NC0000272_2011 Dioxin Fish Tissue Report_20120208

n.M�I Canton Office
evergree
175 Main Streer• Canton, NC 28716
packaging
PSD-12-12
February 8, 2012 CERTIFIED MAU,
RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTIED
02061
Chuck Cranford 7007 3
Regional Supervisor
Division of Water Quality hh D D
Asheville Regional Office !
North Carolina Department of Environment 3
and Natural Resources FEB 1 On
2090 US Highway 70 T
Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778 WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Subject: 2011 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report
NPDES NC 0000272 .: . . :;,...:.>.:.::.....ti: .,.,...
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton Mill
Dear Mr. Cranford—
Enclosed is the subject report with results of August 2011 dioxin in fish tissue for Waterville Lake as
required by special condition I.A.(9.)of the May 2010 NPDES permit. Preparation of the report was
delayed by time taken to obtain a second independent laboratory analysis of fish tissue fillet samples as a
quality assurance check on the primary laboratory results. The second laboratory results are consistent
with the primary laboratory and are included in the report appendix.
In January 2007,the NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) lifted the fish advisory
for common carp in Waterville Lake and requested two additional years of fish tissue sampling and
surveillance,which were completed in 2009. The May 2010 NPDES Permit for the Blue Ridge
Canton Mill requires three (3) additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance in the
summer of 2011,2013 and 2014. This report completes the 2011 surveillance. The concentrations
of dioxin and furan congeners in channel catfish and common carp fillet samples collected from
Waterville Lake in August 2011 remain below the 4 pin TEQ fish advisory level established by the NC
DHHS.
Very truly yours,
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
DOING BUSINESS AS EVERGREEN PACKAGING
Paul Dickens Nick McCracken
Manager,Environmental Affairs Water Compliance Coordinator
828-646-6141 828-646-2874
paul.dickens@eve[pack.com nick.mccracken@eve!pack.com
Enclosure—2011 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report fresh by design. —
,.,: t 4 _. fverg,aan Ik.vemEye Pocko9v:y

2)OJI
-a � !"m
D�ioxJnMdon110-r _
J
I no F!s,h T !sS,mem
y.3P4 I
Now-
1
i
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton, NC

:.......1 _,,.
: .�:.,
_ .. .

Can
on
evergreen,./ 175 N"^ °S`C8
packaging I " °;° Sheet- Canton, NC 28716
PSD-12-12
February 8,2012 CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RE 1RFSTED 3
Chuck Cranford 7007 3020 611 T7691
Regional Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office U 5
North Carolina Department of Environment DD
el
and Natural Resources FEB 1 0 2012
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778 ➢'
WATER QUALITY SECTION :I-
ASHEVIlLE REGIONAL OFFICE '
1
Subject: 2011 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report "" t°�*" �+- 4 a:•.> .
NPDES NC 0000272
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton Mill
Dear Mr. Cranford—
Enclosed is the subject report with results of August 2011 dioxin in fish tissue for Waterville Lake as
required by special condition I.A.(9.)of the May 2010 NPDES permit. Preparation of the report was
delayed by time taken to obtain a second independent laboratory analysis of fish tissue fillet samples as a
quality assurance check on the primary laboratory results. The second laboratory results are consistent
with the primary laboratory and are included in the report appendix.
In January 2007,the NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) lifted the fish advisory
for common carp in Waterville Lake and requested two additional years of fish tissue sampling and
surveillance,which were completed in 2009. The May 2010 NPDES Permit for the Blue Ridge
Canton Mill requires three (3) additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance in the
summer of 2011,2013 and 2014. This report completes the 2011 surveillance. The concentrations
of dioxin and furan congeners in channel catfish and common carp fillet samples collected from
Waterville Lake in August 2011 remain below the 4 ppt TEQ fish advisory level established by the NC
DHHS.
Very truly yours,
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
DOING BUSINESS AS EVERGREEN PACKAGING
r
Paul Dickens Nick McCracken
Manager, Environmental Affairs Water Compliance Coordinator
828-646-6141 828-646-2874
paul dickens(Weverpack.com nick mccracken(d)eveipack.com
Enclosure—2011 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report fresh by desV.
Doing B :ofl . .,os Everaree,Be.emae Pockoaing

2011 Dioxin in Fish Tissue Report
8 Feb 2012, Page 2
cc w/enclosure:
NC'DENR (2 copies)
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
ATTENTION—CENTRAL FILES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
Sergei Chemikov, NC DWQ—Complex Permits Section(electronic)
Rick Smith,Progress Energy(electronic)
Larry Wilson, UTK(electronic)
C-File(cover letter only)
s

RESULTS OF 2011
DIOXIN MONITORING IN FISH TISSUE
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
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
January 2012
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT . . . 7
5. SAMPLE PREPARATION . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 13
6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
APPENDIX A: CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
APPENDIX B: ' COMPARISON OF TESTAMERCIA AND VISTA
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TISSUE FILLETS
TESTAMERICA WEST SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORT
VISTA ANALYTICAL EL DORADO HILLS
ANALYTICAL REPORT
APPENDIX C: BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET
TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS 1990-2004
APPENDIX D: 2006 REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
i

LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
2-1, Pigeon River Sampling Station Information . . . . . . . . . 3.
4-1 Fish Collection Techniques and Level of Effort . . . . . . . 8
4-2 Summary of Fish Composites Collected at Two Stations in Waterville Lake,
August 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6-1 Summary of Pigeon River Fish Tissue Analysis Results—2011 . . . 17
6-2 Toxicity Equivalence Factors for CDD/F Isomers . . . . . . . 18
6-3 Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses, Toxicity Equivalent.
Factors, and Toxicity Equivalent Values for the 2011 Waterville Lake Fish
Tissue Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6-4 Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results
2005 —2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
�J
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
ES-1 TCDD Concentrations in Common Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon
River, 1990-2011(Stations 4A and 413) . . . . . . . . . . vi
ES-2 TCDD Concentrations in Channel Catfish Fillets Collected from the Pigeon
River, 1997-2011 (Stations 4A and 413) . . . . . . . . . .. vii
2-1 Historical Sampling Station Locations on the Pigeon River . . 4
2-2 Sampling Stations 4A and 4B on the Pigeon River . . . . . . . 5
4-la Lengths of Fish Collected from Waterville Lake for Tissue
Analysis, 2004-2011 . . . . . . . . . . 11
4-lb Weights of Fish Collected from.Waterville Lake for Tissue
Analysis, 2004-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6-1 TCDD Concentrations in Common Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon
River, 1990-2011 (Stations 4A and 413) . . . . . . . . . 25
1 6-2 TCDD Concentrations in Channel Catfish Fillets Collected from the Pigeon
River, 1997-2011 (Stations 4A and 413) . . . . . . . . . 26
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging, Canton Mill contracted the
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK)
to collect fish tissue samples for dioxin analysis from the Pigeon River during the summer of
2011 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 2011 fish tissue sampling report using the revised protocol of 2006.
Bottom feeding species (channel catfish and common carp) were collected in August 2011 from
two locations (Stations 4A and 413) in the Pigeon River (Waterville Lake) and analyzed for
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD),.2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), and other
CDD and CDF isomers.
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in channel catfish fillets (right-side) were
below detection in Station 4A (DL = 0.24 ppt and 0.046 ppt respectively),and, for Station 4B;
2,3,7,8-TCDD was 1.7 ppt and 1.8 ppt for 2,3,7,8-TCDF. In common carp, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
0.83 ppt (estimated) in fillet composites (right-side)collected at Station 4A and was 1.1 ppt at
Station 4B. For 2,3,7,8-TCDF the concentrations in common carp fillets were 2.5 ppt at Station
4A and 2.6 ppt at Station 4B. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in the common carp whole
body sample collected at Station 4B was 2.3 ppt and 6.0 ppt for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-
TCDF respectively(Table 6-1).
Composite samples of fish fillets (left-side) from each site were sent to a second laboratory for
internal quality assurance of TCDD and -TCDF tissue concentrations. Results of these
independent analyses were consistent with those reported above [for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8
TCDF respectively: Station A, channel catfish 0.300 ppt (estimated) and below detection (DL =
0.043), common carp 1.24 ppt and 2.21 ppt; and Station B, channel catfish 0.273 ppt (estimated)
and below detection (DL = 0.049), common carp 2.63 ppt and 3.2 ppt]. The whole body carp
sample was destroyed during the Test America analysis so an independent laboratory
confirmation analysis could not be performed.
The mean weights of common carp collected from Stations 4A and 4B (4.144 kg, Station 4A;
5.542 kg, Station B) were lower than those collected in 2007 (6.490 kg - Station 4A; 6.552 kg -
Station 413), but consistent with weights of common carp collected in other previous years (2009,
4.303 kg - Station 4A; 4.848 kg - Station B; 2008, 4.727 kg - Station 4A, 4.067 kg - Station 413;
2006, 4.505 kg - Station 4A, 5.637 kg - Station 413; 2005, 3.857 kg - Station 4A, 4.695 kg -
Station 413; 2004, 3.750 kg - Station 4A, 3.900 kg - Station 413; 1999-2003, 3.193 kg - Station
4A, 5.042 kg - Station 413). Lipid concentrations in common carp fillets in 2011 were 8.6 to
15%, within the range of past fish tissue collections. The lipid concentration for catfish fillets
collected from Station 4B and for the whole body carp collected at station 4B both were higher
than during the past 6 fish tissue collections (2004 thru 2009) at 12 and 27 percent, respectively.
The 2011 dioxin in tissue analytical results for those samples are consistent with higher lipid
concentration.
IV

In January 2007, the NC DHHS lifted the fish advisory for common carp in Waterville Lake and
requested two additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance, which was completed in
2009. The May 2010 NPDES Permit for the Blue Ridge Canton Mill requires three (3)
additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance.in the summer of 2011, 2013 and 2014.
This report completes the 2011 surveillance. All concentrations in fish tissue fillets remain
below the NC DHHS 4 ppt TEQ action level for fish consumption advisory.
v

Figure ES-1. TCDD Concentrations in Common Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2011
(Stations 4A and 4B)
70
60
t
i —+—Station4A
50 �
--A--Station4B
0 40
O `
v
v '
d 30
"t3 `
m `
20 ,
3 10 ' - ��
D
1S90 1991 199Z 1993 1994 1.995 199E 1997 1998 1999 2000 Z001 200Z 2003 Z004 2005 Z006 2007 2008 2009 ZO10 Z011
TIME
b) TCDD concentrations at Station 4B were not detected, therefore, the values plotted represent the detection limit for those samples.
The detection limit for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was elevated in the 2007 carp fillet for Station 4B because of a 10-fold dilution of the sample
which 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 that year.
vi

Figure ES-2. TCDD Concentrations in Channel Catfish Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River,
1997-2011
(Stations 4A and 46)
2.50
0 Station4A
-4 .00 --•--Station 4B
v
o
m 1.50
N �
L
M r
1 rt
o a b b b `
--A, a
0.50
`'�►--- �____ a a b
It' a
0.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20OZ 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
TIME
a) TCDD concentrations were not detected at Station 4A, therefore the values plotted represent the detection limit for the sample.
b) TCDD concentrations were not detected at Station 413, therefore the values plotted represent the detection limit for the sample.
c) The 2011 TCDD result for catfish fillets in 2011 at Station 4B was above detection limit at 1.7 ppt . The TEQ for the 2011 Station
4B catfish fillets remained below the 4 ppt action level of the NC DHHS
vii

1. INTRODUCTION
The Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., dba Evergreen Packaging, Canton Mill contracted the
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK)
to collect fish tissue samples for dioxin analysis from the Pigeon River during the summer of
2011 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 a study conducted during August 2011 to determine the
concentrations of 2;3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) in bottom-feeding fish
collected from the Pigeon River near Canton, North Carolina. -The report follows the template
developed by EA Engineering for prior reporting years. The 2011 fish tissue study is number 21
in a series of fish tissue surveys designed and conducted to be responsive to the requirements of
A.(9.) Dioxin Monitoring Special Condition in Blue Ridge Paper's current NPDES permit for the
Canton Mill (Permit No. NC0000272). Sampling locations, selection of target species, sampling
methods, and sample preparation/preservation techniques are in accordance with the study plan.
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, Henry and Wilson 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011)). However, selected project
details were modified to be responsive to the suggestions/recommendations of the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), U.S. EPA Region IV, and the North Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS). The principal change in the program was that the
collection and analysis of sportfrsh 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., 2011).
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 413). These changes are included in more
detail in Appendix D.
The 2011 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 4B) on the Pigeon River. Details relevant to the location of Pigeon River sampling stations
and fish tissue sampling objectives follow in Sections 2 and 3, respectively. Fish collection
techniques and level of effort are detailed in Section 4; methods of sample preparation and
shipment are presented in Section 5. Analytical results are summarized in Section 6 and
references are provided in Section 7.
1

t_. 2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
In accordance with the study plan (Wilson 2006) that was implemented in 2006, 2007, and 2008
(Henry and Wilson 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011), fish were collected from two sampling locations on
the Pigeon River. For this sampling period two sites (Stations 4A and 4B) were sampled.
Detailed sampling station information for both sites is provided in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2.
Monitoring Stations 4A and 4B are located in Waterville Lake at RM 41.5 and 39.0, respectively
(Figure 2-1). Station 4A is located approximately 21.8 RM downstream from the Mill outfall,
near the Messer Branch-Pigeon River confluence (Figure 2-2). Monitoring Station 4B is in the
vicinity of the Wilkins Creek-Pigeon River confluence, approximately 24.3 RM downstream
from the Canton Mill outfall (Figure 2-2). Appropriate habitats were sampled within each study
reach-in an effort to collect the desired complement of fishes.
Fish sampling was conducted in the vicinity of each location described above; however, the
distance or effort at each station depended on how difficult it was to collect fish at that station.
The Station 4B study area consisted of an approximate 1.0 RM reach of Waterville Lake located
from the dam to the confluence of Wilkins Creek. Sampling at Stations 4A and 4B included
electrofishing and gillnetting near the shore along both the left and right banks of Waterville
Lake.
Reservoir water level in 2011 was approximately at full pool and was similar to water levels in
2006. Stations 4A and 4B sample areas covered approximately the same surface area as water
levels in 2004-2006.
2

Table 2-1. Pi eon River Sampling Station Information
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 There are no dominant species. Bluegill,black
(21.8 RM downstream from habitat with bedrock covered by crappie, flathead and channel catfish, small mouth
the Canton Mill outfall) loose,unconsolidated bottom bass, and largemouth bass are common. Common
sediments. Maximum depth carp are present but not common.
sampled approximately 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,flathead and channel catfish, small mouth
with Wilkins Creek(24.3 sediments. Maximum depth bass, and largemouth bass are common. Common
RM downstream from the sampled approximately 12 in. Very carp are present but not common.
Canton Mill outfall) steep banks with little cover.
3

Figure 2-1. Historical Sampling Station Locations on the Pigeon River- fish tissue
samples were collected from two sites (4A and 4B) for dioxin analysis in 2011. More
precise geographical locations of each site are presented in Figure 2-2.
TN Nanlwq Tl
xea.emwu Ones
WO) TENNESSEE
PaA -...i NORTN� II
• •• CAROLINA lnIP41
NOTE: ftWar miNa of malnztem sampling bcrtion or
NY pP'prn // YYqqaa tnbuNry mouth shown In pareriheses.
``•J gPeacM1 A Fish art,Iterthos Sampli,SNlion
11
p a
We1NR Uam NClervtia Laka
cewooaree 4B
Lr°ak Nepco,N(3
13s9 4A N201
cr:a.
l43.rf cn000, eex
Nw NaPco RMga Rj—x ft (bEl
Nepco GNe—_ (1 3)
(45.1) Nvr cn,tr
(523)
bnalhe s
Creek cy(S Trickery
(K.0) BNW CNEa (5).1).N (a1D
Fe�9uson RMpe (5S'S) Apoy clYEa FlMrvilla
BClow
WaYnvWR-'S95)W P Me(63.3) Canfan.NC
m
Wg4,spy IGNIYd cFjde.NC can(On
15601 � I64,31
4

y
ewa l
\. C
4L f a x F�
1 4
Mom KMb
LAW
WA
at
22 4 a
a
phew_ ._ f� ! 11 �•
r
40,
1347
Figure 2-2. Sampling Stations 4A (indicated by A) and 4B (indicated by B) on the Pigeon River
5

3. SAMPLING OBJECTIVES
In accordance with the study plan (Wilson 2006), the goal of the fish collection effort was to
collect one composite bottom feeder fillet sample at both sampling stations 4A and 4B. Each
composite consisted of 3 to 5 similarly-sized (shortest specimen within 75% of the length of the
longest) adult individuals of the target species. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) were the targeted species at sites 4A and 4B. In addition to fillet
samples, one whole body common carp was collected from Station 4B.
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 4B
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 2011
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%rule was met for all samples.
r i
6

4. FISH COLLECTION TECHNIQUES AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
Sampling was conducted during 1-2 August 2011. Notes were recorded at each sampling station
with regard to the type of sampling gear, level of effort(time), and habitat(Tables 2-1 and 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 2011, the mean total length of carp was 685 mm and fish ranged
from 625-740mm. In 2009, the mean total length for carp was 670mm and fish ranged from
620-698mm. 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). Gill nets were also
necessary because of water depth. A boat electrofishing unit (pulsed direct current) was used at
both 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 offish at Stations 4A/413 was 167 min electrofishing
and 14.1 h gill netting.
7

Table 4-1. Fish Collection Techni ues and Level of Effort
Station Sampling Sampling
Number RM Dates Techniques Level of Effort Comments
4A 41.5 1 Aug I 1 Boat An approximate 1.0 RM reach of river was sampled and the entire
electrofishing 82 min area was electrofished.
4B 39.0 2 Aug 11 Gill nets 14.1 h An approximate 1.4 RM reach was sampled; sampling involved gill
nets at selected locations throughout the entire area. Nets were set off
Boat 85 min the shoreline areas. Electrofishing was not utilized since sufficient
electrofishing numbers of fish were collected in gill nets.
8

Table 4-2. Summary of Fish Composites Collected at Two Stations in Waterville Lake, August
2011. A composite sample was generated for each site and each composite consisted of the
right-side fillet(R)from all five fish collected from the site. A whole body(WB) composite from
a single common carp was obtained from site 4B.
Total Total
Length whole body
Date Station Species (mm) (g) Sample type Composite
I Aug 11 4A Channel catfish 478 885 Fillet R
(RM 41.5) Channel catfish 435 636 Fillet R
Channel catfish 450 681 Fillet R
Channel catfish 461 799 Fillet R
Channel catfish 469 763 Fillet R
MEAN 459 753
4A Common carp 625 3160 Fillet R
(RM 41.5) Common carp 660 3680 Fillet R
Common carp 675 4300 Fillet R
Common carp 685 4660 Fillet R
Common carp 710 4920 Fillet R
MEAN 671 4144
2 Aug 11 4B Channel catfish 550 1390 Fillet R
(RM 39.0) Channel catfish 466 880 Fillet R
Channel catfish 475 925 Fillet R
Channel catfish 482 1010 Fillet R
Channel catfish 547 1480 Fillet R
MEAN 504 1137
2 Aug 11 4B Common carp 625 3490 Fillet R
(RM 39.0) Common carp 680 4620 Fillet R
Common carp 725 6280 Fillet. R
Common carp 727 7040 Fillet R
Common carp 740 6280 Fillet R
MEAN 699 5542
1 Aug 11 4B Common carp 693 5020 Whole body WB
(RM 39.0)
9

Target species were collected at both sampling stations in 2011. Common carp, the target
bottom feeder at Stations 4A, and 4B, were collected (and prepared for fillet and/or whole body
analysis) at those stations. Because of the physiography of the Waterville Lake Stations 4A and
4B, gill nets were used (Station 4B) in addition to the electrofishing gear for the collection of
bottom feeding species. All nets were pulled and examined on a regular basis to reduce stress or
specimen mortality. All specimens submitted for analysis appeared healthy and in good
condition. Lengths and weights for each fish making up each composite are provided in Table 4-
2.
Bottom feeder fillet composites samples consisted of five channel catfish and five common carp
at Station 4A, and five channel catfish and five common carp at Station 4B. A single bottom
feeder whole body common carp from Station 4B was submitted for analysis (Table 4-2).
All 20 composite fillets submitted for analysis in 2011 met the US EPA Region IV
recommendation (Cunningham 1990) that the smallest specimen in each composite be equal to
or greater than 75% of the total length of the largest specimen in that composite (Tables 4-2 and
6-4).
Figure 4-la-b 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 2011. The size of the carp taken for whole body tissue analysis from Station 4B in
2011 was similar to size of whole body fish collected in previous years.
Analysis of lipids in the 2011 fish tissue samples did show a difference from past year fish tissue
collections. The lipid concentration for catfish fillets collected from Station 4B and for the
whole body carp collected at station 4B both were higher than during the past 6 fish tissue
collections (2004 thru 2009) at 12 and 27 percent,respectively.
10

, Length (mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4A Cat
N 4A Carp x
0 4B Cat
4B Carp
° Whole
4A Cat
4A Carp
o No
0 4B Cat N Q
:51i 4B Carp N
F= WholeCD
C
4A Cat
r N 4A Carp 3
0 4B Cat
4B Carp
y Whole • r r'}
4A Cat N
N 4A Carp
0 4B Cat N
4B Carp 0 3
Whole 4Phh y
CD 4A Cat IV
4A Carp O 7r
w 4B Cat j
0 4B Carp -fi
Whole • C
4A Cat
N 4A Carp
0 4B Cat '11
4B Carp N'
Whole •
4A Cat
N 4A Carp
0 4B Cat
4B Carp
Whole

CD Weight (g)
41.
N W U1 d� -4 M CO
O O O O O O O O O
C O O O O O O O O O O
0 4A Cat
-11
4A Carp X
0 4B Cat f
o 4B Carp
CD Whole
a 4A Catfu
o N 4A Carp- O
S 0 4B Cat N Q
4B Carp
CD Whole
4A Cat
r 4A Carp
CD0 4B Cat O
o °' 4B Carp ~'
N � -1 Whole
4A Cat yCD
4A Carp
w 0 4B Cat G
N 4B Carp Q N
Whole
CD
4A Cat N O
4A Carp
�
0 4B Cat j O
o °D 4B Carp
Whole ■
4A Cat
4A Carp
0 46 Cat TI
Co 4B Carp N
Whole S
4A Cat ■
4A Carp
4B Cat
4B Car
Whole

5. SAMPLE PREPARATION
All fish tissue samples were prepared in accordance with U.S. EPA Region IV recommendations
(Cunningham 1990) as described in EA (2001a). To prevent cross-contamination between
sampling stations, all sampling equipment likely to come into contact with the fish was rinsed
extensively with site water between stations.
Specimens collected at each station were sorted by size and species, and target species were
identified. The objective was to obtain a 3= to 5-fish composite sample for channel catfish and.
common carp at both 4A and 4B sample locations, as well as a common carp whole body sample
from either station in Waterville Lake which met the species and size objectives discussed in
Section 3. From the target fishes collected, specimens of similar length and weight were selected
for each composite sample. All specimens retained were immediately placed on ice for later
processing. For each fish retained, length and weight data were recorded on the appropriate
fisheries data sheet.
Following identification of target organisms, selection of composite samples, and collection of
length/weight data, each specimen was prepared for shipment and analysis. Bottom feeder fillet
samples consisted of epaxial muscle tissue and skin from one side of the fish. Bottom feeder
whole body samples consisted of the entire fish. Fillet samples were prepared by removing
scales (or removing the skin from catfishes) and then making an incision behind the opercula(on
both sides of the fish) from the base of the spine (behind the skull) to just below the pectoral fin.
Care was taken to cut through the epaxial muscle without puncturing the rib cage or gut lining.
A second incision was made along,the length of the spine to the caudal fin on both sides of the
fish. The epaxial muscle was then gently cut away from the rib cage to obtain a fillet. In this
fashion, all flesh and skin was obtained from head to tail on both sides of the fish. Fillet knives
were solvent rinsed (hexane and acetone)between fish from different stations. Each composite
sample was wrapped in aluminum foil (dull side toward sample), labeled, and placed on ice in
the field.
All individual specimens (fillets) composing a single composite sample were placed in a water-
tight plastic bag labeled with the station name, sample number, and species identification. A
chain-of-custody form was filled out for each cooler of samples submitted for analysis. Each
form included composite specific information and instructions. All chain-of-custody forms had
the following information:
• sample location and station identification,
• sampling team initials,
• date of collection,
• species name,
• sample type (i.e., fillet or whole body)
A copy of the chain-of-custody record is provided in Appendix A.
All samples were frozen solid prior to shipment to the analytical laboratory. The frozen samples
were packed on dry ice and shipped via overnight delivery, where they arrived on August 23,
13

2011 at TestAmerica West Sacramento, CA, USA. 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.
After evaluation of the results from TestAmerica, back-up fillet samples (left-side fillets) from
each site were sent to Vista Analytical Laboratory (El Dorado Hills, CA, USA). The purpose
was independent laboratory confirmation of the TestAmercia results for the 2011 fish tissue
fillets. The whole body carp sample was destroyed in analysis, so an independent laboratory
confirmation analysis could not be performed. The chain of custody forms and shipping
procedure were identical to those described for the samples sent to TestAmerica. Samples
arrived at Vista Analytical Laboratory on November 2, 2011.
14

6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The fish tissue samples were received in one shipment (8/23/11) at TestAmerica 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 TestAmerica personnel, and equal aliquots
of the homogenate from each fish were removed to constitute the composite. Dioxin and furan
analyses were performed using high resolution Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS) as required by the U.S. EPA. Laboratory documentation of all chemical extractions
and analyses are provided in Appendix B. All chemical analyses of the samples were conducted
using EPA Method 8290 (U.S. EPA 1994) as specified in the Fish Tissue Sampling Study Plan
(EA 2001a). Methodology for analysis of samples sent to Vista Analytical Laboratory for
confirmation were consistent(i.e., EPA Method 8290)with those used by TestAmerica.
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 2011 Pigeon River fish tissue dioxin, furan, and lipid content analyses
are provided in Appendix B. Each laboratory analysis report form lists the concentration of
2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), and all
other CDD/CDF isomers.Results of the dioxin, furan, and lipid content analyses are summarized
in Table 6-1. Detection limits are reported parenthetically on a sample-specific basis. Only fillet
results are discussed below because North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
(NC DHHS) considers only fillet results when issuing health advisories.
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in channel catfish fillets were below
detection in Station 4A (DL = 0.24 ppt and 0.046 ppt respectively) and for Station 4B 2,3,7,8-
TCDD was 1.7 ppt and 1.8 ppt for 2,3,7,8-TCDF (Table 6-1). In common carp, 2,3,7,8-TCDD
was detected (estimated 0.83 ppt) in fillet composites collected at Station 4A and was 1.1 ppt at
Station 4B. For 2,3,7,8-TCDF the concentrations in common carp fillets were 2.5 ppt at Station
4A and 2.6 ppt at Station 413. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in the common carp whole
body sample collected at Station 4B was 2.3 ppt and 6.0 ppt for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-
TCDF respectively (Table 6-1).
Examination of the data in Table 6-1 indicates that all fish collected during this study had body
burdens well below the FDA dioxin health advisory level (25 ppt) for fish tissue [as established
and presented in FDA (1981, 1983) and Cordle (1983)].
The NC DHHS recommends an average dioxin toxicity equivalent(TEQ) level of 3 ppt or less in
fish tissue fillets. The NC DHHS issues dioxin fish tissue advisories at an average toxicity
equivalent of 4 ppt or greater (e-mail correspondence with Dr. Luanne Williams 18 January
2005). The TEQ of each chlorodibenzodioxin and furan (CDD/F) isomer is based on the toxicity
equivalence factor(TEF) (WHO 2005 and Table 6-2) as described in the 2001 Study Plan (EA
2001b). The TEQ value is calculated assuming additivity of effects for the individual congeners
of dioxin and furans and is expressed as an"equivalent amount of 2,3,7,8-TCDD" (NC DEHNR
1991). The measured concentration of each CDD/F isomer, when multiplied by its appropriate
f' TEF,yields the TEQ of that isomer(the toxic concentration of that isomer relative to the toxicity
15

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.
16

Table 6-1. Summary of the Pigeon River Fish Tissue Analysis Results 2011
Station Percent
Number Sample ID Composite/Sample Tyne 2,3,7,8-TCDD(') 2,3,7,8-TCDFt') Livid
4A SITE 4A channel catfish 5 fillet samples ND (DL=0.24) ND (DL=0.046) 3.0
SITE 4A common carp 5 fillet samples 0.83° 2.5` 8.6
4B SITE 4B channel catfish 5 fillet sample 1.7 1.8` 12
SITE 4B common carp 5 fillet samples 1.1 2.6` 15
SITE 4B common carp 1 whole body sample 2.3 6.0` 27
(a)Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(picogram/gram)
(b)Estimated results. Result is less than the reporting limit
(c)Analyte was positively identified, confirmation(CON) analysis used.
(ND)Not detected, concentrations below the instrument detection limit(DL).
17

Table 6-2. Toxicity Equivalence Factors for CDD/F Isomers.
DIOXIN DIBENZOFURAN
Isomerta? TEF(b) TEF(b)
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1 1,2,3;7,8-PeCDF 0.03
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF Al
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.
18

The TEQ calculation and summarization schemes presented in Table 6-3 followed methods used
by NC DHHS (NC DEHNR 1991).
All fish tissue fillets analyzed had TEQ values below the NC DHHS advisory limit (4 ppt) and
ranged from 0.3 ppt for channel catfish fillets collected at Station 4A to 2.8 ppt for common carp
collected from Station 4B. The values reported in years 2005-2009 for channel catfish are
consistent with the results for 2011. Common carp TEQ results in 2007 were higher(Station 4A,
13.44 ppt; Station 4B, 5.35 ppt) than observed in previous years (2005-2006), and results for
2008 and 2009 (2009, Station 4A, 1.562 ppt; Station 4B, 1.496 ppt) are further evidence that the
2007 results were anomalous. The whole body sample for common carp collected at Station 4B
had a TEQ result of 9.82 ppt. This TEQ result includes several estimated congener
concentrations below the method level of quantification. The TEQ calculated from 2,3,7,8
TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDF concentrations in the whole body sample is 2.9 ppt.
Table 6-4 illustrates 2,3,7,8 TCDD concentrations in common carp fillet samples collected in
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and results for previous years (1990-2004) are in Appendix
C. Between 1990 and 2006, 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in carp fillets declined dramatically
(94-99 %) at all sampling stations (Table 6-4, Appendix C, Figure 6-1).
The mean weights of common carp collected from Stations 4A and 4B (4.144 kg, Station 4A;
5.455 kg, Station B) were lower than those collected in 2007 (6.490 kg - Station 4A; 6.552 kg -,
Station 4B), but consistent with weights of common carp collected in previous years (2008,
4.727 kg - Station 4A, 4.067 kg - Station 4B; 2006, 4.505 kg - Station 4A, 5.637 kg - Station 4B;
2005, 3.857 kg - Station 4A, 4.695 kg - Station 4B; 2004, 3.750 kg - Station 4A, 3.900 kg -
Station 4B; 1999-2003, 3.193 kg - Station 4A, 5.042 kg - Station 4B). Lipid concentrations in
common carp fillets in 2009 were 8.6-15%, within the range of past fish tissue collections. The
lipid concentration for catfish fillets collected in 2011 from Station 4B and for the whole body
carp collected at station 4B both were higher than during the past 6 fish tissue collections (2004
thru 2009) at 12 and 27 percent, respectively. The 2011 dioxin in tissue analytical results for
those samples are consistent with higher lipid concentration.
F
19

Table 6-3. Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses,Toxicity Equivalent Factors, and Toxicity Equivalent Values for the 2011
Waterville Lake Fish Tissue Composites
STATION 4A
Channel catfish fillet Common carp fillet
CDD/F isomers TEF(`) Results(') TE f Results(a) TE N)
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 ND 0.000 0.83" 0.83
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 3.2° 0.32
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 21 0.21
OCDD 0.0003 7.6 0.0023 73 0.0219
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 2.5 0.25
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 3.7d 0.37 10 1.0
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 4.3" 0.043
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
OCDF 0.0003 ND 0.000 8.1d 0.0024
Total TEQ 0.3723 2.6773
(a)Units=ppt(parts per trillion) or pg/g(picogramper 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.
20

1
Table 6-3 (cont). Summary of CDD/F Isomer Analyses, Toxicity Equivalent Factors, and Toxicity Equivalent Values for the 2011
Waterville Lake Fish Tissue Composites
STATION 4B
Channel catfish fillet Common carp fillet Common carp whole body
CDD/F isomers TEF(`) Resultsla) T O Results(a) TE ro) Results(a) TE !
Dibenzodioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 2.3 2.3
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.0 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 2.5d 2.5
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 3.7d 0.37 3.9d 0.39 7.0 0.70
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 13 0.13 19 0.19 35 0.35
OCDD 0.0003 37 0.0111 52 0.0156 200 0.06
Dibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 1.8 0.18 2.6 0.26 6.0 0.6
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.03 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 3.6d 0.108
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 3.0' 0.9
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 2.7d 0.27
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 3.ld 0.31 8.4 0.84 20 2.0
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 0.1 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 ND 0.000
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 ND 0.000 ND 0.000 3.1d 0.031
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 2.701 2.796 9.819
(a)Units=ppt(parts per trillion) or pg/g(picogram 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.
21

Table 6-4. Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 2005 —2011
2005 Results (d) 2006 Results(e)
Number Length Range Number Length Range
Station Species of fish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°,"1 Station Species of fish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(°b)
-- — - 1 Black redhorse 5 359-384 ND(0.35) 4A Common carp 3 635-692 0.64(_)
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(`)
RM 59.6 Channel catfish 3 443-460 ND(0.29) RM 39.0 Channel catfish 4 510-590 0.77(<)
3 Common carp 4 605-630 ND(0.46)
RM 52.3
4A Common carp 3 601-665 1.3
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 464-508 ND(0.36)
4B Common carp 4 595-736 2.8
RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 513-603 0.76(`)
5 Black redhorse 4 440-501 ND(0.41)
RM 19.0
Total fish filleted= 37 Total fish filleted= 15
(a)Dioxin analyses conducted by TestAmerica(formerly Severn Trent Laboratories).
(b)Units=ppb(parts per trillion)or pg/g(picogram/gram)
(c)Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit.
(d) Survey conducted in August and September
(e)Survey conducted in August
ND=Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses
22

Table 6-4 (cont). Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 2005 —2011
2007 Results (d) 2008 Results(e)
Number Length Range Number Length Range
Station Species offish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD Station Species offish (mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDf'st
4A Common carp 4 680-775 6.4 4A Common carp 3 653-686 1.2
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 4 490-593 0.57t`I RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 475-525 ND(0.29)
4E Common carp 5 672-762 ND(6.9) 413 Common carp 3 630-665 ND(0.36)
RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 505-670 0.67° RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 459-595 ND(0.34)
Total fish filleted= 18 Total fish filleted= 16
(a)Dioxin analyses conducted by TestAmerica(formerly Sevem Trent Laboratories).
(b)Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(picogram/gram)
(c)Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit.
(d)Survey conducted in August and September
(e)Survey conducted in August
ND=Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses
23

Table 6-4 (cont). Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 2005—2011
2009 Results(d) 2011 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-TCDD(�b1
4A Common carp 5 620-698 1.1 4A Common carp 5 625-710 0.830
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 3 493-578 0.52t`I RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 435-478 ND(0.24)
4B Common carp 5 647-696 0.93(`) 4B Common carp 5 625-740 1.1
RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 467-574 ND(0.43) RM 39.0 Channel catfish 5 466-550 1.7
Total fish filleted= 18 Total fish filleted= 20
(a)Dioxin analyses conducted by TestAmerica(formerly Severn Trent Laboratories).
(b)Units=,ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(picogram/gram)
(c)Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit.
(d) Survey conducted in August and September
(e)Survey conducted in August
ND=Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses
24

Figure 6-1. TCDD Concentrations in Carp Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River,
1990-2011
(Stations 4A and 413)
70 - -- --.. - - - -
60
0 Station4A
•
-a--Station4B
80
v
v ;
'MG - -
tn
o
510
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1906 1997 1998 1999 2000 ZOO1 ZOOZ Z003 2004 ZOOS 2006 2007 Z008 2009 2010 2011
TIME
b)TCDD concentrations at Station 4B were not detected, therefore,the values plotted represent the detection limit for those samples.
The detection limit for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was elevated in the 2007 carp fillet for Station 4B because of a 10-fold dilution of the sample
which 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 that year
25

Figure 6-2. TCDD Concentrations in Channel Catfish Fillets Collected from the Pigeon River,
1997-2011
(Stations 4A and 413)
2.50
*—Station 4A
.. .--.-..---.._
z.o0 --A--Sladon4B -
n
v r
v ,
,
d.50
a '
m
::�.00
b
a b _�, b '
o ♦--- ;
a '
b ♦--- a
a
0.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
TIME
a) TCDD concentrations were not detected at Station 4A, therefore the values plotted represent the detection limit for the sample.
b) b) TCDD concentrations were not detected at Station 413, therefore the values plotted represent the detection limit for the sample.
c) The 2011 TCDD result for catfish fillets in 2011 at Station 4B was above detection limit at 1.7 ppt . The TEQ for the 2011 Station
4B catfish fillets remained below the 4 ppt action level of the NC DHHS
26

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.
r
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.
27

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

Henry, T.B., and J. L. Wilson. 2008. Results of 2008 dioxin monitoring in fish tissue. Prepared
for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., Canton Mill, Canton,North Carolina. November 2008.
Henry, T.B., and J. L. Wilson. 2009. Results of 2009 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue. Final
Report to Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., dba Evergreen Packaging. December 2009. 29
pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1991. Fish Tissue
Dioxin levels in North Carolina: 1990 update. Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994. Analytical procedures and Quality
Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by High-Resolution Gas Chromatography/High-Resolution
Mass Spectrometry (Method 8290).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989. Interim Procedures for Estimating
Risk Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and
Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update Report No. EPA/625/3-89/016, U.S.
EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C.
Versar, Inc. 1984. Sampling Guidance Manual for the National Dioxin Study. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract 68-01-6160. Work Order Number 8.7.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Monitoring and Data Support Division,
Washington, D.C.Final Draft. July.
Wilson, J.L. 2006. Study plan revision: Dioxin monitoring in fish tissue, Waterville Lake.
Prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. Canton Mill, Canton,North Carolina. March
2006.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1997. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds: Part II: Health
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD) and Related Compounds.
29

APPENDIX A: CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
APPENDIX B: COMPARISON OF TESTAMERCIA AND VISTA
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TISSUE FILLETS
TESTAMERICA WEST SACRAMENTO
ANALYTICAL REPORT
VISTA ANALYTICAL EL DORADO HILLS
ANALYTICAL REPORT
APPENDD:C: BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET
TISSUE ANALYSIS RESULTS 1990-2004
APPENDIX D: 2006 REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
tf t
30

2 OJ 111
�JJ
IN
al
"APPENDICES"
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc
dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton, NC

APPENDIX A
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
31

Chaln Of Temperature on Receipt_ 1 es 1 Am ed ca
Custody Record
DrinldngWatel? Yes❑ Nov THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
TAL4124(1007)
ClientLY Ira, � `�'��f �� Project Manager ��� /�r� r p$�O L' 1 t Chain o(Cusl Number
Address ( Telephone Nuh�gk er(Area CodeyFarNumb/Number 073907
1 '�jy!T2i7j Lan Number
.� AI e �'" Page of
ciry �.q State jZpColde Stte ontact Lab Contact Analysis(Attach list if
more space Is needed)
Project N me imd 9 y
l 0 Special lnstructionsl
Con7ract/Purchase OrdedOuote No. �.,
!f .ZZ Matdx Containers& Conditions of Receipt
Preservatives ,
Sample I.D.No.and Description Date Time e < $ o SSo
(Containers for each sample may be combined on one line) a w w
:Me. IIA NA ., l cid (2-Frl( 1452 x X �x� or,�
ri l! i NIM U++ c IQ-{i tk+s S—1-l) 1(m b x )( )( X �c>~
sf � l )
4 A 1- -a-,I 11 a o x x Cb,� stye s /Qt �
`` -It CotNl+�or.0 {z"I� 8-�li 1rf60
S;6U �,, w6 z-1 1c.5 x x l
11�4e �m
Possible Hazard Identification H
Disposal
❑ Non-Hazard ❑ Flammable ❑ Skin lnitant ❑ Pa(5ons ❑ Unknownm To Client ❑ Dis (A tee maybe assessed if samples are retained
posal By Lab ❑Archive For Months longarthan 1 month)
Turn Around Time Required .00 Requirements(Specify)
❑xHours ❑43Hours ❑ 7Days ❑ 14Days ❑21 Days ❑ Other
1. quiche By Data Tlme 1.R
g (9 eceiv y m Date Time
D' 2 ►1 d.�0 flgoz I 5t�
2.Ael q ed Data • Time 2.Recetvsd By Dalb ITime
evvIll 130t)
3.Relinquished By Date Time 3.Received By pate Tune
Comments�/f
DISTRIBUnur WHITE Returned to C7Jen1 w71h Report UAW Y-stays Mur° ppw r ye Mind Uapy

APPENDIX B
COMPARISION OF TESTAMERCIA AND VISTA ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
TISSUE FILLETS
TESTAMERICA WEST SACRAMENTO ANALYTICAL REPORT
VISTA ANALYTICAL EL DORADO HILLS ANALYTICAL REPORT
32

Comparision of Trace Dioxin Analyses of Right and Left Tissue Fillet Samples from August 2011 Waterville Lake Sampling
EPA Method 8290 for tetra-through-octa chlorinated dioxins and furans on biological samples composited in the laboratory from field tissue fillets
Test America (primary laboratory)did composite analysis of the right fillets
Vista Analytical (confirmation laboratory)did composite analysis of the left fillets
4A Channel 4A Carp 4B Channel 4B Carp
Test America Vista Analytical Test America Vista Analytical Test America Vista Analytical Test America Vista Analytical
Lipids 3 2.95 8.6 11.7 12 5.79 15 17.8
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND .3 J 0.83 J 1.24 1.7 0.273 J 1.1 2.63
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD NO ND NO 1.52 J NO 0.363 J NO 1.88 J
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND .169 J ND 1.05 J ND 0.149 J NO 1.57 J
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD NO .768 J 3.2 J 4.09 J 3.7 J 0.715 J 3.9 J 5.63
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND ND NO 0.664 J NO ND NO 0.989 J
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND .727 J 21 11 13 0.589 J 19 13.7
OCDD 7.6 J 1.34 J,B 73 29.4 B 37 1.31 J,B ND 34.1 B
2,3,7,8-TCDF NO NO 2.5 CON 2.21 1.8 CON ND 2.6 CON 3.2
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND NO ND 0.843 J ND ND NO 1.26 J
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NO 256 J ND 1.51 J ND NO ND 2.23 J
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND .0839 J NO .987 J NO ND ND 1.38 J
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 3.7 J .0638 J 10 .854 J 3.1 J 0.0764 J 8.4 1.16 J
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF NO .0742 J ND .416 J ND NO ND ND
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND ND NO ND NO ND ND ND
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND NO 4.3 J 2 J ND 0.170 J NO 2.12 J
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
OCDF ND ND 8.1J NO NO ND ND NO
J - Estimated value, below level of method quantification
B - Compound was also detected in method blank
CON - Required confirmation

TestAmedca
THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
pECEIVE
D
September 23, 2011
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
TestAmerica Project Number: G1 H230506 BNS DEPARTMENT
PO/Contract: 420224
Nick McCracken
Evergreen Packaging
PO Box 4000
Canton, NC 28716
_ Dear Mr. McCracken,
' This report contains the analytical results for the samples received under chain of
custody by TestAme6ca on August 23, 2011. These samples are associated with
your Tissue project.
The test results in this report meet all NELAC requirements for parameters that
accreditation is required or available. Any exceptions to NELAC requirements are
noted in the case narrative. The case narrative is an integral part of this report.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at(916) 374-4402.
Sincerely,
Jill Kellmann
Project Manager
�i
880 Riverside Parkway West Sacramento,CA 95605 teI916.373.5600 fax [phone] www.testamericainc.com
GIH23ONS TestAmedca West Sacramento(910)373.5600 1.of 831

-" Table of Contents
TestAmerica West Sacramento Project Number G1 H230506
Case Narrative
Sacramento Quality Assurance Program
Sample Summary
Sample Data Sheets
BIOLOGIC, Percent Lipids,
Samples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
BIOLOGIC, 8290, Dioxins/Furans
Samples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
QC Data Association Summary
Laboratory QC Reports
Raw Data Package
Shipping and Receiving Documents
GIH230506 TestAmertca West Sacramento(916)373-5600 2 of 831

Case Narrative
TestAmerica West Sacramento Project Number G1 H230506
BIOLOGIC, 8290, Dioxins/Furans
Sample(s): 2, 3, 4, 5
The above samples required a confirmation (CON) analysis for 2,3,7,8-TCDF which
occurred on September 19, 2011.
There were no other anomalies associated with this project.
i- �
GIH230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 3 of 831

`�0 mN ACCogO N
TestAmerica
THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
TestAmerica Laboratories West Sacramento Certifications/Accreditations
A2LA(DoD-ELAP) 2928-01 New Mexico NA
`aJi�^`r'i-..a^- 6<2
.a�,%�-:U_ .1166 ,we- _._ ..
Arizona AZ0708 Oregon* CA 200005
'fir':"''=4 1�ffi&aS=.-E� .. .t . . r.88=069.1'''�+`.+f'�!,r � ir!"�w..?riY,9" �va'niati.`:r"X�`;9, 4.It.-f 6$.1272�i"�sr."ter.:=
California* 01119CA South Carolina 87014
Colorado . texas. ...., ', TsI:04304399 08,T7C _-
Connecticut PII-0691 UCMR CA00044
�n r
.FI M Oridaa*ZY IN , ? 7
Georgia 960 USDA Foreign Plant 37-82605
5s_-rt.Guatti��__.".r. Ip-009r s��l; _�USD`ArEorei ":Soil<'�x. <-.-Q330,09 00 55+
Hawaii c NA Utah* QUANI
f's 002701 'c..f`. , 4�Uu ntakr u5;
"M �c.
Kansas* E-10375 Washington C581
0.1944 West Uu nia'; +.9930C 334
Michigan 9947 Wisconsin 998204680
r,.,mW omm 8TMS=:,'
New Jersey* I CA005
*NCLAP'accredited. A more detailed parameter list is available upon request. Updated 512512011
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 infield 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.
G1 H230506 TestAmerim West Sacramento(916)373-5600 4 of 831

Sample Summary
TestAmerica West Sacramento Project Number G1 H230506
WO# Sample# Client Sample ID Sampling Date Received Date
MLX8E 1 SITE 4A CHANNEL CAT 6/1/2011,02:52 PM 8/23/2011 09:00 AM
MLX8F 2 SITE 4A COMMON CARP 8/1/2011 04:02 PM 8/23/2011 09:00 AM
MLXBG 3 SITE 4B CHANNEL CAT 8/2/2011 11:00 AM 8/23/2011 09:00 AM
MLXSH 4 S1TE 4B COMMON CARP 8/2/2011 02:00 PM 8/23/2011 09:00 AM
MLX8J 5 SITE 4B COMMON CARP WB B/2/2011 11:15 AM 8/23/2011 09:00 AM
Notes(s):
The analytical results of the samples listed above are presented on the following pages.
All calculations are performed before rounding to avoid round-off errors In calculated results.
Results noted as'ND'were not detected at or above the staled IImtL
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,cormsivity,density,9ashpoint,
ignitability,layers,odor,paint filler test,pH,porosity,pressure,reactivity,redox potential,specific gravity,spot tests,
solids,solubility,temperature,viscosity,and weight.
G1 H230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 5 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4A CHANNRL CAT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW8468290 1.
Lot-Sample a...: G[11230506-001 Work OrderN_..: IvILX8HIAA Matsu._: BIOLOGICAL F
Date Sampled....: 08/01/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Faetor: . 1
Prep Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date....: 09/08/11 '
Prep Dutch#....: 1243088 Instrument ID....: 111)5
In1Ha1 WgtfVol: 10.45 g Analyst ID....: Grandllold S.Virginia
i
REPORTING ES11MATE77
PARAMETER RESULT LiMiT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
Percent Lipids 3.0 %
f
i
QUALIFIERS
I1
\ 1
i
1
\\4macsgll\QDSApps\S00 SmdsEDL_Ri._Repun.tpt 92M011

- Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW8468290 ,
Lot-Sample#..... GIB230506-002 Work Order#....: MLXBFIAA Matrix_.: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled.._: 08/01/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor. I
Prep Date:..: 08/31/11 Analysis Date._.: 09/08/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243098 instrument ID_..: I ID5
Initial Wgt/Vol: 10.66 g Analyst ID....: Grandfield S.Virginia
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
Percent Lipids 8.6 %
OUALTFMRS
\\gsacsgll\QDSAppMOG_StodED1,R1-Rgmrtapt 9t23/2011
G1H230506 TestAmerlca West Sacramento(916)373-5600 6 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4B CHANNEL CAT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample#.._: GIH230506-003 Work Order#....: ZALX801AA Matrix...: BIOLOGICAL,
Date Sampled..... 08/02/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 1
Prep Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date....: 09/08/11
Prep Batch#.._: 1243088 Instrument iD....: I 1 D5
Initial WguVol: 10.14g Analyst ID....: Grandfleld S.Virginia
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
Percent Lipids 12 %
QUALIFIERS
r
i
J
i
_ k�gsacsgll\QDSAppsISQG_smdEDL_RLltepodapt V23/2011
GIH230606 TestAmerlca West Sacramento(916)373-5600 7 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4B COMMON CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
S WS46 9290
Lot-Sample#...... G1H230506-004 Work Order#.„.: hUMHIAA Matrix.„.: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled....: 08/02/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 1
Prep Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date._ 09/08/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243088 Instrument ID.„.: 11D5
InftialWgtrVol: 10.4g Analyst ID....: Grandfield'S.Virginia
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
Percent Lipids 15
QUALIFIERS
• %kq,,,qlllQDSApps1SOG_St,&EDL—RL_Reponipt 9123/2011
G111230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 8 of 631

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4B COMMON CARP WB
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample P/....: GIH230506-005 Work Order#....: MLXBJIAA Matrix....: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled._.: O8/02111 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 1
Prep Date-: 08/31/11 Analysis Date....: 09/08/11
Prep Batch N...... 1243088 Instrument ED—.: I lD5
Initial Wgt/frol: 10.1 g Analyst ID....: Grandfield S.Virginia
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
Percent Lipids 27 1/O
OUALiFIERS
%\gsacsglllQDSApps)SOG_StnMDL_RL Rcponspt 91232011
GIH230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 9 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4A CHANNEL CAT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample#._.: GIH230506-001 Work Order#....: MLX8ElAC Matrix....: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled...: 08/01/11 Date Received...: 0823111 Dilution Factor: 0.95
Prep Date...: 08/31/11 Analysis Date._.: 09/19/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243094 Instrument ID....: 3D5
Initial Wgt/Vol: 10.45 g Analyst D)...: Michael Ng
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.96 0.24 pg/g
Toud TCDD ND 0.96 0.24 Pg/g
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 4.8 0.13 pg/g
TotalPeCDD ND 4.8 0.13 pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8-HpCDD ND 4.8 0.15 pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 4.8 0.60 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8,9-14xCDD ND 4.8 0.16 Pg/g
Total HxCDD ND 4.8 0.6D pg/g
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ND 4.8 1.6 PS/9
Total HpCDD ND 4.8 1.6 pg/g
OCDD 7.6 1 9.6 0.17 pg/g
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.96 0.046 pg/g
TotWTCDF ND 0.96 0.41 Pg/g
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 4.8 0.10 pg/g
2,3,4,7,E-PeCDF ND 4.8 0.10 PA
Total PeCDP ND 4.8 0.10 Pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 4.8 0.11 pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 3.7 1 4.9 0.068 P919
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 4.8 0.07E Pg/g
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 4.8 0.095 pg/g
Total HxCDF 3.7 4.8 0.080 pllg
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 4.8 0.20 P919
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 4.8 0.24 Pg/g
Total HpCDF ND 4.8 0.24 PClg
OCDF ND 9.6 0.27 P9/9
kYgmcNlllQDSApps1900_StndIEDL RL_Reponzp[9/23/2011
G1H230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-6600 10 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4A CHANNEL CAT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample#..... GIH230506-001 Work Order#....: MLXSEIAC Matrix...: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled...: 08/01/11 Date Received.,_: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 0.95
Prep Date....: WWII I Analysis Date....: 09/19/11
Prep Dutch#....: 1243084 Instrument ID....: 3135
Initial Wgtfvol: 10.45 g Analyst ID.... Michael Ng
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNALSTANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7.8-TCDD 96 40-135
13G1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 87 40-135
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 87 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 83 40-135
13C-OCDD 80 40-135
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 92 40-135
13C-1,23,7,8-PeCDF 87 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 87 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,E-HpCDF 91 40-135
QUALIFIERS '
I Estimated Result.
r
Ogsacsgll\QDSAppsISOG_SmdML_RL_Repon.cpt W232011
GlHZ30506 TestAmerlca West Sacramento(916)373-5600 11 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample N_. GIH230506-002 Work Ordertl. Nff"lAC Matrix....: BIOLOGICAL,
Date Sampled_..: 08/01/11 Date Received...: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor; 0.93
Prep Date....: 08/31/11, Analysis Date....: 09/19/11
Prep Batch 0....: 1243084 Instrument ID..... 3D5
loltial Wgt/Vol: 10.66 g Analyst ED....c . Michael Ng
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
2,3,7,8-TCD1) 0.83 _ J 0.94 0.065 Pgfg
Total TCDD 0.83 0.94 0.065 P919
1,2,3,7,8.PeCDD ND 4.7 0.23 13E18
Total PeCDD ND 4.7 0.23 Pgfg.
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 43 0.82 Pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 32 J 4.7 0.093 119/9
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 4.7 0.71 PA
Total HxCDD 32 4.7 0.095 pgfg
1,2AA6,7,8-HxCDD 21 4.7 0.22 Pgfg
Total HpCDD 29 4.7 6.22 pgfg
/- OCDD 73 9.4 036 pgfg
2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.5 CON 0.94 022 Pgf9
Total TCDF 4.7 0.94 0.10 pgfg
1,2.3,7,8.PeCDF ND 4.7 1.7 PA
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 4.7 1.3 PA
Total PeCDF ND 4.7 1.7 p8/8
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 4.7 1.4 PA
1,V,6,7,8-4xCDF 10 4.7 0.068 pg1g
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 4.7 0.077 138/9
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 4.7 0.094 P919
Total HxCDF 10 4.7 0.080 Pgfg
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF, 43 J 4.7 0.27 PA
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCD15 ND 4.7 0.32 P919
Total HpCDF 43 4.7 0.29 pgfg
OCDF 8.1 J 9.4 0.16 pg'g
\`q.a qll\QASAppASOG_Smd\EDL-tL_RVOMWt 9/232011
G1 H230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 12 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4A COMMON CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-.Sample#....: GIH230506-002 Work Order#....: MLX8FIAC Matrix....: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled....: 08/01/11 Date Received.._: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 0.93
Prep.Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date....: 09/19/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243084 Instrument ID—.* 3D5
Initial WgUVol: 10.66 g Analyst ID....: Michael Ng
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIhIITS
13C-2,3,7.8-TCDD 67 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 65 40-135
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 71 40- 135
13C-1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 67 40-135
13C-OCDD 67 40-135
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 66 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7:8-PeCDF 66 40-135
1361,2,3,4,7,8.HxCDF 73 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 70 40-135
OUALIFIERS
CON Confirmation analysis.
I Estimated Result
l
\\gsacsgll\QDSApps\SGG-Smd\EDL-Rt�RgwrLrpt 9/23/2011
G1H230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 13 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample 7D: SITE 4B CHANNEL CAT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW946 8290
Lot-Sample#-...: GIH230506-003 WorkOrder#__: MLX8GIAC Matrix...: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled....: 08/02/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 0.98
Prep Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date....: 09/20/11
Prep Batch 0....: 1243084 Instrument ID....: 3D5
Initial WgHvol: 10.14 g Analyst m...: Michael Ng
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNTTS
2�3,7,8-TCDD 1.7 0.99 0.060 p919
Total TCDD 1.7 0.99 0.060 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 4.9 1.2 Wit
Total PeCDD ND 4.9 1.2 Pg(g
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 4.9 1.2 pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.7 J 4.9 0.087 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 4.9 0.57 pg/g
Total HxCDD 3.7 49 0.099 pg/g
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13 4.9 0.16 pg/g
Total HpCDD 16 4.9 0.16 P919
OCDD 37 9.9 0.25 PR/g
2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.8 CON 0.99 0.24 PF/g
Total TCDF 4A 0.99 0.068 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 4.9 1.1 pg/g
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 4.9 1.5 pglg
Total PeCDF ND 4.9 1.5 Pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND 4.9 0.92 pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 3.1 J 4.9 0.066 Pgf9
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 4.9 0.075 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 4.9 0.091 pgfg
Total HxCDF 3.1 49 0.077 pg/g
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 4.9 1.4 pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 4.9 0.23 pg/g
Total HpCDF ND 4.9 1.4 PA
OCDF ND 9.9 0.39 pg(g
%%gsacsgll%QDSAppsISOG_Stnd%DL RL-Rq*mrpt 9/23/2011
GIH230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5500 14 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4B CHANNEL CAT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW946 5290
Loot-Sample#....: GIH230506-003 Work Order#._.: MLXBGIAC Matrix....: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled....: 08/02/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 0.98
Prep Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date_..: 09/20/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243084 Instrument ID....: 3D5
Initial Wgt(Vol: 10.14 g Analyst ID....: M)chael Ng
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNALSTANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 77 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 75 40-135
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 67 40-135
13C-1,%3A,6,7,8-HpCDD 73 40-135
13C-OCDD 67 40-135
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 75 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 79 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 74 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HQCDF 76 40-135
QUALIFIERS
CON Confimnation analysis. _
I Estimated ResolL
&Lsacsgll lQDSApps1500_StndeDL-RL-Report ryt 9/2312011
G1 HZ30506 TestAmerlca West Sacramento(916)373-660 15 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4B COMMON CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 9290
Lot-Sample#_..: GIR230506-004 Work Order#.-.: MLX8HIAC Matrix._.: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled....: 08/02/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilation Factor: 0.96
Prep Date...: 08/31/11 Analysis Date..: 09/20/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243084 Instrument D)_.: 3D5
Initial Wgt/Vol: 10.4 g Analyst LD....: Michael Ng
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.1 0.96 0.043 pg/g
Total TCDD 1.1 0.96 0.043 pgfg -
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 4.8 0.20 pg/g
Total PeCDD ND 4.8 0.20 pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCI)D ND 4.8 1.2 pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.9 J 4.8 0.050 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 4.8 0.68 p9(9
Total HxCDD 3.9 4.8 0.057 pg/g
1,2A,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 19 4.8 (,20 pg/g
Total HpCDD 22 4.8 0.20 p9t9
OCDD 52 9.6 0.27 pg/g
2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.6 CON 0.96 0.20 pg/g
Total TCDF 4.4 0.96 0.078 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 4.8 1.7 pg/g
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 4.8 1.6 pg/g
Total PCCDF ND 4.8 1.7 118/9
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF ND 4.8 1.2 pglg
1,2,3,6,7,8-HzCDF 8.4 4.8 0.11 pg/g
2,3,4,6,7,8-NxCDF ND 4.8 0.12 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8,9-NxCDF ND 4.8 0.15 P919
Total HzCDF 8.4 4.8 0.12 pg/g
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 4.8 1.2 pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 4.8 0.20 pg/g
Total HpCDF ND 4.8 1.2 Pg/g ,
OCDF ND 9.6 0.26 pg/g
%)gncsglllQDSApps\SOG_Smd1EDt-RL-Reporupt 9/2312011
GIK230505 TestAmerlea West Sacramento(916)373-5600 16 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4B COMMON CARP
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample#....: GIH2305D6-004 WorkOrder#....: MLX8HIAC Matrix.... BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled—*. 08/02/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor. 0.96
Prep Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date...: 09/20/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243094 Instrument M_.: 3D5
Initial Wgt/Vol: 10A g Analyst ID._: Michael Ng
PERCENT RECOVERY
EMRNAL STANDARDS- RECOVERY LIMITS
1362,3,7.E-TCDD 86 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 78 40-135
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 82 40-135
1361,2,3.4,6,7;8-HpCDD 78 40-135 ,.
13C-OCDD 70 40-135
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 84 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 80 40-135
13C=1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 81 40-135
1361,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 82 40-135
QUALIFIERS
CON Confimudonanalysis:
J Funimated Resale
Ngsar gll\QDSApps%SOG_Smd1E0L RL_ReporLrpt 9/23/2011
GIH230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(915)373-5600 17 of 831
1

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ED: SITE 4B COMMON CARP WB
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample H. GIH230506-005 Work Order 0...... MLX8JIAC Matrix....: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled...: 08/02/11 Date Received...: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 0.99
Prep Date...: 09/31/11 Analysis Date...: 09/20/11
Prep Batch#....: 1243084 InstrumentID....: 3D5
Initial Wgt/Vol: 10.1 g Analyst ID.._: Michael Ng
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
2,3,7,8-TCDD 23 0.99 0.065 pg/g
Total TCDD 23 0.99 0.065 pg/9
1,2,3,7,8•PeCDD 25 J 5.0 032 pg/g
Total PeCDD 25 5.0 032 pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 5.0 2.3 pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 7.0 5.0 0.094 p9f9
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 5.0 1.0 PY/B
Total HxCDD 7.0 5.0 011 PP/g
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 35 5.0 0.29 p9/g
Total HpCDD 53 5.0 0.29 pg/g
OCDD 200 9.9 0.42 JI&
2,3,7,8-TCDF 6.0 CON 0.99 0.29 119/9
Total TCDF 11 0.99 0.098 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 3.6 J 5.0 0.23 pg/g
2,3,4,7,&PeCDF 3.0 J 5.0 0.24 pg/g
Total PeCDF 6.6 5.0 0.24 pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.7 J 5.0 0.093 pg/g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 20 5.0 0.075 p9/g
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 5.0 0.085 P919
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 5.0 0.10 P919
Total HxCDF 23 5.0 0.088 P&
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 3.1 J 5.0 030 W9
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 5.0 0.36 pg(g
Total HpCDF 3.1 5.0 032 P919
OCDA ND 9.9 0.34 P919
L
\lgsacsgll\QDSApps\S00_Smd%EDL_R1lteponzpt 9/23/2011
GIH230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 18 of 831

Evergreen Packaging
Sample ID: SITE 4H COMMON CARP VVB
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample#„..: GIH230506-005 Work Order#....: MLX8JIAC Matrix...: BIOLOGICAL,
Date Sampled...: 08/02/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 0.99
Prep Date...: 08/31/11 Analysis Date....: 09/20/11
Prep Batch 9....: 1243084 Instrument JD._.: 3D5
Initial Wgt/Vol: 10.1 g Analyst ID....: Michael Ng
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNAL STANDARDS RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 70 40-135
I3C.1,2,3,7,8-PecDD 64 40-135
13C-1,23,6,7,8-HxCDD 73 40-135
13C-1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 70 40-135
13C-OCDD 67 40-135
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 71 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 66 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 77 40-135
13C-1,23,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 73 40-135
OUALIFIERS -
CON Confumafion analysis.
I Fstimatcd Resu1L
@gsacsgi 11QDSApps1.SOG_Smd1EDL,RL-lepaa-cpt 9/23/2011
Gt H230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 19 of 831

t , QC DATA ASSOCIATION SUMMARY
GIR230506
Sample Preparation and Analysis Control Numbers
ANALYTICAL LEACH PREP
SAMPLE# MATRIX METHOD BATCH # BATCH # MS RUN#
001 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243084
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243088
002 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243084
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290- 1243088
003 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243084
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243088
004 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243084
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243088
005 BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243084
BIOLOGIC SW846 8290 1243088
f
GIH230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-6600 20 of 831

Method Blank Report
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SW846 8290
Lot-Sample 9....: GIH310000-084B Work Order9._: ML57W1AA Matrix-_: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled....: 08/01/11 Date Received....: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: I
Prep Date....: 08/31/11 Analysis Date....: 09/03/11
Prep Batch 5....: 1243084 Instrument ID_..: 4D5
Initial WgWol: log Analyst ID...: Michael Ng
REPORTING ESTIMATED
PARAMETER RESULT LIMIT DETECTION LIMIT UNITS
2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 1.0 0.027 PP/8
Total TCDD ND 1.0 0.027 139/8
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 5.0 0.14 P918
Total PeCDD NO 5.0 0.14 pg19
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ND 5.0 0.22 F%/8
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD NO 5.0 0.19 p8/9
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ND 5.0 0.19 P919
Total HxCDD ND 5.0 0.22 i' P919
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HxCDD ND 5.0 0.43 p8/8
Total HpCDD ND 5.0 0.43 pg/g
OCDD NO 10 0.99 pg/g
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 1.0 0,20 pg/g
Total TCDF ND 1.0 0.20 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 5.0 0.077 Pg1g
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NO 5.0 0.085 P818
Total PeCDF ND 5.0 0.085 PA
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF NO 5.0 0.10 pg1g
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 5.0 0.094 pB/8
2,3A,6,7,8-HxCDF ND 5.0 0.10 pg/g
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 5.0 0.11 PA
Total HxCDF ND 5.0 0.11 p8/g
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ND 5.0 0.18 13918
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 5.0 0.21 139/8
Total HpCDF ND 5.0 0.21 pg/g
OCDF NO 10 0.20 pP/g
%t4mcsglltQDSApps150G_Smd1EDIiRL,tcPmtrPt 9123/Ml1
GIR230506 TestAmerica West Sacramento(916)373-5600 21 0£831

Method Blank Report
Trace Level Organic Compounds
SWS"8290
Let-Sample#—.. GIH310OW-094B Work Order#.._: W57WIAA Matrix....: BIOLOGICAL
Date Sampled....: 08/01/11 Date Received_..: 08/23/11 Dilution Factor: 1
Prep Date—: 08/31/11 Analysis Date...: 09/03/11
Prep Batch# 1243094 Instrument ID....: 4135
Initial Wgt/Vol: 108 Analyst ID....: Michael Ng
PERCENT RECOVERY
INTERNALSTANDARDS RECOVERY LEMTS
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 71 40-135
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 69 40-135
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD - 84 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDD 69 40-135 '
13C-OCDD 69 40-135
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 71 40-135
13G1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 71 40-135
13C-1.2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF 72 40-135
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 72 40- 135
OUALIFIERS
--, Results and repotting limits have been adjusted for dry weight
t �
Pq=c qll\QDSApps\SQG_Smd1EDL—RL-Rewaipt 9/23/2011
G1H230506 TeslAmerlca West Sacramento(916)373-6600 22 of 831

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE DATA REPORT
Trace Level Organic Compounds
Client Let#...: G1H230506 Work Order#...: AIL57WIAC-LCS Matrix.._.....: BIOLOGICAL
LCS MtSample#: GIH310DOO-084
Prep Date......: 08/31/11 Analysis Date_: 69/03/11
Prep Batch#...: 1243094
Dilution Factor: 1
AnalystED—..: Michael Ng Instrument ID..: 4D5 Method__: SW846 8290
Initial WgtlVol: log
SPIKE MEASURED PERCENT RECOVERY
PARAMETER AMOUNT AMOUNT UNITS RECOVERY LIMITS
2,3,7,8-TCDD 20.0 18.8 pg/g 94 (50-150)
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD loor 953 pg/g 95 (SO-ISO)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 100 90.9 pg/g 91 (50-150)
1,2,3,6,7,8-I1xCDD 100 93.8 pg/g 94 (50-150)
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 100 93.8 pg/g 94 (50-150)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 100 100 pg/g 100 (50-150)
OCDD 200 215 pg/g 107 (50-150)
2,3,7,8-TCDF 20.0 21.3 pg/g 107 (50-150)
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 100 103 pg/g 103 (50-150)
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 100 109 pg/g 168 (50-150)
1,2,3,4,7,8-13xCDF 100 102 pg/g 102 (50-150)
?.-%3,6,7,8-HpCDF 100 114 pg/g 114. (50-150)
3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 100 107 pgJg 107 (50-150)
=2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 100 109 pg/g 109 (50-150)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8•HpCDF 100 110 pg/g 110 (50-150)
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-I1pCDF 100 106 Wig 106 (50-150)
OCDF 7.00 243 pg/g 122 (50-150)
PERCENT RECOVERY,
INTERNALSTANDARD RECOVERY LIMITS
13C-2,3,7,E-TCDD 82 (40- 135)
1341,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 82 (40- 135)
13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 89 (40-135)
1341,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 73 (40- 135)
13C-OCDD 72 (40 135)
13C-2,3,7.8-TCDF 83 (40-135)
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 82 (40-135)
13C-1,2,3.4,7,8-HpCDF 82 (40-135)
13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 79 (40- 135)
Notes:
Calculations=pnfoanedlcfoa:mandingto avoid mandoRertominralddatcdn alts.
Bold prim denotes co Wpammdws
-
1�asq IIIQDSAppsISOG SidISOG Stnd laded mvl.rpt 9/2312011
G1H230506 TestAmerlca West Sacramento(916)373 600 23 of 631

•
Vista
Analytical Laboratory
November 29, 2011
Vista Project I.D.: 33436
Mr. Nick McCracken
Evergreen Packaging
175 Main Street
Drop 56A
Canton,NC 28716-4331
Dear Mr. McCracken,
Enclosed are the results for the four fish tissue samples received at Vista Analytical Laboratory on
November 2, 2011 under your Project Name "Waterville Lake - Fish Tissue". This work was
authorized under your Purchase Order No. 423393. These samples were extracted and analyzed
using EPA Method 8290 for tetra-through-octa chlorinated dioxins and furans. A standard
turnaround time was provided for this work.
Vista Analytical Laboratory is committed to serving you effectively. If you require additional
information,please contact me at 916-673-1520 or by email at [e-mail].
Thank you for choosing Vista as part of your analytical support team.
Sincerely,
a1c, �
Calvin Tanaka
Senior Scientist
K eea
q a'sr.4402N.yz` Vista Analytical lnboromry certtfres that the report herein m en
meets all the rnquiremtssr/forth hyNF.LACfor those applicable
lest melhodr.Results relate only to the sam cs as received b the laboratory.-This re ri should not be reproduced exce t in ! +4
Y P!' Y P^ P P jw
- Z�l w6hout the written approval of Vista Analytical Laboratory t sy
Vista Analytical Laboratory 1104Windfield Way El Dorado Hills,CA 95762 ph:916-673-1520 I fx:916-673-0106 I wwww.vista-analytical.com c `

Table of Contents
CaseNarrative............................................................................................. I
Tableof Contents........................................................................................ 2
SampleInventory......................................................................................... 3
AnalyticalResults........................................................................................ 4
Qualifiers..................................................................................................... I 1
Certifications............................................................................................... 12
SampleReceipt............................................................................................ 13
Project 33436 Page 2 of 15

Section I: Sample Inventory Report
Date Received: 11/2/2011
r
Vista Lab.ID Client Sample ID
33436-001 Site 4A channel cat L-fillets (5)
33436-002 Site 4A common carp L-fillets (5)
33436-003 Site 4B channel cat L-fillets (5)
33436-004 Site 4B common carp L-fillets (5)
Proiect33436 Page 3 of 15

ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Project 33436 Page 4 of 15

Method Blank
EPA Method 8290
Matrix: Tissue QC Batch No.: 4106 Lab Sample: 0-MB001
Sample Size: 10.0 g Date Extracted: 21-Nov-11 Date Analyzed DB-5: 23-Nov-11 Date Analyzed DB-225: NA
Analyte Cone. (pW9) DL a EMPC b Qualifiers Labeled Standard %R LCL-UCLd Oualifiers
2,3,7,8-TCDD.:----'---__..ND _..._ _.0.0542 IS_.. 13C 2;3,7;8^TCDD_ _ . _ ._ .._.-81.0-- -_. 40 135__
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.0868 13C 1 2 3,7,8-PeCDD 84.8 40 135
1,2,3,4,7,8_HxCDD, D, .._ - _ 0 150__. ____..:...,. _. _. 13C_1,2 3 4 7,8 HXCDD_ .__ _96 2 . 40 -135_ ---- _
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND _ 0_168 __. 13C 123,6,7,8-HxCDD 95.4 40- 135
._-ND .._.___-- 0.152_..---- -__ ___... _- `-- --.---13C-1 2 3,7,8,9 HxCDD_ __ 95 5 ._..,_ 40. 135_„
1,2 3 4,6 7 8 HpCDD ND 0.0875 - 13C 1 2 3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 93.7 40- 135
0165 J _.._ - _. 13C;OCDD .. _. 81:4 _40- 135_ _- ----
TCDF ND 0.0374 _ p_13C 2 3,7,8-TCDF 89.1 40- 135
_ _ r - _. _ �>
00,335 w— �� -..> . 13C12,3;7,8_-PeCDF — r 91_3 _ 40 _135 _.
YND_ _0.00338 —_ 13C 2 3 4,7,8-PeCDF 89.2 40- 135
1,2;3,4,9,8 HxCDF__.__.,., 00316___-y—.---_- 40_135_ -
_.-NDy0.0318 13C 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF^ W - �96.7 40e 135 - -
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF__------ND----... --,-0.0403 _ _;1_3G_2 3, A7,8 HzCDF - 84_2 40.135
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ND 0.0547 _ --^_` - 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HHxCDF^ 81.1 40- 135
1,2;3y4,6,7,8 HpCDF__----_ ND_ __ _: 0_0629 ._» - ._ � n__��a ,_. 13C_1,2;3 467;8HpCDF- ,_.,. -,70 3 J_ 40135
1,2,3,4,7 8 9,HpCDF _ ND 0.0601 13C 1 2,3,4,7,8,9_HpCDF 75.7 40 135
0.0704
CRS 37C1-2,3,7,8-TCDD 90.1 40- 135
Totals Toxic Equivalent Quotient(TEQ)Data e
Total TCDD�_K_ , ND�. 0116 m._ TEQ(Mm) -_ ___j.0000495
Total PeCDD ND 0.179
Total HXCDDLL __ND _,. 01412 :.. aS-ple specifc estimated detechon>limtr4-___
__...e..m._ t _ ...._.
Total HpCDD ND 0,0875 b Estimated maximum possible concentration
Total TCDF ND:.______ 0 0374 c Method detection limit
_ _ __._..---_-_ ._..__.___�..____. ._ ...,._._.�.. _.__ --.._._ __ I.--I-------,-- _._.—_,_.. __-
Total PeCDF ND 0.0336 d.Lower control limit-upper control limit.
Total:HXCDF , 1ID , _ 0396 _ e TEgl a ed on Q(05),World_HeafthOrganr�a i n Toxic Equivalent Factors(WHO)
Total HpCDF ND 0.0615
Analyst: FEB Approved By: Calvin Tanaka 29-Nov-201109:56
Project33436 Page 5 of 15

OPR.Results: - - - EPA Method 8290
Matrix: Tissue QC Batch No.: 4106 Lab Sample: 0-OPR001
Sample Size: 10.0 g Date Extracted: 21-Nov-11 Date Analyzed DB-5: 23-Nov-11 Date Analyzed DB-225: NA
Analyte Spike Cone. Cone.(ng/mL) OPR Limits Labeled Standard %R LCL-UCL Qualifier
2 3 7,8:TCDD 10.0 8.65 7 13 IS 13C 2 3 7 8 TCDD . 86.8 40 135
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 50.0 46.2 35-65 13C 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 88.9 40- 135
1 2,3;4,7,8 HxCDD 50-0 46.9 35 65 13C.1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 97.9 40_135
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 50.0 45.2 35-65 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 101 40- 135
1,2,3;7,8,9-HxCDD 50:0 46.4 35 -65 13C 1;2,3 7,8,9 HxCDD 99.3 40 135
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 50.0 42.9 35 -65 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 90.0 40- 135
OCDD, 100 96.6 70- 130 13C OCDD 78.8 40 135
2,3,7,8-TCDF 10.0 -8.25 ,7_13_-_ 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 93.6 _...: _40- 135
1;2;3,7,8 PeCDF yv
50.0 42 8 - 35 65T _ ��13C 1,2,37;8-PeCDF•. �_ ,_-,- _97.8 40 135' _
50.0 42.4 35 -65 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 95.5 40- 135 -
1,2,3y4,7,8-HxCDF 50.0 46:0• - 35-65 P3C 1 2 3 47,8-HxCDF . 92.6 40 135 : _
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 50.0 43.0 35-65 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 97.0 40- 135
23 4 6-7 8 HxCDF' 50.0 .44.3 T.` _ 35 65 _ 13C-2;3 4 6 7,8 HxCDF 86.3. 40135-
`1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 50.0 43.6 35-65 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 85.5 40- 135
v- _---- - -
1,2,3,4,E 7 8 HpCDF 50'.0 47.1 35-65 13C 1 2,3,4 6,7 8 H CDF`' 72`2 40 135,
__ .--- _.p .__
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 50.0 47.0 35-65 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 74.4 40- 135
OCDF 100 86.4 70= 130 13C-OCDF 74.5 40- 135
CRS 37C1-2,3,7,8-TCDD 94.4 40- 135
Analyst: Approved By: Calvin Tanaka 30-Nov-2011 13:13
Project 33436 Page 6 of 15

Sample 1D: Site 4A channel cat L-fillets(5) EPA Method 8290
Client Data Sample Data Laboratory Data
Name: Evergreen Packaging Matrix: Tissue Lab Sample: 33436-001 Date Received: 2-Nov-11
Project: Waterville Lake-Fish Tissue Sample Size: 10.1 g QC Batch No.: 4106 Date Extracted: 21-Nov-11
Date Collected: 1-Aug-11 o Date Analyzed DB-5: Date Analyzed DB-225:
Time Collected: 1452 /oLipids: 2.95 Yz 23-Nov-11 Y NA
Analyte Conc. (pg/g) DL a EMPCb Qualifiers Labeled Standard %R LCL-UCLd Oualifiers
IS 13C-2 3 7 8-TCDD__ 80.4 40-135___
_..- _ -
1 2 3,7,8 PeCDD 4_._ ND . --- _. 0.304 13C-1 2 3 7,8=PeCDD 79.3 40- 135
_1,2;3,4,7,8_HxCDD___0.169i. 7,8-HxCDD 135,
_.,_. _ _93 0 40`= '
_ ---
1,2,3,6,7,8_HxCDD 0.768 _ __ . _ -_._._J __. yl3C-1 2 3 6,7,8-HxCDD 90.8 40- 135
1,2;3,7,8,9_HxCDD ND _. . .__._ ._ _..._0;187 _-- __ . . __ ..--_-- 13C-1,2,3,7,8;9-HxCDD___.. _ . _ 89 8 40- 135
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD.. 0.727 _ 7._—_ . ,13C�1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD - 88.8 40- 135 _
OCDD__ , _ --_-- 1.34 _.1.3C_0CDD_ _ _ __.____ .. _ _ ___ 742-- _40. 135__.-
2,3,7,8-TCDF_ __ ND -� 0.0427 _ m- _ __.13C 2 3----TCDF T_81 7 40�135 , . — ------
1,2,3,V PeCDF,-- _- ND_`._ _ , _ 0A442_y __. ...j.. _ ___ _ -1`3C-1 2 3 7,8-PeCDF._", ._.. _ _;:82 6_._ 40-135
2,3,4,7,8_PeCDF _ 0,256J_..., 13G23,4,7,8;PeCDF v 814 40_135 _
78 8 _40-- 13.3
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF _ 0 0638 - __ _.- ___---__.__-_.- .____.. .__- J- ___..__. 13C-1 2 3 6,7,8 HxCDF� 86.1 40- 135
. .___
2,3,4;6,7,8-HxCDF _ - OA742 _ _ - �_. _.,.._ _ _ _ _ J_.- __13G2 3,4,6;7,8 HxCDF"-___ 83_4 40 ,135
1,2 3,7,8 9 HxCDF _ -.> ._._.. __ _ _ . , 0.0566 ._�__.._. .__. 13C 1 23,7.8,9-HxCDF _ _-____75;5_ 40- 135
1,2,3,46,7,8 HpCDF,._;ND`" 0.0852 s R--.�. _ _ _ 13C 1,2,3 4 6,7 8 HpCDF.:__. _:64 6 40'-135
1,2,3A7,8,2-4P F ._ ND _..._ 0.0829 y_. _ _ .__- 13C_1 2 3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF _ 70.3 40- 135
OCDF - - 1VD--. , .. -- -- - -0 0590 ,— .s. .. . 13C-OCDF_ _.. -._ .._ _69 7 40, 135
CRS 37C1-2,3,7,8-TCDD 92.5 40- 135
Totals Toxic Equivalent Quotient(TEQ)Data e
Total TC ------_ . -0300_ — - _ TEQ(Min) �_0.500
:_- -- - - --
-_ .._ __
Total PeCDD ND
Total'.HxCDD._ ,,--0.937- _ _ a Sample specific estimated detection limit.
Total H CDD 0.727 b.Estimated maximum possible concentration.
Total,TCDF__. ND _ _0;0427 c.Method detechontimit.
Total PeCDF 0.256 d Lower control limit upper control limit.
_Total HXCDF_-_ 0:222 _ ._,.. _ _ _.. _ e TEQbased on(2005)World'Health C rgawzatmn Toxic Equivalent Factors(WHO)—
_. ._ .. _ .. __. _ _. _ ___.._,_._..�___... .. ,. .d__
Total HpCDF ND 0.0840
Analyst: ANP Approved By: Calvin Tanaka 30-Nov-2011 13:13
Proiect 33436 Page 7 of 15

Sample ID: Site 4A common carp L-fillets (5) EPA Method 8290
Client Data Sample Data Laboratory Data
Name: Evergreen Packaging Matrix: Tissue Lab Sample: 33436-002 Date Received: 2-Nov-11
Project: Waterville Lake-Fish Tissue Date Extracted: 21-Nov-1 I
Sample Size: 5.14 g QC Batch No.: 4106
Date Collected: 1-Aug-11 o Date Analyzed DB-5: Date Analyzed DB-225:
Time Collected: 1602 /oLipids: 11.7 yz 23-Nov-11 y NA
Analyte Cone. (pg/g) DL a EMPCb Qualifiers Labeled Standard %R LCL-UCLd Oualifers
2,3,7,8_TCDD , 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 1. _ _ 82.3 40- 135
1.24 IS
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.52 -_ _ _ _ _ J_ _ 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 80.6 40- 135
l,2,3,4;7,87HxCDD. _ 1.05 _-- - J.. l3C 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 94.8. 40- 135
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD , 4.09 __ - J _ _ 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8_HxCDD 92.2 40- 135
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD - _.0.664__ _ -- _ -. ._.,.- _ - _ J. 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 88.5 40-135- _
1,213,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 11.0 _-__-_, __ -13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD_ 86.8 40- 135
OCDD - -- 29.4 ._ B - - - _13C-OCDD - .. 70.2 40- 135
2,3,7,8-TCDF _,.. 2.21 _. - - - --- ----- -. ___.._._ .-_--- -.-.- - 13C 2,3,7,8-TCDF - -__ _ - --.82.2 40-_135 -
1,2;3,7,8-PeCDF-_- 0,M13 _ - __- _ -_- -- - , , . J , .- 13G1 2,3,7,8-PeCDF _ 84.8_ ,_40,- 135
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1.51 J_ ._ 13C 2 3 4,7,8-PeCDF 82.4 40- 135
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF 0.987 .. _ -. _ _- J - - -_- _ 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8.HxCDF_- _ _-_ 79.9 40__135 -
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF _- _0.854 J _ 13C 1 2 3,6,7,8-HXCDF 81.1 40- 135
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF _ 0.416 _ _ - J 13C 23,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 84.7 _ 40_135 _
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ,ND 0.0928 _- _ _ 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 73.9 40- 135
1,2,3,4;6,7,8-HpCDF-_ 2.00 _ _ - _ - __J_._ - _13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 63.4 40- 135
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF_ _ND _ 0.120_ _ _ 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 68.7 40- 135
OCDF ND 0.135 13C-OCDF 67:0_ 40- 135
CRS 37C1-2,3,7,8-TCDD 92.2 40- 135
Totals Toxic Equivalent Quotient(TEQ)Data e
Total TCDD.--- ------1.24 -- - - - - TEQ(Min):. 4.40
Total PeCDD 1.52 1.72
Total HxCDD .,5.81- --a._Sample specific estimated detection limit.
Total HpCDD 11.0 b.Estimated maximum possible concentration.
Total TCDF - 2.21 _ _ - _ - _ c..Method detection limit. _
Total PeCDF 2.64 _ d.Lower control limit-upper control limit.
Total HxCDF 2.87 ,.. _ _ 3.00. _ _ e_.T_EQ based on.(2005)World Health Organization Toxic Equivalent Factors.(WHO)
Total H CDF 2.00
Analyst: ANP Approved By: Calvin Tanaka 29-Nov-2011 09:56
Project 33436 Page 8 of 15

Sample iD: Site 413 channel cat L-fillets (5) EPA Method 8290
Client Data Sample Data Laboratory Data
Name: Evergreen Packaging Matrix: Tissue Lab Sample: 33436-003 Date Received: 2-Nov-11
Project: Waterville Lake-Fish Tissue Sample Size: 10.0 g QC Batch No.: 4106 Date Extracted: 21-Nov-11
Date Collected: 2-Aug-11
P Time Collected: 1100
%Li ids: 5.79 Date Analyzed DB-5: 23-Nov-11 Date Analyzed DB-225: NA
Analyte Conc. (pg/g) DL a EMPCb Qualifiers Labeled Standard %R LCL-UCLd Oualifiers
2,3;7,8-TCDD - 0;273. J IS 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 82.0 40- 135
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.363 J 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 80.1 40- 135
_1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 0.149 J _ _13C 1,2,3,4,7,8--HxCDD - _ _ 953 40- 135
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.715 J 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 89.0 40- 135
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD_ _ ND 0.117 13C71,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD - _ 90.4 - 40- 135
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.589 __ -,--J.- l3C-1,2,3,4,6,7_,8-HxCDD 87.1 40- 135
OCDD 1.31 J,B - - 13C-OCDD 68.0 40- 135 .
2,3,7,8-TCDF. . --- -_ND- -- - - 0.0494 _--_ ---_.. _ 1.3C-2,3,7,8-TCDF . ._ _-- --. . 80.7 40- 135
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.0520 _- l.3C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF -- 86.5 40- 135
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF - ND 0.218 _._ 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 84.2 40- 135
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF- ND - _ . _ 0.0560 --- __ 13C-1,2',3,4,7,8-HxCDF .__' _- 84.3 40- 135
1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF 0.0764 _ -_ - . - J. _ _ 13C 1 2 3,6,7,8 HxCDF 81.7 40- 135
2,3A6,7,8-HxCDF, ND 0.03.93 13C 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF _ - 85,5 - 40- 135
1,213,7,8,9-HxCDF_ -_ND 0.0560 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 76.1 40- 135
l,2,3,4A7,8-HpCDF---
-0.170 13C l 2 3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF - -, 64.8 40- 135----
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ND 0.0570 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 67.3 40- 135
OCDF _ - ND .- 0.0880 13C-OCDF 64.9 40- 135
CRS 37CI-2,3,7,8-TCDD 90.8 40- 135
Totals Toxic Equivalent Quotient(TEQ)Data e
Total_TCDD - _ 0.273 ____---_- __ TEQ (Min):., 0.738
Total PeCDD 0.363
-Total HxCDD - _ ,0.864_ _ _ _ _- - - _ - _ _-d..Sample specific estimated detection limit.
Total HpCDD 0.589 b.Estimated maximum possible concentration.
Total TCDF ND 0.0494 C.Method detection limit
Total PeCDF ND 0.270 d.Lower control limit-upper control limit.
Total HxCDF ., _0.0764 _ - _ - -0.132 _---_-_ - _ e.TEQ based on(2005)World Health Organization Toxic Equivalent Factors_(WHO)
Total HpCDF 0.170
Analyst. ANT Approved By: Calvin Tanaka 29-Nov-2011 09:56
Project 33436 Page 9 of 15

Sample ID: Site4B common carp L-fillets (5) EPA Method 8290
Client Data Sample Data Laboratory Data
Name: Evergreen Packaging Matrix: Tissue Lab Sample: 33436-004 Date Received: 2-Nov-1 I
Project: Waterville Lake-Fish Tissue Sample Size: 5.12 g QC Batch No.: 4106 Date Extracted: 21-Nov-11
Date Collected: 2-Aug-I I o Date Analyzed DB-5: Date Analyzed DB-225:
Time Collected: 1400 /oLipids: 17.8 Y 23-Nov-11 Yz NA
Analyte Cone. (pglg) DL a EMPCb Qualifiers Labeled Standard %R LCL-UCLd Oualifiers
2,3,7;8-TCDD 2.63-,._ IS 13C72,3,7,8-TCDD 81.2 40- 135 _-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.88 J 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 78.0 40- 135
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.57_1 - - _ _- .J - - _ - _, 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD_. - 87.0 40-.135_--
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD _ - 5.63 _- _ _ 13C-1 2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 88.0 40- 135
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.989y J_ -13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD _ __ _ -86.6 40- 135
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13.7 13C-1 2 3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD 87.8 40- 135
OCDD _ _ 34.1 B 13C-OCDD 69.9 40--135
2,3,7,8-TCDF . -_ _3.20 13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 79.8 40- 135
1,2,3,7;8-PeCDF- 1.26- J' 13C-11213,7,8_PeCDF _ - 82.2 40-135-_
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF -- 2.23 Y _-__ - ___- __ __- . J__ _- - 13C-2 3 4,7,8_PeCDF 81.0 40- 135
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 13C_
__'1.38 __ __- __. _ _... - . . - J 1,2,M,7,8-HxCDF - _ ___- - 77.8 40- 135
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF_ .- 1.16 _ -_-- _ _-_7 --___ -- 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 79_9 40- 135
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF _ ND 0.460 _ - -- - _ _ _ 13C-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 79.1 40--135
1,2,3,7,8,9_HxCDF DID 0.310 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9_HxCDF 72.9 40- 135
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF_ 2,12, - - - _ _ __-_ J__ _ 13C-1 2,3 4,6,7,8-H CDF 63.0 _40- 135 .
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-4pCDF - ND 0.114 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 70.1 40- 135
OCDF - - ND - 0.142 13C-OCDF 66.7 40- 135 -
CRS 37C1-2,3,7,8-TCDD 88.6 40- 135
Totals Toxic Equivalent Quotient(TEQ)Data e
Total TTCDD_ z'63 --- . -- TEQ(Min): . _._ ._6:78 - .
Total PeCDD 1.88
Total HxCDD_- 8.19 a.Sample specific estimated detection limit.
Total H CDD 14.2 b.Estimated maximum possible concentration.
Total TCDF 3.51 ._ _- _ _ - ___ _- - c.Method detection limit. - -.
Total PeCDF 3.84 4.09 d.Lower control limit-upper control limit.
Total HxCDF- 3.16 3.62 e.T_EQ based on(2005)World Health Organization Toxic Equivalent Factors.(WHO)
Total HpCDF 2.12
Analyst: ANP Approved By: Calvin Tanaka 29-Nov-2011 09:56
Project 33436 Page 10 of 15

DATA QUALIFIERS & ABBREVIATIONS
B This compound was also detected in the method blank.
D Dilution
E The amount detected is above the High Calibration Limit.
P The amount reported is the maximum possible concentration due to possible
chlorinated diphenylether interference.
H Recovery was outside laboratory acceptance limits.
I Chemical Interference
J The amount detected is below the Low Calibration Limit.
* See Cover Letter
Conc. Concentration
r DL Sample-specific estimated detection limit
r�
MDL The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and
reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater
than zero in the matrix tested.
EMPC Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration
NA Not applicable
RL Reporting Limit—concentrations that correspond to low calibration point
ND Not Detected
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
Unless otherwise noted, solid sample results are reported in dry weight. Tissue samples are reported
in wet weight.
Project 33436 Page 11 of 15

CERTIFICATIONS
Accrediting Authority Certificate Number
State of Alaska, DEC CA413-2008
State of Arizona AZ0639
State of Arkansas, DEQ 08-0443-0
State of Arkansas, DOH Reciprocity through CA
State of California — NELAP Primary AA 02102CA
State of Colorado N/A
State of Connecticut PH-0182
State of Florida, DEP E87777
State of Indiana Department of Health C-CA-02
Commonwealth of Kentucky 90063
State of Louisiana, Health and Hospitals -LA08000
State of Louisiana, DEQ 01977
State of Maine 2008024
State of Michigan 9932
State of Mississippi Reciprocity through CA
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center NFESC413
State of Nevada CA004132007A
State of New Jersey CA003
State of New Mexico Reciprocity through CA
State of New York, DOH 11411
State of North Carolina 06700
State of North Dakota, DOH R-078
State of Oklahoma D9919
State of Oregon CA200001-006
State of Pennsylvania 68-00490
State of South Carolina 87002001
State of Tennessee TN02996
State of Texas T104704189-08-TX
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N/A
State of Utah CA16400
Commonwealth of Virginia 00013
State of Washington C1285
State of Wisconsin 998036160
State of Wyoming 8TMS-Q
Project 33436 Page 12 of 15

ChalnAW Temperature on Receipt• TestAmedca -334�(,,wec
Custody Record .
Drinking Water? Yes .No qp Tf{E LEADMIN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING -
TAL4124l10an
Client �.r• /'fit Pro ect_:Menaget ,�/� / " Datez, Chain of Custody Number
�✓ Yee 117� l 1��a�Rr . �y w'�N I1�lc o : . . : � g�©z_ r1 073907
Addiess Telephone Nu er(Area Code)IF&Number s Lab Number
yris A`11� Qi7 .�710✓ 7 ( Page � of
Cly Stale Tp ode; Site—Contact Lab Contact Analysis(Attach listif '
i,/ N, 2,g /� more space Is needed)
Pm)ect N me and cabo (S te) ,; 1O .,,,.Waybill Number -
rtn�� �"9 F � AS
�G�U'll I. ." "` I�'S�L }�v Special Instructions/
Contmct/Pwchase OrdedQuote No: - Containers& ' _1 �,N;W -Conditions of Receipt
(} �Z?�f Matrix U Preservatives w ja
Sample I.D.No.and Description Date Time ph 8 8 o
(Containers for each samplemay be combined on one line) ;� h rSj `i = i 6 qz
6 i' it;o x
1� 4 eL a ` -/ l t-a o X sj� .S legs,1,
.� GDw�tMor�e iT�� -�i.� lqao }C x kColt,D;4te
Possible Hazard ldemblication - Sample Disposal (A fee maybe assessedffsamples are retained
❑ Nan-Hazard 0 r-7ammabie ❑ Skfn Irritant ❑ Poison B ❑ Unknown ❑Return To Client ❑ Disposal ByLab ❑Archive FDr—'Months longeriban;I mo_pth)
Turn Around rime Required - -QC Requirements(Spec(fy)
❑24Hours Q 4B Hmm; ❑,7Days ❑ 14 Days ❑21 Days ❑,Other `
1. ' qu/she By' - Date Time 1,Recei y, ; ` Dale Time
Dg`D2 ►.l 6 �a flQaz It 15W
2.RallholPhed 9k I i ,Ime 2.Received By " - > ' Date Time
9.Relingui oVL Date -- =Time- y Dat 77me
i do ►t z l� oa15
Commence; � e^- _
/.t_ C ♦/L/ ewY�eti /� ,I.ut AG�(/G ✓e page n oz n
PtmR�i 0 WHITE-AetumetltoClfentwithRepart; CA A Y-Stays wit theSam p `N -geld Copy

�•
SAMPLE LOG-IN CHECKLIST �/IStq
1 L Analytical Laboratory
Vista Project# I�� TAT (7 G GI' _C
Date/Time Initials: Location: W F- ,'-
Samples Arrival: I�Ao / L/��' 68 55 Shelf/Rack; A
Date/Time Initials: Location: -2
Logged In: O� �' J
l I � Shelf/Rack:
Delivered By: edEx UPS On Trac DHL Hand Other
Delivered
Preservation: Ice Blue Ice Dry Ice None
Temp °C Time: Thermometer ID: IR-1
YES/ NO NA
Adequate Sample Volume Received?
Holding Time Acceptable?
Shipping Containers Intact?
Shipping Custody Seals Intact?
Shipping Documentation Present?
Airbill I Trk# 7216 8885 6566
Sample Container Intact?
Sample Custody Seals Intact?
Chain of Custody/ Sample Documentation Present?
COC Anomaly/Sample Acceptance Form completed?
If Chlorinated or Drinking Water Samples. Acce table Preservation?
Na2SZOa Preservation Documented? CDC Sample, None
Container
Shipping Container Vista I Retain Return I Dispose
Comments:
Sample Login 3/7007 nuh
Project 33436 Page 14 of 15

a
Chain of Custody Anomaly/Sample Acceptance Form
%lient: Evergreen Packaging Project Number 33436
Contact: Nick McCracken Date Received: Nov 2 2011
Fax Number: Documented by/date: i 11 2/1t
Please review the following information and complete the Client Authorization section. To comply with
NELAC regulations,we must receive authorization before proceeding with sample analysis.
Thank You. (Fax # [phone] )
The following information or item is needed to proceed with analysis:
❑ Complete Chain-of-Custody ❑ Preservative ❑ Collector's Name
❑ Test Method Requested ❑ Sample Identification ❑ Sample Type
❑ Analyte List Requested ❑ Sample Collection Date/Time ❑ Sample Location
The following anomalies were noted. Authorization is needed to proceed with the analysis.
Temperature outside 12°C range Samples Affected:
/ 'Temperature outside °C Ice presennt?nq Yes No
Sample ID Discrepancy Samples Affected t�00 ,GJOUoc.�
Sample holding time missed Samples Affected
Custody seals broken Samples Affected
Insufficient Sample Size Samples Affected
Sample Container(s)Broken Samples Affected
Incorrect,Container Type Samples Affected
Other (' ('n � Label To- : -
Sth 4A glut ngj oaf 2-�r1/ef5 C Ca4 - oo1 Anna C05 -
n ar C r Uo 00 -L - qA -5-0/it
yB Channel caf CCa4 -cV/ -ira aa4"-L'yB
'q,$60nmen Carp AA-f-CCCikP -oa/Aru aotl gao6
�d2/u
Client Authorization
Proceed With Analysis: S NO Signature and Date
Client Comments/Instructions: Si{ E ILA wd( LISL L. "I 2 (f4tr Fffol )
Vista Analytical Laboratory
El Dorado Hills,CA 95762
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Project 33436 Page IS of 15

APPENDIX C
BLUE RIDGE PAPER CANTON MILL FISH FILLET TISSUE
ANALYSIS RESULTS, I990-2004
33

APPENDIX C
Table 6-4. Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Results.
1990-2004
r From: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
December 2004
36

Table 6-4. Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill Fish Fillet Tissue Analysis Results, 1990-2004(a).
1990 Resultsa'1 1991 ResultsOl
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(') Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°t
1 Rock bass 5 151-197 ND(0.15) 1 Rock bass 10 151-190 ND(0.40)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 153-213 ND(0.15) RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 106.178 ND(0.33)
Black redhorse 2 380.383 ND(0.20) Black redhorse 5 358-471 ND(0.35)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 185-196 1.4 2 Redbreast sunfish 8 154-189 0.87
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 148-201 3.4 RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 8 154-202 0.93
Common carp 1 517 19.7 Common carp 10 491-570 9.7
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 188-203 0.79 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 176-209 ND(0.89)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 191-198 2.6 RM 52.3 Bluegill 6 164-197 ND(0.83)
Common carp 2 489-555 4.2 Common carp 10 409-463 2.4
4A Bluegill 5 178-192 ND(1.2) 4A Largemouth bass 7 3I3-468 3.0
RM 41.5 Bluegill 5 153-174 ND(0.63) RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 173-216 ND(0.63)
Common carp 1 574 27 Common carp 10 502-688 23
4B Bluegill 5 183.196 0.76 Q Bluegill 5 186-212 ND(0.34)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 2 279-400 ND(1.8) RM 39.0 Bluegill 5 190-208 ND(0.62)
Common carp 4 551-638 66 Common carp 10 532-605 40
5 Redbreast sunfish 10 143-223 0.98
RM 16.5 Spotted bass 2 266-368 ND(0.35)
Common ca 2 511-539 1.7
Total Fish Filleted 57 138

Table 6-4 (cont.).
1992 Results(w 1993 Results9l)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°t Station Species Fish Range(ram) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt`>
1 Rock bass 10 147-194 ND(0.085) 1 Rack bass 10 185-208 ND(0.10)
RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 147-182 ND(0.075 RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 5 148.203 ND(0.12)
Black redhorse 6 365441 1.4 Black redhorse 10 365.410 ND(0.80)
2 Redbreast sunfish 10 180-220 0.72 2 Redbreast sunfish 10 168-206 ND(0.27)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 178-220 ND(0.38) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 140-191 ND(0.15)
Common carp 10 486-581 9.3 Common carp 10 462-620 3.1
3 Redbreast sunfish 10 175-200 ND(0.34) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 155-210 ND(0.27)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 183-200 ND(0.29) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 7 180-213 ND(0.36)
Common carp 10 438.600 4 Common carp 10 440-576 3.4
4A Black crappie 10 153-232 ND(0.094) 4A Black crappie 10 178 201 ND(0.15)
RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 177-224 ND(0.10) RM 41.5 Black crappie 10 182-204 ND(0.089)
Common emp 10 492-622 29 Common carp 10 525-611 19
4B Bluegill 30 182-212 ND(0.23) 4B Largemouth bass 10 190-310 ND(0,12)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 215-332 ND(0.19) RM 39.0 Bluegill 10 185-210 ND(0.20)
Common carp 10 558.640 51 Common carp 10 530-644 28
5 Redbreast sunfish 10 175-245 ND(0.38) 5 Redbreast sunfish 6 180-231 ND(0.17)
RM 19.0 Spotted bass 2 256-355 ND(0.30) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 9 212-281 ND(0.13)
Smallmoutlt buffalo 5 428-510 0.61 Smallmouth buffalo 5 450-550 ND(0.41)
Total Fish Filleted 158 162

r- r
Table 6-4 (cont.).
1994 Resultstw 1995 Results(c)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(nun) 2,3,7,8-TCDDW Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°t
1 Rack bass 6 156-195 ND(0.083) 1 Rock bass 10 162-205 ND(0.10)
RM 64.5 Redbreast sunfish 10 155-197 ND(0.10) RM 64.5 Rock bass 10 150-220 ND(0.26)
Black redhorse 3 367-435 ND(0.096) Black redhorse 7 375-464 ND(0.21)
2 Redbreast sunfish 10 176-206 ND(0.073) 2 Redbreast sunfish 10 152-194 ND(0.20)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 166-210 ND(0.092) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 10 161-189 ND(0.16)
Common carp 10 490.590 0.99 Comma carp 10 435-664 1.7
3 Redbreast sunfish 10 148-196 ND(0.15) 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 170-206 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 158-210 ND(0,074) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 10 154-202 ND(0.20)
Common carp 10 456-565 0.74 Common carp 10 391-571 1.2
4A Black crappie 10 203-231 ND(0.085) 4A Largemouth bass 5 281-439 2.0
RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 185-205 ND(0.084) RM 41.5 Bluegill 10 '167-199 ND(0.26)
Common carp 30 465-591 3.4 Common carp 10 520-615 5.8
4B Black crappie 10 200-215 ND(0.084) 4B Largemouth bass 9 248-391 0.68
RM 39.0 Black crappie 10 195-220 ND(0.062) RM 39.0 Bluegill 8 158-216 ND(034)
Common carp 10 520-635 6.6 Common carp 4 532-626 11.0
5 Redbreast sunfish 6 129.289 ND(0.075) 5 Smallmoudr bass 9 280.423 ND(0.11)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 9 234-442 ND(0.11) RM 19.0 Redbreast sunfish 7 163-192 ND(0.15)
Smalhnout4 buffalo 9 440-520 ND(0.089) Black redhorse 7 440-481 ND(0.45)
Total Fish Filleted 163 156

Table 6-4 (cont.).
1996 Resultsul) 1997 ResultsP)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(aim) 2,3,7,S-TCDDW Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(-)
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 154-185 ND(0.13) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 144-161 ND(0.11)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 160.208 ND(0.085) RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-194 ND(0.23)
Black redhorse 5 401-440 ND(0.089) Black redhorse 4 291-424 ND(0.22)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 179-187 ND(0.10) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-200 ND(0.26)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 183-191 ND(0.12) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 160-181 ND(0.12)
Common carp 5 543-580 1.5 Common carp 5 506-615 1.4
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 194-190 ND(0.13) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 187-202 ND(0.18)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 165-185 ND(0.13) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-195 ND(0.18)
Common carp 5 516.630 0.87 Common carp 5 450-505 ND(0.33)
4A Black crappie 5 216-233 ND(0.15) 4A Black crapppie 5 215-231 ND(0.27)
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 215-229 ND(0.18) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220-230 ND(D,10)
Common carp 5 562-632 4.2 Common carp 5 570-655 2.3
Channel catfish 5 418-482 2.0
0 Black crappie 5 223-258 ND(0.11) 4B Black crappie 5 226-241 ND(0.17)
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 278-310 ND(0.13) RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 270-360 ND(0.21)
Common carp 5 470.623 4.0 Common carp 5 605-690 11.0
Flathead catfish 5 430-540 0.62
5 Rock bass 4 169-186 ND(0-077) 5 Rock bass 5 143.214 ND(0.15)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 315-454 ND(0.12) RM 10.0 Smallmouth bass 5 278-367 ND(0.27)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 451-555 ND(0.12) Smallmouth buffalo 5 406-525 ND(0,22
Total Fish Filleted 89 Total Fish Filleted 99
l

i
i
Table 6-4 (coat.).
1998 Results" 1999 Resuitst°)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(rare) 2,3,7,8 TCDDW Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDW
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 145.176 ND(0.19) 1 Redbreast sunfish 5 141-177 ND(0.21)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 158.179 ND(0.29) RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 164-I80 ND(0.37)
Black redhorse 5 340-396 ND(0.18) Black redhorse 5 352-427 ND(0.33)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-M ND(0.20) 2 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-190 ND(0.37)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 166.193 ND(0.28) RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 158-178 ND(0.29)
Common carp 5 551-661 1.3 Common carp 5 544-615 ND(0.27)
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 168-193 ND(0.34) 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-189 ND(0.36)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 167-200 ND(0.22) RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 162-176 ND(0.37)
Common carp 5 449-550 ND(0.38) Common carp 5 500-591 0.57
4A Black crappie 5 220.240 ND(0.49) 4A Black crappie 5 220-268 ND(0.18)
RM 41.5 Largemouth bass 5 227-330 ND(0.15) RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 219.244 ND(0.08)
Common carp 5 585-621 1.6 Common carp 5 574-645 0.58
Channel catfish 5 416-458 ND(0.28) Charnel catfish 5 425-482 0.83
413 Black crappie 5 233-252 ND(0.15) 4B Black crappie 5 233-244 ND(0.27) `
RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 259.330 ND(0.17) RM 39.0 Largemouth bass 5 276-305 ND(0.32)
Common carp 5 563-686 9.1 Common carp 5 621-680 4.7
Flathead catfish 5 414-523 ND(0.20) Flathead catfish 5 372-513 ND(0.46)
5 Rock bass 4 155-190 ND(0.11) 5 Rock bass 5 170-203 ND(0.29)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 295-365 ND(0.21) RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 297-430 ND(0,19)
Smallmouth buffalo 5 464-537 ND(0.31) Smallmouth buffalo 5 476-565 ND 0.31)
Total Fish Filleted 99 Total Fish Filleted 100

Table 6-4 (cont.).
2000 Resuhsol) 2001 ResuhS(d)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD(°) Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt°t
1 Redbreast sunfish 5 137-148 ND(0.48) 1 Black wilhorse 5 312-407 ND(0.25)
RM 64.5 Rock bass 5 162-186 ND(0.45) RM 64.5
Black redhorse 5 357-396 ND(0.38)
2 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-176 ND(0.31) 2 Common carp 5 456-555 ND(0.27)
RM 59.0 Redbreast sunfish 5 164-181 ND(0.43) RM 59.0
Common carp 5 505-582 ND(0.42)
3 Redbreast sunfish 5 169-181 ND(0.43) 3 Common carp 5 504-615 ND(0.35)
RM 52.3 Redbreast sunfish 5 186-199 ND(032) RM 52.3
Common carp 5 514-569 ND(0.53)
4A Black crappie 5 212-241 ND(0.29) 4A Channel catfish 5 476-612 1.2
RM 41.5 Black crappie 5 220.241 ND(0.24) RM 41.5 Common carp 5 529-668 1.3
Common carp 4 559-604 1.1
Channel catfish 5 435-487 ND(0.70)
4B Black crappie 5 213-231 ND(0.41) 4B Flathead catfish 5 40SA63 ND(0.29)
RM 39.0 Black crappie 5 220-230 ND(0.37) RM 39.0 Common carp 5 654-723 5.6
Common carp 4 593-712 4.4
Flathead catfish 5 407.450 ND(0.42)
5 Rock bass 5 - 171-198 ND(0.45) 5 .Black redhorse 5 437-497 ND(0.26)
RM 19.0 Smallmouth bass 5 209-238 ND(0.31) RM 19.0
Black redhorse 5 427-476 ND 0.3
Total Fish Filleted 98 Total Fish Filleted 40

Table 6-4 (cont.).
2002 Results"? 2003 Results(h)
Number of Length Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(mm) 2,3,7,8-TCDD") Station Species Fish Range(moo) 2,3,7,8-TCDDt4
RM
1 64.5 Black redhorse 5 372-431 ND(0.14) 1 Black redhorse 5 343-420 ND(0.20)
RM 64.5
2 Common carp 5 517-548 ND(0.28) 2 Common carp 5 512-584 ND(0.18)
RM 59.0 RM 59.0
3 Common carp 5 575-632 ND(0.22) 3 Common cup 5 545-605 ND(0.31)
RM 52.3 RM 52.3
4A Common carp 5 523-648 2.2 4A Common carp 5 655-717 3.4
RM 41.5 Channel catfish 5 425-475 ND(0.31) RM 41.5 Flathead catfish 5 521-575 ND(DL=0.35)
4B Common carp 5 647-670 6.6 4B Common carp 5 602 745 12.0
RM 39.0 Flathead catfish 5 418-505 ND(0.22) RM 39.0 Flathead catfish 5 511-533 ND(DL-0.20)
RM519 0 Black redhorse 5 430-489 ND(0.14) 5 Black redhorse 5 445-524 ND(DL=0.19)
RM 19.0
Total Fish Filleted 40 Total Fish Filleted 40

Table 6-4 (cont.).
2004 Resultstd
Number of Length
Station Species Fish Range(min) 2,3,7,8-TCDDtn
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 369453 ND(0.17)
3 Common carp 5 597.609 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)
5 Black redhorse 5 420-480 ND(0.13)
RM 19.0
Total Fish Filleted 40
(a) Survey conducted by EA Engineering,Science,and Technology. Analyses conducted by ENSECO Laboratories 1990-1994,Quanterra Laboratories 1995-1999,Sevem Trent Laboratories iu 2000-
2003.
(b) Survey conducted in August.
(c) Survey conducted in August and September.
(d) Survey conducted in September.
(e) Units=ppt(parts per trillion)or pg/g(pioogram per gram)
ND =Non-detectable at the detection limit in parentheses.

APPENDIX D
2006 REVISIONS TO DIOXIN MONITORING PLAN
34

WA Michael F.Easley,Governor
0 9 William G.Ross Jr.,Secretary
\0[� Q North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
fiJ Alan W.Klimek,P.E.Director
Division of Water Quality
p .� Coleen H.Sullins,Deputy Director
uality
nn E C E
June 6, 2006 JUN 12
Mr. Paul S. Dickens
Manager, Environmental Affairs BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC
Blue Ridge Paper Products BHS DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box,4000
Canton,North Carolina 28716
Subject: Revisions to Dioxin Monitoring Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products
NPIDES 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.
• 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 continents please feel free to contact Mark Hale at 919/733-
6946.
nc(�r
e
immie verton
ironmental Sciences Section
cc: Roger Edwards -ARO
Dr. Luanne Williams—NCDHHS
Susan Wilson -DWQ Permits
— John Crutchfield—Progress Energy g
Ao.x
ENR
N.C.Division of Water Quality 1617 Nail Service Center Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1-877-623-6748

BLUE RIDGE ac py
i 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 Inc.
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 followed 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.
7
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 in 2000 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-
3/30/06, 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
Keith 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 a PO Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 o 828-646-2000
Raising Your Expectations

BLUE RIDGE
I�fi PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
STUDY ELAN REVISION
DIOXIN MONITORING IN 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
Knoxville,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
1
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 2001a). 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 Paper 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 4B); 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 4B) 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 4B
O 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 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 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 Sevem 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
chlorodibenzo 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. 1.1370.07,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 of 2005 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 H Health Assessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin(TCDD and Related Compounds.

copy ,
EA Project 13900.01
, r
STUDY PLAN FOR PIGEON RIVER
DIOXIN MONITORING IN FISH TMUE
Prepared for.,
Blue Ridge Paper Products
Canton, NC
Prepared by.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18
Deerfield, IL 60015
I
December2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I..........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
r
� r
i

1. INTRODUCTION
This study plan details the materials and methods that will be used to amorally 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
1-40
Station 5
RM 19.0 5
Bluffton TN--
(19.3f
d�Hartford,TN
TENNESSEE N
^ ^ NORTH
N;
CAROLINA
GteeK I v
/ N
qt9 Hydro Plant I(
(26.0) A
Il0
Itd -
A
o
A
N. Ot.
I� en5
Walters Dam— B
Station 46 Station 4A
RM 39.0 RM 41.5
4
Waterville Lake
Fines Creek
New Hepco Bridge
FLOW Jonathan
Creelr Old Rt.209
3 Station 3 Station Mill Outfall
RM 52.3 RM 50.0 RM 63.3
Waynesville STP— 2 Outfall Canton,NC
a
RM 50A
�\eG�ee Clyde Station 1 1
RM 64.5
(Control)
Figure 2-1. Fish tissue sampling station locations on the Pigeon River.
J

r
TABLE2-1 PIGEON RIVER SAMPLING STATIONS
Station River Station Location and
N ti ntber Mile Distance from Outfall Site Deccrintion/Habitat Tyne Fish Community
1 64.5 Pigeon River upstream from Canton, Characterized by riffle,ran,and pool habitats. Maximum Relative abundance dominated by minnows and darters. River
NC,adjacent to Canton Recreational depth approximately 6 fa Substrate primarily cobble and chub,greenfin darter and rock bass arc dominant. Northern hog
Pak(1.2 RM upstream from Canton boulders interspersed with gravel and sand. sucker,black redhorse,mirror shiner,redbreast sunfish,central
Mill outfall), stoncroller,greenside darter,and mottled sculpin arc common.
2 59.0 Pigeon River upstream from Clyde,NC Characterized by riffle,run,and pool habitats with canopy Relative abundance dominated by redbreast sunfish,central
(4.3 RM downstream from the Canton cover. Maximum depth approximately 5 ft. Substrate stoncroller,and northern hog sucker.
Mill outfall). primarily cobblelgravellsand with some boulders and bedrock.
3 52.3 Pigeon River in the vicinity of the Rt. Characterized by riffle,mn,and pool habitats with some Redbreast sunfish,northern Ihog sucker,and common carp are
209 bridge(11.0 RM downstream canopy cows. Maximum depth approximately 5 ft. dominant. Central stoncroller is common.
from the Canton Mill outfalt) Substrate primarily bedrock and boulders with some
cobble and sand/gravel/fncs deposited in pool areas.
4A 41.5 Upper Waterville lake(21.8 RM Characterized by deep-water lentic habitat,bedrock, Relative abundance dominatedby black crappic. Bluegill,
downstream from the Canton Mill and soft bottom sediments. Maximum depth sampled Flathead catfish,channel catfish,largemouth bass,and common
outfall) approximately 14 ft. carp are common.
4B 39.0 lower Waterville lake(24.3 RM Characterized by deep-water lentic habitat,bedrock, Relative abundance of catch dominated by black crappim
downstream from the Canton Mill and soft bottom sedimmts Maximum depth sampled Bluegill,channel catfish,Flathead catfish,and carp am common.
outfall) 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 stoncroller and northern hog sucker are dominant.
upstream of 140(44.3 RM downstream riffles. Maximum depth approximately 6 to 8 tit. Substrate Smalimouth bass,whitetail shiner,telescope shiner,greenside
from the Canton Mill outfall) primarily bedrock,boulder,and cobble. darter,and banded sculpin are common. Except for
smallmou(h bass and rock bass,centrarchids are uncommoon.

J 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
f

In summary,fish will be collected as follows:
o Bottom feeder fillet composite—one sample at all six stations
Catfish fillet composite—one sample at Stations 4A and at 4B
c 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
4
7

ti
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 obtahi 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.
t ,
T
8

1 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:
® Sample identification number,
m Station identification,
o Sampling team initials,
o Date of sample collection,
a Species name,
O Sample type(i.e.,fillet or whole body)
( a 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 Dibenzofurans 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.
fi
13