NC0000272_2006 Dioxin Monitoring Fish Tissue_20070103

BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
3 January 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL
Return Receipt Requested
7099 3220 0007 0371 5429
D. Keith Haynes
Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Department of Environment FASH�VIL-L.E
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality 2007
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778Y SECTION
Subject: NPDES NCOM272 ONAL o-`ICE
2006 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
Canton, NC
Dear Mr. Haynes -
Enclosed is the final report documenting results from Blue Ridge Paper Products 17`s annual
t Fish Tissue Study. This study,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. Fish collection for
^— 2006 took place in August.
The University of Tennessee at Knoxville completed fish collection and the report. Fish
collection followed the December 2001 monitoring plan approved by DENR. Project details
were modified in 2006 to be responsive to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The
principal changes to the program in 2006 were the elimination of sampling of the main stem of
the Pigeon River beginning in 2006 and the collection of at least one whole body bottom feeder
sample from Waterville Lake (Stations 4A or 4B). These changes are included in more detail in
Appendix D. Severn Trent Laboratories completed the dioxin analyses.
Sincerely,
J. Glenn Rogers Paul S. Dickens
Water Compliance Coordinator Manager, Environmental Affairs
828-646-2874 828-646-6141
[e-mail] [e-mail]
175 Main Street PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716. 828-646-2000
Raising Your Expectations

Keith Haynes, NC DENRI DWQ
3 January 2007, Page 2
Enclosure: One copy of report(for DENR ARO)
Distribution with enclosures:
N. C.Division of Water Quality Certified Mail Receipt: 7099 3220 0007 0371 5436
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
Bryn Tracy
Environmental Biologist
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Coleen Sullins
Chief Water Quality Section
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
` Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Mr.Marshall Hyatt
Water Management Branch
EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta,GA 30303-8960
John Cruchfield
Progress Energy
410 South Wilmington Street
PEB 4A
Raleigh,NC 27602-1551
Mr.Paul Davis
TDEC -Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street
6s'Floor Annex
Nashville,TN 37243
Blue Ridge Pape
r Products Inc
175 Main Street • PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • 828-646-2000
Raising Your Expectations

Keith Haynes, NC DENR DWQ
3 January 2007, Page 3
Mr.Jonathan Burr
TDEC—Water Pollution Control
Knoxville EAC
2700 Middlebrook Pike,
State Plaza Building, Suite 220,
Knoxville,TN 37921
Dr.Luanne K.Williams
N.C. Department of Health and Human Services
Epidemiology Section
1902 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1902
Internal Distribution
C. File- Water
Engr File—River Studies
L. Cooper
J. Pryately
B. Shanahan
B. Williams
D. Brown
J. Clary
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
175 Main Street • PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • 828-646-2000
Raising Your Expectations

�.J
RESULTS OF 2006
DIOXIN MONITORING IN FISH TISSUE
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
Canton Mill
Canton, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Theodore B. Henry,,Ph.D.
Center for Environmental Biotechnology and
Departments of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
J. Larry Wilson,Ph.D.
Departments of Forestry,Wildlife and Fisheries
University of Tennessee
Knoxville,"Tennessee
December 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT . . . 7
5. SAMPLE PREPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
APPENDIX A: CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
APPENDIX B: SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY-SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORTS
APPENDIX C: BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET
TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS 1990-2004
APPENDIX D: REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
i

LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
2-1 Pigeon River sampling station information . . . . . . . . . 3
4-1 Fish collection techniques and level of effort . . . . . . . . 8
4-2 Summary of fish composites collected in the Pigeon River,
August 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6-1 Summary of Pigeon River fish tissue analysis results-2006 . . . . 15
6-2 Toxicity equivalence factors for CDD/F isomers. . . . . . . . 16
6-3 Summary of CDD/F isomer analyses, toxicity equivalent
factors, and toxicity equivalent values for the 2006 Pigeon
River fish tissue composites . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6-4 Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill fish fillet tissue analysis results
2005 - 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
t1
Number Title Page
ES-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
2-1 Historical Sampling Station locations on the Pigeon River . . . . . 4
2-2 Sampling Stations No. 4A and 4B on the Pigeon River . . . . . . 5
6-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2006 (Stations 4A and 4B) . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6-2 TCDD concentrations in catfish fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1997-2006 (Stations 4A and 4B) . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., Canton Mill contracted the Department of Forestry,
Wildlife and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) to collect dioxin fish
tissue samples from the Pigeon River during the summer of 2006 in accordance with NPDPES
permit conditions. UTK field personnel followed the December 2001 Fish Tissue Sampling Plan
prepared by EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., (EA Engineering 2001a) of
Chicago, Illinois. UTK prepared this 2006 fish tissue sampling report using the template
developed by EA Engineering for prior reporting years.
Bottom feeding species were collected in 2006 from two 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-detect to 5.4 parts per trillion(ppt))
at both locations sampled. Fillets used for analyses were obtained from common carp and
channel catfish. Chemical analyses were also conducted on a composite sample of one common
carp (whole body sample) collected from Station 4A and total TCDD and TCDF concentrations
were 1.6 and 4.2 ppt respectively. Percent lipid content of the tissues (fillets and whole body)
used for analysis ranged from a mean of 8.0% (fillets) to 23% (common carp whole body).
Tissue concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were consistent with values reported in 2005 (Henry and
Wilson 2006), and the same conclusion drawn in 2005 can be applied to the 2006 results, i.e.,
that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in carp fillets from Waterville Lake has declined by 94-
99 percent during the period from 1990 through 2005 (Figure ES-1). Dioxin concentrations in
fish tissue samples from all sites sampled in 2006 were below the FDA dioxin health advisory
limit and the toxicity equivalent limit of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services.
iv

Figure ES-t. TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River, 1990-2006
(Stations 4A and 4B).
70 -
60
\
V
1
50
V 7 V a Station 4A
C t � �
O 1 V
Station 4B
40 i
y \
a 30 —
c \
c �
U \
20 —
V
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
YEAR

1. INTRODUCTION
The Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., Canton Mill contracted the Department of Forestry,
Wildlife and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) to collect dioxin fish
tissue samples from the Pigeon River during the summer of 2006 in accordance with NPDPES
permit conditions. UTK field personnel followed the December 2001 Fish Tissue Sampling Plan
prepared by EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., (EA Engineering 2001a) of
Chicago, Illinois.
This report details the results of a study conducted during 2006 to determine the concentrations
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) in bottom-feeding fish collected from the
Pigeon River near Canton, North Carolina. The report follows the template developed by EA
Engineering for prior reporting years. The 2006 fish tissue study is number 17 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, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001b, 2001c, 2003,
2004, and Wilson 2006). However, selected project details were modified to be responsive to the
suggestions/recommendations of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NC DNR), the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, U.S. EPA Region IV, and the
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS). The principal change
in the program was that the collection and analysis of sportfish composite samples have not been
required since 2000. In addition, project details were again modified in 2006 to be responsive to
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ). The principal changes to the program
in 2006 were the elimination of sampling of the main stem of the Pigeon River beginning in
2006 and the collection of at least one whole body bottom feeder sample from Waterville Lake
(Stations 4A or 4B). These changes are included in more detail in Appendix D.
The 2006 study was conducted during August, during which time biologists from UTK collected
and prepared fish tissue samples from two sampling locations (Stations 4A and 4B) 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.
1

2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
In accordance with the study plan (Wilson 2006), fish were collected from two sampling
locations on the Pigeon River. In the past, five monitoring stations were located downstream
from Canton Mill outfall (four in North Carolina and one in Tennessee) and one control or
background site was located upstream of it; however, for this sampling period only two sites
(stations 4A and 4B) were sampled. Detailed sampling station information for both sites is
provided in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2.
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 2-2). 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 2-2). Appropriate habitats were sampled within each study
reach in an effort to collect the desired complement of fishes.
Fish sampling was conducted in the vicinity of each location described above; however, the
distance or effort at each station depended on how difficult it was to collect fish at that station.
The Station 4B study area consisted of an approximate 1.0 RM reach of Waterville Lake located
from the dam to the confluence of Wilkins Creek. Sampling at Stations 4A and 4B included
gillnetting near the shore along both the left and right banks of Waterville Lake.
i
2

Table 2-1. Pigeon River Sampling Stations.
Station Station Location and Site Description/Habitat Type Fish Community
Number RM Distance from Outfall
4A 41.5 Upper Waterville Lake Characterized by deep-water lentic Relative abundance dominated by channel catfish.
(21.8 RM downstream from habitat with bedrock covered by Bluegill, black crappie, flathead catfish, small
the Canton Mill outfall) loose, unconsolidated bottom mouth bass, and largemouth bass are common.
sediments. Maximum depth Common carp are present but not common.
sampled approximatel 3 in.
4B 39.0 Lower Waterville Lake Characterized by deep-water lentic There are no dominant species. Bluegill,black
from the dam to confluence habitat,bedrock,and soft crappie,channel catfish, flathead catfish,
with Wilkins Creek(24.3 sediments. Maximum depth smallmouth bass,and largemouth bass are common.
RM downstream from the sampled approximately 12 in. Very Common carp are present but not common.
Canton Mill outfall) steep banks with little cover.
3

Figure 2-1. Monitoring stations (1, 2, 3,4A, 4B, and 5, circled in blue text) on the
Pigeon River. Fish tissues were collected from two sites (4A and 4B)for dioxin analyses
in 2006. More precise geographical locations of each site are presented in Figure 2-2
Hlu'f0on,iM lMRbN,TN
G xer emwne Bnpe
(2a91 TE WSUE
rvea.cme�way ^•� N
(iBv) �./ NORnI
NOTE: RN.,.D. of mamstem eemplinH locMlon o.
Wd.Pl� if WIWf q mouth SM1ownmparOnMeses.
(]LO)
S t BRp M
e Fisn aM Benliw5 SampGig Slelion
4
Walbra Dam �L'J Nylem]b LNe
CAfab 10G 4B
(BB.II 4A
+�n
New l4pce Heltlp. CYa040e CiBek
RlvertWe NBd)
flepco Ope (4"
(u.tl Mgve CnEtnr
- sLow lun
o eaw e 3
Cre k
lae.gl ll l Cl d. Tjef ory
FeegusoI HIM, (%S) Above Cly" / Film ll.
FlhenllN Iss.OJ
Below
Waynasvllle WWTp' Mill Canon,N<
Is+.sl m (sJ3. t
Wayotlmllea+J c1yJe.rvo Celllon
(54.e)8 cmex IB+.$)
sa (X.g)
4

�. ,J f�
Grassy Knab - � `-
4-� �P86
i
��llly' Op
wales oem
1U - i
Q
ATE LL L4�B \ / ✓� '_,r
� I C avk J� � dllt/ 1 i c
1\1 � �. � C - � Abarcleetl Men • 6-�. fHf xv :yet
O
fl
�\ f re,.
Z
40
Figure 2-2. Sampling Station 4A (indicated by A) and Station 4B (indicated by B) on the Pigeon River.
5

3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES
In accordance with the study plan (Wilson 2006), the goal of the fish collection effort was to
collect one composite bottom feeder fillet sample at both sampling stations 4A and 4B. Each
composite consisted of 3 to 5 similarly sized (shortest specimen within 75% of the length of the
longest) adult individuals of the target species. Because of the difficulty in obtaining some
species of bottom feeding fish at specific sites, target species varied among sites. Common carp
and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) were the targeted species at sites 4A and 4B. In
addition to fillet samples,one whole common carp was collected from Station 4A.
In summary fish were collected as follows:
• Bottom feeder fillet composite—one sample at both locations
• Catfish fillet composite—one sample at both locations
• Common carp whole body composite—one sample from Station 4A
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 2006
Pigeon River collections yielded the desired species at each location. In addition, 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.
6

4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
Sampling was conducted during 17 — 21 August 2006. Notes were recorded at each sampling
station with regard to the type of sampling gear, level of effort (time), and habitat (Table 4-1).
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. For 2006,
the mean total length of carp was 681 mm and fish ranged from 635-745 mm. In 2005, the mean
total length for carp was 634 nun and fish ranged from 551-736 mm. Previously, fish collections
were conducted by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology(see References), and the mean for
carp total length was 618 mm for fish submitted for analysis between 1993 and 2003.
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 the Sampling Guidance Manual (Versar 1984), such as electrofishing, trawling,
angling, or seining. These are preferred over passive methods (e.g., gill nets, trap nets, trot lines)
because samples are collected from more definable areas (Versar 1984). Electrofishing was used
at all stations. At stations 4A and 4B (Waterville Lake), gill nets were also necessary because of
water depth. A boat electrofishing unit (pulsed direct current) was used at all stations. The boat
electrofisher was equipped with a Smith Root Type VIA electrofrsher, and powered by a 240-
volt, 5000-Watt generator. Electrofishing techniques followed those described in the National
Dioxin Study (Versar 1984).
Fish collection techniques and level of effort (time) expended at both stations are summarized in
Table 4-1. Total study effort for collection of fish at Stations 4A/4B was 15 h electrofishing and
250 h gill netting.
7

Table 4-1. Fish Collection Techniques and Level of Effort.
Station Sampling Sampling
Number RM Dates Techniques Level of Effort Comments
4A 41.5 16 and 18 Aug Gill nets 125 net-hours An approximate 0.3 RM reach of river was sampled; lake level was
06 above normal—visibility good; station characterized by deep water
Boat 7.5 hours lentic habitat with bedrock and soft,unconsolidated bottom
electrofishing substrates. Sampling involved gill net sets just off the left and right
shores;electrofished entire area.
4B 39.0 17, 18, and 21 Gill nets 125 net-hours An approximate 1.0 RM reach was sampled; lake level was above
Aug 06 normal—visibility good; station characterized by deep-water lentic
Boat 7.5 hours habitats with bedrock and soft bottom substrates. Sampling involved
electrofishing gill nets and electrofishing throughout the forebay. Nets were set off
banks as well as horizontal set at near surface, midwater and bottom
sets.
8

Table 4-2. Summary of fish composites collected at two stations in the Pigeon River,August
2006.
Total Total
Length whole body
Date Station Species (mm) (g) Sample type Composite
18 Aug 06 4A Channel catfish 500 1125 Fillet W
(RM 41.5)Channel catfish 430 600 Fillet R
Channel catfish 440 745 Fillet R
Channel catfish 460 850 Fillet R
Channel catfish 472 875 Fillet R
MEAN 460 839
4A Common carp 635 3375 Fillet R
(RM 41.5)Common carp 690 5260 Fillet R
Common carp 692 4880 Fillet R
MEAN 672 4505
18 Aug 06 4A Common carp 665 4100 Whole body wBb
(RM 41.5)
17 Aug 06 4B Channel catfish 510 1230 Fillet R'
(RM 39.0)Channel catfish 550 1570 Fillet R
Channel catfish 590 2305 Fillet R
J Channel catfish 570 1950 Fillet R
'MEAN 555 1764
21 Aug 06 4B Common carp 690 5120 Fillet R
(RM 39.0)Common carp 745 6640 Fillet R
Common carp 650 5150 Fillet R
MEAN 695 5637
Ra right fillet composite
WBb whole body composite
9

Target species were collected at both sampling stations in 2006. Common carp, the target
bottom feeder at stations 4A, and 4B, were collected (and prepared for fillet and/or whole body
analysis) at those stations. 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 samples consisted of five channel catfish and 3 common carp at
Station 4A, and four channel catfish and three common carp at Station 4B. A single bottom
feeder whole body common carp from Station 4A was submitted for analysis (Table 4-2).
All 15 composites submitted for analysis in 2006 met the US EPA Region N 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).
10

. 5. SAMPLE PREPARATION
i
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 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
scales.(or removing the 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 Severn Trent Laboratory for analysis; left side fillets were retained
by Blue Ridge Paper Products 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 samples in that composite. All labels had the following information:
• sample identification number,
• sample location and station identification,
• sampling team initials,
• date of collection,
• species name,
• sample type (i.e., fillet or whole body)
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.
'11

All samples were frozen solid prior to shipment to the analytical laboratory. The frozen samples
were packed on dry ice, shipped via overnight delivery and arrived on 8/23/06 at Sevem Trent
Laboratory— Sacramento. The back-up fillets were retained in a freezer at the Canton Mill until
laboratory analytical results for the right side fillets were received and verified. The backup
fillets were then destroyed.
12

6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The fish tissue samples were received in one shipment (8/23/06) at Severn Trent Laboratory
(STL) — Sacramento California under chain-of-custody protocol. Once received at the
laboratory, samples were compared to the chain-of-custody record to verify the content 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 (GC/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 Fish Tissue Sampling Study Plan(EA 2001a).
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 2006 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 North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services (NC DHHS) 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 4A and 4B (channel catfish) (Table 6-1). Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD were detectable only in common carp from the whole body composite sample collected
from Station 4A (1.6 ppt). Furan isomer (2,3,7,8-TCDF) analysis results in bottom feeder
composite fillet samples indicated a concentration range from non-detect (common carp and
channel catfish at Stations 4A and 4B) to 3.2 ppt (common carp at Station 4B).
Examination of the data in Table 6-1 indicates that all fish collected during this study had body
burdens well below the FDA dioxin health advisory level (25 ppt) for fish tissue [as established
and presented in FDA (1981, 1983) and Cordle (1983)].
The NC DHHS recommends an average dioxin toxicity equivalent(TEQ) level of 3 ppt or less in
fish tissue fillets. The NC DHHS issues dioxin fish tissue advisories at an average toxicity
equivalent of 4 ppt or greater(e-mail correspondence with Dr. Luanne Williams 18 January
2005). The TEQ of each chlorodibenzodioxin and furan (CDD/F) isomer is based on the toxicity
equivalence factor(TEF) (WHO 2005 and Table 6-2) as described in the 2001 Study Plan (EA
2001b). The TEQ value is calculated assuming additivity of effects for the individual congeners
of dioxin and furans and is expressed as an "equivalent amount of 2,3,7,8-TCDD" (NC DEHNR
1991). The measured concentration of each CDD/F isomer, when multiplied by its appropriate
TEF, yields the TEQ of that isomer(the toxic concentration of that isomer relative to the toxicity
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD). In cases where concentrations were below the level of detection, a value of
zero was used in the TEQ calculation. Based on an advisory by the World Health Organization
13

(e-mail correspondence with Dr. Luanne Williams 20 September 2006), new TEFs were
developed in 2005 by the WHO and are now being used instead of the 1997 TEFs.
14

Table 6-1. Summary of the Pigeon River Fish Tissue Analysis Results 2006.
Station Percent
Number Sample ID Composite/Sample Type 2,3,7,8-TCDD�al 23,7,8-TCD1i'' Lipid
4A SITE 4A channel catfish 5 fillet samples ND(DL=0.37) ND(DL=0.24) 6.0
SITE 4A common carp 3 fillet samples 0.641") 1.6 4.7
SITE 4A common carp 1 whole body samples 1.6 3.7 23
4B SITE 4B channel catfish 4 fillet samples 0.77(b) ND (DL=0.43) 9.6
SITE 4B common carp 3 fillet samples 0.73(b) 3.2 12
(a)Units=ppt(parts per trillion) or pg/g(picogram/gram)
(b)Estimated results. Result is less than the reporting limit
(ND)Not detected,concentrations below the instrument detection limit.
15

Table 6-2. Toxicity Equivalence Factors for CDD/F Isomers.
DIOXIN DI13ENZOFURAN
Isomer(a) TEF(b) 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 0.03
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 1,2,3,4,7,8-HpCDF 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-HpCDF 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 0.0003 OCDF 0.0003
(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.
16

- The TEQ calculation and summarization schemes presented in Table 6-3 followed methods used
by NC DHHS (NC (DEHNR 1991). TEQ values in 2006 are very similar to those reported in
2005 (Henry and Wilson 2006). Bottom feeder fillet TEQ values were below the NC DHHS
advisory limit of 4 ppt at both stations (Table 6-3).
Table 6-4 illustrates 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentrations in common carp fillet samples collected in
2005 and 2006, and results for previous years (1990-2004) are in Appendix C. Since 1990,
2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in carp fillets have declined dramatically (94-99 percent) at all
sampling stations (Table 6-4, Appendix C, Figure 6-1). As in 2005, 2,3,7,8,-TCDD was detected
in carp fillets in 2006 at Stations 4A and 4B in Waterville Lake. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD in carp fillets from Waterville Lake in 2006 were consistent with the low values (< 3 ppt)
reported for 2005 (Henry and Wilson 2006). The mean weights of common carp collected from
Stations 4A and 4B were higher (4.505 kg, Station 4A; 5.637 kg,Station 4B)than carp collected
in 2005 (3.857 kg, Station A; 4.695 kg, Station 4B), and those collected at Station 4A were
greater than the mean weight of carp collected for,the entire period of 1999-2003 (3.193 kg,
Station 4A; 5.042 kg, Station 413).
Despite the larger size of common carp submitted in 2006 relative to 2005, tissue concentrations
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were consistent with values found in 2005, and the same conclusion drawn in
2005 can be applied to the 2006 results, i.e., that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in carp
fillets from Waterville Lake has declined by 94-99 percent during the period from 1990 through
2005 (Figure 6-1). Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in channel catfish fillets were found to be
below detection levels at all sites as been reported in annual analyses conducted since 2002.
i
17

t
Table 6-3. Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses,Toxicity Equivalent Factors and Toxicity Equivalent Values for the 2006 Waterville
Lake Fish.
STATION 4A
Channel catfish-fillet Common carp fillet Common carp whole body
CDD/F isomers TE°) Results(a) TEO(bl Results(a) MQ!c Results(' TE !�
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 ND 0.000 0.64(d) 0.64 1.6 1.6'
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 7.5 0.75
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 2.5(d) 0.025 8.6 0.086 32 0.32
OCDD 0.0003 9.1(d) 0.003 41 0.012 92 0.028
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 1.6 0.16 3.7 0.37
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.03 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 3.6(d) 0.36
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-1-IxCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1;2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 3.0(d) 0.03
OCDF 0.0003 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
Total TEQ 0.028 0.898 3-.458
18

Table 6-3. (continued). Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses,Toxicity Equivalent Factors and Toxicity Equivalent Values for the
2006 Waterville Lake Fish.
STATION 4B
Channel catfish—fillet Common carp fillet
CDD/F isomers TEF(`) Results(a) TEO Results(a) MQ!c
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.77(d) 0.77 0.73(d) 0.73
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 3.9(d) 0.39
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 2.6(d) 0.026 15 0.15
OCDD 0.0003 8.2(d) 0.002 42 0.013
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 3.2 0.32
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.03 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 . ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
OCDF 0.0003 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
Total TEQ 0.798 1.603
(a)Units=ppt(parts per trillion) or pg/g(pictogram per gram)
(b)Dioxin Equivalent Concentration using methodology from U.S.EPA(1989)
(c)Toxicity Equivalent Factors from World Health Organization(WHO 2005)
(d) Estimated result. Result is less than reporting limit.
19

Table 6-4. Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 2005—2006
2005 Results(d) 2006 Results(e)
Number Length Range Number Length Range
Station Species of fish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt''b) Station Species of fish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD'"'
1 Black redhorse 5 359-384 ND(0.35) 4A Common carp 3 635-692 0.64(c)
RM 64.5 RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 430-500 ND(0.37)
2 Common carp 4 595-650 ND(0.45) 4B Common carp 3 650-745 0.73 (c)
RM 59.0 Channel catfish 3 443-460 ND(0.29) RM 39.0 Channel catfish 4 510-590 0.77(c)
3 Common carp 4 605-630 ND(0.46)
RM 52.3
4A Common carp 3 601-665 1.3
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 464-508 ND(0.36)
4B Common carp 4 595-736 2.8
RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 513-603 0.76(`)
5 Black redhorse 4 440-501 ND(0.41)
RM 19.0
Total fish filleted= 33 Total fish filleted= 15
(a)Dioxin analyses conducted by Severn Trent Laboratories.
(b)Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(pictogram/gram)
(c)Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit.
(d)Survey conducted in August and September
(e)Survey conducted in August
ND=Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses
20

Figure 6-1. TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River, 1990-2006
(Stations 4A and 4B).
70
60 \
\
\
SO
0 Station 4A
o
Station 48
p 40 / \
t� \
30 \
o \
U
F- \
20
i
0 111
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
YEAR
21

Figure 6-2. TCDD Concentrations in Catfish Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River, 1997-2006
(Stations 4A and 4B).
2.50
2.00 •
—9 —Station 4A f Station 4B
C
O
1.50
C ` /•\
d 1 \
Q 1.00
b b
0.50 b
.1 a
0.00
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
YEAR
a) TCDD concentrations at Stations 4A and 4B were trot detected therefore,the vales plotted represent the detection limits for those samples.
b) TCDD conreutratioms at Station 4B were tmt detected,therefore.the value plated represents the detection limit for that sample.
22

7. REFERENCES
Cordle, F. 1983. Use of epidemiology in the regulation of dioxins in the food supply, in
Accidental Exposure to Dioxins: Human Health Aspects (F. Coulston and F. Pocchiara,
eds.), pp 245-256. Academic Press, New York.
Cunningham, W.R. 1990. Letter to Paul Wiegand. 30 January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc. 1990. Study Plan for the Monitoring of Dioxin
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.01, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc. 1991. Results of the 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 the 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 the 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 the 1993 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 11370.06, prepared for Champion International
Corporation, Canton, North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc. 1994. Results of the 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 the 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 the 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 the 1997 Dioxin Monitoring in
Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13353.01, prepared for Champion International Corporation,
Canton, North Carolina. November.
23

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc. 1998. Results of the 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 the 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 the 2000 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13745.01, prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton,
North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Ina 2001c. Results of the 2001 Dioxin Monitoring
in Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13900.01, prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton,
North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc. 2003. Results of the 2002 Dioxin Monitoring in
Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13900.02, prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton,
North Carolina. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc. 2004. Results of the 2003 Dioxin Monitoring in
Fish Tissue. EA Report No. 13900.03, prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton,
North Carolina. January.
Food and Drug Administration. 1981. FDA advises Great Lakes 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.
Henry,T.B. and J.L. Wilson. 2006. Results of 2005 dioxin monitoring in fish tissue. Prepared
for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. Canton Mill, Canton, North Carolina. February 2006.
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
24

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.
Wilson, J.L. 2006. Study plan revision: dioxin monitoring in fish tissue, Waterville Lake.
Prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. Canton Mill, Canton, North Carolina. March
2006.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1997. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds: Part II Health
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD) and Related Compounds.
25

APPENDIX A: CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
APPENDIX B: SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY-SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORTS
APPENDIX C: BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET
TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS 1990-2004
APPENDIX D: REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
26

APPENDIX A
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
27

Ask
Chain of STL® �e0.\
Custody Record Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
STL-4124 (0e01)
Client Project Manager Date Chain of s y Nu bar
Rky-cR a w S .2% o e 2 "M
Address Telephone umber(Area Code)�/Flax Number tab Number
1 o:..nee- — 16— t Page o/
City State Zip Code Site Contact Lab Contact Analysis(Attach list it
C , o V I
mores ace is needed
Project Name and Location(State) CarrlerlWaybill Number
6-Ae.r%),\\[ e- — 7,s Speciallnstructions/
ContractIPurchase OrdedOuote No. Containers& Conditions o/Receipt
Matrix Preservatives wJ
Sample I.D. No. and Description p
Date Time n m g o Q o
(Containers for each sample may be combined on one line) d a $ �n I I I 2 N i
S R sIL50
If
X k
'SyT o930 X
A� J
)
)
Possible Hazard Identification Sample Disposal
(A fee may be assessed if samples are retained
Non-Hazard ❑ Flammable ❑ Skin Irritant El Poison B ❑ Unknown ElReturnTo Client El Disposal By Lab ❑ Archive For Months longer than I month)
Turn Around Time Required OC Requirements(5peciry)
❑ 24 Hours ❑ 48 Hours ❑ 7 Days ❑ 14 Days ❑ 21 Days ❑ Other
I.Relinquished By A. 0 Date Time 1.Received By Date Time
ab 9010 21 b(. 2011D
2.Rehrigols ed By Oat Time 2.R ewed By �� / Date Time
f( �' O(o 3)S� G `��Si3 I off`
3.Rehnq -hed By Date Time 3.Received By Date Time
l
Comments
DISTRIBUTION: WHITE Returned to Client with Report, CANARY-Stays with the Sample: PINK Field Copy

r
APPENDIX B
SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY-SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORT
28

STL
STL Sacramento
880 Riverside Parkway
West Sacramento, CA 95605
Tel:[phone] Fax: [phone]
www.stl-inc.com
September 29, 2006
STL SACRAMENTO PROJECT NUMBER: G6H230280
PO/CONTRACT: 314974
Glen Rogers
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
175 Main Street, Drop 56A
Canton, NC 28716
Dear Mr. Rogers,
This report contains the analytical results for the samples received under chain of custody by
STL Sacramento on August 23, 2006. These samples are associated with your Waterville
Lake project.
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,
fvr
Jill Kellmann
Project Manager
- Severn Trent Laboratories,Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STL SACRAMENTO PROJECT NUMBER G611230280
Case Narrative
STL Sacramento Quality Assurance Program
Sample Description Information
Chain of Custody Documentation
BIOLOGIC, 8290,Lipids
Samples: 1 through 5
Sample Data Sheets
BIOLOGIC, 8290,Dioxins/Furans
Samples: 1 through 5
Sample Data Sheets
Method Blank Reports
Laboratory QC Reports
Full Raw Data Package

CASE NARRATIVE
STL SACRAMENTO PROJECT NUMBER G611230280
General Comments
The samples were received at-201 C.
BIOLOGIC,8290,Dioxins/Furans
Sample(s): 1, 2, 3, 5
Please note that these samples were extracted 2-3 days outside of the Method 8290A's
recommended extraction holding time of 30 days from collection. An attempt was made to
extract these samples during the holding time for the method;however due to prep issues
with this extraction the samples had to be re-extracted outside of the holding time. Method
8290A does state within Section 6.4; "Note: The holding times Isted in Sec. 6.4 are
recommendations. PCDDs and PCDFs are very stable in a variety of matrices,and holding
times under the conditions listed in Sec. 6.3 may be as high as a year for certain matrices.
Sample extracts, however, should always be analyzed within 45 days of extraction."
Sample(s): 1
The totals detection limit for PeCDF was elevated in the above sample due to matrix
interference.
Sample(s): 2,4, 5
Please note the confirmation column analyses for 2,3,7,8-TCDF were analyzed on the
following dates and times:
Sample 2 September 21,2006 at 15:22
Sample 4 September 21,2006 at 15:58
Sample 5 September 21,2006 at 16:35
Sample(s): 3,4
Analyte 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been designated with a"W'qualifier in the above samples due to
a matrix interference that is causing the ion ratios to be outside of criteria.The analyte has
been qualified as"positively identified,but at an estimated quantity"because the quantitation
is based on theoretical ratios.
Sample(s): 4
The totals detection limit for HxCDF was elevated in the above sample due to matrix
interference.
There were no other anomalies associated with this project.
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-.5600 1 of 518

o I A
S.
STL
STL Sacramento Certifications/Accreditation
Certifyin.- State Certificate# —1 1 1
Alaska UST-055 Oregon* CA 200005
Arkansas 04-067-0 South Carolina 87014002
,F -741-Gmal m7m .......
Colorado NA Utah* UANl
t:
Florida* E87570 Washington C087
!1-5. e6f- 9,1
fn��. &§vVifdihja�.j -
Hawaii NA Wisconsin 998204680
I�E PEINT R ♦
ichigan 9947 USACE NA
K
w Jersey* CA005 ,USDA Foreign Soil S-46613
V5�-;'. York* 1: 666
*NELAP accredited. A more detailed parameter list is available upon request.Update 1/27/05
QC Parameter Definitions
QC Batch:The QC batch consists of a set of up to 20 field samples that behave similarly(i.e.,same matrix)
and are processed using the same procedures,reagents,and standards at the same time.
Method Blank: An analytical control consisting of all reagents,which may include internal standards and
surrogates,and is carried through the entire analytical procedure. The method blank is used to define the level
of laboratory background contamination.
Laboratory Control Sample and Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCS/LCSD):
An aliquot of blank matrix spiked with known amounts of representative target analytes. The LCS(and I-CSD
as required)is carried through the entire analytical process and is used to monitor the accuracy of the analytical
process independent of potential matrix effects. If an LCSD is performed,it may also be.used to evaluate the
precision of the process.
Duplicate Sample (DU): Different aliquots of the same sample are analyzed to evaluate the precision of an
analysis.
Surrogates: Organic compounds not expected to be detected in field samples,which behave similarly to
target analyzes. These are added to every sample within a batch at a known concentration to determine the
efficiency of the sample preparation and analytical process.
Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate(MS/MSD); An MS is an aliquot of a matrix fortified
with known quantities of specific compounds and subjected to an entire analytical procedure in order to indicate
the appropriateness of the method for a particular matrix. The percent recovery for the respective compound(s)
is then calculated- The MSD is a second aliquot of the same matrix as the matrix spike,also spiked,in order to
determine the precision of the method.
Isotope Dilution: For isotope dilution methods,isotopically labeled analogs(internal standards)of the
native target analyzes are spiked into the sample at time of extraction. These internal standards are used for
quantitation,and monitor and correct for matrix effects. Since matrix effects on method performance can be
judged by the recovery of these analogs,there is little added benefit of performing MS/MSD for these methods.
MSIMSD are only performed for client or QAPP requirements.
Control Limits: The reported control limits are either based on laboratory historical data,method
requirements,or project data quality objectives. The control limits represent the estimated uncertainty of the
test results.
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 2-0M 8

Sample Summary
G6H230280
WO# Sample# Client Sample ID Sampling Date Received Date
JC10M 1 SITE 4A CHANNEL CATFISH R FILLETS(5) SAW006 04:30 PM 8/23/2006 0850 AM
JC104 2 SITE 4A COMMON CARP R FILLETS(3) 8/18/2006 12:30 PM 8/23/2006 08:50 AM
JC11P 3 SITE 4B CHANNEL CATFISH R FH LEP(4) 8/1712D06 09:30 AM 8/23/2006 08:50 AM
JC114 4 SITE 4B COMMON CARP R FILLET(3) 8/21/2006 06:48 PM 8Pt3/2006 08:50 AM
JC116 5 SITE 4A COMMON CARP WB(I)WHOLE BODY 8/18/2006 12:30 PM 8R3@006 08:50 AM'
Notes(s):
The analytical results of the samples listed above are presented on the following pages.
- All calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round-off errors in calculated results.
Results noted as"ND"were not detected at or above the stated limit.
This report must not be reproduced,except in full,without the written approval of the laboratory.
Results for the following parameters am never reported on a dry weight basis:color,cortosivity,density,fiashpoint,ignitability,
layers,odor,paint filter test,pH,porosity,pressure,reactivity,redox potential,specific gravity,spot tests,solids,solubility,
temperature,viscosity,and weight
G611230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 3 of 518

m�
NCIIaIn o STL,w
mCustody Record Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
0
STL.4124 (0901)
Client Project Manager Date Chainnf Custody,Number
I.� n U�; t it mot,
Address A Telephone mbar(Aroa Code)lFax Number - Lab Number
4 Page of
City Slate Zip Code Site Contact Lab Contact Analysis(Atlach list it
al?1716 AtA^ more space is needed
Project Name and Location(State) _ CarnaniWaybill Number If
Special Instructional
ContracUPurchase OrdedOuofe No. Containers& r; Conditions Of Receipt
Matrix �{ Preservatives 11) 16 +r 11
Sample I.D. No.and Description d o x x a A
6 m o a5o
(Containers for each sample may be combined on one line) Date Time d ti (, = x = 4S- ' lis, C\. "s�. h Nca- 5 '� (;( "U r h wide 5• less
19
N
d
0
m S i= Lirs C• , .lam 4 <dtfki JoL, 0930
•e• ua,. c
m
r
Possible Hazardidentification Sample Disposal
Non-Hazard ❑ Flammable (A fee may be assessedi!samples are retained
❑ Skin Irritant ❑ Poison B ❑ Unknown ❑Return To Client ❑ Dlsposaf By Lab ❑Archive For Months longer than I month)
Turn Around Time Required OC Requirements(Specity) i
❑24 Hours ❑ 48 Hours ❑ 7 Days ❑ 14 Days -❑ 21 Days ❑Other
1.Relinquished By Date Time 1,Received By. Dale Time
2.Reiin uis edB I �.Z1 (iL> ,�U�f✓ 1
4 Y Dal ' Time 2.R ceivetl ey Da(e Time
L ft7—
13
3.Reliti u hed 8 '
4 Y Date Time 3.Received By Dale Time �
a,Comments i
o I
�ISTR19U710N: WHITE-Returnedro Caem lmth Report: CANARY-Stays wr(h the SamD/e: PINK-Field Copy

LOT RECEIPT CHECKLIST
o STL Sacramento
CLIENT jZ PM, LOG #_T/41
LOT$ (QUANTIMS ID) h(G "Z7y G.�)L' QUOTE# i" ' — LOCATION
n
Initials Date
DATE RECEIVED TIME RECEIVED
DELIVERED BY ❑ FEDEX ❑ CA OVERNIGHT ❑ CLIENT
❑AIRBORNE ❑ GOLDENSTATE D DHL
❑ UPS ❑ BAX GLOBAL ❑ GO-GETTERS
❑ STL COURIER ❑ COURIERS ON•DEMAND
❑OTHER �---
CUSTODY SEAL STATUS 9?INTACT ❑ BROKEN ❑ N/A
CUSTODY SEAL #(S) --�-7�c?(Q SDI S/
SHIPPPING CONTAINER(S) Q'sTL ❑ CLIENT ❑ N/A
TEMPERTURE RECORD (IN°C) IR 1©' 3 ❑ ❑ OTHER �—
COC//(S)
IMPERATURE BLANK Observed: Corrected:
_AMPLE TEMPERATURE
Observed:—'�& Average.--- Corrected Average:
COLLECTOR'S NAME: ❑ 1
Verified from COC rJ Not on COC
pH MEASURED ❑ YES ❑ ANOMALY [f N/A
LABELEDBY..........................................................................................
LABELS CHECKED BY................................
PEER REVIEW NA...... ..................................
d T—
I
SHORT HOLD TEST NOTIFICATION SAMPLE RECEIVING
WETCHEM ON/A I
VOA•ENCORES.[]'N/A
r
❑ METALS NOTIFIED OF FILTER?PRESERVE VIA VERBAL & EMAIL �TN/A
COMPLETE SHIPMENT RECEIVED IN GOOD CONDITION WITH ❑ N/A
APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURES, CONTAINERS, PRESERVATIVES ! i
I
❑ Clouseau ElTEMPERATURE EXCEEDED (2 °C-6 00'1 : Erk/A IV dI
v
❑WET ICE ❑ BLUE ICE ❑ GEL PACK ❑ NO COOLING AGENTS USED ❑ PM NOTIFIED
tes:
*1 Acceptable temperature range for State of Wisconsin samples is<A^C.
G61-121303M NO SPACES BLANK. USE"N/A"IF NOT APPLIC;i4-LSiaMTK IaRn;k??i-Fr1fLOQJ)A"ENTRIES. OA-185 3/05 EM, Page 15 of 618

Lot �Bottle^t_ot Inventory
/ � /
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 1 17 18 19 20
VOA'
VOM-
AGB
AG Bs
250AGB
250AGBs
250AGBn
500AGB
_AGJ
500AGJ
250AGJ
125AGJ
CGJ
500CGJ
250CGJ
125CGJ
PJ
UVUPJ
500PJn
500PJna
500PJzn/na
250PJ
250PJn
250PJna
250PJzn/na
Acetate Tube
_"CT
Encore
Folder/filter
PUF
Petri/Filter
XAD Trap
Ziploc 1 I
1 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
h =h drochloric acid s =sulfuric acid na=sodium hydroxide n=nitric acid zn =zinc acetate
)er of VOAs with air bubbles present/total number of VOA's
QA-185 3/05 EM
Page 2
G611230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 6 of 518

BIOLOGIC , 8290 ,
Lipids -
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 7 of 518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A CHANNEL CATFISH FI1,LLTS(5)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: G6H230280-001 Work Order #. .. : JC10M1AA Matrix. . .... .. .: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. .. : 08/18/06 Date Received.. : 08/23'/06
Prep Date. ... . .: 09/06/06 Analysis Date__: 09/25/06
Prep Batch #. ..: 6249559
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 6.0 SW846 8290
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 8 of 518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP R FILLETS M
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #-- -= G6H230280-002 Work Order #. ..: JC1041AA Matrix. - -- . - -. -: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.. .: 08/18/06 Date Received.. : 08/23/06
Prep Date.. .. . .: 09/06/06 Analysis Date. .: 09/25/06
Prep Batch #... : 6249559
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 4.7 & SW846 8290
i
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 9 of 518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 413 CHANNEL CATFISH R FILLET(4)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.__: G6H230280-003 Work Order #. ..: JC11P1AA Matrix. ...... . . BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.. .: 08/17/06 Date Received_.: 08/23/06
Prep Date... .. . : 09/06/06 Analysis Date. .: 09/25/06
Prep Batch #...: 6249559
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 9.6 SW846 8290
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600' 10 01518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4B COMMON CARP R FITJ T(3)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. . . : G6H230280-004 Work Order #. . . : JC1141AA Matrix. . .. .. .. . BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. . .: 08/21/06 Date Received. -: 08/23/06
Prep Date. . . . . .: 09/06/06 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/06
Prep Batch #. . . : 6249559
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 12 SW846 8290
t
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 11 of 518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP WB(1)WHOLE BODY
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. .: G6H230280-005 Work Order #. .. : JC1161AA Matrix. . . .. . .. .: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. . .: 08/18/06 Date Received. . : 08/23/06
Prep Date. .. ...: 09/06/06 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/06
Prep Batch #. . .: 6249559
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT _ UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 23 % SW846 8290
l '
G61­1230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 12 of 518

BIOLOGIC , 8290 )
Dioxins/Furans
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 1301518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A CHANNEL CATFISH R FILISTS(5)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #... : G6H230280-001 Work Order #.. .: JC10M2AC Matrix. . . . ....-: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 08/18/06 Date Received. .: 08/23/06
Prep Date......: 09/19/06 Analysis Date. .: 09/21/06
Prep Batch #---: 6262574 -
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.61 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.66 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.5 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 2.5 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 9.1 J pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.24 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 0.61 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 9.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.31 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.55 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.32 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.39 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 93 (40 - 1353
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 100 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 92 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 82 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 99 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 99 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 78 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 79 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) -
1 Eaimaled result.Result is Im than the reponing Iimit.
G6H230280 SiL Sacramento(916)373-5600 14 of 518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP R FILLETS(3)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: GGH230280-002 Work Order #.. . : JC1042AC Matrix. . . .. . . . . BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. _ _: 08/18/06 Date Received_ _ : 08/23/06
Prep Date. .. . . .: 09/19/06 Analysis Date. _ : 09/21/06
Prep Batch #-- - : 6262574
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0_64 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 0.64 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.61 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 1.9 pg/g SW846 6290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.51 pg/g S1R846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 1.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDD 8.6 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 13 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 41 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.6 CON pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 3.1 pq/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.66 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4, 7,8-PeCDF ND 0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 3.0 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HicCDF ND 1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 4.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.69 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.47 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 84 (40 ,- 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 83 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 75 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 78 (40 - 135)
13C OCDD 79 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 90 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 87 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 71 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 75 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
1 Estimated result.Result is Im than the reporting limit.
CON Confirmation analysis.
G61­1230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 15 of 518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP WB(1)WHOLE BODY
Trace Level organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. . . : G6H230280-005 Work Order #. .. : JC1162AC Matrix. .. ... - -- : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. . . : 08/18/06 Date Received.. : 08/23/06
Prep Date. .. . . . : 09/19/06 Analysis Date-. : 09/21/06
Prep Batch #- - - : 6262574
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1-6 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 2.4 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD NO 2.4 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD NO 1.7 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 7.5 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 1-4 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 7-5 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 32 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 41 Pg/g SW846 B290
OCDD 92 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 3-7 CON Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 4-2 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 1.8 Pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NO 2.4 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 2.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 3.6 J Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.57 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.35 Pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF 3.6 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 3.0 J pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,B,9-HpCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF 3.0 Pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2.,3,7,8-TCDD 93 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 86 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 92 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD 69 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 76 (40' - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 87 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 84 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 81 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 68 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
CON Confirmation analysis.
J Estimated result.Result is less than the reporting limit.
G6H230280 STL Sacmmento(916)373-5600 18 of 518

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4B CHANNEL CATFISH R FILLET(4).
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #-__: G6H230280-003 Work Order #...: JC11P2AC Matrix-- ----- - - BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled__ _: 08/17/06 Date Received..: 08/23/06
Prep Date. .... . . 09/19/06 Analysis Date._: 09/21/06
Prep Batch #.. .: 6262574
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0_77 J,JA pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 0_77 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDD ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD NO 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDD NO 0.46 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD NO 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.6 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 2.6 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 8.2 J pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF NO 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 0.58 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDF NO 0.26 pg/g SW846 8290
� - 2,3,4, 7,8-PeCDF ND 0.77 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 4.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF NO 0.32 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF NO 0.29 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF NO 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF 3.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NO -0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF NO 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.91 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.39 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS '
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 102 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDD 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 76 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 75 (40 - 135) r
13C-OCDD 81 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 106 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 90 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDF 76 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 82 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
l Fsaimated result.Result is less than the reporting limit.
lA The analyze was positively identified,but die quamitation ism estimate.
G61­1230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 16 of 518

Blue Ridge.. Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4B COMMON CARP R FILLET(3)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #__ . : G6H230280-004 Work Order #. . .: JC1142AC matrix. . . . .. . . . BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled__ _: 08/21/06 Date Received_ .: 08/23/06
Prep Date. . . . . .: 09/19/06 Analysis Date. _: 09/21/06
Prep Batch #.. .: 6262574
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.73 J,JA pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 0.73 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 1.0 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD *3.9 J pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.80 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 3.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 15 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 18 pg/g SW846 8290 "
OCDD 42 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 3_2 CON pg/g SW846 8290
_ Total TCDF 5.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
*- 2,3,4, 7,8-PeCDF ND 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF 2.5 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF ND 2.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.85 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.44 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
.Total HxCDF ND 6.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4, 7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.23 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.42 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 92 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 94 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 83 _ (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 99 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 86 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF Be (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) -
7 Estimated result.Result is less than the reporting limit.
JA The analyle was positively identified,but the quantiiation is an estimate.
CON Confirmation analysis.
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 17 of 518

QC DATA ASSOCIATION SUMMARY
G6H230280
Sample Preparation and Analysis Control Numbers
ANALYTICAL LEACH PREP
SAMPLE# MATRIX METHOD BATCH # BATCH # MS RUN#
001 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6262574
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6249559
002 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6262574 ..
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6249559
003 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6262574
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6249559
004 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6262574
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6249559
005 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6262574
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 6249559
� t
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 19 of 518

METHOD BLANK REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #. .. : G6H230280 Work order #. . . : JELQTIAA Matrix. .. . . . . .. : BIOLOGIC
MB Lot-Sample #: G6I190000-574
Prep Date. ... . . : 09/19/06
Analysis Date..: 09/21/06 Prep Batch #. . . : 6262574 -
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD"
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0..11 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.11 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.40 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.78 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,E-HxCDD ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8=HxCDD ND 0.27 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.26 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 0.28 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 0.21 pg/g SW646 8290
Total HpCDD ND 0.21 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 0.23 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.095 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 0.095 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.11 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.12 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.16 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 ND 0.19 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4, 6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.21 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.22 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.14 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.17 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.33 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 95 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 87 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 87 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 91 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD ' 102 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 102 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 94 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 89 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,.6,7,8-HpCDF 100 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) : '
` CabWations arc performed before rounding to avoid roundroRerma in calculated raolts.
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 20 of 518

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE DATA REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #.. . : GGH230280 Work Order #.. . : JELQTIAC Matrix.. .. . .. . . BIOLOGIC
LCS Lot-Sample#: G61190000-574
Prep Date. ... . .: 09/19/06 Analysis Date. .: 09/21/06
Prep Batch #-. - : 6262574
Dilution Factor: 1
SPIKE MEASURED PERCENT
PARAMETER AMOUNT AMOUNT UNITS RECOVERY METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 20.0 22.4 pg/g 112 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 100 118 Pg/g 13.8 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD 100 94.8 pg/g 95 SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 100 113 pg/g 113 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 100 120 pg/g 120 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-BpCDD 100 110 pg/g 110 SW846 8290
OCDD 200 224 pg/g 112 SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 20.0 20.6 pg/g 103 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 100 104 pg/g 104. SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 100 95.9 pg/g 96 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 100 115 pg/g 115 SW846 8290
1,2,3,6.,1,8-HXCDF 100 127 pg/g 127 SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF 100 133 pg/g 133 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXMF 100, 127 pg/g 127 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 100 110 pg/g 110 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 100 115 pg/g 115 SW846 8290
OCDF 200 211 pg/g 106 SW846, 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 98 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 85 ..(40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-RXCDD 92 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD 94 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 99 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 106 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 82 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 96 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
Calwlations arc performed before rounding to avoid round-off erro s in caleulated results.
Hold print denotes wntrol parameters
G6H230280 STL Sacmmento(916)373.5600 21 of 518

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE EVALUATION REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #.. .: G6H230280 Work Order #-- • : UELQTIAC Matrix. ... . . I _ : BIOLOGIC
LCS Lot-Sample#: G6I190000-574
Prep Date. .. .. . : 09/19/06 Analysis Date. .: 09/21/06
Prep Batch #.. . : 6262574
Dilution Factor: 1
PERCENT RECOVERY
PARAMETER RECOVERY LIMITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 112 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,B-PeCDD 118 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXMD 95 (50 - 150): SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 113 (50 - ISO) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 120 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 110 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
OCDD 112 ISO - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 103 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 104 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,E-PeCDF 96 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 115 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF 127 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HKCDF 133 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF 127 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF 110 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 115 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
OCDF 106 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 98 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 92 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD 94 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD' 99 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 106 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 82 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 96 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
Calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round-off errors in calculated results.
Bold print denotes wntrol parameters
G6H230280 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 22 of 518

APPENDIX C
Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Results, 1990-2004
From: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
December 2004
29

Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 1990-2004(a).
1990 Results) 1991 Results(b)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(°) Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°t
1 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 10 106-178 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 10 491-570 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 408463 2.4
4A Bluegill 5 178-M ND(1.2) 4A Largemouth bass 7 313-468 3.0
RM 41.5 Bluegill 5 153-174 ND(0.63) RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 173-216 ND(0.63)`
Common carp 1 574 27 Common carp 10 502-688 23
4B Bluegill 5 183-196 0.76 4B Bluegill 5 186-212 ND(0.34)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 2 279-400 ND(1.8) RM 39.0 Bluegill 5 190-208 ND(0.62)
Common carp 4 551-638 66 Common carp 10 532-605 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

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

1994 Resultsat 1995 Results(c)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(trim) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(O 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 10 435-664 1.7
3 Redbreast sunfish 10 148-196 ND(0.15) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 170-206 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 158-210 ND(0.074) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 154-202 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 bass 5 281-439 2.0
RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 185-205 ND(0.084) RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 167-199 ND(0.26)
Common carp 10 465-591 3.4 Common carp 10 520-615 5.8
4B Black crappie 10 200-215 ND(0.084) 4B Largemouth bass 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 4 532-626 11.0
5 Redbreast sunfish 6 129-289 ND(0.075) 5 Sraallmouth bass 9 280-423 ND(0.11)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 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 7 440-481 ND(0.45)
Total Fish Filleted 163 156

1996 Results(b) 1997 Resultsa°t
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDW Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(°)
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 154-185 ND(0.13) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 144-161 ND(0.11)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 160-208 ND(0.085) RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-194 ND(0.23)
Black redhorse 5 401-440 ND(0.089) Black redhorse 4 291-424 ND(0.22)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 179-187 ND(0.10) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-200 ND(0.26)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-191 ND(0.12) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 160-181 ND(0.12)
Common cup 5 543-580 1.5 Common carp 5 506-615 1.4
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 184-190 ND(0.13) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 187-202 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 165-185 ND(0.13) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-195 ND(0.18)
Common carp 5 516-630 0.87 Common carp 5 450-505 ND(0.33)
4A Black crappie 5 216-233 ND(0.15) 4A Black cmpppie 5 215-231 ND(0.27)
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 215-229 ND(0.18) RM41.5 Black crappie 5 220-230 ND(0.10)
Common carp 5 562-632 4.2 Common carp 5 570-655 2.3
Chamel catfish 5 418-482 2.0
4B Black crappie 5 223-258 ND(0.11) 4B Black crappie 5 226-241 ND(0.17)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 278-310 ND(0.13) RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 270-360 ND(0.21)
Common carp 5 470-623 4.0 Common carp 5 605-690 11.0
Flathead catfish 5 430-540 0.62
5 Rock has 4 169-186 ND(0.077) 5 Rock bass 5 143-214 ND(0.15)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 315-454 ND(0.12) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 278-367 ND(0.27)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 451-555 ND(0.12) Smallmouth buffalo 5 406-525 ND 0.22)
Total Fish Filleted 89 Total Fish Filleted 99

1998 Resultsrot_ 1999 Resultsj°t
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(0 Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt`t
1 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 5 352-427 ND(0.33)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-177 ND(0.20) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-190 ND(0.37)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 166-193 ND(0,28) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 158-178 ND(0.29)
Common carp 5 551-661 1.3 Common carp 5 544-615 ND(0.27)
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 168-193 ND(0.34) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-199 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 cup 5 500-591 0.57
4A Black crappie 5 220-240 ND(0.49) 4A Black crappie 5 220-268 ND(0.18)
RM 41.5 Largemouth bass 5 227-330 ND(0.15) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 219-244 ND(0.08)
Common carp 5 585-621 1.6 Common carp 5 574-645 0.58
Channel catfish 5 416458 ND(0.28) Channel 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 bass 5 170-203 ND(0.29)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 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

2000 Resullsrol 2001 Results(4
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(man) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°) Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°I
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 476612 1.2
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-241 ND(0.24) RM 41.5 Common carp 5 528668 1.3
Cotdmon carp 4 559-604 1.1
Channel catfish 5 435487 ND(0.70)
4B Black 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 redhorse 5 427-476 ND 0.35
Total Fish Filleted 98 Total Fish Filleted 40

2002 Resultst a 2003 Results(b)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDtn Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°t
1 Black redhorse 5 372-431 ND(0.14) 1 Black redhorse 5 343-420 ND(0.20)
RM 64.5 .RM 64.5
2 Common carp 5 517-548 ND(0.28) 2 Common carp 5 512-584 ND(0.18)
RM 59.0 RM 59.0
3 Common carp 5 575-632 ND(0.22) 3 Common carp 5 545-605 ND(0.31).
RM 52.3 RM 52.3
4A Common carp 5 523-648 2.2 4A Common carp 5 655-717 3.4
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5. 425-475 ND(0.31) RM 41.5 Flathead catfish 5 521-575 ND(DL=0.35)
4B Common carp 5 647-670 6.6 4B Common carp 5 602-745 12.0
RM 39.0 Flathead catfish 5 418-505 ND(0.22) RM 39.0 Flathead catfish 5 511-533 ND(DL=0.20)
5 Black redhorse 5 430-489 ND(0.14) 5 Black redhorse 5 445-524 ND(DL=0.19)
RM 19.0 RM 19.0
Total Fish Filleted 40 Total Fish Filleted 40

2004 Resultste
Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8•TCDDt`t
RM
1 64.5 Black redhorse 5 352-440 ND(0.11)
2 Common carp 5 545-668 ND(0.19)
RM 59.0 Channel catfish 5 369-453 ND(0.17)
3 Common carp 5 587-609 ND(0.27)
RM 52.3
4A Common carp 5 598-655 1.7
RM 41.5 Flathead catfish 5 508-565 ND(0.30)
4B Common carp 5 570-660 1.6
RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 485-542 ND(0.31)
RM
5 19.0 Black redhorse 5 420-080 ND(0.13)
Total Fish Filleted 40
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quanterra Laboratories 1995-1999,Severn Trent Laboratories in 2
2003.
(b) Survey conducted in August.
(c) Survey conducted in August and September.
(d) Survey conducted in September.
(e) Units =ppt(parts per trillion)or pgIg(picogram per gram)
ND — Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses.

APPENDIX D
REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
30

WAIF Michael F.Fasley,Governor
\oao 9pG William G.Ross Jr.,Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C r Alan W.Klimek,P.E.Director
--1 Division of Water Quality
Q < Coleen H.Sullins,Deputy Director
E 6 ratify
June 6,2006 JUN 1
Mr. Paul S. Dickens
Manager,Environmental Affairs BLUE FUDGE PAPER PRO-DUCTS IUG
Blue Ridge Paper Products ENS DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 4000
Canton,North Carolina 28716
Subject: Revisions to Dioxin Monitoring Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products
NPDES No.NC0000272
Dear Mr. Dickens:
The Water Quality Section has reviewed your request for modifications to the subject study plan
originally approved by the Division of Water Quality in February 1990. The 2001 dioxin fish
tissue monitoring plan is approved with the following changes:
• Elimination of main stem river sampling stations-beginning in 2006 fish tissue
samples will be collected only from Waterville Lake.
• Collect a least one whole body bottom feeder sample from Waterville Lake (stations
i 4A or 4B)to monitor ecological impacts of dioxin contamination in bottom species.
• Continue with the collection of bottom feeder fillet samples in Waterville Lake as
approved in the 1990 study plan.
After reviewing your request to eliminate whole body dioxin analyses from Waterville Lake, our
staff recommends that this analysis be continued. Although the Waterville Lake data submitted
in your 2005 report shows low levels of dioxin, data submitted by Progress Energy in 2005
showed a mean dioxin TEQ value of 6.7 pg/g for common carp. The value was above the 4.0
pg/g TEQ value used by NCDHHS to post fish advisories for dioxin. As this time the dioxin
advisory for Waterville Lake remains in effect, and in our view,warrants continued monitoring.
If you have any further questions or comments please feel free to contact Mark Hale at 919/733-
6946.
'ncerely,
immie verton
ironmental Sciences Section
cc: Roger Edwards -ARO
Dr.Luanne Williams—NCDHHS
Susan Wilson -DWQ Permits
John Crutchfield—Progress Energy wu
NCDENR
N.C.Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1-877-623-6748