NC0000272_2007 Dioxin Monitoring Fish Tissue_20080415

200J
M ox n M� Onjill Ourinn
g
I ne F I s, in TJ � s, uie
� uY
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Canton, NC

BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
15 April 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL
Return Receipt Requested
7007 0710 0003 7311 3040
Roger C. Edwards
Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Subject: NPDES NC0000272
2007 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue
Blue Ridge Paper Products hic.
Canton, NC
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Enclosed is the 2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report for Blue Ridge Paper Products Canton Mill.
The 2007 report is the 18`s annual fish tissue study submitted by the mill. The 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 the 2007 study took place between 14
and 21 Aug 2007. On 7 Feb 2008, we requested a 60-day extension for submission of the 2007
report. On 19 Feb 2008, the Division approved the due-date extension to 16 Apr 2008.
The University of Tennessee Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries completed fish
collection and the 2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report. Fish collection followed the December
2001 monitoring plan approved the Division. The monitoring plan was modified in March 2006.
The principal changes to the plan were the elimination of sampling in 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 (Station 4A or 4B). A copy of the approved monitoring plan is
included as Appendix D to the report. Severn Trent Laboratories (STL,now TestAtnerica West
Sacramento) completed the 2007 dioxin in fish tissue sample analysis.
The 2007 dioxin in fish tissue results for the Waterville Lake catfish composite fillet samples and
for the whole body carp sample were at non-detect levels and are consistent with previous year
sampling results. Dioxin was detected in the common carp composite fillet sample from Station
4A. Dioxin in the Station 4B carp composite fillet sample was non-detect. There were
analytical problems with the Station 4B sample that required dilution and resulted in an elevated
non-detect level.

Mr. Keith Haynes, NC DWQ
Page 2, 4/15/2008
The carp collected at Stations 4A and 4B in Waterville Lake had higher mean weight in 2007
than in previous years and included individual carp that were significantly larger than fish
collected in previous years. In addition, the lipid(fat) content of the composite carp samples
from Stations 4A and 4B in 2007 was higher than in previous sampling years. Blue Ridge Paper
will work with University of Tennessee fisheries scientists to collect common carp in 2008 with
a size and weight distribution similar to fish collected in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
We discussed our 2007 dioxin in fish tissue results with Progress Energy. Progress Energy
collects similar dioxin in fish tissue samples from Waterville Lake(Walters Lake, Walters
Hydroelectric Project) each year in the fall after our fish tissue sample collection in the summer.
The results of 2007 Progress Energy dioxin in fish tissue sampling are similar to Blue Ridge
Paper results for the period 2004 through 2006 with an average dioxin toxicity equivalent
concentration(TEQ)below the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
advisory level of 4 parts per trillion(ppt). A copy of the 2007 Progress Energy dioxin in fish
tissue report is also enclosed for the Division's use and review.
Please contact us if you have questions conceming the 2007 dioxin in fish tissue report.
Sincerely.
Paul Dickens Derric Brown
Manager, Environmental Affairs Director,Environmental Health and Safety
828-646-6141 828-646-23181
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Enclosures: 2007 Blue Ridge Paper Products Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report
2007 Progress Energy Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report
C. File—Water
Engr. File—River Studies

Roger Edwards, NC DWQ, 2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report
4/15/2008,Page 3
Distribution with enclosures:
NC Division of Water Quality(two copies) Certified Mail Receipt: 7007 0710 0003
73113057
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
John Cruchfield
Progress Energy
410 South Wilmington Street
PEB 4A
Raleigh, NC 27602-1551
Bryn Tracy
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Jeff Engel
Chief, Epidemiology Section
NC Department of Health and Human Services
1912 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1912
Paul Davis
TDEC—Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street
6u'Floor Annex
Nashville, TN 37243
Jonathan Burr
TDEC—Water Pollution Control
Knoxville EAC
2700 Middlebrook Pike
State Plaza Building,Suite 220
Knoxville,TN 37921
- Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
175 Main Street • PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • 828-646-2000

r
RESULTS OF 2007
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
April 2008

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
L INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT . . . 9
5. SAMPLE PREPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
APPENDIX A: CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
APPENDIX B: SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY-SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORTS
APPENDIX C: BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET
TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS 1990-2004
APPENDIX D: 2006 REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
APPENDIX E: NC DWQ AND DPH REVIEW OF 2006 FISH TISSUE
ANALYSIS REPORT, LIFTING OF FISH ADVISORY FOR
WALTERS LAKE.
r
Pagei

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
2-1 Pigeon River sampling station information . . . . . . . . . 5
4-1 Fish collection techniques and level of effort . . . . . . 10
4-2 Summary of fish composites collected in the Pigeon River,
August 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6-1 Summary of Pigeon River fish tissue analysis results—2007 . . . . 18
6-2 Toxicity equivalence factors for CDD/F isomers. . . . . . . . 19
6-3 Summary of CDD/F isomer analyses, toxicity equivalent
factors, and toxicity equivalent values for the 2007 Pigeon
River fish tissue composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6-4 Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill fish fillet tissue analysis results
2005—2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Page ii

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
ES-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2-1 Historical Sampling Station locations on the Pigeon River . . . . . 6
2-2 Sampling Stations No. 4A and 4B on the Pigeon River . . . . . . 7
4-1 Lengths and Weights of Fish Collected from Waterville Lake for
Tissue Analysis, 2004—2007 13
6-1 TCDD concentrations in carp fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2007 (Stations 4A and 4B) . . . . . . . . .24
6-2 TCDD concentrations in catfish fillets collected from the Pigeon River,
1997-2007 (Stations 4A and 413) . . . . . . . . . . .25
Page iii

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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 2007 in accordance with NPDES
permit conditions. UTK field personnel followed the March 2006 revision (Wilson 2006) to
the December 2001 Fish Tissue Sampling Plan prepared by EA Engineering, Science and
Technology, Inc., (EA Engineering 2001a) of Chicago, Illinois. UTK prepared this 2007 fish
tissue sampling report using the template developed by EA Engineering for prior reporting
years. 2007 is the 18`h year of monitoring dioxin in fish tissue samples from Waterville
Lake.
The 2007 concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in channel catfish fillet
composites were below the level of detection at both Station 4A and Station 4B. TCDD and
TCDF in the whole body common carp sample from Station 4A were also at or below
detection limits. These results are consistent with previous years sampling data.
In common carp composite fillets, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected (6.4 ppt) in the sample
collected at Station 4A. Both the TCDD and dioxin toxicity equivalent (TEQ) result for the
common carp composite at Station 4A were higher in 2007 compared to the previous 13
years of monitoring data at this location (since 1993, see Figure ES-1). TCDD was non-
detect in the common carp composite fillet collected at Station 4B. The detection limit for
TCDD is elevated for this sample because a 10-fold dilution was required to overcome
sample matrix interference effects (high lipid concentration) during analysis. The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF was 2.6 ppt in the common carp fillet composite at Station 4A
and was 4.6 ppt in the common carp fillet composite from Station 4B.
The carp collected at Stations 4A and 4B in Waterville Lake had higher mean weight in 2007
than in previous years and included individual fish specimens that were significantly larger
than fish collected in previous years. In addition, the lipid (fat) content of the composite
carp samples from Stations 4A and 4B in 2007 was higher than in previous sampling years.
Sampling in 2008 targeted at a fish size distribution similar to that collected in 2004 through
2006 is necessary to determine any significant change or trend in dioxin in fish tissue
concentrations.
All catfish samples collected from Waterville Lake since 2002 have been at or below
detection levels for TCDD, TCDF and related isomers.
Page 1

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Figure ES-1. TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River, 1990-2007
(Stations 4A and 4B).
70
\
60 \
\
\
50 A
i
\\ \\ 9 Station 4a
Station 4b
40 1 — A --
a`r \
n \
10 \
a 30 \�
0
0
v \
20 \
\
\
\ �♦
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
YEAR
b) TCDD concentrations at Station 413 were not detected,therefore,the value plotted represents the detection limit for that sample. The detection limit for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
is elevated in Station 4B because a 10 fold dilution of the sample was required to overcome sample matrix effects(high lipid concentration)during analysis.
Consequently,reporting the detection limit for this sample can give a misleading impression that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD increased in 2007.
Page 2

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
}
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 2007 in accordance with NPDES
permit conditions. UTK field personnel followed the March 2006 revision(Wilson 2006) to
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 August 2007 sampling to determine the concentrations of
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) in bottom-feeding fish collected from
Waterville Lake (Walters Lake) on the Pigeon River in North Carolina. The report follows
the template developed by EA Engineering for prior reporting years. The 2007 fish tissue
study is number 18 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 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 2001 a).
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, Wilson 2006, and Henry and Wilson 2007). 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 FJ, 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 sporttish composite samples have not been required since 2000. In
2006, project details were modified again to be responsive to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NC DWQ) and these modifications were adhered to in the present
investigation (i.e., 2007). 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 2007 study was conducted during August, during which time biologists from UTK
collected and prepared fish tissue samples from the two Waterville Lake sampling locations
(Stations 4A and 413) on the Pigeon River. The level in Waterville Lake during 2007 fish
tissue sample collection was below normal pool due to drought conditions affecting Western
North Carolina and the Pigeon River. Because of low water, the field crew had difficulty
with boat access into the lake and difficulty collecting the target size distribution of fish. The
total time spent on fish collection in 2007 was also less than in previous years.
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.
Page 3

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
In accordance with the study plan (Wilson 2006) that was implemented in 2006 (Henry and
Wilson 2007), fish were collected from two sampling locations in Waterville Lake on the
Pigeon River. During August 2007, two sites (Stations 4A and 4B) were sampled. Detailed
sampling station information for both sites is provided in Table 2-1 and in Figures 2-1 &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 Canton Mill, 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 (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.
Page 4

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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.
sam led a roximately 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.
Page 5

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Figure 2-1. Monitoring stations (1, 2, 3, 4A, 413,and 5, circled in blue text) on the
Pigeon River. Fish tissues were collected from two sites (4A and 413) for dioxin analyses
in 2007. More precise geographical locations of each site are presented in Figure 2-2
B41BpB.TN RalloN,TN
Its.
5 xer BawLU enk"
(ElR)Nm,aN, _..... N
ROUN
•� CAROIJNR
or
p NOTE: RNn mlys of ma Rat.sampling bcallon
NyCio Plan) // t ibuG
(M.0) 1 — rY mouth aM1Bwn in pYBntM1BSes.
'>•' BNwc00
e Pear.and RBnu,oa sampbng Ftammr,
2
wham R.a J warenaa trace
mwarnea 4B
Creak NLpw.NC
MI) 4A Mal
cr..k
1�T1 caumacra<k
N.Napco Sda" RiwLlb /Ky)
Il qea Caga (aty
(u.I) , crablrve
FLOW (ez z)
Jone0ivN
1a6.0) Balaw Clyea 15711 T�kD1,
par,-on BrWya (555) k -Cl,& / FbeMlle
(50.0) Fib—Ra
B.Nw 2
WayrgLNIIO WWIP ..'i O.W.I Canton.NC
W>yn—Rk RroNarM CI,d.,NC Canton
Cmvr Isa.51
ISLPI (549)
Page 6

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Grassy KrwCilly Op
wow,
i
/ Q
WATERVRIE LAKE
ni
3568
2 „ /
26 poI
!C) p5" ,r ❑ I M.,anieJ��o� ,y�V.
3567.
Y I
b
3599 �;/'.. ✓"—_{ __ .Moe+
VIGEON j "Mw!m Gn
.1347
I
Figure 2-2. Sampling Station 4A (indicated by A) and Station 4B (indicated by B) on the Pigeon River.
Page 7

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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. In
2007, each composite consisted of 4 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 punctatzts) 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 2007 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.
Page 8

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
Sampling was conducted during 17—21 August 2007. Notes were recorded at each sampling
station with regard to type of sampling gear, level of effort(time), and habitat(Table 4-1).
All fish submitted for tissue analysis (including whole body specimen) 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 2007, the mean total length of carp was 721 mm and fish
ranged from 651-775 mm. In 2006, the mean total length for carp was 681 mm and fish
ranged from 635-745 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 electrofisher, 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/413 was 5
hours electrofishing and 26 hours gill netting.
Channel catfish and common carp - the target bottom feeder species 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.
The study plan (Wilson 2006) calls for composite fillet samples consisting of 3 to 5 similarly
sized fish from each sampling station and a whole body common carp sample from either
Station 4A or 4B. The bottom feeder fillet composites samples in 2007 consisted of 4 channel
catfish and 4 common carp at Station 4A, and 4 channel catfish and 5 common carp at
Station 4B. A single whole body common carp from Station 4A was also submitted for
analysis (Table 4-2).
All composite fillet samples submitted for analysis in 2007 met the US EPA Region IV
recommendation (Cunningham 1990) that the smallest specimen in each composite be equal
i to or greater than 75 percent of the total length of the largest specimen in that composite
(Tables 4-2 and 6-4).
Page 9

+ _
2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Table 4-1. Fish Collection Techniques and Level of Effort.
Station Sampling Sampling
Number RM Dates Techniques Level of Effort Comments
4A 41.5 14 Aug 07 Gill nets 1 net-hours An approximate 0.3 RM reach of river was sampled; lake level was
below normal—visibility fair;station characterized by deep water
Boat 1.75 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 14,20, and 21 Gill nets 24.2 net-hours An approximate 1.0 RM reach was sampled; lake level was below
Aug 07 normal—visibility fair; station characterized by deep-water lentic
Boat 4.3 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.
Page 10

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Table 4-2. Summary of fish composites collected at two stations in the Pigeon River,
August 2007.
Total Total
Length whole body
Date Station Species (mm) (9) Sample type Composite
14 Aug 07 4A Channel catfish 535 3300 Fillet R'
(RM 41.5) Channel catfish 560 1720 Fillet R
Channel catfish 593 2060 Fillet R
Channel catfish 490 1180 Fillet R
MEAN 544 2065
4A Common carp 775 7860 Fillet R
(RM 41.5)Common carp 755 6700 Fillet R
Common carp 767 6920 Fillet R
Common carp 680 4480 Fillet R
MEAN 744 6490
14 Aug 07 4A Common carp 651 3860 Whole body WB"
(RM 41.5)
20,21 Aug 07 4B Channel catfish 505 1340 Fillet Ra
(RM 39.0)Channel catfish 670 2820 Fillet R
Channel catfish 609 2240 Fillet R
Channel catfish 630 2400 Fillet R
Channel catfish 588 1760 Fillet R
MEAN 600 2112
14,20 Aug 07 4B Common carp 728 8300 Fillet R
(RM 39.0) Common carp 715 5780 Fillet R
Common carp 706 5400 Fillet R
Common carp 762 8840 Fillet R
Common carp 672 4440 Fillet R
MEAN 716 6552
Ra right fillet composite
WBb whole body composite
Page 11

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
For the target bottom feeder species in this study—catfish and carp- it is becoming increasing
difficult to find small carp in Waterville Lake. The mean weights of carp collected from
Stations 4A and 4B in 2007 were higher than in previous sampling years.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the length and weight distribution of fish collected for tissue analysis
from Waterville Lake since 2004. The size distribution of catfish remained similar between
2004 and 2007. The size of the carp taken for whole body tissue analysis from Station 4A in
2007 was similar to size of whole body fish collected in previous years. The mean size of
carp collected at Stations 4A and 4B was higher than in previous years. A statistical review
of the fish weight data indicate that while some carp specimens collected in 2007 were
similar in weight to previous years, the 2007 carp composite fillet samples for Stations 4A
and 4B included individual carp whose weight was larger than any previously collected. The
decision to keep and fillet several very large carp in 2007 was made at the time of sample
collection because the field crew was not finding smaller carp that met the size distribution
range of previous sampling years. Because of low water access problems, the sample
collection hours on carp in 2007 were less than in previous years.
l
Page 12

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Max, Min and Mean of Lengths taken from Fish
Tissue Samples 2004-2007
800
750 � I
E 700
E 650 •—
w 600
550 I
500 1
450
400
m m E m m E� m m n d a n
U m U m o U m U m o U m U `m o U m U `m o
v I � Lv Lv < aLv m
m a vam L
2004 2005 2006 2007
Max, Min and Mean of Weights taken from Fish
Tissue Samples 2004-2007
9000
8000
7000
000 5
� 000
4000
3000 —
2000
1000
0 -
n
U m U m o U `m U `m o U m U `m o. U m` U `m o
a U m ° L a L) m t a 0 m 0 r a 0 m L
COv av v m � � a� a m � a a� a m p
2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 4-1. Lengths and Weights of Fish Collected from Waterville Lake for Tissue
Analysis, 2004—2007
Page 13

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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 3 to 5 fish composite fillet samples at each station in
Waterville Lake that met the species and size objectives discussed in Section 3. In addition,
a whole body composite carp sample was collected from either station. 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. The fish not retained for analysis were returned to the lake.
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 Sevem Trent
Laboratory (STL, now TestAmerica West Sacramento) 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 station name, sample number, and
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 the chain-of-
custody records are provided in Appendix A.
Page 14

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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 8/27/07 at
Severn 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.
Page 15

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The fish tissue samples were received in one shipment(8/27/07) 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 foran analyses were performed using high
resolution Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) as required by the US 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 (US EPA
1994) as specified in the Fish Tissue Sampling Study Plan(EA 2001 a).
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 2007 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.
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 Curdle (1983)].
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in channel catfish fillet composites were
below the level of detection at both Station 4A and Station 4B. TCDD and TCDF in the
whole body common carp sample from Station 4A were also at or below detection limits.
These results are consistent with previous years sampling data.
In common carp, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected (6.4 ppt) in the fillet composite collected at
Station 4A, but was not detected (6.9 ppt detection limit) at Station 4B. The detection limit
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD is elevated for the common carp fillet composite from Station 4B because
a 10-fold dilution of the sample was required to overcome sample matrix interference effects
(high lipid concentration) during analysis. Consequently, reporting the detection limit for
this sample can give a misleading impression that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
increased in 2007 relative to recent previous years in which this contaminant was detected at
lower concentrations. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF was 2.6 ppt in the common carp
fillet composite at Station 4A and was 4.6 ppt in the common carp fillet composite from
Station 4B. The percent lipids data for the 2007 common carp fillet composites in Table 6-1
are of note. Some of the carp collected were larger than in any of the previous 18 years of
study, and percent lipids in the carp composite fillets were higher than in previous years.
Page 16

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (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 f iran (CDD/F) isomer is based on the toxicity equivalence factor
(TEF) (WHO 1997, 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 farans 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 (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.
Table 6-3 is a TEQ calculation and summary following methods used by NC DHHS (NC
(DEHNR 1991). Channel catfish TEQ values in Table 6-3 for 2007 are similar to those
reported for 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Henry and Wilson 2006 and 2007). The 2007 channel
catfish fillet TEQ values are well below the NC DHHS advisory limit of 4 ppt at both
Waterville lake sampling stations. The 2007 TEQ value for the common carp composite at
Station 4A was above the advisory limit (TEQ = 13.44 ppt). The TEQ value for the Station
4A whole body carp sample was below the advisory limit (TEQ =1.41 ppt). The 2007 TEQ
,1 for the common carp composite at Station 4B was 1.26 ppt. The TEQ values for common
carp fillet composites collected from Stations 4A and 4B in 2004, 2005 and 2006 were all
below 4 ppt.
Table 6-4 illustrates 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentrations in common carp fillet samples collected in
2005, 2006, and 2007. Table results for previous years (1990-2004) are in Appendix C.
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 illustrate long-term trends for TCDD in composite fillet fish samples
collected from Waterville Lake. Between 1990 and 2006, 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in
carp fillets declined dramatically (94-99 percent) at all sampling stations (Table 6-4,
Appendix C, Figure 6-1). In 2007 concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in common carp
increased at Station 4A to 6.4 ppt. This is an anomalous result compared to the previous 13
years of monitoring data at this location (since 1993). Because detection level values are
plotted in Figure 6-1 for non-detects, the 2007 TCDD data for common carp at Station 4B
reflects an elevated detection level from sample dilution to overcome analytical inference
effects and is not an actual increased concentration.
Figure 6-2 shows that concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in channel catfish fillets have been
below detection levels at all sites since 2002.
Page 17

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Table 6-1. Summary of the Pigeon River Fish Tissue Analysis Results 2007.
Station Percent
Number Sample ID Composite/Sample Tyne 2,3,7,8-TCDD(a) 2,3,7,8-TCDF(° Lipid
4A SITE 4A channel catfish 5 fillet samples 0.57("c) ND(DL=0.41) 8.7
SITE 4A common carp 4 fillet samples 6.4 2.6 26
SITE 4A common carp 1 whole body samples 0.75(b'`) 1.4(`) 11
4B SITE 4B channel catfish 5 fillet samples 0.67() ND(DL=0.34) 2.8
SITE 4B common carp 5 fillet samples ND (DL=6.9)(d) 4.6(`) 29
(a)Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(picogram/gram), detection level reported for not detected(ND)values
(b)Estimated results. Result is less than the reporting limit
(c)Analyte was positively identified,but the quantitation is an estimate.
(d)The detection limits for this sample are elevated because the sample was diluted 10-fold to overcome sample matrix effects (high
lipid concentration) during the analysis.
(e) The TCDF result for the common carp composite from Station 4B was confirmed on an undiluted QA sample analysis.
(ND)Not detected, concentrations below the instrument detection limit.
Page 18

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Table 6-2. Toxicity Equivalence Factors for CDD/F Isomers (WHO 1997, 2005)
DIOXIN DIBENZOFURAN
Isomer(') TEFroI TEFroI
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-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 0.0003 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.
Page 19

i
2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue-April 2008
Table 6-3. Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses, Toxicity Equivalent Factors and Toxicity Equivalent Values for the 2007 Waterville
Lake Fish.
STATION 4A
Channel catfish-fillet Common carp fillet Common carp body
whole bo
CDD/F isomers TEF(`) Results(') TE tb) Results(a) TE ro) Resultst'� le bo
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.57(d) 0.57 6.4 6.4 0.75(d) 0.75
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 ND 0.000 3.3(d) 3.3 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 2.6(d) 0.260 11 1.1 3.9(d) 0.39
112,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 5.1 0.051 28 0.28 12 0.12
OCDD 0.0003 14(d) 0.0042 62 0.019 44 0.013
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 2.6 0.26 1.4(d) 0.14
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 3.9(d) 1.17 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 3.0(d) 0.3 ND 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 5.8 0.58 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-HxCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 2.9(d) 0.029 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
OCDF 0.0003 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
Total TEQ 0.885 13.438 1.413
Page 20

I
2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue-April 2008
Table 6-3 (continued). Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses,Toxicity Equivalent Factors and Toxicity Equivalent Values for the
2007 Waterville Lake Fish.
STATION 4B
Channel catfish-fillet Common carp fillet
CDD/F isomers TEF(`) Resultsta) TE (') Results(a) TE ro)
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 0.67(d) 0.67 ND(e) 0.000
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 ND 0.000
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 ND 0.000 71 0.710
OCDD 0.0003 5.1(d) 0.002 310 0.093
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 4.6 (f) 0.46
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 0.672 1.263(e,f)
(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.
(e)Diluted sample to overcome matrix interference effects,detection level elevated for all isomers except TCDF(see note f)
(f)The TCDF result for the common carp composite from Station 4B was confirmed on an undiluted QA sample analysis.
Page 21

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Long-term monitoring of fish tissue as an indicator of change in environmental conditions
requires that a similar size and age distribution of fish be collected each year. With improved
water quality, it is becoming increasing difficult to find young carp of consistent size and
weight for fish tissue sampling in Waterville Lake. The younger, smaller carp don't survive
predation by the thriving, healthy population of game fish that now exists in Waterville Lake.
The mean weights of common carp collected from Stations 4A and 4B in 2007 were higher
(6.49 kg, Station 4A; 6.55 kg, Station B) than carp collected in 2006 (4.505 kg, Station 4A;
5.637 kg, Station 413)), and the mean weight in 2007 was greater than the mean weight of
carp collected for the entire period of 1999-2003 (3.193 kg, Station 4A; 5.042 kg, Station
4B).
As discussed in Section 4 of this report, several individual carp specimens collected for
composite fillet samples from Stations 4A and 4B in 2007 were larger than in all previous
sampling years. The larger size of common carp collected in 2007 may explain the
anomalous elevation in the level of 2,3,7,8 TCDD observed in the fillet composite collected
from Station 4A and the analytical problems with the composite sample from Station 4B that
required dilution. Lipid concentrations in common carp fillets collected at Station 4A and
4B were higher than observed previously(2007 levels: 26%, Station A; 29% Station B; 2006
levels: 23%, Station A; 12% Station B), and these levels can relate to elevated concentrations
of hydrophobic contaminants.
In January 2007, the NC DHSS lifted the fish advisory for common carp in Waterville Lake
t and requested two additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance (Appendix E).
The anomalous increase in TEQ for the common carp fillet sample at Station 4A in August
2007 compared to samples collected in 2004, 2005 and 2006 is believed to be an artifact
associated with the size of fish collected and does not reflect current conditions in Waterville
Lake. Sampling in 2008 targeted at a fish size distribution similar to that collected in 2004
through 2006 — assuming the fish are available - is necessary to determine any significant
change or trend.
All catfish samples collected from Waterville Lake since 2002 have been at or below
detection levels for TCDD,TCDF and related isomers.
Page 22

r- -
2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Table 6-4. Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 2005—2007
2005 Results(d) 2006 Results(e)
Number Length Range Number Length Range
Station Species offish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD('b) Station Species offish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt�b1
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 0.76t`)
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),detection level reported for not detected(ND)values
(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 -
Page 23

C !
2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Table 6-4 (continued). Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 2005-2007
2007 Results(e)
Number Length Range
Station Species offish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(a")
4A Common carp 4 601-665 6.4
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 464-508 0.571`I
4B Common carp 5 595-736 ND(6.9)t*
RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 513-603 0.67`I
Total fish filleted= 19
(a)Dioxin analyses conducted by Severn Trent Laboratories.
(b)Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(pictogram/gram),detection level reported for not detected(ND)values
(c)Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit.
(d)Survey conducted in August and September
(e)Survey conducted in August
(f)Dilution required to overcome sample matrix interference,reported detection level is elevated
ND=Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses
Page 24

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
Figure 6-1 (Cont.). TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River, 1990-
2006
(Stations 4A and 413).
70
60
\
\
\
50
tStation 4a
0 1 /
i— Station 4b
40 Y \
a \
W \
a 30 \
U \
U
H \
20 \
\
\
10 \ • • ,•
1'
0 —
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
YEAR
b) TCDD concentrations at Station 4B were not detected,therefore,the value plotted represents the detection limit for that sample. The detection limit for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD is elevated in Station 4B because a 10 fold dilution of the sample was required to overcome sample matrix effects(high Iipld concentration)during analysis.
Consequently,reporting the detection limit for this sample can give a misleading impression that concentration of TCDD increased in 2007.
Page 25

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue-April 2008
Figure 6-2. TCDD Concentrations in Catfish Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River, 1997-2007
(Stations 4A and 411).
2.50 - -
2.00 - 0
Station 4A - W--Station 4B
0
Py 1.50
a
se
5
1.00 -
U %
E a b b
a
0.50 b �! -b a - a
a a '
0.00
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
YEAR
a) TCDD coricentrations at Stations 4A and 4B were not deterred,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.
Page 26

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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.
Page 27

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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 Inc. 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.
Henry, T.B. and J.L. Wilson. 2007. Results of 2006 dioxin monitoring in fish tissue. Prepared
for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. Canton Mill, Canton,North Carolina. January 2007.
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.
Page 28

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
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
Dibenzofitrans (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 H Health
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD) and Related Compounds.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation
U of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxin and Dioxin-Like
Compounds (Reported in Van den Berg et.al., Toxicological Sciences 93(2), 223-241
(2006).
Page 29

2007 Dioxin in Fish Tissue—April 2008
8. APPENDICES
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: 2006 REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
APPENDIX E: NC DWQ AND DPH REVIEW OF 2006 FISH TISSUE ANALYSIS
REPORT, LIFTING OF FISH ADVISORY FOR WALTERS LAKE
l
Page 30

Chain ® STL
Custody Record Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
STLA124 (bebl)
Clien �,, nn �, f" n Proje tManager Date
W�- ''rA. Chain o7Cust tly Number
a '�` s t, 1S9- Z1 '6) 7 3 1305
Address ,✓ C!-��J',+' p(L Te ephone Nu ber(Area Cade)/Fpax Number Lab Number
L & .� "'� O74
Page of
City ( State ZIP Code Site Conte t 1 Lab Ca tact Analysis(Attach list i/
Cj( t l TOW /�/L zZVO
y more ace is needed
Project me andlLocati' (St te) CamienWaybill umber
b I It / 7 ��t S,Stn e Special Instructions/
P
Conbact/Purchase OMer/Quote No. Matrix Containers$ 1 S ] c j Conditions of Receipt
Preservatives
Sample I.D.No.and Description v o '� z �x 0 c
Date Time
(Containers for each sample maybe combined on one line)
l
d'i
Q
l llvs X �(CIF C1�astne ' ,'u s . ' 2I
f , Y no r;
nr e (�bNt hOlt (2v htt 11 'ON -7 ) 5" q
`rt (4 �' 9 '2 D 17t�SJ
`1 o f ' 1d U t` ea y
✓ 60" I
Possible Hazard Identification Sample Disposal
(A lee may be assessed it samples are retained
azartl ❑ Flammable ❑ Skin Irritant ❑ Poisons ❑ Unknown
❑0ReturnTo Client El Disposal By Lab ❑Archive For Months longer than 1 month)
u Around Time Required OC Requirements(Specify)
1124 Hours ❑ 48 H urs ❑ 7 Days ❑ 14 Days ❑21 Days ❑ Other
1.Relinquished' r 4; Date Time 1.Receiv B
1 Y Date Time
2.Relinquis7 $yJ Oafe Time 2.Received By Dals I Time
3.RelinquihdBy Date Time 3.Received By Date Time
Comments
!'� J /
i /%rye- -
DISTRIBUTION: WHITE-Returned to Client with Report; CANARY.Stays with the Sample; PINK-Field Copy

/TestAmedca
-, THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
April 2, 2008
TestAmerica Project Number: G7H270143 Amendment
PO/Contract: 7605001
Paul Dickens
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
175 Main Street
P.O. Box 4000
Canton, NC 28716
Dear Mr. Dickens,
This report contains the analytical results for the samples received under chain of
custody by TestAmerica on August 27, 2007. These samples are associated with
your Waterville Lake- Fish Tissue project.
This report has been amended to revise the 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF result from a "J"
qualified result to a non-detect.
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 Keilmann
Project Manager
880 Riverside Parkway West Sacramento, CA 95605 tel [phone] fax [phone] www.testamericaino.com
G7H270143 Amendment March 3,2008 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600

Table of Contents
TestAmerica West Sacramento Project Number G7H270143
Case Narrative
Quality Assurance Program
Sample Description Information
Chain of Custody Documentation
BIOLOGIC, 8290, Dioxins/Furans/ Lipids, Percent
Samples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Sample Data Sheets
Method Blank Reports
Laboratory QC Reports
Full Raw Data Package
t. �

Case Narrative
TestAmerica West Sacramento Project Number 1071-127O143
General Comments
Please note the chain of custody (COC) indicates 4 fillets were sent by the client for
sample ID SITE-4A Channel Cat R Fillet. The laboratory received 5 fillets for this
sample. In addition, the COC indicated 5 fillets were sent by the client for sample ID
SITE 4A Common Carp R Fillet. The laboratory received 4 fillets for this sample.
All samples were logged in based on the number for fillets we received.
BIOLOGIC, 8290, Dioxins/Furans / Lipids, Percent
Sample(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
The bracketing continuing calibration standard analyzed on September 25, 2007 at
0031 has internal standards 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and 13C-OCDD with percent
difference values that are above the method recommended criteria of 30% to 35%
deviation from the initial calibration curve. Per method guidelines, all associated
samples that have greater than 135% recovery for these compounds were
reinjected. Otherwise, there is no impact on the data.
The bracketing continuing calibration standard analyzed on September 25, 2007 at
0031 has internal standard 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD with a percent difference
values that are between the method recommended criteria of 30% to 35% deviation
from the initial calibration curve. Per method guidelines, an average relative
response factor is calculated from bracketing continuing calibration standards and is
used to quantitate any positive results in the associated samples for the affected
analyte. There is no impact on the data as a result of this anomaly.
The bracketing continuing calibration standard analyzed on September 25, 2007 at
0031 has analytes 1,2,3,4,7,MxCDD; 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF and OCDF with percent
difference values that are between the method recommended criteria of 20% to 25%.
deviation from the initial calibration curve. Per method guidelines, an average
relative response factor is calculated from bracketing continuing calibration
standards and is used to quantitate any positive results in the associated samples
for the affected analytes. There is no impact on the data as a result of this anomaly.
samples for the affected analytes. There is no impact on the data as a result of this
anomaly.
Samples: 1, 5
The analyte 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been qualified with the "JA" flag as the ion
abundance ratios is outside of criteria. The analyte has been reported as an
"estimated maximum possible concentration" (EMPC) because the quantitation is
based on the theoretical ion abundance ratio.
G714270143 STL Sacramento(916).373-5660 1 of 707

Case Narrative
TestAmerica West Sacramento Project Number 1371-1270143
Sample(s): 2, 4, 5
The results for 2,3;7,8-TCDF is reported from the confirmation analyses that
occurred on September 24 and 25, 2007.
Sample(s): 4
The above sample required a dilution that occurred on September 25, 2007.
Several internal standard recoveries are lower than the method recommended goal
of 40%. Generally, data quality is not considered affected if the internal standard
signal-to-noise ratio is greater than 10:1, which is achieved for all internal standards
in the sample. There is no adverse impact on data quality.
This section has been amended on April 2,2008:
The internal standards 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF, 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF and 13C-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF have ion abundance ratios outside of acceptance criteria on
the 1313-5 sequence analyzed on September 25, 2007 at 22:37 (note: the 130-
2,3,7,8-TCDF result was reported from the confirmation sequence analyzed on
-� September 24, 2007 at 20:39 and met the ion abundance ratio criteria). This
anomaly is directly related to the dilution and the associated lower sensitivity
observed in the sample for these internal standards. The theoretical areas for the
internal standards were used to.quantitate the recoveries and to quantitate related
target analytes. The detection limits for affected native results have been raised to
indicate the uncertainty of the reported results.
There were no other anomalies associated with this project.
•G7H270143 Amendment March 3,2008 TestAmerlcaWest Sacramento(916)373-5600

tp ACCO
,96
TestAmerica
THE LEADER IN ENVIR6M1A'ENTAt'tESTING q a: � -
TestAmerica Laboratories West Sacramento Certifications/Accreditations
Certifying State
Certificate Certifying State Certificate #
Alaska UST-055 New York* 11666
Arkansas 04-067-0 Penns lvania 68-1272
California*') �`n� ' I ,�0111>2CA r .4-,.•"Soufh,CaiolL€ - ..
Colorado NA Texas TX 270-2004A
7.'?„v ,s"�P,F1-�69.1r �„xm xs:.wta}IMb.
Florida* E87570 Virginia 00178
V/as)tm ton r PUN- 087 ','Kk vF
Hawaii NA West Vir 'nia 9930C,334
- 13j037,5 t t sedn In
Louisiana* 01944 NFESC NA
A L AS rcE S d ZYr 6 !b
NA L`
Nevada CA44 USDA Foreign Plant 37-82605
New7eise 'TISDA3Fo`iei"'x$a[1rx A S 4ftb TF A
*NELAP accredited. A more detailed parameter list is available upon request.Updated 9/21/07
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 LCSD
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 analytes. 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 analytes 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.
MS/MSD 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.
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 3 of 707

Sample Summary
TestAmerica West Sacramento Project Number G71i270143
WON Sample N Client Sample ID Semolina Date Received Date
JSNLJ 1 SITE 4A CHANNEL CAT R FILLET B/14/2007 04:40 PM 8/27/2007 09:25 AM
JSNLL 2 SITE 4A COMMON CARP R FILLET 8/14/2007 05:36 PM 8/27/2007 09:25 AM
JSNLP 3 SITE 4B CHANNEL CAT R FILLET 8/21/2007 11:05 AM 8/27/2007 09:25 AM
(0/20/07-0/21/07)
J5NL0 4 SITE 48 COMMON CARP R FILLET 8/20/2007 03:45 PM 8/27/2007 09:25 AM
(8/14/07.8/20/07)
J5NL2 6 SITE 4A COMMON CARP WHOLE BODY 8/14/2007 04:50 PM
8/27/2007 09:25 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.
- Resuits 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 are never reported on a dry weight basis:color,corrosivity,density,fiashpoint,
Ignitability,layers,odor,paint filter test,pH,porosity,pressure,reactivity,redox potential,specific gravity,spot tests,
solids,solubility,temperature,viscosity,and weight
G71-1270143 STL Sacramento(916)373.5600 4 of 707

STLChain o
Custody Record Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
STL-4124 (0e01)
Clien Projoct Manager Oa(e Chain of Custody Number
kt i rob �.c , �1Y Z- c7 344305
Address C�{���/y7�" Telephone N ber(Area Code/Faax Number Lab Nu ber /
lqr 'M ✓'�Y LV 'gZg � "�2D ! Page of 6
uny r State Zip Code Site Conta t Lab Co tact Analysis(Attach list if
00j t',.7BD4 ive 7$ q NI tj� e ke I mores ace is needed
Pro%ect N��QQm�e antl Locafio (St feJ y{�� I /� Carder/Waybill Number 1
C Special Instructional
Contrad/Purchese Order/Quote No
Matrixh Containers& .+ N p? Conditions of Receipt
Preservatives ,,n
Sample LD.No.and Description note Time f 3 c°, o �¢o q © Iv ,
(Containers for each sample maybe combined on one line) t(J"("
-TI T Hoot -( 4 gai � (q P a. X �, ?C dsi�e
'a Ith col -S R i, -�s 8 i o f I-v4 X Cr ast�V-: l e
a
�Sk46 CWh
.fie 1 21 "7 rigs
aw
k l c� d�R C L
w
0
S�E � �e,•.�Ae-fi, L'c,.r � f ' ? ! ,S?� X �
t fie ed el 1r,
Possible Hazard identification sample Disposal
10— (A fee may be assessed if samples are retained -
Non-Hazard [I Flammable ❑ Skin Irritant ❑ Poison B ❑ Unknown ❑Return To Client ❑ Disposal By Lab ❑Archive For_ Months longer than I month)
Turn Around Time Required - OC Requirements(Specify)
❑ 24 Hou ❑48 Hpum ❑ 7Days ❑ 14 Days ❑ 21 Oays ❑ Other
1.Relinqui y D Time. I,Rec By Date iime
7( 7 rr4-f z.� 2� �fy
2.Refinqu I Data iime ived By D f Tim
c .
3.Refinquisift4d By Date Time J.R eived By Date Time
J�c
o Comments le I J
DISTRIBUTION. WHITE"Returned to Client with Report. CANARY-Stays with the Sample. PINK-Field Copy
met w.�4�Le V.1 i ire..:( 4 P1Ilets C,-,,- Lid CCc et� S"�` -�,�0L(L

Test erica LOT RECEIPT CHECKLIST
TestAmerica West Sacramento
THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 2
CLIENT '.—e ��� PMJJZ _ LOG#t�-�
LOT#(QUANTIMS ID) UOTE P i LOCATIOf —I
Initials Date
DATE RECEIVED ` TIME RECEIVED 09a5
DELIVERED BY 'El FEDEX ❑CA OVERNIGHT ❑ CLIENT
❑AIRBORNE ❑ GOLDENSTATE KDHL
❑ UPS ❑ BAX GLOBAL GO-GETTERS
❑TAIL COURIER ❑VALLEY LOGISTICS ❑ MORGAN HILL COURIE
❑OTH R
CUSTODY SEAL STATUS }INTACT ❑BROKEN ❑ N/A
CUSTODY SEAL#(S) r)l/!ni
SHIPPPING CONTAINER(S) ❑TAL CLIENT ❑ N/A
TEMPERTURE RECORD (IN °C) IR 4)] 5 ❑ ❑ OTHER
COG#(S) 3L)4`�QS
TEMPERATURE BLANK Observed: n/Jq Corrected:
cAMPLE TEMPERATURE aserved J Average: _3 Corrected Average:-3
COLLECTOR'S NAME: ❑Verified from COG 'Not on COG
pH MEASURED ❑YES ❑ANOMALY --&fN/A
LABELEDBY..........................................................................................
LABELS CHECKED BY......................................,j.,�..,. . .............................
PEER REVIEW I.KNA
SHORT HOLD TEST NOTIFICATION SAMPLE RECEIVING
WETCHEM N/A
VOA-ENCORES N/A
❑ METALS NOTIFIED OF FILTER/PRESERVE VIA VERBAL 6 EMAIL ] N/A
COMPLETE SHIPMENT RECEIVED IN GOOD CONDITION WITH ❑ N/A
[APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURES;CONTAINERS, PRESERVATIVES
LI(I CLOUSEAU ❑ TEMPERATURE EXCEEDED (2°C—6°C)
J❑WET ICE El BLUE ICE ❑I GEL PACK ❑ NO COOLING AGENTS USED t �PM NOTI)FIED/
Notes: 1'I.Jz.G�� 5 Fti, tt 11-4-1 TOY Sic w'-P6 Ill} S)lie 11A CI IG nr) el N4 P-C'1
4PZY- 5A 4 1 l-34 'F yfLC 41101 G rQ W IFS,
`1 Acceptable temperature range for State of Wisconsin samples is<4°C. .
LEAVE NO SPACES BLANK. USE"NIA"IF NOT APPLICABLE. CA-185 5/05 EM, Page 1
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 6 of 707

TestAmerica West Sacramento Bottle Lot InventoryTestAmedca
Lot ('+T/ IF �^(�7/
THE LEADEN IN EMMONP.IENTAL TESTING _ ID: `1 1 1 �✓` ! Lt3
1 2 3 4 1 5 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20
VOA'
VOAh'
AGB
AGBs
250AGB
250AGBs
250AGBn
500AGB
_AGJ
500AGJ
250AGJ
125AGJ
_CGJ
500CGJ
250CGJ
125CGJ
Pi
I
Pi
500PJn
500PJna
500PJzn/na
250PJ
250PJn
250PJna
250PJzn/na
Acetate Tube -
_"CT
Encore
Folder/filter
PUF
Petri/Filter
XAD Trap
Ziploc
11\e S 5 f
1 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
h=hydrochloric acid s =sulfuric acid na=sodium hydroxide In nitric acid zn=zinc acetate
erI of VOAs with air bubbles present 1 total number of VORs
QA-185 5105 EM
)OC Page 3
LEAVE NO SPACES BLANK. USE; A°IF NOT APPLICABLE.
C�rnrn��L��. L
1371-1270143 ��a--1 I asacramento(916)373-5600 7 of 707

BIOLOGIC , 8290 ,
Dioxins/Furans /
Lipids , Percent
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 8 of 707

Blue Ridge Paper.Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A CHANNEL CAT R FILM _
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. . : G7H270143-001 Work order it...: JSNLJIAC Matrix.... ..... : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. .. : 08/14/07 Date Received. .: 08/27/07
Prep Date.. . . .. : 09/14/07 Analysis Date. -: 09/24/07
Prep Batch #. . . : 7260401
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.57 J,JA pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 0.57 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.81 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD ND 0.81 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.6 J pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.64 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 2.6 pg/g SW846 8290
.1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 5.1 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 5.1 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 14 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF NO 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 0.51 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.52 pg/g SW846 8290
,2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NO 0.71 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 2.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4, 7,8-HXCDF ND 0.56 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.49 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.56 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF NO 0.56 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF NO 2.8 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.78 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.57 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.78 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.68 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 86 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 80 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 95 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 87 (40 - 135)
.13C-OCDD 106 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 88 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 124 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 113 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
I Estimated eesulL Resuh is less Own the repotting limit.
IA The analyte was positively identified,but the quantitation is an estimate.
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 9 o1707

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP R FILLET -
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #__.: G7H270143-002 Work order 4. ..: JSNLLIAC Matrix.. .. .. .. . : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 08/14/07 Date Received. .: 08/27/07
Prep Date......: 09/14/07 Analysis Date..: 09/24/07
Prep Batch #...: 7260401
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 6.4 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 6.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 3.3 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD 3.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD NO 0.77 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 11 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD ND 2.0 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 11 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 28 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 31 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 62 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.6 CON pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 5.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 2.4 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 3.9 J pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF 3.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 3.0 J pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF 5.8 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF NO 0.71 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF 8.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.9 J pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.76 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF 2.9 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF NO 0.68 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 76 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 72 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 68 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 76 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 96 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3, 7,8-TCDF 80 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 83 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 85 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 80 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) -
Estimated result.Result is less than the reporting limit.
:ON Confirmation analysis.
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 10 of 707

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4B CHANNEL CAT R FILLET (8/20/07-8/21/07) -
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. .: G7H270143-003 Work Order #. ..: J5NLPIAC Matrix. . .. ..... : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 08/21/07 Date Received..: 08/27/07
Prep Date... ...: 09/14/07 Analysis Date..: 09/24/07
Prep Batch (). . .: 7260401
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.67 J Pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 0.67 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDD ND 0.57 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.48 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HxCDD NO 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 1.8 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HPCDD ND 1.8 pg/g SW846 0290
OCDD 5.1 J pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF ND 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.36 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF .ND 0.56 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 1.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF NO 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF NO 0.30 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF NO 1.6 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NO 0.37 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.45 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF NO 0.52 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 89 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 84 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 97 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 99 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 122 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 98 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 100 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 126 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 132 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
t Euim led remit.Reach is I=than the reporting limit.
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 11 of 707

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4B COMMON CARP R FILLET (8/14/07-8/20/07)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: G7H270143-004 Work Order #...: J5NL0lAC Matrix.........: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 08/20/07 Date Received..: 08/27/07
Prep Date......: 09/14/07 Analysis Date..: 09/25/07
Prep Batch #.... 7260401
Dilution Factor: 10
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 6.9 pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD ND 6.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 30 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND 30 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 46 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 49 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD NO 38 pg/g SW846 8290
Total RxCDD ND 49 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD 71 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 71 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 310 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 4.6 CON,H pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 7.2 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF NO 14 pq/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 15 pg/g SW846 8290
} Total PeCDF ND 46 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 35 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 38 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 36 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 36 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 38 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 29 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 29 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 29 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 24 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 86 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 34 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 18 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 34 * (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 50 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 54 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 44 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 17 * (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 23 * (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
CON Conrmwtim amlysi€
Sorrogete recovery b outside sated mntrol limos.
H: The conremation for 2,3.7,8-TCDF we run m the tmdikeed ealrsa on 24SE077D2 at 20:39.
G7H270143 Amendment March 3,2008 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP WHOLE BODY -
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: G7H270143-005 Work order #. .. : J5NL21AC Matrix.. .. .. .. .: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 08/14/07 Date Received. .: 08/27/07
Prep Date...... : 09/14/07 Analysis Date. .: 09/25/07
Prep Batch #. ..: 7260401
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.75 J,JA pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDD 0.75 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 1.9 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD NO 1.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD ND 0.75 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 NO 0.59 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD 3.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 12 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD 17 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD 44 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.4 CON,JA pg/g SW846 8290
Total TCDF 3.4 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF NO 0.77 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NO 1.1 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 4.9 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF _ ND 1.0 pg/g SW846 B290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF NO 1.2 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF NO 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF NO 0.34 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF NO 6.0 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NO 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF NO 0.44 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 1.3 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.53 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 87 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 107 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 100 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 91 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 89 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 87 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 112 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 101 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
1 Eaimated result.Result is less than the reporting limit.
IA The amslyte was positively identified,but the quantitation is an estimate.
CON Confirmation analysis.
G71­1270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 13 of 707

QC DATA ASSOCIATION SUNMMRY
G7B270143 -
Sample Preparation and Analysis Control Numbers
ANALYTICAL LEACH PREP
SAMPLE# MATRIX METHOD BATCH # BATCH # MS RUN#
001 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 7260401
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290. 7260403
002 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 7260401
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 7260403
003 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 7260401
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 7260403
004 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 7260401
BIOLOGIC SW846 6290 7260403
005 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 7260401
BIOLOGIC. SW846 8290 - 7260403
G7H270143 STL Sacmmento(916)373-5600 14 of 707

METHOD BLANK REPORT -
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #. . . : G7H270143 Work Order II. ..: J61651AA Matrix. . ..- - ... : BIOLOGIC
MB Lot-Sample #: G71170000-401
Prep Date. .... .: 09/14/07
Analysis Date. .: 09/24/07 Prep Batch #. . . : 7260401
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.43 pg/g SW846. 8290
Total TCDD ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.57 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDD ND
0.72 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD ND 0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 0.61 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD ND 0.52 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDD ND 0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,E-HpCDD ND
0.65 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDD ND 0.70 pg/g SW846 8290
OCDD ND 4.1 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
-otal TCDF ND 0.38 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.39 Pg/g SW846 8290
_,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.41 pg/g SW846 8290
Total PeCDF ND 0.52 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND _ 0.31 pg/g SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.35 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HxCDF ND 0.35 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 0.35 Pg/g SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.43 pg/g SW846 8290
Total HpCDF ND 0.43 Pg/g SW846 8290
OCDF ND 0.49 pg/g SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 91 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 86 - (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 104 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 105 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 108 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 96 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 94 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 131 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 116 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
Wadations arc performed before rounding to avoid round off errors in alculatcd results.
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 15 of 707

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE DATA REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #...: G7H270143 Work Order #. ..: J61651AC Matrix.. ... ... .: BIOLOGIC
LCS Lot-Sample#: G7I170000-401
Prep Date... ... : 09/14/07 Analysis Date.. : 09/25/07
Prep Batch #.. .: 7260401
Dilution Factor: 1
SPIRE MEASURED PERCENT
PARAMETER AMOUNT AMOUNT UNITS RECOVERY METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 20.0 22.0 pg/g 110 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 100 112 Pg/g 112 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hx= 100 107 pg/g 107 SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 100 113 pg/g 113 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 100 99.4 pg/g 99 SW846 9290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 100 113 pg/g 113 SW846 8290
OCDD 200 227 pg/g 114 SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 20.0 23.2 pg/g 116 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 100 114 pg/g 114 SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 100 110 pg/g 110 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 100 110 pg/g 110 SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 100 116 pg/g 116 SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 100 112 pg/g 112 SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 100 103 pg/g 103 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 100 116 pg/g 116 SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpMF 100 112 Pg/g 112 SW846 8290
OCDF 200 236 pg/g 118 SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 83 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 76 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 100 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 92 (40 - 135)
13C-OCDD 84 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 81 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF B1 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF _ 102 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 95 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) -
Calcalatlerla am performed before rounding to avoid round-off errors in ulculated results.
Bold print denotes coot parameters
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 16 of 707

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE EVALUATION REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Lot #.. . : G7H270143 Work Order #--.: JG1651AC Matrix-. -. .. .. . : BIOLOGIC
LCS Lot-Sample#: G71170000-401
Prep Date. . . . . .: 09/14/07 Analysis Date.. : 09/25/07
Prep Batch #.. . : 7260401
Dilution Factor: 1
PERCENT RECOVERY
PARAMETER RECOVERY LIMITS METHOD
2,3,7,8-TCDD 110 (50 - 150) SW846 0290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 112 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 107 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 113 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXMD 99 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD 113 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
OCDD 114 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,7,8-TCDF 116 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 114 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 110 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 110 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 116 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 112 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF 103 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 116 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 112 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
OCDF 118 (50 - 150) SW846 8290
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 83 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 76 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,.6,7,8-HXCDD 100 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 92 (40 - 235)
13C-OCDD 84 (40 - 135)
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 81 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 81 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 102 (40 - 135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 95 (40 - 135)
NOTE(S) :
Calculations are perfumed before rounding to avoid round-off errors in calculated results.
Bald print denotes control parameters
G71­1270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-560D 1701707

Percent Lipids
07H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 1801707

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A CHANNEL CAT R FILLET
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. _. : G7H270143-001 Work Order #. .. : TSNLTIAA Matrix.. .. .... . : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. ..: 08/14/07 Date Received. . : 08/27/07
Prep Date.. .. ..: 09/17/07 Analysis Date.. : 09/25/07
Prep Batch #... : 7260403
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS- METHOD
Percent Lipids 8.7 g SW846 8290
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 19 of 707

Slue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID_ SITE 4A COMMON CARP R FILLET
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #...: G7H270143-002 Work Order #... : JSNLLIAA Matrix. ...... ..: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. .. : 08/14/07 Date Received..: 08/27/07
Prep Date. . .. . . : 09/17/07 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/07
Prep Batch #. ..: 7260403
Dilution Factor: I
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 26 & SW846 8290
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373.5600 20 of 707

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4B CHANMM CAT R FILLET (8/20/07-8/21/07)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. .: G7H270143-003 Work Order #. . .: J5NLPIAA Matrix. . .. ... . .: BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled.. . : 08/21/07 Date Received. .: 08/27/07
Prep Date.. . .. .: 09/17/07 Analysis Date.. : 09/25/07
Prep Batch #. . . : 7260403
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 2.8 & SW846 8290
G7H270143 . STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 21 of 707

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample TD: SITE 4B COMMON CARP FILLET (8/14/07-8/20/07)
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #. . . : G7H270143-004 Work Order #. . .: J5NL01AA Matrix. .. . . . . .. BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled. ..: 08/20/07 Date Received..: 08/27/07
Prep Date. .. .. . : 09/17/07 Analysis Date. . : 09/25/07
Prep Batch #...: 7260403
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD -
Percent Lipids 29 & SW846 8290
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 22 of 707

Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
Client Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP WHOLE BODY
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Lot-Sample #.. .: G7H270143-005 Work Order #. • .: JSNL21AA Matrix.. . . . . . . . : BIOLOGIC
Date Sampled...: 08/14/07 Date Received..: 08/27/07
Prep Date.... ..: 09/17/07 Analysis Date_.: 09/25/07
Prep Batch #.. . : 7260403
Dilution Factor: 1
DETECTION
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT UNITS METHOD
Percent Lipids 11 t SW846 8290
G7H270143 STL Sacramento(916)373-5600 23 o1707

N A �
" o m amm o�z omx mOe CSC
w
CD
C. � ff O �Yj "• R f+.
ro
ro
u M
z n
ANM' + uN Nuu ..0 In NNu ��
uN" Arr urr W i+r yy
��.vvAp tmif Aim b rm JmE,'i O W r b
wOU AN �bt�i �a w W V O �v
&z O Nggzz ANO W�+ nj
"Oa ECG Nae �'> p Odd
G y
. cy� cyy Ry1 c��f 2y `G�
yWy
Nyy
lIl O u W O lA G
N
W
o,e S e w w C]01 od t O a W" F+
to
Q �
b
W N N O O u V' 0 0� 0 0'O O m m u 0 0 C•° J
C QQ .may H
WO
Mat t r
b W tag tOnmN mT W W V�
G�sWJW CCG w
O 0 0 O O O O O O J
n
0
e

1992 Results(b) 1993 ResuRs(s(
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(`) Station Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,5-TCDDt°t
1 Rack bass 10 147-194 ND(0.085) I 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 redharse 6 365-441 1.4 Black redhorse 10 365410 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) 'I
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 30 183-200 ND(0.29) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 7 180-213 ND(0.36)
Common carp 10 43B-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 crap 10 492-622 29 Common carp 10 525.611 19
4B BluegiR 10 182-212 ND(0.23) 4B Largemouth bass 10 190-310 ND(0.12)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 215332 ND(0.19) RM 39.0 BluegiR 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)
Smalhnouth buffalo 5 428-510 0.61 Smalhnouth buffalo 5 450.550 ND .41
Total Fish Filleted 158 162
5
l

1994 Results() 1995 Results(c)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt'1 Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°I
1 Rock bass 6 156-185 ND(0.063) 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 I50-220 ND(0.26)
Black redhorse 3 367-435 ND(0.096) Black redhorse 7 375A64 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 10 149.196 ND(0.15) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 170-206 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sun
10 158-210 ND(0.074) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 154-202 ND(0.20)
Cotnnton carp l0 456-565 0.74 Common carp 10 391-571 1.2
4A Black cripple 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 cazp 10 465-591 3.4 Common tarp 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 cup 10 520-635 6.6 Common tarp 4 532-626 11.0
5 Redbreast sun0sb 6 129489 ND(0.075) 5 Smallmouth bass 9 280-423 ND(0.1])
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 440481 N➢(0.45)
Total Fish Filleted 163 156
l

1996 Results(b) 1997 Resultsv
i
Number of Length Number of Length
Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°t StationSpecies Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(°)
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 154-I85 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 redlimse 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 5 193-191 ND(0.12) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 160.181 ND(0.12)
Common carp 5 543-580 1.5 Common carp 5 506-615 1.4
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 184-190 ND(0.13) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 187-202 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 165-185 ND(0.13) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-195 ND(0.18) f1
Common carp 5 516-630 0.87 Common carp 5 450.505 ND(0.33)
4A Black crappie 5 216.233 ND(0.15) 4A Black crapppie 5 215-231 ND(0.27)
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 215-229 ND(0.18) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-230 ND(0.10)
Common carp 5 562-632 4.2 Common carp 5 570.655 2.3
Charnel 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(0.17) '
Common carp 5 470-623 4.0 Common carp 5 605-690 11.0
Flathead catfish 5 430540 0.62 1
5 Rock bass 4 169-186 ND(0.077) 5 Rock bass 5 143-214 ND CO.15)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 315.454 ND(0.12) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 Smallmouth ND(0.27)
nouth buffalo 5 451-555 ND 0.12) Smalimcuth buffalo 5 278-367 ND(0.22
Total Fish Filleted 89 Total Fish Filleted 99
1

1998 ResultsP) 1999 Resultso'l
Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt't Station Species Number of age(�) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(0
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 145-176 ND(0.19) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 141-177 ND(0.21)
RM 60..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(p.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 5 169-169 ND(0.36)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-200 ND(0.22) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 162-176 ND(0.37)
Common carp 5 449.550 ND(0.38) Common carp 5 500.591 0.57
4A Black crappie 5 220-240 ND(0.49) 4A Black crappie 5 220-2fi8 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 585fi21 1.6 Common carp 5 574-645 0.58
Channel catfish 5 416-058 ND(0.28) Chanel catfish 5 475-482 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 5 563-696 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 Rockbass 5 170-203 ND(029)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 295-365 ND(0.21) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 297-430 ND(0.19)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 464-537 ND 0.31 Smallmouth buffalo 5 476.565 ND 0.31
Total Fish Filleted 99 Total Fish Filleted 100

bN b� rAY NW bN �r o
O O W1 (�(]lA 41 FAO N �
o T!O m W `Jb m m pO VdA pO t� II10.'c7
�Sl aCJ �yq w�b'o � Nq �j g M � ti
C. N
Z e
b N N U N A U U N A N U NUN U U N U N N S
W
n
a
ANi+ AU�N AN �JN Mr Nr W rr
NOJ W U W O Q UO�W
N
J WHO Nr W W W.PuAA �Db� N�Q QT W 000
O�WW oNor �
zz zz '�z zz zz zz '�z zz
t7�C C>CO C�-OO 3G O 000 CYC z C'�' w
Wvv
to
to
�yS iyy yy 2y1 �
O O N W O U y
si
9�m n n �
91 �
�r n
g 0 7i
e
pez 8
C�
O �^
JA O�oa N p jQU' A W_ [pores
tAA VI W A V, F Oa O
J lJ Gt W N U tUll O YO
zz ZZ
O yO O O O �t
H
n
0
c

2002 Resultsto 21103 Resultst"t .
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(ow) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt4 station Species Fish Remge(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDW
I Black redhorm 5 372-431 ND(0.14) 1 Black redhorse 5 343-420 ND(0.20)
RM 64.5 .RM 64.5
RM 59.0 Common carp 5 517-548 ND(0.28) 2 Common carp 5 512-584 ND(0.18),
RM 59.0
3 Common carp 5 575-632 ND(022) 3 Common carp 5 545.605 ND(0.31).
RM 52.3 RM 52.3
4A Common carp 5 523548 2.2 4A Common carp 5 655-717 3.4
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 425475 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
i
Total Fish Filleted 40 Total Fish Filleted 40

2004 Resultsw
Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8 TCDDM
1 Black redhorse 5 352-440 ND(0.11)
RM 64.5
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 420480 ND(0.13)
Total Fish Filleted 40
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quanterre 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=Plu(parts per trillion)or P818(Picogrem Per gram)
ND=Non-detectable at the detection limit in paremheses.
1i
1
r

aoF IA rE9P Michael F.Easley,Governor
William G.Ross Jr.,Secretary
\0 G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
y r Alan W.Klimek,P.E.Director
—{ Division of Water Quality
(7 'C Coleen H.Sullins,Deputy Director
_v utility -
June 6,2006 AN 1
Mr. Paul S. Dickens
Manager,Environmental Affairs BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS RIC
Blue Ridge Paper Products BHS OEPARTMENT
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:
o Elimination of main stem river sampling stations -beginning in 2006 fish tissue
samples will be collected only from Waterville Lake.
o Collect a least one whole body bottom feeder sample from Waterville Lake(stations
4A or 4B)to monitor ecological impacts of dioxin contamination in bottom species.
o 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 ���
VC-100
N.C.Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,North Carolina 27699.1617 [phone] Customer Service
1-877-623.6748

BLUE MIDGE
"V PAPER PRODUCTS INC. _
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7099 3220 0007 0371 6235
30 March 2006
Mr. Mark Hale
Environmental Biologist
Environmental Services Section
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Subject: Study Plan Revision
Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue—Waterville Lake
March 2006
NPDES No. NC0000272
Blue Ridge Paper Products hic.
Canton Mill
Dear Mr. Hale—
The subject study plan revision is enclosed for Division of Water Quality(DWQ)review and
approval.
Background
The Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.mill in Canton, North Carolina has completed biological
monitoring for dioxin in fish in the Pigeon River for the past 16 years. This annual biological
monitoring is a requirement of the Canton Mill's NPDES permit. The permit requires that we
follow a study plan approved by the DWQ for this work. Dioxin in fish sample collection and
reporting for 2002 through 2005 was conducted under the December 2001 Study Plan for
Pigeon River Dioxin:Monitoring in Fish Tissue prepared by EA Engineering, Science and
Technology. EA Engineering completed the dioxin in fish sampling and reporting for years
2002 thru 2004. In 2005, Blue Ridge Paper contracted with the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville(UTK)Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries for the dioxin in fish tissue
work. UTK f6llowed the 2001 Study Plan for the 2005 dioxin in fish sampling and report. The
2005 report was submitted to the DWQ on 20 Feb 2006.
175 Main Street o PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 o 828-646-2000
Raising Your Expectations

Mark Hale, NC DENR DWQ,ESS-
3/30/06, Page 2
Biological Monitoring Review
The first annual dioxin fish tissue sampling study of the Pigeon River was in 1990. At that time,
public health fish consumption advisories related to dioxin were in place for the Pigeon River
downstream of the Canton Mill for both North Carolina and Tennessee reaches of the river.
Dioxin fish tissue concentrations determined from annual sampling declined sharply following
completion of the Canton Mill modernization in 1993. Dioxin fish tissue sample concentrations
in bottom feeding species at main stem river sample locations became non-detect in2000 and
have remained below analytical detection levels since that time. Dioxin fish tissue sample
concentrations in sport fish species from all sampling locations in the Pigeon River became non-
detect in the mid-1990s.
Based on annual fish tissue sampling, the State of North Carolina lifted the dioxin in fish
advisory for the Pigeon River upstream of Waterville Lake in August 2001. The State of
Tennessee lifted the dioxin in fish advisory for the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River in
January 2003. The only fish advisory remaining is for carp in Waterville Lake. Dioxin levels in
carp collected from Waterville Lake since 2000 continue to be at or near analytical detection
levels and are below the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS)
dioxin toxicity equivalent(TEQ)fish advisory action level of 4 parts per trillion(ppt).
The NC DHHS has indicated that two consecutive years of TCDD TEQ levels in carp of 3 ppt or
less would provide basis for lifting the public health advisory for consumption of carp from
Waterville Lake(e-mail correspondence from Dr. Luanne Williams, DHHS to Blue Ridge Paper
dated 9 Mar 2006). The TCDD TEQs for carp fillet composite samples from Stations 4A &4B
in Waterville Lake for the last two years are as follows:
Year Station 4A Station 4B
2004 2.5 ppt 2.2 ppt
2005 2.1 ppt 3.6 ppt
Study Plan Revision
Blue Ridge Paper proposes the following changes to the 2001 biological monitoring Study Plan:
o elimination of main stem river sampling stations -- fish tissue samples beginning in 2006
will be collected only from Waterville Lake
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
175 Main Street o PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 o 828-646-2000
Raising Your Expectations

Mark Hale, NC DENR DWQ, ESS-
3/30106, Page 3
o elimination of whole body fish composite samples from the lake-- only composite fillet
samples of target bottom feeding fish species will be collected for laboratory analysis of
dioxin.
The 2006 study plan revision is enclosed for your review and approval. A copy of the 2001
study plan is also enclosed for your reference.
Summary
The 2006 dioxin in fish sampling work is planned for the mid-summer period of August and
early September. We request DWQ approval of the 2006 study plan revision no later than the
end of May 2006.
Please contact us if you have questions.
Paul S.Dickens J. Glenn Rogers
Manager, Environmental Affairs Water Compliance Coordinator
828-646-6141 828-646-2874
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Enclosures: Study Plan Revision,Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue— Waterville Lake
March 2006
Prepared by University of Tennessee for Blue Ridge Paper Products
Study Plan for Pigeon River Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue
December 2001
Prepared by EA Engineering for Blue Ridge Paper Products
cc(w/enclosures):
Bryn Tracy- NC DENR DWQ, ESS
Susan Wilson—NC DENR DWQ,Permits
Sergei Cherinkov—NC DENR DWQ Permits
Roger Edwards—NC DENR DWQ ARO
I{eith Haynes -NC DENR DWQ,ARO
Dr. Louanne Williams—NC DHHS
Larry Wilson—UTK
Billy Clarke—Roberts &Stevens
John Crutchfield—Progress Energy
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
175 Main Street o PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 o 828-646-2000
Raising Your Expectations

BLUE RIDGE COPY
PAPER PRODUCTS
RD UCTS INC.
STUDY PLAN REVISION
DIOXIN MONITORING V1 FISH TISSUE
Waterville Lake
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products,Inc.
Canton Mill
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES No. NC 0000272
Prepared by:
J.Larry Wilson,Ph.D.
Departments of Forestry,Wildlife and Fisheries
University of Tennessee
I{noxville,Tennessee
March 2006

Study Plan—2006 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue,Waterville Lake
University of Tennessee for Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.Canton Mill
Page I
INTRODUCTION
The Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. Canton Mill conducts annual biological monitoring of
dioxin in fish in the Pigeon River under conditions of the NPDES permit for the mill. This
monitoring for years 2002 thru 2005 was in accordance with the December 2001 Study Plan for
Pigeon River Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue prepared by EA Engineering, Science and
Technology(EA 2001 a). This document details changes for dioxin in fish monitoring beginning
in 2006. The 2001 study plan is incorporated by reference. The specific changes to the 2001
study plan include:
o elimination of main stem river sampling stations --fish tissue samples in 2006 will be
collected only from Waterville Lake
• elimination of whole body fish composite samples from the lake-- only composite fillet
samples of target bottom feeding fish species will be collected for laboratory analysis of
dioxin.
The 2006 dioxin in fish tissue sampling from Waterville Lake will be conducted by personnel
from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville(UTK),Department of Forestry, Wildlife and
Fisheries.
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
The schedule for fish tissue collection will be consistent with prior years targeting dry weather
periods in late August and early September. UTK will collect and prepare fish tissue samples
from two locations in Waterville Lake on the Pigeon River(PRM 39.0-41.5). In previous
studies,the fish collection sites in Waterville Lake have been designated 4A(PRM 41.5) and 4B
(PRM 39.0). Site 4A is located approximately 21.8 RM downstream from the Canton Mill
outfall, near,the Messer Branch-Pigeon River confluence. Site 4B is in the vicinity of the
Wilkins Creek-Pigeon River confluence, approximately 24.3 RM downstream from the Canton
Mill outfall. Fish sampling will be conducted in the vicinity of each location described above;
however, the distance or effort at each station will depend on how difficult it is to collect target
fish species at that location. In 2005, common carp in the lower portion of the Waterville Lake
were extremely difficult to collect.
FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND TARGET SPECIES
The goal of the 2006 fish collection effort is one composite bottom feeder fillet sample at each
Waterville Lake sampling station 4A and 4B. Each composite consists of 3 to 5 similarly sized
(shortest specimen within 75% of the length of the longest) adult individuals of the target
species. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and channel catfish(Ictalurus punctatus) are the
targeted bottom feeder species at sites 4A and 4B. Every reasonable effort will be made to
collect the desired size, species, and number of fish. However, the outcome of sampling effort

Study Plan—2006 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue,Waterville Lake
University of Tennessee for Blue Ridge Papei Products Inc.Canton Mill
Page 2
each year is dependent on physical river conditions and the natural diversity and abundance of
target fishes at each location.
The field investigators will be equipped with an array of collecting gear, which will enable
sampling of all habitats regardless of river conditions. The US 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 defineable areas (Versar 1984). Electro-
fishing may be used at both locations (4A and 413); gill nets may also be used in areas where
water depth will limit the electro-fishing gear. A boat electrofishing unit(pulsed direct current,
Smith Root Type VIA electro-fisher powered by a 240-volt, 5000-Watt generator) will be
provided. Electro-fishing techniques will follow those described in the National Dioxin Study
(Versar 1984). All gill nets will be pulled and examined on a regular basis to reduce specimen
stress or mortality, and specimens submitted for analysis will be selected for good health and
condition.
Fish collection techniques and level of effort(time) expended at both locations (4A and 413) will
be recorded. Total study effort for the 4A/4B collections in 2005 took 460 gill-net hours and
approximately six hours of electro-fishing over a four-day period to obtain the necessary
specimens. Channel catfish were easily caught, but common carp were extremely difficult to
collect,particularly in the lower portion of the lake(413).
In summary, fish tissue samples will be collected as follows:
o bottom-feeder composite—one composite bottom feeder fillet sample at each location
4A and 413
© catfish composite—one composite catfish fillet sample at each location 4A and 4B
SAMPLE PREPARATION
All fish tissue samples will be prepared in accordance with U.S. EPA Region IV
recommendations (Cummingham 1990 as described in EA 2001a). To prevent cross-
contamination between sampling stations, all sampling equipment likely to come into contact
with the fish will be rinsed extensively with site water between stations.
Specimens collected at each location will be sorted by size and species, and target species
identified. UTK will obtain a 3 to 5-fish composite sample at each location(4A and 413) which
meet the species/size objectives discussed earlier. All specimens retained will be immediately
placed on ice for later processing. All fish submitted for tissue analysis will be measured to the
nearest millimeter(TL) and weighed to the nearest gram(wet weight).
Following collection of channel catfish and common carp, each specimen will be prepared for
shipment and analysis. Samples will consist of epaxial muscle tissue and skin from one side of
the fish. Fillet samples will be prepared by removing scales (or removing the skin from

Study Plan—2006 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue,Waterville Lake
University of Tennessee for Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.Canton Mill
Page 3
catfishes) and then malting 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 will be taken to cut
through the epaxial muscle without puncturing the rib cage or gut lining. A second incision will
be made along the length of the spine to the caudal fin on both sides of the fish. The muscle will
be cut away from the rib cage to obtain a fillet. Fillet knives will be solvent rinsed(hexane and
acetone)between fish from different locations. Each composite sample will be wrapped in
aluminum foil(dull side toward sample), labeled, and placed on dry ice. One side fillets will be
sent to Severn Trent Laboratory for analysis; the opposite side fillets will be retained by Blue
Ridge Paper as back-up fillets.
All individual specimens (fillets) composing a single composite sample will 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 will contain following information: sample identification number,
sample location and station identification, sampling team initials, date of collection, species
name, and sample type (i.e., fillet). A chain-of-custody form will be filled out for each cooler of
samples submitted for analysis, and each form will include composite specific information and
instructions.
All samples will be frozen solid prior to shipment to the analytical laboratory. The frozen
samples will be packed on dry ice and shipped via overnight delivery to Severn Trent Laboratory
(STL)—Sacramento for analysis.The back-up fillets will be retained in a freezer at the Canton
Mill until laboratory analytical results for the composite fillet samples are received and verified;
the back-up fillet samples will then be destroyed.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The composite fillet fish tissue samples received by STL will be analyzed for dioxin (2,3,7,8-
TCDD),furan(2,3,7,8-TCDF) and related isomers using EPA Method 8290 (US EPA 1994).
Percent lipids will also be determined for each composite sample. STL will provide laboratory
analytical reports including QA/QC summaries and completed chain-of-custody forms
documenting receipt by the lab.
REPORTING
Results of 2006 dioxin in fish tissue sampling from Waterville Lake will be submitted to the NC
DENR within 180 days of the completion of field work as required by the Blue Ridge Paper
NPDES permit. The fish tissue sampling and analytical report will follow the general format of
prior year reports. Dioxin toxicity equivalent(TEQ)levels will be calculated for all 17
chlotodibenzo dioxin and furan (CDD/F) isomers included in EPA Method 8290. The TEQ of
each detectable isomer will be calculated based on the toxicity equivalent factor(TEF) for the
isomer provided by the World Health Organization(WHO 1997). The measured concentration
of each CDD/F isomer will be multiplied by its appropriate TEF to obtain a concentration of the
isomer equivalent to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic of the CDD/F isomers. Non-
detectable concentrations will be treated as zero values for TEQ calculation. As requested by the

Study Plan—2006 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue,Waterville Lake
University of Tennessee for Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.Canton Mill
Page 4
NC DHHS (Williams 2006), the TEQ results for the last two years will be presented in a
columnar, side-by-side format to allow easy comparison against health advisory action levels.
References
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.
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.

Study Plan—2006 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue,Waterville Lake
University of Tennessee for Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.Canton Mill
Page 5
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 Inc. 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.
Henry,A.G. and J.L.Wilson. 2006. Results of2005 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue. Center for
Environmental Biotechnology and Department of Forestry,Wildlife and Fisheries, University of
Tennessee,Knoxville,Tennessee.
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA). 1994. Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance for
Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by
High Resolution Gas Chromotography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry(Method 8290).
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.
Williams, L. 2006. E-mail correspondence from North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
to Blue Ridge Paper Products concerning review of 2005 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Report, March
9.
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.

copy
y
EA Project 13900.01
STUDY PLAN FOR PIGEON RIVER
DIOXIN MONITORING IN MSH TISSUE
Prepared for.•
Blue Ridge Paper Products
Canton, NC
Prepared by.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18
Deerfield, IL 60015
Oecember2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1..........Introduction .................................................................................... 1-1
2. Station Locations .............................................................................. 2-1
3. Fish Collection Techniques and Target Species .......................................... 3-1
4. Sample Preparation ........................................................................... 4-1
5. Analysis of Fish Tissue Samples ............................................................ 5-1
6. Quality Assurance ............................................................................. 6-1
7. Project Schedule ............................................................................... 7-1
8. Monitoring Report ............................................................................. 8-1
9. References ...................................................................................... 9-1
i

1. INTRODUCTION
This study plan details the materials and methods that will be used to annually assess the levels
of dioxins and furans in fish tissues from the Pigeon River downstream of the discharge from
the Blue Ridge papermill in Canton,North Carolina. This study plan was developed in
response to requirements in the mill's current NPDES permit(Permit No. NC0000272).
Changes to original permit conditions as detailed in letters from North Carolina Division of
Water Quality(NCDWQ)and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
(NCDHHS)dated 22 August 2001 and 31 August 2001,respectively have been incorporated
into this study plan. Section 2 of this study plan provides information regarding the locations
of the sampling stations. Section 3 details the techniques that will be used to collect fish at
each station and the target species. Section 4 describes the procedures that will be used to
prepare the collected fishes for tissue analysis. Section 5 specifies the analytical technique that
will be used to determine the concentrations of the different dioxin and furan isomers in each
tissue sample. The Quality Assurance plan is presented in Section 6,and the project schedule,
monitoring report, and references are found in Sections 7, 8, and 9,respectively.
1

2. STATION LOCATIONS
Six stations have been established for the collection of fishes (Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1).
Station 1, the background site, is located at Pigeon River Mile(RM) 64.5 adjacent to the
Canton Recreational Park, approximately 1.2 RM upstream from the Canton Mill outfall.
Except at very high flows, the Canton Mill dam blocks the movement of fishes thereby
preventing the interaction of control and monitoring station fishes. Station 2 is located at RM
59.0, upstream from Clyde,NC and.approximately 4.3 RM downstream from the Canton Mill
outfall. Station 3 is located at RM 52.3 just upstream of the old Rt.209 bridge,approximately
11.0 RM downstream from the Canton Mill outfall. Stations 4A and 4B are located in
Waterville Lake at RM 41.5 and 39.0,respectively. Station 4A is located approximately 21.8
RM downstream from the Canton Mill outfall,near the Messer Branch-Pigeon River
confluence. Station 4B is in the vicinity of the Wilkins Creek-Pigeon River confluence,
approximately 24.3 RM downstream from the Canton Mill outfall. Stations 4A and 4B
correspond to the upper and lower ends,respectively,of Waterville Lake. Station 5 is at RM
19 near Bluffton,TN,44.3 miles downstream of the mill outfall. Fish sampling will be
conducted in the immediate vicinity of each location described above,however, the sample
reach may be extended somewhat, if necessary,to facilitate collection of the required number
of fish.
2

1-40
Station 5
RM 19.0 5
Bluffton TN--
(19.3j
,,Hartford,TN
TENNESSEE N
NORTH
CAROLINA
N
�t0 Hydro Plant i(
(26.0) Ile
°f �x
gnyG
Walters Dam— B
Station 46 Station 4A
RM 39.0 RM 41.5
4 Waterville Lake
Fines Greek
New Hepro Bridge
FLOW Jonathans
Creek Old Rt.209
3 Station 3 Station 2 Mill Outfall
RM 52.3 RM 50.0 RM 63.3
Waynesville STP— 2 Canton,NC
Outfall a
RM 50.4
f`r�GtaaF Clyde Station 1 1
RM 64.5
(Control)
Figure 2-1. Fish tissue sampling station locations on the Pigeon River.

TABLE2-1 PIGEON RIVER SAMPLING STATIONS
Station River Station Location and
Number Mile Distance from Ontfall Site De c' ti n/Nab'ml Tyne Fish Community
1 64.5 Pigeon Riverupstream from Canton, Characterized by rifle,ran,and pool habitats. Maximum Relative abundance dominated by minnows and darters. River '
NC,adjacent to Canton Recreational depth approximately 6 ft. Substrate primarily cobble and chub,greenfin darter and rock bass arc dominant. Nonhem hog
Pak(1.2 RM upstream from Canton boulders interspersed with gravel and sand. sucker,black redhorse,mimar shiner,redbreast sunfish,central
Mill outfal0. stoneroller,greenside darter,and mottled sculpin are common.
2 59.0 Pigeon River upstream from Clyde,NC Characterized by riffle,run,and pool habitats with canopy Relative abundance dominated by redbreast sunfish,central
(43 RM downstream from the Canton rover. Maximum depth approximately 5 R. Substrate stoneroller,and northern hog sucker.
Mill outfall). primarily cobble/gravelisand with some boulders and bedrock.
3 52.3 Pigeon River in the vicinity of the Rt. Characterized by riffle,ran,and pool habitats with some Redbreast sunfish,northern hog sucker,and common carp arc
209 bridge(11.0 RM downsmaum canopy cover. Maximum depth approximately 5 ft dominant. Central stoncroller is common.
from the Canton Mill ourfall) Substrate primarily bedrock and boulders with some
cobble and sand(gravelffmcs deposited in pool areas.
4A 41.5 Upper Waterville Lake(21.8 RM Characterized by deep•water]mile habitat,bedrock, Relative abundance dominated by black cmpphe Bluegill,
downsneam from the Canton Mill and soft bottom sediments. Maximum depth sampled flathead catfish,channel catfish,largemouth bass,and common
outfail) approximately 14 ft. carp are common.
4B 39.0 Lower Waterville Lake(24.3 RM Characterized by deep-water lentie habitat,bedrock, Relative abundance of catch dominated by black crappie.
downstream from the Canton Mill and soft botrom sediments. Maximum depth sampled Bluegill,channel catfish,flathead catfish,and carp are common.
outfalp approximately 40 ft Very steep banks with little cover.
5 19.0 Pigeon River near Bluffton,TN,just Characterized by deep pools and runs with some shallow Central stoneroller and northern ling sucker am dominant.
upstmam of 140(443 RM downstream rifles. Maximum depth approximately 6 to 8 ft. Substrate Smzlimouth bass,whitetail shiner,telescope shiner,grecaside
from the Canton Mill outfall) primarily bedrock,boulder,and cobble. darter,and banded sculpin are common. Except for
smallmouth bass and rock bass,centrachids are uncommoon.

I
3. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND TARGET SPECIES
A listing of the Pigeon River fish collection techniques is provided below:
Station Number River Mile Sampling Technique
1 64.5 Electrofishing
2 59.0 Electrofishing
3 52.3 Electrofishing
4A 41.5 Gill nets
4B 39.0 Gill nets
5 19.0 Electrofishing
Except in Waterville Lake,the principal sampling gear will be electrofishing. Depending on
depth,either a pram or boat electrofisher will be used. Gillnetting is the most effective
technique for the collection of bottom-feeder species from the Waterville Lake monitoring
stations. Gill nets will be checked at least once a day,usually within 12 hours of being
deployed. Other appropriate sampling techniques may be used if necessary.
Field notes will be recorded at each sampling station including the type of sampling gear,level
of effort(time),flow and clarity conditions, and selected physiochemical data(e.g., dissolved
oxygen,water temperature,and conductivity [electrofishing locations only])using accepted
proceedures and equipment. All fishes submitted for tissue analysis will be measured(total
length), weighed(wet weight),examined for anomalies, and recorded on a standard Fisheries
Data Sheet(Figure 3-1).
The goal of the fish collection effort is to collect one composite bottom feeder fillet sample at
each of the six sampling stations. Each composite will consist of 3 to 5 similarly sized (shortest
specimen within 75%of the length of the longest) adult individuals of the target species.
Common carp will be the target species at Stations 2,3,4A, and 413, with northern hog sucker
and black redhorse as alternative species in the riverine portion of the river below the mill(i.e.,
Stations 2 and 3). Common carp are absent at Stations 1 and 5. At these stations, black
redhorse will be the target bottom feeder, with northern hog sucker and smallmouth buffalo
being alternative species. Alternative representative bottom feeder species may be collected in
the rare event that these target species are not collected.
In Waterville Lake, one additional fillet composite sample using either channel catfish or
flathead catfish will be collected at Stations 4A and 4B. Catfish are rare in the river between
the mill and Waterville Lake. However,in the event that three or more catfish of a similar size
are encountered at either Stations 2 or 3, a catfish fillet composite will be prepared for either or
both of these stations.
In addition to the fillet composites, a whole body composite consisting of 3-5 similarly sized
common carp will be collected at either Station 4A or 4B in Waterville Lake.
5

Table 3-1 Fish Collection Techniques
Station Number Station Location Sampling Technique
1 Pigeon River Mile 64.5 Electrofishing
2 Pigeon River Mile 59.0 Electrofishing
3 Pigeon River Mile 52.3 Electrofishing
4A Pigeon River Mile 41.5 Gill nets
4B Pigeon River Mile 39.0 Gill nets
5 Pigeon River Mile 19.0 Electrofishing

In summary,fish will be collected as follows:
o Bottom feeder fillet composite—one sample at all six stations
o Catfish fillet composite—one sample at Stations 4A and at 4B
o Common carp whole body composite—one sample from either Station 4A or 4B
o Catfish fillet composite—one sample at Stations 2 and at 3, if specimens are encountered
7

4. SAMPLE PREPARATION
Fillet samples will consist of the epaxial muscle tissue from one side of the fish. The fillet
from the other side will be retained as a backup until laboratory results are obtained. Bottom
feeder whole-body samples will consist of the entire fish. Specimens collected will be rinsed in
site water, stunned with a sharp blow to the head and placed on wet ice until processing.Each
fish selected for analysis will be weighed and measured. Fillet samples will be prepared by
removing all scales (or removing skin from catfishes)and subsequently 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 will be taken to not puncture the gut lining. A second incision
will be made along the length of the spine to the caudal fin on both sides of the fish. The
epaxial muscle will then be gently cut away from the rib cage to obtain a fillet. In this fashion,
all flesh and skin(except catfishes)will be obtained from head to tail. The fillets from
specimens comprising a particular composite will be combined, then the sample will be
wrapped in aluminum foil(dull side toward sample),placed in a water-tight plastic bag,labeled
(see Section 6), and placed on wet ice. Within 24 hours of processing, the samples will be
frozen.
8

5. ANALYSIS OF FISH TISSUE SAMPLES
Samples will be analyzed for dioxin using EPA Method 8290 (U.S. EPA 1994). Percent lipids
will also be determined for each sample. The laboratory will measure the concentration of 17
isomers of chlorodibenzo dioxins and furans (CDD/F). The toxic equivalent(TEQ) of each
detectable isomer will be calculated based on toxicity equivalent factors (TEF)provided by the
World Health Organization(WHO 1997). The measured concentration of each CDD/F isomer
will be multiplied by its appropriate TEF to obtain a concentration of that isomer equivalent to
the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD,the most toxic of the many CDD/F isomers. As per the directive
of NCDHHS,non-detectable concentrations will be treated as zero values for TEQ calculations.
9

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE
The following procedures will be followed to prevent contamination of samples collected at
different stations or between composites collected at the same station. Dip nets,fish scalers,
and holding containers will be rinsed with site water prior to use at each station. All fish will
be rinsed in site water to remove any debris (e.g., sediment)prior to processing. During
processing,the measuring board will be wrapped with clear plastic wrap and this wrap will be
changed among stations. Fillet knives will be solvent rinsed (hexane and acetone)between fish
from different stations. Each composite sample will be wrapped in aluminum foil(dull side
toward sample),labeled, and placed on dry ice within 24 hours of processing.
All fillets or whole bodies composing a single composite sample will be foil-wrapped,then
placed in a water-tight plastic bag labeled with the station name, sample number,and the
species in that composite. All labels will contain the following information_
o Sample identification number,
o Station identification,
o Sampling team initials,
o Date of sample collection,
c Species name,
o Sample type(i.e.,fillet or whole body)
o A unique composite number
Chain-of-Custody(COC) sheets will be completed following sample preparation and
compositing. The composite identification number and corresponding number and type of fish
comprising that composite sample will be recorded on the COC. Copies of all COCs will be
retained.
Following completion of sampling,samples will be shipped on dry ice to the analytical
laboratory via an overnight courier. Upon receipt,the laboratory will compare the contents
with that noted on the COC sheets and will note the condition of the samples. .
10

7. PROJECT SCHEDULE
To be consistent with past collections, all samples will be collected in August or September. A
final report will be provided to NCDEQ within 180 days of sampling.
11

8. MONITORING REPORT
Each annual monitoring report will include the sampling methods and procedures employed, a
description of the sampling locations,descriptions of each fish collected(e.g.,species,length,
and weight), as well as the results of the chemical analysis (reported as individual TCDD/F
isomers and 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxic Equivalent Values). Also included in appropriate appendices
will be field notes, copies of all chain-of-custody sheets, and any pertinent memorandum or
communication record forms.
12

9. REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA) 1994. Analytical Procedures and Quality
Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofarans by High-Resolution Gas Chromatography/High-
Resolution Mass Spectrometry(Method 8290).
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.
13

�oF WArF9Q Michael F.Easley,Governor
William U.Ross Jr.,Secretary
rNorth Carolina Depaumont of Environment and Natural Resources
� 1
O Y Alan W.Klimek P.E.Director
Division of Water Quality
March 8, 2007
Mr. J. Glen Rogers
Water Compliance Coordinator
Blue Ridge Paper Products
P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina
28716
Subject: Review of 2006 Monitoring Report for Dioxin in Fish Tissue.
Blue Ridge Paper Products
NPDES No. NC0000272
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The Division's Environmental Sciences Section has reviewed the Blue Ridge Paper
Products 2006 dioxin fish tissue monitoring results for Waterville Lake, resulting in the
removal of the fish advisory for carp along the Pigeon River.
The declining trend of TCDD concentrations in reservoir fish is certainly good news for
water quality in the Pigeon River. The 2006 results highlight this trend in Waterville Lake,
and justify the removal of carp from the Pigeon River fish advisory. However, in order to
maintain accordance with the existing DHHS protocol,we agree that sampling and dioxin
contamination analysis of carp from Waterville Lake(at station 4A or 4B)should continue
through 2007 and 2008.
Please feel free to contact Jeff DeBerardinis at 919-733-6946 with any questions or
comments.
Sin ely, q
I .
Chief, Environmental Sciences Section
cc: Mark Hale—ESS
Roger Edwards—ARO
Dr. Luanne Williams—NCDHHS
Susan Wilson—DWQ Permits
John Crutchfield—Progress Energy
NorrthCarolina
Ivl1t' r-711rf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh,NC 27699-1621 Phone[phone]
Internet h2o.emstate.nc.us 4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh,NC 27607 FAX [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAfhrmative Action Employer—0%RecydedflO%Post Consumer Paper

d YST�e
-
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Division of Public Health •Epidemiology Section
1912 Mail Service Center•Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1912
Tel [phone]•Fax [phone]
\lichael P.liasley,Governor Cnonen Ilooker Odom,Secretary
June 14, 2007
Mr- Cecil Gurganus, Manager D
Hydro Operations D
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Tillery Hydroelectric Plant JUN 2 2 2007
179 Tillery Dam Road
Mt. Gilead,NC 27306 BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
OHS DEPARTME14T
Dear Mr. Gurganus:
SUBJECT: Walters Hydroelectric Project No. 432—Walters Lake 2006 Annual Dioxin
Monitoring Report
The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS) has reviewed the
Walters Lake 2006 Annual Dioxin Monitoring Report and has no comments on the submitted
report. In January 2007, the NC DHHS totally rescinded the existing dioxin fish consumption
advisory for colunion carp at Walters Lake based on dioxin fish data submitted by Blue Ridge
Paper Products, Inc. and Progress Energy. This rescission is the last step in removal of the
dioxin fish consumption advisory that was enacted by the NC DHSS for the Pigeon River, North
Carolina, including Walters Lake, in 1988.
Based on discussions with Mr. John Crutchfield, Progress Energy, the following sampling
protocol will be needed following the rescission of the dioxin fish advisory. These
recommendations are based on the NCDHHS protocol for issuing dioxin fish consumption
advisories in North Carolina:
1. Conduct two additional years of monitoring (2007 and 2008) to determine if dioxin levels in
coimnon carp muscle tissue remain below the consumption advisory threshold of 4 parts per
trillion Toxic Equivalent Value (TEQ).
2. Continue to sample common carp at Transects D (Pigeon River Mile 39.0) and G (Pigeon
River Mile 41.5) in Walters Lake during November of each year(see Figure 1).
3. Collect 4 composites comprised of 5 fish per composite with preferably 2 composites from
Transect D and 2 composites from Transect G. However, if there is an insufficient number of
fish collected at either transect to complete a composite, a composite can be mixed with fish
from either transect to complete the 5 fish per composite.
'Protocol for Issuing Fish Consumption Advisories due to
.,Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDS) and Clilorinated
Dibenzo-p-furans (CDFs) Found in Fish. Prepared by Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D., Toxicologist
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services September 20,2006.
® Ltru 60W 5505 Six Pork's Road.2 t Moor,Ronm DI • Rnlcigh.N.C.217609 An liyual Opportunity Finploycr

..........-I........ . ........ ..........................
4. Perform laboratory analysis of all 17 congeners of dioxins and furans including the calculated
TEQ values. Use the revised World Health Organization(WHO)Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEF)
for determination of TEQ ValUeS.2
5. Arithmetic mean TEQ of less than 4 pg/g must be achieved in each year sampled with the
arithmetic mean TEQ calculated from the Progress Energy and Blue Ridge data sets.
6. If the arithmetic mean TEQ is equal to or exceeds 4 pg1g during each year, then further
monitoring may be required based on input and recommendations from NC DHHS and N.C.
Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ).
7. All other sampling procedures will follow that outlined in the revised dioxin sampling
protocol submitted by Progress Energy to NC DHHS and NC DWQ dining October 20013.
If the post advisory monitoring requirements are satisfied(i.e., two consecutive annual data sets
with arithmetic mean value of less than 4 ppt TEQ, then the NC DHHS will consider that no
additional monitoring of fish from Walters Lake will be necessary for the dioxin consumption
advisory requirement.
If you have any questions regarding this post advisory monitoring protocol, please call me at
[phone].
ShIperely,
Dr.Luanne K. Williams,Toxicologist
NC Department of Health and Human Sei vices
LICW/bc
cc: Mr. John Crutchfield-Progress Energy
Mr. Paul Dickens-Blue Ridge Paper Products,Inc.
Mr. Patricia MacPherson-NC DWQ
Mr. Jimmie Overton-NC DWQ
'-World Health Organization (WHO) 2005. The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human and
Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds. lkfl055Toxicological
Sciences,doi:10.1093/toxsci.
-'CP&L—A Progress Energy Company. 2001. Revised protocol for determining the concentration of dioxins and
furans in fish tissues from Walters Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 432, Article 409 of the Walters
Hydroelectric Project License.

Tunnel Pigeon River
Intake 4;; River Mile 38.0 a#,Matters Hydroeleclnc .,
-%, Plant, r }
Dam
_s
NORTH CAROLINA «'
Cataloochee Creek River Mile 39.0
D
Wilkins Creek
i
N River Mile 40.0
T� Fl.ow
River Mile 41.25
New Hepco
G Bridge
River Mile 41.5�
0 400 800
MI—ete�
0 1200 2400
Pigeon River
Feet
Figure 1. Location of Progress Energy dioxin monitoring stations on Walters Lake, North
Carolina.

Michael F. Easley Carmen Hooker Odom
way
Governor " ! Secretary
y"
North Carolina
Department of Health and
Human Services
For Release: IMMEDIATE Contact: Debbie Crane
Date: January 9, 2007
State Removes Last Fish Consumption
Advisory Below Canton Paper Mill
RALEIGH—State Health Director Leah Devlin today announced the removal of the last remaining
fish consumption advisory below the Blue Ridge paper mill in Haywood County. Today's
announcement is the final chapter in a situation that first came to light in the late 1980s, when
byproducts of the paper production process led to fish consumption advisories in the Pigeon River
and the Walters Lake Reservoir.
"This is both a public health and an environmental success story," said Devlin. "It is a good example
of an industry addressing a potential public health problem by changing its processes. I'm pleased
we can close the book on this one."
The original advisory was issued by the State Health director in 1988. It warned against
consumption of any fish from below the then Champion International paper mill. In 1994, that
advisory was reduced to cover only carp and catfish. hi 2001, it was reduced still further to just a
limited advisory on carp in Walters Lake, which is also known as the Waterville reservoir.
The advisory was originally issued because of high levels of dioxin found in fish taken below the
paper mill. Dioxin is a byproduct of chlorine bleaching. Studies have shown that exposure to dioxin
increases the risk of several types of cancer in animals and humans. The most common health effect
in people exposed to large amounts of dioxins is chloracne, which is a severe skin disease,
fr- characterized by large, deep acne-like lesions. Some other effects include liver damage and changes
l in hormonal levels.

Improved pollution controls at the Canton paper mill were enacted during the late 1980s. The
�_- Canton mill, formerly owned by Champion International, was purchased by mill employees and
renamed Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. in 1999.
More information on fish consumption advisories in North Carolina can be found at
http://www.epi.state.ne.us/et)i/fish/.
1f1�
Public Affairs Office Debbie Crane
101 Blair Drive, Raleigh, NC 27603 Director
[phone]
FAX[phone]
r

Walters Hydroelectric Plant
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 432
Dioxin and Furan Concentrations in the Axial Muscle Tissue of Fish
from Walters Lake,November 2007
i
Environmental,Health and Safety Services Section
Progress Energy Carolinas,Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
March 2008

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
r'
Preface
This copy of the report is not a controlled document as detailed in the Environmental,
Health and Safety Services Section Biology Program Procedures Manual and Quality Assurance
Manual. Any changes made to the original of this report subsequent to the date of issuance can
be obtained from:
Director
Environmental,Health and Safety Services Section(EH&SS)
P.O. Box 1551
Raleigh,North Carolina 27602-1551
r'
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 1 EHBSS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
2007 Walters Project Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue
Introduction
Progress Energy, previously known as Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L),
conducted the annual dioxin and furan monitoring program in 2007 for fish tissue at the Walters
Hydroelectric Project as required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC)
license for the Project (Article 409). The monitoring program was initiated in 1991 during
relicensing of the Project and was incorporated into the operating license issued by the FERC in
November 1994.
The monitoring program has been conducted to provide the environmental regulatory
agencies of the State of North Carolina with sufficient data on which to maintain, modify, or
rescind the fish consumption advisory, which became effective in June 1988. The North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) modified the original advisory
in September 1994 to allow consumption of all species of fish except common carp and catfish
species. In August 2001, the advisory was totally rescinded for common carp and catfish species
in the Pigeon River. In Walters Lake, the advisory was partially rescinded to include only
common carp. Catfish species were dropped from the monitoring program in 2004 based on
dioxin concentrations below the NCDHHS threshold for Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ) values of 4
picograms per gram (pg/g) for two consecutive monitoring years (Williams 2004). These
changes to the dioxin monitoring protocol were approved by the NCDHHS, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), and the FERC (CP&L 2001).
In January 2007, the NCDHHS removed the common carp consumption advisory from
Walters Lake (Appendix 12). The advisory was lifted based on an overall TEQ below 4.0 pg/g
calculated from a combined weighted arithmetic average TEQ using Progress Energy and Blue
Ridge Paper Products, Inc. (BRPP) from the 2005 and 2006 data sets. Progress Energy and
BRPP will continue their respective monitoring programs for two years after the removal of the
advisory per guidance from NCDHSS and NCDWQ. If the monitoring data meet the
consumption threshold criteria after the second year of post-advisory monitoring, the State of
North Carolina will no longer require tissue monitoring for dioxin and furans. The data
presented in this report represents the first year of the post-advisory monitoring.
l
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
Objectives
The objective of this report is to summarize dioxin and furan data from common carp
collected in November 2007, as required by Article 409 of the FERC operating license for the
Walters Hydroelectric Project. As also required by the license, results from Blue Ridge Paper
Products, Inc.'s (BRPP, formerly owned by Champion International Corporation) sampling
during August-September 2007 are included in this report (Henry and Wilson 2008). This
report also presents dioxin and furan data for common carp that have been previously collected
and . reported to date by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Champion
International Corporation/Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., and Progress Energy during the
period from July 1991 to November 2007.
Methods
Transects sampled by Progress Energy in 2007 were the same as those sampled since
monitoring began in 1991 (i.e., Transects D and G) (Appendix 1). Methods used during 2007
were also the same as those used in 2006 (TestAmerica Labs 2007; Progress Energy Carolinas,
Inc. 2007). In September 2006,NCDHHS requested that Progress Energy use the revised World
Health Organization (WHO) Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEF) for determination of TEQ values
(personal communication, Dr. Luanne Williams NCDHHS; WHO 2005). These revised TEF
were used in the determination of the TEQ values in this report. The laboratory analyses were
conducted using standardized EPA 8290 dioxin and furan methodologies by TestAmerica
Laboratories, formerly Severn Trent Laboratories, West Sacramento California. (880 Riverside
Parkway,West Sacramento, California 95605).
Results and Discussion
On November 5-7, 2007, Progress Energy collected 18 common carp from Walters Lake
during its annual dioxin and furan monitoring sampling. These fish were combined into four
composites. Two of the composites consisted of five fish each and the other two consisted of
four fish each (Appendix 2). The desired length range goal for fish in a composite sample (i.e.,
the smallest fish should not be less than 75% of the total length of the largest fish in a composite
sample) was achieved for all four composites (Appendix 3). The mean length for common carp
collected in 2007 was the greatest since collection began in 1991 (Appendix 4). Mean weight
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 3 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
was not as high as in 2006, but was the second greatest ever collected. The common carp mean
lengths and weights collected by Progress Energy were lower than the mean values for common
carp collected by BRPP during this same period (Appendices 4 and 5). The mean estimated age
of all fish combined (17 years) collected by Progress Energy in 2007 was three years lower than
the mean in 2006 but was similar to mean ages reported in previous years (Appendix 4). The
mean length, mean weight and mean age of common carp collected by Progress Energy have
increased since monitoring began in 1991. Larger, older common fish would be expected to
have the greatest dioxin and furan concentrations, and this segment of the common carp
population has been analyzed for dioxin and furan in recent years.
External deformities and anomalies were noted in 12 of the 18 (67%) common carp
retained for dioxin and furan analyses (Appendix 2). The overall prevalence of deformities and
anomalies considering all fish species collected during sampling was 11.3% (n= 12), based on a
total sample size of 106 fish. Deformities were only noted in common carp and consisted mostly
of deformed opercular flaps.
Composite samples of common carp collected in 2007 had dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
i
concentrations ranging from 0.83 to 3.4 pg/g with an overall mean concentration of 1.7 pg/g
(Appendices 6-8). The mean dioxin concentration in common carp in 2007 continued the
general downward trend in dioxin levels and represents the lowest mean concentration observed
since Progress Energy began sampling in 1991 (Appendix 8). Furan (2,3,7,8-TCDF)
concentrations in the common carp composites ranged from 2.0 to 3.4 pg/g with an overall mean
concentration of 2.5 pg/g (Appendices 6-8). The mean furan concentration in 2007 was lower
than the mean concentration observed in 2006 (3.7 pg/g) and was similar to mean concentrations
seen within the last few years.
Dioxin and furan data (2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF) were also normalized on a per
gram lipid basis because of the affinity of these contaminants for lipids (Appendix 9).
Normalizing these data served to: (1) account for differences in lipid content of the fillets among
composites and (2) adjust for seasonal changes in the contaminant concentrations (Stober 1991).
The mean lipid normalized dioxin concentration of 12.5 pg/g was slightly higher than in 2006,
but again demonstrated the general downward trend of the dioxin concentrations observed since
sampling began in 1991.
L .
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 4 EHBSS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
The TEQ values calculated for common carp composites collected by Progress Energy in
2007 ranged from 1.86 to 5.42 pg/g with a mean of 2.7 pg/g (Appendices 6 and 11). The mean
TEQ value of 2.7 pg/g reported by Progress Energy in 2007 was lower than the mean TEQ
values from 2006 (4.1 pg/g) and 2005 (6.7 pg/g) and the lowest TEQ value reported by Progress
Energy since 2001. Generally, mean TEQ values have decreased since 2001 (Appendix 11).
The TEQ value for the common carp composite collected by BRPP in August 2007 at
River Mile 41.5 was 13.4 pg/gt. This TEQ value was the greatest value observed in 13 years of
monitoring by BRPP and was attributed to very large carp with high lipid content in the
composite (26% lipid). Blue Ridge intends to target fish during the 2008 sampling collection
that will be comparable in size distribution to those collected from 2004 to 2006. This
information will determine if there has been any significant change or trend in dioxin
concentrations. It should be noted that the BRPP common carp whole body composite sample
had a nondetectable level of dioxin(2,3,7,8 TCDD, estimated result of 0.75 pg/g).
Summary
The mean TEQ value for common carp of 2.7 pg/g collected in November 2007 was the
lowest reported since TEQ values were initially reported in 2001. The mean TEQ value in 2007
was below the 4.0 pg/g TEQ value used by the NCDHHS to enact fish consumption advisories
for dioxin. All dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD) and furan (2,3,7,8-TCDF) concentrations in common carp
have decreased substantially in Walters Lake since monitoring began in 1991. The entire Pigeon
River, including Walters Lake in North Carolina and Tennessee is no longer posted for any
dioxin fish consumption advisories (Appendix 12). The data collected by Progress Energy in
2007 supports the rescission of the advisory and further demonstrates the favorable
environmental improvements observed in the Pigeon River and Walters Lake since the early
1990s.
'Please note that the Blue Ridge laboratory results indicated the dioxin analysis for one composite sample for
common carp(Station,4B,River Mile 39.0)was misleading due to a 10 fold dilution of the sample to overcome
sample matrix interference effects(high lipid concentration) . The common carp composite sample results from
River Mile 41.5 (Station 4A) were within acceptable laboratory reporting parameters. Therefore, only this
composite sample data are presented in this report data.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 5 EHBSS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
J References
CP&L. 1997. Dioxin and furan concentrations in the axial muscle tissue of fish from Walters
Lake,November 1996. April 1997. Carolina Power&Light Company,New Hill,NC.
2001. Revised protocol for determining the concentrations of dioxins and furans in fish
tissues from the Walters Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 432, Article 409 of the
Walters Hydroelectric Project. CP&L—A Progress Energy Company, New Hill,NC.
TestAmerica Laboratories West Sacramento. 2007. Case narrative. TestAmerica West
Sacramento Project Number G6K28028. BIOLOGIC, 8290, Dioxin Furans. TestAmerica
Laboratories West Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Henry, T. B., and J. L. Wilson. 2008. Results of 2007 dioxin monitoring in fish tissue. January
2007. Center for Environmental Biotechnology, Departments of Forestry, Wildlife and
Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Prepared for Blue Ridge
Paper Products, Canton Mill, Canton,NC. April 2008.
Progress Energy Service Company. 2006. Walters Hydroelectric Plant. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Project No. 432. Dioxin and furan concentrations in the axial
muscle tissue of fish from Walters Lake, November 2005. Progress Energy Service
Company, Raleigh,NC.
Stober, Q. J. 1991. Guidelines for fish sampling and tissue preparation for bioaccumulative
contaminants. Draft document. Region IV, Toxics Evaluation Section, Ecological
Support Branch,Environmental Services Division,U.S. EPA,Athens, GA.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories.
Volume 1. Fish sampling and analysis. Second edition. EPA 823-R-95-007. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Williams, L. K. 2004. Protocol for issuing fish consumption advisories due to chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDS) and chlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (CDFs) found in fish.North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Human Services, Occupational and
Environmental Epidemiology Branch,Raleigh,NC.
World Health Organization (WHO) 2005. The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation
of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like
Compounds./kfl055Toxicological Sciences, doi:10.1093/toxsci.
r
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 6 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
Tunnel,, Pigeon River
Intake ;; River Mile 38.0 Walters Hydroelectric
Plant
Dam
NORTH CAROLINA
Catalooclee Creek ,River Mile 39.0
D
Wilkins Creek
N River Mile 40.0
Flow
New Hepco
G Bridge
River Mile 41.5
0 400 800
MF��
0 1200 2400
Pigeon River
FIB-I
Appendix 1. Sampling locations for common carp analyzed for dioxin and furan from
Walters Lake,November 5-7,2007.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-1 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
j Appendix 2. Location and measurement data for common carp collected for dioxin and
furan analyses from Walters Lake,November 5-7,2007.
Location Composite Fish ID Collection Length Weight
(river mile) number number date mm ( ) Deformity e
Caudal,Left Pectoral Wavy&Fleshy
41.5 1 1921 11/5/07 608 3250 Growth on Lower Li
41.5 1 1922 11/5/07 641 3600
Wavy pectoral and pelvic fins
41.5 1 1923 11/5/07 704 5050
Cranial anomaly and opercular
41.5 1 1924 11/5/07 745 6600 depression
Cranial anomaly and opercular
41.5 1 1925 11/5/07 570 2250 de ression
Left Opercular Depression
41.5 2 1926 11/5/07 716 5450
41.5 2 1927 11/5/07 780 7400
Depressed Right Operculum
41.5 2 1928 11/6/07 642 3650
Depressed Right and Left Operculum
41.5 2 1929 11/6/07 588 2700
Depressed Left&Right Operculum
39.0 3 1931 11/5/07 670 4800
Asymmetrical Cranium
39.0 3 1932 11/5/07 780 8300
39.0 3 1933 11/5/07 666 4150
Depressed Right Operculum,Wavy
39.0 3 1934 11/6/07 725 6350 Left Pectoral
39.0 3 1935 11/7/07 710 5700
39.0 4 1930 11/7/07 695 4600
Wavy Left&Right Pectoral,Wavy
39.0 4 1936 10107 670 4500 Left&Right Pelvic Fins
41.5 4 1937 11/7/07 680 4700
Depressed Cranium
39.0 1 4 1938 11/7/07 705 5050
Appendix 3. Composite means and ranges (in parentheses) of the total length, weight, and
estimated age of common carp collected for dioxin and furan analyses from
Walters Lake,November 5-7, 2007.
Composite Sample Length Desired Weight Age
number size (mm) length(%)+ (9) (years)
1 5 654(570-745) 76.5 4150(2250-6600) 20(14-24)
2 4 682(588-780) 75.4 4800(2700-7400) 20(20-21)
3 5 710(666-790) 85.4 5860(4150-8300) 19(17-21)
4 4 688(670-705) 95.0 4712(4500-5050) 21 (19-23)
Desired length=the minimum fish length divided by the maximum fish length x 100.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-2 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
Appendix 4. Mean total length (mm), mean weight (g), and mean estimated age (years) of
common carp collected for dioxin and furans analyses from Walters Lake by
CP&L/Progress Energy, 1991-2007.
Year Mean length (mm) Mean weight(g) Mean age,(years)
Jul 1991 511 1782 9
Dec 1991 554 2368 10
Dec 1992 545 2473 9
Nov 1993 592 2747 10
Nov 1994 557 2542 10
Nov 1995 593 3175 12
Nov 1996" 621 3633 11
Nov 1997' 618 3581 11
Nov 1998 630 3794 13
Nov 1999 599 3141 11
Nov 2000 638 3947 15
Nov 2001 634 3775 15
Nov 2002 616 3458 14
( Nov 2003 642 3762 12
Nov 2004 626 3539 16
Nov 2005 651 4204 16
Nov 2006 665 4994 20
Nov 2007 683 4881 17
+Composite number 12 (one fish composite) from November 1996 was not included in
calculations of mean values due to the stressed condition of the fish when collected.
'The mean length and weight values reported in CP&L (1997) for common carp collected in
1996-1997 were calculated from all individual lengths and weights. Mean length and
weight values for all other years reported are mean values for composite mean values.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-3 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
Appendix 5. Mean total length (mm) and mean weight (g) of common carp collected for
dioxin and furan analyses from Walters Lake by Champion International
Corporation and Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. during August-September,
1991-2007.+
Year Mean length (mm) Mean weight (g)
1991 579 2808
1992 572 2725
1993 574 2759
1994 548 2593
1995 573 2487
1996 574 2554
1997 636 3711
1998 618 3781
1999 626 3403
2000 632 3796
2001 644 4246
2002 622 3882
2003 626 3414
2004 631 3825
2005 655 4276
2006 684 5071
2007 730 6521
+These data include only fish used for composite fillet analyses.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-4 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
Appendix 6. Summary of dioxin and furan isomer analyses, Toxic Equivalent Factors
(TEF), and Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ) values for common carp collected
from Walters Lake,November 5-7,2007.
Common carp
Composite 1 Composite 2 Composite 3 Composite 4
CCD/CDF Isomers TEF pg/g TEQ pg/g TEQ pg/g TEQ pg/g TEQ
Dibenzodioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 3.4 3.4 0.83§ 0.83§
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 3.3§ 0.33§ 3.3§ 0.33§ 6.4 0.64 3.7§ 0.37§
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 11.0 0.11 13.0 0.13 21.0 0.21 14.0 0.14
OCDD 0.0003 54.0 0.0162 46.0 0.0138 56.0 0.0168 21.0 0.0063
Dibenzofurans
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 2.0 0.2 2.1 0.21 3.4 0.34 2.5 0.25
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7§ 0.81§ 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
OCDF 0.0003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total TEQ" 1.86 1.98 5.42 1.60
§Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC). The analytes abundance was lower than
the reporting limit. The analytes have been reported as an "estimated maximum possible
concentration"because the quantitation is based on theoretical ion abundance ratios.
¥Calculation of toxic equivalent values follows methodology from U.S. EPA(1995) and the
World Health Organization(2005).
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-5 EHBSS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
j Appendix 7. Concentrations of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD pg/g wet weight) and furan (2,3,7,8-
TCDF pg/g wet weight), percent recovery of internal standards, and percent
lipids in muscle fillets of common carp collected from Walters Lake,
November 5-7,2007.
Composite Dioxin TCDD Furan TCDF% Lipids
Species No. (pg/g) %Recovery (pg/g) Recovery (%)
Common carp 1 1.2 91 2.0 87 9.2
2 1.3 93 2.1 89 11.0
3 3.4 90 3.4 85 20.0
4 0.83§ 90 2.5 86 10.0
Laboratory standards Blank 0.12+ 81 0.30+ 79 N/Al
Control spike 20.0 87 20.0 83 N/A
§Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC). The analytes abundance was lower than
the reporting limit. The analytes have been reported as an "estimated maximum possible
concentration"because the quantitation is based on theoretical ion abundance ratios.
+Not Detected.
9N/A=Not Applicable.
1
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-6 EHBSS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
`t
Appendix 8. Mean concentrations of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD pg/g wet weight) and furan
(2,3,7,8-TCDF pg/g wet weight), in muscle fillets of common carp collected on
various sampling dates from Walters Lake, 1991-2007.+ Composite sample size is
given in parentheses.
Collection date` Dioxin Fortin
Jul 1991 9.0 (1) 1.1 (1)
Aug 1991 31.5 (2) 2.4(2)
Dec 1991 14.4(2) 1.5 (2)
Aug 1992 40 (2) 3.1 (2)
Dec 1992 12.8 (4) 1.1 (4)
Aug 1993 23.5 (2) 1.9(2)-
Nov 1993 11.8 (3) 2.0(3)
Aug 1994 5.0 (2) 0.9(2)
Nov 1994 12.2(4) 1.8 (4)
Aug 1995 8.4(2) 2.0(2)
Nov 1995 9.2(1) 1.7(1)
Aug 1996 4.1 (2) 1.8 (2)
Nov 1996 12.0(3)' 1.9 (3)'
Aug 1997 6.7 (2) 2.1 (2)
Nov 1997 2.7 (5) 2.0(5)
Aug 1998 5.4 (2) 2.6(2)
Nov 1998 5.2 (5) 2.3 (5)
Aug 1999 2.6 (2) 2.2(2)
Nov 1999 2.3 (3) 1.3 (3)
Aug 2000 2.8 (2) 2.8 (2)
Nov 2000 3.5 (5) 2.2(5)
Sep 2001 3.4 (2) 2.6(2)
Nov 2001 4.4(4) 3.3 (4)
Sep 2002 4.4(2) 2.6(2)
Nov 2002 2.5 (4) 1.4(4)
Aug 2003 7.7 (2) 3.4(2)
Nov 2003 2.5 (4) 2.0(4)
Aug 2004 1.6 (2) 2.0(2)
Nov 2004 1.9 (4) 1.2(4)
Aug 2005 2.0 (2) 1.4(2)
Nov 2005 2.4(4) 2.2(4)
Aug 2006 0.7(2) 2.4(2)
Nov 2006 2.0(4) 3.7(4)
Aug 2007 0.0(1) 0.5 (1)
Nov 2007 1.7(4) 2.5(4)
*The arithmetic mean for each species was calculated from all data available disregarding the collection location within Walters Lake.
Concentrations less than the detection limit were assumed to be at the detection limit for the calculation of the mean.
`The U.S. EPA collected samples during April 1988. CP&L/Progress Energy collected samples during July 1991,December of 1991
and 1992,April 1993,and November of 1993-2007. Champion International Corporation collected samples during August of
1991-1998. Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. collected samples in August of 1999,2000,2003,2004, September of 2001,
2002,and August-September of 2007.
'Composite number 12 (one fish composite) in November 1996 (CP&L 1997) was not included in this mean value because of the
stressed condition of the fish when collected.
'Only one composite was reported by Blue Ridge Paper Products,Inc.at the time of this report.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-7 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
Appendix 9. Lipid-normalized concentrations of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD reported in pg/g
lipid) and furan (2,3,7,8-TCDF reported in pg/g lipid) in muscle fillets of
common carp collected from Walters Lake,November 5-7,2007.+
Composite Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) Furan (2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Number (lipid-normalized) (lipid-normalized)
1 13.0 21.7
2 11.8 19.1
3 17.0 13.5
4 8.3+ 25.0
Mean of.composites 12.5 19.8
+Estimated maximum possible concentration values were used in calculation of the normalized
values in those cases where only estimated values or estimated maximum possible values
were given.
r'
r
L
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-8 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report-' Appendix 10. Mean lipid-normalized concentrations of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD reported in
pg/g lipid) and furan (2,3,7,8-TCDF reported in pg/g lipid) in muscle fillets
of common carp collected on various sampling dates from Walters Lake,
1991-2007.+
Collection date` Dioxin Furan
Jul 1991 204.5 25.0
Aug 1991 387.0 28.5
Dec 1991 190.6 20.3
Aug 1992 292.3 19.7
Dec 1992 336.2 23.4
Aug 1993 203.4 15.4
Nov 1993 223.7 44.9
Aug 1994 40.6 7.0
Nov 1994 143.4 23.5
Aug 1995 52.8 12.3
Nov 1995 117.9 21.8
Aug 1996 23.6 10.0
Nov 1996 109.7° 17.9*
Aug 1997 41.2 14.0
Nov 1997 29.0 23.9
Aug 1998 28.5 14.7
Nov 1998 38.1 16.7
Aug 1999 17.7 17.3
Nov 1999 26.8 18.6
Aug 2000 13.7 14.2
Nov 2000 40.7 26.9
Sep 2001 21.9 17.7
Nov 2001 36.0 29.2
Sep 2002 30.4 19.3
Nov 2002 27.1 20.1
Aug 2003 37.8 19.6
Nov 2003 25.8 21.4
Aug 2004 13.7 17.0
Nov 2004 22.4 19.4
Aug 2005 21.2 14.6
Nov 2005 23.3 21.8
Aug 2006 9.8 30.3
Nov 2006 10.3 19.9
Aug 2007 e f
Nov 2007 12.5 19.8
'The arithmetic mean for each species was calculated from all data available disregarding the collection location within
Walters Lake. Concentrations less than the detection limit were assumed to be at the detection limit for the
calculation of the mean. The number of composite samples for each species can be found listed in parentheses in
Appendix 8.
`The U.S. EPA collected samples during April 1988. CP&UProgress Energy collected samples during July 1991,
December of 1991 and 1992, April 1993, and November of 1993-2007. Champion International Corporation
collected samples during August of 1991-1998.Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc,collected samples in August of
1999,2000,2003,2004,September of 2001,2002,and August-September of 2007.
'Composite number 12(one fish composite)in November 1996(CP&L 1997)was not included in this mean value because
of the stressed condition of the fish when collected.
'These data were not available from Blue ridge Paper Products,Inc.at the time of this report.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-9 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
f
,= Appendix 11. Composite means and ranges (in parentheses) of the Toxicity Equivalent
Values (TEQ) of common carp collected by Progress Energy and Blue Ridge
Paper Products,Inc, for dioxin and furan analyses from Walters Lake, 2001-
2007.
Number of
Collection date composites TEQ (pg/g)
Sep 2001 2 5.4 (2.1-8.7)
Nov 2001 4 9.3 (6.1-15.4)
Sept 2002 2 6.1 (2.9-9.3)
Nov 2002 4 5.2 (0.7-10.0)
Aug 2003 2 14.3 (8.6-20.0)
Nov 2003 4 5.4(3.4-7.2)
Aug 2004 2 2.4 (2.2-2.5)
Nov 2004 4 4.0 (0.7-8.0)
Aug 2005 2 2.8 (2.1-3.6)
Nov 2005 4 6.7 (3.6-9.5)
Aug 2006 2 1.2 (0.9-1.6)
Nov 2006 4 4.1 (1.5-8.2)
Aug 2007£ 1 13.4
Nov 2007 4 2.7 (1.6-5.4)
£Only one composite was reported by Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-10 EH&SS

Walters Hydroelectric Project No.432 2007 Dioxin Monitoring Report
Appendix 12. NCDHSS press release,January 9, 2007.
NC DHHS'release:State Removes Last Fish Consumption Advisory Below Canton Paper... Page 1 of 2
Michael F:Easley 'Carmen Hooker Odom
Governor a� Secretary
North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services
For Release:IMMEDIATE Contact:Debbie Crane
Date:January 9,2007
State Removes; Last Fish Consumption
Advisory Below Canton Paper Mill
RALEIGH—State Health Director Leah•.Devlin today'am dmced'the remogal'of the last remaining
fish,consumption advisory below the Blue Ridge paper mill;in Haywood County.Today's
announcement is the-final'chapter in a'situation-that first came to light in the late 1980s,when
tiyproducisofthe paper production process led to fish consumption.advisoriesin the Pigeon,River
and the Walters Lake Reservoir.
"This is both a.public health and-.an environmental success story, said Devlin."It is a good example
i of an industry addressing apotential public health problem by changing its:processes.I'm pleased
we can close the book on this one."
The original advisory was issued by the State Health director in 1988.It warned against
consumption of any fish from below the then Champion International paper mill.In 1994,that
advisory was reduced to cover only carp and catfish.In 2001,it was reduced still further to just a
limited advisory on carp.in Walters Lake,which is also,known as the Waterville reservoir.
The advisory was originally issucd.because of high levels of dioxin found in fish taken below the
paper mill.Dioxin is a byproduct of chlorine bleaching.Studics:have shown that exposure'to dioxin
increases the risk.of several types of cancer in animals and humans.The most co min onhealth effect
in people exposed to.large amounts of dioxins is chlorame,which is a severe skin disease,
characterized by large,deep acne-like lesions.Some other effects include liver damage and changes
in hormonal levels.
Improved pollution controls at the Canton paper mill were enacted during the late 1980s.The
Canton mill,formerly owned by Champion International,was purchased by mill employees and
renamed Blue-Ridge Paper Pmducts:Ine.:in 1999.
More'information on fishconsumption advisories in North Carolina can be found at
http;/hv_tyay.ePisutte nc ps/epi/f sW
HN#
http://w%vw.nedhbs.gov/presstclVI-9-07a:htm 3/22/2007
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-11 EH&SS