NC0000272_DraftPermit_20010720

uLIZ
04
0 07
�tl

{ _
.. _ -. e'.
is
• '�
t
A,
\ -..
� i
s �" � _ a

&,)z:!) 7
M
2 .ice u�
x 3 3l -

�___
s P
11
`�
1 n
I
' ._

I
ltt6
l G i
C
COLO- - t�

o '
{
- �. , . _.

i
IL
�j

;.:
i ';
�i
��
,,
i'
_.__. ;'.
.. � _ ,;
' is
. :
,:
- 4;,
i �
i.' � ...
i. ' 1
.. `
�, .. -

YO W �'+
r � � f���`L rtiCll��.
�� s��� ono

5
��, ..
4 _
�. - � �. - ,
t'
f
'. `

7q

:• �` �-
s
_. �,
._
_ _ ;

�Ao
Q00
� J
162 ,
I. �

Eazo
-,da=ft�.
Quo
AAI
OPI
J �
�8

U' �y nmcnaei r.tasiey
O� OG Governor
Uj William G.Ross,Jr.,Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p C Kerr T.Stevens
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM July 12, 2001
To: Jimmie Overton
arrest,WestalC
Through: Trish MacPherson
From: Bryn H.Tracy Q
Subject: Additional Comments on the NPDES Permit No. NC0000272, Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., Canton
Mill, Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River
In an earlier memorandum to Mr.Jimmie Overton and Mr. Forrest Westall (undated, but written on June 12, 2001), 1
provided my comments on the report--NPDES Permit No. NC0000272, Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., Canton Mill,
Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River. I do not agree With the main conclusion of the report that
because a balanced and indigenous fish community exists in the Pigeon River below the mill,the thermal variance shuuld
be continued.
However, I can not find fault in the NC DWC's continuation of granting a thermal variance for the mill. Temperature is only
one of several factors affecting the current states of the communities in the river. Other factors may include,but not be
limited to, color,total and dissolved solids, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved salts, and other constituents of the
mill's effluent. Temperature is not the sole factor for preventing balanced and indigenous fish communities from
establishing themselves in the river below the mill. After additional pollutant reductions are achieved,the issue of
temperature impacts Will warrant a re-investigation.
It is my opinion,that Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. should continue to make every effort to reduce more of the pollutants
discharging into the river. I also believe that recolonization sources are lacking downstream of the mill and that the darter
fauna and other fish species in the river have been severely impacted for many decades. Consequently, Blue Ridge
Paper Products Inc. (and other responsible entities, interested parties, and resource agencies) should fund efforts to
reintroduce species that were eradicated by the mill's effluent and now are prevented from recolonization by the Walters
Dam. Such efforts are currently under way in the Tennessee portion of the river by agencies in that state. Without
intervention,the recovery of a balanced and indigenous fish community below the mill in North Carolina Will likely take a
longtime, if ever.
BHT/bht
PC: Dave Goodrich
Keith Haynes
Michael Meyers
ern —

BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
V
dDN 15 20June 14,2001 RppUhLIT!_SECTIOHLLE REGl3ML OFFICE
Mr.Forrest Westall
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville,NC 28801
RE: NPDES Permit No.NC0000272,Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. Canton Mill
Addendum to June 1,2001 Statistical Evaluation
Dear Mr.Westall-
As we discussed on May 31,2001, a statistical evaluation was performed on the mill color data
from January 2000 through October 2000. The 95th percentile expected monthly color from this
data was 54,773 lbs/day and the 95 h percentile expected annual color was 47,7041bs/day.
In November of 2000, substantial process improvements were implemented on No. 19
Paperboard Machine to improve product quality and yield. No. 19 Paperboard Machine
manufactures over half of the total daily production of the Canton Mill. As of June 14,2001,this
machine is still under-performing,which limits pulp mill production by as much as 100 to 150
tons per day. During November 2000, an equivalent of one fiberline was out service.
Please call me at(828) 646-2318 if you have any questions or concerns regarding these reports.
Sincerely,
Ylll G
Derric Brown
Manager—Environmental Affairs
Xc: Don Anderson
Keith Haynes
Mike Meyers
175 Main Street • P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • Phone: [phone] .

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources `le
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
�. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 20,2001
Mr.Robert Cicale
Mill Manager
Blue Ridge Paper Products
P.O.Box 4000
Canton,North Carolina 28716
Subject: NPDES Draft Permit
Permit No.NC0000272
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Cicale:
Blue Ridge Paper Inc.applied for an NPDES permit renewal on February 26,2001. After issuing a"pre-
draft"permit,the Division of Water Quality has prepared a draft permit and is once again soliciting comments from
the Environmental Protection Agency,the State of Tennessee,the City of Newport,Cocke County,and other
concerned stakeholders. The Division has reviewed and considered all comments received during the"pre-draft"
comment period and modified the"pre-draft"permit and fact sheet accordingly. The modifications reflected in this
draft permit include the following:
• The dioxin monitoring special condition has been modified. The dioxin monitoring special condition in the pre-
draft permit allowed the permittee to split samples. If the analysis of either sample was below the minimum
level,then the quality was considered zero for compliance purposes. The Division received concerns over this
allowance and has modified the condition accordingly. The decision to split samples is at the discretion of the
permittee,if samples are split,the permittee must report both values and compliance shall be judge on each
sample independently. ,
• Dates that have passed have been deleted from the Best Management Practices Special Condition.
• Special Condition A.(8.)Requirements for Color Analysis and Compliance have been added.A final report
was not available in time to ensure a timely public hearing,therefore,the Division has developed the conditions
for color based on the draft report completed by the EPA's Technical Review Workgroup and our knowledge of
comments made regarding this report.The values presented in this special condition represent the Division's.
`best guess'and DWQ anticipates that the Special Condition will change base on the EPA's final report and
comments received during the public comment period.
The final EPA Technical Review Workgroup Report will be distributed to parties of the Settlement Agreement
along with other interested parties upon finalization and will be presented at the public hearing to be held
August 21,2001.
Below are the Division's responses to comments received on the pre-draft permit.
There were concerns over the language in the Best Management Practices Special Condition,these include:
- Special Condition A. (6.)Section A. 1, the wording"to the maximum extent possible as determined by
the mill. The language and conditions set forth in the Best Management Practices Special Condition
were developed by the EPA as part of the new Effluent Guidelines for the Pulp and Paper Industry.
After extensive research and gathering of public comment the EPA stipulated an industry standard for
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617-TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER-50%RECYCLED/10%POST-CONSUMER PAPER
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

r
Permit Number.: NCOOOO272
Best Management Practices. The language contained in Special Condition A.(6.)represents the
industry standard as published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Since Blue Ridge Paper meets or
exceeds these Best Management Practices standards,the Division does not feel that requiring a higher
standard is justified at this time.
- Special Condition A. (6.) Section E.3,the language"failure to take the actions required by Section E.2
as soon as practicable will be a permit violation". The comment was made that this language is
unenforceable. In addition to the comment made for Special Condition A.(6.)Section E.3,it is the
Division's understanding that the language in Section A. (6.)E.3"failure to take the actions required
by Section E.2 as soon as practicable will be a permit violation",is a `good faith' condition and that
any gross violations of this condition are enforceable.
- Monthly reporting of`action'level exceedences was recommended. In addition,to the comment made
for Special Condition A. (6.)Section E.3,please refer to the Best Management Practices Special
Condition Paragraph E. This condition requires that Blue Ridge Paper submit an annual report to the
ivi ion of Wa r i Hitt ummarizes Il s-F nagement P ctice' s monit mg and action levels.
^Theto ger time frame(annu`al as pposed to 4n�n associated 'th the annual submitta r quired in
Special onditi4n A.(7.)provi5les�the Divis or� th a more rep}-e entative an
of ope tins at the
mill at`tttd is better s ited for ana}ysls and co cl to S. Thereford a Division feels that a�u 1
repoll; 's appro riate. `///
omments wer de re a ding th da'ly maxi BODS mvt ropos d the pre-draft permit. 7h
ivision's review of the' earn dis o�(ed oxy ata indica4e that th 1 mits and conditions in a ermit
are protecthi th dissol oxygen st n,dard in to 'ver. Addtiio ally,�h Division's model predicts and
actualdata su Ports that lowest diss lr) d o en concentra occur t river mile 57.7 which is _bove
dr Hepeo�— LJ
• The Division received comments regarding the need for nutrient limits in permits above the lake. The Division
has no evidence to suggest that nutrients are a concern in this watershed. Additionally,Blue Ridge Paper's has
a relatively low nutrient loading,however,nutrient monitoring will continue a condition for this permit in order
to assess Blue Ridge Paper's nutrient loading to the River.
• The Division received comments regarding the removal of the monitoring station at river mile 53.5: Blue Ridge
Paper currently is monitoring color,temperature,and dissolved oxygen at river mile 53.5. Temperature and
dissolved oxygen monitoring at this point is required according to the NPDES permit issued to Waynesville.
Since Waynesville is already required to monitor at this station,it is the Division's opinion that additional
monitoring of temperature and dissolved oxygen by Blue Ridge Paper is not appropriate. The color monitoring
at this station was originally implemented in order to differentiate between Clyde's color contribution and the
color contribution of Waynesville via Richland Creek. With the removal of Clyde's discharge,the Division
feels that the continued monitoring of color at river mile 62.9(Fiberville)and river mile 42.6(Hepco)is
sufficient to evaluate color.
• The Division received a request to require dioxin isomer monitoring of the octachlorinated dioxin isomers at the
internal outfalls,sludge and landfill leachate. The Division also received comments suggesting that the dioxin
and furan monitoring proposed in the pre-draft unnecessary. During the previous permit cycle,Blue Ridge
Paper was required to monitor 15 isomers fdipxin and Lan A review rt�this data indicate that these, s no
justification for requiring further monitori�g ofaddi�iona jsorner eyond�t}l se regti ed byrt�iEPA;othe
Effl>ent
Guidelines. However,the Division will cq time motto g of 2 ,h,8, CiDL'and 2, ,7,8 TCD
effluent, sludge,landfill leachate, and the}fluent the stewafer treat en ��lant.( 7Pleasereviewthe draftperm t and faot sbeet cae ll nd mit comment§to ENR-DWDES
Unit. This draft permit should not be interpreted as the Jjrvis o s fm�de�ision. A 10 ay public cot period
follows the release of this draft perm t and will-close-a the di cretion f-the�lrear ng��fr and will be announced at
the beginning of the public hearing to be held on September 11,2001. The details on where and when the hearing
will be held are listed below:
e Community College .
Haywood County

Permit Number: NC0000272
If you have any questions concerning the draft permit for your facility,please call me at(919)733-5083,
extension 508.
Sincerely,
Michael J.Myers,EIT
NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files
NPDES Files
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Forrest We tall-As ev�ille-Regipua Office/Water Q�rality Section.-.—
Dan Oakley North CarolinaA6fh y Generai, vrronmental D vision
Keith Haynes Ash b' a Regional O ce/Wae a�'ty Section
Rob Lang-�o plia and Enf�cee. i U t
Diane Reid 1 C assif ca on-arA'Standards U
Roosevelt C ressrrnment�.
nvuox� ental Pr to lion-A a cy
Karrie-Jo S�ell-En���' n tectio Agen-
Don And rso�i-Endhenta ��''A tectiofi j�gency
arkl'� EnviroRental Prot 'on /A/ �ncy
Paul-Dais-Tennessee Division o atAr ollution Con
6th Floor,L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville,TN 37243-1534
David Jenkins-American Canoe Association
Hope Taylor-Clean Water Fund of North Carolina
David McKinney-Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Robert Williams-Blue Ridge Paper
Derric Brown—Blue Ridge Paper
;1 4
DRAF
}

f
Permit Number: NC0000272
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT'AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In o pliance 'th the pro i ion of No arolina a ae a\Statute 13 15.1, other lawful stnaards
re ations prom 1 ted a�id� adopted b t�e North aro id Enviro mental Management C mmission P g PI g
an t o Federal W t Poll triorLContr` y4ct, as a�a ded, I
Pggcwast\v
e RidgeTa
er Prod cts Incl—
is a eby autho 'z d to dish a er frfacility Ila ed at
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Canton Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant
Off Highway 215
Canton
Haywood County
to receiving waters designated as the Pigeon River in the French Broad River Basin in
accordance with effluent limitations,monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III,and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on November 30, 2006.
Signed this day D
D.
Kerr T.Stevens,Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit Number: NC0000272
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
is hereby authorized to:
I. Continue operation of a 29.9 MGD wastewater treatment plant for the treatment of wastewater
associated with the Blue Paper Products Inc. pulp and paper mill, the Town of Canton's
chlorinated domestic wastewater and landfill leachate. The treatment system consists of the
following treatment units:
• Grit Chamber
_Bar creen
Li" ps
• Pol a addit o
• pH co �I (C injection ZSOa b c p)
Three mary cl rifrerg`
Nutri t eed
• Aerat obasi
Thr e�econdaary clarifiers
•—>bjdual belt pre sses
Effluent flow measurement
• Cascade post aeration with oxygen injection
• Instream oxygen injection facilities
The facility is located at the Blue Ridge Paper Products WWTP, off Highway 215, Canton,
Haywood County, and;
2. Discharge treated wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map through outfall 001 into the Pigeon River, which is classified C water, in the French Broad
River Basin.
DRAF

Permit Number: NC0000272
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee
is authorized to discharge treated industrial,municipal, stormwater and landfill wastewater through
outfall(s) 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Limits Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Type Sample
Average Maximum' Frequency Location'l
Flow 29.9 MGD Continuous Recording I or E,
BOD,5-day,20°C 3205 lb/day 10897 lb/day Daily Composite I,E,
Total Suspended Residue 12549 lb/day 49560 lb/day Daily Composite I,El
NH;-N Daily Composite E,
AQ; 1 r 1-5-56:9-lb[day 2822.21b/,day Daily osit
CoXoy�, A r-- Dail r C© -obit ' ET--
Dissa7ved Oxy ear I \ ) \ Daily Grab E1.1
Teln erature 1 / \ Daily I I Grab
1 / / \ Dail -----Grab
Copductivi I - / ( Dail _Grab
Fe'allColiform I 1 1 200/ f00 400/ 100ml- Weekl I Grab F�
C DI ( I / r-- eekly I Composite
Sil{ e# I / Qbarterl I Composite I ,
Zi c I- ./ / I \ ( uarterl. I Composite ( F),
U------- u u u
Total Nitrogen
(NO2-N+NO3-N+TKN) Monthly Composite E,
Total Phosphorus Monthly Composite El
Chronic Toxicity Quarterly Composite El
Cadmium Quarterly Composite E,
Trichloro henol 3.0 g/L Quarterly Composite E,
Pentachloro henol 8.9Quarterly Composite E,
Selenium 10.6 Quarterly Composite E,
2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo- 0.1 pg/L Quarterly Composite I,E,
dioxin9
ConductivityloDaily Grab Pigeon River
Flow Daily Grab Pigeon River
Fecal Coliform'o Weekly Grab Pigeon River
Color Variable Grab Pigeon River
Temperature" Variable Grab Pigeon River
Dissolved Oxygen'" Variable Grab Pigeon River
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: I-Influent,E,-Effluent,Pigeon River-Instream sampling as specified in A. (5.)Instream
Monitoring Special Condition.
2. AOX monitoring shall be in accordance th the aS lin P n f Cluste_r�le Pa {„e� t—e�dated arch 19,
Y �1
2001)or subsequent modifications approved by the\' visn_AO� data1/�is a� a sub�rtutted on a qu� erly basis
along with other Effluent Guideline chc7c 1 data;re er o A. T �Effl ent G deli e angling Pla pedal
Condition. 1 /t!
3. See A.(8.) Color Analysis and Comphanc Special Con l ion�� �
4. The daily average effluent dissolved oxyg6 concentratio shall n ess than 0 g/L. See A. ( )
Dissolved Oxygen Special Condition.
5. See A.(13.) Temperature Variance Review Special Condition.
6. The pH of the effluent shall not be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0(on the standard units scale).
7. Chronic Toxicity(Ceriodaphnia)at 90%Effluent Concentration:March,June,September,December(see A.
(4.) Chronic Toxicity Permit Limit(Quarterly)).

Permit Number: NC0000272
8. Trichlorophenol and Pentachlorophenol limits and monitoring are provisionally waived since the facility has
certified that chlorophenolic biocides are not used at this facility. If the facility changes operations to include
chlorophenolic biocide,the Permittee shall notified the Division prior to use and the limits and monitoring
requirements shall become immediately effective.
9. See A. (9.) Dioxin Monitoring Special Condition.
10. See A. (5.) Instream Monitoring Special Condition.
See A. (6.) Best Management Practices(BMP)Special Condition.
See A. (11.) Town of Canton Inflow and Infiltration Special Condition.
Definitions:
MGD—Million gallons per day lb/day—Pounds per day
ml—Milliliter II BOD—Biochemical Oxygen Demand
µg/L-Micrograms per liter AOX-Adsorbable Organic Halides
CC D-Chemical- xygen demand p Pico gm er liter
RA ,

Permit Number: NC0000272
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning upon the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
discharge of wastewater from the pine bleach plant to the wastewater treatment plant through
outfall(s) 002 (Er'), shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below and in A. (7.)
Effluent Guideline Sampling Plan Special Condition:
Effluent Characteristics Limits Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Daily Measurement Sample Type3 Sample
Average Maximum Frequency Location'
Flown Weekly Calculated EZ
Chloroform 5.15lb/day 8.601b/day Weekly Grab EZ
2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo- < 10 pg/L Monthly Composite Ez
oxm CDD F �—
21 ,7,8 T�ehachlorci�dibenzo-( \ 31.9 p Monthly Composite ---- y
(TCDF 1 /
T ch>.orosyringol \ \ ( 2.5 µg L onthly I Composite E�
3,4,5i,Trichlorocatec o IL < 5.0 µ"5 Compoqite Ey
3,4,6,'Trichlorocatec of < 5.0 µgfl s nthly Composite E�
3, ,5 Trichlorogua3&c I < 2.5/µg/1—--Mo3 thly I Composite E� i
3, i,6iTrichlorogµaia of I < 2./S Vg/h M�ni, y ( Composite E
4, ,6-'Ti5chl-o�i�guaiacol Composite ET
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol < 2.5 µg/I Monthly Composite EZ
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol < 2.5 µg/LS Monthly Composite E2
Tetrachlorocatechol < 5.0 µg/LS Monthly Composite Ei
Tetrachloroguaiacol < 5.0 µg/LS Monthly Composite Ez
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol < 2.5 µg/LS Monthly Composite E2
Pentachlorophenol < 5.0 µg/LS Monthly Composite EZ
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: E2—Effluent is composed of Bleach Plant Effluent-acid(acid sewer collected from tap
installed on filtrate pump from C102 bleaching stage D-100 and from tap installed on filtrate pump from C102
bleaching stage.D-2)and Bleach Plant Effluent-alkaline(alkaline sewer collected from tap installed on filtrate
pump from alkaline extraction stage E..). See A. (7.)Effluent Guideline Sampling Plan Special Condition
2. Monitoring and flow calculations shall be in accordance with the"Sampling Plan for Cluster Rule Parameters"
(dated March 19,2001)or subsequent modifications approved by the Division. Chemical results for Effluent
Guideline parameters(Internal Outfall 002 parameters+internal Outfa11003 parameters+AOX from Outfall
001)shall be reported on a quarterly basis or more frequently;refer to A. (7.)Effluent Guideline Sampling Plan
Special Condition.
3. Sample Type: Calculated-calculate separate flows for alkaline and acid sewers by water balance,and report
total bleach plant flow(acid+alkaline wastestreams)in DMRs. Grab-collect separate grab samples every 4-
hours for 24-hour period from both the acid-and-alkaline]Streams,which w ll- en be composited-separatel by
the lab, and analyzed as separate 24-hr cc osite acid and alkalinee ampl�. omp rte-co lect sere mate grab
samples every 4 hours for 24-hour period m both t e ac d and alkaline/ �ea ,th prepare and i alyze a
single flow-proportioned composite of the cid and 1 ali wlestreanll
4. For compliance purposes,the permittee in t reportt e t t I hlo oforrn mass din based on add on of
separate acid and alkaline chloroforrrr masloads I \
5. Limits are based on Minimum Levels(ML]specrfied in 40 CFR 48 .Ol�,
Definitions:
lb/day—Pounds per day µg/L—Micrograms per liter
pg/L—Picograms per liter

Permit Number: NC0000272
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning upon the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration,the
discharge of wastewater from the hardwood bleach plant to the wastewater treatment plant through
outfall(s) 003 (E3'),shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below and in A. (7.)
Effluent Guideline Sampling Plan Special Condition:
Effluent Characteristics Limits Monitoring Requirements
Monthly : Daily Average Measurement Samp1eType3 Sample
Average Frequency Locations,
Flow' Weekly Calculated E3
Chloroform 7:14lb/day 11.93lb/day Weekly Grab E3
2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo- < 10 pg/L Monthly Composite E3
p-rfiox­m_(TCI)D), F —
2,3 �Tetra—cch1o\- i enzo-I 31.9 p Monthly �Compostte
P-fur
Tichlorosyringol ` I F 2.5 µ Monthly I I Composite E3
3,4,5 Trichlorocatecho I Monthly I ` ompo ite E3
3461Trichlorocatec of I < 5.0 s nthly Composite E3
3, ,5.Trichlorogua0c41 < 2.S/µg/h5 N(or4thly I Composite E3
3,4,61Trichloroguaia of ( < 2. g/L M nthly Composite E3
4, ,6-TncIiloioguaiacol I `f S..5 g/L Monthly I Composite E3!
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol < 2.5 µg/L Monthly Composite E3
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol < 2.5 µg/L' Monthly Composite E3
Tetrachlorocatechol < 5.0 µg/L' Monthly Composite E3
Tetrachloroguaiacol < 5.0 µg/L' Monthly Composite E3
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol < 2.5 µg/L' Monthly Composite E3
Pentachlorophenol < 5.0 pg/L' Monthly Composite E3
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location:E3—'Effluent is composed of Bleach Plant Effluent-acid(acid sewer collected from tap
installed on filtrate pump from C102 bleaching stage D-100)and Bleach Plant Effluent-alkaline(alkaline
sewer collected from tap installed on filtrate pump from alkaline extraction stage Ea).See A. (7.)Effluent
Guideline Sampling Plan Special Condition. "' i
2. Monitoring and flow calculations shall be in accordance with the"Sampling Plan for Cluster Rule Parameters"
(dated March 19,2001)or subsequent modifications approved by the Division. Chemical results for Effluent
Guideline parameters(Internal Outfall 002 parameters+internal Outfall 003 parameters+AOX from Outfall
001)shall be reported on a quarterly basis or more frequently;refer to A. (7.)Effluent Guideline Sampling-Plan
Special Condition.
3. Sample Type: Calculated-calculate separate flows for alkaline and acid sewers by water balance,and report
total bleach plant flow(acid+alkaline wastestreams) in DMRs. Grab-collect separate grab samples every 4-
hours for 24-hour period from both the acid-and-alkaline lstrearns which w111- en be eomposifed-separately by
the lab, and analyzed as separate 24-hr com osite\'d and alkalihe am�e1. trap sit�lect se rate grab
samples every 4 hours for 24-hour period from both re ac d and alin a th� prepare and alyze a
single flow-proportioned composite of the acid and alj�ali!n�-was strearr(
4. For compliance purposes,the permittee mi t reportJ�e tdt d ck li o ofo mass adinrasecd on add fon of,
separate acid and alkaline chloroform mass�loading's� I \
5. Limits are based on Minimum Levels(MI.. I in i0,CFR 4 .OJF
Definitions:
lb/day—Pounds per day µg/L—Micrograms per liter
pg/L—Picograms per liter

Permit Number: NCO0OO272
A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT(QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum,quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the"North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure,"Revised February 1998,or subsequent versions or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"(Revised-February 1998)or subsequent
versions.The tests will be performed during the months of March,June,September,December.Effluent sampling
for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the fast test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit,then multiple-concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum,in each of the two following months as
described in"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"(Revised-February 1998)or
subsequent versions. �--�
Th c mc-valia (Zr multipl cane centration sts will be det ' 'tied using a eo�hic-m an of-the-tu'ghest j
co c ntrafion ha hrig\ o deted le impairm� t f reprod Et nn ti�survival a d e lowest concentration}hlt does
hate detectable ii p irment of reproductioi oy survival T�e fi tion of" let ctable impairment,"col eetion
meth¢ds,exposure r gi es, dLfurther statistidal meth/ are s ec fled in the orth Carolina Phase H Chronic
olI'e Effluent Tox ci Test further
(Rewised-Feb/ ry 199 )t r subsegl�ent version .
Al tdxicity testing es lts re q ' ed as pa o this permit condition-Ti}be enter d on the Effluent Discharg
M ni�oring Form,(( 1)forth months i which tois({vere perfort}eH,using a parameter code TGP3� for the
pa s/{ail results-2n� HP3B for,lthe Chronic Value.y4dditionally,D4tt,Q�Fo -3 (original)is to be se it io the
fo]owin address: U U J
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days
after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete,accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data,and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,the
pemrittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity(AT)test form indicating the
facility name,permit number,pipe number,county,and the month/year of the report with the notation of"No Flow"
in the comment area of the form.The.report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address
cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a anth—in hich axicity om o ' 's requ e$—nsonitotittg will-be
required during the following month. 1
Should any test data from this monitoring rejLi
' ent o st plert�� d by��h� o h C rolina Division Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the recei thi p erni tlna e o-opened a d modified to include
Q tY P P p Uy p L\
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document,such as minimum control organism
survival,minimum control organism reproduction,and appropriate environmental controls,shall constitute an
invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit Number: NC0000272
A. (5.) INSTREAM MONITORING SPECIAL CONDITION
Stream Mile Location Description Parameter Frequency
Designation Marker
UP 63.8 Pigeon River upstream of the Temperature Daily
waste treatment plant outfall D.O. Daily
(prior to mixing with the Conductivity Daily
discharge) Color 2/Week
Flow2 Daily
Fecal coliform Weekly
DNl 62.9 Pigeon River at Fiberville Bridge Temperature Daily
D.O. Daily
Conductivity Daily
Color 2/Week
D ` 57.7 Pigeo River Above Clyde-
Temp iuDaily�
D.O. ! — , 1
Dhl3 \5 .5 Pigeon Mvcr Below Cl'dc \ See Fdothote 3 See Fo 4npte 3
D 4 3. Pigeon River at NCS If 5 See Fdot ote 3 See Footn to 3
bridge /
DN5 �Pigeon ' er at Hep o Temperature Weekly
D . Weekly
Color I 2/Week
\\\ Flown Daily
.O
Waterville Reser�oie See Fdothote t Annuall
D 6 26.0 U Pigeon Riker rib, r,to mixing with\_�olor U VariablcEj
Big Creek
BC -26.0 Mouth of Big Creek prior to Color Variable
mixing with the Pigeon River
DN7 24.7 Pigeon River at Browns Bridge Temperature Weekly
(-NC/TN State Line) D.O. Weekly
Color Variables
All instream samples shall be grab samples.
1. Color(See A. (8.) Color Analysis and Compliance Special Condition) All instream samples collected
shall be representative of the Pigeon River and Big Creek,respectively. Both true and apparent color
shall be monitored using the methods specified iritA. (8) Color Analysis and Compliance Special
Condition. Samples shall be collected at stations DN6,BC, and DN7 only when at least one generator
at CP&L is in operation and releasing water to the Pigeon River.
2. Flow monitoring is necessary, as specified above, for the True Color calculation stipulated in A. (8.)
Color Analysis and Compliance Special Condition.
3. Dissolved Oxygen. The average daily dissolved oxygen concentration measured at River Mile 62.9
(DNl), 57.7 (DN2),shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1 and the instantaneous minimum dissolved oxygen
concentration shall not be less than 4.0 m (See A. (10�. Dissolved Oxygen S ecial Condition . If
the dissolved oxygen drops below 5.0 g/L tati r�-5-7 7-then mom rings 11 be re uir at-stations
55.5 (DN3) and 53.5 (DN4). � �t��
4. See A. (12.) Waterville Reservoir'Sam ling SS e ia�ondi On. /
5. Sampling is required 2/week duringt e summer an nce er weelcdun winter. Summer is
defined as the period from April lh�ot) gh OCtobe 31, J�He yv�nter i�de ed as Nove u er 1
through March 31. L� LJ

Permit Number: NC0000272
A. (6.) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES(BMP)SPECIAL CONDITION
The permittee must implement the BMPs specified in Section A below. The primary BMP objective is to
prevent leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine. A secondary objective is to
contain, collect, and recover at the immediate process area, or otherwise control,those leaks, spills, and
intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine that do occur. BMPs must be
developed according to best engineering practices and must be implemented in a manner that takes into
account the specific circumstances at the mill.
Section A. BMP Implementation Requirements
1. The permittee must return spilled or diverted spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine to the
process to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the mill,recover such materials outside
the process, or discharge spilled or diverted material at a rate that does not disrupt the receiving
wastewa entreatment ys em. -�
2. e perm' eeust estaP
n�to ident� d epair]eakln egmpment items. is rogram
riust include (r�Regula inspection 9f o ess area�tnt equipment items in nt
�ulping liquoni soap,ander�ice; (ii�Imme fate repair 6f leaking equipment ite ,when
I Lea ng equiph�t cannot b�repa ed1 during�norma op rations must
identified,tempo ary means for �igating the leaks mu fe pro de�'d,and the leaking equ pr�nent
i}ems repaired d ng the next m lntenance 9 tage;(i i) d tifica. o of conditions underch
production 11/ a curha ed or halt to repair leaking eqiii ent items or to prevent pulpiLierity
iquor,
soa an& 8ntine left,, ands ills• d i/1., A means for ckin r airs over time to idethose
—pL_ i spills-
( p
Le ems where-upgrade or reel cem nt maybe wa ted sed on frequency and of
leaks,spills, or failures.
3. The permittee must operate continuous, automatic monitoring systems that the mill determines are
necessary to detect and control leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap,
and turpentine.These monitoring systems should be integrated with the mill process control system
and may include,e.g.,high level monitors and alarms on storage tanks;process area conductivity(or
pH)monitors and alarms; and process area sewer,process wastewater,and wastewater treatment plant
conductivity(or pH)monitors and alarms.
4. The permittee must establish a program of initial and refresher training of operators,maintenance
personnel, and other technical and supervisory personnel who have responsibility for operating,
maintaining, or supervising the operation and maintenance of equipment items in spent pulping
liquor, soap,and turpentine service.The refresher training must be conducted at least annually and
the training program must be documented.
5. The permittee must prepare a brief report that evaluates each spill of spent pulping liquor, soap, or
turpentine that is not contained at the immediate process area and any intentional diversion of spent
pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that is not contained at the immediate process area.The report
must describe the equipment items involved, the circumstances leading to the incident,the
effectiveness of the corrective actions taken to contain and recover the spill or intentional diversion,
and plans to develop changes to equipment and operating and maintenance practices as necessary to
prevent recurrence.Discussion of the Torts-must be'adudded as parrtbf the nnua fresher training.
6. The permittee must establish a progra to reVic a planned mo� F ons t the pulpin and
chemical recovery facilities and any c nstructi rac i rt � /the p Ip' an h�ical rec ery areas
before these activities commence. Th urpos f s ch rGv�w is/tb_pr� ent leaks and spill f spent
pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine de ng the//��jj a din Pica(( on a,a to ensure that c struction
and supervisory personnel are aware a�possihI liq dr dive sio and of`t e Hquirement t revent
leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine dunng construction.
7. The permittee must install and maintain secondary containment(i.e., containment constructed of
materials impervious to pulping liquors) for spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks equivalent to the
volume of the largest tank plus sufficient freeboard for precipitation. An annual tank integrity testing
program, if coupled with other containment or diversion structures,may be substituted for secondary
containment for spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks.

Permit Number: NC0000272
8. The permittee must install and maintain secondary containment for turpentine bulk storage tanks.
9. The permittee must install and maintain curbing, diking or other means of isolating soap and
turpentine processing and loading areas from the wastewater treatment facilities.
10. The permittee must conduct wastewater monitoring to detect leaks and spills,to track the
effectiveness of the BMPs, and to detect trends in spent pulping liquor losses. Such monitoring must
be performed in accordance with Section E.
Section B. BMP Plan Requirements
1. The permittee must prepare and implement a BMP Plan.The BMP Plan must be based on a detailed
engineering review as described in this section. The BMP Plan must specify the procedures and the
practices required for the mill to meet the requirements of Section A, the construction the mill
determines is necessary to meet those requirements including a schedule for such construction,and
nitoring progra (including the statistically,de ved action} is _thatmw l be.used-to-mectlh
requirements of Sectio a t.The-BMP lan also m�s s�ecify the p0riodof-time-that the-mil
determines a ction 1evpIs establis a under Sj
' >�may be eCcl eded without triggeri g the
rFsponses sp i�ed in Section E. \\1\\1
2. i he permittee ni copd{rct a detail�d nginee rev e�of the pulping_ant chen cal rec v ry
gperations--in luding butno mitedto proces ipmen , storag6 tanks,-Pipelines and p+ ing
systems,loadi gland un] ading fa lities, anc�Iot{rer-appnrt ant p Ding and chemical recolvIe�y
equipment ite in! pulpmg�, or, soa ,and turper�ti a servtcg--for the purpose of dCtermming
t e magnitude gnd rou{in of potenttia Ic a7spills, and m�er� 'ona' diversions of spent puling
I quors;5o p,/and turpen ine during t{i folJoy�ing periods of bper ti n: (i)Process start-ups a{rd shut
owng,(ii)Maintenanc , (iii) Produc ' n��rr//�dde changes; (rn3 Sto or other weather everrs� (v)
Power failures; and(vi)Normal operations.
3. As part of the engineering review, the permittee must determine whether existing spent pulping liquor
containment facilities are of adequate capacity for collection and storage of anticipated intentional
liquor diversions with sufficient contingency for collection and containment of spills.The engineering
review must also consider: (i)The need for continuous, automatic monitoring systems to detect and
control leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor,soap, and turpentine; (ii)The need for process
wastewater diversion facilities to protect end-of-pipe wastewater treatment facilities from adverse
effects of spills and diversions of spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine; (iii)The potential for
contamination of storm water from the immediate process areas; and(iv)The extent to which
segregation and/or collection and treatment of contaminated storm water from the immediate process
areas is appropriate. n
4. The permittee must amend its BMP Plan whenever there is a change in mill design, construction,
operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential for leaks or spills of spent pulping
liquor,turpentine,or soap from the immediate process areas.
5. The permittee must complete a review and evaluation of the BMP Plan five years after the first BMP
Plan is prepared and,except as provided in Section BA., once every five years thereafter. As a result
of this review and evaluation,the permittee must amend the BMP Plan within three months of the
review if the mill determines that any new or modified management practices and en 'neered controls
are necessary to reduce significantly t likeli�hoQod� peentt, ulpin 1,uor,s ap;and en ne-leaks,
spills,or intentional diversions from th immediate ;o'process,areas,} �c��uding chedule for
implementation of such practices and ntrols � /( `�
6. The BMP Plan, and any amendments ereto, stI�Lre wed�]y the s ro echnica]man ger at the
mill and approved and signed by the i 1 ma dger. y pe�on$iiming��ie B Plan or it
amendments must certify to the Division-under pen of la t{iat the BMP plan(or its amendments)
has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with this
regulation.The permittee is not required to obtain approval from the Division of the BMP Plan or any
amendments thereto.

Permit Number: NCO000272
Section C. BMP Recordkeepine Requirements
1. The permittee must maintain on its premises a complete copy of the current BMP Plan and the
records specified in Section C.2 and must make such BMP Plan and records available to the Division
for review upon request.
2. The permittee must maintain the following records for three years from the date they are created: (i)
Records tracking the repairs performed in accordance with the repair program described in Section A;
(ii)Records of initial and refresher training conducted in accordance with Section A; (iii)Reports
prepared in accordance with Section A; and(iv)Records of monitoring required by Sections A and E.
Section D. Establishment of Wastewater Treatment System Influent Action Levels
1. The permittee must conduct a monitoring program per Section D.2,for the purpose of defining
wastewatertreatment s.. teminfluent characteristi s-(r action ley ) _desorihacl�iniSectinn n� than
will-trigggee�r r7quirements to-initiatee�investigations on, MP effective essand to-take corrective-actionf.
2. �'he perimi$ st empl y the folldwilrg proce irr irl order to dv�lop the action levels re aired by
ection D: � .
MonitoriA�arameters.Tfiepermrttee mu t ollecthour c m osite_sa pesandana athe
samples of or amic content/(e. . C-hemidal Oxy e�Demand(COD) or'l otOrganic ` 1.Alt lively, ! e�mill-rna ste a meas a related to spent pulpi g liquor
]osseeured con nuouslyaverged over 24 h s(e. ., Specific conductivity or olor).
—Momton a locationst The erm{{�� e rr s conduct mogit ringat the point influent enters he
---wastewater treatment system. FOYt�e in
of this r'e�uireyyyit, the permittee may 6'ect
alternate monitoring point(s)in order to isolate possible sources of spent pulping liquor, soap, or
turpentine from other possible sources of organic wastewaters that are tributary to the wastewater
treatment facilities(e.g.,bleach plants,paper machines and secondary fiber operations).
3. By the permit effective date,the permittee must complete an initial six-month monitoring program
using the procedures specified in Section D and must establish initial action levels based on the
results of that program.A wastewater treatment influent action level is a statistically determined
pollutant loading determined by a statistical analysis of six months of daily measurements.The action
levels must consist of a lower action level,which if exceeded will trigger the investigation
requirements described in Section E, and an upper action level,which if exceeded will trigger the
corrective action requirements described in Section E.
4. By January 15, 2002,the permittee must complete a second six-month monitoring program using the
procedures specified in Section D and must establish revised action levels based on the results of that
program.The initial action levels shall remain in effect until replaced by revised action levels.
5. Action levels developed under this Section must be revised using six months of monitoring data after
any change in mill design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential
for leaks or spills of spent pulping liquor,soap, or turpentine from the immediate process areas.
Section E. BMP Monitoring, Corrective Action an\d R ortin , )e uirem�nts
1. The permittee must conduct daily mo i oring 4� he influe t fo the a twat IOr tr-tment s �s em in
accordance with the procedures desen din Sec ro ' fo the pu ose o delei tleaks aj� spills,
tracking the effectiveness of the BMP!�,and detectin trend¢�in e nnt pu p l quor losses.)
2. Whenever monitoring results exceed the lower action level fo the period.--{i e specified in the
BMP Plan, the permittee must conduct an investigation to determine the cause of such exceedance.
Whenever monitoring results exceed the upper action level for the period of time specified in the
BMP Plan, the permittee must complete corrective action to bring the wastewater treatment system
influent mass loading below the lower action level as soon as practicable.
3. Although exceedances of the action levels will not constitute violations of an NPDES permit, failure
to take the actions required by Section E.2 as soon as practicable will be a permit violation.

Permit Number: NC0000272
4. The permittee must report to the Division the results of the daily monitoring conducted pursuant to
Section E.L Such reports must include a summary of the monitoring results, the number and dates of
exceedances of the applicable action levels, and brief descriptions of any corrective actions taken to
respond to such exceedances. Submission of such reports shall be annually,by March 315`of the
following year.
Section F. BMP Compliance Deadlines
1. The permittee is subject to the following BMP deadlines:
• Prepare BMP Plans and certify to the Division that the BMP Plan has been prepared in
accordance with this regulation not later than the permit effective date.
• Implement all BMPs specified in Section A that do not require the construction of containment or
diversion structures or the installation of monitoring and alarm systems not later than the permit
--effective date.
i—Esta lis m�tial ac 'o -levels.required by Sec o + not later t�j
th of ective date
Corn 6 cc operatlor of any ne o upgraded o ti uous, autpatic monitoring systems at the
mill detemes to Ilhhvv necessary n er Secti n A ter than th associated with con ction of
contains tlor di err ion struc re not la��, an(h permit eff�Etiee da e.
Complete o strugqtion�Eo�m ence op anon ofl spent pulpinglig6or,collection,
containmentJdivez i in or o facilities 4cluding' assoc a�ed continuous monito>in
systems,}��edessar t fully i 1 ment B s specified Secho�A not later than the pe it
effectiivve Ate.
Estab"hsh/revised act on levels r8 d're b Section D a soon as ossible after full tm le entin
P Y P g
Ire 13 Ps specified Section A,b t t later than Janildy 15—,2002.
• Submit,Annual Reports required by Section EA to the Division by March 3151 of the following
year.
Section G. BMP Definitions
1. Action Level: A daily pollutant loading that when exceeded triggers investigative or corrective action.
Mills determine action levels by a statistical analysis of six months of daily measurements collected at
the mill.For example, the lower action level may be the 75th percentile of the running seven-day
averages(that value exceeded by 25 percent of the running seven-day averages) and the upper action
level may be the 90th percentile of the running seven-day averages(that value exceeded by 10
percent of the running seven-day averages). 4
2. Division: North Carolina DENR,Division of Water Quality, 1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-1617.
3. Equipment Items in Spent Pulping Liquor, Soap, and Turpentine Service: Any process vessel,storage
tank,pumping system, evaporator,heat exchanger,recovery furnace or boiler,pipeline,valve, fitting,
or other device that contains,processes,transports, or comes into contact with spent pulping liquor,
soap, or turpentine. Sometimes referred to as "equipment items."
4. Immediate Process Area: The location at the mill where pulping, screening,knottingii pulp washing,
pulping liquor concentration,pulping iquorp�rgcess r�g-an�hemieal ecov -faciiit'es-ar located,
generally the battery limits of the afor Lanks
❑❑e ocesses "I ed} e r ess area"inc des spent
pulping liquor storage and spill controllo�ciate �t-the 11 w��eme or of the are to ted in the
immediate process area. i5. Intentional Diversion:The planned remf s en ulpin��lic 6 r, soap turpentine fro
equipment items in spent pulping liquor'soap, or entine service by tlh_mill for any p ose '
including,but not limited to, maintenance,grade changes,or process shutdowns.
6. Mill: The owner or operator of a direct or indirect discharging pulp,paper, or paperboard
manufacturing facility subject to this section.
7. Senior Technical Manager: The person designated by the mill manager to review the BMP Plan. The
senior technical manager shall be the chief engineer at the mill,the manager of pulping and chemical

Permit Number: NC0000272
recovery operations, or other such responsible person designated by the mill manager who has
knowledge of and responsibility for pulping and chemical recovery operations.
8. Soap: The product of reaction between the alkali in kraft pulping liquor and fatty acid portions of the
wood,which precipitate out when water is evaporated from the spent pulping liquor.
9. Spent Pulping Liquor: For kraft and soda mills "spent pulping liquor"means black liquor that is used,
generated, stored, or processed at any point in the pulping and chemical recovery processes.
10. Turpentine: A mixture of ter-penes, principally pinene, obtained by the steam distillation of pine gum
recovered from the condensation of digester relief gases from the cooking of softwoods by the kraft
pulping process. Sometimes referred to as sulfate turpentine.
RAF
RA

Permit Number: NC0000272
A. (7.) EFFLUENT GUIDELINE SAMPLING PLAN SPECIAL CONDITION
The bleach plant effluent samples (Outfalls 002 and 003) shall be analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
accordance with EPA Method 1613. A single sample, from each of the bleach plant effluents,may be
analyzed to determine compliance with the daily maximum effluent limitation. Alternatively, the sample
volumes may be collected to enable the sample to be split(duplicate analysis). If the analysis of either
split sample is below the Minimum Level (ML),the quantity is considered to be zero for compliance
evaluation. If both splits are positive,the results of two analyses shall be averaged to determine
compliance. The Minimum Level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD by EPA Method 1613 is 10 pg/L.
The bleach plant effluent samples (Outfall 002 and 003)shall be analyzed for the 12 chlorinated phenolic
compounds in accordance with EPA Method 1653. A single sample,from each of the bleach plant
effluents,may be analyzed to determine compliance with the daily maximum effluent limitation.
Alternatively, the sample volumes maybe collected to enable the sample to be split(duplicate analysis). .
If a ana ysis-of either spl samp a is be�ow the Minimu Level (M a quanri is consi ere to e
ze'o for corn ]ie evaluation. If hot pl'ts are po in he results f o analyses shall be v rage to
de erFmne compliance. The Minimum L v is for ea h/o , 12 chlorinated compounds are th s me as
theDaily Maximum once r ations liste o thee -u nt p �ges for the respective outfall(s).
The final wastewa�er�treatrre tplan a fluent sam le Outf t 01) sh 1 e ana yzed for AOX
accoidance with$P�A Metho 1650, r ubsequept Sest_method appro�e l by the Division.
The permitteymay'request ture monk n g oodifications to h Efflµe it Guideline require�{e is
indludingl)-use of ECF certification in.11i of96nitoring for c rofdrm in the bleach plant eFtltlents
(Outfall(s)002 and 003)when this rule is promulgated by EPA; 2)demonstrating compliance using
samples collected less frequently than every four hours; 3)using automated composite volatile samplers
for chloroform sampling; and 4)using automated composite samplers for chlorophenolic,2,3,7,8 TCDD
and 2,3,7,8 TCDF sampling. Such future requests will be evaluated in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0114.
The flow calculations for internal Outfall(s) 002 and 003 shall not be subject to accuracy requirements
specified under Part II, Section D.3. This exclusion is similar to that provided for pump log flow
calculations.
Chemical data for Effluent Guideline parameters (Outfall(s) 002 and 003 parameters+AOX from Outfall
001) shall be submitted to the Division on a quarterly basis or more frequently(January-March,April-
June,July-September, October-December). Quarterly submissions shall be due 60 days following the
last day of each quarter(Due dates=May 31,August 31,November 30,February 28). Chemical data
shall be submitted on Division-approved DMR forms, with a separate form provided for each month.

• 1
Permit Number: NC0000272
A. (8.) REQUIREMENTS FOR COLOR ANALYSIS AND COMPLIANCE SPECIAL CONDITION
1. The average daily discharge of true color for each calendar month shall not exceed 48,000 pounds per
day. The annual average effluent true color loading shall not exceed 55,000 pounds per day. For the
purpose of this permit/variance only, "pounds of true color"is calculated by the following equation:
Effluent Flow(mgd)x Effluent True Color Level
(Platinum Cobalt Units) x 8.34.
2. All samples collected for color analysis and for use in the above calculation shall be measured and
reported as true color and apparent color using the,procedure referenced in FR 39 430.11 (b) (May 29,
1974) -true and apparent color.®I^a3 IrWe 'I, G
�i 3. Blue Ri ge Vaper has akead Gegdnlhe process o die tifying an 'implementing possible process
ptim zat o r�easures� hich can—be Yaken to full r�duce color discharges arges from the mil . The
ermittee isr ted t9 c ntinue evalua ng mill/oper�ti\nsith t e oal of fully identifyinopportunities {o preventing and contrglling me'as abjekliq o leaks and sps (Best
anagement Pra tice —�BMPs)'Sueh BMPs//�n lude be not imite to:Continuous i proe t-of o erating prac ces so leaks a d spills are recovered her than
discharge t sewer,v Improve e t in preparation f g ize a iture of tank clean-ou Jaste and
routin t oveq�;
—Reduction of cleanwater that%,tanne,,/�'F.;��,.
iilii)Uy runs into se�tdptevent dilution of smaller spills
and facilitate recovery of highly colored wastewaters; and
Improvement in the equipment used for handling of knot rejects to prevent black liquor leaks into
the recovery sumps. y
4. Beginning December 1,2003, the annual average discharge of true color shall not exceed 42;000 5
pounds per day and the monthly average color loading shall not exceed 49,000 pounds per day. V
However, if by October 1,2003,the Division of Water Quality(DWQ�in consultation with the a d
Technical Review eeWOrk ro i and the NPDES Committee agree that there are
overwhelming technical, economic, or operational barriers to the Permittee's ability to attain the
above-stated color loading limits,DWQ(in consultation with the Technical Review 60
r
IINII?/p( teeWorkerouu) shall recommend to the NPDES Committee,alternate interim limits to NNrOI--t{
become effective December 1,2003. At that time,DWQ (in consultation with the Technical Review Q�
Workgroup) shall recommend a new effective date for achieving an annual average color loading
limit of 42,000 pounds per day. These recommendations shall be based on what DWQ (in
consultation with the Technical Review Workgroup)concludes Blue Ridge Paper can reasonably
achieve, giving consideration to the actual demonstrated color levels discharged and process
( optimizations implemented pursuant to Special Condition A. (8.)Paragraph 3. Based on DWQ's
recommendations,the NPDES Comm fee it dete—ine-h altema mten Ito-beck
effective on December 1,2003, and the new of ctivdate �i achiiet n an ual average o]or
� — -
loading limit of 42,000 pounds per day. After ES'mm't�ee� final ecis on,the DES
Permit will be modified in accordance with Noo C olina s pc4ml itting rocep
5. The permittee shall submit to the Divi ion of Water uali\ he 3e hn I I iew Workgr p and
the NPDES Committee by December 1,2002,a report on the feasibility of achieving a target annual
average color loading within the range of 36.006 pounds per day and 39,000 pounds per day. This
report shall include identified process improvements and any other actions that would result in
additional color reductions, actions taken by the permittee to reduce color loading (since permit
issuance), and the technical,economic, and operational feasibility of implementing the identified
process improvements on a continuous or intermittent basis,in order to achieve a target annual

Permit Number: NC0000272
average within the range of 36,000 pounds per day and 39,006 pounds per day. The intermittent
application of these technologies shall look at periods of low flow in the Pigeon River. The report
shall identify specific economic and implementation issues associated with the improvements. The
report shall also project expected additional color reduction for each technology evaluated and
maximum color reduction possible using the identified technologies. The permittee shall provide this
evaluation/report,together with an updated report on the results of ongoing and additional planned
color reduction activities,to the Division of Water Quality,the Technology Review Workgroup and
the NPDES Committee.By February 1, 2003,DWQ (in consultation with the Technical Review
Committee) shall approve or modif)d Blue Ridge Paper's recommended plan for achieving the T5,J1:54k42
36,000—39;000 pounds per day target annual average. `L- 1 /
6. By October 1, 2005,Blue Ridge Paper shall submit as relatV to the implementation of the process W
improvements evaluated according to Special Condition A.._6.)Paragraph 5, a statistical analysis of
ueBid a Paper's effluent-and-feasibility report Qn olor reducti nlechnotogies associated with th
..hlorid RetTval Pro�ess—Thisrepb�t shall inlaid a�statistical p atysis.of-the-blbe-Ridge Paper!
monthl av a e and a al avera color dischdrgge,rill erforma cc as related to color, 1
lwailabl n cessar� �O derive th l9west achietab etarmual avenge and monthly avera e�color
ading limits. B Nove ber 1,200_ , the Divi io�i of ter Qual ty(1tLc9 Itation with tyr
Technical Re ew Woikgroup�s`h`ll recomme consil 'ng,thetatisticalalysis report lsbmitted
I the permitt end the demonstrated perfo a ceroftl�e ill,the lowest achievable annu I average
and monthly ve�rage color loadin effluent 1 itations-If t e limits determined to be achievable are
wrthin the to get range e limits s ai beco .effective o�n ecem,ber 1, 2005,by written ndification
fromthe'I5i ector. U U
This report also shall evaluate and report on color reduction technologies associated with the Chloride
Removal Process (CRP)wastestream. The CRP analysis shall concentrate on the technical,
economic, and operational feasibility of implementing the identified technologies.The report shall
identify specific economic and implementation issues associated with the improvements. The report
shall also project expected additional color reduction for each technology evaluated and maximum
color reduction possible using the identified technologies. The Division of Water Quality(in
consultation with the Technical Review Workgroup) shall evaluate the feasibility of implementing
//0(re identified technologies for further color reduction and shall submit to the NPDES Committee by
D c her 1;2495,DWQ's recommendations regarding color reductions associated the treatment of
the CRP wastestream.
7. By March 1, 2006,the permittee shall submit a report to Division of Water Quality,the Technical
Review Workgroup and the NPDES Committee on the comparative evaluation of the collective
efforts as part of the Variance review process(Triennial Review of North Carolina's Water Quality
Standards). This report shall also include an evaluation of color in the Pigeon River at the Fiberville
Bridge, and an evaluation on the feasibility of complying with North Carolina's Color Standard by
the permit expiration date.
8. The 1997 Settlement Agreement contai d—pro sio �'to t Colo- ' the Pi con-RR era he-Hepco
USGS gauge station. The new efflue t limits rn�thi ermit arse more 'n eu;than the ro sions in
the 1997 Permit and Color Variance ariwill rel It n�reduced Colo leY is (the Pi eon Rzer. It is
possible to calculate the monthlyflow+at the Ca ton a estatron/a�ove hic mstream colol at the
Fiberville Bridge will not exceed 50 ttrurI a colors its U�sin�the 55,0 un per daym%fh]
f ! average true color loading limit(impleme to ed�on th -dffecti, date of th11erin�itt) the flow ai the
Canton Gage station,which will provide for color less than 50 true color units at the Fiberville Bridge
is 171.8 MGD. Therefore,the monthly average color in the Pigeon River at the Fiberville Bridge
shall be less than 50 true color units whenever the monthly average flow(at the Canton gage station)
(/ is greater than 171.8 MGD.

Permit Number: NC0000272
9. The governing flow criterion for color at Canton is 58.1 MGD (30Q2 stream flow). The flow
established pursuant to Special Condition A. (8.)Paragraph 10 is greater than this 30Q2 stream flow,
therefore, for flows less than the 171.8 MGD at the Canton Gage station but greater than 193.3 MGD
at the Hepco gage station,the monthly average elor in the Pigeon River at Hepco s},l e less than
50 true color units. fine
10. Beginning December 1,2003,the monthly average true color loading limit is reduced to 49,00Q
pounds per day. The flow at the Canton Gage station,which will provide for color less than 50 true
color units at the Fiberville Bridge is 1314 MGD. Therefore,beginnin December 1,2003, the
monthly average color in the Pigeon River at the Fiberville Bridge sbe'less than 50 true color
units whenever the monthly average flow(at the Canton gage station) is greater than.152.4 MGD.For
flows less than the 1514 MGD at the Canton Gage station but greater than 193.3 MGD at the Hepco
gage station, the monthly average color in the Pigeon River at Hepco shall be less than 50 true color
unit
s stA ipulateSpecial S ondition )Paragr pr�1,�f by Octo e 1,2003,the Division o Water
Quality(DW ) (in cons ]tation wit Techn))c RWew Co ee)and the NPDES Cd ittee
agree that the ae overhelminl cl}iical, ecbomic of operati naLbava to the Perm'tt e's
ability to attar the 42 000 pounds per day mo t y aveta e color 1 4�WU shall recalcu'la a the
eow above w icr com�llance 'th�the 50 trueoloruni�li it is epected,based on the intFrm limit
stablished b tl e NPI�EtS committee. At t4 time DWQ .in con u tation with the Techn',C ha
eview W�Ykgroup) s6,ail recomm�n, �1,a new gjffective date or ac ieng the provisions ofs
Paragraph. / ILJI \U\ U \U\
11. The potential exist that there could still be periods of time corresponding to periods of lower flow in
the river, when color at Fiberville might exceed 50 true color units. Therefore,the permittee shall
continue to implement th contingency plan for mitigating the occurrence and degree of these
potential exceedences. / / l-04o glow C044 �a )
12. The permittee shall not increase the mill's pulp production capacity during the term of this permit,
unless the permittee can demonstrate that the increased production can be achieved while reducing
color loading. In addition, increasing the mill's pulp production capacity may require permit revision
in accordance with North Carolina's NPDES Permitting rules.
13. The NPDES Permit shall be subject to reopening in order to modify the color requirements based
upon the following and in association with the required triennial reviews:
• Any breakthrough in color removal technologies. Such breakthroughs shall be brought to the
NPDES Committee for consideration,by Blue Ridge Paper and the Division of Water Quality, as
soon as they are discovered.
• An acceptable statistical analysis of effluent color discharge data demonstrating significantly
better color removal performance than that currently prescribed in the variance and permit.
• Successful application of end-of-pipecolor reduction technA4nrd
mill c minimization
effort that results in significant an P - able;Gdnced, acl�aFge. ��
14. The transfer of this NPDES ermit wi 1 7not ro qed fil-an s —interest to the c ent
owner has agreed to accept the provisi� is pelt a recei red from the QPDES
Committee a transfer of 2001 Revised ol� 'an e u

Permit Number: NC0000272
15. A. (9.) DIOXIN MONITORING SPECIAL CONDITION
The permittee shall perform the analyses for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDF as outlined below:
Sampling Point Monitoring-
Re uirements
Measurement Sample Type
Fre uenc
Influent to Wastewater Quarterly Composite
Treatment Plant
Effluent Quarterly Composite
Sludge Annual Composite
Landfill Leachate Annual Composite
T e ample anal ed f�2,3,7, -TCDD an 3,7; TCDF i acc' ordance with EPA M
16 3 Ire
sa le ma, l�e analyzed ltemati e , t e ample v lumes may be collected o tenable
the s mple to be s li (duplicate analysts) e M�'ryt um L Vel for 2, ,7,8 TC—D and 2,3,7,8 DF by
E A Method 161 is 10 pgFTCDFa
/
if ,3,7,8 TCD o 2,3,7I e1detected m the efflu t ab ve the quanhtation le a the
e itteeshall i itiaterriuenni 6 n of slud` nd landfill leachate.
p L/ g U LJ
Additional Requirements
Fish tissue analysis shall be performed in accordance with the Division of Water Quality approved
monitoring plan,which will be reviewed as necessary. The monitoring plan is an enforceable part of this
permit. All dioxin data collected as part of this monitoring requirement will be reported as required in the
plan,no later than 180 days after sampling.
r
DRA

Permit Number: NC0000272 ,
A. (10.) DISSOLVED OXYGEN SPECIAL CONDITION
The permittee shall maintain an average daily dissolved oxygen concentration of not less than 5.0 mg/1
with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/I at River Miles 62.9 (DNI), 57.7 (DN2), and
55.5 (DN3). The permittee shall operate oxygen injection facilities at the outfall structure,at 0.9 miles
downstream of the discharge, and at 2.1 miles downstream of the discharge, as necessary, to comply with
this requirement. These facilities shall be operated in a manner which will maintain the water quality
standard for dissolved oxygen in the Pigeon River downstream of the discharge. Blue Ridge Paper shall
report the date and duration of oxygen injection use as a supplement to the monthly Discharge Monitoring
Report(DMR) forms. If the dissolved oxygen drops below 5.0 mg/L at station DN2 then monitoring shall
be required at stations DN3 and DN4.
A. (11.) TOWN OF CANTON INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SPECIAL CONDITION
The-permittee shall make continued-efforts to promot red ction of in ow/infltration to4he-Town-of
Canton's-wastewater colle(tioln-system \�� \�
A. (12.) ERV LLE RESER�VOIR SAM L G S ECIAL O DITION
Sa ling for Wat Ile Ri servoir-shall-,bZcondu t ei Once annually during and 2004. Sampling
sh Ilbe performed d 'ng a 1 w fl periods to corresp9nd rth the fiJhI1
issue study(see A. (!.) Toxin
M njtorin S ecii I ondi 40
Sand shal�lie -erfotmd at Wate '' Rest' rior toAael Bch,Waterville Rese of near
W]kins Creek a d Watery 11 Reservoir ear th�d�ir
Each vion be sampled for the of owing
pa'ame ers:
PARAMETERS
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
H
Total Nitrogen
Nitrite+Nitrate
Ammonia
TKN
PO4
Total Phosphorus
Chloro hyll-a
Secchi Depth
+ All samples shall be collected at 0.1 meters beneath the surface of the water in the lake.
A. (13.) TEMPERATURE VARIAI W PECI ) CO ION
During the next permit renewal,Blue Rid Paper hall1an an alysi of e�perature an shall
submit a balanced and indigenous species dy,no late ha ay 1,20D61,�As art of this anaysis, Blue
Ridge Paper shall submit a complete temp a an rep d ciimenting the need for a cb,t�inued
temperature variance. ��� LI L
The study shall be performed in accordance with the Division of Water Quality approved plan. Request
for revisions to this plan shall be submitted for approval no later than March 1,2005. The temperature
analysis and the balanced and indigenous study plan shall conform to the specifications outlined in 40
CFR 125 Subpart H and the EPA's Draft 316a Guidance Manual, dated 1977.

1 -
BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
May 18, 2001
Mr. Don Anderson j, M4r
Chief, Commodities Branch 2
Engineering and Analysis Division , ._r t; s �2001
USEPA Headquarters (4303)
Room 195A, East Tower
401 M. Street L %F
Washington, D.C.- 20460
RE: EPA Tech Team Draft
May 4,2001
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Please find attached Blue Ridge Paper Products Ines comments on the Draft May 4, 2001 EPA
Tech Team Report. While Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc is committed to further color
reductions, we believe the Draft May 4 Report has several technical deficiencies, under estimates
the capital cost for the referenced process changes and over estimates the potential color benefits
and cost savings.
Mr. Norm Liebergott, Ph.D., President of Liebergott & Associates Consulting Inc. and Mr.
Lewis Shackford, Vice President, GL&V Pulp Group Inc. have reviewed this draft report and
their comments are included in the attachment.
Comments on the Economic Analysis will be submitted to Mr. David Hoadley under a separate
cover. Table 3 in the Economic Analysis will need to be updated to reflect these comments.
If you have any questions please contact me at [phone] or Bob Williams at (828) 646-
2033.
Sincerely,
P-e G
Derric Brown
Manager, Environmental Affairs
copy: Mr. Mark Perez
'1GIi•. Forrest Westall?
175 Main Street • P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 Phone: [phone]
Raising Your Expectations

Comments to EPA Tech Team
Page 1 of 5
May 18, 2001
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. has the following comments, by section, on the EPA Tech Team
DRAFT May 4, 2001 Report.
Background and History
The correct name is Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. not Blue Ridge Paper Product, Inc. (no
comma). Please refer to Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. as Blue Ridge rather than BRPP.
Process Improvements Analyzed by the Tech Team
While Blue Ridge does not have a specific comment on this section, we are concerned about the
technical feasibility, capital and operating costs and potential color reductions as presented in
this Report. An explanation of these concerns is shown below.
(1). BFR Reliability Jmprovement
Blue Ridge continues to target an 80% closure rate of the D1 and Eo filtrates on the pine
fiberline. This is the originally planned closure rate for the full-scale commercial operation of
the BFR process. The objectives of the BFR demonstration project were to determine the
technical, operational and economic feasibility of the BFR process to achieve the maximum
closure of the pine fiberline. A planned target was not defined during the demonstration project;
because;at that time, we did not know what the closure limits would be while still maintaining a
stable bleaching operation with the BFR process.
The obstacles to achieving a sustained pine fiberline closure of 80% are related to the operational
reliability of the BFR equipment, primarily the Metals Removal Process (MRP). Blue Ridge is
committed to undertake improvements to the MRP process in order to maintain an 80% pine
fiberline closure rate.
These improvements include a new media filter and softener, rebuilding piping and valves, and
changing materials of construction to better withstand the harsh environment (corrosive, erosive,
deposition). Blue Ridge estimates the cost of these improvements to be approximately
$1,300,000 and requests this cost be included in the economic analysis.
(2). Improved Black Liquor Leak and Spill Collection and Control
The plot on page 4 is mislabeled. The plot should be labeled as thousands of pounds per day
instead of kg/t.
On page 4, the description of the plot states: "The high variability of color discharge is attributed
to color peaks that represent unplanned spills or leaks discharged to sewers or intentional
diversions of highly-colored black liquor or other color sources routed to sewers during mill
equipment shutdown." First, this plot is wastewater treatment plant influent color and not
discharged color as stated. Second, there are other potentially significant contributors to this
influent color variability including primary influent turbidity, BFR operation and uptime,

Comments to EPA Tech Team
Page 2 of 5
May 18, 2001
operational upsets in pulping, bleaching and chemical recovery (normal process operational
variability, not spills), and sewer generated color, which is believed to be impacted by BFR
operation. An analysis of the specific variability during the referenced period could be
conducted when the exact dates are identified.
The analysis that ... "limiting the primary clarifier influent color to 70,000 Ibs/day (by
eliminating color peaks and preventing highly colored flows from reaching the wastewater
treatment system) would reduce the discharge to the treatment system by 8,000 lbs/day
equivalent to a 6,100 lbs/day decrease in the average final effluent color load" is inaccurate.
This approach assumes the wastewater treatment plant removal efficiency is the same on all
influent colors. Blue Ridge has determined that brown color, the color component here, is
preferentially treated in the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, the ability to capture this
much additional color and the estimates of potential effluent color reduction are over stated by
2,000 to 4,000 lbs/day. However,we agree there are opportunities to reduce brown color.
Therefore, the color reduction estimates are too high and the estimated costs are too low.
(3). Ozone/Chlorine Dioxide Stage for Hardwood Bleach Line
Blue Ridge agrees that laboratory and bleaching trials are required to reliably predict the
technical and economic feasibility and associated potential color reduction. Based on a thorough
evaluation by Norman Liebergott, PhD of Liebergott and Associates Inc. and Mr. Lewis
Shackford, Vice President, GL&V Pulp Group, a major supplier to the pulp and paper industry,
the estimated upper bound filtrate discharge color benefit from this approach is overstated by
2,850 lbs/day. Based on their review of the mill, and the Domtar Mill at Espanola, Ontario,
Canada experience, they estimated the potential filtrate color discharge, at Canton, to be
approximately 3,550 pounds per day, an estimate at the low end of the Tech Team's estimate.
Blue Ridge is unable to confirm, at this time, the availability and cost of the power for the ozone
generation system. The Tech Team assumes Blue Ridge will purchase ozone from a third party
supplier willing to enter into a long-term contract. Blue Ridge does not know that this is an
available option at this time. Therefore, Blue Ridge would incur the capital cost of the ozone
generation system and, potentially, the cost for additional power supply capability.
(4). 2"d Stage OD for Pine Line, With Increased BFR Closure
A Technical Review of commercial installations and laboratory data does not support a 66%
kappa reduction shown in the report. Maximum sustainable kappa reductions in the 50-55%
range are achievable with OD systems. Furthermore, the Tech Team takes credit for both a yield
increase and a chemical savings. A 2"d stage of 02 delignification could be used to achieve a
yield increase and subsequent cost savings; however, with this approach there would be no
reduction in color as the kappa number to the bleach plant would essentially be the same as
today. However, the alternative approach, maintaining the same kappa from cooking, could be
used to achieve a color reduction with a lower kappa to the bleach plant. Therefore, the cost
savings are too high and the yield and chemical cost savings cannot be achieved along with color

Comments to EPA Tech Team
f Page 3 of 5
May 18, 2001
reduction. In addition, if the new digester option is the final selected option for NOx
compliance, a 2 stage OD system is not expected to provide any significant color reduction
benefits.
Blue Ridge believes a kappa reduction from approximately 25 to 12 is achievable with 2 OD
stages. However, a yield credit cannot be assigned. The Tech Team reports the current
softwood pulp kappa to be approximately 24. The Canton Mill's softwood pulp kappa is actually
closer to 25. Assuming a kappa reduction to 12 and approximately the same bleached pulp tons,
the 1,500 to 2,000 lbs/day influent reduction is a reasonable color reduction estimate. Therefore,
chemical cost savings would be the only credit or savings and these savings must be offset by
steam, power, oxygen and white liquor use.
The maximum estimated reduction (by Shackford) in flow from reduced C1O2 usage on the pine
line with a 2 stage OD system is 25 gpm not 50 gpm. Therefore, Blue Ridge is not capable of
increasing the bleached filtrate recycle rate to 93%. In addition, Blue Ridge has found that 80%
closure is about the maximum closure rate technically feasible to maintain a metals purge (in
addition to MRP). Therefore, Blue Ridge cannot increase the recycle rate to 93% or achieve an
additional 1,950 Ibs/day reduction in beach plant color. It also appears this estimated color
reduction was taken from the pine bleach plant color at 74% closure. Additional color savings,
even if a 93% closure were possible, must be calculated from the decreased bleach plant color
given 80% closure and the 2"a OD stage.
Liebergott and Shackford believe there is not enough wash water used on the pine line now,
further limiting the hydraulic capability to recycle bleach filtrate. In bleaching, a certain amount
of water must be used to get good washing efficiency. Shackford believes, and Blue Ridge
agrees, that any cost savings from the 2"a OD stage installation would be lost in additional
chemical consumption and fiberline down time from reducing wash water usage, if such
reductions were even manageable.
(S). Color Precipitation of CRP from Stream as primary influent color
In the first paragraph, the CRP color contribution of 6,000 Ibs/day should be characterized as
primary influent color. The statement reads like this 6,000 lbs/day is discharged (effluent) color.
Blue Ridge agrees with the analysis that lime treatment of the CRP stream is not a feasible color
reduction option. Blue Ridge requests the report be revised to recommend additional review of
other innovative technologies for color treatment of the CRP purge stream rather than other
innovative technologies for color precipitation of the CRP purge stream. Precipitation
technologies do not hold a great deal of promise due to the solid waste generated and the high
cost of application and waste disposal. Therefore, Blue Ridge intends to review a broader array
of color treatment technologies for this purge stream.

Comments to EPA Tech Team
Page 4 of 5
May 18, 2001
Color Reduction Summary
1. The 6,000 lbs/day final effluent color reduction estimate from improving BFR reliability,
black liquor leak and spill collection and control is too high. The estimate of effluent
color reduction from the application of these approaches could be in the range of 2,000—
4,000 lbs/day.
2. The 3,000— 6,400 lbs/day preliminary primary influent color reduction estimate for a ZD
stage on hardwood is too high. As discussed earlier, Liebergott and Shackford estimate a
3,550 lbs/day influent color reduction with this approach.
3. The 1,500 to 2,000 lbs/day preliminary influent color reduction estimate for the 2 stage
OD system is in the appropriate range (with the incoming kappa number remaining at 25
into the OD systems).
4. Blue Ridge agrees there is normally 6,000 lbs/day of primary influent color from the
CRP. However, at this time, no known technically, economically or operationally
feasible color treatment technology has been identified. Therefore, anticipated future
color reductions from this source should not be included in final estimates for future mill
color reductions. However, Blue Ridge is committed to evaluating potential color
treatment options. Furthermore, Blue Ridge believes CRP color is preferentially treated
in the wastewater treatment plant and the net impact on secondary effluent color would
expected to be much less than 4,800 lbs/day.

Comments to EPA Tech Team
y Page 5 of 5
May 18, 2001
Economic Analysis
Blue Ridge's estimated capital and operating costs for process improvements one through four
are summarized below.
Table 1: Estimated Costs
Potential
Capital Cost Annual Color Color
Process Improvement ($) O&M Reduction Benefit
($/year) Benefit Location
Lbs/day
1 BFR Reliability Improvement $1,300,000 $85,000 1,000— 1,200 Effluent
2 Improved black liquor leak and $100,000 $50,000 1,000-3,000 Effluent
spill collection and control.
Ozone/Chlorine Dioxide stage for $1,500,000- ($350,000) Filtrate
3 hardwood bleach line 2,000,000"' ") savings 3,550 Discharge
2"d stage OD for pine line with $2,500 000—(2) ($800,000 - Filtrate
4 increased BFR closure 3,000,000 1,200,000) 1,500—2,000 Discharge
savings
(1) Installed costs for the Ozone generation and power supply systems are estimated to be far
in excess of an additional $3,000,000.
(2) Additional cost is required due to the constructability of this system in this area of the
mill.
Appendix 4: Two-stage Oxygen Delignification
Blue Ridge recommends changing the input kappa number from 32 to 25 and the output kappa to
12 and eliminating the yield credit.

tl 11
C9 O
i
do'N�fl�►n��17r��»N �S Sf � 0.5� N�Bgr,>.W Nif1 fln�, t� -��?N--
rcr� l:ro 5'Imva s s19
—� -YYIO •�auu a a�nt�
'_
r�� N�s sgoS-��C r spa N��MQ�N rv° 'l� Nv�rr. — —
:y 91b��j c3�,tL• ��� �z� ?J�1 ���? J gn
zC�fl '$ 8922 7 $2g 2'f1 S,
v7
L9 9 9 S�� 1 ;
> .a�eP;s �a-ag�°co���l£L°-�Jh�9Z-$ C}d � `.C*�}��.�s7��
( 'M 6-g e7fi SWwl r�Yl
�wva- 5,9 z/g/" E29 001j ✓""'l11 lq JYJ dy .�vv� I I U7/'7T ..,,a� —
I,vw a zzzz ' •
� OgzZOE
aar,..,o�yra�s sCEb-zgs peb• -� : d�- � S ��
y16w_�7 'ON _ rve 64 Nc717�7«Iy L! w
1069Z r-i�bvw 415 a1"5 M 1 y _ l;

BLUE RIDGE JUL - 2 2001
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILL RE_=!ALOfF10E
June 27, 2001
Dr. Luanne Williams
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch
Parker Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Boulevard
1912 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1912
RE: Pigeon River Dioxin in Fish
Dear Dr. Williams:
Attached is the information that we discussed concerning Pigeon River dioxin in fish tissue
analysis from 1996-2000. Since 1990 annual fish tissue surveys of the Pigeon River have been
conducted in August by the Canton Mill. EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc. has
collected all of the fish tissue samples. While the name has changed the same laboratory in
Sacramento, California (Enseco 1990-1994, Quanterra 1995-1999, Severn Trent 2000) has
conducted all of the fish tissue analysis.
The attached information includes the following:
Attachment I Location Maps
Attachment II Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill
Fish Tissue Results Summary
1996-2000
Attachment III 1996 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment IV 1997 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment V 1998 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment VI 1999 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment VII 2000 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
175 Main Street • P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • Phone:[phone]
Raising Your Expectations

r
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
Y
Attachment II includes a summary of the fish tissue results for 1996-2000. The toxicity
equivalency factors (TEFs) are from the World Health Organization (WHO/97, van Leeuwen,
1997) and applied to all 17 CDD/F isomers. As we discussed, a value of zero was applied to the
toxicity equivalence calculation (TEQ) when the CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the
level of detection. As shown in Attachment III, all sport fish in North Carolina have been below
the level of detection for all 17 CDD/F isomers since 1996 (Station 5 is in Tennessee). The
TEQ's for all catfish are either zero or below 3ppt. The TEQ's for carp in the main stem of the
Pigeon River are also below 3ppt. However, the TEQ's for Stations 4A and 4B, in Walters Lake,
remain above 3ppt.
This data, which includes the more recent TEF's and all 17 CDD/F isomers, support revision of
the fish consumption advisory for dioxin in the Pigeon River. Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.,
recommends the consideration of a complete lifting of the advisory for catfish, and a lifting of
the advisory for carp in the main stem of the Pigeon River.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this information at [phone].
Sincerely,
Derric Brown
Manager,Environmental Affairs
xc: Forrest Westall
Keith Haynes

sk-, n Cc:� Ir 11,1.Le rr al e .x 1.t

s n
I
Walters Darn
4B Wilkins Creek
Cataloochee Station 4B
Creek RM 39.0
Station 4A l
White Oak 4A RM 41.5
Creek Walters Lake
' Creek
New Hepco Bridge
fines
i
I'
~ Flow Ferguson Bridge
JoCreeB s Gf31DOeK
G
3 Station 3 1;1
RM 52.3
Station 2 Fiberville j
RM 59.0
Waynesville S I P / Clyde STP
y RM 58.4 RM 57.1 Mill Outfall Canton, NC
to 2 RM 63.3
I N0 2
Q�oQ ® Station 1 O it
Clyde RM 64.5
(Control)
�I
r
•I
I
i
1
Figure 2-1. Sampling station locations on the Pigeon River-North Carolina Reach. '

i
r �T!
MIS
,�
PIW
AL
O
��

o�
•JenId uoe6id e41 Uo Z 'ON uoREIS 6uildwES •E-Z imn6jd
ice. , � 1�•@ I,�ig z o; M
�J�;�� / ua0ie0;/"� /yam'{� ��+ 1 ..`, I Y :•�• �-p(a e
. .� 1^,e1~,lawa p/0-(MeIO��UrS��w//-^� w� ry, u 3eSld:a- ` y `' I -_� __!• � _ �
�~ f-/ }/h-�J EZ�_, � f `y,` �1 a ��_ 7 •' y.e, .� .II : �.-, I•.
- ,l •_ ` ri� ��� i A etl�ilal�e \ . �'-' • •. • RyOI I¢ip .
\1
••�� '�09-tld �Z Il 3S �• \U ' �� IM 1 '�U`•� ° . . -�,�'
`� 1 •\
ol
Off
10
��..'�/ .I���° 9 L\ 1 •;'_�•i^�`f� ,,,Oti it�'�. :'�ICD`, \\1 V�l.•i.
zz
l'lt ayaly1 •� U�u!_11 , l 0 '� O /'\�� •JO �i ��• � f-/ � is.�-�/�Iv�;=�%.
:Ir
laym d.PJO Y,e,��` ��.�`�•- ✓_�U /J /� /✓� o ,1�1 J/ I.
���_� �, U✓) '\Ill �' U V T :' ' !�� .%1°�

1 oe '�.1.•u`'l�',1.�~';"� - awn el/ _:-^� ijG
i 1. I ilo. y`
PR
1.2471
- 1\,;,� -�'�r' �3 1 //•jam�`,: '-�' - .�. - _
°, 1 \-'° '�� `• 'n�",^' \S�ation 3; .�j�' `. 1(�',
- I \ z `._mot ./� 11` (�\ � _'e, `/` °\• 1``I4\, -.�'� I�((�\(1
,c�...l^: \4�n` ill• 1 t �` 1 \ V/� — jF`°� - ✓'_.\
o _ :ROP- "n v�r- .�
�'" I,t� ��r -� <,' _ ' �; '' •'r'.',--._fir
�: �%iX�l1��� ��• `.��� v/ r i1 � v� °°yiY a -., H ec�Mfn
ra
�.,,��. ��� i . � ...o . .\�,,`. ✓�/i / ,ter) (~ t .J,
Figure 2-4. Sampling Station No. 3 on the Pigeon River.
�O

-�� 77
r
O
r
J r
rron�
LIP,-
_- _ — _• i �.`' a` :a'< \ Cam`` `^�N r•�;; v��'.'
awl �) n
eJ 1L/
r_.•...�,1� _ r� � F�111/.\\\1�;.�Ld�/ � o IY CP -.J �_'�
Figure 2-5. Sampling Station No. 4A on the Pigeon River.
�O

`, ✓ r I I:: y
lr� l)`~\1 ° �� ���"-.3 e��/fir'.• � ��
'7IS \ ' . Jr; r 1 ) � r'l,r� r l,. �`- 1� :•�" 'Grassy •
� .:: O ���7 �� / ✓.:: ate.
ntaf'c o v\ �'�ELEV 225e x Mlle
�✓�� \ � / 1 �/I� J�;1 \ aC�' c�`., , ,=pia �� ( :. i' l�f^
/ Station 48� Oj
�^f
It f
Figure 2-6. Sampling Station No. 4B on the Pigeon River.
�O

FORM IW ��

bL
�1)
L) P5
av
1 71
tma,

BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1996-2000(a)
1996 Resultshl 1997 Results"'
Number of Length Numberof Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) TEQ(c) Station Species Fish Range(mm) TEQ(c)
I Redbreast sunfish 5 154-185 0.00• I Redbreast sunfi h 5 144-161 0.00
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 160-208 0.00• RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-194 0.00
Black redhorse 5 401.440 0.00• Black redhorse 4 291424 0.00•
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 179-187 0.00• 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 183.200 0.00
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 183.191 0.00• RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfi h 5 160-181 0.00
Common carp 5 543-580 1.60 Common carp 5 506-615 1.46
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 184-190 0.00• 3 Redbreastsunfi It 5 187.202 0.00
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 165-185 0.00• RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfi h 5 164-195 0.00
Common carp 5 516-630 1.02 Common carp 5 450-505 0.00
4A Black crappie 5 216-233 0.00• 4A Black crapppie 5 215-231 0.00
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 215-229 0.00• RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-230 0.00
Common carp 5 562-632 5.01 Common carp 5 570655 2.94
Channel catfish 5 418482 2.33
4B Black crappie 5 223-258 0.00• 4B Black crappie 5 226.241 0.00
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 278.310 0.00• RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 270-360 0.00*
Common carp 5 470623 4.51 Common carp 1 5 605690 13.70
Flathead catfish' 5 430-540 0.62
5 Rock bass 4 169-186 0.00• 5 Rock bass 5 143-214 0.00
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 315-454 0.00• RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 278-367 0.00
Smallmouth buffalo 5 451-555 0.07 Smallmouth buffalo 5 406-525 0.00"
Total Fish Filleted 89 Total Fish Filleted 99
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quanterra Laboratories 1995.1999,Sevem Trent Laboratories in 2000.
(b) Survey conducted in August
(c) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from(1989),Toxicity Equivalent Factors from Van Lceuwen(WHO/97).
(.) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection,therefore a value of zero was applied to the TEQ calculation.
NOTE:0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

i
BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1996-2000(a)(cont.)
1998 Resultso) 1999 Results..
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish -Range(mm) TEQ(c) Station Species Fish Range(mm) TEQ(c)
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 145.176 0.00* 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 141-177 0.00+
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 159-179 0.00• RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 164-180 0.00+
Black redhorse 5 340396 0.06 Blackredhorse 5 352427 0.00+
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-177 0.00• 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 167.190 0.00+
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 166.193 0.00• RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 158-178 0.00.
Common carp 5 551-661 2.05 Common carp 5 544615 0.20
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 168.193 0.00• 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-189 0.00
RM52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-200 0.00• RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 162.176 0.00+
Common carp 5 449-550 0.00• Common carp 5 500-591 1.10
4A Black crappie 5 220.240 0.00• 4A Black crappie 5 220-268 0.00
RM 41.5 Largemouth bass 5 227.330 0.00• RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 219-244 0.00
Common carp 5 585-621 2.32 Common carp 5 574645 0.92
Channel catfish 5 416.458 0.00• Channel catfish 5 425482 0.83
4B Blade crappie 5 233-252 0,00• 4B Black crappie 5 233.244 0.00• .
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 259-330 0.00' RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 276.305 0.00
Common carp 5 563-686 11.67 Common carp 5 621680 5.61
Flathead catfish 5 414.523 0.00• Flathead catfish 5 372-513 0.00+
5 Rock bass 4 155-190 0.00• 5 Rock bass 5 170.203 0.00
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 295.365 0.02 RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 297430 0.00
Smallmouth buffalo 5 464.537 0.00• Smallmouth buffalo 5 476-565 0.09
Total Fish Filleted 99 Total Fish Filleted 100
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990.1994,Quanterra Laboratories 1995-1999,Severn Trent Laboratories in 2000.
(b) Survey conducted in August.
(a) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from(1989�Toxicity Equivalent Factors from Van Leeuwen(WHO/97)
(+) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection,therefore a value ofzero was applied to the TEQ calculation.
NOTE:0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1996-2000(e) (cont.)
2000 Results("
Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) TEQ(c)
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 137-148 0.00
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-186 0.00
Black redhorse 5 357-396 0.00
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 169.176 0.00
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-I81 0.00
Common carp 5 505.582 0.40
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-I81 0.00
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 186-199 0.00
Common carp 5 514-569 0.05
4A Black crappie 5 212-241 0.00
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-241 0.00
Common carp 4 559-604 2.00
Channel catfish 5 435487 0.70
4B Black crappie 5 213-231 0.00•
RM 39.0 Black crappie 5 220-230 0.00
Common carp 4 593-712 7.43
Flathead catfish 5 407.450 0.00
5 Rock bass 5 171-198 0.00
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 209-238 0.00
Black redhorse 5 427476 0.12 {
Total Fish Filleted 98
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quamerra Laboratories 1995.1999,Sevem Trent Laboratories in 2000.
(b) Survey conducted in August.
(c) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from(1989),Toxicity Equivalent Factors from Van L.eeuwen(WHO/97).
(•) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection,therefore a value of zero was applied to the TEQ calculation.
NOTE:0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

\ r 'r �� 1r� 'r
I
uj ImI m1 o i( uf DD saxinnkatillySlls

ATTACHMENT III
Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses and Toxicity from the Equivalent Values
Values of Fish Tissue Composite Samples Pigeon River, August 1996.
I
STATION 1
COMPOSITE 1RF COMP. 2RF COMP. 3RF
REDBREAST SUNFISH ROCK BASS BLACK REDHORSE
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
i
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.130 * 0.000 0.085 * 0.000 0.089 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.160 * 0.000 0.170 * 0.000 0.150 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.140 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000 0.110 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.140 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000 0.110 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.150 * 0.000 0.190 * 0.000 0.120 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.230 * 0.000 0.320 * 0.000 0.150 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 1.500 * 0.000 2.100 * 0.000 1.000 * 0.000
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.110 * 0.000 0.140 * 0.000 0.400 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.130 * 0.000 0.310 * 0.000 0.170 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.110 * 0.000 0.260 * 0.000 0.150 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.110 * 0.000 0.061 * 0.000 0.083 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.091 * 0.000 0.051 * 0.000 0.069 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.300 * 0.000 0.260 * 0.000 0.290 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.120 * 0.000 0.068 * 0.000 0.093 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.790 * 0.000 0.067 * 0.000 0.045 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.040 * 0.000 0.097 * 0.000 0.065 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.460 * 0.000 0.220 * 0.000 0.230 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00
(a) Units = ppt (parts per trillion) or pg/g picogram per gram) .
(b) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from U.S. EPA (1969) .
(c) Toxicity Equivalent Factors from van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT III
Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses and Toxicity from the Equivalent Values
Values of Fish Tissue Composite Samples Pigeon River, August 1996. (cont.)
STATION 2
COMPOSITE 1RF COMP. 2RF COMP. 3RF
REDBREAST SUNFISH REDBREAST SUNFISH COMMON CARP
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.100 * 0.000 0.120 * 0.000 1..500 1.500 !
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.160 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000 0.510 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.091 * 0.000 0.110 * 0.000 0.400 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.150 * 0.000 0.140 * 0.000 1.500 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.096 * 0.000 0.120 * 0.000 0.390 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.800 * 0.000 1.100 * 0.000 3.100 0.031
OCDD 0.0001 2.300 * 0.000 3.000 * 0.000 22.000 0.002
I
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.150 * 0.000 0.130 * 0.000 0.710 0.071
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.140 * 0.000 0.140 * 0.000 0.250 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.120 * 0.000 0.120 * 0.000 0.400 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.054 * 0.000 0.079 * 0.000 0.250 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.045 * 0.000 0.066 * 0.000 0.100 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.280 * 0.000 0.270 * 0.000 0.350 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.060 * 0.000 0.089 * 0.000 0.047 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.086 * 0.000 0.074 * 0.000 0.270 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.059 * 0.000 0.110 * 0.000 0.076 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.230 * 0.000 0.270 * 0.000 0.420 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 1.60
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
I

ATTACHMENT III
Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses and Toxicity from the Equivalent Values
Values of Fish Tissue Composite Samples Pigeon River, August 1996. (cont.)
STATION 3
COMPOSITE 1RF COMP. 2RF COMP. 3RF
REDBREAST SUNFISH REDBREAST SUNFISH COMMON CARP
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.130 * 0.000 0.130 * 0.000 0.870 0.870
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.200 * 0.000 0.190 * 0.000 0.590 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD 0.1 0.250 * 0.000 0.160 * 0.000 0.400 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.250 * 0.000 0.170 * 0.000 1.500 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.260 * 0.000 0.170 * 0.000 0.400 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.400 * 0.000 0.420 * 0.000 - 3.500 0.035
OCDD 0.0001 1.300 * 0.000 1.300 * 0.000 16.000 0.002
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.160 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000 1.100 0.110 1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.230 * 0.000 0.200 * 0.000 0.410 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.200 * 0.000 0.170 * 0.000 0.610 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.081 * 0.000 0.073 * 0.000 0.470 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.067 * 0.000 0.061 * 0.000 0.310 * 0.000 1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.270 * 0.000 0.270 * 0.000 0.370 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.090 * 0.000 0.082 * 0.000 0.083 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.084 * 0.000 0.050 * 0.000 0.340 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.120 * 0.000 0.073 * 0.000 0.039 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.220 * 0.000 0.440 * 0.000 0.420 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 1.02
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005. If

i
ATTACHMENT III
Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses and Toxicity from the Equivalent Values
Values of Fish Tissue Composite Samples Pigeon River, August 1996. (cont.)
STATION 4A
COMPOSITE 1RF COMP. 2RF COMP. RF3
BLACK CRAPPIE BLACK CRAPPIE COMMON CARP
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.150 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000 4.200 4.200
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.170 * 0.000 0.210 * 0.000 1.300 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.270 * 0.000 0.290 * 0.000 1.100 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.230 * 0.000 0.250 * 0.000 5.200 0.520
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.260 * 0.000 0.280 * 0.000 1.200 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.260 * 0.000 0.330 * 0.000 11.000 0.110
OCDD 0.0001 0.920 * 0.000 2.200 * 0.000 34.000 0.003
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.200 * 0.000 0.280 * 0.000 1.800 0.180
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.280 * 0.000 0.250 * 0.000 0.740 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.250 * 0.000 0.220 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HpCDF 0.1 0.071 * 0.000 0.089 * 0.000 0.880 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.056 * 0.000 0.070 * 0.000 0.820 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.280 * 0.000 0.230 * 0.000 0.620 * 0.000 I
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.076 * 0.000 0.095 * 0.000 0.036 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.045 * 0.000 0.075 * 0.000 1.400 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.065 * 0.000 0.110 * 0.000 0.290 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.110 * 0.000 0.430 * 0.000 0.430 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 5.01
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
i
i
I

ATTACHMENT III
Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses and Toxicity from the Equivalent Values '
Values of Fish Tissue Composite Samples Pigeon River, August 1996. (cont.)
STATION 4B
COMPOSITE 1RF COMP. 2RF COMP. 3RF
BLACK CRAPPIE LARGEMOUTH BASS COMMON CARP
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.110 * 0.000 0.130 * 0.000 4.000 4.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.240 * 0.000 0.230 * 0.000 0.100 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.220 * 0.000 0.200 * 0.000 0.670 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.190 * 0.000 0.170 * 0.000 2.800 0.280
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.210 * 0.000 0.190 * 0.000 0.650 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.380 * 0.000 0.240 * 0.000 5.900 0.059
OCDD 0.0001 1.200 * 0.000 0.980 * 0.000 17.000 0.002
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.270 * 0.000 0.230 * 0.000 1.700 0.170
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.320 * 0.000 0.290 * 0.000 0.560 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.290 * 0.000 0.260 * 0.000 1.500 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.087 * 0.000 0.095 * 0.000 0.630 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,E-HxCDF 0.1 0.068 * 0.000 0.075 * 0.000 0.960 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.250 * 0.000 0.270 * 0.000 0.460 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.093 * 0.000 0.100 * 0.000 0.100 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.110 * 0.000 0.051 * 0.000 0.500 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.160 * 0.000 0.073 * 0.000 0.089 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.370 * 0.000 0.150 * 0.000 0.320 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 4.51
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT III
Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses and Toxicity from the Equivalent Values
Values of Fish Tissue Composite Samples Pigeon River, August 1996. (cont.)
STATION 5
COMPOSITE 1RF COMP. 2RF COMP. 3RF
ROCK BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS S.M. BUFFALO
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.077 * 0.000 0.120 * 0.000 0.120 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.170 * 0.000 0.240 * 0.000 0.230 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.140 * 0.000 0.160 * 0.000 0.190 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.140 * 0.000 0.160 * 0.000 0.190 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.140 * 0.000 0.160 * 0.000 0.200 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.160 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000 0.330 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 0.960 * 0.000 2.000 * 0.000 2.400 * 0.000
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF - 0.1 0.120 * 0.000 0.370 * 0.000 0.700 0.070
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.180 * 0.000 0.200 * 0.000 0.065 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.150 * 0.000 0.170 * 0.000 0.120 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.130 * 0.000 0.051 * 0.000 0.160 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.110 * 0.000 0.043 * 0.000 0.130 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.260 * 0.000 0.300 * 0.000 0.240 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.140 * 0.000 0.057 * 0.000 0.180 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.140 * 0.000 0.039 * 0.000 0.046 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.200 * 0.000 0.057 * 0.000 0.067 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.220 * 0.000 0.200 * 0.000 0.520 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.07
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

Att irni dfn�mrrr it cunnii
tr Ifs
l :�:)l
r CADD/ Fey hsairinner Arkri;,roiilly i
SuliFirlilr1rileary of

ATTACHMENT IV
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1997 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES.
STATION 1
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF ROCK BASS - 2RF BLACK REDHORSE - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEE Results(a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.11 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.26 * 0.000 0.56 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.38 * 0.000 1.00 * 0.000 0.75 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.34 * 0.000 0.94 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.34 * 0.000 0.94 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.41 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 0.56 * 0.000 1.60 * 0.000 0.99 * 0.000
Dibenzo£uran
I
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.14 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.22 * 0.000 0.75 * 0.006 0.40 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.23 * 0.000 0.79 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.63 * 0.000 0.56 * 0.000 0.71 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.62 * 0.000 0.56 * 0.000 0.70 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.67 * 0.000 0.60 * 0.000 0.76 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.77 * 0.000 0.70 * 0.000 0.88 * 0.000 i
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.16 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.-000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.23 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.50 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000 1.00 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT IV
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1997 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 2
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) - TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.26 * 0.000 0.12 * 0.000 1.40 1.400
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.33 * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000 0.74 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.53 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000 0.83 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.48 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.48 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 0.76 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.64 * 0.000 0.60 * 0.000 5.50 0.055
OCDD 0.0001 1.20 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000 31.00 0.003
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.11 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.98 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.33 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.35 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.31 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.30 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0..33 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.38 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,.8-HpCDF 0.01 0.21 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000 1.00 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.29 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 1.30 * 0.000 0.62 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 1.46
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation. ,
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT IV
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1997 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 3
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.18 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.35 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.29 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.26 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.26 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.49 * 0.000 0.62 * 0.000 1.60 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 1.40 * 0.000 1.00 * 0.000 14.00 0.001
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.18 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.24 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.25 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.60 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.29 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.22 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000 {I
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.20 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.29 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 5.50 0.001 0.43 * 0.000 0.66 * 0.000
r
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT IV
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1997 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)'
STATION 4A
BLACK CRAPPIE 1RF BLACK CRAPPIE 2RF COMMON CARP `--3RF CHANNEL CAT. - 5RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results "'='TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenrodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.27 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 2.30 "2.300 2.00 2.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.62 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 1.10 0.000 1.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.37 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.73 * 0.000 0.65 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.34 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 3.10 0.310 2.90 0.290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.34 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.024 0.53 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.32 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 8.80 0.088 3.80 0.038
OCDD 0.0001 0.43 * 0.000 0.80 * 0.000 32.00 0.003 13.00 0.001
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.27 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 2.10 0.210 0.69 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.25 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.82 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.26 * 0.000 0.29 ' 0.000 1.50 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.15 ' 0.000 0.12 0.000 0.73 * 0.000 0.50 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.15 * 0.000 0.12 * 0.000 0.70 * 0.000 0.51 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.32 *' 0.000 0.26 * 0.000 0.45 * 0.000 0.54 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.18 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.13 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000 0.74 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.18 * 0.000 0.16 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000
CCDF 0.0001 0.71 * 0.000 0.71 0.000 0.50 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 2.94 2.33
(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 van Leeuwen (1997).
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT IV
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1997 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cost.)
STATION 4B
BLACK CRAPPIE - 1RF LARGEMOUTH BASS - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF FLATHEAD CAT. - 5RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodiexin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.17 * 0.000 0.21 • 0.000 11.00 11.000 0.62 0.620
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.39 ` 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000 0.45 • 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-H%CDD 0.1 0.75 • 0.000 0.42 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000 ,
1,2,36,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.70 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000 4.90 0.490 1.30 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.66 • 0.000 0.38 * 0.000 0.65 " 0.000 0.14 • 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.33 • 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 11.00 0.110 1.60 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 0.45 * 0.000 0.65 * 0.000 27.00 0.003 2.40 • 0.000
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.43 " 0.000 0.30 ' 0.000 2.00 0.200 0.31 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.37 ` 0.000 0.21 • 0.000 0.83 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.38 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000 3.80 1.900 0.37 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.29 * 0.000 0.16 ` 0.000 0.82 0.000 0.12 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.30 * 0.000 0.16 ` 0.000 2.60 0.000 0.64 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.31 * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000 0.91, * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.34 • 0.000 0.20 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,B-HpCDF 0.01 0.09 * 0.000 0.12 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.12 • 0.000 0.16 • 0.000 0.07 * 0.000 0.10 • 0.000
CCDF 0.0001 0.36 * 0.000 0.67 • 0.000 1.30 ` 0.000 0.97 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 13.70 0.62
4
(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 van Leeuwen (1997).
(•) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
it

ATTACHMENT IV
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1997 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 5
ROCK BASS - 1RF SMALLMOUTH BASS - 2RF SM BUFFALO - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.15 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.31 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.30 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.27 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.27 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.15 * 0.000 0.25 " 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 0.48 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.25 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.22 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.23 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.15 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.15 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000
2,3,4, 6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.33 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.19 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000
1;2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.08 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000
1,2,.3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.10 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.23 * 0.000 0.58 * 0.000 0.87 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

99-d
i
19 Rl
rintrrrir l r T of COD �� I� J r eur Triicl I Ta: 11, j
i

ATTACHMENT V
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY i
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1998 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES.
STATION 1
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF ROCK BASS - 2RF BLACK REDHORSE - 3RF k
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results(a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.19 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.44 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.55 * 0.000 0.67 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.52 * 0.000 0.63 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.49 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.29 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 0.57 * 0.000 2.30 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.14 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.64 0.064
1,2.,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.17 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.17 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.19 * 0.000 0..19 * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.19 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.08 * 0.000 0.08 * 0.000 0.12 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.10 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.35 * 0.000 0.93 * 0.000 0.90 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.06
i
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied 1,
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
I
1i
I

ATTACHMENT V
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1998 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 2
I
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.20 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 1.30 1.300
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.25 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000 1.70 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.46 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.92 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.41 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 3.90 0.390
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.39 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 0.82 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.84 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000 9.50 0.095
OCDD 0.0001 1.60 * 0.000 2.80 * 0.000 36.00 0.004
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.14 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000 2.60 0.260
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.24 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.25 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.94 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.21 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000 0.70 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.21 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000 0.88 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.22 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.24 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.09 * 0.000 0.06 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.11 * 0.000 0.07 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.26 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 2.05
(a) Units = ppt (parts per trillion) or pg/g picogram per gram) .
I
(b) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from U.S. EPA (1989) .
(c) Toxicity Equivalent Factors from van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT V
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1998 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 3
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.34 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 1.30 * 0.000 0.50 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.98 * 0.000 0.75 * 0.000 0.51 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.93 * 0.000 0.70 * 0.000 0.45 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.87 * 0.000 0.66 * 0.000 0.43 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.20 * 0.000 0.60 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 5.10 0.001 1.20 * 0.000 9.00 0.001
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.28 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.27 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.26 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.43 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.42 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.54 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.48 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.49 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.19 * 0.000 0.07 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.23 * 0.000 0.09 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 2.50 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT V
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1998 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 4A
BLACK CRAPPIE 1RF LARGEMOUTH BASS 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF CHANNEL CAT. - 5RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Aesults TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.49 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000 1.60 1.600 0.28 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.47. * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000 1.30 �* 0.000 0.36 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.35 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.86 0.000 0.49 ; 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.59 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000 3.90 * 0.390 0.43 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.30 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.75 0.000 0.41 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.20 * 0.000 0.51 * 0.000 14.00 0.140 0.65 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 1.90 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000 63.00 0.006 0.93 * 0.000
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.24 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 1.80 0.180 0.18 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDE 0.05 0.06 * 0.000 0.08 * 0.000 0.99 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.24 * 0.000 0.08 * 0.000 1.30 4 0.000 0.16 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 0.1 0.37 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000 0.37 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.36 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 1.90 * 0.000 0.36 { 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.38 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.28 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.43 * 0,000 0.12 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000 0.42 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.22 * 0.000 0.06 * 0.000 1.60 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.10 * 0.000 0.08 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.18 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 0.26 0.000 0.25 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 2.32 0.00
I
(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 van Leeuwen (1997).
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
I
1
I
I
11

ATTACHMENT V
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR.:THE 1998 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 4B
BLACK CRAPPIE 1RF LARGEMOUTH BASS 2RF FLATHEAD 'CAT. - 3RF COMMON CARP - 4RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Res lilts TEQ Results TEQ
I
Dibenzodioxin y
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.15 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000 9.10 9.100 �.
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.16 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000 2.00 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.18 * 0.000 0.12 * 0.000 '0.38 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.16 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 5:20 ' 0.520 ,
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.15 * 0.000 0.10 + 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.78 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.50 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000 12.00 0.120
OCDD 0.0001 5.30 0.001 1.40 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000 46.00 0.005
Dibenzo£uran J
I
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.21 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000 3.30 0.330
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.09 * 0.000 0.07 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000 0.99 * 0.000
2,3,4,7.;8-PeCDF 0.5 0.09 * 0.000 0.07 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000 3.20 1.600
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.06 * 0.000 0.05 ' 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 1.00 • 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.06 * 0.000 0.05 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 1.00 * 0000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.06 * 0.000 0.05 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 '0.07 * 0.000 0.06 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.06 * 0.000 0.05 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.08 * 0.000 0.07 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000 0.07 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.15 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.67
(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 van Leeuwen (1997).
(+) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT V
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1998 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
I
STATION 5
SMALLMOUTH BUFF. - 2RF ROCK BASS - 3RF SM. BASS - 4RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
i
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.31 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.42 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.26 * 0.000 0.12 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.91 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.24 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.10 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 3..50 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000 2.80 * 0.000
Dibenzo£uran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.14 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000 0.24 0.024
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.28 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.29 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.51 * 0.000 0.09 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.50 * 0.000 0.09 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.52 * 0.000 0.09 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.59 * 0.000 0.10 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.17 * 0.000 0.05 * 0.000 0.12 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.16 * 0.000 0.07 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.20 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.02
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied j
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

i
I
� .tt � hl rrl rli f V/1

ATTACHMENT VI
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1999 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES.
STATION 1
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF ROCK BASS - 2RF BLACK REDHORSE- 3RF � .
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results(a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenaodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.21 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 1.50 * 0.000 0.94 * 0.000 0.54 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.36 * 0.000 0.91 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.42 * 0.000 1.00 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.37 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000 0.51 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.60 * 0.000 2.20 * 0.000 1.40 * 0-.000
OCDD 0.0001 1,.10 * 0.000 7.90 0.00 6.30 0.00
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.40 * 0.000 0.74 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.37 * 0.000 0.76 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.27 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 0.53 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.26 * 0.000 0.76 * 0.000 0.55 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.28 * 0.000 0.76 * 0.000 0.50 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.31 * 0.000 0.65 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.32 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 0.56 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9-HpCDF 0.01 0.33 * 0.000 0.53 -* 0.000 0.28 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.55 * 0.000 3.30 * 0.000 2.00 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
6S to the TEQ calculation.
_ Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
I
�I
ICI

ATTACHMENT VI
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1999 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 2
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dsbenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.37 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 1.30 * 0.000 2.30 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.66 * 0.000 0.43 * 0.000 0.99 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.55 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 1.70 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.56 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.84 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 2.40 * 0.000 2.00 * 0.000 18.00 0.180
OCDD 0.0001 5.20 0.001 5.00 * 0.000 170.00 0.017
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.40 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 1.10 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 1.10 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.82 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000 0.70 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.61 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000
2,3,4, 6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.75 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.88 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000 0.75 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.19 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9-HpCDF 0.01 0.29 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.20 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 1.20 * 0.000 0.63 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.20
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT VI
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1999 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 3
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.36 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.57 0.570
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.86 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 0.78 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.44 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.89 * 0.000
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.39 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000 2.80 0.280
1,2,3,7,8, 9-HxCDD 0.1 0.40 * 0.000 0.55 * 0.000 0.89 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 2.10 * 0.000 2.40 * 0.000 13.00 0.130
OCDD 0.0001 7.20 0.001 7.70 0.001 72.00 0.007
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.32 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 1.10 0.110
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.32 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.61 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.36 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.87 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.31 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000 0.98 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.30 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
2,3,4, 6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.31 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.21 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.72 * 0.000 0.65 * 0.000 0.97 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.25 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 2.20 * 0.000 2.60 * 0.000 2.30 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 1.10
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
I

ATTACHMENT VI
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1999 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 4A
BLACK CRAPPIE - 1RF BLACK CRAPPIE - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF CHANNEL CAT.- SRF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.18 * 0.000 0.08 * 0.000 0.58 0.580 0.83 0.830
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.25 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 0.72 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HSCDD 0.1 0.21 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.55 * 0.000 0.88 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.23 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 2.30 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.19 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.20 * 0.000 0.98 * 0.000 14.00 0.140 2.40 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 1.10 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 70.00 0.007 8.20 0.001
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.13 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000 1.90 0.190 0.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.38 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.98 * 0.000 0.69 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.39 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000 0.56 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.25 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.43 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.22 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 1.90 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.26 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.04 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.25 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.03 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.06 * 0.000 0.08 * 0.000 0.63 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.07 * 0.000 0.09 * 0.000 0.02 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.15 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.83
(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 van Leecuwen (1997).
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT VI
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
-' EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1999 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cost.)
c
YX STATION 9B
s'
BLACK CRAPPIE - 1RF LARGEMOUTH BASS - 2RF FLATHEAD CAT. - 3RF COMMON CARP - 4RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.27 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000 4.70 4.700
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 1.20 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000 2.10 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.59 * 0.000 0.65 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000 0.99 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.49 * 0.000 0.54 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000 5.20 0.520
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.50 * 0.000 0.55 * 0.000 0.50 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.10 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000 O.B3 * 0.000 14.00 0.140
OCDD 0.0001 1.90 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000 51.00 0.005
Dibenzofuran I
2,3,7,E-TCDF 0.1 0.28 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000 2.40 0.240
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.39 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,E-PeCDF 0.5 0.39 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.19 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000 0.67 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.14 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 0.60 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.20 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.14 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000 0.69 * 0.000 1.30 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.22 * 0.000 0.69 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000
OCOF 0.0001 1.10 * 0.000 0.84 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 0.95 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.61
(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 van Leeuwen (1997).
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
f
f
I
i
I

ATTACHMENT VI
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 1999 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 5
SMALLMOUTH BUFF. - 2RF ROCK BASS - 3RF SM. BASS - 4RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.31 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 1.10 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.36 * 0.000 0.58 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.32 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.32 * 0.000 0.51 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.93 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000 1.00 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 3.90 * 0.000 7.40 0.001 11.00 0.001
Dibezizo£uraa
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.88 0.088 0.28 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.67 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.65 * 0.000 0.62 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.24 * 0.000 0.86 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.21 * 0.000 0.75 * 0.000 0.06 * 0.000
2,3,4, 6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.23 * 0.000 0.85 * 0.000 0.11 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.26 * 0.000 0.96 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 1.20 * 0.000 0.69 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9-HpCDF 0.01 1.50 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.61 * 0.000 2.30 * 0.000 3.00 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.09 0.00 0.00
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

r 'ri c� � r� ei fir. f Ifif
uitin trnr i of CDD/ Tr? lissornearr A_ nrur �ligySsss,

ATTACHMENT VII
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES.
STATION 1
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF ROCK BASS - 2RF BLACK REDHORSE- 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results(a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.48 * 0.000 0.45 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.54 * 0.000 0.74 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.48 * 0.000 0.58 * 0.000 0.50 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD _ 0.1 0.39 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000
. 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.40 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.31 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 0.65 * 0.000 0.82 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.24 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.29 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.28 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.39 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.32 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.38 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.44 * 0.000 0.50 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.15 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.20 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.59 * 0.000 0.73 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT VII
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 2
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.31 * 0.000 0.43 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.76 * 0.000 0.66 * 0.000 0.61 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.69 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000 0.53 * 0.000
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.57 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 2.50 0.250
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.57 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.10 * 0.000 0.61 * 0.000 14.00 0.140
OCDD 0.0001 0.92 * 0.000 1.50 *-0.000 92.00 0.009
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.27 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.47 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.45 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.61 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.49 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000
2,3,4., 6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.59 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.55 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.69 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.26 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 0.65 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.33 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 1.20 * 0.00 0.72 * 0.00 0.79 * 0.00
0.0001 Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.40
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT VII
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont. )
STATION 3
REDBREAST SUNFISH - 1RF REDBREAST SUNFISH - 2RF COMMON CARP - 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.43 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.53 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.63 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,E-HxCDD 0.1 0.55 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.45 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.95 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.46 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.60 * 0.000 0.65 * 0.000 4.40 0.044
OCDD 0.0001 7.30 0.001 1.50 * 0.000 21.00 0.002
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.43 * 0.000 0.39 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.31 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.30 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.43 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.35 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 0.25 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.41 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.48 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.20 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.26 * 0.000 0.21 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.62 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.05
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT VII
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cost.)
STATION 4A
BLACK CRAPPIE - 1RF BLACK CRAPPIE - 2RF CHANNEL CAT. - 3RF COMMON CARP - 4RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.29 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 0.70 0.700 1.10 1.100
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.54 * 0.000 0.45 * 0.000 0.71 * 0.000 1.70 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.52 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 0.43 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.43 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000 5.70 0.570
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.43 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000 0.97 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.36 * 0.000 0.69 * 0.000 1.80 * 0.000 19.00 0.190
OCDD 0.0001 0.93 * 0.000 1.60 * 0.000 7.00 0.001 47.00 0.005
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.34 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 1.40 0.140
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.34 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,0-PeCDF 0.5 0.33 * 0-.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000
11,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.37 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000 1.10 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.30 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000 1.40 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.36 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000 0.41 *' 0.000 0.55 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,0,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.42 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,0-HpCDF 0.01 0.17 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 1.70 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.21 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000 0.06 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.50 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000 0.55 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.70 2.00
(a) Units - ppt (parts per trillion) or pg/g picogram per gram).
(b) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from V.S. EPA (1989).
(c) Toxicity Equivalent Factors from van Leeuwen (1997).
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT VII
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont.)
STATION 49
BLACK CRAPPIE - 1RF BLACK CRAPPIE - 2RF FLATHEAD CAT. - 3RF COMMON CARP - 4RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEE Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.41 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000 4.40 4.400
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.69 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000 0.52 * 0.000 2.00 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,.7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.55 * 0.000 0.50 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000 2.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.45 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 8.80 0.880
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD 0.1 0.45 * 0.000 0.41 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 1.20 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 1.10 * 0.000 0.94 * 0.000 0.90 * 0.000 32.00 0.320
OCDD 0.0001 1.20 * 0.000 0.64 * 0.000 2.00 * 0.000 120.00 0.012
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.40 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 0.27 * 0.000 4.20 0.420
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.38 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 1.90 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.37 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 2.80 1.400
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.44 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000 1.90 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.35 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000 2.70 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.42 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.53 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.49 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000 0.36 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.18 * 0.000 0.17 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000 2.30 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.23 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000 0.24 * 0.000 0.76 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.67 * 0.000 0.72 * 0.000 0.59 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000
I
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.43
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.

ATTACHMENT VII
SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY
EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES. (cont. )
STATION 5
ROCK BASS - 1RF SMALLMOUTH BASS - 2RF BLACK REDHORSE- 3RF
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF Results (a) TEQ Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.45 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.68 * 0.000 0.49 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDO 0.1 0.58 * 0.000 0.46 * 0.000 0.42 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.47 * 0.000 0.37 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.47 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000
1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.37 * 0.000 0.56 * 0.000 0.44 * 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 1.40 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000 1.60 * 0.000
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.50 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 1.20 0.120
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.40 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.38 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.40 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.32 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.38 * 0.000 0.34 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.44 * 0.000 0.40 * 0.000 0.38 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.17 * 0.000 0.13 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.22 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.70 * 0.000 0.51 * 0.000 0.47 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.00 0.12
i
(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 van Leeuwen (1997) .
(*) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.
Note: 0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
i

3'
BLUE. R?DGE. . j!
PAPER PRODUCTS INC. i
June 27, 2001
Dr. Luanne Williams
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch
Parker Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Boulevard
1912 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1912
RE: Pigeon River Dioxin in Fish
Dear Dr. Williams:
Attached is the information that we discussed concerning Pigeon River dioxin in fish tissue
analysis from 1996-2000. Since 1990 annual fish tissue surveys of the Pigeon River have been
conducted in August by the Canton Mill. EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc. has
collected all of the fish tissue samples. While the name has changed the same laboratory in
-Sacramento, California (Enseco 1990-1994, Quanterra 1995-1999, Severn Trent 2000) has
conducted all of the fish tissue analysis.
The attached information includes the following:
Attachment I Location Maps
Attachment II Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill
Fish Tissue Results Summary
1996-2000
Attachment III 1996 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment IV 1997 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment V 1998 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment VI 1999 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
Attachment VII 2000 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analysis
175 Main Street • P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • Phone:[phone]
Raising Your Expectations

-- - '--'"`"lv 1 UN MULL FISH FILLET TISSUE
• ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1996-2O0O(a)
Station 1996 ResWts°t
Numberof I 1997 Rcsultsw
Species Length
Fish Range(mm) TE '
Q(c) Station Numberof Length
1 Redbreast sunfish � Species) Fish
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 154-195 0.00• Range(mm) TEQ(c)
5 160-208 + 1 I
Black redhorse 0,00 Redbreast sunfish
5 401.440 0.00+ RM 64.5 Rock bass 1 5 144-161 0,00+
2 Redbreast sunfish Black redhome' S 162'194 0.00
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 I79.187 0.00• j 4 291424 0.00•
Common carp 5 193-191 0.00+ 2 Redbreast sunfish
543-580 IN4 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 183.200 0.00
3 1.60 5 160-181 r
Redbreast sunfish 5 Common carp 5 0.00
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 184-I90 0.00 r 506-615 1.46
Common carp5 165-185 0.00• 3 Redbreast sunfi h
5 516.630 RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfi�h 5 187.202 0.00
4A - 1.02 5 164-195
Black crappie 5 Common carp , 5 0.00
RM 41.5 Black crappie 216-233 0.00 r 450.505 0.00
Common c 5 215.229 0.00 r 4A Black crapppia
5 562-632 5.01 _ RM 41.5 Black crappie ! 5 215.231 0.00
' Common carp 5 220-230 0.00
4B Black crappie Channel catfish) 5 570-655 2.94
RM 39.0 Lergemouth bass 5 223-258 0.000 5 418.482
2.33
Common c 5 278.310 0.00• 4B Black crappie � 5
470-623 RM 39.0 226.241 4.51 I-argemouth bass 5 0.00
Common carp ! 270-360 0.00•
5 Rock bass Flathead catfish 5 605-690 13.70
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 4 169-196 0.00• 5 430-540 0.62
Smallmouth buffalo 5 315454 0,000 5 Rock bass
5 451-555 RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 143.214 0.00
r 0.07
Total Fish Filleted gy Smallmouth buff 5 278.367 alo 5 406-525 0.00r
•
0.00
Total Fish Filleted gq
_ B
a
(a) Survey conducted in u Engineering,Science,and Technology.
(a) Survey conducted b August, gy. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990.1994,Quenuma Laboratories 1995-
(c) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology u-l+
(•) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of ology from
rt, (198o9r)),a value of zero Toxicity went Fa Wiled to the Tan Lee 1999•Sevem Trent Laboratories in 2000.
NOTE:0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005. uwen(WHO/97).
Q calwlation. ;l
` e
S

BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1996-2000(a) (cont.)
1998 Resultstht 1999 Results(b) --
j
Number of length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) TEQ(c) Station Species - Fish Range(mm) TEQ(c) {
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 145.176 0.00 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 141-177 0,000
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 158-179 0.004 RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 164-180 0.000
Black redhorse 5 340-396 0.06 " Black redhorse 5 352427 0.00 4 -
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 164.177 0.00 4 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-190 0.00 4
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 166.193 0.00 4 RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 158-178 0.00 4
Common carp 5 551-661 2.05 Common carp 5 544615 0.20 -
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 168.193 - 0.00 4 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 _ 169-189 0.00+
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 167.200 0.00 4 RM 523 Redbreast sunfish 5 162-176 0.00 4 -
Common carp 5 449-550 0.00• Common carp 5 500-591 1.10
r
4A Black crappie 5 220-240 0.00* 4A Black crappie 5 220-268 0.000 -
RM 41.5 Largemouth bass 5 227-330 0.00 4 RM 41.5 Black crappie. 5 219.244 0.00*
Common carp 5 595-621 2.32 Common carp 5 574645 - 0.92
Channel catfish 5 - 416458 0.00 4 Channel catfish - 5 425482 0.83 - -
4B Black crappie 5 233-252 0A• 4B Black crappie 5 233.244 0.00 4
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 259.330 0.00 4 RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 276.305 0.00 4
Common carp 5 563686 11.67 Common carp 5 621680 5.61
Flathead catfish 5 414.523 0.00• Flathead catfish 5 372.513 0.00 4
5 Rock bass 4 155.190 0.00* 5 Rock bass 5 170.203 0.00 4 '
RM 194 Smallmoulh bass 5 295-365 0.02 RM 19.0 Smalimouth bass 5 297430 0.00 4
Smallmouth buffalo 5 464.537 0.000 Smallmouth buffalo 5 416.565 0.09
Total Fish Filleted 99 Total Fish Filleted 100
i
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO laboratories 1990.1994,Quanterra Laboratories 1995-1999,Severn Trani Laboratories in 2000. - �-
" (b) Survey conducted in August.
(c) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from(1989),Toxicity Equivalent Factors from Van Leeuwen(WR0/97)
(•) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection,therefore a value of zero was applied to the TEQ calculation.
i NOTE:0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005. - -

BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON NnL FISH FILLET TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS, 1996-2000(a) (Cont.)
I
2000 Resultsal
Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(ram) TEQ(c) p
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 137-148 0.00
RM 64.5 Rock bass - 5 162-186 0.00
Black redhorse 5 357-396 0.00
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-176 0.00"
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-181 0.00*
Common carp 5 505-582 0.40 I
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-181 0.00"
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 186-199 0.00"
Common carp 5 514-569 0.05 _ -
4A Black crappie 5 212.241 0.00
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-241 0.00*
Common carp 4 559-604 2.00
Channel catfish 5 435.487 0.70
4B Black crappie 5 213.231 0.00*
RM39.0 Black crappie 5 220-230 0,00"
Common carp 4 593-712 7.43
Flathead catfish 5 407-450 0.00* _
5 Rock bass 5 171-198 0.00"
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 209-238 0.00"
Black redhorse 5 427-476 0.12
Total Fish Filleted 98
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quanterra Laboratories 1995.1999,Severn Trent Laboratories in 2000.
(b) Survey conducted in August.
(c) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from(1989),Toxicity Equivalent Factors from Van Leeuwen(WHO/97).
(.) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection,therefore a value of zero was applied to the TEQ calculation.
NOTE:0.000 denotes values less than or equal to 0.0005.
r '

al
►l;
; j
1 -
it
!i
I►1
I

III'
Ira _
�1
i1
�l -

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
bxc: Mike Ferguson
Dave Goodrich
Melanie Hager
Keith Haynes
Terry Huskey
Mike Meyers
Steve Single
Forrest Westall
Bob Williams
,� 202p01
\`JASERQUA�G S0.�pRflCE
ASNEV0.IE.R�

BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
July 17, 2001
Mr. Don Anderson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 4303
Room 195A, East Tower
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Response to EPA Tech Team's July 10, 2001 Draft Final Report
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Attached are Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. (Blue Ridge) comments on the July 10,
2001 EPA Tech Team Report. These comments are in addition to Bob William's July
13, 2001 email to you.
This information is consistent with Blue Ridge's May 18, 2001 and June 4, 2001
response to the EPA Tech Team and the Liebergott and Associates and GL&V Pulp
Group, Inc. Bleach Environmental Process Evaluation and Report. Incorporation of
these technical comments in the Final EPA Tech Team Report is important to Blue
Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Please call me at [phone] or Bob Williams at [phone] if you have any
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Derric Brown
Manager— Environmental Affairs
Blue Ridge Paper's Response to Tech Team's 7/10/01 Draft Report
7118/01
1
175 Main Street • P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • Phone:[phone]
Raising Your Expectations

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
Table 1: Summary of Process Improvements and Associated Color Reductions
Process Improvement Influent Final
Color Effluent
Reduction Color
(lbs/day) Reduction
(lbs/day)
1 BFR reliability improvement Tech Team: --- 1,000-1,200
Blue Ridge: 1,000-1,200
23 Improved black liquor leak &spill collection and control
Tech Team: --- >5,000
Blue Ridge: 2,800-8,300 1,000-3,000
6 Process Optimization
Tech Team: 1,700 1,400
Blue Ridge: 1,100 900
TOTAL FINAL EFFLUENT COLOR REDUCTION Tech Team: >7,400
Blue Ridge: 2,900-5,100
aBlue Ridge agrees there are additional opportunities to reduce color from black liquor leaks and
spills. However, the draft final EPA tech team effluent color reduction estimate is too high and
is not reasonably achievable. In 2000 there was approximately 12,000 pounds per day of color
from all black liquor sources (excluding CRP). Based on previous studies conducted at the
Canton Mill by Duke University graduate students, an average of 64% of brown color was
removed across the simulated wastewater treatment plant. A 5,000 pound per day final effluent
color reduction as shown in the draft Tech Team Report would require 13,900 pounds of influent
color treated at the average level of 64%. There is not 13,900 pounds of influent brown color
available; therefore, it is unreasonable to achieve a >5,000 pound per day effluent color
reduction. Blue Ridge estimates a 1,000 — 3,000 pound per day reduction in brown color is
achievable and would require a 2,800— 8,300 pound per day reduction in influent color based on
a 64%wastewater treatment efficiency. ,
bThe Bleach Environmental Process Evaluation and Report (BEPER) prepared by Liebergott and
Associates and GL&V Pulp Group, Inc. states the color reduction from process optimization may
potentially be up to 1,100 pound per day. The Tech Team estimated an additional color
reduction from the CRP purge stream of 600 pounds per day resulting from the decreased
chlorine dioxide usage. As Blue Ridge has stated previously, a reduction in chlorides does not
necessarily translate into a reduction in the amount purged from the CRP or to a reduction in
color in the CRP purge. While reduced liquor system chlorides may translate into a reduced
CRP purge rate, a reduced purge rate would not be expected to result in a reduction of the total
mass of color in the CRP purge. Chloride purging and CRP color are independent variables.
The amount of color in the precipitator-CRP loop is independent of chloride loading. Therefore,
any reduction in volumetric flow rate of the purge stream made possible by reduced chloride
loading will not reduce the amount of color "purged" from the CRP. Since the absolute mass of
color would not change, the concentration of color in the purge stream would be expected to
increase accordingly, resulting in no change in the total mass of color purged. Therefore, Blue
Blue Ridge Paper's Response to Tech Team's 7/10/01 Draft Report
7/18/01
2

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
Ridge supports an estimated influent color reduction of 1,100 pounds per day and a final effluent
color reduction of 900 pounds per day from process optimization.
Table 2: Summary of process Improvements and Associated Additional Color Reductions
Needing Further Study
Process Improvement Influent Final Effluent
Color Color
Reduction Reduction
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
3° Ozone/Chlorine Dioxide stage for hardwood
bleach line Tech Team: 3,000-6,400 3,000-6,400
Blue Ridge: 3,550 3,550
4 2" =for Tech Team: 1,500-2,000 1,100-1,400
Blue Ridge: 1,500-2,000 1,100-1,400
TOTAL FINAL EFFLUENT COLOR REDUCTION Tech Team: 4,100 - 7,800
NEEDING FURTHER STUDY Blue Ridge: 4,6
500—4,950
Table 2A: Continued Evaluation of CRP Purge Stream Color Treatment Opportunities
Process Improvement Influent Final Effluent
Color Color
Reduction Reduction
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
5 Color Treatment of CRP Purge Stream Tech Team: 6,000 3,300
Blue Ridge: 0-5,000 0-2,300
TOTAL POTENTIAL FINAL EFFLUENT COLOR REDech Team: 3,300
Blue Ridge: 0-2,300
`Based on an extensive analysis of the operating conditions and equipment at the Canton Mill,
the BEPER estimated a color reduction of 3,550 pounds per day from the use of an
ozone/chlorine dioxide (ZD) stage for the hardwood bleach line. Therefore, the 3,000 — 6,400
pound per day range should be revised to 3,000—4,000 pounds per day.
dThe Tech Team assumes that color treatment of the purge stream will be feasible. Blue Ridge
conducted laboratory tests using polyamine and various sources of lime or calcium to remove
color from the CRP stream. While color was removed in the laboratory at very high dosages, the
cost for coagulants and/or precipitants would be very high. In addition, for this low flow stream,
Blue Ridge Paper's Response to Tech Team's 7/10/01 Draft Report
7/18/01
3

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
large-scale equipment would be required to handle the solids and significant quantities of
additional solid waste would be generated. Blue Ridge recommends removing Item 5, Color
Treatment of the CRP Purge Stream, from Table 2. While Blue Ridge supports conducting a
study of potential CRP color removal options, there are no known feasible options available at
this time.
Based on actual test data the CRP purge averages approximately 4,500—5,000 pounds per day of
influent color. Assuming CRP color is treated similarly to brown color, a 64%reduction in CRP
color currently achieved across the WWTP would result in approximately 2,300 pounds per day
of final effluent color.
Table 3: Estimated Costs
Process Improvement Capital nual O&M
Cost ($/year)
1 BFR reliability improvement Tech Team: $1,300,000 $85,000
An
Blue Ridge: $1,300,000 $85,000
2 Improved black liquor leak & spill collection and
control Tech Team: $100,000 $50,000
Blue Ridge: $100,000 $50,000
3 Ozone/Chlorine Dioxide stage for hardwood bleach
line Tech Team: ]2,000,000e"
500,000 ($350,000)
savings
Blue Ridge: 500,000- ($350,000)
4 2" stage OD for pine line
Tech Team: $2,000,000 ($3,100,000)
Blue Ridge: $2,500,000 ($800,000-
-3,000,000' 1,200,000)g
`Installed costs for the Ozone generation and power supply systems are estimated to be in excess
of an additional $3,000,000.
(Additional cost is required due to the constructability of this system in this area of the mill.
gAppendix 4 of the July 10, 2001 draft final Tech Team Report correctly adjusted the oxygen
delignification stage input kappa number to 24. However, the yield credit of 1.5% is still shown
for the proposed two-stage oxygen delignification system. The yield credit for a 2-stage oxygen
delignification system at Canton is zero (0). Therefore, the annual O&M cost should be adjusted
down from a $3,100,000 savings as shown in the draft final Tech Team Report to an $800,000 -
$1,200,000 annual savings.
Blue Ridge Paper's Response to Tech Team's 7/10/01 Draft Report
7/18/01
4

'f.•i?�lC M
BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC
175 MAIN STREET
CANTON , NC 28716
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO
FROM:
tpn1t- - -' / '�E'4/r/�,_ `�
COMPANY: DATE: �//✓" !%
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE. YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER;
❑URGENT ❑FOR REVIEW ❑PLEASE COMMENT ❑PLEASE REPLY ❑PLEA$E RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
h
`7hematerialcvntaine�intl�ismmmtoaicationisinterrdalonlYfm't/�ereseoftfxaddres�Itmrryconudtti�orn�onth�
"016kn" Po rY;ammgpriti�ggandCOnptfiomdudosureunderappixablelaw.Iftbereulerof6u
rnmrrumirationunotrirv�rdcrlreripieruyvuarei�rbynarifredrlaaarrydicsenwr�ion,distribrarmtorduplir�aiono rliu mm/+usniearionirpia5ibita� rilzzeMaz*'dmcommuniat=Menm;pleWnou 10mmd&,*bY&Ap?"wmd
return, by mail,the original message to us. 7bank you"
ti0/TOd Z6999'799Z8=0I 910n(IOUcl HZdVd HOQIH Hf1'IE ZT :LO TO-91-L0

Bob Williams To: [e-mail]
07/13/01 05:41 PM
cc: [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],Forrest [e-mail],
Pedavis@[e-mail],tn.0 [e-mail],[e-mail],
[e-mail]
Subject: Re:Draft Final Report for EXPEDITED Review by TRW-glue Ridge
Paper
Don,
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.We submit the following (I've identified the page and heading
from the SEPER as a reference to our response):
I. pg. 3, "Process Improvements",1st papa, 3rd sentence
BRP Response-Color reductions are not necessarily additive and should not be referenced in that
manner, particularly as it relates to the interplay of 2nd stage OD, BFR optimization and the CRP stream.
See page 5,note 1 of the Liebergott Report that states technology is not additive in impact
2. pg. 3 "Process lmprovemens",3rd Para., 1 st sent.
BRP Response-We agree that further lab testing and technical review is required to determine
applicability,however the statement should also include a reference to assessing the economics of
Process changes to ultimately determine the technical and economic feasiblity.
3. pg.4 "BFR reliabiity",4th para„ 1st sent.
BRP Response-The targetted closure rate for BFR-Minerals Removal Plant has ALWAYS been 80%,
our actual performance rate has been in the 73%range.We believe that we can get MRP to ao%with a
number a mechanical changes to the system. We are the only facility in the world to operate MRP and the
commercialization (mechanical reliabilty)of the plant has been a challenge.The Liebergott audit raised
the issue that current washing strategy for the softwood line is too restrictive of water use. Irrespective of
that issue we believe that it is possible to get to the targetted level of 80% and are working diligently
toward achieving that closure rate.
4. pg.4"Improved Black Liquor"bullet 4
BRP Respo rise-The
", screen rejects are associated with a
different aspect of the operation.o The a in bullet 4 is to"
area being to issrreen KNOTRWE S.This should be hanged
to the proper terminology.
S.pg.4"Improved Black Liquor"paragraphs 3&4
BRP Response- Influent color variability is not high when compared against Spring Grove, the
referenced mill. In the past 30 days the Canton Mill Pulp Mill Supt and Environ.Mgr. have been to Spring
Grove to evaluate BMPs and planning actiivites etc..An analysis of spring Grove influent data against
ability. We
agree that we can reduce special causes in influent variability but the report should not identify the mill as
Canton usin�l statistical process control methods did not reveal significant difference in vari
currently havdng"high"variability.
6, pg 5"Improved Black Liquor", para.2, last sent.
b0/Z0d Z6e99V98ZB=QI sIORC[Otd 'dadVd ZDQIH RWIS ZT : LO TO-91-10

BRP Response- Discharge of filtrate from the knot rejects is not continuous.The term intermittent"
should be used.
7. pg, 5."Improved Black Liquor", Para 4
BRP Response-The BEPER indicates that>5000 Ibs of color can be reduced through leak and spill
protection, this is not in the range of reasonbly achievable.At best BRP knows of only a reduction in the
range of 1,000 to 3,000 Ibs..Again recent on-site inspections of a mill with TRW recommended best
Practises supports the BRP estimation. (Also requires change to Table 1)
8. pg. 5 6Ozone/CI02",last Para.
BRP Response-The BEPER indicates that a ZD stage in hardwood would result in a color reduction of
3,000 to.6,400 Ibs.The Liebergott Report, page 5 indicates that no more than 3550 is achievable,The
range should be revised to reference no more than 3550 Ibs.on the high end of removal. (Also requires
change to Table 2)
9. pg.9, Table 3, bullet 4
BRP Response-The annual 0&M savings for 2nd stage OD,pine line is no more than$800,000 to
$1,200,00.The BEPER figure is NOT adjusted for the fiber yield credit adjustment i.e. there is ZERO
percent yield impact. Table 4 of the BEPER acknowledges fact by indicating that the kappa#of 24
remains the same for a 1 or 2 stage OD,
10. pg.9,.Table 2, Color treatment of CRP stream
BRP Response-The BEPER indicates a color reduction from 6000 Ibs influent to 3300 Ibs, effluent. It is
not clear how that reduction is suppose to occur.As our earlier comments have indicated any benefit that
might occur as a result of lower chloride loading due to 2nd stage OD would not reduce the amount of
color purged from the CRP.Also as our trials have so far demonstrated there is no feasible way at this
time to treat the CRP stream in order to reduce color.Any benefit that may be occuring i I a result of the
waste water treatment effect is already accruing to our current effluent performance numbers. Based on
this data Table 2 should altogether strike the 3300 lb reduction from the report.
Don, we appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and would reference our May 18,June 4
and Liebergott reports as substantiating information pertinent to these comments.
Thanks, Bob
[e-mail]
Anderson.Donaldf a
@ To; Forrest [e-mail],
pamail.epa.gov
07/12/01 08:04 AM Wl'ib@BluueRidg Paper,commbrowndb@BlueRidg Paper.com,
[e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail],
[e-mail],[e-mail]
cc,
Subject: Re:Draft Final Report for EXPEDITED Review by TRW-Blue Ridge
Paper
36299b92Z9=QI s.t.onaolld 112dVd 9DQIld 3ngU VI :L0 TO-97-LO

a
Forrest and all
Assuming Forrest is not the only one having a problem, I've resaved and
attached the file in Word format. Sorry for the inconvenience, and hope
this helps,
Don
(See attached file: BRPFNLdrft.710.doe)
Forrest Westall
Anderson/Dc/usEPA/[e-mail]@n To: DonaldF
cmail.net> cc-
Report for EXPEDITED Review by TRW - Blue Subject: Re: Draft Final
07/11/01 14:05 Ridge Paper
Don, I •can't seem to "see" the attachment. If you have a Word version
that would be
helpful.' Thanks. Forrest
[e-mail] wrote:
> Folks :-
> I have: attached the file with our draft final report. Per our
discussion,
> we MOST have an expedited review within the next few days. My deadline
for
> addressing your comments and producing the final report is July 23. NC
> needs the report by that date so that they can prepare a 30 day notice
and
> circulate the report prior to a public hearing which needs to occur
before
> the end of August. Mike will let us know as soon as the hearing is
> ced. P1s let me hear back
patience,
> patience, from you by July 18, and thx for your
> Dori
> (See attached file: BRPFNLdrft.710.wpd)
'-----------------------`---- ___
> Name: BRPFNLdrft.710.wpd
> BRPFNLdrft.710.wpd Type: WordPerfect Document
(application/wordper
> fect5.1)
•> Encoding: base64 _
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
b0/b0d Z6899b98Z8=CI SZORCOIld HZdtld 21DCI2I 2nZ9 £T :LO TO-9T-10

. 17 BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS ID=8286466892 P01/03
BLUE RIDGE
AA,EA P1000CTS INC.
175 MAIN STREET
CANTON , NC 28716
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
O> FRO
bb
MPANY: DATE:
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. AGES IIN/CLUDING COVER:
L _
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'$REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
❑URGENT ❑FOR REVIEW ❑PLEASE COMMENT ❑PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
AUG z 7 tool
ASNCtgUE;, C.cTI�
"7FxmatenalrnnzuinedintGismmmunir�uionuinamdelonlyfortlxu�zoftlxadd»Itmayronlimta�orniat'pntfiat
istonfrdentW4 p7gMZtary,attorneypnwkge 4 andexemptf wn discloswmunderappl=blektw.Ifdvereaderoftbu
armrmmi�ion unot dx inreulslnaipieny5r�uamlxmbyn�figlJxaanJ'di6annum'on,disaibrrdonord:spli�ianofd�rs
cmnm:nti�ionisptoliibitsl�hzcerc�c:Ylthismnvrwmi¢uionmerror,Pl�enoafYusimme'Ga�Yb1'td�Sl.>aemid
return,by mail,the original message to us. Tbank you."

08-27-61 08: 17 BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS ID_ =8286466892
- ,•SK'ra
North Carolina Drpartment of Health and HiLan Services
Division of Public Health•Section of Human Ecology and Epidemiology
1914 Mail Service Centex•Raleigh,Noah Carolina r699-1912
Tel 919-733-NI0•Pax 919-733-9555
ificSael c'-F--l.y,Go9=r,cr Carmen Hooker Buell,Seaevey
August9,2001
hYEMOR4NDYJM
TO: LeahAevlin.DDS,MPH,InterimIlealth Divecror
Steve Cline,DDS,MPH Section Chief
Human Ecology and Epidemiology �r
THROUG&: Bill Tynan,MD,MPH Head 14
P
Occupational and Environmental Epi o st-1N p X Note
l:
zC'f`� 7677 pad
FROM Bill Pate,PE,CIH,Unit Supervisor
Medical Evaluation and Risk Asses P lltt t `G co (-(jet
►
Occupation me al and Environntal E F u a - v✓
ti money
SUBSECT: Recommend Removal of Carpani 0 Fax4
Recommend Removal of Catfish Consumprw.,._
impoundment of Pigeon River)and Sustaining the Carp CorisunSF..�_'
Walters Lake.
- A -a N2EA toxicologist has reviewed the 1997 to 2000 dioxin fish tiasue sampling darn for the pigeon y
j Riveikand SValters Lake that was submitted by Blue Ridge Paper products Inc.and Progress Energy. Based
on this zeview,NIERA recommends the following:
%,n't movallo the carp and catfish consumption advisory on Pigeon River
• Rernovai of catfish consumption advisory on Walters Lake(an impoundment of Pigeon River)and
sutaining the carp consumption advisory on Wafters Lake
Lifting the advisory on the Pigeon River and the partial lifting of she advisory on Walters Lake would
involve issuing a press release:and notifying Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc,Progress Energy,The local
health departments in these areas,D$NR Wildlife Resources Commission,and DENR Water Quality
Secti'm Please review the enclosed draft Press release and let me know,if you approve of the press release
and recommendations. Please call Dr.I i wne Williams at 715.6429 or me ai 715.6452,
Supporting Information
pigeon River
The 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equiva1=tsfor 17 isomers(pg7gm)for each gam mp efisli composite sale
have been belowour current action level of 4 ppI orpieograms per gram(pg/gm)for the three monitoring
sires located approximately I,)miles upstream from min discharge,4.3 m11es downstream from trill
discharge,and 11 milm downstream of troll discharge for over six years. Gamefrsh were removed 9rnm
the fish advisory in 1994. It is xecommcnded to discondrmo diol in gamebshrtwnitor ng for the Pigeon
River.
I.=tio=2M Capital 8ov1evud.Pas_l.inwle8,1 •RaleigF,N.C.27B04 Aa Equal Clpportuuicy7:r'Ployer
08-24-01 14!SB TO:SLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS PROMIS19 733 8493 P02

: IS BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS ID=8286466892 P03/03
.wj - , 4VV1 1J-VV I-_'JJ
Pigeon Rivef,Walters Lake Memo
Aug=6,2001
Page Two
The 2?1-118-TCDD Toxic equivalents for 17 isomers(pVgn)f—each csp composite(catfish have
not been found in the pigeon River)have been below our current action level of ppt(pe/grn)for the three
monitoring sites between 1996 to 2000. Eased on this data and ow criteria forremoving advisories(ta-o
data set yeses showing average 2,3,7,8.TCDD toxic equivalents(pg/gm)at or below 3 pg/gm),the carp and
catfish(under current advisory)can safoly be removed from the advisory,on the Pigeon River. In addition,
The eat and if possible catfish should be monitored on the Pigeon River for two data set years to ensnm a
downward trend.
Walters take
'-N, ;RA Toxicologist have also reviewed The dioxin fish sampling data for 1991 to 2000 for
Welters Lake ss submitted by P:ngress Eaergy. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for 2,3,7,9.TCD1)
and TCDF isomers(pg/gm)for each catfish composite have been below our current,action level of ppt
(pg(gm)for the two monitoring sites located approximately 21.8 and 24.3 miles 8'om mill discharge fez
several years(bullhead species 92-00,flathead catfish 96-00,channel catfish 97-00,and white catfish 97-
00). There bas been a downward trend in the average 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents for carp for both
mmonitoring sizes Since 199"but the carp composite concentrations remain elevated above 4(Pg/gm). The
ghtst 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalent found in 2000 was 7.36(pg/grn). Based on this darn and our criteria
for removing sdvisones(two dam set years showing average 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents(pg'gm)at or
below 3(pg/g ),the catfsh should be removed from the advisory on Walters Lake,but the carp should
remain under advisory.
The advisory on Walters Lake should read as follows:
Carp in the Walters Lake may contain low levels of diord 'Woer m of childbearing age and
children should eat no cup taken from this area unrii further notice Por all others,consumption
of carp should be limited to no more than one meal per person p�month,
In addition,the catfish should be monitored for two data set years to ensure a downward trend.
The carp should be monitored as well to determine when the fish consumption advisory should be removed.
Crsmefish were removed from the fish advisory in I994. It is recommended To discontinue dioxin game:5sh
monitoring for Walters Lake.
LKWptI
Enclosure
cc: Dr.Luanne Williams
08-24-81 14:SS TO:BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS FROM:919 723 8493 P03