# 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 141 st 

## Place N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072



# July 2008159651 

### 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 141 st 

### 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 misi nterpreted by third persons or entities who were not involved in the investigative or consultation pr ocess. 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 purpose159651 

## D E V I A T I O N R E P O R T

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 samp ling time for all runs at both inlet and
outlet test locations wo uld 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 exce ss 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 operatio nal 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 woul d not allow for completing 2 runs at the specified 120 minute sampling duration. Sh orting 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 dete rmined 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 proced ure was presented to the NDEP and approved prior to initiating Run 2.

No additional devi ations 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 – O 2 

### and CO 2 

### 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-3TABLE 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-5INTRODUCTION

159651 I-1 

### SECTION I INTRODUCT ION

I.1 Overview

Coeur Rochester, Inc. (CRI) operates th e 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 perf ormed a Compliance Test Program (CTP) on the Refinery Furnace. Th e 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 st ationary 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 ha ndling of the particulate filter and the

front-half acetone rinse.

The project was under the direction of Mr. Jo seph 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 EQUI PMENT 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 plac ed 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 (install ed CY2006) whose emissions are controlled by a carbon filtration system, and

3⁄4 A melting furnace whose em issions are controlled by a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) (see Figure II-1 )

The results of the CTP presen ted in this document are for the WESP. No testing was performed on the mercury retorts during th e 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 WESP Venturi

WESP Inlet Test Location WESP Outlet Test LocationSampling Objectives

159651 III-1 

### SECTION III SAMPLING OBJ ECTIVES

III.1 Testing Activities

The field crew arrived on-site the mornin g of May 11, 2008. After receiving sitespecific training, the lab trailer was positi oned and set-up of eq uipment on the both the inlet and outlet test locations was comp leted. 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” consis ts of a refinery furnace vented to a fume hood. Effluent ga ses 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 pe r 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 co mpletion of Runs 2 and 3 within the operational time of the furnace. Re fer to the Deviation Report at the beginning of this document fo r a more detailed explanation.

A cyclonic flow check was performed on th e inlet location at the completion of Run 1. See Appendix A for the fiel d 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 config uration 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. Al though the cyclonic
flow check indicated an erra tic flow profile, the calc ulated flue gas mass flow
rates at this location for Runs 1 thro ugh 3 were extremely consistent (see Appendix B).

The outlet location was sampled thro ugh 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 resultingSampling 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 fi eld 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 prel iminary 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 fo r this sampling location pointed out the need to insure that the gas stream was no t 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 partic ulate 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 increase d 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 co mponent. Sampling was re-initiated at
10:06 hours.

Run 1 was completed at 11:09 hours at th e 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 star ted 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 in let sampling was stopped at 11:13 hours (between the fourth and fifth port) to remo ve and replace the filt er and housing. Aleak 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 th e 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 LocationSampling Objectives

159651 III-5 

## Figure III-2 Outlet Sampling LocationSampling Methods and Procedures

159651 IV-1 

### SECTION IV SAMPLING ME THODS AND PROCEDURES

This section describes the procedures th at 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 meas urements were performed at the inlet sampling location and one te st was performed during the second day. Two tests were performed on day three. Equipm ent 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 includ ed equipment calibration, pre-cleaning of the sample train glassware, and ot her 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 finali zation 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-ty pe Pitot, thermocouple and nozzle assembly in accordance with EPA Refe rence Methods 1 and 2. The requiredSampling 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 conduc ted at the two sampling locations.



### IV.3.2 EPA Method 3 – O 2 

### and CO 2 

### Determination for Molecular Weight

Oxygen and carbon dioxide concentratio ns were determined at the sampling location for each test run a bag samp ling system in accordance with EPA
Method 3, " Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight ". Sample gas was pumped direct ly 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 te st run according to EPA Reference
Method 4, " Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases ". The principle

of this method is to remove the mo isture 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 op erated simultaneously in accordance
with EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals from Stationary Sources”

. Mercury was be determined using all fracti ons of the sample train. Particulate matter was determined using the front- half acetone rins e 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 reco very 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 mi lliliters 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 disassemble d 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 fi rst 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 wi th 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 info rmation 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 an d 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 cont ainer. 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 contai ner 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 particul ate 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 ANALYTI CAL 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 accordin g to the procedures detailed in the

individual method. Followin g the digestion the appropriat e fractions were analyzed for mercury by cold vapor atomic absorp tion spectroscopy (CVAAS), SW-846 Method 7470A. The procedure is based on the ab sorption 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 (t ared) 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-ha lf acetone rinse were transferred to a weighed (tared)

Teflon ® beaker and brought to dryness withou t the use of external heat. Upon reaching dryness, the beaker s were desiccated and weighe d (final) according to EPA
Method 5, Section 11.2.2. The differenc e between the final and tared weights for

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

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

The dried residue contained in the beaker s 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 O F RESULTS

The following tables present the result s of the mercury and particulate matter sampling performed on the inle t 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 LocationSummary of Results159651VI-2Table VI-1 WESP Parameter Summary – Inlet LocationEPA METHOD 29Run Number123Run Date12-May-0813-May-08Run Times0900 - 11190727 - 09161002 - 1158SYMBOLUNITSTotal Sampling Timeminminutes1209696Stack Gas Oxygen ContentO2%20.520.520.5Stack Gas Carbon Dioxide ContentCO2%0.00.00.0AveragePercent MoistureBws%15.5215.1017.1915.94Isokinetic RateI%98.76100.34102.07100.39Average Stack Temperaturetsdeg F173.7161.8191.2175.56Average Meter Temperaturetmdeg F61.564.378.368.03Avg Velocity HeaddPin. H2O0.340.340.340.34Avg Delta HdHin. H2O1.301.371.331.34Gas Sample VolumeVmcu. ft.85.62070.72070.51075.62Vm(std)cu. ft.69.84757.75656.08461.23Gas Sample Volume at Standard Conditions,cu. m.1.9771.6351.5881.73Vsft/sec40.2139.7040.6940.20Stack Gas Velocitym/sec12.2612.1012.4012.25Qsddscf/min7,581.97,713.97,363.57553.08Dry Stack Gas Flow Rate (Dry, STP),dscm/min214.64218.38208.46213.83Summary of Results159651VI-3Table VI-2 WESP Mercury Emission Summary - Inlet LocationEPA METHOD 29Run Number123Run Date12-May-0813-May-08Run Times0900 - 11190727 - 09161002 - 1158UNITSAverageMercury (Hg) - Particulate Boundmg0.01670.11500.00510.0456mg/m38.45E-037.03E-023.21E-032.73E-02lb/hr2.40E-042.03E-038.86E-057.87E-04Mercury (Hg) - Gaseousmg2.49305.80351.04023.1122mg/m31.26E+003.55E+006.55E-011.82E+00lb/hr3.58E-021.03E-011.81E-025.21E-02Mercury (Hg) - Totalmg2.50975.91851.04533.1578mg/m31.27E+003.62E+006.58E-011.85E+00lb/hr3.60E-021.05E-011.82E-025.29E-02Total Particulate Collectedmg446.4095.60382.40308.13Grain Loadinggr/dscf0.09840.02550.10500.0763Grain Loadingg/dscm0.22580.05850.24080.1750Emission Ratelb/hr6.3961.6856.6274.903Summary of Results159651VI-4Table VI-3 WESP Parameter Summary – Outlet LocationEPA METHOD 29Run Number123Run Date12-May-0813-May-08Run Times0900 - 11190727 - 09161002 - 1158SYMBOLUNITSTotal Sampling Timeminminutes1209696Stack Gas Oxygen ContentO2%20.520.520.5Stack Gas Carbon Dioxide ContentCO2%0.00.00.0AveragePercent MoistureBws%4.575.175.154.96Isokinetic RateI%96.8999.1697.6697.90Average Stack Temperaturetsdeg F81.681.782.982.04Average Meter Temperaturetmdeg F55.864.374.364.79Avg Velocity HeaddPin. H2O0.040.040.040.04Avg Delta HdHin. H2O2.162.001.922.03Gas Sample VolumeVmcu. ft.108.75184.93391.92791.927Vm(std)cu. ft.69.84789.36769.06374.642Gas Sample Volume at Standard Conditions,cu. m.1.9772.5301.9551.854Vsft/sec40.2113.0612.3211.89Stack Gas Velocitym/sec12.263.983.763.62Qsddscf/min7,581.97,824.67,385.47,111.7Dry Stack Gas Flow Rate (Dry, STP),dscm/min214.64221.52209.08201.33Summary of Results159651VI-5Table VI-4 WESP Mercury Emission Summary - Outlet LocationEPA METHOD 29Run Number123Run Date12-May-0813-May-08Run Times0900 - 11190727 - 09161002 - 1158UNITSAverageMercury (Hg) - Particulate Boundmg0.04250.00330.01470.0202mg/m31.68E-021.69E-037.93E-038.80E-03lb/hr4.92E-044.67E-052.11E-042.50E-04Mercury (Hg) - Gaseousmg1.88013.08980.58011.8500mg/m37.43E-011.58E+003.13E-018.79E-01lb/hr2.18E-024.37E-028.33E-032.46E-02Mercury (Hg) - Totalmg1.92263.09310.59481.8702mg/m37.60E-011.58E+003.21E-018.88E-01lb/hr2.23E-024.38E-028.54E-032.49E-02Total Particulate Collectedmg65.108.6055.1042.93Grain Loadinggr/dscf0.01120.00190.01300.0087Grain Loadingg/dscm0.02570.00440.02970.0199Emission Ratelb/hr0.7520.1210.7900.555Quality Assurance

159651 VII-1 

### SECTION VII QUALITY ASSU RANCE

VII.1 Overview

This section highlights the specific QA/QC pr ocedures 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 equipm ent 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 OH M 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 wa s conducted before and after every test, or if replacement of a component became necessary. Both pre-test and posttest leak checks were performed Al l 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 syst em. No cyclonic flow check was performed on the WESP sinc e 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 pack aging 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 af ter 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 shippe d, 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 cont ainer was sealed along wi th 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. An y errors or discrepancies
were corrected and initialed. An additional in-house review of the raw data
was conducted.

Appendix B contains the computer-gen erated 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 unit s depending on the measurement and the
ultimate use of the data.