PARADOX VALLEY UNIT SALINITY CONTROL 

INVESTIGATIONS

STUDY 1 – HYDROGEN SULFIDE MANAGEMENT

BEDROCK, COLORADO

TREATMENT OPTIONS BENCH TESTING REPORT

FINAL

Submitted to:

Wastren Advantage, Inc.

1571 Shyville Road

Piketon, OH 45661

Submitted by:

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure

a division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited

900 Maple Grove Road, Unit 10

Cambridge, ON N3H 4R7

November 10, 2016

Project Number 1655500023.0001.0003
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is currently evaluating alternatives for brine disposal 

for the Paradox Valley Unit (PVU). One of the long-term disposal alternatives under consideration 

is evaporation of brine in ponds and either the sale or disposal of salt products. The brine includes 

high levels of naturally-occurring dissolved hydrogen sulfide, which must be managed before the 

brine can be placed into evaporation ponds. Hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous to human health, 

has an objectionable odor at low concentrations, and volatilizes into the air rapidly when the brine 

is exposed to the atmosphere. Several treatment options for hydrogen sulfide removal were 

identified and evaluated, and where possible, were bench-scale laboratory tested on-site at the 

PVU facility. This report summarizes the results of the bench-scale testing conducted on-site.

Three general concepts for hydrogen sulfide removal were evaluated, including oxidation, 

precipitation and equilibrium. Oxidation is the addition of a chemical oxidant to oxidize the sulfide 

to elemental sulfur or sulfate. Precipitation includes the addition of a chemical coagulant to 

precipitate the sulfide out as an insoluble solid. Equilibrium involves the adjustment of pH to drive 

the sulfide equilibrium away from dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas.

Oxidation of the PVU brine was tested on-site using three different chemical oxidants: sodium 

hypochlorite; sodium permanganate; and hydrogen peroxide. Sodium hypochlorite and sodium 

permanganate rapidly oxidized the hydrogen sulfide while also producing fine, white, elemental 

sulfur solids. The sodium permanganate oxidation also produced black manganese dioxide 

solids. Hydrogen peroxide oxidation proceeded much slower, taking more than 45 minutes to 

oxidize the hydrogen sulfide in the brine. Hydrogen peroxide oxidation also produced fine, white, 

elemental sulfur solids.

Though originally proposed in the Draft Bench Testing Plan (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016), ferrous 

sulfate precipitation testing was not completed due to possible issues with disposal of the 

precipitated iron sulfide (FeS) solids generated from both the lab tests and full-scale operation. 

Iron sulfide is pyrophoric and will rapidly and violently oxidize with air when dry. Dry FeS would 

present fire and asset risks to the liner, or would be difficult and expensive to dispose of.

Equilibrium requires the pH in the brine to be raised and maintained at a pH greater than 10 to 

allow for natural oxidation of the sulfide ions in the evaporation ponds. Natural oxidation would 

be oxidation of the sulfide by oxygen dissolved into the brine naturally from the atmosphere. 

Equilibrium was tested on-site by increasing the pH of the brine and placing the brine outdoors to 

simulate pond operation. The test proved that it was difficult to maintain the elevated pH in the 

brine above 10, even if the initial pH was above 12. A full-scale system would require significant 

amounts of alkaline chemicals to maintain a pH above 10 in the evaporation ponds.

Sodium hypochlorite oxidation is recommended as the treatment option for hydrogen sulfide as it 

is relatively inexpensive, does not produce hazardous solids, and is simpler to operate and 

automate than the other treatment options considered.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page i
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Baseline Sampling .............................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Bench-Scale Test Development ......................................................................................... 2

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Field Measurements............................................................................................................ 3

3.1.1 Hydrogen Sulfide.................................................................................................... 3

3.1.2 Water Quality Parameters...................................................................................... 3

3.1.3 Turbidity ................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Laboratory Analyses ........................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Bench-Scale Testing Methods ............................................................................................ 4

3.3.1 Stirring Method....................................................................................................... 4

3.3.2 pH Increase and Hydrogen Sulfide Ionization using Sodium Hydroxide ............... 4

3.3.3 pH Titration of Brine ............................................................................................... 5

3.3.4 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation................................................................................ 5

3.3.5 Sodium Hypochlorite Oxidation.............................................................................. 6

3.3.6 Sodium Permanganate Oxidation.......................................................................... 7

3.3.7 Ferrous Sulfate Precipitation.................................................................................. 7

3.4 Hydrogen Sulfide Losses in Transfer Pipe ......................................................................... 8

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 8

4.1 Brine Well Variations and Water Quality Results................................................................ 8

4.2 Pond Operation without Hydrogen Sulfide Control ............................................................. 8

4.3 Hydrogen Sulfide Stripping ............................................................................................... 10

4.4 pH Increase and Hydrogen Sulfide Ionization using Sodium Hydroxide .......................... 11

4.5 pH Titration of Brine .......................................................................................................... 12

4.6 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation ........................................................................................... 13

4.7 Sodium Hypochlorite Oxidation......................................................................................... 15

4.8 Sodium Permanganate Oxidation..................................................................................... 16

4.9 Regeneration of Hydrogen Sulfide after Treatment.......................................................... 16

4.10 Potential for Residual Odors after Treatment ................................................................... 17

4.11 Hydrogen Sulfide Losses in Transfer Pipe ....................................................................... 17

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 18

6.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 18

TABLES

Table 1 Baseline Sampling Analytical Results

Table 2 Summary of Field Test Results

Table 3 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation Test Results

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page ii
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

Table 4 Sodium Hypochlorite Oxidation Test Results

Table 5 Sodium Permanganate Oxidation Test Results

FIGURES

Figure 1 High pH Titration Curves

Figure 2 Low pH Titration Curves

Figure 3 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation Test Results

Figure 4 Sodium Hypochlorite Oxidation Test Results

Figure 5 Sodium Permanganate Oxidation Test Results

Figure 6 Schematic of a Typical Packed Column Stripper

APPENDIX

Appendix A Laboratory Analytical Reports

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page iii
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, a division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas 

Limited (Amec Foster Wheeler) has prepared this Draft Treatment Options Bench Testing Report 

(Report), on behalf of Wastren Advantage Inc., to describe the brine sampling results and benchscale testing performed for the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project Paradox Valley Unit (PVU). Analytical 

testing was conducted in March 2016, and bench-scale testing for the removal of hydrogen sulfide 

gas from the brine was completed in early May 2016. This report presents the results from both 

efforts and provides recommendations for brine treatment design.

The final report planned for this study will include the preliminary design of the H2S treatment 

system, including drawings to describe the layout of the proposed system and to provide a basis 

for cost estimating. Evaluations will included a life-cycle cost using a 50-year project life. The 

final report will also include the recommended location for the H2S treatment system.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The Bureau of Reclamation’s Paradox Valley Unit (PVU) is a component of the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program, a multi-works program to control the salinity of Colorado River 

water delivered to users in the United States and Mexico. The PVU currently intercepts 200 gpm 

of 260,000 mg/l brine and diverts it to a 16,000 foot deep injection well for disposal. The injection 

rate has been curtailed during the 20 year life of the well due mainly to induced seismic activity 

associated with the injection process. At the current rate, Reclamation prevents approximately 

100,000 tons per year from entering the Colorado River system. The current collection well field 

is capable of producing 400 gpm. However, salinity control benefits may decrease when pumping 

in excess of 300 gpm. Therefore for the purposes of this study, the goal is to control up to 170,000 

tons per year, or 300 gpm. Due to current and future limitations of the injection well, and long 

term salinity control considerations at Paradox, Reclamation is currently evaluating alternative 

methods of brine disposal of this produced brine. One of the long-term strategies being 

considered for brine disposal is diverting the brine to an evaporation pond or series of ponds.

This study investigates methods for controlling hydrogen sulfide in the brine. Hydrogen sulfide is 

a colorless, flammable, extremely hazardous gas with a “rotten egg” smell. Hydrogen sulfide is 

heavier than air and may travel along the ground and it will collect in low-lying and enclosed, 

poorly-ventilated areas. The primary route of human exposure is inhalation, and the gas is rapidly 

absorbed by the lungs. At a concentration in the air at or above 100 ppm, hydrogen sulfide gas 

is Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH). OSHA Standards include a maximum 

exposure limit of 20 ppm in air over an 8-hour work shift. The American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 

5 ppm in air, which is the alarm setpoint for all H2S sensors at the PVU facilities. In addition, 

hydrogen sulfide is a highly flammable gas and gas/air mixtures can be explosive. If ignited, the 

gas burns to produce toxic vapors and gases, such as sulfur dioxide. Hydrogen sulfide is also 

corrosive to metals and concrete.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 1
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

The brine produced at the PVU contains dissolved hydrogen sulfide at concentrations of 

approximately 50 to 125 per million (ppm). When the brine at PVU is exposed to the atmosphere, 

hydrogen sulfide readily volatilizes out of the brine and into the air, and concentrations in the air 

above the brine surface can exceed 500 ppm. This compound produces noxious odors, creates 

a corrosive environment, is flammable, and can be explosive at higher concentrations, and can 

be toxic if volatilized and inhaled at high concentrations. Therefore, Amec Foster Wheeler has 

been tasked with designing a brine treatment strategy to remove dissolved hydrogen sulfide prior 

to subsequently processing the brine into solid salt.

2.1 Baseline Sampling

To characterize the brine and provide a basis for brine treatment design, samples were collected 

in March 2016, in general accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP; Amec Foster 

Wheeler, 2016a). Two samples were collected from the existing brine evaporation pans, located 

at the Surface Treatment Facility (STF), and two samples were collected from the Brine Injection 

Facility (BIF), upstream of the equalization tank and filters. Field measurements of water quality 

parameters, turbidity, and dissolved sulfide were performed using the methods described in 

Section 3.0 below. The field and laboratory analytical results are summarized in Table 1.

Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix A.

2.2 Bench-Scale Test Development

To evaluate potential hydrogen sulfide treatment alternatives, Amec Foster Wheeler reviewed a 

variety of removal technologies that utilize precipitation, oxidation, or equilibrium adjustment using 

elevated pH. We considered the following approaches to hydrogen sulfide control:

• Oxidation: Hydrogen sulfide in the brine is oxidized using various substances containing 

oxidants (in this case, sodium permanganate, sodium hypochlorite, and hydrogen 

peroxide). The oxidant causes the formation of sulfate compounds, completely destroying 

the hydrogen sulfide in the process. These reactions can be slow or fast depending on the 

reaction kinetics and the presence of any catalysts. In addition, other compounds in the 

brine may also be oxidized, slowing down the reaction or causing it to consume larger 

quantities of the oxidizing chemical.

• Precipitation: Precipitation uses chemical agents that, when combined with compounds in 

the water, form insoluble solids that become suspended in the solution and eventually 

settle or are removed by filtration. In this case, ferrous sulfate is added to the brine and 

reacts with the gaseous hydrogen sulfide to form solid iron sulfide. The iron sulfide is 

present as a solid and will eventually settle. This removes the gaseous hydrogen sulfide 

from the brine but does not destroy it. Precipitated solids will accumulate in the system 

and need to be removed periodically. In this particular case, the iron sulfide is a hazardous 

material and must be disposed appropriately.

• Equilibrium: Using a caustic solution, such as sodium hydroxide, the pH of the brine is 

raised sufficiently to push the equilibrium of sulfide species in favour of the ionized states 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 2
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

(HS- and S2-) and away from the gaseous state (H2S). By maintaining an elevated pH, the 

ionized sulfide species can undergo natural oxidation, destroying them as described 

above. Once the sulfide species have been sufficiently oxidized, the pH can be lowered 

to a desired discharge limit without the risk of reforming hydrogen sulfide.

To evaluate these various treatment technologies, on-site bench-scale testing was performed at 

the PVU in May 2016. Bench-scale testing results provide information on design flow 

requirements for chemical addition and will be used to better understand the chemistry, 

effectiveness, and operating costs of various treatment alternatives during preliminary treatment 

system design.

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

This section briefly summarizes methods used during baseline sampling and bench-scale testing.

Baseline sampling was conducted in general accordance with the SAP (Amec Foster Wheeler, 

2016a). Bench-scale testing was conducted in general accordance with the Draft Bench Testing 

Plan (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016b).

3.1 Field Measurements

The following instrumentation was used for field measurements.

3.1.1 Hydrogen Sulfide

The concentration of sulfide in the untreated and treated brine samples was measured utilizing 

USEPA Method 8131 (Methylene Blue) and a Hach DR900 Colorimeter. This method measures 

total sulfides in a range of 0.01 to 0.70 milligram per liter (mg/L) as S2- and is suitable for 

measuring sulfides in brines. The narrow range required dilutions of up to 1,000:1 on the untreated 

brines. To minimize volatilization of the hydrogen sulfide, dilutions were completed directly in the 

25-milliliter (mL) vials used in the colorimeter test using deionized water or distilled water 

(depending on availability). Both the dilution water and the brine were added directly to the vials 

using adjustable pipettes (20- to 200-microliter [μL], 0.5- to 5.0-mL, and 1- to 10-mL capacities).

3.1.2 Water Quality Parameters

Water quality parameters were measured using a YSI 556 multi-probe system (MPS), calibrated 

daily in general accordance with the SAP (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016a). Parameters measured 

were pH, oxidation reduction potential (ORP), temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved 

oxygen.

3.1.3 Turbidity

For the baseline sampling event, turbidity was measured using a Hach 2100Q portable 

turbidimeter with a 0.01 Nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) lower detection limit. The turbidimeter 

was calibrated on-site in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions; each sample cell was

cleaned and oiled lightly prior to calibration.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 3
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure 

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

3.2 Laboratory Analyses

Baseline analytical samples were collected in dedicated sampling containers, in accordance with 

the SAP (Amec Foster Wheeler, 216a). Samples were submitted to ALS Environmental for 

analysis of the following:

• Total and dissolved metals • Dissolved and suspended solids

• Total phosphorus • pH

• Ammonia • Conductivity

• Total Kjeldahl nitrogen • Specific gravity

• Anions • Total and dissolved organic carbon

• Total alkalinity • Methane

• Carbonate • Total reduced sulfides

• Bicarbonate

3.3 Bench-Scale Testing Methods

Bench-scale testing was performed over a period of six days at PVU utilizing the on-site laboratory 

located at the STF. All samples analyzed during bench-scale testing were collected from a 

sampling port located approximately one foot down the transfer pump discharge pipe. Samples 

were collected in one-liter polyethylene bottles immediately prior to performing each test. Head 

space was minimized to mitigate volatilization of the dissolved hydrogen sulfide. All brine sample 

handling was performed under an operating ventilation hood. Decontamination was similarly 

performed under the hood or outside.

3.3.1 Stirring Method

For the duration of each test, a six-paddle stirrer was used to ensure thorough, consistent mixing. 

The stirrer was positioned inside a drip pan, under the ventilation hood. A preliminary mixing test 

was performed using colored water to determine the mixing rate that would achieve thorough 

mixing with creating a vortex that promoted volatilization of the dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas. 

Based on the results, all tests were performed using a stir rate of approximately 50 rotations per 

minute (RPM), except as noted. All tests were performed using 2,000-mL glass beakers, with the 

exception of the evaporation pan tests described in Section 3.3.2. 

On day one of bench-scale testing, the stirrer temporarily malfunctioned. This resulted in handstirring the second half of the pH increase titration test (described in Section 3.3.2 below). PVU’s 

on-site electrician resolved the malfunction, and the stirrer was used for the duration of testing.

3.3.2 pH Increase and Hydrogen Sulfide Ionization using Sodium Hydroxide

Caustic addition affects the hydrogen sulfide available to strip off of the liquid by raising the pH 

above 10 to favor the equilibrium towards the ionized state of sulfide species (HS- and S2-) and 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 4 
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

away from the dissolved gas form (H2S). The ionized sulfide form would allow for natural oxidation 

to occur in the ponds, given adequate retention time.

Ionization of the dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas to dissolved HS- and S2- ions was carried out by 

adding 1,500-mL of untreated brine to a beaker and titrating a solution of sodium hydroxide and 

potassium hydroxide until the solution pH was greater than pH 12. This solution was a 

commercially available drain cleaner (Scotch Corporation Instant Power® Main Line Cleaner) that 

was used in place of lab-supplied sodium hydroxide when the lab shipment delivery was delayed 

beyond the testing start date. The solution contained 19% sodium hydroxide and 1% potassium 

hydroxide by weight, as measured by ALS Environmental in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Using the titration data, 4.0 L of brine collected directly from Well 3E was dosed with 76.8 mL of 

the hydroxide solution to increase the pH up to 12.3. The pH adjusted brine was then added to a 

25.75-inch by 17.5-inch drip pan to an approximate depth of 0.75 inch to approximate the 

conditions in the proposed evaporation ponds. An identical volume of brine (including an extra 

76.8-mL of brine to account for the extra volume in the test pan from the hydroxide solution) was 

added to a second control pan. The two pans were placed in an open area in the fenced 

compound of the STF, near the brine transfer pump and the existing evaporation pans. The brine 

in the pans was field tested daily for dissolved sulfide, pH, ORP, temperature, and dissolved 

oxygen. Note that these samples were collected when PVU was on their weekly shutdown on 

Wednesday morning, and the well pump was manually started to collect samples. The samples 

were placed in the pans at 12:30 on May 4, 2016.

3.3.3 pH Titration of Brine

A second titration of the brine was conducted to determine the pH titration curve for the brine from 

pH 2 to pH 12. A 1,500-mL sample of the untreated brine was added to a beaker and titrated 

using a solution of sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide to a pH greater than 12, as 

described in Section 3.3.2. The sample was then titrated backwards using hydrochloric acid to a 

pH of less than 7. 

A third titration was conducted by titrating a 1,500-mL sample of untreated brine to below pH 2 

using hydrochloric acid and then titrating back up to greater than pH 7 using the solution of sodium 

hydroxide and potassium hydroxide.

The hydrochloric acid solution was a commercially available pool cleaner/concrete etcher (KleanStrip Green Muriatic Acid) that was used in place of lab-supplied acid when the lab shipment 

delivery was delayed beyond the testing start date. The solution contained 20% hydrochloric acid 

by weight (approximately 6.0 N hydrochloric acid).

3.3.4 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation

This treatment method uses a hydrogen peroxide solution to oxidize the hydrogen sulfide in the 

brine, destroying it in the process. In addition, hydrogen sulfide can react with hydrogen peroxide

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 5
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure 

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

to produce elemental sulfur and quite likely other partially oxidized sulfur compounds. The balance 

between these reactions will be determined by the reaction kinetics. 

Either reaction can use iron as a catalyst to improve reaction times and reduce the required mixing 

and retention time of the full-scale system. The reactions are as follows:

As shown in the first equation, the theoretical molar ratio of hydrogen sulfide to hydrogen peroxide

is 1:4. For a brine hydrogen sulfide concentration of 80 mg/L, the theoretical requirement is 319 

milligrams of hydrogen peroxide per litre of brine. Hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizer and is difficult 

to handle at high concentrations. For the purpose of the bench-scale testing, a 3% solution was

used. At this concentration, the theoretical dose of hydrogen peroxide was 10.65 ml/L.

For each dose of hydrogen peroxide, an untreated control sample of the brine was also mixed 

and tested for dissolved hydrogen sulfide to quantify the amount of hydrogen sulfide lost during 

the test to volatilization. The test beaker and the control beaker were mixed a minimum of 

30 minutes at 50 RPM or until the hydrogen sulfide reached 1 mg/L or less in the test beaker. The 

following three peroxide tests were conducted:

1. Peroxide oxidation at a neutral pH,

2. Peroxide oxidation at a neutral pH with a ferrous oxide catalyst, and

3. Peroxide oxidation at a pH greater than 10.

In order to keep the ferric oxide suspended, the mixer speed was increased to 95 RPM.

When conducting the peroxide oxidation at a pH greater than 10, the control beaker was also pHadjusted to the same pH as the test beaker.

3.3.5 Sodium Hypochlorite Oxidation

This process works by oxidizing the sulfides to sulfates, destroying the dissolved hydrogen sulfide 

gas. The reaction is as follows:

HH2SS + 4 NNNNNNNNNN → HH2SS 4 + 4 NNNNNNNN

As seen from the above reaction, the theoretical molar dosage rate is 4 moles of hypochlorite to 

1 mole of hydrogen sulfide. At a hydrogen sulfide concentration of 80 mg/L, this corresponds to a 

theoretical dosage of 699 mg/L of NaOCl. Using common household bleach at a concentration of 

8.25%, this is a theoretical dosing rate of approximately 8.47 ml/L (common household bleach is 

sold at 5.25% and sold as “concentrated” at 8.25%). The chlorine also oxidizes other compounds 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 6 
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

in the water, including methane and some metals, resulting in a higher dose required to fully 

oxidize all hydrogen sulfide.

Sodium hypochlorite oxidation of the dissolved hydrogen sulfide was carried out by dosing 

1,000 mL of untreated brine with various quantities of 8.25% sodium hypochlorite. For each dose 

of sodium hypochlorite, an untreated control sample of the brine was also mixed and tested for 

dissolved hydrogen sulfide to quantify the amount of hydrogen sulfide lost during the test to 

volatilization. The test beaker and the control beaker were mixed for 5 minutes at 50 RPM for 

each dose.

3.3.6 Sodium Permanganate Oxidation

In this process, a form of permanganate is added to the brine to oxidize the hydrogen sulfide, 

forming elemental sulfur and creating an alkaline condition in the pond. The hydrogen sulfide is 

destroyed in the process. Potassium permanganate and sodium permanganate are the two most 

common forms available. As sodium permanganate is safer to handle and easier to transport, it 

was selected for use in the bench-scale testing. The reaction at neutral pH proceeds as follows:

2 NNNNNNNN 4 + 3 HH2SS → 3 SS + 2 2 + 2 NNNNNN + 2HH2

As seen above, the theoretical molar ratio of H2S to NaMnO4 is 3:2. At a hydrogen sulfide 

concentration of 80 mg/L, the theoretical dosage required to oxidize all hydrogen sulfide in the 

brine is 222 mg/L NaMnO4. Sodium permanganate is commonly available as a 40% solution, 

resulting in a theoretical dosing rate of 0.4 ml/L.

Sodium permanganate oxidation of the dissolved hydrogen sulfide was carried by dosing 

1,000 mL of untreated brine with various quantities of 40% sodium permanganate. For each dose 

of sodium permanganate, an untreated control sample of the brine was also mixed and tested for 

dissolved hydrogen sulfide to quantify the amount of hydrogen sulfide lost during the test to 

volatilization. The test beaker and the control beaker were mixed for 5 minutes at 50 RPM for 

each dose.

3.3.7 Ferrous Sulfate Precipitation

This treatment method uses iron salts to precipitate iron sulfide from the brine, removing but not 

destroying the hydrogen sulfide. The reaction proceeds as follows:

FFFF 4 + HH2SS → FFFF (ss) + HH2SS 4

As shown above, the theoretical molar ratio of H2S to FeSO4 is 1:1. At a hydrogen sulfide 

concentration of 80 mg/L, the theoretical requirement for ferrous sulfate is 357 mg/L. Ferrous 

sulfate is widely available as both a powder and a dilute solution. A dosing rate of 357 mg/L will 

be used to precipitate the hydrogen sulfide.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 7
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

Though originally proposed in the Draft Bench Testing Plan (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016), ferrous 

sulfate precipitation testing was not completed due to possible issues with disposal of the 

precipitated iron sulfide (FeS) solids generated from both the lab tests and full-scale operation. 

Iron sulfide is pyrophoric and will rapidly and violently oxidize with air when dry. If left in HDPElined evaporation ponds, the solids would discolor the produced salts and could present both fire 

and asset risks to the liner. If the FeS solids were separated prior to the evaporation ponds, the 

concentrated FeS solid stream would be difficult and expensive to dispose of.

3.4 Hydrogen Sulfide Losses in Transfer Pipe

At the request of PVU staff, possible losses of hydrogen sulfide in the pipeline between the brine 

transfer pump at the STF and the equalization tank at the BIF were evaluated. Duplicate hydrogen 

sulfide colorimeter tests were completed for samples collected from:

• The STF transfer pump discharge pipe, 

• The BIF sample port upstream of the equalization tank (same location sampled in 

March 2016), and 

• The BIF sample port downstream of the equalization tank/upstream of the filters.

All of these samples were tested immediately after collecting samples from the sample port.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Baseline and bench-scale laboratory and field testing results are described below and presented 

in Tables 1 through 5. Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix A.

4.1 Brine Well Variations and Water Quality Results

The brine tested during baseline sampling and during the duration of bench-scale testing may 

have varied slightly, as different pumps were operated by Wastren Advantage personnel at 

different times. However, dissolved sulfide results during bench-scale testing were consistently 

within the 70 to 100 mg/L range (Table 2). Duplicate tests performed on the same samples yielded 

similar results (see Section 4.7). Water quality parameters were similarly consistent (Table 2).

Therefore, the effects on bench-scale testing results of periodically changing brine source wells 

were considered to be minimal.

4.2 Pond Operation without Hydrogen Sulfide Control

Amec Foster Wheeler does not recommend pumping the PVU brine into the evaporation ponds 

with no treatment process to remove hydrogen sulfide. As discussed in Section 2.0 of this report, 

the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in the air above the brine when it is exposed to the 

atmosphere have been regularly measured above 100 ppm, which is the IDLH for hydrogen 

sulfide. Brine from some of the wells has been measured to produce hydrogen sulfide at greater 

than 500 ppm in the air when it is exposed to the atmosphere. Hydrogen sulfide is also denser 

than air and thus will stay near ground level under normal atmospheric conditions. The design of 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 8
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

the evaporation ponds will also likely increase rate of volatilization of hydrogen sulfide from the 

brine as the ponds will be shallow and have a very large surface area.

Hydrogen sulfide also presents additional risks because it is flammable, possibly explosive and 

has an objectionable rotten egg odor. The Lower Explosive Limit for hydrogen sulfide is 4.5% 

which may not normally be a risk under normal atmospheric conditions, but explosive 

environments could be formed if there are any low laying areas in the pond area (depression, 

manholes, etc.) where heavier-than-air hydrogen sulfide could displace air.

The H2S will create a significant health & safety risk in the vicinity of the evaporation ponds, likely 

requiring PVU staff to wear self-contained breathing devices when working at the ponds. It may 

also preclude having any sources of ignition near the ponds, unless the transfer of brine to the 

ponds has been stopped and monitoring devices indicate that the hydrogen concentrations are at 

safe levels.

There could also be off-site impacts due to the release of hydrogen sulfide from the evaporation 

ponds including nuisance odors and health impacts to local residents. Hydrogen sulfide can be 

sensed by humans at concentrations between 0.01 and 1.5 ppm in the air and thus it is likely that 

nuisance odours will reach residents, especially if the ponds are located at the Northwest Paradox 

site. At chronic exposures as low as 2 to 5 ppm in air, hydrogen sulfide may cause nausea, 

tearing, headaches, loss of sleep and breathing issues for asthma patients.

Another risk of releasing hydrogen sulfide from the evaporation ponds is the effects on wildlife. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed an ambient air benchmark for the 

protection of wildlife (mammals and birds) of 1 ppm. At 5 – 10 ppm, wildlife will avoid the area. 

Adverse, sub-lethal effects such as eye and mucus membrane irritation and agitation begin at 5 

ppm for mammals and about 25 ppm for birds. Mortality in mammals begins at about 100 ppm, 

with median lethal concentrations to rodents at about 444 ppm.

Based on readings from H2S air sensors used to measure H2S in the air over the brine, there is 

high potential for H2S off-gassing from the PVU brine. We cannot use Henry’s Law to estimate 

generation rate because of the high salt content of the brine, but from the pH adjustment bench 

test performed on the brine, the control pan started off with 40 mg/L of H2S and after 20 hours 

outdoors, there was no measureable H2S remaining in the liquid. Based on the dimensions of the 

pan, this equates out to an emission rate of 5.9 lbs H2S per acre per day. This is a conservatively 

low number since the two sample tests represented two daily tests and the H2S may have fully 

off-gassed much earlier than when we collected our 2nd sample for H2S testing. This test was 

also started during the weekly shutdown at PVU, so the brine sample was not fresh, and at half 

the normal H2S concentration. A higher initial H2S concentration would likely increase the 

emission rate as the brine would have been further from H2S air-liquid equilibrium

Our recommendation is based on a qualitative review of the many health & safety issues 

attributable to hydrogen sulfide release and is not based on detailed volatilization or atmospheric 

dispersion modelling of hydrogen sulfide generation and fate once released to the atmosphere 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 9
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

above the pond surface. Evaluating the operation of the ponds without hydrogen sulfide was not 

included in the scope of this project. However, it is likely that detailed atmospheric dispersion 

modelling of hydrogen sulfide will only confirm that operating the ponds without hydrogen sulfide 

control is high risk and potentially dangerous to worker health and safety and wildlife populations.

4.3 Hydrogen Sulfide Stripping

Air stripping or degasification is a method for hydrogen sulfide control where air is brought into 

contact with the brine to allow for controlled volatilization of the hydrogen sulfide. Air stripping is 

usually conducted in a tower with numerous trays that allow contact between air and brine to 

promote volatilization of hydrogen sulfide. For the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in the PVU 

brine, natural aeration would not supply enough air and therefore an external source such as a 

blower would be required to provide enough air to fully strip the hydrogen sulfide from the brine. 

The blower would have to be big enough to ensure that there is enough air flowing through the 

stripper to keep the hydrogen sulfide concentration in the tower air stream to safely below the 

LEL. Adding packing material, such as various plastic media would increase the surface area for 

contact between the brine and air, and further reduce the size of the tower required. Since only 

the dissolved gas form of hydrogen sulfide, and not the ionized species, will volatilize in contact 

with air, the pH of the brine would also have to be decreased to below 6.0 to ensure that most of 

the sulfides are in the dissolved gas form.

For groundwater treatment systems where hydrogen sulfide is a nuisance odour and taste issue, 

the hydrogen sulfide concentration is low enough that emitting the air stream from the stripper 

untreated may be possible. For PVU, the air stream coming out of the air stripper would be fairly 

rich in hydrogen sulfide and emitting it to the atmosphere would be no different than pumping the 

brine to the ponds without hydrogen sulfide control. Therefore, the air stream from the stripper 

would have to be treated further using another technology such as thermal oxidation, or utilizing 

one of the chemical oxidation processes from our bench scale testing (likely in another packed 

tower with sodium hypochlorite).

Air stripping was considered as an option to remove hydrogen sulfide from the PVU brine, but 

was eliminated for several reasons related to the nature of the PVU brine. The main concern is 

the high dissolved solids content, and the high hydrogen sulfide content. Air stripping will increase 

water evaporation from the brine, affecting the solubility of the salts, and leading to frequent 

fouling of stripper internals, including trays, packing and nozzles for distributing the brine flow 

through the tower. This will require significant operator effort to maintain the operation of the 

stripper. Corrosion in the stripper can be managed by choosing fiberglass reinforced plastic 

(FRP) as the material of construction, and utilizing plastic packing media. The high chloride 

content of the brine, plus the addition of air means there is a high corrosion potential for metals, 

and their use in a stripper system would not be recommended. See Figure 6 for a diagram of a 

typical packed tower stripper.

The high concentration of hydrogen sulfide requires treatment of the air stream from the stripper, 

which can add another complex process to the overall hydrogen sulfide control system. Thermal 

oxidation would have a high capital requirement and would require temperatures exceeding 1000 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 10
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

°F to ensure complete conversion of the hydrogen sulfide to sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide in the 

flue gas may have to be managed as well. If the air stream from the stripper is treated by chemical 

oxidation, then precipitated solids would create an issue with fouling or plugging in that reactor as 

well. As an alternative, packaged systems are commercially available which could scrub the 

hydrogen sulfide from the stripper air stream and then biologically oxidize the hydrogen sulfide to 

elemental sulfur solids, which could then be landfilled. However, it should also be noted that 

chemical or biological oxidation of the air stream would mean that the overall process includes a 

packed tower stripper to remove hydrogen sulfide from water, followed up by a packed tower that 

adds the hydrogen sulfide back to water so that it can be chemically or biologically oxidized. Direct 

chemical oxidation of the brine would be more cost efficient and easier to operate.

4.4 pH Increase and Hydrogen Sulfide Ionization using Sodium Hydroxide

As shown in the Titration 1 curve (Figure 1), the brine initially starts below pH 6.5 but only requires 

a small volume of the hydroxide solution to increase to approximately pH 9.5. pH then plateaus 

until it rises above pH 10, where the curve steeply climbs again. A final pH of 12.05 was reached 

after 30.1 mL of a solution of 5.7 N NaOH and 0.2 N KOH was added to 1,500 mL of brine.

For the 4.0-L samples tested in shallow pans (as described in Section 3.3.2), an immediate 

precipitation of white solids was observed when the hydroxide dose was added. The brine 

samples (collected directly from Well 3E) had an initial hydrogen sulfide concentration of 40 mg/L. 

The samples were placed in the pans at 12:30 on May 4, 2016. 

When the test and control pans were tested at 10:30 on May 5, 2016, the hydrogen sulfide

concentrations had decreased to below detection limits in the control pan and to 0.34 mg/L in the 

test pan. Approximately 25% of the water in the pans had evaporated during this time period. The 

pH in the test pan, which had started at 12.3, had decreased to 9.3 after 22 hours. The dissolved 

oxygen concentration in both pans was below 1.0 mg/L.

We could not test the brine in the test and control pans on the morning of May 6, 2016, as the 

water in the pans had mostly turned to a gel-like salt. There was little remaining water.

Controlled lab evaporation tests were performed as part of the pond optimization study (Study 2). 

Our bench test experiment was constructed to evaluate whether pH could be maintained in the 

pans, and if natural aeration could oxidize the sulfides. The two tests are not comparable.

We are unsure as to the exact mechanism of the rapid pH decrease in the pans. It could have 

been a combination of several effects, including carbon dioxide dissolving from the atmosphere, 

plus a loss of buffering capacity as some of the calcium and magnesium hydroxide salts 

precipitated due to the high initial pH and subsequent evaporation.

This test highlights possible issues with maintaining a pH above 10 in the proposed evaporation 

pond system. Adjustment of the brine to above pH 10 will ionize the dissolved hydrogen sulfide 

gas to both HS- and S2- ions, minimizing volatilization of hydrogen sulfide to the atmosphere from 

the pond. However, if the pH drops below 10, the sulfide equilibrium will shift towards dissolved 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 11
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

hydrogen sulfide gas and volatilization will occur. Since hydrogen sulfide is a noxious toxic gas 

volatilization is not desired. Based on the titration curve, maintaining a high pH in the brine 

entering the initial surge pond will not provide a significant safety factor for operation as the pH 

decreases rapidly from 12 to 10.

For the pH adjustment option to work, the ionic species of sulfide that exist when the pH is above 

10 will have to be oxidized by dissolved oxygen from natural aeration through the pond surface. 

As the water evaporates, the water chemistry will change and the likelihood of the pH dropping 

below 10 will increase. Once the equilibrium starts switching towards dissolved H2S gas, it will 

begin to rapidly volatilize through the large surface area of the ponds, which will further drive the 

equilibrium towards dissolved H2S gas. This process can only work if the rate of oxidation is 

faster than the pH decrease. This can be remedied by increasing the sodium hydroxide dose to 

maintain a higher pH, but because of the large buffering capacity of the brine, it takes a large

amount of sodium hydroxide to increase the pH from 9 to 10. Also, if the addition of high pH brine

is stopped, there is a risk that the pH of the pond could decrease relatively quickly and start 

releasing H2S to the atmosphere. 

pH adjustment of the brine is only a feasible long-term solution for hydrogen sulfide control if the 

pH can be maintained above 10 so that natural aeration and dissolved oxygen can oxidize the 

dissolved HS- and S2- ions. The large surface area and shallow depths of the evaporation pond 

system will ensure that the brine maintains a small dissolved oxygen concentration due to surface 

area transfer with atmospheric oxygen, preventing re-formation of sulfide species once they are 

oxidized. 

Utilizing mechanical aeration to increase the dissolved oxygen concentration in the surge pond 

would likely enhance the volatilization rate of hydrogen sulfide from the pond before it enhanced 

the oxidation of hydrogen sulfide by dissolved oxygen. Additionally, mechanical aeration could 

only be achieved in the proposed deep centre well of the surge pond as the remainder of the pond 

would be too shallow to install any aeration systems. Care would also have to be taken in 

selecting materials of construction as the high chloride concentration in brine would likely 

eliminate most metals.

4.5 pH Titration of Brine

As shown in the hydroxide Titration 2 through 4 curves (Figures 1 and 2), there are three 

equivalency points in the titration curve for the brine in the pH range of 2 to 12. The brine displays 

behaviour similar to a triprotic acid (e.g., phosphoric acid). The Titration 2 curve (Figure 1)

indicates a similar pattern as the Titration 1 curve, with the brine initially below pH 6.5, requiring 

small volumes to raise the pH to 9.5, and then requiring greater volumes to push the pH above 

approximately pH 10.2. pH then climbs again, requiring approximately 45 mL of sodium hydroxide 

to reach pH 12 in 1,500 mL of brine.

The Titration 3 curve showed similar inflection points, with pH shifts requiring substantial 

quantities of hydrochloric acid to push from approximately pH 10.2 to below about pH 9.5. A final 

pH of 6.75 was reached after adding 40 mL of 5N hydrochloric acid to 1,500 mL of brine.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 12
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

The low pH titration curves shown in Figure 2 also indicated a range from approximately pH 2.2 

to pH 4.6 in which very small quantities of titrant were required to shift the pH. Much smaller titrant 

volumes in general were required for the low pH titrations than for the high pH titrations. Only 

2.0 mL of 5N hydrochloric acid were required to decrease the pH of 1,500 mL of brine from 

approximately 6.4 to 1.8. Similarly, only 1.6 mL of sodium hydroxide was required to increase the

pH from 1.8 up to 6.6 in the same 1,500 mL of brine.

4.6 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation

Hydrogen peroxide oxidation results are presented in Table 3 and shown on Figure 3. The best 

performance for peroxide oxidation of the hydrogen sulfide occurred when the pH of the brine was 

increased above 10 and the peroxide dose was increased to a molar dose ratio of 4:1 moles 

hydrogen peroxide per mole of hydrogen sulfide. After 5 minutes, approximately 75% of the 

hydrogen sulfide had been oxidized, as indicated by the dissolved sulfide results (Table 3). Adding 

0.8 gram of ferric oxide at the same dose and pH, did not improve the reaction rate. A white 

precipitate formed after both the dose of peroxide and the addition of hydroxide. 

The white solids formed after addition of hydroxide were large and wispy, and were likely calcium 

hydroxide precipitated because of the increase in pH decreasing the solubility of calcium. The 

white solids formed after the addition of hydrogen peroxide were very fine, and were likely 

elemental sulfur, which is formed by the sulfide oxidation reaction with hydrogen peroxide. The 

production of elemental sulfur solids would be directly proportional to the concentration of 

hydrogen sulfide in the brine. At a peak hydrogen sulfide concentration of 125 mg/L, assuming 

all sulfide is oxidized to insoluble elemental sulfur, and not to highly soluble sulfate, the maximum 

solid generation rate would be 0.45 grams of elemental sulfur per gallon of PVU brine treated. 

Peroxide oxidation followed what we would expect based on literature values, except for the ferric 

oxide catalyzed reaction. Without adjusting the pH of the brine, the initial rate of reaction increased 

as the peroxide dose was increased. At neutral pH and a molar dose ratio of 1:1 moles hydrogen 

peroxide per mole of hydrogen sulfide, the hydrogen sulfide in the treated sample had not 

decreased below 1 mg/L after a reaction time of 45 mins. We did not run the test beyond 

45 minutes. This suggests that the reaction would require at least 60 minutes to fully remove 

hydrogen sulfide. The increase in peroxide dose only seemed to increase the initial reaction rate. 

Once the hydrogen sulfide concentration was below 10 mg/L, the reaction rate slowed 

considerably, regardless of the initial peroxide dose. 

At neutral pH, the reaction that predominates is:

H2O2 + H2S → S0(s) + 2H2O

This reaction oxidizes the dissolved hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur, which precipitates out 

as a very fine white/yellow solid. 

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 13
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

At pH greater than 9.2, the reaction that predominates is:

4HH2 2 + HH2SS → HH2SS 4 + 4HH2

This reaction oxidizes the dissolved hydrogen sulfide to dissolved sulfate, which would likely 

precipitate out in the proposed bittern pond as a calcium or magnesium salt. Oxidation to sulfate 

would be preferable, though this would require adjustment of the pH to 10 and a much higher 

dose of hydrogen peroxide. Results indicated that completing peroxide oxidation at the higher pH 

resulted in a higher reaction rate and more complete oxidation of the hydrogen sulfide. The control 

beaker in this test was pH adjusted to match the pH in the test beaker and, as a result, there was 

no discernible volatilization of hydrogen sulfide. Unlike the other peroxide tests, the pH-adjusted 

test actually oxidized all of the hydrogen sulfide present in the initial sample.

Catalytic peroxide oxidation testing was based on a paper by Ahmad et al (2009) that tested 

peroxide oxidation using ferric oxide powder as a catalyst. The ferric oxide used by Ahmad et al

had a nominal size of less than 0.2 micrometer (μm). We obtained ferric oxide powder from ColeParmer that had a nominal size of less than 5 μm. Using this ferric oxide powder in conjunction 

with the paddle stirrer, we had difficulty keeping all of the ferric oxide catalyst in suspension, even 

at full speed. The best performance from the Ahmad et al experiment was at a dose of 1.5 grams 

per 500 mL of solution (3.0 grams per liter [g/L]), but we had difficulty even keeping 0.8 g/L in 

suspension.

The results from our tests run at neutral pH showed no improvement on the reaction rate, and 

actually appeared to slow down the peroxide reaction. The Ahmad et al tests were run at an initial 

pH of 11.2, which appears to have greatly increased the reaction rate. Other tests, including 

Levine et al (2004), used either ferric sulfate or ferric chloride to provide Fe3+ as a catalyst for 

peroxide addition. Based on our results for the catalytic oxidation test, we would recommend any 

further tests either be completed with a finer ferric oxide powder, mixed with a magnetic stirrer, 

and run at a pH greater than 10. Alternatively, additional tests could be run at a neutral pH using 

ferric sulfate or ferric chloride as the catalyst.

Any full-scale peroxide oxidation system would require either a reactor with a long residence time 

or the addition of secondary chemicals to either increase the pH or act as a catalyst. In order to 

eliminate expensive materials of construction, specialized equipment, and specialized handling 

procedures, the hydrogen peroxide would need to be shipped to site at a concentration of less 

than 30% by weight, which will significantly increase the chemical transportation costs. 

Alternatively, the peroxide could be shipped to site at 70% concentration by weight and diluted to 

less than 30% by weight for storage. This would require that at least part of the system be 

designed to handle 70% peroxide but would reduce transportation costs. However, the water 

required for dilution would likely have to be treated to remove solids and metals (filtration/ reverse 

osmosis) from river water in order to minimize peroxide loss.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 14
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

4.7 Sodium Hypochlorite Oxidation

Sodium hypochlorite oxidation results are presented in Table 4 and shown on Figure 4. The 

sodium hypochlorite dose that achieved complete removal of hydrogen sulfide was actually less 

than the theoretical molar dose of 4 moles of sodium hypochlorite per mole of hydrogen sulphide. 

The dose was approximately 3.15 moles of sodium hypochlorite per mole of hydrogen sulphide. 

Slightly lower doses of sodium hypochlorite showed higher hydrogen sulfide concentrations, as 

well negative ORP values after 5 minutes of reaction (-212 millivolts [mV]). The ORP after 5 

minutes of reaction time at the 3.15 molar dose was 480 mV. The pH dropped from 6.10 to 4.95 

at the end of the 5-minute test. A white precipitate formed after the dose of sodium hypochlorite. 

The high positive ORP value is an indication that there is an excess of sodium hypochlorite in the 

beaker.

The final hydrogen sulfide concentration in the 3.15 molar dose was measured as 0.32 mg/L, but 

the color of the vial was a hazy yellow, not blue like the slightly lower doses had been. We 

conducted the hydrogen sulfide test at a 10:1 dilution to minimize this affect and allow for a 

reading. We do not believe that this is an actual measurement of the hydrogen sulfide. Rather, 

the yellow color likely was the effect of excess hypochlorite interacting with methylene blue color 

formation. The high ORP value of the treated sample suggested that no reduced sulfide 

compounds could exist.

Literature suggests that the presence of ammonia reduces the hypochlorite dose required to 

oxidize hydrogen sulfide, and there was approximately 15 mg/L of ammonia present in the 

untreated brine. This could be related to the formation of chloramines.

Sodium hypochlorite oxidation of hydrogen sulfide produces acid as a by-product, which 

depresses the pH of the treated brine. The bench test results indicated a pH decrease of 

approximately 1.5 pH units.

For a full-scale system, excess hypochlorite in the treated brine could lead to chlorine odor 

emanating from the evaporation ponds, and therefore small doses of reducing agents may be 

required. Depending on the reducing agent used, as well as the pH decrease caused by the 

hypochlorite oxidation, the system may also require the addition of an alkaline substance to raise 

the pH back to neutral.

Hypochlorite oxidation of hydrogen sulfide oxidizes the sulfide completely to dissolved sulfate, 

and thus no additional solids residuals are generated.

Sodium hypochlorite is commonly available as a 12.5% solution. However, the volumes are 

significant enough that transportation costs could be high. It may be more economical to generate 

sodium hypochlorite on-site from sodium chloride (a product of the evaporation ponds), water, 

and electricity. Commercial electrolytic generators exist with the capacity for the ranges of sodium 

hypochlorite required for this system.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 15
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

4.8 Sodium Permanganate Oxidation

Sodium permanganate oxidation results are presented in Table 5 and shown on Figure 5. Sodium

permanganate appeared highly effective at oxidizing hydrogen sulfide in the brine. The dose that 

achieved full removal of hydrogen sulfide was very close to the theoretical dose of 2 moles 

permanganate per 3 moles of hydrogen sulfide at a neutral pH. The color of the sodium 

permanganate (deep purple) acted as a visual indicator of the full removal of hydrogen sulfide. At 

doses lower than theoretical, there was no color in the test beaker, as all of the permanganate 

had reacted and been reduced to manganese dioxide. Once the hydrogen sulfide had been 

removed, there was excess permanganate in the beaker, and the purple color dominated.

Sodium permanganate is a very strong oxidizer but is also relatively expensive compared to other 

oxidizers. If operated at a higher pH, the permanganate oxidation rate increases by a factor of 

four. At the higher pH, the permanganate oxidation drives the sulfide to dissolved sulfate. 

Additionally, the high pH and strong oxidizer will also oxidize ferrous iron and lead to precipitation 

of ferric hydroxide.

At a neutral pH, the sulfides are oxidized to elemental sulfur, similar to peroxide oxidation at a 

neutral pH. The same issues with management of the elemental sulfur residual discussed with 

peroxide oxidation (Section 4.4) apply to permanganate oxidation, unless permanganate 

oxidation is operated at a higher pH. Additionally, permanganate oxidation at any pH produces 

significant amounts of manganese dioxide, which is a fine, insoluble, black solid that may discolor

any salt products in the evaporation ponds. Manganese dioxide is considered a strong oxidizer 

and will react violently with combustible and reducing materials, which may restrict options for 

disposal.

Overdoses of sodium permanganate would leave the treated brine with a strong purple color, 

which may not be acceptable, requiring the addition of a reducing agent prior to discharge to the 

evaporation ponds. The color can be used as a dose indicator allowing the operator to reduce the 

permanganate dosing rate to achieve the desired results. 

Sodium permanganate is available for shipment as a dissolved solution but is likely only 

economical if purchased as a solid salt and prepared as a solution on-site. Even then, sodium 

permanganate is likely to be more expensive than other options.

4.9 Regeneration of Hydrogen Sulfide after Treatment

Regeneration refers to hydrogen sulfide re-forming in the evaporation ponds after treatment. This 

is a concern with pH adjustment option tested in bench testing as that process does not eliminate

the hydrogen sulfide – the process only adjusts the sulfide equilibrium away from the dissolved 

gas form. With this process, there is potential that the pH could drop in the ponds and drive the 

equilibrium towards the dissolved gas form, especially since the ionized sulfide species are 

oxidized relatively slowly by the dissolved oxygen concentration in the ponds.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 16
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

Chemical oxidation processes transform the reduced sulfides to various oxidized forms of sulfur 

such as elemental sulfur or sulfates. Due to the shallow depth and large surface areas of the 

evaporation ponds, the ponds will be an oxidizing environment, thus precluding the formation of 

dissolved sulfur species such as hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide would only be able to regenerate if the ponds were to become a strong reducing environment, which is unlikely since the 

ponds have a large surface area exposed to the atmosphere.

4.10 Potential for Residual Odors after Treatment

Similarly to section 4.9, the only treatment option that has significant potential to produce residual 

odours is pH adjustment, as the sulfide equilibrium could be shifted towards the dissolved gas 

form of hydrogen sulfide. Destruction of the hydrogen sulfide through chemical oxidation can be 

ensured by adding excess amounts of the chemical oxidizer, which will produce a strong oxidizing 

environment inside of the oxidizing reactor. There could be an issue with residual chlorine odor 

from the sodium hypochlorite process, but that can be managed by adding a small amount of a 

reducing agent to reduce the free chlorine to chlorides prior to discharge to the ponds. Common 

reducing agents used to remove free chlorine in water treatment include sodium bisulfite, sulfur 

dioxide and calcium thiosulfate.

Much like the current system at PVU, there always will be risk of fugitive hydrogen sulfide 

emissions from the system through leaks, vents, sampling processes, and maintenance 

procedures.

4.11 Hydrogen Sulfide Losses in Transfer Pipe

Hydrogen sulfide test results are presented in Table 2. For the duplicate samples analyzed during 

the comparison test, one result (90 mg/L) was consistent with previous data collected during 

bench-scale testing. One test gave a result that was determined to be erroneous (210 mg/L). This

outlier has been attributed to a dilution error. Given the large dilutions required (1:1000); even a 

small error in dilutions can make a large difference in the measured result. A second set of 

duplicate samples was tested, and the results were again consistent with previous data (70 and 

90 mg/L). 

Duplicate sample results from the BIF upstream of the equalization tank were 60 mg/L and 

90 mg/L. Duplicate sample results from the BIF downstream of the equalization tank were both 

90 mg/L.

Based on these results, there does not seem to be a measurable degree of variability between 

the STF and BIF, given the accuracy of the colorimeter method (+/- 3% on the measurement 

alone, not including the standard errors in volumetric measurements).

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 17
Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler

FINAL Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure

Paradox Valley Unit

November 10, 2016

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings presented above, and Amec Foster Wheeler’s experience with similar 

systems, it is recommended that a sodium hypochlorite treatment system be designed and 

implemented to treat the hydrogen sulfide at PVU.

Hypochlorite dosing systems are simpler to operate and automate than those associated with the 

other treatment methods evaluated during the bench testing. The systems are widely used in 

industrial wastewater treatment and can be designed to be semi- or fully automated. The reaction 

time was observed to be considerably quicker than the other options evaluated and there were 

no hazardous by-product solids produced.

The chemicals required by a hypochlorite dosing system are relatively safe to handle and are 

widely available. Hypochlorite is used in industrial processes for everything from wastewater 

treatment to sanitation, and many chemical handling companies offer bulk deliveries at discounted 

prices. To make delivery and handling easier and safer for PVU staff, the use of a high-capacity 

hypochlorite generator should be investigated. These units can generate large volumes of 

hypochlorite using on-site power and NaCl (salt). The salt required by these generators is 

inexpensive, easy to acquire in large volumes and has fewer operator health and safety risks

associated with its handling.

6.0 REFERENCES

Ahmad, N., Maitra, S., Dutta, B. K., & Ahmad, F. (2009). Remediation of sulfidic wastewater by 

catalytic oxidation with hydrogen peroxide. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 21(12), 

1735-1740.

Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016a. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Project, Paradox Valley Unit, Colorado. Prepared for Wastren Advantage. Prepared by 

Amec Foster Wheeler. March.

Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016b. Wastren Advantage Inc. Paradox Valley Unit Salinity Control 

Investigations, Study 1 – Hydrogen Sulfide Management, Bedrock, Colorado, Bench 

Testing Plan, Draft. Prepared for Wastren Advantage. Prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler. 

April 26.

Levine, A. D., Raymer, B. J., & Jahn, J. (2004). Hydrogen sulfide and turbidity control using 

catalysed oxidation coupled with filtration for groundwater treatment. Journal of Water 

Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua, 53(5), 325-337.

Project No. 1655500023.0001.0003 Page 18
 

 

 

 

Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler 

DRAFT Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure 

Paradox Valley Unit 

May 19, 2016 

TABLES
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1
 

BASELINE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Sample Location 

Evaporation Pans at 

Surface Treatment Facility 

Brine Injection Facility Main Line, 

Upstream of Tank & Filters 

Sample ID Method 

PVUEVAP 

16031001 (1) 

PVUEVAP 

16031002 (2) 

PVUBIF 

16031001 (3) 

PVUBIF 

16031002 (4) 

Date -­ 10/03/2016 10/03/2016 10/03/2016 10/03/2016 

Time -­ 11:35 11:40 14:40 15:00 

Field Analytical Results 

pH (s.u.) YSI 5 6.77 7.48 6.42 6.37 

Temperature (°C) YSI 5 9.67 9.9 18.81 16.11 

SEC (μS/cm) YSI 5 233,780 238,600 232,453 233,231 

DO (mg/L) YSI 5 1.15 0.92 0.77 < 2.0 

Turbidity (NTU) 2100Q 6 12.3 23.4 0.67 0.81 

H2S (mg/L) Field Kit 7 0 0.1 5+ 200 

H2S (mg/L as S2­) DR900 8 <0.01 <0.01 61 125 

Laboratory Analytical Results 

Non-Metals 

pH (s.u.) 150.1 7.18 7.15 6.32 6.29 

SEC (μS/cm) 120.1 242,000 248,000 237,000 238,000 

Specific Gravity D5057-90 1.17 1.18 1.17 1.17 

Bicarbonate (mg/L as CaCO3) 310.1 91 100 200 200 

Carbonate (mg/L as CaCO3) 310.1 <20 <20 <20 <20 

Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 310.1 91 100 200 200 

Ammonia (mg/L as N) 350.1 -­ -­ 17 15 

Bromide (mg/L) 300.0 -­ -­ 86 J 83 J 

Chloride (mg/L) 300.0 170,000 180,000 170,000 170,000 

Fluoride (mg/L) 300.0 -­ -­ <50 <50 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) A4500-NH3 -­ -­ 6.0 4.5 

Nitrate (mg/L as N) 300.0 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Nitrite (mg/L as N) 300.0 -­ -­ <50 <50 

Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) 365.1 -­ -­ <0.25 0.43 

Sulfate (mg/L) 300.0 7,500 7,700 7,100 6,800 

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 160.1 650,000 470,000 850,000 580,000 

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 160.2 -­ -­ <20 <20 

TOC (mg/L) 415.1 -­ -­ <1 <1 

DOC (mg/L) 415.1 -­ -­ <1 <1 

Dissolved Gases 

Methane (μg/L) RSK-175 -­ -­ 1,200 1,100 

H2S (mg/L) Gas Chrom. 9 -­ -­ 57 53 

Metals, Total 

Aluminum, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 3,400 J <5,000 

Aluminum, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <5,000 <5,000 

Antimony, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <30 <30 

Antimony, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <30 <30 

Arsenic, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <200 <200 

Arsenic, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <200 <200 

Barium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 53 J 44 J 

Barium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 30 J 44 J 

Beryllium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <50 <50 

Beryllium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <50 <50 

Amec Foster Wheeler 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx Page 1 of 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1
 

BASELINE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Sample Location 

Evaporation Pans at 

Surface Treatment Facility 

Brine Injection Facility Main Line, 

Upstream of Tank & Filters 

Sample ID Method 

PVUEVAP 

16031001 (1) 

PVUEVAP 

16031002 (2) 

PVUBIF 

16031001 (3) 

PVUBIF 

16031002 (4) 

Metals, Total (continued) 

Bismuth, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6010 -­ -­ 62 J 49 J 

Bismuth, Total (μg/L) SW6010 -­ -­ 49 J 49 J 

Boron, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 10,000 11,000 

Boron, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 11,000 11,000 

Cadmium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <30 <30 

Cadmium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <30 <30 

Calcium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 1,700,000 1,700,000 

Calcium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 1,600,000 1,800,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 

Chromium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <1,000 <1,000 

Chromium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <1,000 <1,000 

Cobalt, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Cobalt, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Copper, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <1,000 <1,000 

Copper, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <1,000 <1,000 

Iron, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <10,000 <10,000 

Iron, Total (μg/L) SW6020 <10,000 2,200 J <10,000 <10,000 

Lead, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <50 <50 

Lead, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <50 <50 

Lithium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 410 J 420 J 

Lithium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 360 J 420 J 

Magnesium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 1,900,000 2,000,000 

Magnesium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 1,800,000 2,100,000 1,900,000 2,000,000 

Manganese, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 610 620 

Manganese, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 580 600 

Mercury, Dissolved (μg/L) 7470A -­ -­ <0.2 <0.2 

Mercury, Total (μg/L) 7470A -­ -­ <0.2 <0.2 

Molybdenum, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Molybdenum, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Nickel, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <500 <500 

Nickel, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <500 <500 

Phosphorus, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6010 -­ -­ 520 J 530 J 

Phosphorus, Total (μg/L) SW6010 -­ -­ 570 J 520 J 

Phosphorus, Total (mg/L as P) 365.2 -­ -­ 0.033 J 0.018 J 

Potassium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 5,300,000 5,400,000 

Potassium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 5,000,000 5,700,000 5,300,000 5,400,000 

Selenium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Selenium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Silicon, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6010 -­ -­ 3,000 2,800 

Silicon, Total (μg/L) SW6010 -­ -­ 2,700 2,600 

Silver, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <10 <10 

Silver, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <10 <10 

Sodium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 110,000,000 110,000,000 

Sodium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 93,000,000 98,000,000 100,000,000 94,000,000 

Strontium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 32,000 32,000 

Strontium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ 31,000 32,000 

Thallium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <20 <20 

Amec Foster Wheeler 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx Page 2 of 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1
 

BASELINE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Sample Location 

Evaporation Pans at 

Surface Treatment Facility 

Brine Injection Facility Main Line, 

Upstream of Tank & Filters 

Sample ID Method 

PVUEVAP 

16031001 (1) 

PVUEVAP 

16031002 (2) 

PVUBIF 

16031001 (3) 

PVUBIF 

16031002 (4) 

Metals, Total (continued) 

Thallium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <20 <20 

Tin, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <500 <500 

Tin, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <500 <500 

Titanium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <2,000 <2,000 

Titanium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <2,000 <2,000 

Uranium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <10 <10 

Uranium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <10 <10 

Vanadium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Vanadium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <100 <100 

Zinc, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <2,000 <2,000 

Zinc, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <2,000 <2,000 

Zirconium, Dissolved (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <5 <5 

Zirconium, Total (μg/L) SW6020 -­ -­ <5 <5 

Notes 

1. Western of two brine evaporation pans; contains brine and groundwater to resemble diluted brine (also diluted with 

precipitation). Clear in turbidity vial. 

2. Eastern of two brine evaporation pans; contains pure brine (diluted with precipitation). Clear in turbidity vial. 

3. H2S field kit and colorimeter tests diluted to achieve results. 

4. Duplicate sample collected concurrently to sample PVUBIF16031002. 

5. YSI 556 MPS hand-held water quality meter used to measure field pH, temperature, SEC, and DO. 

6. Hach 2100Q hand-held meter used to measure field turbidity. 

7. Hach H2S Field Test Kit used to measure field H2S via effervescence to determine dilution factors for colorimeter. 

8. Hach DR900 colorimeter used to measure field H2S. 

9. Laboratory H2S was measure by gas chromatograph equipped with a sulfur chemiluminescence detector. 

Abbreviations 

-- = not analyzed 

< = non-detected value less than the indicated reporting limit 

°C = degree Celsius 

μg/L = microgram per liter 

μS/cm = microSiemen per centimeter 

CaCO3 = calcium carbonate 

DO = dissolved oxygen 

DOC = dissolved organic carbon 

dup. = duplicate measurement 

H2S = hydrogen sulfide 

J = estimated value less than the reporting limit but greater than the method detection limit 

mg/L = milligram per liter 

N = nitrogen 

N/A = not applicable/not measured 

NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit 

P = phosphorus 

s.u. = standard pH unit 

SEC = specific electrical conductance 

TOC = total organic carbon 

Amec Foster Wheeler 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx Page 3 of 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2
 

SUMMARY OF FIELD TEST RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Measurement ID 1 Date 

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 2 

(mg/L as S2­) 

pH 3 

(s.u.) 

ORP 3 

(mV) 

Temperature 3 

(°C) 

SEC 3 

(μS/cm) 

DO 3 

(mg/L) 

Titration 1 03/05/2016 -­ 6.34 -270 17.8 231,000 0 

Start of Day 4 04/05/2016 60 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Sodium Hypochlorite 1 04/05/2016 80 6.43 -312 17.4 -­ -­

Sodium Hypochlorite 2 04/05/2016 100 6.20 -316 17.0 -­ -­

Sodium Hypochlorite 3 04/05/2016 100 6.10 -320 18.6 -­ -­

Sodium Hypochlorite 4 04/05/2016 80 6.09 -305 18.3 -­ -­

Start of Day 05/05/2016 90 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Sodium Permanganate 1 05/05/2016 80 6.57 -307 19.0 -­ -­

Sodium Permanganate 2 05/05/2016 80 6.58 -300 17.7 -­ -­

Sodium Permanganate 3 05/05/2016 90 6.59 -300 17.6 -­ -­

Sodium Permanganate 4 06/05/2016 70 6.35 -300 17.2 -­ -­

Sodium Permanganate 5 06/05/2016 70 6.35 -300 17.2 -­ -­

Hydrogen Peroxide 1 06/05/2016 80 6.45 -318 17.4 -­ -­

Hydrogen Peroxide 2 06/05/2016 80 6.36 -311 -­ -­ -­

Hydrogen Peroxide 3 06/05/2016 70 6.36 -311 -­ -­ -­

Hydrogen Peroxide 4 06/05/2016 80 6.34 -310 16.8 -­ -­

Hydrogen Peroxide 5 10/05/2016 70 6.57 -283 16.7 -­ -­

Comparison Test STF-2 5 10/05/2016 90 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Comparison Test STF-3 10/05/2016 70 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Comparison Test STF-4 10/05/2016 90 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Comparison Test BIF-1 10/05/2016 60 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Comparison Test BIF-2 10/05/2016 90 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Comparison Test BIF-3 10/05/2016 90 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Comparison Test BIF-4 10/05/2016 90 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

Titration 2 10/05/2016 -­ 6.63 -307 17.0 223,600 -­

Titration 3 12/05/2016 -­ 6.43 -304 16.7 224,500 0.72 

Minimum 60 6.09 -320 16.7 223,600 0 

Mean 82 6.40 -304 17.5 226,400 0.36 

Maximum 100 6.63 -270 19.0 231,000 0.72 

Standard Deviation 10 0.16 12 0.7 3,300 0.36 

Replicates 22 17 17 15 3 2 

Uncertainty 2 0.04 3 0.2 1,900 0.25 

Notes 

1. All samples collected from sample port downstream of transfer pump at Surface Treatment Facility (STF) 

except the four Comparison Test BIF samples. Those were collected from the Brine Injection Facility upstream 

(BIF-1 and BIF-2) and downstream (BIF-3 and BIF-4) of the equalization tank.. 

2. Hach DR900 colorimeter used to measure field H2S. 

3. YSI 556 MPS hand-held water quality meter used to measure field pH, ORP, temperature, SEC, and DO. 

4. Sample collected approximately 16 hours after shut-down of all pumps, not during regular operations, and 

was excluded from statistics. 

5. Comparison Test STF-1 measured 210 mg/L and was considered anomalous due to suspected dilution error. 

Abbreviations mV = millivolt 

°C = degree Celsius N/A = not applicable/not measured 

μS/cm = microSiemen per centimeter ORP = oxidation reduction potential 

DO = dissolved oxygen s.u. = standard pH unit 

mg/L = milligram per liter SEC = specific electrical conductance 

Amec Foster Wheeler 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx Page 1 of 1 
TABLE 3
 

HYDROGEN PEROXIDE OXIDATION TEST RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 

pH 6.45, No Catalyst pH 6.36, No Catalyst pH 6.36, 0.75 g Fe2O3 pH 10.3, No Catalyst 

Dose = 5.6 mL 3% H2O2/L Dose = 2.7 mL 3% H2O2/L Dose = 2.7 mL 3% H2O2/L Dose = 10.6 mL 3% H2O2/L D

Time 

(min) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) Time 

(min) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) Time 

(min) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) Time 

(min) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) T

(

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

0 80 80 0 80 80 0 70 70 0 80 80 

5 17 60 5 45 80 3 63 -­ 5 16 90 

15 2.4 71 15 10 60 5 55 90 10 5 80 30 1.3 67 25 3 73 18 -­ 60 20 1.1 -­

45 1.1 61 35 1 64 25 15 60 30 0.14 80 

35 10 53 45 7 48 60 4.6 40 

Notes 1. All samples collected from sample port downstream of transfer pump at Surface Treatment Facility. 2. Dose was added to the "Test" beaker. "Control" beaker did not receive H2O2 or catalyst but was pH adjusted for Tests 4 and 5. 

3. Test 4 pH adjusted using 17 mL of sodium hydroxide solution. 4. Test 5 pH adjusted using 21 mL of sodium hydroxide solution. 5. Hach DR900 colorimeter used to measure field hydrogen sulfide. Abbreviations -- = not applicable/not measured mg/L = milligram per liter Fe2O3 = ferric oxide powder min = minutes 

H2O2 = hydrogen peroxide mL = milliliter 

L = liter 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4
 

SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE OXIDATION TEST RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Test 1: Dose = 4.0 mL 8.25% NaOCl per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.43 6.43 17.4 17.4 -312 -312 80 80 

Final: 5.51 6.41 18.6 18.2 -256 -312 15 60 

Test 2: Dose = 5.0 mL 8.25% NaOCl per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.20 6.20 17.0 17.0 -316 -316 100 100 

Final: 5.14 6.23 18.2 17.6 -229 -321 5 70 

Test 3: Dose = 6.1 mL 8.25% NaOCl per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.10 6.10 18.6 18.6 -320 -320 100 100 

Final: 4.95 6.18 18.9 18.4 480 -326 0.32 80 

Test 4: Dose = 5.5 mL 8.25% NaOCl per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.09 6.09 18.3 18.3 -305 -305 80 80 

Final: 5.02 6.16 18.4 18.4 -212 -310 2.3 80 

Notes 

1. All samples collected from sample port downstream of transfer pump at Surface Treatment Facility. 

2. Dose was added to the "Test" beaker. "Control" beaker did not receive NaOCl. 

3. Final results were measured after five minutes of stirring. 

4. Hach DR900 colorimeter used to measure field H2S. 

5. YSI 556 MPS hand-held water quality meter used to measure field pH, temperature, and ORP. 

Abbreviations 

°C = degree Celsius 

L = liter 

mg/L = milligram per liter 

mL = milliliter 

mV = millivolt 

NaOCl = sodium hypochlorite 

ORP = oxidation reduction potential 

s.u. = standard pH unit 

Amec Foster Wheeler 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx Page 1 of 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5
 

SODIUM PERMANGANATE OXIDATION TEST RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Test 1: Dose = 3.4 mL NaMnO4 per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.57 6.57 19.0 19.0 -307 -307 80 80 

Final: 6.09 6.45 18.8 17.5 695 -302 <0.01 70 

Test 2: Dose = 0.7 mL NaMnO4 per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.58 6.58 17.7 17.7 -300 -300 80 80 

Final: 6.18 6.44 18.4 18.1 675 -300 <0.01 70 

Test 3: Dose = 0.2 mL NaMnO4 per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.59 6.59 17.6 17.6 -300 -300 90 90 

Final: 7.92 6.42 18.5 18.5 -359 -302 36 60 

Test 4: Dose = 0.3 mL NaMnO4 per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.35 6.35 17.2 17.2 -300 -300 70 70 

Final: 6.39 -­ 18.6 -­ -309 -­ 11 70 

Test 5: Dose = 0.4 mL NaMnO4 per L Brine 

pH 

(s.u.) 

Temperature 

(°C) 

ORP 

(mV) 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

(mg/L as S2­) 

Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control 

Initial: 6.35 -­ 17.2 -­ -300 -­ 70 -­

Final: 8.20 -­ 18.4 -­ -236 -­ 0.7 -­

Notes 

1. All samples collected from sample port downstream of transfer pump at Surface Treatment Facility. 

2. Dose was added to the "Test" beaker. "Control" beaker did not receive NaMnO4. 

3. Final results were measured after five minutes of stirring. 

4. Hach DR900 colorimeter used to measure field H2S. 

5. YSI 556 MPS hand-held water quality meter used to measure field pH, temperature, and ORP. 

6. Colorimeter interference was suspected for Test 1, 3.4 mL/L dose, due to purple color of residual NaMnO4. 

Result indicated 1.0 mg/L as S2-, but ORP indicated no dissolved sulfide could be present. 

Abbreviations 

°C = degree Celsius mV = millivolt 

L = liter NaMnO4 = sodium permanganate 

mg/L = milligram per liter ORP = oxidation reduction potential 

mL = milliliter s.u. = standard pH unit 

Amec Foster Wheeler 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx Page 1 of 2 
 

 

 

 

Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler 

DRAFT Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure 

Paradox Valley Unit 

May 19, 2016 

FIGURES
 
FIGURE 1
 

HIGH pH TITRATION CURVES
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

4 5 6 7 8 9 

10 11 12 13 14 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

pH 

Cumulative Volume of Titrant Added (mL) 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx 
FIGURE 2
 

LOW pH TITRATION CURVES
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

pH 

Cumulative Volume of Titrant Added (mL) 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx 
 

FIGURE 3
 

HYDROGEN PEROXIDE OXIDATION TEST RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

0 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Dissolved Sulfide Concentration (mg/L as S2-) 

Reaction Time (minutes) 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx 
 

FIGURE 4
 

SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE OXIDATION TEST RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

-400 -300 -200 -100 

0 

100 200 300 400 500 600 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV) 

Dose of Sodium Hypochlorite (mL of 8.25% NaOCl/L Brine) 

ORP Dissolved H2S 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx 
 

FIGURE 5
 

SODIUM PERMANGANATE OXIDATION TEST RESULTS
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

400
 

ORP Dissolve

300
 200
 100
 

0 

-100 

-200
 -300 -400 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 

Dose of Sodium Hypochlorite (mL of 8.25% NaOCl/L Brine) 

800
 700
 600
 

Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)
 

500
 

PVU H2S Treatment Bench Testing Report Tbls Figs_160518_draft.xlsx 
MIST ELIMINATOR AIR (WITH H2S) REQUIRING 

TREATMENT 

WATER 

AIR 

SPRAY NOZZLE 

RAW BRINE INLET (TYP) 

PACKING MEDIA 

(PLASTIC) 

PACKING SUPPORT 

AIR TREATED BRINE 

OUTLET 

AIR BLOWER 

FIGURE 6
 

SCHEMATIC FOR TYPICAL PACKED TOWER STRIPPER
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

Paradox Valley Unit, Bedrock, Colorado
 

Amec Foster Wheeler 

PVU H2S Treatment - Figure 6.dwg Page 1 of 1 
 

 

 

 

Wastren Advantage Inc. Amec Foster Wheeler 

DRAFT Bench Testing Report Environment & Infrastructure 

Paradox Valley Unit 

May 19, 2016 

APPENDIX A
 

Laboratory Analytical Reports
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ft. Collins, Colorado LIMS Version: 6.808 Page 1 of 1 

Saturday, March 26, 2016 

Hallie Simpson 

AMEC Foster Wheeler 

9210 Sky Park Court, #200 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Re: ALS Workorder: 1603232
 

Project Name: PVU
 

Project Number: 1655500023
 

Dear Simpson: 

Seven water samples were received from AMEC Foster Wheeler, on 3/12/2016. The samples were scheduled for the 

following analyses: 

Dissolved Gasses 

Inorganics 

Metals 

Dissolved and Total Organic Carbon 

Specific Gravity, TKN, Anions Subcontract to ALS Holland, MI 

Sulfur Compounds Subcontract to ALS Simi Valley, CA 

The results for these analyses are contained in the enclosed reports. 

The data contained in the following report have been reviewed and approved by the personnel listed below. In 

addition, ALS certifies that the analyses reported herein are true, complete and correct within the limits of the methods 

employed. 

Thank you for your confidence in ALS Environmental. Should you have any questions, please call. 

Sincerely, 

ALS Environmental 

Jeff R. Kujawa 

Project Manager 

Enclosure(s): Report 

ADDRESS 225 Commerce Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA 80524 | PHONE +1 970 490 1511 | FAX +1 970 490 1522
 

ALS GROUP USA, CORP. Part of the ALS Laboratory Group An ALS Limited Company
 

1 of 38
   

 

ALS Environmental – Fort Collins is accredited by the following accreditation bodies for 

various testing scopes in accordance with requirements of each accreditation body. All 

testing is performed under the laboratory management system, which is maintained to 

meet these requirement and regulations. Please contact the laboratory or accreditation 

body for the current scope testing parameters. 

ALS Environmental – Fort Collins 

Accreditation Body License or Certification Number 

Alaska (AK) UST-086 

Alaska (AK) CO01099 

Arizona (AZ) AZ0742 

California (CA) 06251CA 

Colorado (CO) CO01099 

Connecticut (CT) PH-0232 

Florida (FL) E87914 

Idaho (ID) CO01099 

Kansas (KS) E-10381 

Kentucky (KY) 90137 

L-A-B (DoD ELAP/ISO 170250) L2257 

Louisiana (LA) 05057 

Maryland (MD) 285 

Missouri (MO) 175 

Nebraska(NE) NE-OS-24-13 

Nevada (NV) CO000782008A 

New York (NY) 12036 

North Dakota (ND) R-057 

Oklahoma (OK) 1301 

Pennsylvania (PA) 68-03116 

Tennessee (TN) 2976 

Texas (TX) T104704241 

Utah (UT) CO01099 

Washington (WA) C1280 

2 of 38
 

 

 

1603232 

TOC/DOC: 

The samples were analyzed following the current revision of SOP 670 based on MCAWW 

procedures. 

All acceptance criteria were met. 

Dissolved Gasses: 

The samples were prepared and analyzed according to method RSK-175 procedures and the current 

revision of SOP 449. 

All acceptance criteria were met. 

Metals: 

The samples were analyzed following SW-846, 3rd Edition procedures. Analysis by Trace ICP 

followed method 6010B and the current revision of SOP 834. Analysis by ICPMS followed method 

6020A and the current revision of SOP 827. Mercury analysis by CVAA followed method 7470A and 

the current revision of SOP 812. 

All acceptance criteria were met. 

Inorganics: 

The samples were analyzed following MCAWW and EMSL procedures for the current revisions 

of the following SOPs and methods: 

Analyte Method SOP #

 Alkalinity 310.1 1106 

Bicarbonate 310.1 1106 

Carbonate 310.1 1106 

Ammonia as N 350.1 1129 

pH 150.1 1126 

 Specific conductance 120.1 1128 

Total phosphorus 365.2 1119 

TDS 160.1 1101 

TSS 160.2 1100 

Bromide 300.0 Revision 2.1 1113 

Chloride 300.0 Revision 2.1 1113 

Fluoride 300.0 Revision 2.1 1113 

ADDRESS 225 Commerce Drive, Fort Collins Colorado 80524 USA ⎜ PHONE +1 970 490 1511 ⎜ FAX +1 970 490 1522
 

ALS GROUP USA, CORP. Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company
 

3 of 38
 

 

 

Nitrate as N 300.0 Revision 2.1 1113 

Nitrite as N 300.0 Revision 2.1 1113 

Orthophosphate as P 300.0 Revision 2.1 1113 

Sulfate 300.0 Revision 2.1 1113 

The samples were prepared and analyzed within the established hold time for each analysis with the 

exception of samples 1603232-3, -4 and -5 for nitrate as N, nitrite as N and orthophosphate as P. 

The samples were received with no hold time remaining. 

The samples were diluted as necessary for the anion analysis, due to high salts concentration. 

All remaining acceptance criteria were met. 

ADDRESS 225 Commerce Drive, Fort Collins Colorado 80524 USA ⎜ PHONE +1 970 490 1511 ⎜ FAX +1 970 490 1522
 

ALS GROUP USA, CORP. Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company
 

4 of 38
Client Sample Lab Sample COC Number Matrix Date Time 

Number Number Collected Collected 

PVUEVAP16031001 1603232-1 WATER 10-Mar-16 11:35 

PVUEVAP16031002 1603232-2 WATER 10-Mar-16 11:40 

PVUBIF16031001 1603232-3 WATER 10-Mar-16 14:40 

PVUBIF16031002 1603232-4 WATER 10-Mar-16 15:00 

Trip Blank 1603232-5 WATER 10-Mar-16 

PVUBIF16031001 1603232-6 WATER 10-Mar-16 14:40 

PVUBIF16031002 1603232-7 WATER 10-Mar-16 15:00 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

Sample Number(s) Cross-Reference Table 

OrderNum: 1603232 

Client Name: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Client Project Name: PVU 

Client Project Number: 1655500023 

Client PO Number: 

Page 1 of 1 ALS Environmental -- FC Date Printed: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

5 of 38
6 of 38
7 of 38

9 of 38
 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: PVUEVAP16031001 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 11:35 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Legal Location: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit 

Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-1 

Date: 22-Mar-16 

Percent Moisture: 

Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ALKALINITY AS CALCIUM CARBONATE EPA310.1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: CBA 

BICARBONATE AS CaCO3 91 20 MG/L 1 3/17/2016 

CARBONATE AS CaCO3 ND 20 MG/L 1 3/17/2016 

TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CaCO3 91 20 MG/L 1 3/17/2016 

ICPMS METALS SW6020 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR 

CALCIUM 1600000 100000 UG/L 100 6100 3/18/2016 14:35 

IRON ND 10000 UG/L 100 530 3/18/2016 14:35 

POTASSIUM 5000000 100000 UG/L 100 32000 3/18/2016 14:35 

MAGNESIUM 1800000 10000 UG/L 100 2000 3/18/2016 14:35 

SODIUM 9.3E+07 100000 UG/L 100 19000 3/21/2016 14:25 

ION CHROMATOGRAPHY EPA300.0 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

CHLORIDE 170000 2000 MG/L 10000 600 3/14/2016 16:17 

SULFATE 7500 500 MG/L 500 150 3/14/2016 11:15 

PH EPA150.1 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA 

PH 7.18 0.1 pH 1 3/14/2016 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE IN WATER EPA120.1 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY 242000 1 umhos/cm 1 3/14/2016 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS EPA160.1 Prep Date: 3/16/2016 PrepBy: CBA 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 650000 2000 MG/L 1 3/17/2016 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 1 of 11 

10 of 38
 

 

 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: PVUEVAP16031002 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 11:40 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Legal Location: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit 

Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-2 

Date: 22-Mar-16 

Percent Moisture: 

Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ALKALINITY AS CALCIUM CARBONATE 

BICARBONATE AS CaCO3 100 

CARBONATE AS CaCO3 ND 

TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CaCO3 100 

ICPMS METALS 

CALCIUM 1800000 

IRON 2200 

POTASSIUM 5700000 

MAGNESIUM 2100000 

SODIUM 9.8E+07 

ION CHROMATOGRAPHY 

CHLORIDE 180000 

SULFATE 7700 

PH 

PH 7.15 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE IN WATER 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY 248000 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 470000 

J 

EPA310.1 

20 MG/L 

20 MG/L 

20 MG/L 

SW6020 

100000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

EPA300.0 

2000 MG/L 

500 MG/L 

EPA150.1 

0.1 pH 

EPA120.1 

1 umhos/cm 

EPA160.1 

2000 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/17/2016 

1 3/17/2016 

1 3/17/2016 

Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR

100 6100 3/18/2016 14:38 

100 530 3/18/2016 14:38 

100 32000 3/18/2016 14:38 

100 2000 3/18/2016 14:38 

100 19000 3/21/2016 14:28 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

10000 600 3/14/2016 16:02 

500 150 3/14/2016 11:00 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/14/2016 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/14/2016 

Prep Date: 3/16/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/17/2016 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 2 of 11 

11 of 38
 

 

 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler Date: 22-Mar-16 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: PVUBIF16031001 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 14:40 

Legal Location: Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-3 

Percent Moisture: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ALKALINITY AS CALCIUM CARBONATE 

BICARBONATE AS CaCO3 

CARBONATE AS CaCO3 

TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CaCO3 

200 

ND 

200 

EPA310.1 

20 MG/L 

20 MG/L 

20 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/17/2016 

1 3/17/2016 

1 3/17/2016 

AMMONIA AS N 

AMMONIA AS N 17 

EPA350.1 

2.5 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: BAS

25 0.75 3/14/2016 13:42 

DISSOLVED GASSES 

METHANE 1200 

RSK175 

1 UG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: JFN 

1 1 3/17/2016 13:30 

ICP METALS 

BISMUTH 

PHOSPHORUS 

SILICON 

49 

570 

2700 

J 

J 

SW6010 

200 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR

1 46 3/16/2016 13:14 

1 110 3/16/2016 13:14 

1 290 3/16/2016 13:14 

ICPMS METALS 

SILVER 

ALUMINUM 

ARSENIC 

BORON 

BARIUM 

BERYLLIUM 

CALCIUM 

CADMIUM 

COBALT 

CHROMIUM 

COPPER 

IRON 

POTASSIUM 

LITHIUM 

MAGNESIUM 

MANGANESE 

MOLYBDENUM 

SODIUM 

NICKEL 

LEAD 

ANTIMONY 

SELENIUM 

TIN 

STRONTIUM 

TITANIUM 

THALLIUM 

URANIUM 

VANADIUM 

ZINC 

ND 

ND 

ND 

11000 

30 

ND 

1700000 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

5300000 

360 

1900000 

580 

ND 

1E+08 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

31000 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

J 

J 

SW6020 

10 UG/L 

5000 UG/L 

200 UG/L 

5000 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

50 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

30 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

200 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

50 UG/L 

30 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

20 UG/L 

10 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR

100 3.9 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 1400 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 18 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 1200 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 23 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 27 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 6100 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 9.9 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 7 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 110 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 110 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 530 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 32000 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 210 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 2000 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 30 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 41 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 19000 3/21/2016 14:50 

100 420 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 16 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 8.4 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 66 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 130 3/21/2016 14:50 

100 31 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 1400 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 1.4 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 2.7 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 58 3/18/2016 14:41 

100 910 3/18/2016 14:41 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 3 of 11 

12 of 38
 

 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: PVUBIF16031001 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 14:40 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Legal Location: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit 

Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-3 

Date: 22-Mar-16 

Percent Moisture: 

Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ZIRCONIUM 

ION CHROMATOGRAPHY 

BROMIDE 

CHLORIDE 

FLUORIDE 

NITRATE AS N 

NITRITE AS N 

ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS P 

SULFATE 

MERCURY 

MERCURY 

ND 

86 

170000 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

7100 

ND 

J 

5 UG/L 

EPA300.0 

100 MG/L 

2000 MG/L 

50 MG/L 

100 MG/L 

50 MG/L 

250 MG/L 

500 MG/L 

SW7470 

0.2 UG/L 

10 5 3/22/2016 14:17 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

500 30 3/14/2016 10:44 

10000 600 3/14/2016 15:47 

500 15 3/14/2016 10:44 

500 30 3/14/2016 10:44 

500 15 3/14/2016 10:44 

500 30 3/14/2016 10:44 

500 150 3/14/2016 10:44 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: NAQ

1 0.06 3/15/2016 14:37 

ORGANIC CARBON 

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON ND 

EPA415.1 

1 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

1 0.3 3/17/2016 14:11 

PH 

PH 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE IN WATER 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AS P 

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

6.32 

237000 

850000 

0.033 

ND 

J 

EPA150.1 

0.1 pH 

EPA120.1 

1 umhos/cm 

EPA160.1 

2000 MG/L 

EPA365.2 

0.05 MG/L 

EPA160.2 

20 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/14/2016 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/14/2016 

Prep Date: 3/16/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/17/2016 

Prep Date: 3/22/2016 PrepBy: TWK 

1 0.015 3/22/2016 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: TWK 

1 3/15/2016 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 4 of 11 

13 of 38
 

 

 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler Date: 22-Mar-16 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: PVUBIF16031002 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 15:00 

Legal Location: Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-4 

Percent Moisture: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ALKALINITY AS CALCIUM CARBONATE 

BICARBONATE AS CaCO3 

CARBONATE AS CaCO3 

TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CaCO3 

200 

ND 

200 

EPA310.1 

20 MG/L 

20 MG/L 

20 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/17/2016 

1 3/17/2016 

1 3/17/2016 

AMMONIA AS N 

AMMONIA AS N 15 

EPA350.1 

2.5 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: BAS

25 0.75 3/14/2016 12:14 

DISSOLVED GASSES 

METHANE 1100 

RSK175 

1 UG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: JFN 

1 1 3/17/2016 13:33 

ICP METALS 

BISMUTH 

PHOSPHORUS 

SILICON 

49 

520 

2600 

J 

J 

SW6010 

200 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR

1 46 3/16/2016 13:18 

1 110 3/16/2016 13:18 

1 290 3/16/2016 13:18 

ICPMS METALS 

SILVER 

ALUMINUM 

ARSENIC 

BORON 

BARIUM 

BERYLLIUM 

CALCIUM 

CADMIUM 

COBALT 

CHROMIUM 

COPPER 

IRON 

POTASSIUM 

LITHIUM 

MAGNESIUM 

MANGANESE 

MOLYBDENUM 

SODIUM 

NICKEL 

LEAD 

ANTIMONY 

SELENIUM 

TIN 

STRONTIUM 

TITANIUM 

THALLIUM 

URANIUM 

VANADIUM 

ZINC 

ND 

ND 

ND 

11000 

44 

ND 

1700000 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

5400000 

420 

2000000 

600 

ND 

9.4E+07 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

32000 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

J 

J 

SW6020 

10 UG/L 

5000 UG/L 

200 UG/L 

5000 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

50 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

30 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

200 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

50 UG/L 

30 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

20 UG/L 

10 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR

100 3.9 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 1400 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 18 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 1200 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 23 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 27 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 6100 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 9.9 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 7 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 110 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 110 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 530 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 32000 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 210 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 2000 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 30 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 41 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 19000 3/21/2016 14:53 

100 420 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 16 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 8.4 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 66 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 130 3/21/2016 14:53 

100 31 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 1400 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 1.4 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 2.7 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 58 3/18/2016 14:44 

100 910 3/18/2016 14:44 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 5 of 11 

14 of 38
 

 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: PVUBIF16031002 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 15:00 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Legal Location: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit 

Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-4 

Date: 22-Mar-16 

Percent Moisture: 

Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ZIRCONIUM 

ION CHROMATOGRAPHY 

BROMIDE 

CHLORIDE 

FLUORIDE 

NITRATE AS N 

NITRITE AS N 

ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS P 

SULFATE 

MERCURY 

MERCURY 

ND 

83 

170000 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

6800 

ND 

J 

5 UG/L 

EPA300.0 

100 MG/L 

2000 MG/L 

50 MG/L 

100 MG/L 

50 MG/L 

250 MG/L 

500 MG/L 

SW7470 

0.2 UG/L 

10 5 3/22/2016 14:39 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

500 30 3/14/2016 10:29 

10000 600 3/14/2016 15:31 

500 15 3/14/2016 10:29 

500 30 3/14/2016 10:29 

500 15 3/14/2016 10:29 

500 30 3/14/2016 10:29 

500 150 3/14/2016 10:29 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: NAQ

1 0.06 3/15/2016 14:43 

ORGANIC CARBON 

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON ND 

EPA415.1 

1 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

1 0.3 3/17/2016 14:19 

PH 

PH 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE IN WATER 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AS P 

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

6.29 

238000 

580000 

0.018 

ND 

J 

EPA150.1 

0.1 pH 

EPA120.1 

1 umhos/cm 

EPA160.1 

2000 MG/L 

EPA365.2 

0.05 MG/L 

EPA160.2 

20 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/14/2016 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/14/2016 

Prep Date: 3/16/2016 PrepBy: CBA

1 3/17/2016 

Prep Date: 3/22/2016 PrepBy: TWK 

1 0.015 3/22/2016 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: TWK 

1 3/15/2016 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 6 of 11 

15 of 38
 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: Trip Blank 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Legal Location: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit 

Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-5 

Date: 22-Mar-16 

Percent Moisture: 

Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

DISSOLVED GASSES 

METHANE 

ICP METALS 

BISMUTH 

PHOSPHORUS 

SILICON 

ICPMS METALS 

SILVER 

ALUMINUM 

ARSENIC 

BORON 

BARIUM 

BERYLLIUM 

CALCIUM 

CADMIUM 

COBALT 

CHROMIUM 

COPPER 

IRON 

POTASSIUM 

LITHIUM 

MAGNESIUM 

MANGANESE 

MOLYBDENUM 

SODIUM 

NICKEL 

LEAD 

ANTIMONY 

SELENIUM 

TIN 

STRONTIUM 

TITANIUM 

THALLIUM 

URANIUM 

VANADIUM 

ZINC 

ZIRCONIUM 

ION CHROMATOGRAPHY 

BROMIDE 

CHLORIDE 

FLUORIDE 

NITRATE AS N 

NITRITE AS N 

ND 

ND 

520 

440 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

81000 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

0.63 

ND 

ND 

ND 

J 

J 

J 

RSK175 

1 UG/L 

SW6010 

200 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

SW6020 

10 UG/L 

5000 UG/L 

200 UG/L 

5000 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

50 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

30 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

1000 UG/L 

10000 UG/L 

200 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

100000 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

50 UG/L 

30 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

500 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

20 UG/L 

10 UG/L 

100 UG/L 

2000 UG/L 

5 UG/L 

EPA300.0 

0.2 MG/L 

0.2 MG/L 

0.1 MG/L 

0.2 MG/L 

0.1 MG/L 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: JFN 

1 1 3/17/2016 13:14 

Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR

1 46 3/16/2016 13:23 

1 110 3/16/2016 13:23 

1 290 3/16/2016 13:23 

Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR

100 3.9 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 1400 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 18 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 1200 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 23 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 27 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 6100 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 9.9 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 7 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 110 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 110 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 530 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 32000 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 210 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 2000 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 30 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 41 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 19000 3/21/2016 14:56 

100 420 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 16 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 8.4 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 66 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 130 3/21/2016 14:56 

100 31 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 1400 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 1.4 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 2.7 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 58 3/18/2016 14:47 

100 910 3/18/2016 14:47 

10 5 3/22/2016 14:41 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

1 0.06 3/14/2016 10:14 

1 0.06 3/14/2016 10:14 

1 0.03 3/14/2016 10:14 

1 0.06 3/14/2016 10:14 

1 0.03 3/14/2016 10:14 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 7 of 11 

16 of 38
 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: Trip Blank 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Legal Location: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit 

Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-5 

Date: 22-Mar-16 

Percent Moisture: 

Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS P 

SULFATE 

MERCURY 

MERCURY 

ND 

0.31 

ND 

J 

0.5 MG/L 

1 MG/L 

SW7470 

0.2 UG/L 

1 0.06 3/14/2016 10:14 

1 0.3 3/14/2016 10:14 

Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: NAQ

1 0.06 3/15/2016 14:45 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 8 of 11 

17 of 38
 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler Date: 22-Mar-16 

Project: 1655500023 PVU Work Order: 1603232 

Sample ID: PVUBIF16031001 Lab ID: 1603232-6 

Legal Location: Matrix: WATER 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 14:40 Percent Moisture: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ICP METALS SW6010 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR 

BISMUTH 62 J 200 UG/L 1 46 3/16/2016 13:26 

PHOSPHORUS 520 J 2000 UG/L 1 110 3/16/2016 13:26 

SILICON 3000 500 UG/L 1 290 3/16/2016 13:26 

ICPMS METALS SW6020 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR 

SILVER ND 10 UG/L 100 3.9 3/18/2016 14:50 

ALUMINUM 3400 J 5000 UG/L 100 1400 3/18/2016 14:50 

ARSENIC ND 200 UG/L 100 18 3/18/2016 14:50 

BORON 10000 5000 UG/L 100 1200 3/18/2016 14:50 

BARIUM 53 J 100 UG/L 100 23 3/18/2016 14:50 

BERYLLIUM ND 50 UG/L 100 27 3/18/2016 14:50 

CALCIUM 1700000 100000 UG/L 100 6100 3/18/2016 14:50 

CADMIUM ND 30 UG/L 100 9.9 3/18/2016 14:50 

COBALT ND 100 UG/L 100 7 3/18/2016 14:50 

CHROMIUM ND 1000 UG/L 100 110 3/18/2016 14:50 

COPPER ND 1000 UG/L 100 110 3/18/2016 14:50 

IRON ND 10000 UG/L 100 530 3/18/2016 14:50 

POTASSIUM 5300000 100000 UG/L 100 32000 3/18/2016 14:50 

LITHIUM 410 J 1000 UG/L 100 210 3/18/2016 14:50 

MAGNESIUM 1900000 10000 UG/L 100 2000 3/18/2016 14:50 

MANGANESE 610 200 UG/L 100 30 3/18/2016 14:50 

MOLYBDENUM ND 100 UG/L 100 41 3/18/2016 14:50 

SODIUM 1.1E+08 100000 UG/L 100 19000 3/21/2016 14:59 

NICKEL ND 500 UG/L 100 420 3/18/2016 14:50 

LEAD ND 50 UG/L 100 16 3/18/2016 14:50 

ANTIMONY ND 30 UG/L 100 8.4 3/18/2016 14:50 

SELENIUM ND 100 UG/L 100 66 3/18/2016 14:50 

TIN ND 500 UG/L 100 130 3/21/2016 14:59 

STRONTIUM 32000 100 UG/L 100 31 3/18/2016 14:50 

TITANIUM ND 2000 UG/L 100 1400 3/18/2016 14:50 

THALLIUM ND 20 UG/L 100 1.4 3/18/2016 14:50 

URANIUM ND 10 UG/L 100 2.7 3/18/2016 14:50 

VANADIUM ND 100 UG/L 100 58 3/18/2016 14:50 

ZINC ND 2000 UG/L 100 910 3/18/2016 14:50 

ZIRCONIUM ND 5 UG/L 10 5 3/22/2016 14:42 

MERCURY SW7470 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: NAQ 

MERCURY ND 0.2 UG/L 1 0.06 3/15/2016 14:47 

ORGANIC CARBON EPA415.1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON ND 1 MG/L 1 0.3 3/17/2016 14:30 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 9 of 11 

18 of 38
 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler Date: 22-Mar-16 

Project: 1655500023 PVU Work Order: 1603232 

Sample ID: PVUBIF16031002 Lab ID: 1603232-7 

Legal Location: Matrix: WATER 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 15:00 Percent Moisture: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

ICP METALS SW6010 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR 

BISMUTH 49 J 200 UG/L 1 46 3/16/2016 13:31 

PHOSPHORUS 530 J 2000 UG/L 1 110 3/16/2016 13:31 

SILICON 2800 500 UG/L 1 290 3/16/2016 13:31 

ICPMS METALS SW6020 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 PrepBy: CDR 

SILVER ND 10 UG/L 100 3.9 3/18/2016 14:53 

ALUMINUM ND 5000 UG/L 100 1400 3/18/2016 14:53 

ARSENIC ND 200 UG/L 100 18 3/18/2016 14:53 

BORON 11000 5000 UG/L 100 1200 3/18/2016 14:53 

BARIUM 44 J 100 UG/L 100 23 3/18/2016 14:53 

BERYLLIUM ND 50 UG/L 100 27 3/18/2016 14:53 

CALCIUM 1700000 100000 UG/L 100 6100 3/18/2016 14:53 

CADMIUM ND 30 UG/L 100 9.9 3/18/2016 14:53 

COBALT ND 100 UG/L 100 7 3/18/2016 14:53 

CHROMIUM ND 1000 UG/L 100 110 3/18/2016 14:53 

COPPER ND 1000 UG/L 100 110 3/18/2016 14:53 

IRON ND 10000 UG/L 100 530 3/18/2016 14:53 

POTASSIUM 5400000 100000 UG/L 100 32000 3/18/2016 14:53 

LITHIUM 420 J 1000 UG/L 100 210 3/18/2016 14:53 

MAGNESIUM 2000000 10000 UG/L 100 2000 3/18/2016 14:53 

MANGANESE 620 200 UG/L 100 30 3/18/2016 14:53 

MOLYBDENUM ND 100 UG/L 100 41 3/18/2016 14:53 

SODIUM 1.1E+08 100000 UG/L 100 19000 3/21/2016 15:02 

NICKEL ND 500 UG/L 100 420 3/18/2016 14:53 

LEAD ND 50 UG/L 100 16 3/18/2016 14:53 

ANTIMONY ND 30 UG/L 100 8.4 3/18/2016 14:53 

SELENIUM ND 100 UG/L 100 66 3/18/2016 14:53 

TIN ND 500 UG/L 100 130 3/21/2016 15:02 

STRONTIUM 32000 100 UG/L 100 31 3/18/2016 14:53 

TITANIUM ND 2000 UG/L 100 1400 3/18/2016 14:53 

THALLIUM ND 20 UG/L 100 1.4 3/18/2016 14:53 

URANIUM ND 10 UG/L 100 2.7 3/18/2016 14:53 

VANADIUM ND 100 UG/L 100 58 3/18/2016 14:53 

ZINC ND 2000 UG/L 100 910 3/18/2016 14:53 

ZIRCONIUM ND 5 UG/L 10 5 3/22/2016 14:43 

MERCURY SW7470 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 PrepBy: NAQ 

MERCURY ND 0.2 UG/L 1 0.06 3/15/2016 14:50 

ORGANIC CARBON EPA415.1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 PrepBy: SDW 

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON ND 1 MG/L 1 0.3 3/17/2016 14:40 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 10 of 11 

19 of 38
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALS Environmental -- FC SAMPLE SUMMARY REPORT 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Sample ID: PVUBIF16031002 

Collection Date: 3/10/2016 15:00 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler 

Legal Location: 

Analyses Result Qual 

Report 

Limit 

Matrix: WATER 

Work Order: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603232-7 

Date: 22-Mar-16 

Percent Moisture: 

Units 

Dilution 

Factor MDL Date Analyzed 

Explanation of Qualifiers 

Radiochemistry: 

U or ND - Result is less than the sample specific MDC.
 

Y1 - Chemical Yield is in control at 100-110%. Quantitative yield is assumed.
 

Y2 - Chemical Yield outside default limits.
 

W - DER is greater than Warning Limit of 1.42
 

* - Aliquot Basis is 'As Received' while the Report Basis is 'Dry Weight'.
 

# - Aliquot Basis is 'Dry Weight' while the Report Basis is 'As Received'.
 

G - Sample density differs by more than 15% of LCS density.
 

D - DER is greater than Control Limit
 

M - Requested MDC not met.
 

LT - Result is less than requested MDC but greater than achieved MDC.
 

M3 - The requested MDC was not met, but the reported 

activity is greater than the reported MDC. 

L - LCS Recovery below lower control limit. 

H - LCS Recovery above upper control limit. 

P - LCS, Matrix Spike Recovery within control limits. 

N - Matrix Spike Recovery outside control limits 

NC - Not Calculated for duplicate results less than 5 times MDC 

B - Analyte concentration greater than MDC. 

B3 - Analyte concentration greater than MDC but less than Requested 

MDC. 

Inorganics: 

B - Result is less than the requested reporting limit but greater than the instrument method detection limit (MDL).
 

U or ND - Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected.
 

E - The reported value is estimated because of the presence of interference. An explanatory note may be included in the narrative.
 

M - Duplicate injection precision was not met.
 

N - Spiked sample recovery not within control limits. A post spike is analyzed for all ICP analyses when the matrix spike and or spike 

duplicate fail and the native sample concentration is less than four times the spike added concentration.
 

Z - Spiked recovery not within control limits. An explanatory note may be included in the narrative.
 

* - Duplicate analysis (relative percent difference) not within control limits.
 

S - SAR value is estimated as one or more analytes used in the calculation were not detected above the detection limit.
 

Organics: 

U or ND - Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected.
 

B - Analyte is detected in the associated method blank as well as in the sample. It indicates probable blank contamination and warns the data user. 

E - Analyte concentration exceeds the upper level of the calibration range.
 

J - Estimated value. The result is less than the reporting limit but greater than the instrument method detection limit (MDL).
 

A - A tentatively identified compound is a suspected aldol-condensation product.
 

X - The analyte was diluted below an accurate quantitation level.
 

* - The spike recovery is equal to or outside the control criteria used. 

+ - The relative percent difference (RPD) equals or exceeds the control criteria. 

G - A pattern resembling gasoline was detected in this sample.
 

D - A pattern resembling diesel was detected in this sample.
 

M - A pattern resembling motor oil was detected in this sample.
 

C - A pattern resembling crude oil was detected in this sample.
 

4 - A pattern resembling JP-4 was detected in this sample.
 

5 - A pattern resembling JP-5 was detected in this sample.
 

H - Indicates that the fuel pattern was in the heavier end of the retention time window for the analyte of interest.
 

L - Indicates that the fuel pattern was in the lighter end of the retention time window for the analyte of interest.
 

Z - This flag indicates that a significant fraction of the reported result did not resemble the patterns of any of the following petroleum hydrocarbon products: 

- gasoline
 

- JP-8
 

- diesel
 

- mineral spirits
 

- motor oil
 

- Stoddard solvent
 

- bunker C
 

ALS Environmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 AR Page 11 of 11 

20 of 38
 

 

 

ALS E Date: 3/22/2016 5:11: nvironmental -- FC 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: HC160317-9-1 Instrument ID MEE-1 Method: RSK175 

LCS Sample ID: HC160317-9 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:00 

Client ID: Run ID: HC160317-9AA Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Limit Qual 

METHANE 145 1 142 102 80-120 25 

LCSD Sample ID: HC160317-9 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:46 

Client ID: Run ID: HC160317-9AA Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

A Value Limit Level Ref nalyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Limit Qual 

METHANE 154 1 142 108 80-120 145 6 25

MB Sample ID: HC160317-9 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:03 

Client ID: Run ID: HC160317-9AA Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Qual 

METHANE ND 1

ALS Env QC Page: 1 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

21 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: HC160317-9-3 Instrument ID MEE-1 Method: RSK175 

Analyte 

Client ID: Trip Blank 

DUP Sample ID: 1603232-5 

METHANE 

Result ReportLimit 

Run ID: HC160317-9AA 

SPK Val 

ND 1

%REC 

Units: UG/L 

SPK Ref 

Value 

Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:17 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 

Control 

Limit 

DF: 1 

RPD 

Ref RPD 

RPD 

Limit 

Decision 

Level 

1 25 

Qual 

Analyte 

Client ID: 

LCS 

METHANE 

Sample ID: HC160317-9 

Result ReportLimit 

Run ID: HC160317-9AA 

SPK Val 

145 1 142

%REC 

Units: UG/L 

SPK Ref 

Value 

102 

Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:00 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 

Control 

Limit 

DF: 1 

RPD 

Ref RPD 

RPD 

Limit 

Decision 

Level 

80-120 25 

Qual 

Analyte 

Client ID: 

LCSD 

METHANE 

Sample ID: HC160317-9 

Result ReportLimit 

Run ID: HC160317-9AA 

SPK Val 

154 1 142

%REC 

Units: UG/L 

SPK Ref 

Value 

108 

Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:46 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 

Control 

Limit 

DF: 1 

RPD 

Ref RPD 

RPD 

Limit 

Decision 

Level 

80-120 145 256 

Qual 

Analyte 

Client ID: 

MB 

METHANE 

The follow

Sample ID: HC160317-9 

ing samples were analyzed in 

Result ReportLimit 

Run ID: HC160317-9AA 

SPK Val 

ND 1

this batch: 1603232-3 

%REC 

Units: UG/L 

SPK Ref 

Value 

1603232-4 

Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:03 

Prep Date: 3/17/2016 

Control 

Limit 

DF: 1 

RPD 

Ref RPD 

RPD 

Limit 

Decision 

Level 

1603232-5 

Qual 

ALS Env QC Page: 2 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

22 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: MO160317-1-1 Instrument ID TOC1 Method: EPA415.1 

LCS Sample ID: MO160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:02 

Client ID: Run ID: MO160317-1A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC A Limit Level Ref nalyte e ult PD Limit R s R Qual 

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 15.4 1 15 103 85-115 20 

LCSD Sample ID: MO160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:13 

Client ID: Run ID: MO160317-1A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 15.4 1 15 102 85-115 15.4 0 20

MB Sample ID: MO160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 12:43 

Client ID: Run ID: MO160317-1A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK V Value al %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Limit Qual 

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON ND 1

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-6 1603232-7 

ALS Env QC Page: 3 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

23 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: MO160317-1-2 Instrument ID TOC1 Method: EPA415.1 

LCS Sample ID: MO160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:02 

Client ID: Run ID: MO160317-2A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Qual 

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 15.4 1 15 103 85-115 20 

LCSD Sample ID: MO160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 13:13 

Client ID: Run ID: MO160317-2A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 15.4 1 15 102 85-115 15.4 0 20

MB Sample ID: MO160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 12:43 

Client ID: Run ID: MO160317-2A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Limit Qual 

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON ND 1

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-3 1603232-4 

ALS Env QC Page: 4 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

24 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: HG160314-1-1 Instrument ID CETAC7500 Method: SW7470 

LCS Sample ID: HG160314-1 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 12:43 

Client ID: Run ID: HG160315-1A10 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

MERCURY 1.1 0.2 1 110 80-120 20 

MB Sample ID: HG160314-1 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 12:39 

Client ID: Run ID: HG160315-1A10 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

MERCURY ND 0.2 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-3 1603232-4 1603232-5 

1603232-6 1603232-7 

ALS Env QC Page: 5 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

25 of 38
Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val 

SPK Ref 

Value %REC 

Control 

Limit 

Decision 

Level 

RPD 

Ref RPD 

RPD 

Limit Qual 

ALUMINUM 5110 50 5000 102 80-120 20

ANTIMONY 30.6 0.3 30 102 80-120 20

ARSENIC 107 2 100 107 80-120 20

BARIUM 110 1 100 110 80-120 20

BERYLLIUM 53.9 0.5 50 108 80-120 20

BORON 1030 50 1000 103 80-120 20

CADMIUM 30.1 0.3 30 100 80-120 20

CALCIUM 10300 1000 10000 103 80-120 20

CHROMIUM 499 10 500 100 80-120 20

COBALT 101 1 100 101 80-120 20

COPPER 1050 10 1000 105 80-120 20

IRON 5120 100 5000 102 80-120 20

LEAD 50.2 0.5 50 100 80-120 20

LITHIUM 1100 10 1000 110 80-120 20

MAGNESIUM 9940 100 10000 99 80-120 20

MANGANESE 100 2 100 100 80-120 20

MOLYBDENUM 100 1 100 100 80-120 20

NICKEL 506 5 500 101 80-120 20

POTASSIUM 5000 1000 5000 100 80-120 20

SELENIUM 109 1 100 109 80-120 20

SILVER 10.5 0.1 10 105 80-120 20

STRONTIUM 99.8 1 100 100 80-120 20

THALLIUM 2.23 0.2 2 112 80-120 20

TIN 533 5 500 107 80-120 20

TITANIUM 2050 20 2000 102 80-120 20

URANIUM 11.2 0.1 10 111 80-120 20

VANADIUM 103 1 100 103 80-120 20

ZINC 2050 20 2000 102 80-120 20

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: IP160315-2-5 Instrument ID ICPMS2 Method: SW6020 

LCS Sample ID: IM160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/18/2016 13:48 

Client ID: Run ID: IM160318-12A6 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 10 

ALS Environmental -- FC QC Page: 6 of 18 

LIMS Version: 6.808 
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: IP160315-2-5 Instrument ID ICPMS2 Method: SW6020 

MB Sample ID: IP160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/18/2016 13:45 

Client ID: Run ID: IM160318-12A6 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 10 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

ALUMINUM 35 50 J 

ANTIMONY ND 0.3 

ARSENIC ND 2 

BARIUM ND 1 

BERYLLIUM ND 0.5 

BORON ND 50 

CADMIUM ND 0.3 

CALCIUM ND 1000 

CHROMIUM ND 10 

COBALT ND 1 

COPPER -1.6 10 J 

IRON ND 100 

LEAD ND 0.5 

LITHIUM ND 10 

MAGNESIUM ND 100 

MANGANESE ND 2 

MOLYBDENUM ND 1 

NICKEL ND 5 

POTASSIUM ND 1000 

SELENIUM ND 1 

SILVER ND 0.1 

STRONTIUM ND 1 

THALLIUM ND 0.2 

TIN ND 5 

TITANIUM ND 20 

URANIUM ND 0.1 

VANADIUM ND 1 

ZINC ND 20 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3 

1603232-4 1603232-5 1603232-6 

1603232-7 

ALS Env QC Page: 7 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

27 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: IP160315-2-5 Instrument ID ICPMS2 Method: SW6020 

LCS Sample ID: IM160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/21/2016 14:04 

Client ID: Run ID: IM160321-11A3 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 10 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

SODIUM 10600 1000 10000 106 80-120 20 

MB Sample ID: IP160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/21/2016 14:01 

Client ID: Run ID: IM160321-11A3 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 10 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

SODIUM ND 1000 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3 

1603232-4 1603232-5 1603232-6 

1603232-7 

ALS Env QC Page: 8 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

28 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: IP160315-2-5 Instrument ID ICPMS2 Method: SW6020 

LCS Sample ID: IM160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/22/2016 14:06 

Client ID: Run ID: IM160322-10A4 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 10 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

Z 10.7 IRCONIUM 0.5 10 107 80-120 20 

MB Sample ID: IP160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/22/2016 14:05 

Client ID: Run ID: IM160322-10A4 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 10 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

ZIRCONIUM ND 0.5 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3 

1603232-4 1603232-5 1603232-6 

1603232-7 

ALS Env QC Page: 9 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

29 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: IP160315-2-7 Instrument ID ICP6500 Method: SW6010 

LCS Sample ID: IP160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/16/2016 12:04 

Client ID: Run ID: IP160316-1A10 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

BISMUTH 511 20 500 102 80-120 20 

PHOSPHORUS 10900 200 10000 109 80-120 20 

SILICON 1040 50 1000 104 80-120 20 

MB Sample ID: IP160315-2 Units: UG/L Analysis Date: 3/16/2016 11:55 

Client ID: Run ID: IP160316-1A10 Prep Date: 3/15/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

BISMUTH ND 20 

PHOSPHORUS 80 200 J 

SILICON ND 50 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-3 1603232-4 1603232-5 

1603232-6 1603232-7 

ALS Env QC Page: 10 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

30 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: AK160317-1-1 Instrument ID Balance Method: EPA310.1 

DUP Sample ID: 1603232-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 

Client ID: PVUEVAP16031001 Run ID: AK160317-1A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

BICARBONATE AS CaCO3 95.9 20 91 15 

CARBONATE AS CaCO3 ND 20 20 15 

TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CaCO3 95.9 20 91 15 

LCS Sample ID: AK160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: AK160317-1A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CaCO3 101 5 100 101 85-115 15 

MB Sample ID: AK160317-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: AK160317-1A1 Prep Date: 3/17/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

BICARBONATE AS CaCO3 ND 5 

CARBONATE AS CaCO3 ND 5 

TOTAL ALKALINITY AS CaCO3 ND 5 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3 

1603232-4 

ALS Env QC Page: 11 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

31 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: IC160314-1-1 Instrument ID IC-2 Method: EPA300.0 

LCS Sample ID: IC160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 09:29 

Client ID: Run ID: ic160314-1A4 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

FLUOR 1.91 IDE 0.1 2 95 90-110 15 

CHLORIDE 5.07 0.2 5 101 90-110 15 

NITRITE AS N 2.04 0.1 2 102 90-110 15 

BROMIDE 4.87 0.2 5 97 90-110 15 

NITRATE AS N 5.1 0.2 5 102 90-110 15 

ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS P 2 0.5 2 100 90-110 15 

SULFATE 20.8 1 20 104 90-110 15 

LCSD Sample ID: IC160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 09:44 

Client ID: Run ID: ic160314-1A4 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

FLUORIDE 1.86 0.1 2 93 90-110 1.91 3 15 

CHLOR 4.89 IDE 0.2 5 98 90-110 5.07 4 15 

N 1.98 ITRITE AS N 0.1 2 99 90-110 2.04 3 15 

BROM 4.7 IDE 0.2 5 94 90-110 4.87 3 15 

N 4.94 ITRATE AS N 0.2 5 99 90-110 5.1 3 15 

ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS P 1.88 0.5 2 94 90-110 2 7 15 

SULFATE 20.1 1 20 101 90-110 20.8 3 15 

MB Sample ID: IC160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 09:14 

Client ID: Run ID: ic160314-1A4 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

FLUORIDE ND 0.1 

CHLORIDE ND 0.2 

NITRITE AS N ND 0.1 

BROMIDE ND 0.2 

NITRATE AS N ND 0.2 

ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS P ND 0.5 

SULFATE ND 1 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3 

1603232-4 1603232-5 

ALS Env QC Page: 12 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

32 of 38
 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: NH160314-1-1 Instrument ID GALLERY Method: EPA350.1 

LCS Sample ID: NH160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 11:36 

Client ID: Run ID: NH160314-1A2 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Qual 

AMMONIA AS N 1.02 0.1 1 102 90-110 20

MB Sample ID: NH160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 11:34 

Client ID: Run ID: NH160314-1A2 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

AMMONIA AS N ND 0.1 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-4 

ALS Env QC Page: 13 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

33 of 38
 

 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232
 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: PH160314-1-1 Instrument ID pH-1 Method: EPA150.1 

DUP Sample ID: 1603232-1 Units: pH Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 

Client ID: PVUEVAP16031001 Run ID: PH160314-1A1 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1
 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit
 Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

PH 7.18 0.1 7.18 0.2 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3
 

1603232-4
 

ALS Env QC Page: 14 of 18
 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

34 of 38
SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Limit
 Qual 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY 242000 1 242000 0 10
 

ALS Env QC Page: 15 of 18
 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232
 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: SC160314-1-1 Instrument ID pH-2 Method: EPA120.1 

DUP Sample ID: 1603232-1 Units: umhos/cm Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 

Client ID: PVUEVAP16031001 Run ID: SC160314-1A1 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1
 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3
 

1603232-4
 

35 of 38
 

 

 

5 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: TD160316-2-2 Instrument ID Balance Method: EPA160.1 

DUP Sample ID: 1603232-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 

Client ID: PVUEVAP16031001 Run ID: TD160316-1A1 Prep Date: 3/16/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 650000 2000 650000 1 

LCS Sample ID: TD160316-2 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TD160316-1A1 Prep Date: 3/16/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 386 20 400 97 85-115 5 

LCSD Sample ID: TD160316-2 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TD160316-1A1 Prep Date: 3/16/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 403 20 400 101 85-115 386 4 5 

MB Sample ID: TD160316-2 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/17/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TD160316-1A1 Prep Date: 3/16/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS ND 20 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-1 1603232-2 1603232-3 

1603232-4 

ALS Env QC Page: 16 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

36 of 38
 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: TP160322-1-2 Instrument ID Spec Method: EPA365.2 

LCS Sample ID: TP160322-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/22/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TP160322-1A4 Prep Date: 3/22/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC A Limit Level Ref nalyte Result RPD Limit Qual 

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.494 0.05 0.5 99 80-120 20

MB Sample ID: TP160322-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/22/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TP160322-1A4 Prep Date: 3/22/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS ND 0.05 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-3 1603232-4 

ALS Env QC Page: 17 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

37 of 38
 

 

Client: AMEC Foster Wheeler QC BATCH REPORT 

Work Order: 1603232 

Project: 1655500023 PVU 

Batch ID: TS160314-1-3 Instrument ID Balance Method: EPA160.2 

LCS Sample ID: TS160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TS160314-1 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val Value %REC Limit Level Ref RPD Qual 

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 503 20 528 95 85-115 5

LCSD Sample ID: TS160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TS160314-1 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 504 20 522 97 85-115 503 0 5

MB Sample ID: TS160314-1 Units: MG/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 

Client ID: Run ID: TS160314-1 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control Decision RPD RPD 

Value Limit Level Ref Limit Analyte Result ReportLimit SPK Val %REC RPD Qual 

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ND 4

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603232-3 1603232-4 

ALS Env QC Page: 18 of 18 ironmental -- FC 

LIMS Version: 6.808 

38 of 38
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15-Mar-2016 

Jeff Kujawa 

ALS Environmental 

225 Commerce Dr 

Fort Collins, CO 80524 

Re: 1603232 Work Order: 1603682 

Dear Jeff, 

ALS Environmental received 4 samples on 12-Mar-2016 for the analyses presented in the following 

report. 

The analytical data provided relates directly to the samples received by ALS Environmental and for only 

the analyses requested. 

Sample results are compliant with NELAP standard requirements and QC results achieved laboratory 

specifications. Any exceptions are noted in the Case Narrative, or noted with qualifiers in the report or 

QC batch information. Should this laboratory report need to be reproduced, it should be reproduced in 

full unless written approval has been obtained from ALS Environmental. Samples will be disposed in 30 

days unless storage arrangements are made. 

The total number of pages in this report is 13. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Electronically approved by: Tom Beamish 

Tom Beamish 

Client Services Coordinator 

Certificate No: MN 532786 

Report of Laboratory Analysis 

ADDRESS 3352 128th Avenue Holland, Michigan 49424-9263 | PHONE (616) 399-6070 | FAX (616) 399-6185 

ALS GROUP USA, CORP Part of the ALS Laboratory Group A Campbell Brothers Limited Company 
 

ALS Group USA, Corp Date: 15-Mar-16 

Client: ALS Environmental 

Project: 1603232 Work Order Sample Summary Work Order: 1603682 

Lab Samp ID Client Sample ID Matrix Tag Number Collection Date Date Received Hold 

1603682-01 PVUEVAP16031001 Water 3/10/2016 11:35 3/12/2016 14:20 

1603682-02 PVUEVAP16031002 Water 3/10/2016 11:40 3/12/2016 14:20 

1603682-03 PVUBIF16031001 Water 3/10/2016 14:40 3/12/2016 14:20 

1603682-04 PVUBIF16031002 Water 3/10/2016 15:00 3/12/2016 14:20 

1603682-04 PVUBIF16031002 Water 3/10/2016 15:00 3/12/2016 14:20 

Sample Summary Page 1 of 1 
ALS Group USA, Corp Date: 15-Mar-16 

Client: ALS Environmental QUALIFIERS, Project: 1603232 

WorkOrder: 1603682 ACRONYMS, UNITS 

Qualifier Description 

* Value exceeds Regulatory Limit 

a Not accredited 

B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank above the Reporting Limit 

E Value above quantitation range 

H Analyzed outside of Holding Time 

J Analyte is present at an estimated concentration between the MDL and Report Limit 

n Not offered for accreditation 

ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit 

O Sample amount is > 4 times amount spiked 

P Dual Column results percent difference > 40% 

R RPD above laboratory control limit 

S Spike Recovery outside laboratory control limits 

U Analyzed but not detected above the MDL 

X Analyte was detected in the Method Blank between the MDL and PQL, sample results may exhibit background or reagent 

contamination at the observed level. 

Acronym Description 

DUP Method Duplicate 

LCS Laboratory Control Sample 

LCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate 

LOD Limit of Detection (see MDL) 

LOQ Limit of Quantitation (see PQL) 

MBLK Method Blank 

MDL Method Detection Limit 

MS Matrix Spike 

MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate 

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit 

RPD Relative Percent Difference 

TDL Target Detection Limit 

TNTC Too Numerous To Count 

A APHA Standard Methods 

D ASTM 

E EPA 

SW SW-846 Update III 

Units Reported Description 

mg/L Milligrams per Liter 

none 

QF Page 1 of 1 
ALS Group USA, Corp Date: 15-Mar-16 

Client: ALS Environmental 

Project: 1603232 Case Narrative 

Work Order: 1603682 

Sample Comments: 

Batch R183353, Method PO4_365.1_W, Sample 1603682-03A: Sample had to be run and 

reported at a dilution due to matrix interference. 

Batch R183353, Method PO4_365.1_W, Sample 1603682-04A: Sample had to be run and 

reported at a dilution due to matrix interference. 

QC Comments: 

Batch R183368, Method IC_300.0_WW, Sample 1603682-03A MS: The MS and/or MSD 

recovery was below the lower control limit. The corresponding result in the parent sample 

may be biased low for Nitrite. 

Case Narrative Page 1 of 1 
ALS Group USA, Corp Date: 15-Mar-16 

CLIENT: ALS Environmental Work Order: 1603682 

Project: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603682-01A Collection Date: 3/10/2016 11:35:00 AM 

Client Sample ID: PVUEVAP16031001 Matrix: WATER 

Report Dilution 

Analyses Result Limit MDL Qual Units Factor Date Analyzed 

SPECIFIC GRAVITY D5057-90 Analyst: KF 

Specific Gravity 1.17 0 none 1 3/14/2016 12:58 PM 

Lab ID: 1603682-02A Collection Date: 3/10/2016 11:40:00 AM 

Client Sample ID: PVUEVAP16031002 Matrix: WATER 

Report Dilution 

Analyses Result Limit MDL Qual Units Factor Date Analyzed 

SPECIFIC GRAVITY D5057-90 Analyst: KF 

Specific Gravity 1.18 0 none 1 3/14/2016 12:58 PM 

Lab ID: 1603682-03A Collection Date: 3/10/2016 2:40:00 PM 

Client Sample ID: PVUBIF16031001 Matrix: WATER 

Report Dilution 

Analyses Result Limit MDL Qual Units Factor Date Analyzed 

ANIONS BY ION CHROMATOGRAPHY E300.0 Analyst: EE 

Nitrogen, Nitrate ND 100 27 mg/L 1000 3/12/2016 05:53 PM 

Nitrogen, Nitrite ND 100 23 mg/L 1000 3/12/2016 05:53 PM 

PHOSPHORUS, ORTHO-P (AS P) E365.1 R2.0 Analyst: JJG 

Phosphorus, Ortho-P (As P) ND 0.25 0.040 mg/L 5 3/12/2016 03:56 PM 

SPECIFIC GRAVITY D5057-90 Analyst: KF 

Specific Gravity 1.17 0 none 1 3/14/2016 12:58 PM 

Lab ID: 1603682-03B Collection Date: 3/10/2016 2:40:00 PM 

Client Sample ID: PVUBIF16031001 Matrix: WATER 

Report Dilution 

Analyses Result Limit MDL Qual Units Factor Date Analyzed 

NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL A4500-NH3 G-97 Analyst: JB 

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 6.0 1.0 0.34 mg/L 1 3/15/2016 10:49 AM 

Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits 

J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits P - Dual Column results RPD > 40% 

B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E - Value above quantitation range 

* - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level H - Analyzed outside of Hold Time AR Page 1 of 2 
ALS Group USA, Corp Date: 15-Mar-16 

CLIENT: ALS Environmental Work Order: 1603682 

Project: 1603232 

Lab ID: 1603682-04A Collection Date: 3/10/2016 3:00:00 PM 

Client Sample ID: PVUBIF16031002 Matrix: WATER 

Report Dilution 

Analyses Result Limit MDL Qual Units Factor Date Analyzed 

ANIONS BY ION CHROMATOGRAPHY E300.0 Analyst: EE 

Nitrogen, Nitrate ND 100 27 mg/L 1000 3/12/2016 06:54 PM 

Nitrogen, Nitrite ND 100 23 mg/L 1000 3/12/2016 06:54 PM 

PHOSPHORUS, ORTHO-P (AS P) E365.1 R2.0 Analyst: JJG 

Phosphorus, Ortho-P (As P) 0.43 0.25 0.040 mg/L 5 3/12/2016 03:56 PM 

SPECIFIC GRAVITY D5057-90 Analyst: KF 

Specific Gravity 1.17 0 none 1 3/14/2016 12:58 PM 

Lab ID: 1603682-04B Collection Date: 3/10/2016 3:00:00 PM 

Client Sample ID: PVUBIF16031002 Matrix: WATER 

Report Dilution 

Analyses Result Limit MDL Qual Units Factor Date Analyzed 

NITROGEN, TOTAL KJELDAHL A4500-NH3 G-97 Analyst: JB 

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 4.5 1.0 0.34 mg/L 1 3/15/2016 10:49 AM 

Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits 

J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits P - Dual Column results RPD > 40% 

B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E - Value above quantitation range 

* - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level H - Analyzed outside of Hold Time AR Page 2 of 2 
Analyte Result PQL SPK Val 

SPK Ref 

Value %REC 

Control 

Limit 

RPD Ref 

Value %RPD 

RPD 

Limit Qual 

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 7.622 1.0 10 0.04602 75.8 75-125 7.332 3.88 30 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result PQL SPK Val Value %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit Qual 

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 9.476 1.0 10 0 94.8 90-110 0 

Date: 15-Mar-16 

QC BATCH REPORT

ALS Group USA, Corp 

Client: ALS Environmental 

Work Order: 1603682 

Project: 1603232 

Batch ID: 83508 Instrument ID LACHAT Method: A4500-NH3 G-97 

MBLK Sample ID: MBLK-83508-83508 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 10:49 AM 

Client ID: Run ID: LACHAT_160315A SeqNo: 3733881 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Value Limit Value Limit Analyte Result PQL SPK Val %REC %RPD Qual 

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl ND 1.0 

LCS Sample ID: LCS-83508-83508 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 10:49 AM 

Client ID: Run ID: LACHAT_160315A SeqNo: 3733882 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Value Limit Value Limit Analyte Result PQL SPK Val %REC %RPD Qual 

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 9.345 1.0 10 0 93.4 90-110 0 

MS Sample ID: 1603510-01A MS Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 10:49 AM 

Client ID: Run ID: LACHAT_160315A SeqNo: 3733885 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Value Limit Value Limit Analyte Result PQL SPK Val %REC %RPD Qual 

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 7.332 1.0 10 0.04602 72.9 75-125 0 S 

MSD Sample ID: 1603510-01A MSD Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 10:49 AM 

Client ID: Run ID: LACHAT_160315A SeqNo: 3733886 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

LCS2 Sample ID: LCS2-83508-83508 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/15/2016 10:49 AM 

Client ID: Run ID: LACHAT_160315A SeqNo: 3733890 Prep Date: 3/14/2016 DF: 1 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603682-03B 1603682-04B 

Note: See Qualifiers Page for a list of Qualifiers and their explanation. 

QC Page: 1 of 4 
MBLK Sample ID: MBLK-R183353 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 03:56 PM 

Client ID: Run ID: LACHAT2_160312A SeqNo: 3731143 Prep Date: DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result Value PQL SPK Val %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit Qual 

Phosphorus, Ortho-P (As P) ND 0.050 

LCS Sample ID: LCS-R183353 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 03:56 PM 

Client ID: Run ID: LACHAT2_160312A SeqNo: 3731144 Prep Date: DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result Value PQL SPK Val %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit
 Qual 

Phosphorus, Ortho-P (As P) 1.06 0.050 1 0 106 90-110 0 

MS Sample ID: 1603682-03A MS Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 03:56 PM 

Client ID: PVUBIF16031001 Run ID: LACHAT2_160312A SeqNo: 3731150 Prep Date: DF: 5 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result Value PQL SPK Val %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit
 Qual 

Phosphorus, Ortho-P (As P) 0.9365 0.25 1 0.03285 90.4 90-110 0 

MSD Sample ID: 1603682-03A MSD 

Client ID: PVUBIF16031001 Run ID: LACHAT2_160312A 

SPK Ref 

Value Analyte Result PQL SPK Val 

Units: mg/L 

SeqNo: 3731151 

Control 

%REC Limit 

Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 03:56 PM 

Prep Date: DF: 5 

RPD Ref RPD 

Value %RPD Limit Qual 

Phosphorus, Ortho-P (As P) 0.942 0.25 1 0.03285 90.9 90-110 0.9365 0.586 20 

Client: ALS Environmental QC BATCH REPORT

Work Order: 1603682 

Project: 1603232 

Batch ID: R183353 Instrument ID LACHAT2 Method: E365.1 R2.0 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603682-03A 1603682-04A 

Note: See Qualifiers Page for a list of Qualifiers and their explanation. 

QC Page: 2 of 4 
MBLK Sample ID: CCB/MBLK-R183368 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 05:13 PM 

Client ID: Run ID: IC3_160312A SeqNo: 3731537 Prep Date: DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result PQL SPK Val Value %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit Qual 

Nitrogen, Nitrate 

Nitrogen, Nitrite 

ND 

ND 

0.10
 

0.10
 

LCS Sample ID: LCS-R183368 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 05:33 PM 

Client ID: Run ID: IC3_160312A SeqNo: 3731538 Prep Date: DF: 1 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result PQL SPK Val Value %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit Qual 

Nitrogen, Nitrate 1.971 0.10 2 0 98.6 90-110 0 

Nitrogen, Nitrite 2.002 0.10 2 0 100 90-110 0 

Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 06:13 PM 

Prep Date: 

Units: mg/L 

Client ID: PVUBIF16031001 SeqNo: 3731540 

MS 

Run ID: IC3_160312A DF: 1000 

Sample ID: 1603682-03A MS 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result PQL SPK Val Value %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit Qual 

Nitrogen, Nitrate 1944 100 2000 20.7 96.2 80-120 0 

Nitrogen, Nitrite 1546 100 2000 0 77.3 80-120 0 S 

MSD Sample ID: 1603682-03A MSD Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 3/12/2016 06:33 PM 

Client ID: PVUBIF16031001 Run ID: IC3_160312A SeqNo: 3731541 Prep Date: DF: 1000 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Analyte Result PQL SPK Val Value %REC Limit Value %RPD Limit Qual 

Nitrogen, Nitrate 

Nitrogen, Nitrite 

1939 

1542 

100 

100 

2000 

2000 

20.7 

0 

95.9

77.1

 80-120 

 80-120 

1944 

1546 

0.273 

0.233 

20 

20 S 

Client: ALS Environmental QC BATCH REPORT

Work Order: 1603682 

Project: 1603232 

Batch ID: R183368 Instrument ID IC3 Method: E300.0 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603682-03A 1603682-04A 

Note: See Qualifiers Page for a list of Qualifiers and their explanation. 

QC Page: 3 of 4 
DUP Sample ID: 1603682-01A DUP 

Client ID: PVUEVAP16031001 

Units: none 

Run ID: WETCHEM_160314N SeqNo: 3733177 Prep Date: 

SPK Ref Control RPD Ref RPD 

Value Limit Value Limit Analyte Result PQL SPK Val %REC %RPD Qual 

Analysis Date: 3/14/2016 12:58 PM 

DF: 1 

Specific Gravity 1.171 0 0 0 0 0-0 1.171 0.0171 0 

Client: ALS Environmental 

Work Order: 1603682 

Project: 1603232 

QC BATCH REPORT

Batch ID: R183442 Instrument ID WETCHEM Method: D5057-90 

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: 1603682-01A 1603682-02A 1603682-03A 

1603682-04A 

Note: See Qualifiers Page for a list of Qualifiers and their explanation. 

QC Page: 4 of 4 
A ALS Environmental 

225 Ccmmerce Drive, Fort. eonm, Colmldo 8052'4 

TF! {81Xl}4U-1S11 PH: {WD)(a).1511 FX! 19'7D)ofB0...1ti22 

Chain-of-Custody 

Turnaround lime forum.plea rocelved atte~::i p.m. wlll be calculated ha-ginning from the ooxt buslnen day. 

TU:maround Ume for.samples- recelvad Satlirday wtll be cak:tJla1ed beginning from the _next buslneu day. - ~ ~J'... -• 

. ~ADHTD "- . '"'' // . , c : J!J,,,;.,,,,c:'_ 1V/ho,,~///J;ff'1t"' tJ "'' ' . k. 

.··.~· "'.'- LO//' ' 

E, 

f. 

-·- _,, 

' 

'J'' . 

. ·-- ""'' ·-·~·-·----·'_,_' - c-~ - ' - - " 

' PV ti. fVIJP /hi ~)(/, 'r(JJ/ /,J .J/10/)/p . //:3S:_ . . 2 

w 

3 

PVtl.e///lP/lot 31fXm2 3 

fJVti.B1Flfu 03 JrAtL1 J /,(.} 3/iofl[p Jl;'/O [' 2- 3 x >< >< 

/JI/ f)..t5L!=Jio(!J31~z. IA.) 3 xxx Ii"' 

. ('-1 'Ir - y " '---. 
I 151968-~L~J 1 

'«, ' 

.· c 

! 
ALS Group USA, Corp 

Sample Receipt Checklist 

Client Name: ALS - FORT COLLINS Date/Time Received: 12-Mar-16 14:20 

Work Order: 1603682 Received by: JR 

Checklist completed by Joseph Ribar 12-Mar-16 Reviewed by: Tom Beamish 14-Mar-16 

eSignature Date eSignature Date 

Matrices: water 

Carrier name: FedEx 

Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes No Not Present
 

Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler? Yes No
 Not Present
 

Custody seals intact on sample bottles? Yes No
 Not Present
 

Chain of custody present? Yes No
 

Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Yes No
 

Chain of custody agrees with sample labels? Yes No
 

Samples in proper container/bottle? Yes No
 

Sample containers intact? Yes No
 

Sufficient sample volume for indicated test? Yes No
 

All samples received within holding time? Yes No
 

Container/Temp Blank temperature in compliance? Yes No
 

Sample(s) received on ice? 

Temperature(s)/Thermometer(s): 2.0c/2.0c SR2 

Cooler(s)/Kit(s): 

Date/Time sample(s) sent to storage: 3/12/2016 3:43:39 PM 

Water - VOA vials have zero headspace? Yes No No VOA vials submitted 

Water - pH acceptable upon receipt?
 Yes No N/A 

pH adjusted?
 Yes No N/A 

pH adjusted by:
 

Login Notes: 

Yes No
 

Client Contacted: Date Contacted: Person Contacted: 

Contacted By: Regarding: 

CorrectiveAction: 

Comments: 

SRC Page 1 of 1 
LABOR

 

 

RIGHT SOLUTIONS | RIGHT PARTNER 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2655 Park Center Dr., Suite A 

Simi Valley, CA 93065 

T: +1 805 526 7161 

F: +1 805 526 7270 

www.alsglobal.com 

ATORY REPORT 

March 23, 2016 

Amy Wolf 

ALS Laboratory Group 

225 Commerce Drive 

Fort Collins, CO 80524 

RE: PVU / 1655500023 

Dear Amy: 

Enclosed are the results of the samples submitted to our laboratory on March 12, 2016. For your 

reference, these analyses have been assigned our service request number P1601303. 

All analyses were performed according to our laboratory’s NELAP and DoD-ELAP-approved quality 

assurance program. The test results meet requirements of the current NELAP and DoD-ELAP 

standards, where applicable, and except as noted in the laboratory case narrative provided. For a 

specific list of NELAP and DoD-ELAP-accredited analytes, refer to the certifications section at 

www.alsglobal.com. Results are intended to be considered in their entirety and apply only to the 

samples analyzed and reported herein. 

If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 526-7161. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALS | Environmental 

For Samantha Henningsen 

Project Manager 

1 of 10
 

 

RIGHT SOLUTIONS | RIGHT PARTNER 
 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2655 Park Center Dr., Suite A 

Simi Valley, CA 93065 

T: +1 805 526 7161 

F: +1 805 526 7270 

www.alsglobal.com 

Client: ALS Laboratory Group Service Request No: P1601303 

Project: PVU / 1655500023 

CASE NARRATIVE 

The samples were received intact under chain of custody on March 12, 2016 and were stored in 

accordance with the analytical method requirements. Please refer to the sample acceptance check 

form for additional information. The results reported herein are applicable only to the condition of 

the samples at the time of sample receipt. 

Sulfur Analysis 

The samples were analyzed for twenty sulfur compounds using a gas chromatograph equipped 

with a sulfur chemiluminescence detector (SCD). All compounds with the exception of 

hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide are quantitated against the initial calibration curve for 

methyl mercaptan. This method is not included on the laboratory’s NELAP, DoD-ELAP, or AIHALAP scope of accreditation. 

The results of analyses are given in the attached laboratory report. All results are intended to be considered in their 

entirety, and ALS Environmental (ALS) is not responsible for utilization of less than the complete report. 

Use of ALS Environmental (ALS)’s Name. Client shall not use ALS’s name or trademark in any marketing or reporting 

materials, press releases or in any other manner (“Materials”) whatsoever and shall not attribute to ALS any test result, 

tolerance or specification derived from ALS’s data (“Attribution”) without ALS’s prior written consent, which may be withheld 

by ALS for any reason in its sole discretion. To request ALS’s consent, Client shall provide copies of the proposed Materials 

or Attribution and describe in writing Client’s proposed use of such Materials or Attribution. If ALS has not provided written 

approval of the Materials or Attribution within ten (10) days of receipt from Client, Client’s request to use ALS’s name or 

trademark in any Materials or Attribution shall be deemed denied. ALS may, in its discretion, reasonably charge Client for 

its time in reviewing Materials or Attribution requests. Client acknowledges and agrees that the unauthorized use of ALS’s 

name or trademark may cause ALS to incur irreparable harm for which the recovery of money damages will be inadequate. 

Accordingly, Client acknowledges and agrees that a violation shall justify preliminary injunctive relief. For questions contact 

the laboratory. 

2 of 10
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2655 Park Center Dr., Suite A 

Simi Valley, CA 93065 

T: +1 805 526 7161 

F: +1 805 526 7270 

www.alsglobal.com 

ALS Environmental – Simi Valley 

CERTIFICATIONS, ACCREDITATIONS, AND REGISTRATIONS 

Agency Web Site Number 

AIHA http://www.aihaaccreditedlabs.org 101661 

Arizona DHS http://www.azdhs.gov/lab/license/env.htm AZ0694 

DoD ELAP http://www.pjlabs.com/search-accredited-labs L15-398 

Florida DOH 

(NELAP) http://www.doh.state.fl.us/lab/EnvLabCert/WaterCert.htm E871020 

Maine DHHS http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-health/water/dwpservices/labcert/labcert.htm 2014025 

Minnesota DOH 

(NELAP) http://www.health.state.mn.us/accreditation 977273 

New Jersey DEP 

(NELAP) http://www.nj.gov/dep/oqa/ CA009 

New York DOH 

(NELAP) http://www.wadsworth.org/labcert/elap/elap.html 11221 

Oregon PHD 

(NELAP) 

http://public.health.oregon.gov/LaboratoryServices/EnvironmentalLaborat 

oryAccreditation/Pages/index.aspx 4068-001 

Pennsylvania DEP http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/labs 68-03307 

(Registration) 

Texas CEQ 

(NELAP) http://www.tceq.texas.gov/field/qa/env_lab_accreditation.html T104704413-15-6 

Utah DOH 

(NELAP) http://www.health.utah.gov/lab/labimp/certification/index.html CA01627201 5-5 

Washington DOE http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/labs/lab-accreditation.html C946 

Analyses were performed according to our laboratory’s NELAP and DoD-ELAP approved quality assurance 

program. A complete listing of specific NELAP and DoD-ELAP certified analytes can be found in the 

certifications section at www.alsglobal.com, or at the accreditation body’s website. 

Each of the certifications listed above have an explicit Scope of Accreditation that applies to specific 

matrices/methods/analytes; therefore, please contact the laboratory for information corresponding to a 

particular certification. 

RIGHT SOLUTIONS | RIGHT PARTNER 
 

3 of 10
ALS ENVIRONMENTAL 

DETAIL SUMMARY REPORT 

Client: ALS Laboratory Group Service Request: P1601303 

Project ID: PVU / 1655500023 

Date Received: 3/12/2016 

Time Received: 10:45 

Date Time 

Client Sample ID Lab Code Matrix Collected Collected 

Sulfur Liq - Sulfur 

PVUBIF16031001 P1601303-001 Water 3/10/2016 14:40 X
 

PVUBIF16031002 P1601303-002 Water 3/10/2016 15:00 X
 

P1601303_Detail Summary_1603231211_RG.xls - DETAIL SUMMARY 

4 of 10
5 of 10 5 of 10
  

 

 

ALS Environmental
 

Sample Acceptance Check Form
 

Client: ALS Laboratory Group Work order: P1601303
 

Project: PVU / 1655500023
 

Sample(s) received on: 3/12/16 Date opened: 3/12/16 by: ADAVID
 

Note: This form is used for all samples received by ALS. The use of this form for custody seals is strictly meant to indicate presence/absence and not as an indication of 

compliance or nonconformity. Thermal preservation and pH will only be evaluated either at the request of the client and/or as required by the method/SOP. 

Yes No N/A 

1 Were sample containers properly marked with client sample ID?   

2 Did sample containers arrive in good condition?   

3 Were chain-of-custody papers used and filled out?   

4 Did sample container labels and/or tags agree with custody papers?   

5 Was sample volume received adequate for analysis?   

6 Are samples within specified holding times?   

7 Was proper temperature (thermal preservation) of cooler at receipt adhered to?   

 Cooler Temperature: 3° C Blank Temperature: ° C Wet Ice 

8 Were custody seals on outside of cooler/Box/Container?   

Location of seal(s)? Sealing lid of cooler Sealing Lid?   

Were signature and date included?   

Were seals intact?   

9 Do containers have appropriate preservation, according to method/SOP or Client specified information?   

 Is there a client indication that the submitted samples are pH preserved?   

 Were VOA vials checked for presence/absence of air bubbles?   

Does the client/method/SOP require that the analyst check the sample pH and if necessary alter it?   

10 Tubes: Are the tubes capped and intact?   

11 Badges: Are the badges properly capped and intact?   

 Are dual bed badges separated and individually capped and intact?   

Lab Sample ID Container 

Description 

Required 

pH * 

Received 

pH 

Adjusted 

pH 

VOA Headspace 

(Presence/Absence) Comments 

Receipt / Preservation 

P1601303-001.01 40mL VOA NP 7 1 A MC 3/22/2016 

P1601303-001.02 40mL VOA NP A 

P1601303-001.03 40mL VOA NP A 

P1601303-002.01 40mL VOA NP 7 1 A MC 3/22/2016

P1601303-002.02 40mL VOA NP A 

P1601303-002.03 40mL VOA NP A

 Explain any discrepancies: (include lab sample ID numbers): 

 RSK - MEEPP, HCL (pH<2); RSK - CO2, (pH 5-8); Sulfur (pH>4) 

6 of 10

P1601303_ALS Laboratory Group_PVU _ 1655500023.xls - Page 1 of 1 3/23/16 3:59 PM 
ALS ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
 

Page 1 of 1
 

Client: ALS Laboratory Group 

Client Sample ID: PVUBIF16031001 ALS Project ID: P1601303 

Client Project ID: PVU / 1655500023 ALS Sample ID: P1601303-001 

Test Code: GC/SCD Reduced Sulfur Analysis Date Collected: 3/10/16 

Instrument ID: Agilent 6890A/GC13/SCD Date Received: 3/12/16 

Analyst: Mike Conejo Date Analyzed: 3/22/16 

Sample Type: Water Liquid Amount: 10.0 ml(s) 

Test Notes: Purge Volume: 0.30 Liter(s) 

Injection Volume(s): 0.050 ml(s)

 

 CAS # Compound Result MRL Data 

μg/L μg/L Qualifier 

7783-06-4 Hydrogen Sulfide 57,000 17 

463-58-1 Carbonyl Sulfide ND 29 

74-93-1 Methyl Mercaptan ND 24 

75-08-1 Ethyl Mercaptan ND 30 

75-18-3 Dimethyl Sulfide ND 30 

75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide ND 19 

75-33-2 Isopropyl Mercaptan ND 37 

75-66-1 tert-Butyl Mercaptan ND 44 

107-03-9 n-Propyl Mercaptan ND 37 

624-89-5 Ethyl Methyl Sulfide ND 37 

110-02-1 Thiophene ND 41 

513-44-0 Isobutyl Mercaptan ND 44 

352-93-2 Diethyl Sulfide ND 44 

109-79-5 n-Butyl Mercaptan ND 44 

624-92-0 Dimethyl Disulfide ND 23 

616-44-4 3-Methylthiophene ND 48
 

110-01-0 Tetrahydrothiophene ND 43
 

638-02-8 2,5-Dimethylthiophene ND 55
 

872-55-9 2-Ethylthiophene ND 55
 

110-81-6 Diethyl Disulfide ND 30
 

ND = Compound was analyzed for, but not detected above the laboratory reporting limit.
 

MRL = Method Reporting Limit - The minimum quantity of a target analyte that can be confidently determined by the referenced method.
 

P1601303_GCSCD_1603231053_SC.xls - Sample 

7 of 10

 LIQ-SOIL.XLS - Page No.: 
ALS ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
 

Page 1 of 1
 

Client: ALS Laboratory Group 

Client Sample ID: PVUBIF16031002 ALS Project ID: P1601303 

Client Project ID: PVU / 1655500023 ALS Sample ID: P1601303-002 

Test Code: GC/SCD Reduced Sulfur Analysis Date Collected: 3/10/16 

Instrument ID: Agilent 6890A/GC13/SCD Date Received: 3/12/16 

Analyst: Mike Conejo Date Analyzed: 3/22/16 

Sample Type: Water Liquid Amount: 10.0 ml(s) 

Test Notes: Purge Volume: 0.30 Liter(s) 

Injection Volume(s): 0.050 ml(s)

 CAS # Compound Result MRL Data 

μg/L μg/L Qualifier 

7783-06-4 Hydrogen Sulfide 53,000 17 

463-58-1 Carbonyl Sulfide ND 29 

74-93-1 Methyl Mercaptan ND 24 

75-08-1 Ethyl Mercaptan ND 30 

75-18-3 Dimethyl Sulfide ND 30 

75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide ND 19 

75-33-2 Isopropyl Mercaptan ND 37 

75-66-1 tert-Butyl Mercaptan ND 44 

107-03-9 n-Propyl Mercaptan ND 37 

624-89-5 Ethyl Methyl Sulfide ND 37 

110-02-1 Thiophene ND 41 

513-44-0 Isobutyl Mercaptan ND 44 

352-93-2 Diethyl Sulfide ND 44 

109-79-5 n-Butyl Mercaptan ND 44 

624-92-0 Dimethyl Disulfide ND 23 

616-44-4 3-Methylthiophene ND 48
 

110-01-0 Tetrahydrothiophene ND 43
 

638-02-8 2,5-Dimethylthiophene ND 55
 

872-55-9 2-Ethylthiophene ND 55
 

110-81-6 Diethyl Disulfide ND 30
 

ND = Compound was analyzed for, but not detected above the laboratory reporting limit.
 

MRL = Method Reporting Limit - The minimum quantity of a target analyte that can be confidently determined by the referenced method.
 

P1601303_GCSCD_1603231053_SC.xls - Sample (2) 

8 of 10

 LIQ-SOIL.XLS - Page No.: 
 

 CAS # Compound Result 

μg/L 

MRL 

μg/L 

Data 

Qualifier 

7783-06-4 

463-58-1 

74-93-1 

75-08-1 

75-18-3 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

Carbonyl Sulfide 

Methyl Mercaptan 

Ethyl Mercaptan 

Dimethyl Sulfide 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

0.84 

1.5 

1.2 

1.5 

1.5 

75-15-0 

75-33-2 

75-66-1 

107-03-9 

624-89-5 

Carbon Disulfide 

Isopropyl Mercaptan 

tert-Butyl Mercaptan 

n-Propyl Mercaptan 

Ethyl Methyl Sulfide 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

0.93 

1.9 

2.2 

1.9 

1.9 

110-02-1 

513-44-0 

352-93-2 

109-79-5 

624-92-0 

Thiophene 

Isobutyl Mercaptan 

Diethyl Sulfide 

n-Butyl Mercaptan 

Dimethyl Disulfide 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

2.1 

2.2 

2.2 

2.2 

1.2 

616-44-4 

110-01-0 

638-02-8 

872-55-9 

110-81-6 

3-Methylthiophene 

Tetrahydrothiophene 

2,5-Dimethylthiophene 

2-Ethylthiophene 

Diethyl Disulfide 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

2.4 

2.2 

2.8 

2.8 

1.5 

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
 

Page 1 of 1
 

Client: ALS Laboratory Group 

Client Sample ID: Method Blank ALS Project ID: P1601303 

Client Project ID: PVU / 1655500023 ALS Sample ID: P160322-MB 

Test Code: GC/SCD Reduced Sulfur Analysis Date Collected: NA 

Instrument ID: Agilent 6890A/GC13/SCD Date Received: NA 

Analyst: Mike Conejo Date Analyzed: 3/22/16 

Sample Type: Water Liquid Amount: 10.0 ml(s) 

Test Notes: Purge Volume: 0.30 Liter(s) 

Injection Volume(s): 1.0 ml(s)

ND = Compound was analyzed for, but not detected above the laboratory reporting limit.
 

MRL = Method Reporting Limit - The minimum quantity of a target analyte that can be confidently determined by the referenced method.
 

P1601303_GCSCD_1603231053_SC.xls - MBlank 

9 of 10

 LIQ-SOIL.XLS - Page No.: 
 

ALS ENVIRONMENTAL 

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE / DUPLICATE LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE SUMMARY
 

Page 1 of 1
 

Client: ALS Laboratory Group 

Client Sample ID: Duplicate Lab Control Sample ALS Project ID: P1601303 

Client Project ID: PVU / 1655500023 ALS Sample ID: P160322-DLCS 

Test Code: GC/SCD Reduced Sulfur Analysis Date Collected: NA 

Instrument ID: Agilent 6890A/GC13/SCD Date Received: NA 

Analyst: Mike Conejo Date Analyzed: 3/22/16 

Sample Type: Water Liquid Amount: 10.0 ml(s) 

Test Notes: Purge Volume: 0.30 Liter(s) 

Injection Volume: 0.20 ml(s) 

Spike Amount Result ALS

 CAS # Compound LCS / DLCS LCS DLCS % Recovery Acceptance RPD RPD Data 

ug/L ug/L ug/L LCS DLCS Limits Limit Qualifier 

7783-06-4 Hydrogen Sulfide 418 306 314 73 75 45-151 3 28 

463-58-1 Carbonyl Sulfide 737 591 591 80 80 43-154 0 28 

74-93-1 Methyl Mercaptan 590 438 449 74 76 38-153 3 28 

P1601303_GCSCD_1603231053_SC.xls - DLCS 

10 of 1010 of 10

 LIQ-SOIL.XLS - Page No.: