Emission Test Report 

Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) 

Inlet and Outlet Emission Testing 

Coeur Rochester, Inc. 

Pershing County, Nevada 

May 12-13, 2008 

Prepared for: 

Coeur Rochester, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1057 

Lovelock, Nevada 89419-1057 

Prepared by: 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

19874 141st Place N.E. 

Woodinville, Washington 98072

 July 2008
159651 

TRC Project No. 159651 

July 2008 

Emission Test Report 

for 

Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) 

Inlet and Outlet Emission Testing 

at 

Coeur Rochester, Inc. 

Pershing County, Nevada 

Prepared for 

Coeur Rochester, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1057 

Lovelock, Nevada 89419-1057 

Prepared by 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

19874 141st Place N.E. 

Woodinville, Washington 98072 

DISCLAIMER 

This document is intended for use solely by Coeur Rochester, Inc. (CRI) for the specific purposes described 

in the contractual documents between TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) and CRI. All professional services performed and 

reports generated by TRC have been prepared for CRI’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 Environmental Corporation therefore expressly 

disclaims any liability to persons other than CRI who may use or rely upon this document in any way or for any purpose
159651 

DEVIATION REPORT

The following presents a brief description of all deviations which occurred during the testing 

program at Coeur Rochester, Inc. conducted the week of May 12, 2008. 

1. The original test program stated that sampling time for all runs at both inlet and 

outlet test locations would be 120 minutes and that minimum sampling volume 

would be 60 dscf. Run 1 on May 12, 2008 both locations were sampled for 120 

minutes and both locations collected in excess of 60 dscf. Initial scope of work 

was for two runs to be performed during this day. Run 2 was not conducted on 

this day. Two runs were to be completed on May 13, 2008. 

It was determined that the batch operational time period for the furnace on May 

13, 2008 would not be as long as for the previous day. It was anticipated that 

this shorter operational time period would not allow for completing 2 runs at the 

specified 120 minute sampling duration. Shorting the sample runs to 96 minutes 

would allow for the completion of the required 2 runs. Calculations determined 

that a 96 minute sample time at the outlet location would still result in a sample 

volume in excess of the required 60 dscf, but would this sample volume would 

not be reached at the inlet. It was determined that a 96 minute sample time at 

the inlet location would result in a collected sample volume of between 55 to 60 

dscf. 

This deviation to the sampling procedure was presented to the NDEP and 

approved prior to initiating Run 2. 

No additional deviations occurred during this testing. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

159651 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section I INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................I-1

I.1 Overview..........................................................................................................I-1

Section II PROCESS AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT SITE BACKGROUND........II-1

Section III SAMPLING OBJECTIVES....................................................................III-1

III.1 Testing Activities............................................................................................III-1

III.1.1 Refinery Furnace/Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) Testing .........III-1

Section IV SAMPLING METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................... IV-1

IV.1 Field Program Description............................................................................ IV-1

IV.2 Pre-sampling Activities ................................................................................. IV-1

IV.3 On-site Sampling Activities........................................................................... IV-1

IV.3.1 EPA Methods 1 and 2 for Velocity Measurements and Cyclonic Flow. IV-1

IV.3.2 EPA Method 3 – O2 and CO2 Determination for Molecular Weight ...... IV-2

IV.3.3 EPA Method 4 for Moisture Determination ........................................... IV-2

IV.3.4 EPA Methods 29 Mercury, & Particulate Matter Determination............ IV-2

Section V ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES ............................................................. V-1

V.1 EPA Method 29 – Mercury ............................................................................ V-1

V.2 Particulate Matter .......................................................................................... V-1

Section VI SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................... VI-1

Section VII QUALITY ASSURANCE..................................................................... VII-1

VII.1 Overview...................................................................................................... VII-1

VII.2 Field Quality Control Summary.................................................................... VII-1

VII.2.1 Calibration Procedures ........................................................................ VII-1

VII.2.2 Equipment Leak Checks...................................................................... VII-1

VII.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check ........................................................................... VII-1

VII.2.4 Sample Handling Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................... VII-1

VII.3 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting ................................................. VII-2

VII.3.1 Field Data Reduction ........................................................................... VII-2

VII.3.2 Data Validation .................................................................................... VII-2

VII.3.3 Data Reporting..................................................................................... VII-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

159651 ii 

APENDICES 

Appendix A Field Sampling Data Sheets 

Appendix B Computer Calculations 

Appendix C Analytical Data Package 

Appendix D Calibration Information 

Appendix E Correspondence 

Appendix F Test Protocol 

Appendix G NDEP-BAPC Excel Spreadsheets 

TABLES 

Table VI-1 WESP Parameter Summary – Inlet Location ..........................................VI-2 

Table VI-2 WESP Mercury Emissions Summary – Inlet Location.............................VI-3 

Table VI-3 WESP Parameter Summary – Outlet Location........................................VI-4 

Table VI-4 WESP Mercury Emissions Summary – Outlet Location..........................VI-5 

FIGURES 

Figure II-1 Coeur Rochester, Inc. – Refinery Furnace Process Flow Diagram.......... II-2

Figure III-1 Inlet Sampling Location ........................................................................... III-4

Figure III-2 Outlet Sampling Location ........................................................................ III-5
INTRODUCTION 

159651 I-1 

SECTION I INTRODUCTION 

I.1 Overview 

Coeur Rochester, Inc. (CRI) operates the Rochester and Nevada Packard precious 

metals mines and processing facilities in Pershing County, Nevada. The facility is 

located approximately 12 miles east of Interstate Highway 80, Exit 119 in the 

Humboldt Range. 

During the week of May 12, 2008, CRI performed a Compliance Test Program (CTP) 

on the Refinery Furnace. The CTP required sampling both the inlet and outlet of the 

furnace’s wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP). This test program required 

simultaneous sampling of both locations. The emissions results obtained from this 

sampling program are used to document the removal efficiency of the WESP. The 

parameters of concern for the CTP were mercury (Hg), and particulate matter. 

The emission levels for the stated parameters, at both the inlet and the outlet of the 

WESP, were determined using EPA Method 29 (M29). M29 is applicable to the 

determination of metals emissions from stationary sources. M29 allows for the 

determination of particulate matter following the procedures detailed in Sections 8.2 

and 8.3 pertaining to the recovery and handling of the particulate filter and the 

front-half acetone rinse. 

The project was under the direction of Mr. Joseph C. Zuzolo of TRC’s Salt Lake City, 

Utah office. The field crew consisted of Mr. Zuzolo along with Masseurs Mark Patrick, 

George Huner, and Jim McSweeney. 
PROCESS AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT SITE BACKGOUND 

159651 II-1 

SECTION II PROCESS AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT SITE BACKGROUND 

CRI operates the Rochester and Nevada Packard precious metals mines and 

processing facilities in Pershing County, Nevada. The mine administration and 

precious metals recovery complex is accessed by exiting Interstate Highway 80 at 

Exit 119; then traveling east approximately twelve (12) miles to the top of the 

Humboldt Range. 

Construction, pre-production mining operations and the first pour of silver dore’ (low 

purity silver bars) were completed in September 1986. Through April 2007, over 

183.9 million tons of ore were mined and placed on three heap leach pads. Precious 

metals were, and continue to be, recovered by the Merrill-Crowe zinc precipitate 

processing of conventional heap leach pregnant process solution. Refining of the 

precious metals sludge to produce dore’ occurs in the onsite refinery furnace. 

Mining operations at CRI were suspended in August 2007. Residual leaching of ore 

placed on lined heaps, and precious metals recovery, will continue for approximately 

three to five years. 

The precious metals refining process includes two thermal sources that have the 

potential to emit mercury: 

3⁄4 Two new mercury retorts (installed CY2006) whose emissions are 

controlled by a carbon filtration system, and 

3⁄4 A melting furnace whose emissions are controlled by a wet electrostatic 

precipitator (WESP) (see Figure II-1) 

The results of the CTP presented in this document are for the WESP. No testing was 

performed on the mercury retorts during the project conducted the week of 12 May 

2008. 
PROCESS AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT SITE BACKGOUND 

159651 II-2 

Figure II-1 Coeur Rochester, Inc. – Refinery Furnace 

Process Flow Diagram 

 Fan

To Barren Sump

To Atmosphere

Refinery Furnace

 Fume Hood

Venturi WESP

WESP Inlet Test Location 

WESP Outlet Test Location 
Sampling Objectives 

159651 III-1 

SECTION III SAMPLING OBJECTIVES 

III.1 Testing Activities 

The field crew arrived on-site the morning of May 11, 2008. After receiving sitespecific training, the lab trailer was positioned and set-up of equipment on the both 

the inlet and outlet test locations was completed. The following morning testing of 

the refinery furnace was initiated. The following sub-section presents a detailed 

description of the refinery furnace testing. 

III.1.1 Refinery Furnace/Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) Testing 

The “Refinery Furnace/WESP System” consists of a refinery furnace vented to 

a fume hood. Effluent gases pass through and abatement system consisting 

of a venturi-scrubber, induced draft fan (ID fan), and a wet electrostatic 

precipitator (WESP) prior to exhausting through a 44 X 44 inch exhaust stack 

(see Figure II-1). 

Sampling was performed in the ductwork between the ID fan and the WESP 

(inlet); and the WESP exhaust (outlet). Sampling at these two locations were 

performed simultaneously to insure an accurate determination of the WESP’s 

operational efficiency in the removal of both mercury and particulate matter. 

The inlet location was sampled through six (6), 4-inch diameter ports located 

along the top of the 15 X 56 inch (rectangular) duct (Figure III-1). Four (4) 

points were sampled in each port for a total of twenty-four (24) points. For 

Run 1 each point was sampled for five minutes resulting in a total sampling 

time of 120 minutes. Sampling time per point was reduced for Runs 2 and 3 

to four minutes, resulting in a total sampling time of 96 minutes. This 

reduction was necessary to ensure the completion of Runs 2 and 3 within the 

operational time of the furnace. Refer to the Deviation Report at the 

beginning of this document for a more detailed explanation. 

A cyclonic flow check was performed on the inlet location at the completion of 

Run 1. See Appendix A for the field data sheet. Null angle measured 

readings indicated a less than ideal sampling location. Although the 

configuration of the inlet test location does not have the characteristics that 

would induce cyclonic flow, the configuration does have the characteristics 

which would cause erratic flue gas flow. The measured null angles do verify 

that this sampling location is subjected to erratic flow. Although the cyclonic 

flow check indicated an erratic flow profile, the calculated flue gas mass flow 

rates at this location for Runs 1 through 3 were extremely consistent (see 

Appendix B). 

The outlet location was sampled through three (3) 4-inch diameter ports 

located along a single side of the 44 X 44 inch (square) exhaust stack (Figure 

III-2). Eight (8) points were sampled in each port for a total of twenty-four 

(24) points. For Run 1 each point was sampled for five (5) minutes resulting 
Sampling Objectives 

159651 III-2 

in a total sampling time of 120 minutes. Sampling time per point was 

reduced for Runs 2 and 3 to four minutes, resulting in a total sampling time of 

96 minutes. This reduction was necessary to ensure the completion of Runs 2 

and 3 within the operational time of the furnace. Refer to the Deviation 

Report at the beginning of this document for a more detailed explanation. 

A cyclonic flow check was performed on the outlet location at the completion 

of Run 1. See Appendix A for the field data sheet. Null angle measured 

readings indicated the absence of cyclonic flow. See Appendix A for the field 

data sheet. 

On May 12, 2008 the refinery furnace was loaded with a total of 3592 dry pounds 

(1629.3 dry kilograms) of dry precipitate. Prior to the initiation of Run 1, it was 

decided to perform some preliminary flue gas moisture measurements at the inlet 

sampling location. Unfamiliarity with this sampling location and the injection of 

water into the gas stream just upstream for this sampling location pointed out the 

need to insure that the gas stream was not over-saturated causing an adverse affect 

to the M29 sampling. 

An initial wet bulb/dry bulb measurement was made. Results from this 

measurement gave a wet bulb temperature of 128° F, and a dry bulb temperature of 

208° F. Use of a saturation table (included in Appendix A) indicated a saturation 

moisture of 17.9 % (corrected for facility elevation). Following this measurement, 

an EPA Method 4 train was prepared and a short moisture sample was collected. 

Results from this moisture sample verified the flue gas moisture content calculated 

from the wet bulb/dry bulb measurement. Following these preliminary moisture 

measurements Run 1 was started at 09:00 hours at both the inlet and outlet 

location. 

During this run, sampling was interrupted on the inlet location at 10:01 hours to 

remove and replace the particulate filter. This procedure was necessary due to the 

high sampling vacuum reached at approximately one hour into sampling. This high 

sampling vacuum, which had steadily increased since the start of the run, was due to 

the build-up of particulate matter on the filter. The initial filter and housing was 

removed and replaced between the third and fourth port. A leak check was 

performed prior to the removal of this component. Sampling was re-initiated at 

10:06 hours. 

Run 1 was completed at 11:09 hours at the outlet sampling location and at 11:19 

hours at the inlet. No additional runs were performed on this day. 

On May 13, 2008 the refinery furnace was loaded with a total of 3681 dry pounds 

(1669.7 dry kilograms) of dry precipitate. Run 2 was started at 07:27 hours at both 

locations. Sampling at the outlet was completed at 09:09 hours and at the inlet at 

09:16 hours. A change out of the filter at the inlet location was not necessary during 

Run 2. The sampling vacuum during this run did not reach a level which would have 

necessitated a filter replacement. 
Sampling Objectives 

159651 III-3 

Run 3 was started at 10:02 hours at both locations. During Run 3, the sampling 

vacuum at the inlet location again increased during the sampling and reached a level 

which required a filter change. The inlet sampling was stopped at 11:13 hours 

(between the fourth and fifth port) to remove and replace the filter and housing. A 

leak check was performed prior to the removal of this component. Sampling was reinitiated at 11:24 hours. 

Run 3 was completed at 11:46 hours at the outlet sampling location and at 11:58 

hours at the inlet. No additional runs were performed on this day. 

 
Sampling Objectives 

159651 III-4 

Figure III-1 Inlet Sampling Location 
Sampling Objectives 

159651 III-5 

Figure III-2 Outlet Sampling Location 
Sampling Methods and Procedures 

159651 IV-1 

SECTION IV SAMPLING METHODS AND PROCEDURES 

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

program. 

IV.1 Field Program Description 

The field sampling was conducted by TRC over a three day period. On the first day 

equipment was set up. Preliminary measurements were performed at the inlet 

sampling location and one test was performed during the second day. Two tests 

were performed on day three. Equipment tear-down was performed following 

sampling. 

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

A: 

3⁄4 EPA Method 1 “Sample Velocity Traverse for Stationary Sources”, 

3⁄4 EPA Method 2 “Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric 

Flow Rate (Type S Pitot tube)”, 

3⁄4 EPA Method 3 “Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular 

Weight”, 

3⁄4 EPA Method 4 “Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases”, 

3⁄4 EPA Method 29 “Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary 

Sources” (Mercury, selected metals, & particulate 

matter only), 

IV.2 Pre-sampling Activities 

Pre-sampling activities included equipment calibration, pre-cleaning of the sample 

train glassware, and other miscellaneous tasks. Each of these activities is described 

in detail in the Test Protocol (Appendix F). Other pre-sampling activities included a 

team meeting, equipment packing, and finalization of all details leading up to the 

coordinated initiation of the sampling program. 

IV.3 On-site Sampling Activities 

Onsite sampling activities will include the emissions testing of the previously 

mentioned outlet stacks and collection of operational data. 

IV.3.1 EPA Methods 1 and 2 for Velocity Measurements and Cyclonic 

Flow 

Velocity traverses were conducted in conjunction with the M29 sampling. 

Measurements were taken with an S-type Pitot, thermocouple and nozzle 

assembly in accordance with EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2. The required 
Sampling Methods and Procedures 

159651 IV-2 

numbers of velocity measurements points for each sampling location were 

determined following EPA Method 1. 

Cyclonic flow checks were conducted at the two sampling locations. 

IV.3.2 EPA Method 3 – O2 and CO2 Determination for Molecular Weight 

Oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations were determined at the sampling 

location for each test run a bag sampling system in accordance with EPA 

Method 3, "Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight". 

Sample gas was pumped directly into a Fyrite analyzer. 

The results were used in the calculation of the flue gas molecular weight for 

determining volumetric flow rate. 

IV.3.3 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 EPA Method 29 sampling test runs. 

IV.3.4 EPA Methods 29 Mercury, & Particulate Matter Determination 

Sampling trains at the inlet and outlet of the WESP for the determination of 

mercury, and particulate matter were operated simultaneously in accordance 

with EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals from Stationary Sources”. 

Mercury was be determined using all fractions of the sample train. Particulate 

matter was determined using the front-half acetone rinse and the filter. 

A complete description of the Method 29 sampling train is presented in the 

Test Protocol (Appendix F). 

Following the completion of each test run, the EPA Method 29 train was leak 

checked and then transported to the recovery trailer. The sample recovery 

sequence was as follows: 

1. The condition of the sampling train (i.e., filter, impinger contents 

color, silica gel color, etc.) was checked. 

2. The front-half of the train, nozzle, probe and front-half filter 

housing was brush-rinsed as follows: 

a. The front-half components were rinsed and brushed 3 times 

with acetone and collected in a glass container. This 

container was sealed and labeled. 
Sampling Methods and Procedures 

159651 IV-3 

b. Following the acetone cleaning the front-half components 

were rinsed with 100 milliliters of 0.1N nitric acid collected 

into an amber glass container with a Teflon®-lined cap. The 

container was sealed and labeled. 

3. The filter housing was disassembled and the filter was transferred 

to its original Petri dish. The Petri dish was sealed with Teflon®

tape and labeled with the appropriate sample information. 

4. The contents of the first two impingers were weighed within ±0.5 

grams by using a balance (this information was used to calculate 

the moisture content of the effluent gas). Following this weighing, 

the contents were transferred to an amber glass container with a 

Teflon®-lined cap. The impingers, back-half filter housing, right 

angle, and U-tubes were rinsed with 100 milliliters of 0.1N nitric 

acid into the sample container. The container was sealed and 

labeled. 

5. The contents of the third impinger were weighed to within ±0.5 

grams by using a balance (this information will be used to calculate 

the moisture content of the effluent gas). Following this weighing, 

the contents were transferred to an amber glass container with a 

Teflon®-lined cap. The impinger and U-tubes were rinsed with 100 

milliliters of 0.1N nitric acid into a sample container. The container 

was sealed and labeled. 

6. The contents of the fourth and fifth impingers were weighed to 

within ±0.5 grams by using a balance (this information will be used 

to calculate the moisture content of the effluent gas). Following 

this weighing, the contents were transferred to an amber glass 

container with a Teflon®-lined cap. The impingers and U-tubes 

were rinsed with 100 milliliters of acidified potassium 

permanganate solution combined in the sample container. The 

impingers and U-tubes were then rinsed with 100 milliliters of 

deionized water into the same container. The container was then 

sealed and labeled. 

7. The fourth and fifth impingers and connecting U-tubes were rinsed 

with 25 milliliters of 8N hydrochloric acid. This rinse was 

transferred to an amber glass container containing 100 milliliters of 

deionized water. The container was sealed and labeled. 

8. The sixth silica-gel impinger was weighed to within ±0.5 grams 

using a balance. The gain in weight was used for moisture 

calculations. 
Sampling Methods and Procedures 

159651 IV-4 

9. All containers were checked to ensure proper sealing, proper 

labeling and that all liquid levels are marked. All samples were 

logged onto a chain-of-custody record. 

The EPA Method 29 train produced the following samples: 

1. Filter, 

2. Front-half rinses, 

a. Acetone rinse for particulate matter determination, 

b. 0.1N nitric acid rinse for mercury, 

3. Impingers 1 & 2 catch and 0.1N nitric acid rinse, 

4. Impinger 3 catch and 0.1N nitric acid rinse, 

5. Impingers 4 and 5 catch and acidified potassium permanganate 

rinse, and 

6. Impingers 4 and 5, 8N HCl acid rinse. 
Analytical Procedures 

159651 V-1 

SECTION V ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

At the conclusion of the field effort, TRC transported all the samples to the Salt Lake 

City office. TRC performed particulate matter gravimetric analysis on all the samples 

(front-half acetone rinse and filter), while maintaining chain-of-custody on the 

remaining fractions of the samples. At the completion of the particulate matter 

gravimetric analysis all the samples were transported to Test America, located in 

West Sacramento, California for mercury analysis. 

V.1 EPA Method 29 – Mercury 

Each sample train’s sample will be analyzed for 5 fractions of mercury. The 

recovered samples were digested according to the procedures detailed in the 

individual method. Following the digestion the appropriate fractions were analyzed 

for mercury by cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS), SW-846 Method 

7470A. The procedure is based on the absorption of radiation at 253.7-nm by 

mercury vapor. The mercury is reduced to the elemental state and aerated from 

solution in a closed system. The mercury vapor passes through a cell positioned in 

the light path of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Absorbance (peak height) 

is measured as a function of mercury concentration. 

V.2 Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter analysis was determined gravimetrically. During pre-sampling 

activities the quartz filters were weighed (tared) according to the procedures detailed 

in EPA Method 5, Section 8.1.3. 

Following sampling the quartz filters were weighed (final) according to EPA Method 5, 

Section 11.2.1. The front-half acetone rinse were transferred to a weighed (tared) 

Teflon® beaker and brought to dryness without the use of external heat. Upon 

reaching dryness, the beakers were desiccated and weighed (final) according to EPA 

Method 5, Section 11.2.2. The difference between the final and tared weights for 

both the filters and beakers were used to calculate particulate matter emissions. 

Following this gravimetric procedure, the filters were returned to their containers. 

The dried residue contained in the beakers was re-dissolved following the procedure 

detailed in EPA Method 29, Section 8.3.2. Both the filter and the re-dissolved 

acetone front-half rinse were used for mercury analysis. 
Summary of Results 

159651 VI-1 

SECTION VI SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

The following tables present the results of the mercury and particulate matter 

sampling performed on the inlet and outlet of the WESP. 

The following is a list of the tables presenting the test parameters, and the mercury 

and particulate matter emissions for the inlet and outlet testing locations. 

3⁄4 Table VI-1 WESP Parameter Summary – Inlet Location 

3⁄4 Table VI-2 WESP Mercury Emission Summary - Inlet Location 

3⁄4 Table VI-3 WESP Parameter Summary – Outlet Location 

3⁄4 Table VI-4 WESP Mercury Emission Summary - Outlet Location 
159651 VI-2 

Table VI-1 WESP Parameter Summary – Inlet Locatio

EPA METHOD 29 

Run Number 1 2 3 

Run Date 12-May-08 13-May-08 

Run Times 0900 - 1119 0727 - 0916 1002 - 11

SYMBOL UNITS 

Total Sampling Time min minutes 120 96 96 Stack Gas Oxygen Content O2 % 20.5 20.5 20.5 Stack Gas Carbon Dioxide Content CO2 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Moisture Bws % 15.52 15.10 17.19 Isokinetic Rate I % 98.76 100.34 102.07 Average Stack Temperature ts deg F 173.7 161.8 191.2 Average Meter Temperature tm deg F 61.5 64.3 78.3 Avg Velocity Head dP in. H2O 0.34 0.34 0.34 Avg Delta H dH in. H2O 1.30 1.37 1.33 Gas Sample Volume Vm cu. ft. 85.620 70.720 70.510 

Vm(std) cu. ft. 69.847 57.756 56.084 

Gas Sample Volume at Standard Conditions, 

cu. m. 1.977 1.635 1.588 

Vs ft/sec 40.21 39.70 40.69 

Stack Gas Velocity m/sec 12.26 12.10 12.40 

Qsd dscf/min 7,581.9 7,713.9 7,363.5 

Dry Stack Gas Flow Rate (Dry, STP), 

dscm/min 214.64 218.38 208.46 
159651 VI-3 

Table VI-2 WESP Mercury Emission Summary - Inlet Loca

EPA METHOD 29 

 Run Number 1 2 3 

Run Date 12-May-08 13-May-08 

Run Times 0900 - 1119 0727 - 0916 1002 - 1158 

UNITS 

Mercury (Hg) - Particulate Bound mg 0.0167 0.1150 0.0051 

mg/m3 8.45E-03 7.03E-02 3.21E-03 

lb/hr 2.40E-04 2.03E-03 8.86E-05 

Mercury (Hg) - Gaseous mg 2.4930 5.8035 1.0402 

mg/m3 1.26E+00 3.55E+00 6.55E-01 

lb/hr 3.58E-02 1.03E-01 1.81E-02 

Mercury (Hg) - Total mg 2.5097 5.9185 1.0453 

mg/m3 1.27E+00 3.62E+00 6.58E-01 

lb/hr 3.60E-02 1.05E-01 1.82E-02 

Total Particulate Collected mg 446.40 95.60 382.40 

Grain Loading gr/dscf 0.0984 0.0255 0.1050 Grain Loading g/dscm 0.2258 0.0585 0.2408 

Emission Rate lb/hr 6.396 1.685 6.627 
159651 VI-4 

Table VI-3 WESP Parameter Summary – Outlet Locatio

EPA METHOD 29 

Run Number 1 2 3 

Run Date 12-May-08 13-May-08 

Run Times 0900 - 1119 0727 - 0916 1002 - 11

SYMBOL UNITS 

Total Sampling Time min minutes 120 96 96 Stack Gas Oxygen Content O2 % 20.5 20.5 20.5 Stack Gas Carbon Dioxide Content CO2 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Moisture Bws % 4.57 5.17 5.15 Isokinetic Rate I % 96.89 99.16 97.66 Average Stack Temperature ts deg F 81.6 81.7 82.9 Average Meter Temperature tm deg F 55.8 64.3 74.3 Avg Velocity Head dP in. H2O 0.04 0.04 0.04 Avg Delta H dH in. H2O 2.16 2.00 1.92 Gas Sample Volume Vm cu. ft. 108.751 84.933 91.927 

Vm(std) cu. ft. 69.847 89.367 69.063 

Gas Sample Volume at Standard Conditions, 

cu. m. 1.977 2.530 1.955 

Vs ft/sec 40.21 13.06 12.32 

Stack Gas Velocity m/sec 12.26 3.98 3.76 

Qsd dscf/min 7,581.9 7,824.6 7,385.4 

Dry Stack Gas Flow Rate (Dry, STP), 

dscm/min 214.64 221.52 209.08 
159651 VI-5 

Table VI-4 WESP Mercury Emission Summary - Outlet Loc

EPA METHOD 29 

 Run Number 1 2 3 

Run Date 12-May-08 13-May-08 

Run Times 0900 - 1119 0727 - 0916 1002 - 1158 

UNITS 

Mercury (Hg) - Particulate Bound mg 0.0425 0.0033 0.0147 

mg/m3 1.68E-02 1.69E-03 7.93E-03 

lb/hr 4.92E-04 4.67E-05 2.11E-04 

Mercury (Hg) - Gaseous mg 1.8801 3.0898 0.5801 

mg/m3 7.43E-01 1.58E+00 3.13E-01 

lb/hr 2.18E-02 4.37E-02 8.33E-03 

Mercury (Hg) - Total mg 1.9226 3.0931 0.5948 

mg/m3 7.60E-01 1.58E+00 3.21E-01 

lb/hr 2.23E-02 4.38E-02 8.54E-03 

Total Particulate Collected mg 65.10 8.60 55.10 

Grain Loading gr/dscf 0.0112 0.0019 0.0130 Grain Loading g/dscm 0.0257 0.0044 0.0297 

Emission Rate lb/hr 0.752 0.121 0.790 
Quality Assurance 

159651 VII-1 

SECTION VII QUALITY ASSURANCE 

VII.1 Overview 

This section highlights the specific QA/QC procedures that were followed on this test 

program and described in more detail in the Test Protocol. 

VII.2 Field Quality Control Summary 

VII.2.1 Calibration Procedures 

Calibrations of the field sampling equipment were performed prior to the field 

sampling effort. Copies of the calibration sheets are presented in Appendix D. 

VII.2.2 Equipment Leak Checks 

Prior to sampling, each M29 and OHM sampling train was 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. Both pre-test and posttest leak checks were performed All leakage rates were recorded on the 

appropriate field data sheet. 

All leakage rates were less than the allowable limit. 

VII.2.3 Cyclonic Flow Check 

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

sampling in the mercury retort system. No cyclonic flow check was 

performed on the WESP since the stack configuration did not induce cyclonic 

flow. 

VII.2.4 Sample Handling Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

Shipping and Packing of Samples - All samples were transported to TRC’s 

Salt Lake City office for IATA packaging and shipment to Test America 

Laboratory, West Sacramento, California. The samples were shipped by overnight delivery service. 

Sample Traceability and Integrity – Traceability of all the samples were 

maintained using completed Chain of Custody forms. 

Sample integrity was maintained throughout the testing program by insuring 

that the samples were: 

3⁄4 In a person's physical possession, and/or 

3⁄4 In direct view of a person after acquiring possession, and/or 

3⁄4 Secured by a person in the field laboratory trailer. 
Quality Assurance 

159651 VII-2 

Labeling - Sample identification labels were used by TRC to ensure that the 

required information was affixed to every sample container. This information 

identified each container as to its sample type, test run, and sample fraction. 

When the sample batches were shipped, a sample-packing list accompanied 

the shipment. 

Integrity Seals - Integrity seals were used during shipping to detect 

unauthorized sample handling. The seal included, at a minimum, the date 

and time the shipping container was sealed along with the signature of the 

person who packed the containers. 

Chain-of-Custody Procedures - When the sampling trains were broken 

down and various samples recovered, the samples were recorded on the 

Chain-of-Custody Form. All chain-of-custody sheets are maintained by TRC. 

VII.3 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 

Specific QC measures were used to ensure the generation of accurate and reliable 

data. 

VII.3.1 Field Data Reduction 

Appendix A contains copies of the raw field data. This collected data was 

reviewed in the field by the Field Team Leader. Any errors or discrepancies 

were corrected and initialed. An additional in-house review of the raw data 

was conducted. 

Appendix B contains the computer-generated calculation package. This 

package incorporates all the required raw data and calculations. The data 

collected was reviewed in the field by the Field Team Leader. Errors or 

discrepancies identified were noted on the field data sheet and in the field 

book. 

VII.3.2 Data Validation 

The following criterion was used to evaluate the field sampling data: 

3⁄4 Use of approved test procedures; 

3⁄4 Proper operation of the process being tested; 

3⁄4 Use of properly operating and calibrated equipment; 

3⁄4 Leak checks conducted before and after tests; 

3⁄4 Proper chain-of-custody maintained. 

The criterion listed below was used to evaluate the analytical data: 

3⁄4 Use of approved analytical procedures; 

3⁄4 Use of properly operating and calibrated instrumentation; 
Quality Assurance 

159651 VII-3 

3⁄4 Acceptable results from analyses of QC samples. 

VII.3.3 Data Reporting 

All data is reported in standard units depending on the measurement and the 

ultimate use of the data.