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. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC

December 15, 2010
2

Estimates of Impacts for the Final Mercury Emission Standards for Gold Mine Ore 

Processing and 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 units 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. Estimated Cost of Mercury Emission Controls 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

Florida 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 includes all of the gold mine ore processing and 

production facilities 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 that 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 stacksa Higher estimates of MRR costs Lower estimates of MRR costs

Roaster Other

Not in 

NVb

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, NV 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 

 

14,725 

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 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 basis for the cost estimates are the estimates developed by the gold mine ore 

processing and production facilities 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 those types of controls on other process units. Most 

of the facilities provided estimates of capital costs for the proposed emission control systems. 

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) for 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 

application, those estimates were used in this analysis. For facilities without their own sitespecific 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 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 the exhaust flow rate for each process unit 

using the following equation:

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

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 presents 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 Control

a

Mercury 

reduction 

(lb/yr)

Flow 

(cfm)

b

Total 

capital costc

Annual 

O&M

coste

Total 

annualized 

cost

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/lb)

Denton Rawhide Melt furnace CA 27.4 6,500 135,1008 103,9008 116,653 4,250

Florida Canyon Carbon kilns CA 80.9 1,000 183,9347 82,6917 100,054 1,237

Florida Canyon

Electrowinning, preg 

tanks, melt furnace CA 5.9 1,000 183,9342 82,6917 100,054 16,962

Gold Quarry AARL carbon kiln CA 108.7 900 99,7006 22,111 31,523 290

Gold Quarry Zadra carbon kiln CA 16.9 900 99,7006 22,111 31,523 1,864

Goldstrike Carbon kilns WC, CA 106.9 4,406 658,512d 135,968 198,131 1,854

Jerritt Canyon Melt furnace CA 131.3 1,622 141,933d 31,966 45,365 346

Jerritt Canyon Carbon kiln & retort CA 33.9 5,930 308,949d 90,771 119,935 3,536

Lone Tree Electrowinning CA 24.3 10,000 423,0009 146,326 186,257 7,662

Lone Tree Preg tanks CA 156.4 125 30,50010 11,532 14,411 92

Twin Creeks Juniper preg tanks CA 94.5 3,085 209,0004 51,936 71,666 758

Twin Creeks Electrowinning CA 52.4 7,311 434,0005 109,621 150,591 2,871

Twin Creeks Melt furnace new CA 16.4 3,000 60,77614 50,776 56,513 3,455

Twin Creeks Melt furnace old CA 42.5 3,000 60,77614 50,776 56,513 1,329

Midas Furnace CA 13.9 10,300 430,00015 150,421 191,013 13,707

Twin Creeks Autoclave WC, CA 430.6 11,300 29,300,00019 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 Pretreatment 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 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).

1.2 MRR Costs

The final rule includes three monitoring options for roasters: a mercury continuous 

emission monitoring system (CEMS), continuous sorbent trap sampling, and periodic sorbent 

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

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 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 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, which 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 $1.253

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 sampling carbon 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 capital 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 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 

$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 

Ratea

Rate with 

overheadb hr/plant $/plant hr/stack $/stack

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

Managementc $57.27 $91.63 0.8 $73 0.20 $18

Office/Admin. Supportd $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 workers in the mining industry (NAICS 212200) and were taken from the 

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2009, available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_212200.htm. b Overhead at 60%.

c

Estimated as 5% of technical hours. d Estimated as 10% of technical hours.

The final rule also requires annual 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 facilities outside of Nevada would incur additional costs for stack sampling. 

The cost of Method 29 testing is estimated 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 (non-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

The affected sources with carbon processes with mercury retorts use carbon to recover 

the gold and have one or more of the following process units: 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 control 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 mercury 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 additional 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 the 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 first 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 annualized 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 venturi 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 facilities with autoclaves. 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 adsorptive 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 percent, 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 cost 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, mercury emissions would be reduced 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 facility. 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

Table 7. Estimate of Costs for a Second Carbon Adsorber for Carbon Processes with 

Mercury Retorts

Facility Unit

Flow 

(cfm)

Total 

capital 

costa

Annual 

O&M 

costb

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

Florida 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 14,411 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 (see text).

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

duct their uncontrolled P/B tank emissions into the electrowinning control device. For a beyondthe-floor analysis for carbon processes without mercury retorts, 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, the capital cost for a 

carbon adsorber was estimated to be $0.2 million with a total annualized cost of $72,000/yr. The 

mercury emissions 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 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 algorithms presented earlier as a function of system 

flow rate, we 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 $191,013/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 including the beyond-thefloor costs for ore pretreatment and the MACT floor costs for all the affected sources.

Table 8. Final Mercury Emission Control Costsa
10

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

Table 9 summarizes the overall costs 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 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 

presented for different years for 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 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 Table 10 for the four groups 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 units 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 ore 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 be 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 for 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 Mine 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

Subtotal 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 mainly 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 2,636 lb/yr. Overall, the proposed MACT limits are 

expected to reduce mercury emissions by about 1,461 to 1,174 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 

emissions 

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

Goldstrike 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 Electrowinning 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

Gold 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 Canyon 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 adsorbers. 

The increase in electricity consumption was estimated from the following equation from the 

OAQPS Cost Manual18:

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 estimated increase in spent carbon for regeneration or disposal assumes the carbon is 

replaced when half of its potential mercury capacity has been reached (about 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 

Electrowinning, 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 Canyon 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 11,389,107a

Total 12,613,343 a Electricity consumption for the refrigeration unit taken from Phase 2 application (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 Barrick 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 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 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. 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.

19. Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. public comments (docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0239-

0274) to proposed 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/hr)

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-01 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

DentonRawhide Carbon Kiln 6.88E-06 7.55E-06 3.61E-05 3.16E-03 3.47E-03 1.66E-02 2007 8,497 18.5

DentonRawhide 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

DentonRawhide 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 18.50 6.30E-02 1.16E+00

DentonRawhide Electrowinning 3.83E-06 1.44E-06 3.79E-05 6.46E-04 2.43E-04 6.39E-03 2007 3,120 18.5

DentonRawhide Electrowinning 2.27E-05 4.25E-06 5.27E-06 1.40E-02 2.62E-03 3.25E-03 2008 5,667 9.2

DentonRawhide 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

DentonRawhide Melt Furnace 1.94E-01 8.31E-02 6.32E-02 3.64E+00 1.56E+00 1.19E+00 2007 347 18.5

DentonRawhide Melt Furnace 9.95E-02 2.07E-01 1.66E-01 8.90E-01 1.85E+00 1.48E+00 2008 82 9.2

DentonRawhide 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

DentonRawhide Retort 4.30E-07 4.66E-07 5.28E-07 5.84E-05 6.33E-05 7.17E-05 2007 2,513 18.5

DentonRawhide Retort 8.95E-07 2.93E-07 2.74E-07 4.59E-05 1.50E-05 1.40E-05 2008 472 9.2

DentonRawhide 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 3.76 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/hr)

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

Goldstrike 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 1.28E+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 Electrowinning 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

Goldstrike 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-03 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 9.00E-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/hr)

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 Carbon 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 6.72E-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

Twin 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-03 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 Creeks 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 2.75E-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+01

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 2.00E-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/hr)

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-01 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 11.4 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

Florida 

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 Tree 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-03 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/hr)

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 2.35E+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 9.75E-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 1.80E-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 2.17E-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 Furnace 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 PROCESSES WITHOUT MERCURY RETORTS 

Facility Unit

Run 1 

(lb/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 2009 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 Furnace 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. BASELINE 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

Gold 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-03 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 preheater - 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 preheater - 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 preheater - 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 preheater - 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 preheater - 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 preheater - 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

Goldstrike 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 9.03E-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 Roaster 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 7.91E-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 1.19E-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 356 217

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

Midas 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 4.07E-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