I. Date: February 17, 2010

II. Subject: Meeting with Industry Representatives, Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP), and EPA

III. Location: EPA Campus, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

IV. Attendees:

EPA

Steve Fruh, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

Tom Driscoll, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

Robin Segall, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

Jason DeWees, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

 Steve Frey, EPA/Region 9 

 Sona Chilingaryan, EPA/Region 9 

 Gold Mine Industry Representatives

 Denise Kennedy, Holland and Hart 

 Joe Beetler, Newmont Mining Corporation 

 Greg Schoen, Round Mountain Gold Corporation 

 Mike Tomko, Parsons Behle & Latimer 

 Melissa Barbanell, Barrick Senior Counsel, Regulatory Policy 

 Kevin Lewis, Air Sciences Inc. 

 

 NDEP

Mike Elges 

 Leo Drozdoff 

 Colleen Cripps 

 Larry Kennedy 

 Rob Bamford 

 RTI International

 Marvin Branscome 

 Jeff Coburn 

 Gabrielle Raymond 

V. Discussion Items: 

• A copy of the major discussion items is included in the attached agenda. 

• The industry representatives summarized the results of the hydrogen cyanide (HCN) 

testing. The primary conclusion was that no facility tested exceeded 10 tons per year of 

HCN. 
• Chuck French summarized the results of the fence line monitoring for HCN which 

showed ambient concentrations below levels of public health and environmental 

concerns. 

• Chuck French also summarized the emissions test results for HAP metals other than 

mercury, which showed emissions levels of less than 1 ton per year per facility for the 

combination of non-mercury metals HAPs, with an average of roughly about 0.1 ton of 

total non-mercury HAP metals emissions per year per facility. 

• EPA presented a draft summary of the emissions test data and the preliminary ranking of 

plants based on pounds of mercury emissions per ton of ore processed (for the ore pretreatment group) and per ton of concentrate processed (for the carbon and non-carbon 

groups) for discussion. 

• There was a discussion on the use of carbon vs. concentrate as the basis of the emission 

limit for carbon processes. Both approaches appeared to work well in identifying the 

facilities that would need to reduce mercury emissions. The discussion focused on the 

accuracy of measurements of each, whether both were reported on a common basis by 

the different facilities, dry vs. wet weight, etc. 

• The industry representatives explained how different facilities measured the ore 

processed, carbon that is stripped, and concentrate production. 

• EPA presented options under consideration for monitoring roasters. The EPA explained 

that one of the preferred methods being considered for roasters is a mercury continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS), and that another method being considered is 

sorbent trap sampling and analysis. The industry and NDEP representatives expressed 

reservations about mercury CEMS, including the fact they had not been demonstrated on 

roasters and the lack of calibration standards for the mercury concentration levels found 

at roasters. 

• EPA also presented options under consideration for monitoring processes equipped with 

carbon adsorbers. The options include sorbent trap sampling for mercury concentration 

and sampling the carbon bed for mercury. For other types of control devices, parametric 

monitoring would be required. 
AGENDA (2/11/2010) 

Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production 

Meeting with EPA, NDEP, and industry representatives 

In Room D201, at EPA Building, in RTP, NC 

Date and Time: February 17, 2010, from 9:00 am - 3 pm (Eastern Time) 

Teleconference Number: 919-541-4332 

Topics: 

1. Introductions. 

2. Results of Emissions Testing: 

• Flux Box Testing for Non-point Emissions of HCN 

• Stack Tests for HCN 

• Stack Tests for Multi-metals 

3. Results of “Fence-line” monitoring for HCN 

4. Overall Conclusions about Non-mercury HAPs 

5. Draft Approach/Options for Proposed MACT for Mercury 

• Summary of the 3 Group Approach, Draft Rankings, etc.. 

• How the metrics (ore, loaded carbon, concentrate) are measured and recorded (methods, 

accuracy, frequency, etc.)? 

• Carbon vs concentrate as metric for the “Carbon Group? 

• Other Issues? 

6. Considerations for Compliance Testing, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping for Mercury 

7. Other Issues, Discussion, Next Steps