NC0025071_Permit Issuance_20081223

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
December 23, 2008
Mr. Brad Corcoran
City Manager
City of Eden
308 E. Stadium Drive
Eden, NC 27288
Subject: Issuance Renewal NPDES Permit
NPDES Permit NCO025071
City of Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit Is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
This final permit includes two major changes from the second draft permit send to you on
October 30, 2008.
> The Ammonia Nitrogen calculated April 1- October 31 weekly average limit should not be
corrected from the September 24, 20008 Draft. The ammonia nitrogen policy developed between
the EPA and the state does required both a monthly and weekly average limit once the monthly
limit is required. In this case the weekly average limit is set at 35.0 mg/L.
➢ The Total Silver quarterly monitoring has been removed from this permit. It is redundant since
Total Silver quarterly monitoring and reporting is required as part of the pretreatment program.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this
decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or
Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Ron Berry at telephone number
[phone].
Sincere/
rater
t�n
Attachments
Cc: Winston Salem Regional Office/Surfaceotection Section
EPA Region IV
ESS/Aqua Toxicology/Susan Meadows
PERCS
Central Files
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch Telephone [phone] �� Carolina
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 FAX [phone]- Caro i
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at h[tp.11h2o.mrs6lenc"1 ✓vu ✓
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Permit NCO025071
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PF.RMTT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Eden
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Mebane Bridge WWTP
204 Mebane Bridge Road (NCSR 1964)
south of Eden
Rockingham County
to receiving waters designated as the Dan River in the Roanoke River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective February 1, 2009.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2012.
Signed this day December 23, 2008.
en H. S lies, irect r
Division- -of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO025071
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The City of Eden is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate the existing 13.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility
consisting of a flow meter, bar screens, grit separator, extended aeration
basins, secondary clarifiers, chlorination facilities, dechlorination, aerobic
digester, dissolved air flotation (DAF), sludge lagoons, and polymer addition
located at the Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant on 204 Mebane
Bridge Road (NCSR 1964), south of Eden, in Rockingham County, and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into the Dan River, classified WS-IV waters in the Roanoke River Basin.

O
--
— Discharge
G' If Course;,-
nage
j `r
as ��\
r
\q,, no,
USGS Quad: B20NW Southeast Eden, NC
Facility
Latitude: 36' 25' 17" N Stream Class: WS-N
Location
Longitude: 79' 44' 35" W Subbasin: 030203,
NC0025071 Mebane Bridge WWTP
Receiving Stream: Dan River
yortl1
1 Rockingham County

Permit NCO025071
A. (I.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until permit expiration,
the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
-
LIMITS `
:MONITORING REQUIREMENTS= �� < A
Monhhy y
Average ..
Weeki y
Average
,' Dail "
y
Maximum
:Measurement
.:Frequency
-Sample
TYpe
x
Sample Locatilonl.:
Flow
13.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day 20°C 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent, Influent
Total Sus ended Solids (TSS) 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg1L
Daily
Composite
Effluent, Influent
NH3 as N (April 1-October 31
14.8 m /L
35.0 m /L
Dail
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N November 1-March 31
Week
Composite
Effluent
H 3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH
Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream',�
Downstream
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
2001100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) 4
28 µg11-
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream,
Downstream"
Conductivity, Nohm/cm
Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream,
Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), mg1L
Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream',
Downstream'
Mercury 5
224 ng/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Copper, /L 6
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (TN)
TN = NO2 + NO3 + TKN, m 1L
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus JP), m /L
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc, 1L 6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Color 8
300 ADMI
3/Quarter
Grab
Effluent
Color 8
Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream,
Downstream'
Effluent Pollutant Scan 9
Annual
Composite/
Grab
Effluent

Permit NC0025071
(continued from A.(1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS)
Notes:
1. Sample locations: Upstream - Upstream at NCSR 1964; Downstream - Downstream at NCSR 700.
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected
three times per week during June, July, August and September and once per week during the
remaining months of the year.
2. The monthly average BODs and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent
value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Total Residual Chlorine compliance is required for chlorine or chlorine derivative used for disinfection.
The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/1 to' be in compliance with the
permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported by a North
Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 ug/l.
5. Provisional limit and monitoring shall apply as stated in Special Condition A.(4.). Until the limit
takes effect or is removed, 2/Month monitoring is required.
6. Sampling for zinc, copper, and silver should coincide with sampling for chronic toxicity test.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 5.4%. Toxicity testing shall be performed in the months of
March, June, September and December (see Part A.(2.).
8. Limit is an instantaneous maximum (i.e. not to be exceeded at any time) not a daily maximum.
9. See Special Condition A.(3.) for list of pollutants.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO025071
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 5.4%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998,
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
March, June, September and December. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at
the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the
two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic ' Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ
Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the Permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT)
test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of
the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be
submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the Permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed
no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NCO025071 ;
A. (3.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following parameters:
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-dlchloroethylene
Bis (2-chlorolsopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
NitratelNitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
K4eldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-tdchloroethane
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-tdchloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid -extractable compounds:
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-creso
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,641nitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic compounds:
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocydo-pentadiene
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonibile
2,4,6-tWchlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethyivinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-tdchlorobenzene
1,1-diichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chlomethoxy) methane
➢ The total set of samples analyzed during the current term of the permit must be representative
of seasonal variations.
➢ Samples shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with analytical methods approved under
40 CFR Part 136.
➢ Unless indicated otherwise, metals must be analyzed and reported as total recoverable.
➢ Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved
by the Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to each the
NPDES Unit and the Compliance and Enforcement Unit to the following address: Division of
Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1617.

Permit NCO025071
A. (4.) CONDITIONAL MONITORING FOR MERCURY
Provisional Limit with weekly monitoring for Mercury take effect August 1, 2010. If the first 12
months of monitoring data from the effective date shows no reasonable potential to exceed water
quality standards, the Permittee can petition the Division to remove this requirement, which can be
done by letter from the Division without having to reopen the permit. This does not effect the
pretreatment monitoring requirements.

NCDENR/DWQ FACT SHEET
NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL
NPDES No. NCO025071
Corrected': 12123108
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Eden / Mebane Bride Wastewater Treatment Plant
Applicant Address:
308 East Stadium Drive, Eden, North Carolina 27288
Facility Address:
191 Mebane Bridge Road, Eden, North Carolina 27288
Permitted Flow
13.5 MGD
Type of Waste:
domestic (55%) and industrial (45%) with pretreatment program
Facility/Permit Status:
Class W /Active; Permit renewal
County:
I Rockingham County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Dan River
Regional Office:
Winston-Salem
Stream Classification:
WS-IV
State Grid / USGS Quad:
B20NW/SE Eden,
NC
303 d Listed?
No
Permit Writer:
Ron Berry
Subbasin:
03-02-03
Date:
August 21, 2008
Drainage Area (miz):
1701
Lat. 36028117" N Long. 79' 44' 35" W
Summer 7Q 10 cfs
370 (July 1994
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
600 (July 1994)
30 2(cfs)
740 (July 1994
Average Flow cfs):
1WC (%):
5.35% (13.5
MGD)
Background for Permit Renewal
The facility serves the City of Eden (pop. 16,000), the town of Wentworth (pop. 2,700) and four
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). These SIUs are regulated through the City's pretreatment
program.
At the request of the permittee, June 2006, the permitted flow was reinstated to its previous 13.5
MGD compliance limits and monitoring because of increased industrial influent flow. Since its
discharge is 22 miles upstream of the water supply intake for Danville, Virginia, a color limit
(instantaneous maximum) of 300 ADMI was required. The 300 ADMI limit is based on a 1990
color mass balance model that was used for previous color limit determinations at various
permitted flows and is still considered valid.
Since June 2006 the permittee has failed to meet its effluent color limit only 1 out of the 12
reported measurements. However, the instream color monitoring data shows no definable
impacted on the downstream station located approximately 4 miles below the discharge. Danville
was provided a copy of the draft for comment.
The latest USGS steam data was used to recalculate the IWC and other related dilution factors.
The IWC % increased to 5.35% and was applied where applicable.
Because the receiving stream classification is WS, will submit draft for DEH approval. Also,
because of impact on aquatic species discussed in previous renewal will submit draft copy to NC
Wildlife Resources Commission for comment. Since the receiving stream is the water supply for
Danville Virginia, will submit draft for Virginia Department of Health approval. A copy will be
sent to the City of Danville for comment.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NCO025071
Page 1 of*5�

In late 2006 the City of Eden began monthy instream monitoring of fecal coliform as requested
by the Dan River Association. Data submitted as required by general terms and conditions in
permit.
COMPLIANCE HISTORY
From May 2006 to April 2008 the following compliance violations occurred:
1) 3 violations, failure to meet minimum 85% removal of TSS
2) 3 violations, exceedance of maximum weekly average 45 mg/L TSS
3) 1 violation, exceedance of maximum monthly average 30 mg/L TSS
4) 3 violations, exceedanace of maximum instantaneous 300 AMI Color
5) 1 violation, exceedance of maximum weekly average Fecal Coliform 400/100 ml
6) 1 violation, exceedance of maximum monthly average Fecal Coliform 200/100 ml
PERMITTING STRATEGY
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA includes all DMR, pretreatment data., PPA)
Total Copper — Action level toxicant, no failed WET test. Predicted value above acute and
chronic. Reported values above acute only. Will continue to monitor 2/Month in conjunction
with WET sampling.
Total Silver — Action level toxicant, no failed WET test. All reported values below detection
limit. Predicted value exceeds acute and chronic value.
notion with WET sarnpling Matehes pretreatment . Will remove from permit
and use pretreatment quarterly monitoring for future evaluations.
Total Zinc — Action level toxicant, no failed WET test. Predicted value above acute value but
lower than chronic value. No reported values above acute or chronic. Will continue to monitor
quarterly in conjunction with WET sampling. Matches pretreatment requirements.
Cyanide — Potential major pollutant of concern. Predicted value exceeds acute and chronic.
Reported values below PQL. Will recommend as part of pretreatment to continue monitoing
quarterly.
Mercury — Potential major pollutant of concern. Effluent monitored as part of pretreatment
requirements. Only one value above detection limit, same value above chronic. No acute limit.
Predicted value exceeds chronic limit. Will add to NPDES effluent monitoring as provisional
special condition with initial 2/1\4onth monitoring so issued permit does not have to be
reopened. with Weekly max average limit, 224 ng/l, with weekly monitoring to activate 18
months after the renewal permit effective date. ifmnediately if any one of the first 12
. The
Permittee may petition to remove the Mercury requirement under the provisional special
condition
YQQi» Fe— ergts
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) — Data from PPA. This is a water quality standard required
because the receiving stream, Dan River, is classified as a WS. No acute limit. Predicted value
below chronic. Highest reported value below chronic limit. No action required.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0025071
Page 2 ov

Hardness (CaCO3) - Small data set. This is a water quality standard required because the
receiving stream, Dan River, is classified as a WS. No acute limit. Predicted value below
chronic limit. Highest reported value below chronic limit. No action required.
Phenolic Compounds — Monitoring is part of pretreatment requirement. TIis There is a water
quality standard, aesthetic standard dealing with odor and taste, required for chlorinated
phenolic compounds because the receiving stream, Dan River, is classified as a WS. Evaluation
of available PPA data indicates all chlorinated phenolic compounds are below detection limits
so no further action is required. Future permit renewals will include evaluation of the PPA
data for chlorinated phenolic compounds. No aeute liiPrediote a value e%eee s elffe ie fi it
0—Y—Fal r-epefted values eyceeed ehr-enie. Will require as NPDES effluent monitoring and iner-ease
to Vk4en4h fneniter-ing with weekly aver -age i limit 36 --gli Will impeet
Arsenic
Effluent monitored quarterly as part of pretreatment program. All reported data below detection
limit. Predicted value below chronic. No acute. No changes recommended, continue quarterly
pretreatment monitoring.
Cadmium
Effluent monitored quarterly as part of pretreatment program. All reported data below detection
limit. Predicted value below acute and chronic. No changes recommended, continue quarterly
pretreatment monitoring.
Chromium
Effluent monitored quarterly as part of pretreatment program. All reported data below detection
limit. Predicted value below acute and chronic. No suspected toxicity. No changes
recommended, continue quarterly pretreatment monitoring.
Molydenum
Effluent monitored quarterly as part of pretreatment program. Predicted value below chronic. No
acute. No changes recommended, continue quarterly pretreatment monitoring.
Lead
Effluent monitored quarterly as part of pretreatment program. All reported data below detection
limit. Predicted value below acute and chronic. No changes recommended, continue quarterly
pretreatment monitoring.
Other Parameters
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data from April 2006 through March 2008 was reviewed
and is summarized in Table I.
Table I: Summary DMR Data — March 2006 to Alnril 2008
Flow
(MGD)
BOD5
(mg/L)
TSs
(mg/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L)
Fecal
form
#/I OO
#/I00m 1 1
TRC
(µg/L)
DO
(mg/L)
Color
(ADMI)
TN
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
Averse
7.01
3.03
11.44
0.19
53.28
15.6
7.87
243.6
3.556
1.315
Maximum
1 8.7
1 8.4
1 41.6
1 4.3
1 614.9
27
18.1
603
12.90
1
Minimum
5.3
1.5
6.3
0.1
4.4
10
0.5*
86
1.11
!0!190:8:j
* Suspect meter problem, lowest DO reported value = 3.9 mg/L
Fact Sheet
NPDES N00025071
Page 3 of/

BODS — Primary effluent pollutant for WWTP. Will maintain existing permit effluent monitoring
and compliance including 85% removal.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - Primary effluent pollutant for WWTP. Will maintain existing
permit effluent monitoring and compliance including 85% removal.
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) — Primary effluent toxicant for WWTP. Calculated IWC with
latest stream data, monthly max limit increased to 14.8 mg/1 for summer months. No Adde
summer weekly max limit or winter limits required 3g/1 to meet EPA guidelines as
directed in October 2002 policy letter for NPDES permit renewals and removed re -opener
condition. Will maintain existing permit monitoring requirements, summer and winter.
pH — Primary effluent pollutant for WWTP. Will maintain existing permit effluent monitoring
and conpliance. Will maintain existing permit instream monitoring.
Fecal Coliform - Primary effluent pollutant for WWTP. Will maintain existing permit effluent
monitoring and conmpliance. Note: Current instream monitoring is not part of permit
requirments. Instream study being provided to Dan River Association on a voluntary bases.
Compared effluent and instream data and noted fecal coliform high levels in the Dan River are
not negatively impacted by or traceable to WWTP effluent.
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) — Primary effluent water quality standard. Calculated IWC with
latest stream data, no change to limit. Will maintain existing permit effluent monitoring and
compliance. Will add footnote to clarify chlorine derivative definition and measurement
detection protocol.
Temperature — Primary effluent impact factor for WWTP. Will maintain existing permit
effluent monitoring. Will maintain existing permit instream monitoring.
Conductivity — Primary indicator of impact of effluent dissolved solids on receiving stream.
Will maintain existing permit instream monitoring.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) — Primary effluent pollutant for WWTP. Will maintain existing permit
effluent monitoring and compliance. Will maintain existing permit instream monitoring.
Total Nitrogen (TN) — Major pollutant of concern for nutrients from WWTP. Will maintain
existing permit effluent monitoring.
Total Phosphorus (TP) - Major pollutant of concern for nutrients from WWTP. Will maintain
existing permit effluent monitoring.
Color — Major pollutant of concern for aesthetic from WWTP with industrial sources. Specific
concern on impact to downstream water supply intakes. Reported data shows no impact of
effluent color on downstream color. Will maintain existing permit effluent monitoring and
compliance. Will maintain existing permit instream monitoring. Virginia Department of Health
will be asked to approve draft.
Chronic WET test — Primary test for toxicity evaluation of effluent. Past all test. Will edit
special condition text in existing permit to reflect most current language and new test
concentration. Will maintain existing effluent monitoring and compliance. ESS will be asked to
comment on the draft.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0025071
Page 4 off j

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Mebane bridge
NCO025071
Time Period
May 2006 - April 2008
Qw (MGD)
13.5
701OS (ds)
370
701OW (ds)
600
3002 (ds)
740
Avg. Stream Flow, OA (ds)
2018
Reeving Stream
Dan River
WWTP Class IV
IWC (%) @ 7010S 5.3527
@ 701OW 3.37
@ 3002 2.7499
@ OA 1.0263
Steam Class WS-IV
Outfall 001
Qw=13.5MGD
STANDARDS &
PARAMETER
TYPE
CRITERIA 12)
PQL
units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
hl
NCwos/ XFAVr
n $Dot NaPndCw AYowabNCw
Ctronk Aarh
Acute: 7.3
Action Level Toxicant: No failures WET tests
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
48 48
129.6
1 ___
__
Predi_died_ value above acute_------.-----_
Chronic: 130.8
Predicted value;elow chronic
Continue 2/Month monitoring
Acute: 1.23
Action Level Toxicant: No failures WET tests
Silver
NC
0.1 AL 1.23
ug/L
48 0
2.5
1
All reported value below detection limit, predicted value
_ _ _ _
Chronic: 1.12
above acute and chronic
Reduce to monitoring under pretreatmnet
Acute: 67.0
Action Level Toxicant: No failures WET tests
Zinc
NC
50 AL 67
ug/L
12 12
136.8
_ _ _
Predicted_ value above acute_
----.-.-.-----
Chronic: 934.1
Predicted value bebw chronic
Continue Quarterly monitoring
Acute: 22.0
Predicted and reported values
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
LG&
13 3
S.0
-.-.-.-.-.
below acute _ _ ------
IChronic: 93.4
Predicted and reported values below chronic
No action required -Pretreatment
Acute: WA
Only 1 data points detected
Mercury
NC
12
2
ng/L
22 1
5159.0
-_ _
_ _ _ _ - _ _-------------_
Chronic 224.2
Predicted value above chronic
Add Month monitoring, conditional limit
Acute: NIA
Only 3 data points, no acute limit
Total Dissolved
NC
500
mgA
3 3 6905.2
Solids
Note: n<12
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chronic: 9,341
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Predicted and reported values below chromic
Limited data set
No action required
Acute: N/A
Only 3 data points, no acute limit
Hardness (CaCo3)
NC
100
mgll
3 3 95.2
_ _ _
_ - -- _
_ _ _ _
Note: n<12
Chrome: 1.868
I
Predicted and reported values below chromic
Limited data set
No action required
Acute: NIA
WS Standard applies, odor & taste
Phenolic Compounds
A
1
W
12 6
665.0
_ - _ - _ - _ - - _
Highest reported value 100 yg/L total phenolic
Chronic: 36
Unable to separate chloiranted phenols
No further action
Acute: WA
Arsenic
C
50
yg4
12 0
6.6500 _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
Chronic 4.872
AO points below DL. predicted value below chronic:
No action required -Pretreatment
Acute: 15
All points below OL, predicted value below acute
Cadmium
NC
2 15
ygA
12 0
1.3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
No action requlrod-Pretreatment
Chronic: 37
All points below DL, predicted value below chronic
No action required -Pretreatment
Acute: 1,022
All points below DL, predicted value below acute
Chromium
NC
50 1022
IW
12 0
3.5
_ _ _ _ _
No action_ requlre_d-Pretreatment _ _ - _
Chronic: 934
All points below DL. predicted value below Chronic
No action required -Pretreatment
Acute: NIA
Molydenum
A
3500
po
12 5
14.3
_ __
_ _.-_-.-_-_-_-_
Chronic: 127,275
Predlded e below chronic
valu
No action required -Pretreatment
Acute: 261
All points below DL, predicted value below acute
Nickel
NC
88.0 261
KA
12 0
6.7
1
No action required -Pretreatment
Chronic: 1.644
A8 points below DL, predicted value below chronic ---
No action requlred4sretreatment
Acute: 34
All points below DL, predicted value below acute
Load
NC
25.00 N 33.8
pgtl
12 0
6.7 1-
- - - -
No action raquired-Pretreatment
---
Chronic: 467
All points below DL, predicted value below chronic
No action requlred-Pretreatment
Acute: N/A
0 0
NIA
I
_.
Chronic: NIA
_-.-.-.-------_-.-.-_-_-.-_
Legend: " Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Nen-carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
npdes rpa 2004031, rpa
12JMOOS

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
2
Copper
Silver
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
51310s
79.
79.0
Std Dev.
19.0374
1
some <
5.
2.5
Sid Dev.
0.0000
2
w+wee.
0
68.0
Mean
50.0417
2
511 e <
s.
2.5
Mean
2.5000
3
w"
m
85.0
C.V.
0.3804
3
same <
s.
2.5
C.V.
0.0000
4
wt<me'
ee.
68.0
n
48
4
w14M <
5.
2.5
n
48
5
711M
w
50.0
5
71,VN <
5.
2.5
6
711GMe
0
68.0
Mult Factor =
1.4400
6
711wee <
s.
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.0000
7
wlmef,.,
47,
47.0
Max. Value
90.0 ug/L
7
w+m5 <
5.
2.6
Max. Value
2.5 ug/L
8
weroe
s•.
54.0
Max. Pred Cw
129.6 ug/L
8
emcee
5.
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
2.5 ug/L
9
waroe.
13.
13.0
9
weme <
5.
2.5
10
wome
n.
47.0
10
wt3m8
5.
2.5
11
lwuoek
36,
36.0
11
lwaee <
5.
2.5
12
twnms
Z.
35.0
12
MUM <
5.
2.5
13
+mma
28.
28.0
13
+tome
s.
2.5
14
lvaae
u.
41.0
14
umae <
s.
2.5
15
1v
33.
33.0
15
ivm <
5.
2.5
16
1v13me
27.
27.0
16
1vt3 <
5.
2.5
17
111we7
20.
20.0
17
41em7 <
5.
2.5
18
1117m?
2e.
29.0
18
1117m7 <
5.
2.5
19
WW
38.
38.0
19
2nm7 <
S.
2.5
20
v1ue7
29.
49.0
20
vum7 <
5.
2.5
21
3nm7
29.
29.0
21
3am7 <
5.
2.5
22
Wn
39.
49.0
22
wl"7
5.
2.5
23
414W
35.
36.0
23
V m
s.
2.5
24
411+m7
30.
39.0
24
2/11m7
5.
2.5
npdes rpa 2004031, data
1 ' 12122/2008

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
3
4
5
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
1
a14M
15
15.0
Std Dev.
12.8723
1
Mar-2006
6
5.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
Mar-2006
<
200
100.0
2
v13m
24
24.0
Mean
27.6667
2
Sep-2005
<
5
5.0
Mean
5,0000
2
Sep-2005
<
200
100.0
3
1z 105
20
20.0
C.V.
0.4653
3
Jul-2004
<
5
6.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
Jul-2004
<
200
100.0
4
31810
60
60.0
n
12
4
Jul-2008
<
5
5.0
n
13
4
Jun-2008
<
200
100.0
5
W71M
25
25.0
5
Apr-2008
<
5
5.0
5
Mar-2008
<
200
100.0
6
W1310e
31
31.0
Mull Factor=
2.2800
6
Dec-2007
<
5
5.0
Mult Factor=
1.0000
6
Dec-2007
<
200
100.0
7
1a w
23
23.0
Max. Value
60.0 ug/L
7
Feb-2007
<
5
5.0
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
Sep-2007
1100
1100.0
8
3 W
27
27.0
Max. Pred Cw
136.8 ug/L
8
Jun-2007
<
5
5.0
Max. Fred Cw
5.0 ug/L
8
Jun-2007
<
200
100.0
9
s 7
44
44.00
9
Sep-2007
<.
5.0
5.0
9
Mar-2008
<
200
100.0
10
snz07
13
13.00
10
Dec-2006
<
5.0
5.0
10
Dec-2006
<
200
100.0
11
1DIM7
23
23.00
11
Sep-2006
6.0
5.0
11
Sep-2006
<
200
100.0
12
3112108
27
27.00
12
Jun-2006
<
5.0
5.0
12
Aug-2006
<
200
100.0
13
13
Mar-2006
6.0
5.0
13
Mar-2006
<
200
100.0
14
14
14
Dec-2005
<
200
100.0
15
15
15
Sep-2005
<
200
100.0
16
16
16
Jun-2005
<
200
100.0
17
17
17
Mar-2005
<
200
100.0
18
18
18
Deo-2004
<
200
100.0
19
19
19
Sep-2004
<
200
100.0
20
20
20
Jul-2004
<
200
100.0
21
21
21
Jun-2004
<
200
100.0
22
22
22
Mar-2004
<
200
100.0
23
23
23
24
24
24
npdes rpa 2004031, data
-2- 12/22/2008

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
6
7
8
Total Dissolved
Solids
Hardness
(CaCo3)
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results -
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Da
Std Dev.
213.2007
1
Mar-2006
2830
2830.0
Std Dev.
701.6409
1
Mar-2006
47.2
47.2
Std Dev.
8.0133
1
Mar-2006
Mean
145.4545
2
Sep-2005
2800
2800.0
Mean
2410.0000
2
Sep-2005
40
40.0
Mean
47.7333
2
Sep-2005
C.V.
1.4658
3
Jul-2004
1600
1600.0
C.V.
0.2911
3
Jul-2004
56
56.0
C.V.
0.1679
3
Jul-2004
n
22
4
n
3
4
n
3
4
Jun-2008
<
5
5
5
Mar-2008
<
Mult Factor =
4.6900
6
Mult Factor =
2.4400
6
Mult Factor =
1.7000
6
De 2007
Max. Value
1100.0 ng/L
7
Max. Value
2830.0 mgA
7
>;
Max. Value
56.0 mg/I
7
Sep-2007
<'
Max. Pred Cw
5159.0 ng/L
a
Max. Pred Cw
6905.2 mg8
8
Max. Pred Cw
95.2 mg/I
8
Jun-2007
9
9
9
Mar-2007
10
10
10
Dec-2006
=;<-
11
11
11
Sep-2006"<.
12
12
12
Jun-2006
0,
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24-;
npdes rps 2004031, data
.3- - 12/22/2008

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
e
10
Phenolic Compounds
Arsenic
Cadmium
to
BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
12
12.0
Std Dev.
29.1407
1
Jun-2008
<
10
5.000
Sul Dev.
0.7217
1
Jun-2008
<
2
1.0
Std Dev.
0.14
47
47.0
Mean
21.6000
2
Mar-2008
<
10
5.000
Mean
4,7917
2
Mar-2008
<
2
1.0
Mean
0.95
13
13.0
C.V.
1.3554
3
Dec-2007
<
10
5.000
C.V.
0.1506
3
Dec-2007
<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.15
10
5.0
n
12
4
Sep-2007
<
10
5,000
n
12
4
Sep-2007
<
2
1.0
n
12
10
5.0
5
Jun-2007
<
10
5.000
5
Jun-2007
<
2
1.0
46
46.0
Mult Factor =
6.6500
6
Mar-2007
<
10
5.000
Mult Factor =
1.33
6
Mar-2008
<
2
1.0
Mull Factor =
1.3300
10
5.0
Max. Value
100.0 pg/1
7
Dec-2006
<
10
5.000
Max. Value
5.0 pg/l
7
Dec-2006
<
2
1.0
Max. Value
1.0 pg/I
100
100.0
Max. Fred Cw
665.0 pg/I
8
Sep-2006
<
10
5,000
Max. Fred Cw
6.7 pg/I
8
Sep-2006
<
2
1.0
Max. Fred Cw
1.3 pg4
10
5.0
9
Jun-2006
<
10.0
5,000
9
Aug-2006
<
2.0
1.0
10
5.0
10
Mar-2006
<
10.0
5.000
10
Mar-2006
<
2.0
1.0
10
5.0
11
Mar-2006
<
10.0
5.0
11
Mar-2006
<
2.0
1.0
10
10.0
12
Sep-2005<;
5.0
2.5
12
Sep-2005
<
1.0
0.5
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
nodes rpa 2004031, data
-4- 12/22/2008

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
11
12
13
Chromium
Molydenum
Nickel
Date
<
BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL-112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
1
Jun-2008
<
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.4330
1
Jun-2008
s
5
2.5
Std Dev.
1.7686
1
Jun-2008
<
10
5.0
2
Mar-2008
<
5
2.5
Mean
2.3750
2
Mar-2008
;',
5
2.5
Mean
3.9083
2
Mar-2008
<
10
5.0
3
Deo-2007
<
5
2.5
C.V.
0.1823
3
0e 2007
'-t
5
2.5
C.V.
0.4525
3
Dec-2007
<
10
5.0
4
Sep-2007
<
5
2.5
n
12
4
Sep-2007
z
5
2.5
n
12
4
Sep-2007
<
10
5.0
5
Jun-2007
<
5
2.5
5
Jun-2007
6
6.0
5
Jun-2007
<
10
5.0
6
Mar-2008
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.4000
6
Mar-2008
I',
5
2.5
Mull Factor =
2.2300
6
Mar-2008
<
10
5.0
7
Deo-2006
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
2.5 pg/I
7
Dec-2006
r
5
5.0
Max. Value
6.4 pgfl
7
De 2006
<
10
5.0
8
Sep-2006
<
5
2.5
Max. Fred Cw
3.6 pg/I
8
Sep-2006
8
6.0
Max. Fred Cw
14.3 pgA
8
Sep-2006
<
10
5.0
9
Aug-2006
<
5
2.5
9
Aug-2006
6
6.0
9
Aug-2006
<
10
5.0
10
Mar-2006
<
5
2.5
10
Mar-2006
-<
5
2.5
10
Mar-2006
<
10
5.0
11
Mar-2006
<
5
2.5
11
Dec-2005
-_<
5
2.5
11
Mar-2006
<
10
5.0
12
Sep-2005-e
2
1.0
12
Sep-2005
6
6.4
12
Sep-2005
<
5
2.5
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15r`V
15
16
16
16
17
78
18
18
19
19--_~
it-'
19
20
20
20
22
22
22
23
23
`,�
23
24
24
24
npdes rpa 2004031, data
- 5 - 12/22/2008

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
14
15
Lead
0
Results
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL Results
Std Dev.
0.7217
1
Jun-2008
<
10
5.0
Sid Dev.
0.7217
1
Std Dev.
NO DATA
Mean
4.7917
2
Mar -ZOOS
<
10
5.0
Mean
4.7917
2
Mean
NO DATA
C.V.
0.1506
3
Dec-2007
<
10
5.0
C.V.
0.1506
3
C.V.
NO DATA
n
12
4
Sep-2007
<
10
5.0
n
12
4
n
0
5
Jun-2007
<
10
5.0
5
Mull Factor=
1.3300
6
Mar-2008
<
10
&0
Mult Factor =
1.3300
6
Mull Factor=
N/A
Max. Value
5.0 pg/I
7
Dea2006
<
10
5.0
Max. Value
5.0 pg/I
7
Max. Value
0.0 0
Max. Fred Cw
6.7 pg/I
8
Sep-2006
<
10
5.0
Max, Fred Cw
6.7 pg/I
8
Max. Fred Cw
N/A 0
9
Aug-2006
<
10
5.0
9
10
Mar-2006
<
10
5.0
10
11
Mar-2006
<
10
5.0
11
12
Sep-2005
<
5
2.5
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
li
24
npdes rpa 2004031, data
-6- 12/22/2008

w
12/18/2008 IWC Calculations
Mebane Bridge Assume upstream TRC level = 0
iVC0025071 Assume upstream Fecal level = 0
Pre aced B : RDB Check Box if WTP Facility ❑
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 13500 Enter Upstream NH3-N Level (mg/L): 0.220
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 370.000
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 600.000.
Total Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
Fecal Limit
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF <331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
INPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
370
13.5
20.925
17.0
0
5.35
28
200/100ml
18.68
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
Limit MAX
35.0 mg/L
7Q10 (CFS)
370
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
13.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
20.925
STREAM STD (MGIL)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0.220
IWC (%)
5.35
NON-POTW
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)*
14.8
14.8
WEEKLY AVG LIMIT (mg/1)
35.0
35.0
(WEEKLY/DAILY)
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
600
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
13.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
20.925
STREAM STD (MGIL)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0.220
IWC (%)
3.37
NON-POTW
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)*
NO LIMIT
NO LIMIT
(WEEKLY/DAILY)
* MONTHLY AVG LIMIT
12/18/2008

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form I
WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Reauestl 9/9/2008
PERCS
Dan River
- Tom Ascenzo
-
municipal renewal
-r'rr'y
x
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
you (or NOV POTW).
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific
POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next
permit renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), coverlefter, final fad sheet. Email RPA
if changes.
new industries
W WTP expansion
Speculative limits
stream reclass.
stream relocation
7Q10 change
minor
other
mewal applications lists 4 industrial users. Based on DMR data review,
vil 2005 to March 2008:
RPA considering decreasing Copper monitoring to quarterly (no WET
RPA considering dropping Silver (all points belows below DL)
RPA consider adding Phenolic Compounds with limit, exceeds chroinic
lndard 'Unable to locate any LTMP/STMP data
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART: Pb '_ , ��E '� �, - �[•, a 9!
f Pretreatment Program (check all that apply) avt rcow
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV' if program still under development)
3a) Full Program with LTMP'-->
3b) Modified Program with STMP-
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below TMP time frame
M st re nt:
Flow, MGD Permitted 1 Actual Time od for Actual N cle:
Industrial 3,S / eriOH-o'}
Uncontrollable n/a 7+164-0t
in the LTMP/STMP"
in LTMP/STMP while SIU still
Au�',u.. IttMQ
Q = Quarterly
M = Monthly
NO
' " Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composts (dif POCs for incinerators)
to POTW '•" Only In LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
AC l IN� I-TNLY - Not- 6 ! Wf Pc
� Pn -0%- Is m _
n7,
July 24, 2007

DMR Data NCO025071 Date: 8/7/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb: rdb
O DO Rdg
20
---------------------------------------------------------------------
18
-
16
-
14--------------------------
12
---------------------------------------------
-
0 0
0
E
0
p0
6
0---- - 0�
-Off O
6
--O d -----------
O
--------------- --
--- ---------
-------------------------
--------
2
------------------------------------------------------------
-------
0
Apr-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06
Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07
Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08
O Temperature Rdg
40 --------
-----------------
---------------------------------------
35
----- -
O
-
------------
25
--------. --�-- ---_
----
o
C
O 20
>
---
------ ----- -�-
-
C
V
6
--------
---------- - - --------- -
----------- - ---
0
Apr-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06
Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07
Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08
♦ Direct Color Rdg ❑
pH Adjusted Color Rdg —Color
Rdg Max Limit
700
TI--------------------------------------------------------------------
600
-------------------♦----------------------------------------------
500-----------------------------------
----------------------
10 MGD
400
— -----------------------------
13.5 MGD
200
---♦-------------
-----------------------------�
'----------------------------
100
-------------------
---- ----
0
Apr-05 Jul-05 Oct-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08

DMR Data NCO025071 Date: 8/6/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb:rdb
o Daily Flow ■ Monthlly Avg Daily Flow —Monthly Avg Daily Flow Limit
18
--------------------------------------- — ---
16
------------------ i------------- -- ° -----------
14
---- --- °
°o 0
10
-_ - 0---
O O �- 8*___ ---
-8 --------$
0
0-�-
°
O° o ° °°
8
- -C - - --0__$
O O
O O
0
Apr-05 Jun-05 Sep-0.5 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08
O Weekly Avg SOD Rdg ■ Monthly Avg SOD Rdg Weekly SOD Avg Limit
Monthly SOD Avg Limit --- i—% SOD Removal % SOD Removal Min
50
100.00%
45
95.00%
40
90.00%
35 -
- 85.00%
30
80.00%
E25
75.00%
20
70.00%
15
O
65.00%
10
p O
60.00%
5
° O
55.000k
0 50.00 %
Apr-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 May-06 Aug-06 Nov-06 Feb-07 May-07 Jul-07 Oct-07 Jan-08 Apr-08
O Weekly Avg TSS Rdg ■ Monthly Avg TSS Rdg Weekly TSS Avg Limit
Monthly TSS Avg Limit �—% TSS Removal % TSS Removal Min
160 T 100.00%
°
95.00%
10 �(�
x0 y( 90.00%
N
12/
� - 85.00%
`
J( x
100 80.00%
�r
80 75.00%
E
60 70.00%
O 65.00%
40
60.00%
20 ° O ■ 55.00 %
0
50.00%
Apr-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Feb-07 May-07 Aug-07 Nov-07 Jan-08 Apr-08

DMR Data NCO025071
Mebane Bridge W WTP (Town of Eden)
O Weekly Avg Fecal Corrforrn ■ Monthlly Avg Fecal Coliform
Monthly Avg Fecal Colifonn Limit —Weekly Avg Fecal Clifonn Limit
3500 ------------------------------------------------------------
3000--------------------------------- 0----------------------------
25001---------------------------------------------------------------
E2000 - -------------------------------------------------------------
0
1500--------------------------------------------------------
10001----------- -----_-_------------------ -
III
500------------------ —----------------- ---------------- ---- — ----
14.
0
Apr-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun•07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08
o NH3-N Rdg —NH3-N Rdg Limit (Summer Only)
n----------------------------------------------------- ---------------
12.0 ----- -------------------------------
4.0+-------
-----------------------------------
O
00 -----------9000---- -
0.0
Apr-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08
r
<.:
o pH Rdg —pH Range Limits
---------------------------------------------
Date: 8/6/08
pb: rdb

DMR Data NCO025071 Date: 8/7/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb: rdb
Total Nitrogen Rdg
14
-----
-------------------
— — ------------------
12
----------
---------------------
-----------------------------------
10
----------------------------------------
6
----
— —
----------------
----------- --------
— ----------------------
E 6
----
-----------
------
—
--------------
♦
♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦
2
--------
—
♦
-----
♦ ♦
— —
-----------...----�
♦-----♦-------------
0
Apr-05
Jul-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06
Mar-07
Jun-07
Sep-07
Dec-07 Mar-08
Total Phosphorus Rdg
4
----------------------------------------
•-
3
----
—
-----------------------
— -----------------------
.---
— ----
•
2
------
----•
--- — -------------------------------------♦------
•--------------------♦-------------
E2
----------------------------
— --♦-
1
- —
-----------------•
0
Apr-05
Jul-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06
Mar-07
Jun-07
Sep-07
Dec-07
Mar-08
Total Zinc Rdg
0.07
-----------------------
------------
— —
0.06
--------------------
♦-----------------------------------------------
0.05
•------
0.04
------------------------------------------
E0.03-------------------------
----
----- ♦----------------------------------
♦
•
0.00
Apr-05
Jul-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06
Mar-07
Jun-07
Sep-07
Dec-07
Mar-08

DMR Data NCO025071 Date: 8/7/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb: rdb
Total Copper Rdg
0.14
--------------------------------------
0.1z
-----------------------------------
•
0.10
----------r
41k ----------------------------------- --------------------
• • ♦ N
E 0.06
�-�--N------•--~--------------------------���--�-----♦
N ♦♦♦
40
-- ��-------------
0.00
Apr-05
Jul-05 Oct-05 Jan-06 Apr-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08
• Total Silver - 50% of Less Than Reported Rdg ■ Total Silver Less Than Reported Rdg
0.0060
-------
a
0.0050
--z WIN IN 1111111110 0mom on now
8
0.0040
m
�J
U
0.003G
E
__N______________________________-_____. ______________--____-
C
o NN NNN NNN N NM NNN M MNNNM MNN NN NNN NNN
0.0020
-----------------------
0.0010
-♦NNE----------------------------------------------------
0.0000
Apr-05 Jul-05 Oct•05 Jan-06 Apr-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08
mm/dd/yy
Parameter
Sample
Value
6/14105
TGP38-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
9/13/05
TGP38-RF STATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
12/7/05
TGP3B-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
3r8/08
TGP3B-P/FSTATRE May ChrCerlodaphnia
Composite
Pass
SM05
TGP38-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
9/13106
TGP38-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
12/5/05
TGP3B-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
3/7/07
TGP38-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
6007
TGP3B-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
9/12107
TGP38-P/F STATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass
12/12/07
TGP38-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnla
Composite
Pass
3112/08
TGP38-P/FSTATRE May ChrCeriodaphnia
Composite
Pass

DMR Data NCO025071 Date: 8/8/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb: rdb

Impact Data DMR NCO025071 Date: 8/8/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb: rdb
Temperature
35
♦
Effluent —upstream —Downstream
30
---
-*-------------------
-----------------------------------------
25
♦
♦---♦---------------
--------------
20
♦
------
-----
♦
--------
------------------- -
--------
U
♦
♦
♦♦
15
-
--------
---------
-----------
-------------- ------
---
— ---
10
-------------
------
— ------
— ---- -- - ------------
-
---
-
5
--------------
----------------------
-------------------
----
0
Apr-
Jun-
Aug-
Oct-
Dec-
Feb- Apr-
Jun- Aug- Oct- Jan- Mar- May- Jul-
Sep-
Nov-
Jan-
Mar-
05
05
05
05
05
06 06
06 06 06 07 07 07 07
07
07
08
08
DO
16
♦
Effluent —upstream —Downstream
14
-----------------------------------------
-------------------
-----
12
------------------
----------------
- ---------------
-
1-
--
E
-----------------
--------
♦♦
e---------
*----------
-
♦------------------------------
---
a
Apr-
Jun-
Aug-
Oct-
Dec
Feb- Apr-
Jun- Aug- Oct- Jan- Mar- May- Jul-
Sep-
Nov-
Jan-
Mar-
05
05
05
05
05
06 06
06 06 06 07 07 07 07
07
07
08
08
pH
8.5
♦ Effluent —upstream —Downstream
♦
♦ ♦
♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦ ♦
7.5
-------------
_
�.___________
----------- --
• ♦�__
----�-----
7
W6.5
_________________
______________________________
___________
5
___
_
_ ___
_ ___
_ _________ _ _ ______ __________________
5.5
------------------
-
-- - - ------------------
------------
5
Apr-
Jun-
Aug-
Oct-
Dec-
Feb- Apr-
Jun- Aug- Oct- Jan- Mar- May- Jul-
Sep-
Nov-
Jan-
Mar-
05
05
05
05
05
06 06
06 06 06 07 07 07 07
07
07
08
08

Impact Data DMR NC0025071 Date: 8/8/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb: rdb
Fecal Coliform
600
♦
Effluent —Upstream —Downstream
500
-----
--------------------
— ----- — --------- — --- —
— --- — ----
---
is400
-
------------------- - ----------------
0
0
C
7
100
-----------------
-.---------.-- ------ - --- -- - --
-- -----
-
0
Apr- Jun-
Aug-
Oct-
Dec-
Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Jan- Mar- May- Jul-
Sep- Nov-
Jan- Mar-
05 05
05
05
05
06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07
07 07
08 08
Color
625
♦
Effluent —Upstream —Downstream tRDG = <25
In Stream
525
--------------------------------------------------------------------
425
------
----------------------------- ------
?325
------
-♦--
125
----Au
vvvvv
25
Apr- Jun-
Aug-
Oct-
Dec-
Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Jan- Mar- May- Jul-
Sep- Nov-
Jan- Mar-
05 05
05
05
05
06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07
07 07
08 08
Color, pH Adjusted
625
•
Effluent —Upstream —Downstream —P—RDG = <25 In
Stream
525 --------------------------------------------------------------------
425 --------------------------------------------------------------------
? 325----------
# --------------------------------------------------------
ta
125
25
Apr- Jun-
Aug-
Oct-
Dec-
Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Jan- Mar- May- Jul-
Sep- Nov-
Jan- Mar-
05 05
05
05
05
06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07
07 07
08 08

Impact data DMR NCO025071 Date: 8/8/08
Mebane Bridge WWTP (Town of Eden) pb: rdb
CONDUCTIVITY
275
Upstream Downstream —
'Baseline - Upstream
225
-- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------
u175--
1
Q125-
-- -- -- - ----- — - — - - - - --
---- ---- ---- - -
Z
75
25
Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Dec- Feb- Apr- Jun- Aug- Oct- Jan-
Mar- May- Jul- Sep- Nov- Jan- Mar-
05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 07
07 07 07 07 07 08 08

RE: NPDES Permits Draft for City of Eden WWTPs (� �r - -1 _ ? J
Subject: RE: NPDES Permits Draft for City of Eden WWTPs
From: "Goode,Robert" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:04:59 -0500
To: "Ron Berry" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Brockenbrough,Allan"<[e-mail]>
Mr. Berry - I have talked with Allan Brockenbrough of our Central
Office. We have no comments on the two permits. However, in order to
provide meaningful comments, it would be nice if future fact sheets
contained the RPAs in order that we could better understand how the
reasonable potential calculations were completed. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
-----Original Message -----
From: Ron Berry [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Dunkley, Barry; Goode,Robert
Subject: NPDES Permits Draft for City of Eden WWTPs
September 24, 2008
Mr. Barry Dunkley
City of Danville
Mr. Robert Goode
Virginia DEQ
As agreed I have attached "read only" (pdf format) files for the 2 City
of Eden WWTP NPDES Permit renewals currently out for public comment.
Each file contains the cover letter and the draft permit with the
required map. As discussed please forward copies to the person and/or
persons in your organization that need to review these NPDES permit
renewals.
Only 1 of the two permits, NCO025071 Mebane Bridge WWTP with 13.5 MGD
permitted flow, met EPA requirements for submittal to the EPA Region 4.
Mebane Bridge also has an approved pretreatment program because of
several industrial sources in its influent.
The other permit, NCO025151 Dry Creek WWTP with a current 0.500 MGD
permitted flow and approved expansion to 1.0 MGD permitted flow, is
considered a domestic waste treatment treatment facility. The City of
Eden has indicated no plans to implement the approved expansion and may
long term close this facility.
Please review and provide comments. If you or your agency/group have no
comments please respond accordingly.
If you have any questions you can contact me at [phone] or by
email [e-mail].
Ron Berry
NC DENR/DWQ/NPDES Group
[phone]
1 of 1 12/3/2008 2:59 PM

October 30, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Lee Spencer
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107-2241
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Ir., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Dent. of ENR
OCT 3 I am
Winston-Salem
Regional oboe
From: Ron Berry
NPDES —East Program
Subject: Review of corrected renewal draft NPDES Permit NC 0025071
City of Eden Mebane Bridge W WTP
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the corrected draft permit and return this form
by November 14, 2008. If you have any questions on the corrected draft permit, please contact me at
telephone number [phone] or via e-mail at [e-mail]
RESPONSE: (Check one)
/`c';.,o,ncur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated effluent
2—ts are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality standards.
❑ Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
❑ Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Telephone [phone] �,
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch FAX [phone] I�Q�t Carolina
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 i%yQillCll��lf
On the Internet at hrlp://hlo.enrstafe.x.t�/
512 N. Salisbury street, Raleigh, North Carolina 2760An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

RE: Technical Corrections to City of Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP ...
Subject: RE: Technical Corrections to City of Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP NCO025071
From: "Dunkley, Barry" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:27:51 -0400
To: "Ron Berry" <[e-mail]>
Thanks. I am sending you a letter today with my one comment which is that if the
color were to increase in the future to where we have problems with it, then lower
limits would be imposed.
-----Original Message -----
From: Ron Berry [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:07 AM
To: Goode, Robert; Dunkley, Barry
Subject: Technical Corrections to City of Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
NCO025071
Mr. Goode and Mr. Dunkley,
During post review of the Mebane Bridge NPDES draft renewal permit and
of comments received several Technical corrections are required. As per
the original draft I am emailing the attached cover letter and corrected
draft pages that were issued.
Please advise if you have any questions and if you have any comments.
Thank you,
Ron Berry
NCDENR/NPDES Group
1 of 1 11/7/2008 8:06 AM

Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 29, 2008
Ms. Shari L. Bryant, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Division of Marine Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Subject: NPDES Proposed Permit Response
Permit Number NCO025071
City of Eden Mebane Bridge W WTP
Rockingham County
Dear Ms. Bryant:
The Division reviewed the comments in your October 23, 2008 letter for the Mebane Bridge facility. We
have the following additional information to offer and will convey to the City of Eden your concerns about the
impact to the diverse aquatic community in the Dan River.
The Mebane Bridge facility is a domestic treatment facility with an active pretreatment program for it
industrial sources that has a monthly average treated effluent discharge less than 7,000,000 gallons per day.
Mebane Bridge currently has a Total Chlorine Residual (TRC) acute limit, 28 µg/1, that will be continued in the
renewal permit. During the last permit cycle Mebane Bridge had no TRC violations. Mebane Bridge uses
chlorination followed by declorination. Since June 2005 Mebane Bridge has passed all twelve of its quarterly
effluent chronic toxicity tests and the required four second species toxicity tests. There is sufficient power back
up capability to operate this facility. Mebane Bridge is conducting routine instream Fecal Coliform testing at the
same time as it is testing for Fecal Coliform in its discharge. This testing has demonstrated the source of high
Fecal Coliform in Dan River is not Mebane Bridge.
Ammonia as nitrogen, considered a toxic parameter, is limited in the current permit during the summer
months and will continue to be limited in the summer in the renewal permit. No ammonia nitrogen limit violations
have occurred in the current active permit. New stream flow data from USGS was used to recalculate the renewal
permit required ammonia nitrogen limit, 14.8 mg/l a monthly average.
The levels of metals reported routinely to the Division for the effluent, some potential toxic parameters,
were evaluated for possible potential to exceed water quality standards. No possible potential to exceed water
quality standards were found except for one mercury reading. The mercury reading was not consistent with the
other mercury data available. Consequently, in the renewal permit Mebane Bridge will be required to supply
sufficient data to prove mercury is not a concern in the effluent or a limit will be imposed. The Division will issue
the renewal permit with a 18 month provisional compliance condition for mercury and will advise the City of
Eden that in future application alternative disinfection methods should be considered.
If you have any questions, please contact Ron Berry at telephone number [phone].
Sincerely
Ron Berry
cc: Central Files (w/ copy October 23, 2008 letter)
..PDES Permit File [w/ original October 23, 2008 letter)
Winston Salem Regional Office, Water Quality Section [w/ copy October 23, 2008 letter)
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch Telephone [phone] �Drc
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 FAX [phone] No Carolina
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at http://hlo.enrsfafenc.u� Jvatura!!Y
An Equal Opponwity/Affirmative Action Employer

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Berry, NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 23 October 2008
SUBJECT: Proposed Permit Renewal for Mebane Bridge W WTP, City of Eden, Rockingham
County, NPDES Pem it No. NC0025071
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), North
Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.), and North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC
10I.0102.
The City of Eden has applied for renewal of its NPDES permit to discharge treated combined
domestic wastewater into Dan River in the Roanoke River basin. According to the public notice, total
residual chlorine (TRC), mercury, phenolic compounds, ammonia nitrogen, and color are water quality
limited.
Dan River supports a diverse aquatic community and there are records for the federal and state
endangered Roanoke logperch (Percina rez), the federal species of concern and state endangered green
floater (Lasmigona subvirdis), the state threatened bigeye jumprock (Scartomyzon ariommus), and the
state significantly rare Roanoke hogsucker (Hypentelium roanokense) in Dan River.
We offer the following recommendations to reduce impacts to aquatic resources, particularly to
the Roanoke logperch.
1. If the facility uses chlorine disinfection, chlorine systems should be replaced by ultraviolet light
or ozone systems. Chlorine is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and can form secondary
compounds that are detrimental to aquatic life.
2. If not already in place, a stand-by power system should be installed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit renewal. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact our office at [phone].
ec: Rob Nichols, WRC
Tom Augspurger, USFWS
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Mr. Brad Corcoran
City Manager
City of Eden
308 E. Stadium Drive
Eden, NC 27288
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 29, 2008
Subject: Response to Comments on Renewal Drafts
(1) NPDES Permit NCO025071
City of Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
(2) NPDES Permit NCO025151
City of Eden Dry Creek WWTP
Rockingham County
The Division has reviewed the comments in your staff October 20, 2008 letter. We have the following
inforequest d in your letter• wateration to offer aftr re-evaivation of the North Carolina statues We are addressing both permit draft renewals forthe City of d n WW WTPsd as
Dry Creek NCO025151
It has been the Division policy to include a permit page for an approved expanded capacity since
Permittes typically want to keep any approved capacity. We acknowledge this is not the case and
support you efforts for centralization of your treatment efforts to the Mebane Bridge facility. However,
to be consistent with Division policy we will continue to list the expanded capacity
willbe deemed null
rmit page in the
renewal permit. When you rescind the Dry Creek NPDES permit all p pages
and void.
The 18 months timetable to meet TRC compliance, 28 µgli, is per the Division standard policy to allow
you a one time opportunity to install the necessary equipment to meet the imposed TRC limit. We
acknowledge the City of Eden plans are to close this facility and cease discharge prior to the 18 month
e in ce with
deadline. If any discharge did occur after the 18 month tperiod
you indicates additional equipment would
the TRC limit. As often the case, your pll have to b
reliminary g
limit requiring construction approval and capital investment.
be required to meet the TRC compliance
The decision on how to move forward is up to you. To be consistent with Division policy the 18 month
TRC compliance timetable will be in the applicable permit page. Note, on the expanded permit page
TRC compliance is immediate upon expansion.
Mebane Bridge NCO025071
The evaluation to determine if a pollutant parameter has the possible potential to exceed any
applicable water quality standards is part of the normal permit review process and is based on the
most recent 48 month data you have submitted through DMRs or PPAs. In the case of mercury the
one high data point did occur within this time frame and prompted the addition of the provisional
compliance timetable. We
ut without
substantial documented evidence acknowledge
of the err or a full documented disclosure of all s urce we have to
assume there is an unknown source.
Page 1 of 2
Telephone[phone] t4orc Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch FAX [phone] ilia%�y
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 On the Internet at http.V1hlo.enrstafe.rtc u51
512 N. Salisbury Stree4 Raleigh, North Carolina 2764
An Equal opponunilylAflinnative Action Employer

There is one major correction the Division will make, the provisional mercury compliance limit should
not go into effect until 18 months after the permit effective date. During the first 18 months 2/Month
monitoring is required. If after the first 12 months of monitoring you feel the data show no reasonable
potential to exceed the mercury compliance limit then you can petition the Division in writing to
remove the mercury limit and reduce the monitoring frequency back to the pretreatment condition of
quarterly without reopening the permit. If no petition is received or the Division evaluation of the first
12 months mercury data does not support the removal of the mercury compliance limit, the mercury
compliance limit with weekly monitoring is required beginning after the 18 month provisional timeline.
The 2/Month monitorimg is consistent with Division policy for NPDES effluent monitored parameters
for your facility. Unfortunately, we can only reduce the mercury monitoring under the terms specified
in the provisional limit.
Per your written request we provide the following statue quote:
The aesthetic problem, odor and taste, is defined under North Carolina Statute 15A NCAC 02B .0216
(3) "Quality standards applicable to Class WS-NWaters are asfollows:"
(e) "Chlorinated phenolic compounds: not greater than I.o µg/I to protect water supplies from
taste and odor problems due to chlorinated phenols shall be allowed. Specfnc phenolic
compounds may be given a different limit if it is demonstrated not to cause taste and odor
problems and not to be detrimental to other best usage"
After verification of which available data defines chlorinated phenolic compounds the Division re-
evaluated the possible potential to exceed the chlorinated phenolic compounds water quality standard
and has concluded no potential exist and no limits is required. Monitoring requirements will revert
out phenols
back to pretreatment total phenols requirements.
If you
uthave anyThrenewalfurther concerns permit be corre t d
monitoring you should contact the DWQ p group.
accordingly. The Fact Sheet will be revised to read as follows:
PhenolLc s - Monitoring is part of
ater quality
standard. aesthetic standard dealing with odor and last-, pretreatment ic
requiredfor chlorinated phenolic compounds
because the receiving stream. Dan River, is ctasstf%d as a WS. Evaluation of available PPA data
indicates all chlorinated phenolic compounds are below detection limits so no father action is required.
Future permit renewals will include evaluation of the PPA datafor chlorinated phenolic compounds.
A corrected draft permit for Mebane Bridge NC0025071 will be issued for further comments and
approval. If you have questions concerning this letter please call Ron Berry at [phone] or by
email at ron.berry®ncmail.net.
Sincerely, i
Ron Berry
Eastern NPDES Program
Attachments:
Cc: Winston Salem Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section (copy of City of Eden October
20, 2008 letter)
NPDES Unit (original City of Eden October 20, 2008 letter)
Central Files (copy of City of Eden October 20, 2008 letter)
Page 2 of 2

Depathneni of F.rwiwnnzer" Senaices
Wa,5&wat" gwx nseni Jtwd
October 20, 2008
Ron Berry
Eastern NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Comments for Draft of Renewal Permits
NPDES Permit NCO025071
City of Eden Mebane Bridge W WTP
NPDES Permit NCO025151
City of Eden Dry Creek W WTP
Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Berry,
Our staff has received and reviewed both of the draft NPDES permits for our city's
wastewater treatment plants. We understand the changes being proposed and the
reasoning behind these changes, but we still wish to comment on a few of these changes.
Concerning the permit renewal for the Dry Creek W WTP, #NC0025151, there was only
one major change noted along with directives to go along with a plant expansion. We
will not be pursuing a plant expansion. I'm not sure if this section could be removed, but
it will not be needed for the future. We are currently looking at plans for closing Dry
Creek permanently and rerouting all flows to the Mebane Bridge Plant. As for the TRC
limit, we have reviewed the plant layout and have determined that modifications to the
effluent structure would have to be in place before we could effectively chlorinate and
dechlorinate. This pushes us further in our desire to close the Dry Creek plant. We are
hoping to have plans in place within a year to have all flows diverted before the end of
2009. This should keep us within the 18 month timeline that will be imposed to meet the
new TRC limit.
Concerning the permit renewal for the Mebane Bridge W WTP, #NC0025071, there were
several major changes noted but we only wish to comment on two. We see no problems
with the new effluent weekly average maximum limit. We have always seen results less
than our current monthly average, so meeting the new limit should not be a problem. We
have no problems with the reduction in silver monitoring as well.
P. O. Box 70 • Eden, NC 27289-0070 • [phone] • Fax [phone]

We are, though, concerned about the increased monitoring for Mercury as well as the
weekly average maximum limit. We have already budgeted for our annual analysis and
this increase in testing was not planned for. For as far back as 2001, we have
consistently shown < 0.0002 mg/L Mercury in our Effluent. The majority of our Influent
data has also been < 0.0002 mg/L with only five data points being above the detection
limit. Only one date showed a hit of 0.0011 mg/L in the Effluent while the Influent for
that day was 0.0008 mg/L. We feel strongly that this was an erroneous reading either
from contamination through sampling or the analysis itself. Nothing could be identified
at the time to prove a lab error, but with the Effluent being higher than the Influent, an
error would have had to occur. It is not feasible that we would produce Mercury in our
operation. We understand the protocol for reasonable potential, but I'm asking that you
reconsider the length of time for required conditional monitoring. We ask that it be
reduced to 3 — 6 months with the understanding that if another hit occurs, we will
continue the bi-monthly sampling for the rest of the permit term.
Our other concern is with the newly imposed Phenol limit. We are not aware of any
aesthetic problems with the downstream drinking water supply or do we foresee any
problems contributed from our plant due to the size of the stream that we discharge into.
First, we would like to see a Fact Sheet that shows how this limit was initially
established. Next, we ask that you consider a conditional monitoring requirement for a 3
— 6 month period for this parameter with the understanding that if we have any results
above the limit, we will continue monitoring bi-monthly. Otherwise, we can revert back
to monitoring quarterly for the duration of the permit. We know there have been a few
results near or above the new proposed limit, but again, we feel that some amount of lab
error could have contributed to these results. In the past year, we have switched private
labs due to some continual problems and have worked on improving our sampling
techniques from within. Due to the difficulty of treating Phenol once it comes into the
plant, we ask that we be given a chance to prove that there is not a problem.
These above mentioned concerns are all that we have at this time. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss these issues with your office and present a response for your
review. We will soon lose our largest industrial contributor which will surely impact the
overall makeup of our stream. It will also have a detrimental financial impact on our
facility as well as the community as a whole. Any reconsideration of these matters will
be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Melinda S. Ward
Wastewater Superintendent
Cc: Brad Corcoran
Dennis Asbury
Ralph Potter

RE: Data on Quarterly Phenolic Data Mebane Bridge
Subject: RE: Data on Quarterly Phenolic Data Mebane Bridge
From: "Melinda Ward" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:28:40 -0400
To: "'Ron Berry"' <[e-mail]>
Mr. Berry,
I checked with both labs and the different phenols are completely different
tests than total phenol. They double checked their results and only total
phenol was run each quarter. We did just get our recent 625 results back
and chlorinated phenol is listed on page 4 as ND. The lab sheets received
from the lab are attached. I hope that these few data points will be enough
to show that we do not have a problem with chlorinated phenols. I'm sorry
that I couldn't find more information. Please keep me informed of what you
find out.
Melinda S. Ward, Wastewater Superintendent
City of Eden
204 Mebane Bridge Road
P. O. Box 70
Eden, North Carolina 27289
336-627-1009, ext. 130
-----Original Message -----
From: Ron Berry [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:51 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Data on Quarterly Phenolic Data Mebane Bridge
Melinda,
I am reviewing all the initial data used to determine the potential to
exceed water effluent quality standards from the Mebane Bridge facility.
You are reporting phenolic compound values on a quarterly bases to us.
I need to see an actual lab report to understand what is being measured
and reported. Please fax to my attention a complete lab report showing
all the phenolic data and a contact person at the lab so if needed I can
get further clarification from the lab.
FAX: [phone]
By the way does anyone know when quarterly phenolic reporting was a
requirement and/or how it was established?
Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Let me know if you have
any questions.
Thanks,
Ron
Phone: [phone]
NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES Group
Content -Type: application/pdf
9226932_fr.pdf'
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 11/7/2008 8:06 AM

Review of NPDES Permits
Subject: Review ofNPDES Pennits
From: Ron Boone <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:05:38 -0400
To: Ron Berry <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Ron,
I have reviewed the pennit renewals for City of Eden Dry Creek W WTP (NC0025151) and City of Eden
Mebane Bridge W WTP (NC0025071) and found nothing of concern. Let me know if you need anything
else on these reviews.
Regards,
RB
Ron Boone
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Ron Boone <ROn.BOOne@,NCmail.net>
Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection
NC DENR
1 of 1 10/29/2008 2:32 PM

PHONE LOG: Melinda Ward, Mebane Bridge WWTP NC0025071
DATE: 10/27/08 TIME: 11:30 AM
RESPONSE TO 10/27/08 EMAIL
Chlorinated Phenols Comments:
Have recently switch contract labs, which lab reports did I need information for?
Told Melinda only interested in 2006 to 2nd quarter 2008, as these values were used in RPA.
Melinda : As far as what data was provided in report , not sure any value other than total phenolic
shown. Would check one report and let me know. Provided contact person at Meritech Lab. Using Pace
after 2nd quarter 2008. Would ask Pace about how value was determined, is breakdown possible.
Paw 14L
Chris k', Meriteck, Inc.
Phone: [phone]
Client: City of Eden
Ron: Alerted Melinda I would call lab and see if missing data was available. If data not available, not
measured, then would remove data from RPA. If lab required the client to make the request or additional
cost I would contact Melinda accordingly (email preferred).
Other 3 PPAs data points in RPA is total phenolic but chlorinated phenolic data also available. All
chlorinated data on 3 RPAs is below detection limits and as such means no hits on RPA. If no other data
is available then chlorinated phenolic limit/monitoring will be dropped from permit.
We discussed current LMTP plan for quarterly monitor total phenols, not sure why, previous
requirement. Are running both influent and effluent samples for comparison. Suggested the City of Eden
may want to follow up with PERC unit if the NPDES has no limit/monitoring requirement.
Mercury Comments:
Noted in letter City of Eden had no comment on imposed mercury limit. Advised the limit start was an
error, should have been 18 months from effective date as a provisional limit. At the end of the first 12
months the City of Eden could petition DWQ to see if limit could be dropped, reduce monitoring back to
quarterly. Would not drop mercury compliance or 2/Month if data had values above expected limit. If
mercury compliance required then City of Eden would need to pursue identifying source and addressing
accordingly.
Mercury expected limit is a weekly average. To take advantage of this fact, other Permittee have taken
extra 7 day samples and held for testing if needed. Maybe a good way of addressing lab concerns.
Suggest you talk with lab about holding extra samples. Regardless any data generated has to be reported.
Will formally reply with these comments in response to letter.

Follow up to Meriteck results Phenolic Compounds
Subject: Follow up to Meriteck results Phenolic Compounds
From: Ron Berry <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:03:52 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Malinda,
I talked with Mr. Pawlak, Meritech, Inc. about the phenolic data they provided.
Unless the City of Eden specified a further breakdown the only number generated would
be total phenol. This can be determined by looking at the data supplied when a value
was detected, other data will be listed if requested. Mr. Pawlak would be able to
answer the question from his side if you would provide, the sample day, chain of
custody info.
Please check one of the quarterly lab reports were the total phenols were above 10
µg/l and see if any additional phenolic compound data was reported. As an alternative
you can give Mr. Pawlak the information he needs and see if he confirms no data
beyond total phenols. If it is determined no data beyond total phenols is reported
then I need the City of Eden to respond with statement to that effect.
Ron
1 of 1 10/27/2008 2:04 PM

re NC0025071, Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
Subject: re N00025071, Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:17:08 -0400
To: [e-mail]
EPA has limited its review to the TMDL/303(d)-related aspects of this
permit and has no comments. Am glad you sent a copy to VA for their
review.
Marshall
E
1 of 1 10/7/2008 7:42 AM

0hr aribotlille Rlruirw
EDEN DAILY NEWS
The Messenger
Advertising Affidavit
NCDENR/DVVQ/POINT SOURCE BRANCH
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGHT, NC 27699-1617
P.O. Box 2157
Reidsville, NC 27323-2157
[phone]
Account Number
3390343
Date
October 04, 2008
Date Category Description Ad Size Total Cost
10/03/2008 Legal Notices PUBLIC NOTICE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA EN 2 x 79 L 130.08
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSIOWNPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFlCATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A NPDES
WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and appli-
cation of NC General Statute 143.215.1 and 15A
NCAC 02H.01D9 and other lawful standards
and regulations, the North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Commission proposes to
Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion system (NPDES) wastewater discharge
45 days from tit to the he publish date of this noticelow . effective
Written comments regarding the proposed per-
mit will be accepto until 30 tlays after the
publish date of this notice. All comments re-
ceived prior to that date are considered in the
final determinations regarding the proposed
permit. The Director of Me NC Division o} Wa-
ter pualiry may decide to hold a public meet-
ing for the proposed permit, should the 0w
Sion receive a significant degree fpubIf.in-
terest.
.The City of Eden, 308 E. Stadium Drive, Eden, NC
27288, Mebane Bridge WWTP located in Rock-
ingham County has appplied for renewal of Its
NPDES permit NCOD25151 discharging treated
domestic wastewater to the Dan Rrver In the
Roanoke River Basin. TRC and Color are water
��all(y limited. This discharge may effect fu-
ture allocations In this portion oft he Roanoke
River Basin.
Countryside Communities, LLC has applied for
renewal of NPDES permit NCO056201 for the
Countryside Mobile Home Park WWTP in Rock -
Ingham County. This permitted facility dls-
charges treated wastewater to an unnamed
tributary to Caraway Creek in the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River Basin. Currently BOD, ammonia ni-
trogen and total residual chlorine are water
quality limited. This discharge may affect fu.
Lure allocations in this portion of the Yadkin.
Pee Dee River Basin.
The City of Eden. 308 E. Stadium Drive, Eden, NC
27298, Mebane Bridge WINTP located in Rock -
Ingham County has applied for renewal of Its
NPDES permit NCO0250p1 to discharge treated
combined domestic waste to the Dan River In
the Roanoke River 'Basin. TRC, mercuryd
phenolic compounds, ammonia nitrogen.,an
color are water quality limited. This discharge
may effect future allocations In this portion of
the Roanoke River Basin.
Media General Operations, Inc.
Publisher of the
RCK Reidsville Rev
This is to certify that the attached PUBLIC NOTICE STATE OF NO
was published by the RICK Reidsville Rev in the State of North
Carolina, on the following dates:
11117617Y4AHI8
The First insertion being given ... 10/03/2008
Newspaper reference: 0001082536
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
9
Notary Publid
SupervisQ_r
NOT�� <m
;Zo
State of North Carolina
o
: ,�
County of Rockingham
� Z
TT �i
ZGy B�
My Commission expires
10
i
'r ,1,111
A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU

Re: NPDES Permits Draft for City of Eden WWTPs
Subject: Re: NPDES Permits Draft for City of Eden WWTPs
From: Ron Berry <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:37:28 -0400
To: "Goode,Robert" <[e-mail]>
Mr. Goode,
Attached as requested is the Fact Sheet for Mebane Bridge WWTP.
Ron
Goode,Robert wrote:
IMr. Berry - Do you happen to have an electronic copy of the fact sheet
for the Mebane Bridge WWTP that you could send to me? Thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: Ron Berry [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008
9:29 AM
To: Dunkley, Barry; Goode,Robert
Subject: NPDES Permits Draft for City of Eden WWTPs
September 24, 2008
Mr. Barry Dunkley
City of Danville
Mr. Robert Goode
Virginia DEQ
As agreed I have attached "read only" (pdf format) files for the 2 City
of Eden WWTP NPDES Permit renewals currently out for public comment.
Each file contains the cover letter and the draft permit with the
required map. As discussed please forward copies to the person and/or
persons in your organization that need to review these NPDES permit
renewals.
Only 1 of the two permits, NCO025071 Mebane Bridge WWTP with 13.5 MGD
permitted flow, met EPA requirements for submittal to the EPA Region 4.
Mebane Bridge also has an approved pretreatment program because of
several industrial sources in its influent.
The other permit, NCO025151 Dry Creek WWTP with a current 0.500 MGD
permitted flow and approved expansion to 1.0 MGD permitted flow, is
considered a domestic waste treatment treatment facility. The City of
Eden has indicated no plans to implement the approved expansion and may
long term close this facility.
Please review and provide comments. If you or your agency/group have no
comments please respond accordingly.
If you have any questions you can contact me at [phone] or by
email [e-mail].
Ron Berry
NC DENR/DWQ/NPDES Group
[phone]
1 of 2 9/24/2008 10:37 AM

Re: NPDES Permits Draft for City of Eden WWTPs
Content -Type: application/pff
25071—FactSheet.pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
2 of 2 9/24/2008 10:37 AM

Date:' 9/5/08
PHONE LOG: Mebane Bridge WWTP, City of Eden NC0025071
Dry Creel WWTP, City of Eden NC0025151
Left vm for Ralph Potter to return call. Have questions about back up power for both facilities. Had
question about instream fecal monitoring for Mebane Creek.
Melinda Ward, at the request of Mr. Potter, returned the call and provided the following information.
The Mebane Bridge WWTP shares stand by/back up electrical generation with the WTP. The system is
physically located at the WTP and is sufficient to provide.100% power to both the WTP and the WWTP.
The Dry Creek WWTP does not have back up power it uses tablet chlorination. The existing automated
pager/alarm system is independent and will function during a power outage.
The instream fecal monitoring for Mebane Bridge WWTP begun in late 2006, was initiated at the
request of the Dan River Association to address fecal concerns. The data is being send with the DMR as
required by the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit.

Low -flow characteristics for Dan River at Eden ... Re: Request For Data...
Subject: Low -flow characteristics for Dan River at Eden ... Re: Request For Data for Dan River
From: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:50:53 -0400
To: Ron Berry <[e-mail]>
CC: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Ron,
In response to your inquiry about selected flow characteristics (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, average annual
flow) for the Dan River at Eden just downstream of its confluence with Smith River in north central
Rockingham County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center does not indicate a
previous determination of low -flow characteristics for Dan River at the specific location indicated by the
lat/long coordinates you provided in your email. However, the drainage -area files have a station number
and approximate drainage area for this location (station id 02074018, drainage area approx 1,700 sqmi).
The low -flow files do indicate a previous determination for the Dan River downstream at NC Hwy 14
(station id 02074021, drainage area 1,680 sqmi) that was completed in July 1988. No USGS discharge
records are known to exist for your point of interest. In the absence of streamflow, records sufficient for a
low -flow analysis, low -flow characteristics are determined by assessing a range of low -flow yields
(expressed as flow per sqmi drainage area, or cfsm) at nearby sites where such characteristics have been
determined.
Several pieces of information to consider:
(1) The most recent low -flow information published for streams in Rockingham County is in a basinwide
low -flow report completed in 1996. It is USGS Water -Resources Investigations Report 96-4154, "Low -flow
characteristics and profiles for selected streams in the Roanoke River Basin, North Carolina" (Weaver,
1996). An online version of the report is available through hftp://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri964154.
The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through 1994) for continuous -record
gaging stations and partial -record sites within the Roanoke basin. The report also provides low -flow
discharge profiles (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, and 7Q2) for the reaches of Dan River and Roanoke River in
North Carolina as well as selected tributaries within the basin.
If you access the report, please note the online report files are provided in the ".DJVU" format and require
a particular Lizardtech plug-in, also available through a link displayed on the page. Or you can click an
adjacent link that will allow you to view the report as a group of images without the need for a plug-in.
(2) This report includes low -flow discharge profiles for Dan River. Information in the report specific to Dan
River is as follows:
(a) Page 29 -- Brief discussion concerning development of profiles for Dan River. Please keep in mind the
information concerning NPDES permits is based on those in effect as of 1995.
(b) Page 30, figure 15 -- (A) Drainage -area and (B) low -flow discharge profiles. Based on the low -flow
discharge profiles shown for Dan River, the low -flow characteristics just downstream the confluence with
Smith River (drainage area 1,680 sqmi at NC Hwy 14):
7Q10 = approx. 370 cfs (equivalent to 0.22 cfsm)
30Q2 = approx. 740 cfs (equivalent to 0.44 cfsm)
1 of 3 8/20/2008 7:54 AM

Low -flow characteristics for Dan River at Eden ... Re: Request For Data...
winter 7Q10 = approx. 600 cfs (equivalent to 0.36 cfsm)
(c) Page 16, table 6 -- Low -flow characteristics (including 7Q10, 30Q2, and winter 7Q10 discharges) for
several sites on Dan River located near of your point of interest:
Sta. 02071000, Dan River near Wentworth (drainage area 1,035 sqmi)
Average annual flow estimated at 1.2 cfsm
7Q10 = 175 cfs (equivalent to 0.1691 cfsm)
30Q2 = 415 cfs (equivalent to 0.4010 cfsm)
winter 7Q10 = 360 cfs (equivalent to 0.3478 cfsm)
Sta. 02071500, Dan River at Eden (just upstream of confluence with Smith River, drainage area 1,133
sqmi)
Average annual flow estimated at 1.1 cfsm
7Q10 = 190 cfs (equivalent to 0.1677 cfsm)
30Q2 = 440 cfs (equivalent to 0.3884 cfsm)
winter 7Q10 = 375 cfs (equivalent to 0.3310 cfsm)
Sta. 02074000, Smith River at Eden (drainage area 538 sqmi)
Average annual flow estimated at 1.2 cfsm
7Q10 = 175 cfs (equivalent to 0.3253 cfsm)
30Q2 = 290 cfs (equivalent to 0.5390 cfsm)
winter 7010 = 215 cfs (equivalent to 0.3996 cfsm)
(3) Updated low -flow analyses for the active sites at 02071000 and 02074000 (based on period of record
through the 2007 climatic year) suggest that 7Q10 discharge values have decreased about 3.5 and 13.7
percent, respectively, as a result of the 1998-2002 drought conditions. The climatic year is the standard
annual period used for low -flow analyses at continuous -record gaging stations and runs from April 1
through March 31, designated by the year in which the period begins.
Please keep in mind the Dan River is regulated by the flow releases from the Talbott and Townes
Reservoirs used for storage of water to operate the Pinnacles hydroelectric plant. Likewise, Smith River is
regulated by Philpott Lake located approximately 40 miles upstream in Virginia.
Putting together the above pieces leads to the conclusion that low -flow estimates shown in the low -flow
profiles for the confluence of Dan River and Smith River can still be considered reasonable and
appropriate in view of the data provided for the nearby locations in the Roanoke low -flow report.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
E-mail [e-mail]
2 of 3 8/20/2008 7:54 AM

Low -flow characteristics for Dan River at Eden ... Re: Request For Data...
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
Ron Berry <[e-mail]> To John Weaver <[e-mail]>
cc
08/11/2008 01:57 PM
Subject Request For Data for Dan River
Curtis,
I need the drainage area (square miles) ,7Q10Summer (cfs), 7Q10Winter
(cfs), and 30Q2 (cfs) flow data for Dan River in Rockingham County for a
discharged located at Latitude 360 28' 1711 N and Longitude 790 44' 45"
W. Thanks for your assistance.
Ron
Ron Berry
DWQ/NPDES Group
[phone]
3 of 3 8/20/2008 7:54 AM

( 1 M
Depwdtment a f butte alltenta Smticed
wain 9 wahnad Ytwd
July 29, 2008
Ron Berry
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Berry,
After much research, we have located all of the information that you have
requested concerning our permit renewal application for the Mebane Bridge
Wastewater Plant. Much of the data that had been included by the previous
superintendent was more than was needed. Ralph Potter, our chief operator,
went through the results to verify each analysis result, limit, and procedure.
Some of the information was confusing due to different labs doing the
analysis and reporting different detection limits and names of compounds
testing. We have corrected the supplemental sheet to go along with the data
requested and have included a copy of this corrected form along with the
corresponding lab reports. We are also including copies of our Fathead
minnow test results to make sure that everything is accounted for.
If anything else is needed, please feel free to contact either Mr. Potter or
myself, and we will do what we can to assist you in this matter.
Sincerely,
A
Melinda S. Ward
Superintendent
P. O. Box 70 9 Eden, NC 27289-0070 • [phone] • Fax [phone]

Follow Up NPDES Renewal Applications
Subject: Follow Up NPDES Renewal Applications
From: Ron Berry <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:56:28 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Melinda & Ralph,
Thank you for returning my call and the timely information. I did check our other
files and found copies of PPAs for Mebane Bridge that had been submitted to DWQ for
PPAs taken in July 2004, Sept 2005, March 2006, and Dec 2007. I also located copies
of the 4 fathead minnow toxicity test ran in 2006, attached to the DMR reports.
I still need you to submit the 3 actual PPAs that are used to generate the data on
the 2A Form (Mebane Bridge) and confirm the data matches. Based on the submittal of
your renewal application it would appear 2004, 2005, 2006 PPAs should have been used.
As far as mercury I still need to determine what is the reason for Method 1631 on the
PPA. The person I need to ask is not in today. Unless I contact you otherwise the
current mercury data will be used. Regardless I will let you know what future PPA
mercury analysis method are required. Your internal mercury test are separate and are
in compliance with current DWQ policy.
For Dry Creek we will move forward with the application. I will include documentation
for the file to describe the relationship to the Railroad pump station.
If you have any questions let me know.
Ron
DWQ/NPDES group
Phone: [phone]
Email" ron.berryencmail.net
l of 1 7/15/2008 2:52 PM

Date: 7/15/08 10:00 AM
City of Eden
Ralph Potter, Senior ORC
[phone] x.103
[e-mail]
Melinda Ward
[phone] x.130
[e-mail]
PHONE CALL LOG:
NC0025151 Dry Creek WWTP
NC0025071 Mebane Bridge WWTP
Description of process for overflow diversion to Dry Creek
The Railroad Pump Station collects waste from Hanes Brand (textile) and pumps it to Mebane Bridge
WWTP. About 3 times a year the pump station is unable to handle the influent (mechanical, flow, etc)
and the level rises in the pump sump. Eventually the increasing level will activate a high level alarm at
the Mebane Bridge W WTP and spill into a splitter box that gravity feeds the excess to the Dry Creek
WWTP system. The operator investigates the alarm and takes the necessary actions to stop the overflow
to the Dry Creek W WTP. The issue is color and per the conditions in the permit Dry Creek an overflow
initiates compliance sampling as each overflow event occurs. There is no treatment capability to remove
color at the Dry Creek plant.
The pH shift at Dry Creek is more related to instrumentation improvements, not any particular process
changes. Dry Creek is basically unmanned.
Ralph asked about upcoming changes in the permit. At this time TRC will have a compliance limit
imposed and it will be most likely be 28 µg/L, not 28mg/L. Also, DWQ will look at DO. Existing data
show 3 months of DO data below the 5 mg/ L WQ standard. At this time not aware of any other
changes.
Dry Creek uses etc rination and does not use dechlorination. Existing closed pipe runs 1 to 1-1/2
miles from p t jo pan
AtC has pleted for expansion the permit will duplicated existing text in renewal permit.
Based on current information application is sufficient and will proceed with renewal.
Best guess on why only requiring downstream sampling is there is existing instream sampling at
facilities upstream that provide the same data.
Notes on Mebane Bridge
Has an approved pre-treatment program and is 1.000 MGD facility which means EPA will review.
Based on fall 2006 letter from DWQ permittee to provide 3 PPAs whose average values will be reported
on application Form 2A. In addition 4 toxicity tests using a different species are to be provided. The
mercury test method 1631 applies for PPA.

Ralph to (1) check PPA data against data recorded on application, correct data on florm where required,
and submit corrected form and 3 PPA. Mercury method 1631 was not use. Currently, per DWQ policy
tie pre-treatment program uses method 245 which in turn is what is used for PPA. All PPA mercury
data is below detection limit for method 245. Told Ralph not to rerun PPA mercury unless directed to
do so at a later date.
Toxicity test were completed in mid 2006. Test results attached to DMR reports.
DWQ has not evaluated Mebane Bridge DMR data so the only pending addition is TRC compliance,
probably 28 µg/L.
George Smith in WiRO contact for pre-treatment program.

To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Charles Weaver
Date: October 20, 2006
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: Rockingham
Permit No. NCO025071
PART I -GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility and Address: City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
191 Mebane Bridge Road
Eden, NC 27288
OCT 3 u 2U[i� j
2. Date of Investigation: December 6, 2005 (at WWTP) October 19, 2006 (in office review)
3. Report Prepared by: David Russell
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Charles VanZandt, Superintendent, ORC-
[phone]
5. Directions to Site: Take 158E to NC 65E, US 220N, right on NC 135, right on nC 770
(Harrington Highway), left Hwy 14, cross the Dan River and turn left on Mebane Bridge
Road, treatment plant is on the left.
6. Discharge Points(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 38®28 38" Longitude: 79044 21
U.S.G.S. Quad No. B20NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name SE Eden
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? GDNo If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The WWTP is located near the river,
but above the flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Nothing within 1000'.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Dan River
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 030203
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: River
downstream receives discharge from the Duke Power Dan River Plant & Miller
Brewery.

Part H - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 13.5 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste Water Treatment facility?
same
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)?
same
d. Date(s) of construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct
issued in the previous two years. NA
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: Influent pumps, bar screen, grit chamber, aeration basins,
clarifier, chlorination, dechlorination, flow meter, aerobic digester, sludge
lagoons, polymer addition for color removal.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities. N/A
g. * Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): approved
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are to be land applied, please specify DEM permit no.
WQ0003035, Residuals Contrator: YES
b. Residuals Stabilization: PSRP PFRP Other
C. Landfill: N/A
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (specify):
e.
3. Treatment plant classification. (attach completed rating sheet). IV
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Primary 01 Secondary 55
Main Treatment Unit Code: 020-3
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 2

PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved. (municipals only)? NA
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate) NA
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge
options available. Please provide regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: n/a
Connection to Regional Sewer System: n/a
Subsurface: n/a
Other disposal options: n/a
5. Other Special Items:
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 3

PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing permit allows a permitted flow of 13.5 mgd or 10.0 mgd. The higher flow
has a color limit of 300 ADMI and the lower flow allows a 405 ADMI color limit. In June 2006,
Eden chose to operate the plant at the 13.5 mgd flow limit. For a few months prior the 10.0 mgd
limit was being used. The flow averages approximately 7 MGD. Limits are consistently met.
Recommend that the permit be reissued with the two flow limits.
Signature of report preparer
az jLIX--
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: Permits and Engineering
Technical Support Branch
County Health Dept.
Central Files
WSRO
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 4

ATTACHMENT A - Approved Residual Source -Generating Facilities
Permit No. IVQ0003035
City of Eden
City of Eden Residuals Land Application Program
Owner
Facility Name
County
Permit Number
Issued By
Is 503?
Maximum
Monitoring
Monitoring
Approved
Dry Tons
Frequency for
Frequency for
Mineralization
Per Year
Condition I11.2.
Condition 111. 3. and
Rate
Condition 111. 4.
,City of Eden
Mebane Bride WWTP
Rockingham
NC0025071
DWQ
503
3,612.00
Annually
Every 60 Days
0.30
Total
1
3,612.00
Permit No. WQ0003035 Page 1 of 1 Certification Date: April 28, 2006

Screening &
Parshall
O
North Aeration
Basin
South Aeration
Basin
CITY OF EDEN
MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP
RAS #2
FIER #3
CLARIFIER #4
RAS#1
Digester
Chlorination
Sludge Lagoon
#2
Sludge Lagoon
#1
Chlorine
Contacts Tanks
Dechlonnatioo
Effluent
4utfall- 001

Unit Process Inventory
CITY OF EDEN MEBANE BRIDGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Unit Process/Operation Inventory and Parameters of Design
CAPACITY
13.5 MGD Plant As per completion on July 1, 1992
INFLUENT
Receives Force Main flows from the Junction
Pump Station the Convenant Branch Pump
Station, Railroad Pump Station and the
Industrial Park Pump Station
Influent flow is measured by a Parshall
Flume
Septic Waste Receiving Pump Station
SCREENING
Two Mechanical Bar Screens with 1 inch
clear openings One Manual bar screen with
1 inch clear openings
GRIT REMOVAL
One chain and bucket type grit collector
Aeration System with two Positive
displacement blowers
One collection hopper for Transport to
Landfill
EXTENDED
Two Aeration Basin with a 7 MG volume
AERATION
Each Basin will have: Twelve 20 HP
Horizontal Brush aerators (24 Total)
Retention Time Approximately 1.04 days @
13.5 MGD flow rate
Two, flow splitter boxes to regulate flow to
clarifiers
Two, 90 Ft. diameter clarifiers Siphon feed,
Peripheral effluent and suction type sludge
collectors
Two, 130 Ft. diameter clarifiers Siphon feed,
Peripheral effluent and suction type sludge
collectors
Wet well/Dry well recirculation station #1 with
Three 1550 GPM centrifugal pumps
One 350 GPM Submersible Waste Activated
Sludge Pump
Wet well/Dry well recirculation station #2 with
Three 3125 GPM centrifugal pumps
Two 800 GPM Submersible Waste Activated
Sludge Pumps
DISINFECTION
Two V-notch 500 lb/day Automatic
Chlorinator w/flow proportional controllers
Automatic Switchover w/vacuum regulator
Dual Ton Cylinder Weight Scale
One V-notch 500 lb/day Manual Chlorinator
One flash mixing chamber with turbine type
mixer with 14000 GPM Chamber flow
Three 74000 gallon baffled chlorine contact
basins
CHEMICAL FEED
Storage Tank for Polymer and associated
feed pumps for color removal, fed to a post -
aeration location
Storage Tank for Sodium Bisulfite and
associated feed for Dechlorination
DECHLORINATION
Sodium Bisulfite is used for Dechlorination
One flash mixing chamber with turbine type
mixer with 14000 GPM Chamber flow
AEROBIC SLUDGE
One 2.3 MG Basin
DIGESTION
Four 20 HP Horizontal Brush aerator
Wet well/Dry well decant station
Two 300 GPM Centrifugal pumps
Decant pumps to the recirculation wetwell
Wet well/Dry well Waste Sludge Pumping
Station
Two 150 GPM centrifugal pumps
Pumps Sludge to Sludge Holding Lagoons
SLUDGE DEWATERING and
DISPOSITION
Two 2 MG Sludge Holding Lagoons
Five Sludge Drying Beds (Currently unused)
One Gravity Decant Dewatering Line
Two Pump Assisted Gravity Decant
Dewatering Line Decant water returns to
recirculation wetwell
Sludge is Land Applied by Contracted
Company

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP, NCO025071
RENEWAL
ROANOKE
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject at, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SlUs. 3
b. Number of CIUs. 1
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: National Textiles
Mailing Address: 328 Gant Rd.
Eden NC 27288
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe ail the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dye Bleach Knitting Drying & Finishing Cloth
F.B. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Fleece wear & Jersey T-shirts
Raw material(s): Cotton & Blended yarns. Additives Dye Stuff & Softener
F.B. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
2,432,000 gpd ( X continuous or intermiffent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge Is Continuous or Intermittent.
50,000 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits E) Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RNER BASIN
MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP, NCO025071
RENEWAL
ROANOKE
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
C. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 3
d. Number of CIUs. 1
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Liberty Textiles
Mailing Address: 801 Fieldcrest Rd.
Eden NC 27288
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dye Bleach Knitting Drying & Finishing Cloth
F.B. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Fleece wear & Jersey T-shirts
Raw material(s): Cotton & Blended yams Additives Dye Stuff & Softener
F.B. Flow Rate.
C. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge Into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
733,000 gpd ( X continuous or intermitterd)
d. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
17550 gpd ( x continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU Is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP, NCO025071
RENEWAL
ROANOKE
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART RINDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes most
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
e. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 3
f. Number of CIUs. 1
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Karastan Rug Mill
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 130
Eden NC 27288-0130
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dyeing bleaching finishing weaving & packaging rugs and carpets
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Packaged rugs and broadloom carpets
Raw material(s): Yarns latex dyes, bleach acids buffers moth proofing & leveling agents, detergents, salts
F.B. Flow Rate.
e. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
361,000 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
I. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
81,000 gpd ( X continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RNER BASIN:
MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP, NCO025071
RENEWAL
ROANOKE
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
g. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 3
h. Number of CIUs. 1
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Weil -McClain
Mailing Address: 523 New Street
Eden NC 27288
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industial processes that erred or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Assembly and testing of residential & commercial boilers. Sheet metal forming & painting.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Matertal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Residential & Commercial Boilers Sheet Metal Forming Finishing & Assembly
Raw material(s): Sheet metal, boilers castings, propylene glycol mixture
F.fl. Flow Rate.
g. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intennitterd.
13,400 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
h. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or Intermittent.
10,250 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU Is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ❑ Yes ® No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR Part 433 Metal Finisher

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
MEBANE BRIDGE WWTP, NCO025071
RENEWAL
ROANOKE
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SW. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes 21 No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes ® No (go to F.12)
F.10. Wash transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Oesalptlon. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it wilo receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) ® No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRAror other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.% Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
FAS. Waste Treatment
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, deacdbe the treatment (pfovide Infomialfon about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermident7
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE

4-"
r FACT SHEET FOR EXPEDITED PERMIT RENEWALS
Basic Information to determine potential for expedited permit renewal
Reviewer/Date
Gi / Vi � as � 8 -�-v 6
Permit Number
kc'00.250 7 1
Facility Name
66o ea C—d p-t-• - fleh
Basin Name/Sub-basin number
a3 OZ03
Receiving Stream
12gept teiader
Stream Classification in Permit
W
Does permit need NH3 limits?
e e-
Does permit need TRC limits?
Yef
Does permit have toxicity testing?
R! a
Does permit have Sp ecial Conditions?
Ye-5
Does permit have instream monitorin ?
6�T
Is the stream impaired (on 303(d) list)?
AJQ
Any obvious compliance concerns?
Any permit mods since lastpermit?
6& t ies 7- -05"-
Existing expiration date
Aprit 30 2o0 7
Reissued permit expiration date
i 362012
New proposed permit effective date
Miscellaneous Comments
YES_ This is a SIMPLE EXPEDITED permit renewal (administrative
renewal with no changes, or only minor changes such as TRC, NH3,
name/ownership changes). Include conventional WTPs in this group.
YES_ This is a MORE COMPLEX EXPEDITED permit renewal (includes
Special Conditions (such as EAA, Wastewater Management Plan), 303(d)
listed, toxicity testing, instream monitoring, compliance concerns, phased
limits). Basin Coordinator to make case -by -case decision.
YE This permit CANNOT BE EXPEDITED for one of the following reasons:
• ajor Facility (municipal/industrial)
• Minor Municipals with pretreatment program
• Minor Industrials subject to Fed Effluent Guidelines (lb/day limits for BOD, TSS,
etc)
• Limits based on reasonable potential analysis (metals, GW remediation organics)
�Vermitted flow > 0.5 MGD (requires full Fact Sheet)
ermits determined by Basin Coordinator to be outside expedited process
TB Version 8/18/2006 (NPDES Server/Current Versions/Expedited Fact Sheet)
tiA5,0-

WSRO
NC0021873 Town of Mayodan
Mayodan WWTP
Winston-Salem LV.2005-0128
FEC COLT
$3,097.00
$3,097.00
NC0021873 Town of Mayodan
Mayodan WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2005-0167
FEC COLT
$597.00
$597.00
NC0021873 Town of Mayodan
Mayodan WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2005-0199
FEC COLI
$722.00
$722.00
NC0028011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0197
$349.00
$349.00
NC0028011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
Winston-Salem LV.2002-0553
$349.00
$349.00
NC0028011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0109
$349.00
$349.00
NC0028011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0625
FLOW
$1,086.00
$1,085.00
NC0028011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0766
FLOW
$836.00
$836.00 No longer discharging, bad Into Mayodan
NC0026011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0294
BOD
$497.00
$497.00
NC0028011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0593
FEC,6ow
$397.00
$397.00
NC0028011 Town of Stoneville
Stoneville WWTP
WlnstonSalem NOV-2005-LV-0070
FLOW
$0.00
$0.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LM-2004-0010
DO,fec
$597.00
$597.00
v
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LM-2005-0002
FLOW.nh3
$1.897.00
$1,897.00
NC0069251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0095
FEC COLT
$1.580.00
$1,580.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0621
NH3,
$1.099.00
$1.099.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Homo Park
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0661
BOD,lec
$2,836.00
$2.836.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0663
DO,nh3
$336.00
$336.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
WlnstonSalem LV-2002-0664
DO,nh3
$1.086.00
$1.086.00
NC00S9251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0665
BOD,fac,fec
$2.086.00
$2.086.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0665
BOD,fsc,nh3
$3.211.00
$3.211.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
WlnstonSalem LV2002-0667
$1.436.00
$1.436.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0668
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0025
NH3-N
$1,536.00
$1.549.00
$1.536.00
$1.549.00 Require Waste Management Plan
C
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
WlnstonSalem LV-2003-0052
NH3-N
$1,549.00
$1,549.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0111
NH3-N
$1,549.00
$1.549.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winton -Salem LV-2004-0201
NH3-N
$347.00
$347.00
NCO059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0300
NH3-N
$347.00
$347.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0380
NH3-N
$347.00
$347.00
1
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0449
NH3-N
$409.50
$409.50
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0499
NH3-N
$472.00
$472.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
WlnstonSalem LV-2005-0225
FLOW,nh3
$472.00
$472.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2005-0263
FLOW,nh3
$409.50
$409.50 '
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LV-2005-0313
FLOW,nh3
$409.50
$409.50
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem NOV-2004-LV-0587
NH3-N
$0.00
$0.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Acres Mobile Home Park
WinstonSalem NOV-2005-LV-0262
FLOW
$0.00
$0.00
NC0059251 Lee Simaan
Quail Arms Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem NOV-2005-LV-0532
NH3-N
$0.00
$0.00
NC0060542 Gold HIII Mobile Ham Park
Gold Hill Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LR-2005-0007
$600.00
NC0060542 Gold Hill Mobile Home Park
Gold Hill Mobile Home Park
Winston-Salem LR-2005-0040
$1,100.00
No special actions required
NC0060542 Gold Hill Mobile Home Park
Gold Hill Mobile Home Park
WlnstonSalem NOV.2005-LR-0005
$0.00
$0.00
NC0025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Winston-Salem DV-2001-0004
$1,774.15
$1,774.15
O
NC0025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
WlnstonSalem LV-2001-0372
$329.00
$329.00
NC0025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0050
$349.00
$349.00
NC0025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
WlnstonSalem LV-2003-0177
$336.00
$338.00
NC0025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0448
RESrrSS
$2.586.00
$2,586.00 No special actions required
NCO025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0497
RES7TSS
$586.00
$586.00
NC0025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0621
RES7TSS
$586.00
$586.00
NC0025071 City of Eden
Mebane Bridge WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0003
RESRSS
$597.00
$597.00
NC0025071 City Eden
Mebane Bride WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2004-0293
REWSS
$597.00
$597.00
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2001-0219
$1.296.00
$1.296.00
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0134
$349.00
$349.00
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2002-0318
$1,349.00
$1,349.00
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Crack WWTP
WlnstonSalem LV-2003-0568
RES7TS5
$1,336.00
$1,336.00 No special actions required
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2003-0622
FLOW
$1,086.00
$1.086.00
1
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
Winston-Salem LV-2005-0064
FEC,tss
$1,447.00
$1,447.00
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
Winston-Salem NOV-2005-LV-0178
BOD,fec,ph
$0.00
$0.00
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
W InstonSalem NOV-2005-LV-0404
COLOR
$0.00
$0.00
NC0025151 City of Eden
Dry Creek WWTP
Winston-Salem TX-2002-0033
$1.024.24
$1.024.24
Page 3

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Roanoke Basin/Compliance in NPDES Renewals]]
y .
V
w Y ,
P
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Roanoke Basin/Compliance in NPDES Renewals]]
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:23:31 -0400
To: Gil Vinzani <[e-mail]>
CC: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>, Mike Templeton <[e-mail]>,
Charles Weaver <[e-mail]>
Gil- here's the compliance feedback from WSRO on the facilities that we highlighted with
potential compliance problems in the Roanoke Basin. Of the 20 listed facilities, WSRO
indicates that 2 have connected, and 2 should have a Special Condition placed in the
draft permit renewal requesting a Wastewater Management Plan to address compliance
problems (see below):
* NCO021075 Town of Madison- no longrer discharging, connected to
Mayodan
* NCO028011 Town of Stonevills- no longer discharging, connected to
Mayodan
* NCO059251 Quail Acres MHP- Require Wastewater Management Plan
* NCO040011 Yanceyville WWTP- Require Wastewater Management Plan
Mike T prepared a generic Wastewater Management Plan Special Condition that can be
tailored to the problems at the specific facility, and permit writers should discuss with
-him. If you think some other facilities on the list might need a Special Condition,
please discuss with Tedder. I'll put copies of the WSRO comments in the NPDES files, to
alert the assigned permit writers of the additional requirements. For the remaining
Roanoke Basin, I've already received feedback from WARO, and I'm still awaiting RRO
feedback (due to us by Oct. 6).
Tom Belnick, Environmental Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Point Source Branch
919-733-5083,ext. 543
919-733-0719 (fax)
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Roanoke Basin/Compliance in NPDES Renewals]
From: Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:14:31 -0400
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
see attached. ( We had not forgotten you)
Steve Tedder
[e-mail]
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
On 9/21/2006 4:40 PM, Tom Belnick wrote:
Steve/Chuck- I still need your feedback on the Roanoke Basin NPDES compliance. I'm
out of the office Oct2-4, so if you could respond by October 6, that would be great.
Thanks.
1 of 2 9/26/2006 2:52 PM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Roanoke Basin/Compliance in NPDES Renewals]]
4
Subject:
Roanoke Basin/Compliance in NPDES Renewals
From:
Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date:
Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:47:33 -0400
To:
Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>, Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>, Al
Hodge <[e-mail]>, "DENR.EASTNPDES.DWQ"<[e-mail]>,
"DENR.WESTNPDES.DWQ" <[e-mail]>
To:
Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>, Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>, Al
Hodge <[e-mail]>, "DENR.EASTNPDES.DWQ"<[e-mail]>,
"DENR.WESTNPDES.DWQ" <[e-mail]>
CC:
Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
The Roanoke Basin (subbasins 030201-030210) is next in line for NPDES wastewater
permit renewals, with 77 permit renewals falling within three regions: WSRO (n=47),
RRO (n=18), and WARO (n=12). The Roanoke permits begin to expire 1/31/2007, which
means that NPDES staff will start sending drafts to public notice in December06.
NPDES staff attempts to incorporate compliance into permit renewals by reviewing the
compliance record to identify problem facilities, and discussing with the applicable
Regions whether the permit renewal should contain any special conditions to address
continuing compliance problems.
Similar to the Cape Fear renewals, I reviewed a BIMS download of enforcement cases
during 2001-05, and used a subjective compliance threshold of 3+ enforcement cases
over the last 2 years, or 5+ enforcement cases over the past 5 years, to identify
potential problem facilities. This threshold resulted in 30 facilities, spread between
WSRO (n=20), RRO (n=7), and WARO (n=3). These facilities are listed by Region in the
attached spreadsheet. The next step is for NPDES/Region to review the facility lists
and determine what permitting conditions, if any, would be appropriate for each listed
facility. For some facilities, the cases may be older and the problem may already be
resolved, or is currently being addressed through SOC, etc, in which case no
permitting action is necessary. The most common permiting action for a problem
facility has been to add a Special Condition requiring preparation of a Wastewater
Management Plan that focusus on specific problems and how the facility plans to
resolve them.
I'll leave it to the Regions to determine how they want to proceed. Regions can
either review their listings and enter comments on the spreadsheet and send back, or
NPDES can call/visit the Region to discuss each listed facility. Both ways have
worked in the past. Either way, I'd like to complete this task BY SEPTEMBER 30,
before NPDES staff begins the permit renewals. Any permitting conditions deemed
appropriate by Region/NPDES will then be placed in the permit renewal files, and
ultimately incorporated into the draft permit. If Regions have any questions, feel
free to contact me or the following NPDES Regional Office Contacts: WSRO- Charles
Weaver; RRO- Vanessa Manuel; WARD- Karen Rust.
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Re: [Fwd: Roanoke Basin/Compliance in NPDES Renewals] i
Content -Encoding: 7bit
� `ROANOKE Basin Enforcement Summary 2001-06-1.xls Content -Type: ahcation/vnd.ms-excel
Content -Encoding: base64
2 of 2 9/26/2006 2:52 PM /