NC0000272_Results2001DioxinFishTissue_20011201

RESULTS OF 2001
DIOXIN MONITORING IN FISH TISSUE
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products
Canton Mill
Canton, North Carolina
Prepared by:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18
Deerfield, IL 60015
Decnnbery 2001
13900.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Listof Tables......................................................................................iii
Listof Figures......................................................................................v
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................1-1
2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS.....................................................................2-1
3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES ....................................................................3-1
4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT .....................4-1
- 5. SAMPLE PREPARATION ....................................................................5-1
6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS.....................................................................6-1
7. REFERENCES...................................................................................7-1
APPENDIX A: CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
APPENDIX B: SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY-SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORTS
I
I
i

—i
LIST OF TABLES
j Number
Tide Page
2-1 Pigeon River sampling station information..........................................2-2
4-1 Fish collection techniques and level of effort.......................................4-2
4-2 Summary of fish composites collected in the Pigeon River,
- September 2001 .........................................................................4-3
6-1 Summary of Pigeon River fish tissues analysis results--2001.....................6-2
f 6-2 Toxicity equivalence factors for CDD/F isomers ..................................6-4
6-3 Summary of CDD/F isomer analyses, toxicity equivalent
factors, and toxicity equivalent values for the 2001 Pigeon
River fish tissue composites ...........................................................6-5
—' 6-4 Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill fish fillet tissue analysis results
1990-2001 ................................................................................6-9
I �
m

i
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
ES-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2001 ................................................................................vrri
2-1 Sampling Station locations on the Pigeon River....................................2-3
2-2 Sampling Station No. 1 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-4
2-3 Sampling Station No. 2 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-5
_ 2-4 Sampling'Station No. 3 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-6
2-5 Sampling Station No. 4A on the Pigeon River .....................................2-7
--, 2-6 Sampling Station No. 4B on the Pigeon River......................................2-8
2-7 Sampling Station No. 5 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-9
6-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2001 .............................................................................. 6-15
I
i
v

i l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bottom feeding species were collected in 2001 from six locations in the Pigeon River and
analyzed for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF), and other CDD and CDF isomers. TCDD and TCDF concentrations in fillet
composites from bottom feeders were very low (range=non-detected to 1.4 ppt) at the three
riverine locations downstream of the mill. Bottom feeders used at these locations were
common carp and black redhorse. TCDD concentrations in bottom feeder fillet composites at
the two Waterville Lake locations were 1.3 ppt and 5.6 ppt (Stations 4A and 4B, respectively)
for carp, 1.2 ppt for channel catfish at Station 4A and non-detect for flathead catfish at Station
4B. Since 1990, TCDD concentrations in common carp fillets have declined dramatically (92-
99 percent) at all downstream stations (Figure ES-1).
The 2001 scope and methodology has changed from previous years due to significant changes
_ to the Pigeon River fish consumption advisory. In August 2001, the fish consumption
advisory in the Pigeon River was completely lifted and the Waterville Lake advisory was
partially lifted.
i
. I
i
I
i 1
•ii
IJ

FIGURE ES-1. TCDD CONCENTRATIONS IN CARP FILLETS COLLECTED FROM
THE PIGEON RIVER, 1990-2001 (Stations 2 and 3).
25
20 ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
0
•L 1S ................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................
W
L
d
a
H
W C.
F4 v
❑ 10 ........................ ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
0
U
5 ---------------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------....--------------------------------- ---------
-., .... .
------------ ---------- - ------------
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YEAR
�— Station 2 ----- Station 3

FIGURE ES-1 (Cont.). TCDD CONCENTRATIONS IN CARP FILLETS COLLECTED FROM
THE PIGEON RIVER, 1990-2001 (Stations 4A and 413).
70
A
.........................._..........----....................-.......................------------------------------- ------
C
C -------------------------------------
d .\
C.
h
x cc
1:
O
U �
20 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------•---------------------------------------------- — — —
10 — ........ ....................... —
-:''— - -------------------------- -------------------------------
/ - - - t- -A
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YEAR
Station 4a --A-- Station 4b

i
1. INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a study conducted during 2001 to determine the concentrations
of 2,3,7,8,-TCDD (dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) in fish collected from the Pigeon River
_i near Canton, North Carolina. The study described herein is number 12 in a series of fish
tissue surveys designed and conducted to be completely responsive to the requirements of
A.(9.) Dioxin Monitoring Special Condition in Blue Ridge Paper's current NPDES permit for
the Canton Mill (Permit No. NC0000272). Sampling locations, selection of target species,
sampling methods, and sample preparation/preservation techniques are in accordance with the
study plan (EA 2001b). The approved study methods and scope detailed herein generally
follow those used since 1990 (EA 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993a and 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996,
1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001a), however, selected project details were modified to be
responsive to the suggestions/recommendations of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
U.S. EPA Region IV, and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
(NCDHHS). The principal change in the program was that the collection and analysis of
sportfish composite samples were not required in 2001.
The 2001 study was conducted during 5-6 September, during which time biologists from EA
collected and prepared fish tissue samples from six sampling locations on the Pigeon River.
Details relevant to the location of Pigeon River sampling stations and fish tissue sampling
objectives follow in Sections 2 and 3, respectively. Fish collection techniques and level of
effort are detailed in Section 4; methods of sample preparation and shipment are presented in
Section 5. Analytical results are summarized in Section 6 and references are provided in
Section 7.
f
i
I-1
it

r--I
2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
In accordance with the study plan (EA 2001b), fish were collected from six locations on the
Pigeon River. Five monitoring stations were located downstream from the Canton Mill outfall
(four in North Carolina and one in Tennessee) and one control or background site was located
upstream of it. Detailed sampling station information is provided in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1.
Station 1, the background site, is located at Pigeon River Mile (RM) 64.5, approximately 1.2 RM
upstream from the Canton Mill outfall (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Fish were collected from the river
reach adjacent to the Canton Recreational Park(located upstream from the city of Canton).
Except under extremely high flows, the Canton Mill dam blocks the movement of fishes and
j thereby prevents the interaction of control and downstream monitoring station fishes. Monitoring
Station 2 is located upstream from Clyde, North Carolina at RM 59.0, approximately 4.3 RM
downstream from the Canton Mill outfall.(Figures 2-1 and 2-3). Station 3 is 11.0 RM
downstream from the outfall (RM 52.3), in.the vicinity of the old Rt. 209 bridge (Figures 2-1 and
2-4). Monitoring stations 4A and 4B are located in Waterville Lake at RM 41.5 and 39.0,
respectively (Figure 2-1). Station 4A is located approximately 21.8 RM downstream from the
Mill outfall, near the Messer Branch-Pigeon River confluence(Figure 2-5). Monitoring Station
4B is in the vicinity of the Wilkins Creek-Pigeon River confluence, approximately 24.3 RM
downstream from the Canton Mill outfall (Figure 2-6). Station 5 is located near Bluffton,
Tennessee at RM 19.0, approximately 44.3 RM downstream from the Mill outfall and about 6
miles downstream of the CP&L Hydro site(Figures 2-1 and 2-7). Sampling stations were
separated by at least 5.5 RM(with the exception of the Waterville Lake stations which are only
2.5 RM apart). All appropriate habitats were sampled within each study reach in an effort to
collect the desired complement of fishes. Brief sitelhabitat descriptions are provided in Table 2-1.
Fish sampling was conducted in the vicinity of each location described above, however, the
distance sampled at each station depended on how difficult it was to collect fish at that station.
At Station 1, an approximate 0.2 RM reach was sampled which extended from just downstream
of the downstream most River Road (Rt. 215) Bridge to the bridge by the city park. The
Station 2 sample reach was less than 0.1 RM in length and was adjacent to a sharp bend along Old
Thickety Road. The Station 3 sample reach extended approximately 0.2 RM,just upstream of the
- old Rt. 209 Bridge. At Station 4A, an approximate 0.4 RM reach of Waterville Lake was
sampled adjacent to and upstream from the Messer Branch-Pigeon River confluence. The
Station 4B study area consisted of a 1.0 RM reach of Waterville Lake located near the Wilkins
Creek-Pigeon River confluence. Sampling at Stations 4A and 4B included gillnetting near the
- shore along both the left and right banks of Waterville Lake. At Station 5, a large pool just
upstream of the 1-40 Bridge was sampled.
2-1
1 '
f

TABLE 2.1 PIGEON RIVER SAMPLING STATIONS
Station River Station Location and
Number Mile Distance from Outfall Site Dcsmotion/liabilat Tvne Fish Community
1 64.5 Pigeon River upstream from Canton, Characterized by riffle,run,and pool habitats. Maximum Relative abundance dominated by minnows and darters. River
NC,adjacent to Canton Recreational depth approximately 6 f. Substrate primarily cobble and boulders chub,greenfm darter and rock bass are dominant. Northern hog
Park(1.2 RM upstream from Canton interspersed with gravel and sand. sucker,black redhorse,minor shiner,redbreast sunfish,central
Mill outfall). stoneroller,greenside darter,and mottled sculpin are common.
2 59.0 Pigeon River upstream from Clyde,NC Characterized by riffle,run,and pool habitats with canopy Relative abundance dominated by redbreast sunfish,central
(4.3 RM downstream from the Canton cover. Maximum depth approximately 5 R Substrate sloneroller,and northern hog sucker.
Mill outfall). primarily cobble/gravellsand with some boulders and bedrock.
3 52.3 Pigeon River in the vicinity of the RL Characterized by riffle,run,and pool habitats with some Redbreast sunfish,northern hog sucker,and common carp are
209 bridge(11.0 RM downstream canopy cover. Maximum depth approximately 5 f. dominant. Central stoneroller is common.
from the Canton Mill outfall) Substrate primarily bedrock and boulders with some
cobble and sand/gravel/fines deposited in pool areas.
N 4A 41.5 Upper Waterville Lake(21.8 RM Characterized by deep-water lenlic habitat,bedrock, Relative abundance dominated by black crappie. Bluegill,flathead
N downstream from the Canton Mill and soft bottom sediments. Maximum depth sampled catfish,channel catfish,largemouth bass,and common carp are
outfall) approximately 14 ft. common.
4B 39.0 Lower Waterville Lake(24.3 RM Characterized by deep-watcr lentic habitat,bedrock. Relative abundance of catch dominated by black crappie. Bluegill,
downstream from the Canton Mill and soft bottom sediments. Maximum depth sampled channel catfish,flathead catfish,and carp arc common-
outfall) approximately 401L Very steep banks with little cover.
5 19.0 Pigeon River near Bluffton,TN,just Characterised by deep pools and runs with some shallow riffles. Central stoneroller and northern hog sucker are dominant
upstream of 140(44.3 RM downstream Maximum depth approximately 6 to 8 ft. Substrate primarily Smallmouth bass,whitetail shiner,telescope shiner,greenside
from the Canton Mill outfall) bedrock,boulder,and cobble, darter,and banded sculpin are common. Except for smallmouth
bass and rock bass,centrarchids are uncommoom

t
1.40
Station 5
RM,19.0 5
' Bluffton TN
(19.3i
Hartford,TN N
TENNESSEE
— NORTH
••— CAROLINA
vNv
\\
\X::���hsi\Ql
�19 Hydro Plant ft m
(26.0)
lie
t
1
O
5
Walters Dam
Station 48 Station 4A
RM 39:0 RM 41.5
4 Waterville Lake
Fines Creek
New Hepco Bridge
i
�. FLOW ,/onathans
Creek Old Rt.209 Mill Outfall
3Station 3 RM 63.3
RM 52.3
RM 50.0
Waynesville STP 2 Canton,NC
Outfall Oa
RM 50.4 yoc��¢k CI de Station 1 1
G y, RM64.5
(Control)
I
P
Figure 2-1. Fish tissue sampling station locations on the Pigeon River.
_j
2-3

e 'n `�� i •�° Q1` \u'--"'/ No/il�C lon h2 v
I 4 � V 1 •Y J •"�•I:
• - •I � h i� .. �a •
��C � •�Selllina �Q � Il•
vL'il0
n I /� '° r l.'• '.� n ama Rvel
\ I _y
PR
, Ih ti`'`7t Y F 1 11
Station
station
\ \ I-0�7.5 \ Isge!�'H1ch�chF�' r � ••
\✓1C��E ICI •�; / f/.l ._
rivt
Figure 2-2. Sampling Station No. 1 on the Pigeon River.
�O
2-4

7'
z
A
N.,
__ a a hicks
rc
e
Station
Al
r,'Skylan
Clyde "
•`LHish 5ch.
;j
14
It
--7pirawnt
A r ll
Y;5c • t2 Ove
Figure 2T3. Sampling station No. 2 on the Pigeon River.
2-5

9-Z
o
•1enly uoe8ld 841 uo£ 'ON uoREiS BulldujBS '4-3 ejn8Lj
.cs7 . vim ��c•�\ �—/ VO?[l l l� J,l��+ ��� '1 I
r---,. � ,, , � �0. � -...+• i///��� � 1 col
..
At N
�� � \ • rt\ \ L 1
u or •- b�` IV + obag
I 1 �• � �l � • � ter ;, � `' or
u
��:It��al I •sRa�p�..'•' ...r9M1�'A"• ,��— .'s ' 'c��/.•.l �\`lam; .. 1 '✓-.

: I
r / V
/
��
Aw
7 art,
oi
27
� _
�O
Air
1�jj
'trll'�E°o �.
i r\`������///���, LJ—, .eJ� 1 L l Y�.!-�h.`1✓�:Pam•
I
Figure 2-5. Sampling Station No. 4A on the Pigeon River.
- 2-7
�O

t Area
'•!C\ S ��� r / } I �/f !' �o� r1,.:�_=_'�i/ Jim.
S /bl i� \I\\\.`',ii•�� \, Gra 55y �/
10
ELEV 2258
x We
NZ-
if'>; Station 4�i
4
���� ��:",�.�.�\�\��yYJ�� \l'`i(.�I;��i��C " 1\•,.Ill [�'`vif .�, Vi.� ✓�1,4,
\. � ;ice •
Figure 2-6. Sampling Station No. 4B on the Pigeon River.
2-8 ��

Pqi ';'i"',
WLVj
ti
p�
GO
4L
--2
StaliorL5
ZZ-ij, I
Figure 2-7. Sampling station No. 5 on the Pigeon River.
2-9

Ill 3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES
In accordance with the study plan (EA 2001b), the goal of the fish collection effort was to
—' collect one composite bottom feeder fillet sample at each of the six sampling stations. Each
composite consisted of 5 similarly sized (shortest specimen within 75% of the length of the
longest) adult individuals of the target species. Common carp (Qprinus carpio) was the target
species at Stations 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Common carp are absent at Stations 1 and 5, so at these
stations, black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnet) was the target bottom feeder. In Waterville
Lake, one additional fillet composite sample using either channel catfish or flathead catfish was
collected at Stations 4A and 4B.
In addition to the fillet composites, a whole body composite consisting of 4 similarly sized
common carp were collected at Station 4B in Waterville Lake.
In summary, fish were collected as follows:
C Bottom feeder fillet composite—one sample at all six stations
• Catfish fillet composite—one sample at Stations 4A and at 4B
Common carp whole body composite--one sample from Station 4B
The study plan called for the collection of catfish fillet composite samples at Stations 2 and 3 if
_ specimens were encountered. However, no specimens were encountered at these locations in
2001.
Every reasonable effort was made to collect the desired size, species, and/or number of fish,
however, the outcome of the sampling effort each year is dependent on physical river
_ conditions and the natural diversity and abundance of target fishes at each sampling location.
The 2001 Pigeon River collections yielded the desired complement of species at each sampling
station. The number of specimens collected made it possible to composite individuals of
similar weight and length (with larger/adult specimens preferred), and the 75 percent rule was
met for all samples.
_f
it
i
J
3-1

r ;
�I
4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
Sampling was conducted on the 5' and 6' of September 2001. Notes were recorded at each
sampling station with regard to the type of sampling gear, level of effort (time), and habitat
(Table 4-1). Surface temperature measurements at each location are summarized below:
Station RM Date Temp m
' 1 64.5 9/6 25.7
2 59.0 9/6 27.4
3 52.3 9/5 26.0
_! 4A 41.5 9/6 24.4
4B 39.0 9/6 26.5
5 19.0 9/5 23.3
Temperature was measured with a YSI temperature/dissolved oxygen meter. All fish
submitted for tissue analysis were measured to the nearest millimeter (total length) and
weighed to the nearest gram (wet weight). These data are summarized in Table 4-2.
The field investigators were equipped with an array of collecting gear which enabled sampling
of all habitats regardless of river conditions. U.S. EPA recommends active methods of fish
collection in their Sampling Guidance Manual (Versar 1984), such as electrofishing, trawling,
angling, or seining. These methods are preferred over passive methods (e.g., gill nets, trap
nets, trotlines) because the collection period is typically shorter (i.e., hours versus days--
thereby minimizing decomposition), and because samples are collected from more definable
areas (Versar 1984). Electrofishing was used at all stations, except 4A and 4B (Waterville
` Lake), where gill nets were necessary because of water depth. A boat electrofishing unit
(pulsed direct current) was used to sample fish at Stations 2, 3, and 5. The boat electrofisher
was equipped with a Smith Root Type VI electrofisher, powered by a 240-volt, 5000W
generator. A pram electrofisher, equipped with a Coffelt VVP-2C pulser and powered by a
120-volt, 1800W generator, was utilized at Station 1. Electrofishing techniques followed those
described in the National Dioxin Study (Versar 1984).
Fish collection techniques and level of effort (time) expended at each of the six stations are
summarized in Table 4-1. Total study effort involved —2 1/4 electrofishing-hours and —367
-- 4-1

TABLE 4-1 FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
Station Sampling Sampling Comments
Number RM Dal s Techniques LevelofEffort
1 64.5 6 SEP 01 Pram Electrofishing 50 min An approximate 0.2 RM reach of river was sampled;water level low and stable—visibility good;
characterized by rifles,rum and pools with primarily cobble/boulder substrates interspersed with gavel and
sand along margins. The entire reach was sampled using the pram.
2 59.0 6 SEP 01 Boat Mcctrofishing 2 min Less than 0.1 RM reach of river was sampled;water level low—visibility good;station characterized by run
and pool habitats with canopy rover,substrate primarily cobble/gavel with some boulders and bedrock,and
sand/gaveVf nes deposited along margins. Sampling involved a single electrofshing pass near woody debris
utilizing a boat-mounted electrofishing unit
3 52.3 5 SEP 01 Boat Electrofuhing 40 min An approximate 0.2 RM reach of river was sampled;water level low—visibility good;station characterized by
riffles,runs,and pools with primarily bedrock and boulder substrates,with sand/gravcl/frnes deposited along
margins. Sampling involved several eledrofrshing passes over the entire reach utilizing a boat-mounted
clectrofishing unit
4A 41.5 5-6 SEP 01 (5)Gill nets —109 net-hrs An approximate 0.4 RM reach of river was sampled;water level low—visibility good,station characterized by
relatively deep-water lentic habitat with bedrock and soft bottom substrates. Sampling involved gill net sets
4? just off the IeR and right shores.
tJ
4B 39.0 5-6 SEP 01 (9)Gill nets —258 ncl-hrs An approximate 1.0 RM reach of river was sampled;water level was low—visibility good;station
characterized by deep-water lentic habitats with bedrock and soft bottom substrates. Sampling involved gill
net setsjust off the left and right shores.
5 19.0 5 SEP 01 Boat Electrofishing 40 min An approximate 0.1 RM reach of river was sampled;water was clear and moderately low—visibility good to
excellent;station characterized by pools and shoal habitats;substrate primarily bedrock,boulder,and cobble.
Sampling involved several electrofishing passes over a large pool using a boat-mounted electrofishing unit.

Table 4 2 Summary of fish composites collected at six stations in the Pigeon River, September 2001.
TOTAL TOTAL
LENGTH WHOLE BODY
DATE STATION SPECIES WEIGHT SAMPLE TYPE COMPOSITE
' 6SEP01 1 BLACK REDHORSE 353 360 FILLET, R
(RM 64.5) BLACK REDHORSE 313 260
BLACK REDHORSE 312 250
+ i BLACK REDHORSE 384 480
BLACK REDHORSE 407 550
MEAN 354 380
k
4^ 6SEP01 2 COMMON CARP 505 1650 FILLET R
i (RM 59.0) COMMON CARP 473 1300
COMMON CARP 555 1940
COMMON CARP 456 1170
COMMON CARP 514 1860
I i
MEAN 501 1584
5SEP01 3 COMMON CARP 5B1 2640 FILLET R
(RM 523) COMMON CARP 615 3110 .
-- COMMON CARP 504 1680
COMMON CARP 520 1890
COMMON CARP 590 2590
MEAN 562 2382
Y
5-6SEP01 4A CHANNEL CATFISH 612 2740 FILLET R
(RM 41.5) CHANNEL CATFISH 595 1800
CHANNEL CATFISH 476 940
CHANNEL CATFISH 540 1710
CHANNEL CATFISH 515 1240
MEAN 548 1686
5-6SEP01 COMMON CARP 668 4080 FILLET R
_ COMMON CARP 528 2100
COMMON CARP 606 3070
COMMON CARP 588 2630
-" COMMON CARP 608 2280
MEAN 600 2832
�I 5-6SEP01 4B FLATHEAD CATFISH 447 970 FILLET R
RM 39.0) FLATHEAD CATFISH 405 640
FLATHEAD CATFISH 463 1050
FLATHEAD CATFISH 433 950
FLATHEAD CATFISH 417 750
MEAN 433 872
5-6SEP01 COMMON CARP 702 6000 FILLET R
COMMON CARP 723 6300
COMMON CARP 677 5800
COMMON CARP 682 5700
COMMON CARP 654 4500
` MEAN 688 5660
4-3

Table 4-2 (cont.).
TOTAL TOTAL
LENGTH WHOLE BODY
DATE STATION SPECIES WEIGHT SAMPLE TYPE COMPOSITE
5-6SEP01 COMMON CARP 645 4300 WHOLE BODY WB
COMMON CARP 656 4600
COMMON CARP 610 3500 _
COMMON CARP 581 3800
MEAN 623 4050
5SEP01 5 BLACK REDHORSE 493 1330 FILLET R
(RM 19.3) BLACK REDHORSE 460 1160
BLACK REDHORSE 437 940 _
BLACK REDHORSE 497 1490
BLACK REDHORSE 448 1060 ?
MEAN 467 1196
4-4

i
net-hours. Total electrofishing duration (energized time) was 50, 2, 40, and 40 minutes at
Stations 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively.
'r Target species were collected at all sampling stations in 2001. Common carp, the
recommended target bottom feeder at stations 2, 3, 4A, and 4B, were collected (and prepared
for fillet and/or whole body analysis) at those stations. In addition, the preferred target bottom
feeding species (black redhorse) was collected from Stations 1 and 5. The physiography of the
Waterville Lake Stations 4A and 4B necessitated the use of gill nets for the collection of
bottom feeding species. All nets were pulled and examined on a regular basis to reduce stress
or specimen mortality. All specimens submitted for analysis appeared healthy and in good
condition. Lengths and weights for each fish making up each composite are provided in Table
4-2.
Bottom feeder fillet composites consisted of five black redhorse at Stations 1 and 5 and five
common carp at Stations 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. In addition, a second bottom feeder fillet
composite, consisting of five channel catfish, was prepared for analysis from Station 4A; a
second bottom feeder fillet composite, consisting of five flathead catfish, was prepared for
'— analysis from Station 4B. A single bottom feeder whole body composite consisting of four
common carp from Station 4B was prepared for analysis (Table 4-2).
All nine composites submitted for analysis in 2001 met the US EPA Region IV
recommendation (Cunningham 1990) that the smallest specimen in each composite be equal to
or greater than 75 percent of the total length of the largest specimen in that composite (Tables
4-2 and 6-4).
Li
4-5

5. SAMPLE PREPARATION
All fish tissue samples were prepared in accordance with U.S. EPA Region IV
- recommendations (Cunningham 1990) as described in EA (2001). To prevent
cross-contamination between sampling stations, all sampling equipment likely to come into
contact with the fish was rinsed extensively with site water between stations.
Specimens collected at each station were sorted by size and species, and target species were
identified. The objective was to obtain a 3 to 5-fish composite sample at each station (plus a
catfish composite for each station in Waterville Lake as well as a common carp whole body
composite from either station in Waterville Lake) which met the species and size objectives
fishes collected, specimens of similar length and
discussed in Section 3. From the target
weight were selected for each composite sample. All specimens retained were immediately
placed on ice for later processing. For each fish retained, length and weight data were
- collected and recorded on the appropriate fisheries data sheet.
Following identification of target organisms, selection of composite samples, and collection of
length/weight data, each specimen was prepared for analysis and shipment. Bottom feeder
- fillet samples consisted of epaxial muscle tissue and skin from one side of the fish. Bottom
feeder whole body samples consisted of the entire fish. Fillet samples were prepared by
removing the scales (or removing skin from catfishes) and then making an incision behind the
opercula (on both sides of the fish) from the base of the spine (behind the skull) to just below
the pectoral fin. Care was taken to cut through the epaxial muscle without puncturing the rib
fin
cage or gut lining. A second incision was made along the length of the spine to the caudal
on both sides of the fish. The epaxial muscle was then gently cut away from the rib cage to
obtain a fillet. In this fashion, all flesh and skin was obtained from head to tail on both sides
~_ of the fish. Fillet knives were solvent rinsed (hexane and acetone) between fish from different
stations. Each composite sample was wrapped in aluminum foil (dull side toward sample),
labeled, and placed on dry ice. Right side fillets were sent to Severn Trent Laboratory for
analysis; left side fillets were retained by Blue Ridge personnel as back-up fillets.
All individual specimens (fillets or whole bodies) composing a single composite sample were
placed together in a water-tight plastic bag labeled with the station name, sample number, and
the number of specimens in that composite. All labels contained the following information:
. sample identification number,
. sample location and station identification,
o sampling team initials,
date of sample collection,
- species name,
sample type (i.e., fillet or whole body)
5-1

A chain-of-custody form was filled out for each cooler of samples submitted for analysis.
Each form included composite-specific information and instructions. Copies of all
chain-of-custody records are provided in Appendix A.
All samples were frozen solid prior to shipment to the analytical laboratory. The frozen
samples were packed on dry ice, shipped via overnight delivery on 10 September. One of the
two coolers shipped (the one containing carp whole bodies) was received at Severn Trent
Laboratory - Sacramento on 11 September 2001. As a result of the terrorist attacks in New
York on 11 September 2001, the second cooler, which contained the fillet composites, did not
arrive at the laboratory until 18 September. However, it had been placed in a freezer until it --
could be safely shipped to the laboratory, as a result, all samples arrived at the laboratory in
good condition, still frozen (see chain-of-custody form in Appendix A).
�I
i
5-2

6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The fish tissue samples were received at Severn Trent Laboratory (STL) - Sacramento,
California under chain-of-custody on 11"' and 18' of September 2001. Once received at the
_ laboratory, samples were compared to the chain-of-custody record to verify the contents of
t each shipping container. Each individual fish or fillet within a composite was homogenized
separately by STL personnel, and equal aliquots of the homogenate from each fish were
removed to constitute the composite. Dioxin and furan analyses were performed using high
resolution Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GS/MS) as required by the U.S. EPA.
Laboratory documentation of all chemical extractions and analyses are provided in Appendix
B. All chemical analyses of the samples were conducted using EPA Method 8290 (U.S. EPA
1994) as specified in the Canton Mill NPDES permit.
The quality of the analytical results was assured through reproducible calibration and testing of
the extractions and GC/MS systems. A laboratory method blank was prepared along with each
batch of samples. The laboratory also used precision and recovery standards for determination
of initial and ongoing precision and accuracy.
Laboratory reports for all 2001 Pigeon River fish tissue dioxin, furan, and lipid content
! analyses are provided in Appendix B. Each laboratory analysis report form lists the
concentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF), and all other CDD/CDF isomers. Results of the dioxin, furan, and lipid content
analyses are summarized in Table 6-1. Detection limits are reported parenthetically on a
sample-specific basis. Only fillet results are discussed below because NCDHHS considers
only fillet results when issuing health advisories.
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in bottom feeder composite fillet samples were below the
level of detection at Stations 1, 2, 3, 4B (flathead catfish), and 5 (Table 6-1). Concentrations
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in bottom feeder composite fillet samples from Stations 4A and 4B ranged
from 1.2 ppt (channel catfish at Station 4A) to 5.6 ppt (common carp at Station 413). Furan
isomer (2,3,7,8-TCDF) analysis results indicated a concentration range from non-detect
[Stations 1, 2, 4A (channel catfish), and 4B (flathead catfish)] to 2.9 ppt (common carp at
Station 4B).
Examination of the data in Table 6-1 indicates that all fish collected during this study had body
burdens well below the FDA dioxin health advisory level (25 ppt) for fish tissue [as
established and presented in FDA (1981 and 1983) and Cordle (1983)].
� ; 6-1

TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS--2001
Percent
Station
Number Sample ID Species Composite/Sample Type 2 3.7.8-TCDDta 2 3.7.8-TCDFta' Lipid
I BRHLOCIR Black redhorse 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.25) ND(DL=0.42) 2.6
2 CARPLOC2R Common carp 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.27) ND(DL=0.37) 2.9
3 CARPLOC3R Common carp 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.35) 0.57(b) 3.5
4A CCFLOC4AR Channel catfish 5 fillet samples 1 2tct ND(DL=0.25) 7.5
CARPLOC4AR Common carp 5 fillet samples 1.3 2.2 12.0
4B FHCATLOC4BR Flathead catfish 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.29) ND(DL=0.49) 4.5
CARPLOC4BR Common cam 5 fillet samples 5.6 2.9 17.0
CARPLOC4BWB Common cam 4 whole body samples 2.1 4.4 20.0
rn
t
N
5 BLRHLOCSR Black redhorse 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.26) 1.4 17.0
(a) Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(picogram per gram)
(b) Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit
(c) The analyze was positively identified,but the quantitation is an estimate
NOTE: ND=Non-Detectable;DL=Detection Limit

, t
_ NCDHHS has identified a dioxin evaluation level of 3 ppt in fillet samples, expressed as
average toxicity equivalent (TEQ) (NCDEHNR 1991). The TEQ of each chlorodibenzo dioxin
and furan (CDD/F) isomer is based on the toxicity equivalence factor (TEF) (WHO 1997 and
Table 6-2) as indicated in A.(9.) Dioxin Monitoring Special Condition of the Canton Mill's
permit and as described in the 2001 Study Plan (EA 2001b). The TEQ value is calculated
assuming additivity of effects from the individual congeners of dioxins and furans and is
expressed as an "equivalent amount of 2,3,7,8-TCDD" (NCDEHNR 1991). The measured
concentration of each CDD/F isomer, when multiplied by its appropriate TEF, yields the TEQ
of that isomer (the toxic concentration of that isomer relative to the toxicity of
2,3,7,8-TCDD). In cases where CDD/F concentrations were below the level of detection, a
value of zero was used in the TEQ calculation.
The TEQ calculation and summarization schemes presented in Table 6-3 followed methods
used by NCDHHS (NCDEHNR 1991). Bottom feeder fillet TEQ values were below the
NCDHHS limit for all stations, except 4B in Waterville Lake. The TEQ value for the carp
fillet composite at Station 4B exceeded the evaluation level. However, the TEQ value for
flathead catfish from the same location was well below the NCDHHS evaluation level of 3.0
ppt (Table 6-3).
Table 6-4 illustrates the consistent decline in 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentrations in carp fillet
samples from 1990 through 2001. Since 1990, 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets
declined dramatically (92-99 percent) at all sampling stations (Table 6-4, Figure 6-1). The
concentrations of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in carp fillets from all stations in 2001 were similar to
concentrations observed in 2000. The concentration of 2,3,7,8 TCDD at Station 4B increased
-- slightly from 4.4 ppt in 2000 to 5.6 ppt in 2001, however, this increase is more likely
attributable to the larger size of carp submitted for analyses in 2001 rather than a real increase
in average tissue loadings. The five carp submitted for fillet analyses from Station 4B in 2001
were the largest submitted to date, averaging 688 mm and 5660 g (Tables 4-2 and 6-4). Even
so, the concentration of 2, 3, 7, 8 TCDD in carp fillets has declined by 93 percent from 1990
through 2001 (Figure 6-1).
i
6-3

TABLE 6-2 TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE FACTORS FOR CDD/F ISOMERS
i
DIOXIN DIBENZOFURAN
Isomer(') TEF b) Isomer(') TEF(b)
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 —
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01
OCDD 0.0001 OCDF 0.0001
(a) In each homologous group, the relative toxicity factor for the isomers not listed is 1/100 of
the value listed for the other isomers in that homologous group.
(b) TEF=toxic equivalence factor= relative toxicity assigned.
r-
6-4

Table 6-3. SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2001 PIGEON RIVER
FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES.
STATION 1
STATION 2 STATION 3
BLACK REDHORSE - Fillet COrM4ON CARP - Fillet COMMON CARP - Fillet
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results(a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
0.25 + 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.41 + 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 0.59 + 0.000
1,2,3,7,7,8-HxD 1.1 0.53 + 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 +
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.58 * 0.000 1.00 * 0.000 0.55 * 0•
0.51 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 0.47 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 3.60(e) 0.038
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.39 * 0.000 4.50(e) 0.002 16.00 0.002
OCDD 0.0001 0.70 * 0.000 19.00 0.002
Dibenzofuran
0.1 0.42 + 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.57(e) 0.057
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.34 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000
+ 0.000
p� 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 00.28 + 0.000 0.34 * 0.000 0. * 0.000
2,3,9,7,8-PeCDF 0'5 0.45 + 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.3737 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0 45 + 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.37 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0 48 + 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000
2,3,9,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.53 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000 0.43 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 * 0.34 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.24 0.000
+ 0.000 0 41 0.38 * 0.000 0.43 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.30 + -0.000 0.34 * 0.000
+
OCDF 0.0001 0.43 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.05 0.10

Table 6-3 (cont.)
STATION 4A
CHANNEL CATFISH - Fillet COMMON CARP - Fillet
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results (a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 1.20 1.200 1.30 1.300
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 1.50 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.44 * 0.000 0.85 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 3.10(e) 0.310 4.20(e) 0.420
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.42 * 0.000 0.85 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 3.40(e) 0.034 13.00 0.130
OCDD 0.0001 6.40(e) 0.001 26.00 0.003
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.25 ' 0.000 2..20 0.220
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.32 * 0.000 0.83 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.90 ' 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.36 * 0.000 0.72 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.48 * 0.000 1.10 • 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.38 * 0.000 0.77 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.42 * 0.000 0.85 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 1.20 * 0.000 1.20 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 1.50 * 0.000 0.55 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.42 * 0.000 0.78 * 0.000
Total TEQ 1.55 2.07

- - - - - - - -
Table 6-3 (cont.)
STATION 4B
FLATHEAD CATFISH - Fillet COMMON CARP - Fillet COMMON CARP - W8
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results (a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.29 + 0.000 5.60 5.600 2.10 2.100
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.43 + 0.000 2.30 + 0.000 2.10 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.39 + 0.000 1.60 + 0.000 1.60 + 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.43 + 0.000 8..90 0.890 7.20 0.720
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.38 • 0.000 1.00 + 0.000 1.30 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.86 + 0.000 20.00 0.200 23.00 0.230
OCDD 0.0001 0.80 0.000(d) 41.00 0.004 54.00 0.005
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.22 + 0.000 2.90 0.290 4.40 0.440
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.29 + 0.000 1.10 + 0.000 1.20 + 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.29 ` 0.000 3.40(e) 1."100 2.40 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.38 + 0.000 1.60 + 0.000 1.20 + 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.38 + 0.000 1.20 + 0.000 1.00 + 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.41 + 0.000 0.55 + 0.000 0.62 + 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0:1 0.45 + 0.000 0.46 + 0.000 0.44 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.28 + 0.000 1.80 + 0.000 1.50 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.35 + 0.000 0.51 + 0.000 0.35 + 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.40 + 0.000 0.41 + 0.000 0.42 + 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 8.68 3.50

Table 6-3 (cont.)
STATION 5
BLACK REMORSE - Fillet
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results (a) TEQ(b)
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.26 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.49 '' 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.44 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.48 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.42 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.47 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 1.60 * 0.000
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF _ 0.1 1.40 0.140
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.33 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.33 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.29 * 0.000
rn 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.29 * 0.000
co 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.31 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.28 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.34 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.55 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.14
(a) Units = ppt (parts per trillion) or pg/g picogram per gram) .
(b) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from U.S. EPA (1989) .
(c) Toxicity Equivalent Factors from World Health Organization (WHO 1997) .
(d) Value less than or equal to 0.0005.
(e) Estimated result. Result is less than reporting limit.
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.

Table 6-4. BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1990-2001(a)
1990 Resullso) 1991 ResalLsr"r
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt� Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDta
1 Rock bass 5 I51-197 ND(0.15)
1 Rock bass ]0 151-190 ND(0.40)
RM 64.5 - Rock bass 5 153-213 ND(0.15) RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 ]06-178 ND(0.33)
Black redhorae 2 380-383 ND(0.20)
Black rcdharse 5 358-471 ND(0.35)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 185-196 1.4 2 Redbreast sunfish 8 154-189 0.87
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 148-201 3.4 RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 8 154-202 0.93
Common carp 1
Sl7 19.7 Common carp 10 491-570 9.7
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 188-203 0.79 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 176-209 ND(0.89)
191-198 2.6 RM 52.3 Bluegill 6 164-197 ND(0.83)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 2 191-198 2.6 Common carp 10 408-463 2.4
Common carp
4A Bluegill 5 178-192 ND(1.2) 4A Largemouth bass 7 313A68 3.0
RM 4L5 Bluegill - 5 153-174 ND(0.63) RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 173-216 ND(0.63)
Common carp
1 574 27 Common carp 10 502-688 23
5 183.196 0.76 4B Bluegill 5 186-212 ND(0.34)
4B Bluegill 279-400 ND(1.8) RM 39.0 Bluegill 5 190-208 ND(0.62)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 2
C Common carp 10 532-605 4
Common carp 4 551-638 66
5 Redbreast sunfish 10 143-223 0.98
RM 16.5 Spotted bass 2 266-368 ND(0.35)
Common cz 2 511-539 1.7
138
Total Fish Filleted 57
ucted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quanlerra Laboratories 1995-1999,Severn Trent Laboratories
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses cond
in 2000 and 2001.
(b) Survey conducted in August.
(c) Survey conducted is August and September.
(d) Survey conducted in September.
ii) Units=ppl(parts per trillion)or pg/g(picogram per gram)
ND =Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses.

Table 6-4 (cont.) BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS
1992 Results'") 1993 Results0)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(O Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD)s
I Rock bass 10 147-194 ND(0.085) 1 Rock bass 10 185-208 ND(0.10)
RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 147-182 ND(0.075 RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 5 148-203 ND(0.12)
Black redhorse 6 365-441 1.4 Black redhorse 10 365-410 ND(0.80)
2 Redbreast sunfish 10 I80-220 0.72 2 Redbreast sunfish 10 168-206 ND(0.27)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 178-220 ND(0.38) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 140-191 ND(0.15)
Common carp 10 486-581 9.3 Common carp 10 462-620 3.1
3 Redbreast sunfish 10 175-200 ND(0.34) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 155-210 ND(0.27)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 183-200 ND(0.29) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 7 180-213 ND(0.36)
Common carp 10 438-600 4 Common carp 10 440-576 3.4
4A Black crappie 10 153-232 ND(0.094) 4A Black crappie 10 178-201 ND(0.15)
RM 41.5 Black crappie to 177-224 ND(0.10) RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 182-204 ND(0.089)
Common carp 10 492-622 29 Common carp 10 525-611 19
I
4B Bluegill IO 182-212 ND(0.23) 4B Largemouth bass 10 190-310 ND(0.12)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 215-332 ND(0.19) RM 39.0 Bluegill 10 185-210 ND(0.20)
Common carp 10 558-640 51 Common carp 10 530-644 28
5 Redbreast sunfish 10 175-245 ND(0.38) 5 Redbreast sunfish 6 180-231 ND(0.17)
RM 19.0 Spotted bass 2 256-355 ND(0.30) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 9 212-281 ND(0.13)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 428-510 0.61 Smallmouth buffalo 5 450-550 ND 0.41
Total Fish Filleted 158 162
i

Table 6-4 (cont.) BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS
1994 Results"' 1995 ResultstQ
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt" Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDts
I Rock bass 6 156-185 ND(0.083) 1 Rock bass 10 162-205 ND(0.10)
RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 155-197 ND(0.I0) RM 64.5 Rock bass 10 150-220 ND(0.26)
Black redhorse 3 367A35 ND(0.096) Black redhorse 7 375-464 ND(0.21)
2 Redbreast sunfish 10 176-206 ND(0.073) 2 Redbreast sunfish 10 152-194 ND(0.20)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 160-210 ND(0.092) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 161-188 ND(0.I6)
Common carp 10 490-590 0.99 Comon carp 10 435-664 1.7
3 Redbreast sunfish 10 148-196 ND(0.15) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 170-206 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 158-210 ND(0.074) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 I54-202 ND(0.20) -
Common carp 10 456-565 0.74 Common carp 10 391-571 1.2
4A Black emppia 10 203-231 ND(0.085) 4A Largemouth bass 5 28IA39 2.0
RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 185-205 ND(0.084) RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 167-199 ND(0.26)
Common carp to 465-591 3.4 Common carp 10 520-615 5.8 ..
rr t,
4B Black crappie 10 200-215 ND(0.084) 4B Largemouth bass 9 248-39I 0.68
RM 39.0 Black crappie 10 195-220 ND(0.062) RM 39.0 Bluegill 8 158-216 ND(0.34)
Common carp 10 520-635 6.6 Common carp 4 532fi26 I1.0
5 Redbreast sunfish 6 129-289 ND(0.075) 5 Smallmouth bass 9 28GA23 ND(0.11)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 9 234A42 ND(0.I1) RM 19.0 Redbreast sunfish 7 163-192 ND(0.15) _
Smallmouth buffalo 9 440-520 ND 0.089 Black redhorse 7 440481 ND 0.45
Total Fish Filleted 163 156

Table 6-4 (cont.) BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS
1996 Resultsa) 1997 Results"')
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDts Station Species Fish Range(nun) 2,3,7,8-TCDDta
I Redbreast sunfish 5 154-185 ND(0.13) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 144-161 ND(0.11)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 160-208 ND(0.085) RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-194 ND(0.23)
Black redhoree 5 401-440 ND(0.089) Black redhorse 4 291-424 ND(0.22)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 179-187 ND(0.10) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-200 ND(0.26)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-191 ND(0.12) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 160-181 ND(0.12)
Common carp 5 543-580 1.5 Common carp 5 506-615 1.4
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 184-190 ND(0.13) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 187-202 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 165-185 ND(0.13) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-195 ND(0.18)
Common carp 5 516-630 0.87 Common carp 5 450-505 ND(0.33)
4A Black crappie 5 216-233 ND(0.15) 4A Black crapppie 5 215-231 ND(0.27)
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 215-229 ND(0.18) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-230 ND(0.10)
Common carp 5 562-632 4.2 Common carp 5 570-655 2.3
Channel catfish 5 418482 2.0
rn
�I.. 4B Black crappie 5 223-258 ND(0.11) 4B Black crappie 5 226-241 ND(O.17)
N RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 278-310 ND(0.13) RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 270-360 ND(0.21)
Common carp 5 470-623 4.0 Common carp 5 605-690 I I.0
Flathead catfish 5 430-540 0.62
5 Rock bass 4 169-186 ND(0.077) 5 Rock bass 5 143-214 ND(0.15)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 315454 ND(0.12) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 278-367 ND(0.27)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 451-555 ND 0.12 Smallmouth buffalo 5 406-525 ND 0.22
Total Fish Filleted 89 Total Fish Filleted 99

i
Table 6-4 (cont.) BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS
1998 Resultsa) 1999 Resultso)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD)O Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDts
I Redbreast sunfish 5 145-176 ND(0.19) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 141-177 ND(0.21)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 158-179 ND(0.29) RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 164-I80 ND(0.37)
Black millions 5 340-396 ND(0.18) Black redhorse 5 352427 ND(0.33)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-177 ND(0.20) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-190 ND(0.37)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 166-193 ND(0.28) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 158-178 ND(0.29)
Common carp - 5 551-661 1.3 Common carp 5 544-615 ND(0.27)
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 168-193 ND(0.34) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-189 ND(0.36)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-200 ND(0.22) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 162-176 ND(0.37)
Common carp 5 449-550 ND(0.38) Common carp 5 500-591 0.57
4A Black crappie 5 220-240 ND(0.49) 4A Black crappie 5 220-268 ND(0.18)
RM 41.5 Largemouth bass 5 227-330 ND(0.15) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 219-244 ND(0.08)
Common carp 5 585-621 1.6 Common carp 5 574-645 0.58
Channel catfish 5 416-458 ND(0.28) Channel catfish 5 425-482 0.83
T
f.. 4B Black crappie 5 233-252 ND(0.15) 4B Black crappie 5 276-244 ND(0.27)
Lo RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 259-330 ND(0.17) RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 276-305 ND(0.32)
Common carp 5 563-686 9.1 Common carp 5 621-680 4.7
Flathead catfish 5 414-523 ND(0.20) Flathead catfish 5 372-513 ND(0.46) -
5 Rock bass 4 155-190 ND(0.11) 5 Rock bass 5 170-203 ND(0.29) '
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 295-365 ND(0.21) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 297-430 ND(0.19)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 464-537 ND 0.31 Smallmouth buffalo 5 476-565 ND 0.31
Total Fish Filleted - 99 Total Fish Filleted 100

Table 6-4 (cont.) BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS
2000 Resultsor 2001 Resultsj s
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD"' Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8.TCDD(J
I Redbreast sunfish 5 137-148 ND(0.48) 1 Black redhorse 5 312-407 ND(0.25)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-I86 ND(0.45) RM 64.5
Black redhorse 5 357-396 ND(0.38)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-176 ND(0.3I) 2 Common carp 5 456-555 ND(0.27)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-181 ND(0.43) RM 59.0
Common carp 5 505-582 ND(0.42)
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-181 ND(0.43) 3 Common carp 5 504-615 ND(0.35)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 186-199 ND(0.32) RM 52.3
Common carp 5 514-569 ND(0.53)
4A Black crappie 5 212-241 ND(0.29) 4A Channel catfish 5 476-612 1.2
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-24I ND(0.24) RM 41.5 Common carp 5 528-668 1.3
Common carp 4 559-604 1.1
�. Channel catfish 5 435487 ND(0.70)
4B Black cmppic 5 213.231 ND(0.41) 4B Flathead catfish 5 405-463 ND(0.29)
RM 39.0 Black crappie 5 220-230 ND(0,37) RM 39.0 Common carp 5 654-723 5.6
Common carp 4 593-712 4.4
Flathead catfish 5 407450 ND(0.42)
5 Rock bass 5 171-198 ND(0.45) 5 Black redhorse 5 437497 ND(0.26)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 209-238 ND(0.31) RM 19.0
Black redhorse 5 427-476 ND 0.35
Total Fish Filleted 98 Total Fish Filleted 40

FIGURE 6-1. TCDD CONCENTRATIONS IN CARP FILLETS COLLECTED FROM
THE PIGEON RIVER, 1990-2001 (Stations 2 and 3).
25
20 ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c _
15 ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -
d
a
w
� b
c.
..........................................................
10 ------------------------ ..... ........ .... .... .... .... ..... ... .... ..... ...... ................
o -
U
F-
.. . .... ..... ....... ..... ...... ............ ....................... ... .................. ..... ....
�-. .-F-•---------
---- -- ---- -I
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200
YEAR
i
=-A-MM— Station 2 Station 3

FIGURE 6-1 (Cont.). TCDD CONCENTRATIONS IN CARP FILLETS COLLECTED FROM
THE PIGEON RIVER, 1990-2001 (Stations 4A and 413).
70
50 .... ............. .. ................... ------------------------------------------------
- _....................
0
.......................................... ................
-----------------------k
d �\
a
a '\
R
\
U \
------------- - - - .._..-...
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YEAR —
=—OW— Station4a --Ak- Station 4b
- I - -- I -

i-i
7. REFERENCES
Cordle, F. 1983. Use of epidemiology in the regulation of dioxins in the food supply, in
Accidental Exposure to Dioxins: Human Health Aspects (F. Coulston and F. Pocchiara,
eds.), pp 245-256. Academic Press, New York.
Cunningham, W.R. 1990. Letter to Paul Wiegand. 30 January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1990. Study Plan for the Monitoring of
Dioxin in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.01, prepared for Champion International
_ Corporation, Canton, North Carolina.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1991. Results of 1990 Dioxin Monitoring in
- Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.02, prepared for Champion International Corporation,
'. Canton, North Carolina.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1992. Results of 1991 Dioxin Monitoring in
_ Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.03, prepared for Champion International Corporation,
Canton, North Carolina.
I
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1993a. Results of 1992 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.05, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. April.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1993b. Results of 1993 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.06, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1994. Results of 1994 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.07, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1995. Results of 1995 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13043.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1996. Results of 1996 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13176.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1997. Results of 1997 Dioxin Monitoring
r in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13353.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. November.
7-1

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1998. Results of 1998 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13478.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2000. Results of 1999 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13478.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001a. Results of 2000 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13745.01, prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products,
Canton, North Carolina. January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001b. Study Plan for Pigeon River Dioxin _
Monitoring in Fish Tissue. Prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton, North
Carolina. November.
Food and Drug Administration. 1981. FDA advises Great Lake States to monitor
dioxin-contaminated fish. FDA Talk Paper dated 28 August, in Food Drug Cosmetic Law
Reports, paragraph 41, 321. Commerce Clearing House, Inc. 8 September.
Food and Drug Administration. 1983. Statement by Stanford A. Miller, Director, Bureau of
Foods, FDA before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and
Environment, U.S. House of Representatives. 30 June.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1991. Fish
Tissue Dioxin Levels in North Carolina: 1990 Update. Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994. Analytical Procedures and
Quality Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by High-Resolution Gas Chromatography/High-Resolution
Mass Spectrometry (Method 8290).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989. Interim Procedures for
Estimating Risk Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update Report No. EPA/625/3-89/016,
U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C.
Versar, Inc. 1984. Sampling Guidance Manual for the National Dioxin Study. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract 68-01-6160. Work Order Number 8.7.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Monitoring and Data Support Division,
Washington, D.C. Final draft. July.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1997. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds: Part 11 Health —
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds.
7-2

r
� I
APPENDIX A
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
I

Chain of Custody �»
r�uanterr a
Record Environmental o
OUA4U44 Services
Greco �� Pro(ect Manager Date 9 Chain 01CuslodyNumber
Blue r a 6✓ Cj 2.2 ✓ /7/Ol
AM/ett 1 Tebphone N�ujmber(Area Code cN�um/be�r (� Lab Number
M ( 1 D 1 1 b D� 0 Page
un sate zip coda sue Con an Lee concoct Analysis(Ahech list it
Ci R�TON NC I es ace is needed
Pmrect Neme C.Mv#Waybill Number
P; co /�r,,4r �s11 to „
Cbnbeo &P 1 Ord,,uwie No. 5 d 1 4 Special Instructions/
Matrix Containers& 4 L Conditions of Receipt
Presemadves \ J
Sample I.D.No.and Description t i r
P P Date Time `ti o $, \° F_
(Containers loreacnaemple meybb comb/netl an anO anal N vl j I x Z t�2 r
13RdGoC/2 9 b/ol At X X r.
Ct4R C R r 9 6/or l40$ �g
ARP Loc.3 R Vs-/o/ S.2s f
FLOG q,4 A 610 8
515-4&1 /1$00
guo GoC 9/5--/o l P rj fo
oC g — I I I �
RP 1,06 dit+lt 9 0 3D
MSsaYB rlenrtl Wenfifiraaan
Sample Disposal _
(A lee maybe assessedil sampler are retained
Non-Hazard ❑Flammable ❑Skin Irdlant ❑PO/sen B ❑Unknown ❑Re urn To Client ❑Disposal By Lab ❑ArchNe For Months longer than 3 months)
!Turn ArourWTMe Renutretl OCReeuiremenis(Speclly)
'024 Hours ❑ Hours ❑7Da s ❑ 14 Da s ❑ 21 Da ❑Other
L Ra By ow,, Rmo 1.Received By Bate TMa r •/
2.RaWpWshed By Beta "Ma -Received Oy/�v
Date nma
a.ReepulsheO By Date Time a.Rsceivotl By Dare Time
m
Comments E
U
N
DISTRIBUTION. WHITE-Stays with the Sample;CANARY-Returned to Client with Report;PINK-Field Copy N

APPENDIX B
SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY-SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORTS
ij
i�
f

i
i
WIN 114,11 to]
STL Sacramento
880 Riverside Parkway
West Sacramento,CA 95605-1500
September 27, 2001
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
STL SACRAMENTO PROJECT NUMBER: G1I110266 www.stl-Inc.com
PO/CONTRACT: 201965
Melanie Hager
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
P.O. Box C-10
Canton,NC 28716
i =
Dear Ms.Hager,
This report contains the analytical tesults for the samples received under chain of custody by
STL Sacramento on September 11, 2001. These samples are associated with your Pigeon
River Fish Dioxin Study project.
The test results in this report meet all NELAC requirements for parameters in which
accreditation is required or available. Any exceptions to NELAC requirements are noted in
the case narrative. The case narrative is an integral part of this report.
t If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
I
Jill Kellmann
jProject Manager
STL Sacramento is a part of Severn Trent Laboratories,Inc.

STL Sacramento
Quality Control Definitions
a"a efeEmi r '�� 'elimhon '
A set of up to 20 field samples plus associated laboratory QC
QC Batch samples that are similar in composition(matrix)and that are
processed within the same time period with the same reagent and
_ standard lots.
Consist of a pair of LCSs analyzed within the same QC batch to
Duplicate Control Sample monitor precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix
(DCS) effects. This QC is performed only if required by client or when
insufficient sample is available to perform MS/MSD.
A second aliquot of an environmental sample,taken from the same
sample container when possible,that is processed independently
with the first sample aliquot. The results are used to assess the
Duplicate Sample(DU) effect of the sample matrix on the precision of the analytical
process. The precision estimated using this sample is not
necessarily representative of the precision for other samples in the
batch.
A volume of reagent water for aqueous samples or a contaminant-
free solid matrix(Ottawa sand)for soil and sediment samples
Laboratory Control Sample Which is spiked with known amounts of representative target
(LCS) analytes and required surrogates. An LCS is carried through the
entire analytical process and is used to monitor the accuracy of the
L analytical process independent of potential matrix effects.'
A field sample fortified with known quantities of target analytes
that are also added to the LCS. Matrix spike duplicate is a second
'4J Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike matrix spike sample. MSs/MSDs are carried through the entire
Duplicate(MS/MSD) analytical process and are used to determine sample matrix effect
on accuracy of the measurement system.The accuracy and
precision estimated using MS/MSD is only representative of the
precision of the sample that was spiked.
A sample composed of all the reagents(in the same quantities)in
reagent water carried through the entire analytical process. The
Method Blank(MB) method blank is used to monitor the level of contamination
introduced during sample preparation steps.
Organic constituents not expected to be detected in environmental
media and are added to every sample and QC at a known
Surrogate Spike concentration. Surrogates are used to determine the efficiency of
the sample preparation and the analytical process.
Source:STL Sacramento Laboratory Quality Manual
i
STL Sacramento Certifications:
Alaska(UST-055),Arizona(#AZ00616),Arkansas,California(NELAP#01119CA)(ELAP#1-2439),
Connecticut(#PH-0691),Florida(E87570),Hawaii,Louisiana(Al#30612),New Jersey(Lab ID 44005).
Nevada(#CA 044),New York(LAB ID 11666 serial# 107407),Oregon(LAB ID CA 044),South Carolina
(LAB ID 87014,Cert.#870140),Utah(E•168),Virginia(#00178),Washington(#C087),West Virginia(#
9930C),Wisconsin(Lab 998204680),USNAVY,USACE,USDA Foreign Plant(Permit#37-82605),USDA
Foreign Soil(Permit#S-46613)..
STL-Sacramento [phone] 201596

1If1
l
Sample Summary
G11110266
WO# Sample Client Sample ID Sampling Date Received Date
EKC18 1 CARPLOC4BWB 9/5/01 9/11/01 09:40 AM
EKM7J 2 BRHLOCIR 916101 04:15 PM 9/18/01 01:30PM
EKM7L 3 CARPLOC2R 9/6/01 02:08 PM 9/18/01 01:30 PM
EKM7M 4 CARPLOOR 9/5/0103:25 PM 9/18/01 01:30 PM
EKM7P 5 CCFLOC4AR 915/01 9118/01 01:30 PM
EKM7Q 6 FHCATLOC4BR 9/5/01 05:00 PM 9/18/01 01:30PM
EKM7T 7 BLRHL005R 9/5/0112:50PM 9/18/0101:30PM
EKM7W 8 CARPLOCOR 9/5/01 9/18/01 01:30PM
EKM70 9 CARPLOC4AR 9/5/0105:30PM 9/18/0101:30PM
)
{
Notes(s):
- ne analytical results of the samples listed above are presented on the following page.
- All calculations are perfomrcd before rounding to avoid round-offertors in calculated results.
- Results noted as"ND"were not detected at or above the stated limit.
- This report must no be reproduced,except in full,without the written approval of the laboratory.
'I - Results for the following parameters are never reported on a dry weight basis:color,corrosivity,density,llashpoint,ignitability,
layers,odor,paint filter test,pH,porosity,pressure,reactivity,redox potential,specific gravity,spot tests,solids,solubility,
temperature,viscosity,and weigh
I '
_h
' L
_ STL-Sacramento [phone] 3 of 596

i
f
i
t_
A
BIOLOGIC, 8290, DIoXinSIFUrans
IE
f
STL-Sacramento [phone] 6 of 596

-I
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: BRHLDCIR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #-. .: GII110266-002 Work Order #- - -: EKM7JIAC Matrix. . . . ... . .: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. .. : 09/06/01 Date Received.. : 09/18/01
Prep Date. .... . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date- - : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #... : 1264129
Dilution Factor:, 1
DETECTION
I PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7, 8-TCDD ND 0.25 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.25 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HpCDD ND 0.53 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.58 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.51 pg/g SW846 8290
—' Total HxCDD ND 0.58 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 0.70 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
` 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.53 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.53 pg/g SW846 8290 .
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.30 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.30 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY .
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 79 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 97 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 108 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 86 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 78 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 86 (40 - 135) '
13C-1,2,3,4,6,.7, 8-HpCDF 93 (40 - 135)
—'STL-Sacramento [phone] 801596

i �
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC2R
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. .: GIIII0266-003 Work Order #- . . : EKM7LIAC Matrix. .. .... . . : BIOLOGIC
- Date Sampled...: 09/06/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date. . . .. .: 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #...: 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
1 DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
'- 2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
1,,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
1 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 1.0 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.36 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 1.0 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-EpMD 4.5 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total EpCDD 7.5 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 19 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 1.0 pg/g SW846 8290
! 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND' 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290 .
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7, 8,9-HxCDF ND 0.44 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.44_ pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7, 8,9-HpCDF ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
' Total HpCDF ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
{ INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 82 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 78 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 79 (40 - 135) _
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 96 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 103 (40 - 135)
r 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 80 (40 - 135)
't
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 77 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,.3,4,7,8-HXCDF 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 95 (40 - 135)
IJI
NDTE(S) :
d Fstimwd remit.Result is lea than the mponiog ibnu.
STL-Sacramento [phone] 9 of 596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC3R
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. . : G1I110266-004 Work Order #- - • : EKM7MIAC Matrix. . . . . . . ..: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. . . : 09/OS/O1 Date Received. . : 69/18/01
Prep Date.. . . . .: 09/21/01 Analysis Date. .: 09/25/01
Prep Batch #- - -: 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.59 pg/g SW646 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.66 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.49 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,6-HXCDD ND 0.55 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7, 8,9-HxCDD ND 0.47 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 0.58 pg/g SW846 8290
` 1,2,3,4,.6,7,8-HpCDD 3.8 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 6.9 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 16 pg/g SW846 6290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.57 J,CON pg/g SW846 8290
j Total TCDF 0.76 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 1.3 pg/g SW646 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.39 pg/g SW646 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.43 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.90 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND -0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
G 0.43 pg/g SW846- 8290
Total HpCDF�9-HpCDF ID 0.43 Pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 82 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 67 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 98 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 109 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,E-TCDF 80 140 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 79 (40 - 135)
_ 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 96 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 96 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) -
1 Esd=trd remh.ResW Is less rhan the reponing Rndt
CON Confinrwion analysis.
- STL-Sacramento [phone] 10 of 596

i
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CCFLOC4AR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. . . : G1I110266-005 Work Order #- - . = EKM7PIAC Matrix. . . . . . . .. BIOLOGIC
- - Date Sampled.. . : 09/05/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date. ... . . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #. . . : 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS - METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.2 JA pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 1.5 pg/g SW846 8290
�I Total PeCDD ND 1.5 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.44 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.1 J pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 3.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.4 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 3.4 pg/g SW846 8290
OCOD 6.4 J pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.25 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 9.5 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND' 0.32 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.90 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF 2.6 pg/g SW846 8290
I 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF ND 0.36 pg/g SW846 8290
-" 1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-RxCDF ND 0.38 pg/g' SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 3.7 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
i- � 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND - 1.5 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF NO 1.5 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 82 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 72 (40 - 135)
j 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 79 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDD 92 (40 - 135)
_ 13C-OCDD 98 (40 - 135)
I13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 79 (40 - 135) .
IJ 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 96 (40 - 135)
-- NOTE(S) :
JA The malyte was positively identified,but the guandtatian is an cstbnme.
1 Es i=tcd result.Result is less than the repomng lindt.
��— STL-Sacramento [phone] 11 of 596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC4AR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #--. : G1I110266-009 Work Order #- - -: EKM701AC Matrix. .. . ..- . . : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. .-: 09/05/01 Date Received. .: 09/18/01
Prep Date... .. . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date- .: 09/25/01
Prep Batch #. .. : 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
--� Total TCDD 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
�— Total PeCDD ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.85 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 4-2 J pg/g SW846 8290
k 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.85 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 4.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 13 pg/g SW846 8290
-- OCDD 26 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.2 CON pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDP 2.2 pg/g SW846 8290
_. 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.83 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 2.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.72 pg/g SW846 8290
-- 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7, 8-HXCDF ND 0.77 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 2.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.55 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.78 pg/g SW846 8290
' PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 88 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 86 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 79 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6, 7, 8-HpCDD 84 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 75 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDF 81 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 80 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
I Fitimaied rMILL RMIt Is I=thin the reporting limit.
CON Confirmation analysis.
STL-Sacmmento [phone] 15 o1596

BL13B RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: FHCATLOC4BR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. -- : GIIII0266-006 Work Order #-. . : EKM7QIAC Matrix. . . . ..... : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. .. : 09/05/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date. . . . . .: 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #.. .: 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
' Total TCDD ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
1 1,2,3,6,7, 8-HxCDD ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
Total Hx= ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 0.86 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD ND 0.86 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 0.80 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7, 8-TCDF ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 0.49 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
f ,I 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
-- 1,2,3,.6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
I�! 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
1 PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY - LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 89 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 84 (40 - 135)
1 13C-1,2,3,6,7, 8-HxCDD 89 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 102 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 112 (40 - 135)
1 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 87 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 82 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 98 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 101 (40 - 135)
STL-Sacramento [phone] 1201596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPL0C4BR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
i
Lot-Sample #•--= G1I110266-008 Work Order #- • - : EKM7WIAC Matrix. . . . .. . .. : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.. . : 09/05/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date..... .: 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
t Prep Batch #•• •: 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 5.6 pg/g SW846 8290
- Total TCDD 5.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 2.3 pg/g SW846 8290
-' Total PeCDD ND 2.3 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDD ND 1.8 pg/g SW846 6290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 8.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 1.0 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 8.9 pg/g SW846 8290
`-- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 20 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 20 pg/g SW846 8290
-- OCDD 41 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.9 CON pg/g SW846 8290 '
I Total TCDF 3.9 pg/g SW846 8290
_.� 1,2,3,7, 8-PeCDF ND' 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 3.4 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF 3.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
-` 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 2,3,4,6,7,.8-HpCDF ND 0.55 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.46 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.51 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
.� INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 68 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 82 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 94 (40 - 135)
-- 13C-OCDD 102 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 85 (40 - 135)
-- 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7„8-HpCDF 90. (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
CON Conf maiion arWysiL
1 Fslimaled molt Auuh fs kas than Ute reportng GmiL
-- STL-Sacramento [phone] 14 of 596

j-
-- BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
t
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC4BWB
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. . . : GJIII0266-001 Work Order #. . .: EKC181AC Matrix. . .......: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. .. : 09/05/01 Date Received. .: 09/11/01
Prep Date.. .. . . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #. . .: 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-.TCDD 2.1 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 2.1 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 2.1 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 2.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxMD 7.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 16 pg/g SW846 8250
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpMD 23 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 32 pg/g SW846 8290
-- OCDD 54 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 4.4 CON Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF .5.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 2.4 pg/g SW846 8290
i
Total PeCDF ND 2.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 1.0 Pg/g SW846 8290
_ 2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.62 pg/g SW846 8290
1 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.44 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 1.5 pg/g SW846 8290
112,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 1.5 pg/g.. SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
I PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 62 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8=PeCDD 76 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 78 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDD 95 (40 - 135)
-� 13C-OCDD 100 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3.,7,8-TCDF 79 (40 - 135)
�— 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 73 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 102 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) c
CON Confimmdon az Iysis.
--- S7L-Sacramento [phone] 70596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: BLRHLOCSR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. .. : GIIII0266-007 Work Order #. .. : EKM7TIAC Matrix.. . . ..... : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled... : 09/05/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date... . .. : 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #...: 3.264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.26 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.26 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.49 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.49 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.44 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,.8-HXCDD
ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
—� Total HxCDD ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 0.47 pg/g SW846 8290
Total A CDD
� � P ND 0.47 pg/g SW846 8290 .
OCDD ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.4 CON
- Total TCDF pg/g SW846 8290
1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.31 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
4 Total HxCDF ND 0.34_ pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
—E OCDF ND 0.55 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 79 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeC1)3D 74 (40 - 135)
' 13C-1,2,3,6,7;8-HpCDD 86 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-11pCDD 98 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 104 (40 - 135)
' 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 81 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 94 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDF 95 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) •
CON Canfi=don amtydt.
i
7 f
-'STL-Sacramento [phone] 13 01596

I
QC DATA ASSOCIATION SUA04ARY
G1I110266
Sample Preparation and Analysis Control Numbers
ANALYTICAL LEACH PREP
SAMPLE# MATRIX METHOD BATCH # BATCH # MS RUN#
001 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
002 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
003 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
- - BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
004 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
005 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
006 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
007 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
— BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
008 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
009 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264129
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1264131
it
STL-Sacramento [phone] 16 o1596

t i
METHOD BLANK REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #. ..: G1I110266 Work Order #. ..: EKVARIAA Matrix. .. . . ....: BIOLOGIC
ME Lot-Sample #: GII210000-129
Prep Date. .. .. . : 09/21/01
Analysis Date.. : 09/24/01 Prep Batch #... : 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND' 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.52 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.52 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDD ND 0.62 pg/g SW846 8290
- � 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.68 pg/g SW846 8290
t 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.60 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 0.68 pg/g SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
� I Total HpCDD ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
f Total TCDF ND 0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
j
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF ND 0.68 p9/g SW846 8290
-� 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 0.68 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 0.73 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF ND 0.80 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HXCDF - ND 0.80 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.77 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.95 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.95 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 1.7 pg/g SW846 8290
I PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,.8-TCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 79 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 80 (40 - 135)
— 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 71 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 74 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 75 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 76 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HpCDF 78 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 66 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
Calculations arc l CMMed before rounding to avoid round-off erton in calculated r 12.
I
I
STL-Sacramento [phone] 17 of 596

i
F
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE DATA REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #.. .: G1I110266 Work Order #- - - : EKVARIAC 'Matrix. . .. . ..--: BIOLOGIC
LCS LOt-Sample#: G1I210000-129
Prep Date. . . .. . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . ; 09/24/01
Prep Batch #.. .: 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1
SPIKE MEASURED PERCENT
PARAMETER AMOUNT AMOUNT UNITS RECOVERY METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 20-0 18.1 pg/g 90 SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 3.00 97.0 pg/g 97 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 100 112 pg/g 112 SW846 '8290
1,2,3,6,7,8--HxMD 100 111 pg/g ill SW846 8290
I,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 100 103 pg/g 103 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 100 Ill pg/g ill SW846 8290
OCDD 200 192 pg/g 96 SW846 8290
' 2,3,7,8-TCDF 20.0 21.9 pg/g 110 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 100 119 pg/g 119 SW846 8290
I. 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 100 126 pg/9 126 SW846 8290
—' 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxMF 100 109 pg/g 109 SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 100 112 pg/g 112 SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 100 95.9 pg/g 96 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCOF 100' 85.5 pg/g 86 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 100 108 pg/g 108 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 100 110 pg/g 110 SW846 8290
OCDF 200 202 pg/g 101 SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 77 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 72 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 81 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDD 51 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 59 "(40 - 135)
j 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 64 (40 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 62 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF - 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDF 47 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) -
Calmlationa art performed before rounding to avoid round-off errors In calculated remits.
Bold print derro[es control parameters
-.� S7L-Sacramento [phone] 1801596

'J
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE EVALDATION RBPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #. ..: G1I110266 Work Order #- -. : EKVARIAC Matrix. . . . .....: BIOLOGIC
LCS Lot-Sample#: G1I210000-129
Prep Date.. . .. .: 09/21/01 Analysis Date.. : 09/24/01
Prep Batch #. . . : 1264129
Dilution Factor: 1 -
PERCENT RECOVERY
PARAMETER RECOVERY LIMITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 90 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 97 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-BxCDD 112 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 111 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 103 (50 - 250) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-11pC•DD ill (50 - 150) SW846 8290
OCDD 96 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 110 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 119 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 126 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 109 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-ExCDF 312 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-ExCDF 96 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 86 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 108 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 110 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
OCDF 101 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 77 (40 - 135)
IBC-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 72 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD - 81 (40 - 135)
- 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDD 51 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 59 (4D - 135) '
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 64 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 62 (40 _ 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 47 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
CalwWiom an Perforacd before tourding to avoid mundro0 errors in ealwlated results.
Bold prim dwotm wnvol parameter
' I
c
STL-Sacramento [phone] 19 of 596

BIOLOGIC, 8290, Percent LTfds
� f
if
-
j
-�STL-Sacramento [phone] 20 of 596

-- BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: BRHLOC1R
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. ..: G1I110266-002 Work Order #.. . . EKM7JIAA Matrix. .. . .. . ..: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/06/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date.. ... .: 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #. .. : 1264131
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION.
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 2.6 8 SW846 8290
� I .
II
I�
I 'r
i
I
I -
-`STL-Sacramento [phone] 220596

,
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC2R
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: G12110266-003 Work Order #.. - : EKM7LIAA Matrix. . . ...... : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.. .: 09/06/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date. . . . . . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date. .: 09/25/01
Prep Batch #.. .: 1264131
Dilution Factor: 1
_ DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 2-8 2 SW846 8290
i
i
STL-Sacramento (916)373.560D 1 23 o1596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC3R
Trace Level Organic Compounds
-Lot=Sample #. .. : G1I110266-004 Work Order #. . . : EKM7MIAA Matrix. .. ...... : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled:.. : 09/05/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date. . .... : 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #... : 1264131
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 3.5 SW846 8290
V
Ji
r '
I ,
I
-'STL-Sacramento [phone] 2401596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC4AR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. .: GIIII0266-009 Work Order #- - - : EKM701AA Matrix. .. .. . . . . : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.. - : 09/05/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
Prep Date. . . . . . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date.- : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #. . .: 1264131
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 12 !k SW846 8290
' I
STL-Sacramento [phone] - 29 of 596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
J Client Sample ID: CCFLOC4AR
I
1 Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. . . : G1I110266-005 Work Order #.. . : EKM7PIAA Matrix. . . . ... ..: BIOLOGIC
- Date Sampled. . . .. 09/05/01 Date Received. . : 09/18/01
_ Prep Date... .. . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date..: 09/25/01
Prep Batch #.. . : 1264131
I
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 7.5 SW046 8290
I
I
i
I f
i
I ,
I
I
I PI
l_.
_ter I
I
I
STL-Sacramento (916)373.56DO 25 01596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPLOC4BWB
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: G1Z110266-001 Work Order #. .. : EKC181AA Matrix. .. ... . . . . BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. . . : 09/05/01 Date Received..: 09/11/01
_ Prep Date... ...: 09/21/01 Analysis Date..: 09/25/01
Prep Batch #.. . : 1264131
Dilution Factor: 1
�- , DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 20 % SW846 8290
i -
_I
i l
f
i I
STL-Sacramento [phone] 21 o1596

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: CARPL0C4BR
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #- .. : GIIII0266-008 Work Order #- ..: EKM7W1AA Matrix. . . . . . .. - : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. . . : 09/05/01 Date Received. .: 09/18/01
_ Prep Date..... . : 09/21/01 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/01
Prep Batch #. . . : 1264131
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
I
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD '
Percent Lipids 17 SW846 8290
i
i
1
I �
1 '
I
STL-Sacramento [phone] 28 of 596

:a -
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: BLRBI.005R
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #•-• = GIIII0266-007 Work Order #- •- : EKM7TIAA Matrix. . . ..... . : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/o5/01 Date Received. .: 09/18/01
Prep Date.. . .. .: 09/21/01 Analysis Date..: 09/25/01
Prep Batch #.. . : 1264131
- Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 17 % SW846 8290
I
STL-Sacramento [phone] 27 of 596