NC0000078_Report_19960223

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0000078
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
February 23, 1996
This document iasc printed on reuse paper - igYiore airy
content on the reYerse side

i
Mcosta a division of P. H. GLATFELTER CO.
P.O. BOX 200 • PISGAH FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA 28768-0200
TELEPHONE [phone]
GUSSMAN
etor, Environmental Affairs
el. 704/877-2347
Fax [phone]
Mr. Steve W. Tedder
Chief, Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject: Fish Tissue Monitoring
NPDES No. NC0000078
Transylvania County
Dear Mr. Tedder:
G�- Tc'ki
alp+�
February 23, 1996
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILLt REGIONAL OFFIC
On December 13, 1995, the results of the 1995 fish tissue sampling of the
French Broad River were submitted to you. This most recent study
confirms the results of earlier samplings conducted in 1989, 1990, 1991,
1992, 1993 and 1994, which show that fish from the French Broad River
containeither non -detectable or relatively low concentrations of dioxin.
In the cover letter attached to this study, we requested that the P. H.
Glatfelter Company be allowed to reduce the fish tissue analysis from
annually to triennially. This request was based on the latest monitoring
results that indicated there was no dioxin concerns. If you agree with this
finding, the fourth paragraph of Part V of our current NPDES permit
allows you to grant an alternate fish tissue analysis schedule. Since we are
in the process of negotiating a contract for the 1996 fish tissue sampling,
an early response would be appreciated.

Mr. Steve W. Tedder
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
February 23, 1996
Page 2
Should you have questions or require further information, please call me at
704/877-2347, or Dr. C. Neal Carter at 717/225-4711, extension 2499.
Sincerely,
RJG
jh
Attachment
cc: C. N. Carter - PHG, Spring Grove
R. M. Davis - NCDEM, Asheville
L. W. Nelson
ENVI R ON 1 G USSMAN j DIOXI Nl TE DDER-2. LTR

•
costa a division of P. H. GLATFELTER CO.
P.O. BOX 200 • PISOAii FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA 28788-0200
TELEPHONE [phone]
R. J. COWMAN
Director, Environmental Affairs
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
December 13, 1995
UPS OVERNIGHT MAIL
Mr. Steve W. Tedder
Chief, Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject: Dioxin Monitoring - Fish Tissue
NPDES No. NC0000078
Transylvania County
Dear Mr. Tedder:
The attached report describes the results of the analysis
for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-furan (TCDF) in the tissues of fish
taken from the French Broad River during September of 1995.
These fish were taken and analyzed by contractors of the
P. H. Glatfelter Company in fulfillment of our current
NPDES permit. This study supplements and updates fish
samplings conducted on Ecusta's behalf by outside con-
tractors in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
This study confirms the results of earlier samplings, which
show that fish from the French Broad River contain either
non -detectable or relatively low concentrations of dioxin.
The results detailed in this report also indicate that
dioxin continues to be present in fish collected far
upstream of the mill. In the sampling reported herein, -
dioxin was detected in only two samples llected below the
mill; both had less than 0.1 ng/kg. 100 Al.
Because of the above results and in an effort to reduce the
substantial monitoring burden that the recently issued
NPDES permit has placed on this facility, we are peti-
tioning the Division, as allowed in paragraph 4 of part V
of our current NPDES permit, to reduce the fish tissue
analysis from annually to triennually.

Mr. Steve W. Tedder
Department of Environment,
iealth & Natural Resources
December 13, 1995
Page 2
Should you have questions or require further information,
please calll me at 704/877-2347 or Dr. C. Neal Carter at
717/225-4711, extension 2499.
Sincerely,
RJG
jh
Attachments
cc: C. N. Carter - PHG, Spring Grove
R. M. Davis - NCDEM, Asheville
bcc: D. G. Mandelbaum - Ballard, Spahr
ENVIROH\GOSSIUIijDIOIIN\TEDDER4. LTR

2,3.7,8-TCDD MONITORING AT PISGAH FOREST
Sludge Landfill Final
Leachate. ppq Effluent, ppq
1991
1st Quarter ND (4.0) ND (5.0)
2nd Quarter ND (8.0) ND (8.0)
3rd Quarter ND (3.0) ND (5.0):
4th Quarter ND (3.0) ND (5.0)
1992
1st Quarter ND (1.0) ND (1.7)
2nd Quarter ND (0.5) ND (0.6)
3rd Quarter ND (7.6) ND (7.7)
4th Quarter ND (2.7) ND (1.5)
1993
1st Quarter ND (8.7) ND (2.2)
2nd Quarter ND (2.3) ND (3.3)
3rd Quarter ND (3.6) ND (4.4)
4th Quarter ND (4.6) ND (3.6)
1994
1st Quarter ND (2.0) ND (2.1)
2nd Quarter ND (2.7) ND (1.9)
3rd Quarter ND (0.9) ND (1.9)
4th Quarter ND (3.6) ND (2.7)
1995
1st Quarter ND (0.9) ND (1.0)
2nd Quarter ND (3.4) ND (4.3)
3rd Quarter ND (7.8) ND (9.3)

-;
RESULTS OF 1995
FISH TISSUE SAMPLING
Prepared for:
Division of Environmental Managment
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Ecusta Division
P. H. Glatfelter Company
Pisgah Forest, North Carolina
December • 1995

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This report details the results of a study conducted in September, 1995 to determine
the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TCDD, dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (TCDF, furan) in
fish from the French Broad River drainage basin in Transylvania County, North
Carolina. This study was conducted in response to Part V of NPDES Permit No.
NC0000078 issued to the P. H. Glatfelter Company (Glatfelter) and a study plan
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NC DEM) in
April, 1991.
In April, 1989, Glatfelter, at the request of NC DEM, conducted a fish tissue study to
assess the concentration of dioxin in fish from the French Broad River. A second, more
extensive study was conducted in 1990, again at the request of NC DEM. Annual
sampling was conducted in the fall of 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. This report details
the results of the seventh fish tissue study conducted in September, 1995. Consistent
with the objective of the first six studies, the purpose of this study was to further assess
the concentration of dioxin in fish tissue from the French Broad River.
The French Broad River is the receiving water for many point sources of industrial and
municipal waste waters, including the industrial waste water discharged from the
Ecusta mill. In addition, there are numerous non —point sources of pollutants in the
French Broad River watershed including agricultural lands. Many of these point and
non -point sources are possible sources of TCDD and TCDF found in the French Broad
River. Fish tissue monitoring conducted in 1990 quantified TCDD and TCDF in fish
tissue samples collected far upstream and downstream of the Ecusta mill's discharge.
These results indicate that Glatfelter's discharge is certainly not the source of all TCDDifi
and TCDF to French Broad River fish, and do not confirm that Glatfelter's discharge is.
the source of any TCDD or TCDF. These results were further confirmed by the 1992'
study where TCDD was4 tected in fish from the upstream control statio! n at a
concentration of 0.04 partsper trillion (pea and_TCDF was detected in all samples at
the control station at concentrations between 0.09 and 0.17 opt. The results detailed M, a,A,
port in this reTh icate that dioxin continues to be present..in fish collected far upstream '"�
of the mill. Furthermore, the concentration o oxn in if sh tissue collected below the
mill has continued to decline steadil pce the first study in 1989. In the sampling
reported here dioxin was detected in only two samples collected below the mill,
however, the concentration in these samples was well below anv level of regulatory
concern.
The location of the fish tissue sampling stations, sampling objectives, and tissue study
methods are provided in Section 2.
Analytical results of the fish tissue analyses and a brief discussion of the results are
presented in Section 3. Field data sheets, analytical laboratory reports, and chain -of -
custody forms are included as Appendices.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 STATION LOCATIONS
In accordance with the approved study plan, fish were collected from three stations in
the French Broad River. A control or background station (Station 1) was located in the
vicinity of State Road (SR) 1129 near Calvert, approximately 22 River Miles (RM)
upstream of the Ecusta Mill outfall (Figure 2-1). Station 2 was located approximately 1
RM downstream of the Ecusta Mill discharge where Patton Bridge passes over the
French Broad River (Figure 2-2). Because this station is located immediately down-
stream of the mixing zone of the mill's effluent, it is reasonable to assume that this
station measures the impacts, if any, of the Ecusta Mill's discharge on fish tissue from
the French Broad River with the fewest confounding variables.
Station 3 (Figure 2-2) was located near Penrose approximately 5 RM downstream of
the discharge in the vicinity of Crab Creek Road. Detailed sampling station
.information is provided in Table 2-1. -
Fish sampling was conducted in the immediate vicinity of each location. However, the
sample reach at each station was extended to facilitate collection of the required
number and species of fish.
2.2 SAMPLING OBJECTIVES AND TECHNIQUES
The goal of the fish collection effort was to collect five composite samples at each
station. Ideally, each composite was to be comprised f fiIIAtS from 40 fish, Sample
objectives for each station were:
* three composite samples for smallmouth bass or brown trout or
largemouth bass or redbreast sunfish or rock bass
* two composite samples for catfish (catfish and bullheads not in same
composite).
Ejeg effort was made to collect the desired species and number of specimens.
However, the outcome oft a sam • n. of . • , . ' ii atel • e. endent u• on the
natural diversity an• a• un • ance of fish in the French Broad River.
Sampling was conducted during the period September 12-14, 1995 by a crew
consisting of one fisheries scientist and one field technician, who also served as the
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Officer. All fish were collected by the active method
of boat electro-shocking.

Figure 2-1 Sampling Station 1 on the French Broad River

Girdent; • %„
o\t-r
•• t .e+4t•Y•
•b•t'—
Davidson Ri.
ttGem •.tr•
•
•r
•
��at.•Riv1t110n t •'•
• jvcr �r.
• cRSONV/LLE
tl
MIIo
190O•.
••
`• STATION 2
• 1'.I lun
•• . Nudge
••
i:' %
• • t • 14.7. .—f1'.f.. n
Creek
• ',l
,c•
• •
•
t'
AV: 1i
i•'(
k
f•
��g• l • •I / ) S
%
STATION 3*•'•
• � •••• •Jt 1lndErwOOd
D•
Gturch '1
• l•4".) •Or.
• �.� +
(----Nr‘
\ t •__, sCoUr
N)... I
y
bjtj
tql.... .„.„, if
4.,. . ......„
• ,
,... . -'.1
,11
CF
• • ui8ye ./ v.;i. •' •208e ` li
• 4.7
• .�•4-'� t411e VV; / l • s //
••+ Osborne Cent•, y ,:�}•. /
.e -..," • • 4 tIFII9f , 3• • I...
•
l t e l• I ' . L' :010 % Cf i
•
li';•'., . i i ,1 T.1
tit .
µ
1 i • ..,*? Ea jlt[Nest.1:9np.. •',. .1 • X.
•
:>,•
M
• •s?,.
Figure 2-2 Sampling Stations 2 and 3 on the French Broad River

TABLE 2-1 FRENCH BROAD RIVER SAMPLING STATION INFORMATION
Station Distance
Number from Outfall
1 22 RM upstream
of outfall
2
3
Station
Location
In vicinity of
SR 1129 at aban-
doned USGS
gauging station
1 RM downstream Vicinity of
of outfall Patton Bridge
on Everett Rd.
5 RM downstream Vicinity of
of outfall. Crab Creek
Road near
Penrose
Site Description/
Habitat Type
Characterized by
riffle and run
habitat with some
small pockets/pools
along margins.
Substrate primarily
cobble with occa-
sional boulder and
bedrock. Deposits of
sand and silt near
margins.
Characterized by
riffle and run
habitat with some
small pockets/pools
along stream margins,
Some under cut. banks.
Substrate primarily
cobble and boulder,
with sand, silt and
mud along margins.
Primarily run and
pool habitat with
some riffles.
Substrate primarily
mud and boulder.
Mature canopy cover
with eroded banks.
Fish Community
Dominated by redhorse,
northern hogsucker, rock
bass, sunfish and river
chub.
Dominated by redhorse,
largemouth bass, sunfish,
and hogsuckers. River
chub and rock bass also
present.
Dominated by river chub,
redhorse, and sunfish.

At each station the available habitat was shocked repeatedly for approximately one
hour. Sport or game fish composites were composed of redbreast sunfish (Stations 1,
2, & 3), rock bass (Stations 1 & 2), and largemouth bass (Station 2). River chub were
collected at Stations 1, 2 and 3, while bluegill sunfish were collected at Station 3.
Bottom feeder composites were composed of northern hogsucker (Stations 1 & 2),
black redhorse (Station 1), and golden redhorse (Station 3). In several cases it was
not possible to collect 10 individual specimens for each composite. All fish were kept
on ice until sorted, weighed, measured, wrapped, labeled, and composited.
Field notes are provided in Appendix A.
2.3 SAMPLE PREPARATION AND SHIPMENT
Upon completion of fish collection at each site, fish were sorted according to species
and target organisms were identified. For each target species, 10 specimens of similar
length and weight were selected for each composite sample. If less than 10 speci-
mens of a species were collected at a station, all specimens, regardless of size, were
included in the composite.
Length and weight data were collected on each specimen and recorded in the field
notebook (Appendix A). A detailed summary of each fish composite, including the
length and weight of each individual specimen, is provided in Table 2-2.
All specimens were submitted as whole body organisms to the analytical laboratory.
Samples were not prepared in any manner prior to wrapping in aluminum (dull side
toward fish) and placing in a labeled zip -lock plastic bag. All individual specimens
comprising a single composite were placed in a second labeled plastic bag. All labels
contained the following information:
— sample identification number,
— station location and number,
— sampler's names,
— date and time of collection,
— Genus species and common name, and
— composite number.
All composite samples were recorded on a chain -of -custody record which was
shipped to the laboratory with the samples (see Appendix B). All samples were frozen
solid and packed in coolers with ice prior to overnight shipment to the analytical
laboratory. Samples were shipped to Triangle Laboratories via United Parcel Service
on September 20, 1995 and received at the laboratory on September 21, 1995.

f,1
1.
TABLE 2-2 FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES
Station/Composite Species
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse
Sta 1 Comp 3
• Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 3
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Sta 1 Comp 4
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern hogsucker
River chub
River chub
River chub
River chub
River chub
River chub
River chub
River chub
River chub
River chub
# Length (mm) Weight (gm).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
366
348
382
362
385
397
341
364
372
364
Mean = 368
241
233
247
253
217
228
252
245
202
193
Mean = 231
193
163
157
160
147
139
159
141
133
144
Mean = 154
488
484
568
494
530
574
390
484
538
512
Mean = 506
170
138
176
176
110
140
192
156
88
76
Mean = 142
84
50
44
45
37
27
42
30
27
33
Mean = 42

1. t\
TABLE 2-2 FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES (Continued)
Station/Composite Species # Length (mm) Weight (gm)
Sta 1 Comp 5 Rock bass 1 102 18
Sta 1 Comp 5 Rock bass 2 83 9
Sta 1 Comp 5 Rock bass 3 76 6
Sta 1 Comp 5 Rock bass 4 64 5
Sta 1 Comp 5 Rock bass 5 64 5
Sta 1 Comp 5 Rock bass 6 51 2
Mean = 73 Mean = 7.5
Sta 1 Comp 6 ' Redbreast sunfish 1 164 76
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 2 145 60
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 3 147 54
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 4 140 50
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 5 119 32
. Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 6 112 25
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 7 91 12
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 8 89 12
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 9 84 10
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 10 75 8
Mean = 117 Mean = 34
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 1 186 126
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish • 2 177 104
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 3 180 110
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 4 169 86
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 148 63
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 6 182 106
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 7 162 80
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 8 129 40
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 9 154 74
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 132 45
Mean = 162 Mean = 83

1\
TABLE 2-2 FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES (Continued)
Station/Composite Species # Length (mm) Weight (gm)
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 1 98 8
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 2 130 26
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 3 145 35
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 4 130 22
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 5 155 46
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 6 142 - 31
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 7 129 24
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 8 149 35
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 9 147 36
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 10 175 59
Mean = 140 Mean = 32
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 1 135 32
• Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 2 154 39
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 3 . 201 96
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 4 189 72
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 5 164 52
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 6 195 92
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 7 163 58
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 8 140 32
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 9 179 66
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 10 164 50
Mean = 168 Mean = 59
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 1 131 39
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 2 122 34
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 3 110 29
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 4 123 32
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 5 121 35
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 6 118 30
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 7 113 25
Mean = 206 Mean = 32
Sta 2 Comp 8 Largemouth bass 1 209 114
Sta 2 Comp 8 Largemouth bass 2 182 80
Sta 2 Comp 8 Largemouth bass 3 197 98
Sta 2 Comp 8 Largemouth bass 4 215 138
Sta 2 Comp 8 Largemouth bass 5 244 216
Sta 2 Comp 8 Largemouth bass 6 188 90
Mean = 206 Mean = 123

TABLE 2-2 FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES (Continued)
Station/Composite Species # Length (mm) Weight (gm)
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Sta 3 Comp 1
Golden redhorse 1 388 692
Golden redhorse 2 420 780
Golden redhorse 3 345 530
Golden redhorse 4 366 610
Golden redhorse 5 386 666
Golden redhorse 6 376 652
Golden redhorse 7 301 388
Golden redhorse 8 323 424
Golden redhorse 9 333 404
Golden redhorse 10 356 536
Mean = 359 Mean = 568
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 1 180 108
.Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 2 183 114
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 3 . 182 106
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 4 155 70
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 5 162 80
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 6 153 64
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 7 138 52
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 8 152 57
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 9 146 68
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 136 50
Mean = 159 Mean = 77
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 1 126 24
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 2 120 26
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 3 116 32
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 4 125 31
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 5 109 21
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 6 112 24
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 7 101 17
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 8 108 22
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 9 109 21
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 10 97 13
Mean = 112 Mean = 23

TABLE 2-2 FISH TISSUE COMPOSITES (Continued)
Station/Composite Species # Length (mm) Weight (gm)
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
Sta3 Comp 5
River chub 1 185 78
River chub 2 179 64
River chub 3 148 33
River chub 4 143 33
River chub 5 137 31
River chub 6 136 - 29
River chub 7 134 26
River chub 8 146 36
River chub 9 140 30
River chub 10 136 28
Mean =148 Mean = 39
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 1 171 118
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 2 156 66
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 3 122 27
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 4 87 12
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 5 92 12
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 6 98 14
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 7 93 11
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 8 86 13
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 9 73 6
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegil sunfish 10 77 7
Mean = 106 Mean = 29

2.4 ANALYTICAL METHODS
The final preparation of each sample was conducted by analytical laboratory
personnel who filleted and composited the tissue samples prior to extraction and
chemical analysis. On September 27, 1995 Triangle Laboratories personnel
contacted Glatfelter personnel to inform them that there was insufficient tissue mass to
,2ollect a fillet sample -from Composite # 5 from Station # 1. Triangle Laboratories
personnel su es e t a le body analysis be conducted on this sample.
Glatfelter personnel agreed with this sug a ion
Fish tissue samples were analyzed for TCDD and TCDF using U.S. EPA Method
1613A. Each composite was also analyzed for percent lipid content.
All analyses were conducted by Triangle Laboratories, 801 Capitola Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27713. Analytical results were received by Glatfelter on October 16,
1995.

3. RESULTS
3.1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
.The results of the analyses of the 15 composite fish tissue samples for TCDD and
TCDF are summarized in Table 3-1. All samples were anal zed using the DB-5
column which is isomer specific jarace.ag. The Triangle La oratory summary analyti-
cal report is provided in Appendix B. The percent lipid content of each composite is
also reported in Table 3-1.
As indicated in Table 3-1, TCDD was detected in one sample of fish tissue collected
from each of the three stations at concentrations around 0.1 ppt.
•
3.2 DISCUSSION
A summary and comparison of the results of the seven fish tissue surveys conducted
between 1989 and 1994 are presented in Table 3-2.
The results of this seventh survey indicate that the concentration of TCDD and TCDF in
fish downstream ofil a mill has continued to decline since the first survey in 1989.
This decline may be in response to changes in production processes that have
rerr>oved potential dioxin and furan precursors from raw materials used in the pulp and
paper making processes at the Ecusta mill. On the other hand, these data do nct
support the proposition that the Ecusta mill is a source of dioxin or furan in the French
Broad River. Accordingly, the decrease in concentrations of dioxin and furan may be w,.(;
unrelated to the mill's process changes because the mill may never have contributed
dioxin or furan to fish in the river.
The concentra '• n • DD in all fish fillet com•osites at all stations was well below
the 3.0 ppt health advisory threshold established by the state o Nort arolina.

TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF FISH TISSUE ANALYSES RESULTSa
Percent DB-5
Sample Species No. Fish Lipid T C D D TC D F
S TAT1 O N 1
Sta 1 Comp 1 Black redhorse 10 1.2 0..08 N D(0.2)
Sta 1 Comp 3 Northern hogsucker 10 0.4 ND(0.1) ND(0.09)
Sta 1 Comp 4 River chub 10 1.2 ND(0.03) ND(0.09)
Sta 1 Comp 5 Rock bass (whole body) 6 2.8 ND(0.1) 0.32
Sta 1 Comp 6 Redbreast sunfish 10 0.5 ND(0.08) ND(0.06)
STATION 2
Sta 2 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 0.8 ND(0.1) 0.12
Sta 2 Comp 5 River chub 10 1.0 0.1 0.59
Sta 2 Comp 6 Northern hogsucker 10 0.6 ND(0.08) 0.30
Sta 2 Comp 7 Rock bass 7 0.6 ND(0.1) ND(0.2)
Sta 2 Comp 8 Largemouth bass 6 0.7 ND(0.09) 0.2
STATION 3
Sta 3 Comp 1 Golden redhorse 10 0.8 ND(0.1) 0.24
Sta 3 Comp 3 Redbreast sunfish 10 0.4 ND(0.06) ND(0.05)
Sta 3 Comp 4 Redbreast sunfish 10 1.4 . ND(0.05) 0.13
Sta 3 Comp 5 River chub 10 1.6 0.07 0.49
Sta 3 Comp 6 Bluegill sunfish 10 0.9 ND(0.07) 0.12
Notes: a = All results are in units of parts per trillion or ng/kg.
ND = Not Detected (detection limit in parentheses)
All samples were fillet samples, except as noted.

TABLE 3-2 COMPARISON OF 1989 THROUGH 1995 FISH TISSUE SURVEY RESULTS
2.3.7,8-TCDD Concentration (ppt)
species F/WB 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Station 1
J•
Brown trout F n/a ND(0.10) ND(0.19) n/a n/a n/a nla
Rock bass F n/a ND(0.10)/6.4aND(0.08) ND/ND(0.04)aND(0.3) ND(0.2) ND(0.1)
Rock bass WB n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a ND(0.1)
Northern hogsucker F n/a ND(0.10) ND(0.10) ND(0.05)• ND(0.3) ND(0.13) ND(0.1)
Redbreast sunfish F n/a n/a ' ND(0.08) n/a ND(0.4) ND(0.1) ' ND(0:08)
Black redhorse F n/a n/a ND(0.12) ND(0.05) ND(0.3) ND(0.1) 0.08
Bluegill sunfish F n/a n/a nla 0.04 n/a n/a n/a
River chub F n/a n/a n/a n/a nla ND(0.1) N D (0.03)
$teiQn 2
Redbreast sunfish F 1.03 0.64 0.24 n/a ND(0.20) ND(0.1) ND(0.1)
Largemouth bass F 0.98 0.61 ND(0.15) ND(0.08) ND(0.18) ND(0.2) ND(0.09)
Flat bullhead F 2.70 1.8 ND(0.35) n/a n/a n/a n/a
b own tro _ F 20.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
us e lunge F 2.85 n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n/a
Rock bass F n/a 0.38 n/a n/a ND(0.2) ND(0.1) ND(0.1)
Black redhorse F n/a n/a ND(0.17) ND(0.07) ND(0.1) 0.15 n/a
Black redhorse WB 3.98 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Northern hogsucker WB 4.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a nla n/a
Northern hogsucker F n/a n/a n/a ND(0.09) ND(0.3) ND(0.2) ND(0.08)
Black crappie F n/a n/a ND(0.20) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bluegill sunfish F n/a n/a n/a ND(0.09) n/a nla n/a
White crappie F n/a n/a n/a 0.08 n/a n/a n/a
River cbub F n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.1

TABLE 3-2 COMPARISON OF 1989 THROUGH 1995 FISH TISSUE SURVEY. RESULTS (CONT)
Species
2.3.7.8-TCDD Concentration (ppt)
F/WB 1 989 1 990, 1 991 1 992 1 993 1 994 1 995
Station 3
Redbreast sunfish F 0.38 0.87 ND(0.16) 0.30/0.06a ND(0.1) ,a ND(0.09) ND(0.06)/ND(0.05)a
Bluegill sunfish F 0.30 1.3 n/a ND(0.06) n/a n/a ND(0.07)
Rock bass F 0.27 0.6 ND(0.16) n/a ND(0.4) ND(0.07) n/a
Flat bullhead F 1.30 1.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Smallmouth bass F 0.96 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Yellow bullhead F n/a 8.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Black redhorse WB 2.5611.50a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Black redhorse F n/a n/a ND(0.16) 0.10 ND(0.2) ND(0.1) n/a
Largemouth bass F n/a n/a ND(0.22) n/a ND(0.2) ND(0.2) n/a
Northern hogsucker F n/a n/a ND(0.17) 0.09 ND(0.2) ND(0.08) n/a
Golden redhorse F n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ND(0.1)
River chub F n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.07
Notes:
n/a = not applicable
ND = Not Detected (detection limit in parentheses)
a = two separate composites
F/WB =fillet or whole body sample