## ESTIMATES OF IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED MERCURY EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR GOLD MINE OR E PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION

Metals and Minerals Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC

April 8, 2010

## 2 Estimates of Impacts for the Proposed Mercury Emission Standards for Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production

1.0 Cost Estimates

This section provides a summ ary of the estimated costs of the proposed rule and background details on how these costs were devel oped. The cost components include both the cost of mercury emission controls and the co sts associated with monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR). The costs of mercury emissi on controls for each facility that we estimate will likely need to add controls to meet the emissions limits in the proposed MACT rule are

summarized in Table 1. There were cases wher e facilities had insta lled new or additional controls on thermal process units in 2008 – 2010 as a result of the Nevada Mercury Control Program (NMCP). The costs of these newly-insta lled controls are not included in the estimates presented here because the controls were instal led prior to the proposed national standard. For example, mercury controls were installed at Round Mountain in 2008, at Cortez in 2008 and 2009, and at Jerritt Canyon (roasters) in 2009.

Table 1. Estimates of Mercury Emission Control Costs

No. Facility Name Location Hg

reduction

(lb/yr) Estimates of mercury emission control costs

Total capital cost ($2008) Total

O&M cost ($/yr) Total

annual cost ($/yr) Cost

effectiveness ($/lb)
1 Goldstrike Elko, NV 109 658,512 135,968 198,131 1,800
2 Denton-Rawhide Fallon, NV 31 135,100 103,900 116,653 3,800 3 Florida Canyon Pershing Co., NV 98 367,868 165,382 200,109 2,100 4 Gold Quarry Carlin, NV 141 199,400 44,222 63,045 450
5 Bald Mountain Elko, NV 215 432,260 65,522 106,328 500 6 Jerritt Canyon Elko, NV 131 141,933 31,966 45,365 350 7 Lone Tree Valmy, NV 194 453,500 157,858 200,669 1,000
8 Midas Midas, NV 15 430,000 150,421 191,013 13,000 9 Ruby Hill Eureka, NV 30 305,224 88,629 117,442 4,200
10 Twin Creeks Golconda, NV 686 1,654,551 916,105 1,055,067 1,500

Totals 1,650 4,800,000 1,900,000 2,300,000 1,400



## Table 2 presents the costs of MRR and include s all of the gold mine ore processing and production facilities identified as having the thermal processes th at would be subject to the proposed rule. All of these facilities will incur additional MRR costs; however, based on available data, we estimate that several facilities already have emissions at levels that would meet the emissions limits in the proposed rule and, therefore, probably wo uld not be required to

add more controls and thus would incur no addi tional cost for mercury emission controls. The proposed rule provides options for MRR; conseque ntly, costs are presented for a range of these MRR options that includes the higher and lowe r costs options. Details for the MRR cost estimates are provided in Section 1.2.3Table 2. Estimates of Costs for Monitoring, Reporting, and RecordkeepingNo.Facility NameLocationNumber of stacksaHigher estimates of MRR costs Lower estimates of MRR costsRoaster Other Not inNVbMonitoringcapitalMonitoringO&MMonitoringtotal annualMonitoringcapitalMonitoringO&MMonitoringtotal annual1 Goldstrike Elko, NV 2 15 120,000 212,696 229,784 240,668 78,139 112,4102 Coeur Rochester Lovelock, NV 340,000 31,634 37,33040,000 11,139 16,8353 Cortez Crescent Valley, NV 6 40,000 62,336 68,032 40,000 21,347 27,0434 Cripple Creek Victor, CO 3 3 40,000 59,894 65,590 40,000 39,399 45,0955 Denton-Rawhide Fallon, NV 4 40,000 41,868 47,564 40,000 14,542 20,2386 Echo Bay/Kettle River Republic, WA3 3 40,000 59,894 65,590 40,000 39,399 45,0957 Florida Canyon Pershing County, NV7 40,000 72,570 78,266 40,000 24,750 30,4468 Fort Knox Fairbanks, AK 2 2 40,000 40,239 45,935 40,000 26,576 32,2729 Gold Quarry Carlin, NV 1 10 80,000 132,399 143,791 140,334 48,042 68,02510 Golden Sunlight Whitehall, MT 33 40,000 31,634 37,33040,000 11,139 16,83511 Greens Creek Mine Greens Creek, AK1 1 40,000 20,585 26,281 40,000 13,754 19,45012 Bald Mountain Elko, NV 540,000 52,102 57,79840,000 17,944 23,64013 Jerritt Canyon Elko, NV 2 3 120,000 89,886 106,974 240,668 37,306 71,57814 Lone Tree Valmy, NV 5 40,000 52,102 57,798 40,000 17,944 23,64015 Marigold Valmy, NV 4 40,000 41,868 47,564 40,000 14,542 20,23816 Midas Midas, NV 3 40,000 31,634 37,330 40,000 11,139 16,83517 Ruby Hill Eureka, NV 4 40,000 41,868 47,564 40,000 14,542 20,23818 Round Mountain Round Mountain, NV4 40,000 41,868 47,564 40,000 14,542 20,23819 Twin Creeks Golconda, NV 13 40,000 133,976 139,672 40,000 45,166 50,86220 Western Mesquite Brawley, CA 33 40,000 59,894 65,59040,000 39,399 45,09521 Wharf Resources Lawrence Co., SD2 2 40,000 40,239 45,935 40,000 26,576 32,272Totals 5 103 17 1,040,000 1,351,184 1,499,280 1,341,670 567,326 758,380aNumber of stacks that must be monitoredbStacks at facilities outside of Nevada will incur additional costs for Method 29 testing (Method 29 testing is already required in Nevada).

## 4 1.1 Cost of Mercury Emission Controls

The primary sources of the cost estimates are the estimates developed by the gold mine ore processing and production facilities in their Phase 2 applications for the NMCP. a 

## In these applications, individual faciliti es identified their pr ocess units that emit mercury and proposed

additional controls for units that were not curren tly controlled. The cost estimates were based on applying carbon adsorbers to capture mercury em issions and were developed from the actual costs that had been incurred when installing them on other process units. Most of the facilities provided estimates of capital costs for the propo sed emission control systems. For the few facilities that did not provide a capital cost esti mate, a cost algorithm presented in the Phase 2 application for the Twins Creek facility was used. 1 

## This algorithm uses the total installed cost ($184,000) for a carbon adsorption system with a volumetric flow rate of 2,500 cubic feet per minute (cfm). The cost for applying carbon adso rbers to other process units was based on the process unit’s cfm scaled with an exponent of 0.6 to account for economy of size:

Total installed capital cost = $184,000 * (cfm/2,500) 0.6



## Many facilities did not provi de an estimate of the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. However, when a facility es timated annual O&M costs in their Phase 2 application, those estimates were used in this analysis. For fa cilities without their own sitespecific estimates, O&M cost estimates were developed based on the reported costs for other units that had already been equi pped with carbon adsorbers. The Goldstrike facility estimated

the annual labor costs for carbon adsorbers as $4,968/yr for operating labor, $4,752/yr for maintenance labor, and $106/yr for carbon replacement labor for a total of $9,826/yr. 2 

## The annual material and utility costs include the cost of replacement carbon and electricity for additional fan capacity to move the vent stream through the carbon adsorber. The Goldstrike facility estimated carbon replacement cost as $54,000/yr for a system designed for 4,400 cfm, or
$12.27/cfm. 2 

## The Florida Canyon facility estimated carbon replacement costs as $23,541 for a 2,000 cfm system, or about $11.77/cfm. 3 

## Carbon replacement costs presented here are based on the average of these two values ($12/cfm of design capacity). For the fan, Florida Canyon estimated annual energy costs as $3,291/ yr for a 2,000 cfm system or $1.65/cfm. 3 

## The combined

O&M costs were then estimated based on each process units flow rate and the following equation:

O&M costs ($/yr) = $9,826 + $13.65 * cfm.

The annualized cost of capital was estimated ba sed on a 20-year lifetime, an interest rate of 7 percent, and a capital recovery factor of 0.094. The total annualized cost is estimated from the O&M costs plus the annualized cost of capital. Table 4 presents the estimated mercury emission control costs for each of the process units and provides references for the estimates.

a 

### Copies of the Phase 2 applications are available at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/hg/clearinghouse.html

.

## 5 Table 4. Estimated Cost of Mercury Emission Controls for Affected Process Units

No. Facility Unit Control a Mercury

reduction (lb/yr) Flow (cfm) b Total capital cost c Annual

O&M

cost e Total

annualized

cost Cost

effectiveness ($/lb) 1 Twin Creeks Juniper preg tanks CA 80.0 3,085 209,000 4 51,936 71,666 896 2 Twin Creeks Electrowinning CA 47.2 7,311 434,000 5 109,621 150,591 3,189
3 Goldstrike Carbon kilns WC, CA 109.2 4,406 658,512 d 135,968 198,131 1,814 4 Gold Quarry AARL carbon kiln CA 124.8 900 99,700 6 22,111 31,523 253 5 Florida Canyon Carbon kilns CA 91.5 2,000 183,934 2 82,691 7 100,054 1,094

6 Florida Canyon Electrowinning, preg tanks, melt furnace CA 6.0 1,000 183,934 7 82,691 7 100,054 16,718

7 Denton Rawhide Melt furn ace CA 31.1 6,500 135,100 8 103,900 8 116,653 3,755

8 Lone Tree Electrowinni ng CA 51.6 10,000 423,000 9 146,326 186,257 3,604 9 Lone Tree Preg tanks CA 142 125 30,500 10 11,532 14,411 101 10 Bald Mountain Electrowinning CA 208 496 183,360 11 16,596 33,906 163
11 Bald Mountain Melt furnace CA 6.3 4,220 248,900 12 48,926 72,422 11,378

12 Ruby Hill Electrowinning, preg tanks, melt furnace CA 25.3 2,250 230,000 13 71,118 13 92,830 3,674 13 Ruby Hill Melt furnace CA 4.2 563 75,224 14 17,511 24,612 5,888 14 Gold Quarry Carbon kiln CA 16.0 900 99,700 6 22,111 31,523 1,975
15 Twin Creeks Melt furnace new CA 13.8 3,000 60,776 14 50,776 56,513 4,103
16 Twin Creeks Melt furnace old CA 16.9 3,000 60,776 14 50,776 56,513 3,342 17 Jerritt Canyon Melt furnace CA 131.1 1,622 141,933 d 31,966 45,365 346
18 Midas Furnace CA 14.6 10,300 430,000 15 150,421 191,013 13,056
19 Twin Creeks Autoclave WC, CA 527.8 7,778 890,000 16 652,996 16 719,784 1,364 Subtotal Carbon Group (No. 1 through No. 17) f 1,104 3,458,349 1,056, 557 1,383,025 1,250 Subtotal Non-carbon Concentrate Group (No. 18) 15 430,000 150,421 191,013 13,100 Subtotal Ore Pretreatment Group (No. 19) 528 890,000 652,996 719,784 1,400 Total 1,647 4,778,349 1,859,974 2,293,822 1,400

a 

### CA = carbon adsorber, WC = water chiller (e.g., refrigeration unit or condenser)

b 

### cfm = cubic feet per minute

c 

### Capital costs estimates come primarily from the referenced NDEP Phase 2 applications (exceptions have footnotes).

d 

### Estimated from : $184,000 * (cfm/2,500) 0.6 

### (see text).

e 

### Unless a reference is given, estimated from : $9,826 + $13.65 * cfm (see text).

f 

### Costs and emission reductions are not included for Cortez b ecause the facility installed carbon adsorbers in 2009 prior to

MACT.

## 6 1.2 MRR Costs

Two monitoring options are proposed for roasters: a mercury continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) and periodic sorbent trap sampling. (Costs are not included for parametric monitoring of contro l devices because the facilities are alread y performing that monitoring as a result of State permit requirement s.) The cost estimates for the mercury CEMS were developed from the EPA/OAQPS spread sheet for estimating CEMS costs and are

summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Cost Estimate for a Mercury CEMS

Capital cost CEMS equipment (analyzer, sampling lin e data acquisition software, etc.) $90,000 Taxes and shipping $5,400 Install and check CEMS $4,320
Initial calibration $614 Total installed capital cost $100,334

Total annualized cost Daily operation of CEMS $4,608 Weekly checks of CEMS $2,938 Monthly checks of CEMS $2,765 Consumables $1,000
Annual QA $288 Recordkeeping and reporting $1.253

Subtotal $12,852 Capital recovery (10 years at 7%, CRF = 0.1424) $14,288 Total annualized cost $27,140

Costs for the sorbent trap monitoring for roasters were obtained from EPA testing personnel and from vendor quotes for the cost of sorbent tubes and mercury analyses. The capital cost is estimated as $40,000 for the sampling probe, pump, moisture conditioner, metering console, and data logger. The paired tr aps cost $150 each with an analysis cost of $200 each. The estimated labor to install the traps, leak check, and set flow rates is 4 hours or $206/sample (at $51.51/hr). Weekly sampling woul d be required, which results in an annual sampling cost of $28,893/yr per stack.

For process units other than roasters, the co mmon mercury control device is a carbon adsorber. The proposed rule provides options for sampling carbon adsorbers: monthly sorbent trap sample (except going to weekly when the adsorber reaches 50 percent of the operating limit) or quarterly sampling of the ca rbon for mercury loading (going to monthly when 50 percent of capacity is reached). The capital cost for the sorbent trap sampling is the same as estimated above ($40,000). The annual cost is also es timated in a similar manner except the lower frequency of sampling results in lower sampli ng costs. The annual costs for sorbent trap sampling and analysis of carbon adsorbers based on monthly sampling for 10 months and weekly sampling for 2 months is $10,000/yr per stack that is sampled. The carbon bed sampling is much less expensive because there is no capital cost, the analytical cost is less ($110/sample instead of

## 7 $200/sample), and the sampling frequency is less . The carbon bed sampling is estimated as $3,170/yr per carbon bed that is sampled.

Reporting and recordkeeping costs are based on an estimate of 16 hours per plant plus 4 hours per stack that is monitored. The reporting co sts for a facility were developed as shown in Table 6 ($931+ $233 * number of stacks).

Table 6. Estimate of Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs

General Description Mean Hourly

Rate a 

## Rate with

overhead b 

## hr/plant $/plant hr/stack $/stack Environmental Engineer $32.13 $51.41 16 $823 4 $206
Management c 

## $50.15 $80.24 0.8 $64 0.20 $16 Office/Admin. Support d 

## $17.24 $27.58 1.6 $44 0.40 $11
Total 18.4 $931 4.6 $233

a 

### Labor rates are for private industry workers in the mining industry (NAICS 212200) and were taken from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2008, available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics4_212200.htm

. b 

### Overhead at 60%.

c 

### Estimated as 5% of technical hours

d 

### Estimated as 10% of technical hours



## The proposed rule would also require annua l stack sampling for mercury emissions (e.g., using EPA Method 29). However, most of the gold mine facilities are located in Nevada, and the

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection already requires annual sampling using Method 29. Consequently, only facilitie s outside of Nevada would incur additional costs for stack sampling. The cost of Method 29 testing is estimated as $9,420 per stack test:

Table 7. Estimate of Costs for Method 29 Testing

Cost Description Cost Equipment rental $1,850 Travel and lodging $1,625 Testing cost $2,611 Laboratory analysis $2,650 Test report $680 TOTAL $9,420

The MRR costs were estimated for each facility and are presented in Table 2. The costs

are estimated from the cost functions described in this section and the nu mber of roaster stacks, number of other (not roaster) stacks, and stacks not located in Nevada (for Method 29 testing)

that must be monitored and tested.

## 8 1.3 Beyond-the-Floor Costs

The affected sources with carbon processes us e carbon to recover the gold and have one or more of the following process units: car bon kilns, electrowinning, pr eg tanks, retorts, and melt furnaces. Approximately 9 of the 11 facilities for which data are available will need to improve control to meet the floor limits because these 9 plants have an average emission control performance that is above the Maximum Achiev able Control Technology (MACT) floor average performance. We expect that the carbon process units not curr ently controlled will have carbon

adsorbers installed to effectiv ely control mercury emissions at the MACT floor level. Considering the very low mercury concentrations when the carbon processes are performing at the MACT level of control, it is difficult to identify a tec hnology that can obtain efficient additional percent reductions from low concentrati on streams. The propos ed rule requires close monitoring of the carbon adsorber so that the carbon can be repl aced before breakthrough occurs and mercury is emitted. With careful monitoring, emission reductions on the order of 99 percent could be achieved by the carbon adsorb ers installed to achieve the MA CT floor level of control. For a beyond-the-floor analysis, we assumed that theoretically a second carbon adsorption system could be installed in series with the first one and would get an additional 90 percent reduction (a lower reduction because of the very lo w mercury concentrations that result from the MACT floor level of control). We acknowledge th at there is uncertainty as to the additional percent reduction the second cont rol system might achieve. Th e cost estimates for a second carbon adsorption system in series with the first one are presented in Table 8. The capital cost was estimated as $3.3 million with a total annualized cost of about $1.2 million/yr and a cost effectiveness of about $110,000/lb.

The facilities with ore pretre atment processes have installed mercury scrubbers and

venturi scrubbers on their roaste rs and autoclaves, respectively, to achieve the MACT floor for ore pretreatment processes. To achieve fu rther reductions in mercury beyond what can be achieved using mercury scrubbers and venturi scrubbers, one beyond-the -floor option that was identified was the installation of both a refrig eration unit (or condense r) and a carbon adsorber on autoclaves. The Twin Creeks Mine evaluated this option as a potential way to reduce mercury emissions from their autoclaves. 17 

## This additional control system would follow the existing venturi scrubbers to further reduce me rcury emission from autoclaves. Because the exhaust is saturated with water, a refrigeration unit or condenser would be needed to remove water that would otherwise adversely affect the adsorptive capacity of the carbon adsorber. The capital costs were estimated as $525,000 for the refrigeration unit and $365,000 for the carbon

adsorber. 17 

## The operating cost was estimated as $537,000/yr for the refrigeration unit 17 

## and $116,000/yr for the carbon adsorber (using the cost algorithm pr esented earlier for operating costs). The total annualized cost is estimat ed as $720,000/yr. Mercur y emissions would be reduced by 528 lb/yr, assuming the system would achieve a conservative 70 percent reduction in mercury emissions from a level of 754 lb/yr, wi th a resulting cost e ffectiveness of $1,400/lb. Energy consumption would increase by about 730 megawatt-hours per year, primarily due to the refrigeration unit. Solid wast e generation and disposal (spent carbon loaded with mercury) would increase by about 3 tons per year.

## 9 Table 8. Estimate of Costs for a Second Carbon Adsorber for Carbon Processes

No. Facility Unit Flow (cfm) Total capital

cost a 

### Annual

O&M

cost b 

### Total

annualized

cost Mercury

reduction (lb/yr)

1 Twin Creeks Juniper P/B tanks 3,085 208,741 51,936 71,641 0.76

2 Twin Creeks Electrowinning 7,311 350,300 109,621 142,689 0.45

3 Goldstrike Carbon kilns 4,406 258,512 69,968 94,371 1.03

4 Gold Quarry AARL carbon kiln 900 99,678 22,111 31,521 1.18

5 Florida Canyon Carbon kilns 2,000 160,943 37,126 52,319 0.87

6 Florida Canyon Electrowinning, P/B tanks, melt furnace 1,000 106,183 23,476 33,500 0.06

7 Denton Rawhide Melt furnace 6,500 326,439 98,551 129,367 0.29

8 Lone Tree Electrowinning 10,000 422,721 146,326 186,231 0.49

9 Lone Tree P/B tanks 125 30,493 11,532 14,411 1.35

10 Bald Mountain Electrowinning 496 69,718 16,596 23,178 1.97

11 Bald Mountain Melt furnace 4,220 251,908 67,429 91,209 0.06

12 Cortez Induction furnace 1, 400 129,936 28,936 41,202 0.63

13 Ruby Hill Electrowinning, P/B tanks, melt furnace 2,250 172,728 40,539 56,844 0.24

14 Ruby Hill Melt furnace 563 75,224 17,511 24,612 0.04

15 Gold Quarry Carbon kiln S0056,57 900 99,678 22,111 31,521 0.15

16 Twin Creeks Melt furnace new 3,000 205,271 50,776 70,154 0.13

17 Twin Creeks Melt furnace old 3,000 205,271 50,776 70,154 0.16

18 Jerritt Canyon Melt furnace 1,622 141,933 31,966 45,365 1.24

Totals 3,315,675 897,288 1,210,287 11

a 

### Estimated from : $184,000 * (cfm/2,500) 0.6 

### (see text).

b 

### Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs estimated from : $9,826 + $13.65 * cfm (see text).



## For the two facilities with non-car bon concentrate processes, we expect that Midas would

need to add a carbon adsorber to its melt furnace to achieve the MACT floor level of control. For beyond the floor, we again assumed that the existing carbon adsorbers would be supplemented by adding a second control system of carbon adsorbers in series for all of the melt furnaces at both facilities. Using the cost algor ithms presented earlier as a function of system flow rate, we estimated the capital cost for the second set of carbon adsorb er control systems as $730,000, an annual operating cost of $237,000/yr, and a total annualized cost of $306,000/year. Emissions would be reduced by 7 lb/year, which results in a cost effectiveness of $45,000/lb.

2.0 Emission Estimates

The emission estimates are based on merc ury emission stack tests conducted in 2007 through 2009. 2 

## The data collected for the MACT floor analysis were used to estimate mercury emissions in pounds per year (lb/yr) for each proce ss unit in each of the three groups of affected sources. The run-by-run data are presented in Appendix A, which also provides the details (emissions, operating hours, etc.) that were used in the calculations. When emissions were

2 

### Copies of the emission test reports are available in the rulemaking docket: EPA-HQ-OAR 2010-0239.

## 10 presented for different years for a single process un it, the emissions over th e different years were averaged to estimate the average baseline em issions. Consequently, the emissions do not represent those reported for a give n year, but the average of the years (2007-2009) for which data were available. Emissions for the facility were determined by summing emissions for each of the process units at the facility. A summary of the baseline emission estimates (i.e., emissions before MACT is effective) is given in Tabl e 9 for the three groups of affected sources.

Table 9. Baseline Mercury Emissions Estima tes for the Three Groups of Affected Sources (based on data for 2007-2009)

Ore Pretreatment Processes Facility Mercury Emissions (lb/yr) Gold Quarry 223

Goldstrike 697 Jerritt Canyon Mine 87

Lone Tree a 

## 12

Twin Creeks Mine 754

Subtotal 1,773

Carbon Processes Facility Mercury Emissions (lb/yr)

Bald Mountain 225

Cortez b 

## 7.3

Denton-Rawhide 33 Florida Canyon Mine 103 Gold Quarry 229

Goldstrike 159 Jerritt Canyon 138

Lone Tree Mine 204 Marigold 6.5

Round Mountain 2.5 Ruby Hill 36

Subtotal 1,319

Non-carbon Concentrate Processes Facility Mercury Emissions (lb/yr)

Coeur Rochester 8.1 Midas Operations 19

Subtotal 27 Grand Total 3,119

a 

## This facility is closed. Emissions are based on a test in 2006 and their significantly reduced operating hours and pr oduction rate in 2007.

b 

## Includes estimated reductions for a carbon ad sorber installed on th e melt furnace in 2009.

Emission reductions attributable to MA CT for the carbon and non-carbon processes group of units were estimated based on 95 perc ent and 99 percent control. The increased monitoring for carbon adsorbers is expected to result in contin uing high reductions because the

## 11 carbon would be replaced before complete breakth rough occurs. Table 10 presents the baseline emissions and emission reductions for the process units in the carbon proce sses group that would be affected by MACT.

The MACT reductions for the ore pretreat ment group are based on the installation of

carbon adsorbers on the autoclaves at Twin Creeks. No carbon adsorbers have been installed on autoclaves, so there is some uncertainty in th e emission reductions that would be achieved. A conservative estimate of 70 to 90 percent reduction is used here because the autoclaves have a much higher flow rate and higher temperature th an the exhaust streams typical of the carbon process units. The emission reductions are es timated as 528 to 679 lb/yr from the current baseline of 754 lb/yr.

For the non-carbon concentrate group, we exp ect that MACT would result in the

installation of a carbon adsorber on the melt furnace at Midas Operations. Baseline emissions of 15.4 lb/yr would be reduced by 14.6 to 15.2 lb/yr.

We estimate that in 2007 about 5000 pounds of mercury were emitted from this source category based mainly on test data for year 2007 . In 2008 or 2009 a few f acilities adde d controls or modified their operations. Thus, using a combination of data from 2007-2009, we estimate that current emissions are about 3119 pounds per y ear. Overall, the proposed MACT limits are expected to reduce mercury emi ssions by about 1,650 to 1,469 lb/yr.

3. Secondary Impacts

Secondary impacts include an increase in electricity consumption by fans and refrigeration units (in some cases) plus the gene ration of solid waste when the carbon in carbon adsorbers is replaced. The incr ease in electricity consumption was estimated from the following equation from the OAQPS Cost Manual 18 

## :

kW-hr/yr = 0.00081 * acfm * pressure drop (u se 6 inches of water) * operating hr/yr.

The results are shown in Table 11 with a total increase of 2 million kW-hr/yr.

The estimated increase in spen t carbon for regeneration or di sposal assumes the carbon is replaced when half of its poten tial mercury capacity has been r eached (about 0.1 lb mercury/lb carbon). For a mercury reduction of 1,650 lbs, approximately 16,500 lbs of carbon would be used and 18,150 lbs of spent lo aded carbon would be generated.

## 12 Table 10. Mercury Emissions Reductions for the Carbon Processes Group

No. Facility Unit Average

carbon usage (tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton carbon) Unit

emissions lb/yr Reductions

@95% (lb/yr) Reductions

@99% (lb/yr)
1 Twin Creeks Juniper PregTanks 1.39E+04 6.06E-03 

### 84.2 80.0 83.4

2 Twin Creeks Electrowinning 1.39E+04 3.58E-03 

### 49.7 47.2 49.2

3 Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 1.41E+04 8.15E-03 

### 115 109 114

4 Gold Quarry AARL Carbon Kiln 1.53E+04 8.59E-03 

### 131 125 130

5 Florida Canyon Carbon Kiln 2.70E+03 3.56E-02 

### 96.3 91.5 95.3

6 Florida Canyon Electrowinning Cell A 2.70E+03 2.04E-03 

### 5.5 5.2 5.5

6 Florida Canyon Electrowinning Cell B 2.70E+03 3.04E-04 

### 0.82 0.78 0.81

6 Florida Canyon Elect rowinning total 

### 6.3 6.0 6.3

7 Denton-Rawhide Refinery Furnace 7.32E+02 4.47E-02 

### 32.7 31.1 32.4

8 Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning East 1.54E+03 1.15E-02 

### 17.7 16.8 17.5

8 Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning Scavenger 1.54E+03 1.29E-02 

### 19.9 18.9 19.7

8 Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning West 1.54E+03 1.09E-02 

### 16.8 15.9 16.6

8 Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning total 

### 54.3 51.6 53.8

9 Lone Tree Mine Pregnant & Barren Tanks 1.54E+03 9.70E-02 

### 150 142 148

10 Bald Mountain Electrowinning Cells 1.20E+03 1.83E-01 

### 219 208 216

11 Bald Mountain Bullion Furnace 1.20E+03 5.57E-03 

### 6.7 6.3 6.6

12 Cortez Induction Fu rnace #1 4.01E+03 1.75E-02 

### 70.1 66.6 a 

### 69.4 a



### 13 Ruby Hill EW Cells 3.86E+02 6.89E-02 

### 26.6 25.2 26.3

14 Ruby Hill Furnace 3.86E+02 1.14E-02 

### 4.4 4.2 4.4

15 Gold Quarry Zadra Carbon Kiln 1.53E+04 1.10E-03 

### 16.8 15.9 16.6

16 Twin Creeks Furnace (New) 1.39E+04 1.04E-03 

### 14.5 13.8 14.3

17 Twin Creeks Furnace (Old) 1.39E+04 1.28E-03 

### 17.8 16.9 17.6

18 Jerritt Canyon Melt furnace 2007 AER b 

### 138 131 137
Totals 1,235 1,104 1,151

a 

## These reductions are not included in the totals attri butable to MACT because co ntrols were installed in 2009 prior to the proposed standard.

b 

## Emission estimate taken from Nevada Division of Environmental Protection’s 2007 Annual Emissions Report (AER).

## 13 Table 11. Estimated Increase in Electricity Consumption

No. Facility Unit Operating hr/yr Flow (cfm) kw hr/yr 

### 1 Twin Creeks Juniper P/B tanks 8,760 3,085 131,340 

### 2 Twin Creeks Electrowinning 8,760 7,311 311,256



### 3 Goldstrike Carbon kilns 6,884 4,406 147,408 

### 4 Gold Quarry AARL carbon kiln 6,471 900 28,304 

### 5 Florida Canyon Carbon kilns 8,760 2,000 85,147 

### 6 Florida Canyon Electrowinning, P/B tanks. melt furnace 8,760 1,000 42,574



### 7 Denton Rawhide Melt furnace 347 6,500 10,962 

### 8 Lone Tree Electrowinning 2,424 10,000 117,806



### 9 Lone Tree P/B tanks 8,760 125 5,322 

### 10 Bald Mountain Electrowinning 7,563 496 18,231



### 11 Bald Mountain Melt furnace 207 4,220 4,245 

### 12 Ruby Hill Electrowinning, P/B tanks. melt furnace 8,784 2,250 96,053 

### 13 Ruby Hill Melt furnace 96 563 263 

### 14 Gold Quarry Carbon kiln S0056,57 8,760 900 38,316



### 15 Twin Creeks Melt furnace new 8,760 3,000 127,721



### 16 Twin Creeks Melt furnace old 8,760 3,000 127,721 

### 17 Jerritt Canyon Melt furnace 872 1,622 6,874



### 18 Midas Furnace 832 10,300 41,648



### 19 Twin Creeks Autoclave 7,778 730,000 a 

### Total 2,071,190

a 

## Electricity consumption for the refrigeration unit taken from th e Phase 2 application (Reference 16).

## 14 4. References

1. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Twin Creeks. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Page 3-21. 2008.

2. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Barrick Goldstrike. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Appe ndix 3, Table 3.4, Page 22. 2008.

3. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Florida Canyon. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Table 3.4, Page 19. 2008.

4. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Twin Creeks. Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection. Table 14, Page 3-21. 2008.

5. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Twin Creeks. Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection. Table 17, Page 3-24. 2008.

6. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Gold Quarry. Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection. Table 20, Page 3-26. 2008.

7. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Florida Canyon. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Table 3.4, Page 18. 2008.

8. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit fo r Denton-Rawhide. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Table 3.4, Page 21. 2008.

9. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Lone Tree. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Page 3-10. 2008.

10. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Lone Tree. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Page 3-12. 2008.

11. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit fo r Bald Mountain. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Appendix 3, Page 21. 2008.

12. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit fo r Bald Mountain. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Appendix 3, Page 16. 2008.

13. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Ruby Hill. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Appe ndix 3, Table 3.8, Page 31. 2008.

14. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Twin Creeks. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Page 3-21. 2008.

## 15 15. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Midas. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Page 3-33. 2008.

16. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Twin Creeks. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Page 3-11. 2008.

17. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Twin Creeks. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Pages 3-11 and 3-12.

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. Chapter 1. Baghouses and Filters . EPA/452/B-02-001. January 2002.

## 16 Appendix A. Emission Test Results and Estimates of Baseline EmissionsTABLE A-1. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR CARBON PROCESSESRun 1(lb/hr)Run 2(lb/hr)Run 3(lb/hr)Run 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Per unitlb/yrFacilitytotal(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/yr)Marigold EW, P/B AER avg 7.70E-04 4.13E-03 2008 6281 1171 1.17E+03 4.13E-03 4.84E+00Marigold Retort AER avg 7.70E-04 8.67E-04 2008 1318 1171 1.17E+03 8.67E-04 1.01E+00Marigold Furnace AER avg 2.70E-03 4.63E-04 2008 201 1171 1.17E+03 4.63E-04 5.43E-01Marigold Carbon Kiln 1.41E-05 1.18E-05 1.31E-05 6.90E-05 5.78E-05 6.41E-05 2008 5732 1171 1.17E+03 6.36E-05 7.45E-02 5.52E-03 6.5Gold QuarryAARL Carbon Kiln 3.31E-02 3.45E-02 3.77E-02 1.41E-02 1.46E-02 1.60E-02 2007 6,471 15,244Gold QuarryAARL Carbon Kiln 7.83E-03 4.07E-03 5.86E-03 3.02E-03 1.57E-03 2.26E-03 2008 5,920 15,342 1.53E+04 8.59E-03 1.31E+02Gold QuarryEW Cells / Barren Tank 3.67E-04 3.43E-04 3.75E-04 1.85E-04 1.73E-04 1.89E-04 2007 7,671 15,244Gold QuarryEW Cells / Barren Tank 5.81E-04 5.32E-04 4.71E-04 2.96E-04 2.71E-04 2.40E-04 2008 7,826 15,342 1.53E+04 2.26E-04 3.45E+00Gold QuarryPregnant Tanks (Carbon Stripping) 1.63E-03 1.73E-03 2.63E-03 9.36E-04 9.94E-04 1.51E-03 2007 8,760 15,244Gold QuarryPregnant Tanks (Carbon Stripping) 2.38E-03 4.31E-04 9.11E-03 1.36E-03 2.47E-04 5.22E-03 2008 8,784 15,342Gold QuarryPregnant Tanks (Carbon Stripping) 2.70E-05 1.68E-03 3.83E-03 1.55E-05 9.63E-04 2.19E-03 2008 8,784 15,342 1.53E+04 1.49E-03 2.28E+01Gold QuarryRefinery Furnaces 2.41E-01 5.46E-02 1.28E-01 9.55E-03 2.17E-03 5.09E-03 2007 605 15,244Gold QuarryRefinery Furnaces 2.61E-03 6.67E-04 1.83E-02 1.05E-04 2.68E-05 7.33E-04 2008 615 15,342 1.53E+04 2.95E-03 4.50E+01Gold QuarryRetort Stacks 1-3 7.20E-04 1.58E-03 8.22E-04 1.52E-04 3.32E-04 1.73E-04 2007 3,216 15,244 1.53E+04 2.19E-04 3.35E+00Gold QuarryRetort Stacks 4-6 2.50E-03 1.89E-03 1.72E-03 5.27E-04 3.98E-04 3.62E-04 2007 3,216 15,244 1.53E+04 4.29E-04 6.56E+00Gold QuarryZadra Carbon Kiln 8.49E-03 5.47E-03 4.54E-03 3.75E-03 2.42E-03 2.01E-03 2007 6,746 15,244Gold QuarryZadra Carbon Kiln 4.59E-04 5.16E-04 6.55E-04 2.25E-04 2.53E-04 3.21E-04 2008 7,527 15,342Gold QuarryZadra Carbon Kiln 4.90E-04 5.88E-04 7.44E-04 2.41E-04 2.88E-04 3.65E-04 2008 7,527 15,342 1.53E+04 1.10E-03 1.68E+01 1.50E-02 229.4Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 8.38E-02 1.49E-02 8.62E-03 3.76E-02 6.69E-03 3.87E-03 2007 6,884 15,342Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 6.03E-03 8.76E-03 5.92E-03 3.27E-03 4.75E-03 3.21E-03 2008 7,271 13,415Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 1.81E-02 1.85E-02 2.21E-02 9.81E-03 1.00E-02 1.20E-02 2008 7,271 13,415Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 1.97E-02 2.06E-02 1.90E-02 1.07E-02 1.12E-02 1.03E-02 2008 7,271 13,415Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 1.97E-02 2.06E-02 1.90E-02 1.07E-02 1.12E-02 1.03E-02 2008 7,271 13,415UnitMercury Emissions Mercury EmissionsFacilityYear hr/yrCarbon(tpy)Averagecarbon(tpy)GoldstrikeCarbonKiln#2 Drum1.97E 022.06E 021.90E 021.07E 021.12E 021.03E 0220087,27113,415Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 9.04E-03 1.28E-02 5.71E-03 4.90E-03 6.94E-03 3.09E-03 2008 7,271 13,415Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 3.10E-04 4.20E-04 4.90E-04 1.72E-04 2.34E-04 2.72E-04 2009 7,527 13,537 1.41E+04 8.15E-03 1.15E+02Goldstrike Electrowinning Cells 2.38E-03 2.71E-03 3.03E-03 1.09E-03 1.24E-03 1.39E-03 2007 7,053 15,354Goldstrike Electrowinning Cells 3.90E-03 5.60E-03 3.20E-03 2.09E-03 3.01E-03 1.72E-03 2008 7,202 13,415Goldstrike Electrowinning Cells 1.44E-03 9.60E-04 2.21E-03 7.66E-04 5.11E-04 1.18E-03 2009 7,202 13,537 1.41E+04 1.44E-03 2.04E+01Goldstrike Furnaces/EW Cells Combined Stack 4.95E-03 1.24E-02 3.96E-03 2.02E-04 5.07E-04 1.62E-04 2007 628 15,354Goldstrike Furnaces/EW Cells Combined Stack 1.02E-02 2.88E-02 4.71E-02 3.29E-04 9.26E-04 1.52E-03 2009 436 13,537 1.41E+04 6.07E-04 8.56E+00Goldstrike Preg and Barren A Tanks 3.27E-03 2.27E-03 1.16E-03 1.58E-04 1.10E-04 5.60E-05 2008 648 13,415Goldstrike Preg and Barren A Tanks 4.20E-04 4.80E-04 6.10E-04 2.01E-05 2.30E-05 2.92E-05 2009 648 13,537 1.41E+04 6.60E-05 9.31E-01Goldstrike Preg and Barren B Tanks 6.28E-04 2.11E-03 1.89E-03 3.03E-05 1.02E-04 9.13E-05 2008 648 13,415Goldstrike Preg and Barren B Tanks 4.80E-04 3.00E-04 3.30E-04 2.30E-05 1.44E-05 1.58E-05 2009 648 13,537 1.41E+04 4.61E-05 6.50E-01Goldstrike Retort 1 3.11E-03 2.51E-03 1.73E-03 4.27E-04 3.45E-04 2.37E-04 2009 1,858 13,537 1.41E+04 3.36E-04 4.74E+00Goldstrike Retort 2 1.36E-03 6.90E-04 5.60E-04 2.16E-04 1.10E-04 8.91E-05 2009 2,154 13,537 1.41E+04 1.38E-04 1.95E+00Goldstrike Retort 3 3.08E-03 3.53E-03 3.34E-03 4.22E-04 4.84E-04 4.58E-04 2009 1,856 13,537 1.41E+04 4.55E-04 6.41E+00 1.12E-02 158.5Round Mountain EW Cells 9.17E-05 4.00E-04 9.59E-05 2.03E-04 8.84E-04 2.12E-04 2008 8760 3,963 3.64E+03 4.33E-04 1.57E+00Round Mountain Furnace 1.07E-05 1.29E-04 1.27E-04 1.67E-06 2.01E-05 1.98E-05 2008 617 3,963Round Mountain Furnace 2.62E-03 7.21E-04 1.39E-03 4.62E-04 1.27E-04 2.45E-04 2009 584 3,312 3.64E+03 1.46E-04 5.31E-01Round Mountain Kiln and P/B Tanks 1.32E-05 1.47E-05 8.05E-06 2.86E-05 3.19E-05 1.75E-05 2008 8,592 3,963Round Mountain Kiln and P/B Tanks 7.73E-05 5.18E-05 8.05E-05 2.02E-04 1.35E-04 2.10E-04 2009 8,652 3,312 3.64E+03 1.04E-04 3.79E-01 6.83E-04 2.5Twin Creeks Mine Electrowinning 1.70E-04 9.00E-04 3.64E-03 1.09E-04 5.77E-04 2.34E-03 2007 8,760 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Electrowinning 1.30E-02 7.90E-03 8.80E-03 8.07E-03 4.91E-03 5.46E-03 2008 8,784 14,145 1.39E+04 3.58E-03 4.97E+01A-1TABLE A-1. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR CARBON PROCESSESRun 1(lb/hr)Run 2(lb/hr)Run 3(lb/hr)Run 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Per unitlb/yrFacilitytotal(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/yr)UnitMercury Emissions Mercury EmissionsFacilityYear hr/yrCarbon(tpy)Averagecarbon(tpy)Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (New) 6.46E-02 1.85E-02 4.45E-02 2.00E-03 5.72E-04 1.38E-03 2007 422 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (New) 7.45E-02 2.12E-02 5.99E-02 2.30E-03 6.56E-04 1.85E-03 2007 422 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (New) 1.10E-02 3.10E-03 8.00E-03 3.06E-04 8.64E-05 2.23E-04 2008 394 14,145 1.39E+04 1.04E-03 1.45E+01Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old) 8.16E-02 3.28E-02 5.11E-02 2.44E-03 9.83E-04 1.53E-03 2007 409 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old) 1.71E-01 6.65E-02 7.28E-02 5.13E-03 1.99E-03 2.18E-03 2007 409 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old) 1.68E-03 4.99E-03 7.30E-03 5.03E-05 1.49E-04 2.19E-04 2007 409 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old) 1.34E-02 7.00E-03 4.60E-03 3.62E-04 1.89E-04 1.24E-04 2008 382 14,145 1.39E+04 1.28E-03 1.78E+01Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Carbon Kiln 1.88E-03 1.98E-04 8.21E-04 1.04E-03 1.10E-04 4.54E-04 2007 7,551 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Carbon Kiln 2.41E-03 9.20E-04 7.80E-04 1.33E-03 5.09E-04 4.31E-04 2007 7,551 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Carbon Kiln 6.50E-04 1.22E-03 1.20E-03 3.46E-04 6.48E-04 6.38E-04 2008 7,539 14,145 1.39E+04 6.12E-04 8.51E+00Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Preg/Barren Solution Tanks 1.57E-02 1.41E-02 2.70E-03 1.01E-02 9.07E-03 1.73E-03 2007 8,760 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Preg/Barren Solution Tanks 6.10E-03 1.30E-02 5.80E-03 3.79E-03 8.07E-03 3.60E-03 2008 8,784 14,145 1.39E+04 6.06E-03 8.42E+01Twin Creeks Mine Retort A 1.50E-05 2.20E-05 4.40E-05 3.87E-06 5.67E-06 1.13E-05 2007 3,519 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort A 7.70E-05 9.20E-05 1.91E-04 1.98E-05 2.37E-05 4.92E-05 2007 3,519 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort A 5.00E-05 1.30E-05 2.10E-05 1.19E-05 3.10E-06 5.01E-06 2008 3,375 14,145 1.39E+04 1.49E-05 2.06E-01Twin Creeks Mine Retort B 7.20E-06 2.75E-05 2.82E-05 1.67E-06 6.38E-06 6.54E-06 2007 3,168 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort B 3.20E-05 1.16E-04 5.70E-05 7.43E-06 2.69E-05 1.32E-05 2007 3,168 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort B 1.20E-05 6.00E-05 1.20E-05 2.36E-06 1.18E-05 2.36E-06 2008 2,778 14,145 1.39E+04 8.74E-06 1.21E-01Twin Creeks Mine Retort C 1.91E-05 7.46E-05 1.36E-04 3.60E-06 1.41E-05 2.57E-05 2007 2,574 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort C 1.90E-06 6.20E-06 7.80E-06 3.58E-07 1.17E-06 1.47E-06 2007 2,574 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort C 1.30E-05 9.40E-05 1.11E-04 2.21E-06 1.59E-05 1.88E-05 2008 2,400 14,145 1.39E+04 9.26E-06 1.29E-01T i C k MiR t tD5 00E 071 27E 044 76E 051 03E 072 61E 059 81E 0620072 81413 653Twin Creeks Mine Retort D 5.00E-07 1.27E-04 4.76E-05 1.03E-07 2.61E-05 9.81E-06 2007 2,814 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort D 1.50E-05 1.10E-05 4.00E-06 3.09E-06 2.27E-06 8.24E-07 2007 2,814 13,653Twin Creeks Mine Retort D 2.60E-06 6.10E-06 1.10E-05 5.44E-07 1.28E-06 2.30E-06 2008 2,958 14,145 1.39E+04 5.15E-06 7.16E-02 1.26E-02 175.3Bald Mountain Barren Tank Stack 1.00E-05 4.00E-06 3.00E-06 5.67E-05 2.27E-05 1.70E-05 Aug-08 5,924 1,045 1.20E+03 3.21E-05 3.84E-02Bald Mountain Bullion Furnace 4.49E-02 3.80E-02 2.92E-02 6.92E-03 5.86E-03 4.49E-03 Nov-07 207 1,345Bald Mountain Bullion Furnace 4.80E-02 2.88E-02invalid run6.61E-03 3.97E-03 Aug-08 144 1,045 1.20E+03 5.57E-03 6.66E+00Bald Mountain Carbon Regeneration Kiln 1.40E-05 1.40E-05 2.10E-05 4.41E-05 4.41E-05 6.62E-05 Nov-07 4,237 1,345Bald Mountain Carbon Regeneration Kiln 1.06E-04 1.08E-04 2.10E-05 1.71E-04 1.75E-04 3.40E-05 Aug-08 1,690 1,045 1.20E+03 8.91E-05 1.06E-01Bald Mountain Electrowinning Cells 3.29E-03 5.70E-03 9.45E-03 1.85E-02 3.20E-02 5.31E-02 Nov-07 7,563 1,345Bald Mountain Electrowinning Cells 7.02E-02 5.80E-02 6.09E-02 3.98E-01 3.29E-01 3.45E-01 Aug-08 5,924 1,045Bald Mountain Electrowinning Cells 2.30E-02 2.60E-02 3.40E-02 1.30E-01 1.47E-01 1.93E-01 Dec-08 5,924 1,045 1.20E+03 1.83E-01 2.19E+02Bald Mountain Retort 9.00E-06 4.20E-05 2.00E-05 8.15E-06 3.80E-05 1.81E-05 Nov-07 1,218 1,345Bald Mountain Retort 1.50E-05 2.00E-05 1.70E-05 1.35E-05 1.80E-05 1.53E-05 Aug-08 940 1,045 1.20E+03 1.85E-05 2.21E-02 1.89E-01 225.3Cortez EW Cell #1 6.99E-05 5.19E-05 8.08E-05 1.53E-04 1.13E-04 1.77E-04 Oct-08 8,760 4,008 4.01E+03 1.48E-04 5.92E-01Cortez EW Cell #2 3.79E-05 9.60E-06 1.71E-05 8.28E-05 2.10E-05 3.74E-05 Oct-08 8,760 4,008 4.01E+03 4.71E-05 1.89E-01Cortez Induction Furnace #1 7.88E-02 7.60E-02 1.96E-01 1.18E-02 1.14E-02 2.93E-02 Oct-08 600 4,008 4.01E+03 8.74E-04 3.50E+00Cortez Kiln #1 1.57E-04 1.17E-04 4.59E-05 7.43E-05 5.53E-05 2.17E-05 Dec-08 1,896 4,008 4.01E+03 5.04E-05 2.02E-01Cortez Kiln #2 1.52E-05 8.70E-06 3.99E-05 6.63E-06 3.79E-06 1.74E-05 Oct-08 1,748 4,008 4.01E+03 9.27E-06 3.72E-02Cortez PB Tanks 2.72E-04 4.36E-04 2.38E-04 5.94E-04 9.53E-04 5.20E-04 Oct-08 8,760 4,008 4.01E+03 6.89E-04 2.76E+00 1.82E-03 7.3Denton-Rawhide Carbon Kiln 6.88E-06 7.55E-06 3.61E-05 1.12E-04 1.23E-04 5.90E-04 Dec-07 8,497 520Denton-Rawhide Carbon Kiln 1.35E-05 7.58E-06 2.42E-06 1.12E-04 6.32E-05 2.02E-05 Dec-08 7,870 944 7.32E+02 1.70E-04 1.25E-01A-2TABLE A-1. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR CARBON PROCESSESRun 1(lb/hr)Run 2(lb/hr)Run 3(lb/hr)Run 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Per unitlb/yrFacilitytotal(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/yr)UnitMercury Emissions Mercury EmissionsFacilityYear hr/yrCarbon(tpy)Averagecarbon(tpy)Denton-Rawhide Electrowinning 3.83E-06 1.44E-06 3.79E-05 2.30E-05 8.64E-06 2.27E-04Dec-073,120 520Denton-Rawhide Electrowinning 2.27E-05 4.25E-06 5.27E-06 1.36E-04 2.55E-05 3.16E-05 Dec-08 5,667 944 7.32E+02 7.53E-05 5.51E-02Denton-Rawhide Refinery Furnace 9.95E-02 2.07E-01 1.66E-01 8.67E-03 1.80E-02 1.45E-02 Dec-08 82 944Denton-Rawhide Refinery Furnace 1.94E-01 8.31E-02 6.32E-02 1.30E-01 5.55E-02 4.22E-02 Dec-07 347 520 7.32E+02 4.47E-02 3.27E+01Denton-Rawhide Retort 4.30E-07 4.66E-07 5.28E-07 2.08E-06 2.25E-06 2.55E-06Dec-072,513 520Denton-Rawhide Retort 8.95E-07 2.93E-07 2.74E-07 4.47E-07 1.46E-07 1.37E-07 Dec-08 472 944 7.32E+02 1.27E-06 9.29E-04 4.50E-02 32.9Florida Canyon Mine Carbon Kiln 1.31E-03 7.00E-04 8.50E-04 4.54E-03 2.43E-03 2.95E-03 Sep-07 8,760 2,526Florida Canyon Mine Carbon Kiln 2.38E-02 3.71E-02 3.64E-02 5.10E-02 7.97E-02 7.83E-02 Jul-08 6,195 2,883Florida Canyon Mine Carbon Kiln 7.06E-03 7.74E-03 3.24E-02 1.52E-02 1.66E-02 6.97E-02 Oct-08 6,195 2,883 2.70E+03 3.56E-02 9.63E+01Florida Canyon Mine Dore Furnace 1.22E-02 3.20E-04 6.60E-04 1.39E-03 3.65E-05 7.52E-05 Sep-07 288 2,526Florida Canyon Mine Dore Furnace 5.20E-04 7.20E-04 1.83E-03 5.70E-05 7.89E-05 2.00E-04 Jul-08 316 2,883 2.70E+03 3.07E-04 8.30E-01Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell A 3.40E-04 1.80E-04 7.60E-04 1.18E-03 6.24E-04 2.64E-03 Sep-07 8,760 2,526Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell A 1.33E-03 1.90E-04 1.05E-03 4.04E-03 5.77E-04 3.19E-03 Jul-08 8,760 2,883 2.70E+03 2.04E-03 5.52E+00Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell B 1.30E-04 1.30E-04 9.00E-05 4.51E-04 4.51E-04 3.12E-04 Sep-07 8,760 2,526Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell B 9.80E-05 4.40E-05 5.90E-05 2.98E-04 1.34E-04 1.79E-04 Jul-08 8,760 2,883 2.70E+03 3.04E-04 8.22E-01Florida Canyon Mine Retort 1 3.00E-06 1.60E-06 1.30E-06 1.21E-07 6.45E-08 5.24E-08 Jul-08 116 2,883Florida Canyon Mine Retort 2 2.99E-05 1.42E-05 3.30E-06 1.03E-05 4.89E-06 1.14E-06 Jul-08 992 2,883Florida Canyon Mine Retorts 1 & 2 1.04E-05 4.95E-06 1.19E-06 Jul-08Florida Canyon Mine Retorts 1 & 2 6.70E-07 5.20E-07 6.00E-07 3.03E-07 2.35E-07 2.71E-07 Sep-07 1,141 2,526 2.70E+03 2.89E-06 7.83E-03 3.83E-02 103.5Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning East 1.96E-03 1.08E-03 1.63E-03 5.54E-03 3.05E-03 4.60E-03 Dec-07 7,824 2,770Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning East 6.60E-04 5.75E-03 7.30E-04 5.14E-03 4.47E-02 5.68E-03 Sep-08 2,424 312 1.54E+03 1.15E-02 1.77E+01Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning Scavenger2.70E-04 1.01E-02 1.10E-04 7.63E-04 2.84E-02 3.11E-04 Dec-07 7,824 2,770Lone Tree Mine ElectrowinninScaven5.82E-03 2.38E-04 9.70E-05 4.53E-02 1.85E-03 7.55E-04 Se- 2,424 312 1.54E+03 1.29E-02 1.99E+01LoneTreeMineElectrowinningger5.82E 032.38E 049.70E 054.53E 021.85E 037.55E 04Sep 084243121.54E+031.29E 021.99E+01Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning West 2.51E-03 1.22E-03 4.70E-04 1.95E-02 9.49E-03 3.66E-03 Sep-08 2,424 312 1.54E+03 1.09E-02 1.68E+01Lone Tree Mine Pregnant & Barren Tanks 2.48E-03 4.13E-03 2.15E-02 7.84E-03 1.31E-02 6.81E-02 Dec-07 8,760 2,770Lone Tree Mine Pregnant & Barren Tanks 7.40E-03 1.73E-02 2.97E-02 6.71E-02 1.57E-01 2.69E-01 Sep-08 2,824 312 1.54E+03 9.70E-02 1.50E+02 1.32E-01 203.8Ruby Hill Carbon Kiln 1.49E-03 1.44E-03 9.24E-04 1.63E-02 1.57E-02 1.01E-02 May-07 3,976 363 3.86E+02 1.40E-02 5.42E+00Ruby Hill EW Cells 5.07E-04 2.66E-04 7.76E-03 1.23E-02 6.44E-03 1.88E-01May-078,784 363 3.86E+02 6.89E-02 2.66E+01Ruby Hill Furnace 7.24E-02 1.39E-02 1.91E-02 3.68E-03 May-07 96 363 3.86E+02 1.14E-02 4.41E+00Ruby Hill Retort 1.00E-07 1.20E-07 8.00E-08 2.45E-07 2.95E-07 1.96E-07May-07891 363 3.86E+02 2.45E-07 9.47E-05 9.43E-02 36.4Jerritt Canyon Melt Furnace 2007 AER1.58E-01 872 1.38E+02 138.2Total1,3191,319A-3TABLE A-2. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR ORE PRETREATMENTRun 1(lb/hr)Run 2(lb/hr)Run 3(lb/hr)Run 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unit(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)Unit(lb/yr)Facilitytotal(lb/yr)Gold QuarryNorth Quench Circuit 5.67E-03 4.01E-03 5.76E-03 1.35E-05 9.56E-06 1.37E-05 Oct-07 7,526 3,154,578Gold QuarryNorth Quench Circuit 4.41E-03 5.55E-03 7.06E-03 1.05E-05 1.33E-05 1.69E-05 Jul-08 7,973 3,336,226 3.25E+06 1.29E-05 4.19E+01Gold QuarryOre Preheater 5.32E-03 2.27E-03 1.90E-03 1.27E-05 5.41E-06 4.53E-06 Oct-07 7,526 3,154,578Gold QuarryOre Preheater 1.10E-02 1.05E-02 6.45E-02 2.63E-05 2.50E-05 1.54E-04 Jun-08 7,973 3,336,226 3.25E+06 3.80E-05 1.23E+02Gold QuarryOre Roaster3.77E-04 2.92E-04 3.30E-04 8.99E-07 6.97E-07 7.87E-07 Oct-07 7,526 3,154,578Gold QuarryOre Roaster5.33E-04 6.72E-04 2.59E-04 1.27E-06 1.61E-06 6.19E-07 Jun-08 7,973 3,336,226 3.25E+06 9.80E-07 3.18E+00Gold QuarryROTP: Ore Dry Grind 7.01E-04 8.70E-04 6.25E-04 1.66E-06 2.06E-06 1.48E-06 Oct-07 7,483 3,154,578Gold QuarryROTP: Ore Dry Grind 6.36E-04 2.04E-03 7.44E-04 1.50E-06 4.82E-06 1.75E-06 Jun-08 7,868 3,336,226 3.25E+06 2.21E-06 7.18E+00Gold QuarrySouth Quench Circuit 7.10E-03 5.75E-03 4.05E-03 1.67E-05 1.36E-05 9.55E-06 Oct-07 7,446 3,154,578Gold QuarrySouth Quench Circuit 5.40E-03 6.20E-03 8.96E-03 1.27E-05 1.46E-05 2.11E-05 Jul-08 7,862 3,336,226 3.25E+06 1.47E-05 6.89E-05 4.78E+01 223Goldstrike Roaster Mill #1 4.30E-04 6.70E-04 4.80E-04 3.23E-07 5.03E-07 3.60E-07 Jul-09 7,754 10,330,763Goldstrike North Dry grinding process 4.00E-01 4.00E-02 2.10E-02 2.65E-04 2.65E-05 1.39E-05 Aug-07 7,940 11,985,898Goldstrike North Dry grinding process 3.60E-02 7.70E-03 1.20E-03 2.38E-05 5.10E-06 7.95E-07 Mar-07 7,940 11,985,898Goldstrike North Dry grinding process 1.30E-03 9.00E-04 7.80E-04 8.61E-07 5.96E-07 5.17E-07 Mar-07 7,940 11,985,898Goldstrike North Dry grinding process 2.70E-03 2.10E-03 4.00E-04 1.79E-06 1.39E-06 2.65E-07 Oct-07 7,940 11,985,898Goldstrike North Dry grinding process 3.30E-03 1.70E-03 4.00E-04 2.19E-06 1.13E-06 2.65E-07 Oct-07 7,940 11,985,898 1.12E+07 1.92E-05 2.14E+02Goldstrike Roaster Mill #2 1.14E-02 6.19E-03 2.25E-03 8.68E-06 4.71E-06 1.71E-06 Jul-09 7,855 10,330,763Goldstrike South Dry grinding process 1.10E-02 8.00E-03 1.10E-02 7.21E-06 5.24E-06 7.21E-06 Aug-07 7,854 11,985,898Goldstrike South Dry grinding process 1.30E-03 1.30E-03 6.00E-04 8.52E-07 8.52E-07 3.93E-07 Oct-07 7,854 11,985,898Goldstrike South Dry grinding process 2.50E-03 1.30E-03 6.00E-04 1.64E-06 8.52E-07 3.93E-07 Oct-07 7,854 11,985,898 1.12E+07 3.31E-06 3.69E+01Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 1.10E-01 8.66E-02 7.98E-02 7.25E-05 5.71E-05 5.26E-05 Jul-07 7,899 11,985,898Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 1.90E-02 1.90E-02 2.60E-02 1.25E-05 1.25E-05 1.71E-05 Oct-07 7,899 11,985,898Goldstrike Roaster Exhaust 2.56E-02 2.28E-02 1.73E-02 1.95E-05 1.73E-05 1.32E-05 Jul-09 7,876 10,330,763 1.12E+07 3.05E-05 3.40E+02GoldstrikeRoaster #1 Quench Tank5.72E-033.89E-033.78E-034.35E-062.96E-062.87E-06Jul-097,85110,330,7631.12E+073.39E-063.78E+01Ore (tpy)Mercury EmissionsFacility UnitMercury EmissionsYear hr/yrAvg ore(tpy)GoldstrikeRoaster#1QuenchTank5.72E-033.89E-033.78E-034.35E-062.96E-062.87E-06Jul-097,85110,330,7631.12E+073.39E-063.78E+01Goldstrike Roaster #2 Quench Tank 4.65E-03 4.93E-03 4.36E-03 3.55E-06 3.76E-06 3.32E-06 Jul-09 7,876 10,330,763 1.12E+07 3.54E-06 3.95E+01Goldstrike Autoclave 1 4.90E-04 7.60E-04 8.90E-04 2.59E-07 4.01E-07 4.70E-07 Jul-09 5,457 10,330,763 1.12E+07 3.77E-07 4.20E+00Goldstrike Autoclave 2/3 8.60E-04 1.01E-03 7.20E-04 6.57E-07 7.71E-07 5.50E-07 Jul-09 7,887 10,330,763 1.12E+07 6.59E-07 7.35E+00Goldstrike Autoclave 4 2.59E-03 3.00E-04 3.30E-04 1.42E-06 1.65E-07 1.81E-07 Jul-09 5,679 10,330,763 1.12E+07 5.90E-07 6.58E+00Goldstrike Autoclave 5/6 1.84E-03 1.08E-03 6.00E-04 1.42E-06 8.32E-07 4.62E-07 Jul-09 7,954 10,330,763 1.12E+07 9.03E-07 6.24E-05 1.01E+01 697Lone Tree Autoclave 7.47E-03 4.22E-03 4.47E-03 8.90E-05 5.03E-05 5.33E-05 Oct-06 2,317 194,458 1.94E+05 6.42E-05 6.42E-05 1.25E+01 12Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 1 2.38E-02 6.24E-02 4.40E-02 5.52E-05 1.45E-04 1.02E-04 Jun-07 7,914 3,410,717Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 1 3.37E-02 1.12E-01 1.25E-02 7.82E-05 2.59E-04 2.90E-05 Jun-07 7,914 3,410,717Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 1 1.02E-01 5.04E-02 4.67E-02 2.36E-04 1.17E-04 1.08E-04 Jun-07 7,914 3,410,717Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 1 9.20E-02 5.73E-02 4.73E-02 2.13E-04 1.33E-04 1.10E-04 Jun-07 7,914 3,410,717Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 1 4.50E-02 8.90E-02 1.20E-01 9.97E-05 1.97E-04 2.66E-04 Aug-08 8,265 3,728,849 3.57E+06 1.43E-04 5.11E+02Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 2 5.09E-02 2.44E-02 2.38E-02 1.14E-04 5.47E-05 5.33E-05 Jun-07 7,644 3,410,717Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 2 3.87E-02 2.22E-02 1.54E-02 8.67E-05 4.98E-05 3.45E-05 Jun-07 7,644 3,410,717Twin Creeks Mine Autoclave 2 2.20E-02 4.10E-02 3.60E-02 4.87E-05 9.07E-05 7.96E-05 Aug-08 8,250 3,728,849 3.57E+06 6.80E-05 2.11E-04 2.43E+02754Jerritt Canyon Mine Ore dryer from 2007 AER3.90E-03 2.03E-05 Jun-05 5,033 967,727 2.35E+06 2.03E-05 4.76E+01Jerritt Canyon Mine Roaster West 6.12E-03 6.20E-03 7.12E-03 3.40E-05 3.44E-05 3.96E-05 Jan-10 tph= 180 1.80E+02 3.60E-05 6.48E-03Jerritt Canyon Mine Roaster East 7.62E-03 6.45E-03 3.91E-03 4.23E-05 3.58E-05 2.17E-05 Jan-10 tph= 180 9.68E+05 3.33E-05 8.96E-05 3.22E+01 87Total1.77E+03 1,773A-4TABLE A-3. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR THE NON-CARBON CONCENTRATE GROUPRun 1(lb/hr)Run 2(lb/hr)Run 3(lb/hr)Run 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facility(lb/ton)Emissionper unitlb/yrEmissionsper facility(lb/yr)Coeur RochesterRefinery Furnace May-08 2.23E-02 4.38E-02 8.54E-03 5.96E-02 1.17E-01 2.28E-02 300 112 1.12E+02 6.65E-02 7.45E+00Coeur RochesterRetorts #1 & #2 Dec-07 9.65E-04 2.60E-05 6.00E-04 3.43E-03 9.24E-05 2.13E-03 611 172Coeur RochesterRetorts #1 & #2 Oct-08 8.65E-06 4.52E-04 1.24E-04 2.93E-04 1.53E-02 4.20E-03 3792 112 1.42E+02 4.24E-03 7.08E-02 6.02E-01 8.1Midas Operations Refinery Furnace #1 Jul-08 7.50E-02 3.30E-02 1.50E-02 1.23E-01 5.41E-02 2.46E-02 356 217Midas Operations Refinery Furnace #2 Jul-08 2.00E-02 6.50E-02 7.80E-03 5.01E-02 1.63E-01 1.95E-02 544 217Midas Operations Refinery Furnace 1 & 2 Jul-08 1.73E-01 2.17E-01 4.41E-02 544 217Midas Operations Refinery Furnace 1 & 2 Nov-07 2.62E-03 4.30E-03 7.43E-03 1.60E-02 2.63E-02 4.55E-02 832 136 1.77E+02 8.70E-02 1.54E+01Midas Operations Retort A Nov-07 1.23E-04 9.51E-05 7.75E-05 2.32E-03 1.79E-03 1.46E-03 2,565 136Midas Operations Retort A Jul-08 7.70E-05 3.70E-03 2.10E-03 1.25E-03 6.01E-02 3.41E-02 3524 217 1.77E+02 1.68E-02 2.97E+00Midas Operations Retort B Nov-07 1.93E-05 7.46E-07 5.11E-07 2.78E-04 1.07E-05 7.36E-06 1,959 136Midas Operations Retort B Sep-08 3.10E-04 3.29E-04 4.15E-04 4.22E-03 4.48E-03 5.66E-03 2957 217 1.77E+02 2.44E-03 1.06E-01 4.31E-01 18.8Total 26.826.8Conc.average(tpy)Mercury EmissionsFacility Unit Type DateMercury Emissionshr/yrConc.(tpy)A-5