NCD991278540_20010215_Weyerhaeuser Company_FRBCERCLA SAP QAPP_White Catfish Dioxin Data-OCR

-• . .; '
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
February 15, 200 I
Richard Gay
Environmental Manager
Weyerhaeuser
810 Whittington Avenue
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901
Dear Mr. Gay:
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8360
L.
EPA received a letter dated November 13, 2001 from RMT. Inc. (RMT) on behalf of
Weyerhaeuser. EPA appreciates the time and effort that went into RMT's review of white catfish
data collected as part of the Lower Roanoke River Study currently being conducted by EPA.
After reviewing RMT' s evaluation of the data, EPA found no evidence of analytical or sampling
error related to sample RR436WCC or RR436WCF. However, due to the possible anomalously
high levels in the fillet relative to the carcass, an additional investigation to confirm these results
should be perfom1ed. The catfish dioxin data will enable characterization of the distribution of
dioxin TEQ in exposed catfish in the section of the Roanoke River corresponding with previous
sample composite location RR436. The resulting data will be used to replace the previous RR436
data for purposes of human health risk assessment. The sampling and analysis plan provided
below provides a potential approach for such a confirmation investigation should Weyerhaeuser
wish to conduct such an investigation.
Please find attached a detailed dioxin data review by EPA Region 4's Office of Quality Assurance
and Data Integration and an assessment by Dr. Russell Plumb.
Background
White catfish sample RR436WCF, collected in June 2000 in the Roanoke River immediately
downstream of the confluence with Welch Creek, was the fillet portion of a composite of five
white catfish. This sample contained high concentrations of dioxin (TEQ = 26 ppt) relative to the
corresponding carcass portion (TEQ = 5.3 ppt) and other catfish fillet and carcass composites
collected upstream and downstream of this location (TEQs ranging up to 4.2 ppt). It is unknown
whether the RR436WCF dioxin TEQ concentration is anomalous due to possible analytical or
sampling errors or whether the dioxin TEQ concentration in this sample reflects actual biological
and physical phenomena related to habitat proximity to Welch Creek, a known source of
sediment dioxin contamination. Independent laboratory data quality reviews by Weyerhaeuser
and EPA have disagreed on this issue; however. there does not appear to be _any evidence to
indicate an analytical problem for this sample. Nevertheless, both parties recognize the unusual
result whereby higher dioxin TEQ concentrations are measured in fish fillet tissue relative to the
remainder (carcass) of a fish; this is based on the concept that dioxins should tend to accumulate
in the more "fatty" carcass tissues.
Internet Addruss (URL)• http://www.n~a.gov
R~,;yc1tr.:VRecyclable • PrinfGd wilh Vegetable Oil B,1sod Inks on Aecycl,Jd r,apor (Mtn,mum :JD% Postcon~umer)
;1!)! 1•J, :' •h
I
, iON
• •
-2-
Sampling and Analysis Plan
The objective of the investigation, if implemented, would be to confinn dioxin TEQ
concentrations in white catfish tissue in the area at and/or near previous sample location RR436.
The confinnation results would form a new set of data for characterization of the distributional
form of dioxin TEQ and for assessment of human and ecological risk in the area of RR436.
In order to provide reasonable coverage of the uncertainty associated with the biological and
habitat phenomena related to dioxin bioaccumulation in white catfish, i.e., a statistically sound
basis, a new set of multiple tissue samples a!_ multiple locations (corresponding with the
proximity of RR436) will need to be collected. This is necessary since it is not possible to
resample the "same" RR436 fish composite (i.e., under the same set of biological and physical
factors) and simply replace the current RR436WCF observation in the data set with a new
RR436WCF observation. We simply do not understand the factors and their interactions well
enough to replace the composite observation with another composite observatio_n, and have
sufficient confidence that the new observation will be representative of the complex phenomena
responsible for dioxin bioaccumulation in catfish. In particular, we do not have sufficient
infonnation regarding the type and shape of the distribution of dioxin TEQ in catfish in the area
of RR436. Currently, all we have is one observation (a 5-point composite) indicating that the
mean dioxin level in white catfish fillets in this area is TEQ = 26 ppt. Since this is a composite.
we have no infonnation regarding the dispersion of TEQ about the mean. For example. it could
be that all five catfish had TEQ = 26 ppt, or that four of the five had TEQ = 0 ppt and one of the
five had TEQ = 130 ppt, or any other combination that produces a mean TEQ = 26 ppt.
Therefore, it is impossible to estimate based on normal or lognonnal distribution models how
many observations would be necessary to characterize the phenomena.
For purposes of this sampling plan it is assumed that at least 15 observations will be necessary to
adequately characterize the distribution of dioxin in fish tissue due to exposure in the vicinity of
the Roanoke River impacted by Welch Creek. It is also assumed that a minimum of five
locations in the Roanoke River will be selected for sample collection. One of these locations
should be upstream and four downstream of the confluence with Welch Creek. The five locations
should be separated approximately 500, 1,000 or 2,000 feet (see below), and they should be
restricted to the south side of the river, i.e., in the shallow water on the same side of the river
where Welch Creek flows into the river, since this environment represents the catfish habitat
where exposure to dioxin contaminated sediments from Welch Creek are most likely. The
required sample locations are as follows:
Location ID
RR436B1
RR436B2
RR436B3
RR436B4
RR436B5
Location Description (relative to Welch Creek
confluence)
0 -500 ft upstream
0 -500 ft downstream
500 -1,000 ft downstream
1,000 -2,000 ft downstream
2,000 -4,000 ft downstream
• •
-3-
From each of the five locations, a minimum of two (2) individual white catfish should be
collected, for a total of 2 x 5 = 10 catfish. Compositing of these samples is not desirable. If more
than 2 white c·atfish are obtained from an individual location, all will be prepared and sent to the
laboratory. The laboratory will randomly select two fish for analysis and archive the remaining
samples for later analysis, if required. If less than 2 catfish are collected during an event,
additional sampling using either electroshock or line-and-hook methods will be necessary. Each
individual sample will be separated into fillet and carcass portions and submitted for separate
dioxin analysis following the field and analytical protocols of previous investigations. The
minimum number of total dioxin analyses is therefore 2 x 10 = 2Oanalyses.
Analysis Requirements
Dioxin analysis must follow SW-846 Method 8290. For fish tissue, this method requires a
minimum sample size of 20 g (bulk or wet weight). Since even a small catfish is expected to
weight about I 00 g, of which about 25 g will be the fillet portion (both left and right fillets
combined), there should be no problem with collecting and analyzing individual fish for dioxin,
i.e., there is no analytical requirement for compositing the samples to obtain an adequate sample
size.
Analytical protocols must include the prescribed types and numbers of field quality
control/quality assurance samples, including duplicates ( l per 20), decontamination rinsate
blanks, and performance evaluation samples. as necessary and appropriate.
Please contact me at 404.562.8814 to discuss the letter in more detail. Thank you for your
consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
/')/·/!_,II I Y.t;;, {~kl Lt e1 ,__,
Beth
0
\Vaiden
Remedial Project Manager
. cc: Tom Augspurger, USDOI
Nile Testerman, NCDENR
Luann Williams, NCDHHS
Stacy McAnulty, RMT
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE AND ECOSYSTEM SUPPORT DIVISION
OFFICE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
REGION IV
980 COLLEGE ST A TION ROAD
A THENS, GA 30605
4SESD-OQA
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lower Roanoke River White Catfish Dioxin Data
Project 00-0589 Weyerhaeuser Company
FROM:
THRU:
TO:
Re-examination of Samples RR436WCF and RR436WCC
John P. McConney yjtl L, <.::..s.
Environmental Scientist
Office of Quality Assurance and Data Integration
Gary Bennett, Chief J!/zl,
Office of Quality Assurance and Data Integration
Beth Walden, Remedial Project Manager
Waste Management Division
.....
On behalf of Weyerhaeuser Company, RMT, Inc. (RMT) conducted a laboratory data quality
review of white catfish dioxin analytical data, specifically subject samples RR436WCF and
RR436WCC of Project 00-0589. RMT concluded that the analytical results are unreliable due to
laboratory QC problems and are likely due to some type of laboratory contamination.
Our re-examination of the subject analytical data showed that the data were appropriately
qualified and that the laboratory QC problems do not significantly affect the usability of the data.
The conclusions reached by RMT will be addressed in the order presented in their memorandum
dated November 13, 2001.
I. Laboratory Method Blank contamination -While the associated method blank did contain
positive results for all 2378-substituted congeners except TCDD, these blank results were
used to qualify the results of all of the associated samples including RR436WCF and
RR436WCC. Data qualification was performed in accordance with established organic
and dioxin data validation procedures and Region 4 SOP; the 5X blank rule was used.
The method blank was analyzed immediately after the continuing calibration and two
hours prior to the analysis of the associated samples. While it is possible carryover from
the calibration analysis affected the method blank, this carryover was not present in the
• •
system when the subject samples were analyzed, as evidenced by the results of the two
samples analyzed between analysis of the method blank and subject samples. It should
be noted that the analytical results included by RMT in Table I did not reflect the
qualified results as reported by Region 4. See Exhibit # I for blank results, Region 4
reported results, RMT's Table 1, and see Exhibit #2 for Region 4 reported results of the
two samples analyzed between the method blank and subject samples.
2. CarryoveF-from the laboratory blank spike -RMT stated that the laboratory blank spike
and method blank were analyzed in sequence immediately before the subject samples and
that ca!D'over of the spike compounds was therefore IJ.O~sible. Examinat.ion. of the
analysis run log shows that in fact the laboratory blank spike was analyzed three hours
after the subject samples were analyzed. Carryover of the spike compounds was
therefore not possible. Moreover, the sample analyzed immediately prior to the subject
samples did not contain reportable amounts of any target compounds and the sample
analyzed immediately prior to that sample contained only 2,3,7,8-TCDD in an amount
less than the detection limit. Therefore, it is not possible that carryover to the subject
samples occurred. See Exhibit #2 for the analysis run log, Region 4 reported results and
selected SICPs of the subject samples as well as the samples analyzed immediately before
the subject samples.
3. Inconsistency between the subject samples was most likely caused by fugitive
contamination -As stated above, while contamination was present in the associated
method blank, the reported results of the subject samples were greater than 5 times this
contamination. In addition, the samples analyzed immediately before the subject samples
did not contain reportable amounts of target compounds that were greater than the
detection limit. Therefore, there is no evidence that the analytical system was
compromised by fugitive contamination to such an extent as to affect the reported results
of the subject samples.
4. The accuracy and precision of the MS/MSD associated with the subject samples was
inconsistent and poor -The results of the MS/MSD associated with the subject samples
show that the RPO of only two of the seventeen spike compounds exceeded the method
QC limits. The method QC limit for the RPO was 20%; the RPO of 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCOF.
was 21 % and 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HxCOF was 29%. However, it must be noted that neither of
the subject samples was used for the MS/MSO sample; the sample used for the MS/MSO
was RR449LBF. In accordance with established organic and dioxin data validation
procedures and Region 4 SOP, qualification resulting from the results of the MS/MSO
are only applied to the sample used for the MS/MSO and not to associated samples. This
is due to the variable nature of the matrices analyzed. In addition, subject sample
RR436WCC was analyzed as a laboratory duplicate and all of the RPO values were
below 10%, which is well below the method QC limit of25%. The internal standards in
the original and duplicate analyses of subject sample RR436WCC also showed good
agreement. This agreement and the low RPD values indicates that this sample was not
subject to the same matrix interference that sample RR449LBF was subject to.
Therefore, the MS/MSO results have little if any bearing on the results of the subject
samples. See Exhibit #3.
• •
In summary, based on our re-examination of the raw data associated with the subject samples, we
can find no information which supports the theory that dioxin and furan results reported for
samples RR4_36WCF and RR436WCC were due to laboratory contamination for the following
reasons:
► The method blank contamination which was noted by RMT as a significant problem, was
observed by EPA data reviewers and was appropriately handled prior to reporting the data
in accordance with EPA data review standard operating procedures.
► There is no evidence of cross contamination ( carryover) of the subject samples by the
laboratory blank spike because the spike was analyzed after samples RR436WCF and
RR436'WCC in the analytical sequence. ·· • _
► The samples analyzed immediately before samples RR436WCF and RR436WCC in the
analytical sequence do not show elevated levels of dibenzofurans or dibenzodioxins as
would be expected if some type of instrumental cross contamination had occurred.
Please contact John McConney at 706-355-8555, or Gary Bennett at 706-355-8551 if you have
any questions.
l.Jlbotaloty lO 039969
EPA ID Melhod blank
SOG RR-44~WCC
CXlullon F aaor
% Moislure ~
WeighlNolume 10.000
FV 20 .,._
Injection Volume 10 ,, .
H•tlve Come,ounds
JJ71-Ft.nna ion, o, ....... ,.,.,. ...,..,.., R.T .
2.3.7,&-CM-Obenzoflnn JOJ IOII 27:23 ..... ._.,,.,_,,,,JJ ..... 27;24 77324
1.2.J.7 .a-O~Oibenzofinn lll 1517 34:5-4 2616-41 ._.,.., .. ,.. J,11.~ 34:5-4 181905
2.3.4,7,a-ct~~inn u,a,; . · 36:03 290865 --•JS••-••1""11 ,., .... 36:02 183145
1.2.3.4,7.e-o&-Oiberu:ohnn ln.azar 39:42 3162911
--•»•••.a JUll71 39:42 268000
1,2,3.S.7,8-06-0oenzofuran l7l l207 39:49 363449
"-•»U•-llpllltf) ns 1111 39:49 256000
2.3,4.8, 7 .a-o&-Obel'IZofuran 1n l207 40:24 mooo
_..,. ... ,, ... »CN(YJ 17S.1171 40:24 3172-47
1.2.3. 7 .8.t-06-0Lbenzofuran 1nmr 41:10 378930
-...■•111o••apllltf) US1171 41:10 32UM6
1.2,3.U.7,a-07-Dlt>eru:~inn 407.1111 42:51 346280
-...■Ud•"-1:Ei «-.n11 42:50 ,...,.
1.2,3,4, 7 .8, 9-07-Dlbenzoti.-n •01.1111 44:21 309000
"-.......... (MT! •011n11 44:21 260000
1.2.3.4.11,7 ,11.9-05-0.bel'IZofuran •.U.1CH 47:39 583164
"-•OZJ•dll(MT} UJ.7lN 47:39 641557
:IJ71-DJa.lns
2,3, 7 .8-CM-Obenzo-p-dl(wn JttllllS ......
R-.,•H.lllllH.lt 121.1131 • 53500
1,2,3,7,1-0S-Oibenzo-p-dioxit\ ....... 36:34 181395
"-••:111o»• J.57.1517 35:33 105000
1.2,3. 4,7 ,8-CJ6.0.beN:o-p-,dlo1dn Ut.t1k 40:33 247537
"-•OOJC11o•.a(MT! ltUUt 40:33 193000
1.2,3,8,7,8-Cl&-OiberU:~ llll Ilk 40:43 198917
......... "'!, ltl.1117 40:44 164000
1,2.3, 7 .8.9-05-0lbenzo-p-dlcwn Jll11k 40:56 2771!155 ............ Jl1 1121 40:56 21'1711
1,2,3,U,7 .&-Cl7 •CWbenzo-p-dioain •n.nu 43:54 , .....
-..■uu•u• m.mr 43:54 362221
1,2,3,4.1,7 ,8,9-Cl&-O.benZo-p-dioaln 01.nn 47;28 797521
"-.. , .... ,. 01.7~1 47:21!1 .,., ..
Philip Analytical Services
EPA Method 8290 • {ppt)
Sample Receipt Date OOAJ7/21
Exlfactlon Date 00/08113
tnjeclion Dale 00108129
Injection Time 13:53
F~e Natne 29AUG EPA041
CodH EMPC • Estimated Maximum Posslble Concenttallon
OPE " Poulble Diptien)'lether lnl_erference (Furans)I
NOR = Nol Delected Due lo lncoaect Isotope Ratio ■
RT• Relenllon Time not Wllhan ·1 lo •3 &econd window
C • Confirmation Resull ltom OB-'225 column
EMCL • &.ceeds Method Cabbralion Limit
Rotio SIN Total Amounl
NU (wt) Code TEF
0.78 • 1362651 0.78 0.078 .~ .. • 1.44 10 443448 u 0.189
1122-11WJ 10
1.59 12 474010 u 1JM2
(lll-ll'll " 1.18 " ... ,.. '·' 0.449
11•1•:11 " 1.42 IS 619449 ... 0.477
IIOloUll " 1.11 IS 670247 u 0.643 ,, .. ,._ " 1.18 IS 700876 ,., 0.155
11-.u:11 " o ... 20 714735 ... 0.069 ,.. .. ,~ 20
1.19 " 569000 1.0 0.080,
111•1J111 IS
0.91 26 1224721 17 0.017
flll'l-101) 25
.. .. -94159 ,c 0.1 -c0.772
flllWIIII ..
1.73 • 286395 .J.01 1.540
1111-1n1 1
1.28 " 440537 ·~ 0,516
1101-1•:11 12
1.21 10 362917 4.0◄ 0,404
(I Ol-14,JJ 11
120 " 4975611 ,.o 0.498 °:: ,, .. ,.,. " 1.01 " 728793 ••• 0.0!5
.... ,Jill ,.
0.95 ,. 1634279 " 0.024
ior..111Z) ,.
0
-·~--
I I
RRF•
1.15
0.85
0.79
1.08
1.00
0.87
0.11
1.07
0.74
1.07
0.08
0.88
0.79
0.03
0.92
1.00
0."7
FIie : (0112SEPA.xt.WJ0399119 EPA molllnk_0813
•
0 c:,
'3
.:,..
u,
•
EPA Method 8290 • (ppt)
Sample Recelpl Date OD.(17/21 -U--Ub<ntcwy 10 039969 Extr1iction Dau, 00/08113
EPA ID Method blanll Injection Dale OQ108129
SOG RR-449--'NCC lnjectton rme 13:53 '
F~e Name 29AUG EPA041
Odulion F ■ctor
% Moisture .. Cod■-EMPC • Estimated Ma:dnun POSSlble Cencentration
· Weighl/Votume 10.000 OPE ■ Possible Oiphenytelher ln!erferenc■ (F~)
FV 20 VL NOR ■ Not Detected Due to loco(rect Isotope
lnjectionVolume 1.0 VL RT• Retention Twne not wilhln •1 lo +3 5econcl window I I
C • Conlitm■llon Result from Ofr-225 column
EMCL • Excffds Method Calibr■lion Umll
lnlem■I Standards
Ions """""" ,.,., Rollo SIN Total Amount %RECOVERY RRF, ,.,, .. MonllO< .. R.T. ""' Mcie<! (pg} • 2.J.7.&-T4COf-13C12 J1Skll 27:20 32966300 0.77 1271 75008000 2500 " 121
JU.l)N 27:20 428-41700 C11H•1 1140
1.2.J,1,&-P5C0f-13C12 ...... 34:52 ◄7700000 1.62 250< 77200000 2500 " 1.28
)5)1170 34:52 20500000 (IJ.1·•1'1 .,.
1.2,3,4.1 .&-H&COF-13C12 ,.,..,. 39;41 52305900 0.53 '"" 150167500 6250 .. 121 •• ,o, 39:41 97561600 , .. w., 4614
1,2,3,◄,l,7.&-H7COF-13C12 4111251 42:50 36321300 0.0 1535 120173200 6250 .. 0.97
41IIZ20 42:50 1131151900 fllll.OUI 2478
Oloxln•
2.l,7 ,&-T4C00-13C12 llt .... 211:34 36025000 0 ... 623 89232300 2500 .. 12e I
""'" 21!1.34 53206500 telH•I 15'4 C
1.2.l,7 ,&-PSC00-13C12 ,., .... 36:32 32123300 1.55 1574 52790600 2500 " 0.72 C
*"" 36:32 20667300 11.1,2.111,1 1004 ..... t,2,3.11, 7 .&-H&C00-13C 12. 401.1551 40:37 75050800 12, .. ,. 135353200 6250 " 1.00
403115:,0 ◄0:37 60302400 ,, .. ,o, 2964 ..,
1,2.3.4.8.7 .&-tf7C00-13C 12 USIIN 43:53 54676300 1.05 ••◄4 106970900 6250 .. 0.75 0-nr.1uo 43:SJ 52294600 te•' ») ,..,
OC00-13C12 Hl.71IO 47:27 80228700 o ... 6719 1730:M400 12500 .. 0.81
01.71)0 ◄7:27 92805700 '°""'121 8926
Recove!Jt: Standards
1,2,l,◄·HCOO 1JC.12 lll .... 28:U 25550200 0.71 473 61754600 1000 • "'"" 28:14 36204400 ,otw•1 1108
1,2.3,7,8,9-H&COO llC-12 '01.ISH ◄0:56 2"03200 125 1724 ,...,... 1000 ..,..,. 40:56 18079700 11 -.1431 '"
An•!x•t Comments
Philip Analytical Services FIie : l01!129EPA.XLW}039969 EPA mblank_01!113
IIOXINS SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA -REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA
Sample 10066 FY 2000 Project: 00-0589
.DIOXIN SCAN
Facility: Weyerhaeuser Company
Program;_ SFE
Plymouth, NC
Id/Station: RR436WCC /
Media:OTHER BIOTA D No:436WC
RESULTS
4.3
4.3J
8.9U
8.9UJ
8.9U
8.9U
8.9U
23UJ
29U
120J
460
4.7
4.9J
8.9U
8.9U
8.9UJ
8.9U
8.9U
8.9U
8.9U
8.9UJ
8.9U
8.9U
8.9UJ
18U
5.3
8.7
UNITS
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
%
ANALYTE
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN·(TOTAL)
1,2,3,4, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3, 7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3.4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3.4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3.4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3.4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEXACHLORODIBENZOfURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3.4,6, 7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TEO (TOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM 1-TEF/89)
% LIPIDS
SAS Number:DIOX
Org Contractor: PAS
-average value. NA-not analyzed. NAl-interferences. J-eslimated value. N-presumptive evidence of presence of material.
Production Date: 10/18/2000 12:49
Produced by: Mcconney, John
Requestor:
Project Leader: BLEWIS.
Beginning: 06/21/2000 12:00
Ending:
I I
-actual value is known to be less than value given. L-actual value is known ta be greater than value given. U-material was analyzed for but not detected. the number is the minimum quantitation limit.
-qc indicates that data unusable. compound may or may not be present. res"arnpling and rea'nalysis is necessary for verification.
Page 1 of 1
•
DIOXINS SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA -REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA
Sample 10067 FY 2000 Project: 00-0589
DIOXIN SCAN
Facility: Weyerhaeuser Company
Program:_ SFE
Plymouth, NC
Id/Station: RR436WCF /
Media:OTHER BIOTA D No: 436WC
RES UL TS UNITS
4.5
59J
8.5U
41UJ
8.5U
8.5U
8.5U
48UJ
24U
50J
100U
27U
110J
24
20
190J
67
26
8.5U
8.5U
180J
74
12U
97J
31U
26
4.0
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
%
ANALYTE
2,3, 7 ,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3, 7 ,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3, 7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPT ACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
2,3, 7 ,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TETRACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4, 7 ,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TEO (TOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89)
% LIPIDS
SAS Numtier:DIOX
Org Contractor: PAS
!\-average value. NA-not analyzed. NAl-interferences. J-estimated value. N-presumptive evidence of presence of material.
Production Date: 10/18/2000 12:49
Produced by: Mcconney, John
Requestor:
Project Leader: BLEWIS
Beginning: 06/21/2000 12:00
Ending:
I I
-<-actual value is known to be less than value given. L-actual value is known to be greater than value given. U-material was analyzed for but not detected. the number is the minimum quantitation limit.
~-qc indicates that data unusable. compound may or may not be present. resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
Page 1 of 1
•
•
Table I
2,3,7,8-PCDD/PCDF in the Roanoke River White Catfish Samples, Blank Spike, and Blanks
RR-RR RR BLANK METHOD SYSTEM SYSTEM METHOD
Sample ID 436WCC 436WCCDuo ¾RPD 436WCF SPIKE BLANK BLANK BLANK BLANK
Labontory Sample # 39970 39970 39971 39969 39969 39948
Collection Date 6/21/00 6/21/00 6/21/00 I
Analysis Date 8/29/00 8n9too 8n9/oo 8/29/00 8/29/00 g/30/00 I 8/31/00 8/17/00
PARAMETER
2,3,7,8-TCDD, ng/kg 4.3 4.7 9 4.5 78 <0.77 <0.7 <0.6 <1.4
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD, ng/kg 1.2 u 1.4 u nd 6.8 u 210 . 3.1 1.6 2.3 <2.1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD, ng/kg 1.00 u I.Ou nd 3.3 u 250 5.2 3.0 2.6 <1.5 • 1,2,3,6, 7 ,8-HxCDD, ng/kg 2.3 u 3.0 u nd 8.1 u 210 4.0 3.1 3.3 <1.4
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD, ng/kg 1.4 u 1.5 u nd 6.4 u 210 5.0 2.9 3.5 .. <1.3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, ng/kg 29 u 30 u nd 24u 210 8.5 5.2 5.6 3.1
OCDD, ng/kg 460 470 2 100 u 450 24 16 17 11
2,3,7,8-TCDF, ng/kg 4.9 5.02 2 27 93 0.78 0.88 0.94 <I. I
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF, ng/kg <0.54 0.45·u nd 24 220 . 3.4 2.05 2.4 <1.5
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF, ng/kg 0.93 u 1.0 u nd 20 u 250 3.9 2.8 3.0 <1.6
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, ng/kg <0.47 <0.44 nd 67 240 4.5 3.0 3.4 2.3
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HxCDF, ng/kg <0.47 <0.44 nd 26 230 4.8 2.8 3.4 2.4
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF, ng/kg <0.59 <0.54 nd 7.9 u 220 6.4 3.8 4.5 <1.7
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF, ng/kg <0.66 <0.61 nd 1.2 u 210 1.5 ; 4.5 4.4 <1.4
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF, ng/kg <0.97NDR <0.76 nd 74 280 6.9 4.0 4.8 3.7
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF, ng/kg <0.67 <0.6 nd 12 u 230 8.0 4.0 6.4 3.2
OCDF, ng/kg <0.98 <0.98 nd 31 u 300 17 9.4 9.8 6.6 • Total TCDD, ng/kg 4.3 4.7 9 59 78 <0.77 <0.71 <0.65 <1.4
Total PeCDD, ng/kg 1.2 u 1.4 u nd 41 210 3.1 1.64 2.31 <2.1
Total HxCDD, ng/kg 23 25 8 48 680 14 S.99 9.47 <1.4
Total HpCDD, ng/kg 120 110 9 50 220 8.5 6.16 5.60 3.1
Total TCDF, ng/kg 4.9 5.0 2 110 95 3.2 0.88 0.94 <1.1
Total PeCDF, ng/kg 4.8 5.0 4 190 480 7.2 4.84 5.30 <1.5
Total HxCDF, ng/kg <0.54 <0.50 nd 180 920 23 13.72 15.49 5.4
Total HpCDF, ng/kg <1.2 <0.49 nd 97 530 15 7.99 11 7.0
Notes:
NOR= analytc not detected due to inco1Tect isotope ration.
l:\wpmSn\PJT\00-05112\14\000511214-002.XLS 11129/01
'29AUG_EPA Resolution Check 00/08/29 · 11:13 FUNCTION START END
db5_win_perf 00/08/29 11 :15 1 20:00 30:45
solvent 00/08/29 12:06 2 30:45 37:40
cs3_epa_196 00/08/29 12:57 3 37:40 41:30
epa39969_mblank_0813 00/08/29 13:53 4 41:30 44:40
epa39967 _rr_ 436_lbc 00/08/29 14:43 5 44:40 48:10
epa39968_rr_ 436_ran 00/08/29 15:34 I I
epa39970_rr_ 436_wcc 00/08/29 16:25
epa39970d_rr_ 436_w~~ 00/08/29 17:15
epa39971_rr~,wcf 7/; 7,{~ N/0/0} 00108/29 18:06 • epa39972_rr_ 440_cor • · 00/08/29 18:56
epa39973_rr_ 440_fir 00/08/29 19:47
epa39974_rr_ 440_1bc 00/08/29 20:38
epa_blkspk_0813 00/08/29 21:28
cs3_epa_197 00/08/29 22:19
solvent 00/08/29 23:10
Resolution Check 00/08/30 7:47
•
Page 1
IUXIN:S :SAMt'LI:: ANAL Y:Sl:S EPA -REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA
Sample 10064 FY 2000 Project: 00-0589
DIOXIN SCAN
Facility: Weyerhaeuser Company
Program:_ SFE
Plymouth, NC
ld/Stalion: RR436LBF /
Media:OTHER BIOTA D No: 436LB
RESULTS
1.6J
1.6J
8.5U
8.5UJ
8.5U
8.5U
8.5U
8.5UJ
8.5U
8.5UJ
17U
3.4U
3.4UJ
8.5U
8.5U
8.5UJ
8.5U
8.5U
8.5U
8.5U
8.SUJ
8.5U
8.5U
8.5UJ
17U
1.6J
0.5
UNITS
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
%
ANALYTE
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3, 7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3,6, 7 ,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3, 7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3, 7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN'
TEO (TOXIC EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89)
% LIPIDS
SAS Number:DIOX
Org Contractor: PAS
average value. NA-not analyzed. NAl-interferences. J-estimated value. N-presumPtive evidence of presence of material.
Production Date: 10/18/2000 12:49
Produced by: Mcconney, John
Requestor:
Project Leader: BLEWIS ·
Beginning: 06/21/2000 12:00
Ending:
/·
I I
actual value is known to be less than value given. L-actual value is known to be greater than value given. Li-material was analyzed for but not detected. the number is the minimum quantitation limit.
qc indicates that data unusable. compound may or may not be present. resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
Page 1 of 1
•
f-. 6:'._ T vJJ;f/k,\-
File:29AUG _EPA #1-212 Acq:29-AUG-2000 14:43:44 GC El+ Vollage SIR 70S · Sample#S Text:epa39967 _rr _ 436 _ lb\: Exp:DIOXIN _ 1613
373:8208 S:S F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(l28,IS,-3.0) PKD(3,2,I,0.10%,6604.0,I0.00%,F,TI
100% /
80 :
60 I
' 40 I
20 j, _ /. _,
0 . \ -:: ..
38:00
A6.44E4
A3.i(E4
375.8178 S:S F:J SMO(l,3) DSUO(l28,IS,-3.0) PKD(J,2,l,0.10%,4396.0,10.00'1',,F,TI
IOO 9,
80 i
601
40 . A5.36E4 ,
20 ! J-" ·--·· / l -/' ' ''-/'. J ., ·' • 0. -':;~1~··:• .'. /~-~-~ ,. ~ ·. -. -~:i9~i;;_yy_ -··--··•·· ~ I ••••• l.
383.8639 S:5 F:3 SMO(l,3) OSUB(l28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,I,0.10%,2648.0,10.00%,F,TI
100 % A9.4.0E7
80
60
40.
20
I I I •
I
Cl
Al.!2E5
I..
A4.07E4 /
Al .13E5
Cl
.,(_ A5.24E4
A3.~IE4
I I
_3.4E4
t . 2.7E4
2.IE4
_3,3E4
.2.5E7
2.0E7
1.5E7
I.OE?
5.0E6
0. -----------------.--------L--'-'=-------------------,----_/:. 38:00 39: 0 40:00
O.0E0
385.86!0 S:5 F:3 SMO(l,3) OSUB(l28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,5620.0,I0.00%,F,n
IO0 % Al.78E8
80.
60.
40,
20
I
I
41: 0
'· 0. -----------------,--------L._-'-"'----------------------
40:00 38:00 39: 0 41: 0
Time
.-4.7E7
3.7E7
2.8E7
1.9E7
9.4E6
0.0E0
Time
•
IOXINS SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA-REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA
Sample 10065 FY 2000 Project: 00-0589
DIOXIN SCAN
Facility: Weyerhaeuser Company
Program: •. SFE
Plymouth, NC
Id/Station: RR436RAN /
Media:OTHER BIOTA D No: 436RA
RESULTS
2.4U
2.4UJ
5.9U
5.9UJ
5.9U
5.9U
5.9U
5.9UJ
5.9U
6.7UJ
55U
2.4U
3.0UJ
5.9U
5.9U
5.9UJ
5.9U
5.9U
5.9U
5.9U
5.9UJ
5.9U
5.9U
5.9UJ
12U
0.0
0.3
UNITS
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NGIKG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
%
ANALYTE
2,3, 7 ,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3, 7 ,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
2,3, 7 ,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3, 7 ,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOfURAN
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
.1,2,3,4, 7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TEO (TOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89)
% LIPIDS
SAS Number:DIOX
Org Contractor: PAS
average value. NA-not analyzed. NAl-interferences. J-estimated value. N-presumptive evidence of presence of material.
Production Date: 10/18/2000 12:49
Produced by: McConney, John
Requestor:
Project Leader: BLEWIS .
Beginning: 06/22/2000 07:45
Ending:
I I
-actual value is known to be less than value given. L-actual value is known to be greater than value given. U-material was analyzed for but not detected. the number is the minimum quantitation limit.
-qc indicates that data unusable. compound may or may not be present. resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
Page 1 of 1
•
•
File:29AUG EPk#l-212 Acq:29-AUG-2000 15:34:24 GC El+ Voltage SIR 70S
Sample#6 Text:epa39968_rr_ 436_ran · Exp:DIOXIN_l613
373.8208 S:6 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(l28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,6636.0,I0.00%,F,1)
100 \II ' A6.36E4
A6.30E4 ; 80
60 .. A3.6~E4 A2.23E4 <
Al.19ES
80 A7.28E4
60 A5.97E4 t\
40 ( I '
2
: ~--J,_)~~_Y'~L__:1 './"" ",,
38, o --39Jo ______ ·· -----------·--· 40,00
383.8639 S:6 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(l28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,3708.0,I0.00%,F,1)
100 Al.33E8
80 ,,
I'
60 I \ 40
20 I \
0
38: 0 39: 0
385.8610 S:6 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(l28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,l,l,0.10%,6324.0,I0.00%,F,1)
100 \II . . A2.49E8
80
60
40
20
40:00
I)-.
41:00
41 :00
41:00
2.3E4
. 1.8E4 ;?.'JJli
· 1.4E4
~
[4.SE3
I 0.0E0
3.2E4
1
· __ 2,SE4
l.9FA
' I ! l.3E4
: 6.3E3
·"! 0.0E0
Time
. 3.6E7
,_ 2.9E7
t I 2.2E7
l.SE7
. 7.3E6. ' r 0.0E0
Time
6.8E7
Ls.4E7
4.1E7
2.7E7
1.4E7
o+----,-----~-~-~-~-~----~-~__,_,,__-=~--,---------~-~-~------38: O
0.0E0.
39: O 40: 0 41: 0 Time
•
•
IXINS SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA -REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA
Sample 10066 FY 2000 Project: 00-0589
DIOXIN SCAN
Facility: Weyerhaeuser Company
Program: SfE
Plymouth, NC
Id/Station: RR436WCC /
Media:OTHER BIOTA D No:436WC
RESULTS
4.3
4.3J
8.9U
8.9UJ
8.9U
8.9U
8.9U
23UJ
29U
120J.
460
4.7
4.9J
8.9U
8.9U
8.9UJ
8.9U
8.9U
8.9U
8.9U
8.9UJ
8.9U
8.9U
8.9UJ
18U
5.3
8.7
UNITS
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
%
ANALYTE
2,3, 7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
· 1,2,3,4,7.8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
2,3, 7 ,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3, 7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4, 7 ,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6, 7 .8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3. 7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TEO (TOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89)
% LIPIDS
SAS Number:DIOX
Org Contractor: PAS
Production Date: 10/18/2000 12:49
Produced by: Mcconney, John
Requester:
Project Leader: BLEWIS
Beginning: 06/21/2000 12:00
Ending:
I I
erage value. NA-not analyzed. NAl-interlerences. J-estimated value. N-presumplive evidence of presence of material.
lual value is knoWn to be less than value given. L-actual value is known to be greater than value given. U-material was analyzed for but not detected. the number is the minimum quantitation limit.
indicates that data unusable. compound may or may not be present. resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
Page 1 of 1
•
•
Fllc:~9AUG EPA 11-211Aeq:29-AUG-200016:25:07 GC El+ Voltage SIR 70S
Sampicl7 Text:cpa39970 _rr _ 436 _ wee Exp:DIOXIN _ 1613
373.8208 S:7 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(l28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,6956.0,10.00%,F,T)
100 % A4.4~E4 A6.4SE4
80
60
40
20.
A2.26E4
i_,
375.8178 S:7 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(J28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.!0%,4048.0,J0.00%,F,T)
100 'lo A8.09E4
80
60 _
40
A5.87E4
383.8639 S:7 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(l28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,5172.0,10.00%,F,T)
100 % Al.OJ ES
A4.S3E4
40,bo 41: 0 ·
.2.4E4
2.0E4
.l.5E4
9.8E33 't.c£
4.9E3
0.0E0
Time
l.9E4
l.5E4
l.lE4
7.6E3
3.8E3
0.0E0
Time
2.7E7
/·,
80 -I '\ 2.2E7
60 1.6E7
40 I I 1.IE7
20 5.5E6
O+----.-------------,--------LL.,.-"'=-.----,--------~-~--~-~---+-0.0EO
Time 40: 0 41: 0 38: 0 39: 0
385.8610 S:7 F:3 SMO(l ,3) BSUB(l 28, 15,-3.0) PKD(3,2, 1,0.10%, 7344.0, 10.00%,F, T)
JOO% Al.9~E8 5.2E7
80. 4.2E7
60 3.IE7
40 2.JE7
20 1.0E7
0+----.-------------,--------~'.1,----'-"-.---,-----'a------------~--+O.OEO Time 38: 0 39: O . 40: 0 41: 0
•
a
0 c:::,
..t:,.
'-.J
•
Fije:29AUG EPA #1-212 Acq:29-AUG-2000 17:15:41 GC El+ Voltage SIR 70S
Sample#8 Text:epa39970d _rr _ 436 _ wee Exp:DIOXIN _ 1613
373.8208 S:8 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(l28,IS,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,4S76'.0¥00%,F,T)
100 % A9.5)E4 p Al.12ES
80 , A9.23E4 -,
60 l?-· :<,Ill
40 A4.JIE4
20 AI.ISE4 ' . · ;'~ , A8.98E3 · ?·4.(E4
A6.04E4
\
A6.25E4 A6.JJE4
\
I I
2.8E4
2.3E4
.. l.7E4
l.lE4
-1:~
0
_ -./v··· _ 1 _ .'C.✓--' _/..:✓ ..__,-, Jv I I Y" -----/L__L_,---.A./',,, &---
jii;bii .. ·-· ·----,-.. ·--39:bo . .--·~ 4o,bo' ·~---,,-'==c:c~,!__,-:::::: ___ ___:__.:__.1,......h...L):.O.O~~me
375.H I 78 S:8 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSU8(128, 15,•3.0) PKD(3,2, 1,0.10%,2900.0, 10.00%,F,T)
100 'lo A7.0~E4 A4.97E4
Al.l~ES
... r \ AS.24E4 A3.07E4 I '\
I . A2.6~E4 ' A2.3}E4 AJ.93E4 I i
80 I
601
Al.80E4 A3.07E4
40 , AJ.63E4 / ' ' .
20 . . • /. . ,__ L.. Al.20E4 .-,.l :
I ,. ' • ✓'· · /' r ~ ,--L' · / '· l _J -, · < ' .... ·'r--v-,,, /. ·· • ... .' '. ·" ,.;', ,.;-, ·. .:_J."""
O ·-•. ...---'-"· ..._,. .. ✓L ,.,,,, ..... J,,...,--l ·1 ____ . -·-'· • -. ~ ""'-..,,--~· _, --~ ··----~ ·c.../, ,
. -3s,oo .. , ·····--· .. ·······-----39:bo ---·---.-· -4i:bo--···-----··-~o
383.8639 S:8 F:J SMO(l,J) BSUB(l28,1S,-J.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,6880.0,10.00%,F,T)
100 % Al. l~EB
80 ii
I I
60. ! \
I I ! i 40
20
l.9E4
J.5E4
l.lE4
7.SE3
3.8E3
0.0E0
Time
.2.9E7
2.3E7
l.8E7
J.2E7
S.8E6
0 L.-,--------------,--------A.--1"'=.-----....:.. _______________ _J:.0.0E0
38:00 39: 0 40: 0 41: 0 Time
38S.8610 S:8 F:3 SMO(l ,3) BSUB(l 28, IS,-3.0) PKD(3;2, 1,0. 10%,S440.0, 10.00%,F, T)
JOO% A2.JJE8
·'
S.6E7
80 4.5E7
60 3.3E7
40 2.2E7
20 l.1E7
0-+----,------------,--------Ll,.......t""'""_--.--~'-r----.-----~------./:.0.0E0
38: 0 39: 0 41: 0 Time
71,8£1!
•
•
IXINS SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA -REGION IV SESD,'ATHENS, GA
Sample 10067 FY 2000 Project: 00-0589
DIOXIN SCAN
F acilily: Weyerhaeuser Company
Program:S:~E
Plymouth, NC
Id/Station: RR436WCF /
Media:OTHER BIOTA D No:436WC
RESULTS
4.5
59J
8.SU
41UJ
8.SU
8.SU
8.SU
48UJ
24U
SOJ
100U
27U
110J
24
20
190J
67
26
8.SU
8.SU
180J
74
12U
97J
31U
26
4.0
UNITS
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
%
ANALYTE
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN {TOTAL}
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZODIOXIN
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN {TOTAL}
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZODIOXIN
1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOOIOXIN
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN {TOTAL}
1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN {TOTAL)
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TETRACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN {TOTAL}
1,2,3, 7 ,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL)·
1,2,3,4,7 ,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3, 7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN (TOTAL}
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4, 7 ,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN {TOTAL}
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TEO (TOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89)
% LIPIDS
SAS Number:DIOX
Org Contractor: PAS
Production Date: 10/18/2000 12:49
Produced by: M~Conney, John
Requester:
Project Leader: BLEWIS
Beginning: 06/21/2000 12:00
Ending:
I '
erage value. NA-nol analyzed. NAl-interfetences. J-estimaled value. N-presumptive evidence of presence of malerial. .
tual value is known lo be less lhan value given. L-actual value is known to be greater than value given. LI-material was analyzed for but not detected. the number is the minimum quantitation limit.
: indicates that data unusable. compound may or may not be present. resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.
Page 1 of 1
•
•
. · _ · f//J& l)llj oofc1(01 · · · ·
Flle,19AUG EPA 11-111Acq:29/A1JG-100018:06:14 GC El+ Voltage SIR 70S
Sample#9 Text:epa39971 rr 440/wcr Exp:DIOXIN 1613
373.8208 S:9 F:3 SMO(l)) i\!ltlfi(l28,IS,-3.0) PKD(J,2~1,0.10%,10596.0,10.00%,F~ /
1:: q, _ / Al.07//,
60 / AS.4_7E6 i;:) A,4.0,9E6 I O I/ 1,
G)
}lo 40 ' I 1·.~.E6 /,~
20 AI.S2E6 ; \ \) Q Al.75E6 (\'I\('
o +---,--~-~....l,....~J,-.1.....~.....,.c::::::::,,.-...L.~---1.....-.A,.__l--.J:=::=r----4~4~-J::'O:__~~-....--~~~
A5.17E5
41: 0 38: 0 39: 0
375.8178 S:9 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSU8(128,IS,-3:0) PKD(3,2,1,0.IO'To,8788.0,10.00'To,F,1)
100 q, A8,70E6
80
60
40
20
A4.36E6 i I ,
Al.29E6
A5.82ES
38: 0 39: 0
I 1.40E6
Al.4SE6 ' I / ' /,
383.8639 S:9 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(!28,15,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.I0'To,4276,0,10.00'To,F,1)
100 o/. A9.7?-E7
80
60
40
10
Al.41E6 A4.~7ES
o-i------------------~-~-d.,--'-',..,...---,----,----,--'-~-~-~-~-~~-'-~-40: 0 41: 0 38: 39: 0
385.8610 S:9 F:3 SMO(l,3) BSUB(ll8,IS,-3.0) PKD(3,2,l,0.10%,6312.0,!0.00'To,F,1)
100 'To Al.8 E8
80
60
40
20
2.SE6
.2.0E6
· 1.SE6
I.0E6
5.~w o~o
Time • 2.0E6
fJ. 7ri f.'/. !.6E6
l.2E6
8.2ES
4.IES C)
0.0EO C) ....... Time N
2.5E7 c.n
2.0E7
!.5E7
!.0E7 • 5.0E6
0.0E0
Time
4.8E7
3.8E7
2.9E7
!.9E7
9.6E6
0.0EO
Time
9/22/00 P ASC -Certi'/,:faM b:{!4.nalysis t::.iah.l b ,t 1> :J Page 5 of? • • RR RR RR RR MS/MSD RR
Cli,nt ID: 449-LBF 449-LBF 449-LBF 449-LBF RPO 449-WCC
lab No.: 039983 00 039983 00 039983 00 039983 00 039984 00
Date Sampled: 00/06/20 00/06/20 00/06/20 00/06/20 00/06/20
Component Units M. Spike MS¾Rec. MS Dup MSD%Rec. %
Dilution Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total Tetrachlorodibcnzofurans pg/g 100 100 4.1 Total Pentachlorodibenzofurans 600 560 3.5 Total Hcxachlorodibcnzofurans 1000 1000 6.6 Total Hcptachlorodibcnzofurans 560 560 9.3 Total TetrachlorodibenZO.-·p-dioxins 88 92 2.8 Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 250 240 2.2 Total Hcxachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 730 740 10 Total HcptachlorodiNft.zo-p-dioxins 250 · 240· · ·•·· .,,, 38 -Internal Recoveries %
2,3, 7,8-T4CDF-l 3CI 2 37 37 81 81 75 74 2,3,7,8-T4CDD-13CI 2 35 35 69 69 ·· 65 62 I ,2,3,7,8-PSCDF-13CI 2· 37 37 81 81 75 80 1,2,3,7,8-PSCDD-13Cl2 44 -14 100 100 78 95 1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF-13Cl2 47 47 71 71 41 77 1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD-l 3CI 2 55 55 81 81 38 81 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF-1 JC! 2 48 48 71 71 39 80 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD-l3CI 2 48 48 80 80 50 89 OCDD-l3Cl2 42 42 83 83 66 94
2,3,7,8-Cl4-Dibenzofuran (DBS) pg/g 96 105 97 107 2 4.1 2,3,7,8-Cl4-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 87 ')5 91 101 6 2.8 1,2,3,7,8-CIS-Dibenzofuran 280 122 260 117 4 1.4 2,3 ,4, 7 ,8-CIS-Dibenzofuran 290 129 280 122 6 2.1 1,2;3,7 ,8-CIS-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 250 112 240 104 7 2.2 I ,2,3,4,7,8-Cl6-Dibenzofuran 270 I 18 240 107 10 <1.9 1,2,3 ,6, 7, 8-Cl6-Dibenzofuran 290 128 290 126 2 I. 7 2,3.4,6, 7 ,8-Cl6-Dibenzofuran 280 124 270 I 19 4 2.4 1,2,3,7,8,9-Cl6-Dibenzofuran 140 h3 180 78 21 1.5 1,2.3,4, 7,8-Cl6-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 270 120 290 127 6 2.1 I ,2.3,6,7,8-Cl6-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 260 I 14 230 103 10 3.7 1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-Cl6-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 200 86 220 · 95 10 3.0 1,2,3 ,4,6,7 ,8-Cl7-Dibenzofuran 330 147 310 135 9 <3.7 I ,2,3,4,7,8,9-Cl7-Dibenzofuran 170 76 230 102 29 2.8 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-Cl7-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 230 100 240 102 2 20 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Cl8-Dibenzofuran 380 so 390 85 6 16 1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8,9-Cl8-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 460 79 480 95 18 230
2,3,7,8-TCDF (OB225) pg/g 3.5 Internal Recoveries %
2;3 ,7 ,8-TCDF-I 3C 12 69
Client:US EPA Region IV/ESD (ASB) Project:00-0589
I
9/22/00 PASC-CertiftHJPo}Jlnalysis Page 2 of7 • • Method Blank Blank RR RR RR Client ID: Blank Spike Spike 436-WCC 436-WCC 436-WCF
lab No.: 039969 00 039969 00 039969 00 039970 00 039970 00 039971 00
Date Sampled: 00/06/21 00/06/21 00/06/21 Component Units % Recovery Duplicate
Dilution Factor 1.0 1.0' 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total Tetrachlorodibenzofurans pg/g 3.2 95 4.9 5.0 110 Total Pcntachlorod.ibenzofurans 7.2 --480 4.8 5.0 190 Total Hcxachlorodibenzofurans 23 920 <0.54 <0.50 180 Total Hcptachlorodibcnzofurans 15 530 <1.2 <0.-19 97 Total Tetrachlorodibenzo::p-dioxins <0.77 78 4.3 4.7 59 Total PC:ntachlorodibcnzo-p-dioxins 3.1 210 1.2 1.4 41 Total Hcxachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 14 680 23 .,25~ 48 · Total HCprachlorodi6crizo-p-dioxins 8.5 220 120 I 10 50 Internal Recoveries %
2,3,7,8-T4CDF -13CI 2 40 31 31 68 74 70 2,3,7,8-T4CDD-l3CI 2 ...... 46 33_ 33 68 70 65 I ,2,3,7,8-P5CDF-l 3CJ 2 40 38 38 70 76 68 1,2,3 ,7 ,8-P5CDD-l3CI 2 47 50 50 84 90 85 1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF-13CI 2 49 43 43 73 85 82 I ,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD-l 3CI 2 53 52 52 74 85 84 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF-J 3CI 2 48 48 48 78 90 83 I ,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD-J 3CI 2 56 59 59 81 94 86 OCDD-13Cl2 56 65 65 78 96 82
2,3,7,8-Cl4-Dibenzofuran (DBS) pg/g 0.78 93 93 4_·9 5.0 27 2,3, 7 ,8-Cl4-Dibcnzo-p-diox in <0.77 78 78 4.3 4.7 4.5 1,2,3, 7 ,8-CIS-Dibenzofuran 3.4 220 88 <0.54 0.45 24 2,3,4, 7 ,8-CIS-Dibcnzofuran 3.9 250 IOI 0.93 1.0 20 1,2,3, 7 ,8-CIS-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 3.1 210 84 1.2 1.4 6.8 1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-C16-Dibenzofuran 4.5 240 95 <0.47 <0.44 67 1,2,3,6, 7 ,8-Cl6-Dibenzofuran 4.8 230 93 <0.47 <0.44 26 2,3 ,4,6, 7 ,8-Cl6-Dibenzofuran 6,4 220 90 <0.59 <0,54 7.9 1,2,3,7,8,9-Cl6-Dibcnzofuran 7.5 210 86 <0.66 <0.61 1.2 1,2,3,4,7 ,8-Cl6-Dibcnzo-p-dioxin 5.2 250 102 1.00 1.0 3.3 1,2,3 ,6, 7 ,8-Cl6-Dibenzo-p-diox in 4.0 210 86 2.3 3.0 8,1 1,2,3, 7 ,8,9-Cl6-Dibenzo-p-diox in 5.0 210 84 1.4 1.5 6.4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-CJ7-Dibenzofuran 6.9 280 II I <0.97 <0.76 74 1,2,3 ,4, 7 ,8,9-CJ7-Dibenzofuran 8.0 230 93 <0.67 <0.60 12 1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-Cl7-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 8.5 210 85 29 30 24 1,2,3 ,4,6, 7 ,8,9-Cl8-Dibenzofuran 17 300 60 <0.98 <0.98 31 1,2,3 ,4,6, 7 ,8,9-Cl8-Dibenzo-p-dioxin 24 450 91 460 470 JOO
2,3,7,8-TCDF (DB225) pg/g <0,34 4.7 4.7 <18 Internal Recoveries %
2,3, 7,8-TCDF-l 3C I 2 46 70 71 68
Client:US EPA Region IViESD (ASB) Projecr:00-0589
I .
-·
• As an option, a rotary evaporator may be used in
place of the KD apparatus for the concentration
of the rinsate.
. 8.3.4.2.4 Transfer the 5 ml concentrate from the KD
concentrator tube in 1 ml portions to a 1 ml mini vial,
reducing the volume in the minivial-as necessary with a
gentle stream of dry nitrogen.
8.3.4.2.5 Rinse the KD concentrator tube with two
0.5 ml portions of hexane and transfer the rinses to the 1 ml
minivial. Blow down with dry nitrogen as necessary.
8.3.4.2.6 Just before_ a__n~lysis, add 10. uL recovery
standard solution (Table 2) and reduce the volume to its
final volume, as necessary (Sec. 7.8.1). No column
chromatography is required. ·
8.3.4.2.7 Analyze an aliquot following the same
procedures used to analyze samples.
8. 3. 4. 2. 8 Report percent recovery of the internal
standard and the presence of any PCOO/PCOF compounds in µg/L
of rinsate solvent.
8.3.5 Duplicate Analyses
8.3.5.1 In each batch of samples, locate the sample
specified for duplicate analysis, and analyze a second 10 g soil or
sediment sample portion or 1 L water sample, or an appropriate
amount of the type of matrix· under consideration.
8.3.5.1.1 The results of the laboratory duplicates
(percent recovery and concentrations of 2,3,7,8-substituted
PCOD/PCDF compounds) should agree within 25 percent relative
difference (difference expressed as percentage of the mean).
Report all results.
8.3.5.1.2 Recommended. actions to help locate problems:
8.3.5.1.2.1 Verify satisfactory instrument
performance (Secs. 8.2 and 8.3).
8.3.5.1.2.2 If possible, verify that no error was
made while weighing the sample portions.
8.3.5.1.2.3 Review the analytical procedures with
the performing laboratory personnel.
8.3.6 Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate
8.3.6.1 Locate the sample for the MS and MSD analyses (the
sample may be labeled "double volume").
8290 -42 Revision 0
September 1994
L
--./'
• • 8.3.6.2 Add an appropriate volume of the matrix spike
fortification solution (Sec. 5.10) and of the sample fortification
solution (Sec. 5.8), adjusting the fortification level as specified
in Table 1 under IS Spiking Levels.
8.3.6.3
Sec. 7.
Analyze the MS and MSD samples as described in
8.3.6.4· The results obtained from the MS and MSD samples
(cgncentrations of 2,3,7,8-substituted PCDDs/PCDFs) should agree
within 20 percent relative difference.
8.4 Percent Recovery of the Internal Standards -For each sample, method
blank and ril\"sate, calculate the percent recovery· ·(Sec. 7 .9.2) .-•· -fhe percent
recovery should be between 40 percent and 135 percent for a 11 2, 3, 7, 8-subst ituted
internal standards.
A low or high.percent recovery for a blank does not require
discarding the analytical data but it may indicate a
potential problem with future analytical data.
8.5 Identification Criteria
8.5.1 If either. one of the identification criteria appearing in
Secs. 7.8.4.1.1 through 7.8.4.1.4 is not met for an homologous series, it
is reported that the sample does not contain unlabeled 2,3,7,8-substituted
PCDD/PCDF isomers for that homologous series at the calculated detection
limit (Sec. 7.9.5)
8.5.2 If the first initial identification criteria (Secs. 7.8.4.1.1
through 7.8.4.1.4) are met, but the criteria appearing in Secs. 7.8.4.1.5
and 7.8.4.2.1.are not met, that sample is presumed to contain interfering
contaminants. This must be noted.on the analytical report form, and the
sample should be rerun or the extract reanalyzed.
8.6 Unused portions of samples and sample extracts should be preserved
for six months after sample receipt to allow further analyses.
8.7 Reuse of glassware is to be minimized to avoid the risk of
contamination.
9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE
9.1 Data are currently not available.
10. 0 REFERENCES
I. "Control of Interferences in the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue for
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin". D. G. Patterson, J.S. Holler, D.F.
Grote, L.R. Alexander, C.R. Lapeza, R.C. O'Connor and J.A. Liddle.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5, 355-360 (1986).
8290 -43 Revision 0
September 1994
..
UNITED &Es ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .NCY
NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY
P.O. BOX 93478 • LAS VEGAS, NV 89193-3478
DEC 2 I 200/
OFFICE QF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Report "White Fish Dioxin Analysis -Roanoke River Study S. F. Site"
FROM: . -/_# KenBrown, Director, TSC /~
Environmental Sciences Divisi~ ·
TO: Beth Walden, RPM
Region IV
Beth, the attached report by Dr. Russell Plumb dated December 20, 2001 has an added
section titled "Comments on the Weyerhaeuser Data Review (11/13/01 )" please see the last two
pages.
I hope these added comments and suggestions will be helpful to you. If you have any
questions please give me a call at [phone].
Attachment
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OH Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
Ms. Beth Walden Brown
Remedial Project Manager
US EPA Region JV
Atlanta, Georgia-
•
20 December 2001
Re: Commen~on Dioxin Analysis of White Catfish Sample from Roanoke Station-436
Dear Beth:
You had asked me to reexamine the dioxin data from the White Catfish sample from Station 436.
The following comments were developed in response to this request.
Number of Congeners Detected
Dioxin/furan data were extracted from the draft Remedial Investigation Report for tissue samples
that had both carcass and file! analyses. The number of dioxin/furan congeners detected in these
samples has been summarized in Table 1. For all of the catfish samples except that collected at
Station 436, the number of detected dioxin/furan congeners in the carcass sample is greater than
or equal to the number detected in the corresponding filet samples. This trend ( a smaller number
of congeners in the file! sample compared to the carcass sample) was also true for the Yellow
Catfish and Largemouth Bass samples. The only tissue sample in which more congeners were
detected in the filet than carcass was the White Catfish sample from Station 436_.
Table 1. Number of Dioxin/Furan Congeners Detected in Fish Tissue Samples.
Station Sample Species Carcass
434 White Catfish
435 White Catfish·
436 White Catfish
440 White Catfish
449 White Catfish
440 Yellow Catfish
434 Largemouth Bass
435 Largemouth Bass
436 Largemouth Bass
440 Largemouth Bass
449 Largemouth Bass
736 Largemouth Bass
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
I
I
0
2
Fi let
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
I
• •
Concentrations of Detectable Dioxin/Furari Congeners
The concentrations of the detected congeners of dioxin and furan were tabulated for each of the
samples listed in Table 1. This information is presented in Table 2. For all of the samples except
the White Catfish at Station 436, the concentration of detectable dioxin/furan in the carcass was
12 ng/kg, or less and the ratio of file! concentration to carcass concentration was 0.25, or less.
However, although the dioxin/furan concentration in the White Catfish carcass was in the range
observed for other fish samples, the filet/carcass ratio for the Station 436 samples was almost
I 00 times higher-than the other samples due to the high filet concentrations
Table 2. Concentration of Dioxin/Furan Congeners Detected in Fish Tissue Samples.
Station SampTeSpecies _ Carcass Filet Ratio
434 White Catfish 0 0
435 White Catfish 4.2 0 0
436 White Catfish 9.0 215.5 23.94
440 White Catfish 0 0
449 · White Catfish 6.3 0 0
440 Yellow Catfish 1.4 0 0
434 Largemouth Bass 5.4 0 0
435 Largemouth Bass 0 0
436 Largemouth Bass 6.5 1.6 0.25
440 Largemouth Bass 3.5 0 0
449 Largemouth Bass 0 0
736 Largemouth Bass 12.2 1.3 0.1 I
"Total" Concentration ofDioxin/Furan Congeners in Fish Tissue Samples
A "total" dioxin/furan concentration was calculated for the fish tissue samples: For the purpose
of this calculation, a value equal to one-half the detection limit was used for all results reported
as not detected. The result was then tabulated for each of the Roanoke fish tissue samples (Table
3). The calculated"total" concentrations were strongly influenced by the substituted value for
non-detectable results because most of the . individual congeners had non-detectable
concentrations and the few detectable congeners had relatively low concentrations. As a result,
the ratio of the file! "total" to the carcass "total" was close to 1.0 (range of 0.845 to 1.270) for all
but two fish samples. One was the Yellow Catfish sample from Station 440 with a ratio of0.52.
The low ratio for this sample was not due to any detectable concentrations but to lower detection
limits reported for the filet sample. The other sample was the White Catfish sample from Station
436 with a ratio of 3.353. This ratio is due to the elevated furan concentrations in the filet
sample.
• •
Table 3. "Total" Dioxin/Furan Concentrations in Roanoke Fish Tissue Samples.
Station Sample Species Carcass Filet Ratio
434 White Catfish 73.5 70.35 0.957
435 White Catfish 71.8 71.75 0.999
436 White Catfish 85.9 288 3.353
440 White Catfish 67.15 85.4 1.270
449 White Catfish 69.7 78.35 1.120
.,· ...
440 Yellow Catfish 115.3 59.9 0.520
434 Largemouth Bass 69.4 67.15 0.968
435 Largemouth Bass 71.55 70.35 0.983
436 Largemouth Bass 73.45 67.05 0.913
440 Largemouth Bass 69.45 63.20 0.910
449 Largemouth Bass 71.1 73.65 1.036
736 Largemouth Bass 72.85 61.55 0.845
Dioxin/Furan Congeners Detected in Roanoke Fish Samples
Table 4 lists t_he individual dioxin/furan congeners that were detected in the Roanoke fish
samples. In every case, the detected congeners in the carcass samples were 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF. Also, in every case but one, the detected congeners in the file! samples were limited
to the 2378-TCDD congener. The one exception was the White Catfish sample from Station 436
in which 12378-PeCDF, 23478-PeCDF, 123478-HxCDF, 123678-HxCDF, and
1234678-HpCDF were reported .in the filet sample. These congeners were not reported at
detectable concentrations in any other fish tissue samples ( carcass or filet).
The analytical results for all other Roanoke tissue samples were reviewed for the furans detected
in the White Catfish sample from Station 436 (12378-PeCDF, 23478-PeCDF, 123478-HxCDF,
123678-HxCDF, and 1234678-HpCDF). These congeners were not detected in the
bioaccumulation study samples, Redear Sunfish samples, Bluegill samples, Corbicula Clam
samples, Rangia Clam samples, or whole Largemouth Bass samples. One congener,
123478-HxCDF, was reported in one Bullfrog samples. However, the estimated concentration of
0.1 ng/kg, was more than 20 times lower than the detection limit reported for the other samples
and more than 200 times lower than the concentrations· reported in the White Catfish filet
sample.
Discussion
The review identified several issues that cast doubt on the validity of the White Catfish filet
sample result from Station 436. These issues exist at several levels: the individual White Catfish
sample (Station 436), the species level (White Catfish in the Roanoke River), and the system
level ( other tissue samples from the lower Roanoke River system).
• •
Table 4. Dioxin/Furan congeners reported in Roanoke Fish Tissue Samples.
Station Sample Species Carcass Sample Filet Sample
434 White Catfish none none
435 White Catfish 2378-TCDD none
436 White Catfish 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF 12378-PeCDF
23478-PeCDF.
123478-HxCDF
· 123678-HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
440 White Catfish none none
449 White Catfish 2378-TCDD none
White Catfish 2378-TCDF
440 Yellow Catfish 2378-TCDD none
434 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD none
435 Largemouth Bass none none
436 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDD
440 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD none
449 Largemouth Bass none none
736 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
One of the hazards associated with chlorinated hydrocarbons such as dioxins and furans is their
ability to bioconcentrate in organisms. Since these contaminants are hydrophobic, they tend to
accumulate in the fats and lipids associated with tissue. One problem this raises with the Station
436 White Catfish file! sample is that the concentration of detected dioxin and furan congeners
in the filet are higher than in the carcass even though the lipid content of the carcass is more than
twice that of the filet (8.7 percent vs 4 percent)(Table 2). A consideration of the differential lipid
content would suggest that more dioxin and furans should be present in the carcass. A second
problem is that more individual dioxin and furan congeners were detected in the filet than in the
carcass (6 vs 2)(Table I). Its not conceivable that a hydrophobic contaminant would be taken in
by the fish (either by ingestion or through the gills) and pass directly to the muscle (filet) without
• •
some residue in other tissues. Degradation doesn't seem plausible since the congeners detected in
the filet but not the carcass have higher levels-of chlorination (i.e., the filet congeners have 5, 6,
and 7 substituted chlorine atoms per molecule but the carcass only has 4 substituted chlorine
atoms per molecule). The relative abundance and congener distribution in the White Catfish
sample from Station 436 is not what would be expected based on the chemistry of dioxins and
furans and the lipid distribution of the sample.
A comparison ofthe White Catfish sample results from Station 436 with other Roanoke Catfish
samples also suggests that the Station 436 sample result is suspect. The other Catfish samples
had between !rand 2 detected dioxin or furan congeners andihe Station 436 catc·ass sample had
2 detected dioxin and furan congeners (Table I). Thus, the Station 436 carcass sample is
consistent with other Roanoke Catfish samples. However, there were no detected dioxin or furan
congeners in any other White Catfish file! sample except that at Station 436 that had 6. The
. calculated sum of the dioxin and furan congener concentrations for White Catfish carcass
samples in the Roanoke were in the range of 0 to 6.3 ng/kg. The calculated sum for the Station
436 carcass sample was slightly higher at 9 ng/kg. However, the filet/carcass ratio for all other
catfish samples was 0 but the ratio for the Station 436 sample was 23.94. If the White Catfish
had some capacity to selectively transfer and store dioxin/furan contamination in the filet, one
would expect to see some level of contamination in the other catfish samples. However, without
this, the ratio for Sample 436 appears to be anomalously high due to the reported filet results. A
filet/carcass ratio was also calculated for the 16 dioxin/furan congeners used in the fingerprinting
process (a value of one-half the reported detection limit was substituted for non°detectable
results for this calculation). The results of this exercise (Table 3) indicate that the Roanoke
'White Catfish ratio was in the range of 0.957 to 1.270. By comparison, the calculated ratio for
the Station 436 sample was 3.353. Again, the results for the Station 436 White Catfish sample
are outside the range for other Roanoke samples and appear to be anomalously high. [ A check of
the high volume water sampling results indicates that the concentration for the congeners
reported in the Station 436 filet sample, 12378-PeCDF, 23478-PeCDF, 123478-HxCDF,
123678-HxCDF, and 1234678-HpCDF, were reporte~ as non-detectable across the project area.
Thus, the Sample 436 concentration can not be shown to be attributable to a concentration
increase in that area.]. The Station 436 White Catfish carcass sample is within the range defined·
by other Roanoke White Catfish samples. However, the Station 436 White Catfish filet sample
has a greater number of dioxin/furan congeners, at higher concentrations, and at distinctly
elevated concentration ratios than all other catfish samples from the lower Roanoke Basin.
The Station 436 White Catfish results were compared to all other tissue analyses results in the
study. All other carcass results had between 0 and 2 dete_ctable dioxin/furan congeners (Table
1), the detected congeners were 2378-TCDD and/or 2378-TCDF (Table 4), and the sum of the
detectable concentrations were in the range of 0 to 12.2 ng/kg (Table 2). The White Catfish
carcass sample results from Station 436 were consistent with all these values (2 detected
congeners, 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF, total detectable concentration of 9 ng/kg). All other
filet samples had between 0 and 1 detectable congener, the only detected congener was
2378-TCDD, and the concentrations were in the range of 0 to 1.6 ng/kg. Also, Station 436
sediments were used in the bioaccumulation studies. The only congener detected in the test
species following exposure was 2378-TCDD (i.e., the 5 furan congeners reported in the Station
• •
436 White Catfish filet sample were not detected in the organisms used in the bioaccumulation
study). As discussed above, the Station 436 White Catfish file! had 6 detectable congeners
(including 5 not detected in any other tissue sample) at a concentration that was two orders of
magnitude higher than was seen in any other tissue sample. The type and level of dioxin/furan
contamination reported for the Station 436 White Catfish carcass is consistent with all other
Roanoke tissue analyses. However, the type and level of dioxin/furan contamination reported for
the Station 436 ~ite Catfish filet sample appears to be anomalously high.
Comments on the Weyerhaeuser Data Review (11/13/01)
The data review performed by RMT identified several potential quality c"iih(!-ol problems
associated with the sample set that included the White Catfish samples from Station 436. These
included analysis of the tissue samples immediately following a spiked blank analysis, apparent
contamination of the blank samples, poor recovery of labeled standards, and a poor precision on
the MS/MSD samples. While these comments could not be independently verified with the
information provided, these factors could cause or contribute to the anomalous results reported
for the White Catfish filet sample frorri Station 436.
Carryover during sample analysis is a possibility as pointed out in the RMT review. However,
there are some inconsistencies. First, if the samples were analyzed sequentially according to
Laboratory Sample ID, the White Catfish carcass samples _would have been analyzed after the
spiked blank (sample ID 39970 vs Sample ID 39969). This sample does not show indication of
furan contamination but the White Catfish filet sample (ID 39971) does. Second, the dioxin
congeners that _are present in the blank spike sample at the same concentrations as the furan
congeners do not show up in any of the catfish samples. There is no explanation as to why some
ofthe analytes in the spiked sample would have carried over but not others.
The results in the Draft RI and the RMT data review were compared and some differences were
noted. First, the RMT review listed generally lower detection limits. Second, there were some
differences in the listed values (Draft RI listed 2378 TCDF as 27 u in 436WCF and RMT had 27
i_n the same sample; Draft RI listed 23478-PeCDF as 20 in 436WCF and RMT had 20 u in the
same sample; Draft RI listed 2378-TCDF as 4.7 in 436WCC and RMT had 4.9 in the same
sample). Third, the RMT review listed values as"u" or"<" (i.e, they did not consistently use the
same convention for flagging data).
Summary
This review indicates that the validity of the sample results for the White Catfish filet sample
from Station 436 is highly questionable. The contaminants reported in the filet were not even
detected in the carcass sample from the same location even though the carcass had a higher lipid
content. The carcass sample results from Station 436 were consistent with other White Catfish
carcass samples collected throughout the Roanoke basin. The contaminants detected in the White
Catfish filet sample from Station 436 were not detected. in any other tissue sample (White
Catfish, Yellow Catfish, Largemouth Bass, bioaccumulation study) in the study area. The RMT
data review identified several lapses in quality assurance that could have contributed to the
anomalous results reported for the White Catfish filet sample from Station 436 and there was no
discussion of whether any type of corrective action was taken. Sample cross-contamination is a
• •
possibility considering the relatively high congener concentrations in the spiked blank sample
compared to the concentrations reported in the questionable file! sample. Other factors that could
have contributed to transcription errors are the missing chromatograms and the sample log-in
inconsistencies pointed out in the RMT review.
A consideration of the properties of the dioxin/furan congeners and their reported distribution in
the lower Roan~e Basin suggests that the results for the White Catfish file! sample from Station -
436 are atypical. The data quality review performed by RMT identified several factors that could
have compromised the integrity of the sample after collection and/or during analysis. While
some of the i'ttl!ntified issues may be minor, there are too ·many issues that indic.aied the Station
436 "filet results are non-representative. At best, the results for this sample ( 436WCF) should be
considered an outlier and at worst the results shoulc!_1irobably be considered erroneous.
Should you have any questions on this review, please fee free to contact me as your schedule
permits.
Very Truly Yours,
Russell H. Plumb Jr.
UNITED stTES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .. NCY
NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY
P.O. BOX 93478 • LAS VEGAS, NV 89193-3478
DEC 20 2001
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
......
SUBJECT: White Fish Dioxin Analysis -Roanoke River Study S. F. Site
FROM:
TO:
Ken Brown, Director, TSC
Environmental Sciences Divis·
Beth Walden, RPM
Region IV
Beth, please find attached an assessment of the white catfish sample dioxin data provided
by Dr. Russell Plumb dated December 19, 2001. As you will-note, Russell completed a number
of data calculations and comparisons with other fish samples.
I hope the attached will be helpful to you and your co-workers at the subject Superfund
site. If you rieed additional assistance please give me a call at [phone].
I di_d receive your e-mail pertaining to Nardina's request for Wayne Sovocool to examine
the analytical data for sample D05FH-8B70, Case 28218. I talked to Wayne yesterday and he
will begin to examine the data.
Attachment
Recycled/Recyclable• Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Pos1consumer)
•
Ms. Beth Walden Brown
Remedial Project Manager
US EPA Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia::.
•
19 December 2001
Re: Comments on Dioxin Analysis of White Catfish Sample from Roanoke Stati9n 436 -· . . ---•·-· ..
Dear Beth:
You had asked me to reexamine the dioxin data from the White Catfish sample from Station 436.
The following comments were developed in response to this request.
Number of Congeners Detected
Dioxin/furan data were extracted from the draft Remedial Investigation Report for tissue samples
that had both carcass and filet analyses. The number of dioxin/furan congeners detected in these
samples has been summarized in Table I. For all of the catfish samples except that collected at
Station 436, the number of detected dioxin/furan congeners in the carcass sample is greater than or
equal to the number detected in the corresponding file! samples. This trend (a smalier number of
congeners in the filet sample compared to the carcass sample) was also true for the Yellow Catfish
and Largemouth Bass samples. The only tissue sample in which more congeners were detected in
the filet than carcass was the White Catfish sample from Station 436.
Table 1. Number ofDioxin/Furan Congeners Detected in Fish Tissue Samples.
Station Sample Species Carcass Fi let
434 White Catfish 0 0
435 White Catfish I 0
436 White Catfish 2 6
440 White Catfish 0 0
449 · White Catfish 2 0
440 Yellow Catfish I 0
434 Largemouth Bass I 0
435 Largemouth Bass 0 0
436 Largemouth Bass 1 1
440 Largemouth Bass I 0
449 Largemouth Bass 0 0
736 Largemouth Bass 2 I
• •
Concentrations of Detectable Dioxin/Fu ran Congeners
The concentrations of the detected congeners of dioxin and furan were tabulated for each of the
samples listed in Table I. This information is presented in Table 2. For all of the samples except the
White Catfish at Station 436, the concentration of detectable dioxin/furan in the carcass was 12
ng/kg, or less and the ratio of file! concentration to carcass concentration was O .25, or less. However,
although the dioxin/furan concentration in the White Catfish carcass was in the range observed for
other fish samples, the filet/carcass ratio for the Station 436 samples was almost 100 _times higher
than the other samples due to the high file! concentrations
Table 2. Concentration ofDioxin/Furan Congeners Detected in Fish Tiss!.!~ SamJlles. -
Station Sample Species Carcass Fi let Ratio
434 White Catfish 0 0
435 White Catfish 4.2 0 0
436 White Catfish 9.0 215.5 23.94
440 White Catfish 0 0
449 White Catfish 6.3 0 0
440 Yellow Catfish 1.4 0 0
434 Largemouth Bass 5.4 0 0
435 Largemouth Bass 0 0
436 Largemouth Bass 6.5 1.6 0.25
440 Largemouth Bass 3.5 0 0
449 Largemouth Bass 0 0
736 Largemouth Bass 12.2 1.3 0.11
"Total" Concentration of Dioxin/Furan Congeners in Fish Tissue Samples
A "total" dioxin/furan concentration was calculated for the fish tissue samples. For.the purpose of
this calculation, a value equal to one-half the detection limit was used for all results reported as not
detected. The result was then tabulated for each of the Roanoke fish tissue samples (Table 3). The
calculated "total" concentrations were strongly influenced by the substituted value for non-detectable
results because most of the individual congeners had non-detectable concentrations and the few
detectable congeners had relatively low concentrations. As a result, the ratio of the filet "total" to
the carcass "total" was close to 1.0 (range of0.845 to 1.270) for all but two fish samples. One was
the Yellow Catfish sample from Station 440 with a ratio of0.52. The low ratio for this sample was .
not due to any detectable concentrations but to lower detection limits reported for the filet sample.
The other sample was the White Catfish sample from Station 436 with a ratio of3.353. This ratio
is due to the elevated furan concentrations in the file! sample.
' -• •
Table 3. "Total" Dioxin/Furan Concentrations in Roanoke Fish Tissue Samples.
Station Sample Species Carcass File! Ratio
434 White Catfish 73.5 70.35 0.957
435 White Catfish 71.8 71.75 0.999
436 White Catfish 85.9 288 3.353
4.40 White Catfish 67.15 85.4 1.270
4219 White Cat.fish 69.7 78.35 1.120
-440 Yellow Catfish 115.3 59.9 -·0.520
434 Largemouth Bass 69.4 · 67.15 0.968
435 Largemouth Bass 71.55 70.35 0.983
436 Largemouth Bass 73.45 67.05 0.913
440 Largemouth Bass 69.45 63.20 0.910
449 Largemouth Bass 71.1 73.65 1.036
736 Largemouth Bass 72.85 61.55 0.845
Dioxin/Furan Congeners Detected in Roanoke Fish Samples
Table 4 lists the individual dioxin/furan congeners that were detected in the Roanoke fish samples.
In every case, the detected congeners in the carcass samples were 23 78-TCDD and/or 2378-TCDF.
Also, in every case but one, the detected congeners in the file! samples were limited to the
2378-TCDD congener. The one exception was the. White Catfish sample from Station 436 in which
12378-PeCDF, 23478-PeCDF, 123478-HxCDF, 123678-HxCDF, and 1234678-HpCDF were
reported in the file! sample. These congeners were not reported at detectable concentrations in any
other fish tissue samples ( carcass or file!).
The analytical results for all other Roanoke tissue samples were reviewed for the furans detected in
the White Catfish sample from Station 436 (12378-PeCDF, 23478-PeCDF, 123478-HxCDF,
123678-HxCDF, and 1234678-HpCDF). These congeners·were not detected in the bioaccumulation
study samples, Redear Sunfish samples, Bluegill samples, Corbicula Clam samples, Rangia Clam
· samples, or whole Largemouth Bass samples. One congener, 123478-HxCDF;was reported in one
Bullfrog sample .. However, the estimated concentration of0. l ng/kg, was more than 20 times lower
than the detection limit reported for the other samples and more than 200 times lower than the
concentrations reported in the White Catfish file! sample.
Discussion
The review ic\entified several issues that cast doubt on the validity of the White Catfish filet sample
result from Station 436. These issues exist at several levels: the individual White Catfish sample
(Station 436), the species level (White Catfish in the Roanoke River), and the system level ( other
' tissue samples from the lower Roanoke River system).
• •
Table 4. Dioxin/Furan congeners reported in Roanoke Fish Tissue Samples.
Station Sam11le S11ecies Carcass Sample File! Sam11le
434 White Catfish none none
435 White Catfish 2378-TCDD none
436 White Catfish 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF 12378-PeCDF
23478-PeCDF
-· 123478-HxCDF.
123678-HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
440 White Catfish none none
449 White Catfish 2378-TCDD none
White Catfish 2378-TCDF
440 Yellow Catfish 2378-TCDD none
434 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD none
'
435 Largemouth Bass none none
436 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDD
440 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD none
449 Largemouth Bass none none
736 Largemouth Bass 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
One of the hazards associated with chlorinated hydrocarbons such as dioxins and furans is their
ability to bioconcentrate in organisms. Since these contaminants are hydrophobic, they tend to
accumulate in the fats and lipids associated with tissue. One problem this raises with the Station 436
White Catfish file! sample is that the concentration of detected dioxin.and furan congeners in the filet
are higher than in the carcass even though the lipid content of the carcass is more than twice that of
the file! (8.7 percent.vs 4 percent){Table 2). A consideration of the differential lipid content would
suggest that more dioxin and furans should be present in the carcass. A second problem is that more
individual dioxin and furan congeners were detected in the filet _than in the carcass (6 vs 2)(Table
I). Its not conceivable that a hydrophobic contaminant would be taken in by the fish ( either by
ingestion or through the gills) and pass directly to the muscle (file!) without some residue in other
• •
tissues. Degradation doesn't seem plausible since the congeners detected in the file! but not the
carcass have higher levels of chlorination (i.e., the file! congeners have 5, 6, and 7 substituted
chlorine atoms per molecule but the carcass only has 4 substituted chlorine atoms per molecule). The
relative abundance and congener distribution in the White Catfish sample from Station 436 is not
' what would be expected based on the chemistry of dioxins and furans ad the lipid distribution of the
sample.
A comparison of_the White Catfish sample results from Station 436 with other Roanoke Catfish
samples also suggests that the Station 436 sample result is suspect. The other Catfish samples had
between O and 2 detected dioxin or furan congeners and the Station 436 carcass sample had 2
detected dioxiR.and furan congeners (Table 1 ). Thus, the Station 436 carcass sampl~ is consistent
with other Roanoke Catfish samples. However, there were no detected dioxin or furan congeners in
any other White Catfish file! sample except that atStation 436 that had 6. The calculated sum dfthe
dioxin and·furan congener concentrations for White Catfish carcass samples in the Roanoke were
in the range of O to 6.3 ng/kg. The calculated sum for the Station 436 carcass sample was slightly
higher at 9 ng/kg. However, the filet/carcass ratio for all other catfish samples was O but the ratio for
the Station 436 sample was 23.94. If the White Catfish had some capacity to selectively transfer and
store dioxin/furan contamination in the filet, one would expect to see some level of contamination
in the other catfish samples. However, without this, the ratio for Sample 436 appears to be
anomalously high due to the reported file! results. A filet/carcass ratio was also calculated for the
16 dioxin/furan congeners used in the fingerprinting process (a value of one-half the reported
detection limit was substituted for non-detectable results for this calculation). The results of this
exercise (Table 3) indicate that the Roanoke White Catfish ratio was in the range of0.957 to 1.270.
By comparison, the calculated ratio for the Station 436 sample was 3.353. Again, the results for the
Station 436 White Catfish sample are outside the range for other Roanoke samples and appear to be
anomalously high. A check of the high volume water sampling· results indicates that the
concentration for the congeners reported in the Station 436 file! sample, 12378-PeCDF, 23478-
PeCDF, 123478-HxCDF, 123678-HxCDF, and 1234678-HpCDF, were reported as non-detectable
across the project area. Thus, the Sample 436 concentration can not be shown to be attributable to
a concentration increase in that area. The Station 436 White Catfish carcass sample is within the
range defined by other Roanoke White Catfish samples. However, the Station 436 White Catfish filet
sample has a greater number of dioxin/furan congeners, at higher concentrations, and at distinctly
elevated concentration ratios than all other catfish samples from· the lower Roanoke Basin.
The Station 436 White Catfish results were compared to all other tissue analyses results in the study.
All other carcass results had between O and 2 detectable dioxin/furan congeners (Table 1 ), the
detected congeners were 2378-TCDD and/or 2378-TCDF (Table 4), and the sum of the detectable
concentrations were in the range of Oto 12.2 ng/kg (Table 2). The White Catfish carcass sample
results from Station 436 were consistent with all these values (two detected congeners, 23 78-TCDD
and 2378-TCDF, total detectable concentration of 9 ng/kg). All other file! samples had between 0
and I detectable congener, the only detected congener was 23 78-TCDD, and the concentrations were
in the range ofO to 1.6 ng/kg. Also, Station 436 sediments were used in the bioaccumulation studies.
The only congener detected in the test species following exposure was 2378-TCDD (ie, the 5 furan
congeners reported in the Station 436 White Catfish file! sample were not detected in the organisms
used in the bioaccumulation study). As discussed above, the Station 436 White Catfish filet had 6
•
detectable congeners (including 5 not detected in any other tissue sample) at a concentration that was
two orders of magnitude higher than was seen in any other tissue sample. The type and level of
dioxin/furan contamination reported for the Station 436 White Catfish carcass is consistent with all
other Roanoke tissue analyses. However, the type and level of dioxin/furan contamination reported
for the Station 436 White Catfish filet sample appears to be anomalously high.