Mayo Monofill General Permit File (18)

Georgoulias, Bethany
From: Romanski, Autumn
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 145 PM
To: Georgoulias, Bethany
Subject: RE- Mayo Steam Plant CCR Monofill
Bethany,
Missed you this (am) at the ITOC Meeting. I brought over the Mayo file to discuss.
Can we enforce the conditions added to the general permit via the cover letter? Is there any precedence for this?
The list of analytes — I would add Molybdenum, and Barium, if possible I suggest this after reviewing the leaching data
published on Fly Ash, Gypsum, and FGD. Evaluating the Fate of Metals in Air pollution control residues from coal fired
power plants Environ. Sa and Tech 2010.
The other comment is that boron (already in permit), chloride, and possibly sulfate and fluoride may concentrate in
wastewaters associated with the new evaporative process and be present Would be good to have a baseline that's
includes these analytes.
Also going forward the Mayo investigative report identified Al, Mn, and TDS as challenges Would be good to have Fe,
Mn, Al, as these are constituents seen in many types of Landfill settings.
TDS may be more helpful than conductivity as a general measure of pollutants of interest in dissolved form (in this case)
but understand reporting conductivity would not require running a lab sample.
Hardness would be ideal to understand — but I have yet to see any DWR movement on sampling hardness in conjunction
with metals testing
I hope these comments are helpful and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me
The draft permit was well written and your work to ensure data /monitoring needs are met is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Autumn Romanski
tJ14
red, pr+exsKaaeR orpt
Email correspondence to and from this address is
subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the
content is exempt by statute or other regulation