## ESTIMATES OF IMPACTS FOR THE FINAL MERCURY EMISSION STANDARDS

FOR GOLD MINE ORE PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION

Metals and Minerals Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC

December 1 5 , 2010

## 2 Estimates o f Impacts f or t he Final Mercury Emission Standards f or Gold Mine Ore

Processing a nd Production

1

. 0 Cost Estimates

This section provides a summary of the estimated costs of the final rule and background

details on how these costs were developed. The cost components include both the cost of

mercury emission controls and the costs associated with monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping (MRR)

. The costs of mercury emission controls for each facility that we estimate

will likely need to add controls to meet the emissions limits in the final MACT rule are

summarized in Table 1. There were cases where facilities had installed new or additional

controls on thermal process unit s in 2008

– 2010 as a result of the Nevada Mercury Control

Program (NMCP) . The costs of these newly

- installed controls are not included in the estimates

presented here because the controls were installed prior to the final 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. Estimate d Cost of Mercury Emission Control s for MACT Floor

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)

Goldstrike Elko, NV 107 658,512 135,968 198,131 1,854

Denton

- Rawhide Fallon, NV 27 135,100 103,900 116,653 4,250

F lorida Canyon Pershing Co., NV 87 367,868 165,382 200,109 2,305

Gold Quarry Carlin, NV 126 199,400 44,222 63,045 502

Jerritt Canyon Elko, NV 165 450,882 122,737 165,300 1,001

Lone Tree Valmy, NV 181 453,500 157,858 200,669 1,110

Midas Midas, NV 14 430, 000 150,421 191,013 13,707

Twin Creeks Golconda, NV 636 30,064,551 2,413,109 5,239,483 8,232

Totals 1,343 32,759,813 3,293,597 6,374,404 4,746



## Table 2 presents the costs of MRR and include s all of the gold mine ore processing and

production facilitie s identified as having the thermal processes that would be subject to the final

rule. All of these facilities will incur additional MRR costs. The final rule provides options for

MRR; consequently, costs are presented for a range of these MRR options th at includes the

higher and lower costs options. Details for the MRR cost estimates are provided in Section 1.2.

## 3 Table 2. Estimates of Costs for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping

Facility Name Facility Location Number of stacks a Higher estimates of MRR costs Lower estimates of MRR costs

Roaster Other Not in

NV b Monitoring

capital Method 29

testing Monitoring

O&M Monitoring

total annual Monitoring

capital Method 29

testing Monitoring

O&M Monitoring

total annual

Goldstrike Elko, NV 2 15 120,000

- 182,061 199,149 200,668

- 78,619 107,194

Coeur Rochester Lovelock, NV 3 40,000

- 31,794 37,490

- - 11,299 11,299

Cortez Crescent Valley,

NV 6 40,000

- 62,565 68,261

- - 21,576 21,576

Cripple Creek Victor, CO 3 3 40,000 28,260 31,794 65,750

- 28,260 11,299 39,559

Denton

- Rawhide Fallon, NV 4 40,000

- 42,051 47,747

- - 14,725 14,725

Echo Bay/Kettle River Republic, WA 3 3 40,000 28,260 31,794 65,750

- 28,260 11,299 39,559

Florida Canyon Pershing County,

NV 7 40,000

- 72,822 78,518

- - 25,001 25,001

Fort Knox Fairbanks, AK 2 2 40,000 18,840 21,537 46,073

- 18,840 7,873 26,713

Gold Quarry Carlin, N V 1 10 80,000

- 117,184 128,576 100,334

- 48,385 62,672

Golden Sunlight Whitehall, MT 3 3 40,000 28,260 31,794 65,750

- 28,260 11,299 39,559

Greens Creek Mine Greens Creek , AK 1 1 40,000 9,420 11,279 26,395

- 9,420 4,448 13,868

Bald Mountain Elko, NV 5 40,000

- 52,308 58, 004

- - 18,150 18,150

Jerritt Canyon Elko, NV 2 3 120,000

- 58,976 76,064 200,668

- 37,512 66,087

Lone Tree Valmy, NV 5 40,000

- 52,308 58,004

- - 18,150 18,150

Marigold Valmy, NV 4 40,000

- 42,051 47,747

- - 14,725 14,7 25

Midas Midas, NV 3 40,000

- 31,794 37,490

- - 11,299 11,299

Ruby Hill Eureka, NV 4 40,000

- 42,051 47,747

- - 14,725 14,725

Round Mountain Round Mountain,

NV 4 40,000

- 42,051 47,747

- - 14,725 14,725

Twin Creeks Golconda, NV 13 40,000

- 134,365 140,061

- - 45,555 45,555

Western Mesquite Brawley, CA 3 3 40,000 28,260 31,794 65, 750

- 28,260 11,299 39,559

Wharf Resources Lawrence County,

SD 2 2 40,000 18,840 21,537 46,073

- 18,840 7,873 26,713

Totals 5 103 17 1,040,000 160,140 1,145,905 1,454,141 501,670 160,140 439,837 671,414

a Number of stacks that must be monitored

. b Stacks at facilities outside of Nevada wi ll 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 basis for the cost estimates are the estimates developed by the gold mine ore

processing and production facil ities in their Phase 2 applications for the NMCP

. 1 

## In these

applications, individual facilities identified their process units that emit mercury and proposed

additional controls for units that were not currently controlled. The cost estimates were based on applying carbon adsorbers to capture mercury emissions and were developed from the actual

costs that had been incurred when installing th os e types of controls on other process units. Most

of the facilities provided estimates of capital costs for the pr oposed emission control system s

. For the few facilities that did not provide a capital cost estimate, 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) fo r a carbon adsorption system with a volumetric flow rate of 2,500

cubic feet per minute (cfm). The cost for applying carbon adsorbers to other process units was

based on the process unit’s exhaust flow rate ( 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 provide an estimate of the annual operating and maintenance

(O&M) costs. However, when a facility estimated annual O&M costs in their Phase 2

applicat ion, those estimates were used in this analysis. For facilities without their own site

specific estimates, O&M cost estimates were developed based on the reported costs for other

units that had already been equipped 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 the

additional fan capacity needed 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 

## T he 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 the exhaust flow rate for each process unit

using the following equation:

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

The annualized cost of capital was estimated based 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 3 pr esents the estimated mercury

emission control costs for each of the process units and provides references for the estimates

.

1 

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

.

## 5 Table 3

. Breakdown of Estimated Cost of Mercury Emission Controls for Affected Process

Units for MACT Floor

Facility Unit Contro l a 

### Mercury

reduction

(lb/yr) Flow

( cfm ) b 

### Total

cap ital cost c 

### Annual

O&M

cost e 

### T otal

annualized

cost Cost

effectiveness

( $/lb )

Denton Rawhide Melt furnace CA 27.4 6,500 135,100 8 

### 103,900 8 

### 116,653 4,250

Florida Canyon Carbon kilns CA 80.9 1,000 183,934 7 

### 82,691 7 

### 100,054 1,237

Florida Canyon Electrowinning, preg

tanks, melt furnace CA 5.9 1,000 183,934 2 

### 82,691 7 

### 100,054 16,962

Gold Quarry AARL carbon kiln CA 108.7 900 99,700 6 

### 22,111 31,523 290

Gold Quarry Zadra carbon kiln CA 16.9 900 99,700 6 

### 22,111 3 1,523 1,864

Goldstrike Carbon kilns WC, CA 106.9 4,406 658,512 d 

### 135,968 198,131 1,854

Jerritt Canyon Melt furnace CA 131.3 1,622 141,933 d 

### 31,966 45,365 346

Jerritt Canyon Carbon kiln & retort CA 33.9 5,930 308,949 d 

### 90,771 119,935 3,536

Lone Tree Ele ctrowinning CA 24.3 10,000 423,000 9 

### 146,326 186,257 7,662

Lone Tree Preg tanks CA 156.4 125 30,500 10 

### 11,532 14,411 92

Twin Creeks Juniper preg tanks CA 94.5 3,085 209,000 4 

### 51,936 71,666 758

Twin Creeks Electrowinning CA 52.4 7,311 434,000 5 

### 109,621 150,5 91 2,871

Twin Creeks Melt furnace new CA 16.4 3,000 60,776 14 

### 50,776 56,513 3,455

Twin Creeks Melt furnace old CA 42.5 3,000 60,776 14 

### 50,776 56,513 1,329

Midas Furnace CA 13.9 10,300 430,000 15 

### 150,421 191,013 13,707

Twin Creeks Autoclave WC, CA 430.6 11 ,300 29,300,000 19 

### 2,150,000 4,904,200 11,390

Subtotal Carbon Group with Hg retorts (No. 1 through

No. 14) 899 3,029,813 993,176 1,279,191 1,424

Subtotal Non

- carbon Concentrate Group (No. 15) 14 430,000 150,421 191,013 13,707

Subtotal Ore Pretreatmen t Group (No. 16) 431 29,300,000 2,150,000 4,904,200 11,390

Total 1,343 32,759,813 3,293,597 6,374,404 4,746

a 

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

b 

### cfm = cubic feet per minute

c 

### Capital costs estimates co me 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).



## 1

. 2 MRR Costs

Th e final rul e includes th ree monitoring options for roasters: a mercury continuous

emission monitoring system (CEMS) , c ontinuous sorbent trap sampling

, and periodic sorbent

trap sampling. (Costs are not included for parametric monitoring of control devices because t he

facilities are already performing that monitoring as a result of State permit requirements.) The

cost estimates for the mercury CEMS were developed using EPA 's CEMS Cost Model for

estimating CEMS costs and are summarized in Table 4

.

Costs for the sorb ent 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, mo is ture conditioner

, metering cons ole, and data logger . The paired traps 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). Sampling twice per month would be required, whic h results in an

annual sampling cost of $13,335/yr per stack.

## 6 Table 4 . Cost Estimate for a Mercury CEMS

Capital cost

CEMS equipment (analyzer, sampling line 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 $1.2 53

Subtotal $12,852

Capital recovery (10 years at 7%, CRF = 0.1424 ) $14,288

Total annualized cost $27,140

For process units other than roasters, the common mercury control device is a carbon

adsorber. The final rule provides options for s am pling carb on adsorbers: monthly sorbent trap

sampling (except going to weekly when the adsorber reaches 75 percent of the operating limit) or

quarterly sampling of the carbon for mercury loading (going to monthly when 50 percent of

capacity is reached). The capita l cost for the sorbent trap sampling is the same as estimated

above ($40,000). The annual cost is also estimated in a similar manner except the lower

frequency of sampling results in lower sampling costs. The annual costs for sorbent trap

sampling and an alysis 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 s am pling is much

less e xp ensive because there is no capital cost, the analytical cost is less ($110 /sample instead of

$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 costs for a facility were developed as shown

in Table 5 ($ 1,022 + $ 256 × number of stacks)

.

## 7 Table 5 . Estimate of Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs

General Description Mean

Hourly

Rate a 

## Rate with

overhead b 

## hr/plant $/plant hr/stack $/stack

Environmental Engineer $ 35.24 $ 56.38 16 $ 902 4 $ 226

Management c 

## $ 57.27 $ 91.63 0.8 $ 73 0.20 $ 18

Office/Admin. Support d 

## $ 18.31 $ 29.30 1.6 $ 47 0.40 $ 12

Total 18.4 $ 1,022 4.6 $ 256

a 

### Labor rates are for private industry worke rs in the mining industry (NAICS 212200) and were taken from the

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 200 9 , available at:

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_2 12200.htm

. b 

### Overhead at 60%.

c 

### Estimated as 5% of technical hours

. d 

### Estimated as 10% of technical hours

.



## The final rule also require s annual stack sampling for mercury emissions (e.g., using EPA

Method 29). However, most of the gold mine facilities ar e located in Nevada, and the Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection already requires annual sampling using Method 29.

Consequently, only facilities outside of Nevada would incur additional costs for stack sampling.

The cost of Method 29 testing is e stimated as $9,420 per stack test as shown in Table 6 :

Table 6 . 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 number of roaster stacks,

number of other (no n

- roaster process unit ) stacks

, and stacks not located in Nevada (for

Method 29 testing) that must be monitored and tested.

1.3 Beyond

- the

- Floor Costs

T he affected sources with carbon processes with mercury retorts us e carbon to recover

the gold and have one or more of the following process un its: carbon kilns, electrowinning, preg

tanks, mercury retorts, and melt furnaces. Approximately 7 of the 10 facilities for which data are

available will need to improve control to meet the floor limits because these 7 plants have an

average emission con trol performance that is above the Maximum Achievable Control

Technology ( MACT ) floor average performance. We expect that the carbon process with

mercury retorts units not currently controlled will have carbon adsorbers installed to effectively

control me rcury emissions at the MACT floor level. Considering the very low mercury

## 8 concentrations when the carbon processes with mercury retorts are performing at the MACT

level of control, it is difficult to identify a technology that can obtain efficient additio nal percent

reductions from low concentration streams. The final rule requires close monitoring of the

carbon adsorber so that the carbon can be replaced before breakthrough occurs and mercury is

emitted. With careful monitoring, emission reductions on t he order of 99 percent could be

achieved by the carbon adsorbers installed to achieve the MACT 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 f irst one and would get an additional 90 percent reduction (a

lower reduction because of the very low mercury concentrations that result from the MACT floor

level of control ) . We acknowledge that there is uncertainty as to the additional percent reduction

the second control system might achieve. The cost estimates for a second carbon adsorption

system in series with the first one for carbon processes with mercury retorts are presented in

Table 7

. The capital cost was estimated as $3 million with a total a nnualized cost of about

$ 1.3 million/yr and a cost effectiveness of about $ 150,000 /lb.

The facilities with ore pretreatment processes have installed , or would need to install

mercury scrubbers on their roasters and ventur i scrubbers and/ maybe carbon adsorbers on

their autoclaves, to achieve the MACT floor for ore pretreatment processes. To achieve

further reduction in mercury, one beyond

- the

- floor option is the installation of both a

refrigeration unit and a carbon adsorber on the facilit ies with aut oclaves. This additional

control system would follow the existing venturi scrubbers, and, because autoclave exhaust is

saturated with water, a refrigeration unit or condenser would be required to remove moisture

that would otherwise adversely affect the a dsorptive capacity of the carbon adsorber. The

estimated capital cost for the additional controls for the autoclaves at Twin Creeks would be

$29.3 million, with a total annualized cost of $4.9 million/yr. Based on an estimated control

efficiency of 70 pe rcent, mercury emissions would be reduced by 431 lbs/yr, resulting in an

estimated cost effectiveness of $11,390/lb. We estimate the capital cost for the additional

controls on the autoclaves at Goldstrike would be $47,000,000, with a total annualized cos t of

$8,200,000/yr. Based on an estimated control efficiency of 70 percent, mercury emissions

would be reduced by 10 lbs/yr, resulting in an estimated cost effectiveness of $782,409/lb.

We also identified as a beyond

- the

- floor option the installation of a carbon adsorber on

ore preheater/dryer units. We estimated the capital cost for the additional controls as $2,962,000,

with a total annualized cost of $1,622,000/yr. Based on an estimated control efficiency of 70

percent, m ercury emissions would be red uced by 118 lbs /yr , resulting in an estimated cost

effectiveness of $13,784/lb

.

We also evaluated a beyond

- the

- floor option for the new source standard. The best

performing similar source for the ore pretreatment affected source is the Goldstrike facil ity. We

identified as a beyond

- the

- floor option the installation of a carbon adsorber on the autoclaves and

on ore preheater units at this facility. We estimated the capital cost for the additional controls as

$48,100,000, with a total annualized cost of $ 9,419,000 /yr. Based on an estimated control

efficiency of 70 percent for the controls on the autoclaves and the ore preheaters, mercury

emissions would be reduced by 44.6 lbs/yr, resulting in an estimated cost effectiveness of

$211,188/lb.

## 9 T able 7 . Es timate of Costs for a Second Carbon Adsorber for Carbon Processes with

Mercury Retorts

Facility Unit Flow

(cfm) Total

capital

cost a 

### Annual

O&M

cost b 

### Total

annualized

cost Mercury

reduction

(lb/yr)

Twin Creeks Juniper P/B tanks 3,085 209,000 51,936 71,666 0.90

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 7,311 434,000 109,621 150,591 0.50

Goldstrike Carbon kilns 4,406 658,512 135,968 198,131 1.00

Gold Quarry AARL carbon kiln 900 99,700 22,111 31,523 1.03

Florida Canyon Carbon kilns 1,000 183,934 82,691 100,054 0.77

Flo rida Canyon Electrowinning, P/B

tanks, melt furnace 1,000 183,934 82,691 100,054 0.06

Denton Rawhide Melt furnace 6,500 135,100 103,900 116,653 0.26

Lone Tree Electrowinning 10,000 423,000 146,326 186,257 0.23

Lone Tree P/B tanks 125 30,500 11,532 14,41 1 1.48

Gold Quarry Zadra Carbon kiln 900 99,700 22,111 31,523 0.16

Twin Creeks Melt furnace new 3,000 60,776 50,776 56,513 0.15

Twin Creeks Melt furnace old 3,000 60,776 50,776 56,513 0.40

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

Jerritt Canyon Carbon kiln & retort 5,930 308,949 90,771 119,935 0.32

Totals 3,029,813 993,176 1,279,191 8.50

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 (s ee text).



## For the two facilities with carbon processes without retorts, we expect that Cortez will

duct their uncontrolled P/B tank emissions into the e lectrowinning control device. For a beyond

the

- floor analysis for carbon processes without mercury ret orts

, we estimated the costs and

emissions reductions for installing a carbon adsorber to a unit at Round Mountain that is

currently uncontrolled. For carbon processes without mercury retorts, t he capital cost for a

carbon adsorber was estimated to be $ 0. 2 million with a total annualized cost of $ 72,000 /yr . The

mercury emission s reduction associated with this option would be 1.6 lbs /yr, resulting in an

estimated cost effectiveness of $44,000/lb

.

For the two facilities with non

- carbon concentrate proce sses, 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 syste m of carbon adsorbers in series for all of the melt

furnaces at both facilities

. Using the cost algorithms presented earlier as a function of system

flow rate, w e estimated the capital cost for the second set of carbon adsorber control systems as

$ 430,000 , an annual operating cost of $ 150, 421 /yr, and a total annualized cost of $ 191,0 13 /year.

Emissions would be reduced by 0.13 lb/year, which results in a cost effectiveness of

$ 1.4 million /lb.

Table 8 summarizes the final mercury emission control costs in cluding the beyond

- the

floor costs for ore pretreatment and the MACT floor costs for all the affected sources.

Table 8. Final Mercury Emission Control Costs a

## 10 Facility Name Location Hg

reduction

(lb/yr) Estimates of mercury emission control costs

Tota l

capital

cost
($2008) Total

O&M

cost ($/yr) Total

annual

cost ($/yr) Cost

effectiveness

($/lb)

Goldstrike Elko, NV 141 858,512 1,335,968 1,417,131 10,016

Denton

- Rawhide Fallon, NV 27 135,100 103,900 116,653 4,250

Florida Canyon Pershing Co., NV 87 367, 868 165,382 200,109 2,305

Gold Quarry Carlin, NV 189 2,451,400 74,672 305,045 1,617

Jerritt Canyon Elko, NV 185 960,882 235,737 326,300 1,761

Lone Tree Valmy, NV 181 453,500 157,858 200,669 1,110

Midas Midas, NV 14 430,000 150,421 191,013 13,707

Twin Creeks Golconda, NV 636 30,064,551 2,413,109 5,239,483 8,232

Totals 1,461 35,721,813 4,637,047 7,996,404 5,474

a 

### Includes b eyond

- the

- floor costs for ore pretreatment and MACT floor costs for all other affected sources

.



## Table 9 summarizes the overall c ost s of the final MACT rule.

Table 9 . Overall Costs and Cost Effectiveness of the Final MACT Rule

Capital Costs TAC

Control Costs, $ million/yr 35,721,813 7,996,404

MRR, $ million/yr 770,835 1,062,778

Total Cost, $ million/yr 36,492,648 9,059,181



## 2

. 0 Emission Estimates

The emission estimates are based on mercury 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 process uni t in each of the three groups of affected

sources. The run

- by

- run data are presented in Appendix A , which also provide s the details

(emissions, operating hours, etc.) that were used in the calculations. When emissions were

presented for different years f or a single process unit, the emissions over the different years were

averaged to estimate the average baseline emissions. Consequently, the emissions do not

represent those reported for a given year, but the average of the years (2007

- 2009) for which dat a

were avai lable . Emissions for the facil i ty were det ermined 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 Table 10 for the four gro ups of affected sources.

Emission reductions attributable to MACT for the carbon processes with mercury retorts,

carbon processes without mercury retorts, and non

- carbon processes group of units were

estimated based on 95 percent and 99 percent control. The increased monitoring for carbon

2 

### Copies of the emission test reports are available in the rulemaking docket: EPA

- HQ

- OAR 2010

- 0239.

## 11 adsorbers is expected to result in continuing high reductions because the carbon would be

replaced before complete breakthrough occurs. Table 11 presents the baseline emissions and

emission reductions for the process un its in the carbon processes with mercury retorts group that

would be affected by MACT.

For the carbon processes without retorts group, we expect that MACT would result in the

installation of a carbon adsorber on the electrowinning cells at Round Mountain . Round

Mountain electrowinning baseline emissions of 1.72 lb/yr would be reduced by 1.6 to 0.12 lb/yr.

The overall carbon processes without retorts baseline emissions of 3.52 lb/yr would be reduced

by 1.6 to 1.89 lb/yr.

The MACT reductions for the or e pretreatment 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 the 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 than the exhaust streams typical of the carbon

process units. The Twin Creeks autoclave baseline emissions of 615 lb/yr would b e reduced by

431 to 184 lb/yr. The overall ore pretreatment baseline emissions of 1,451 lb/yr would be

reduced by 431 lb/yr from the controls on the autoclaves and 118 lb/yr from the beyond

- the

- floor

control on the ore preheaters to 903 lb/yr.

For the non

- carbon concentrate group, we expect that MACT would result in the

installation of a carbon adsorber on the melt furnace at Midas Operations. The Midas melt

furnace baseline emissions of 14.67 lb/yr would be reduced by 13.94 to 0.73 lb/yr. The overall

non

- carbon concentrate baseline emissions of 25.79 lb/yr would be reduced by 13.94 to

11.85 lb/yr.

## 12 Table 10 . Baseline Mercury Emissions Estimates for the Four Groups of Affected

Sources (based on data fo r 2007

- 2009)

Ore Pretreatment Processes

Facility Mercury Emissions (lb/yr)

Gold Quarry 186

Goldstrike 538

Jerritt Canyon Mine 112

Twin Creeks Mine 615

Subtotal 1,451

Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Facility Mercury Emissions (lb/yr)

Bald Mountain 2.8

Denton

- Rawhide 31

Florida Canyon Min e 93

Gold Quarry 231

Goldstrike 156

Jerritt Canyon 174

Lone Tree Mine 227

Marigold 5.7

Ruby Hill 5.9

Twin Creeks 230

Subtotal 1,155

Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

Facility Mercury Emissions (lb/yr)

Round Mountain 2.6

Cortez 2.3

Subto tal 4.9

Non

- carbon Concentrate Processes

Facility Mercury Emissions (lb/yr)

Coeur Rochester 8.1

Midas Operations 18

Subtotal 26

Grand Total 2,636

We estimate that in 2007 about 5

, 000 pounds of mercury were emitted from this source

category based m ainly on test data for year 2007. In 2008 and 2009 a few facilities added

controls or modified their operations. Thus, using a combination of data from 2007 to 2009, we

estimate that current emissions are about 2,63 6 lb/yr

. Overall, the proposed MACT li mits are

expected to reduce mercury emissions by about 1,46 1 to 1,17 4 lb/yr.

## 13 Table 11 . Mercury Emissions Reductions for the Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Group

Facility Unit Maximum

concentrate

usage (tpy) Unit average

(lb/ton

concentrate) Unit

e missions

lb/yr Reductions

@95%

(lb/yr) Reductions

@99%

(lb/yr)

Twin Creeks Juniper PregTanks 104.57 0.95 99.50 94.52 98.50

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 104.57 0.53 55.21 52.45 54.66

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2

- Drum 105.93 1.05 110.94 105.40 109.83

Goldst rike Preg and Barren Tank A 105.93 0.01 0.92 0.88 0.91

Goldstrike Preg and Barren Tank B 105.93 0.01 0.65 0.61 0.64

Gold Quarry AARL Carbon Kiln 62.10 1.84 114.43 108.71 113.28

Florida Canyon Carbon Kiln 11.35 7.50 85.16 80.90 84.31

Florida Canyon El ectrowinning Cell A 11.35 0.55 6.21 5.90 6.15

Denton

- Rawhide Refinery Furnace 18.50 1.56 28.89 27.45 28.60

Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning Scavenger 11.00 2.33 25.59 24.31 25.33

Lone Tree Mine Pregnant & Barren Tanks 11.00 14.97 164.63 156.40 162.98

Gol d Quarry Zadra Carbon Kiln 62.10 0.29 17.80 16.91 17.63

Twin Creeks Furnace (New) 104.57 0.16 17.22 16.36 17.05

Twin Creeks Furnace (Old) 104.57 0.43 44.77 42.53 44.32

Jerritt Canyon Carbon Kiln & Retort 12.00 2.98 35.70 33.92 35.34

Jerritt Canyo n Melt furnace 12.00 11.52 138.20 131.29 136.82

Totals 946 899 936



## 3. Secondary Impacts

Secondary impacts include an increase in electricity consumption by fans and

refrigeration units (in some cases) plus the generation of solid waste when the carbon in carbon

adsorbers is replaced. These increases are due in part to facilities that will have to add additional

controls to their units to meet the MACT standards, specifically the addition of carbon adsorber s

. The increase in electricity cons umption was estimated from the following equation from the

OAQPS Cost Manual 18 

## :

kW

- hr/yr = 0.00081 * acfm * pressure drop (use 6 inches of water) * operating hr/yr

.

The results are shown in Table 12 with a total increase of 12.6 million kW

- hr/yr.

The e stimated increase in spent carbon for regeneration or disposal assumes the carbon is

replaced when half of its potential mercury capacity has been reached (a bout 0.1 lb mercury/lb

carbon). For a mercury reduction of 1,461 lbs, approximately 14,600 lbs of carbon would be

used and 16,060 lbs of spent loaded carbon would be generated.

## 14 Table 12

. Estimated Increase in Electricity Consumption

Facility Unit Operating

hr/yr Flow

(cfm) kw hr/yr

Denton

- Rawhide Melt Furnace 347 6,500 10,962

Florida Canyon Elec trowinning, P/B tanks, melt

furnace 8,760 1,000 42,574

Florida Canyon Carbon Kiln 8,760 1,000 42,574

Gold Quarry Zadra Carbon Kiln 8,760 900 38,316

Gold Quarry AARL Carbon Kiln 6,471 900 28,304

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 6,884 4,406 147,408

Jerritt Canyo n Carbon Kiln & Retort 1,541 5,930 44,411

Jerritt Canyon Melt Furnace 872 1,622 6,874

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

Lone Tree P/B Tanks 8,760 125 5,322

Midas Furnace 832 10,300 41,648

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2 (new) 8,760 3,000 127,721

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1 (old) 8,760 3,000 127,721

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

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

Twin Creeks Autoclave 11,300 11,389,107 a



### Total 12,613,343

a 

## Electricity consumption for th e refrigeration unit taken from Phase 2 a pplication (Reference

19 ).

## 15 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 Barri ck Goldstrike. Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection. Appendix 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 Ph ase 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

. Applicat ion 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. 20 08.

8

. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for 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 for Bald Mountain . Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection. Appendix 3, Page 21

. 2008.

12

. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for 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. Appendix 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.

## 16 15

. Application for Phase 2 Operating Permit for Midas. Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection. P age 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 Protecti on. Pages 3

- 1 1 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.

19

. Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. public comments (docket item EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0239

- 0274 ) to propo sed rule 75 Fed. Reg. 22470 (April 28, 2010)

## 17 Appendix A. Emission Test Results and Estimates of Baseline Emissions

## 18 TABLE A

- 1. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR CARBON PROCESSES WITH MERCURY RETORTS

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/hr) Run 2

(lb/hr) Run 3

(lb/h r) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Concentr

ate (tpy) Max

Concentr

ate (tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Marigold EW, P/B 6.30E

- 04 9.30E

- 04 7.40E

- 04 3.68E

- 01 5.43E

- 01 4.32E

- 0 1 2008 6,281 10.75 10.75 4.48E

- 01 4.82E+00

Marigold Retort 6.30E

- 04 9.30E

- 04 7.40E

- 04 7.72E

- 02 1.14E

- 01 9.07E

- 02 2008 1,318 10.75

Marigold Retort 2.00E

- 05 9.20E

- 05 1.10E

- 05 2.48E

- 03 1.14E

- 02 1.37E

- 03 2009 1,142 9.20 10.75 4.95E

- 02 5.33E

- 01

Marigold Melt Furnace 4.54E

- 03 2.20E

- 03 1.35E

- 03 8.49E

- 02 4.11E

- 02 2.52E

- 02 2008 201 10.75

Marigold Melt Furnace 4.40E

- 04 4.81E

- 04 7.67E

- 04 1.00E

- 02 1.09E

- 02 1.74E

- 02 2009 209 9.20 10.75 3.16E

- 02 3.40E

- 01

Marigold Carbon Kiln 1.41E

- 05 1.18E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 7.52E

- 03 6.29E

- 03 6.99E

- 03 2008 5,732 10.75

Marigold Carbon Kiln 1.50E

- 06 5.00E

- 07 8.00E

- 07 7.36E

- 04 2.45E

- 04 3.93E

- 04 2009 4,515 9.20 10.75 3.69E

- 03 3.97E

- 02 0.53 5.7

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 6.88E

- 06 7.55E

- 06 3.61E

- 05 3.16 E

- 03 3.47E

- 03 1.66E

- 02 2007 8,497 18.5

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 1.35E

- 05 7.58E

- 06 2.42E

- 06 1.15E

- 02 6.48E

- 03 2.07E

- 03 2008 7,870 9.2

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 3.18E

- 04 1.85E

- 04 1.63E

- 04 2.50E

- 01 1.45E

- 01 1.28E

- 01 2009 6,482 8.25 1 8.50 6.30E

- 02 1.16E+00

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 3.83E

- 06 1.44E

- 06 3.79E

- 05 6.46E

- 04 2.43E

- 04 6.39E

- 03 2007 3,120 18.5

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 2.27E

- 05 4.25E

- 06 5.27E

- 06 1.40E

- 02 2.62E

- 03 3.25E

- 03 2008 5,667 9.2

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 1.14E

- 05 8.10E

- 05 1.59E

- 04 9.14E

- 03 6.49E

- 02 1.27E

- 01 2009 6,612 8.25 18.50 2.54E

- 02 4.70E

- 01

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 1.94E

- 01 8.31E

- 02 6.32E

- 02 3.64E+00 1.56E+00 1.19E+00 2007 347 18.5

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnac e 9.95E

- 02 2.07E

- 01 1.66E

- 01 8.90E

- 01 1.85E+00 1.48E+00 2008 82 9.2

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 6.53E

- 02 1.95E

- 01 2.69E

- 02 7.84E

- 01 2.34E+00 3.23E

- 01 2009 99 8.25 18.50 1.56E+00 2.89E+01

Denton

Rawhide Retort 4.30E

- 07 4.66E

- 07 5.28E

- 07 5.8 4E

- 05 6.33E

- 05 7.17E

- 05 2007 2,513 18.5

Denton

Rawhide Retort 8.95E

- 07 2.93E

- 07 2.74E

- 07 4.59E

- 05 1.50E

- 05 1.40E

- 05 2008 472 9.2

Denton

Rawhide Retort 2.92E

- 04 2.05E

- 04 3.57E

- 04 6.24E

- 02 4.38E

- 02 7.62E

- 02 2009 1,762 8.25 18.50 2.03E

- 02 3.75E

- 01 1.67 31

Bald

Mountain Carbon Kiln 8.23E

- 05 5.59E

- 05 6.30E

- 05 2.37E

- 02 1.61E

- 02 1.82E

- 02 2009 1,084 3.76 3.76 1.93E

- 02 7.27E

- 02

Bald

Mountain Electrowinning

& Barren Tank 5.57E

- 04 1.32E

- 04 8.14E

- 04 7.41E

- 01 1.76E

- 01 1.08E+00 2009 5,000 3.7 6 3.76 6.66E

- 01 2.51E+00

Bald

Mountain Melt Furnace 1.80E

- 03 9.21E

- 04 1.21E

- 03 7.09E

- 02 3.63E

- 02 4.76E

- 02 2009 148 3.76 3.76 5.16E

- 02 1.94E

- 01

Bald

Mountain Retort 6.68E

- 06 6.58E

- 06 2.88E

- 06 1.11E

- 03 1.09E

- 03 4.79E

- 04 2009 625 3.76 3.76 8.94E

- 04 3.36E

- 03 0.74 2.8

Ruby Hill Carbon Kiln 1.01E

- 03 9.49E

- 04 3.56E

- 04 2.30E

- 01 2.16E

- 01 8.08E

- 02 2009 1,274 5.61 5.61 1.75E

- 01 9.84E

- 01

## 19 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/hr) Run 2

(lb/hr) Run 3

(lb/h r) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Concentr

ate (tpy) Max

Concentr

ate (tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Ruby Hill Electrowinning

& Preg/Barren

Tanks 9.64E

- 04 3.49E

- 04 3.18E

- 04 1.51E+00 5.45E

- 01 4.97E

- 01 2009 8,760 5.61 5. 61 8.49E

- 01 4.76E+00

Ruby Hill Melt Furnace 1.70E

- 03 2.04E

- 03 3.02E

- 02 3.63E

- 02 2009 100 5.61 5.61 3.33E

- 02 1.87E

- 01

Ruby Hill Retort 8.00E

- 07 8.00E

- 07 7.00E

- 07 1.30E

- 04 1.30E

- 04 1.14E

- 04 2009 911 5.61 5.61 1.24E

- 04 6.98E

- 04 1.06 5.9

Goldstr ike Carbon Kiln 8.38E

- 02 1.49E

- 02 8.62E

- 03 5.45E+00 9.68E

- 01 5.60E

- 01 2007 6,884 105.9

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 6.03E

- 03 8.76E

- 03 5.92E

- 03 4.27E

- 01 6.21E

- 01 4.20E

- 01 2008 7,271 102.6

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 1.81E

- 02 1.85E

- 02 2.21E

- 02 1.2 8E+00 1.31E+00 1.57E+00 2008 7,271 102.6

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 1.97E

- 02 2.06E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 1.40E+00 1.46E+00 1.35E+00 2008 7,271 102.6

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 9.04E

- 03 1.28E

- 02 5.71E

- 03 6.41E

- 01 9.07E

- 01 4.05E

- 01 2008 7,271 102.6

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 3.10E

- 04 4.20E

- 04 4.90E

- 04 2.39E

- 02 3.23E

- 02 3.77E

- 02 2009 7,527 97.8 105.93 1.05E+00 1.11E+02

Goldstrike Electrowinning 2.38E

- 03 2.71E

- 03 3.03E

- 03 1.58E

- 01 1.80E

- 01 2.02E

- 01 2007 7,053 105.9

Goldstrike Electrow inning 3.90E

- 03 5.60E

- 03 3.20E

- 03 2.74E

- 01 3.93E

- 01 2.25E

- 01 2008 7,202 102.6

Goldstrike Electrowinning 1.44E

- 03 9.60E

- 04 2.21E

- 03 1.06E

- 01 7.07E

- 02 1.63E

- 01 2009 7,202 97.8 105.93 1.97E

- 01 2.09E+01

Goldstrike Melt Furnace 4.95E

- 03 1.24E

- 02 3.96E

- 03 2.93E

- 02 7.35E

- 02 2.35E

- 02 2007 628 105.9

Goldstrike Melt Furnace 1.02E

- 02 2.88E

- 02 4.71E

- 02 4.56E

- 02 1.28E

- 01 2.10E

- 01 2009 436 97.8 105.93 8.50E

- 02 9.00E+00

Goldstrike Preg Tank 3.27E

- 03 2.27E

- 03 1.16E

- 03 2.07E

- 02 1.43E

- 02 7.33E

- 03 2008 648 102.6

Goldstrike Preg Tank 4.20E

- 04 4.80E

- 04 6.10E

- 04 2.78E

- 03 3.18E

- 03 4.04E

- 03 2009 648 97.8 105.93 8.72E

- 03 9.24E

- 01

Goldstrike Preg Tank 6.28E

- 04 2.11E

- 03 1.89E

- 03 3.97E

- 03 1.33E

- 02 1.19E

- 02 2008 648 102.6

Goldst rike Preg Tank 4.80E

- 04 3.00E

- 04 3.30E

- 04 3.18E

- 03 1.99E

- 03 2.19E

- 03 2009 648 97.8 105.93 6.10E

- 03 6.46E

- 01

Goldstrike Retort 3.11E

- 03 2.51E

- 03 1.73E

- 03 5.91E

- 02 4.77E

- 02 3.29E

- 02 2009 1,858 97.8 105.93 4.65E

- 02 4.93E+00

Goldstrike Retort 1.36E

- 0 3 6.90E

- 04 5.60E

- 04 3.00E

- 02 1.52E

- 02 1.23E

- 02 2009 2,154 97.8 105.93 1.92E

- 02 2.03E+00

Goldstrike Retort 3.08E

- 03 3.53E

- 03 3.34E

- 03 5.85E

- 02 6.70E

- 02 6.34E

- 02 2009 1,856 97.8 105.93 6.29E

- 02 6.67E+00 1.47 156

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 1.70E

- 04 9.0 0E

- 04 3.64E

- 03 2.29E

- 02 1.21E

- 01 4.91E

- 01 2007 8,760 64.9

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 1.30E

- 02 7.90E

- 03 8.80E

- 03 1.74E+00 1.06E+00 1.18E+00 2008 8,784 65.7

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 8.03E

- 04 5.15E

- 04 4.13E

- 04 6.73E

- 02 4.31E

- 02 3.46E

- 02 2009 8,760 104.57 104.57 5.28E

- 01 5.52E+01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2 6.46E

- 02 1.85E

- 02 4.45E

- 02 4.20E

- 01 1.20E

- 01 2.89E

- 01 2007 422 64.9

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2 7.45E

- 02 2.12E

- 02 5.99E

- 02 4.85E

- 01 1.38E

- 01 3.90E

- 01 2007 422 64.9

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2 1.10E

- 02 3.10E

- 03 8.00E

- 03 6.60E

- 02 1.86E

- 02 4.80E

- 02 2008 394 65.7

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2 5.68E

- 05 7.99E

- 05 2.20E

- 04 1.77E

- 04 2.48E

- 04 6.84E

- 04 2009 325 104.57 104.57 1.65E

- 01 1.72E+01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1 8.16E

- 02 3.28E

- 02 5.11E

- 02 1.04E+00 4.20E

- 01 6.54E

- 01 2007 831 64.9

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1 1.71E

- 01 6.65E

- 02 7.28E

- 02 2.19E+00 8.51E

- 01 9.32E

- 01 2007 831 64.9

## 20 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/hr) Run 2

(lb/hr) Run 3

(lb/h r) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Concentr

ate (tpy) Max

Concentr

ate (tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1 1.68E

- 03 4.99E

- 03 7.30E

- 03 2.15E

- 02 6.39E

- 02 9.35E

- 02 2007 831 64.9

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1 1.34E

- 02 7.00E

- 03 4.60E

- 03 7.79E

- 02 4.07E

- 02 2.67E

- 02 2008 382 65.7

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1 1.34E

- 04 1.14E

- 04 1.22E

- 04 5.36E

- 04 4.56E

- 04 4.88E

- 04 2009 418 104.57 104.57 4.28E

- 01 4.48E+01

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 1.88E

- 03 1.98E

- 04 8.21E

- 04 2.19E

- 01 2.30E

- 02 9.55E

- 02 2007 7,551 64.9

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 2.41E

- 03 9.20E

- 04 7.80E

- 04 2.80E

- 01 1.07E

- 01 9.08E

- 02 2007 7,551 64.9

Twin Creeks Ca rbon Kiln 6.50E

- 04 1.22E

- 03 1.20E

- 03 4.76E

- 02 8.89E

- 02 8.76E

- 02 2009 7,654 104.57 104.57 1.16E

- 01 1.21E+01

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 1.57E

- 02 1.41E

- 02 2.70E

- 03 2.12E+00 1.91E+00 3.64E

- 01 2007 8,760 64.9

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 6.10E

- 03 1.30E

- 02 5.80E

- 03 8.16E

- 01 1.74E+00 7.75E

- 01 2008 8,784 65.7

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 3.07E

- 03 3.08E

- 03 3.84E

- 03 2.57E

- 01 2.58E

- 01 3.22E

- 01 2009 8,760 104.57 104.57 9.52E

- 01 9.95E+01

Twin Creeks Retort 1.65E

- 06 1.43E

- 06 1.26E

- 06 8.80E

- 06 7.63E

- 06 6.7 2E

- 06 2009 558 104.57 104.57 7.72E

- 06 8.07E

- 04

Twin Creeks Retort 1.50E

- 05 2.20E

- 05 4.40E

- 05 8.13E

- 04 1.19E

- 03 2.39E

- 03 2007 3,519 64.9

Twin Creeks Retort 7.70E

- 05 9.20E

- 05 1.91E

- 04 4.18E

- 03 4.99E

- 03 1.04E

- 02 2007 3,519 64.9

Tw in Creeks Retort 5.00E

- 05 1.30E

- 05 2.10E

- 05 2.57E

- 03 6.68E

- 04 1.08E

- 03 2008 3,375 65.7 104.57 3.14E

- 03 3.28E

- 01

Twin Creeks Retort 7.20E

- 06 2.75E

- 05 2.82E

- 05 3.51E

- 04 1.34E

- 03 1.38E

- 03 2007 3,168 64.9

Twin Creeks Retort 3.20E

- 05 1.16E

- 04 5.70E

- 05 1.56E

- 03 5.66E

- 03 2.78E

- 03 2007 3,168 64.9

Twin Creeks Retort 1.20E

- 05 6.00E

- 05 1.20E

- 05 5.07E

- 04 2.54E

- 03 5.07E

- 04 2008 2,778 65.7 104.57 1.85E

- 03 1.93E

- 01

Twin Creeks Retort 1.91E

- 05 7.46E

- 05 1.36E

- 04 7.58E

- 04 2.96E

- 03 5.40E

- 0 3 2007 2,574 64.9

Twin Creeks Retort 1.90E

- 06 6.20E

- 06 7.80E

- 06 7.54E

- 05 2.46E

- 04 3.09E

- 04 2007 2,574 64.9

Twin Creeks Retort 1.30E

- 05 9.40E

- 05 1.11E

- 04 4.75E

- 04 3.43E

- 03 4.05E

- 03 2008 2,400 65.7 104.57 1.97E

- 03 2.06E

- 01

Twin C reeks Retort 5.00E

- 07 1.27E

- 04 4.76E

- 05 2.17E

- 05 5.49E

- 03 2.06E

- 03 2007 2,814 64.9

Twin Creeks Retort 1.50E

- 05 1.10E

- 05 4.00E

- 06 6.50E

- 04 4.77E

- 04 1.73E

- 04 2007 2,814 64.9

Twin Creeks Retort 2.60E

- 06 6.10E

- 06 1.10E

- 05 1.17E

- 04 2.75 E

- 04 4.95E

- 04 2008 2,958 65.7 104.57 1.09E

- 03 1.13E

- 01 2.20 230

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 1.31E

- 03 7.00E

- 04 8.50E

- 04 1.03E+00 5.52E

- 01 6.71E

- 01 2007 8,760 11.1

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 2.38E

- 02 3.71E

- 02 3.64E

- 02 1.30E+01 2.03E+01 2.00E+01 2008 6,195 11.3

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 7.06E

- 03 7.74E

- 03 3.24E

- 02 3.87E+00 4.24E+00 1.78E+01 2008 6,195 11.3

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 5.83E

- 03 2.72E

- 03 6.90E

- 03 3.23E+00 1.51E+00 3.83E+00 2009 6,292 11.4 11.35 7.50E+00 8.52E+0 1

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 1.22E

- 02 3.20E

- 04 6.60E

- 04 3.17E

- 01 8.30E

- 03 1.71E

- 02 2007 288 11.1

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 5.20E

- 04 7.20E

- 04 1.83E

- 03 1.45E

- 02 2.01E

- 02 5.11E

- 02 2008 316 11.3

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 2.00 E

- 04 2.80E

- 04 3.30E

- 04 5.76E

- 03 8.07E

- 03 9.51E

- 03 2009 327 11.4 11.35 5.02E

- 02 5.70E

- 01

## 21 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/hr) Run 2

(lb/hr) Run 3

(lb/h r) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Concentr

ate (tpy) Max

Concentr

ate (tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 3.40E

- 04 1.80E

- 04 7.60E

- 04 2.68E

- 01 1.42E

- 01 6.00E

- 01 2007 8,760 11.1

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.33E

- 03 1.90E

- 04 1. 05E

- 03 1.03E+00 1.47E

- 01 8.14E

- 01 2008 8,760 11.3

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.79E

- 04 9.00E

- 04 1.41E

- 03 1.38E

- 01 6.95E

- 01 1.09E+00 2009 8,760 11.4 11.35 5.47E

- 01 6.21E+00

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.30E

- 04 1.30E

- 04 9.00E

- 05 1.03E

- 0 1 1.03E

- 01 7.10E

- 02 2007 8,760 11.1

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 9.80E

- 05 4.40E

- 05 5.90E

- 05 7.60E

- 02 3.41E

- 02 4.57E

- 02 2008 8,760 11.3

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.00E

- 04 1.00E

- 04 2.20E

- 05 7.72E

- 02 7.72E

- 02 1.70E

- 02 2009 8,760 1 1.4 11.35 6.70E

- 02 7.61E

- 01

Florida

Canyon Retort 2.99E

- 05 1.42E

- 05 3.30E

- 06 2.63E

- 03 1.25E

- 03 2.90E

- 04 2008 992 11.3

Florida

Canyon Retort 3.30E

- 07 2.20E

- 07 2.40E

- 07 2.30E

- 06 1.53E

- 06 1.67E

- 06 2009 79 11.4 11.35 6.95E

- 04 7.89E

- 03

Fl orida

Canyon Retort 6.70E

- 07 5.20E

- 07 6.00E

- 07 6.89E

- 05 5.35E

- 05 6.17E

- 05 2007 1,141 11.1

Florida

Canyon Retort 3.00E

- 06 1.60E

- 06 1.30E

- 06 3.08E

- 05 1.65E

- 05 1.34E

- 05 2008 116 11.3

Florida

Canyon Retort 6.20E

- 07 4.50E

- 08 5.90E

- 07 5. 07E

- 05 3.68E

- 06 4.82E

- 05 2009 928 11.4 11.35 3.86E

- 05 4.38E

- 04 8.17 93

Lone Tree Electrowinning 1.96E

- 03 1.08E

- 03 1.63E

- 03 1.39E+00 7.68E

- 01 1.16E+00 2007 7,824 11.0

Lone Tree Electrowinning 6.60E

- 04 5.75E

- 03 7.30E

- 04 7.02E

- 01 6.11E+00 7.76E

- 01 2008 2,424 2.28 11.00 1.82E+00 2.00E+01

Lone Tree Elecrowinning 2.70E

- 04 1.01E

- 02 1.10E

- 04 1.92E

- 01 7.15E+00 7.82E

- 02 2007 7,824 11.0

Lone Tree Electrowinning 5.82E

- 03 2.38E

- 04 9.70E

- 05 6.18E+00 2.53E

- 01 1.03E

- 01 2008 2,424 2.28 11.00 2.33E+00 2.56E+01

Lone Tree Electrowinning 2.51E

- 03 1.22E

- 03 4.70E

- 04 2.67E+00 1.30E+00 5.00E

- 01 2008 2,424 2.28 11.00 1.49E+00 1.64E+01

Lone Tree Preg Tank 2.48E

- 03 4.13E

- 03 2.15E

- 02 1.97E+00 3.29E+00 1.72E+01 2007 8,760 11.0

Lone T ree Preg Tank 7.40E

- 03 1.73E

- 02 2.97E

- 02 9.17E+00 2.14E+01 3.68E+01 2008 2,824 2.28 11.00 1.50E+01 1.65E+02 20.60 227

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 3.31E

- 02 3.45E

- 02 3.77E

- 02 3.46E+00 3.60E+00 3.93E+00 2007 6,471 62.0

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 7.83E

- 0 3 4.07E

- 03 5.86E

- 03 7.47E

- 01 3.88E

- 01 5.59E

- 01 2008 5,920 62.1

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.01E

- 02 9.48E

- 03 1.11E

- 02 1.29E+00 1.21E+00 1.41E+00 2009 6,523 51.2 62.10 1.84E+00 1.14E+02

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 3.67E

- 04 3.43E

- 04 3.75E

- 04 4.54E

- 02 4.24E

- 02 4.64E

- 02 2007 7,671 62.0

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 5.81E

- 04 5.32E

- 04 4.71E

- 04 7.32E

- 02 6.70E

- 02 5.94E

- 02 2008 7,826 62.1

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 3.12E

- 03 2.96E

- 03 5.89E

- 04 4.48E

- 01 4.25E

- 01 8.46E

- 02 2009 7,356 51.2 62 .10 1.44E

- 01 8.91E+00

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 1.63E

- 03 1.73E

- 03 2.63E

- 03 2.30E

- 01 2.44E

- 01 3.71E

- 01 2007 8,760 62.0

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 2.38E

- 03 4.31E

- 04 9.11E

- 03 3.36E

- 01 6.10E

- 02 1.29E+00 2008 8,784 62.1

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 2 .70E

- 05 1.68E

- 03 3.83E

- 03 3.82E

- 03 2.38E

- 01 5.42E

- 01 2008 8,784 62.1

## 22 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/hr) Run 2

(lb/hr) Run 3

(lb/h r) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Concentr

ate (tpy) Max

Concentr

ate (tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 1.89E

- 03 2.29E

- 04 6.04E

- 04 3.06E

- 01 3.71E

- 02 9.78E

- 02 2009 8,290 51.2 62.10 3.13E

- 01 1.94E+01

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 2.41E

- 01 5.46E

- 02 1.28E

- 01 2.3 5E+00 5.33E

- 01 1.25E+00 2007 605 62.0

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 2.61E

- 03 6.67E

- 04 1.83E

- 02 2.59E

- 02 6.61E

- 03 1.81E

- 01 2008 615 62.1

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 4.32E

- 02 9.55E

- 02 2.63E

- 01 4.76E

- 01 1.05E+00 2.90E+00 2009 564 51.2 62.10 9.75 E

- 01 6.05E+01

Gold Quarry Retort 7.20E

- 04 1.58E

- 03 8.22E

- 04 3.73E

- 02 8.17E

- 02 4.26E

- 02 2007 3,216 62.0

Gold Quarry Retort 2.50E

- 03 1.89E

- 03 1.72E

- 03 1.30E

- 01 9.79E

- 02 8.90E

- 02 2007 3,216 62.0

Gold Quarry Retort 1.67E

- 01 1.8 0E

- 01 1.32E

- 01 2007 3,216 62.0

Gold Quarry Retort 2.94E

- 03 3.06E

- 03 1.69E

- 03 1.66E

- 01 1.72E

- 01 9.52E

- 02 2009 2,880 51.2 62.10 1.52E

- 01 9.43E+00

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 8.49E

- 03 5.47E

- 03 4.54E

- 03 9.23E

- 01 5.95E

- 01 4.94E

- 01 2007 6,746 62.0

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 4.59E

- 04 5.16E

- 04 6.55E

- 04 5.56E

- 02 6.25E

- 02 7.94E

- 02 2008 7,527 62.1

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.17E

- 03 1.17E

- 03 1.42E

- 03 1.42E

- 01 1.41E

- 01 1.72E

- 01 2008 7,527 62.1

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.09E

- 03 2.17 E

- 03 2.01E

- 03 1.60E

- 01 3.19E

- 01 2.96E

- 01 2009 7,529 51.2 62.10 2.87E

- 01 1.78E+01 3.71 231

Jerritt

Canyon

Mine Carbon Kiln &

Retort 2.09E

- 02 9.14E

- 03 6.56E

- 03 5.10E+00 2.23E+00 1.60E+00 2007 2,930 12 12 2.98E+00 3.57E+01

Jerritt

Canyon

Mine Melt Furna ce 5.25E

- 03 2.27E

- 01 2.43E

- 01 3.82E

- 01 1.65E+01 1.76E+01 2007 872 12 12 1.15E+01 1.38E+02 14.49 174

Total 1,155 1,155

## 23 TABLE A

- 2. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR CARBON PR OCESSES WITHOUT MERCURY RETORTS

Facility Unit Run 1

(l b/hr) Run 2

(lb/hr) Run 3

(lb/hr) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Concentrate

(tpy) Max

Concentrate

(tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Round Mountain Electrowinning 9.17E

- 05 4.00E

- 04 9.59E

- 05 1.82E

- 02 7.93E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 2008 8760 44.2 44.2 3.88E

- 02 1.72E+00

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 1.07E

- 05 1.29E

- 04 1.27E

- 04 1.49E

- 04 1.80E

- 03 1.77E

- 03 2008 617 44.2

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 2.62E

- 03 7.21E

- 04 1.39E

- 03 3.49E

- 02 9.59E

- 03 1.85E

- 02 2009 584 43.9 44.2 1.11E

- 02 4.91E

- 01

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 1.32E

- 05 1.47E

- 05 8.05E

- 06 2.57E

- 03 2.86E

- 03 1.56E

- 03 2008 8,592 44.2

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 7.73E

- 05 5.18E

- 05 8.05E

- 05 1.52E

- 02 1.02E

- 02 1.59E

- 02 200 9 8,652 43.9 44.2 8.05E

- 03 3.56E

- 01 0.058 2.56

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 1.52E

- 05 8.70E

- 06 3.99E

- 05 1.12E

- 03 6.42E

- 04 2.94E

- 03 2008 1,748 23.7

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 2.38E

- 05 1.62E

- 05 1.03E

- 05 2.59E

- 03 1.76E

- 03 1.12E

- 03 2009 2,341 21.50 23.7 1.70E

- 03 4.02E

- 02

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 1.57E

- 04 1.17E

- 04 4.59E

- 05 1.26E

- 02 9.36E

- 03 3.67E

- 03 2008 1,896 23.7

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 8.09E

- 05 3.48E

- 05 3.33E

- 05 6.13E

- 04 2.64E

- 04 2.52E

- 04 2009 163 21.50 23.7 4.45E

- 03 1.06E

- 01

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 6.99E

- 05 5.19E

- 05 8.08E

- 05 2.58E

- 02 1.92E

- 02 2.99E

- 02 2008 8,760 23.7

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 4.29E

- 05 1.09E

- 05 2.68E

- 05 1.41E

- 02 3.58E

- 03 8.79E

- 03 2009 7,055 21.50 23.7 1.69E

- 02 4.00E

- 01

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 3.79E

- 05 9.60E

- 06 1.71E

- 05 1.40E

- 02 3.55E

- 03 6.32E

- 03 2008 8,760 23.7

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 1.49E

- 05 1.58E

- 05 7.00E

- 06 5.30E

- 03 5.62E

- 03 2.49E

- 03 2009 7,641 21.50 23.7 6.21E

- 03 1.47E

- 01

Cortez Pipeline Preg & Barren Tanks 2.72E

- 04 4.36E

- 04 2.38E

- 04 1.01E

- 01 1.61E

- 01 8.80E

- 02 2008 8,760 23.7

Cortez Pipeline Preg & Barren Tanks 9.56E

- 06 7.17E

- 06 7.36E

- 06 3.25E

- 03 2.44E

- 03 2.50E

- 03 2009 7,317 21.50 23.7 5.96E

- 02 1.41E+00

Cortez Pipeline Melt Furn ace 2.19E

- 05 1.66E

- 05 2.57E

- 05 2009 385 21.50

Cortez Pipeline Melt Furnace 1.49E

- 04 6.74E

- 05 1.03E

- 04 2.67E

- 03 1.21E

- 03 1.84E

- 03 2009 385 21.50 23.7 1.91E

- 03 4.52E

- 02

Cortez Pipeline Melt Furnace 1.23E

- 04 1.54E

- 04 1.16E

- 04 1.43E

- 04 1. 79E

- 04 1.35E

- 04 2009 25 21.50 23.7 1.52E

- 04 3.61E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Fusion furnace 2.20E

- 05 5.78E

- 05 9.77E

- 06 5.23E

- 03 1.37E

- 02 2.32E

- 03 2009 5,107 21.50 23.7 7.09E

- 03 1.68E

- 01 0.098 2.32

Total 4.89 4.89

## 24 TABLE A

- 3. BASEL INE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR ORE PRETREATMENT PROCESSES

Facility Unit Run 1

(lbs/hr) Run 2

(lbs/hr) Run 3

(lbs/hr) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Ore (tpy) Max Ore

(tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Gold Quarry North Quench Circuit 5.67E

- 03 4.01E

- 03 5.76E

- 03 1.35E

- 05 9.56E

- 06 1.37E

- 05 2007 7,526 3,154,578

Gold Quarry North Quench Circuit 4.41E

- 03 5.55E

- 03 7.06E

- 03 1.05E

- 05 1.33E

- 05 1.69E

- 05 2008 7,973 3,336,226

Gold Quarry North Quench Circuit 3.57E

- 03 4.44E

- 03 4.09E

- 03 8.45E

- 06 1.05E

- 05 9.66E

- 06 2009 7,611 3,220,396 3,336,226 1.18E

- 05 3.93E+01

Gold Quarry Ore Preheater 5.32E

- 03 2.27E

- 03 1.90E

- 03 1.27E

- 05 5.41E

- 06 4.53E

- 06 2007 7,526 3,154,578

Gold Quarry Ore Preheater 1.10E

- 02 1.05E

- 02 6.45E

- 02 2.63E

- 05 2.50E

- 05 1.54E

- 04 2008 7,973 3,336,226

Gold Quarry Ore Preheater 3.42E

- 03 1.46E

- 03 1.27E

- 03 8.18E

- 06 3.48E

- 06 3.03E

- 06 2009 7,692 3,220,396 3,336,226 2.70E

- 05 9.00E+01

Gol d Quarry Ore Roaster 3.77E

- 04 2.92E

- 04 3.30E

- 04 8.99E

- 07 6.97E

- 07 7.87E

- 07 2007 7,526 3,154,578

Gold Quarry Ore Roaster 5.33E

- 04 6.72E

- 04 2.59E

- 04 1.27E

- 06 1.61E

- 06 6.19E

- 07 2008 7,973 3,336,226

Gold Quarry Ore Roaster 2.06E

- 04 1.15E

- 04 1.49E

- 04 4.92E

- 07 2.75E

- 07 3.56E

- 07 2009 7,692 3,220,396 3,336,226 7.78E

- 07 2.60E+00

Gold Quarry ROTP: Ore Dry

Grind 7.01E

- 04 8.70E

- 04 6.25E

- 04 1.66E

- 06 2.06E

- 06 1.48E

- 06 2007 7,483 3,154,578

Gold Quarry ROTP: Ore Dry

Grind 6.36E

- 04 2. 04E

- 03 7.44E

- 04 1.50E

- 06 4.82E

- 06 1.75E

- 06 2008 7,868 3,336,226 3,336,226 2.21E

- 06 7.39E+00

Gold Quarry South Quench Circuit 7.10E

- 03 5.75E

- 03 4.05E

- 03 1.67E

- 05 1.36E

- 05 9.55E

- 06 2007 7,446 3,154,578

Gold Quarry South Quench Circuit 5.40E

- 0 3 6.20E

- 03 8.96E

- 03 1.27E

- 05 1.46E

- 05 2.11E

- 05 2008 7,862 3,336,226

Gold Quarry South Quench Circuit 4.33E

- 03 5.49E

- 03 5.51E

- 03 1.03E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 1.32E

- 05 2009 7,692 3,220,396 3,336,226 1.39E

- 05 4.63E+01 5.56E

- 05 186

Goldstrike Roaster Mill #1 4.30E

- 04 6.70E

- 04 4.80E

- 04 3.23E

- 07 5.03E

- 07 3.60E

- 07 2009 7,754 10,330,763

Goldstrike North Dry grinding

process and pre

heater

- Mill 1 1.30E

- 03 9.00E

- 04 7.80E

- 04 8.61E

- 07 5.96E

- 07 5.17E

- 07 2007 7,940 11,985,898

Goldstrike North Dry grinding

process and pre

heater

- Mill 1 2.70E

- 03 2.10E

- 03 4.00E

- 04 1.79E

- 06 1.39E

- 06 2.65E

- 07 2007 7,940 11,985,898

Goldstrike North Dry grinding

process and pre

heater

- Mill 1 3.30E

- 03 1.70E

- 03 4.00E

- 04 2.19E

- 06 1.13E

- 06 2.65E

- 07 2007 7,940 11,985,898 11,985,898 8.48E

- 07 1.02E+01

Goldstrike Roaster Mill #2 1.14E

- 02 6.19E

- 03 2.25E

- 03 8.68E

- 06 4.71E

- 06 1.71E

- 06 2009 7,855 10,330,763

Goldstrike South Dry grinding

process and pre

heater

- Mill 2 3.60E

- 02 7.70E

- 03 1.20E

- 03 2.36E

- 05 5.05E

- 06 7.86E

- 07 2007 7,854 11,985,898

Goldstrike South Dry grinding

process and pre

heater

- Mill 2 1.30E

- 03 1.30E

- 03 6.00E

- 04 8.52E

- 07 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07 2007 7,854 11,985,898

Goldstrike South Dry grinding

process and pre

heater

- Mill 2 2.50E

- 03 1.30E

- 03 6.00E

- 04 1.64E

- 06 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07 2007 7,854 11,985,898 11,985,898 4.12E

- 06 4.94E+01

## 25 Facility Unit Run 1

(lbs/hr) Run 2

(lbs/hr) Run 3

(lbs/hr) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Ore (tpy) Max Ore

(tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 1.10E

- 01 8.66E

- 02 7.98E

- 02 7.25E

- 05 5.71E

- 05 5.26E

- 05 2007 7,899 11,985,898

Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 1. 90E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 2.60E

- 02 1.25E

- 05 1.25E

- 05 1.71E

- 05 2007 7,899 11,985,898

Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 2.56E

- 02 2.28E

- 02 1.73E

- 02 1.95E

- 05 1.73E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 2009 7,864 10,330,763 11,985,898 3.05E

- 05 3.65E+02

Goldstrike Roaster #1 Quench

Tank 5. 72E

- 03 3.89E

- 03 3.78E

- 03 4.35E

- 06 2.96E

- 06 2.87E

- 06 2009 7,851 10,330,763 11,985,898 3.39E

- 06 4.07E+01

Goldstrike Roaster #2 Quench

Tank 4.65E

- 03 4.93E

- 03 4.36E

- 03 3.55E

- 06 3.76E

- 06 3.32E

- 06 2009 7,876 10,330,763 11,985,898 3.54E

- 06 4.25E+01

Gold strike Autoclave 1 4.90E

- 04 7.60E

- 04 8.90E

- 04 2.59E

- 07 4.01E

- 07 4.70E

- 07 2009 5,457 10,330,763 11,985,898 3.77E

- 07 4.52E+00

Goldstrike Autoclave 2/3 8.60E

- 04 1.01E

- 03 7.20E

- 04 6.57E

- 07 7.71E

- 07 5.50E

- 07 2009 7,887 10,330,763 11,985,898 6.59E

- 07 7.90E+ 00

Goldstrike Autoclave 4 2.59E

- 03 3.00E

- 04 3.30E

- 04 1.42E

- 06 1.65E

- 07 1.81E

- 07 2009 5,679 10,330,763 11,985,898 5.90E

- 07 7.07E+00

Goldstrike Autoclave 5/6 1.84E

- 03 1.08E

- 03 6.00E

- 04 1.42E

- 06 8.32E

- 07 4.62E

- 07 2009 7,954 10,330,763 11,985,898 9.0 3E

- 07 1.08E+01 4.49E

- 05 538

Jerritt Canyon Ore dryer 2.60E

- 03 5.50E

- 03 3.70E

- 03 1.35E

- 05 2.86E

- 05 1.92E

- 05 2007 5,033 967,727

Jerritt Canyon Ore dryer 5.94E

- 04 5.03E

- 03 1.77E

- 03 3.82E

- 06 3.24E

- 05 1.14E

- 05 2010 155.3 tph 1,576,800 1.82E

- 05 2 .86E+01

Jerritt Canyon Roaster West 6.12E

- 03 6.20E

- 03 7.12E

- 03 4.42E

- 05 4.47E

- 05 5.14E

- 05 2010 138.6 tph

Jerritt Canyon Roaster West 6.20E

- 03 2.86E

- 03 4.13E

- 03 4.48E

- 05 2.07E

- 05 2.99E

- 05 2010 138.3 tph

Jerritt Canyon Roas ter West 9.56E

- 04 1.08E

- 03 1.14E

- 03 7.01E

- 06 7.92E

- 06 8.36E

- 06 2010 136.3 tph 1,576,800 2.88E

- 05 4.54E+01

Jerritt Canyon Roaster East 7.62E

- 03 6.45E

- 03 3.91E

- 03 5.50E

- 05 4.65E

- 05 2.82E

- 05 2010 138.6 tph

Jerritt Canyon Roaster East 7.9 1E

- 04 5.86E

- 04 6.34E

- 04 5.80E

- 06 4.30E

- 06 4.65E

- 06 2010 136.3 tph 1,576,800 2.41E

- 05 3.80E+01 7.10E

- 05 112

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 2.38E

- 02 6.24E

- 02 4.40E

- 02 5.52E

- 05 1.45E

- 04 1.02E

- 04 2007 7,914 3,410,717

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 3.37E

- 02 1 .12E

- 01 1.25E

- 02 7.82E

- 05 2.59E

- 04 2.90E

- 05 2007 7,914 3,410,717

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 1.02E

- 01 5.04E

- 02 4.67E

- 02 2.36E

- 04 1.17E

- 04 1.08E

- 04 2007 7,914 3,410,717

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 9.20E

- 02 5.73E

- 02 4.73E

- 02 2.13E

- 04 1.33E

- 04 1.10E

- 04 2007 7,914 3,410,717

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 4.50E

- 02 8.90E

- 02 1.20E

- 01 9.97E

- 05 1.97E

- 04 2.66E

- 04 2008 8,265 3,728,849

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 4.58E

- 02 3.00E

- 02 2.68E

- 02 1.06E

- 04 6.95E

- 05 6.21E

- 05 2009 8,282 3,572,940

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 3.73E

- 03 3.48E

- 03 3.29E

- 03 8.65E

- 06 8.07E

- 06 7.63E

- 06 2010 8,282 3,572,940 3,728,849 1.15E

- 04 4.28E+02

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2 5.09E

- 02 2.44E

- 02 2.38E

- 02 1.14E

- 04 5.47E

- 05 5.33E

- 05 2007 7,644 3,410,717

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2 3.87E

- 02 2.22E

- 02 1.54E

- 02 8.67E

- 05 4.98E

- 05 3.45E

- 05 2007 7,644 3,410,717

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2 2.20E

- 02 4.10E

- 02 3.60E

- 02 4.87E

- 05 9.07E

- 05 7.96E

- 05 2008 8,250 3,728,849

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2 1.68E

- 02 1.19 E

- 02 1.01E

- 02 3.53E

- 05 2.50E

- 05 2.12E

- 05 2009 7,502 3,572,940

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2 9.72E

- 03 9.11E

- 03 9.33E

- 03 2.04E

- 05 1.91E

- 05 1.96E

- 05 2010 7,502 3,572,940 3,728,849 5.02E

- 05 1.87E+02 1.65E

- 04 615

Total 1,451 1,451

## 26 TABLE A

- 4. BASELINE MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR NON

- CARBON CONCENTRATE PROCESSES

Facility Unit Run 1

(lbs/hr) Run 2

(lbs/hr) Run 3

(lbs/hr) Run 4

(lbs/hr) Run 5

(lbs/hr) Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Run 4

(lb/ton) Run 5

(lb/ton) Year hr/yr Conc

(tpy) Max

Conc

(tpy) Unit

average (lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Coeur

Rochester Refinery

Furnace 2.23E

- 02 4.38E

- 02 8.54E

- 03 5.96E

- 02 1.17E

- 01 2.28E

- 02 2008 300 112

Coeur

Rochester Refinery

Furnace 1.01E

- 02 4.89E

- 03 1.20E

- 02 2.47E

- 02 1.20E

- 02 2.94E

- 02 2009 280 114 172 4.43E

- 02 7.61E+00

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1

& #2 9.60E

- 04 9.70E

- 04 2.60E

- 05 6.50E

- 04 5.50E

- 04 3.41E

- 03 3.45E

- 03 9.24E

- 05 2.31E

- 03 1.95E

- 03 2007 611 172

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1

& #2 8.65E

- 06 4.52E

- 04 1.24E

- 04 2.93E

- 04 1.53E

- 02 4.20E

- 03 2008 3

, 792 112

Coeur

Rochester Retort 1.99E

- 06 8.76E

- 06 2.57E

- 06 4.17E

- 05 1.84E

- 04 5.39E

- 05 2009 2,400 114 172 2.84E

- 03 4.89E

- 01 0.047 8.10

Midas Melt

Furnace 1 1.28E

- 03 4.15E

- 03 2.13E

- 03 5.58E

- 03 1.81E

- 02 9.29E

- 03 2009 994 228

Midas Refinery

Furnace

#1 7.50E

- 02 3.30E

- 02 1.50E

- 02 1.23E

- 01 5.41E

- 02 2.46E

- 02 2008 35 6 217

Midas Melt

Furnace 2 2 .12E

- 03 4.22E

- 03 3.14E

- 03 5.42E

- 03 1.08E

- 02 8.03E

- 03 2009 583 228

Midas Refinery

Furnace

#2 2.00E

- 02 6.50E

- 02 7.80E

- 03 5.01E

- 02 1.63E

- 01 1.95E

- 02 2008 543 217

Midas Refinery

Furnace 1

& 2 2.62E

- 03 4.30E

- 03 7.43E

- 03 1.60E

- 02 2.63E

- 02 4.55E

- 02 2007 832 136

Midas Refinery

Furnace 1

& 2 1.73E

- 01 2.17E

- 01 4.41E

- 02 2008

Midas Refinery

Furnace 1

& 2 1.10E

- 02 2.89E

- 02 1.73E

- 02 2009 228 6.43E

- 02 1.47E+01

Mi das Retort A 1.23E

- 04 9.51E

- 05 7.75E

- 05 2.32E

- 03 1.79E

- 03 1.46E

- 03 2007 2,565 136

Midas Retort A 7.70E

- 05 3.70E

- 03 2.10E

- 03 1.25E

- 03 6.01E

- 02 3.41E

- 02 2008 3524 217

Midas Retort A 2.64E

- 06 2.06E

- 06 2.41E

- 06 4.07 E

- 05 3.18E

- 05 3.72E

- 05 2009 3,518 228 228 1.12E

- 02 2.56E+00

Midas Retort B 1.93E

- 05 7.46E

- 07 5.11E

- 07 2.78E

- 04 1.07E

- 05 7.36E

- 06 2007 1,959 136

Midas Retort B 3.10E

- 04 3.29E

- 04 4.15E

- 04 4.22E

- 03 4.48E

- 03 5.66E

- 03 2008 2957 217

Midas Retort B 6.96E

- 05 1.06E

- 04 7.49E

- 05 9.51E

- 04 1.45E

- 03 1.02E

- 03 2009 3,115 228 228 2.01E

- 03 4.58E

- 01 0.078 18

Total 25.79 25.79