Final Report 

Mercury Emissions Evaluation Program 

For Systems 18, 61, 66, 67, 68, and 70 

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. 

Eureka County, Nevada 

Prepared for: 

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 29 

Elko, Nevada 89803

Prepared by: 

TRC Companies, Inc. 

6672 Boulder Highway, Suite 5 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89122

September 2007
TRC Project No. 151555-0000-00001 

September 2007 

Final Report 

Mercury Emissions Evaluation Program 

For Systems 18, 61, 66, 67, 68, and 70 

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. 

Eureka County, Nevada 

Prepared for

Barrick Goldsrike Mines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 29 

Elko, Nevada 89803 

(775) 778-8265 

Prepared by

TRC Companies, Inc. 

6672 Boulder Highway, Suite 5 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89122 

(702) 437-5800 

DISCLAIMER

This document is intended for use solely by Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. (Barrick) for the specific purposes described 

in the contractual documents between TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) and Barrick. All professional services performed 

and reports generated by TRC have been prepared for Barrick's purposes as described in the contract. The information, 

statements and conclusions contained in the document have been prepared in accordance with the work statement and 

contract terms and conditions. The document may be subject to differing interpretations and/or may be misinterpreted by 

third persons or entities who were not involved in the investigative or consultation process. TRC therefore expressly 

disclaims any liability to persons other than Barrick who may use or rely upon this document in any way or for any 

purpose.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

L2007-454 ii 

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

1.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................. 4

2.1 TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.................................................................................. 4 

2.2 FIELD TEST CHANGES AND PROBLEMS............................................................... 4 

2.3 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS .................................................................................. 4 

2.3.1 System 18 – Ore Roasting Process ......................................................................... 4 

2.3.2 System 61 – Carbon Reactivation Kiln Drum ........................................................ 4 

2.3.3 System 66 – Autoclave Circuit ............................................................................... 5 

2.3.4 System 67- Mercury Retorts ................................................................................... 5 

2.3.5 System 68 – Furnace Refining (carbon bed)........................................................... 5 

2.3.6 System 70 – Analytical Fire Assay Facility (baghouse)......................................... 5 

3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 17

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 17 

3.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS .......................................................................................... 17 

4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES ........................................................................................ 18

4.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 18

4.2 FIELD PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 18 

4.3 PRESAMPLING ACTIVITIES.................................................................................... 19 

4.3.1 Equipment Calibration.......................................................................................... 19 

4.3.2 Glassware Preparation .......................................................................................... 20 

4.3.3 Sample Media Preparation.................................................................................... 20 

4.4 ONSITE SAMPLING ACTIVITIES............................................................................ 20 

4.4.1 EPA Methods 1 and 2 for Velocity Measurements and Cyclonic Flow............... 21 

4.4.2 EPA Method 3 for O2 and CO2 Measurements..................................................... 21 

4.4.3 EPA Method 4 for Moisture Determination ......................................................... 22 

4.4.4 ASTM D6784 Ontario Hydro Method for Mercury Emissions............................ 22 

4.4.5 EPA Method 29 for Mercury ................................................................................ 25 

4.5 PROCESS MONITORING .......................................................................................... 27 

5.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS ........................................ 28

5.1 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES - MERCURY........................................................... 28 

5.2 CALCULATIONS........................................................................................................ 28 

5.2.1 Flow Rates and Isokinetics ................................................................................... 28 

5.2.2 Pounds Per Hour - Particle Bound, Oxidized, Elemental and Total Mercury 

Concentrations...................................................................................................................... 31 

6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE .............................................................................................. 32

6.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 32

6.2 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY............................................................... 32 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

L2007-454 iii 

6.2.1 Calibration Procedures.......................................................................................... 32 

6.2.2 Equipment Leak Checks ....................................................................................... 32 

6.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check............................................................................................ 33 

6.3 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING ...................................... 33 

6.3.1 Field Data Reduction ............................................................................................ 33 

6.3.2 Data Validation ..................................................................................................... 33 

6.3.3 Data Reporting...................................................................................................... 34 

Appendices 

A Field Sampling Data Sheets 

B Field Reduced Data 

C Facility Process Data 

D Laboratory Analytical Data 

E Equipment Calibration Forms 

TABLES 

Number Page

1-1 Mercury Emissions Evaluation Test Program Overview.................................................... 2 

2-1 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 18.............................................................. 6 

2-2 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 61.............................................................. 7 

2-3 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 66 Autoclave #1 ....................................... 8 

2-4 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 66 Autoclave #2/3 .................................... 9 

2-5 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 66 Autoclave #4 ..................................... 10 

2-6 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 66 Autoclave #5/6 .................................. 11 

2-7 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 67 Retort #1............................................ 12 

2-8 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 67 Retort #2............................................ 13 

2-9 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 67 Retort #3............................................ 14 

2-10 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 68............................................................ 15 

2-11 Summary of Mercury Test Results for System 70............................................................ 16 

L2007-454 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW 

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. (Barrick) was required to perform mercury emissions testing for 

multiple sources at the Barrick facility in Carlin, Eureka County, Nevada in support of the 

Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), and Nevada Mercury Control 

Program (NMCP). 

TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) was retained by Barrick to provide sampling and analytical support 

for the NMCP. TRC supported and managed the test program from the Las Vegas, Nevada 

office. TRC prepared and received approval for a testing protocol to satisfy the testing 

requirements for the Mercury Emissions Evaluation Test Program required by NDEP. 

Sampling and analysis procedures described in this document were conducted using procedures 

deemed acceptable by the NDEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA). TRC was responsible for the collection and analysis of all flue gas samples. 

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK 

The purpose of the test program was to determine mercury emissions from the systems listed 

below which are associated with the mining process. Triplicate test runs were conducted at the 

outlet stacks of the emission units. Table 1-1 presents a summary of the test parameters, test 

methods and run times. 

• System 18 - Ore Roasting Process – S2.209 

• System 61 – Carbon Reactivation Kiln Drum – S2.004.1 

• System 66 – Autoclave Circuit – S2.015-S2.020 (4 exhaust stacks) 

• System 67 – Mercury Retorts – S2.009-S2.011 (3 stacks) 

• System 68 – Furnace Refining (carbon bed) – S2.013 & S2.014 

• System 70 – Analytical Fire Assay Facility (baghouse) – S2.051.1-S2.051.6 
L2007-454 2

TABLE 1-1. MERCURY EMISSIONS EVALUATION TEST PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

Source Test Parameter Test Method 

Run Time 

(minutes) 

System 18 

Ore Roasting Process 

S2.209 

Flows and Moisture EPA Methods 1 – 4 

 O2/CO2 EPA Method 3 60 

 Mercury EPA Method 29 120 

System 61 

Carbon Reactivation Kiln Drum 

 S2.004.1 

Flows and Moisture EPA Methods 1 – 4 

 O2/CO2 EPA Method 3 60 

 Mercury EPA Method 29 96 

System 66 (4 stacks)*

Autoclave Circuit 

S2.015-S2.020 

Flows and Moisture 

 

EPA Methods 1 – 4 

 O2/CO2 EPA Method 3 60 

(Autoclaves #1, #2/3, #4, and #5/6) Mercury EPA Method 29 96* 

(Autoclave #1, #2/3, and #5/6) Mercury ASTM D6784 120* 

System 67 (3 stacks) *

Mercury Retorts 

S2.009 - S2.011 

Flows and Moisture EPA Methods 1 – 4 

 O2/CO2 EPA Method 3 60 

(Retort #1 and #3) Mercury ASTM D6784 120* 

(Retort #1, #2, and #3) Mercury EPA Method 29 96* 
L2007-454 3

Source Test Parameter Test Method 

Run Time 

(minutes) 

System 68 

Furnace Refining (carbon bed) 

 S2.013 - S2.014 

Flows and Moisture EPA Methods 1 – 4 

 O2/CO2 EPA Method 3 60 

 Mercury EPA Method 29 96 

System 70 

Analytical Fire Assay Facility 

 S2.051.1 - S2.051.6 

Flows and Moisture EPA Methods 1 – 4 

 O2/CO2 EPA Method 3/3A 60 

 Mercury EPA Method 29 96 

* The exhaust streams on System 66 are nearly saturated. Testing conducted in October 2006 showed that the 

moisture ranged from 41% (Scrubber 1) to 85% (Scrubber 2/3), and with very low flow. The exhaust streams on 

System 67 exhibit very low flow rates as well. TRC collected isokinetic samples on each stack with the 

largest nozzles capable of collecting both an isokinetic sample as well as keeping the sample rate low enough to 

condense the large amounts of moisture/condensate. Sample times for each test parameter are noted in the table. 

The sample volume may be less than the NDEP required 60 dry standard cubic feet per test run. TRC maximized 

the sample volume in order to obtain the most appreciable detection limits possible. 

The required measurement parameters and test methods used to accomplish these test objectives 

were as follows: 

• 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, EPA Methods 

· Methods 1 & 2 - Velocity and Flow Rate 

· Method 3 - Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide 

· Method 4 - Moisture 

· Method 29 - Hg 

 • ASTM D6784 - Hg (Ontario Hydro Method) 
L2007-454 4

2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

2.1 TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 

The purpose of the test program was to conduct triplicate tests at each location described in 

Section 1.2 of the report, to determine mercury emissions in support of the State of Nevada’s 

Mercury Control Program. 

2.2 FIELD TEST CHANGES AND PROBLEMS 

During test run #1 of System 18 (Ore Roasting Process) the process dropped below 80% load for 

4 minutes (0929-0933). TRC paused sampling during test run #3, for twelve minutes (1349-

1401) when the process dropped below 80% load. 

No field test changes were required and no problems were encountered during the testing of 

Systems 61, 66, 67, 68, and 70. 

2.3 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS 

2.3.1 System 18 – Ore Roasting Process 

Testing of the ore roasting process was conducted on July 31, 2007. Triplicate test runs were 

conducted for mercury emissions in accordance with EPA Method 29. A summary of the test 

results is presented in Table 2-1. 

2.3.2 System 61 – Carbon Reactivation Kiln Drum 

Testing of the carbon reactivation kiln drum was conducted on July 28, 2007. Triplicate test runs 

were conducted for mercury emissions in accordance with EPA Method 29. A summary of the 

test results is presented in Table 2-2. 
L2007-454 5

2.3.3 System 66 – Autoclave Circuit 

Testing of the four autoclave circuit exhaust stacks was conducted between July 12 and July 24, 

2007. Triplicate test runs in accordance with both EPA Method 29 and the Ontario Hydro 

Method were conducted for Autoclave #1, #2/3, and #5/6. Triplicate test runs were conducted on 

Autoclave #4 in accordance with EPA Method 29. Summaries of the test results for all four 

exhaust stacks are presented in Tables 2-3 through 2-6. 

2.3.4 System 67- Mercury Retorts 

Testing of the three mercury retort exhaust stacks was conducted between July 25 and 27, 2007. 

Triplicate test runs in accordance with both EPA Method 29 and the Ontario Hydro Method were 

conducted for Retort #1 and Retort #3. Triplicate test runs were conducted on Retort #2 in 

accordance with EPA Method 29. Summaries of the test results for the three separate exhaust 

stacks are presented in Tables 2-7 through 2-9. 

2.3.5 System 68 – Furnace Refining (carbon bed) 

Testing of the furnace refining carbon bed was conducted on July 19, 2007. Triplicate test runs 

were conducted for mercury emissions in accordance with EPA Method 29. A summary of the 

test results is presented in Table 2-10. 

2.3.6 System 70 – Analytical Fire Assay Facility (baghouse) 

Testing of the Analytical Fire Assay Facility (baghouse) was conducted on August 5, 2007. 

Triplicate test runs were conducted for mercury emissions in accordance with EPA Method 29. 

A summary of the test results is presented in Table 2-11. 











L2007-454 17

3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

Barrick operates a gold producing mine on property located in Eureka County, Nevada. There 

are processing plants located on the property which separate the gold from the recovered ore. 

Part of this mining process utilizes Systems 18, 61, 66, 67, 68, and 70. 

3.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS 

System 18 is equipped with an exhaust stack after the control system (CS-203). System 61 is 

equipped with an exhaust stack after the Venturi Wet Scrubber (WS-001) and carbon bed 

(S2.004.1) and two burner exhaust stacks (S2.004.2). System 66 consists of four exhaust streams 

which pass through Venturi Wet Scrubbers (S2.015 – S2.020). The moisture content from the 

gas streams was high. System 67 consists of three retorts. The emissions from these units are 

each controlled by a control system consisting of a mercury condenser and carbon adsorption 

unit. System 68 consists of carbon bed exhaust stacks (S2.013 and S2.014) and System 70 

(S2.051.1 – S2.051.6) consists of an exhaust stack for a baghouse. 

The procedures specified by EPA Method 1, "Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary 

Sources", were followed to determine the number and location of traverse points to be used for 

the stratification testing and velocity traverses. The number of straight run stack diameters 

(equivalent diameters) upstream and downstream from the sample ports were used to determine 

the minimum number of traverse points required. 

Additional detail for each system, including diameters upstream and downstream, internal 

diameters of each exhaust stream, and sampling point locations and distances are presented in 

Appendix A. 
L2007-454 18

4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 

4.1 OVERVIEW 

This section describes the procedures that TRC followed during the field sampling program. 

Throughout the program TRC followed EPA Methods 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A sampling 

procedures, and an ASTM method for mercury emissions sampling. 

The remainder of this section is divided into several subsections: Field Program Description; 

Pre-sampling Activities; and Onsite Sampling Activities. 

4.2 FIELD PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

The field sampling was conducted by TRC over a four week period. On the first day of testing 

each source, equipment was set up and preliminary measurements were made. On the following 

days, TRC collected samples for the parameters listed below on the permitted units: 

O2, and CO2

Velocity and Percent Moisture 

Mercury 

TRC personnel used the following EPA Methods as listed in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. and 

an ASTM method to determine mercury emissions: 

• EPA Method 1 Sample Velocity Traverse for Stationary Sources 

• EPA Method 2 Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow 

 Rate (Type S pitot tube) 

• EPA Method 3 Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide 

 Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources 

 

• EPA Method 4 Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases 

• EPA Method 29 Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources (Hg) 

• ASTM D6784 Determination of Mercury (Ontario Hydro Method) 
L2007-454 19

4.3 PRESAMPLING ACTIVITIES 

Presampling activities included equipment calibration, precleaning of the sample train glassware, 

and other miscellaneous tasks. Each of these activities are described or referenced in the 

following subsections. Other presampling activities included team meetings, equipment packing, 

and finalization of all details leading up to the coordinated initiation of the sampling program. 

4.3.1 Equipment Calibration 

TRC follows an orderly program of positive actions to prevent the failure of equipment or 

instruments during use. This preventative maintenance and careful calibration helps to ensure 

accurate measurements from field and laboratory instruments. 

Once the equipment had gone through the cleaning and repair process it was then calibrated. All 

equipment that was scheduled for field use was cleaned and checked prior to calibration. Once 

the equipment had been calibrated, it was packed and stored to ensure the integrity of the 

equipment. 

Inspection and calibration of the equipment is a crucial step in ensuring the successful 

completion of the field effort. All equipment was inspected for proper operation and durability 

prior to calibration. Calibration of the following equipment was conducted in accordance with 

the procedures outlined in EPA documents entitled "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems; Volume III - Stationary Source Specific Methods" (EPA-600/4-

77-027b) and 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A. All calibrations were performed prior to the test 

program. 

• Probe Nozzles (QA Handbook, Vol III, Section 3.4.2, pp. 19) - averaged three 

internal diameter measurements of the nozzle; difference between high and low 

0.1 mm. Recalibrate, reshape and sharpen when nozzle becomes nicked, dented 

or corroded. 

• Pitot tubes (QA Handbook Vol III, Section 3.1.2, pp. 1-13) - measured for 

appropriate spacing and dimensions or calibrated in a wind tunnel. Rejection 

criteria is given on the calibration sheet. A post-test check inspected for damage. 
L2007-454 20

• Thermocouples (QA Handbook, Vol III, Section 3.4.2, pp. 12-18) – verified 

 against a mercury-in-glass thermometer at three points including the anticipated 

 measurement range. Acceptance limits - impinger + 2oF; DGM + 5.4oF; stack +

1.5 percent of stack temperature. 

• Dry gas meters (EPA 40 CFR Part 60, Method 5, Section 5.3) - calibrated against 

 a wet test meter. Acceptance criteria - pretest Yi = Y = + 0.02; post test Y = + 

 0.05 Yi. 

• Orifice meter calibrated against a wet test meter. Acceptance criteria is ∆H@i = 

+ 0.2 from the average value. 

• Field barometer (QA Handbook, Vol III, Section 3.4.2, pp. 18-19) – compared 

 against a mercury-in-glass barometer or use Airport Station BP and correct for 

 elevation. Acceptance criteria -  0.02 in. Hg; post-test check will be the same. 

• Analytical balances (QA Handbook, Vol III, Section 3.4.2, pp. 19) – Acceptance 

 criteria - calibrate with Standard Class-S weights within  0.5 mg of stated value. 

 Corrective action: Have manufacturer recalibrate or adjust. 

4.3.2 Glassware Preparation 

Sample train glassware required specialized precleaning to avoid contamination of the sample 

from the collection container or devices. The sample train glassware necessary for the EPA 

Method 29 and ASTM D6784 sampling trains was precleaned using an Alconox® soap and water 

wash. Deionized water was used for rinsing followed by air-drying. The glassware was then 

soaked in nitric acid bath (10% nitric acid) followed again by a deionized water rinse followed 

by air-drying. The glassware was then sealed with Parafilm®. 

4.3.3 Sample Media Preparation 

All reagents were checked in accordance with the TRC’s existing QC Program to minimize the 

probability of using contaminated solvents. This included the use of spectro-grade solvents from 

the same lot and the collection and analysis of the appropriate blanks. 

4.4 ONSITE SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 

Onsite sampling activities included the emissions testing of the previously mentioned outlet 
L2007-454 21

stacks and collection of operational data. 

4.4.1 EPA Methods 1 and 2 for Velocity Measurements and Cyclonic Flow 

Velocity traverses were conducted on the outlet stacks with an S-type pitot assembly in 

accordance with EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2. An S-type pitot tube with an attached 

inclined manometer was used to measure the exhaust velocities from the sampling location. An 

attached Type-K thermocouple with remote digital display was used to determine the flue gas 

temperature. During the test program, velocity measurements were conducted during each 

particulate matter and/or mercury sampling test run. The required number of velocity 

measurements points for each sampling location was determined following EPA Method 1. 

Cyclonic flow checks were conducted at the sampling locations (with the exception of the outlet 

stacks for System 67) in accordance with Section 2.4 of EPA Method 1. This procedure is 

referred to as the nulling technique. An S-type pitot tube connected to an inclined manometer 

was used in this method. The pitot tube was positioned at each traverse point so that the face 

openings of the pitot tube were perpendicular to the stack cross-sectional plane. This position is 

called the "0° reference". The velocity pressure (ΔP) measurement was noted. If the ΔP reading 

was zero, the cyclonic angle was recorded as 0°. If the ΔP reading was not zero, the pitot tube 

was rotated clockwise or counter clockwise until the ΔP reading became zero. This angle was 

then measured with a leveled protractor and reported to the nearest degree. After this null 

technique was applied at each traverse point, the average of the cyclonic angles was calculated. 

If this average was less than 20°, the flow condition was acceptable to test. 

4.4.2 EPA Method 3 for O2 and CO2 Measurements 

Oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations were determined for each test run according to EPA 

Reference Method 3, "Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular 

Weight". An integrated sample was collected in a Tedlar® bag, during each test run. The 

sample gas was drawn through a stainless steel probe and through Teflon® sampling line 

followed by a glass condenser unit to remove excess moisture which would interfere with the 

operation of the pump and flow meter. Sampling was conducted from a single point positioned 
L2007-454 22

at the point of average velocity. Approximately 20 liters of sample gas were collected during 

each test run. 

Analysis was conducted using a Fyrite or an Orsat gas analyzer. A sample from the Tedlar® bag 

was drawn into the analyzer and immediately analyzed for percent CO2 and percent O2. 

4.4.3 EPA Method 4 for Moisture Determination 

Moisture was determined for each test run according to EPA Reference Method 4, 

"Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases". The principle of this method is to remove 

the moisture from the sample stream and determine moisture either volumetrically or 

gravimetrically. Sampling was conducted in conjunction with the particulate matter and/or 

mercury emissions sampling test runs. 

4.4.4 ASTM D6784 Ontario Hydro Method for Mercury Emissions 

Speciated mercury (Hg) was determined via ASTM D6784 “Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle Bound, and Total Mercury Emissions in the Flue Gas Generated from Coal 

Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)”. 

The applicable sources tested were the following: 

• System 66 – Autoclave #1, Autoclave #2/3, and Autoclave #5/6; and 

• System 67 – Mercury Retorts # 1 and #3. 

The sampling train utilized the EPA Method 29 sampling configuration and consisted of a quartz 

button-hook nozzle, quartz lined heated probe, and heated filter housing. A thermocouple and Stype pitot tube were attached to the probe for the measurement of gas temperature and velocity. 

The sample gas passed through the probe and filter assembly connected to an impinger train. 

The impinger train consisted of a series of eight-ice bath cooled impingers, kept below 68°F to 

enable condensation of entrained moisture and the gaseous mercury species. The first, second 
L2007-454 23

and third impingers each contained 100 mL of a 1N KCl solution. The fourth impinger 

contained 100 mL of a 5% HNO3/10% H2O2 solution. The fifth, sixth, and seventh impingers 

each contained 100 mL of a 4% KMnO4/10% H2SO4 solution. The eighth impinger contained 

200 - 400 grams of silica gel. All filled impingers were weighed prior to placing the impingers 

in the train. The impingers were followed by a leak free pump, dry gas meter, and calibrated 

orifice meter. 

The first, second, fourth, sixth, and eighth impingers were the modified Greenburg design. The 

third, fifth and seventh impingers were standard Greenburg Smith impingers. No silicone grease 

was used in the train. 

TRC conducted three ASTM D6784 test runs on each source, with each test run having duration 

of 120 minutes. Sampling was isokinetic (±10%) and all stack and train operating parameters 

were recorded at each sampling point. 

Leak checks of the entire Ontario Hydro sampling train were performed before and after each 

sampling run. All leak checks and leakage rates were documented on the relevant field test data 

sheets. The acceptance criterion was a post run leak rate of ≤ 0.02 cfm at the highest vacuum 

obtained during the test run. The pre run leak check criterion was ≤ 0.02 cfm at 15 in Hg. 

Following the completion of each test run, the Ontario Hydro train was transported to a recovery 

area onsite. The sample recovery sequence was as follows: 

• All openings on the probe, inlet to cyclone/or filter holder and impingers were sealed with 

Teflon® tape. 

• The sampling train was removed to the recovery area. 

• The condition of the train was noted (i.e., filter, impinger contents color, silica gel color, 

etc.). 

• Container No. 1 - Disassembled the filter housing and transfered the filter to its original glass 

petri dish. Sealed the petri dish with Teflon® tape and labeled it with the appropriate sample 

information. Any filter fibers adhering to the support gasket were transferred to the petri 

dish. 
L2007-454 24

• Container No. 2 - The front half of the train, nozzle, probe, and front-half filter housing, 

cyclone and flask were brush-rinsed with 100 mL of 0.1N nitric acid into an amber glass 

container with a Teflon®-lined cap. The container was sealed and labeled. 

• Container No. 3 - The contents of the three KCl impingers were weighed. The filter support, 

backhalf of the filter holder and connecting glassware were rinsed with 0.1N HNO3 into a 

glass amber container with a Teflon® lined cap. The 5% KMNO4 solution was added to each 

impinger until a purple color remained. The solutions were then poured into the container. 

The impingers and connecting glassware were rinsed with 10% HNO3. Although unlikely, if 

deposits remained on the impinger surfaces, they were removed by doing another 10% HNO3

rinse that has a very small amount (several drops) of 10% hydroxylamine sulfate solution 

added to each of the KCl impingers. These rinses were added to Container 3. If the solution 

in Container 3 became clear, a small amount of the 5% KMnO4 solution was added until a 

pink or slightly purple color was obtained. Checked again after 90 minutes to ensure that the 

purple color remained. Perform a final rinse of the impingers and connecting glassware with 

0.1N HNO3 and added this rinse to Container 3. The container was sealed and labeled. 

• Container No. 4 - The contents of the fourth 5% HNO3/10% H2O2 impinger were weighed 

and transferred to a glass amber container with a Teflon®-lined cap. The impinger and Utubes were rinsed twice with three 25 mL portions of 0.1N nitric acid into a sample 

container. The container was sealed and labeled. 

• Container No. 5 (Impingers 5 through 7, H2SO4/KMnO4 Impinger Contents and Rinses) - 

Dried the exterior surfaces of Impingers 5, 6, and 7, then weighed and recorded the weight of 

each impinger (to the nearest 0.5 g). Poured all of the liquid from the three H2SO4-KMnO4

impingers into a glass sample, Container 5. Rinsed the impingers and connecting glassware 

with a 0.1N HNO3. If deposits remained on the impinger surfaces, after the two rinses, 

removed them by doing a third rinse with 0.1N HNO3 and several drops hydroxylamine 

sulfate. On a drop-by-drop basis added more hydroxylamine sulfate until the deposits were 

removed. Added these rinses to Container 5. If the solution in Container 5 became clear, 

added small amounts of H2SO4-KMnO4 solution until a pink or slightly purple color was 

obtained. Performed a final 0.1N HNO3 rinse of the impingers and connecting glassware 

followed by a water rinse. The 0.1N HNO3 rinse was added to Container 5, and the water 

rinse was discarded. The container was sealed and labeled. 

• The silica gel impinger was weighed to obtain a final weight. 

• All containers were checked to ensure proper sealing, proper labeling, and that all liquid 

levels were marked. All samples were logged onto a chain-of-custody record. 

The Ontario Hydro train produced the following samples: 

• Container No. 1 - Filter 

• Container No. 2 - Front-Half 0.1N HNO3 Rinse 

• Container No. 3 - Impingers 1, 2 & 3 - KCl Impingers Catch & Rinse 

• Container No. 4 - Impinger 4 - 5% HNO3/10% H2O2 Impinger Catch & Rinse 
L2007-454 25

• Container No. 5 - Impingers 5, 6, & 7 - H2SO4/KMnO4 Impingers Catch & Rinse 

 

4.4.5 EPA Method 29 for Mercury 

Mercury (Hg) was also determined via EPA Method 29 “Metals Emissions from Stationary 

Sources”. 

The applicable sources to tested were the following: 

• System 18 - Roasters 

• System 61 – Carbon Reactivation Kiln Drum; 

• System 66 – Autoclave #4; 

• System 67 – Mercury Retort # 2; 

• System 68 – Furnace Refining (carbon bed); and 

• System 70 – Analytical Fire Assay Facility (baghouse). 

The sampling train utilized the EPA Method 29 sampling configuration and consisted of a quartz 

button-hook nozzle, quartz lined heated probe, and heated filter housing. A thermocouple and Stype pitot tube were attached to the probe for the measurement of gas temperature and velocity. 

The sample gases passed through the probe and filter assembly and were connected to an 

impinger train. The impinger train consisted of a series of six-ice bath cooled impingers, kept 

below 68°F to enable condensation of entrained moisture and the gaseous mercury species. The 

first and second impingers each contained 100 mL of a 5% HNO3/10% H2O2 solution. The third 

impinger was empty to separate the two chemical solutions. The fourth and fifth impingers each 

contained 100 mL of a 4% KMnO4/10% H2SO4 solution. The sixth impinger contained between 

200 and 400 grams of silica gel. All filled impingers were weighed prior to placing the 

impingers in the train. The impingers were followed by a leak free pump, dry gas meter, and 

calibrated orifice meter. The second and fourth impingers were the modified Greenburg design. 

The first, third, fifth and sixth impingers were standard Greenburg Smith impingers. No silicone 

grease was used in the train. 

TRC conducted three EPA Method 29 test runs on each source, with each test run having 
L2007-454 26

duration of 96 minutes. Sampling was isokinetic (±10%) with all stacks and train operating 

parameters recorded at each sampling point. 

Leak checks of the entire EPA Method 29 sampling train were performed before and after each 

sampling run. All leak checks and leakage rates were documented on the relevant field test data 

sheets. The acceptance criterion was a post run leak rate of ≤ 0.02 cfm at the highest vacuum 

obtained during the test run. The pre run leak check criterion was ≤ 0.02 cfm at 15 in Hg. 

Following the completion of each test run, the EPA Method 29 train was transported to a 

recovery area onsite. The sample recovery sequence was as follows: 

• All openings on the probe, inlet to cyclone/or filter holder and impingers were sealed with 

Teflon® tape. 

• The sampling train was removed to the recovery area. 

• The condition of the train was noted (i.e., filter, impinger contents color, silica gel color, 

etc.). 

• Container No. 1 - Disassembled the filter housing and transferred the filter to its original 

glass petri dish. Sealed the petri dish with Teflon® tape and labeled it with the appropriate 

sample information. Any filter fibers adhering to the support gasket were transferred to the 

petri dish. 

• Container No. 2 - The front half of the train, nozzle, probe, and front-half filter housing, 

cyclone and flask were brush-rinsed with 100 mL of 0.1N nitric acid into an amber glass 

container with a Teflon®-lined cap. The container was sealed and labeled. 

• Container No. 3 - The contents of the two 5% HNO3/10% H2O2 impingers were weighed. 

The filter support, backhalf of the filter holder and connecting glassware were rinsed three 

times with 100 mL of 0.1N HNO3 into a glass amber container with a Teflon® lined cap. 

The impingers and connecting glassware were rinsed with 0.1N HNO3. The container was 

sealed and labeled. 

• Container No. 4 - The contents of the third impinger were weighed and transferred to a glass 

amber container with a Teflon®-lined cap. The impinger and U-tubes were rinsed three 

times with a 100 mL portion of 0.1N nitric acid into a sample container. The container was 

sealed and labeled. 

• Container No. 5 (Impingers 4 and 5, H2SO4/KMnO4 Impinger Contents and Rinses) - Dried 

the exterior surfaces of Impingers 4 and 5, then weighed and recorded the weight of each 

impinger (to the nearest 0.5 g). Poured all of the liquid from the two H2SO4-KMnO4
L2007-454 27

impingers into a glass sample, Container 5. Rinsed the impingers and connecting glassware 

three times with a total of 100 mL of fresh H2SO4/KMnO4 solution and poured into 

Container 5. Similarly, rinsed the impingers and connecting glassware three times with 100 

mL of DI water. Added these rinses to Container 5. The container was sealed and labeled. 

• Container No. 6 - Rinsed the contents of impingers 4 and 5 and connecting glassware with 

25 mL of 8N HCl and transferred the rinsate into Container 6 filled with 200 mL of DI 

water. The container was sealed and labeled. 

• The silica gel impinger was weighed to obtain a final weight. 

• All containers were checked to ensure proper sealing, proper labeling, and that all liquid 

levels were marked. All samples were logged onto a chain-of-custody record. 

The EPA Method 29 train produced the following samples: 

• Container No. 1 - Filter 

• Container No. 2 - Front-Half 0.1N HNO3 Rinse 

• Container No. 3 - Impingers 1 and 2 - 5% HNO3/10% H2O2 Impingers Catch & Rinse 

• Container No. 4 - Impinger 3 - Impinger Catch & Rinse 

• Container No. 5 - Impingers 4 and 5 - H2SO4/KMnO4 Impingers Catch & Rinse 

• Container No. 6 - Impingers 4 and 5 - 8N HCl Rinse 

 

4.5 PROCESS MONITORING 

 

Barrick facility personnel monitored and recorded all throughput and control data specified in 

Operating Permit (AP 1041-0739.01) data during each test run. The data was averaged over 

each test run period and provided to TRC for inclusion into the Final Report. Facility Process 

Data is contained in Appendix C. 
L2007-454 28

5.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS 

This section delineates the analytical procedures and calculations that were used by TRC during 

the Mercury Emissions Evaluation Test Program. 

5.1 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES - MERCURY 

At the conclusion of the field effort TRC packaged the mercury (EPA Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784) emission samples and provided delivery to the analytical laboratory. TRC utilized 

Maxxam Analytical Inc. (Maxxam) located in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada as the laboratory for 

this program. 

5.2 CALCULATIONS 

5.2.1 Flow Rates and Isokinetics 

Time = T 

Dry Gas Meter, ft3

 = VM 

Pitot ∆P, in. H2O = ∆P 

Orifice ∆H, in. H2O = PM 

Dry Gas Temp In, oF = TMI 

Dry Gas Temp Out, oF = TMO 

Stack Static Pressure, in. H2O = PST 

Stack Temp, oF = TS 

1. DN = Nozzle Diameter, inches 

2. PB = Barometric Pressure, inches Hg 

3. TT = Net Sampling Time, minutes 

4. VM = VM final - VM initial = Sample Gas Volume, ft3

4A. VML = Use only if any final or intermediate leak check rate is over 0.02 cfm 

LI = Leak rate after any given sampling period, cfm 

TLI = Total time of sample period in which leak occurred, minutes 

VML = VM - [(L1 - 0.02) TLI + (L2 - 0.02) TL2 + (L3 - 0.02) TL3 + (L4 - 0.02) TL4] 

5. Average Dry Gas Temperature at meter, oF 
L2007-454 29

TM = Average TMI + Average TMO

 2 

6. Average Orifice Pressure Drop, inches Hg 

PM = Average ∆H, in. H2O 

 13.6 

7. Volume of dry gas sampled at standard conditions, dscf a

VMSTD = 528 × (Y) × (VM) × (PB + PM)

 29.92 × (TM + 460) 

Y = dry gas meter calibration factor 

8. Total Water Collected 

VW = gm H2O silica gel + gm impinger H2O 

Note: If ml H2O is measured - (ml Η 0.9982 gm/ml) 

9. Volume of water vapor at standard conditions, scfb

VW gas = 0.04715 x VW 

10. Percent moisture in stack gas 

 100 × VW gas 

% M = VMSTD + VW gas 

11. Mole Fraction of dry gas (dimensionless) 

 100 - %M 

MD = 100 

Note: The proper %M must be used in this calculation. The % vapor moisture can never 

be greater than the saturation value at given stack temperature. If 10 is greater 

than 10a, this is an indication of water droplets in the gas stream. ( If 10 < 10a - 

use 10 %M in calculation, If 10 > 10a - use 10a %M in calculation) 

12. Molecular weight of dry stack gas 

MWD = (% CO2 × 0.44) + (% O2 × 0.32) + [(% CO + % N2) × 0.28] 
L2007-454 30

12a. % Excess Air 

%EA = [(% O2) - 0.5 × (% CO)] × 100 

[(0.264) × (% N2)] - (% O2) + 0.5 × (% CO) 

13. Molecular Weight of wet stack gas 

MW = (MWD × MD) + 18 × (1 - MD) 

14. AS = Stack Area, square inches 

Circular = π

2

2

stack diameter⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

Rectangular = Length x Width 

15. PS = Stack Pressure, absolute, inches Hg = PB ± Avg PST 

PST = Stack static pressure 

PST = PST in. H2O

 13.6 

PS = PB ± Average PST 

16. TSavg = Average Stack Temperature 

 

17. SDEavg = ( ΔP) avg

× TSavg + 460

18. Stack gas velocity at stack conditions, afpm 

 VS = 

1/ 2

avg

c

PS MW

1 5130 Cp SDE ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

×

× × ×

Cp = pitot tube coefficient 

19. Stack gas volumetric flow rate at stack conditions, acfm 

Qa = VS × AS

 144 

20. Stack gas volumetric flow rate at standard conditions, dscfme

 

Qs = Qa × 528 × MD × PS 

(29.92) × (TSavg + 460) 
L2007-454 31

21. Percent Isokinetics 

%ISO = 1039f

 × (TSavg + 460) × VMSTD

 VS × TT × PS × MD × (DN)2

a

 = Dry standard cubic feet at 68oF (528oR) and 29.92 in. Hg 

b

 = Standard conditions at 68oF (528oR) and 29.92 in.Hg 

c

 = 5130 = ( ) ( )

( )( ) 60sec/ min

R in.H O

lb/lb - mole in.Hg

sec

85.5 ft

2

⎥ ×

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

° ×

× 

 = Actual cubic feet per minute 

e

 = Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 68oF (528oR) and 29.92 in.Hg 

f

 = 1039 = 29.92 in. Hg 144 in.2 4 

 528oR × ft2

 × π × 100 

5.2.2 Pounds Per Hour - Particle Bound, Oxidized, Elemental and Total Mercury 

Concentrations 

Total mercury is defined by the method as the sum of the particulate bound mercury, oxidized 

mercury, and elemental mercury as shown in the following equation: 

Hg(total), μg/dscm = Hgtp + Hg2+ + Hgo

 

The following equation was used for each species: 

lb/hr = μg/dscf mercury species x Qs dscfm x 60 min/hour

453.59 x 106 μg/lb 

mg/hr = lb x 453,590 mg 

 hour lb 
L2007-454 32

6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

6.1 OVERVIEW 

TRC management is fully committed to an effective Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program 

whose objective is the delivery of a quality product. For much of TRC's work, that product is 

data resulting from field measurements, sampling and analysis activities, engineering 

assessments, and the analysis of gathered data for planning purposes. The Quality Assurance 

Program works to provide complete, precise, accurate, representative data in a timely manner for 

each project, considering both the project's needs and budget constraints. 

This section highlights the specific QA/QC procedures followed on this Test Program. 

6.2 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY 

6.2.1 Calibration Procedures 

Calibration of the field sampling equipment was performed prior to the field sampling effort. 

Copies of the calibration sheets were submitted to the field team leader to take onsite and for the 

project file. Calibrations were performed as described in the EPA publications "Quality 

Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems; Volume III - Stationary Source 

Specific Methods" (EPA-600/4-77-027b) and EPA 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A. Equipment 

calibrated included the sample metering system, thermocouples, and pitot tubes. All calibrations 

were available for review at the test program. Copies of the equipment calibration forms can be 

found in Appendix E. 

6.2.2 Equipment Leak Checks 

Prior to sampling, each Method 29 and Ontario Hydro sampling train were leak checked 

according to the procedures outlined in EPA Reference Method 5. During the course of a test 

run, a leak check was conducted before and after every test, or if replacement of a component 

became necessary. Final leak checks were performed to ensure that no leaks developed in the 

train during the course of the test run. All leakage rates, if any found, were recorded on the 
L2007-454 33

appropriate field data sheet. 

6.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check 

The absence of cyclonic flow within the sampling location was verified prior to sampling in 

accordance with Section 2.4 of EPA Method 1. 

6.3 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING 

Specific QC measures were used to ensure the generation of reliable data from sampling 

activities. Proper collection and organization of accurate information followed by clear and 

concise reporting of the data is a primary goal in all projects. 

6.3.1 Field Data Reduction 

Standardized forms were used to record field sampling data. The data collected was reviewed in 

the field by the Field Team Leader and at least one other field crew member. Errors or 

discrepancies were noted in the field book. 

6.3.2 Data Validation 

TRC supervisory and QC personnel use validation methods and criteria appropriate to the type of 

data and the purpose of the measurement. Records of all data have been maintained, including 

that judged to be an "outlying" or spurious value. The persons who validated the data have 

sufficient knowledge of the technical work to identify questionable values. 

Field sampling data were validated by the Field Team Leader and/or the QC Coordinator based 

on their review of the adherence to an approved sampling protocol and written sample collection 

procedure. 

The following criteria were used to evaluate the field sampling data: 
L2007-454 34

● Use of approved test procedures; 

● Proper operation of the process being tested; 

● Use of properly operating and calibrated equipment; 

● Leak checks conducted before and after tests; 

● Proper chain-of-custody maintained. 

The criteria listed below were used to evaluate the analytical data: 

● Use of approved analytical procedures; 

● Use of properly operating and calibrated instrumentation; 

● Acceptable results from analyses of QC samples (i.e., the reported values should 

fall within the 95 percent confidence interval for these samples). 

6.3.3 Data Reporting 

All data has been reported in standard units depending on the measurement and the ultimate use 

of the data. The bulk of the data was computer processed and reported as follows: 

• Exhaust Gas Stream 

- Gas Properties: 

a. Moisture, dscf and percent by volume 

b. Flow rate, dscfm and acfm 

c. Pressure, mm of Hg 

d. Temperature, °F 

- Gas Diluents and Pollutants 

a. O2, percent 

b. CO2, percent 

c. Mercury, lbs/hr