Source Emissions Testing Report 

Barrick Cortez, Inc. 

Hydrogen Cyanide Emissions 

Electrowinning Cells #1 & #2 

Cortez Mine 

Crescent Valley, Nevada 

Report prepared for: Report prepared by: 

Mr. Brent Downey 

Barrick Cortez, Inc. 

Star Route HC 66 Box 1250 

Crescent Valley, NV 89821 Matt McGregor 

 Technical Writer 

 

Test Dates: 

November 11 – 12, 2009 

APT Project: BAR9395 
Table of Contents 

1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 1

2. Methods........................................................................................... 1

3. Test Program Summary................................................................... 2

4. Test Method Details......................................................................... 2

5. Results......................................................................................... 3

Tables 

Table 1.1 : Testing Program Contact Personnel............................... 1

Table 3.1 : Sampling and Analytical Methods................................... 2

Table 5.1 : Test Results Summary, EW Cell #1........................... 4 

Table 5.2 : Test Results Summary, EW Cell #2........................... 4 

Appendices

Testing Parameters..................................................................... Appendix 1

Field Data...................................................................................... Appendix 2 

Laboratory Data............................................................................. Appendix 3

Calibration Data............................................................................. Appendix 4

Schematics................................................................................... Appendix 5
APT Project BAR9395 

Test Report – Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

page 1 

1. Introduction 

Air Pollution Testing, Inc. (APT) was contracted by Barrick Cortez, Inc. (Cortez) for source 

emissions test services conducted at the Cortez Mine facility located near Crescent Valley, 

Nevada. 

The purpose of the emissions testing program was to quantify the emission levels of 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) from two electrowinning (EW) cells (EW Cell #1 and EW Cell #2) 

currently in service at the facility. 

Contact personnel are provided in Table 1.1 below. 

Barrick Cortez, Inc. : Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

Emissions Testing Program Contact Personnel

Name, Title Company, Address Phone, FAX, email 

Mr. Brent Downey, 

Chief Environmental Engineer 

Barrick Cortez, Inc. 

Star Route HC 66 Box 1250 

Crescent Valley, Nevada 89821 

775-468-4547, 

775-468-4496, 

bdowney@barrick.com 

Mr. Frank Smith, 

Project Manager 

ALS Laboratory Group 

960 W Levoy Drive 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84123 

801-266-7700, 

801-268-9992, 

frank.smith@alsenviro.com 

Mr. Chris Keefe, 

Director of Operations 

Air Pollution Testing, Inc. 

5530 Marshall Street 

Arvada, Colorado 80002 

303-420-5949 ext. 24, 

303-420-5920, 

ckeefe@airtest.net

Table 1.1: Emissions Testing Program Contact Personnel 

2. Methods 

The test program was conducted in accordance with the following U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency source emissions test methods referenced in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix 

A. 

 Method 1 – Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources 

 Method 2 – Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate 

 Method 3 – Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight 
APT Project BAR9395 

Test Report – Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

page 2 

 Method 4 – Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases 

 CTM-033 Draft Method XHCN – Sampling and Analysis for Hydrogen Cyanide 

 Emissions from Stationary Sources 

3. Test Program Summary 

APT provided all necessary equipment and labor for the determination of all parameters 

detailed in Table 3.1 below. Integrated samples were collected for off-site analysis to 

determine the HCN content of the stack gas. 

At both EW cells, three 60-minute test runs were conducted. Each EW cell is controlled 

with a carbon bed. 

Barrick Cortez, Inc. : Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

Sampling and Analytical Methods

Parameter Sampling Method Analytical Method Laboratory 

gas flow Methods 1, 2 draft gauge, thermocouple, pitot tube 

O2 , CO2 Method 3 wet chemical (Orsat instrument) 

H2O Method 4 gravimetric 

APT, on-site

HCN CTM-033 Ion specific electrode (ISE) 

ALS Laboratory Group, 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Table 3.1: Sampling and Analytical Methods Summary

4. Test Method Details

Stack gas flow rate, diluent (oxygen and carbon dioxide) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) 

emissions were determined in accordance with EPA methods 1 – 4 and CTM-033 Draft 

Method XHCN. 

Each sampling period consisted of conducting a temperature and differential pressure 

traverse of the stack with a K-type thermocouple and an S-type pitot tube. Concurrently, a 

gas sample was extracted at an isokinetic flow rate for a sixty minute period. The gas 

passed through a nozzle, a heated glass probe, across a heated glass fiber filter, through a 

series of 4 chilled glass impingers, and through a calibrated dry gas meter. Please see 

Appendix 5 – Schematics for a diagram of the conditional test method sampling train. 
APT Project BAR9395 

Test Report – Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

page 3 

During each sampling run, a stack gas sample was collected in a clean, leak-free Tedlar 

bag for subsequent diluent analysis using an Orsat instrument. 

Prior to sampling, the first two impingers were seeded with 100 milliliters of 0.1N sodium 

hydroxide (NaOH). The third impinger was empty. The fourth impinger was seeded with 

250 grams of dried silica gel. 

The impingers were recovered along with NaOH rinses in a nalgene container for ion 

specific electrode (ISE) analysis. 

As a QA/QC measure, a reagent blank plus a train blank at each stack were analyzed and 

HCN was not detected. Analysis was conducted by ALS Laboratory Group in Salt Lake 

City, Utah who have current AIHA certification for HCN analysis. 

All of the above data were combined to calculate the stack gas velocity and volumetric flow 

rate in units of feet per second (ft/sec), actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), dry standard 

cubic feet per minute (dscfm), and pounds per hour (lb/hr). The stack gas HCN emissions 

were calculated in units of parts per million, dry volume basis (ppmvd) and pounds per hour 

(lb/hr). 

5. Results

The results of the testing are presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Any testing parameters not 

found in the tables may be found in Appendix 1 – Testing Parameters. 

°F – temperature, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

dscfm – dry standard (68°F, 1 atmosphere) cubic feet per minute 

H2O (%vw) – stack gas water vapor content (wet volume percent) 

lb/hr – pounds per hour 

ppmvd – parts per million, dry volume basis 

 
APT Project BAR9395 

Test Report – Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

page 4 

Barrick Cortez, Inc. – Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

Test Results Summary, EW Cell #1 (November 11 – 12, 2009)

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Average 

Date 11/11/09 11/12/09 11/12/09 

Start Time 16:34 9:29 12:38 

Stop Time 17:42 10:38 13:43 

Sampling Time (minutes) 60 60 60 60 

Stack Temp. (°F) 105 104 104 104 

Stack Flow (dscfm) 1,663 1,670 1,664 1,666 

H2O (%vw) 4.1 3.9 3.0 3.7 

% isokinetic 102.7 100.8 101.6 101.7 

Emissions Data 

HCN (ppmvd) 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.08 

HCN (lb/hr) 0.0008 0.0003 0.0007 0.0006 

Table 5.1: Test Results Summary, EW Cell #1 

Barrick Cortez, Inc. – Cortez Mine HCN Testing 

Test Results Summary, EW Cell #2 (November 12, 2009)

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Average 

Start Time 14:38 15:58 17:24 

Stop Time 15:42 17:03 18:31 

Sampling Time (minutes) 60 60 60 60 

Stack Temp. (°F) 105 102 102 103 

Stack Flow (dscfm) 1,583 1,671 1,636 1,630 

H2O (%vw) 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.4 

% isokinetic 102.4 99.6 98.5 100.2 

Emissions Data 

HCN (ppmvd) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 

HCN (lb/hr) 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 

Table 5.2: Test Results Summary, EW Cell #2 

Barrick Cortez, Inc.

Cortez Mine

Crescent Valley, NV

EW Cell #1

11/11/09-11/12/09

CTM-033 Draft Method XHCN

Run # 1 2 3 Average

date 11/11/09 11/12/09 11/12/09

start time 16:34 9:29 12:38

stop time 17:42 10:38 13:43

sampling time (minutes) 60.0 60.0 60.0

DS stack diameter (inches) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

√∆PAVG average (delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2

0.479 0.481 0.476 0.479

CP pitot tube constant (unitless) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

TS stack temp. (°F) 105 104 104 104

Pbar barometric pressure (mbar) 837 833 833 834

Pbar barometric pressure (" Hg) 24.72 24.60 24.60 24.64

Ps stack pressure (" H2O) -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15

Yd meter box Yd (unitless) 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013

Tm meter temp. (°F) 76 72 74 74

Vm sample volume (ft3

) 48.523 47.667 48.083 48.091

∆H orifice setting delta H (" H2O) 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6

Vlc moisture (g) 36.1 33.9 26.4 32.1

O2%vd oxygen (%vd) 20.7 20.8 20.8 20.8

CO2%vd carbon dioxide (%vd) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

inches nozzle diameter (inches) 0.297 0.297 0.297 0.297

Run # 1 2 3 Average

micrograms mass HCN (ug) 140 54 120 105

grams mass HCN (g) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Run # 1 2 3 Average

Vmstd sample volume (dscf) 40.175 39.570 39.761 39.835

sample volume (dscm) 1.138 1.120 1.126 1.128

Vwstd moisture volume (dscf) 1.699 1.596 1.243 1.513

Bws measured moisture content (%/100) 0.041 0.039 0.030 0.037

saturated moisture content (%/100) 0.091 0.089 0.089 0.089

actual moisture content (%/100) 0.041 0.039 0.030 0.037

MD molecular weight (dry) 28.83 28.83 28.83 28.83

MA molecular weight (actual) 28.39 28.41 28.50 28.43

VS gas velocity (ft/sec) 30.5 30.7 30.3 30.5

FACFM gas flow (acfm) 2,246 2,258 2,231 2,245

FDSCFM gas flow (dscfm) 1,663 1,670 1,664 1,666

lb/hr gas flow (lb/hr) 7,656 7,679 7,611 7,649

% % isokinetic 102.7 100.8 101.6 101.7

lb/hr HCN (lb/hr) 0.0008 0.0003 0.0007 0.0006

ppmvd HCN (ppmvd) 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.08

Field Reference Method Data

Laboratory Data

Reference Method Calculations
Barrick Cortez, Inc.

Cortez Mine

Crescent Valley, NV

EW Cell #2

11/12/2009

CTM-033 Draft Method XHCN

Run # 1 2 3 Average

start time 14:38 15:58 17:24

stop time 15:42 17:03 18:31

sampling time (minutes) 60.0 60.0 60.0

DS stack diameter (inches) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

√∆PAVG average (delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2

0.451 0.473 0.465 0.463

CP pitot tube constant (unitless) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

TS stack temp. (°F) 105 102 102 103

Pbar barometric pressure (mbar) 833 833 833 833

Pbar barometric pressure (" Hg) 24.60 24.60 24.60 24.60

Ps stack pressure (" H2O) -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15

Yd meter box Yd (unitless) 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013

Tm meter temp. (°F) 77 75 76 76

Vm sample volume (ft3

) 46.348 47.392 46.002 46.581

∆H orifice setting delta H (" H2O) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Vlc moisture (g) 20.7 17.6 20.6 19.6

O2%vd oxygen (%vd) 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.7

CO2%vd carbon dioxide (%vd) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

inches nozzle diameter (inches) 0.297 0.297 0.297 0.297

Run # 1 2 3 Average

micrograms mass HCN (ug) 58 44 38 47

grams mass HCN (g) 0.00006 0.00004 0.00004 0.00005

Run # 1 2 3 Average

Vmstd sample volume (dscf) 38.107 39.117 37.891 38.371

sample volume (dscm) 1.079 1.108 1.073 1.087

Vwstd moisture volume (dscf) 0.974 0.828 0.970 0.924

Bws measured moisture content (%/100) 0.025 0.021 0.025 0.024

saturated moisture content (%/100) 0.092 0.082 0.083 0.086

actual moisture content (%/100) 0.025 0.021 0.025 0.024

MD molecular weight (dry) 28.82 28.83 28.83 28.83

MA molecular weight (actual) 28.55 28.60 28.56 28.57

VS gas velocity (ft/sec) 28.7 30.0 29.5 29.4

FACFM gas flow (acfm) 2,114 2,208 2,173 2,165

FDSCFM gas flow (dscfm) 1,583 1,671 1,636 1,630

lb/hr gas flow (lb/hr) 7,211 7,594 7,457 7,421

% % isokinetic 102.4 99.6 98.5 100.2

lb/hr HCN (lb/hr) 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003

ppmvd HCN (ppmvd) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04

Field Reference Method Data

Laboratory Data

Reference Method Calculations












Page 1 of 3

Thu, 11/19/09 12:23 PM

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Paul Ottenstein

Air Pollution Testing, Inc.

12421 W 49th

Wheat Ridge, CO 80033

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

(303) 420-5949

(303) 420-5920

amongold@airtest.net

Report Date November 19, 2009

Project Manager Frank Smith

Workorder: 9320042

Purchase Order:

Client Project ID: Air Pollution Testing 111609

BAR 9395

Analytical Results

11/11/2009

9320042001 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #1 CONT. 3-TB 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide <4.0 NA NA 4.0

11/11/2009

9320042002 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #1 CONT. 3-1 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide 140 NA NA 4.3

11/12/2009

9320042003 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #1 CONT. 3-2 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide 54 NA NA 4.1

11/12/2009

9320042004 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #1 CONT. 3-3 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide 120 NA NA 4.0

IHREP-V9.7
Page 2 of 3

Thu, 11/19/09 12:23 PM

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Project Manager Frank Smith

Workorder: 9320042

Purchase Order:

Client Project ID: Air Pollution Testing 111609

BAR 9395

Analytical Results

11/12/2009

9320042005 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #2 CONT. 3-TB 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide <4.0 NA NA 4.0

11/12/2009

9320042006 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #2 CONT. 3-1 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide 58 NA NA 4.0

11/12/2009

9320042007 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #2 CONT. 3-2 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide 44 NA NA 4.2

11/12/2009

9320042008 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

EW #2 CONT. 3-3 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide 38 NA NA 4.1

11/11/2009

9320042009 11/16/2009

Sample ID:

Lab ID:

Media: Collected:

Received:

.1N REAGENT-RB 1000 mL Nalgene

Sampling Location: BAR 9395

Method:

Analyte ug/sample mg/m3 ppm

NIOSH 7904 Mod. Sampling Parameter: Air Volume Not Provided Analyzed: 11/18/2009

RL (ug/sample)

Hydrogen Cyanide <1.0 NA NA 1.0

Workorder Comments

9320042 Impinger volumes are as follows: 9320042001 = 399mL; 9320042002 = 425mL; 9320042003 =

411mL; 9320042004 = 395mL; 9320042005 = 397mL; 9320042006 = 396mL; 9320042007 =

421mL; 9320042008 = 407mL; 9320042009 = 100mL.

IHREP-V9.7
Page 3 of 3

Thu, 11/19/09 12:23 PM

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Project Manager Frank Smith

Workorder: 9320042

Purchase Order:

Client Project ID: Air Pollution Testing 111609

BAR 9395

Report Authorization

Method: NIOSH 7904 Mod.

Sarah E. Adamson Rosemary Hanks

Analyst Peer Review

LOD = Limit of Detection = MDL = Method Detection Limit, A statistical estimate of method/media/instrument sensitivity.

LOQ = Limit of Quantitation = RL = Reporting Limit, A verified value of method/media/instrument sensitivity.

ND = Not Detected, Testing result not detected above the LOD or LOQ.

** No result could be reported, see sample comments for details.

< This testing result is less than the numerical value.

( ) This testing result is between the LOD and LOQ and has higher analytical uncertainty than values at or above the LOQ.

Definitions

The results provided in this report relate only to the items tested.

Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted.

Samples have not been blank corrected unless otherwise noted.

This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of ALS Laboratory Group.

General Lab Comments

ALS Laboratory Group is accredited by AIHA for specific fields of testing as documented in its current scope of accreditation

(ID#101574) which is available on request by contacting your project manager or view on the internet at http://www.aiha.org. The

quality systems implemented in the laboratory apply to all methods performed by ALS Laboratory Group regardless of this current

scope of accreditation which does not include performance based methods, modified methods, and methods applied to matrices

not listed in the methods.

ALS DataChem provides professional analytical services for all samples submitted. ALS Laboratory Group is not in a position to

interpret the data and assumes no responsibility for the quality of the samples submitted.

Phone: (801) 266-7700

Email: lab@datachem.com

Web: www.datachem.com

Laboratory Contact Information

ALS Laboratory Group (formerly DataChem Laboratories, Inc.)

960 W Levoy Drive

Salt Lake City, Utah 84123

IHREP-V9.7