I. Date: February 17, 2010

II. Subject: Meeting with Industry Represen tatives, 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 th e results of the hyd rogen cyanide (HCN) testing. The primary conclusion was that no faci lity 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 le ss than 1 ton per year per facility for the combination of non-mercury metals HAPs, w ith 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 pe r ton of ore processed (for the ore pretreatment group) and per ton of concentr ate 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, whethe r 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 stripp ed, and concentrate production.

• EPA presented options under consideration fo r monitoring roasters. The EPA explained that one of the preferred methods being cons idered for roasters is a mercury continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), and th at another method being considered is sorbent trap sampling and analysis. The industry and NDEP repres entatives expressed reservations about mercury CEMS, including th e fact they had not been demonstrated on roasters and the lack of ca libration standards for the merc ury concentration levels found
at roasters.

• EPA also presented options under considerati on for monitoring processes equipped with carbon adsorbers. The options include sorbent trap samplin g 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 Appr oach, Draft Rankings, etc..

• How the metrics (ore, loaded carbon, concentr ate) 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