# DEVELOPMENT OF THE MACT FLOOR S AND MACT FOR THE PROPOSED 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

April 14, 2010

# 1 Development of the MACT Floors and MACT for the Proposed NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production

1. Selection of Affected Source
The Gold Mine Ore Processing and Producti on source category cons ists of facilities
engaged in processing gold ore to recover gol d using roasters, autocl aves, carbon kilns, melt
furnaces, retorts, electrowinning, and preg tanks. There were approximately 21 gold mine ore
processing facilities operating these pr ocesses in the United States in 2008.
The proposed rule would apply to each ne w or existing affected source. We are
proposing MACT standards for mercury emissions fo r three affected sources in the gold mine
ore processing source category that reflect differences in pro cess operations, the sources of
mercury entering the processes, and the nature of the emissions. One affected source is ore
pretreatment , which applies to five existing facilities (although one is not cu rrently operating),
and we have mercury emissions data for all of th ese facilities. The ore pretreatment affected
source includes roasting operations and autoclaves that pretreat re fractory 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. Th e refractory ore is oxidi zed in the roaster or
autoclave, converting it to an “oxidized” ore, whic h can then be effectivel y leached with cyanide
solution. Mercury enters these pr ocesses with the ore. The pote ntial for mercury emissions from
this affected source is directly related to the amount of ore processed in the autoclaves and
roasters; consequently, the appropr iate format for the proposed standard for this affected source
is pounds of mercury emissions (l b) per ton of ore processed (l b/ton of ore). In 2007, the ore
pretreatment sources accounted for approximately 67 percent of the mercury emissions from the

source category. The second proposed affected source is carbon processes, which includes those gold
production operations that use carbon to collect (adsorb) the gold and me rcury from solution and
the process units that follow (i .e., carbon kilns, pregnant tanks, electrowinning cells, retorts and
melt furnaces). Mercury emissions are subsequen tly generated by these process units. In
developing a proposed format for the emission li mit for carbon processes, we examined the use
of loaded carbon, concentrate, and gold producti on in the denominator of a pound per ton format.
In other NESHAP, we have typically used th e amount of feed throughput or the amount of

# 2 product produced in the denominator of the emission limit. Although loaded carbon can be
considered the “primary feed”, we discovered ther e were potential issues with its measurements
(e.g., default values were used for density), we were unsure that the data fr om different facilities
were comparable, and it was not a quantity that has been required to be reported under existing
State regulatory programs. We rejected the us e of gold produced because some facilities do not
produce gold (they send the intermediate product to offsite refineries), some facilities produce
more silver than gold, and the quantity of gold varies depending on the percent of gold in the
product. The primary intermediate product that is common to all of the facilities with these
carbon processes is the gold-bearing concentrate, which is the input to retorts or melt furnaces.
Further, concentrate is closely related to the final product becaus e it contains about 60 percent
gold, and because of its value, it is carefully a nd accurately weighed and r ecords of the quantities
are kept. Concentrate is al so 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 of the
emission limit for the carbon processes is lb/ton of concentrate.
There are approximately 14 fac ilities with the carbon processes, and we have mercury

emissions data for 11 of these facilities. In 2007, the carbon process sources accounted for
approximately 30 percent of the mercury emissions from the source category.
The third proposed affected source is non-carbon concentrate, which 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 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 am ount of concentrate processed;
consequently, the appropriate format for the propos ed standard for this affected source is lb/ton
of concentrate processed. There are about four gold mine ore processing facilities sources with

non-carbon concentrate affected sour ces, and we have mercury emissions data for two of these

facilities. In 2007, the non-carbon concentrate sour ces accounted for approxi mately 3 percent of
the mercury emissions from the source category.
2. Approach for Developing the MACT Floor
Pursuant to Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards for exis ting affected sources must be at least as stringent as the

# 3 average emissions limitation achieved by sour ces in the MACT pool, that is, the best
performing 12 percent of existing affected sour ces for which the Administrator has data for
source categories with 30 or more sources or the best performing 5 sources for source
categories with fewer than 30 sources. This le vel of minimum stringen cy 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 cont rolled similar affected source.

The MACT floor limits for each of the three affected sources were calculated based on
the performance of the lowest emitting (best pe rforming) sources in each of the MACT pool

sources. We ranked all of the sources for wh ich we had valid data representing current
performance based on their emissions and identified the lowest emitting of the existing

affected sources, which included four facilities with ore pretreatment pro cesses, 11 facilities
for those with carbon processes, and two facilitie s with the non-carbon concentrate processes.

For new source MACT, the floor was based on the best performing source in each of the three

affected sources.
The run-by-run data and the details of the statistical calculations are provided in
Appendices A through E.
2.1 Statistical Approach for Existing Sources

To calculate the MACT floor limit for each of the affected sources, we established and
ranked sources’ emissions from lowest to highest . The data on which the limits are based are
expressed in terms of pounds of mercury emitted pe r ton of input, where the gold mine ore is the
input for the ore pretreatment processes and conc entrate is the input for the carbon processes and
the non-carbon concentrate processes.
The emissions data for those best performing a ffected sources were used to determine the
emission limits to be proposed, 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 achieve d by the best performing sources under variable
conditions. The Court has recognized that EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree
of emission reduction achieved by best-performin g 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 estima ting performance achieved by best-performing

# 4 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 calculate the achieved emission limit, including variability, we used the equation :

T df T 

# v t x UPL + =

where:

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

where:



# N

= number of best performing affected sources (2 to 5 for the three affected sources), 

# M i 

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



# n ij 

# = number of mercury emission test runs 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 = the total emission 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 an 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.

# 5 To calculate ij 

# x : 

# ∑

= 

# = ij n

k ijk ij ij 

# x n x

1 

# 1



# where:



# n ij 

# = the 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.

The total variance ( T 

# v 

# ) consists of the followi ng two variance components:

W B T 

# v v v + =

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 in the 

# j th

unit and 

# i th affected source, then the 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 independe ntly, 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 aver age total emission rate over all affected 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 an affected source in the future to determine compliance. The 

# theoretical

formulation of W 

# v based on these 

# future runs is:

# 6 ,, , 2 1 11 

# 1 var( ) var( ) var( ) M Mm

W T new j new jk new j jk 

# 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 the number of units, 

# M , in the affected source
to be tested in the future is unknown and may vary.

However, the theoretical formulatio n informs us how to derive an 

# operational

formulation of W 

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

# N

affected sources:

2
2 1 11 11 

# 11 1 var( ) i i M M Nm 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 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 variability
consists of two components. The first compone nt accounts for the variability of the average
total emissions of the existing lowest emitti ng 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 ma jor portion of the overa ll variability). The
variability factor assumes that variability fr om the individual best performing sources are
independent, and thus are additive. This is a reasonable assumption because each individual
best performing source has certa in characteristics, such as material inputs, design and
operation, etc. that are unique to that process unit.

# 7 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 three 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 th e best performing source.

The total variance of the best pe rforming 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

= 

# ⎛ ⎞

= + ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 

# ∑

,

where 2 1 j 

# s 

# and 1 j 

# n are the variance and number of runs, respectively, from the j th mercuryemitting 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 the mercury emissions data we re obtained from annual testing that was
required by the Nevada Divisi on of Environmental Protec tion (NDEP) for 2007 and 2008. 1



# However, we used data from 2006 for an auto clave that was not tested in 2007 and did not
operate in 2008, we used data from 2009 to re place 2008 test data at one facility that was
invalidated due to not following the procedures in the State’s testing protocol, and we used
2010 test data for the facility th at installed new mercury emissi on controls on its roasters and
resumed operation in late 2009. The tests generall y consist of three runs per test per process

at each affected source. Most of the m easurements were made using EPA Method 29;
however, Method 101A and the Ontario Hydro met hod were used in a few cases. There were
cases where 2007 results represent emissions be fore a control device was installed, and 2008
test results represent emissions after a mercury emission control device had been installed. In
those cases, we used only the 2008 (controlled) te st results to determine the top performing

1 

## A complete listing of the emission test data is provided in a spreadsheet in docket item “Mercury Emissions Test Data” in the rulemaking docket.

# 8 affected sources. Emissions in lb/hr were multiplied by the number of hours the process
operated in 2007 and 2008 and then di vided by the process input rate for the year (in tons) to
express mercury emissions in lb s per ton of input material.
NDEP identified several mercury test s conducted in 2007 and 2008 that were

invalidated because of a failure to follow the re ference test method or the established testing
protocol. As a result, none of the test data fo r Barrick Goldstrike’s roasters and autoclaves for
2008 were used in the analysis. However, we have 2007 and 2009 data for Goldstrike’s

autoclaves and roasters which we did use in the analyses. The 2007 and 2008 tests for the

retorts at Goldstrike were al so invalidated; however, test da ta for 2009 was available for the
retorts and was used in the analysis for the car bon group. Other tests that were invalidated

included the 2007 tests at Coeur Rochester and one of the October 2008 tests at Marigold.

The MACT floor results are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3 for the three affected
sources described earlier: ore pretreatment , carbon, and non-carbon concentrate processes,
respectively. Valid data were available for all five of the facilities with ore pretreatment
processes, two facilities with non-carbon concentrate processes, and 11 facilities with carbon

processes.

Table 1. MACT Floor Results for Ore Pretreatment

Affected Source Average performa nce (lb Hg/million tons ore)


# Goldstrike 62
Lonetree 64 Gold Quarry 69 Jerritt Canyon Mine 90
Twin Creeks Mine 211 Summary of Statistical Analysis Statistic Existing (top 5) New 

# Average (lb/MM tons) 99 62 df 101 48 t 2.36 2.41 Vb 59 275 Vw 964 1,460 Vt 1,020 1,740 99% UPL (lb/MM tons), MACT Floor 175 163

# 9 Table 2. MACT Floor Resu lts for Carbon Processes Affected Source Average performa nce (lb Hg/ton concentrate)


# Round Mountain 0.06 Marigold 0.60
Goldstrike 1.5
Denton-Rawhide 1.8
Twin Creeks Mine 2.9
Cortez 3.1 Gold Quarry 3.7 Ruby Hill 6.9 Florida Canyon Mine 9.7
Lone Tree Mine 21
Bald Mountain 39 Summary of Statistical Analysis Statistic Existing (top 5) New 

# Average (lb/1,000 tons) 1.4 0.06 Df 158 12 t 2.35 2.68 Vb 0.017 0.00045 Vw 0.245 0.00049 Vt 0.26 0.00094 99% UPL (lb/ton), MACT Floor 2.6 0.14

Table 3. MACT Floor Results for Non-Carbon Concentrate Processes

Affected Source Average performa nce (lb Hg/ton concentrate)


# Coeur Rochester Mine 0.07 Midas Operations 0.11 Summary of Statistical Analysis Statistic Existing (top 2) New 

# Average (lb/ton) 0.09 0.07 df 22 7 t 2.51 3.00 Vb 0.00052 0.00076 Vw 0.0034 0.00076 Vt 0.0039 0.0015 99% UPL (lb/ton), MACT Floor 0.25 0.20



# For carbon processes, we also examined the feasibility of an al ternative equivalent
MACT determination for new sources to provide flexibility in determining compliance because
of the wide variety of process co mbinations and variations in input material that may be present

# 10 at future new carbon process sources. A well-es tablished and conventional metric for expressing
the degree of emission control is th e percent control of the target pol lutant. As shown in Table 2,

Round Mountain has the lowest emission rate and is therefore considered the “best controlled
similar source” under section 112(d)(3) of the C AA. Test data were available for 2007 for
Round Mountain when the processes were uncontrol led, for 2008 when the controls were newly

installed, and from 2009 after ove r one year of operation. The test results in Table 4 show
showed a 99.6 percent mercury emission re duction in 2008 when the new carbon adsorption
system was first installed and 93.5 percent re duction in 2009. Based on these results, we are
proposing an alternative MACT floor limit 97 pe rcent reduction in mercury emissions for new
carbon process sources. This alternative fl oor limit was calculated based on the average
reduction achieved by the best performing source in 2008 and 2009.

Table 4. Test Results for Carbon Processes at Round Mountain
Year Mercury emissions (lb/hr) Percent control 

# 2007 (uncontrolled) 0.0255 0 2008 (newly installed controls) 0.00010 99.6 2009 (controls after 1+ years) 0.00165 93.5 Average -- 97

4. Beyond the Floor 2



# To evaluate opportunities for emission reductions beyond those provided by the
MACT floor, we typically identify control tech niques that have the ability to achieve an
emissions limit more stringent than the MACT floor. Facilities with ore pretreatment
processes have installed calom el scrubbers and venturi scr ubbers on their roasters and
autoclaves, respectively, to achieve the MACT floor for ore pretreatment processes. To
achieve further reductions in mercury beyond wh at can be achieved using calomel scrubbers

and venturi scrubbers, we iden tified as a beyond-the-floor op tion the installation of both a
refrigeration unit and a carbon adsorber on autocl aves. This additional control system would
follow the existing venturi scrubbers, and because the exhaust is saturated with water, a
refrigeration unit or condense r would be required to remove water that wo uld otherwise
adversely affect the adsorptive cap acity of the carbon adsorber.
We estimate the capital cost for the add itional controls on the autoclaves as $890,000

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).

# 11 with a total annualized cost of $720,000/yr. Mercury emission s would be reduced by 543 lbs,
resulting in an estimated cost effectiveness of $1,300/lb. Energy consumption would increase
by about 730 megawatt-hours per ye ar, primarily due to the refr igeration unit. Solid waste
generation and disposal (spent carbon loaded with mercury) would increase by about 3 tons
per year. With this additional control, facilities with ore pretreatment processes could achieve
an average performance of 90 lb/million tons of ore or less. Applying the UPL formula

discussed earlier to account for variability, the 99th percenti le UPL would be 149 lb/million
tons of ore (see Table 5).
Table 5. Beyond the Floor Results for Ore Pretreatment

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


# Goldstrike 62 Twin Creeks Mine (70% reduction) 63
Lonetree 64 Gold Quarry 69 Jerritt Canyon Mine 90 Summary of Statistical Analysis Statistic 

# Average achieved by all (lb/MM tons) 90 df 101 t 2.36 Vb 42.5 Vw 585 Vt 628 Affected Source 99% UPL (lb/MM tons) 149



# For the carbon processes, we estimate that 9 of the 11 facilities for which we have data
will need to improve control to meet the floor limits because these 9 plants have an average
emission control performance that is above th e MACT floor average performance. There are
a few facilities in the middle of the rankings that will probably only need marginal
improvements, but several facilities (especially those at the bottom of the ranking that average
several times the floor average) will need significant improvements in mercury emission
control. We estimate that the MACT floor limit for the carbon processes will reduce
emissions by about 1,100 lbs per year, a reduc tion of 89 percent from current levels. Our
estimates of impacts for the MACT floor indi cate that almost all of the carbon processes
currently have or soon will have carbon adsorbers installed to effectively control mercury

# 12 emissions (e.g., as a result of this proposed MACT standard or in response to the NDEP
program). A beyond-the-floor analysis for this case is quite difficult because all of the
processes are or will be equi pped with efficient mercury emi ssion controls, and it is quite
difficult to identify a technology that might be ap plied to get additional controls, especially
considering the very low mercury concentrations after control and the difficulty in obtaining
efficient additional percent reductions for low concentration streams. For a beyond-the-floor
analysis, we assumed that theoretically a s econd carbon adsorption system could be installed
in series with the first one and would get an additional reduction of 90 percent. (We
acknowledge that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the additional pe rcent reduction the
redundant control system might ach ieve.) The capital cost was estimated as $3.2 million with
a total annualized cost of about $1.2 million/yr . The emission reduction would be only 12 lbs

per year. For the non-carbon concentrate processes, we estimate that the MACT floor limit will
result in an emission reduction for Midas Op erations, which has an average performance
above the floor average. We concluded that em issions at this facili ty would be reduced by
adding a carbon adsorber to their melt furnace to achieve the 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 plants. We estimated th e capital cost for the second set of control systems as $0.7 million and a to tal annualized cost of $306,000/year. Emissions would be
reduced by 7 lb/year.13Appendix A. Mercury Emissions Data for the Ore Pretreatment Affected Source (lb/ton of ore)Facility Unit CodeRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofrunsper unitDF (n-1)per unitVariance ofunit averageFacilityvarianceVw (m =3 perunit)FacilityVwGold Quarry Calcine quench 1.4E-05 9.6E-06 1.4E-05Gold Quarry Calcine quench 1.1E-05 1.3E-05 1.7E-05 1.3E-05 6.7E-12 6 5 1.1E-12 2.2E-12Gold Quarry Roaster Ore Preheater 1.3E-05 5.4E-06 4.5E-06Gold Quarry Roaster Ore Preheater 2.6E-05 2.5E-05 1.5E-04 3.8E-05 3.3E-09 6 5 5.5E-10 1.1E-09Gold Quarry Roaster 9.0E-07 7.0E-07 7.9E-07Gold Quarry Roaster 1.3E-06 1.6E-06 6.2E-07 9.8E-07 1.5E-13 6 5 2.4E-14 4.9E-14Gold Quarry Roaster Ore Grinder 1.7E-06 2.1E-06 1.5E-06Gold Quarry Roaster Ore Grinder 1.5E-06 4.8E-06 1.8E-06 2.2E-06 1.7E-12 6 5 2.8E-13 5.6E-13Gold Quarry Calcine quench 1.7E-05 1.4E-05 9.5E-06Gold Quarry Calcine quench 1.3E-05 1.5E-05 2.1E-05 1.5E-05 6.9E-05 1.5E-11 6 5 2.6E-12 5.6E-10 5.1E-12 1.1E-09Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 3.2E-07 5.0E-07 3.6E-07Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 2.6E-04 2.6E-05 1.4E-05Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 2.4E-05 5.1E-06 7.9E-07Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.6E-07 6.0E-07 5.2E-07Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 1.8E-06 1.4E-06 2.6E-07Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 2.2E-06 1.1E-06 2.6E-07 1.9E-05 3.8E-09 18 17 2.1E-10 1.3E-09Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.7E-06 4.7E-06 1.7E-06Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 7.2E-06 5.2E-06 7.2E-06Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 8.5E-07 8.5E-07 3.9E-07Goldstrike Roaster Ore Preheater 1.6E-06 8.5E-07 3.9E-07 3.3E-06 9.6E-12 12 11 8.0E-13 3.2E-12Goldstrike Roaster 7.2E-05 5.7E-05 5.3E-05Goldstrike Roaster 1.3E-05 1.3E-05 1.7E-05Goldstrike Roaster 2.0E-05 1.7E-05 1.3E-05 3.0E-05 5.5E-10 9 8 6.1E-11 1.8E-10Goldstrike Calcine quench 4.3E-06 3.0E-06 2.9E-06 3.4E-06 6.9E-13 3 2 2.3E-13 2.3E-13Goldstrike Calcine quench 3.5E-06 3.8E-06 3.3E-06 3.5E-06 4.7E-14 3 2 1.6E-14 1.6E-14Goldstrike Autoclave 2.6E-07 4.0E-07 4.7E-07 3.8E-07 1.2E-14 3 2 3.9E-15 3.9E-15Goldstrike Autoclave 6.6E-07 7.7E-07 5.5E-07 6.6E-07 1.2E-14 3 2 4.1E-15 4.1E-15Goldstrike Autoclave 1.4E-06 1.6E-07 1.8E-07 5.9E-07 5.2E-13 3 2 1.7E-13 1.7E-13Goldstrike Autoclave 1.4E-06 8.3E-07 4.6E-07 9.0E-07 6.2E-05 2.3E-13 3 2 7.7E-14 2.7E-10 7.7E-14 1.5E-09Lone Tree Autoclave 8.9E-05 5.0E-05 5.3E-05 6.4E-05 6.4E-05 4.6E-10 3 2 1.5E-10 1.5E-10 1.5E-10 1.5E-10Twin Creeks Autoclave 5.5E-05 1.4E-04 1.0E-04Twin Creeks Autoclave 7.8E-05 2.6E-04 2.9E-05Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.4E-04 1.2E-04 1.1E-04Twin Creeks Autoclave 2.1E-04 1.3E-04 1.1E-04Twin Creeks Autoclave 1.0E-04 2.0E-04 2.7E-04 1.4E-04 5.5E-09 15 14 3.6E-10 1.8E-09Twin Creeks Autoclave 1.1E-04 5.5E-05 5.3E-05Twin Creeks Autoclave 8.7E-05 5.0E-05 3.5E-05Twin Creeks Autoclave 4.9E-05 9.1E-05 8.0E-05 6.8E-05 2.1E-04 6.7E-10 9 8 7.4E-11 4.4E-10 2.2E-10 2.0E-09Jerritt Canyon Ore dryer 1.4E-05 2.9E-05 1.9E-05 2.0E-05Jerritt Canyon Roaster 3.4E-05 3.4E-05 4.0E-05 3.6E-059.5E-12 3 2 3.2E-12 3.2E-12Jerritt Canyon Roaster 4.2E-05 3.6E-05 2.2E-05 3.3E-05 9.0E-05 1.1E-10 3 2 3.7E-11 4.0E-11 3.7E-11 4.0E-11Average top 5:9.9E-05t DF: 101 Vb: 5.9E-11 Vw: 9.6E-10t(.99): 2.3614Appendix B. Mercury Emissions Data for the CarbonProcesses Affected Source (lb/ton concentrate)Facility UnitRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofruns DFVarianceof unitaverageFacilityvarianceVw (m = 3per unit)FacilityVwMarigold Refine circuit 3.7E-01 5.4E-01 4.3E-01 4.5E-01 7.9E-03 3 2 2.6E-03 2.6E-03Marigold Refine circuit 7.7E-02 1.1E-01 9.1E-02 9.4E-02 3.5E-04 3 2 1.2E-04 1.2E-04Marigold Refine circuit 8.5E-02 4.1E-02 2.5E-02 5.0E-02 9.5E-04 3 2 3.2E-04 3.2E-04Marigold Carbon Kiln 7.5E-03 6.3E-03 7.0E-03 6.9E-03 6.0E-01 3.8E-07 3 2 1.3E-07 3.1E-03 1.3E-07 3.1E-03Denton-Rawhide Carbon Kiln 3.2E-03 3.5E-03 1.7E-02Denton-Rawhide Carbon Kiln 1.2E-02 6.5E-03 2.1E-03 7.2E-03 3.3E-05 6 5 5.5E-06 1.1E-05Denton-Rawhide Electrowinning 6.5E-04 2.4E-04 6.4E-03Denton-Rawhide Electrowinning 1.4E-02 2.6E-03 3.2E-03 4.5E-03 2.6E-05 6 5 4.4E-06 8.7E-06Denton-Rawhide Refinery Furnace 8.9E-01 1.8E+00 1.5E+00Denton-Rawhide Refinery Furnace 3.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.2E+00 1.8E+00 9.5E-01 6 5 1.6E-01 3.2E-01Denton-Rawhide Retort 5.8E-05 6.3E-05 7.2E-05Denton-Rawhide Retort 4.6E-05 1.5E-05 1.4E-05 4.5E-05 1.8E+00 6.2E-10 6 5 1.0E-10 1.6E-01 2.1E-10 3.2E-01Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 5.4E+00 9.7E-01 5.6E-01Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 4.3E-01 6.2E-01 4.2E-01Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 1.4E+00 1.5E+00 1.3E+00Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.6E+00Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 1.4E+00 1.5E+00 1.3E+00Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 6.4E-01 9.1E-01 4.0E-01Goldstrike Carbon Kiln #2-Drum 2.4E-02 3.2E-02 3.8E-02 1.1E+00 1.3E+00 21 20 6.0E-02 4.2E-01Goldstrike Electrowinning Cells 1.6E-01 1.8E-01 2.0E-01Goldstrike Electrowinning Cells 2.7E-01 3.9E-01 2.2E-01Goldstrike Electrowinning Cells 1.1E-01 7.1E-02 1.6E-01 2.0E-01 9.0E-03 9 8 1.0E-03 3.0E-03Goldstrike Furnaces/EW Cells 2.9E-02 7.4E-02 2.3E-02Goldstrike Furnaces/EW Cells 4.6E-02 1.3E-01 2.1E-01 8.5E-02 5.2E-03 6 5 8.7E-04 1.7E-03Goldstrike Preg and Barren A Tanks 2.1E-02 1.4E-02 7.3E-03Goldstrike Preg and Barren A Tanks 2.8E-03 3.2E-03 4.0E-03 8.7E-03 5.3E-05 6 5 8.8E-06 1.8E-05Goldstrike Preg and Barren B Tanks 4.0E-03 1.3E-02 1.2E-02Goldstrike Preg and Barren B Tanks 3.2E-03 2.0E-03 2.2E-03 6.1E-03 2.6E-05 6 5 4.4E-06 8.8E-06Goldstrike Retort 1 5.9E-02 4.8E-02 3.3E-02 4.7E-02 1.7E-04 3 2 5.8E-05 5.8E-05Goldstrike Retort 2 3.0E-02 1.5E-02 1.2E-02 1.9E-02 8.9E-05 3 2 3.0E-05 3.0E-05Goldstrike Retort 3 5.8E-02 6.7E-02 6.3E-02 6.3E-02 1.8E-05 3 2 6.1E-06 6.1E-06Round Mountain EW Cells 1.8E-02 7.9E-02 1.9E-02 3.9E-02 1.2E-03 3 2 4.1E-04 4.1E-04Round Mountain Furnace 1.5E-041.8E-03 1.8E-03Round Mountain Furnace 3.5E-02 9.6E-03 1.8E-02 1.1E-02 1.8E-04 6 5 3.0E-05 6.1E-05Round Mountain Kiln and P/B Tanks 2.6E-03 2.9E-03 1.6E-03Round Mountain Kiln and P/B Tanks 1.5E-02 1.0E-02 1.6E-02 8.0E-03 5.8E-02 4.3E-05 6 5 7.2E-06 4.5E-04 1.4E-05 4.8E-04Twin Creeks Mine Electrowinning 2.3E-02 1.2E-01 4.9E-01Twin Creeks Mine Electrowinning 1.7E+00 1.1E+00 1.2E+00 7.7E-01 4.5E-01 6 5 7.5E-02 1.5E-01Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (New)4.2E-01 1.2E-01 2.9E-01Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (New)4.8E-01 1.4E-01 3.9E-0115Facility UnitRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofruns DFVarianceof unitaverageFacilityvarianceVw (m = 3per unit)FacilityVwTwin Creeks Mine Furnace (New) 6.6E-02 1.9E-02 4.8E-02 2.2E-013.2E-02 9 8 3.5E-03 1.1E-02Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old)1.0E+00 4.2E-01 6.5E-01Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old)2.2E+00 8.5E-01 9.3E-01Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old)2.2E-02 6.4E-02 9.3E-02Twin Creeks Mine Furnace (Old) 7.8E-02 4.1E-02 2.7E-02 5.4E-01 4.3E-01 12 11 3.6E-02 1.4E-01Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Carbon Kiln 2.2E-01 2.3E-02 9.6E-02Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Carbon Kiln 2.8E-01 1.1E-01 9.1E-02Twin Creeks Mine Juniper Carbon Kiln 7.5E-02 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.3E-01 6.1E-03 9 8 6.7E-04 2.0E-03Twin Creeks Mine Preg/Barren Solution Tanks 2.1E+00 1.9E+00 3.6E-01Twin Creeks Mine Preg/Barren Solution Tanks 8.2E-01 1.7E+00 7.8E-01 1.3E+00 5.3E-01 6 5 8.8E-02 1.8E-01Twin Creeks Mine Retort A 8.1E-04 1.2E-03 2.4E-03Twin Creeks Mine Retort A 4.2E-03 5.0E-03 1.0E-02Twin Creeks Mine Retort A 2.6E-03 6.7E-04 1.1E-03 3.1E-03 9.6E-06 9 8 1.1E-06 3.2E-06Twin Creeks Mine Retort B 3.5E-04 1.3E-03 1.4E-03Twin Creeks Mine Retort B 1.6E-03 5.7E-03 2.8E-03Twin Creeks Mine Retort B 5.1E-04 2.5E-03 5.1E-04 1.8E-03 2.8E-06 9 8 3.1E-079.3E-07Twin Creeks Mine Retort C 7.6E-04 3.0E-03 5.4E-03Twin Creeks Mine Retort C 7.5E-05 2.5E-04 3.1E-04Twin Creeks Mine Retort C 4.7E-04 3.4E-03 4.1E-03 2.0E-03 4.0E-06 9 8 4.5E-071.3E-06Twin Creeks Mine Retort D 2.2E-05 5.5E-03 2.1E-03Twin Creeks Mine Retort D 6.5E-04 4.8E-04 1.7E-04Twin Creeks Mine Retort D 1.2E-04 2.7E-04 5.0E-04 1.1E-03 2.9E+00 3.1E-06 9 8 3.5E-07 2.0E-01 1.0E-06 4.8E-01Average of top 5:1.4E+00t DF: 158 Vb: 1.7E-02 Vw: 2.5E-01t(.99): 2.35Bald Mountain Barren Tank Stack 1.2E-02 4.7E-03 3.6E-03 6.7E-03Bald Mountain Bullion Furnace 1.1E+00 9.7E-01 7.5E-01Bald Mountain Bullion Furnace 1.4E+00 8.3E-01 1.0E+00Bald Mountain Carbon Regeneration Kiln 7.3E-03 7.3E-03 1.1E-02Bald Mountain Carbon Regeneration Kiln 3.6E-02 3.7E-02 7.1E-03 1.8E-02Bald Mountain Electrowinning Cells 3.1E+00 5.3E+00 8.8E+00Bald Mountain Electrowinning Cells 8.3E+01 6.9E+01 7.2E+01Bald Mountain Electrowinning Cells 2.7E+01 3.1E+014.0E+01 3.8E+01Bald Mountain Retort 1.4E-03 6.3E-03 3.0E-03Bald Mountain Retort 2.8E-03 3.8E-03 3.2E-03 3.4E-03 3.9E+01Cortez EW Cell #1 2.6E-02 1.9E-02 3.0E-02 2.5E-02Cortez EW Cell #2 1.4E-02 3.5E-03 6.3E-03 8.0E-03Cortez Induction Furnace #1 2.0E+00 1.9E+00 5.0E+00 3.0E+00Cortez Kiln #1 1.3E-02 9.4E-03 3.7E-03 8.5E-03Cortez Kiln #2 1.1E-03 6.4E-04 2.9E-03 1.6E-03Cortez PB Tanks 1.0E-01 1.6E-01 8.8E-02 1.2E-01 3.1E+00Florida Canyon Mine Carbon Kiln 1.0E+00 5.5E-01 6.7E-01Florida Canyon Mine Carbon Kiln 1.3E+01 2.0E+01 2.0E+0116Facility UnitRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofruns DFVarianceof unitaverageFacilityvarianceVw (m = 3per unit)FacilityVwFlorida Canyon Mine Carbon Kiln 3.9E+00 4.2E+001.8E+01 9.1E+00Florida Canyon Mine Dore Furnace 3.2E-01 8.3E-03 1.7E-02Florida Canyon Mine Dore Furnace 1.5E-02 2.0E-02 5.1E-02 7.1E-02Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell A 2.7E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell A 1.0E+00 1.5E-01 8.1E-01 5.0E-01Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell B 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 7.1E-02Florida Canyon Mine Electrowinning Cell B 7.6E-02 3.4E-02 4.6E-02 7.2E-02Florida Canyon Mine Retort 1 3.1E-05 1.6E-05 1.3E-05Florida Canyon Mine Retort 2 2.6E-03 1.2E-03 2.9E-04Florida Canyon Mine Retorts 1& 2 2.7E-03 1.3E-03 3.0E-04Florida Canyon Mine Retorts 1 & 2 6.9E-05 5.3E-05 6.2E-05 7.3E-04 9.7E+00Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning East 1.4E+00 7.7E-01 1.2E+00Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning East 7.0E-01 6.1E+00 7.8E-01 1.8E+00Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning Scavenger 1.9E-01 7.1E+00 7.8E-02Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning Scavenger 6.2E+00 2.5E-01 1.0E-01 2.3E+00Lone Tree Mine Electrowinning West 2.7E+00 1.3E+00 5.0E-01 1.5E+00Lone Tree Mine Pregnant & Barren Tanks 2.0E+00 3.3E+00 1.7E+01Lone Tree Mine Pregnant & Barren Tanks 9.2E+00 2.1E+01 3.7E+01 1.5E+01 2.1E+01Ruby Hill Carbon Kiln 1.2E+00 1.1E+00 7.3E-01Ruby Hill EW Cells 8.9E-01 4.7E-01 1.4E+01Ruby Hill Furnace 1.4E+00 2.7E-01Ruby Hill Retort 1.8E-05 2.1E-05 1.4E-05Gold Quarry AARL Carbon Kiln 3.5E+00 3.6E+00 3.9E+00Gold Quarry AARL Carbon Kiln 7.5E-01 3.9E-01 5.6E-01 2.1E+00 2.9E+00 6 5 4.86E-01 9.72E-01Gold Quarry EW Cells / Barren Tank 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 4.6E-02Gold Quarry EW Cells / Barren Tank 7.3E-02 6.7E-02 5.9E-02 5.6E-02 1.6E-04 6 5 2.72E-05 5.45E-05Gold Quarry Pregnant Tanks 2.3E-01 2.4E-01 3.7E-01Gold Quarry Pregnant Tanks 3.4E-01 6.1E-02 1.3E+00Gold Quarry Pregnant Tanks 3.8E-03 2.4E-01 5.4E-01 3.7E-01 1.4E-01 9 8 1.61E-02 4.82E-02Gold Quarry Refinery Furnaces2.3E+00 5.3E-01 1.3E+00Gold Quarry Refinery Furnaces 2.6E-02 6.6E-03 1.8E-01 7.2E-018.5E-01 6 5 1.42E-01 2.83E-01Gold Quarry Retort Stacks 1-3 3.7E-02 8.2E-02 4.3E-02 5.4E-02 5.9E-04 3 2 1.96E-04 1.96E-04Gold Quarry Retort Stacks 4-6 1.3E-01 9.8E-02 8.9E-02 1.1E-01 4.6E-04 3 2 1.52E-04 1.52E-04Gold Quarry Zadra Carbon Kiln 9.2E-01 6.0E-01 4.9E-01Gold Quarry Zadra Carbon Kiln 5.6E-02 6.3E-02 7.9E-02Gold Quarry Zadra Carbon Kiln 5.9E-02 7.1E-02 9.0E-02 2.7E-01 3.7E+00 1.0E-01 9 8 1.14E-02 6.6E-01 3.43E-02 1.34E+0017Appendix C. Mercury Emissions Data for the Non-Carbon Concentrate Affected Source (lb/ton concentrate)Facility Unit TypeRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofruns DFVarianceof unitaverageFacilityvarianceVw (m= 3 perunit)FacilityVwCoeur Rochester Refinery Furnace 6.0E-02 1.2E-01 2.3E-02 6.7E-02 2.3E-03 3 2 7.5E-047.5E04Coeur Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 3.4E-03 9.2E-05 2.1E-03Coeur Rochester Retorts #1 & #2 2.9E-04 1.5E-02 4.2E-03 4.2E-03 7.1E-02 3.2E-05 6 5 5.3E-06 7.6E-041.1E05 7.6E-04Midas Operations Refinery Furnace #1 1.2E-01 5.4E-02 2.5E-02Midas Operations Refinery Furnace #2 5.0E-02 1.6E-01 2.0E-02Midas Operations Refinery Furnace 1 & 2 1.7E-01 2.2E-01 4.4E-02Midas Operations Refinery Furnace 1 & 2 1.6E-02 2.6E-02 4.5E-02 8.7E-02 7.3E-03 6 5 1.2E-032.4E03Midas Operations Retort A 2.3E-03 1.8E-03 1.5E-03Midas Operations Retort A 1.3E-03 6.0E-02 3.4E-02 1.7E-02 6.2E-04 6 5 1.0E-042.1E04Midas Operations Retort B 2.8E-04 1.1E-05 7.4E-06Midas Operations Retort B 4.2E-03 4.5E-03 5.7E-03 2.4E-03 1.1E-01 6.8E-06 6 5 1.1E-06 1.3E-032.3E06 2.6E-03Average of top 5:8.9E-02 2.0E-03 t DF: 22 Vb: 5.2E-04 Vw: 3.4E-03t(.99): 2.5118Appendix D. NewSource MACT FloorsORE PRETREATMENT GROUPFacility Unit TypeRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofruns perunitDF (n-1)per unitVar ofunitaverageFacilityvarianceVw (m = 3per unit)FacilityVwGoldstrike Roaster Mill #1 3.23E-07 5.03E-07 3.60E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 1 2.65E-04 2.65E-05 1.39E-05GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 1 2.35E-05 5.04E-06 7.85E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 1 8.61E-07 5.96E-07 5.17E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 1 1.79E-06 1.39E-06 2.65E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 1 2.19E-06 1.13E-06 2.65E-07 1.92E-05 3.83E-0918 17 2.13E-10 1.28E-09Goldstrike Roaster Mill #2 8.68E-06 4.71E-06 1.71E-06GoldstrikeSouth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 2 7.21E-06 5.24E-06 7.21E-06GoldstrikeSouth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 2 8.52E-07 8.52E-07 3.93E-07GoldstrikeSouth Dry grinding process andpre-heater - Mill 2 1.64E-06 8.52E-07 3.93E-07 3.31E-06 9.58E-1212 11 7.98E-13 3.19E-12Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 7.25E-05 5.71E-05 5.26E-05Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 1.25E-05 1.25E-05 1.71E-05Goldstrike Roaster Exhaust 1.95E-05 1.73E-05 1.32E-05 3.05E-05 5.47E-10 9 8 6.08E-11 1.82E-10Goldstrike Roaster #1 Quench Tank 4.35E-06 2.96E-06 2.87E-06 3.39E-06 6.86E-13 3 2 2.29E-13 2.29E-13Goldstrike Roaster #2 Quench Tank 3.55E-06 3.76E-06 3.32E-06 3.54E-06 4.72E-14 3 2 1.57E-14 1.57E-14Goldstrike Autoclave 1 2.59E-07 4.01E-07 4.70E-07 3.77E-07 1.16E-14 3 2 3.87E-15 3.87E-15Goldstrike Autoclave 2/3 6.57E-07 7.71E-07 5.50E-07 6.59E-07 1.23E-14 3 2 4.09E-15 4.09E-15Goldstrike Autoclave 4 1.42E-06 1.65E-07 1.81E-07 5.90E-07 5.21E-13 3 2 1.74E-13 1.74E-13Goldstrike Autoclave 5/6 1.42E-06 8.32E-07 4.62E-07 9.03E-07 6.24E-05 2.32E-13 3 2 7.72E-14 2.75E-10 7.72E-14 1.46E-0948Average =6.2E-05DF =48t =2.41Vb =2.75E-10Vw =1.46E-09Vt =1.74E-09Facility99% UPL =1.63E-0419CARBON PROCESSES GROUPFacility Unit TypeRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofruns perunitDF (n-1)per unitVar ofunitaverageFacilityvarianceVw (m = 3per unit)FacilityVwRoundMountain EW Cells 1.82E-02 7.93E-02 1.90E-02 3.88E-02 1.23E-03 3 2 4.09E-04 4.09E-04RoundMountain Furnace 1.49E-04 1.80E-03 1.77E-03RoundMountain Furnace 3.49E-02 9.59E-031.85E-02 1.11E-02 1.83E-046 5 3.05E-05 6.10E-05RoundMountain Kiln and P/B Tanks 2.57E-03 2.86E-03 1.56E-03RoundMountain Kiln and P/B Tanks 1.52E-02 1.02E-02 1.59E-02 8.05E-03 5.80E-02 4.33E-05 6 5 7.22E-06 4.47E-04 1.44E-05 4.85E-0412Average =5.8E-02DF =12t =2.68Vb =4.47E-04Vw =4.85E-04Vt =9.32E-04Facility99% UPL =1.40E-01NON-CARBON CONCENTRATE GROUPFacility Unit TypeRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofruns perunitDF (n-1)per unitVar ofunitaverageFacilityvarianceVw (m = 3per unit)FacilityVwCoeurRochester Refinery Furnace 5.96E-02 1.17E-01 2.28E-02 6.65E-02 2.26E-03 3 2 7.53E-04 7.53E-04CoeurRochester Retorts #1 & #2 3.43E-03 9.24E-05 2.13E-03CoeurRochester Retorts #1 & #2 2.93E-04 1.53E-02 4.20E-03 4.24E-03 7.08E-02 3.21E-05 6 5 5.34E-06 7.58E-04 1.07E-05 7.63E-047Average =7.1E-02DF =7t =3.00Vb =7.58E-04Vw =7.63E-04Vt =1.52E-03Facility99% UPL =2E-0120Appendix E. Beyond the Floor – Ore PretreatmentFacility Unit TypeRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofrunsper unit DFVar ofunitaverageFacilityvariance Vw (m = 3 per unit)FacilityVwGold Quarry North Quench Circuit 1.35E-05 9.56E-06 1.37E-05Gold Quarry North Quench Circuit 1.05E-05 1.33E-05 1.69E-05 1.29E-05 6.72E-12 6 5 1.12E-12 2.24E-12Gold Quarry Ore Preheater 1.27E-05 5.41E-06 4.53E-06Gold Quarry Ore Preheater 2.63E-05 2.50E-05 1.54E-04 3.80E-05 3.32E-09 6 5 5.54E-10 1.11E-09Gold Quarry Ore Roaster 8.99E-07 6.97E-07 7.87E-07Gold Quarry Ore Roaster 1.27E-06 1.61E-06 6.19E-07 9.80E-07 1.46E-13 6 5 2.44E-14 4.88E-14Gold Quarry ROTP: Ore Dry Grind 1.66E-06 2.06E-06 1.48E-06Gold Quarry ROTP: Ore Dry Grind 1.50E-06 4.82E-06 1.75E-06 2.21E-06 1.67E-12 6 5 2.79E-13 5.58E-13Gold Quarry South Quench Circuit 1.67E-05 1.36E-05 9.55E-06Gold Quarry South Quench Circuit 1.27E-05 1.46E-05 2.11E-05 1.47E-05 6.89E-05 1.54E-11 6 5 2.57E-12 5.58E-10 5.14E-12 1.12E-09Goldstrike Roaster Mill #1 3.23E-07 5.03E-07 3.60E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 1 2.62E-04 2.62E-05 1.37E-05GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 1 2.35E-05 5.04E-06 7.85E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 1 8.50E-07 5.89E-07 5.10E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 1 1.77E-06 1.37E-06 2.62E-07GoldstrikeNorth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 1 2.16E-06 1.11E-06 2.62E-07 1.89E-05 3.73E-0918 17 2.07E-10 1.24E-09Goldstrike Roaster Mill #2 8.68E-06 4.71E-06 1.71E-06GoldstrikeSouth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 2 7.21E-06 5.24E-06 7.21E-06GoldstrikeSouth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 2 8.52E-07 8.52E-07 3.93E-07GoldstrikeSouth Dry grinding processand pre-heater - Mill 2 1.64E-06 8.52E-07 3.93E-07 3.31E-06 9.58E-1212 11 7.98E-13 3.19E-12Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 7.25E-05 5.71E-05 5.26E-05Goldstrike Roaster 1 & 2 1.25E-05 1.25E-05 1.71E-05Goldstrike Roaster Exhaust 1.95E-05 1.73E-05 1.32E-05 3.05E-05 5.47E-10 9 8 6.08E-11 1.82E-10Goldstrike Roaster #1 Quench Tank 4.35E-06 2.96E-06 2.87E-06 3.39E-06 6.86E-13 3 2 2.29E-13 2.29E-13Goldstrike Roaster #2 Quench Tank 3.55E-06 3.76E-06 3.32E-06 3.54E-06 4.72E-14 3 2 1.57E-14 1.57E-14Goldstrike Autoclave 1 2.59E-07 4.01E-07 4.70E-07 3.77E-07 1.16E-14 3 2 3.87E-15 3.87E-15Goldstrike Autoclave 2/3 6.57E-07 7.71E-07 5.50E-07 6.59E-07 1.23E-14 3 2 4.09E-15 4.09E-15Goldstrike Autoclave 4 1.42E-06 1.65E-07 1.81E-07 5.90E-07 5.21E-13 3 2 1.74E-13 1.74E-13Goldstrike Autoclave 5/6 1.42E-06 8.32E-07 4.62E-07 9.03E-07 6.22E-05 2.32E-13 3 2 7.72E-14 2.69E-10 7.72E-14 1.43E-09Lone Tree Autoclave 8.90E-05 5.03E-05 5.33E-05 6.42E-05 6.42E-05 4.64E-10 3 2 1.55E-10 1.55E-10 1.55E-10 1.55E-10Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 1.66E-05 4.34E-05 3.06E-05Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 2.35E-05 7.76E-05 8.70E-06Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 7.07E-05 3.51E-05 3.25E-05Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 6.40E-05 3.99E-05 3.29E-05Twin Creeks Autoclave 1 2.99E-05 5.92E-05 7.98E-05 4.30E-05 4.92E-10 15 14 3.28E-11 1.64E-10Twin Creeks Autoclave 2 3.42E-05 1.64E-05 1.60E-05Twin Creeks Autoclave 2 2.60E-05 1.49E-05 1.04E-0521Facility Unit TypeRun 1(lb/ton)Run 2(lb/ton)Run 3(lb/ton)Unitaverage(lb/ton)Facilitytotal(lb/ton)UnitvarianceNo. ofrunsper unit DFVar ofunitaverageFacilityvariance Vw (m = 3 per unit)FacilityVwTwin Creeks Autoclave 2 1.46E-05 2.72E-05 2.39E-05 2.04E-05 6.34E-05 6.01E-11 9 8 6.68E-12 3.95E-11 2.00E-11 1.84E-10Jerritt Canyon Ore dryer 2.03E-05 2.03E-05Jerritt Canyon Roaster West 3.40E-05 3.44E-05 3.96E-053.60E-05 9.53E-12 3 2 3.18E-12 3.18E-12Jerritt Canyon Roaster East 4.23E-05 3.58E-05 2.17E-05 3.33E-05 8.96E-05 1.11E-103 2 3.70E-11 4.02E-11 3.70E-11 4.02E-116.96E-05t DF: 101 Vb: 4.25E-11 Vw (unpooled): 5.85E-10t(.99): 2.36Average achieved =8.96E-05DF =101t =2.36Vb =4.25E-11Vw =5.85E-10Vt =6.28E-10Facility 99% UPL =1.49E-04