change were performec
first. For example, pH and temperature
were measured immediately aftei
collection. Radon, because of its rela-
tively short half-life, was also determined
in the field by a portable radon counter
(Ludlum Measurements Model 2200).
Alkalinity was determined in the field by
acid titration with 0.02 N H2S04 which
was routinely prepared and standardized
in the laboratory and verified periodically
in the field. H2S, as well as CO2, 02 and
CO were originally proposed for analysis
in the field by gas chromatograph (GC).
However, because of the instability of
the instrument, the use of the GC was
discontinued early in the project.
The gases requiring immediate at-
tention in the field were H2S and NH3
which decay rapidly with time. These
parameters were analyzed immediately
in the field or preserved for laboratory
analysis at a later date. H2S was
removed from the gas sample bulb M
-------
I North
I Dakota
Selected
Sites
Springs Only •
Wells Only* .
Both Wells*
and Springs '
50 0 50100 200 \
*Does not include shut-in or abandoned wells. inm i 3=1—• \
Figure 1. Geographic locations of geothermal sites sampled.
scrubbing with a zinc acetate solution
which was injected via a syringe into the
gas sample bulb. The mixture was then
vigorously shaken for absorption of H2S.
The scrubbed H2S in zinc acetate
solution was subsequently analyzed in
the field at the same time as sulf ide from
the brine solution was determined.
Ammonia (NH3) gas was scrubbed by
injecting 25 ml of a solution containing
0.1 N HCI and deionized water (into the
gas sample bulb) followed by vigorous
shaking for NH3 gas absorption. The NH3
I sample was thus preserved for laboratory
analysis by distillation and nessleriza-
tion.
Laboratory Analysis
All samples brought back from the
field were immediately assigned a
unique laboratory number and distribu-
ted by the chemist in charge to the
appropriate laboratory personnel for
analysis. Any unusual observations
(e.g. leaked bottles) were documented.
Less stable constituents were analyzed
or processed immediately. Samples for
analysis of more stable constituents
were stored under refrigeration to be
analyzed later.
Within 72 hours of arrival at the
laboratory, CO, CO2 and 02 were
analyzed by gas chromatograph. Phos-
phates, sulfates and other anions were
analyzed collectively at the earliest
convenience. Algae samples were
dried, crushed, and quantitatively
weighed to approximately 1 gm. The
dried samples were acid digested to
liberate all trace metals. The digested
algae samples were stored in labeled
plastic bottles and were analyzed
collectively at a later date.
The analytical methodologies for
various constituents are shown in Table
1. Because of the high salt concentra-
tion in most geothermal fluids, trace
metal analyses were rather complex.
Segregation of the sample into fractions
was necessary for accurate determina-
tion of the various metal concentrations.
For simplicity, trace metal analyses
were divided into four fractions: (1)
volatile metal analysis; (2) HCI-
preserved insensitive metals; (3) HNO-
preserved sensitive metals; and (4)
HMOs-preserved insensitive metals.
Sensitivity is defined as the concentra-
tion of an element which would give
0.0044 absorbance units on the atomic
absorption instrument. For this report,
insensitive metals are those that have
detection limits greater than 0.5 /vg/ml
(or 0.5 ppm), and sensitive metals are
those with detection limits less than
0.05 /yg/ml. Metals with detection
limits between sensitive and insensitive
metals are defined as less sensitive
metals. Volatile metal analysis involved
the quantitative determination of As,
Se, Sb, and Hg. HCI-preserved insensi-
tive metals analysis included Fe, Ca,
Mg, Mn, Na, K, Li, Rb, and Cs. HN03-
preserved sensitive metals involved the
analysis of Be, Sn, Ba, Al, V, Cr, Bi, Tl,
Pb, Mo, Ni, Ag, Cd, Cu, and Zn. HN03-
preserved insensitive metals were Ti
and Sn.
Conclusions
Table 2 shows the trend and the
ranges of concentration by state for the
major chemical and radiochemical
constituents. Since most trace metals
are below detection limits and since
historical data do not usually contain
trace metal analyses, only the cumulative
values of the trace metal with concen-
trations greater than 1 mg/l were
presented and the predominant species
were identified. Because of the wide
spread of data values shown for each
-------
Water-Steam Separator
Thermocouple
Well Near
Inlet
Inlet
Water Level
Non-Condensible Gas
Collection Flask
Water Level
Sample Port
Bubbleometer
Brine Sample Condensed Steam
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the well sampling system.
250 ml Sample Flask
(Evacuated)
Metering Valve
Funnel
Evacuation Port
Funnel
I Foam
Float
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of a
geothermal spring sam-
pling gas collection system.
state, there seems to be no clear-cut
pattern of distribution of chemical and
radiochemical data within or among
states. For most of the states sampled,
the quality of geothermal fluids varies
from better than potable water supply to
worse than brackish water. In terms of
water quality of the geothermal fluid,
Idaho and Montana appear to be the
best, with constituent concentrations
approximating those of surface water
supplies. Overall trace metals for these
two states are also the lowest found in
this study.
Utilizing the information presented in
Table 2, a general comparison with
historical data can be made. The intent
of this comparison is to observe the
correlation or differences of these data
and to supplement historical data where
analytical information is currently
lacking. An estimated median value of
the historical data for each constituent
at each site was compared to the
measured value of each corresponding
constituent from the new data. Based
on these individual comparisons, an
overall qualitative assessment was
made to determine the correlation
between new data and historical data.
An overall assessment of the data is
presented in Table 3. This assessment
yields the following general conclusions:
(1) the new data for most major
constituents correlate well with histori-
cal data and (2) minor constituents such
as trace metals are randomly distributed;
there is no direct correlation between
the historical and new data. Some
deviations (50%) were observed for
major constituents. These may be due to
one or more of the following: (1) the
length of time elapsed between current
sampling and previous sampling (dif-
ferences would be due to hydrological
changes in fluid characteristics); (2)
differences in sampling and/or analysis
methodologies; and (3) many geothermal
sites have more than one spring or well
(without adequate descriptions of the
site, a difference in sampling location
would lead to different analytical
findings). Trace elements are generally
not comparable.
Concurrent with the geothermal
fluids sampling and analyses efforts, a
number of algae samples were also
collected at geothermal springs where
there was prevalent growth. The intent
of sampling and analyzing algae was to
determine trace constituents in geo-
thermal fluids that were too low in
concentration to be detected by current
technology. Since algae are known to
concentrate trace metals, the absence
of a specific constituent in an algae
sample would be an indication of its
absence in the geothermal fluids. In
general, the most abundant elements
found in algae are Fe, Al, Ca, Na, K, and
Mg. These are all present in concentra-
tions in the range of thousands of
milligrams per kilogram of algae (ppm).
The elements determined to be less
than the detection limits were Cs, Se,
Sb, Hg, Ti, Tl, Rb and Mo. The elements
Li, Be, Cr, V, Co, Ni, Zn, Cd, Cu, Pb and
Sn were present in very low concentra-
-------
Table 1. Summary of Analysis Methodologies
Methodology Code
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
0
Constituents to
fe, Ni, Mn, Mo,
K
Cu, In, Cd
Rb, Cs, Be, Mg,
As, Se, Sb, hg
CO, C02
CHA
SO-,
PCU
Cl
NH3
SS
TDS
B
Si02
be Analyzed by the Methodology
Pb, Ti. Tl. Ag, Sn
Ca, Sr, Ba, Al. Cr, V, Na, Li
Legend:
Methodology Code
A
B
C
D
£
F
G
H
I
J
K
M
N
O
Method Description
Sample is filtered and acidified topH 1.5, digested
with HNOs on hot plate. Sample is analyzed by
Atomic Absorption using method of standard
additions.
Same as A except digestion is omitted.
Same as A except method of standard additions
is omitted.
Same as A except samples and standards are made
up in 0.1% KCI as an ionization suppressant.
Same as A except after digestion 10 ml of
concentrated H^SO* is added and sample is heated
to SOa fumes and analyzed by Atomic Absorption
of the reduced species.
Gas Chromatography using thermal conductivity
detector.
Gas Chromatography using flame ionization
detector.
EPA Method 8 - for Stationary Sources Extraction
with isopropyl alcohol and titrate with BafCI 0^2
using thorin as indicator.
Stannous Chloride Method for P0«= determination
as described by "Standard Methods" 14th Ed.
Specific ion electrode method as described in
"Standard Methods" 14th Ed.
Nesslerization Method for ammonia following
distillation as described in "Standard Methods"
14th Ed.
Filter is dessicated until constant wt. is achieved
(± 0.2 mg). Tare wt. of filter is subtracted then
divided by liters of sample filtered.
100 ml of filtered sample is evaporated in a 150ml
beaker previously dessicated to constant wt.
Carmine photometric method as described in
"Standard Methods" 14th Ed.
Molybdosilicate method for SiO2 as described in
"Standard Methods" 14th Ed:
tions. They were generally less than
100 ppm. The rest of the elements were
randomly distributed with concentra-
tions varying from less than detectable
to over 100 ppm. In general, the trace
elements were so random in concentra-
tion that there does not appearto be any
pattern in their distribution for a given
state.
Recommendations
Approximately 5000 pieces of data
have been generated from this sampling
effort. These data, as well as those
contained in the literature, have not
been thoroughly evaluated relative to
regional correlation of geophysical,
chemical and radiochemical constitu-
ents. Additional efforts, including a
comprehensive statistical evaluation of
the data base, are needed to substantiate
or disprove regional correlations of data.
Such correlations will be useful in
predicting resource characteristics
based on limited analytical information.
-------
Table 2. Summary of TRW Data by State
Const. Measured
No. Sites Sampled
pH (units)
Temp. (°C)
Na+K (rng/l)
Ca (mg/l)
Mg (mg/l)
SiOz (mg/l)
Cl(mg/l)
SO^mg/n '
TDS
Trace Metals
(mg/l)
Const. (1 mg/l)
Predominant
Species
Const. Measured
No. Sites Sampled
pH (units)
Temp (°C)
Na+K (mg/l)
Ca (mg/l)
Mg (mg/l)
SiOz (mg/l)
Cl(mg/l)
SO-, (mg/l)
TDS
Trace Metals
(mg/l)
Const. (1 mg/l)
Predominant
Species
Ariz.
5
8.0 - 9.0
32- 72
500 - 2,500
22 - 105
8.2 - 38
35-87
355 - 3,000
48 - 820
1535 - 7395
3.8 - 30.6
Ba. Li
N. Mex.
8
7.0 - 8.4
40-82
123 - 1,080
22 - 150
0.2 - 18
32 -88
24 - 1.990
19 -95
370 - 3,625
1.1 -34.7
B, Sr, Sn
Rb
Calif.
16
2.8 - 9.3
39 - 154
19.3 - 6,700
1.8 - 100
0.07 - 22
67.5 - 290
0 - 10,500
7-950
175 -22,800
1.3 - 64.2
B, Li, Sn
Sr
Ore.
9
7.3 - 8.8
61 -88
175-980
14 - 103
0.07 - 1.9
9O.5 - 225
122 - 1,240
37 - 820
555-3,150
2.5 - 134
B, Sn, Sr
Li
State
Colo. Idaho
10 19
6.6 - 8.6 6.6 - 9.0
36 -73 41 - 84
102 - 6,460 9.5 - 510
5.6 - 380 2.2 - 93
0.3 -67 0-24
27 - 144 72 - 760
25 - 4,800 3.9 - 850
36 - 1,000 8 - 680
Mont.
6
7. 1 - 8.8
60- 78
145 - 330
3.3-9.7
0.07 - 3.3
81.5 - 126
15 - 140
37-97
460 - 19,600 160 - 1,400 435 - 1,050
1.3-173 0-13.1
Ba, Al, B B. Al, Sr
Sr
State
Utah
13
6.2 - 8.2
39-80
220 - 13,000
66 - 1.200
13 - 250
23 - 180
170-2,250
35 - 1,040
1,470 - 39,400
3.9 - 81.0
Sr, B, Ba, Al,
Li.Rb
1.07 - 125
Ag, Sn
Wash.
3
8.2 - 9.8
31.1 -39.4
66.2 - 840
1.3 - 63
0.07 - 5.0
63-114
0.1 - 121
31 - 71
300 - 2,8OO
1 - 23.0
B,Sr
Nev.
29 >
6.8 - 9.8
35-93
25 - 1.080
1.8 - 170
0.11 - 155
61 - 430
4.4 - 2,200
14 - 720
365 - 4,410
1.6 - 27.8
B, Sr, Al
Ba
Wyo.
3
6.2 - 6.8
54.4 - 67.0
190 - 1,250
13-315
1.3 - 73
35.5 - 147.5
120 - 1,720
12- 17
700 - 5,560
3.0 - 12.0
B, Li, Sr.
Ln
-------
Table 3. Qualitative Comparison of Historical Data with TRW's Data
State
Const.
Measured
Arizona
California
pH Generally higher than his-
torical mean by +/
Temperature 2 or 4 correlate well with
historical mean
Na & K Agrees with historical data
Ca Agrees with historical data
Mg Agrees with historical data
SiOz Trend 10-20% lower than
historical data
Cl Deviates above and below
historical data (3-5% or more)
SO4 1 site agrees well, 1 site
low, 2 sites no data
TDS Good correlation with
historical data at three
sites
Trace con- Reported Ba higher than
stituents historical data by 100% or
more in all cases
Generally higher than his-
torical mean by 0.5 to 1.0 pH
units
Agree well with historical data
70% agree well with historical
data 12% - 50% deviation
12%-30% deviation (low)
85% 5-10 mg/l higher than
mean
70% 1.0 mg/l generally data
agree with historical data
70% correlate well 24% deviate
by 25% or more with clear
trend high
75% correlate well
50% agree well, 50% trend low
with 50% or more deviation
7 sites good correlation
(remaining no historical data)
The high amounts of B, agree
well with historical data
State
Const.
Measured
Colorado
Idaho
pH Trend higher than historical
data .5 to 1.0 pH units
Temperature 8O% 55-65 trend 2-3% lower
than historical data
Na & K Agrees well with historical
data
Ca 80% 2O agree well with
historical data
Mg 50% correlate well 50%
deviate with trend higher by
50% or more
SiOz Agrees well with historical
data
Cl Most agree with historical
data
SO4 40% agree well 60% deviate
by 50% or more with definite
trend low
Deviates equally high and low
with respect to historical mean
80% agree well with historical
data 20% low
80% agree with historical data
95% agree with historical data
Agrees with historical data
80% agree well with historical
data
All agree well with historical
data
60% agree well 40% deviate by
50% or more (no trend)
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
State
Const.
Measured
Colorado
Idaho
TDS
Trace con-
stituents
Const
Measured
Most agree well with
historical data
Higher amounts of Ba and Al
in TRW data
95% agree well with historical
data
Low levels of trace constituents
(not comparable)
State
Montana
Nevada
pH 2 cases higher than
historical mean
Temperature Data correlate within 10%
of historical mean
Na & K Agrees well with historical
mean
Ca Slight trend higher than
historical mean
Mg Agrees well with historical
mean
Si02 Agrees well with historical
mean
Cl Agrees with historical
mean
SO4 Two of three deviate by
50% or more with trend low
TDS Slight trend lower than
historical means
Trace con- Very low levels to trace
stituents constituents (not comparable)
Good agreement with historical
data
Good agreement with historical
data
70% agree well with historical
data
70% agree well with historical
data
60% agree well with historical
data 20% deviate higher than
historical man
33% agree well with historical
data 38% deviate high by
volume
75% agree well with historical
mean
Most all agree with historical
mean however a slight trend low
24% agree well with historical
data 20% have slight to strong
trend higher than mean
Agree in most cases with
historical data
State
Const.
Measured
New Mexico
Oregon
pH 50% above and 50% below
historical data
Temperature Agrees well with historical
mean
Na & K Agrees well with historical
data
Ca 6 sites agree well with
historical data (2 sites low)
Mg Agrees well with historical
data
Average 2-3 pH units higher
than historical data
6 sites agree well with
historical data
All sites agree well with
historical data
All sites agree well with
historical data
Agrees well with historical
data
8
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
State
Const.
Measured
SiOs
Cl
S04
New Mexico
Most agree well with
historical data
Good correlation with
historical data
Most data agree well with
Oregon
Most sites agree well with
historical data
Agrees well with historical
data
All but one site deviate by
slight trend low
TDS Agrees well with historical
data
Trace con- Most cases near historical
stituents mean
50% or more with definite
trend low
No historical data for com-
parison
Data not comparable
State
Const.
Measured
Utah
Washington
pH Agrees with historical data
Temperature 80% agree with historical data
Na &K 40% 500
40% agree well with his-
torical data
Ca 60% agree well with
historical data
Mg Agrees well with historical data
SiOz 45% agree well with historical
data
Cl 40% agree well with historical
data
SOA 6 sites agree well 2 sites
low by 50% or more
TDS 50% agree well with historical
data
Trace con- High amounts of trace
stituents constituents
Not enough data for comparison
Not enough data for comparison
Not enough data for comparison
Not enough data for comparison
Good correlation
Not enough data for comparison
Good correlation
Not enough data for comparison
Good correlation
Not enough data for comparison
State
Const.
Measured
Wyoming
pH
Temperature
Na &K
Ca
Mg
2 sites low
Not enough data for comparison
Good correlation
Good correlation
Not enough data for comparison
Not enough data for comparison
-------
Tfble 3. (Continued)
State
Const.
Measured
Wyoming
Cl
S04
TDS
Trace con-
stituents
Good correlation
Not enough data for comparison
Not enough data for comparison
Not enough data for comparison
R. Sung, G. Houser, D. Strehler, and K. Scheyer are with TRW Environmental
Engineering Division, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
P. P. Hartley is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Sampling and Analysis of Potential Geothermal
Sites," (Order No. PB 81-240 061; Cost: $17.00, subject to change) will be
available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
10
•ft-U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1981--559-09Z/3305
-------
to
•o c
c « I-
"S E o
"'"
wo.
to f_
u n
D. U. Ul Q.
u
^
as
c
00
.2 -
«3 a
2 =
E .E
o
S
I
w 2
2c
-OSS
0) i- c
DUJ
O
71-
UJ
UJ
3
«
s§
m .£
= <£
» ^
m£
ȣ
O
------- |