NC0025071_Staff Comments_19881130

/�j000ZS0��
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Technical Services Branch
Intensive Survey Unit
11/30/88
Memorandum NOV 3 G �ydd
To: Dale Overeash g
Trevor Clements 1 Y
From: Jay SauberJ*f4--
Subject: Possible Permit Actions - Color limits for Eden W WTP's
As we briefly discussed on the telephone, attached you will find a memorandum addressed
to Chuck summarizing important information with respect to Color in the Dan River.
Please review this memo and share your thoughts with me prior to a meeting we are trying
to set up with the Section Chief to obtain his guidance. Steve Tedder has indicated his
willingness to support Color permit limits. I have asked Steve for the opportunity to
receive your input prior to our discussions with Chuck. We will attempt to set up a
meeting late next week.

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Technical Services Branch
Intensive Survey Unit
1
9/30/88
Nov � 0
Memorandum
To: Charles Wakild 4
From: Jay Sauber
Thru: Steve Tedder
Subject: Color Problems in the Dan River
On July 26th, 1988 the Executive Director of the Virginia State Water Control Board transmitted
a letter to R. Paul Wilms. This letter indicated that higher than normal color levels in the Dan
River were affecting industrial and potable water supplies. The following information should be
beneficial in formatting our response to Virginia. Region IV and Region III of EPA have also
equested that North Carolina send a response. to tharn as soon as possible.
Attachments:
July 26, 1988 Letter from Richard Burton Executive Director Virginia Water Control Board to Mr Alvin Morris
Director Water Management Division EPA Region Ill. " Recent data indicate that two POTW's in the
City of Eden, North Carolina have color in their effluents well above Virginia's allowable limit." Letter
requests assistance to protect beneficial uses of waters.
July 26, 1988 Letter from Richard Burton to Paul Wilms indicating color problems coming from Dry Creek and
Mebane Bridge Facilities in Eden. Letter requests DEM to eliminate or reduce the threat to water
supplies and industrial users.
August 18,1988 Letter from Paul Wilms to Richard Burton indicating DEM will investigate and study the situation.
When these letters were referred to the Intensive Survey Unit for investigation (about the end of
August) we began to make numerous inquiries to gather available pertinent information. On
September 1,1988, Dennis Asbury, Director of Public Utilities for the Town of Eden
(G19/627-1009), indicated that Pannil Industries, a textile operation, expanded its Martinsville,
Va. operation to Eden, NC in January of 1987. Pluma Industries (a spin-off linked to Pannil) also
expanded from Martinsville shortly after Pannil. Mr. Asbury indicated that in 4 sampling runs
ADMI values UPS of Mebane Bridge Eff ranged from 11-46. Effluent Values from Mebane Bridge
ranged from 300-400 ADMI. Downstream values ranged from 17-40 ADMI. Values at the Eden
Dry Creek WWTP ranged from 520-1200 ADMI. Downstream values below the Dry Creek
M

facility ranged from 11-46 ADMI. Mr. Ashbury has sent us the results of his sampling efforts.
Mr. Asbury also indicated that the cities of Danville and South Boston had made some color
complaints.
Attachments:
Dan River Schmatic
September 6, 1988 Letter from Dennis Asbury to Kurt Trumbower transmitting ADMI data collected by Eden.
Letter indicated ADMI has increased in Eden's discharges over the last two years.
Mr. Herbert Dawson from the City of Danville Water Treatment Plant (804/799-6473) was
contacted. Mr Dawson indicated that they are not sampling for ADMI but are performing
conductivity measurements. They use conductivity analyses to determine when they should add
additional treatment chemicals for color removal. He said that he thought the color problem was
related to Philpott Reservoir releases. Danville's water intake is located upstream of the
Robertson Bridge Powerplant Gam.. Mr. Dawson indicated that the color situation Uegan several
years ago. He will check his records for documentation and further clarification. Mr Dawson
indicated that the color problem at Danville varies with the river flow. Low flow situations with
low turbidity are worst case conditions. With low flows additional flocculant is added on a regular
basis (weekly). The drought conditions of this year were a particular problem. Mr Dawson
indicated that they have not had to shut down water production. They have had to increase
their dosage of flocculant (Alum) to remove color. This increase in dosage has gone from one
grain, on the average, to 1 1/2 grains, on the average, to remove color. They have not used
polymer on a regular basis but will try some experimentation in the future. When they monitor
conductivity as an indicator, usually the river conductivity runs about <100 umhos. When an
event causes the need for additional flocculation, conductivity values get higher (300 -500 umhos).
Mr Dawson indicated that he had been working with Mr Mitch Childrey of the'Virginia Health
Dept. on this issue. He indicated that Mr. Childrey's data did not correlate color with conductivity
on a routine basis. He will check his records and send us pertinent data. As of this time no data
has been received.

Mr.Gray Hauser, DEM regional office in Winston Salem,NC was contacted for his knowledge of
the situation. Gray believes that both Pannil and Pluma discharge to a pump station and the
first 1/2 MGD goes to the Dry Creek WWTP while the remainder goes to the Mebane Bridge
WWTP.
Attachment:
September 6,1988 Memo from Gray Hauser with attached inspection data
from Eden facilities.
We then contacted Mr.Mark Wilkerson, Chief Operator of the South Boston Water Treatment
Plant. (804/572-4438). Mr. Wilkerson indicated that color episodes in the Dan River can be
removed by treatment but the cost of treatment doubles due to the necessity of having to add
additional Chlorine and Alum. The resultant mixture turns their sand filters dark (black) with the
adsorbed dye waste. They determine the need for adding additional chemicals by monitoring
conductivity in the raw water (normally <120 — prob-lem levels >300) and by telephone warnings
from the Danville Water Treatment Plant in Virginia. Mr Wilkerson indicated that the color
situation has been occurring for several years.
A telephone conversation with Mr Lester Neal Superintendent of South Boston WTP indicated
that the problems with color go back beyond January 1987. In fact Mr Neal had letters that
indicated EPA Region III and the local health department said the problem was from the Smith
River back in April of 1986, and in December of 1987. Mr Neal is putting his documents together
to share with us if we make any on site visits.
On September 23,19881 had a telephone conversation with Mr. Bob Burnley head of the Roanoke
Regional office of the Virginia Water Control Board. Mr Burnley was very cooperative as usual
and we discussed the Dan River color situation as well as the Smith River color situation. Mr
t
Burnley was asked to review the current status of the Smith River color situation in regards to
the permit limits of the Martinsville WWTP, the Upper Smith River WWTP and the Lower Smith
River WWTP, Mr Burnley indicated that Martinsville had reviewed many options for color
removal at the WWTP and at pre-treatment facilities. The color removal option of pre-treatment
was not viable because the indirect dischargers did not want to get into the color removal

business. Flocculation was not considered because of the cost of treatment and the difficulties of
handling the sludge - which may be considered toxic. Activated carbon was not viable due to
space constraints for carbon regeneration and sludge problems. Chlorine oxidation was not
considered viable due to the extremely elevated levels of chlorine necessary to oxidize the color
with concerns over toxic residuals. The Martinsville WWTP appears to be settling on an Ozone
oxidation method. This method is the most expensive - costing approximately $5 million in
capital expenses with $15-20 thousand in monthly operating and maintenance - most of which are
power requirements for Ozone generation. Mr Burnley was of the opinion that the Martinsville
WWTP would be in compliance with their effluent color limits in about one year. The Upper Smith
River WWTP is currently underloaded and is not experiencing color treatment problems with
biological removal. The Lower Smith River WWTP is not planning to add any special color
removal treatment trains to its system. I questioned the wisdom of this decision since 4 MGD of
the Martinsville influent are scheduled to be sent to the Lower Smith WWTP. Mr Burnley
indicated that he too had questioned this decision. But was told by the Lower Smith River WWTP
that, they felt it was not necessary. Mr Burnley was asked about the letters from Mr. Richard
Burton - indicating concern over the Eden WWTP's discharging elevated color levels. Mr Burnley
indicated that since Virginia had constructed permits to protect the water supply uses of the
Si pith River that he felt that North .Carolina shculd G:;t in a similar fashion to prc:ect the uses of
the 'Dan River. It was indicated to Mr . Burnley thai we shared his concerns and were in t; ,e
process of our analysis of the situation. Mr Burnley was informed of our concerns of the Smith
River being a contributing source to Dan River problems. He indicated that that might be the
case. We requested information on Virginia dischargers in the Dan River between the Smith
River confluence and South Boston in order to construct a mass balance equation to evaluate the
importance of the Smith River color and the two Eden facilities on the color problems experienced
on the Dan River. Mr Burnley indicated that he would make this information available. We have
not yet received any additional information from Virginia.

In order to evaluate the contribution of the Eden WWTP's colored effluent on the Dan River we
have used a mass balance approach - the same approach Virginia used in setting color limits for
the Martinsville, Upper Smith, and Lower Smith WWTP's.
CdQd=C1 Q1 +C202+C3Q3+C4Q4+C5Q5+C6Q6+C7Q7
Where
Cd = Concentration of color at Danville
Qd = flow of Dan River at Danville (283.7 MGD)
C1 = Concentration of color from the Smith River
Q1 = 7 Q 10 flow of Smith River (105.9 MGD)
C2 = Concentration of color from the Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
02 = Design flow of the Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP ;(7.0 MGD)
C3 ,= Concentration of color from the Miller Brewing WWTP
Q3~ = Design flow of the Miller Brewing WWTP (5.2 MGD)
C4 = Concentration of color from the Fieldcrest WWTP
04 = Design flow from the Fieldcrest WWTP (0.5 MGD)
C5 = Concentration of color from tha Edsn Dry Creek W`VVTF
Q5 = Flow from the Eden Dry Creek WWTP (1.0 MGD)
C6 = Concentration of color from background
06 = 7 Q 10 flow of Dan River at Hwy 87
C7 = Concentration of color from background
Q7 = additional flow from tributaries upstream of Danville
In order to determine the relative importance of the Eden WWTP discharges to the Dan River,
certain assumptions can easily be supported:
- assume no color from background
- assume no color from additional tributary flow
- assume no color from the Duke Power cooling water discharge
- assume no additional flow from Duke Power
Several scenarios will be developed from this mass balance approach but first some background
information will be presented to support scenario selection.
0

During our investigation of textile color problems on the Smith River (conducted with the State of
Virginia, EPA Region III, .and EPA Region IV) it was agreed to. -accept a color level of 24 ADMI
units for the instream concentration of raw water to be treated by the Fieldcrest Mills Water
Treatment Plant • an extremely old facility. This target concentration and a mass balance
equation were the basis of the Virginia permit limits applied to the Martinsville, Lower Smith and
Upper Smith WWTP's. Virginia, like North Carolina, does not have a numerical color standard
for the protection of water supplies. The target level of 24 ADMI units was agreed to by all
agencies because it was similar to the recommendations of the Virginia State Health Department
of a limit of 15 Pt Co units and, more importantly, the 24 ADMI units corresponded with
documented data on the level of color that could be treated by the Fieldcrest Mills WTP to
produce a final product free of color. We have been monitoring ADMI color in the Smith River on a
monthly frequency since December of 1986 as part of our Ambient Monitoring System (AMS).
Our past investigations with the state of Virginia and Fieldcrest Mills indicated color problems in
the Smith River on a regular frequency - usually during the first part of each week. While our
ambient monitoring of the Smith River is not scheduled to detect these color slugs it is apparent
from the following data that color levels in the Smith River still far exceed the target level of 24
ADMI units.
SMITH RIVER AT EDEN, NC
SOUTHEAST 030203
ROANOKE
21 NC01 WQ 03010103015 0004.020 HQ /TYPA/AMBNT/STREAM 00083
DATE TIME DEPTH COLOR
OF WTR SMPL
DAY FEET ADMI
86/12/161040
0
23.0
87/02/241100
0
61.0
87/03/101300
0
14.0
87/04/071210
0
16.0
87/05/181045
0
19.0
87/06/031535
0
22.0
87/07/071035
0
25.0
87/08/111025
0
54.0
87/09/031035
0
110.0
87/10/141030
0
34.0
87/11/191005
0
15.0
87/12/141030
0
73.0
88/01 /271045
0
13.0
88/02/181030
0
27.0
88/03/241050
0
20.0
88/04/201035
0
31.0
88/05/191000
0
28.0
88/06/23 0920
0
62.0

Based on the mass balance equation at 7Q10 conditions:
If color levels from the Smith River were equal to or greater than 65 ADMI color units and no
color were discharged in North Carolina we would predict a violation of the 24 ADMI "standard"
at the water intake for the city of Danville, Virginia.
If color levels from the Smith River were equal to 24 ADMI color units and the Eden Mebane
Bridge WWTP was discharging a concentration of 248 ADMI and the Eden Dry Creek WWTP
was discharging a concentration of 542 ADMI color units and Miller Brewing was at 5 ADMI and
Fieldcrest was at 24 ADMI the we would not predict a violation of the 24 ADMI "standard" at the
water intake for the city of Danville, Virginia. In fact we would predict a level of 17 ADMI units.
This scenario represents the average effluent concentrations of color_ from the Eden facilities.
In order to evaluate the maximum potential of creating a problem for Danville from the Eden
WWTP facilities the following scenario is presented. If color levels from the dischargers to the
Smith River were in compliance with the Virginia NPDES permit limits resulting in 24 ADMI color
units in the Smith River and the Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP was discharging a concentration of
640 ADMI and the Eden Dry Creek WWTP was discharging a concentration of 1234 ADMI color
units and Miller Bitawing was at 5 ADMI and Fieldcrest was at 24 ADMI the w,� would p►edi�,
violation of the 24 ADMI "standard" at the water intake for the city of Danville, Virginia.
However, we would predict a level of only 29 ADMI units. In order for this situation to occur both
the Meban Bridge and the Dry creek facilities would have to have maximum concentrations
during a 7Q10 event with no instream settling of color.
Other alternative scenarios are attached for further examples.
Waste water treatment facilities in Eden have contributed to the concentration of ADMI color in
the Dan River. Furthermore, the Eden Dry Creek WWTP and the Mebane Bridge WWTP have
increased the concentration of ADMI color in their effluents in recent years. However, based on
this analysis and based on conversations with various treatment facility operators, it is highly
unlikely that the Eden facilities are solely responsible for the problems encountered by the Cities
of Danville and South Boston.
10

IL
Additional conversations with Dennis Asbury have indicated to me that the City of Eden is well
aware of their potential problems managing highly colored effluents. As recently as last
Tuesday, the City of Eden's consultant on their Master Plan recommended abandoning the Dry
Creek facility. Pluma and Pannil industries are acutely aware of their situation and have had
some brief discussions with the City of Eden related to the likely future need of pre-treatment
for color. Pannil and Pluma have a great deal of color experience - developed as a result of their
difficulties in Martinsville, Virginia. It may be inevitable that the City of Eden will "kick, scream
and holler" if we attempt to include a color limit in their NPDES permits. However, if DEM could
move forward with the inclusion of color limits in Eden's permits to protect the water supplies of
Danville and South Boston many benefits could possible accrue.
-If color limits are based on monthly averages, Eden would likely have no present difficulty
with compliance.
.We would be clearly indicating to Virginia our concern for the protection of water supplies.
-We would give Eden some additional leverage to collect color specific sewer user charges.
-We would give Eden some additional leverage to implement color pre-treatment
requirements.
-We would protect the downstream water supplies from further increases of color due to
any future textile expansions.
Obviously our position could be bolstered with some additional review of this information and with
some additional data. Data gaps do exist. No color information is available on Miller Brewing,
Fieldcrest Mills, Duke Power, tributary streams, and any Virginia dischargers located
downstream of Eden. We welcome your questions and would be glad to provide additional
information.
0

Richard N. Burton
executive Director
Post Office Box 11143
Richmond. Virginia 23230-1 143
[phone]
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGilNgA
STATE I11ATER CONTROL BOARD
2111 Hamilton Street
JU! . 2 u 1988
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
BOARD MEMBERS
• % ' 1, r : ` ' Henry 0. Hollimon, Jr.
David H. Miller
Ronald M. Plotkin
Velma M. Smith
Patrick L. Standing
W. Bidgood Wall, Jr.
Robert C. Wininger
For the past few months, the staff of our Roanoke office has
been receiving an increased number of complaints from the Danville
area regarding higher than normal levels of color in the Dan
River. This high level of color is affecting industrial and
Dot -able water supplies. The source of the color appears to be tbn
discharges from the City of Edenis Mebane Bridge .and Dry Creek
wastewater treatment plants. These facilities are apparently
unable to remove the color being generated by a new textile plant
in Eden.
Dischargers in Virginia which may affect the potable water
supplies in North Carolina have color and other nonconventional
pollutants limited by NPDES permits. The color limits are very
low. The color currently being discharged from the Eden plants is
two to three times the 200 ADMI color units being required in
Virginia.
The purpose of this letter is to request that your agency
take the necessary steps to eliminate or reduce this threat to
potable and industrial water supplies in Virginia. The West'
Central Regional Office in Roanoke can provide more 'details if
necessary. Thank you for your attention to this important water
quality issue. '�"- "- �"•""�"��'`�
r
}• N
Sincerely, ` AUG 4 1988 *
/' Rich rd N . Burton E'' Q 0A-I rY
Exec tive Director SECTION
-cc: Al Morris, EPA III
! Mike McGhee, EPA IV `
R. G. Burnley WCRO-

Richard N. Burton
Executive Director
Post Office Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
[phone]
COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRCjINIA
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
49N] Ha7nilloii Slreel
1(-4 —
DI
JUC 29 1988
��i •1. ��r „rr•�i�'�L t�� Alt. MANAG111 ON
Mr. Alvin R. Morris
Director, Water Management Division Pr'.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III AUG 4 1988
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107 ��'t� i..! I Y
Dear Al ' SECTION
Two years ago the states of Virginia and North Carolina,
with assistance from EPA Regions III and IV, cooperated on an
...n.tensive water quality study on the Smith Ra.ver. The purpose of
that study was to determine the -acceptable level of color from
textile wastes in surface water used as potable and industrial
water supplies.
The outcome of that cooperative effort was the establishment
of effluent limits for color in the VPDES permits of three POTWs
on the smith River in Virginia. Your assistance, and the
assistance of the staffs of both EPA regional offices was
invaluable in the successful resolution of that color problem.
Ism writing you today to bring to your attention another
situation involving color in that same area. When strict color
limits were established for the dischargers in Virginia, they
were established with the agreement that the State of North
Carolina would also limit color -discharges from sources which
affect waters flowing into Virginia. Recent data indicate that
two POTWs in the City of Eden, North Carolina have color in their
effluents well above Virginia's allowable limit.
.� 4

1
Mr. Alvin R. Morris
Page Two
I'm requesting your assistance and the assistance of Region
IV in assuring that color being discharged by treatment
facilities in North Carolina is limited to those levels which
will protect the beneficial uses of Virginia municipalities and
industries. Thank you for your help and please contact me if you
need additional information.
Sincer-ely,
/Richar N. Burton
Executive Director
cc: Mr. Mike McGhee, EPA IV /
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, N.C. Department of Natural Resources/
Mr. Robert G. Burnley, SWCB-West Central Regional office

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor August 18, 1988 R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
Mr. Richard N. Burton
Executive Director
Commonwealth of Virginia
State Water Control Board
2111 Hamilton Street
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230-1143
Subject: Complaints of Color
Dan River
Dear Mr. Burton:
Thank you for your letter to me dated 26 July 1981'-, in
which you expressed concern for higher than normal. levels nf
Color in the Dan River. I share this concern and have
requested that our Water Quality staff immediately begin an
evaluation to determine the source of the color and possible
corrective measures.
I appreciate the efforts made by you and your staff to
protect industrial and potable water supplies in North
Carolina and I assure you that I am just as 'committed to the
protection of the Virginia water supplies. As soon as we
have completed our investigation, I will share this
information with you along with our plan of action to
resolve any problems that are found to exist.
Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me and I
look forward to working with you on this issue.
:SinJc.,e�re ly,
R. Paul Wilms -
cc: Al Morris, EPA III
Mike McGhee, EPA IV
Chuck Wakild
Larry Coble
• Pp lwinr Prevention PaY
1 •,
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611,7687 Tcicphone 919.733.7015
An Equal Op:onuniry AHirmafivc Action Emplo�rr

C
'
Dan River at Hwy 87 -7Q10 125 MGD
Dan River at Hwy 87 -7Q10 125 MGD
0 MILES
SMITH RIVER CONFLUENCE-7Q10 105.9 MGD
.65 MILES
SR 1964 AMBIENT ROA020)
.80 MILES
==MEBANE
BRIDGE WW TP Design Flow 7 MGD
1.25 MILES
14 (AMBIENT ROA021)
--HWY
2.50 MILES
DUKE POWER DAM (AMBIENT ROA022)
3.20 MILES
MILLER BREWING Design Flow 5.2 MGD
3.60 MILES
FIELDCREST MILLS Design Flow 0.5 MGD
4.85 MILES DAN RIVER WWTP Ceased Discharge
5.15 MILES HWY 700 (AMBIENT ROA023)
8.45 MILES
11.65 MILES
20.25 MILES
26.45 MILES
—DRY CREEK WIlWTP Design Flow 1.0 MGD
M
—SR1761 - 7Q10 212 MGD
Dan River Schematic
{
PERMITS
ERN RR BRIDGE
— DANVILLE WATER INTAKE - 7Q10 270 MGD

O ty of Eden
350 WEST STADIUM DRIVE
EDEN, NORTH CAROLINA 27288-3299
September 6, 1988
Mr. Kurt Trumbower
N. C. Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Trumbower:
SUBJECT: DAN RIVER COLOR COMPLAINTS
Attached are the ADMI (American Dye Manufacturers Institute)
color analyses results you requested. i understand that the State
of Virginia has complained that Eden's wastewater discharges have
three to four times the color level allowed at the Martinsville,
Virginia Wastewater Treatment Plant, and that color in the Dan River
downstream of Eden has interfered with potable water treatment and
industrial processes.
As the attached analyses show color levels in Eden's discharges
have increased over the last two years. However, the analyses also
show that the color in Eden's discharge had no significant impact on
color in the Dan River downstream of Eden for the flow conditions
existent at the time of sample collection.
Some differences exist between Eden's discharges into the Dan
River and Martinsville's discharge into the Smith River. The
dilution ratio of the Smith River at Eden at 7Q10 (regulated) to the
Martinsville Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent is less than 20:1.
The dilution ratio of the Dan River below the confluence at 7Q10 to
Eden's Wastewater Treatment Plant effluents is greater than 40:1.
The problems created by the Martinsville discharge at the Fieldcrest
Cannon Central Filter Plant in Eden occurred on a regular basis and

t
2
were extensively documented over a period of thirty years. Before
action is taken toward imposing color limits on Eden's discharges I
hope similar documentation will be developed, specific to Eden's
discharges and their effects on the Dan River and downstream users.
If you have any questions about the attached data, please call
me at 919-627-1009.
DA:bwj
Attachment
CC: Charles Haf ter , City Manager
Sincerely,
(:�6 r
-%NWAO UFIX�
Dennis Asbury
Public Utilities Director

S. I w
-W77M
W7 vioo
0 bt
Nr.u.,;;
cos iii� Cio
S
LIT jujourn A,
/ 1• ( C ., • �01 a 'n05� ;\•� 'f :--/ `.3�• r1 /:J r' �, a► I 0 � � (� 'h)�e',
21
6 -T
WIN• Mp4bAI
eel
FAA1
V,
7/N p 'N —� ; .;-4 ON
11*1 ;4 11,RI lEj,!ltf Min 0
joAog(
(9. 0j, 6f
J
1 a�`f♦ .�� ty, ; i `��v Vyl ^~�� �� t r l l� ° `1 fir (r �"? r\, t QO/StX ���/`� Ir' �^'�` % t� ,t�L� t
L
4'stC off,
aqy
ir
77r-
y-,
J,
r IY • `� 't'-.! } 1'�•ry �"'/� ti!"��SI ' ur uno j P�f9 r "� ! r� '' C 'io1++n r y '1'•; _ , �; , � . y rv' tt"� yt / J .•••�.-• aAu�ya4� L�� o Z�l
iMAS 00
���♦� .-l� ��/'.,� ,1` d� `i i• 7 ? i1, 1�l A � , I. � �"' n� : b 1 .t �� , :� r�/�� t� ./♦'. "r : �� �f.J' .. ' �" • ,L 11 C �5 , /� � � r4,. 't` � ^, i Airy i ` cr]+, S� JO• 1
YV YV FJV I asms
-0/ 0
illki \y
L
9VI r 5TIN
U 0 ATC) U4!) OJOQ58
..........
!uju nok,.
'41
N
-64
010
SIM firm '77 . I ;;� ). -.-I U. 1 1, 1,
z
Yl-a 4
*.Vo'�Vo&
Ti:7.4"Jo mous ell.
jam 0
0l7
j US`
rjsqnT11*
el
4.•' - L•- r• �, /v `. •/•, r" �.-a '� .�. 17a' ♦'�1 .
ue

CITY OF EDEN
ADMI COLOR ANALYSES
Date
06-Oct-86
23-Oct-86
30-Oct-86
06-Nov-86
10-Dec-86
-�- 14-Jan-87
11-Feb-87
11-Mar-87
08-Apr-87
06-May-87
04-Jun-87
22-Jul-87
26-Aug-87
23-Sep-87
28-Oct-87
24-Nov-87
30-Dec-87
29-Jan-88
26-Feb-88
25-Mar-88
25-Apr-88
30-May-88
14-Jun-88
16- Jun- 88
20-Jun-88
07-Jul-88
Mebane Bridge Plant
Original Adj
27
41
32
25
67
25
20
20
48
46
59
37
21
142
43
59
230
131
318
365
151
290
394
278
75
27
54
32
26
67
30
20
15
45
51
59
24
16
126
45
45
230
130
307
353
151
277
394
272
69
Dry Creek Plant
Original Adj
3
5
16
21
16
16
37
35
128
128
186
160
286
286
71
71
68
72
20
20
16
24
149
163
446
429
403
360
608
627
492
503
240
239
394
394
429
428
405
411
428
428
278
278
1234
591
527
527
544
539
631
631

ADMI Color Analysis For Eden Wastewater Effect On The River
Results
Results
Results
Results
Date
Date
Date
Date
pH 24-Jun-88
16-Jun-88
20-Jun-88
07-Jul-88
Gordon Bridge
Org
23
17
35
17
Gordon Bridge
Adj
23
17
23
17
Hwy 87 Bridge
Org
46
17
46
23
Hwy 87 Bridge
Adj
23
1-7
40
17
Mebane Bridge
Org
46
17
35
17
Mebane Bridge
Adj
40
17
35
11
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Org
290
394
278
75
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Adj
278
394
272
69
Hwy 14 Bridge
Org
;.45
17
40
23
Hwy 14 Bridge
Adj
35
17
35
17
Hwy 700 Bridge
Org
35
17
29
17
Hwy 700 Bridge
Adj
29
17
29
17
Dry Creek. WWI P
Org
1234
527
544
631
Dry Creek 141AITP
Adj
591
527
539
631
Berry Hill Bridge
Org
29
17
23
17
Berry Hill Bridge
Adj
23
17
46'
11

W;be-4eGY s plGla -6o.n %Ils d4 �VO4.5 e2
br%w rP �s. �/�� GrC�7l� c af �,
Ice!to wj A iom-r G 0l r
;f
r
�e�anc ��•`ds. 2C q 0
rQ
au s e/
/?o
y : �1A)
North Carolina Department -of Natural
munit Development
Resouroes &Cam y

NPOES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
Section 0: Summary of Findings/Cowents (Continued)
Facility: C.y o {'z5'oleA� �ry CraaA 41w7'/a
NPOES Permit No.: 1j1(,06g5'1s
County: �b �,�; 5 Af .%
Date of Inspection: g f o
Para,meter
Permit Limits
Self-
Monitoring
/%.R'A4/ !/:o/w-
$jo0,6 y
Sample
$g o 7 2
y6S i
,boa
a
Ts,S C'n 5 /,
3 o
do-ve,
S
/0 O O
Alp h e,
4/ 0
S.ui>
6q
AoP:e-
,Olyl r
/.go O
A

i
jNAGEMENT ER QUALITY FIT:LD-LAB ,`06RM-(Dm
PRIORITY
SAMPLE TYPE 4j II
� b
FS E]A' M RrENT El �QA ❑ STREAM ❑ E 'Rec'P
19COMPLIANCEEI CHAIN LAKE
❑ILI' \D
E M Efi G E N CY A1 A ENTRY Eiy:,
CUSTODY.
m m! 1 11 ESTUARY I i'A T F —RE I I t'l F D.
STATION LOCATION:
,or. Lvv plus
REMARKS:
Date 1 9 Ink Composite Samplk,:Type .;�,
H
C
�ap.ra
T17 IV
2
5
Total /10 01111
y�C
W
C
74
Residue: a
pil/I
N
530 Mg/l
_Suspended
12
mg/1
. . .... Mg/l
tarkg/l
141H.R' LGRto mg/1
.8
gIJOL_ mg/I
�9.
mij/l
NTU,
2
Chloride 940
Chi a: TrI 32217
Ug/Irr:
Chi Corr 32209
ug/l.:
Pheophytin a. 32213
Color: True L 80
-Pt-Co
'X.Color:(pHg
1Cyanide 720
Forrnald hyde 71880'L
Grease and 011. 556
Hardness Total 900
S&cj
MBA;
7—hem
Sulfi(
7.-t �,Tr.pa---�(c) D.O. rngA
10 t 300 ' I-
Precipition ark/day) Cloud Cover N
45
mg/1
uMhos/c
2730
ug/l
5 3
mqA
5 w
3
OD
TIJ m
(a w 0
=
IM "
m
. IV
aq
0 (D
co
PH
I .
Direction (Deg)
as N 6 NH3 r L !-%a'-
1.
TKN,as.N 625 3
N-63071k
P:;TotaLns ,&�665
PO4 as P'7d5d
66-
;C 0 27
Pb-Lead 1051 U51A
ZmZInc 1092 ugA
Ali liver 1077 ugA
Al -Aluminum 1105 uq/I
Be -Beryllium 1012 USA
Ca -Calcium 916 ma/I
Co -Cobalt 1037 ug/I
Fe -iron 1045
Alkalinity
PH 4.5.
Severity
.j JWJ Li-Lith!u1131
Mg-blagnesium 927
Mn-m"!nes , efAASS
"
Sodium ',929, A
,11014rienlaaTotall][002%
Acidity
pH 4.5 pH
82243— 8Z
Severity WI . nd Velocity MAI, �Iea

NPOES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments (Continued)
Facility: ,. fa
NPDES Permit No.: ,tic oo.2so 7
County:
Date of Inspection: �-q•o�.�S
y
Parameter
Permit Limits
Self-
Monitoring
Sample
D,O lam; s;; ;o
TSS lam, /,
3 0
A/o n e.
</O
cal G'o�'�` Or..t ` �po►,/
/ p p 0
6 yo
�
/�17 ' Got/o♦ l� 7 6
S p

Q ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGLMI N 1 LR QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM (DM
INS{1Te.7r�
INS 5PRIORITY.�
w17P
G
, ❑
SAMPLE TYPE
1 ❑
El
O FROYMRO RAO,W aRO WIRORO'W SRd TS: AntBIENT
QA
STREAM
EFFLUENT
4v+�> Y'.ri COMPLIANCE
CHA[N
❑LAKE
❑ INFLUENT
t,
'❑EMERGENCY
l_our�l
OF CUSTODY
❑ESTUARY
Other
yr''Stalf
��
,[
6r
STATION LOCATION:
/Il .=.<� /o.v ..
r i. r�;'t
I",
IRange.l0 5-2p 25 65/40-B0or 100 plus
atedYes C i No: � REMARKS:
s No Chlorin 'Chlorinated;
Y
qly1Sit r•�;�
Date Begin (yy/mm/dd)
Time Begin
Date End
Time End
Depth DM DB DBM
Val
IDs4 dr '� -
'''U(i m9/1
IDtHlgh 340
mg/I
D�Low 335 •.
mg/l .
IifoSmaMF Fecal 31616
`�./O'./100ml
I1form:'MFTotal31504
,,../100m1
Ilform: Tube.Fecal 31615
/looms
Ilform: Fecal Strep 31673
- /loom]
sldue.'To61500
mg/1
GS�t+xs Vo1atile"505'
JR•h�y�i F l x ed 510
llaid
ueaS us p e n d ed 530
OOHS
�, :V olatilr 535
'In540 :.'
mg/l
units
PI I 1 5 436m9/1PS
3'435
reg/l.to'p
!k"Jinli'y'i.H. 8.3' 415 -'
'mg/I
t ,H'4 51+0
- mg/I,
mg/l
iG
, NTU
/
Chloride 940 mg/I
Chi a: Tri 32217 - ug/t
Chi a: Corr 32209 ug/I
Pheophytin a 32213 ug/I
Color: True 80 Pt -Co
`.
Color,(pH r b ) 83 f /. ���'.ADMI
Color: pH 7.6 82 / G ADMI
Cyanide 720 mg/I
.
Fluoride 961 mg/l.
FbMaldehyde 71880 mg/I
Grease and Oils 556 m9/l.
-:.
Hardnesfl xlttsL9= — qig/1
r
SPeclflc CSn, 5 vMh
/cm?
MBAS 38260
m n
9/1
Pheno s 3J7$ y�
/1
Sulfate 945) (0 C: c'o fT1
l >v
gA
Sulfld 749 0i n,co p 1"17
g%t
�1�; zm
-
'
H.
NH3 as N 610
TKN as N 625
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630
P: Total as P 665
PO4 as P 70507
P: Dissolved as P.6+6,6tc(.:"
.s yrtier.�i
CdCedmlum 1027; +`+`^•',{~'" _ :.2.,,
'j. Cr-Chromi6m.TOWA034
CuCopper 1042;<sr::..
NI -Nickel 1067
ie Type1.
AH; L
Composite Sample Type
T -S- B '. �G-i
�F
i 'ma�yy;g
G ,G'NXX
• mg/l
- LI-L@hlum 11323.-'::
mg/l,
Mg -Magnesium 927, .
mg/I
Mn-Manganese:3055
" mg/I
Na-SOdium 929;.':
-`�:-mg/1 A.
'I i ArsenicTotal 1002
gyp= mg/I I
Se-Saau+relenlumanJo+-:<1147,'l
'urvuv,
Pb-Lead 1051
Zn-Zinc 1092ug/I P
Ag- ilver 1077 ug/l',
AI -Aluminum 1105
BrBeryllium 1012
Ca-Calclum 916"�
Co -Cobalt 1037 - u>V.l,y
Fe -Iron 1045
t
Con li ct nc �t 20 C
tl ,atcr Temperature(C
D.O. mg/Ip(ll---•—+c--+t--
AIpH i4Sy
�,1 8.3
PH:4
x
'3dy�t�
:_94
10
300
400 1•
82244
1431
82243.
Sslinity z
Preclpltlon (In/day)
Cloud Cover %
Wlnd Dlrnctlon(Deg)
S'rnam Flow S¢vadry
Turbidity Severity
Wind/Ve" oe
S
1=
<y
15 _ _ _
32
3G
1351
1350
'SS
(�480�

NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
Section 0:. Summary of Findings/Coaents (Continued)
Fa i I i ty : ,Ory G.a &4 A✓wrP G, fy o �' �a✓e�
NPDES Permit No.:
County: �e �k,•�,/,
Date of Inspection:$ ,�o7oq
••
Parameter
Permit Limits
Self -
Vi-0k A, o^5
Sample
%I1o•,7�,f/!i
_Monitoring
3 0
itio•� �- Y t
3 0
q I c y
c•+/�o�J�or,.y r'��o�►/
/D Op
//o4-0-�
o� Ob O

waJs �L�,�hIA,'A�pw wf?Y.(7•gw-. M.�-'.—...,r•. 1•.t.p. •. „ ..... ... {/r,,• .. . � -
i
DIVISIO,N;;:OF`• ENV.IRONMENTAG'.MANAGEMENT' •,. R QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM (DMkA For Lab Use
>`AS' ,f ir^' i.•.,.. d.•fr - ti ►
TK X.15, �•'T�;,'it3 i�14.,,tair,1; , 1 at. Lab Number'
COUNTY, �C:� iri9r; Gr'j ,�r" ° PRIORITY TYPE / /�' ... I -----�• SAMPLE �
Date Received: f
R1VER •BASIN'�"�>���Ci'r�
t REPORT',TO:`''ARO'FRO MRO• RRO •WARO WiRO •WSRO TS AMBIENT ❑ QA ❑ STREAM ❑EFFLUENT Rec'd b _...,s�-_
itj �i►'c;'i:�`• � + ltJ.. �,. •'. r::-•„• ......+�' . -/ /'1 •From: Baal.
:.xA'I'fB1Hi I' a+�� 1r:. 1'ri! ` �j ❑
44,�� °`"4"( 's? t;:` i•�rti t�`t �,,, K &OMPLIANCE ❑ CHAIN LAKE ❑ INFLUENT DATA ENTRY BY: 7 CK•
Iti! Other , '
k , , •i`!1 •,.:•� :::. ;. • .:.,,: • „ OF CUSTODY' - •-a'
EMERGENCY ESTUARY DATE REPORTED: r :
•+Shipped by':k,Bust1 ourle ;.Staff, Other*'' �' Y
COiL'ECTOR(.S):'f'�'`°'+'�?'�//./a-� �• �' s-.... • .. '� L \
STATION LOCATION: �� �' ;' ' • ; ;. "`f '' ' .'"
EatimatedlIIOD Range: 0- ?1ij?5>25-65/40-130 or 100 plus
�SeedW , 'ry, fy4yeS; r- No ❑ ' ..Chlorinated: Yes No ❑ REMARKS: j
I � Station►,'{ r.t„:�;. ,,.,. • Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) Tim�Bjgln Date End ¢ p M Type Composite Sample Type
• ,��,;� �� :� �.Time End Depth D DB DBM Value T e
�; r; f' I� �i�J A H L T S B ID
G' GNXX
•BODS'`.310 mg/I
COD' High :340 mg/1
r
r
CODLow:335 mg/l
Conform: MF Fecal 31616 /100m1
CollformrMF-Total 31504 /100m1
^6
r
Colifornic ;Tube• Fecal 31615,,,' , .. /100mI
is7
IFN
Coliform: Fecal Strep 31673 /100ml
g%�
Residue:'Tota1,500 -,:- - mg/I
,;,;Volatile: 505 . .. mg/l ,'
4'�
''r<'•
•.}•;�i:'`',4Fixed* 510.,., mg/h,"
r••(��'yy_
;�
Residue: -Suspended 530
;:,;(t;:-Volatlle;535 . .,`...-Mg/ „r.
;x3
ti�~�'.•�?�?Flxed,5401:;,:.:;•.:-.'
mg/1
yh.�t
PH{403 .v: '...��r'':. t';' units
Y
. ,
•x%
Acidity. to' pH •4:5'436:"'`; ,' mg/l
I.
Acidityto:pl8:3'435 r' '` '
7
lAlkallnit y::t
18
'
Alk`aI nity ao,;pl�,; 4.5':410:.- mg/1
;Sa:9
�;".�y
,TOC�680,�'r•;�' . ��.,•• . • , . mQ/1 _.
;203
NTU
Chloride 940 mg/l
Chi a: Tri 32217 ug/I
Chi a: Corr 32209 ug/1
Pheophytin a 32213 ug/1
Color: True 80 �Pt-Co
Color:(pH; � /•f) 83 •Y r�� ADMI
Color: pH 7.6 82 ''r cj C� ADMI
Cyanide 720 mg/l
Fluoride 951 mg/1
Formaldehyde 71880 mg/1
Grease and Oils 556 mg/1
Hardness Total900 mg/1
Specific Cond. 95 2
uMl:os/cm.
MBAS 38260 nig/1
Phenols •32730 1=g/1
Sulfate 945 mgA
Sulfide 745 mg/1
C�onduc nce -at 25 •C
Witter Temperature (
D.O. mgA
1[{J_n'yg�!P�oln_t-%.1
10
✓` 'y'�_,"
•Salinity:%. (:..
Preeipition an/day)
Cloud Cover %
'�ya a=p' S t �ti
'ti, 1 r. ,r �. •• n
! �C.' .•,,
''�"i. _�`�'+y1.dwA�ih�1�
' �1,� I,rf.,�;•�r K,►a •
1� t - Y•,'
32
NH3 as N 610 mg/l
TKN as N 625 mg/1
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 mg/I
P: Total as P 665 mg/I
PO4 as P 70507 mgA
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/I
Cd-Cadmium 1027 « ugA
Cr Chromium:Tota1 1034'• ' ug/I
Cu-Copper 1042 ug/1
Ni-Nickel 1067 ug/I
Pb-Lead 1051 us/1
Zn-Zinc 1092 u9A
Ag-Sliver 1077 USA
AI -Aluminum 1105 ug/1
Be -Beryllium 1012 ug/I
Ca-Calclum 916 m9A
Co -Cobalt 1037 up/1
Fe -Iron 1045 ug/1
Lf-Lithium 1132 ug/I
Mg-Magneslum 927 mg/1
Mn-Manganese 1055 ug/I;
Na-Sodium 929 mg/!
Arsenic:Total' I002 �'' •• ; : ug/1
Se -Selenium 1147 ug/I'
Og-Mercury.71900 u9A
Organochlorine Pesticides '
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
:E=. r
Base/ Neutral Extractable, Organics.ii;;: f
Acid: Extractable.Organics' •;i;r; a: :;' ,,'1.
Purgeable':Organics,(VOA'.bottle: reg'd) :
' I
Phytoplankton
PH
Alkalinity
Acidity ', t� ,, ,.
Air: Temperature (C)
:H 8.3
pH 4.5
pH 4.5
ti
pH 8.3 �'
^,; ,; _. ` it•
•i'z..
_
400 • 82244
431
82243
82242 ' "•
20
Wind Direction (Deg) 'Stream Flout
Severity Turbidity Severity Wind Velocity M/H ean•Stream Depth ft. Stream Width fL I. ;. , ;•:;, _;•
I•
.. �i:,l.,_'.•`• r� ,�•.',•i ty, ,s r=t,, 1,-t, rnSS.p,j
T.
!l. i •i• 1 ,I , ,,..•.A
36 1.1351
11350
35
rS.
64 ',' . 4 ►..x

3
.f
.
NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT
Section D: Sufawry of Findings/Comments (Continued)
Facility: m�6A,� 13��9� w�.; ,��;fy ofE•��.�
NPDES Permit No.:
County: An & k, rl A.
.�
e of Inspection: �'7a7o 8
Parameter Permit Limits
Self -
Monitoring
Sample
6H G
�7 i
30
4 6,� pro
3
n k// co, 4)
0 0 c)
-4/0
•c---I
l
/VC;�.,•t
IVA ..
V a o

l"� yW 44 . •. •,�...�)Z r .C'S, ,K . ' !' . • •t .. ..H4tiiR'J.+kYP?!+r!'R'C.efi',��0'.•0. ... _ _ • ... .. _ 11 ..
`a`s+t:`_ .'�
0-5//5-2 �d5-65/44.134 `or 100 plus -
"�' No ❑ REMARKS: ,✓.`ie, �• �f (` %� .�
No ❑ Chlorinated: Yes
Composite Sample Type
Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) Time Begin Date End Time End Depth DM DB DBM Value Type
A H L S B c G GNXX',
•
10. mg/I
Chloride 940
:•�'�`ji'3
..
mg/I
COD High 34000D.Low:335mg/1
Chi a: Tri 32217
Chl a: Corr 32209
•"�.•
.L:4
CoIiform:fMF Fecal 31616 /100ml
Pheophytin a 32213
j
�'t{,tl
Coliform:•MF.Total.31504... /100m1
Color: True 80
p �'� "
4•:? .rr
Collform:.Tube Fecal 31615 /100m1
Color:(pH ' �I %") 83
Coliformz,Fecal: Strep 31673 /100mI >�
Color: pH 7.6 82
mg/i
Cyanide 720
� srw�'8
;;5f
Resldue•;Total500
¢¢¢��•((( .tip'
a '
::cL7-:;:.:�:;Volatile'SQS: •,,-.. ,., mVI `r;.
mg/1
Fluoride951
Formaldehyde 71880
Fixed =510
i�•)
Grease and Oils 556
�IJ. i`�w�0
�.r14n
f!..l�Z
t�ti
.{• 1
Residue:�Suspended' 530::; n?g%l
Hardness Total 900
y..
•sag/I'� Et`
,,;>;.
��1'2
.
�wk:•;
.• r . .•
�����.,••�'MVo[atile:535• :.:�:�:. �::: •. . _ r. .+•�
Specific Cond. 95
mg/1
�.v, raxed 54 a•:
:pH403 �•rf'fPi1{}, . �- ...:.,:....,_
units
MBAS 3
r x,1.4...•t`-��1~•
�fnzr:r :a-...';' '`•u ?- /
Phenols
'�' •Acidity
cam• :15?.,y
to 4.5.436 ti : `,
mg/1
Sulfate !
;
1*c
..«.• f-,
'AcidityQo pH;8.3'4,35-• ;
mg/I
Sulfide
�� •,�
'Alkalinityito p{H,8.3.415• . •
mg/1
I*_-'Alk�alizijity
`".
to ipHi4.5 '410':
mg/1
YY ee
•_
ti '
• mg/I
;'Turbidity:,76 t
NTU
r' : Say" -`zap iig pcjrit Conductance at 25 C N►ater Temperature ( D.O. mg/1
f.
In I—
/{
'10:.....
`'`1{x,"•};. r''!,rvzti} .� 1.ic �; ,. *
300 •
>i�� ,+p4yy�j ti ; ;• �j �. •Salinity % Prec[pition (in/day) Cioud Cover %
• �!•il4'3it)`r.t� 1,w'C,'Y tA"".'} JI 7�?. !•. ,. ��.,.:�.... ••. n,. ,..:.. .. ..
la .�.atEli�dlG:. �, i 1 ll , .. �•
PH
36
I•
Direction (Deg)
Li -Lithium 1132 ug/l.
Mg -Magnesium 927 mg/l •'
Mn-Manganese 1055 ug/1•.
Na-Sodium 929 mg/l'
Arsenic:Total-1002: ::,,:'.,,;.':;1`:,;u8/I
Se-Seleniuza 1147 '
jig -Mercury 71900 ' :. ug/ls( .
Organochlorine Pesticides
Organophosphorus Pesticides ; . . ,• . •;{�,. ,
Acid Herbicides
Base/ Neutral Extractable Organiczi 4.;�: '
Acid Extractable Organicss::rl;rw,tl4:
Purgeable Organics (VOA' bottle reg'd)
Phytoplankton x
Acidity
Air Temperature (C)
I 8.3
Alkalinity
4.5
pH 4.5 pH 8.3
'•
,,�-><•,
nH
pH
:•��
f it�i
82244 431
Flow Severity Turbidity Severity
82243
Wind Velocity M/H
82242
ean'Stream Depth ft.
20
:..
Stream Width ft- •i ''•Yj:'
i�)..
;!{�{
,titream
_
i
1350
35
'{c
_�.1351
•d.
'

Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
24.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP -
75.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
13.234
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP -
650.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
50.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
75.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
22.939
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
650.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
75.000
at the Dan River
IF Conc Mebane Br WWTP =
75.000
Water Intake
Conc Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
31'.271
Conc -Eden Dry Creek WWTP -
650.000
Mass Balance for Color at the
Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
24.000
at the Dan River
IF Conc Mebane Br WWTP =
500.000
Water Intake
Conc Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
23.720
Conc Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
650.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant. Conc
Concentration Smith River
= 24.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP
= 75.000
Water Intake'
Conc
Miller Effluent
= 5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff
= 24.000
15.173*
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP -
1200.000

Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River
= 24.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP
= 75.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent
= 5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff
= 24.000
17.992
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
2000.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
24.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
640.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
29.233
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
1234.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River
50.000
at the Dan River
IF Conc Mebane Br WWTP =
640.000
Water Intake
Conc Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc Fie 1 dcrest' ,Mi 1 1 s Eff =
24.000
:j6. 9!59
Conc Eder; Dry Cr eeh WWT-P =
1234.000
Mass Balance for Color at the
Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
35.000
at the Dan River
IF Conc Mebane Br WWTP =
0.000
Water Intake
Conc Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
13.198
Conc Eden Dry Creek WWTP —
0.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
24.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
248.000
Water Intake'
Conc
Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
17.122
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
542.000
N

Mass Balance for -Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
35.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
248.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent -
5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
21.228
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
542.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
45.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
248.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
24.961
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
542.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
24.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
650.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
5.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
24.000
25.130
Conc
Eder, D.y Creek WWTP
0.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
24.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
650.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
0.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
0.000
24.996
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
0.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
100.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
0.000
Water Intake;
Conc
Miller Effluent -
0.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
0.000
37.328
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP -
0.000

0
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
75.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP -
0.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
0.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
0.000
27.996
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP -
0.000
Mass Balance for Color at the Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration Smith River =
50.000
at the Dan River IF
Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
0.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent -
0.000
Conc
Fieldcrest Mills Eff =
0.000
18.664
Conc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP =
0.000
Mass
Balance for Color at the
Dam River Water Intake
Resultant Conc
Concentration
Smith River =
65.000
at the Dan River
IF Conc
Mebane Br WWTP =
0.000
Water Intake
Conc
Miller Effluent =
0.000
Conc
Fieldcrest -Mills Eff
0.000
24.263
Ccnc
Eden Dry Creek WWTP -
0.''00u