NC0025071_Correspondence_19910225

`> �J it 5 1991
14 ati1: i.)i t TAX MAKAGEMIO
� City of Eden 1991
M602 5-071
February 25, 1991
Dr. George T. Everett, Director
Division., of Environmental Management
N. C. Deprtment of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Dr. Everett:
SUBJECT: MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP - SOC WQ 89-54
DRY CREEK WWTP - SOC WQ 89-55
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PERMITS
ADMI COLOR LIMITATIONS
The subject SOC's require the city to:
"Modify Pretreatment Permits to include color limitations
for all significant Industrial Users which have a potential
to discharge color at levels exceeding the sewer use
ordinance on or before March 1, 1991.11,
This letter is to advise you that as of this date the
Pretreatment permits for the following industries have been
revised to include ADMI color limits:
Sara Lee Knit Products (Pannill'Knitting Company, Inc.)
Pluma, Inc.
Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. Blanket Finishing Mill
Karastan Rug Mill
Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. Draper Dye House
No other industrial dischargers have the potential for
discharging color at levels which may exceed the city's sewer use
ordinance.
All of the industrial users listed above now have 300 ADMI
color unit limits in their permits with the following notation:
350 West Stadium Drive • Eden. North Carolina 27288-3299 • Fax [phone]

If the Permittee's discharge exceeds 300 ADMI color limits
for the Daily Maximum or Weekly Average Limits the Permittee
shall be surcharged for color removal based on a formula
determined by the Director of Public Utilities of the City
of Eden. This surcharge shall become effective no later
than September 30, 1992."
If you require further information on this matter, please
call me at 919-627-1009.
Sincerely,
Dennis Asbury
Public Utilities Director
DA:bwj
c: Steve Routh, City Manager
Larry Coble, Regional Supervisor; WSRO

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 15, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Betsy Johnson k
Technical Support Branch
THROUGH: Steve Mauney 9 1991
FROM: Mike Mickcyv.Ai\
SUBJECT: Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
Permit No. NC0025071
Rockingham County
This memo is in response to your 2/1/91 memorandum
concerning the new downstream sampling location for the
Mebane Bridge WWTP. Our office, along with the City of
Eden, has evaluated the proposed location (500 ft. above the
Dry Creek outfall) and found it to be unacceptable. As you
can see from the attached topographic map, there is no
available access point to the Dan River between the Hwy 700
Bridge and the Dry Creek outfall. In addition, collection
of these samples from the steep river banks would pose
safety problems as explained in the 2/11/91 letter from Mr.
Terry Shelton, WWTP Superintendent (See Attached).
In your memorandum you indicated that the Hwy 700 site
was not recommended since monitoring data is currently being
collected there by Fieldcrest. A review of the Fieldcrest
permit reveals that they are only required to take weekly
downstream samples for D.O., Temp and Cond. and 2/M for BOD
and Color. The City of Eden, however, is required to take
stream samples three times per week (J, J, & S) for D.O.
Temp, Cond. and fecal coliform. Eden is not required to
collect downstream color samples at Hwy 14.
It is the opinion of the Winston-Salem Regional Office
that the Hwy 700 site is the best and only reasonable
location for collection of the Mebane Bridge downstream
samples (formerly Hwy 14) and the Dry Creek upstream
samples. I would assume that the City of Eden and
Fieldcrest could coordinate so that stream samples are not
collected on the same day.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
cc: Central Files
WSRO

C'itty of Eden
February '1 1 , 19921
Mr. Mike Mickey, Environmental Teclnnici,an V
Division Of Environmental Managei-ient
Winston-Salem Regional Office
6025 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Dear Mr. Mickey:
SUBJECT: MEBANE BRIDGE/DRY CREEK WWTP'S
PROPOSED SAMPLING SITE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
I am writing this letter in response to your letter of
February 6, 1991 regarding the proposed sampling site selected by DEM
in Raleigh. The proposed location 500 feet upstream from the Dry
Creek WWTP Outfall would cause us great difficulty.
This sample site is extremely difficult to access. The only
access to this sampling site is across the R. I. Smith Farm via his
farm roads through his fields. Driving distance to the river by these
farm roads is about 1.6 miles. This route to the river is subject to
be impassable any time there is heavy rainfall and would probably
remain so for several days following the rainfall event. Even if the
access road to the river was good, the Outfall discharge point at the
river is surrounded by steep sided sand covered banks about 12 feet
hish. The sample site is heavily covered by brush and undergrowth
along the river. Safety is also a consideration with the potential
for operators to fall down the river bank, to acquire snake or tick
bites and to suffer the discomfort of making their way through briars.
A site location 500 feet upstream or 10 feet upstream would both
pose significant difficulty and hazard for my operators to obtain the
necessary sample. This sample at present is collected five times per
week such that difficulty in obtaining the sample would have to be
endured on a daily basis.
350 West Stadium Drive • Eden, North Carolina 27288-3299 9 Fax [phone]

After carefully reviewing of the Mebane Bridge downstream sample,
I realized I had not considered sampling from the river bank prior to
receiving this letter, I feel that we can again sample at the NC
Highway 14 Bridge on the North side of the river. Access to the river
at this location is only about 100 yards from a point where a vehicle
can be driven to. This access can be mowed and maintained such that
the daily safety of my operators would not be in question. I have
cor-isulted the Bridge Maintenance Division of North Carolina Department
Of Transportation and it may possible for us to rig a pulley rope
system from the bridge railing to retrieve samples as much 30 feet out
into the river.
The Uostrearn Sample Site for the Dry Creek WWTP would be a
problem for us in the new permit. I have carefully studied the access
to the river between the Highway 700 Bridge and the Dry Creek WWTP
OUtfall and have discovered no suitable site to obtain samples on the
norttn or the south sides of the river. I would suggest that the
Highway 700 Bridge is still the only suitable site to obtain the
information that DEM needs upstream of the Dry Creek WWTP.
I would be glad to investigate other alternatives at your request
nr to accompany you to these sites if you wish -to visit them. Please
inform me if I should return to sarrIpl ing at the Highway 14 Bridge.
Please call me at 919-623-9921 if you have any questions about. my
suggestions Herein.
Sincerely,
Q
c. !mow
Terry heltun
Wastewater Superintendent
TS:bwj

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 6, 1991
Mr. Dennis Asbury
Director of Public Utilities
City of Eden
350 West Stadium Drive
Eden, North Carolina 27288-3299
SUBJECT: Mebane Bridge/Dry Creek WWTP's
Proposed Stream Sampling Site
Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Asbury:
Margaret Plemmons Foster
Regional Manager
On 12/5/90, you submitted a request to our Division for
permission to relocate the Mebane Bridge downstream sampling
location from the Hwy 14 bridge to the Hwy 700 bridge. As
you are already aware, Raleigh supports the deletion of the
Hwy 14 bridge site but does not concur with the Hwy 700
bridge site since data is already being collected there by
Fieldcrest Cannon.
Attached you will find a copy of a 2/1/91 memo from
Raleigh recommending that Mebane Bridge's downstream samples
be collected 500 feet upstream of Dry Creek's outfall. This
is also the proposed upstream sampling site for Dry Creek
once the permit is renewed.
I need comments from you concerning the accessibility
and suitability of this proposed location. Also, is the Dry
Creek outfall easily accessible? If so, I see no reason
why the sampling location could not be specified as 10 feet
upstream instead of 500 ft. Please give me a call
concerning this issue. If necessary, I will be happy to
observe the sites with you.
Sincerely,
Mike Mia Mickey
Environmental
Technician V
MMM/vm
cc: Central Files
WS)�&.5 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, N.C. 27106-3203 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina Division Of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Environmental Sciences Branch
Intensive Survey Group
14 January 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Mauney
Ruth Swanek
Through: Jay Sauber�
From: Kurt Trumbower
Subject Dan River Color Sampling Run 9/27/90
A sampling run was performed on 9/27/90 in response to a
complaint received by phone from Lee Roy Hall of the Danville Water
Treatment Plant. According to Mr. Hall, they have had problems with
high color in the river near their intake for approximately the last 3
months (July, August, September, 1990). We thought this was most
likely due to the low flow conditions' present in the river and the
subsequent higher proportion of the river's flow being composed of
textile dye waste. In a phone conversation with personnel at the
water treatment plant on the Smith River in Eden, it was revealed
that they had not been having any problems with high color due to
textile waste in the river. This suggests that the problem in
September 1990 in the Dan River at Danville may be due to high color
levels discharged from Eden wastewater treatment plants. In the
phone conversation on the morning of 9/27/90 with Mr. Hall, he
indicated that the color problem was especially bad that morning
with correspondingly high conductivity values of over 200
umhos/cm2. The 9/27/90 sampling run was immediately initiated
with travel to Danville. Data from this sampling run is attached to
this memorandum along with the original study plan and
accompanying schematic diagram.
At Danville, a color level of 29 ADMI was found on this date.
Visually, the river appeared a dark purple/blackish color at Danville.
The value of 29 ADMI found here was surprisingly low considering
the appearance of the river and was similar to the value of 26 ADMI
found at the Dan River at Hwy 87 which is upstream of both the
Smith River and the Eden wastewater treatment plants. The water
r

at Hwy 87 was greenish in appearance. Specific conductance values
differed greatly at the two sites with a conductivity of 63
umhos/cm2 at Hwy 87 and a conductivity of 240 umhos/cm2 at
Danville. This suggests the presence of effluent in the river at
Danville. At the Smith River at SR 1785, a low color level of 20
ADMI was found. A fairly high color level of 66 ADMI was found at
the Miller Brewing effluent. This effluent was greenish in
appearance. The highest color level found during this sampling run
was found, as has been seen in past sampling, at the Eden Mebane
Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant. This value was 2400 ADMI and
the effluent was a darkish purple color. Another high color level
was found, as expected, at the Eden Dry Creek Wastewater .
Treatment Plant. This value was 900 ADMI. At the Duke Power
effluent, the color level found was 25 ADMI. Detectable levels of
copper, selenium, and mercury were found in this effluent. The
copper value found of 13 ug/I was well below the permit limit of a
monthly average and a daily maximum of 1000 ug/l. The selenium
and mercury values found were 6.4 ug/l and 0.6 ug/l respectively. No
permit limits for selenium or mercury are in effect for this
discharge, however monitoring is required.
From conversations with personnel at the Eden and Danville
Water Treatment Plants and from visual observations and
chemical/physical sampling results, it appears that the color
problem in the Dan River at Danville during September 1990 may be
originating from the two Eden municipal wastewater treatment
plants. Additionally, the ADMI method of color analysis may have
some problems in this particular sampling since visual observations
of color and corresponding high conductivity values seem to be more
important in judging the problem due to textile dye at Danville. The
color result of 29 ADMI found at Danville on 9/27/90 was not a
particularly high value but the river was obviously a dark purple
color due to textile waste. Also, muddy water in the river in past
sampling runs has yielded high ADMI color levels but these high color
levels do not, cause a problem , for water treatment plant operators at
Danville like the color due to textile waste.
cc: Jim Overton
r ,

STATION LOCATION DATE
DAN RIVER HWY 87 900927
SMITH RIVER AT SR1785 900927
EDEN MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP 900927
DUKE POWER EFFLUENT 900927
MILLER BREWING EFFLUENT 900927
FIELDCREST MILLS EFFLUENT 900927
EDEN DRY CREEK WWTP 900927
DAN RIVER AT DANVILLE INTAKE 900927
STATION LOCATION
DUKE POWER EFFLUENT
TIME FLOW(MGD) TURBIDITY CHLORIDE COLOR(pH7.6) COND(25'C)
1225
9.2
3
26
63
1235
5.8
61
20
390
0001-1300.5.829
5.2
380
2400
2200
1330
2.3
18
34
25
360
1130
2.79
11
150
66
1900
1200
0.62
6.7
26
17
350
0001-134.5
0.5
4.5
43
900
3500
1035
6.3
34
29
240
0
DATE
TIME
CD
CR
CU
NI
PB
ZN
HG
AS
SE
900927
1330
<2
<25
13
<10
<10
<10
0.6
<10
6.4

DAN RIVER STUDY
In response to concerns by the State of Virginia about color
problems in the Dan River near Eden N.C., a study plan has been
devised. Eight stations are to be sampled twice a month through
October for color, chloride, turbidity, and conductivity. In addition,
complete metals series will be collected from the Duke Power
discharge due to concerns about elevated levels. Samples from Dan
River stations will be collected at mid and quarter points. Stations
are listed below:
MAP #
STATION
1
Dan River at Hwy 87
2
Smith River at SR 1785
3
Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
4
Duke Power Effluent
5
Miller Brewing Effluent
6
Fieldcrest Mills Effluent
7
Eden Dry Creek WWTP
8
Dan River at Danville water intake
Additionally four major tributaries will be sampled once for the
same pararneiers. These stations are:
MAP # STATION
A :Cascade Creek at Hwy 700
B Wolf Island Creek at Hwy 700
C Hogan's Creek at SR 1503
D Country Line Creek at Hwy 57
Flow information at the WWTP's and at four USGS gaging stations
in the area will also be obtained. The gaging stations are:
Dan River near Wentworth 0 2 0 710 0 0.
Smith River at Eden 02074000
Dan River at Danville 02075000
Dan River at Paces 02075500

0 tlrss
� V
t
•
s t�� 3 Ix
We
ci•►
X &O to w , •
so s♦' Y r L RYp� t
•, •v sc OL/1ttD tr i • •�
lot Ot
- C •v i+ti � t•� � C♦
IA
39
.t • • Z
�� ' �� �••• Y iaccciiidc i �s \ 3-02-05
flu
�//• t,
•f♦
� .� tntsrlu
' c
A•fl �
03--02-04
Ila
, I
/ 03-02-03
03-02-02
DEPkRTMENT OF
�� ROAN

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 19, 1990
TO: Dale Overcash
Permits and Engineering Unit
FROM: Betsy Johnson 1K3
Technical Support Branch
THROUGH: Mike Scoville MD5
Ruth Swanek rRC5
SUBJECT: City of Eden - Mebane Bridge WWTP
NPDES No. NC0025071
Rockingham County
I have reviewed the downstream monitoring sites for the City of Eden - Mebane Bridge
W WTP. The downstream site at Highway 14 Bridge may be deleted. Eden - Mebane
Bridge's downstream samples for DO, Temperature, Conductivity, and Fecal Coliform
should be taken 500 feet upstream of the outfall of Eden's Dry Creek WWTP. This is Dry
Creek's upstream monitoring site also. Please modify Eden's permit(s) accordingly.
cc: Central Files
Winston-Salem Regional Office

C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr.. Secretary December, 14, 1990 Director
Mr. John C. Huber
Director of Water Treatment
City of Danville
Riverview Industrial Park
229 Sinson Drive
Danville, Virginia 24540
Subject: City of Eden
Mebane -Bridge and
Dry Creek Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
Rockingham County
Dear Mr.Huber:
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) is in receipt
of a copy of your letter dated October 1, 1990 and addressed to Mr. Barry Dunkley,
Regional Director of the Office of Water Resources of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
NCDEM greatly appreciates you keeping us apprised of the color problem in the
Dan River. The input provided is very important since it helps NCDEM staff
determine the impact of the Division's water quality management strategies and the
public perception associated with those strategies.
NCDEM has implemented a management strategy aimed to solve the color problems
in the Dan River. I have enclosed a copy of a report entitled "An Update of Color
Control Activities in the Smith and Dan River Basins" prepared by this office. The
report contains the analysis performed by the Technical Support Branch of NCDEMrs
Water Quality Section to determine the color limitations necessary to protect an
instream color value of 24 ADMI. This value was developed by the Virginia Health
Department based on treatment capabilities of water treatment plants. Our calcula-
tions indicated that the Eden -Mebane Bridge WWTP color limit should be 540 ADMI at r
7.0 MGD, and 300 ADMI at 13.5 MGD. Furthermore, the analysis concluded that
the Eden -Dry Creek WWTP color limit should be 540 ADMI at 0.5 MGD.
In May 1990, the Eden -Mebane Bridge WWTP NPDES permit was modified with a color
limitation of 540 ADMI for a design capacity of 7.0 MGD. This permit was re -issued
in November, 1990 with a color limitation of 300 ADMI for a design capacity of 13.5
MGD. Eden -Dry Creek WWTP NPDES permit will expire in 1991. A 540 ADMI color
limitation will be contained in the re -issued NPDES permit.
Polludon Pwwnflon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

` Mr. John C. Huber
Page Two
On March 8, 1990 NCDEM issued a Special Order by Consent (SOC) to the Eden -
Mebane Bridge WWTP. The SOC allows this facility to discharge color, BOD5. TSS and
flow above NPDES permit limitations until September 1, 1992. The SOC period was
granted to allow the City of Eden to modify the WWTP in -order to comply with the
new NPDES permit limitations, including a color limitation of 300 ADMI.
The Eden -Dry Creek WWTP is also currently under a SOC. The SOC allows this
facility to discharge flow above the NPDES permit limitations until September 30,
1991. The SOC period will allow the City of Eden to upgrade the existing Eden -Dry
Creek WWTP to comply with the NPDES permit limitations, including a future color
limit of 540 ADMI.
Our files indicate that the City of Eden has complied with the required
deadlines contained in the SOC's for both facilities to date. NCDEM will assure
that the facility will be in compliance with the NPDES Permit limits by the
deadline of September 1, 1992 for the Eden -Mebane Bridge, and September 30, 1991
for the Eden -Dry Creek WWTP.
A preliminary analysis of color data collected in the Smith River and the Dan
River from May to October, 1990 confirmed your concern regarding the recent high
color in the Dan River. A preliminary review of the data indicated that the Smith
River (i.e. above the City of Eden water intake) contained an average color value
of 34.84 ADMI, with a maximum observed value of 114.20 ADMI. The standard devia-
tion for the data set is 19.19 ADMI. Color data collected during the same period
at NCSR 1761 (i.e. downstream from the City of Eden's discharges in the Dan River)
indicated an average value of 33.31 ADMI, with a maximum observed value of 57.35
ADMI. The standard deviation for the data set is 10.17 ADMI.
Finally, color data collected during the same period at NC 87 in the Dan River
(i.e. upstream from the Smith River confluence and upstream.from the City of.Eden's
discharges) indicated an average value of 26.02 ADMI, with a maximum observed value
of 37.64 ADMI. The standard deviation of the data set is 6.5 ADMI. It is assumed
that the color measured in this last station is a mirror of turbidity since no
discharges containing color exist upstream from this station. All three data sets
were adjusted in order to reduce variability due to turbidity caused by storm
events.
The above results indicate that color concentrations from Martinsville enter
the Dan River, via the Smith River, exacerbating the color problem already occur-
ring in the Dan River as a result of the City of Eden's WWTP's. The high standard
deviation (i.e. 19.19 ADMI) and the maximum observed color value (i.e. 114.20 ADMI)
of the Smith River data set reflects a combination of high color.concentrations
being discharged by Martinsville facilities and the mode of operation (i.e.
peaking) of the Philpott Dam.
Also, Eden -Mebane Bridge and Eden -Dry Creek effluent self -monitoring data
collected from May to August, 1990 indicate that high color values were discharged
during this period in the Dan River (i.e. maximum observed value of 3,827 ADMI at
Eden -Mebane Bridge and 4,062 ADMI at Eden Dry Creek facility). The data collected
in the Dan River at NCSR 1761 reflect the color input to the system via the Smith
River and the direct contribution by the City of Eden. The standard deviation

Mr. John C. Huber
Page Three
(i.e. 10.17 ADMI) observed at NCSR 1761 on the Dan River versus the standard
deviation observed in the Smith River (i.e. 19.19 ADMI) above Eden's water intake
indicates less variation in color in the Dan River, upstream from the City of
Danville water intake.
I would like to assure you that NCDEM will continue to work with the City of
Eden to achieve the necessary color concentrations in the Dan River. However, the
current management strategy for color in the Dan River largely depends on the
success of NCDEM as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia to manage color levels in
the Smith River.
Please do not hesitate to continue to inform this office of color problems in
the Dan River. Your concern is most appreciated.
If you have any question concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Trevor
Clements of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely, OQ
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
JCM/SWT
Enclosure
cc: Dennis Asbury
Barry Dunkley
Steve Mauney
Jay Sauber
Eden -Mebane Bridge WLA File
Eden -Dry Creek WLA File
Central Files

Notes for response letter to City of Danville
11-29-90
- This response has been delayed because the City of Eden did not send the
color instream data to DEM until Nov 15, 1990.
- I analyzed the data submitted by the City of Eden. It was noticed from the
submitted data that high color values occurred in the Dan River at NC 87. Since
this station is upstream from the confluence of the Smith River (Martinsville
discharges into the Smith River in Virginia) and the City of Eden's effluents I can
only conclude that these high values are due to storm events (i.e. turbidity). I
ran descriptive statistics to the data for all three stations. The Dan River
station at NC 87 showed a max. observed value of 252 ADMI, an average of 42 ADMI
and a STD of 42. This high standard variation confirms the variability due to
rainfall since no color contributing discharges exist upstream from this station.
- In order to reduce this variability I adjusted descriptive statistics by
deletion of color values greater than 40 ADMI in the NC 87 station data set. I
chose 40 ADMI because a target concentration of color for the river is 24 ADMI, and
40 ADMI represents 67 % above the target (i.e. I will allow 24 ADMI to increase by
16 units or by 2/3 due to natural turbidity of the stream). The adjusted mean is
27 ADMI and the STD is 6.6. This STD reflects a more steady state of the system.
Therefore, I can use this station more as control.
- In order to eliminate the variability due to rainfall in the other two
stations, color values on were also deleted on the same dates color values were
deleted from NC 87 station.
- This last data set was further adjusted by eliminating color values across
the data set which were smaller than the control color values in both the Smith
River and the Dan River downstream stations (i.e. August 23 & 29, and Sep 5 & 12).
- The data indicates that the City of Eden discharges contribute to the color
concentrations found in the Dan River above the City of Danville water intake.
However, the data also suggests that Martinsville is impacting the Smith River.
The impact of Martinsville on the Smith River also contributes to the color
problems experienced in the Dan River. The Smith River station shows an adjusted
mean of 35 ADMI, and STD of 19.

'', ` �� �5 �2`� ��� nv:�i+<✓ 'i. /�'''�ti`uZC CrnuMr.4L� ��i
DEC 7 1990
W,g1U111w IRMS City of Eden
December 5, 1,990
Dr. George Everett, Director
Division of Environmental ManAgement
N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources „',P1p
P. 0. Box 27687 tl IV F-
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 utL; 1 81990
Dear Dr. Everett:
BRANCH
SUBJECT: MEBANE BRIDGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
NPDES PERMIT NO. NCO025071
CITY OF EDEN ! G
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
The subject permit issued on November 15, 1990 requires that
we collect upstream and downstream samples on a daily basis for
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and temperature.
The downstream sample location point is on the NC Highway 14
Bridge south of Eden. This bridge has a raised walkway 18 inches
wide. The traveled portion of the road is 33 inches from the edge
of the walkway. The guard rail on the side of the bridge is 21
inches high. The speed limit on this bridge is 55 miles per hour.
We have been sampling from the Highway 14 Bridge since May of
this year. Our operators feel that sample collection from this
location is extremely dangerous. I agree with their assessment.
The narrow walkway, the proximity of heavy high speed traffic, and
the short guardrail combine to make this a dangerous sample point.
Highway 14, in this area, is serving a rapidly growing part of the
city, and the traffic flow on this bridge has noticeably increased
in recent months. Tractor trailers and mobile homes frequently
cross the bridge while our operators are collecting samples. Our
operators have expressed growing concerns for their safety that
they did not have when they began sampling at this location.
I request that the Division Of Environment Management remove
the NC Highway 14 Bridge sampling point from our permit for the
safety of our personnel. I propose that the downstream sample
location be moved to NC Highway 700 Bridge east of Eden.
350 West Stadium Drive • Eden, North Carolina 27288-3299 • Fax [phone]

0-10
Please consider this request as soon as possible. The
potential for personal injury or death on the Highway 14 Bridge is
substantial. For the sake of safety, I am, directing our operators
to collect downstream samples from the Highway 700 Bridge east of.
Eden until I hear from you. If you have any questions pertaining
to this matter, please contact me at'919-627-1009.
Sincerely,
Dennis Asbury
Public Utilities Director
DA:bwj
c: Steve Routh, City manager
Terry Shelton, Wastewater Superintendent
Larry Coble, Regional Supervisor; WSRO
J� ,�e
,MAP

' T4wXity of Danville, Virginia
WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT DEPARTMENT
WATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
279 PARK AVENUE RIVERVIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK
DANVILLE, VIRGINIA 24541 229 STINSON DRIVE
(X04) 799-6473 DANVILLE, VIRGINIA 24540
[phone]
October 1, 1990
Mr. Barry Dunkley, P.E. Regional Director
VA Dept. of Health
Office of Water Programs
Danville Regional Officeslow
1347 Piney Forest Rd.
Danville, VA 24540 WATER QUALTV
SECTION
Dear Mr. Dunkley:
On September 28, 1990 the Water Plant at, Danville issued a
complaint to your office concerning the color(dye) in the Dan
River.
The color problem is not a new issue. The color from the dye has
caused us tremendous treatment problems and added expense to
treat the raw water. it has caused us to have very short filter
runs (normal 80hrs. - dye 40hrs.) due to overfeeding of Aluminum
Sulfate to coagulate out the color. To compound the problem the
ph has been very high when the color (dye) is in the river
(normal 7.2 - 7.4ph color 7.4 - 7.9ph). We have to feed higher
dosages of chlorine in the rapid mix to oxidize the color (dye)
since it has a high chlorine demand.
The Water Treatment Plant is keeping records on the color problem
and would be glad to offer information to you.
It was our understanding that both VA and NC were going to adopt
similar limits for colored discharges. We feel that the 200
color limit is acceptable during high flow times in the Dan River
but during low flow times the color limit should be reduced
according to the flow in the Dan River.
RECFIVF-r)__
OCT no
ENVIRp"'FlVTk 'SCI
EtiCE5 BR INCFf

L hope the color problem can be resolved since it is dramatically
Lmpacting the raw water quality in the Dan River. We would
;ladly participate in any meetings concerning this problem.
thank you for your time and I am looking forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
C.
John C. Huber
Dir. Water Treatment
haf
c: Mr. Herbert M. Dawson
Mr. Melvin Collins
Mr. John Rolland, SWCB
Mr. Steve Tedder, NC Dept. of Environmental Management
Mr. Jay Sauber, NC Dept. of Environmental Management
*ur

Y
October 26, 1990
Mr. Juan Mangles
NC-DEHNR-DEM
Water Quality Section
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
City of Eden
350 WEST STADIUM DRIVE
EDEN, NORTH 6AROLINA 27288-3299
1990
Subject: River Color Monitoring Data
Dear Mr. Mangles
r
i
G
Unclosed you will find a 3.5 disk with the file containing
our river monitoring data since May 16, 1990. The data and
sampling points conform to the requirements of our current
discharge permit. The file name on the disk is Rivcolor.wrl and
is readable on Lotus or Symphony Program Spreadsheets. I think
you will find the spreadsheet self -explanatory -
If you have any questions or need further assistance call me
at 919-623-9921
Sincerely,
Terry Shelton
Wastewater Superintendent

EDEN COLOR DATA FOR EDEN MEBANE
UPSTREAM
AT SMITH R
DATE
05-Jun-90
06-Jun-90
08-Jun-90
13-Jun-90
15-Jun-90
18-Jun-90
20-Jun-90
22-Jun-90
25-Jun-90
27-Jun-90
29-Jun-90
02-Jul-90
03-Jul-90
05-Jul-90
10-Jul-90
11-Jul-90
13-Jul-90
23-Jul-90
24-Jul-90
02-Aug-90
07-Aug-90
08-Aug-90
14-Aug-90
15-Aug-90
16-Aug-90
21-Aug-90
22-Aug-90
23-Aug-90
28-Aug-90
29-Aug-90
04-Sep-90
05-Sep-90
07-Sep-90
12-Sep-90
13-Sep-90
14-Sep-90
20-Sep-90
21-Sep-90
25-Sep-90
26-Sep-90
27-Sep-90
03-Oct-90
30-Oct-90
Number of observations:
Mean:
Max. observed value:
STD:
pH
7.63
7.60
7.58
7.60
7.60
7.61
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.59
7.60
7.59
7.60
7.60
7.61
7.60
7.62
7.59
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.61
7.60
7.61
7.61
7.61
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.61
7.59
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.61
7.61
7.60
7.61
7.60
7.61
43
34.18
114.2
18.41
BRIDGE
ADMI
COLOR
36
34
20
39
35
32
22
27
23
31
27
22
22
19
19
21
27
114
97
27
37
FACILITY
24
41
33
43
73
39
32�
42
26�ww�o
32
2 6
20
27 a^^
33
44
2 8
23
31
34
2631
a
32

Color
UPSTREAM DATE
pH
ADMI
AT NC 87 16-May-90
7.58
28
DAN R 16-May-90
7.60
13
O5-Jun-90
7.59
26
06-Jun-90
7.61
34
08-Jun-90
7.62
38
13-Jun-90
7.60
28
15-Jun-90
7.61
18
18-Jun-90
7.61
18
20-Jun-90
7.59
16
22-Jun-90
7.62
21
25-Jun-90
7.60
23
27-Jun-90
7.61
17
29-Jun-90
7.61
24
02-Jul-90
7.60
17
03-Jul-90
7.61
18
05-Jul-90
7.60
16
10-Jul-90
7.60
19
11-Jul-90
7.60
23
13-Jul-90
7.60
27
23-Jul-90
7.60
35
24-Jul-90
7.60
38
02-Aug-90
7.60
31
07-Aug-90
7.60
21
08-Aug-90
7.60
20
14-Aug-90
7.60
28
15-Aug-90
7.60
23
16-Aug-90
7.59
24
21-Aug-90
7.59
30
22-Aug-90
7.60
37
23-Aug-90
7.61
38
28-Aug-90
7.60
30
29-Aug-90
7.60
35
04-Sep-90
7.60
28
05-Sep-90
7.59
31
07-Sep-90
7.61
21
12-Sep-90
7.61
29
13-Sep-90
7.59
31
14-Sep-90
7.61
28
20-Sep-90
7.60
32
21-Sep-90
7.60
27
25-Sep-90
7.60
31
26-Sep-90
7.60
32
27-Sep-90
7.60
25
03-Oct-90
7.60
24
30-Oct-90
7.60
37
Number of observations: 42
Mean: 26.70�
Max. observed value: 37.92
STD: 6.576
:S'

DOWNSTREAM DATE
pH
ADMI
AT NCSR 1761 16-May-90
7.63
23
DAN R 05-Jun-90
7.62
49 -
06-Jun-90
7.62
21
08-Jun-90
7.58
28-
13-Jun-90
7.60
38-
15-Jun-90
7.61
23
18-Jun-90
7.61
18
20-Jun-90
7.59
17
22-Jun-90
7.61
47-
25-Jun-90
7.59
20
27-Jun-90
7.61
40 -
29-Jun-90
7.61
40 =
02-Jul-90
7.60
17
03-Jul-90
7.61
23
05-Jul-90
7.59
19
10-Jul-90
7.61
17
11-Jul-90
7.60
20
13-Jul-90
7.60
27
23-Jul-90
7.60
42
24-Jul-90
7.59
57
02-Aug-90
7.61
32
07-Aug-90
7.60
41
08-Aug-90
7.60
44
14-Aug-90
7.60
28
15-Aug-90
7.61
42
16-Aug-90
7.60
40
21-Aug-90
7.61
32
22-Aug-90
7.60
38
23-Aug-90
7.60
29
28-Aug-90
7.60
34
29-Aug-90
7.60
^
32 Qowan wY
04-Sep-90
7.61
34
05-Sep-90
7.60
27
07-Sep-90
7.61
29
12-Sep-90
7.61
27 �A
13-Sep-90
7.61
34
Q
14-Sep-90
7.61
35 c
20-Sep-90
7.60
47
21-Sep-90
7.60
27
25-Sep-90
7.60
33
26-Sep-90
7.60
42
27-Sep-90
7.60
49
03-Oct-90
7.60
35
30-Oct-90
7.61
43
Number of observations:
Mean:
Max. observed value:
STD:
41
32.88/
57.35
9.780

EDEN COLOR DATA FOR EDEN MEBANE
BRIDGE FACILITY
ADMI
DATE
pH
COLOR
UPSTREAM 05-Jun-90
7.63
36
AT SMITH R 06-Jun-90
7.60
34
08-Jun-90
7.58
20
13-Jun-90
7.60
39
15-Jun-90
7.60
35
18-Jun-90
7.61
32
20-Jun-90
7.60
22
22-Jun-90
7.60
27
25-Jun-90
7.60
23
27-Jun-90
7.60
31
29-Jun-90
7.60
27
02-Jul-90
7.59
22
03-Jul-90
7.60
22
05-Jul-90
7.59
19
10-Jul-90
7.60
19
11-Jul-90
7.60
21
13-Jul-90
7.61
27
23-Jul-90
7.60
114
24-Jul-90
7.62
97
02-Aug-90
7.59
27
07-Aug-90
7.60
37
08-Aug-90
7.60
24
14-Aug-90
7.60
41
15-Aug-90
7.61
33
16-Aug-90
7.60
43
21-Aug-90
7.61
73
22-Aug-90
7.61
39
28-Aug-90
7.60
42
04-Sep-90
7.60
32
07-Sep-90
7.61
20
13-Sep-90
7.60
33
14-Sep-90
7.60
44
20-Sep-90
7.60
28
21-Sep-90
7.61
23 �o`"
25-Sep-90
7.61
31
26-Sep-90
7.60
34
27-Sep-90
7.61
26
03-Oct-90
7.60
31
30-Oct-90
7.61
32'^
Number of observations: 39
Mean: 34.84
Max. observed value: 114.2•
STD: 19.19
Color
UPSTREAM DATE pH ADMI
AT NC 87 16-May-90 7.58 28
DAN R 16-May-90 7.60 13
05-Jun-90 7.59 26
06-Jun-90 7.61 34
08-Jun-90 7.62 38
13-Jun-90 7.60 28
15-Jun-90 7.61 18

22-Jun-90
7.62
21
.
25-Jun-90
7.60
23
27-Jun-90
7.61
17
29-Jun-90
7.61
24
02-Jul-90
7.60
17
03-Jul-90
7.61
18
05-Jul-90
7.60
16
10-Jul-90
7.60
19
11-Jul-90
7.60
23
13-Jul-90
7.60
27
23-Jul-90
7.6
35
24-Jul-90
7.60
38
02-Aug-90
7.60
31
07-Aug-90
7.60
21
08-Aug-90
7.60
20
14-Aug-90
7.60
28
15-Aug-90
7.60
23
16-Aug-90
7.59
24
21-Aug-90
7.59
30
22-Aug-90
7.60
37
28-Aug-90
7.60
30
04-Sep-90
7.60
28
07-Sep-90
7.61
21
13-Sep-90
7.59
31
14-Sep-90
7.61
28
20-Sep-90
7.60
32
21-Sep-90
7.60
27
25-Sep-90
7.60
31
26-Sep-90
7.60
32
27-Sep-90
7.60
25
03-Oct-90
7.60
24
30-Oct-90
7.60
37
Number of observations:
38
Mean:
26.02
Max. observed
value:
37.64
STD:
6.454
Color
DOWNSTREAM
DATE
pH
ADMI
AT NCSR 1761
16-May-90
7.63
23
DAN R
05-Jun-90
7.62
49
06-Jun-90
7.62
21
08-Jun-90
7.58
28
13-Jun-90
7.60
38
15-Jun-90
7.61
23
18-Jun-90
7.61
18
20-Jun-90
7.59
17
22-Jun-90
7.61
47
25-Jun-90
7.59
20
27-Jun-90
7.61
40
29-Jun-90
7.61
40
02-Jul-90
7.60
17
03-Jul-90
7.61
23
05-Jul-90
7.59
19
10-Jul-90
7.61
17
11-Jul-90
7.60
20
13-Jul-90
7.60
27

02-Aug-90
7.61
32
. 07-Aug-90
7.60
41
' 08-Aug-90
7.60
44
14-Aug-90
7.60
28
' 15-Aug-90
7.61
42
16-Aug-90
7.60
40
21-Aug-90
7.61
32
22-Aug-90
7.60
38
28-Aug-90
7.60
34
04-Sep-90
7.61
34
07-Sep-90
7.61
29
13-Sep-90
7.61
34
14-Sep-90
7.61
35
20-Sep-90
7.60
47
21-Sep-90
7.60
27
25-Sep-90
7.60
33
26-Sep-90
7.60
42
27-Sep-90
7.60
49
03-Oct-90
7.60
35
30-Oct-90
7.61
43
Number of observations: 37
Mean: 33.31
Max. observed value: 57.35
STD: 10.17

U esS-T t4t--j
Color
SeiqN-&� DATE
pH
ADMI
AT NC 87 16-May-90
7.58
28
16-May-90
7.60
13
05-Jun-90
7.59
26
06-Jun-90
7.61
34
08-Jun-9]0
7/.62
38
13-Jun-90
7.60
28
15-Jun-90
7.61
18
18-Jun-90
7.61
18
20-Jun-90
7.59
16
22-Jun-90
7.62
21
25-Jun-90
7.60
23
27-Jun-90
7.61
17
29-Jun-90
7.61
24
02-Jul-90
7.60
17
03-Jul-90
7.61
18
05-Jul-90
7.60
16
10-Jul-90
7.60
19
11-Jul-90
7.60
23
13-Jul-90
7.60
27
-
-
60
S554-
tt2� /
19-Jul-90
7.60
59
23-Jul-90
7.60
35
24-Jul-90
7.60
38
26-Jul-90
7.59
46✓
30-Jul-90
7.61
517
01-Aug-90
761
56�
02-Aug-90
7..60
31
07-Aug-90
7.60
21
08-Aug-90
7.60
20
09-Aug-90
7.60
58'/
14-Aug-90
7.60
28
15-Aug-90
7.60
23
16-Aug-90
7.59
24
21-Aug-90
7.59
30
22-Aug-90
7.60
37
23-Aug-90
7.61
38
28-Aug-90
7.60
30
29-Aug-90
7.60
35
30-Aug-90
7.60
45 ✓
04-Sep-90
7.60
28
05-Sep-90
7.59
31
07-Sep-90
7.61
21
12-Sep-90
7.61
29
13-Sep-90
7.59
31
14-Sep-90
7.61
28
17-Sep-90
7.60
52'4
20-Sep-90
7.60
32
21-Sep-90 7.60 27
25-Sep-90 7.60 31

26-Sep-90
7.60
32
27-Sep-90
7.60
25
03-Oct-90
7.60
24
17-Oct-90
7.60
26-Oct-90
7.60
30-Oct-90
7.60
37
Number of observations: 55
Mean: 42.28
Max. observed value: 252.0
STD: 42.00

•'
Ili
4
lei
1 O
21'�
22 0
1 \
g 2
20 8
12
3 J
3�
` i8q
Iz2
30 1
z
3�t
6ti3
RoG
6
66 q
�
Ss3
13� 3
1J,
21c�q
to
tj f y
/tip
62G
i00
123�
13�J
t D -
yla11a
6
It3�
Zs33

c
631 LAux )
9
6 2J
b tS
-7 rA
`�
23z
13'L
s
3s8
622
q
� 6 ti
1230
2
Sy�l
�8J O
y
(io
2o-�I
s
I��y
2732

a., Fwi(
.we_.w+'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
September 19, 1990
Mr. Dennis Asbury
Director of Public Utilities
City of Eden
350 West Stadium Drive
Eden, NC 27288
Dear Mr. Asbury:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
The Division is in receipt of your letter of August 10, 1990 concerning the
Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Your letter states that the City has fulfilled the requirements of conditions three (3)
and four (4) of the Order by demonstrating that the treatment plant is able to comply
with interim limits and is not adversely affected by the infiltration/inflow, and that
the plant is able to comply with the toxicity requirements contained in the SOC.
The Division
recognizes the
City's "good faith"
effort to comply with the
requirements of the
SOC. Effective immediately, the
Division grants an additional
300.000 gallons of
wastewater per
day to the Mebane
Bridge plant. As outlined under
Section 2(a) of the
SOC, you are
required to provide
the Winston-Salem Regional
Office located at 8025 North Point
Boulevard, Suite 100,
Winston-Salem, NC 27106, with
a list of flow added
to the system,
and update this list
each time flow is added to the
system.
You are also reminded that the next scheduled date to be complied with in the
SOC is October 15, 1990, (open bids for construction).
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Steve
Mauney, Regional Water Quality Supervisor, at 919-761-2351.
Sin ly,
George veeett
rar'Fai�""1'e
cc: Steve Tedder j10T t} 1 1990
Steve Mauney
Trevor Clements
Ted Cashion Pollution Pnsvendon Pays .ydy„ri
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An,- — A� rm,Jn r