NC0000272_Dioxin Fish Tissue Monitoring Report_20030203

BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
February 3,2003
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 4.Iill
Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue Report-2002
Dear Mr.Westall:
Attached is the final report detailing the results from Blue Ridge Paper Products' thirteenth
annual Fish Tissue Study. This study,as required by our NPDES permit,consists of annual
sampling of fish at specific sites in the Pigeon River and analysis of those fish for dioxin. The
actual fish collection took place in September 2002. All surveys were conducted by EA
Engineering Science and Technology and the analyses were conducted by Severn Trent
Laboratories.
As you know,the Study Plan for the 2002 fish tissue monitoring was revised in response to the
fish consumption advisory on the Pigeon River being completely rescinded and the Walters Lake
advisory being partially rescinded. Carp in Walters Lake is the only fish species remaining under
advisory for both the North Carolina and Tennessee portions of the Pigeon River.
If you have any questions or comments,please call me at(828) 646-6749 or Derric Brown at
[phone].
Sincerely,
6�ro
Melanie Gardner L) FEB - 42�]DloAdvanced Environmental EngineerR QUALITY SECTION
Attachment LE REGIONAL OHICE
175 Main Street • P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Raising Your Expectations

xc: [Iylr.UERGIIla es
Water Quality Section
Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville,NC 28802
Attn: Central Files
Division of Environmental Management
and Natural Resources
NC Division of Environment and Natural Resources
P.O.Box 29535
Raleigh,NC 27626-0535
Mr.Marshall Hyatt
USEPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street,N.E..
Atlanta, GA 30365
Ms. Coleco Sullins
Chief,Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
512 N Salisbury Street
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh,NC 27 6 1 1-7687
Mr. Paul Davis,Director
TN Dept. of Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
6th Fl. L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville,TN 37243-1534
Mr. David McKinney
TN Wildlife Resources Agencies
Ellington Agricultural Agency Center
P.O. Box 40747
Nashville,TN 37204

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

LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
2-1 Pigeon River sampling station information..........................................2-2
4-1 Fish collection techniques and level of effort.......................................4-2
4-2 Summary of fish composites collected in the Pigeon River,
September2002 .........................................................................4-3
6-1 Summary of Pigeon River fish tissues analysis results--2002.....................6-2
6-2 Toxicity equivalence factors for CDD/F isomers ..................................6-3
6-3 Summary of CDD/F isomer analyses, toxicity equivalent
factors, and toxicity equivalent values for the 2002 Pigeon
River fish tissue composites ...........................................................6-5
6-4 Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill fish fillet tissue analysis results
1990-2002................................................................................6-9

r
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Pate
ES-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2002................................................................................vrri
2-1 Sampling station locations on the Pigeon River ....................................2-3
2-2 Sampling Station No. 1 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-4
2-3 Sampling Station No. 2 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-5
' 2-4 Sampling Station No. 3 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-6
2-5 Sampling Station No. 4A on the Pigeon River .....................................2-7
2-6 Sampling Station No. 4B on the Pigeon River......................................2-8
2-7 Sampling Station No. 5 on the Pigeon River .......................................2-9
6-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2002.............................................................................. 6-16
6-2 TCDD concentrations in channel catfish fillets (Station 4A) and flathead
catfish fillets (Station 413) collected from the Pigeon River, 1997-2002 ...... 6-18
v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bottom feeding species were collected in 2002 from six locations in the Pigeon River and
analyzed for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF), and other CDD and CDF isomers. TCDD and TCDF concentrations in fillet
composites from bottom feeders were very low (range=non-detected to 1.4 ppt) at the three
riverine locations downstream of the mill. Bottom feeders used at these locations were
common carp and black redhorse. TCDD concentrations in bottom feeder fillet composites at
the two Waterville Lake locations were 2.2 ppt and 6.6 ppt (Stations 4A and 4B, respectively)
for carp, non-detect for channel catfish at Station 4A and non-detect for flathead catfish at
Station 4B. Since 1990, TCDD concentrations in common carp fillets have declined
dramatically (90-99 percent) at all downstream stations (Figure ES-1).
The scope and methodology in 2001 and 2002 has changed from previous years due to
significant changes to the Pigeon River fish consumption advisory. In August 2001, the fish
consumption advisory in the Pigeon River was completely lifted and the Waterville Lake
advisory was partially lifted.
vii

Figure ES-1. TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from
the Pigeon River, 1990-2002 (Stations 2 and 3).
2s
20 ---------------------------•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------•--------------------------------------------------------...--------------------------------------•-•--------
T Station 2 -----+---- Station 3
IF
0
w
a
w
�• a
❑ 10 ........................ ----------------.....-•---------------------.....----------------------•-----------------------------•--•----------------------------------•-----------------------------------------------------.
0
U
F-
5 ----•------------------------------------------------ ----•------------------------•--•--------------------------...---------------------------------------•------------------------------------------•----------------..---
+-- b c c c
+ a a - --•--- --- + -
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YEAR
a) TCDD conenttations at Station 3 were not detected,therefore,the value plotted represents the detection limit for that sample.
b) TCDD concentrations at Station 2 were not detected,therefore,the value plotted represents the detection limit for that sample.
c) TCDD concentrations at Stations 2 and 3 were not detected,therefore, the values plotted represent the detection limits for those samples.

Figure ES-1 (Cont.). TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from
the Pigeon River,1990-2002 (Stations 4A and 4B).
70
60 •----------i-.......................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................
so =----------"----------- ------•-----------------------------•---------•------------------------------------------------------------------------------......-•-•---------•-------------------------------
o .'
40 -----------------------%
(b
a
CL -------------------------------------------"-•---------- .................................................... ---------------------------•"-"----------------------•----"----• -----------•------------------------.
o
o �
U
20 -------------------------------------------------••----- ------\------------------•--•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------•------------------------------------------------.
10 . .......... =� --------------------------r
'A-------t-------�'----
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YEAR
Station 4a ---A-- Station 0

1. INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a study conducted during 2002 to determine the concentrations
of 2,3,7,8,-TCDD (dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) in fish collected from the Pigeon River
near Canton, North Carolina. The study described herein is number 13 in a series of fish
tissue surveys designed and conducted to be completely responsive to the requirements of
A.(9.) Dioxin Monitoring Special Condition in Blue Ridge Paper's current NPDES permit for
the Canton Mill (Permit No. NC0000272). Sampling locations, selection of target species,
sampling methods, and sample preparation/preservation techniques are in accordance with the
study plan (EA 2001a). The approved study methods and scope detailed herein generally
follow those used since 1990 (EA 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 19979
1998, 2000, 2001b, 2001c), however, selected project details were modified to be responsive
to the suggestions/recommendations of the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR), the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, U.S. EPA Region
IV, and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS). The
principal change in the program was that the collection and analysis of sportfish composite
samples were not required in 2001 and 2002.
The 2002 study was conducted during 17-19 September, during which time biologists from EA
collected and prepared fish tissue samples from six sampling locations on the Pigeon River.
Details relevant to the location of Pigeon River sampling stations and fish tissue sampling
objectives follow in Sections 2 and 3, respectively. Fish collection techniques and level of
effort are detailed in Section 4; methods of sample preparation and shipment are presented in
Section 5. Analytical results are summarized in Section 6 and references are provided in
Section 7.
i
1-1

2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
In accordance with the study plan (EA 2001 a), fish were collected from six locations on the
Pigeon River. Five monitoring stations were located downstream from the Canton Mill outfall
(four in North Carolina and one in Tennessee) and one control or background site was located
upstream of it. Detailed sampling station information is provided in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1.
Station 1, the background site, is located at Pigeon River Mile (RM) 64.5, approximately 1.2 RM
upstream from the Canton Mill outfall (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Fish were collected from the river
reach adjacent to the Canton Recreational Park(located upstream from the city of Canton).
Except under extremely high flows, the Canton Mill dam blocks the movement of fishes and
thereby prevents the interaction of control and downstream monitoring station fishes. Monitoring
Station 2 is located upstream from Clyde, North Carolina at RM 59.0, approximately 4.3 RM
downstream from the Canton Mill outfall (Figures 2-1 and 2-3). Station 3 is 11.0 RM
downstream from the outfall(RM 52.3), in the vicinity of the old Rt. 209 bridge (Figures 2-1 and
2-4). Monitoring stations 4A and 4B are located in Waterville Lake at RM 41.5 and 39.0,
respectively (Figure 2-1). Station 4A is located approximately 21.8 RM downstream from the
Mill outfall, near the Messer Branch-Pigeon River confluence (Figure 2-5). Monitoring Station
4B is in the vicinity of the Wilkins Creek-Pigeon River confluence, approximately 24.3 RM
downstream from the Canton Mill outfall (Figure 2-6). Station 5 is located near Bluffton,
Tennessee at RM 19.0, approximately 44.3 RM downstream from the Mill outfall and about 6
miles downstream of the CP&L Hydro site(Figures 2-1 and 2-7). Sampling stations were
separated by at least 5.5 RM(with the exception of the Waterville Lake stations which are only
2.5 RM apart). All appropriate habitats were sampled within each study reach in an effort to
collect the desired complement of fishes. Brief site/habitat descriptions are provided in Table 2-1.
Fish sampling was conducted in the vicinity of each location described above, however, the
distance sampled at each station depended on how difficult it was to collect fish at that station.
At Station 1, an approximate 0.2 RM reach was sampled which extended from just downstream
of the downstream most River Road (Rt. 215)Bridge to the bridge by the city park. The
Station 2 sample reach was approximately 0.2 RM in length and was adjacent to a sharp bend
along Old Thickety Road. The Station 3 sample reach extended approximately 0.2 RM,just
upstream of the old Rt. 209 Bridge. In previous years, Station 4A in Waterville Lake has been
situated at and just upstream of the mouth of Messer Branch. However, low lake levels in 2002
precluded sampling upstream of the Messer Branch-Pigeon River confluence. Therefore, an
approximate 0.4 RM reach of Waterville Lake adjacent to and downstream of the Messer Branch-
Pigeon River confluence was sampled. The Station 4B study area consisted of a 1.0 RM reach of
Waterville Lake located near the Wilkins Creek-Pigeon River confluence. Sampling at
Stations 4A and 4B included gillnetting near the shore along both the left and right banks of
Waterville Lake. A large pool just upstream of the I-40 Bridge was sampled at Location 5.
2-1

Table 2-1. Pigeon River Sampling Stations.
Station River Station Location and
Number Mile Distance from Outfall Site Description/Habitat Type Fish Community
I 64.5 Pigeon River upstream from Canton, Characterized by riffle,run,and pool habitats. Maximum Relative abundance dominated by minnows and darters. River
NC,adjacent to Canton Recreational depth approximately 5 R Substrate primarily cobble and boulders chub,gremlin darter and rock bass are dominant. Northern bog
Park(1.2 RM upstream from Canton interspersed with gravel and sand. sucker,black redhorse,minim shiner,central slonerolla,greenside
Mill outfall). darter,and mottled sculpin ere common.
2 59.0 Pigeon River upstream fiom Clyde,NC Chomclmud by run and pool habitats with canopy Relative abundance dominated by redbreast sunfish,central
(4.3 RM downstream from the Canton cover. Maximum depth approximately 6 fL Substrate stonemller,and northern hog sucker.
Mill outfall). primarily eobble/graveVsand with some boulders and bedrock
3 52.3 Pigeon River in the vicinity ofthe RL .. .Characterized by ran and pool habitats with same Redbreast sunk sh,northern hog sucker,and cenunon carp are
209.bridge(11.0 RM downstream canopy cover. Maximum depth approximately 5 fL dominant. Central sloneraller is common.
from the Canton Mill outfall) Substrate primarily bedrock and boulders wiW some
cobble and sand/gravel/Imes deposited in pool areas.
N
I
N 4A 41.5 Upper Waterville Lake(21.8 RM Characterized by deep-water lerdic habitat with bedrock -Relative abundance dominated by black crappie. Bluegill,flathead
downstream from the Canton Mill covered by loose,unconsolidated bottom sediments. Maximum ruttish,channel catfish,and largemouth bass are common.
outfall) depth sampled approximately 15 R Common carp are present but not common
4B 39.0 Lower Waterville Lake from the dam to Characterized by deep-water lentic habitat,bedrock, Relative abundance of catch dominated by black crappie. Bluegill,
confluence with Wilkins Creek(24.3 RM and soft bottom sediments. Maximum depth sampled channel ash,and flathead catfish are common Common carp
downstream from the Canton Mill approximately 401L Very steep banks with little cover. are present but not common.
outfall)
5 19.0 Pigeon River near Blufnon,TN,just A single deep pool is sampled. Maximum depth approximately Northern hog sucker is dominant. Smallmouth bass,rock bass,
upstream of I40(44.3 RM downstream 8 IL Substrate primarily boulder and cobble. black redhorse,whitetail shiner,and banded sculpin are common
_from the Canton Miilouffall)- _ _.Except for smallmouth bass and rock bass,centrarchids are.
uncommon. Freshwater drum,gizzard shad,and buffalo me
occasionally common. Common cup are absent.
i

3i
1-40
Station 5
— RM 19.0 5
Bluffton,TN
(19.3)
Hartford,TN
''•.,TENNESSEE N
—••— NORTH
CAROLINA
8l9Cted iiI g+
Hydro Plant
(26.0)
Ii--
o60
i
Walters Dam 4B
Station 4B Station 4A
RM 39.0 RM 41.5
4A Waterville Lake
Fines
Creek
New Hepco Bridge
FLOW Jonathans
Creek Old Rt 209
Outfall
3 Station 3 Station 2 Mill RM 63.33.3
RM 52.3 RM 59.0
Waynesville STP 2 Canton,NC
Outfall a
RM 54.7 �`F Clyde Station 1 1
RM 64.5
. (Control)
Figure 2-1. Fish tissue sampling station locations on the Pigeon River.
9 p 9 9
2-3

� •�• �.��, �\a"'% No -anion !ii
i
•a I ••�� //fJ ryO• -_
• 1 •
...li. .••, ton
Fah `�:t. •� �;.: � o
:.E. msQ y.
u el � •u�• . o-•:"�Sma 1
b 1 ae ` 8�>� - •� � � lwSel llfn¢ C J .� / P
' .III• Ip •" �' hT..l,l J � J'�
r "/ ¢ 1, i i � ✓
r aDt"� i tiei�I
DEL n6;5.a10
� 11C S12110n
station"-j`•�`�•'1--- �v-° _
D1,11.5 iSEa:}4i6h�<hFT`
Cd 4a L 1t/10ji; a �
Figure 2-2. Sampling Station No. 1 on the Pigeon River.
R
2-4
'.

vev
ell
CIA 0 Q Ph( , ke
%
J LI
F-
-Ij Station 2 R
71 1. q,a�
1
-
YEta
ir
�)t C�Ord c�aL—
Mi F-
silc
6
7�-
Ove
Figure 2-3. Sampling Station No. 2 on the Pigeon River.
2-5

r—
i
y - _ `-� .r.i-•awl e 'Lnialrbeh\i�,�l
iW
eN
LoT
�' � ! ;.�•: '��` ,• ff � �_ I fir«
.a°f'f.�"h:l� '--/ •� \ a.-;I r` —°!✓ r '"�`; 2477 C•l �`� la. �'�`Q .�
Y, />..��1�r/sB����� r •Cn' v �'D�1' '. \i'� \y; c-a ' •.,E
�//yfl'I����\l\ `�\ :4y-O ,• \ ��/ � fV ��'� C e '�_�V 51
L �
Figure 2-4. Sampling Station No. 3 on the Pigeon River.
2-6
�O

o it U
rY
tion 4A\IF
ire
f
Nil
-, / `'•fi r 54a MUN Y!Ce
I
Figure 2-5. Sampling Station No. 4A on the Pigeon River.
En`- 2-7

,
o
iai
',nv.; 1�'1 �.\._ �; , �;�; arse •, �� !,� ::Q.� •
i;: � i``:�?�I p...,�� a�; �� ` ���i, c a GI'a 55'7��
RUANN
\�� �'�ELEV 2258
11
'ir1zK 0 _� � Vic. \ ✓ ) i C'
Station 4Bi ;✓it ..,
CJI
Figure 2-6. Sampling Station No. 4B on the Pigeon River.
2-8
�� _I

U
fill
J
1 1 n
Figure 2-7. Sampling station No.5 on the Pigeon River.
2_9

it
- 3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES
In accordance with the study plan (EA 2001a), the goal of the fish collection effort was to
collect one composite bottom feeder fillet sample at each of the six sampling stations. Each
composite consisted of 5 similarly sized (shortest specimen within 75% of the length of the
longest) adult individuals of the target species. Common carp (Cyprfnus carpio) was the target
species at Stations 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Common carp are absent at Stations 1 and 5, so at these
stations, black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesne:) was the target bottom feeder. In Waterville
Lake, one additional fillet composite sample using either channel catfish or flathead catfish was
collected at Stations 4A and 4B.
In addition to the fillet composites, a whole body composite consisting of 4 similarly sized
common carp was collected at Station 4B in Waterville Lake.
In summary, fish were collected as follows:
• Bottom feeder fillet composite--one sample at all six stations
• Catfish fillet composite—one sample at Stations 4A and at 4B
• Common carp whole body composite—one sample from Station 4B
The study plan called for the collection of catfish fillet composite samples at Stations 2 and 3 if
specimens were encountered. However, no specimens were encountered at these locations in
2002.
Every reasonable effort was made to collect the desired size, species, and/or number of fish,
however, the outcome of the sampling effort each year is dependent on physical river
conditions and the natural diversity and abundance of target fishes at each sampling location.
The 2002 Pigeon River collections yielded the desired complement of species at each sampling
station, except that the common carp whole body composite sample at Location 4B was based
- on four rather than five specimens. Based on the effort associated with collecting them, it
appears that common carp in Waterville Lake are now less abundant than they once were. For
example, the number of common carp collected at Location 4B in 2002 (0.05 fish per net
hour) was similar to values observed since 1995 (range 0.02-0.08 fish per net hour), but
significantly lower than values observed in 1993 (0.041 fish per net hour) and 1994 (0.28 fish
per net hour). Similarly, the number of carp collected per net hour at Location 4A in 2002
(0.04 fish) was the lowest value to date, nearly ten times lower than the 1993 value of 0.34
fish per net hour (EA 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001b, and 2001c).
Nonetheless, the number of specimens collected made it possible to composite individuals of
similar weight and length (with larger/adult specimens preferred), and the 75 percent rule was
met for all samples.
3-1

4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
Sampling was conducted on 17-19 of September 2002. Notes were recorded at each sampling
station with regard to the type of sampling gear, level of effort (time); and habitat (Table 4-1).
— Surface temperature measurements at each location are summarized below:
Station RM Date Temp m
1 64.5 9/19 19.5
-I 2 59.0 9/17 25.5
3 52.3 9/17 23.2
4A 41.5 9/17 22.8
413 39.0 9/17 24.8
5 19.0 9/18 22.7
` All fish submitted for tissue analysis were measured to the nearest millimeter (total length) and
weighed to the nearest gram (wet weight). These data are summarized in Table 4-2.
The field investigators were equipped with an array of collecting gear which enabled sampling
of all habitats regardless of river conditions. U.S. EPA recommends active methods of fish
collection in their Sampling Guidance Manual (Versar 1984), such as electrofishing, trawling,
angling, or seining. These methods are preferred over passive methods (e.g., gill nets, trap
nets, trotlines) because the collection period is typically shorter (i.e., hours versus days--
thereby minimizing decomposition), and because samples are collected from more definable
areas (Versar 1984). Electrofishing was used at all stations, except 4A and 4B (Waterville
Lake), where gill nets were necessary because of water depth. A boat electrofishing unit
(pulsed direct current) was used to sample fish at Stations 3 and 5. The boat electrofisher was
equipped with a Smith Root Type VIA electrofisher, powered by a 240-volt, 5000W
generator. A pram electrofisher, equipped with a Coffelt VVP-2C pulser and powered by a
120-volt, 1800W generator, was utilized at Stations 1 and 2. Electrofishing techniques
followed those described in the National Dioxin Study (Versar 1984).
J
Fish collection techniques and level of effort (time) expended at each of the six stations are
summarized in Table 4-1. Total study effort involved —2.2 electrofishing-hours and —295 net-
hours. Total electrofishing duration (energized time) was 25, 75, 20, and 14 minutes at
Stations 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively.
4-1

Tablc 4-l. Fish Collection Techniques and Level of Effort.
Station Sampling Sampling
Number RM Da s Technique IAvcI of Effort Comments
1 64.5 19 SEP 02 Pram Eleclrofishing 25 min An approximate 0.2 RM reach of river was sampled;water level low and stable—visibility good;
characterized by riffles,runs,and pools with primarily cobblelboulder substrates interspersed with gravel and
sand along margins. The entire reach was sampled using the pram
2 59.0 17 SEP 02 Pram Electrufishing 45 min Less than 0.2 RM reach of river was sampled;water level low—visibility good;station characterized by ran
18 SEP 02 Pram Electrufuhing 30 min and pool habitats with canopy cover,substrate primarily cobble/gravel with some boulders and bedrock,and
sand/gravel/fines deposited along margins. Sampling involved several electrofiahing passes near woody
debris using the pram
3 52.3 17 SEP 02 Boat Eleclrofishing 20 min An approximate 0.2 RM reach ofriver was sampled;water level low—visibility good;station characterized by
..rare and pools with primarily bedrock and boulder substrates,with sand/gravel/Imo deposited along
margins. Sampling involved several electrofishing passes over the reach utilizing a boat-vaunted
electrofishing unit
A
1 4A 41.5 17-I8 SEP 02 (5)Gill nets —127 net•Fus An approximate 0.4 RM reach of river was sampled;lake level very low—visibility good,station
N characterized by moderately deep-water lentic habitat with bedrock and soft,unconsolidated bottom
substrates. Sampling involved gill net sets just off the left and right shoes.
4B 39.0 17-I8 SEP 02 (5)Gill nets —168 net-hrs An approximate 1.0 RM reach of river was sampled;lake level was very low—visibility Bend:station
characterized by deep-water lentic habitats with bedrock and soft bottom substrates. Sampling involved gill
nets. Effort was concentrated near the rock pile nearthe dam and in the small bay at the mouth of Wilkins
Creek
5 19.0 18 SEP 02 Boat Electrofishing 14 min An approximate 0.1 RM reach of river was sampled;water was clear and moderately low—visibility good to
excellent;station characterized by pools and shoal habitats;substrate primarily bedrock,boulder,and cobble.
Sampling involved several eleclrofishing passes over a large pool using a boat-mounted ele tmfishing unit

-Table 4 2 Summary of fish com osites collected at six stations in the Pigeon River. September 2002.
-� TOTAL TOTAL
LENGTH WHOLE BODY
�`- DATE STATION SPECIES (m) WEIGHT SAMPLE TYPE COMPOSITE
19 SEP 02 1 BLACK REDHORSE 405 520 FILLET R
- (RM 64.5) BLACK REDHORSE 425 570
BLACK REDHORSE 372 465
BLACK REDHORSE 431 630
BLACK REDHORSE 375 460
MEAN 402 529
17 SEP 02 2 COMMON CARP 522 1960 FILLET R
(RM 59.0) COMMON CARP 548 2130
COMMON CARP 548 2080
COMMON CARP 527 2080
COMMON CARP 517 1820
-- MEAN t32 2014
17 SEP 02 3 COMMON CARP 575 2440 FILLET R
(RM 52.3) COMMON CARP 630 3320
COMMON CARP 632 3330
- - COMMON CARP 621 3050
COMMON CARP 587 2600
MEAN 609 2948
17-18 SEP 02 4A CHANNEL CATFISH 475 910 FILLET R
(RM 41.5) CHANNEL CATFISH 470 950
' CHANNEL CATFISH 446 700
CHANNEL CATFISH 425 680
CHANNEL CATFISH 452 730
MEAN 454 794
17-18 SEP 02 COMMON CARP 648 2900 FILLET R
COMMON CARP 523 2510
COMMON CARP 591 2760
COMMON CARP 565 2300
COMMON CARP 592 3400
MEAN 584 2774
-' 17-18 SEP 02 48 FLATHEAD CATFISH 472 1230 FILLET R
(RM 39.0) FLATHEAD CATFISH 457 1050
FLATHEAD CATFISH 484 1260
FLATHEAD CATFISH 505 1430
FLATHEAD CATFISH 418 760
' MEAN 467 1146
4-3

Table 4-2 (cont.).
TOTAL TOTAL
LENGTH WHOLE BODY ._
DATE STATION SPECIES ( m) WEIGHT(9) SAMPLE TYPE COMPOSITE
17-18 SEP 02 4B(cont.) COMMON CARP 647 5400 FILLET R
IRK 39.0) COMMON CARP 670 5300
COMMON CARP 652 4750
COMMON CARP 670 5000
COMMON CARP 658 4500
MEAN 659 4990
17-18 SEP 02 COMMON CARP 579 2320 WHOLE BODY WB
COMMON CARP 630 3740
COMMON CARP 656 4100
COMMON CARP 615 3870
MEAN 620 3508
18 SEP 02 5 BLACK REDHORSE 452 1200 FILLET R
(RM 19.3) BLACK REDHORSE 430 1100
BLACK REDHORSE 489 1360
BLACK REDHORSE 441 980
BLACK REDHORSE 485 1470
MEAN 459 1222
4-4

Target species were collected at all sampling stations in 2002. Common carp, the target
bottom feeder at stations 2, 3, 4A, and 4B, were collected (and prepared for fillet and/or
Whole body analysis) at those stations. In addition, the preferred target bottom feeding species
(black redhorse) was collected from Stations 1 and 5. The physiography of the Waterville
Lake Stations 4A and 4B necessitated the use of gill nets for the collection of bottom feeding
species. All nets were pulled and examined on a regular basis to reduce stress or specimen
mortality. All specimens submitted for analysis appeared healthy and in good condition.
Lengths and weights for each fish making up each composite are provided in Table 4-2.
Bottom feeder fillet composites consisted of five black redhorse at Stations 1 and 5 and five
common carp at Stations 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. In addition, a second bottom feeder fillet
composite, consisting of five channel catfish, was prepared for analysis from Station 4A; a
second bottom feeder fillet composite, consisting of five flathead catfish, was prepared for
analysis from Station 4B. A 'single bottom feeder whole body composite consisting of four
common carp from Station 4B was prepared for analysis (Table 4-2).
All nine composites submitted for analysis in 2002 met the US EPA Region IV
recommendation (Cunningham 1990) that the smallest specimen in each composite be equal to
or greater than 75 percent of the total length of the largest specimen in that composite (Tables
4-2 and 6-4).
I �
4-5

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

A chain-of-custody form was filled out for each cooler of samples submitted for analysis.
Each form included composite-specific information and instructions. Copies of all
chain-of-custody records are provided in Appendix A.
All samples were frozen solid prior to shipment to the analytical laboratory. The frozen
samples were packed on dry ice, shipped via overnight delivery on 19 September and were
received, still frozen, at Sevem Trent Laboratory - Sacramento on 20 September 2002.
r �
5-2

6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The fish tissue samples were received at Severn Trent Laboratory (STL) - Sacramento,
- California under chain-of-custody on 20 September 2002. Once received at the laboratory,
samples were compared to the chain-of-custody record to verify the contents of each shipping
container. Each individual fish or fillet within a composite was homogenized separately by
STL personnel, and equal aliquots of the homogenate from each fish were removed to
constitute the composite. Dioxin and furan analyses were performed using high resolution Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GS/MS) as required by the U.S. EPA. Laboratory
documentation of all chemical extractions and analyses are provided in Appendix B. All
chemical analyses of the samples were conducted using EPA Method 8290 (U.S. EPA 1994)
as specified in the Canton Mill NPDES permit.
The quality of the analytical results was assured through reproducible calibration and testing of
the extractions and GC/MS systems. A laboratory method blank was prepared along with each
batch of samples. The laboratory also used precision and recovery standards for determination
of initial and ongoing precision and accuracy.
- Laboratory reports for all 2002 Pigeon River fish tissue dioxin, furan, and lipid content
analyses are provided in Appendix B. Each laboratory analysis report form lists the
concentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF), and all other CDD/CDF isomers. Results of the dioxin, furan, and lipid content
analyses are summarized in Table 6-1. Detection limits are reported parenthetically on a
sample-specific basis. Only fillet results are discussed below because NCDHHS considers
only fillet results when issuing health advisories.
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in bottom feeder composite fillet samples were below the
level of detection at Stations 1, 2, 3, 4A (channel catfish), 4B (flathead catfish), and 5 (Table
6-1). Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were detectable only in common carp composite fillet
samples from Stations 4A (2.2 ppt) and 4B (6.6 ppt). Furan isomer (2,3,7,8-TCDF) analysis
results indicated a concentration range from non-detect [Stations 1, 4A (channel catfish), and
4B (flathead catfish)] to 3.4 ppt (common carp at Station 413).
Examination of the data in Table 6-1 indicates that all fish collected during this study bad body
burdens well below the FDA dioxin health advisory level (25 ppt) for fish tissue [as
established and presented in FDA (1981 and 1983) and Cordle (1983)].
NCDHHS has identified a dioxin evaluation level of 3 ppt in fillet samples, expressed as
average toxicity equivalent (TEQ) (NCDEHNR 1991). The TEQ of each chlorodibenzo dioxin
and furan (CDD/F) isomer is based on the toxicity equivalence factor (TEF) (WHO 1997 and
Table 6-2) as described in the 2001 Study Plan (EA 2001b). The TEQ value is calculated
assuming additivity of effects from the individual congeners of dioxins and furans and is
expressed as an "equivalent amount of 2,3,7,8-TCDD" (NCDEHNR 1991). The measured
concentration of each CDD/F isomer, when multiplied by its appropriate TEF, yields the TEQ
! I
6-1

Table 6-1. Summary of Pigeon River Fish Tissue Analysis Results,2002.
Station Percent
Number Sample ID Species Composite/Sample Type 2.3.7.8-TCDDI't 2.3.7.8-TCDFt°t Lipid
1 LOC 1 BLACK RH. Black redhorse 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.14) ND(DL=0.27) 5.1
2 LOC 2 CARP Common carp 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.28) 1.1 8.1
3 LOC 3 CARP Common carp 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.22) 0.80(l) 12.0
4A LOC 4A C.CATFISH Channel catfish 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.31) ND(DL=0.39) 6.5
LOC 4A CARP Common carp 5 fillet samples 2.2 1.8 9.1
4B LOC 4B FH.CATFISH Flathead catfish 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.22) ND(DL=0.47) 4.0
LOC 4B CARP Common carp 5 fillet samples 6.6 3.4 18.0
LOC 4B CARP-WB Common carp 4 whole body samples 5.3 5.6 24.0
n
J 5 LOC 5 BLACK RH. Black redhorse 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.14) 1.4 9.0
(a) Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg1g(picogram per gram)
(b) Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit

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

of that isomer (the toxic concentration of that isomer relative to the toxicity of
2,3,7,8-TCDD). In cases where CDD/F concentrations were below the level of detection, a
value of zero was used in the TEQ calculation.
The TEQ calculation and summarization schemes presented in Table 6-3 followed methods
used by NCDHHS (NCDEHNR 1991). Bottom feeder fillet TEQ values were below the
NCDHHS limit of 3 ppt for all stations, except 4B in Waterville Lake. Although the TEQ
value of 9.3 ppt for the carp fillet composite at Station 4B exceeded the level of concern
(Table 6-3), the TEQ value for flathead catfish fillets from the same location was zero (i.e., all
dioxin and furan isomers were non-detect).
Table 6-4 illustrates the decline in 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentrations in carp fillet samples from
1990 through 2002. Since 1990, 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets declined
dramatically (90-99 percent) at all sampling stations (Table 6-4, Figure 6-1). The
concentrations of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in carp fillets from all stations in 2002 were similar to
concentrations observed in 2001. However, the concentrations of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in carp
fillets at Stations 4A and 4B appear to have increased slightly in recent years (Figure 6-1).
The modest increases in TCDD concentrations observed in carp fillets since 1999 may be due
in part to extended drought conditions, variability in collection sites, specimen size, and/or
dioxin biouptake/depuration rates of individual carp submitted for analysis rather than
representing a real increase in dioxin concentrations in Waterville Lake. However, TCDD
concentrations in channel catfish fillets from Station 4A and flathead catfish fillets from Station
4B have both declined since 1999 (Figure 6-2). Thus, despite possible modest increases in
recent years, the concentration of 2, 3, 7, 8 TCDD in carp fillets from Waterville Lake has
declined by 90-92 percent from 1990 through 2002 (Figure 6-1).
64

- - 1 - - -
Table 6-3. SUMMARY OF CDD/F ISOMER ANALYSES, TOXICITY EQUIVALENT FACTORS AND TOXICITY EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR THE 2002 PIGEON RIVER
FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES.
STATION 1 STATION 2 STATION 3
BLACK REDHORSE - Fillet COMMON CARP - Fillet COMMON CARP - Fillet
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results(a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibenzodiozin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.14 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.22 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.31 * 0.000 0.61 * 0.000 0.30 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.21 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.15 * 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.19 * 0.000 0.84 * 0.000 0.97 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 ' 0.18 + 0.000 0.24 + 0.000 0.23 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.36 * 0.000 3.60(e) 0.036 2.70(e) 0.027
OCDD 0.0001 1.80 * 0.000 8.50(e) 0.001 11.00 0.001
Dibenzof="
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.27 * 0.000 1.10 0.110 0.80(e) 0.080 =
j` 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.19 * 0.000 0.32 * 0.000 0.17 + 0.000
t" 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.18 * 0.000 0.31 * 0.000 0.16 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.29 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 _.
1,2,3,6,7,8-RxCDF 0.1 0.15 * 0.000 0.26 * 0.000 0.57 * 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF 0.1 0.17 * 0.000 0.30 * 0.000 0.16 * 0.000 -
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.20 * 0.000 0.35 * 0.000 0.19 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.13 * 0.000 0.23 * 0.000 0.18 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF O.01 0.17 * 0.000 0.28 * 0.000 0.14 * 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.37 * 0.000 0.60 * 0.000 0.18. + 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 0.15 0.11

Table 6-3 (cont.)
STATION 4A
CHANNEL CATFISH - Fillet COMMON CARP - Fillet
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results (a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.31 + 0.000 2.20 2.200
112,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.41 + 0.000 1.30 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-RxCDD 0.1 0.25 + 0.000 0.66 + 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.72 + 0.000 4.10(e) 0.410
1,2,3,7,8,9-RxCDD 0.1 0.22 + 0.000 0.66 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.79 + 0.000 12.00 0.120
OCDD 0.0001 2.80 + 0.000 33.00 0.003
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.39 + 0.000 1.80 0.180
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.25 + 0.000 0.66 + 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.25 + 0.000 1.70 + 0.000
c` 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.20 + 0.000 0.50 + 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF 0.1 0.18 + 0.000 1.10 + 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCOF 0.1 0.20 + 0.000 0.29 + 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.24 + 0.000 0.28 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.14 + 0.000 0.87 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.18 + 0.000 0.24 + 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.47 + 0.000 0.27 + 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 2.91

Table 6-3 (cont.)
STATION 4B
FLATHEAD CATFISH - Fillet COMMON CARP - Fillet COMMON CARP - WB
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results (a) TEQ(b) Results TEQ Results TEQ
Dibanzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.22 + 0.000 6.60 6.600 5.30 5.300
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.45 + 0.000 2.10 + 0.000 2.10 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-RxCDD 0.1 0.24 * 0.000 0.98 + 0.000 1.20 + 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.22 + 0.000 5.70 0.570 6.60 0.860
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD 0.1 0.20 * 0.000 0.68 * 0.000 0.83 * 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.27 + 0.000 16.00 0.160 23.00 0.230
OCOD 0.0001 0.64 + 0.000 42.00 0.004 49.00 0.005
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.47 * 0.000 3.40 0.340 5.60 0.560
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.28 ` 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 1.50 * 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.27 * 0.000 3.30(e) 1.650 4.1(e) 2.050
I 1,2,3,4,7,8-RxCDF 0.1 0.20 + 0.000 0.60 + 0.000 1.40 * 0.000 _
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.17 + 0.000 3.50 + 0.000 1.50 + 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.20 + 0.000 0.42 + 0.000 0.79 * 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.23 * 0.000 0.48 * 0.000 0.25 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.12 + 0.000 1.20 * 0.000 2.10 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.16 * 0.000 0.34 + 0.000 0.17 + 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.39 * 0.000 0.72 * 0.000 0.33 * 0.000
Total TEQ 0.00 9.32 9.00

Table 6-3 (cont.)
STATION 5
BLACK REDHORSE - Fillet
CDD/F ISOMERS TEF(c) Results (a) TEQ(b)
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.14 + 0.000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.29 • 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.16 • 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.15 + 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.14 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.37 + 0.000
OCDD 0.0001 1.20 + 0.000
Dibenzofuren
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 1.40 0.140
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.18 + 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.17 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.15 • 0.000
00 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.13 + 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.15 + 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.18 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.17 + 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.22 + 0.000
OCDF 0.0001 0.21 + 0.000
Total TEQ 0.14
(a) Units - ppt (parts per trillion) or pg/g picogram per gram) .
(b) Dioxin Toxic Equivalent Concentration using methodology from U.S. EPA (1989) .
(c) Toxicity Equivalent Factors from World Health Organization (WHO 1997) .
(d) Value less than or equal to 0.0005.
(a) Estimated result. Result is less than reporting limit.
(+) CDD/F isomer concentrations were below the level of detection, therefore a value of zero was applied
to the TEQ calculation.

Table 6-4. Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 1990-20021a).
1990 Results"( 1991 Resullsnl
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(4 Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDta
I Rock bass 5 151-197 ND(0.15) 1 Rock bass 10 151-190 ND(0.40)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 153-213 ND(0.15) RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish to 106-178 ND(0.33)
Black redhorse 2 380-383 ND(0.20) Black redhorse 5 358-471 ND(0.35)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 185-196 1.4 2 Redbreast sunfish 8 154-189 0.87
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish _ 5 148-201 3.4 RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 8 154-202 0.93
Common carp 1 517 19.7 Common carp to 491-570 9.7
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 188-203 0.79 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 176-209 ND(0.89)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 191-198 2.6 RM 52.3 Bluegill 6 164-197 ND(0.83)
Common carp 2 489-555 4.2 Common carp 10 408-463 2.4
4A Bluegill 5 178-192 ND(1.2) 4A Largemouth bass 7 313-469 3.0
RM 41.5 Bluegill 5 153474 ND(0.63) RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 173-216 ND(0.63)
�I` Common carp 1 574 27 Common carp 10 502688 23
0 Bluegill 5 183-196 0.76 4B Bluegill 5 196-212 ND(0.34)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 2 279.400 ND(1.8) RM 39.0 Bluegill 5 190-209 ND(0.62)
Common carp 4 551.638 66 Common carp 10 532605 40
5 Redbreast sunfish 10 143-223 0.98
RM 16.5 Spotted bass 2 266-368 ND(0.35)
Common carp 2 511-539 1.7
Total Fish Filleted 57 138

Table 6-4 (cont.).
1992 Resullsot 1993 Reanllsot
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt" Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(O
I Rock base 10 147-194 ND(0.085) 1 Rock base 10 185-208 ND(0.10)
RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 147-182 ND(0.075 RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 5 148-203 ND(0.12)
Black redhorse 6 365-441 1.4 Black redhoree 10 365410 ND(0.80)
2 Redbreast sunfish 10 180-220 0.72 2 Redbreast sunfish 10 I68-206 ND(0.27)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 178-220 ND(0.38) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 140-191 ND(0.15)
Common carp 10 486-581 9.3 Common carp 10 462620 3.1
3 Redbreast sunfish 10 175-200 ND(0.34) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 155-210 ND(0.27)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 183-200 ND(0.29) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 7 180-213 ND(0.36)
Common carp 10 438600 4 Common carp 10 440-576 3.4
4A Black crappie 10 153-232 ND(0.094) 4A Black crappie 10 178-201 ND(0.15)
rn RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 177-224 ND(0.10) RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 182-204 ND(0.089)
I Common carp 10 492622 29 Common carp 10 525611 19
r-
0 4B Bluegill 10 182-212 ND(0.23) 4B Largemouth bass 10 190-310 ND(0.12)
RM 39.0 Largemouth base 5 215-332 ND(0.19) RM 39.0 Bluegill 10 195-210 ND(0.20)
Common carp 10 558640 51 Common carp 10 530644 28
5 Redbreast sunfish 10 175-245 ND(0.38) 5 Redbreast sunfish 6 180-231 ND(0.17)
RM 19.0 Spotted base 2 256-355 ND(0.30) RM 19.0 . Smallmouth bass 9 212-281 ND(0.13)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 428-510 0.61 Smallmouth buffalo 5 450-550 ND. 0.4I
Total Fish Filleted 158 162
i

--- - - - -- - - - - - - -i -
Table 6-4 (cont.).
1994 Resultsot 1995 ResultsrQ
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD10 Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt't
1 Rock bass 6 156-185 ND(0.083) 1 Rock bass 10 162-205 ND(0.10)
RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 155-197 ND(0.10) RM 64.5 Rock bass 10 150-220 ND(0.26)
Black redhorse 3 367-435 ND(0.096) Black redhorse 7 375-464 ND(0.21)
2 Redbreast sunfish 10 176-206 ND(0.073) 2 Redbreast sunfish 10 152-194 ND(0.20)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 160-210 ND(0.092) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 161-188 ND(0.16)
Common carp 10 490-590 0.99 Comon carp 10 435664 1.7
3 Redbreast sunfish 10 148-196 ND(0.15) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 I70-206 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 158-210 ND(0.074) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 154-202 ND(0.20)
Common carp 10 456-565 0.74 Common carp 10 391-571 1.2
4A Black crappie 10 203-231 ND(0.085) 4A Largemouth base 5 281.439 2.0 =-
ps RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 185-205 ND(0.084) RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 167-199 ND(0.26)
t Common carp 10 465-591 3.4 Common carp 10 520615 5.8 -
4B Black crappie 10 200.215 ND(0.084) 4B Largemouth bees 9 248-391 0.68
RM 39.0 Black crappie 10 195-220 ND(0.062) RM 39.0 Bluegill 8 158-216 ND(0.34)
Common carp 10 520-635 6.6 Common carp 4 532626 11.0
5 Redbreast sunfish 6 129-289 ND(0.075) 5 Smallmouth bees 9 280423 ND(0.11)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth base 9 234-442 ND(0.11) RM 19.0 Redbreast sunfish 7 163-192 ND(0.15)
Smallmouth buffalo 9 440-520 ND 0.089 Black redhorse 7 44"81 ND 0.45 .4.
Total Fish Filleted 163 156

Table 6-4 (cont.).
1996 Resultsot 1997 It sultsot
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(man) 2,3,7,8-TCDDta Station Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,8-TCDINO
I Redbreast sunfish 5 154-195 ND(0.13) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 144-161 ND(0.11)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 160-208 ND(0.085) RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-194 ND(0.23)
Black redhorse 5 401-W ND(0.089) Black redhorse 4 291-424 ND(0.22)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 179-187 ND(0.10) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-200 ND(0.26)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-191 ND(0.12) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 160-181 ND(0.12)
Common carp 5 543-580 1.5 Common carp 5 506615 1.4
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 184-190 ND(0.13) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 187-202 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 165-185 ND(0.13) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-195 ND(0.18)
Common carp 5 516630 0.87 Common carp 5 450-505 ND(0.33)
4A Black crappie 5 216-233 ND(0.15) 4A Black crapppie 5 215-231 ND(0.27)
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 215-229 ND(0.18) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 2200.230 ND(0.10)
0% Common carp 5 562632 4.2 Common carp 5 570-655 2.3
,.f., Channel catfish 5 418482 2.0
N
4B Black crappie 5 223-258 ND(0.11) 4B Black crappie 5 226-241 ND(0.17)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 27WI0 ND(0.13) RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 270-360 ND(0.21)
Common carp 5 470623 4.0 Common carp 5 605690 11.0
Flathead catfish 5 430-540 0.62
5 Rock bass 4 169-186 ND(0.077) 5 Rock base 5 143-214 ND(0.15)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth base 5 315-454 ND(0.12) RM 19.0 Smallmouth base 5 278-367 ND(0.27)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 451-555 ND 0.12 Smallmouth buffalo 5 406-525 ND 0.22
Total Fish Filleted 89 Total Fish Filleted 99

Table 6-4 (cunt.).
1998 Reside' 1999 Resnitsat
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(O Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt4
I Redbreast sunfish 5 145-176 ND(0.19) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 141-177 ND(0.21)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 158-179 ND(0.29) RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 164-180 ND(0.37)
Black redhorse 5 340-396 ND(0.18) Black redhorse 5 352427 ND(0.33)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-177 ND(0.20) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-190 ND(0.37)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 166-193 ND(0.28) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 158-178 ND(0.29)
Common carp 5 551-661 1.3 Common carp 5 544-615 ND(0.27)
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-193 ND(0.34) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-189 ND(0.36)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-200 ND(0.22) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 162-176 ND(0.37)
Common carp 5 449-550 ND(0.38) Common carp 5 500-591 0.57
4A Black crappie 5 220-240 ND(0.49) 4A Black crappie 5 22U-268 ND(0.18) -
RM 41.5 Largemouth bass 5 227-330 ND(0.15) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 219-244 ND(0.08)
Common carp 5 585-621 1.6 Common carp 5 574-645 0.58
Channel catfish 5 416458 ND(0.28) Charnel catfish 5 425482 0.83
4B Black crappie 5 233-252 ND(0.15) 4B Black crappie 5 233-244 ND(0.27) -
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 259-330 ND(0.17) RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 276-305 ND(0.32)
Common carp 5 563-686 9.1 Common carp 5 621.680 4.7
Flathead catfish 5 414-523 ND(0.20) Flathead catfish 5 372-513 ND(0.46)
5 Rock bass 4 155-190 ND(0.11) 5 Rock base 5 170-203 ND(0.29)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth base 5 295-365 ND(0.21) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 297430 ND(0.19)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 464-537 ND 0.31 Smallmouth buffalo 5 476-565 ND 0.31
Total Fish Filleted 99 Total Fish Filleted 100

Table 6-4 (cont.).
2000 Resultsnt 2001 Results1*
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt't Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(4
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 137-148 ND(0.48) 1 Black redhorse 5 312-407 ND(0.25)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-186 ND(0.45) RM 64.5
Black redhorse 5 357-396 ND(0.38)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-176 ND(0.31) 2 Common carp 5 456-555 ND(0.27)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-181 ND(0.43) RM 59.0
Common carp 5 505-582 ND(0.42)
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-181 ND(0.43) 3 Common carp 5 504-615 ND(0.35)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 186-199 ND(0.32) RM 52.3
Common carp 5 514-569 ND(0.53)
4A Black crappie 5 212-241 ND(0.29) 4A Channel catfish 5 476-612 1.2
CN RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-241 ND(0.24) RM 41.5 Common carp 5 528-668 1.3
ACommon carp 4 559-604 1.1
Channel catfish 5 435.487 ND(0.70)
4B Block crappie 5 213-231 ND(0.41) 4B Flathead catfish 5 405-463 ND(0.29)
RM 39.0 Black crappie 5 220-230 ND(0.37) RM 39.0 Common carp 5 654-723 5.6
Common carp 4 593-712 4.4
Flathead catfish 5 407.450 ND(0.42)
5 Rock bass 5 171-198 ND(0.45) 5 Black redhorse 5 437-497 ND(0.26)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 209-238 ND(0.31) RM 19.0
Black redhorae 5 427476 ND 0.35
Total Fish Filleted 98 Total Fish Filleted 40

Table 6-4 (cont.).
2002 Resultst"i
Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD("
1 Black redhorse 5 372431 ND(0.14)
RM 64.5
2 Common carp 5 517-548 ND(0.28)
RM 59.0
3 Common carp 5 575-632 ND(0.22)
RM 52.3
4A Common carp 5 523548 2.2
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 425475 ND(0.31)
r
In '-
4B Common carp 5 647-670 6.6
RM 39.0 Flathead catfish 5 418-505 ND(0.22)
5 Black redhorse 5 430489 ND(0.14)
RM 19.0
Total Fish Filleted 40
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quantem Laboratories 1995-1999,Severn Trent Laboratories in 2000-
2002.
(b) Survey conducted in August.
(a) Survey conducted in August and September.
(d) Survey conducted in September.
(e) Units —ppt(pane per trillion)or pg/g(picogmm per gram)
ND —Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses.

Figure 6-1. TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from
the Pigeon River, 1990-2002 (Stations 2 and 3).
25
20 ••-•-•----------------------------------------------------------------------------•--•---------------------------------------------------------------------------------••-•-------------------------------------------------
Station 2 .....+..... Station 3
c
0
d
� a
a
( 10 ------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
U
F-
5 ----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------•--...-•-------------------------------------..-..--•-•----••--••-----------------------••--•-------------------------------...----------
..--•.t- b c c c
0
- '-•+-----•--••-----4 ---- ......W----'---
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YEAR
a) TCDD conentrations at Station 3 were not detected,therefore,the value plotted represents the detection limit for that sample.
b) TCDD concentrations at Station 2 were not detected, therefore,the value plotted represents the detection limit for that sample.
c) TCDD concentrations at Stations 2 and 3 were not detected, therefore,the values plotted represent the detection limits for those samples.

Figure 6-1 (Cont.). TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from
the Pigeon River,1990-2002 (Stations 4A and 4B).
70
60 ........`. ......................•----•-------------------........----------------........-----------------.....----------------------•-•----"-----"---------------..........----------.................................--
so -----------------:\--.-.-..------------,' -------------------...-....--------------..-...------------------•---------------------------------.......-----------------......-----------------------------------------------
C \ \
0
-----------------------\ ......................
m a \
r ,w •\
V "„S
B30 ------------------------•----------------------•-------------------------------...--•---------------------....-•-----------------------•-------------------•-•---•-------------------------------------•-----------------••-
U `
-----•-----•----------------------- \•• • .......... �. .... -
`
_ .--------A
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YEAR
Station 4a - 3-- Station 4b

Figure 6-2. TCDD Concentrations in Channel Catfish Fillets (Station 4A) and Flathead
Catfish Fillets (Station 4B) Collected from Waterville Lake, 1997-2002.
2.50
2.00
\ —•— Station 4A —f—Station 4B
e \
o \ -
1.50
r L \
00 o \
g
� 1.00
a // \
0.50
0.00
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YEAR
a) TCDD concentrations at Stations 4A and 4B were not detected,therefore,the values plotted represent the detection limits for those samples.
b) TCDD concentrations at Station 4B were not detected,therefore,the value plotted represents the detection limit for that sample.

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

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1998. Results of 1998 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13478.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2000. Results of 1999 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13478.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001a. Study Plan for Pigeon River Dioxin
Monitoring in Fish Tissue. Prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton, North
Carolina. November.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001b. Results of 2000 Dioxin Monitoring -
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13745.01, prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products,
Canton, North Carolina. January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001c. Results of 2001 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13900.01, prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products,
Canton, North Carolina. December.
Food and Drug Administration. 1981. FDA advises Great Lake States to monitor
dioxin-contaminated fish. FDA Talk Paper dated 28 August, in Food Drug Cosmetic Law
Reports, paragraph 41, 321. Commerce Clearing House, Inc. 8 September.
Food and Drug Administration. 1983. Statement by Stanford A. Miller, Director, Bureau of
Foods, FDA before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and
Environment, U.S. House of Representatives. 30 June.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1991. Fish
Tissue Dioxin Levels in North Carolina: 1990 Update. Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994. Analytical Procedures and
Quality Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by High-Resolution Gas Chromatography/High-Resolution
Mass Spectrometry (Method 8290).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989. Interim Procedures for
Estimating Risk Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update Report No. EPA/625/3-89/016,
U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C.
Versar, Inc. 1984. Sampling Guidance Manual for the National Dioxin Study. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract 68-01-6160. Work Order Number 8.7.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Monitoring and Data Support Division,
Washington, D.C. Final draft. July.
7-2

SY"''a�'
i
World Health Organization(WHO). 1997. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD) and Related Compounds: Part H Health
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD) and Related Compounds.
� I
i
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
i
7-3

i I
1 �
APPENDIX A
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
� I

Chain of
Custody Record
� Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
M-M24 n200, a /� f_ p p
Cat91 t/a ��( rr PniwmengGor mbor
Q 2 eI1 / Dert D Z Gram Of c �drNO bo 6
Adumss 1-7 5 5� TaleWrons NY_(Am Cod Numeer7� Lab umber Page /o o1 t ggo
6 6
Gly Stet ZI^Cod4 40ge�� SNe Contact_ Lab Contact Analysis(Allech tisl H
/� N I In5E more sDaca Is needed
py�tNameand (Shto o CanWAVaybNNumber
/ Speciallnstructlons/
OnalteoPPUrcAsso OreanQuOto No. Mahar , Containers 6 'r ` Conditions of Receipt
µ 'Preservatives 0 e S o
(tbntarne XA
Semple
�tll samo maydbe combInadDn one fine) Data area i tl � h 1 9 1 $ Q C
t3 94 � A-lle e2 Og o YY A �s 4£ a �e t� �
1/ en
? I(
it
Ct rid 4//7
Catr q//
#0 04-c 't4 91/19
J
f
REFE11 ED G 0 CO IDMON
Herard/dmra&OMM Sempe Dispose! , (rY (A Ne May aasassed samples are reww
❑Flammable ❑Skin tnRam an❑Pat e ❑unlmom ❑nature To talent ❑DlsposNeyLob ❑Amn IN' months)
T=Around Tme Requbad QCRequ1%menN(Spady)
❑2(Homo 134aueura ❑ T Days ❑i4 osys ❑si Days ❑QtDar
1.IWN By Data Tama 1 ^� Tyne -r�/
r b
2 R ad"' Ttrp ' _T Date
&Rfffiqu~By Date nme WIVedBy A Data TLM
tents
N
OIsmourrow WHITE-Stays wire the Sempre; CANARY.Retumed fo Cilent wire Report; PINK•Flald Copy
'N

Chain of
Custody Record ® "
® Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
STL•4124 (1toe]) J� G C(11+��Qtl IQM(fl]r
OWN t 0 a Ie /� ProAct Manager � P e V Dale A/ II / Cbaln W V 1 U" V 7
fZ L��/. Q�• ry eZ o
Aeai.:, t h '� Telephone Numbar(Area Code)OFar Nu 7 Lab Number
DO Page of
City
� SY)q ce It !i Zip Cnode Site Con4� . �lY' Lab(� 1'Contact more source our(ee tts is needed)
PrMOtNdLocatWn(SYa �+ �� CBnWnWgWNumber
MI . l o� Special Instructional
ConfracMurAbse DrdenQuM Ala Mah& Containers6 Conditions of Receipt
Preservatives
Sample I.Dsa No.and Description Date TLne Y p ` 4 o�
(Canhinara INraadr aamp'e maybe opmbinedon ono 6ne) = Y ui 111 3
1911 Ali
G41& — 0 ArkGphyi �f1
Ly ��, OA"
m
1 4-
fJy�t GB a �
• N
D on ITi N gdg
IF 5
' (IZ �
V)
INI
Pa546N Hasad fdanWaWn Sample Disposal (A fee may be assessed It samples am rafafnad
NOWhra d ❑Mamnebls ❑Skln ffrlant ❑Pahon B ❑Unknown ❑Retum ro Caeof ❑Opposelay Leb ❑Arch!M For AIon/M longerth=Jr Ifts)
Turn Around Time a Required QC Requimmants(spacer)
❑24 Hours ❑+e Hours ❑T Days ❑ t1 Days ❑Yt Days ❑ DMar
f.Reangule y e Time i.ReeeJ Date rarre
2R By 'D � TMa ate
A Refloquilhod By Dale Tire TWS�Oyy Dan Tkw
Comments
N
D)STRIBU710N. WHITE-Stays with the Sampk+; CANARY-Ralumedb Grentwnh Report: PINK-Field Copy
N

I_
LOT RECEIPT CHECKLIST
STL Sacramento
CLIENT Pit - PaDb4- PAP�X- PMk:`T -' LDG4
Lov (QUANTIMS'ID) GjtS. =1 2.4b QUOTES �-1�� LOCATION. r=21-
Initlals Date
DATE RECEIVED ct-ZO-OL TIME RECEIVED Daz-o. QC RZo.cY1
DELIVERED BY 15 FEDEX ❑CA OVERNIGHT' ❑CUENT
❑AIRBORNE ❑GOLDENSTATE ❑OHL'
❑ UPS ❑13AX GLOBAL ❑GO-GETTERS
❑SrL COURIER ❑ B &B Cl OTHER
CUSTODY SEAL STATUS ER INTACT ❑BROKEN ❑ WA
CUSTODY SEAL 10 243111
—� SHIPPPING CONTAINERIS) I STL ❑ CLIENT Cl NIA
TEMPERTURE RECORD(N*0 IR 1❑ 2 lEr ❑ OTHER
CDC l(51 O'108?b CJ')OI`38'1
TEMPERATURE BLANK
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE -nu .224
COLLECTOR'S NAME: ❑Verlfled from COC Y-)Not on CDC
pH MEASURED - ❑YES ❑ANOMALY \ ® WA
LABELEDBY..........................................................................................
LABELSCHECKED BY...........................................................................
SHORT HOLD TEST NOTIFICATION SAMPLE RECEIVING
WETCHEM Q WA
❑METALS NOTIFIED OF FILTER/PRESERVE VIA VERBAL &EMAIL WA
COMPLETE SHIPMENT RECEIVED IN GOOD CONDITION WITH ❑ N/A
APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURES,CONTAINERS, PRESERVATIVES
? ❑ Clouseau 0 TEMPERATURE EXCEEDED Ct°-6.0' WA
❑WET ICE ❑BLUE ICE Cl GEL PACK
' ❑ PM NOTIFIED ❑NO COOLING AGENTS USED
Notes:
' LEAVE NO SPACES BLANK USE'WA'IF NOT APPLICABLE, WMAL AND DATE ALL WA'ENTRIES, + OAt65 BNO-NEK
�200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-56D0 6 of 630

APPENDIX B
SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY-SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORTS
i�

STL Sacramento
880 Riverside Parkway
West Sacramento,CA 95605.1500
- October 22, 2002
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
' STL SACRAMENTO PROJECT NUMBER: G2I200246 ww,vstlinc.com
PO/CONTRACT: 201940
Melanie Samuels
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 4000
Canton, NC 28716
Dear Ms. Samuels,
This report contains the analytical results for the samples received under chain of custody by
- STL Sacramento on September 20, 2002.
The test results in this report meet all NELAC requirements for parameters that accreditation
-" is required or available. Any exceptions to NELAC requirements are noted in the case
narrative. The case narrative is an integral part of this report.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jill Kellmann
Project Manager
�_, STL Sacramento is a part of Severn Trent Laboratories,Inc. .

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STL SACRAMENTO PROJECT NUMBER G2I200246
Case Narrative
STL Sacramento Quality Assurance Program
_ I
Sample Description Information
Chain of Custody Documentation
-' BIOLOGIC,8290,DioAns/Furans
Samples: 1 through 9
Sample Data Sheets
Method Blank Report
Laboratory QC Reports
BIOLOGIC,8290,Percent Lipids
_ Samples: I through 9
Sample Data Sheets
i

CAS$NARRATM
STL SACRAMENTO PROJECT NUMBER G2I200246
General comments
The samples were received at-28°C and-30° C.
BIOLOGIC,8290,DioxWSNarans
Sample(s):2, 5, 6,7, and 9
Some internal standard recoveries are lower than the method recommended goal of 40%.
Generally,data quality is not considered affected if internal standard signal-to-noise ratio is
greater than 10:1,which is achieved for all internal standards in all samples. There is no
adverse impact on data quality and no corrective action is necessary.
Sample(s):6
This sample has an estimated detection limit greater than the target detection limit for
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF due to the presence of diphenyl ethers (DPE's). The analyst has flagged
the analyte as non-detect,with the reporting limit raised due to matrix interference.
The detection limit is still less than the lower calibration limit,so there is no adverse impact on
the data from this observation.
There were no other anomalies associated with this project.
lc
�21200246 STL•Sacramento(916)373.5600 101630

J
i
,S,T.SSQCI mento
Quality Control Definitions
,E 15h4Tsq.i."WlfTp4i .l':9F"+':ah..
uuhiv�-}'.. .: ., iacc...m..:v6'f..._.Av/ • .-r . a. .. ._ _. 'y'aiv.:i:''w't.
A ad of up to 20 field samples plus assodated laboratory QC
QC Batch samples that are similar in composition(matrix)and that are
processed within the same time period with the same reagent and
standard lots
Consist of a pair of LCSs analyzed within the same QC batch to
Duplicate Control Sample monitor precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix
effects. '!Iris QC is performed only if required by client or when
insufficient sample is available to perform MS/MSD.
A second allgm of an environmental sample,taken from the same
J sample container when possible,that is processed independently
with the first sample aliquot The results are used to assess the
Duplicate Sample(DLn effed of the sample matrix on the precision of the analytical
process. The precision estimated using this sample is not
necessarily representative of the precision for other samples in the
batch.
A volume of reagent water for aqueous samples or a contaminant-
free solid matrix(Ottawa sand)for soil and sediment samples
Laboratory Control Sample which is spiced with known amounts of representative target
(LCS) analytes and required surogates. An LCS is carried through the
entire analytical process and is used to monitor the accuracy of the
analytical independent of poteridd matrix effects.
A field sample fortified with known quantities of target analytes
that are also added to the LCS. Matrix spike duplicate is a second
Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike matrix spike sample. MSsfMSDs are carried through the entire
Duplicate(MS/MSD) analytical process and are used to determine sample matrix effect
on accuracy of the measurement system.The accuracy and
precision estimated using MS/MSD is only representative of the
precision of the sample that was
A sample mmpcaed of all the reagents(in the same quantities)in,
reagent water carried through the entire analytical process. The
Method Blank(MB) method blank is used to monitor the level of contamination
- introduced during le preparation
Organic constituents not expected to be detected in environmental
media and are added to every sample and QC at a known
Surrogate Spike concentration. Surrogates are used to determine the efficiency of
the sample preparation and the analytical
Source:STY.Sacramento Laboratory Quality Manual
STL Sacramento certifications:
Alaska GW-055),Arizona(#A7A0616),Arkansas,CaliSotnia(NELAP#01119CA)(FLAP#1-2439),
Connecticut(#PH-0691),Florida(M570),Hawaii,Louisiana(Al#30612),New Jersey(Iab ID 44005),
Nevada(#CA 044),New York U AB LD 11666 serial#107407),Oregon(LAB ID CA 044),South Carolina
(LAB W 87014,Cert#8701401 Utah(E-168),Virginia(#00178),Washington(#C08 7),West Virginia(#
9930C),Wisconsin(lab 998204680),USHAVY,USACE,USDA Foreign Plant(Permit#37-82605),USDA
Foreign Sal(Permit#S-46613)„
it
321200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373.56M 2 of 630

Sample Summary
G21200246
WO# Sa=le Client SgMle ID Sampl'tn¢Date Received Date
B8K39 1 LAC 1 BLACK RH 5 R FILLETS 9/19/02 08.30 AM 9/20/02 09.20 AM
E8K4H 2 LAC 2 CARP 9/18/02 M0102 09:20 AM
E8K4K 3 LOC 3 CARP 9/17/02 0120 PM MOM 09:20 AM
E8K4L 4 LOC 4A CARP 9/18/02 9M02 09:20 AM
_ B8K4N 5 LOC 4A C.CATFISH 9/17/02 9/20/02 09:20 AM
E8K4T 6 LOC 4B CARP 9/18/02 9/MM 09:20 AM
E8K41 7 LOC 4B FH CATFISH 9/18102 MGM 09:20 AM
ESK46 8 LOC 5 BLACK RH 9118/0212:54 PM 9/20/02 09:20 AM
E8K49 9 LOC 4B-CARP-WHOLE BODY 9/18/02 9=102 09:20 AM
Notes(s).
- 7UwaVac&1=vAM0ftbe Bmdzbm .e wtbC ovoww9PA9M
- AM®katetims=pafamed ixfae to,adin3 toavddtwudoffatastaaloilatednstiR
- Rradm nmed w'NV was oat dexsad at ac above thesmed Mutt.
- This teinttmosr=bemprodaoe4 ampt info%wdthaemewdttm.ppwm 0fft1abartwy.
Rmtts for the faMwvins passnctes=nera rt5 'ms dry Wdghtbesfe cola,amosift deity,thApoint,WtsMity.layers.
oda.pabifb=ft, p1t pmds r.Pmw4 reenivoy.n>dos postsoial,spcd6npev+tX aPattm so11d4 mlabil4y,=Pez uviscoatY.
and wet&
321200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373.56M 3 of 630

HLUE RIDGB PAPER, PSODUCM INC
Client Sample ID: IOC 1 HLAM RE 5 E FILLETS
Trace Level Organic Compounds
--I Lot-Sample 0...: c2I200246-001 Work Order $...: EUX39M Matrix......... BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.._: 09/19/02 Date Received_.: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Batch 9...: 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
_ PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 5.1 t SW846 8290
i
i�
f>_1200246 STL•Sacramento(916)373.5600 7 01630

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PitODWW IHC
Client Sample ID: Loa 1 BLACK RH 5 R FTf. XTS
Tierce Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.__: G2I200246-001 Work Order l...: ESX391A.0 Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/19/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/06/02
Prep Batch $...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.14 pg/g SW846 8290
i Total TCDD ND
0.14 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PPCDD ND 0.31 Pg/g SW846 8290
' Total PeCDD ND
0.33. pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD HD 0.21 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD ND 0.3.9 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hx= ND 0.18 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD HD
0.21 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND
0.36 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD ND 0.36 Pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 1.8 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 0.76 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.19 Pg/g SN846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF HD 0.18 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.57 pg/g SWS46 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXMF NO 0.17 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HKCDF ND 0.15 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-RXCDF ND 0.20 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HXCDF ND
0.53 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF HD 0.13 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF ND 0.17 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF NO 0.17 Pg/g SW846 8290
Ong ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
PER= RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 55 (40 - 135)
_ 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 52 (40 - 13S)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxC9D 69 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 72 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD S9 (40 - 235)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 51 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 46 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 66 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 70 (40 - 135) .
i _>2=0246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 8 of 630

'i
BLUE Rmm PAP= PRaDUCPS I=
Client Sample 33): LOC 2 CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
I� Lot-Sample #.._: G21200246-002 Rork order #---: E8R4HIPA Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.._: 09/18/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Batch #...: 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT L=T UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 8.1 t SH846 8290
- 9 of 630
STL-Sacramento 916)373 560D
'�21200246 �

SLIDE R3MGE PAP= PBDDOCIS WC
Client Sample ID: IOC 2 CARP
Trace Level Organic compounds
Lot-Sample #...: G2I200246-002 Work Order $. ..: ESR4H1AC Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sump'ed...: D9/18/D2 Date Received_.: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date.-: 10/06/02
Prep Batch $...: 2273336
Dilution Factor- 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT L334IT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.28 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.28 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.61 Pg/g SW846 8290
- Total PeCDD ND 0.61 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.28 Pg/g SW846 .8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.84 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9
-HXC3)D ND 0,24 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total Rx=D ND 0.84 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hp= 3-6 J Pg/g SWS46 8290.
Total HP® 3_6 Pg/g SW846 8290
0CM 8.5 J _ Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCOF 1.1 CON Pg/g SW846 9290
Total TCDF 1.1 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PPCDF ND 0.32 Pg/g SW846 8290
- 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.31 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.42 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,E-HPCDF ND 0.29 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HPCDF ND 0.26 Pg/,g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.30 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HPCDF ND 0.35 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total RXCDF ND 0.52 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF ND 0.23 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF ND 0.28 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HPCDF ND 0.23 Pg/g SW846 8290
0mg ND 0.60 Pg/4 SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
XNTER24AL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 30 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 29 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxMD 53 (40 - 3.35)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpMD 48 (40 - 3.35)
13C-OCDD 39 * (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 27 * (40 - 135)
. 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 25 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 48 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 56 (40 - 135)
NOTR(S) :
a HsdamdrtmL Ruch is ku O:m The repmdca&3&
CON Co`o(umgia**n:tya
• swapserec"yb yift mad ward ilmlu.
212DO246 SR-Sacramento(916)373-5600 10 o1630

� I
SLR RIDGB PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: LOC 3 CARP
Trace Level Organic Compo=ds
Lot-Sample $...: G22200246-003 Work Order 0...: E8R4RlAA Matrix......... BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/27/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Batch #...: 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
percent Lipids 12 i SW846 8290
3212DO246 SR-Sacramento(916)373-56DO 11 o1630

! I
jl
-- BLUB RMM PAPBH PB0bD= ZHC
i Client Sample ID: IOC 3 CARP
Trace Level Organic COmpOUD"
Lot-Sample $.._: G2I200246-003 Work Ogler $...: SS1C41C1AC Matrix......... BIOLOGIC
.� Date Sampled...: 09/17/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/06/02
Prep Batch 5...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
DfiTECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
�-
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.22 Pg/g SW846 8290
it 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDb ND 0.30 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.30 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.15 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.97 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.23 Pg/4 SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 1.9 pg/g SW846 8290
- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
2.7 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total gpCOD 2.7 pg/g SW846 8290
0CM 11 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.80 J,Caff pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 0.80 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.16 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 3.8 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.16 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF .ND 0.57 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.16 Pg/g SW846 8290
- -. 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hx=F NO 0.19 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HXMF ND 3.5 pg/g SW846 8290
- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF HD 0.18 Pg/g SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF ND 0.14 Pg/g SW846 829D
Total HpCDF ND 0.62 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.18 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 58 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 52 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD 75 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 66 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF - 51 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 47 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 68 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 75 (40 - 135)
NOTES
7 Esi:uccd:rs&RwA L kn dm de Fmwtoi IhAL
CON C:nfumst3m SMW6
�21200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373.56DO 12 of 630

j I
_- BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: IOC 4A CARP
Trace Level organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. . : G2I200246-004 Work order #...: E8K4L1AA Matrix. .. .. . .. .. BIOLOGIC
-- Date Sampled.. . : 09/18/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date.. . .. .: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Batch #.. .: 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
' PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 9.1 SW846 8290
i
i
�_121200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 1301630

HL� RXD(W PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: LOC AA CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: =200246-004 Work Order #...: E6R4LIAC Matrix......... BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.--: 09/18/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
--,I Pre* Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date—: 10/06/02
Prep Batch $...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PpgpMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TC® 2.2 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCM 2.2 Pg/g SW846 B290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
--1 Total PeCDD ND 1.3 pg/g SW846 6290
_ 1,2,3,4,7,8-KXMD ND 0.66 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCW 4.3. .7 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXMD ND 0.66 Pg/g SW846 8290
-- Total Etc= 4.3. Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hp= 12 Pg/g SW846 8290
1 Total gpCW 12 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 33 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.8 CON Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.66 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 1.7 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 4.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.50 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HWMF ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.28 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF _ ND 4.0 Pg/g SW846 6290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.87 Pg/g SW846 8290
_ 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.24 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.87 Pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.27 Pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
-" 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 62. (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 54 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 77 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 76 (40 - 3.35)
13C-OCDD 62 (40 - 135)
- 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 55 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 51 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 67 (40 - 3.35)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF 76 (40 - 135)
HOTS(S) - -- - -
7 ECiMwd refit.R®n h ha 4m Ee Ong llmi.
—i cow Coarmatim KEW&
!121200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 14 01630

�I
BLDE RIDGE PAPER PROWCrS INC
Client Sample ID: i.00 4A C. GOFISa
Trace Level Organic Compounds
-- Lot-Sample #...: G2I200246-005 work Order $...: ESK4NIAA Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/17/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date...... : 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Hatch #... : 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
_ PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 6.5 i SN846 8290
I
I
^�21200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-560D 15 of 630

�I
BL RIDGB PAPER PYODOCfS INC
I4
j Client Sample ID: IOC 4A C. CATFISH
Trace Level Organic Compounds
. Lot-Sample #...: G2I200246-005 Mork Oder #...: E8R4N1AC !!atria.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/17/02 Date Received-.: 09/20/02
prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date.-: 3.0/06/02
Prep Batch #...: 2273336
Dilutions Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.31 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD NO 0.31 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3;7,S-PeCD1) ND 0.41 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD NO 0.41 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.25 Pg/g SW846 9290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXMD ND 0.72 Pg/g SW846 829D
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.22 Pg/g SW846 829D
Total HXCDD ND 0.72 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD ND 0.79 Pg/3 SW846 8290
Total HpCDD ND 0.79 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 2.8 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF NO 0.39 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 0.39 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF NO 0.25 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NO 0.25 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.20 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF NO 0.18 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.20 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXMF ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF NO 0.27 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NO 0.14 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF ND 0.is Pg/g SW846 8290
Total ApCDF NO0.18 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDg ND 0.47 Pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 46 (40 - 135)
_ 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 41 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 62 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 63 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 53 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 40 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-POCDF 36 • (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDP 56 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 66 (40 - 135)
I
NDTH(S)
• 5lmopte moray h omiQe mtra tamed Imnu.
12
i
1212DO246 STL-Sacramento(416)373-56DD 16 of 630

BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: LAC 4B CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #... : G2I200246-006 Work Order #. ..: E8K4T1AA Matrix. . . . . . ... :. BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/18/02 Date Received. .: 09/20/02
. Prep Date.. .. ..: 09/30/02 . Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Batch #- --: 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 18 SW846 8290
J
i
-_21200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373.5600 17 of 630

BIDE RIDGE PAPS PRODUCTS INC
Cheat Sample 3D: LOC 4B CaRP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
- Lot-Sample 8...: G2I200246-006 Work Oxder $...: E8R4T1AC Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/18/02 Date Received—: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 analysis Date—: 10/06/02
Prep Batch $...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCOD 6.6 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 6.6 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 2.1 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCOD ND 2.1 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hx= ND 0.98 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-Bra 5.7 P9/9 SW846 8290
1,2,3,,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.68 pg/g SW846 8290
Total RLCOD 5.7 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Rp= 16 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCM 20 pg/g SW846 6290
OCDD 42 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 3.4 COX P9/9 SW846 8290
Total TCDF 4.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,E-PeCDF ND 1.2 Wg SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 3.3 T Pg/g SW846 B290
Total PeCDF 3.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hx=F ND 0.60 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND G 3.5 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hx=F ND D.42 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxC13F ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 3.5 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,E-HpCDF ND 1.2 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-BpCDF ND 0.34 Pg/g SWB46 8290
Total HpCDF ND 3.6 Pg/g SW846 8290
- � OCDF ND 0.72 Pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 25 + (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 23 • (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 46 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 43 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD - 33 + (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 21 • (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 21 i (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-BxCDF 43 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDP 51 (40 - 135)
NO=(S) - -
cox onfi=Wm ualyft
'.� y Hdmetd remkBmhLine2m me npado{Bmit.
D ILvWjwxt 6mh.The.zFw Bmh Ye4rnddmmmmte Hafaaoe.
• 9mopw ravmy 4 mWft mtd mu 'Em➢t
�1212DO246 STL•Sacramento(916)373.5600 18 of 630

_ BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS 3311C
i
Client Sample ID: IOC 48 PR CATFISH
Trace Level Organic Composnds
Lot-Sample 0...: G2I200246-007 Work Order $...: E88411AA Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/18/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Batch $...: 2273344
-- Dilntian Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 4.0 % SB846 8290
I
J1212DD246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-6600 19 of 630

t
BLDE R.Zn= PAPER pRODUCTS MC
Client Sample ID: LOC 411 PH CATFrse
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample $...: G21200246-007 Work Order 8...: ESK411AC Matrix........,: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/18/02 Date Received.-: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/06/02
Prep Batch $...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
_ PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCM ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxMD ND 0.20 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hp= ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
j Total HpCDD ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 0.64 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.47 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 0.47 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.49 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF NO 0.20 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.20 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXMF ND 0.23 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HXCDF ND _ 0.23 pg/g SW846 8290
112,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.12 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.16 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.16 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 31 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 30 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 55 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 55 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 42 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 28 * (40 - 135) .
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 27 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 56 (40 - 135) '
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 63 (40 - 135)
NOTH(S)-
• Smopte raorcy it emme mreAmm,d 6mfu.
i
121200246 - STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 20 of 630

i
I
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
�. Client Sample ID: IOC 4B - CARP- WHOLE BODY
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #---: G2I200246-009 Work Order #...: E8K491AA Matrix. . . .. .. . .: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/18/02 Date Received. .: 09/20/02
Prep Date. . .. ..: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/03/02
Prep Batch #. . .: 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
_ PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 24 SW846 8290
J
321200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 23 of 630

-- BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: LOC 4B - CA"- WHOLE BODY
Trace Level Organic Comprnmds
Lot-Sam£11e #...: G2I200246-009 Work Order #...: ESK493AC MatriX........ .: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/18/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/06/02
Prep Batch #...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PA)ZJAI-MTER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
_ 2,3,7,8-TCOD 5.3 pg/g SW846 6290
Total TCM 5.3 pg/q SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 2.1 pg/g SW846 8290
Total Pet37D ND 2.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXMD ND 1.2 Pg/g SW846 8290
- 1,2,3,6,7,E-Bx= 8.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND o.83 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total H1oQ1D 8.6 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Bp= 23 pg/g SW866 8290
Total Bpaw 26 13g/9 SW846 8290
. 00ED 49 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 5.6 COB pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCOF 5.8 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 1.5 Pg/q SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 4.1 J Pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF 4.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 1.4 Pg/g SW846 8290
.— 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxmF ND 1.5 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-RXMF ND 0.79 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF ND 0.25 pg/g SW846 8290
Total Hx=F ND 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
--' 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hp®F ND 2.1 Pg/4
SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 2.1 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND
0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTSEHAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 41 (40 - 135)
_ 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 39 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 79 (40 - 3.35)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 73 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 58 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 36 * (40 - 135) .
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PBCDF 35 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 69 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 83 (40 - 135)
HOTH(S)-
coxCedamtimeu(nb.
- ] I'�ated roofs.126iit bisi@miteIlmY.
' • SmmPie rtmve,7 b owiEe noted cm,d I�
321200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-56DD 24 o1630

I
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Client Sample ID: IOC 5 BLACK RH
Trace Level Organic Compounds
� Lot-Sample #...: G22200246-008 Work Order #. ..: E8K461AA Matrix. . ... .... BIOLOGIC
• Date Sampled.. .: 09/18/02 Date Received.-: 09/20/02
Prep Date. . .. ..: 09/30/02 Analysis Date-.: 10/03/02
Prep Batch #. ..: 2273344
Dilution Factor: 1
- � DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 9.0 %, SW846 8290
I
� I
7
l—
1 '
i
—s21200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-560D 21 of 630

i1
`� BIAS 8177G8 PAP88 P8fB7DC1'S 1'HC
Client Sample 3a: LOC 5 BLACK RH
Trace Level Organic Compounds
1 Lot-Sample #.-.: G2I200246-008 Work Order 4...: ESK463-AC Matrix......... HIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 09/18/02 Date Received..: 09/20/02
Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/06/02
Prep Batch #...: 2273336
I_ } Dilution Factor: 1
--� DETECTION
PARAMRTER RESULT LINST UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.3.4 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.14 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.16 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.15 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hx'CDD ND 0.14 pg/g SW846 B290
Total HxCDD ND 0.16 pg/g SW846 829D
1,2,3,4,6,7,6-HpCDD ND D.37 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCOD ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.4 CON pg/g SW846 0290
Total TCDF 1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDP ND OAS pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDP ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
_.. Total PeCDF ND 0.53 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.15 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hx=F ND 0.13 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXMF ND 0.15 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.18 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 829D
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.17 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpMF ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.21 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 58 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 52 (4D - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 78 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4'16,7,8-HpCDD 80 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 69 (40 - 235)
-I 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 51 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 48 (40 - 3.35)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXMF 74 (44 - 3.35)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 84. (40 - 135)
NOTE(S)
CON COdkMI im urryds
i21200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 22 o1630

L!
QC DATA ASSOCIATION SUMMARY
r G2I200246
Sample Preparation and Analysis Control Numbers
ANALYTICAL LEACH PREP
SAMPLE# MATRIX METHOD BATCH # BATCH # MS RUN#
i• 001 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
- i 002 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
003 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
004 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
i
005 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
006 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
- BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
007 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
008 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
I BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
009 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273336
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 2273344
i
1
j ,21200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 25 of 630

^l
l
I� 14ETEU p BLABS REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot $...: G2I200246 Work Order #.. .: B844W1AA Matrix........ .: BIOLOGIC
MB Lot-Sample #: G2I300000-336
Prep Date......: 09/30/02
Analysis Date..: 10/06/02 Prep Batch #...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PAPJU49M RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.13 Pg/g SW846 8290
t Total TCDD ND 0.13 pg/g SW846 8290
j 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeMD ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 9290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.26 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hx= ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxMD ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
- 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 0.19 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD ND 0.19 Pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 0.46 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 0.28 Pg/g S9846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeMP ND 0.20 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.20 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.19 pg/g SW846 8290
_ . 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXMF ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0,19 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
j Total HxCDF ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.13 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.17 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpMF ND 0,17 pg/g M46 8290
_- OCDF ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
-- PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
-- 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 67 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD _ 57 (40 - 3.35)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 87 (40 - 235)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 82 (40 - 3.35)
13C-OCDD 72 (40 - 135)
I-i 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 59 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 54 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpmF 79 (40 - 135)
J BOTB(s) -
ComWkm=pm1brc d' 6nm m=ffq torva ro®$-Wcr=in alwWrd=h
v
i
L
�',_.'21200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 26 of 630

r �
L
.� LAB CMTTROL SAMPLE EVAIAUMCK 110402T
l
Trace Level Organic Compounds
1
Cheat Lot #..... G2I200246 Work Order #..... E844WIAC Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC.
LCS Lot-Sample#: G2I300000-336 -
Prep Date........ 09/30/02 Analysis Date...: 10/06/02
Prep Batch #...: 2273336
Dilution Factor: 1
PERCENT RECOVERY
_ PARAMETER RECOVERY LIMITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 80 (50 - 350) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-Pe= 81 (SO - 350) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-BSA 86 (50 - 350) SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-R2D0® 84 (50 - 350) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-McCOD 71 (50 - 350) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Rp= 83 (50 - 350) SW846 8290
OCDD 88 (50 - 350) SNO46 B290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 90 (50 - 350) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 91 (so - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCOF 100 (50 - 350) SKS46 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 82 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HaCOF 84 (50 - 350) SWO46 8290
-`, 2,3,4,6,7,8-HECDF 83 (50 - 350) SW046 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXMF 54 (50 - 150) SNO46 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 66 (50 - ISO) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCOF 64 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
OCDF 76 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 49 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 47 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 75 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 71 (40 - 125)
13C-OCDD 59 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 45 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 43 (40 - 135)
'• � 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8THxCDF 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 74 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S h
GSmd,ti=aepmWmdd Ddae maaft m gym mundaRmwt fnohdaad,mts.
bold p=deaotn Card p,umetM .
'`j2I200246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 27 of 630

I
LABORATORY CCHTROL SAMPLE DAMk REPORT
- Trace Level O+ga^;c Compounds .
I_ Client Lot #...: G2I200246 Work Order #....: B844WJAC Matrix...-.....: BIOLOGIC
LCS Lot-Sample#: G2I3000DO-336
- - Prep Date......: 09/30/02 Analysis Date..: 10/06/02
Pxep Batch 0...: 2273336
.- Dilution Factor: 1
SPIKE MEASURED PERCENT
PARAMETER AMOUNT AMOUNT UNITS RECOVERY METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCM 20.0 16.0 pg/g 80 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-Pew 100 80.5 pg/g el SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 100 85.7 Pg/g 86 SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCM 100 84.3 pg/g 84 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-7—rM 100 70.8 pg/g 71 SUS46 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hp® 100 83.4 Pg/g 83 SW046 6290
OCED 200 175 pg/q 88 SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 20.0 3.7.9 pg/g 90 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCCDF 100 90.7 Pg/g 91 SWO46 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ' 100 100 pg/g 100 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 100 81.9 Pg/g 82 SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-RKMF 100 84.1 pg/g 84 SW84G 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXMF 3.00 82.6 pg/q 83 SN846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 100 54.2 pg/g 54 SW046 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF 100 85.7 pg/g 86 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCW 100 63.9 pg/g 64 SWO46 8290
0CUF 200 352 pg/g 76 SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 49 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 47 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 75 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD 71 (40.- 135)
13C-0CDD 59 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 45 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 43 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 74 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF 74 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S)
J dlailWooimpp/o(md Edge mbmoy blvoi0l0lm4MenDtt In glpdald:mYu.
Bob Prim draw"caovW P AMOM
� I
I i
l ;
a212D0246 STL-Sacramento(916)373-5600 - . 28 01630