## From: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "King, Heidi R." < Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov >

Cc: Branning.Amy@epamail.epa.gov ; "Raymond, Gabrielle"

< graymond@rti.org >; VanLare.Paula@epamail.epa.gov ; "Marinshaw, Richard"

< rjmarinshaw@rti.org >; Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov ; Blake.Wendy@epamail.epa.gov

Date: 12/15/2010 10:53 AM

Subje ct: RE: EO 12866 Interagency Review comments on Gold Mine Draft Final

Hi Heidi,

Attached are the revised Impacts and MACT Documents. One

clean version, and one with track changes for each. Let me know if

you have questions.

Thanks.

C huck

(See attached file: Estimate of Impacts

- Final

- OMB_review_changes_12

- 15

- 2010_clean.doc)

(See attached file: Estimate of Impacts

- Final

- OMB_review_changes_12

- 15

- 2010.doc)

(See attached file: Gold Mine MACT Floor Document

- Final

- OMB_review_changes_12

- 15

- 1 0_clean.doc)

(See attached file: Gold Mine MACT Floor Document

- Final

- OMB_review_changes_12

- 15

- 10.doc)

## 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 remaining facility 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 affe ct the adsorptive capacity of the carbon adsorber.

The Twin Creeks facility will not be able to meet the final MACT standard without adding

controls, thus the costs to add controls to the Twin Creek’s autoclaves has been included in

the total cost of cont rols for facilities to meet the MACT standard (see Table 3) . 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

e fficiency of 70 percent, mercury emissions would be reduced by 431 lbs/yr, resulting in an

estimated cost effectiveness of $11,390/lb. The Goldstrike facility can already meet the

MACT standard so the costs to add controls to their autoclaves are consider ed beyond

- the

floor. We estimate the capital cost for the additional controls on the autoclaves 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 reduce d 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 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

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

## 9 $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.

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

Mercury Retorts

Facility Unit Flow

(cf m) 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 13 5,968 198,131 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 fur nace 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 60,77 6 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 e lectrowinning control device. For a beyond

the

- 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 Moun tain 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 op tion 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 l evel 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 pr esented 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 r educed by 0.13 lb/year, which results in a cost effectiveness of

$ 1.4 million /lb.

## 10 Table 8 summarizes the final mercury emission control costs including 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



### 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 El ko, 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 cost 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

## 11 2

. 0 Emission Estimates

The emission estimates are based on mercury emission stack tests conducted in 2007

thro ugh 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 als o provide s 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 baselin e 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 avai lable . Emissions for the facil i ty were det ermined by summing emissions for each of

the process uni ts 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 retor ts,

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

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 proces ses 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 o verall 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 c arbon 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 h igher 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

reduce d 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.

2 

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

- HQ

- OAR 2010

- 0239.

## 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

Su btotal 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

Tw in 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 Oper ations 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 operatio ns. 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 limits are

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

## 13 Table 11 . Mercury Emissions Red uctions 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 0.6 1 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

Seconda ry 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 a dd additional

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

. The increase in electricity consumption 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 estimated 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 Electrowinning, P/B tanks, melt

furnace 8,760 1,000 42,574

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

Gold Q uarry 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 Electrowi nning 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 Ope rating 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

. Applicat ion 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. 20 08.

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 Protect ion. 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 Protecti on. Pages 3

- 11 and 3

- 12.

18

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual.

Chapter 1. Baghou ses 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

averag e

(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

Mar igold 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

- 0 7 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 3.16E

- 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 18.50 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

- 0 3 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 Furnace 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 5.84E

- 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 1,08 4 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

averag e

(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 C arbon 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 1.05 E+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 Electrowin ning 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 7.90 E

- 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 4.20 E

- 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 Mel t 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

averag e

(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 7.7 9E

- 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 2 007 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 Re tort 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 2 008 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

averag e

(lb/ton) Per unit

(lb/yr) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/yr)

Florida

Canyon E lectrowinning 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 1.0 8E

- 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 2 0.60 227

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 9.4 8E

- 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

- 0 2 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

averag e

(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 9.52 E

- 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 PR OCESSES 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) Ma x

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 F urnace 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

- 0 3 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

Corte z 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 Pipelin e 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 9.7 7E

- 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/h r) 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

- 0 5 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

Gol d 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 S outh 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 Circui t 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 gr inding

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

- Mil l 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+0 1

## 25 Facility Unit Run 1

(lbs/hr) Run 2

(lbs/hr) Run 3

(lbs/h r) 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

Go ldstrike 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 3.77 E

- 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 2 007 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 t ph

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

- 0 4 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

Twi n 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 9.1 1E

- 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

(l bs/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

tota l

(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 7.6 1E+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

- 03 200 8 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 2.1 7E

- 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 R etort 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

- 0 7 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 2 28 228 2.01E

- 03 4.58E

- 01 0.078 18

Total 25.79 25.79

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, o r Release During Review***

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 November 22 , 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 estim ated 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 mercu ry 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 p rocess 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. F or

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 27 135,100 103,900 116,6 53 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 include s all of the gold mine ore processing and

productio n 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 stacks a Highe r 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

- - 25,00 1 25,001

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

- 18,840 7,873 26,713

Gold Quarr y 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 9,42 0 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 2 00,668

- 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 o f 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 produ ction 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 th os e types of controls on other process units. Most

of the facilities provided estimates of capital costs for the proposed 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) 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 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 

## 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 f an, 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

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 1,00 0 183,934 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 99,70 0 6 

### 22,111 31,523 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

Lo ne Tree Electrowinning 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 

### 10 9,621 150,591 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 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 e stimates 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

Th e final rule 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 device s 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 f or 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, mo is ture conditioner

,

me tering 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 req uired, 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 c heck 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 rep orting $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 s a m pling 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

samp ling 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 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 hour s 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 ind ustry workers 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/curre nt/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 require s annual stack sampling for mercury emissions (e.g., using EPA

Method 29). However, most of the gold mine fa cilities 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 t esting 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 $6 80

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 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 e mission 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 effici ent 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 redu ctions 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 wit h 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 be need

required to install mercury scrubbers and carbon adsorbers on their roast ers and ventur i e

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 remaining

facility 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 Twin Creeks facility will not be able to meet

the final MACT standard without adding controls, thus the costs to add controls to the Twin

Creek’s autoclave s has been included in the total cost of controls for facilities to meet the

MACT standard (see Table 3) . 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. The

Goldstrike facility can already meet the MACT standard so the costs to add controls to their

autoclaves are considered beyond

- the

- floor. We estimate the capital cost for the additional

controls on the autoclaves 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 This option would reduce mercury emissions 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

o re 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 reduced by 118 lbs /yr , re sulting 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

## 9 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.

T able 7 . Estimate 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 Ele ctrowinning 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 Electrowin ning, 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 Za dra 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 e lectrowinning control device. For a beyond

the

- 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, 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 processes, we expect that M idas 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, 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.

## 10 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

- the

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

Table 8. Final Mercury Emission Control Costs a



### 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 63 6 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 cost 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

## 11 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 provide s the details

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

presented for different years for a single process un it, 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 avai lable . Emi ssions 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 groups of affected source s.

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 monitori ng for carbon

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 proc esses 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 elec trowinning 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 a re 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 18 4 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 concentrat e baseline emissions of 25.79 lb/yr would be reduced by 13.94 to

11.85 lb/yr.

2 

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

- HQ

- OAR 2010

- 0239.

## 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 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 Co ncentrate 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 2,63 6 lb/yr

. Overall, the proposed MACT limits are

expected to r educe 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

emissions

lb/yr Reducti ons

@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 T ank 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

a dsorbers 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 a carbon

adsorber s

. The increase in electricity consumption was estimate d 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 estimated 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 Electrowinning, P/B tank s, 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 & Ret ort 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 Barrick Goldstrike. Neva da 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 Perm it 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 Oper ating 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 f or 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

. Ap plication 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

- 11 and 3

- 12.

18

. U.S. En vironmental 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) Ru n 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 1 0.75 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 3.16E

- 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 18.50 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 Electrowinn ing 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 Furnace 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 5.84E

- 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 3.76 3.76 6.66E

- 01 2.51 E+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

R uby 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) Ru n 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 8.38 E

- 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 Car bon 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 5.60 E

- 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) Ru n 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 4.48 E+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 558 104.5 7 104.57 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

Canyo n 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) Ru n 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 1.47 E

- 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 4.82 E

- 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 1 1.00 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

- 0 2 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+0 0

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 3.8 3E

- 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) Ru n 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

G old 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 PR OCESSES 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

- 0 2 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 Pipelin e 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 Electrowinn ing 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

- 0 5 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 EMISSION S 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 N orth 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 1.50 E

- 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 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 an d 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 11,985,89 8 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 2 007 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 1.30 E

- 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 2.60 E

- 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 3.78 E

- 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 A utoclave 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 7.8 2E

- 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) Ma x

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

Ro chester 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 M elt

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 3.1 4E

- 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

## DEVELOPMENT OF THE MACT FLOORS AND MACT FOR THE FINAL NESHAP

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

, 20 10

## 1 Development of the MACT Floors and MACT for the Final NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore

Processing and Production

1. Selection of Affected Source

The Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production source category consists of facilities

engaged in processing gold ore to recover gold using roasters, autoclaves, carbon kilns, melt

furnaces, mercury retorts, electrowinning, and preg tanks. There were approximately 2 1 gold

mine ore processing facilities opera ting these processes in the United States in 2008.

Th e final rule appl ies to each new or existing affected source and specifies maximum

achievable control technology ( MACT ) standards for mercury emissions for the following four

affected sources in the G ol d M ine O re P rocessing and Production source category : ore

pretreatment, carbon processes with mercury retorts, carbon processes without mercury retorts,

and non

- carbon concentrate processes. These affected sources reflect the differences in process

operat ions, the sources of mercury entering the processes, and the nature of the emissions

.

The ore pretreatment affected source includes roast ing operation s and autoclaves that

pretreat refractory ore, which contains organic carbon and sulfid e mineral grains that prevent the

initial use of cyanide leaching to effectively extract the gold from the ore. The refractory ore is

oxidized in the roaster or autoclave, converting it to an “oxidized” ore, which can then be

effectively leached with cyan ide solution. Mercury enters these processes with the ore. Ore Pretreatment

There are four existing facilities that use ore pretreatment processes, and mercury

emissions data are available for al l four of these facil i ties. The potential for mercury emissions

from this affected source is directly related to the amount of ore processed in the autoclaves and

roasters; consequently, the format selected for the standard for this affected source is pounds of

mercury emissions (lb) per million ton of ore processed (lb/ million ton of ore). In the 2007

- 2009

timeframe , the ore pretreatment sources accounted for approximately 55 percent of the mercury

emissions from the source category.

The second affected source is carbon processes with mercury retorts

, which includes

those gold production operations that use carbon to collect (adsorb) the gold and mercury from

solution and the process units that follow (i.e., carbon kilns, pregnant tanks, electrowinning cells,

mercury retorts

, and melt f urnaces) . Mercury emissions are subsequently generated by these Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

## 2 process units. The primary intermediate product that is common to all of the facilities with these

carbon processes with mercury retorts is the gold

- bearing concentrate, which is the input to

mercury retorts. Further, concentrate is closely related to the final product because it contains

about 60 percent gold, and because of its value, it is carefully weighed and records of the

quantities are kept. The amount of c oncentrate input to the m ercury retort is also required to be

reported under the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection ( NDEP ) program, so we had

comparable and reliable data from the different gold mine facilities. Consequently, we decided

that the most appropriate format o f the emission limit for the carbon processes with mercury

retorts is lb/ton of concentrate processed

.

There are approximately 10 facilities with the carbon processes with mercury retorts , and

we have mercury emissions data for 10 of these facilities. I n the 2007

- 2009 timeframe , the

carbon process es with mercury retorts sources accounted for approximately 44 percent of the

mercury emissions from the source category.

The third affected source is carbon processes wi thout mercury retorts

, which includes

those gold production operations that use carbon to collect the gold and mercury from solution

without the use of mercury retorts

. Several facilities have such low concentration s of mercury in

their ore that they do n ot require a mercury retort to remove and recover mercury. In addition,

the average mercury emissions from these types of facilities that do not have mercury retorts are

a factor of 10 less than facilities that do have mercury retorts. For these reasons, the final rule

differentiate s between carbon processes with and without mercury retorts

. Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

Mercury emissions are subsequently generated by the process units included in this

affected source (i.e., carbon kilns, pregnant tanks, electrowinning cells, and melt furnaces)

.

Similar to the reasons described previously for carbon processes with mercury retorts , the

concentrate is the input to the melt furnace for carbon processes without mercury retorts ; we

decided that the most appropriate format of the emission limit for the carbon processes without

mercury retorts is lb/ton of concentrate processed

.

There are approximately eight facilities with the carbon processes without mercury

retorts , and we have mercury emissions data for two of these facilities. In the 2007

- 2009

timeframe , the carbon process es without mercury retorts sources accounted for approximately

0.19 percent of the mercury emissions from the source category.

## 3 Th is a ffected source includes facilities with gold ore processes that do not use carbon or

ore pre

- treatment. These facilities do not have roasters, autoclaves, or carbon kilns and instead

only use mercury retorts and melt furnaces to recover the gold and liberate mercury from the

concentrate. The amount of mercury entering these processes and potential mercury emissions

are directly related to the amount of concentrate processed; consequently, the appropriate format

for the final standard for this affected source is lb/ton of concentrate processed. There ar e about

three gold mine ore processing facilities sources with non

- carbon concentrate affected sources,

and we have mercury emissions data for two of these facilities. In the 2007

- 2009 timeframe , the

non

- carbon concentrate sources accounted for approximat ely 0.98 percent of the mercury

emissions from the source category. Non

- Carbon Concentrate Processes

2. Approach for Developing the MACT Floor

Pursuant to Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, MACT standards for existing

affected sources must be at least as stringent as the average emiss ions limitation achieved by

sources in the MACT pool ; that is, the best performing 12 percent of existing affected sources

for which the Administrator has data for source categories with 30 or more sources or the best

performing 5 sources for source catego ries with fewer than 30 sources. This level of

minimum stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at

least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar

affected source.

The MAC T floor limits for each of the four affected sources were calculated based on

the performance of the lowest emitting (best performing) sources in each pool of sources with

available data . We ranked all of the sources for which we had valid data representi ng current

performance based on their emissions and identified the lowest emitting of the existing

affected sources, which resulted in 4 facilities with ore pretreat ment processes, 10 facilities

for those with carbon processes with mercury retorts

, 2 facil ities for those with carbon

processes without mercury retorts, and 2 facilities with the non

- carbon concentrate processes.

For new source s, MACT was based on the best performing source for each of the four

aff ected source s

.

The run

- by

- run data and the de tails of the statistical calculations for the MACT floor

analyses are provided in Appendices A through E.

## 4 2.1 Statistical Approach for Existing Sources

To calculate the MACT floor limit for each of the affected sources, we established and

ranked source s’ emissions from lowest to highest. The data on which the limits are based are

expressed in terms of pounds of mercury emitted per unit of mass of input, where millions of

tons of gold mine ore is the input for the ore pretreatment processes and tons of concentrate is the

input for the carbon processes with mercury retorts, carbon processes without mercury retorts,

and the non

- carbon concentrate processes.

T he emissions data for those best performing affected sources were used to determine the

final emis sion limits, with an accounting for variability. EPA must exercise its judgment, based

on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions

control that has been achieved by the best performing sources under var iable conditions. The

Court has recognized that EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emission

reduction achieved by best

- performing sources and in setting MACT floors. See Mossville Envt’l

Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241

– 42 (D.C. Cir 2004) (holding EPA may consider

emission variability in estimating performance achieved by best

- performing sources and may set

the floor at a level that a best

- performing source can expect to meet “every day and under all

operating conditions”).

To c alculate the achieved emission limit, including variability, we used upper prediction

limit (UPL) approach, which is defined by the following equation :

T df T 

## v t x UPL **+ =** 

w here:

UPL = upper prediction limit,

T 

## x = the average total emission rate over the best performing affected sources

,

df 

## t 

## = the 99 th 

## percentile of the t distribution , and

T 

## v = the total variance for the top performing affected sources

.

The degrees of freedom associated with

df 

## t 

## is given by:



# ( **) ∑**  **∑**

**= =**  

## − **=** N

i M

j ij

i 

## n df

1 1 

## 1

## 5 where:

N = number of best performing affected sources (2 to 4 for the four affected sources),

M i 

## = number of mercury emitting processes at each affected source , and

n ij 

## = number of mercury emis sion test r u ns for each process unit.

The average total emission rate (

T 

## x ) is calculated from :



# ∑

**=** 

## = N

i Ti T 

## x N x

1 

## 1



## where:

N

= the number of top N affected sources ( N = 2 to 5),

Ti 

## x = t he total emission rat e of an entire i th affected source

.

To calculate

Ti 

## x :



# ∑

**=** 

## = i M

j ij Ti 

## x x

1



## where:

M i 

## = the number of distinct units within the i th affected source (i.e., we count all the distinct

units in a n affected source , so if a process t ype has two or more units, then each of those

units must be counted),

ij 

## x 

## = the unit average for the j th unit within the i th affected source

.

To calculate

ij 

## x 

## :



# ∑

**=** 

## = ij n

k ijk

ij ij 

## x

n x

1 

## 1

where:

n ij 

## = the number o f runs within the j th unit of the i th affected source

,

x ijk 

## = the observation associated with the k th run within the j th unit and i th affected source

.

T he total variance (

T 

## v ) consists of the following two variance components:

W B T 

## v v v **+ =** 

## 6 The first variance component (

B 

## v ) is simply the variance of

T 

## x ( the average total emission rate

over all affected sources )

. Suppose 2 

## var( )

ij ijk 

## s x **=** is the variance of an individual run i n the j th

unit and i th affected source , then th e variance of the unit average

, ij 

## x 

## in the j th unit and i th

affected source is

ij ij

ij



## n s

x 2



## ) var(

**=**

.

If all units operate independently, then the unit variances, 2

ij 

## s , will be additive. Therefore, based

on the assumption of variance additivity, the variance of the total emission rate of the i th affected

source is



# ∑

**=** 

## = i M

j ij ij

Ti



## n s

x

1 2



## ) var(

,

and the variance of the average total emission rate over all affected sources i s



# ∑ **∑**

**= =**  

## = **=** N

i M

j ij ij

T B i



## n s

N x v

1 1 2

2 

## 1 ) var(

.

The second variance component (

W 

## v ) is the variance of

new T 

## x

, 

## , the total emission rate

from new test runs at a n affected source in the future to determine compliance

. The theoretical

formu lation of

W 

## v based on thes e future runs is :

, , , 2

1 1 1 

## 1 var( ) var( ) var( ) M M m

W T new j new jk new

j j k 

## vx x x

m

**= = =**  

## = = **=** 

# ∑ ∑∑

,

where

, jk new 

## x 

## refers to the k th run of the j th unit in the new affected source , and M is the number

of units in the new affected source

. Also note that t he number of units, M , in the affected source

to be tested in the future is unknown and may vary

.

However, the theoretical formulation informs us how to derive an operational

formula tion of

W 

## v based on the data available f rom the runs already completed from the top N

affected sources :

## 7 2

2

1 11 1 1 

## 1 1 1 var( ) i i M M N m N

W ijk ij

i jk i j 

## v xs N m Nm

**= = = = =**  

##  

**= =**  **   **  

# ∑ ∑∑ ∑∑

Substituting into the equation provided for UPL earlier and rearranging yields:

2

1 1 

# 1 11 i M N

T df ij

i j ij 

# UPL x t s

N Nn m

**= =** 

#  

**= + +**  ** **

** ** 

# ∑∑

The first term of the equation ref ers to the average total emission rate of the top N affected

sources

. The second term accounts for the expected variability in future measurements due to

variations resulting from system operation and measurement activities , and this variability

consists of two components

. The first component accounts for the variability of the average

total emissions of the existing lowest emitting MACT pool sources , and the second component

accounts for the variability of the average of m new test runs based on the obse rved variance of

individual runs within test conditions from the lowest emitting MACT pool sources (the

second component typically accounts for the major portion of the overall variability) . The

variability factor assumes that variability from the individ ual best performing source s are

independent, and thus are additive. This is a reasonable assumption because each individual

best performing source has certain characteristics, such as material inputs, design and

operation, etc.

, that are unique to that pr ocess unit

.

2.2 Statistical Approach for New Sources

MACT for new sources is based on the UPL for the best performing source for each of

the four types of affected sources and is calculated from:

1 1 T df 

## v t x UPL **+ =** 

where:

1 

## x = the average total emission rate of the best performing affected source,

df 

## t 

## = the 99 th 

## percentile of the t distribution with ( n

– 1) degrees of freedom, and

1 T 

## v = the total variance of the best performing source.

The total variance of the best performing source is calculated from the formulas given in Section

2.1, except that in this case, N = 1 and the subscript i is replaced by the subscript 1 :

1 2

1 1

1 1 

## 1 1 M

T j

j j 

## v s

n m

**=** 

##  

**= +  ** 

** ** 

# ∑

,

## 8 where 2

1 j 

## s and

1 j 

## n 

## are the variance and number of runs, respectively, from the j th mercury

emitting unit of the best performing source

, 1 

## M is the number of distinct mercury

- emitting units

in this source, and m is the number of future runs to determine compliance (typically 3).

3

. MACT Floor for Mercury

Most of t he mercury emissions data used in the MACT floor analyses were obtained

from annual testing that was required by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

( NDEP ) for 2007 through 2009

. 1



## The NDEP i nvalidated several me rcury emission tests conducted in 2007 and 2008

because of failure s to comply with the federal reference test method , failure to comply with

the established testing protocol , possible sample contamination, etc. See docket item EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0239

- 0061 fo r a complete list and rationale for invalidated tests . As a result,

none of the test data for Barrick Goldstrike’s roasters and autoclaves for 2008 were used in

the analysis. However, 2007 and 2009 data for Goldstrike’s autoclaves and roasters w ere

use d in the analyses. The 2007 and 2008 tests for the mercury retorts at Goldstrike were also

invalidated; however, test data for 200 9 w ere available for the mercury retort s and w ere used

in the analysis for the carbon processes with mercury retorts . Other te sts that were invalidated

included the 2007 tests at Coeur Rochester

, one of the October 2008 test s at Marigold , two of

the August 2007 ore preheater tests at Goldstrike, and one of the February 2010 roaster tests

at Jerritt Canyon

. In addition, we exclud ed data from the October 2009 emission test on one

of the m elt f urnace s for the Cortez Pipeline facility

. The NDEP reported that, for that test, the However, 2010 test data were used for one facility that

installed new mercury emission controls on its roasters and resumed operation in late 200 9

.

The tests generally consist of three runs per test per process at each affected s ource . Most of

the measurements were made using EPA Method 29; however, Method 101A and the Ontario

Hydro method were used in a few cases. There we re cases where 2007 and/or 2008 results

represent emissions before a control device was installed, and 2008 and/or 2009 test results

represent emissions after a mercury emission control device had been installed. In those

cases, we used only the controlled test results to determine the top performing affected

sources . Emissions in lb/hr were multiplied by the number of hours the process operated in

2007 , 2008, or 200 9 and then divided by the process input rate for the year (in tons or million

tons ) to express mercury emissions in lbs per ton (or million tons) of input material.

1 

### A complete listing of the emission test data is provided in Appendix A through F of this document

.

## 9 mercury content of the concentrate was only 8 ppm, whereas the content for the December

2009 test was 1,55 7 ppm, and the content in 2007 and 2008 averaged 4,480 ppm and 4,250

ppm , respectively. Based on that information, we concluded that the mercury content was

unusually low for the October test

, and the emissions data would not be representative of

typical operations.

The following paragraphs discuss the results of the MACT floor analyses for the four

affected sources for the Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production source category

. Tables 1

through 4 summarize the results

.

V alid emissi ons d ata were available for all four o f the facilities with ore pretreatment

processes . As shown in Table 1, the average emissions level achieved by these four facilities

is 84 lb Hg/million tons of ore. The MACT floor based on the UPL is 158 lb Hg/milli on tons

of ore. For new sources, MACT corresponds to 84 lb Hg/million tons of ore. We estimate

that requiring the MACT floor emission limit for th is affected source w ould reduce emissions

of mercury by about 431 pounds per year ( lbs /yr) , a reduction of 3 0 percent from current

levels. In addition, e nergy consumption would increase by about 11,400 megawatt

- hours per

year (or 11.4 gigawatt

- hours per year ) . Solid waste generation and disposal (spent carbon

loaded with mercury) would increase by about 3 tons per year. Ore Pretreatment

Table 1. MACT Floor Results for Ore Pretreatment

Affected Source Average performance (lb Hg /million tons ore)

Goldstrike (Facility A) 45 (14 tests, 42 runs)

Gold Quarry (Facility C) 56 (17 tests, 51 runs)

Jerritt Canyon Mine (Facility E) 71 (7 tests, 21 runs)

Twin Creeks Mine (Facility D) 165 (12 tests, 36 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 4 ) New

Average (lb/MM tons) 84 45

df 131 42

t 2.36 2.42

Vb 52 65

Vw 935 198

Vt 988 263

99% UPL (lb/MM tons) , MA CT Floor 158 84

## 10 Valid emissions data were available for 10 facilities that operate carbon processes with

mercury retort s

. Based on the MACT floor analysis, t he average emissions level achieved by

the best perform ing five sources is 1.1 lb Hg/ton of concentrate. After accounting for the

variability in emissions, t he MACT floor for this affected source is 2.2 lb Hg/ton of

concentrate. For new sources, MACT is 0.8 lb Hg/ton concentrate. We estimate that the

MACT f loor limit for th is affected source w ould reduce emissions by about 899 lbs /yr , a

reduction of 78 percent from current levels. Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Table 2. MACT Floor Results for Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Affected Source Average performance (lb Hg /ton concentrate )

Marigold (Facility N) 0.53 (7 tests, 21 runs)

Bald Mountain (Facility J) 0.74 (4 tests, 12 runs)

Ruby Hill (Facility I) 1.06 (4 tests, 11 runs)

Goldstrike (Facility A) 1.47 (18 tests, 54 runs)

Denton

- Rawhide (Facility H) 1.67 (12 tests, 36 runs)

Tw in Creeks (Facility D) 2.20 (31 tests, 93 runs)

Gold Quarry (Facility C) 3.71 (21 tests, 57 runs)

Florida Canyon (Facility G) 8.17 (18 tests, 54 runs)

Jerritt Canyon (Facility E) 14.49 (2 tests, 6 runs)

Lone Tree (Facility B) 20.60 (7 tests, 21 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 5) New

Average (lb/tons) 1.1 0.53

D f 110 17

t 2.36 2.57

Vb 0.015 0.003 2

Vw 0.20 0.0037

Vt 0.2 2 0.0069

99% UPL (lb/ton) , MACT Floor 2.2 0. 8

Val id data were available for two facilities that operate carbon processes without

mercury retorts

. As shown in Table 3, the average emissions level achieved by these two

facilities is 0.078 lb Hg/ton of concentrate. The existing MACT floor based on the UPL is Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

## 11 0.17 lb Hg/ton of concentrate. For new sources, MACT corresponds to 0.14 lb Hg/ton of

concentrate.

Table 3. MACT Floor Results for Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

Affected Source Average performance (lb Hg /ton concentrate)

Round Mountain (Facility M) 0.058 (5 tests, 15 runs)

Cortez (Facility F) 0.098 (13 tests, 39 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 2) New

Average (lb/ton) 0.078 0.058

df 4 3 12

t 2.42 2.68

Vb 0.00031 0.00045

Vw 0.0010 0.00048

Vt 0.00 13 0.00093

99% UPL (lb/ton) , MACT Floor 0.1 7 0.14

For this affected source, valid emissions data were available for two facilities. The

results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4. B ased on the MACT floor analy sis, the

average emissions level achieved by the se two facilities is 0.062 lb Hg/ton of concentrate.

The MACT floor for this affected source is 0.2 Hg/ton of concentrate. For new sources,

MACT is 0. 1 lb Hg/ton concentrate. We estimate that requiring the MACT floor emissions

limit for non

- carbon concentrate processes would reduce emissions by about 14 lbs /yr , a

reduction of 54 percent from current levels. Non

- Carbon Concentrate Processes

Table 4 . MACT Floor Results for Non

- Carbon Concentrate Processes

Affected Source Average performan ce (lb Hg /ton concentrate)

Coeur Rochester Mine (Facility K) 0.047 (5 tests, 17 runs)

Midas Operations (Facility L) 0.078 (13 tests, 27 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 2) New

Average (lb/ton) 0.062 0.047

df 3 9 1 5

t 2. 43 2.6 0

Vb 0.0002 4 0.0002 6

Vw 0.002 6 0.0005 2

Vt 0.0028 0.00077

99% UPL (lb/ton) , MACT Floor 0. 2 0.1

## 12 4 . Beyond the Floor 2



## To evaluate opportunities for emission reductions beyond those that would result from

requiring facilities to meet the MAC T floor emissions limits , we typically identify control

techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more stringent than the MACT

floor. The following paragraphs summarize the results of th is " beyond

- the

- floor " analysis for

the four affe cted sources for the G old M ine O re P rocessing and P roduction source category.

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

,

calomel mercury scrubbers on their roasters and venturi scrubbers and/ may be 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 the installation of both a

refrigeration unit and a carbon adsorber on the remaining f acilit ies 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 adve rsely affect the adsorptive ca pacity of the carbon adsorber.

We assumed that the additional control from the carbon adsorber would result in a 70 percent

reduction of mercury emissions. This value was proposed by Newmont Twin Creeks facility

in their Pha se 2 application to the Nevada Mercury Control Program. We believe that it is an

appropriate estimate of emissions reductions seeing as this control has never been

demonstrated on an autoclave. Ore Pretreatment

We estimate that t he Twin Creeks facility will not be able to meet the final MACT

standard without adding controls, thus the costs to add controls to the Twin Creek’s

autoclaves has been included in the total cost of controls for facilities to meet the MACT

standard. 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 e ffectiveness of $11,390/lb. We are incorporating this

beyond

- the

- floor analysis in the final rule.

2 

### Additional details and documentation for the estimates of emissions, emission reductions, and costs are provided

in the rulemaking docket (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0239)

.

## 13 We estimate that t he Goldstrike facility will be able meet the MACT standard without

adding controls to their autoclaves so the costs t o add controls to th eir autoclaves are

considered beyond

- the

- floor. 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

.

This option would reduce m ercury emissions by 10 lbs /yr , resulting in an estimated cost

effectiveness of $782,409/lb. Because of the high cost effectiveness for addition controls to

the autoclaves at Goldstrike, we are not incorporating this beyond

- the

- floor analysis in the

final rule.

We also identif ied as a beyond

- the

- floor option the installation of a carbon adsorber on

ore preheater/dryer units. Again, we assumed that the additional control from the carbon

adsorber would result in a 70 percent reduction of mercury emissions on the ore

preheater/dr yer units. We believe that this is an appropriate estimate of emissions reductions

because this control has never been demonstrated on these units. We estimate d 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 reduced

by 118 lbs /yr , resulting in an estimated cost effectiveness of $13,784/lb

.

Another assumption used in the beyond

- the

- floor calculations was th at on e facility

,

which h as both roasters and autoclaves

, would operat e only their roasters. With these

additional control s

, the average emissions level achieved by these sources facilities would be

80 lb/million tons of ore. We estimate that requiring the MAC T floor emissions limit and the

beyond

- the

- floor options for ore pretreatment processes results in a total emissions reductions

of 548 lbs/yr, a reduction of 38 percent from current levels. Applying the UPL formula to

account for variability, the resulting beyond

- the

- floor emissions limit would be 127 lb/million

tons of ore . Table 5 summarizes the beyond

- the

- floor analysis for ore pretreatment processes

.

This emission limit was incorporated in the final rule.

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

## 14 preheat ers, mercury emissions would be reduced by 44.6 lbs/yr, resulting in an estimated cost

effectiveness of $211,188/lb. Because of the high cost effectiveness values, the beyond

- the

floor anyslsysis for new sources in the ore pretreatment affected source wer e not adopted in

the final rule.

Table 5

. Beyond the Floor Results for Ore Pretreatment

Affected Source Average performance

(lb Hg/million tons ore)

Gold Quarry (Facility C) (70% reduction) 37

Twin Creeks (Facility D) (70% reduction) 49

Jerritt Canyo n (Facility E) (70% reduction) 58

Goldstrike (Facility A) (70% reduction) 80

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic

Average achieved by all (lb/MM tons) 80

df 123

t 2.36

Vb 30

Vw 369

Vt 399

Affected Source 99% UPL (lb/MM tons) 127

For two of the other affected sources (carbon processes with mercury retorts and non

carbon concentrate processes), existing sources are equipped with efficient mercury emission

controls, and it is difficult to identify a technology that might be applied to achieve further

reductions in emissions , especially considering the very low mercury concentrations after the

MACT floor level of control and the difficulty in obtaining efficient additional percent

reductions for low concentration streams. For the beyond

- the

- floor analysis, we assumed that

a second carbon adsorption system could be installed in series with the first or existing

adsorber and would get an additional reduction of 90 percent. (We acknowledge that there is

significant uncertainty in the additional reduction s the redundant control system might

achieve.) For carbon processes with mercury retorts, t he capital cost for the additional control

was estimated to be $3 million

, with a total annualized cost of $1. 3 million/ yr

. The emission s

reduction s for this control option would be 9 lbs /yr , resulting in an estimated cost

effectiveness of $150,275/ lb

. For non

- carbon concentrate processes, w e estimated the capital

cost for the additional adsorber to be $0. 4 million , with a to tal annualized cost of Ot her Affected Sources

## 15 $ 191,000 /year. The mercury e missions reductions that would be achieved by this option

would be 0.13 lb/year , resulting in an estimated cost effectiveness of $1,400,000/ lb

. Because

of the uncertainties in the emissions reductions th at could be achieved, and the high cost

effectiveness values, beyond

- the

- floor limits for these three types of affected sources were not

adopted in the final rule.

For a beyond

- the

- floor analysis for carbon processes without mercury retorts

, we

estimated the costs and reductions for installing a carbon adsorber to a unit at Round

Mountain that is currently uncontrolled. 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 same reasons described above for carbon processes with

mercury retorts and non

- carbon concentrate processes, it was concluded that this option was

not cost effective, and it was not adopted in the final rule.

4. Summary of Final Emission Standards

Table 6 summarizes the mercury emission limits included in the final Gold Mine Ore

Processing and Production Area Source NESHAP

.

Table 6 . Summary of Final Mercury Emission Limits

Affected Source Hg Emission Limit s

Units Existing

Source s New

Source s

Ore pretreatment processes 127 84 lb/million ton s of ore

Carbon processes with mercury retorts 2.2 0.8 lb/ton of concentrate

Carbon processes without mercury retorts 0.17 0.14 lb/ton of concentrate

Non

- carbon concentrate processes 0.2 0.1 lb/ton of concentrate

## 16 Appendix A. Mercury Emissions Data for the Ore Pretreatment Affected Source (lb/ton of ore)

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Gold Quarry Roaster/Cal cine

quench 1.35E

- 05 9.56E

- 06 1.37E

- 05

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.05E

- 05 1.33E

- 05 1.69E

- 05

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 8.45E

- 06 1.05E

- 05 9.66E

- 06 1.06E

- 04 1.18E

- 05 7.33E

- 12 9 8 8.14E

- 13 2.44E

- 1 2

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.27E

- 05 5.41E

- 06 4.53E

- 06

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 2.63E

- 05 2.50E

- 05 1.54E

- 04

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.18E

- 06 3.48E

- 06 3.03E

- 06 2.43E

- 04 2.70E

- 05 2.35E

- 09 9 8 2.62E

- 10 7.85E

- 10

Gold Quarry Roaster 8.99E

- 07 6.97E

- 07 7.87E

- 07

Gold Quarry Roaster 1.27E

- 06 1.61E

- 06 6.19E

- 07

Gold Quarry Roaster 4.92E

- 07 2.75E

- 07 3.56E

- 07 7.00E

- 06 7.78E

- 07 1.86E

- 13 9 8 2.07E

- 14 6.21E

- 14

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.66E

- 06 2.06E

- 06 1.48E

- 06

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.50E

- 06 4.82E

- 06 1.75E

- 06 1.33E

- 05 2.21E

- 06 1.67E

- 12 6 5 2.79E

- 13 5.58E

- 13

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.67E

- 05 1.36 E

- 05 9.55E

- 06

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.27E

- 05 1.46E

- 05 2.11E

- 05

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.03E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 1.32E

- 05 1.25E

- 04 1.39E

- 05 5.56E

- 05 1.19E

- 11 9 8 1.32E

- 12 2.64E

- 10 3.96E

- 12 7.92E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 3.23E

- 07 5.03E

- 07 3.60E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.61E

- 07 5.96E

- 07 5.17E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.79E

- 06 1.39E

- 06 2.65E

- 07

Goldstrike R oaster Ore

Preheater 2.19E

- 06 1.13E

- 06 2.65E

- 07 1.02E

- 05 8.48E

- 07 4.12E

- 13 12 11 3.43E

- 14 1.37E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.68E

- 06 4.71E

- 06 1.71E

- 06

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 2.36E

- 05 5.05E

- 06 7.86E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.52E

- 07 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.64E

- 06 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07 4.95E

- 05 4.12E

- 06 4.40E

- 11 12 11 3.67E

- 12 1.47E

- 11

## 17 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Goldstrike Roaster 7.25E

- 05 5.71E

- 05 5.26E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.25E

- 05 1.25E

- 05 1.71E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.95E

- 05 1.73E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 2.74E

- 04 3.05E

- 05 5.47E

- 10 9 8 6.08E

- 11 1.82E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine

quench 4.35E

- 06 2.96E

- 06 2.87E

- 06 1.02 E

- 05 3.39E

- 06 6.86E

- 13 3 2 2.29E

- 13 2.29E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine

quench 3.55E

- 06 3.76E

- 06 3.32E

- 06 1.06E

- 05 3.54E

- 06 4.72E

- 14 3 2 1.57E

- 14 1.57E

- 14

Goldstrike Autoclave 2.59E

- 07 4.01E

- 07 4.70E

- 07 1.13E

- 06 3.77E

- 07 1.16E

- 14 3 2 3.87E

- 15 3.87E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 6.57E

- 07 7.71E

- 07 5.50E

- 07 1.98E

- 06 6.59E

- 07 1.23E

- 14 3 2 4.09E

- 15 4.09E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 1.65E

- 07 1.81E

- 07 1.77E

- 06 5.90E

- 07 5.21E

- 13 3 2 1.74E

- 13 1.74E

- 13

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 8 .32E

- 07 4.62E

- 07 2.71E

- 06 9.03E

- 07 4.49E

- 05 2.32E

- 13 3 2 7.72E

- 14 6.50E

- 11 7.72E

- 14 1.98E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Ore dryer 1.35E

- 05 2.86E

- 05 1.92E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Ore dryer 3.82E

- 06 3.24E

- 05 1.14E

- 05 1.09E

- 04 1.82E

- 05 1.17E

- 10 6 5 1.95E

- 11 3.90E

- 11

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 4.42E

- 05 4.47E

- 05 5.14E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 4.48E

- 05 2.07E

- 05 2.99E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 7.01E

- 06 7.92E

- 06 8.36E

- 06 2.59E

- 04 2.88E

- 05 3.31E

- 10 9 8 3.68E

- 11 1.10E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5.50E

- 05 4.65E

- 05 2.82E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5.80E

- 06 4.30E

- 06 4.65E

- 06 1.44E

- 04 2.41E

- 05 7.10E

- 05 5.16E

- 10 6 5 8.60E

- 11 1.42E

- 10 1.72E

- 10 3.21E

- 10

Twin Creeks Autoclave 5.52E

- 05 1.45E

- 04 1.02E

- 04

Twin Creeks Autoclave 7.82E

- 05 2.59E

- 04 2.90E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.36E

- 04 1.17E

- 04 1.08E

- 04

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.13E

- 04 1.33E

- 04 1.10E

- 04

Twin Creek s Autoclave 9.97E

- 05 1.97E

- 04 2.66E

- 04

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1.06E

- 04 6.95E

- 05 6.21E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 8.65E

- 06 8.07E

- 06 7.63E

- 06 2.41E

- 03 1.15E

- 04 6.39E

- 09 21 20 3.04E

- 10 2.13E

- 09

Twin Creeks Aut oclave 1.14E

- 04 5.47E

- 05 5.33E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 8.67E

- 05 4.98E

- 05 3.45E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 4.87E

- 05 9.07E

- 05 7.96E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 3.53E

- 05 2.50E

- 05 2.12E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.04E

- 05 1.91E

- 05 1.96E

- 05 7.53E

- 04 5.02E

- 05 1.65E

- 04 9.06E

- 10 15 14 6.04E

- 11 3.65E

- 10 3.02E

- 10 2.43E

- 09

Average

of top 4: 8.41E

- 05 t DF: 131 Vb: 5.22E

- 11 Vw

(unpoole

d): 9.35E

- 10

t(.99): 2.36

## 18 Appendix B . Mercury Emissions Data for the Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts Affected Source (lb/ton concentrate)

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

( lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Marigold EW, P/B 3.68E

- 01 5.43E

- 01 4.32E

- 01 1.34E+00 4.48E

- 01 7.86E

- 03 3 2 2.62E

- 03 2.62E

- 03

Marigold Retort 7.72E

- 02 1.14E

- 01 9.07E

- 02

Marigold Retort 2.48E

- 03 1.14E

- 02 1.37E

- 03 2.97E

- 01 4.95E

- 02 2.52E

- 03 6 5 4.20E

- 04 8.41E

- 04

Marigold Furnace 8.49E

- 02 4.11E

- 02 2.52E

- 02

Marigold Melt Furnace 1.00E

- 02 1.09E

- 02 1.74E

- 02 1.90E

- 01 3.16E

- 02 8.13E

- 04 6 5 1.36E

- 04 2.71E

- 04

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.52E

- 03 6.29E

- 03 6.99E

- 03

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.36E

- 04 2.45E

- 04 3.93E

- 04 2.22E

- 02 3.69E

- 03 5.33E

- 01 1.27E

- 05 6 5 2.12E

- 06 3.18E

- 03 4.25E

- 06 3.74E

- 03

Bald

Mountain Carbon Kiln 2.37E

- 02 1.61E

- 02 1.82E

- 02 5.80E

- 02 1.93E

- 02 1.55E

- 05 3 2 5.17E

- 06 5.17E

- 06

Bald

Mountain EW, Barren

Tank 7.41E

- 01 1.76E

- 01 1.08E+00 2.00E+00 6.66E

- 01 2.10E

- 01 3 2 6.99E

- 02 6.99E

- 02

Bald

Mountai n Melt Furnace 7.09E

- 02 3.63E

- 02 4.76E

- 02 1.55E

- 01 5.16E

- 02 3.11E

- 04 3 2 1.04E

- 04 1.04E

- 04

Bald

Mountain Retort 1.11E

- 03 1.09E

- 03 4.79E

- 04 2.68E

- 03 8.94E

- 04 7.38E

- 01 1.30E

- 07 3 2 4.32E

- 08 7.00E

- 02 4.32E

- 08 7.00E

- 02

Ruby Hill Carbon Kiln 2.30E

- 01 2. 16E

- 01 8.08E

- 02 5.26E

- 01 1.75E

- 01 6.77E

- 03 3 2 2.26E

- 03 2.26E

- 03

Ruby Hill EW, P/B 1.51E+00 5.45E

- 01 4.97E

- 01 2.55E+00 8.49E

- 01 3.24E

- 01 3 2 1.08E

- 01 1.08E

- 01

Ruby Hill Melt Furnace 3.02E

- 02 3.63E

- 02 6.65E

- 02 3.33E

- 02 1.83E

- 05 2 1 9.13E

- 0 6 6.09E

- 06

Ruby Hill Retort 1.30E

- 04 1.30E

- 04 1.14E

- 04 3.73E

- 04 1.24E

- 04 1.06E+00 8.79E

- 11 3 2 2.93E

- 11 1.10E

- 01 2.93E

- 11 1.10E

- 01

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 5.45E+00 9.68E

- 01 5.60E

- 01

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 4.27E

- 01 6.21E

- 01 4.20E

- 0 1

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 1.28E+00 1.31E+00 1.57E+00

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 1.40E+00 1.46E+00 1.35E+00

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 6.41E

- 01 9.07E

- 01 4.05E

- 01

Goldstrike Carbon Ki ln 2.39E

- 02 3.23E

- 02 3.77E

- 02 1.89E+01 1.05E+00 1.47E+00 18 17 8.18E

- 02 4.91E

- 01

Goldstrike Electrowinning 1.58E

- 01 1.80E

- 01 2.02E

- 01

Goldstrike Electrowinning 2.74E

- 01 3.93E

- 01 2.25E

- 01

Goldstrike Electrowi nning 1.06E

- 01 7.07E

- 02 1.63E

- 01 1.77E+00 1.97E

- 01 9.04E

- 03 9 8 1.00E

- 03 3.01E

- 03

Goldstrike Melt Furnace 2.93E

- 02 7.35E

- 02 2.35E

- 02

Goldstrike Melt Furnace

Goldstrike Melt Furnace 4.56E

- 02 1.28E

- 01 2. 10E

- 01 5.10E

- 01 8.50E

- 02 5.21E

- 03 6 5 8.68E

- 04 1.74E

- 03

Goldstrike Preg Tank 2.07E

- 02 1.43E

- 02 7.33E

- 03

Goldstrike Preg Tank 2.78E

- 03 3.18E

- 03 4.04E

- 03 5.23E

- 02 8.72E

- 03 5.28E

- 05 6 5 8.79E

- 06 1.76E

- 05

Goldstrike Preg Tank 3.97E

- 03 1.33E

- 02 1.19E

- 02

Goldstrike Preg Tank 3.18E

- 03 1.99E

- 03 2.19E

- 03 3.66E

- 02 6.10E

- 03 2.63E

- 05 6 5 4.39E

- 06 8.77E

- 06

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Re tort

## 19 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

( lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort 5.91E

- 02 4.77E

- 02 3.29E

- 02 1.40E

- 01 4.65E

- 02 1.73E

- 04 3 2 5.76E

- 05 5.76E

- 05

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort 3.00E

- 02 1.52E

- 02 1.23E

- 02 5.75E

- 02 1.92E

- 02 8.94E

- 05 3 2 2.98E

- 05 2.98E

- 05

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstri ke Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort 5.85E

- 02 6.70E

- 02 6.34E

- 02 1.89E

- 01 6.29E

- 02 1.47E+00 1.84E

- 05 3 2 6.13E

- 06 8.38E

- 02 6.13E

- 06 4.95E

- 01

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 3.16E

- 03 3.47E

- 03 1.66E

- 0 2

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 1.15E

- 02 6.48E

- 03 2.07E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 2.50E

- 01 1.45E

- 01 1.28E

- 01 5.67E

- 01 6.30E

- 02 8.10E

- 03 9 8 9.00E

- 04 2.70E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 6.46E

- 04 2.43E

- 04 6.39E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 1.40E

- 02 2.62E

- 03 3.25E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 9.14E

- 03 6.49E

- 02 1.27E

- 01 2.29E

- 01 2.54E

- 02 1.87E

- 03 9 8 2.08E

- 04 6.24E

- 04

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 3.64E+0 0 1.56E+00 1.19E+00

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 8.90E

- 01 1.85E+00 1.48E+00

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 7.84E

- 01 2.34E+00 3.23E

- 01 1.41E+01 1.56E+00 9.69E

- 01 9 8 1.08E

- 01 3.23E

- 01

Denton

Rawhide Retort 5.84E

- 05 6.33E

- 05 7.17E

- 05

Denton

Rawhide Retort 4.59E

- 05 1.50E

- 05 1.40E

- 05

Denton

Rawhide Retort 6.24E

- 02 4.38E

- 02 7.62E

- 02 1.83E

- 01 2.03E

- 02 1.67E+00 9.89E

- 04 9 8 1.10E

- 04 1.09E

- 01 3.30E

- 04 3.27E

- 01

Average of

top 5: 1.09E+00 tDF: 110 Vb: 1.50E

- 02 Vw

(unpooled): 2.01E

- 01

t(.99): 2.36

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 2.29E

- 02 1.21E

- 01 4.91E

- 01

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 1.74E+00 1.06 E+00 1.18E+00

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 6.73E

- 02 4.31E

- 02 3.46E

- 02 4.75E+00 5.28E

- 01 4.10E

- 01 9 8 4.55E

- 02 1.37E

- 01

## 20 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

( lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(new) 4.20E

- 01 1.20E

- 01 2.89E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(ne w) 4.85E

- 01 1.38E

- 01 3.90E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(new) 6.60E

- 02 1.86E

- 02 4.80E

- 02

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(new) 1.77E

- 04 2.48E

- 04 6.84E

- 04 1.98E+00 1.65E

- 01 3.29E

- 02 12 11 2.74E

- 03 1.10E

- 02

Twin C reeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 1.04E+00 4.20E

- 01 6.54E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 2.19E+00 8.51E

- 01 9.32E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 2.15E

- 02 6.39E

- 02 9.35E

- 02

Twin Creeks Melt Fu rnace 1

(old) 7.79E

- 02 4.07E

- 02 2.67E

- 02

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 5.36E

- 04 4.56E

- 04 4.88E

- 04 6.42E+00 4.28E

- 01 3.84E

- 01 15 14 2.56E

- 02 1.28E

- 01

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 2.19E

- 01 2.30E

- 02 9.55E

- 02

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 2.80E

- 01 1.07E

- 01 9.08E

- 02

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 4.76E

- 02 8.89E

- 02 8.76E

- 02 1.04E+00 1.16E

- 01 6.70E

- 03 9 8 7.44E

- 04 2.23E

- 03

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 2.12E+00 1.91E+00 3.64E

- 01

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 8.16E

- 01 1.74E+00 7.75E

- 01

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 2.57E

- 01 2.58E

- 01 3.22E

- 01 8.56E+00 9.52E

- 01 5.83E

- 01 9 8 6.48E

- 02 1.94E

- 01

Twin Creeks Retort 8.80E

- 06 7.63E

- 06 6.72E

- 06 2.32E

- 05 7.72E

- 06 1.09E

- 12 3 2 3.63E

- 13 3 .63E

- 13

Twin Creeks Retort 8.13E

- 04 1.19E

- 03 2.39E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 4.18E

- 03 4.99E

- 03 1.04E

- 02

Twin Creeks Retort 2.57E

- 03 6.68E

- 04 1.08E

- 03 2.82E

- 02 3.14E

- 03 9.63E

- 06 9 8 1.07E

- 06 3.21E

- 06

Twin Cree ks Retort 3.51E

- 04 1.34E

- 03 1.38E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 1.56E

- 03 5.66E

- 03 2.78E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 5.07E

- 04 2.54E

- 03 5.07E

- 04 1.66E

- 02 1.85E

- 03 2.79E

- 06 9 8 3.10E

- 07 9.29E

- 07

Twin Creeks Retort 7.58E

- 04 2 .96E

- 03 5.40E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 7.54E

- 05 2.46E

- 04 3.09E

- 04

Twin Creeks Retort 4.75E

- 04 3.43E

- 03 4.05E

- 03 1.77E

- 02 1.97E

- 03 4.03E

- 06 9 8 4.48E

- 07 1.34E

- 06

Twin Creeks Retort 2.17E

- 05 5.49E

- 03 2.06E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 6.50E

- 04 4.77E

- 04 1.73E

- 04

Twin Creeks Retort 1.17E

- 04 2.75E

- 04 4.95E

- 04 9.77E

- 03 1.09E

- 03 2.20E+00 3.11E

- 06 9 8 3.45E

- 07 1.39E

- 01 1.04E

- 06 4.72E

- 01

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 3.46E+00 3.60E+00 3.93E+ 00

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 7.47E

- 01 3.88E

- 01 5.59E

- 01

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.29E+00 1.21E+00 1.41E+00 1.66E+01 1.84E+00 1.99E+00 9 8 2.21E

- 01 6.63E

- 01

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 4.54E

- 02 4.24E

- 02 4.64E

- 02

## 21 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

( lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 7.32E

- 02 6.70E

- 02 5.94E

- 02

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 4.48E

- 01 4.25E

- 01 8.46E

- 02 1.29E+00 1.44E

- 01 2.78E

- 02 9 8 3.09E

- 03 9.28E

- 03

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 2.30E

- 01 2.44E

- 01 3.71E

- 01

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 3.36E

- 01 6.10E

- 02 1.29E+00

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 3.82E

- 03 2.38E

- 01 5.42E

- 01

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 3.06E

- 01 3.71E

- 02 9.78E

- 02 3.76E+00 3.13E

- 01 1.19E

- 01 12 11 9.91E

- 03 3.96E

- 02

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 2.35E+00 5.33E

- 01 1.25E+00

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 2.59E

- 02 6.61E

- 03 1.81E

- 01

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 4.76E

- 01 1.05E+00 2.90E+00 8.77E+00 9.75E

- 01 1.07E+00 9 8 1.19E

- 01 3. 58E

- 01

Gold Quarry Retort

Gold Quarry Retort 3.73E

- 02 8.17E

- 02 4.26E

- 02

Gold Quarry Retort 1.30E

- 01 9.79E

- 02 8.90E

- 02

Gold Quarry Retort 1.67E

- 01 1.80E

- 01 1.32E

- 01

Gold Quarry Retort 1.66E

- 01 1.72E

- 01 9.52E

- 02 9.11E

- 01 1.52E

- 01 1.04E

- 03 6 5 1.74E

- 04 3.48E

- 04

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 9.23E

- 01 5.95E

- 01 4.94E

- 01

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 5.56E

- 02 6.25E

- 02 7.94E

- 02

Gold Quar ry Carbon Kiln 1.42E

- 01 1.41E

- 01 1.72E

- 01

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.60E

- 01 3.19E

- 01 2.96E

- 01 3.44E+00 2.87E

- 01 3.71E+00 6.93E

- 02 12 11 5.77E

- 03 3.59E

- 01 2.31E

- 02 1.09E+00

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 1.03E+00 5.52E

- 01 6.71E

- 01

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 1.30E+01 2.03E+01 2.00E+01

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 3.87E+00 4.24E+00 1.78E+01

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 3.23E+00 1.51E+00 3.83E+00 9.00E+01 7.50E+00 6.22E+01 12 11 5 .18E+00 2.07E+01

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 3.17E

- 01 8.30E

- 03 1.71E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 1.45E

- 02 2.01E

- 02 5.11E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 5.76E

- 03 8.07E

- 03 9.51E

- 03 4.52E

- 01 5.02E

- 02 1.02 E

- 02 9 8 1.13E

- 03 3.40E

- 03

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 2.68E

- 01 1.42E

- 01 6.00E

- 01

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.03E+00 1.47E

- 01 8.14E

- 01

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.38E

- 01 6.95E

- 01 1.09E+00 4.92E+00 5.47E

- 01 1.49E

- 01 9 8 1.66E

- 02 4.97E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.03E

- 01 1.03E

- 01 7.10E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 7.60E

- 02 3.41E

- 02 4.57E

- 02

## 22 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

( lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 7.72E

- 02 7.72E

- 02 1 .70E

- 02 6.03E

- 01 6.70E

- 02 8.59E

- 04 9 8 9.55E

- 05 2.86E

- 04

Florida

Canyon Retort 2.63E

- 03 1.25E

- 03 2.90E

- 04

Florida

Canyon Retort 2.30E

- 06 1.53E

- 06 1.67E

- 06 4.17E

- 03 6.95E

- 04 1.13E

- 06 6 5 1.88E

- 07 3.76E

- 07

Florida

Canyon Retort 6.89E

- 05 5.35E

- 05 6.17E

- 05

Florida

Canyon Retort 3.08E

- 05 1.65E

- 05 1.34E

- 05

Florida

Canyon Retort 5.07E

- 05 3.68E

- 06 4.82E

- 05 3.47E

- 04 3.86E

- 05 8.17E+00 5.39E

- 10 9 8 5.99E

- 11 5.20E+00 1.80E

- 10 2.08E+01

Je rritt Canyon Carbon Kiln 5.10E+00 2.23E+00 1.60E+00 8.93E+00 2.98E+00 3.48E+00 3 2 1.16E+00 1.16E+00

Jerritt Canyon Melt Furnace 3.82E

- 01 1.65E+01 1.76E+01 3.45E+01 1.15E+01 1.45E+01 9.32E+01 3 2 3.11E+01 3.22E+01 3.11E+01 3.22E+01

Lone Tree Ele ctrowinning 1.39E+00 7.68E

- 01 1.16E+00

Lone Tree Electrowinning 7.02E

- 01 6.11E+00 7.76E

- 01 1.09E+01 1.82E+00 4.50E+00 6 5 7.50E

- 01 1.50E+00

Lone Tree Elecrowinning 1.92E

- 01 7.15E+00 7.82E

- 02

Lone Tree Ele ctrowinning 6.18E+00 2.53E

- 01 1.03E

- 01 1.40E+01 2.33E+00 1.14E+01 6 5 1.90E+00 3.80E+00

Lone Tree Electrowinning 2.67E+00 1.30E+00 5.00E

- 01 4.47E+00 1.49E+00 1.20E+00 3 2 4.01E

- 01 4.01E

- 01

Lone Tree Preg Tank 1.97E+00 3.29E+00 1.72E+01

Lone Tree Preg Tank 9.17E+00 2.14E+01 3.68E+01 8.98E+01 1.50E+01 2.06E+01 1.72E+02 6 5 2.87E+01 3.18E+01 5.74E+01 6.31E+01

## 23 Appendix C . Mercury Emissions Data for the Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts Affected Source (lb/ton conc entrate)

Facility Process type Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit var No. of runs

per unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Var of unit

average Facility var Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility Vw

R ound Mountain Electrowinning 1.82E

- 02 7.93E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 1.16E

- 01 3.88E

- 02 1.23E

- 03 3 2 4.09E

- 04 4.09E

- 04

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 1.49E

- 04 1.80E

- 03 1.77E

- 03

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 3.49E

- 02 9.59E

- 03 1.85E

- 02 6.67E

- 02 1.11 E

- 02 1.83E

- 04 6 5 3.05E

- 05 6.10E

- 05

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 2.57E

- 03 2.86E

- 03 1.56E

- 03

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 1.52E

- 02 1.02E

- 02 1.59E

- 02 4.83E

- 02 8.05E

- 03 0.058 4.33E

- 05 6 5 7.22E

- 06 4.47E

- 04 1.44E

- 05 4.85E

- 04

Cortez Pip eline Carbon Kiln 1.12E

- 03 6.42E

- 04 2.94E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 2.59E

- 03 1.76E

- 03 1.12E

- 03 1.02E

- 02 1.70E

- 03 8.27E

- 07 6 5 1.38E

- 07 2.76E

- 07

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 1.26E

- 02 9.36E

- 03 3.67E

- 03

Cor tez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 6.13E

- 04 2.64E

- 04 2.52E

- 04 2.67E

- 02 4.45E

- 03 2.81E

- 05 6 5 4.68E

- 06 9.36E

- 06

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 2.58E

- 02 1.92E

- 02 2.99E

- 02

Cortez Pipeline Electro Winning

System 1.41E

- 02 3.58E

- 03 8.79E

- 03 1.0 1E

- 01 1.69E

- 02 1.01E

- 04 6 5 1.68E

- 05 3.36E

- 05

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 1.40E

- 02 3.55E

- 03 6.32E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Electro Winning

System 5.30E

- 03 5.62E

- 03 2.49E

- 03 3.73E

- 02 6.21E

- 03 1.66E

- 05 6 5 2.77E

- 06 5.53E

- 06

Co rtez Pipeline Preg Tank 1.01E

- 01 1.61E

- 01 8.80E

- 02

Cortez Pipeline Pregnant and Barren

Tanks 3.25E

- 03 2.44E

- 03 2.50E

- 03 3.58E

- 01 5.96E

- 02 4.50E

- 03 6 5 7.50E

- 04 1.50E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Melt Furnace 2.67E

- 03 1.21E

- 03 1.84E

- 03 5.7 2E

- 03 1.91E

- 03 5.37E

- 07 3 2 1.79E

- 07 1.79E

- 07

Cortez Pipeline Melt Furnace 1.43E

- 04 1.79E

- 04 1.35E

- 04 4.57E

- 04 1.52E

- 04 5.53E

- 10 3 2 1.84E

- 10 1.84E

- 10

Cortez Pipeline Fusion furnace 5.23E

- 03 1.37E

- 02 2.32E

- 03 2.13E

- 02 7.09E

- 03 0.098 3.52E

- 05 3 2 1.17E

- 05 7.86E

- 04 1.17E

- 05 1.56E

- 03

Average of

top 2: 0.078 tDF: 43 Vb: 3.08E

- 04 Vw

(unpooled): 1.02E

- 03

t(.99): 2.42

## 24 Appendix D . Mercury Emissions Data for the Non

- Carbon Con centrate Affected Source (lb/ton concentrate)

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Run 4

(lb/ton) Run 5

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Va rianc

e of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Coeur

Rochester Refinery

Furnace 5.96E

- 02 1.17E

- 01 2.28E

- 02

Coeur

Rochester Refinery

Furnace 2.47E

- 02 1.20E

- 02 2.94E

- 02 2.66E

- 01 4.43E

- 02 1.53E

- 03 6 5 2.55E

- 04 5.10E

- 04

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 3.41E

- 03 3.45E

- 03 9.24E

- 05 2.31E

- 03 1.95E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 2.93E

- 04 1.53E

- 02 4.20E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 4.17E

- 05 1.84E

- 04 5.39E

- 05 3.13E

- 02 2.84E

- 03 0.047 1.96E

- 05 11 10 1.78E

- 06 2.57E

- 04 6.52E

- 06 5.17E

- 04

Midas

Operations Refinery

Furnace 1 & 2 1.60E

- 02 2.63E

- 02 4.55E

- 02

Midas

Operations Refinery

Furnace 1 & 2 1.73E

- 01 2.17E

- 01 4.41E

- 02

Midas

Operations Refinery

Furnace 1 & 2 1.10E

- 02 2.89E

- 02 1.73E

- 02 5.79E

- 01 6.43E

- 02 5.74E

- 03 9 8 6.38E

- 04 1.91E

- 03

Midas

Operations Retort A 2.32E

- 03 1.79E

- 03 1.46E

- 03

Midas

Operations Retort A 1.25 E

- 03 6.01E

- 02 3.41E

- 02

Midas

Operations Retort A 4.07E

- 05 3.18E

- 05 3.72E

- 05 1.01E

- 01 1.12E

- 02 4.56E

- 04 9 8 5.07E

- 05 1.52E

- 04

Midas

Operations Retort B 2.78E

- 04 1.07E

- 05 7.36E

- 06

Midas

Operations Retort B 4.22E

- 03 4.48E

- 03 5.66E

- 03

Midas

Operations Retort B 9.51E

- 04 1.45E

- 03 1.02E

- 03 1.81E

- 02 2.01E

- 03 0.078 4.72E

- 06 9 8 5.24E

- 07 6.89E

- 04 1.57E

- 06 2.07E

- 03

Average

of top 2: 6.23E

- 02 1.55E

- 03 t DF: 39 Vb: 2.37E

- 04 Vw

(unpoole

d): 2.58E

- 03

t(.99): 2.43

## 25 Appendix E

. New Source MACT Floors

Ore Pretreatment Processes

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton ) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 3.23E

- 07 5.03E

- 07 3.60E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.61E

- 07 5.96E

- 07 5.17E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 1.79E

- 06 1.39E

- 06 2.65E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 2.19E

- 06 1.13E

- 06 2.65E

- 07 1.02E

- 05 8.48E

- 07 4.12E

- 13 1 2 11 3.43E

- 14 1.37E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.68E

- 06 4.71E

- 06 1.71E

- 06

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 2.36E

- 05 5.05E

- 06 7.86E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.52E

- 07 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 1.64E

- 06 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07 4.95E

- 05 4.12E

- 06 4.40E

- 11 12 11 3.67E

- 12 1.47E

- 11

Goldstrike Roaster 7.25E

- 05 5.71E

- 05 5.26E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.25E

- 05 1.25E

- 05 1.71E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.95E

- 05 1.73E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 2.74E

- 04 3.05E

- 05 5.47E

- 10 9 8 6.08E

- 11 1.82E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine quench 4.35E

- 06 2.96E

- 06 2.87E

- 06 1.02E

- 05 3.39E

- 06 6.86E

- 13 3 2 2.29E

- 13 2.29E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine quench 3.55E

- 06 3.76E

- 06 3.32E

- 06 1.06E

- 05 3.54E

- 06 4.72E

- 14 3 2 1.57E

- 14 1.57E

- 14

Goldstrike Autoclave 2.59E

- 07 4.01E

- 07 4.70E

- 07 1.13E

- 06 3.77E

- 07 1.16E

- 14 3 2 3.87E

- 15 3.87E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 6.57E

- 07 7.71E

- 07 5.50E

- 07 1.98E

- 06 6.59 E

- 07 1.23E

- 14 3 2 4.09E

- 15 4.09E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 1.65E

- 07 1.81E

- 07 1.77E

- 06 5.90E

- 07 5.21E

- 13 3 2 1.74E

- 13 1.74E

- 13

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 8.32E

- 07 4.62E

- 07 2.71E

- 06 9.03E

- 07 4.49E

- 05 2.32E

- 13 3 2 7.72E

- 14 6.50E

- 11 7.7 2E

- 14 1.98E

- 10

Average = 4.49E

- 05

DF = 42

t = 2.42

Vb = 6.50E

- 11

Vw = 1.98E

- 10

Vt = 2.63E

- 10

Facility

99% UPL

= 8.41E

- 05

## 26 Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

un it DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Marigold EW, P/B 3.68E

- 01 5.43E

- 01 4.32E

- 01 1.34E+00 4.48E

- 01 7.86E

- 03 3 2 2.62E

- 03 2.62E

- 03

Marigold Retort 7.72E

- 02 1.14E

- 01 9.07E

- 02

Marigold Retort 2.48E

- 03 1.14E

- 02 1.37E

- 03 2.97E

- 01 4.95E

- 02 2.52E

- 03 6 5 4.20E

- 04 8.41E

- 04

Marigold Furnace 8.49E

- 02 4.11E

- 02 2.52E

- 02

Marigold Melt Furnace 1.00E

- 02 1.09E

- 02 1.74E

- 02 1.90E

- 01 3.16E

- 02 8.13E

- 04 6 5 1.3 6E

- 04 2.71E

- 04

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.52E

- 03 6.29E

- 03 6.99E

- 03

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.36E

- 04 2.45E

- 04 3.93E

- 04 2.22E

- 02 3.69E

- 03 5.33E

- 01 1.27E

- 05 6 5 2.12E

- 06 3.18E

- 03 4.25E

- 06 3.74E

- 03

Average = 5.33E

- 01

DF = 17

t = 2.57

Vb = 3.18E

- 03

Vw = 3.74E

- 03

Vt = 6.92E

- 03

Facility 99%

UPL = 7.46E

- 01

Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF (n

1) per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

var iance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Round Mountain Electrowinning 1.82E

- 02 7.93E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 1.16E

- 01 3.88E

- 02 1.23E

- 03 3 2 4.09E

- 04 4.09E

- 04

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 1.49E

- 04 1.80E

- 03 1.77E

- 03

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 3.49E

- 02 9.59E

- 03 1.85E

- 02 6.67E

- 02 1.11E

- 02 1.83E

- 04 6 5 3.05E

- 05 6.10E

- 05

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 2.57E

- 03 2.86E

- 03 1.56E

- 03

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 1.52E

- 02 1.02E

- 02 1.59E

- 02 4.83E

- 02 8.05E

- 03 0.058 4.33E

- 05 6 5 7.22E

- 0 6 4.47E

- 04 1.44E

- 05 4.85E

- 04

Average = 5.80E

- 02

DF = 12

t = 2.68

Vb = 4.47E

- 04

Vw = 4.85E

- 04

Vt = 9.32E

- 04

Facility

99% UPL = 1.40E

- 01

## 27 Non

- Carbon Concentrate

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Run 4

(lb/ton) Run 5

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw

(m = 3

per

unit) Facility

Vw

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Refinery

Furnace 5.96E

- 02 1.17E

- 01 2.28E

- 02

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Refinery

Furnace 2 .47E

- 02 1.20E

- 02 2.94E

- 02 2.66E

- 01 4.43E

- 02 1.53E

- 03 6 5 2.55E

- 04 5.10E

- 04

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Retorts

#1 & #2 3.41E

- 03 3.45E

- 03 9.24E

- 05 2.31E

- 03 1.95E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Retorts

#1 & #2 2.93E

- 04 1.53E

- 02 4.20E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Retort 4.17E

- 05 1.84E

- 04 5.39E

- 05 3.13E

- 02 2.84E

- 03 4.71E

- 02 1.96E

- 05 11 10 1.78E

- 06 2.57E

- 04 6.52E

- 06 5.17E

- 04

Average

= 4.71E

- 02

DF = 15

t = 2.60

Vb = 2.57E

- 04

Vw = 5.17E

- 04

Vt = 7.74E

- 04

Facility

99%

UPL = 1.19E

- 01

## 28 Appendix F

. Beyond the Fl oor

– Ore Pretreatment

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 pe r

unit) Facility

Vw

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.35E

- 05 9.56E

- 06 1.37E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.05E

- 05 1.33E

- 05 1.69E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 8.45E

- 06 1.05E

- 05 9.66E

- 06 1.06E

- 0 4 1.18E

- 05 7.33E

- 12 9 8 8.14E

- 13 2.44E

- 12

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 3.81E

- 06 1.62E

- 06 1.36E

- 06

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 7.90E

- 06 7.51E

- 06 4.63E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 2.45E

- 06 1.04E

- 06 9.09E

- 07 7.29E

- 05 8.10E

- 06 2.12E

- 10 9 8 2.35E

- 11 7.06E

- 11

Gold

Quarry Roaster 8.99E

- 07 6.97E

- 07 7.87E

- 07

Gold

Quarry Roaster 1.27E

- 06 1.61E

- 06 6.19E

- 07

Gold

Quarry Roaster 4.92E

- 07 2.75E

- 07 3.56E

- 07 7.00E

- 06 7.78E

- 07 1.86E

- 13 9 8 2.07E

- 14 6.21E

- 14

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.66E

- 06 2.06E

- 06 1.48E

- 06

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.50E

- 06 4.82E

- 06 1.75E

- 06 1.33E

- 05 2.21E

- 06 1.67E

- 12 6 5 2.79E

- 13 5.58E

- 13

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.67E

- 05 1.36E

- 05 9.55E

- 06

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.27E

- 05 1.46E

- 05 2.11E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.03E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 1.32E

- 05 1.25E

- 04 1.39E

- 05 3.68E

- 05 1.19E

- 11 9 8 1.32E

- 12 2.60E

- 11 3.96E

- 12 7.77E

- 11

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.82E

- 07 2.84E

- 07 2.03E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 5.58E

- 07 3.86E

- 07 3.35E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.16E

- 06 9.01E

- 0 7 1.72E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.42E

- 06 7.29E

- 07 1.72E

- 07 6.49E

- 06 5.41E

- 07 1.78E

- 13 12 11 1.48E

- 14 5.94E

- 14

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 4.90E

- 06 2.66E

- 06 9.66E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Pr eheater 1.53E

- 05 3.27E

- 06 5.09E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 5.52E

- 07 5.52E

- 07 2.55E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.06E

- 06 5.52E

- 07 2.55E

- 07 3.08E

- 05 2.57E

- 06 1.81E

- 11 12 11 1.51E

- 12 6.04E

- 12

## 29 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 pe r

unit) Facility

Vw

G oldstrike Roaster 1.56E

- 04 1.23E

- 04 1.14E

- 04

Goldstrike Roaster 2.70E

- 05 2.70E

- 05 3.70E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 3.67E

- 05 3.26E

- 05 2.47E

- 05 5.78E

- 04 6.42E

- 05 2.65E

- 09 9 8 2.95E

- 10 8.85E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster/Ca lcine

quench 8.18E

- 06 5.56E

- 06 5.40E

- 06 1.91E

- 05 6.38E

- 06 2.43E

- 12 3 2 8.09E

- 13 8.09E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine

quench 6.67E

- 06 7.07E

- 06 6.25E

- 06 2.00E

- 05 6.66E

- 06 8.04E

- 05 1.67E

- 13 3 2 5.57E

- 14 2.97E

- 10 5.57E

- 14 8.92E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Ore dr yer 4.06E

- 06 8.58E

- 06 5.77E

- 06

Jerritt

Canyon Ore dryer 1.15E

- 06 9.71E

- 06 3.42E

- 06 3.27E

- 05 5.45E

- 06 1.05E

- 11 6 5 1.76E

- 12 3.51E

- 12

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 4.42E

- 05 4.47E

- 05 5.14E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roast er 4.48E

- 05 2.07E

- 05 2.99E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 7.01E

- 06 7.92E

- 06 8.36E

- 06 2.59E

- 04 2.88E

- 05 3.31E

- 10 9 8 3.68E

- 11 1.10E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5.50E

- 05 4.65E

- 05 2.82E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5. 80E

- 06 4.30E

- 06 4.65E

- 06 1.44E

- 04 2.41E

- 05 5.83E

- 05 5.16E

- 10 6 5 8.60E

- 11 1.25E

- 10 1.72E

- 10 2.86E

- 10

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 1.66E

- 05 4.34E

- 05 3.06E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 2.35E

- 05 7.76E

- 05 8.70E

- 06

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 7.07E

- 05 3.51E

- 05 3.25E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 6.40E

- 05 3.99E

- 05 3.29E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 2.99E

- 05 5.92E

- 05 7.98E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 3.18E

- 05 2.09E

- 05 1.86E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 2.59E

- 06 2.42E

- 06 2.29E

- 06 7.23E

- 04 3.44E

- 05 5.75E

- 10 21 20 2.74E

- 11 1.92E

- 10

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 3.42E

- 05 1.64E

- 05 1.60E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 2.60E

- 05 1.49E

- 05 1.04E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 1.46E

- 05 2.72E

- 05 2.39E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 1.06E

- 05 7.50E

- 06 6.36E

- 06

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 6.12E

- 06 5.74E

- 06 5.88E

- 06 2.26E

- 04 1.51E

- 05 4.95E

- 05 8.16E

- 11 15 14 5.44E

- 12 3.28 E

- 11 2.72E

- 11 2.19E

- 10

## 30 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 pe r

unit) Facility

Vw

Average

of top 5: 5.62E

- 05 t DF: 123 Vb: 3.00E

11 Vw

(unpooled

): 3.69E

- 10

56 t(.99): 2.36

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MACT FLOORS AND MACT FOR THE FINAL NESHAP

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 November 10

, 20 10

## 1 Development of the MACT Floors and MACT for the Final NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore

Processing and Production

1. Selection of Affected Source

The Gold Mine Ore Processing and Produc tion source category consists of facilities

engaged in processing gold ore to recover gold using roasters, autoclaves, carbon kilns, melt

furnaces, mercury retorts, electrowinning, and preg tanks. There were approximately 2 1 gold

mine ore processing facil ities operating these processes in the United States in 2008.

Th e final rule appl ies to each new or existing affected source and specifies maximum

achievable control technology ( MACT ) standards for mercury emissions for the following four

affected sources in the G old M ine O re P rocessing and Production source category : ore

pretreatment, carbon processes with mercury retorts, carbon processes without mercury retorts,

and non

- carbon concentrate processes. These affected sources reflect the differences in pro cess

operations, the sources of mercury entering the processes, and the nature of the emissions

.

The ore pretreatment affected source includes roast ing operation s and autoclaves that

pretreat refractory ore, which contains organic carbon and sulfide mineral grains that prevent the

initial use of cyanide leaching to effectively extract the gold from the ore. The refractory ore is

oxidized in the roaster or autoclave, converting it to an “oxidized” ore, which can then be

effectively leache d with cyanide solution. Mercury enters these processes with the ore. Ore Pretreatment

There are four existing facilities that use ore pretreatment processes, and mercury

emissions data are available for al l four of these facil i ties. The potential for mercury emission s

from this affected source is directly related to the amount of ore processed in the autoclaves and

roasters; consequently, the format selected for the standard for this affected source is pounds of

mercury emissions (lb) per million ton of ore processed (lb/ million ton of ore). In the 2007

- 2009

timeframe , the ore pretreatment sources accounted for approximately 55 percent of the mercury

emissions from the source category.

The second affected source is carbon proc esses with mercury retorts

, which includes

those gold production operations that use carbon to collect (adsorb) the gold and mercury from

solution and the process units that follow (i.e., carbon kilns, pregnant tanks, electrowinning cells,

mercury retorts

, and melt furnaces) . Mercury emissions are subsequently generated by these Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2 process units. The primary intermediate product that is common to all of the facilities with these

carbon processes with mercury retorts is the gold

- bearing concentrate, which is the input to

mercury retorts. Further, concentrate is closely related to the final product because it contains

about 60 percent gold, and because of its value, it is carefully weighed and records of the

quantities are kept. The amount of c oncentrate inp ut to the mercury retort is also required to be

reported under the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection ( NDEP ) program, so we had

comparable and reliable data from the different gold mine facilities. Consequently, we decided

that the most appropria te format of the emission limit for the carbon processes with mercury

retorts is lb/ton of concentrate processed

.

There are approximately 10 facilities with the carbon processes with mercury retorts , and

we have mercury emissions data for 10 of these fac ilities. In the 2007

- 2009 timeframe , the

carbon process es with mercury retorts sources accounted for approximately 44 percent of the

mercury emissions from the source category.

The third affected source is carbon p rocesses without mercury retorts

, which includes

those gold production operations that use carbon to collect the gold and mercury from solution

without the use of mercury retorts

. Several facilities have such low concentration s of mercury in

their ore tha t they do not require a mercury retort to remove and recover mercury. In addition,

the average mercury emissions from these types of facilities that do not have mercury retorts are

a factor of 10 less than facilities that do have mercury retorts. For the se reasons, the final rule

differentiate s between carbon processes with and without mercury retorts

. Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

Mercury emissions are subsequently generated by the process units included in this

affected source (i.e., carbon kilns, pregnant tanks, electrowinning cell s, and melt furnaces)

.

Similar to the reasons described previously for carbon processes with mercury retorts , the

concentrate is the input to the melt furnace for carbon processes without mercury retorts ; we

decided that the most appropriate format of th e emission limit for the carbon processes without

mercury retorts is lb/ton of concentrate processed

.

There are approximately eight facilities with the carbon processes without mercury

retorts , and we have mercury emissions data for two of these faciliti es. In the 2007

- 2009

timeframe , the carbon process es without mercury retorts sources accounted for approximately

0.19 percent of the mercury emissions from the source category.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3 Th is a ffected source includes facilities wit h gold ore processes that do not use carbon or

ore pre

- treatment. These facilities do not have roasters, autoclaves, or carbon kilns and instead

only use mercury retorts and melt furnaces to recover the gold and liberate mercury from the

concentrate. The amount of mercury entering these processes and potential mercury emissions

are directly related to the amount of concentrate processed; consequently, the appropriate format

for the final standard for this affected source is lb/ton of concentrate processed . There are about

three gold mine ore processing facilities sources with non

- carbon concentrate affected sources,

and we have mercury emissions data for two of these facilities. In the 2007

- 2009 timeframe , the

non

- carbon concentrate sources accounted for approximately 0.98 percent of the mercury

emissions from the source category. Non

- Carbon Concentrate Processes

2. Approach for Developing the MACT Floor

Pursuant to Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, MACT standards for existing

affected sources must be at least as stringent as the av erage emissions limitation achieved by

sources in the MACT pool ; that is, the best performing 12 percent of existing affected sources

for which the Administrator has data for source categories with 30 or more sources or the best

performing 5 sources for so urce categories with fewer than 30 sources. This level of

minimum stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at

least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar

affected source.

The MACT floor limits for each of the four affected sources were calculated based on

the performance of the lowest emitting (best performing) sources in each pool of sources with

available data . We ranked all of the sources for which we had valid data representing current

performance based on their emissions and identified the lowest emitting of the existing

affected sources, which resulted in 4 facilities with ore pretreat ment processes, 10 facilities

for those with carbon processes with mercury retor ts

, 2 facilities for those with carbon

processes without mercury retorts, and 2 facilities with the non

- carbon concentrate processes.

For new source s, MACT was based on the best performing source for each of the four

aff ected source s

.

The run

- by

- run data and the details of the statistical calculations for the MACT floor

analyses are provided in Appendices A through E.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4 2.1 Statistical Approach for Existing Sources

To calculate the MACT floor limit for each of the affected sources, we established and

ra nked sources’ emissions from lowest to highest. The data on which the limits are based are

expressed in terms of pounds of mercury emitted per unit of mass of input, where millions of

tons of gold mine ore is the input for the ore pretreatment processes a nd tons of concentrate is the

input for the carbon processes with mercury retorts, carbon processes without mercury retorts,

and the non

- carbon concentrate processes.

T he emissions data for those best performing affected sources were used to determine the

final emission limits, with an accounting for variability. EPA must exercise its judgment, based

on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions

control that has been achieved by the best performing source s under variable conditions. The

Court has recognized that EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emission

reduction achieved by best

- performing sources and in setting MACT floors. See Mossville Envt’l

Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 12 41

– 42 (D.C. Cir 2004) (holding EPA may consider

emission variability in estimating performance achieved by best

- performing sources and may set

the floor at a level that a best

- performing source can expect to meet “every day and under all

operating conditio ns”).

To calculate the achieved emission limit, including variability, we used upper prediction

limit (UPL) approach, which is defined by the following equation :

T df T 

## v t x UPL **+ =** 

w here:

UPL = upper prediction limit,

T 

## x = the av erage total emission rate over the best performing affected sources

,

df 

## t 

## = the 99 th 

## percentile of the t distribution , and

T 

## v = the total variance for the top performing affected sources

.

The degrees of freedom asso ciated with

df 

## t 

## is given by:



# ( **) ∑**  **∑**

**= =**  

## − **=** N

i M

j ij

i 

## n df

1 1 

## 1

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5 where:

N = number of best performing affected sources (2 to 4 for the four affected sources),

M i 

## = number of mercury emitting processes at each affected source , and

n ij 

## = number of m ercury emission test r u ns for each process unit.

The average total emission rate (

T 

## x ) is calculated from :



# ∑

**=** 

## = N

i Ti T 

## x N x

1 

## 1



## where:

N

= the number of top N affected sources ( N = 2 to 5),

Ti 

## x = t he total e mission rate of an entire i th affected source

.

To calculate

Ti 

## x :



# ∑

**=** 

## = i M

j ij Ti 

## x x

1



## where:

M i 

## = the number of distinct units within the i th affected source (i.e., we count all the distinct

units in a n affected source , so if a process type has two or more units, then each of those

units must be counted),

ij 

## x 

## = the unit average for the j th unit within the i th affected source

.

To calculate

ij 

## x 

## :



# ∑

**=** 

## = ij n

k ijk

ij ij 

## x

n x

1 

## 1

where:

n ij 

## = t he number of runs within the j th unit of the i th affected source

,

x ijk 

## = the observation associated with the k th run within the j th unit and i th affected source

.

T he total variance (

T 

## v ) consists of the following two variance componen ts:

W B T 

## v v v **+ =** 

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6 The first variance component (

B 

## v ) is simply the variance of

T 

## x ( the average total emission rate

over all affected sources )

. Suppose 2 

## var( )

ij ijk 

## s x **=** is the variance of an indiv idual run in the j th

unit and i th affected source , then th e variance of the unit average

, ij 

## x 

## in the j th unit and i th

affected source is

ij ij

ij



## n s

x 2



## ) var(

**=**

.

If all units operate independently, then the unit variances, 2

ij 

## s , will be additive. Therefore, based

on the assumption of variance additivity, the variance of the total emission rate of the i th affected

source is



# ∑

**=** 

## = i M

j ij ij

Ti



## n s

x

1 2



## ) var(

,

and the variance of the average total emission rate over all affecte d sources is



# ∑ **∑**

**= =**  

## = **=** N

i M

j ij ij

T B i



## n s

N x v

1 1 2

2 

## 1 ) var(

.

The second variance component (

W 

## v ) is the variance of

new T 

## x

, 

## , the total emission rate

from new test runs at a n affected source in the future to determine compliance

. The theore tical

formulation of

W 

## v based on thes e future runs is :

, , , 2

1 1 1 

## 1 var( ) var( ) var( ) M M m

W T new j new jk new

j j k 

## vx x x

m

**= = =**  

## = = **=** 

# ∑ ∑∑

,

where

, jk new 

## x 

## refers to the k th run of the j th unit in the new affected source , and M is the number

of units in the new affected sou rce

. Also note that t he number of units, M , in the affected source

to be tested in the future is unknown and may vary

.

However, the theoretical formulation informs us how to derive an operational

formula tion of

W 

## v based on the data available from the runs already completed from the top N

affected sources :

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

7 2

2

1 11 1 1 

## 1 1 1 var( ) i i M M N m N

W ijk ij

i jk i j 

## v xs N m Nm

**= = = = =**  

##  

**= =**  **   **  

# ∑ ∑∑ ∑∑

Substituting into the equation provided for UPL earlier and rearranging yields:

2

1 1 

# 1 11 i M N

T df ij

i j ij 

# UPL x t s

N Nn m

**= =** 

#  

**= + +**  ** **

** ** 

# ∑∑

The first term of the e quation refers to the average total emission rate of the top N affected

sources

. The second term accounts for the expected variability in future measurements due to

variations resulting from system operation and measurement activities , and this variabilit y

consists of two components

. The first component accounts for the variability of the average

total emissions of the existing lowest emitting MACT pool sources , and the second component

accounts for the variability of the average of m new test runs based on the observed variance of

individual runs within test conditions from the lowest emitting MACT pool sources (the

second component typically accounts for the major portion of the overall variability) . The

variability factor assumes that variability from the individual best performing source s are

independent, and thus are additive. This is a reasonable assumption because each individual

best performing source has certain characteristics, such as material inputs, design and

operation, etc.

, that are unique to that process unit

.

2.2 Statistical Approach for New Sources

MACT for new sources is based on the UPL for the best performing source for each of

the four types of affected sources and is calculated from:

1 1 T df 

## v t x UPL **+ =** 

where:

1 

## x = the average total emission rate of the best performing affected source,

df 

## t 

## = the 99 th 

## percentile of the t distribution with ( n

– 1) degrees of freedom, and

1 T 

## v = the total variance of the best perform ing source.

The total variance of the best performing source is calculated from the formulas given in Section

2.1, except that in this case, N = 1 and the subscript i is replaced by the subscript 1 :

1 2

1 1

1 1 

## 1 1 M

T j

j j 

## v s

n m

**=** 

##  

**= +  ** 

** ** 

# ∑

,

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

8 where 2

1 j 

## s and

1 j 

## n 

## are the variance and number of runs, respectively, from the j th mercury

emitting unit of the best performing source

, 1 

## M is the number of distinct mercury

- emitting units

in this source, and m is th e number of future runs to determine compliance (typically 3).

3

. MACT Floor for Mercury

Most of t he mercury emissions data used in the MACT floor analyses were obtained

from annual testing that was required by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protec tion

( NDEP ) for 2007 through 2009

. 1



## The NDEP i nvalidated several mercury emission tests conducted in 2007 and 2008

because of failure s to comply with the federal follow the reference test method

, or failure to

comply with the established testing protocol , possible sample contamination, etc. See docket

item EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0239

- 0061 for a complete list and rationale for invalidated tests

.

As a result, none of the test data for Barrick Goldstrike’s roasters and autoclaves for 2008

were used in the analysis. However, 2007 and 2009 data for Goldstrike’s autoclaves and

roasters w ere use d in the analyses. The 2007 and 2008 tests for the mercury retorts at

Goldstrike were also invalidated; however, test data for 200 9 w ere available for the mercury

retort s and w ere used in the analysis for the carbon processes with me rcury retorts . Other

tests that were invalidated included the 2007 tests at Coeur Rochester

, one of the October

2008 test s at Marigold , two of the August 2007 ore preheater tests at Goldstrike, and one of

the February 2010 roaster tests at Jerritt Canyon

. In addition, we excluded data from the However, 2010 test data were used for one facility that

installed new mercury emission controls on its roasters and resumed operation in late 200 9

.

The tests generally consist of three runs per test per process at each affected source . Most of

the measurements were made using EPA Method 29; however, Method 101A and the Ontario

Hydro method were used in a few cases. There we re cases where 2007 and/or 2008 results

represent emissions before a control device was installe d, and 2008 and/or 2009 test results

represent emissions after a mercury emission control device had been installed. In those

cases, we used only the controlled test results to determine the top performing affected

sources . Emissions in lb/hr were multip lied by the number of hours the process operated in

2007 , 2008, or 200 9 and then divided by the process input rate for the year (in tons or million

tons ) to express mercury emissions in lbs per ton (or million tons) of input material.

1 

### A complete listing of the emission test data is provided in Appendix A through F of this document a spreadsheet in

docket item “Mercury Emissions Test Data” in the rulemaking docket

.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

9 October 2009 emission test on one of the m elt f urnace s for the Cortez Pipeline facility

. The

NDEP reported that, for that test, the mercury content of the concentrate was only 8 ppm,

whereas the content for the Dec ember 2009 test was 1,557 ppm, and the content in 2007 and

2008 averaged 4,480 ppm and 4,250 ppm , respectively. Based on that information, we

concluded that the mercury content was unusually low for the October test

, and the emissions

data would not be re presentative of typical operations.

The following paragraphs discuss the results of the MACT floor analyses for the four

affected sources for the Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production source category

. Tables 1

through 4 summarize the results

.

V alid emissions d ata were available for all four o f the facilities with ore pretreatment

processes . As shown in Table 1, the average emissions level achieved by these four facilities

is 84 lb Hg/million tons of ore. The MACT floor based on th e UPL is 158 lb Hg/million tons

of ore. For new sources, MACT corresponds to 84 lb Hg/million tons of ore. We estimate

that requiring the MACT floor emission limit for th is affected source w ould reduce emissions

of mercury by about 431 pounds per year ( l bs /yr) , a reduction of 30 percent from current

levels. In addition, e nergy consumption would increase by about 11,400 megawatt

- hours per

year (or 11.4 gigawatt

- hours per year ) . Solid waste generation and disposal (spent carbon

loaded with mercury) would increase by about 3 tons per year. Ore Pr etreatment

Table 1. MACT Floor Results for Ore Pretreatment

Affected Source Average performance (lb Hg /million tons ore)

Goldstrike (Facility A) 45 (14 tests, 42 runs)

Gold Quarry (Facility C) 56 (17 tests, 51 runs)

Jerritt Cany on Mine (Facility E) 71 (7 tests, 21 runs)

Twin Creeks Mine (Facility D) 165 (12 tests, 36 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 4 ) New

Average (lb/MM tons) 84 45

df 131 42

t 2.36 2.42

Vb 52 65

Vw 935 198

Vt 988 263

99% UPL (lb/MM tons) , MACT Floor 158 84

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

10 Valid emissions data were available for 10 facilities that operate carbon processes with

mercury retort s

. Based on the MACT floor analysis, t he average emissions level achi eved by

the best performing five sources is 1.1 lb Hg/ton of concentrate. After accounting for the

variability in emissions, t he MACT floor for this affected source is 2.2 lb Hg/ton of

concentrate. For new sources, MACT is 0.8 lb Hg/ton concentrate. We estimate that the

MACT floor limit for th is affected source w ould reduce emissions by about 899 lbs /yr , a

reduction of 78 percent from current levels. Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Table 2. MACT Floor Results for Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Affected Source Average performanc e (lb Hg /ton concentrate )

Marigold (Facility N) 0.53 (7 tests, 21 runs)

Bald Mountain (Facility J) 0.74 (4 tests, 12 runs)

Ruby Hill (Facility I) 1.06 (4 tests, 11 runs)

Goldstrike (Facility A) 1.47 (18 tests, 54 runs)

Denton

- Rawhide (Facility H) 1.67 (12 tests, 36 runs)

Twin Creeks (Facility D) 2.20 (31 tests, 93 runs)

Gold Quarry (Facility C) 3.71 (21 tests, 57 runs)

Florida Canyon (Facility G) 8.17 (18 tests, 54 runs)

Jerritt Canyon (Facility E) 14.49 (2 tests, 6 runs)

Lone Tree (Facility B) 2 0.60 (7 tests, 21 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 5) New

Average (lb/tons) 1.1 0.53

D f 110 17

t 2.36 2.57

Vb 0.015 0.003 2

Vw 0.20 0.0037

Vt 0.2 2 0.0069

99% UPL (lb/ton) , MACT Floor 2.2 0. 8

Valid data were available for two facilities that operate carbon processes without

mercury retorts

. As shown in Table 3, the average emissions level achieved by these two

facilities is 0.078 lb Hg/ton of concentrate. The existing MAC T floor based on the UPL is Carbon Processes with out Mercury Retorts

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

11 0.17 lb Hg/ton of concentrate. For new sources, MACT corresponds to 0.14 lb Hg/ton of

concentrate.

Table 3. MACT Floor Results for Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

Affected Source Average performance (lb Hg /ton conc entrate)

Round Mountain (Facility M) 0.058 (5 tests, 15 runs)

Cortez (Facility F) 0.098 (13 tests, 39 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 2) New

Average (lb/ton) 0.078 0.058

df 4 3 12

t 2.42 2.68

Vb 0.00031 0.00045

Vw 0.0010 0.00048

Vt 0.0013 0.00093

99% UPL (lb/ton) , MACT Floor 0.1 7 0.14

For this affected source, valid emissions data were available for two facilities. The

results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4. B ased on the MACT floor analysis, the

average emissions level achieved by the se two facilities is 0.062 lb Hg/ton of concentrate.

The MACT floor for this affected source is 0.2 Hg/ton of concentrate. For new sources,

MACT is 0. 1 lb Hg/ton concentrate. We est imate that requiring the MACT floor emissions

limit for non

- carbon concentrate processes would reduce emissions by about 14 lbs /yr , a

reduction of 54 percent from current levels. Non

- Carbon Concentrate Processes

Table 4 . MACT Floor Results for Non

- Carbon Concentrate Processes

Affected Source Average performance (lb Hg /ton concentrate)

Coeur Rochester Mine (Facility K) 0.047 (5 tests, 17 runs)

Midas Operations (Facility L) 0.078 (13 tests, 27 runs)

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic Existing (top 2) New

Average (lb/ton) 0.062 0.047

df 3 9 1 5

t 2.43 2.6 0

Vb 0.0002 4 0.0002 6

Vw 0.002 6 0.0005 2

Vt 0.0028 0.00077

99% UPL (lb/ton) , MACT Floor 0. 2 0.1

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

12 4 . Beyond the Floor 2



## To evaluate opportunities for emission reductions beyond those that would result from

requiring fa cilities to meet the MACT floor emissions limits , we typically identify control

techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more stringent than the MACT

floor. The following paragraphs summarize the results of th is " beyond

- the

- floor " an alysis for

the four affected sources for the G old M ine O re P rocessing and P roduction source category.

Facilities with ore pretreatment processes either have installed, or would need be

required to install

, calomel mercury scrubbers and ca rbon adsorbers 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 W e

identified as a beyond

- the

- floor option the i nstallation of both a refrigeration unit and a

carbon adsorber on the remaining facilit ies y with autoclaves . This additional control system

would follow the existing venturi scrubbers, and

, because autoclave exhaust is saturated with

water, a refrigeratio n unit or condenser would be required to remove moisture that would

otherwise adversely affect the adsorptive ca pacity of the carbon adsorber. We assumed that

the additional control from the carbon adsorber would result in a 70 percent reduction of

mercur y emissions

. This value was proposed by Newmont Twin Creeks facility in their Phase

2 application to the Nevada Mercury Control Program. We believe that it is an appropriate

estimate of emissions reductions seeing as this control has never been demonstra ted on an

autoclave. Ore Pretreatment

We estimate that t he Twin Creeks facility will not be able to meet the final MACT

standard without adding controls, thus the costs to add controls to the Twin Creek’s

autoclaves has been included in the total cost of controls for fa cilities to meet the MACT

standard. 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 are incorporating this

2 

### Additional details and documentation for the estimates of emissions, emission reductions, and costs are provided

in the rulemaking docket (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0239)

.

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

13 beyond

- the

- floor analysis in the final rule.

We estimate that t he Goldstrike facility will be able meet the MACT stand ard without

adding controls to their autoclaves so the costs t o add controls to their autoclaves are

considered beyond

- the

- floor. We estimate the capital cost for the additional controls on the

autoclaves at Goldstrike would be $47,000,000

, with a total a nnualized cost of $8,200,000/yr

.

This option would reduce m ercury emissions by 10 lbs /yr , resulting in an estimated cost

effectiveness of $782,409/lb. Because of the high cost effectiveness for addition controls to

the autoclaves at Goldstrike, we are no t incorporating this beyond

- the

- floor analysis in the

final rule.

We also identified as a beyond

- the

- floor option the installation of a carbon adsorber on

ore preheater/dryer units. Again , we assumed that the additional control from the carbon

adsorber w ould result in a 70 percent reduction of mercury emissions on the ore

preheater/dryer units

. We believe that this is an appropriate estimate of emissions reductions

because this control has never been demonstrated on these units. We estimate d 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 reduced

by 118 lbs /yr , resulting in an estimated cost effectiveness of $13,7 84/lb

.

Another assumption used in the beyond

- the

- floor calculations was th at one facility

,

which h as both roasters and autoclaves

, would operat e only their roasters. With these

additional control s

, the average emissions level achieved by these sources facilities would be

80 lb/million tons of ore. We estimate that requiring the MACT floor emissions limit and the

beyond

- the

- floor options for ore pretreatment processes results in a total emissions reductions

of 548 lbs/yr, a reduction of 38 percent from current levels. Applying the UPL formula to

account for variability, the resulting beyond

- the

- floor emissions limit would be 127 lb/million

tons of ore . Table 5 summarizes the beyond

- the

- floor analysis for ore pretreatment processes

.

This emission limit was incorporated in the final rule.

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 op tion 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

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

14 an estimated contr ol 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. Because of the high cost effectiveness values, the beyon d

- the

floor anyslsysis for new sources in the ore pretreatment affected source were not adopted in

the final rule.

Table 5

. Beyond the Floor Results for Ore Pretreatment

Affected Source Average performance

(lb Hg/million tons ore)

Gold Quarry (Facility C) (70% reduction) 37

Twin Creeks (Facility D) (70% reduction) 49

Jerritt Canyon (Facility E) (70% reduction) 58

Goldstrike (Facility A) (70% reduction) 80

Summary of Statistical Analysis

Statistic

Average achieved by all (lb/MM tons) 80

df 123

t 2.36

Vb 30

Vw 369

Vt 399

Affected Source 99% UPL (lb/MM tons) 127

For two of the other affected sources (carbon processes with mercury retorts and non

carbon concentrate processes), existing sources are equipped with efficient mercury emission

controls, and it is difficult to identify a technology that might be applied to achieve further

reductions in emissions , especially considering the very low mercury concentrations after the

MACT floor level of control and the dif ficulty in obtaining efficient additional percent

reductions for low concentration streams. For the beyond

- the

- floor analysis, we assumed that

a second carbon adsorption system could be installed in series with the first or existing

adsorber and would get an additional reduction of 90 percent. (We acknowledge that there is

significant uncertainty in the additional reduction s the redundant control system might

achieve.) For carbon processes with mercury retorts, t he capital cost for the additional control

was estimated to be $3 million

, with a total annualized cost of $1. 3 million/ yr . The emission s

reduction s for this control option would be 9 lbs /yr , resulting in an estimated cost

effectiveness of $150,275/ lb

. For non

- carbon concentrate processes, w e es timated the capital Other Affected Sources

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

15 cost for the additional adsorber to be $0. 4 million , with a total annualized cost of

$ 191,000 /year. The mercury e missions reductions that would be achieved by this option

would be 0.13 lb/year , resulting in an estimated cost effectiven ess of $1,400,000/ lb

. Because

of the uncertainties in the emissions reductions that could be achieved, and the high cost

effectiveness values, beyond

- the

- floor limits for these three types of affected sources were not

adopted in the final rule.

For a bey ond

- the

- floor analysis for carbon processes without mercury retorts

, we

estimated the costs and reductions for installing a carbon adsorber to a unit at Round

Mountain that is currently uncontrolled. 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 same reasons described above for carbon proc esses with

mercury retorts and non

- carbon concentrate processes, it was concluded that this option was

not cost effective, and it was not adopted in the final rule.

4. Summary of Final Emission Standards

Table 6 summarizes the mercury emission limits i ncluded in the final Gold Mine Ore

Processing and Production Area Source NESHAP

.

Table 6 . Summary of Final Mercury Emission Limits

Affected Source Hg Emission Limit s

Units Existing

Source s New

Source s

Ore pretreatment processes 127 84 lb/millio n ton s of ore

Carbon processes with mercury retorts 2.2 0.8 lb/ton of concentrate

Carbon processes without mercury retorts 0.17 0.14 lb/ton of concentrate

Non

- carbon concentrate processes 0.2 0.1 lb/ton of concentrate

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

16 Appendix A. Mercury Emissions D ata for the Ore Pretreatment Affected Source (lb/ton of ore)

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.35E

- 05 9.56E

- 06 1.37E

- 05

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.05E

- 05 1.33E

- 05 1.69E

- 05

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

que nch 8.45E

- 06 1.05E

- 05 9.66E

- 06 1.06E

- 04 1.18E

- 05 7.33E

- 12 9 8 8.14E

- 13 2.44E

- 12

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.27E

- 05 5.41E

- 06 4.53E

- 06

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 2.63E

- 05 2.50E

- 05 1.54E

- 04

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.18E

- 06 3.48E

- 06 3.03E

- 06 2.43E

- 04 2.70E

- 05 2.35E

- 09 9 8 2.62E

- 10 7.85E

- 10

Gold Quarry Roaster 8.99E

- 07 6.97E

- 07 7.87E

- 07

Gold Quarry Roaster 1.27E

- 06 1.61E

- 06 6.19E

- 07

Gold Qua rry Roaster 4.92E

- 07 2.75E

- 07 3.56E

- 07 7.00E

- 06 7.78E

- 07 1.86E

- 13 9 8 2.07E

- 14 6.21E

- 14

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.66E

- 06 2.06E

- 06 1.48E

- 06

Gold Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.50E

- 06 4.82E

- 06 1.75E

- 06 1.33E

- 05 2.21E

- 06 1. 67E

- 12 6 5 2.79E

- 13 5.58E

- 13

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.67E

- 05 1.36E

- 05 9.55E

- 06

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.27E

- 05 1.46E

- 05 2.11E

- 05

Gold Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.03E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 1.3 2E

- 05 1.25E

- 04 1.39E

- 05 5.56E

- 05 1.19E

- 11 9 8 1.32E

- 12 2.64E

- 10 3.96E

- 12 7.92E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 3.23E

- 07 5.03E

- 07 3.60E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.61E

- 07 5.96E

- 07 5.17E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.79E

- 06 1.39E

- 06 2.65E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 2.19E

- 06 1.13E

- 06 2.65E

- 07 1.02E

- 05 8.48E

- 07 4.12E

- 13 12 11 3.43E

- 14 1.37E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.68E

- 06 4.71E

- 06 1.71E

- 06

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 2.36E

- 05 5.05E

- 06 7.86E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 8.52E

- 07 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.64E

- 06 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07 4.95E

- 05 4.12E

- 06 4 .40E

- 11 12 11 3.67E

- 12 1.47E

- 11

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

17 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Goldstrike Roaster 7.25E

- 05 5.71E

- 05 5.26E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.25E

- 05 1.25E

- 05 1.71E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.95E

- 05 1.73E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 2.74E

- 04 3.05E

- 05 5.47E

- 10 9 8 6.08E

- 11 1.82E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine

quench 4.35E

- 06 2.96E

- 06 2.87E

- 06 1.02E

- 05 3.39E

- 06 6.86E

- 13 3 2 2.29E

- 13 2.29E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine

quench 3.55E

- 06 3.76E

- 06 3.32E

- 06 1.06E

- 05 3.54E

- 06 4.72E

- 14 3 2 1.57E

- 14 1.57E

- 14

Golds trike Autoclave 2.59E

- 07 4.01E

- 07 4.70E

- 07 1.13E

- 06 3.77E

- 07 1.16E

- 14 3 2 3.87E

- 15 3.87E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 6.57E

- 07 7.71E

- 07 5.50E

- 07 1.98E

- 06 6.59E

- 07 1.23E

- 14 3 2 4.09E

- 15 4.09E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 1.65E

- 07 1.81E

- 07 1.77E

- 06 5.90E

- 07 5.21E

- 13 3 2 1.74E

- 13 1.74E

- 13

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 8.32E

- 07 4.62E

- 07 2.71E

- 06 9.03E

- 07 4.49E

- 05 2.32E

- 13 3 2 7.72E

- 14 6.50E

- 11 7.72E

- 14 1.98E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Ore dryer 1.35E

- 05 2.86E

- 05 1.92E

- 05

Jerri tt

Canyon Ore dryer 3.82E

- 06 3.24E

- 05 1.14E

- 05 1.09E

- 04 1.82E

- 05 1.17E

- 10 6 5 1.95E

- 11 3.90E

- 11

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 4.42E

- 05 4.47E

- 05 5.14E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 4.48E

- 05 2.07E

- 05 2.99E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 7.01E

- 06 7.92E

- 06 8.36E

- 06 2.59E

- 04 2.88E

- 05 3.31E

- 10 9 8 3.68E

- 11 1.10E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5.50E

- 05 4.65E

- 05 2.82E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5.80E

- 06 4.30E

- 06 4.65E

- 06 1.44E

- 04 2.41E

- 05 7.10E

- 05 5.16E

- 10 6 5 8.60E

- 11 1.42E

- 10 1.72E

- 10 3.21E

- 10

Twin Creeks Autoclave 5.52E

- 05 1.45E

- 04 1.02E

- 04

Twin Creeks Autoclave 7.82E

- 05 2.59E

- 04 2.90E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.36E

- 04 1.17E

- 04 1.08E

- 04

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.13E

- 04 1.33E

- 04 1.10E

- 04

Twin Creeks Autoclave 9.97E

- 05 1.97E

- 04 2.66E

- 04

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1.06E

- 04 6.95E

- 05 6.21E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 8.65E

- 06 8.07E

- 06 7 .63E

- 06 2.41E

- 03 1.15E

- 04 6.39E

- 09 21 20 3.04E

- 10 2.13E

- 09

Twin Creeks Autoclave 1.14E

- 04 5.47E

- 05 5.33E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 8.67E

- 05 4.98E

- 05 3.45E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 4.87E

- 05 9.07E

- 05 7.96E

- 0 5

Twin Creeks Autoclave 3.53E

- 05 2.50E

- 05 2.12E

- 05

Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.04E

- 05 1.91E

- 05 1.96E

- 05 7.53E

- 04 5.02E

- 05 1.65E

- 04 9.06E

- 10 15 14 6.04E

- 11 3.65E

- 10 3.02E

- 10 2.43E

- 09

Average

of top 4: 8.41E

- 05 t DF: 131 Vb: 5.22E

- 11 Vw

(unpoole

d): 9.35E

- 10

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

18 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

t(.99): 2.36

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

19 Appendix B . Mercury Emissions Data for the Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts Affected Source (lb/ton concentrate)

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Marigold EW, P/B 3.68E

- 01 5.43E

- 01 4.32E

- 01 1.34E+00 4.48E

- 01 7.86E

- 03 3 2 2.62E

- 03 2.62E

- 03

Marigold Retort 7.72E

- 02 1.14E

- 01 9.07E

- 02

Marigold Retort 2.48E

- 03 1.14E

- 02 1.37E

- 03 2.97E

- 01 4.95E

- 02 2.52E

- 03 6 5 4.20E

- 04 8.41E

- 04

Marig old Furnace 8.49E

- 02 4.11E

- 02 2.52E

- 02

Marigold Melt Furnace 1.00E

- 02 1.09E

- 02 1.74E

- 02 1.90E

- 01 3.16E

- 02 8.13E

- 04 6 5 1.36E

- 04 2.71E

- 04

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.52E

- 03 6.29E

- 03 6.99E

- 03

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.36E

- 04 2.45E

- 04 3.93E

- 04 2.22E

- 02 3.69E

- 03 5.33E

- 01 1.27E

- 05 6 5 2.12E

- 06 3.18E

- 03 4.25E

- 06 3.74E

- 03

Bald

Mountain Carbon Kiln 2.37E

- 02 1.61E

- 02 1.82E

- 02 5.80E

- 02 1.93E

- 02 1.55E

- 05 3 2 5.17E

- 06 5.17E

- 06

Bald

Mountain EW, Barren

Tank 7.41E

- 01 1.76 E

- 01 1.08E+00 2.00E+00 6.66E

- 01 2.10E

- 01 3 2 6.99E

- 02 6.99E

- 02

Bald

Mountain Melt Furnace 7.09E

- 02 3.63E

- 02 4.76E

- 02 1.55E

- 01 5.16E

- 02 3.11E

- 04 3 2 1.04E

- 04 1.04E

- 04

Bald

Mountain Retort 1.11E

- 03 1.09E

- 03 4.79E

- 04 2.68E

- 03 8.94E

- 04 7.38E

- 01 1 .30E

- 07 3 2 4.32E

- 08 7.00E

- 02 4.32E

- 08 7.00E

- 02

Ruby Hill Carbon Kiln 2.30E

- 01 2.16E

- 01 8.08E

- 02 5.26E

- 01 1.75E

- 01 6.77E

- 03 3 2 2.26E

- 03 2.26E

- 03

Ruby Hill EW, P/B 1.51E+00 5.45E

- 01 4.97E

- 01 2.55E+00 8.49E

- 01 3.24E

- 01 3 2 1.08E

- 01 1.08E

- 01

R uby Hill Melt Furnace 3.02E

- 02 3.63E

- 02 6.65E

- 02 3.33E

- 02 1.83E

- 05 2 1 9.13E

- 06 6.09E

- 06

Ruby Hill Retort 1.30E

- 04 1.30E

- 04 1.14E

- 04 3.73E

- 04 1.24E

- 04 1.06E+00 8.79E

- 11 3 2 2.93E

- 11 1.10E

- 01 2.93E

- 11 1.10E

- 01

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 5.45E+00 9.68E

- 01 5.60E

- 01

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 4.27E

- 01 6.21E

- 01 4.20E

- 01

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 1.28E+00 1.31E+00 1.57E+00

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 1.40E+00 1.46E+00 1.35E+00

Goldstrik e Carbon Kiln 6.41E

- 01 9.07E

- 01 4.05E

- 01

Goldstrike Carbon Kiln 2.39E

- 02 3.23E

- 02 3.77E

- 02 1.89E+01 1.05E+00 1.47E+00 18 17 8.18E

- 02 4.91E

- 01

Goldstrike Electrowinning 1.58E

- 01 1.80E

- 01 2.02E

- 01

Goldstrike E lectrowinning 2.74E

- 01 3.93E

- 01 2.25E

- 01

Goldstrike Electrowinning 1.06E

- 01 7.07E

- 02 1.63E

- 01 1.77E+00 1.97E

- 01 9.04E

- 03 9 8 1.00E

- 03 3.01E

- 03

Goldstrike Melt Furnace 2.93E

- 02 7.35E

- 02 2.35E

- 02

Goldstrike Me lt Furnace

Goldstrike Melt Furnace 4.56E

- 02 1.28E

- 01 2.10E

- 01 5.10E

- 01 8.50E

- 02 5.21E

- 03 6 5 8.68E

- 04 1.74E

- 03

Goldstrike Preg Tank 2.07E

- 02 1.43E

- 02 7.33E

- 03

Goldstrike Preg Tank 2.78E

- 03 3.18E

- 03 4.0 4E

- 03 5.23E

- 02 8.72E

- 03 5.28E

- 05 6 5 8.79E

- 06 1.76E

- 05

Goldstrike Preg Tank 3.97E

- 03 1.33E

- 02 1.19E

- 02

Goldstrike Preg Tank 3.18E

- 03 1.99E

- 03 2.19E

- 03 3.66E

- 02 6.10E

- 03 2.63E

- 05 6 5 4.39E

- 06 8.77E

- 06

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

20 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort 5.91E

- 02 4.77E

- 02 3.29E

- 02 1.40E

- 01 4.65E

- 02 1.73E

- 04 3 2 5.76E

- 05 5.76E

- 05

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort 3.00E

- 02 1.52E

- 02 1.23E

- 02 5.75E

- 02 1.92E

- 02 8.94E

- 05 3 2 2.98E

- 05 2.98E

- 05

Goldstrike Retor t

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort

Goldstrike Retort 5.85E

- 02 6.70E

- 02 6.34E

- 02 1.89E

- 01 6.29E

- 02 1.47E+00 1.84E

- 05 3 2 6.13E

- 0 6 8.38E

- 02 6.13E

- 06 4.95E

- 01

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 3.16E

- 03 3.47E

- 03 1.66E

- 02

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 1.15E

- 02 6.48E

- 03 2.07E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Carbon Kiln 2.50E

- 01 1.45E

- 01 1.28E

- 01 5.67E

- 01 6.30E

- 02 8. 10E

- 03 9 8 9.00E

- 04 2.70E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 6.46E

- 04 2.43E

- 04 6.39E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 1.40E

- 02 2.62E

- 03 3.25E

- 03

Denton

Rawhide Electrowinning 9.14E

- 03 6.49E

- 02 1.27E

- 01 2.29E

- 01 2.54E

- 02 1.87E

- 03 9 8 2.08E

- 04 6.24E

- 04

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 3.64E+00 1.56E+00 1.19E+00

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 8.90E

- 01 1.85E+00 1.48E+00

Denton

Rawhide Melt Furnace 7.84E

- 01 2.34E+00 3.23E

- 01 1. 41E+01 1.56E+00 9.69E

- 01 9 8 1.08E

- 01 3.23E

- 01

Denton

Rawhide Retort 5.84E

- 05 6.33E

- 05 7.17E

- 05

Denton

Rawhide Retort 4.59E

- 05 1.50E

- 05 1.40E

- 05

Denton

Rawhide Retort 6.24E

- 02 4.38E

- 02 7.62E

- 02 1.83E

- 01 2.03 E

- 02 1.67E+00 9.89E

- 04 9 8 1.10E

- 04 1.09E

- 01 3.30E

- 04 3.27E

- 01

Average of

top 5: 1.09E+00 tDF: 110 Vb: 1.50E

- 02 Vw

(unpooled): 2.01E

- 01

t(.99): 2.36

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 2.29E

- 02 1.21E

- 01 4.91E

- 01

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 1.74E+00 1.06E+00 1.18E+00

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

21 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Twin Creeks Electrowinning 6.73E

- 02 4.31E

- 02 3.46E

- 02 4.75E+00 5.28E

- 01 4.10E

- 01 9 8 4.55E

- 02 1.37E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(n ew) 4.20E

- 01 1.20E

- 01 2.89E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(new) 4.85E

- 01 1.38E

- 01 3.90E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(new) 6.60E

- 02 1.86E

- 02 4.80E

- 02

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 2

(new) 1.77E

- 04 2.48E

- 04 6.84E

- 04 1.98E+00 1.65E

- 01 3.29E

- 02 12 11 2.74E

- 03 1.10E

- 02

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 1.04E+00 4.20E

- 01 6.54E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 2.19E+00 8.51E

- 01 9.32E

- 01

Twin Creeks Melt F urnace 1

(old) 2.15E

- 02 6.39E

- 02 9.35E

- 02

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 7.79E

- 02 4.07E

- 02 2.67E

- 02

Twin Creeks Melt Furnace 1

(old) 5.36E

- 04 4.56E

- 04 4.88E

- 04 6.42E+00 4.28E

- 01 3.84E

- 01 15 14 2.56E

- 02 1.28E

- 01

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 2.19E

- 01 2.30E

- 02 9.55E

- 02

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 2.80E

- 01 1.07E

- 01 9.08E

- 02

Twin Creeks Carbon Kiln 4.76E

- 02 8.89E

- 02 8.76E

- 02 1.04E+00 1.16E

- 01 6.70E

- 03 9 8 7.44E

- 04 2.23E

- 03

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 2.12E+00 1.91E+00 3.64E

- 01

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 8.16E

- 01 1.74E+00 7.75E

- 01

Twin Creeks Preg Tank 2.57E

- 01 2.58E

- 01 3.22E

- 01 8.56E+00 9.52E

- 01 5.83E

- 01 9 8 6.48E

- 02 1.94E

- 01

Twin Creek s Retort 8.80E

- 06 7.63E

- 06 6.72E

- 06 2.32E

- 05 7.72E

- 06 1.09E

- 12 3 2 3.63E

- 13 3.63E

- 13

Twin Creeks Retort 8.13E

- 04 1.19E

- 03 2.39E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 4.18E

- 03 4.99E

- 03 1.04E

- 02

Twin Creeks Retort 2.57E

- 03 6 .68E

- 04 1.08E

- 03 2.82E

- 02 3.14E

- 03 9.63E

- 06 9 8 1.07E

- 06 3.21E

- 06

Twin Creeks Retort 3.51E

- 04 1.34E

- 03 1.38E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 1.56E

- 03 5.66E

- 03 2.78E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 5.07E

- 04 2.54E

- 03 5.07E

- 04 1.6 6E

- 02 1.85E

- 03 2.79E

- 06 9 8 3.10E

- 07 9.29E

- 07

Twin Creeks Retort 7.58E

- 04 2.96E

- 03 5.40E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 7.54E

- 05 2.46E

- 04 3.09E

- 04

Twin Creeks Retort 4.75E

- 04 3.43E

- 03 4.05E

- 03 1.77E

- 02 1.97E

- 03 4.0 3E

- 06 9 8 4.48E

- 07 1.34E

- 06

Twin Creeks Retort 2.17E

- 05 5.49E

- 03 2.06E

- 03

Twin Creeks Retort 6.50E

- 04 4.77E

- 04 1.73E

- 04

Twin Creeks Retort 1.17E

- 04 2.75E

- 04 4.95E

- 04 9.77E

- 03 1.09E

- 03 2.20E+00 3.11E

- 06 9 8 3.4 5E

- 07 1.39E

- 01 1.04E

- 06 4.72E

- 01

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 3.46E+00 3.60E+00 3.93E+00

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 7.47E

- 01 3.88E

- 01 5.59E

- 01

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

22 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.29E+00 1.21E+00 1.41E+00 1.66E+01 1.84E+00 1.99E+0 0 9 8 2.21E

- 01 6.63E

- 01

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 4.54E

- 02 4.24E

- 02 4.64E

- 02

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 7.32E

- 02 6.70E

- 02 5.94E

- 02

Gold Quarry Electrowinning 4.48E

- 01 4.25E

- 01 8.46E

- 02 1.29E+00 1.44E

- 01 2.7 8E

- 02 9 8 3.09E

- 03 9.28E

- 03

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 2.30E

- 01 2.44E

- 01 3.71E

- 01

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 3.36E

- 01 6.10E

- 02 1.29E+00

Gold Quarry Preg Tank 3.82E

- 03 2.38E

- 01 5.42E

- 01

Gold Quarry P reg Tank 3.06E

- 01 3.71E

- 02 9.78E

- 02 3.76E+00 3.13E

- 01 1.19E

- 01 12 11 9.91E

- 03 3.96E

- 02

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 2.35E+00 5.33E

- 01 1.25E+00

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 2.59E

- 02 6.61E

- 03 1.81E

- 01

Gold Quarry Melt Furnace 4.76E

- 01 1.05E+00 2.90E+00 8.77E+00 9.75E

- 01 1.07E+00 9 8 1.19E

- 01 3.58E

- 01

Gold Quarry Retort

Gold Quarry Retort 3.73E

- 02 8.17E

- 02 4.26E

- 02

Gold Quarry Retort 1.30E

- 01 9.79E

- 02 8.90E

- 02

Gold Quarry Retort 1.67E

- 01 1.80E

- 01 1.32E

- 01

Gold Quarry Retort 1.66E

- 01 1.72E

- 01 9.52E

- 02 9.11E

- 01 1.52E

- 01 1.04E

- 03 6 5 1.74E

- 04 3.48E

- 04

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 9.23E

- 01 5.95E

- 01 4.94E

- 01

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 5.56E

- 02 6.25E

- 02 7.94E

- 02

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.42E

- 01 1.41E

- 01 1.72E

- 01

Gold Quarry Carbon Kiln 1.60E

- 01 3.19E

- 01 2.96E

- 01 3.44E+00 2.87E

- 01 3.71E+00 6.93E

- 02 12 11 5.77E

- 03 3.59E

- 01 2.31E

- 02 1.09E+00

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 1.03E+00 5.52E

- 01 6.71E

- 01

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 1.30E+01 2.03E+01 2.00E+01

Florida

Canyon Carbon Kiln 3.87E+00 4.24E+00 1.78E+01

Florida

C anyon Carbon Kiln 3.23E+00 1.51E+00 3.83E+00 9.00E+01 7.50E+00 6.22E+01 12 11 5.18E+00 2.07E+01

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 3.17E

- 01 8.30E

- 03 1.71E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 1.45E

- 02 2.01E

- 02 5.11E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Melt Furnace 5.76E

- 03 8.07E

- 03 9.51E

- 03 4.52E

- 01 5.02E

- 02 1.02E

- 02 9 8 1.13E

- 03 3.40E

- 03

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 2.68E

- 01 1.42E

- 01 6.00E

- 01

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.03E+00 1.47E

- 01 8.14E

- 01

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.38E

- 01 6.95E

- 01 1.09E+00 4.92E+00 5.47E

- 01 1.49E

- 01 9 8 1.66E

- 02 4.97E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 1.03E

- 01 1.03E

- 01 7.10E

- 02

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

23 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 7.60E

- 02 3.41E

- 0 2 4.57E

- 02

Florida

Canyon Electrowinning 7.72E

- 02 7.72E

- 02 1.70E

- 02 6.03E

- 01 6.70E

- 02 8.59E

- 04 9 8 9.55E

- 05 2.86E

- 04

Florida

Canyon Retort 2.63E

- 03 1.25E

- 03 2.90E

- 04

Florida

Canyon Retort 2.30E

- 06 1.53E

- 0 6 1.67E

- 06 4.17E

- 03 6.95E

- 04 1.13E

- 06 6 5 1.88E

- 07 3.76E

- 07

Florida

Canyon Retort 6.89E

- 05 5.35E

- 05 6.17E

- 05

Florida

Canyon Retort 3.08E

- 05 1.65E

- 05 1.34E

- 05

Florida

Canyon Retort 5.07E

- 05 3.68E

- 06 4.82E

- 05 3.47E

- 04 3.86E

- 05 8.17E+00 5.39E

- 10 9 8 5.99E

- 11 5.20E+00 1.80E

- 10 2.08E+01

Jerritt Canyon Carbon Kiln 5.10E+00 2.23E+00 1.60E+00 8.93E+00 2.98E+00 3.48E+00 3 2 1.16E+00 1.16E+00

Jerritt Canyon Melt Furnace 3.82E

- 01 1.65E+01 1.76E+01 3.45E+01 1.15E+01 1.45E+01 9.32E+01 3 2 3.11E+01 3.22E+01 3.11E+01 3.22E+01

Lone Tree Electrowinning 1.39E+00 7.68E

- 01 1.16E+00

Lone Tree Electrowinning 7.02E

- 01 6.11E+00 7.76E

- 01 1.09E+01 1.82E+00 4.50E+00 6 5 7.50E

- 01 1.50E+00

Lone Tree Elecrowinning 1.92E

- 01 7.15E+00 7.82E

- 02

Lone Tree Electrowinning 6.18E+00 2.53E

- 01 1.03E

- 01 1.40E+01 2.33E+00 1.14E+01 6 5 1.90E+00 3.80E+00

Lone Tree Electrowinning 2.67E+00 1.30E+00 5.00E

- 01 4.47E+00 1.49E+00 1.20E+ 00 3 2 4.01E

- 01 4.01E

- 01

Lone Tree Preg Tank 1.97E+00 3.29E+00 1.72E+01

Lone Tree Preg Tank 9.17E+00 2.14E+01 3.68E+01 8.98E+01 1.50E+01 2.06E+01 1.72E+02 6 5 2.87E+01 3.18E+01 5.74E+01 6.31E+01

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

24 Appendix C . Mercury Emissions Data for the Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts Affected Source (lb/ton concentrate)

Facility Process type Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit var No. of runs

per unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Var of unit

average Facility var Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility Vw

Round Mountain Electrowinning 1.82E

- 02 7.93E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 1.16E

- 01 3.88E

- 02 1.23E

- 03 3 2 4.09E

- 04 4.09E

- 04

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 1.49E

- 04 1.80E

- 03 1.77E

- 03

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 3.49E

- 02 9.59E

- 03 1.85E

- 02 6.67E

- 02 1.11E

- 02 1.83E

- 04 6 5 3.05E

- 05 6.10E

- 05

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 2.57E

- 03 2.86E

- 03 1.56E

- 03

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 1.52E

- 02 1.02E

- 02 1.59E

- 02 4. 83E

- 02 8.05E

- 03 0.058 4.33E

- 05 6 5 7.22E

- 06 4.47E

- 04 1.44E

- 05 4.85E

- 04

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 1.12E

- 03 6.42E

- 04 2.94E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 2.59E

- 03 1.76E

- 03 1.12E

- 03 1.02E

- 02 1.70E

- 03 8.27E

- 07 6 5 1.38E

- 07 2.76E

- 07

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 1.26E

- 02 9.36E

- 03 3.67E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Carbon Kiln 6.13E

- 04 2.64E

- 04 2.52E

- 04 2.67E

- 02 4.45E

- 03 2.81E

- 05 6 5 4.68E

- 06 9.36E

- 06

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 2.58E

- 02 1.92E

- 02 2.99E

- 02

Cortez Pipeline Electro Winning

System 1.41E

- 02 3.58E

- 03 8.79E

- 03 1.01E

- 01 1.69E

- 02 1.01E

- 04 6 5 1.68E

- 05 3.36E

- 05

Cortez Pipeline Electrowinning 1.40E

- 02 3.55E

- 03 6.32E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Electro Winning

System 5.3 0E

- 03 5.62E

- 03 2.49E

- 03 3.73E

- 02 6.21E

- 03 1.66E

- 05 6 5 2.77E

- 06 5.53E

- 06

Cortez Pipeline Preg Tank 1.01E

- 01 1.61E

- 01 8.80E

- 02

Cortez Pipeline Pregnant and Barren

Tanks 3.25E

- 03 2.44E

- 03 2.50E

- 03 3.58E

- 01 5.96E

- 02 4.50E

- 03 6 5 7.50E

- 04 1.50E

- 03

Cortez Pipeline Melt Furnace 2.67E

- 03 1.21E

- 03 1.84E

- 03 5.72E

- 03 1.91E

- 03 5.37E

- 07 3 2 1.79E

- 07 1.79E

- 07

Cortez Pipeline Melt Furnace 1.43E

- 04 1.79E

- 04 1.35E

- 04 4.57E

- 04 1.52E

- 04 5.53E

- 10 3 2 1.84E

- 10 1.84E

- 10

Cortez Pi peline Fusion furnace 5.23E

- 03 1.37E

- 02 2.32E

- 03 2.13E

- 02 7.09E

- 03 0.098 3.52E

- 05 3 2 1.17E

- 05 7.86E

- 04 1.17E

- 05 1.56E

- 03

Average of

top 2: 0.078 tDF: 43 Vb: 3.08E

- 04 Vw

(unpooled): 1.02E

- 03

t(.99): 2.42

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

25 Appendix D . Mercury Emissions Data for the Non

- Carbon Concentrate Affected Source (lb/ton concentrate)

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Run 4

(lb/ton) Run 5

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton ) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF (n

- 1)

per unit Varianc

e of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Coeur

Rochester Refinery

Furnace 5.96E

- 02 1.17E

- 01 2.28E

- 02

Coeur

Rocheste r Refinery

Furnace 2.47E

- 02 1.20E

- 02 2.94E

- 02 2.66E

- 01 4.43E

- 02 1.53E

- 03 6 5 2.55E

- 04 5.10E

- 04

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 3.41E

- 03 3.45E

- 03 9.24E

- 05 2.31E

- 03 1.95E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 2.93E

- 04 1.53E

- 02 4.20E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 4.17E

- 05 1.84E

- 04 5.39E

- 05 3.13E

- 02 2.84E

- 03 0.047 1.96E

- 05 11 10 1.78E

- 06 2.57E

- 04 6.52E

- 06 5.17E

- 04

Midas

Operations Refinery

Furnace 1 & 2 1.60E

- 02 2.63E

- 02 4.55E

- 02

Midas

Operations Refinery

Furnace 1 & 2 1.73E

- 01 2.17E

- 01 4.41E

- 02

Midas

Operations Refinery

Furnace 1 & 2 1.10E

- 02 2.89E

- 02 1.73E

- 02 5.79E

- 01 6.43E

- 02 5.74E

- 03 9 8 6.38E

- 04 1.91E

- 03

Midas

Operations Retort A 2.32E

- 03 1.79E

- 03 1.46E

- 03

Midas

Operations Retort A 1.25E

- 03 6.01E

- 02 3.41E

- 02

Midas

Operations Retort A 4.07E

- 05 3.18E

- 05 3.72E

- 05 1.01E

- 01 1.12E

- 02 4.56E

- 04 9 8 5.07E

- 05 1.52E

- 04

Midas

Operati ons Retort B 2.78E

- 04 1.07E

- 05 7.36E

- 06

Midas

Operations Retort B 4.22E

- 03 4.48E

- 03 5.66E

- 03

Midas

Operations Retort B 9.51E

- 04 1.45E

- 03 1.02E

- 03 1.81E

- 02 2.01E

- 03 0.078 4.72E

- 06 9 8 5.24E

- 07 6.89E

- 04 1 .57E

- 06 2.07E

- 03

Average

of top 2: 6.23E

- 02 1.55E

- 03 t DF: 39 Vb: 2.37E

- 04 Vw

(unpoole

d): 2.58E

- 03

t(.99): 2.43

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

26 Appendix E

. New Source MACT Floors

Ore Pretreatment Proce sses

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 3.23E

- 07 5.03E

- 07 3.60E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.61E

- 07 5.96E

- 07 5.17E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 1.79E

- 06 1.39E

- 06 2.65E

- 07

Goldstri ke Roaster Ore Preheater 2.19E

- 06 1.13E

- 06 2.65E

- 07 1.02E

- 05 8.48E

- 07 4.12E

- 13 12 11 3.43E

- 14 1.37E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.68E

- 06 4.71E

- 06 1.71E

- 06

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 2.36E

- 05 5.05E

- 06 7.86E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.52E

- 07 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 1.64E

- 06 8.52E

- 07 3.93E

- 07 4.95E

- 05 4.12E

- 06 4.40E

- 11 12 11 3.67E

- 12 1.47E

- 11

Goldstrike Roaster 7.25E

- 05 5.71E

- 05 5.26 E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.25E

- 05 1.25E

- 05 1.71E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 1.95E

- 05 1.73E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 2.74E

- 04 3.05E

- 05 5.47E

- 10 9 8 6.08E

- 11 1.82E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine quench 4.35E

- 06 2.96E

- 06 2.87E

- 06 1.02E

- 05 3.39E

- 06 6.86E

- 13 3 2 2.29E

- 13 2.29E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine quench 3.55E

- 06 3.76E

- 06 3.32E

- 06 1.06E

- 05 3.54E

- 06 4.72E

- 14 3 2 1.57E

- 14 1.57E

- 14

Goldstrike Autoclave 2.59E

- 07 4.01E

- 07 4.70E

- 07 1.13E

- 06 3.77E

- 07 1.16E

- 14 3 2 3. 87E

- 15 3.87E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 6.57E

- 07 7.71E

- 07 5.50E

- 07 1.98E

- 06 6.59E

- 07 1.23E

- 14 3 2 4.09E

- 15 4.09E

- 15

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 1.65E

- 07 1.81E

- 07 1.77E

- 06 5.90E

- 07 5.21E

- 13 3 2 1.74E

- 13 1.74E

- 13

Goldstrike Autoclave 1.42E

- 06 8.32E

- 07 4.62E

- 07 2.71E

- 06 9.03E

- 07 4.49E

- 05 2.32E

- 13 3 2 7.72E

- 14 6.50E

- 11 7.72E

- 14 1.98E

- 10

Average = 4.49E

- 05

DF = 42

t = 2.42

Vb = 6.50E

- 11

Vw = 1.98E

- 10

Vt = 2.63E

- 10

Facility

99% UPL

= 8.41E

- 05

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

27 Carbon Processes with Mercury Retorts

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/to n) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Marigold EW, P/B 3.68E

- 01 5.43E

- 01 4.32E

- 01 1.34E+00 4.48E

- 01 7.86E

- 03 3 2 2.62E

- 03 2.62E

- 03

Marigold Retort 7.72E

- 02 1.14E

- 01 9.07E

- 02

Marigold Retort 2.48E

- 03 1.14E

- 02 1.37E

- 03 2.97E

- 01 4.95E

- 02 2.52E

- 03 6 5 4.20E

- 04 8.41E

- 04

Marigold Furnace 8.49E

- 02 4.11E

- 02 2.52E

- 02

Mar igold Melt Furnace 1.00E

- 02 1.09E

- 02 1.74E

- 02 1.90E

- 01 3.16E

- 02 8.13E

- 04 6 5 1.36E

- 04 2.71E

- 04

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.52E

- 03 6.29E

- 03 6.99E

- 03

Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.36E

- 04 2.45E

- 04 3.93E

- 04 2.22E

- 02 3.69E

- 03 5.33E

- 01 1.27E

- 05 6 5 2.12E

- 06 3.18E

- 03 4.25E

- 06 3.74E

- 03

Average = 5.33E

- 01

DF = 17

t = 2.57

Vb = 3.18E

- 03

Vw = 3.74E

- 03

Vt = 6.92E

- 03

Facility 99%

UPL = 7.46E

- 01

Carbon Processes without Mercury Retorts

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

var iance No. of

runs

per

unit DF (n

1) per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m = 3

per unit) Facility

Vw

Round Mountain Electrowinning 1.82E

- 02 7.93E

- 02 1.90E

- 02 1.16E

- 01 3.88E

- 02 1.23E

- 03 3 2 4.09E

- 04 4.09E

- 04

Round Mountain Melt Fu rnace 1.49E

- 04 1.80E

- 03 1.77E

- 03

Round Mountain Melt Furnace 3.49E

- 02 9.59E

- 03 1.85E

- 02 6.67E

- 02 1.11E

- 02 1.83E

- 04 6 5 3.05E

- 05 6.10E

- 05

Round Mountain Carbon Kiln 2.57E

- 03 2.86E

- 03 1.56E

- 03

Round Mountain C arbon Kiln 1.52E

- 02 1.02E

- 02 1.59E

- 02 4.83E

- 02 8.05E

- 03 0.058 4.33E

- 05 6 5 7.22E

- 06 4.47E

- 04 1.44E

- 05 4.85E

- 04

Average = 5.80E

- 02

DF = 12

t = 2.68

Vb = 4.47E

- 04

Vw = 4.85E

- 04

Vt = 9.32E

- 04

Facility

99% UPL = 1.40E

- 01

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

28 Non

- Carbon Concentrate

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Run 4

(lb/ton) Ru n 5

(lb/ton) Unit

sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs

per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw

(m = 3

per

unit) Facility

Vw

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Refinery

Furnace 5.96E

- 02 1.17E

- 01 2.28E

- 02

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Refinery

Furnace 2.47E

- 02 1.20E

- 02 2.94E

- 02 2.66E

- 01 4.43E

- 02 1.53E

- 03 6 5 2.55E

- 04 5.10E

- 04

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Retorts

#1 & #2 3.41E

- 03 3.45E

- 03 9.24E

- 05 2.31E

- 03 1.95E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Retorts

#1 & #2 2.93E

- 04 1.53E

- 02 4.20E

- 03

Coeur

Rochester

Mine Retort 4.17E

- 05 1.84E

- 04 5.39E

- 05 3.13E

- 02 2.84E

- 03 4.71E

- 02 1.96E

- 05 11 10 1.78E

- 06 2.57E

- 04 6.52E

- 06 5.17E

- 04

Average

= 4.71E

- 02

DF = 15

t = 2.60

Vb = 2.57E

- 04

Vw = 5.17E

- 04

Vt = 7.74E

- 04

Facility

99%

UPL = 1.19E

- 01

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

29 Appendix F

. Beyond the Floor

– Ore Pretreatment

Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.35E

- 05 9.56E

- 06 1.37E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.05E

- 05 1.33E

- 05 1.69E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 8.45E

- 06 1.05E

- 05 9.66E

- 06 1.06E

- 04 1.18E

- 05 7.33E

- 12 9 8 8.14E

- 13 2.44E

- 12

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 3.81E

- 06 1.62E

- 06 1.36E

- 06

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 7.90E

- 06 7.51E

- 06 4.63E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Preheater 2.45E

- 06 1.04E

- 06 9.09E

- 07 7.29E

- 05 8.10E

- 06 2.12E

- 10 9 8 2.35E

- 11 7.06E

- 11

Gold

Quarry Roaster 8.99E

- 07 6.97E

- 07 7.87E

- 07

Gold

Quarry Roaster 1.27E

- 06 1.6 1E

- 06 6.19E

- 07

Gold

Quarry Roaster 4.92E

- 07 2.75E

- 07 3.56E

- 07 7.00E

- 06 7.78E

- 07 1.86E

- 13 9 8 2.07E

- 14 6.21E

- 14

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.66E

- 06 2.06E

- 06 1.48E

- 06

Gold

Quarry Roaster Ore

Grinder 1.50E

- 06 4.82E

- 06 1.75E

- 06 1.33E

- 05 2.21E

- 06 1.67E

- 12 6 5 2.79E

- 13 5.58E

- 13

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.67E

- 05 1.36E

- 05 9.55E

- 06

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.27E

- 05 1.46E

- 05 2.11E

- 05

Gold

Quarry Roaster/Calcine

quench 1.03E

- 05 1.31E

- 05 1.32E

- 05 1.25E

- 04 1.39E

- 05 3.68E

- 05 1.19E

- 11 9 8 1.32E

- 12 2.60E

- 11 3.96E

- 12 7.77E

- 11

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.82E

- 07 2.84E

- 07 2.03E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 5.58E

- 07 3.86E

- 07 3.35E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.16E

- 06 9.01E

- 07 1.72E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.42E

- 06 7.29E

- 07 1.72E

- 07 6.49E

- 06 5.41E

- 07 1.78E

- 13 12 11 1.48E

- 14 5.94E

- 14

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

P reheater 4.90E

- 06 2.66E

- 06 9.66E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.53E

- 05 3.27E

- 06 5.09E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 5.52E

- 07 5.52E

- 07 2.55E

- 07

Goldstrike Roaster Ore

Preheater 1.06 E

- 06 5.52E

- 07 2.55E

- 07 3.08E

- 05 2.57E

- 06 1.81E

- 11 12 11 1.51E

- 12 6.04E

- 12

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

30 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Goldstrike Roaster 1.56E

- 04 1.23E

- 04 1.14E

- 04

Goldstrike Roaster 2.70E

- 05 2.70E

- 05 3.70E

- 05

Goldstrike Roaster 3.67E

- 05 3.26E

- 05 2.47 E

- 05 5.78E

- 04 6.42E

- 05 2.65E

- 09 9 8 2.95E

- 10 8.85E

- 10

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine

quench 8.18E

- 06 5.56E

- 06 5.40E

- 06 1.91E

- 05 6.38E

- 06 2.43E

- 12 3 2 8.09E

- 13 8.09E

- 13

Goldstrike Roaster/Calcine

quench 6.67E

- 06 7.07E

- 06 6.25E

- 06 2.00E

- 05 6.66E

- 06 8.04E

- 05 1.67E

- 13 3 2 5.57E

- 14 2.97E

- 10 5.57E

- 14 8.92E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Ore dryer 4.06E

- 06 8.58E

- 06 5.77E

- 06

Jerritt

Canyon Ore dryer 1.15E

- 06 9.71E

- 06 3.42E

- 06 3.27E

- 05 5.45E

- 06 1.05E

- 11 6 5 1.76E

- 12 3.51E

- 12

Jerritt

Can yon Roaster 4.42E

- 05 4.47E

- 05 5.14E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 4.48E

- 05 2.07E

- 05 2.99E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 7.01E

- 06 7.92E

- 06 8.36E

- 06 2.59E

- 04 2.88E

- 05 3.31E

- 10 9 8 3.68E

- 11 1.10E

- 10

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5.50E

- 05 4.65E

- 05 2.82E

- 05

Jerritt

Canyon Roaster 5.80E

- 06 4.30E

- 06 4.65E

- 06 1.44E

- 04 2.41E

- 05 5.83E

- 05 5.16E

- 10 6 5 8.60E

- 11 1.25E

- 10 1.72E

- 10 2.86E

- 10

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 1.66E

- 05 4.34E

- 05 3.06E

- 05

T win

Creeks Autoclave 2.35E

- 05 7.76E

- 05 8.70E

- 06

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 7.07E

- 05 3.51E

- 05 3.25E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 6.40E

- 05 3.99E

- 05 3.29E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 2.99E

- 05 5.92E

- 05 7.98 E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 3.18E

- 05 2.09E

- 05 1.86E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 2.59E

- 06 2.42E

- 06 2.29E

- 06 7.23E

- 04 3.44E

- 05 5.75E

- 10 21 20 2.74E

- 11 1.92E

- 10

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 3.42E

- 05 1.64E

- 05 1.60E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 2.60E

- 05 1.49E

- 05 1.04E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 1.46E

- 05 2.72E

- 05 2.39E

- 05

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 1.06E

- 05 7.50E

- 06 6.36E

- 06

Twin

Creeks Autoclave 6.12E

- 06 5.74E

- 06 5.88E

- 06 2.26E

- 04 1.51E

- 05 4.95E

- 05 8.16E

- 11 15 14 5.44E

- 12 3.28E

- 11 2.72E

- 11 2.19E

- 10

## ***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

31 Facility Unit Run 1

(lb/ton) Run 2

(lb/ton) Run 3

(lb/ton) Unit sum

(lb/ton) Unit

average

(lb/ton) Facility

total

(lb/ton) Unit

variance No. of

runs per

unit DF

(n

- 1)

per

unit Variance

of unit

average Facility

variance Vw (m =

3 per

unit) Facility

Vw

Average

of top 5: 5.62E

- 05 t DF: 123 Vb: 3.00E

11 Vw

(unpooled

): 3.69E

- 10

56 t(.99): 2.3 6