# 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 2007TRC 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 th e specific purposes described in the contractual documents between TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) and Barrick. All prof essional 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 documen t may be subject to differing interpreta tions and/or may be misinterpreted by third persons or entities who were not i nvolved in the investigative or consultati on process. TRC therefore expressly disclaims any liability to persons othe r 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 CHANGE S 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 O 2 and CO 2 Measurements..................................................... 21 4.4.3 EPA Method 4 for Moisture Determination ......................................................... 22 4.4.4 ASTM D6784 Ontario Hydro Me thod for Mercury Emissions............................ 22 4.4.5 EPA Method 29 for Mercury ................................................................................ 25 4.5 PROCESS MONITORING .......................................................................................... 27
5.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE S 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, Ox idized, Elemental and Total Mercury Concentrations................................................................................................................. ..... 31
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE .............................................................................................. 32
6.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 32 6.2 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY............................................................... 32TABLE 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, VALIDAT ION, 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 Evaluati on 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 Resu lts for System 66 Autoclave #1 ....................................... 8 2-4 Summary of Mercury Test Result s for System 66 Autoclave #2/3 .................................... 9 2-5 Summary of Mercury Test Resu lts for System 66 Autoclave #4 ..................................... 10 2-6 Summary of Mercury Test Result s for System 66 Autoclave #5/6 .................................. 11 2-7 Summary of Mercury Test Resu lts for System 67 Retort #1............................................ 12 2-8 Summary of Mercury Test Resu lts for System 67 Retort #2............................................ 13 2-9 Summary of Mercury Test Resu lts 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............................................................ 16L2007-454 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. (Barrick) was re quired to perform mercury emissions testing for multiple sources at the Barrick facility in Ca rlin, Eureka County, Nevada in support of the Nevada Department of Environmental Prot ection (NDEP), and Nevada Mercury Control Program (NMCP).

TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) was retained by Barr ick 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 fo r a testing protocol to satisfy the testing requirements for the Mercury Emissions Eval uation Test Program required by NDEP.

Sampling and analysis procedures described in this document we re 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 determ ine 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 pr esents 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-S2.051.6L2007-454 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

O 2 /CO 2 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

O 2 /CO 2 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

O 2 /CO 2 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

O 2 /CO 2 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

O 2 /CO 2 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

O 2 /CO 2 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 me thods 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 CH ANGES AND PROBLEMS

During test run #1 of System 18 (Ore Roasting Pr ocess) the process dropped below 80% load for 4 minutes (0929-0933). TRC paused sampling dur ing test run #3, for twelve minutes (1349- 1401) when the process dropped below 80% load.

No field test changes were required and no pr oblems 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 conducte d 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 c onducted 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 pres ented in Table 2-2.L2007-454 5 2.3.3 System 66 – Autoclave Circuit

Testing of the four autoclave circuit exhaust stacks was conducte d 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 conduc ted 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. Tripli cate 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 presen ted in Table 2-10.

2.3.6 System 70 – Analytical Fire Assay Facility (baghouse)

Testing of the Analytical Fire Assay Facil ity (baghouse) was c onducted on August 5, 2007. Triplicate test runs were conducted for mercur y 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 prope rty 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 ut ilizes Systems 18, 61, 66, 67, 68, and 70.

3.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS

System 18 is equipped with an exhaust stack af ter 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 st acks (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 thre e 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 e xhaust 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 velo city 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 di ameters upstream and downstream, internal diameters of each exhaust stream, and sampling poi nt 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 Me thods 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:

O 2 , and CO 2 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 Tr averse 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 eq uipment calibration, precleaning of the sample train glassware,
and other miscellaneous tasks. Each of these activities are described or referenced in the following subsections. Other pres ampling activities included team meetings, equipment packing,
and finalization of all details l eading up to the coordi nated initiation of the sampling program.

4.3.1 Equipment Calibration

TRC follows an orderly program of positive acti ons to prevent the failure of equipment or instruments during use. This preventative main tenance and careful calibration helps to ensure accurate measurements from field and laboratory instruments.

Once the equipment had gone throug h the cleaning and repair proce ss 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 st ep in ensuring the successful completion of the field effort. All equipment was inspected for proper operation and durability prior to calibration. Calibra tion 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 calib rations 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 th e nozzle; difference between high and low

 0.1 mm. Recalibrate, reshape and sharpe n when nozzle becomes nicked, dented or corroded.

• Pitot tubes (QA Handbook Vol III, S ection 3.1.2, pp. 1-13) - measured for appropriate spacing and dimensions or cal ibrated 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, Me thod 5, Section 5.3) - calibrated against a wet test meter. Acceptance criteria - pretest Y i = Y = + 0.02; post test Y = + 0.05 Y i .

• Orifice meter calibrated ag ainst 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 manuf acturer 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 anal ysis of the appropriate blanks.

4.4 ONSITE SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

Onsite sampling activities included the emissions testing of the previously mentioned outletL2007-454 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 outle t 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 exha ust velocities from the sampling location. An attached Type-K thermocouple with remote digita l display was used to determine the flue gas temperature. During the test program, veloci ty measurements were conducted during each particulate matter and/or mercury sampling te st run. The required number of velocity measurements points for each sampling locati on was determined following EPA Method 1.

Cyclonic flow checks were conducted at the samp ling locations (w ith the exception of the outlet stacks for System 67) in accordance with Sect ion 2.4 of EPA Method 1. This procedure is referred to as the nulling techniqu e. An S-type pitot tube conn ected to an inclined manometer was used in this method. The pitot tube was pos itioned at each traverse point so that the face openings of the pitot tube were pe rpendicular to the stack cross-se ctional plane. This position is
called the "0 ° reference". The velocity pressure ( Δ P) measurement was noted. If the Δ P reading was zero, the cyclonic angle was recorded as 0 ° . If the Δ P reading was not zero, the pitot tube
was rotated clockwise or counter clockwise until the Δ P reading became zero. This angle was then measured with a leveled protractor and re ported to the nearest degree. After this null technique was applied at each traverse point, the av erage 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 O 2 and CO 2 Measurements

Oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations were de termined 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 stai nless steel probe and through Teflon ® sampling line followed by a glass condenser unit to remove ex cess moisture which would interfere with the operation of the pump and flow meter. Sampli ng was conducted from a single point positionedL2007-454 22 at the point of average velocit y. Approximately 20 liters of sa mple gas were collected during
each test run.

Analysis was conducted using a Fyrite or an Or sat gas analyzer. A sample from the Tedlar ® bag was drawn into the analyzer and im mediately analyzed for percent CO 2 and percent O 2 .

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 co njunction 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 Emi ssions 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 sa mpling configuration and consisted of a quartz button-hook nozzle, quartz lined heated probe, a nd 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 filte r 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 th e gaseous mercury species. The first, secondL2007-454 23 and third impingers each cont ained 100 mL of a 1N KCl so lution. The fourth impinger
contained 100 mL of a 5% HNO 3 /10% H 2 O 2 solution. The fifth, sixt h, and seventh impingers
each contained 100 mL of a 4% KMnO 4 /10% H 2 SO 4 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 impi ngers were the modified Greenburg design. The third, fifth and seventh impingers were standard Greenburg Smith im pingers. 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 sampli ng train were performed before and after each sampling run. All leak checks and leakage rates we re 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 Onta rio 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 an d 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 colo r, silica gel color, etc.).

• Container No. 1 - Disassembled th e filter housing and transfered th e 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 trai n, 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 containe r was sealed and labeled.

• Container No. 3 - The contents of the three KC l impingers were weighed. The filter support, backhalf of the filter holder and connecti ng glassware were ri nsed with 0.1N HNO 3 into a glass amber container with a Teflon ® lined cap. The 5% KMNO 4 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% HNO 3 . Although unlikely, if deposits remained on the impinger surfaces, th ey were removed by doing another 10% HNO 3 rinse that has a very small amount (several drops) of 10% hydroxylam ine 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% KMnO 4 solution was added until a pink or slightly purple color was obtained. Check ed again after 90 minutes to ensure that the purple color remained. Perform a final rinse of the impingers and connecting glassware with 0.1N HNO 3 and added this rinse to Container 3. The container was sealed and labeled.

• Container No. 4 - The contents of the fourth 5% HNO 3 /10% H 2 O 2 impinger were weighed and transferred to a glass am ber container with a Teflon ® -lined cap. The impinger and Utubes were rinsed twice with three 25 mL por tions of 0.1N nitric acid into a sample container. The container was sealed and labeled.

• Container No. 5 (Impingers 5 through 7, H 2 SO 4 /KMnO 4 Impinger Contents and Rinses) - Dried the exterior surfaces of Im pingers 5, 6, and 7, then weighed and recorded the weight of each impinger (to the nearest 0.5 g). Pour ed all of the liquid from the three H 2 SO 4 -KMnO 4 impingers into a glass sample, Container 5. Rinsed the impingers and connecting glassware with a 0.1N HNO 3 . If deposits remained on the impi nger surfaces, after the two rinses, removed them by doing a third rinse with 0.1N HNO 3 and several drops hydroxylamine sulfate. On a drop-by-drop basis added more hydroxylamine sulfate un til the deposits were removed. Added these rinses to Container 5. If the solution in Container 5 became clear, added small amounts of H 2 SO 4 -KMnO 4 solution until a pink or slightly purple color was obtained. Performed a final 0.1N HNO 3 rinse of the impingers and connecting glassware followed by a water rinse. The 0.1N HNO 3 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 prope r sealing, proper labeli ng, and that all liquid levels were marked. All samples were logged onto a chain-of-custody record.

The Ontario Hydro train produ ced the following samples:

• Container No. 1 - Filter

• Container No. 2 - Front-Half 0.1N HNO 3 Rinse

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

• Container No. 4 - Impinger 4 - 5% HNO 3 /10% H 2 O 2 Impinger Catch & RinseL2007-454 25 • Container No. 5 - Impingers 5, 6, & 7 - H 2 SO 4 /KMnO 4 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 sa mpling configuration and consisted of a quartz button-hook nozzle, quartz lined heated probe, a nd 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 mois ture and the gaseous mercury species. The first and second impingers each contained 100 mL of a 5% HNO 3 /10% H 2 O 2 solution. The third impinger was empty to separate the two chemical solutions. The fourth and fifth impingers each
contained 100 mL of a 4% KMnO 4 /10% H 2 SO 4 solution. The sixth impinger contained between 200 and 400 grams of silica gel. All filled im pingers were weighed prior to placing the impingers in the train. The impingers were fo llowed by a leak free pump, dry gas meter, and
calibrated orifice meter. The s econd 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 havingL2007-454 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 sampli ng train were performed before and after each sampling run. All leak checks and leakage rates we re 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, th e 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 an d 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 colo r, silica gel color, etc.).

• Container No. 1 - Disassembled the filter housin g 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 trai n, 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 containe r was sealed and labeled.

• Container No. 3 - The contents of the two 5% HNO 3 /10% H 2 O 2 impingers were weighed. The filter support, backhalf of the filter holde r and connecting glassware were rinsed three times with 100 mL of 0.1N HNO 3 into a glass amber container with a Teflon ® lined cap. The impingers and connecting glassware were rinsed with 0.1N HNO 3 . The container was sealed and labeled.

• Container No. 4 - The contents of the third im pinger 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 c ontainer. The container was sealed and labeled.

• Container No. 5 (Impingers 4 and 5, H 2 SO 4 /KMnO 4 Impinger Contents and Rinses) - Dried the exterior surfaces of Impinge rs 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 H 2 SO 4 -KMnO 4L2007-454 27 impingers into a glass sample, Container 5. Rinsed the impingers and connecting glassware three times with a tota l of 100 mL of fresh H 2 SO 4 /KMnO 4 solution and poured into Container 5. Similarly, rinsed the impingers and connecting glasswar e three times with 100 mL of DI water. Added these rinses to Cont ainer 5. The container wa s sealed and labeled.

• Container No. 6 - Rinsed the contents of im pingers 4 and 5 and conn ecting 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 prope r sealing, proper labeli ng, 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 HNO 3 Rinse

• Container No. 3 - Impingers 1 and 2 - 5% HNO 3 /10% H 2 O 2 Impingers Catch & Rinse

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

• Container No. 5 - Impingers 4 and 5 - H 2 SO 4 /KMnO 4 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 cont rol 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 Fi nal Report. Facility Process Data is contained in Appendix C.L2007-454 28 5.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE S AND CALCULATIONS

This section delineates the analytical procedures and calculations that were used by TRC during the Mercury Emissions Eval uation Test Program.

5.1 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES - MERCURY

At the conclusion of the field effort TRC p ackaged the mercury (EPA Method 29 and ASTM D6784) emission samples and provided deliv ery to the analytical laboratory. TRC utilized Maxxam Analytical Inc. (Maxxam) located in Missi ssauga, Ontario, Canada as the laboratory for this program.

5.2 CALCULATIONS

5.2.1 Flow Rates and Isokinetics

Time = T Dry Gas Meter, ft 3 = VM Pitot ∆ P, in. H 2 O = ∆ P Orifice ∆ H, in. H 2 O = PM Dry Gas Temp In, oF = TMI Dry Gas Temp Out, oF = TMO Stack Static Pressure, in. H 2 O = 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, ft 3
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, oFL2007-454 29 TM = Average TMI + Average TMO 2
6. Average Orifice Pressure Drop, inches Hg
PM = Average ∆ H, in. H 2 O 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 H 2 O silica gel + gm impinger H 2 O

Note: If ml H 2 O is measured - (ml Η 0.9982 gm/ml)
9. Volume of water vapor at standard conditions, scf b

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 saturati on value at given stack temper ature. If 10 is greater than 10a, this is an indication of water dr oplets 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 = (% CO 2 × 0.44) + (% O 2 × 0.32) + [(% CO + % N 2 ) × 0.28]L2007-454 30 12a. % Excess Air
%EA = [(% O 2 ) - 0.5 × (% CO)] × 100 [(0.264) × (% N 2 )] - (% O 2 ) + 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 diameter stack ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

Rectangular = Length x Width
15. PS = Stack Pressure, absolute, inches Hg = PB ± Avg PST
PST = Stack static pressure

PST = PST in. H 2 O 13.6

PS = PB ± Average PST

16. TS avg = Average Stack Temperature

17. SDE avg = 

# ( ) 460 TS P avg + × Δ avg 18. Stack gas velocity at stack conditions, afpm

VS = 2 / 1

avg c MW PS 1 SDE Cp 5130 ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

× × × × Cp = pitot tube coefficient
19. Stack gas volumetric flow rate at stack conditions, acfm
Q a = VS × AS 144
20. Stack gas volumetric flow rate at standard conditions, dscfm e
Q s = Q a × 528 × MD × PS (29.92) × (TS avg + 460)L2007-454 31 21. Percent Isokinetics

%ISO = 1039 f × (TS avg + 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 = 

## ( ) ( ) ( )( ) min sec/ 60 O H in. R Hg in. mole

- lb/lb

sec ft 85.5

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 × ft 2 × π × 100

5.2.2 Pounds Per Hour - Particle Bound, Oxidized, Elementa l 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), μ g/dscm = Hg tp + Hg 2+ + Hg o

The following equation was used for each species:

lb/hr = μ g/dscf mercury species x Qs dscfm x 60 min/hour 453.59 x 10 6 μ g/lb

mg/hr = lb x 453,590 mg hour lbL2007-454 32 6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

6.1 OVERVIEW

TRC management is fully committed to an effect ive 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, sa mpling and analysis ac tivities, engineering assessments, and the analysis of gathered data for planning purposes. The Quality Assurance Program works to provide complete, precise, accurat e, 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 pr ocedures followed on this Test Program.

6.2 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY

6.2.1 Calibration Procedures

Calibration of the field sampling equipment was pe rformed prior to the field sampling effort. Copies of the calibration sheets were submitted to th e field team leader to take onsite and for the project file. Calibrations were performed as describe d in the EPA publications " Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measuremen t 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 me tering 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 Ontari o Hydro sampling train were leak checked according to the procedures outlined in EPA Refere nce Method 5. During the course of a test run, a leak check was conducted before and afte r every test, or if replacement of a component became necessary. Final leak checks were perfor med 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 theL2007-454 33 appropriate field data sheet.

6.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check

The absence of cyclonic flow within the sampli ng location was verified prior to sampling in
accordance with Section 2.4 of EPA Method 1.

6.3 DATA REDUCTION, VALI DATION, 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 sa mpling data. The data collected was reviewed in the field by the Field Team Leader and at leas t 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 me thods and criteria appropr iate to the type of data and the purpose of the measurement. Record s of all data have been maintained, including that judged to be an "outlying" or spurious value. The pers ons 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 a nd 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 co mputer 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. O 2 , percent b. CO 2 , percent c. Mercury, lbs/hr