904-R-04-001C
Compendium of issues surrounding the levels of contaminants
contained in fish collected in tributaries leaving the
Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) and associated risks from
exposure to those levels of contaminants : volume 3
Compiled by:
John R. Stockwell, MD, MPH
Captain, U.S. Public Health Service
prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
2004
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Resource Group
Water Management
Clean Water Initiative
RESERVOIR MONITORING - 1992
FISH TISSUE STUDIES
IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY IN 1991 AND 1992
Prepared by
Donald L. Williams
Fish and Wildlife Associates
Donald L. Dycus
Tennessee Valley Authority
Clean Water Initiative
Chattanooga, Tennessee
December 1993
-------
CONTENTS
Tables iv
Figures vii
Executive Summary x
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Screening Studies 3
2.1 Methods 4
2.2 Results and Recommendations 5
3.0 Intensive Reservoir Studies 47
3.1 Wheeler Reservoir 49
3.2 Nickajack Reservoir 68
3.3 Parksville Reservoir 79
3.4 Watts Bar Reservoir 87
3.5 Fort Loudoun Reservoir 113
3.6 Melton Hill Reservoir 122
References 131
Appendix A - Chronological Listing of TVA Reports
Relating to Toxics in Fish 133
Appendix B - Rationale and Procedures for Collection, Processing, and
Analysis of Fish Tissue Samples 139
Appendix C - State of Tennessee - Latest Fish Advisory 153
Appendix D - Alabama Department of Public Health Fish Consumption
Advisories for the Indian Creek Embayment (September 30, 1991)
on Wheeler Reservoir and Selected Portiona of Wheeler Reservoir
(November 16, 1992) 159
Appendix E - Results of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Alabama
Department of Environmental Management Split Sample Study Conducted
on Wheeler Reservoir 165
iii
-------
TABLES
Page
2.1 Contaminant Concentrations Used as the Guideline for
Planning the Level of Continued Fish Tissue Studies in the
Tennessee Valley Waters 7
2.2 Collection Sites included in Fish Tissue Screening
Studies, Autumn 1991 8
2.3 Specific Physical Information on Individual Fish Collected for
Tissue Analysis from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1991 . . 11
2.4 Concentrations of Metals in Composited Fish Flesh Samples
from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1991 18
2.5 Concentrations of Pesticides and PCBs in Composited Fish
Flesh Samples from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1991 ... 21
2.6 Highest and Second-Highest Concentrations (pg/g) of Each Metal
in Fillets (by Collection Site) Found in Fish Tissue
Screening Studies in 1991 24
2.7 Highest and Second-Highest Concentrations (pg/g) of Organics
in Fillets (by Collection Site) Found in Fish Tissue
Screening Studies in 1991 25
2.8 Contaminant Results (pg/g) from 1991 Reservoir and Inflow Sites
Which Show Need for Further Evaluation 26
2.9 Collection Sites included in Fish Tissue Screening
Studies, Autumn 1992 27
2.10 Specific Physical Information on Individual Fish Collected for
Tissue Analysis from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1992 . . 30
2.11 Concentrations of Metals in Composited Fish Flesh Samples
from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1992 38
2.12 Concentrations of Pesticides and PCBs in Composited Fish
Flesh Samples from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1992 ... 41
2.13 Highest and Second-Highest Concentrations (pg/g) of Each Metal
in Fillets (by Collection Site) Found in Fish Tissue
Screening Studies in 1992 44
2.14 Highest and Second-Highest Concentrations (pg/g) of Organics
in Fillets (by Collection Site) Found in Fish Tissue
Screening Studies in 1992 45
2.15 Contaminant Results (pg/g) from 1992 Reservoir and Inflow Sites
Which Show Need for Further Evaluation 46
3.1-1 Physical Information for Individual Fish Collected from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 1992 53
3.1-2 Concentrations (pg/g) of Organics in Composite Samples from
Wheller Reservoir, 1991 and 1992 60
3.1-3 Summary of Weight, Length, and Percent Lipid Content in Catfish,
Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Buffalo from Wheeler Reservoir,
1991 and 1992 62
iv
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
3.1-4 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Location and Year Main Effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on Lipid Content and Total Weight in
Catfish,Largemouth Bass, and Smallmouth Buffalo from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 1992 63
3.1-5 Summary of Total PCB and DDT Concentrations (pg/g) in Catfish,
Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Buffalo Composites from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 1992 64
3.1-6 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Location and Year Main Effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on PCB and DDT in Catfish, Largemouth
Bass, and Smallmouth Buffalo from Wheeler Reservoir,
1991 and 1992 65
3.1-7 One-Way Analysis' of Variance (Location Effects) and REGW Multiple
Range Test on PCB and DDT in Smallmouth Buffalo from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 19 92 66
3.1-8 Results of Analysis/Reanalysis for DDTr Concentrations (pg/g) in
Composite Samples of Smallmouth Buffalo Collected in October/November
1991 and January 1993, from TRM 320, Wheeler Reservoir 67
3.1-9 Results of Analysis for DDTr Concentrations (pg/g) in Composite
Samples of Channel Catfish and Smallmouth Buffalo Collected in
November/December 1992 67
3.2-1 Physical Information and Concentrations (pg/g) of Lipids, Chlordane,
and PCBs in Individual Fish Fillets from Nickajack Reservoir,
1991 and 1992 71
3.2-2 Summary of Lengths, Total Weights, and Percent Lipid Content
in Catfish, Carp, Smallmouth Buffalo, and Striped Bass from
Nickajack Reservoir, Collected from 1989 to 1992 73
3.2-3 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Location and Year Main Effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on Lipid Content and Total Weight in
Catfish and Carp from Nickajack Reservoir 74
3.2-4 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations (pg/g) in Individual Catfish,
Carp, Smallmouth Buffalo, and Striped Bass Fillets from Nickajack
Reservoir, Collected from 1988 to 1992 75
3.2-5 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Location and Year Main Effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on PCB Concentrations in Catfish and
Carp from Nickajack Reservoir 76
3.2-6 Results of Statistical Tests used to Compare Locatins Differences
in PCB Concentrations in Catfish, Carp and Smallmouth Buffalo from
Nickajack Reservoir, 1991 77
3.2-6 Results of Statistical Tests used to Compare Locatins Differences
in PCB Concentrations in Catfish and Carp from Nickajack
Reservoir, 1992 78
3.3-1 Physical Information and Concentrations of Lipids, PCBs, Mercury,
and Selenium in Individual Channel Catfish Fillets Collected from
Parksville Reservoir in Autumn 1992 81
3.3-2 Summary of Lengths, Total Weights, and % Lipids of Catfish,
Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, and Rainbow Trout from Parksville
Reservoir (Ocooee #1), Collected in 1992 82
V
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
3.3-3 Results of One-Way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test Comparing
Lipid Content and Total Weight in Catfish and Largemouth Bass
Between Locations in Parksville Reservoir 83
3.3-4 Summary of Total PCB, Selenium, and Mercury Concentrations (ug/g)
in Individual Channel Catfish and Largemouth Bass Fillets and
Composited Fillets from Bluegill and Rainbow Trout from
Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1), Collected from in 1992 .... 84
3.3-5 Results of Statistical Tests used to Compare Location Differences
in PCB, Selenium, and Mercury Concentrations in Channel Catfish
from Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1) in 1992 85
3.3-6 Results of Statistical Tests used to Compare Location Differences
in PCB, Selenium, and Mercury Concentrations in Largemouth Bass
from Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1) in 1992 86
3.4-1 Physical Information and Concentrations (ug/g) of Lipids, Chlordane,
and PCBs in Individual Fish Fillets from Watts Bar Reservoir,
1991 and 1992 92
3.4-2 Summary for Lengths, Total Weights, and Percent Lipids of Catfish
from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1992 and Previous Years 97
3.4-3 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Location and Year Main Effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on Lipid Content and Total Weight in
Catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir 98
3.4-4 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations (ug/g) in Catfish Fillets
from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987 to 1992 99
3.4-5 Results of One-Way Analysis of Variance used to Compare Location
Differences in PCB Concentrations in Channel Catfish from Watts
Bar Reservoir, 1991 and 1992 100
3.4-6 Summary for Lengths, Total Weights, and Percent Lipids of Sauger
from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1992 and Previous Years 103
3.4-7 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Location and Year Main Effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on Lipid Content and Total Weight in
Sauger from Watts Bar Reservoir 104
3.4-8 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations (ug/g) in Sauger Fillets
from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987 to 1992 105
3.4-9 Results of One-Way Analysis of Variance used to Compare Location
Differences in PCB Concentrations in Sauger from Watts
Bar Reservoir, 1991 and 1992 106
3.4-10 Summary for Lengths, Total Weights, and Percent Lipids of
Striped Bass/Hybrids from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1992 and
Previous Years 108
3.4-11 Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Location and Year Main Effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on Lipid Content and Total Weight in
Striped Bass/Hybrids from Watts Bar Reservoir 109
3.4-12 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations (-ug/g) in Striped Bass/Hybrids
Fillets from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987 to 1992 110
vi
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
3.4-13 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare PCB
Concentrations in Channel Catfish, Sauger, and Striped Bass
from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1988-1992 112
3.5-1 Physical Information and Concentrations (ng/g) of Lipids, Chlordane,
and PCBs in Individual Fish Fillets from Fort Loudoun Reservoir,
1991 and 1992 117
3.5-2 Summary for Lengths, Total Weights, and % Lipids of Catfish,
Carp, and White Bass from Fort Loudoun Reservoir, collected
from 1985 to 1992 118
3.5-3 Results of One-Way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test Examining
Differences among Years in Lipid Content and Total Weight in Catfish
from TRM 624-629, Fort Loudoun Reservoir 119
3.5-4 Summary of PCB Concentrations in Catfish, Carp, and White Bass
Collected in Fort Loudoun Reservoir, from 1985 to 1992 120
3.5-5 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare Yearly Differences
in PCB Concentrations in Catfish from Fort Loudoun Reservoir
1985 to 1992 121
3.6-1 Physical Information and Concentrations (ng/g) of Lipids, Chlordane,
and PCBs in Individual Fish Fillets from Melton Hill Reservoir,
1991 and 1992 125
3.6-2 Summary for Lengths, Total Weights, Percent Lipids, and PCB
Concentrations of Catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir, collected
from 1989 to 1992 126
3.6-3 Results of Two-Way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test on Lipid
Content and Total Weight in Catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir . 127
3.6-4 Results of One-Way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test on Lipid
Content and Total Weight in Catfish Collected from Melton Hill
Reservoir in 1991 and 1992 128
3.6-5 Results of Two-Way Analysis of Variance Used to Caompare Yearly
and Locations Differences in PCB Concentrations in Channel
Catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir, 1989-1992 129
3.6-6 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare Location Differences
in PCB Concentrations in Channel Catfish Collected Melton Hill
Reservoir in 1991 and 1992 130
E.l DDT Concentrations (pg/g) reported by TVA and ADEM for
Split-Sample Composites of Fish Collected in October/November
1991 and January 1993 From Wheeler Reservoir 168
E.2 Results of Paired-t Tests Conducted on Values Reported by TVA
and ADEM from Split-Sample Composites of Fish from
Wheeler Reservoir 169
vii
-------
FIGURES
Page
3.4-1 Mean PCB Concentrations (ug/g) in Catfish from Individual Sites,
TRM 530-532, TRM 557-562, TRM 570-573, and TRM 598-600, on
Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987-1992 101
3.4-2 Mean PCB Concentrations (ng/g) in Catfish from Individual Sites,
CRM 0.5-2.0, CRM 9.0-9.3, and CRM 19.0-20.5, on Watts Bar
Reservoir, 1987-1992 102
3.4-3 Mean PCB Concentrations (pg/g) in Sauger from Individual Sites,
TRM 598-600, CRM 0.5-2.0, and CRM 19.0-20.5, on Watts Bar
Reservoir, 1987-1992 107
3.4-4 Mean PCB Concentrations (pg/g) in Striped Bass/Hybrid from
Individual Sites, TRM 598-600, CRM 0.5-2.0, and CRM 19.0-20.5,
on Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987-1992 Ill
viii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TVA has been involved in fish tissue studies for a number of years. Because of the
significant interest expressed by Valley states and the fishing public, TVA's involvement in
these studies has been expanded progressively from year to year. TVA coordinates these
efforts with state and federal agencies to avoid duplication.
TVA analyzes tissues of Tennessee Valley fish as part of both intensive and screening
evaluations. Intensive studies are conducted on reservoirs where contamination problems
are known or suspected, and they include analysis of individual fillets from important fish
species from several areas in the reservoir. Primary objectives of intensive studies are to
define the species affected and the geographical boundaries of contamination. These studies
continue over a period of years to document when the contaminant ceases to be a problem.
This information is used by state public health officials to determine if fish consumption
advisories are necessary to protect human health. Screening studies, on the other hand, are
based on analysis of composited, rather than individual fillets, and are intended to identify
possible problem areas with a need for an intensive investigation.
The approach most commonly used in screening studies is to examine a reservoir as
part of the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study, which uses channel catfish as an
indicator species. Channel catfish was selected as the indicator species because it is highly
sought by both commercial and sport fishermen, because individuals usually have relatively
high concentrations of most contaminants compared to other species, and because an
historical data base exists for that species.
ix
-------
If problems are identified, an intensive study is usually undertaken the next year that
would include analysis of individual channel catfish at a greater number of locations than
sampled in the screening study. Also, other important species would be examined, including
one or more of the following: largemouth bass, striped bass, buffalo, crappie, carp, white
bass, and possibly others.
Fish collected for screening studies are usually analyzed for metals, PCBs, and
pesticides on EPA's Priority Pollutant List. Fish for intensive studies are analyzed only for
the contaminant of concern, which has been identified by screening studies, or is known as an
historic problem. Lipid content is determined on all samples.
Five TVA reservoirs (Wheeler, Nickajack, Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, and Melton Hill)
were examined intensively in 1991. These five reservoirs and Parksville Reservoir were
examined intensively in 1992. PCBs were the contaminants of interest on all these
reservoirs, except Wheeler where DDTr (total DDT) is the problem. Chlordane was also of
interest in some of these reservoirs. Fish consumption advisories which recommend either
limiting the quantity of fish eaten or avoiding any consumption are in effect for all six
reservoirs except Parksville. Advice provided by the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation and that provided by the Alabama Department of Public Health is based in
part on the results of these studies.
Results of screening studies in 1991 and 1992 did not indicate any new reservoirs in
need of intensive investigations. Several tributary reservoirs had somewhat elevated mercury
concentrations. Therefore, efforts in autumn 1993 were directed at better evaluating
mercury concentrations in these reservoirs by analyzing both channel catfish, the species
typically used as the indicator, and largemouth bass, a top predator.
x
-------
VALLEY-WIDE FISH TISSUE STUDY
You can't tell a fish
by it's cover--is it
safe to eat?
Routine, cooperative
monitoring by State,
Federal, and other
interested agencies i<
necessary to ensure
protection of public
health.
?^5Ut-T5
LOvJ L£\/£LS
STATE PU&UC HBALTH
I
NO CHAN<3£
M&H LEVELS
4"
5TAT^ ?0&LJC HEACfy
OFFlce-
4-
LAKB C-IC^EV
* V,
CovvAeeCJAl. S-P0P.T
FfS*GRjvi&\l FltweRAieAi
c?*tr AvWP LAKE
kite. I Aj ess. HUKT1M6
-------
FISH TISSUE STUDIES
IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY IN 1991 AND 1992
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has been involved in fish tissue studies for a
number of years. Because of the significant interest expressed by Valley states and the fishing
public, TVA's involvement in these studies has expanded greatly in recent years.
TVA analyzes tissues of Tennessee Valley fish as part of both intensive and screening
evaluations. Intensive studies are conducted on reservoirs where contamination problems are
known or suspected and usually include analysis of individual fillets from important fish species
from several areas in the reservoir. The primary objectives of intensive studies are to define the
species affected and the geographical boundaries of contamination. These studies continue over a
period of years to document when the contaminant ceases to be a problem. This information is
used by state public health officials to determine if fish consumption advisories are necessary to
protect human health. Screening studies are based on analysis of composited fillets and are
intended to identify possible problem areas where there is a need for intensive investigations This
report provides results from both intensive studies and screening studies conducted in 1991 and
1992.
Chapter 2 of this report provides results and identifies methodologies (e.g., species,
locations, etc.) for all 1991 and 1992 screening studies, and Chapter 3 provides similar
information for each intensive study. Appendix A is a chronological listing of TVA reports
relating to contaminants in fish. Appendix B identifies rationales and procedures used in the
1
-------
collection, processing, and laboratory and data analysis of fish tissue samples. Appendix C is the
latest fish advisory information for water bodies in Tennessee. Appendix D includes 1991 and
1992 fish consumption advisories on Wheeler Reservoir in Alabama.
2
-------
2.0 SCREENING STUDIES
TVA has two fish tissue screening programs: one examines fish annually at inflow points
in 11 of the major tributaries to the Tennessee River reservoir system; the other looks at fish from
within the reservoirs on a rotating basis, with the goal of sampling each reservoir at least once
every three years. To differentiate between the studies, areas sampled at inflow points are called
Fish Tissue-Inflow (FT-I) sites; areas included in the reservoir efforts are called Fish
Tissue-Reservoir (FT-R) sites. The two studies have different objectives and slightly different
protocols.
FT-I is intended to identify year-to-year trends in contaminants entering the reservoir
system from major watersheds. This program, which started in 1986, uses catfish, rough fish, and
game fish as indicators; FT-R, initiated in 1987, screens toxic levels in fish throughout the
Tennessee Valley, in coordination with other organizations involved in such studies.
Communication with state, federal, and industry-based biologists avoids duplication of effort;
further, the FT-R study depends on these biologists to supply some of the fish for TVA analyses.
TVA collects fish from the remaining FT-R sites, analyzes all fish, and furnishes results to the
cooperating groups.
A part of the FT-R study design allows for attention to special analytical requests by
cooperating agencies. Results from FT-R are intended to lead to one of three alternatives
(referred to as teir 1, teir 2, and teir 3). If all values for contaminants in fish flesh from a reservoir
are low (tier 1), that reservoir will be resampled in about three years if any contaminant is high
(tier 3), the reservoir would be recommended for an intensive study with detailed plans and
funding sources developed by all involved organizations. If levels of contaminants are between
3
-------
those extremes (termed tier 2), that reservoir will be sampled again at the screening level the next
year to better determine whether a problem exists. Values termed low and high were selected
from a combination of sources including Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tolerances and
action levels (FDA 1987), Preliminary Guidance Values (Travis, et al. 1986), and subjective
evaluations based on experience with such studies in the Tennessee Valley. Specific tier levels for
each contaminant included in this study are provided in Table 2.1.
This report presents the results from screening studies in 1991 and 1992. Results of
similar investigations in previous years are included in the reports listed in Appendix A. In 1991
and 1992, composite samples were collected from most reservoirs. Collection sites for 1991 fish
screening samples are listed in Table 2.2 and sites for 1992 are listed in Table 2.8.
2.1 Methods
2.1.1 Study Species
Fish collected for analysis at FT-I monitoring stations include five specimens each of game
fish, catfish, and rough fish. The order of preference for species within each category is listed
below.
Game Catfish Rough
Largemouth bass
Channel
Carp
Crappies
Blue
Freshwater drum
Spotted bass
Flathead
Buffaloes
Smallmouth bass
Bullhead
Redhorses
Bluegill
Other sunfishes
4
-------
If five individuals of the most preferred species within a category could not be collected,
individuals from the next preferred species were substituted to achieve the full complement of five
(e.g., three largemouth bass, one white crappie, and one spotted bass). The practice of using
various species for a five-fish composite was employed occasionally in 1991 and 1992, but is not
preferred. Subsequent studies will only use composites of a single species.
Because FT-R is such a broad screening effort, a single indicator species (channel catfish)
is used to allow the greatest coverage of Valley reservoirs at the lowest possible cost. Every
effort is made to collect five channel catfish at each site, but blue or flathead catfish are used as a
last resort supplement, if repeated efforts fail to produce channel catfish.
2.1.2 Sample Processing
Appendix B provides details of procedures used by TVA during collection, processing,
and analysis of tissue samples.
2.2 Results and Recommendations
2.2.1 Results
Specific data for each of the fish in the 1991 collections are provided in Table 2.3. The
LABID number provides the means for connecting the levels of metals and organics found in
laboratory analyses (Tables 2.4, 2.5, & 2.6) with the physical data for specific fish samples.
Specific data for each fish in the 1992 collections are provides in Table 2.9 with metals and
organics analyses in Tables 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12. Tables 2.7 and 2.13 list contaminant results
from reservoir and inflow sites that show need for further evaluation.
5
-------
2.2.2 Recommendations
The sampling locations for 1993 were identified before this report was written. These
locations are listed in Table 2.14. All the sites in Table 2.13 listed as needing further evaluation
will be sampled in 1993. The 11 fixed-station monitoring sites may be placed on a two-year
rotation after 1993, with the possibility of adding more sites in the future.
Tellico Reservoir has historically had high levels of PCBs. A fish-consumption advisory is
currently in place, and TVA is examining Tellico Reservoir through time to look for trends in
PCB concentration. However, because of monetary constraints, an intensive study will not be
conducted on Tellico Reservoir in 1993. Instead largemouth bass and channel catfish will be
sampled as part of the 1993 Valley-wide Screening Study. The LTRM 11 site on Tellico
Reservoir will be moved upstream to LTRM 15 because it is more economical to use fish
captured at this site during regular monitoring.
6
-------
Table 2.1. Contaminant concentrations3 used as the guidelines for planning the level
of continued fish tissue studies in Tennessee Valley waters.
Laboratory
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Detection
Return to
Resample at Screening
Recommend
Parameter
Limit
Rotation System
Level Following Year
Intensive Study
(p-g/g)
(ng/g)
(M-g/g)
(M-g/g)
Antimony
2.0
< 5.0
> 5.0
b
Arsenic
0.02
< 0.5
> 0.5
>0.7
Beryllium
0.02
< 0.1
> 0.1
>0.3
Cadmium
0.002
< 0.5
> 0.5
>1.0
Chromium
0.02
< 0.7
U
r-*
O
A 1
>1. 5C
Copper
0.8
< 3.0
> 3.0
b
Lead
0.02
< 1.5
2. 1-5
>2.0
Mercury
0.1
< 0.5
> 0.5
>0.7
Nickel
0.6
< 2.0
> 2.0C
>4.0C
Selenium
0.02
< 1.0
i 1.0
>3.0
Thai 1 ium
0.6
< 1.0
> 1.0
>3.0
Zinc
0.1
<75.0
>75.0
b
Aldrin
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Benzene Hexachloride
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Chlordane
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
IV
o
r>o
DDT
0.01
< 2.0
> 2.0
> 4.0
Dieldrin
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Endosulfan
0.01
< 3.0
> 3.0
> 5.0
Endrin
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Heptachlor
0.01
< O.l
> 0.1
IV
o
r>o
Toxaphene
0.5
< 2.0
> 2.0
> 3.0
PCBs
0.1
< 1.0
> 1.0
> 1.5
a. These levels will be used as a general guide. Specific recommendations will be made on a
case-by-case basis.
b. Selection of a level for this metal, which would result in a recommendation to conduct
intensive studies, cannot be made at this time.
-c. Chromium and nickel frequently occur as a result of laboratory contamination from the
blending process. A suspected source would have to exist before further examination would
be recommended on the basis of metal concentrations found in laboratory analyses.
AB00095Q-2
7
-------
Table 2.2
Collection sites included in fish tissue screening studies, autumn 1991.
Site3 Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Sitec
Screening Study1"
Lower Tennessee River
TRM21 X
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM23 X
TRM61 X
TRM100 X
TRM173 X
Duck River Mile 22.5 X
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 207 X
TRM 230 X
TRM 255 X
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 260 X
TRM 274 X
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 277 X
TRM 300 X
TRM339 X
Elk River Mile 41.5 X
Guntersville Reservoir
TRM 350 X
TRM 371 X
TRM 424 X
8
-------
Table 2.2 (Continued)
Site" Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Site0
Screening Study1*
Sequatchie River Mile 7.1 X
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM472 X
TRM491 X
TRM526 X
Hiwassee River Mile 38 X
Ocoee Reservoir
ORM12 X
Blue Ridge Reservoir
ToRM 54.1 X
Hiwassee Reservoir
HiRM 77 X
Nottely Reservoir
NRM23.5 X
Chatuge Reservoir
HiRM 122 X
Emory River Mile 14.5 X
Norris Reservoir
CRM 80 X
CRM 125 X
PRM30 X
Clinch River Mile 172 X
Powell River Mile 65 X
9
-------
Table 2.2 (Continued)
Site8 Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Sitec
Screening Study
,b
Tellico Reservoir
LTRM 1 X
LTRM 11 X
Little Tennessee River Mile 95
Douglas Tailwater
FBRM 32
French Broad River Mile 77.5 X
Nolichucky River Mile 8.5 X
Cherokee Reservoir
HRM53 X
HRM75 X
HRM91 X
Holston River Mile 109.9 X
Watuaga Reservoir
WRM 109.9 X
South Fork Holston River Mile 51 X
a. TRM - Tennessee River Mile; DRM = Duck River Mile; ERM = Elk River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River
Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; ToRM = Toccoa River Mile; NRM = Nottely River Mile; CRM = Clinch
River Mile; LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile; HRM = Holston
River Mile; WRM = Watauga River Mile.
b. The Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study uses composited fillets from channel catfish from reservoir
sites.
c. The Ambient Monitoring Study uses composited fillets from catfish, rough fish, and game fish from major
inflow sites collected on an annual basis.
10
-------
Table 2.3 Specific physical information on individual fish collected for tissue analysis from inflow and
reservoir locations, 1991
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
562
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
526
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
497
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
513
911106
CHC
MALE
31748
431
911105
CHC
FMAL
31750
381
911105
CHC
FMAL
31750
610
911105
CHC
FMAL
31750
509
911105
CHC
MALE
31750
357
911105
CHC
MALE
31750
478
911126
CHC
FMAL
31753
442
911126
CHC
FMAL
31753
455
911127
CHC
FMAL
31753
446
911126
CHC
MALE
31753
477
911127
CHC
MALE
31753
432
911120
CHC
FMAL
31755
437
911120
CHC
FMAL
31755
488
911121
CHC
FMAL
31755
465
911121
CHC
FMAL
31755
450
911121
CHC
MALE
31755
568
911119
CHC
FMAL
31758
503
911119
CHC
FMAL
31758
547
911120
CHC
FMAL
31758
460
911119
CHC
MALE
31758
497
911120
CHC
.MALE
31758
476
910724
C
FMAL
17939
639
910724
C
FMAL
17939
675
910724
C
FMAL
17939
590
910724
C
MALE
17939
510
910724
c
FMAL
17941
596
910724
CHC
FMAL
17941
324
910724
CHC
MALE
17941
367
910724
CHC
MALE
17941
321
910724
CHC
MALE
17941
301
910724
CHC
FMAL
17943
403
910724
LMB
FMAL
17943
535
910724
LMB
FMAL
17943
498
910724
LMB
FMAL
17943
299
910724
LMB
MALE
17943
239
911031
CHC
FMAL
31763
450
911031
CHC
FMAL
31763
535
911031
CHC
FMAL
31763
460
911031
CHC
MALE
31763
530
911031
CHC
MALE
31763
435
911030
CHC
FMAL
31764
533
911030
CHC
FMAL
31764
468
911030
CHC
MALE
31764
498
911030
CHC
MALE
31764
460
911030
CHC
MALE
31764
463
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
399
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
424
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
489
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
563
911029
CHC
MALE
31765
513
WEIGHT
Tennessee River
Tennessee River mile 21.0
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Duck River
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
173.0
173.0
173.0
173.0
173.0
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
207.0
207.0
207.0
207.0
207.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
255.0
255.0
255.0
255.0
255.0
1725
1325
1115
1460
835
495
2300
1115
395
1010
735
913
826
933
777
810
929
927
684
1668
1254
2003
958
1237
1025
3602
3983
3078
1794
2820
292
485
281
231
529
2452
2238
337
172
784
1334
1008
1158
712
1308
92 6
1106
874
988
600
530
856
2108
874
11
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Elk. River
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
260.0
260.0
260.0
260.0
260.0
274.0
274.0
274.0
274.0
274.0
277.0
277.0
277.0
277.0
277.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300. 0
300. 0
339.0
339.0
339.0
339.0
339.0
Guntersville Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
371.0
371.0
371.0
371.0
371.0
424.0
424.0
424.0
424 .0
424.0
911211
CHC
FMAL
31766
405
911211
CHC
FMAL
31766
425
911211
CHC
FMAL
31766
401
911211
CHC
MALE
31766
471
911211
CHC
MALE
31766
513
911003
CHC
FMAL
31771
428
911003
CHC
FMAL
31771
4 97
911003
CHC
MALE
31771
517
911003
CHC
MALE
31771
533
911003
CHC
MALE
31771
423
911008
CHC
FMAL
31773
469
911008
CHC
FMAL
31773
369
911008
CHC
FMAL
31773
392
911008
CHC
FMAL
31773
395
911008
CHC
MALE
31773
4 62
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
485
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
455
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
425
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
445
911010
CHC
MALE
31776
500
911210
CHC
FMAL
31778
441
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
418
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
440
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
556
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
586
910624
LMB
MALE
17946
293
910624
SMF
MALE
17946
474
910624
SPB
FMAL
17946
281
910624
SPB
MALE
17946
311
910624
BLB
FMAL
17948
585
910624
BLB
MALE
17948
510
910701
CHC
MALE
17948
375
910701
CHC
MALE
17948
317
910624
LMB
FMAL
17948
480
910624
LMB
MALE
17948
348
910624
SMF
FMAL
17948
434
910701
CHC
FMAL
17950
404
910701
CHC
MALE
17950
393
910624
SMF
MALE
17950
480
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
400
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
554
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
408
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
431
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
490
910918
CHC
FMAL
19498
499
910918
CHC
FMAL
19498
391
910918
CHC
MALE
19498
468
910918
CHC
MALE
19498
355
910918
CHC
MALE
19498
430
911025
CHC
FMAL
31781
389
911025
CHC
FMAL
31781
452
911025
CHC
MALE
31781
463
911106
CHC
MALE
31781
505
911106
CHC
MALE
31781
679
646
722
630
970
1220
618
1052
1208
1174
638
860
384
628
582
734
1374
1006
754
890
1426
834
676
802
1970
2028
349
1792
281
396
2 608
2323
526
254
1797
635
1214
599
614
1657
690
2102
713
878
1157
1396
612
1281
476
847
4 95
869
777
1060
2806
12
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
Sequatchie River
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
320
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
299
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
352
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
318
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
DRM
MALE
17952
395
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
RKB
FMAL
17953
193
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
RKB
FMAL
17953
182
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
RKB
FMAL
17953
177
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
RKB
MALE
17953
214
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
RKB
MALE
17953
181
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
CHC
FMAL
17955
511
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
CHC
FMAL
17955
338
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
CHC
MALE
17955
416
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
CHC
MALE
17955
351
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
910611
CHC
MALE
17955
291
Chidcamauga Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 483.6
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
454
Tennessee River mile 483.6
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
337
Tennessee River mile 483.6
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
472
Tennessee River mile 483.6
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
507
Tennessee River mile 483.6
911009
CHC
MALE
19501
530
Tennessee River mile 495.0
911009
CHC
FMAL
19499
433
Tennessee River mile 495.0
911009
CHC
FMAL
19499
400
Tennessee River mile 495.0
911009
CHC
MALE
19499
482
Tennessee River mile 495.0
911009
CHC
MALE
19499
776
Tennessee River mile 495.0
911010
CHC
MALE
19499
541
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
MALE
31820
509
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
MALE
31822
469
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
FMAL
31825
509
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
MALE
31827
548
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
FMAL
31830
466
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
MALE
31832
568
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
MALE
31835
626
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
MALE
31836
472
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
MALE
31837
480
Tennessee River mile 526.0
911030
CHC
FMAL
31838
559
Hiwassee River
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
CHC
MALE
17956
428
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
CHC
MALE
17956
400
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
CHC
FMAL
17965
503
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
LMB
FMAL
17965
357
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
LMB
MALE
17965
325
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
5 67
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
555
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
543
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
447
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
498
Ocoee Reservoir
Ocoee River mile 12.0
911015
CHC
FMAL
19492
430
Ocoee River mile 12.0
911017
CHC
FMAL
19492
595
Ocoee River mile 12.0
911015
CHC
MALE
19492
595
Ocoee River mile 12.0
911015
CHC
MALE
19492
503
Ocoee River mile 12.0
911017
CHC
MALE
19492
517
Blue Ridge Reservoir
Toccoa River mile 54.1
911003
CHC
FMAL
19490
4 63
Toccoa River mile 54.1
911003
CHC
FMAL
19490
440
Toccoa River mile 54.1
911003
CHC
MALE
19490
525
Toccoa River mile 54.1
911003
CHC
MALE
19490
550
Toccoa River mile 54.1
911003
CHC
MALE
19490
504
WEIGHT
394
318
409
358
717
141
117
108
187
120
1434
334
697
331
211
933
757
903
1538
1426
725
557
1138
5968
1517
1193
921
1458
1865
1065
1858
3150
1072
1116
2093
752
613
1531
762
327
2728
2528
2390
1225
1629
783
2214
2197
1137
1279
877
645
1213
1316
974
13
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Hiwassee Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
911113
CHC
MALE
31796
591
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
911113
CHC
MALE
31796
557
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
911113
CHC
MALE
31796
560
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
911113
CHC
MALE
31796
495
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
911113
CHC
MALE
31796
495
Nottely Reservoir
Nottely River mile 23.5
911002
CHC
FMAL
19488
584
Nottely River mile 23.5
911002
CHC
MALE
19488
578
Nottely River mile 23.5
911002
CHC
MALE
19488 .
585
Nottely River mile 23.5
911002
CHC
MALE
19488
583
Nottely River mile 23.5
911002
CHC
MALE
19488
482
Chatuge Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
911001
CHC
FMAL
19494
4 65
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
911001
CHC
FMAL
19494
438
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
911001
CHC
MALE
19494
522
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
911001
CHC
MALE
19494
524
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
911001
CHC
MALE
19494
504
Emory River
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
C
FMAL
17969
552
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
C
FMAL
17969
468
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
C
MALE
17969
582
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
C
MALE
17969
540
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
C
MALE
17969
560
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
CHC
FMAL
17971
351
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
CHC
FMAL
17971
492
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
CHC
FMAL
17971
442
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
CHC
MALE
17971
356
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
CHC
MALE
17971
4 67
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
LMB
FMAL
17973
361
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
LMB
FMAL
17973
357
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
LMB
FMAL
17973
334
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
LMB
FMAL
17973
417
Emory River mile 14.5
910624
LMB
FMAL
17973
319
1641
1552
1735
1007
933
2046
1945
2118
2144
976
905
625
1089
1220
1124
2346
1355
2683
2055
2570
473
1242
678
368
661
646
549
464
1003
464
Norris Reservoir
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch River
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
911009
CHC
FMAL
31786
911009
CHC
FMAL
31786
911009
CHC
FMAL
31786
911009
CHC
FMAL
31786
911009
CHC
MALE
31786
911010
CHC
FMAL
31787
911010
CHC
FMAL
31787
911008
CHC
MALE
31787
911008
CHC
MALE
31787
911008
CHC
MALE
31787
910618
DRM
FMAL
17976
910618
DRM
FMAL
17976
910618
DRM
FMAL
17976
910618
DRM
FMAL
17976
910618
DRM
FMAL
17976
910618
RKB
FMAL
17977
910618
RKB
FMAL
17977
910618
RKB
FMAL
17977
910618
RKB
FMAL
17977
910618
RKB
FMAL
17977
910618
CHC
FMAL
17979
910618
CHC
FMAL
17979
910618
CHC
FMAL
17979
910618
CHC
MALE
17979
910618
CHC
MALE
17979
447
484
427
451
397
430
380
532
120
520
579
5 62
454
377
357
202
195
179
179
185
501
5 63
437
505
413
690
1184
746
794
634
612
444
1310
674
1105
3276
2315
1301
687
579
174
154
117
111
122
1412
2372
927
1296
649
14
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
Powell River
Powell River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
365
675
Powell River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
350
591
Powell River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
309
475
Powell River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
270
264
Powell River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
MALE
17981
262
264
Powell River mile 65
0
910612
GRH
FMAL
17982
325
470
Powell River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
MALE
17982
362
568
Powell River mile 65.
0
910617
CHC
FMAL
17991
508
1486
Powell River mile 65.
0
910612
CHC
MALE
17991
484
1106
Powell River mile 65
0
910612
GRH
FMAL
17991
344
495
Powell River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
MALE
17991
374
582
Powell River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
MALE
17991
370
603
Tellico Reservoir
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
478
1890
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
483
1583
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
416
999
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
375
790
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
374
692
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
604
2496
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
553
2065
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
516
1270
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
440
836
Little TN River mile
1.0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
394
477
Little TN River mile
11.0
911115
CHC
FMAL
31804
535
1521
Little TN River mile
11.0
911115
CHC
FMAL
31804
457
847
Little TN River mile
11.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31804
485
1056
Little TN River mile
11.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31804
453
982
Little TN River mile
11.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31804
436
707
Little TN River mile
11.0
911114
LMB
FMAL
31808
494
1981
Little TN River mile
11.0
911114
LMB
FMAL
31808
573
1637
Little TN River mile
11.0
911114
LMB
FMAL
31808
313
497
Little TN River mile
11.0
911115
LMB
FMAL
31808
394
862
Little TN River mile
11.0
911114
LMB
MALE
31808
342
641
Little Tennessee River
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
GRH
FMAL
17993
361
534
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
GRH
FMAL
17993
367
566
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
GRH
MALE
17993
364
569
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
GRH
MALE
17993
366
532
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
GRH
MALE
17993
321
377
Little TN River mile
95.0
910715
SMB
FMAL
17994
401
604
Little TN River mile
95.0
910715
SMB
FMAL
17994
257
216
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
SMB
FMAL
17994
301
328
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
SMB
FMAL
17994
308
396
Little TN River mile
95.0
910716
SMB
FMAL
17994
260
223
Douglas Tai1water
FB River mile 32.0
920114
CHC
MALE
31788
533
1522
FB River mile 32.0
920114
CHC
MALE
31788
413
683
FB River mile 32.0
920114
CHC
MALE
31788
543
1617
FB River mile 32.0
920114
SAG
FMAL
31788
519
1380
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
FMAL
31788
390
482
FB River mile 32.0
920110
CHC
FMAL
31790
363
949
FB River mile 32.0
920110
CHC
MALE
31790
603
2610
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
FMAL
31790
439
614
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
FMAL
31790
368
469
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
MALE
31790
410
616
15
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
French Broad River
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
FB
River
mile
77.5
Hoi -i '"¦hucky River
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston
River
mile
53.0
Holston
River
mile
53.0
Holston
River
mile
53.0
Holston
River
mile
53.0
Holston
River
mile
53.0
Holston
River
mile
75.0
Holston
River
mile
75.0
Holston
River
mile
75.0
Holston
River
mile
75.0
Holston
River
mile
75.0
Holston
River
mile
91.0
Holston
River
mile
91.0
Holston
River
mile
91.0
Holston
River
mile
91.0
Holston
River
mile
91.0
Holston River
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
Holston
River
mile
109.
910712
CHC
FMAL
18001
420
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
433
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
396
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
368
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
416
910709
C
FMAL
18003
618
910709
C
FMAL
18003
540
910709
C
FMAL
18003
556
910709
C
FMAL
18003
522
910709
C
FMAL
18003
521
910613
C
FMAL
17996
610
910613
C
MALE
17996
62 6
910613
C
MALE
17996
494
910613
C
FMAL
17997
527
910613
C
MALE
17997
493
910613
FHC
FMAL
17997
420
910613
FHC
FMAL
17997
410
910613
FHC
MALE
17997
510
910613
FHC
FMAL
17999
452
910613
FHC
MALE
17999
509
910613
SMB
MALE
17999
358
910613
SPB
FMAL
17999
256
910613
SPB
MALE
17999
225
911105
CHC
FMAL
31789
544
911105
CHC
MALE
31789
444
911115
CHC
MALE
31789
478
911115
CHC
MALE
31789
415
911115
CHC
MALE
31789
404
911126
CHC
FMAL
31794
462
911126
CHC
FMAL
31794
431
911106
CHC
MALE
31794
518
911106
CHC
MALE
31794
168
911126
CHC
MALE
31794
394
911120
CHC
FMAL
18009
433
911120
CHC
MALE
18009
556
911107
CHC
MALE
31799
431
911107
CHC
MALE
31799
397
911107
CHC
MALE
31799
430
910604
C
FMAL
18005
599
910604
C
FMAL
18005
536
910604
C
FMAL
18005
544
910604
C
FMAL
18005
491
910604
C
MALE
18005
475
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
467
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
530
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
514
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
529
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
447
910604
LMB
FMAL
18009
468
910604
LMB
FMAL
18009
369
910604
LMB
FMAL
18009
311
910604
LMB
MALE
18009
360
910604
LMB
MALE
18009
321
597
729
584
447
541
3425
2637
2311
1990
2042
3602
3564
1636
2204
1692
830
744
1650
1142
1578
653
284
169
1501
787
822
540
564
894
685
1167
901
555
946
1966
707
473
668
3305
2315
2251
1606
1486
1042
1630
1383
1499
888
1782
727
434
754
490
16
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
Wataug.
a Reservoir
Watauga River mile 37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
689
Watauga River mile 37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
660
Watauga River mile 37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
515
Watauga River mile 37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
465
Watauga River mile 37.4
911002
CHC
MALE
31813
440
South Fork Holston River
SFH River mile 51.0
911023
CHC
FMAL
31810
669
SFH River mile 51.0
911023
CHC
FMAL
31810
378
SFH River mile 51.0
911119
CHC
FMAL
31810
555
SFH River mile 51.0
911023
CHC
MALE
31810
568
SFH River mile 51.0
911119
CHC
MALE
31810
605
3140
2888
1229
793
671
3075
394
1818
1796
2196
17
-------
Table 2.4 Concentrations (ng/g) of metals in composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations, 1991
COLLECTION SITE SPECIES* LABID ANTIM ARSHI BERYL CADMI CHROMI COPPR LEAD HERCU NICKL SELEH SILVR THALL 2IHC
Tennessee River
Tennessee River mile 21.0
31748 < 0.20
0.13 <0.01 < 0.05
0.09
1.10
0.06
0.11 < 0.10 < 0.20
< 0.05
7.50
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 23.0
Tennessee River mile 61.0
Tennessee River mile 100.0
Tennessee River mile 173.0
CHC
31750
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
1. 40
0.04
0.14
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0. 05
7
CHC
31753
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
<1.00
0. 02
< 0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
o
o
8
CHC
31755
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
< 1.00
0. 02
0. 14
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6
CHC
31758
<
0.20
0.24
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
1 . 90
0. 10
< 0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
9
Duck River
Duck
River
mile
22.5
LMB
17939
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
<
0 . 02
0. 46
<
0. 10
0. 30
<
0.05
6.20
Duck
River
mi le
22.5
CHC
1794 1
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
o">
o
o
<
1 .00
<
0.02
0. 14
<
0. 10
< 0.20
<
0.05
9.20
Duck
River
mile
22. 5
C
17943
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 . 00
<
0.02
0.25
<
0.10
0.20
<
0. 05
17.00
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 207.0
Tennessee River mile 230.0
Tennessee River mile 255.0
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 260.0
Tennessee River mile 274.0
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 277.0
Tennessee P.iveL mile 300 0
Tennessee River mile 339.0
Elk River
Elk River mile 41.5
Elk River mile 41.5
Elk River mile 41.5
Guntersville Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 350.0
Tennessee River mile 371.0
Tennessee River mile 424.0
Sequatchie River
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Chick aroauga Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 483.6
Tennessee River mile 495.0
Hiwassee River
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
CHC
31763
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
0 03
0. 11
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6
CHC
31764
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
<
0. 02
0.18
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
2
CHC
31765
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
<
1. 00
0. 06
0. 19
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
9
CHC
31766
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
<
1. 00
0. 05
<
0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6
CHC
317 71
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
<
1. 00
<
0 02
<
0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
8
CHC
31773
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0 10
<
0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7
CHC
31776
<
0.20
0. 14
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
<
0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7
CHC
31778
<
0.20
0. 12
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
o
o
<
0 - 02
0.17
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6
CHC
17946
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
<
0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
8
BAS
17948
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.03
0. 37
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
9
BUT
17950
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 . 00
<
0. 02
0.25
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
8
CHC
19496
<
0.20
0.26
<
0. 01
<
0.05
0.10
1.00
0.05
<
0. 10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7
CHC
19498
<
0.20
0.25
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
1. 00
0. 08
<
0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
0.06
8
CHC
31781
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
<
1.00
0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7
PKB
17952
<
o
©
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
0. 08
<
1.00
<
0.02
0.23
<
0.10
0. 30
<
0.05
15
CHC
17953
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
0. 07
<
1.00
0.04
<
0. 10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
8
DRJ1
17955
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.03
0. 34
<
0.10
0. 30
<
0.05
7
CHC
19501
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
1 . 70
0.09
<
0. 10
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7
CHC
19499
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
0.06
<
1 . 00
0.10
<
0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7
LMB
17956
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
<
0. 02
0. 36
<
0.10
0.20
<
0.05
10
CHC
17965
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.03
<
0.10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
9
SMF
17967
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 . 00
0. 07
0.24
<
0.10
0. 30
<
0.05
8
30
. 70
. 00
70
10
, 00
20
.40
20
50
20
-------
t 2.4 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
CADMI CHROMI
SILVR THALL ZINC
Oooee Reservoir
Ocoee River mile 12.0
CHC
19492
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Blue Rlclge Reservoir
Toccoa River mile 54.1
CHC
19490
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
H
o
o
<
0.05
0.05
Hiwassee Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
CHC
31796
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Nottely Reservoir
Nottely Fiver mile 23.5
CHC
19488
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
0.09
Chatuge Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
CHC
194 94
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
Emory River
Emory River mile 14.5
LI IB
17969
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
Emory Fiver mile 14.5
CHC
17971
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Emory Fiver mile 14.5
C
17973
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Norris Reservoir
Clinch River mile 80.0
CHC
31786
<
0.20
0.15
<
0. 01
<
0. 05
<
0. 05
Clinch River mile 125.0
CHC
31787
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0. 05
Clinch River
Clinch Piver mile 172.0
RKB
1 7976
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Clinch River mile 172.0
CHC
1 7 9 "7 7
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Clinch River mile 172.0
DRM
17979
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Powell River
Powell Rivei mile 65.0
LI1B
17981
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0. 05
Powell River mile 65.0
CHC
1 7982
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0. 05
Powell River mile 65.0
GRH
17991
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
Tellico Reservoir
Little Til River mile 1.0
LMB
31801
<
0.20
0.12
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Little TN River mile 1.0
CHC
31815
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Little TN River mile 11.0
LMB
31804
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Little TN River mile 11.0
CHC
31808
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
Little Tennessee River
Little TN River mile 95.0
SUB
1 7993
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Little TN River mile 95.0
GRH
17994
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Douglas Tailwater
FB River mile 32.0
SAG
31788
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
FB River mile 32.0
CHC
31790
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
French Broad River
FB River mile 77.5
CHC
18001
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
FB River mile 77.5
C
18003
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Nolichucky River
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
BAS
17996
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
FHC
17997
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
C
17999
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
V£>
1.00
0.08 < 0.10 0.30 0.60
3.00
1 .70
0.20 0.46 < 0.10 < 0.20
0.05 0.20 0.20
< 0.02 0.31 <0.10 < 0.20
0.05 0.18 <0.10 < 0.20
< 1 .00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1 .00
1. 00
1. 00
1.00
1 . 00
1.00
1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
<1.00
0.05
0.14
<
0. 10
<
0.20
0. 03
0.18
<
0.10
<
0.20
0. 09
< 0.10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
0. 03
0.23
<
0. 10
<
0.20
0.03
0.61
<
0.10
<
0. 20
0. 02
0.19
<
0. 10
<
0. 20
0.02
0.16
<
0.10
<
0.20
0.07
0.17
<
0. 10
<
0.20
0. 02
< 0. 10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
0.04
0.2 4
<
0. 10
0.20
0.02
0. 17
<
0.10
<
0.20
0.02
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.20
< 0.05 7.80
< 0.05 7.60
< 0.05 6.50
< 0.05 9.10
< 0.05 6.80
0.02
0.4 4
<
0. 10
0. 30
<
0.05
9
0.02
0.26
<
0. 10
< 0.20
<
0.05
9
0.09
0.26
<
0. 10
0.30
<
0.05
9
< 0.05
< 0.05
0. 10
0.14 < 0.10
0.30
0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.05
< 0.05
0.05
< 0.05
8.20
7.60
<
0. 02
0. 14
<
0. 10
0.40
<
0. 05
19
<
0. 02
0.15
<
0. 10
< 0. 20
<
0.05
8
<
0.02
0.19
<
0.10
0. 30
<
0.05
7
<
0.02
0. 14
<
0. 10
0.40
<
0. 05
13
<
0.02
< 0.10
<
0. 10
< 0.20
<
0. 05
8
<
0.02
0.11
<
0. 10
0. 30
<
0.05
9
<
0.05
7. 90
<
0.05
8.90
<
0.05
9.70
<
0.05
7.50
20.00
9.00
8.40
7.10
8.00
19.00
11.00
6.00
23.00
-------
Table 2.4 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES*
CADMI CHROMI
LEAD MERCU NICKL SELEN SILVR THALL
Chgrokoa Roaarvoir
Holston River mile 53.0
Holston River mile 75.0
Holston River mile 91.0
Holston Rivar
Holston River mile 109.9
Holston River mile 109.9
Holston River mile 109.9
Watauga Raaarvolr
Watauga River mile 37.4
CHC
31789
<
0.20
<
o
i"H
o
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
o
o
0.20
0.17
<
©
o
<
0.20
<
0.05
8.40
CHC
31794
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
0.37
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7.20
CHC
31799
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.08
0.41
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7.70
LMB
18005
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.06
0.43
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0. 05
9. 40
CHC
18007
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
0.28
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7.60
C
18009
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
0.28
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
32 .00
CHC
31813
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.02
0.53
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6.20
South Fork Holston Rlv«r
SFH River mile 51.0
CHC 31810 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05 0.06 1.00 0.07 0.42 < 0.10 < 0.20
< 0.05 7.10
BAS - Composite of LMB and SMB.
BUF - Composite of SBU and BLB.
N)
O
-------
Table 2.5 Concentrations (|ig/g) of pesticides and PCBs composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations, 1991.
COLLECTION SITE SPECIES1- LABID LIPID ALDRIN DIELD TOXOPH BENZ CLOR DDTR ENDO EN PR HEPT PCB
Tennessee River
Tennessee River mile 21.0
CHC
31748 12.00 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50
< 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
0.80
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 23.0 CHC 31750
Tennessee River mile 61.0 CHC 31753
Tennessee River mile 100.0 CHC 31755
Tennessee River mile 173.0 CHC 31758
5. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0
9. 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0 . 01
<
0. 01
0
9. 20
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
o
o
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0
16 .00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
o
O
<
H
o
o
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0
Duck River
Duck
River
mile
22. 5
LMB
17939
0. 60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
< 0.01
<
¦—1
o
o
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<0.10
Duck
River
mi le
22 . 5
CHC
1 7941
3. 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.02
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.20
Duck
River
mi le
22.5
r
17 9-13
5. 80
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.02
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<0.10
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mi 1 e
207 . 0
CHC
31763
4 . 90
<
0. 01
<
o
O
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0. 32
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0. 20
Tennessee
River
mi le
230. 0
CHC
31764
5.40
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0.23
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0. 50
Tennessee
River
mile
255. 0
CHC
31 765
3. 60
<
0. 01
<
O
O
<
0. 50
<
0.01
CD
o
o
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0. 50
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River
mi 1 e
260. 0
CHC
31766
6.40
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0. 03
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1
Tennessee River
mile
274.0
CHC
31771
8 . 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.31
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee River
mile
277 . 0
CHC
31773
6.40
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
o
o
0.11
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0
Tennessee River
mile
300. 0
CHC
31776
11.00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.29
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0
Tennessee River
mile
339.0
CHC
31778
8. 30
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
0.29
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
1
Elk River
Elk
River
mi 1 e
41.5
CHC
17946
3. 30
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 20
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<0.10
Elk
River
mile
41.5
BAS
17948
1.10
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
< 0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<0.10
Elk
River
mile
41.5
BUF
17950
CO
o
o
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
< 0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.60
Guntersville Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mi le
350.0
CHC
1 94 96
12.00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0.19
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.70
Tennessee
River
mi le
371. 0
CHC
1 94 98
11 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0. 16
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.70
Tennessee
River
mi le
424.0
CHC
31781
5.20
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.20
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.90
Sequatchie
River
mile
7 . 1
RKB
17952
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
< 0.10
Sequatchie
River
mi le
7 . 1
CHC
17953
6. 60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.20
Sequatchie
River
mile
7 . 1
DR1-1
17955
0. 80
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
< 0.10
-------
Table 2.5 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES*
LABID
LIPID
Chickamauga Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mile
483.6
CHC
19501
7 .00
Tennessee
River
mile
495.0
CHC
1 94 99
9.00
Tennessee
River
mile
526. 0
CHC
31785
14 .00
Tennessee
River
mile
526.0
CHC
31820
14-00
Tennessee
River
mi le
526. 0
CHC
31822
6.40
Tennessee
River
mile
526.0
CHC
31825
11.00
Tennessee
River
mi le
526. 0
CHC
31827
19.00
Tennessee
River
mi le
526.0
CHC
31830
22.00
Tennessee
River
mile
526. 0
CHC
31832
7.30
Tennessee
River
mi le
526.0
CHC
31835
7.40
Tennessee
River
mi le
526.0
CHC
31836
10.00
Tennessee
River
mile
526.0
CHC
31837
13.00
Tennessee
River
mile
526. 0
CHC
31838
6.60
TOXOPH
BENZ
CLOR
DDTR
EN DO
ENDR
HEPT
PCB
<
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
50
<
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
50
<
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
50
0.01
0. 01
0. 01
0.01
0. 01
0.01
0. 01
0.01
0. 04
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
01
0.40
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
01
0.70
0
20
<
0
01
<
0
01
<
0
01
1. 20
<
1.00
<
1 . 00
<
0.70
<
1. 00
<
1.10
<
0.70
<
0.70
<
0.70
<
0. 80
<
0.70
Hlwassee River
Hlwassee River mile
38 . 0
LI-IB
17956
1.40
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
«»s
o
O
< 0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
< 0.10
Hlwassee Ri/er mile
38 . 0
CHC
17965
7 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.18
< 0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
Hlwassee River mile
38. 0
SI-1F
17967
4 .10
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.05
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.40
Ocoee Reservoir
Ocoee River mile 12.
0
CHC
194 92
6.30
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 5u
0.01
0.22
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.40
Blue Ridge Reservoir
Toccoa River mile 54
. 1
CHC
194 90
5.00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.15
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
< 0.10
t.y &
,.!?¦
Hlwassee Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 11.0
CHC
31196 2.30 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50
< 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.10
Nottely Reservoir
Nottely River mile 23.5
CHC
19-188 7.00 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50
< 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
0.20
Chatuge Reservoir
Hlwassee River mile 122.0
CHC
19494 4.00 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50
< 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.10
Emory River
Emory
River
mile
14.5
LI-IB
17969
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
< o.oi < ;
5.01
< 0. 01
< 0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.20
Emory
River
mi 1 e
14 . 5
CHC
17971
2 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
< 0.01
5. 04
<0.01
0. 04
<
0.01
<
0. 01
3. 20
Emory
River
mi le
14.5
C
17973
2.7 0
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
V
o
o
V
5. 01
0.06
< 0.01
<
0.01
0. 01
O
CO
o
Norrls Reservoir
Clinch River mile 80.0
Clinch River mile 125.0
CHC
CHC
31186 7.30 < 0.01
31187 2.00 < 0.01
<0.01 <0.50
< 0.01 < 0.50
< 0.01
< 0.01
<0.01 < 0.01
< 0. 01 < 0.01
< 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.01 < 0.01
0. 60
0.40
Clinch River
Clinch River mile 112.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
RKB
CHC
DRM
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
< 0.01
0.09
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0. 30
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0. 04
. 0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.30
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0. OA
< 0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.20
-------
2.5 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE SPECIES* LABID LIPID ALDRIN DIELD TOXOPH BENZ CLOR DDTR ENDO ENDR HEPT PCB
Powell River
Powell River mile 65.0
LMB
17981
1. 60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
0. 02
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Powell River mile 65.0
CHC
17982
11.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.03
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Powell River mile 65.0
GRH
17991
2.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Tellico Reservoir
Little TN River mile 1.0
LMB
31801
4 . 20
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 20
Little TH River mile 1.0
CHC
31815
6.60
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
1.40
Little TN River mile 11.0
LMB
31804
2. 80
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Little Til River mile 11.0
CHC
31808
5. 90
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.02
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
1 . 10
Little Tennessee River
Little TM River mile 95.0
SMB
17993
2 . 00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 05
<
0. 01
0,0]
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Little TN River mile 95.0
GRH
17994
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 10
Douglas Tailwater
FB River mile 32.0
SAG
31788
2.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 10
FB River mile 32.0
CHC
31790
e.30
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.09
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.20
French Broad River
TP River mile 77.5
CHC
18001
2.30
<
0.01
Uolichucky River mile 8.5
BAS
17996
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Uolichucky River mile 8.5
FHC
17 997
1 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 10
Holichucky River mile 8.5
C
17999
1 9. 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston River mile 53.0
CHC
31789
6. 90
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0. 50
Holston River mile 75.0
CHC
31794
7.40
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<.
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0. 30
Holston River mile 91.0
CHC
31799
4 .70
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0. 90
Holston River
Holston River mile 109.9
LMB
18005
0. 80
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0 . 04
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Holston River mile 109.9
CHC
18007
8.00
0. 01
0.01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
0. 09
<
0.01
0.07
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.40
Holston River mile 109.9
C
18009
4 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0. 08
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 20
Watauga Reservoir
Watauga River mile 37.4
CHC
31813
7 . 60
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
South Fork Holston River
SFH River mile 51.0
CHC
31810
6.40
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 20
BAS - Composite of SPB and LMB.
BUT - Composite of BLB and SBU.
-------
Table 2.6 Highest and second-highest concentrations (ng/g) of each metal in fillets (by
collection site) found in fish tissue screening studies in 1991.
Highest Concentration Found Second-Highest Concentration
Found
Detection
Parameter Limit Level" Location1" Sample Level* Location11 Sample
Antimony
2
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Arsenic
0.02
0.26
TRM 350
catfish
0.25
TRM 371
catfish
Beryllium
0.02
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Cadmium
0.05
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Chromium
0.02
0.1
TRM 350
catfish
0.09
TRM 21
catfish
0.09
NRM 23.5
catfish
Copper
0.8
3
NRM 23.5
catfish
2
ToRM 54.1
catfish
Lead
0.02
0.2
NRM 23.5
catfish
0.1
TRM 173
catfish
0.2
HRM 53
catfish
0.1
TRM 277
catfish
0.1
TRM 424
catfish
0.1
TRM 495
catfish
0.1
NolRM 8.5
carp
Mercury
0.1
0.69
HiRM 77
catfish
0.61
LTRM 95
buffalo
Nickel
0.6
0.3
ORM 12
catfish
0.2
HiRM 122
catfish
Selenium
0.02
0.6
ORM 12
catfish
0.4
CRM 172
buffalo
0.4
PRM65
bass
Thallium
0.05
0.06
TRM 371
catfish
0.05
LTRM 95
buffalo
0.05
FBRM 77.5
carp
0.05
NolRM 8.5
catfish
Zinc
0.1
32
HRM 109.9
carp
23
NolRM 8.5
carp
a. ND = not detectable
b. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; NRM = Nottely River Mile; ToTM = Toccoa River Mile; HRM =
Holston River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile; NolRM = Nolichucky River Mile; LTRM =
Little Tennessee River Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile
24
-------
Table 2.7 Highest and second-highest concentrations (ng/g) of organics in fillets (by
collection site) found in fish tissue screening studies in 1991.
Detection
Parameter Limit
Highest Concentration Found
Level" Location6 Sample
Second-Highest Concentration
Found
Level0 Location6 Sample
Aldrin
BHC
Chlordane
DDTr
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
PCBs
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.5
0.1
ND
ND
0.18 HiRM 38 catfish
0.32 TRM 207
ND
0.07
0.02
ND
ND
8.5
HRM
109.9
FBRM
77.5
catfish
catfish
carp
0.09 HRM catfish
109.9
0.31 TRM 274 catfish
0.04 ERM 14.5 catfish
ND
HiRM 38 catfish
3.2 ERM 14.5 catfish
a. ND = not detectable
b. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; HRM = Holston River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile;
ERM = Emory River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile
25
-------
Table 2.8 Contaminant results (ng/g wet weight) from 1991 reservoir and inflow sites which show
need for futher evaluation.
Location" Speciesb Teir 2 Teir 3
Contaminants which need to Contaminants which need to
be resampled at screening be evaluated in intensive
level study
Wilson Reservoir *
TRM260
CHC
PCBs 1.2
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM339
CHC
PCBs 1.3
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM526
CHC
PCBs 1.2
Parksville Reservoir
ORM 12
CHC
PCBs 1.4
Tellico Reservoir"
LTRM 1.0
LTRM 11.0
CHC
CHC
PCBs 1.4
PCBs 1.1
Nottely Reservoir
NRM 23.5
CHC
Copper 3.0
Hiwassee Reservoir
HiRM77
CHC
Mercury 0.69
Watuaga Reservoir
WRM37
CHC
Mercury 0.53
a. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile;
NRM = Nottely River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile; WRM = Watuaga River Mile
b. CHC = channel catfish
c. Tellico Reservoir - previous intensive studies found neither an increasing nor decreasing trend;
therefore, catfish continue to be collected at the screening level.
26
-------
Table 2.9
Collection sites included in fish tissue screening studies, autumn 1992.
Site3 Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Sitec
Screening Studyb
Lower Tennessee River
TRM21
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM23 X
TRM60 X
TRM85 X
TRM 173 X
TRM206 X
Duck River Mile 22.5
Normandy Reservoir
DRM 259.4 X
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 207 X
TRM 230 X
TRM 259 X
Bear Creek Reservoir
BCRM 75
Upper Bear Creek
BCRM 115 X
Little Bear Creek River Mile 12
Cedar Creek Reservoir
CCRM 25 X
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 261 X
TRM 274 X
27
-------
Table 2.9 (Continued)
Site" Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Site0
Screening Studyb
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM277 X
TRM296 X
TRM300 X
TRM339 X
TRM347 X
Elk River Mile 41.5
Tims Ford Reservoir
ERM 135 X
ERM 150 X
Guntersville Reservoir
TRM350 X
TRM375 X
TRM424 X
Sequatchie River Mile 7.1
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM472 X
TRM491 X
TRM526 X
South Mouse Creek Mile 11.0 X
Oostanaula Creek Mile 0.1 X
Hi was see River Mile 38
Emory River Mile 14.5
Norris Reservoir
CRM 80 X
CRM 125 X
PRM30 X
28
-------
Table 2.9 (Continued)
Site" Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Site0
Screening Studyb
Clinch River Mile 172
Powell River Mile 65
Tellico Reservoir
LTRM1 X
LTRM11 X
Fontana Reservoir
LTRM 62 X
LTRM 81 X
Little Tennessee River Mile 94.3 X
French Broad River Mile 78 X
Nolichucky River Mile 8.5 X
Cherokee Reservoir
HRM53 X
HRM75 X
HRM91 X
Holston River Mile 109.9
a. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; DRM = Duck River Mile; BCRM = Bear Creek River Mile; CCRM =
Cedar Creek River Mile; ERM = Elk River Mile; CRM = Clinch River Mile; PRM = Powell River Mile;
LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile; HRM = Holston River Mile.
b. The Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study uses composited fillets from channel catfish from reservoir
sites.
c. The Ambient Monitoring Study uses composited fillets from catfish, rough fish, and game fish from major
inflow sites collected on an annual basis.
29
-------
Table 2.10 Specific physical information on individual fish collected for tissue analysis from
inflow and reservoir locations, 1992
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
Tennessee River
Tennessee
River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30232
482
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30232
455
Tennessee
River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30232
384
Tennessee
River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
MALE
30232
548
Tennessee
River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
MALE
30232
581
Tennessee
River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
FMAL
30233
472
Tennessee
River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
FMAL
30233
5 95
Tennessee
River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
FMAL
30233
421
Tennessee
River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30233
525
Tennessee
River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30233
458
Tennessee
River
mile
60.0
921027
CHC
FMAL
30234
521
Tennessee
River
mile
60.0
921027
CHC
FMAL
30234
456
Tennessee
River
mile
60.0
921104
CHC
FMAL
30234
434
Tennessee
River
male
60.0
921105
CHC
FMAL
30234
422
Tennessee
River
mile
60.0
921105
CHC
FMAL
30234
384
Tennessee
River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
375
Tennessee
River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
440
Tennessee
River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
510
Tennessee
River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
402
Tennessee
River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
394
Tennessee
River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
524
Tennessee
River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
397
Tennessee
River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
401
Tennessee
River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
384
Tennessee
River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
MALE
30237
427
Tennessee
River
mile
206. 0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
529
Tennessee
River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
325
Tennessee
River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
392
Tennessee
River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
346
Tennessee
River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
MALE
30240
578
Duck River
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
FMAL
30725
650
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
FMAL
30725
585
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
MALE
30725
587
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
MALE
30725
562
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
MALE
30725
485
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
FMAL
30727
414
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
FMAL
30727
334
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
MALE
30727
400
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
MALE
30727
298
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
FMAL
30730
500
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
FMAL
30730
337
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
FMAL
30730
291
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
MALE
30730
352
WEIGHT
850
915
450
1585
1860
875
2180
705
1660
745
1375
995
905
665
575
478
793
1474
602
539
1765
685
565
500
890
1405
326
491
401
1881
4786
2488
2563
2416
1536
891
563
1067
369
1229
330
316
413
Normandy Reservoir
Duck River mile 259.4
Duck River mile 259.4
Duck River mile 259.4
Duck River mile 259.4
Duck River mile 259.4
921110
CHC
FMAL
30279
532
921110
CHC
MALE
30279
627
921110
CHC
MALE
30279
545
921110
CHC
MALE
30279
478
921111
CHC
MALE
30279
400
1825
2365
1695
1080
780
30
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30241
400
654
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30241
460
988
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30241
523
1580
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
MALE
30241
455
858
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
MALE
30241
391
526
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
FMAL
30243
632
2390
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
FMAL
30243
548
1362
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
MALE
30243
486
1184
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
MALE
30243
491
838
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
MALE
30243
4 92
1062
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
FMAL
30246
598
2650
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
FMAL
30246
491
1060
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
MALE
30246
583
2046
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
MALE
30246
409
452
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
MALE
30246
593
2168
Bear Creek Reservoir
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30281
499
1154
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30281
475
1005
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30281
410
451
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30281
445
72 7
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30281
382
429
Upper Bear Creek
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30284
390
518
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30284
605
2492
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30284
444
804
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30284
548
1662
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30284
602
2112
Little Beax Creek
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
395
454
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
392
417
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
548
1575
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
580
2280
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
MALE
30285
434
795
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
921016
CHC
FMAL
30286
350
360
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
921016
CHC
FMAL
30286
515
1072
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
921016
CHC
MALE
30286
389
440
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 261.0
921007
CHC
FMAL
30247
410
497
Tennessee River mile 261.0
921007
CHC
FMAL
30247
395
491
Tennessee River mile 261.0
921007
CHC
FMAL
30247
412
507
Tennessee River mile 261.0
921007
CHC
MALE
30247
408
559
Tennessee River mile 2 61.0
921007
CHC
MALE
30247
575
1986
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
FMAL
30252
465
993
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
FMAL
30252
398
556
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
FMAL
30252
402
565
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
MALE
30252
567
1887
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
MALE
30252
536
1702
31
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee
River mile
277.0
920922
CHC
FMAL
30254
538
Tennessee
River mile
277.0
920922
CHC
FMAL
30254
410
Tennessee
River mile
277.0
920922
CHC
MALE
30254
497
Tennessee
River mile
277.0
920922
CHC
MALE
30254
504
Tennessee
River mile
277.0
920922
CHC
MALE
30254
487
Tennessee
River mile
296.0
921230
CHC
FMAL
30257
381
Tennessee
River mile
296.0
920923
CHC
MALE
30257
550
Tennessee
River mile
296.0
921230
CHC
MALE
30257
356
Tennessee
River mile
296.0
921231
CHC
MALE
30257
425
Tennessee
River mile
296.0
921231
CHC
MALE
30257
412
Tennessee
river mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
610
Tennessee
river mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
381
Tennessee
river mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
354
Tennessee
river mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
348
Tennessee
river mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
354
Tennessee
River mile
339.0
921231
CHC
FMAL
30259
384
Tennessee
River mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
351
Tennessee
River mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
347
Tennessee
River mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
379
Tennessee
River mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
430
Tennessee
River mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
611
Tennessee
River mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
425
Tennessee
River mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
339
Tennessee
River mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
481
Tennessee
River mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
396
Elk River
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SPB
FMAL
30732
416
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SPB
FMAL
30732
253
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SPB
MALE
30732
308
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SPB
MALE
30732
246
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
CHC
FMAL
30735
464
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SBU
FMAL
30736
482
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SBU
FMAL
30736
617
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SBU
MALE
30736
424
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SBU
MALE
30736
488
Elk River
mile 41.5
920610
SBU
MALE
30736
577
WEIGHT
1505
490
1015
1190
1030
495
1735
320
690
525
2245
595
385
380
315
505
365
340
455
830
2920
1014
399
566
694
1270
190
430
145
8 62
1726
2957
1201
1741
2814
Tims Ford. Reservoir
Elk
River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
FMAL
30287
375
Elk
River
mile
135 .0
921117
CHC
FMAL
30287
384
Elk
River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30287
489
Elk
River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30287
389
Elk
River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30287
344
Elk
River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
FMAL
30292
394
Elk
River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
FMAL
30292
371
Elk
River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
MALE
30292
489
Elk
River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
MALE
30292
462
Elk
River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
MALE
30292
373
360
420
910
415
290
490
400
1000
915
385
GuntersviHe Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
375.0
375.0
375.0
375.0
375.0
424.0
424.0
424.0
424 .0
424.0
921022
CHC
FMAL
30261
406
921022
CHC
FMAL
30261
480
921022
CHC
MALE
30261
395
921022
CHC
MALE
30261
434
921022
CHC
MALE
30261
482
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
405
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
585
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
467
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
424
921023
CHC
MALE
30263
595
921021
CHC
FMAL
30266
390
921021
CHC
FMAL
30266
380
921021
CHC
FMAL
30266
383
921021
CHC
MALE
30266
405
921021
CHC
MALE
30266
365
715
1250
575
720
1095
685
2275
1080
845
1750
540
620
640
620
480
32
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Sequatchie River
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
FMAL
30738
302
363
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
FMAL
30738
340
510
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
MALE
30738
245
151
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
MALE
30738
227
143
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
FMAL
30741
398
833
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
FMAL
30741
283
310
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
MALE
30741
405
608
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
MALE
30741
385
550
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
MALE
30741
305
270
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
FMAL
30743
391
509
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
FMAL
30743
387
467
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
MALE
30743
253
517
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
MALE
30743
370
371
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
MALE
30743
365
413
Chickamauga Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30267
481
950
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30267
558
1754
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921023
CHC
FMAL
30267
494
1015
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30267
588
2277
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921023
CHC
MALE
30267
540
1083
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30272
571
1960
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30272
516
1226
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921105
CHC
FMAL
30272
700
4653
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30272
544
1563
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921105
CHC
MALE
30272
588
1559
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921028
CHC
MALE
30216
475
1135
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30217
631
3264
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30218
534
1909
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921028
CHC
MALE
30219
657
2983
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921028
CHC
• I
30220
515
1464
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
FMAL
30221
522
1480
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
MALE
30222
480
1229
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
MALE
30223
494
1336
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
FMAL
30224
600
2436
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
MALE
30225
611
2751
South Mouse Reservoir
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
FMAL
30313
150
63
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
174
112
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
175
108
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
156
76
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
169
103
Oostanan1 a Reservoir
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
470
1183
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
394
714
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
372
601
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
379
604
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
349
461
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
FMAL
30312
213
174
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
FMAL
30312
203
146
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
FMAL
30312
195
148
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
MALE
30312
195
134
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
MALE
30312
205
143
33
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
Hiwassee River
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
CHC
MALE
30815
423
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
CHC
MALE
30815
399
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
CHC
MALE
30815
421
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
CHC
MALE
30815
484
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
CHC
MALE
30815
498
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920511
LMB
FMAL
30746
330
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
LMB
MALE
30746
371
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920511
LMB
MALE
30746
324
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
LMB
MALE
30746
362
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
LMB
MALE
30746
317
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
C
MALE
30748
654
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
C
MALE
30748
656
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
C
MALE
30748
668
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
C
MALE
30748
661
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
920726
C
MALE
30748
698
Emory River
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920622
C
FMAL
30755
619
Emory
River
mile 14.
,5
920622
c
FMAL
30755
574
Emory
River
mile 14.
,5
920622
c
MALE
30755
564
Emory
River
mile 14.
,5
920622
c
MALE
30755
659
Emory
River
mile 14.
,5
920622
c
MALE
30755
529
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920622
LMB
FMAL
30757
311
Emory
River
mile 14.
,5
920622
LMB
FMAL
30757
448
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920622
LMB
FMAL
30757
561
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920622
LMB
MALE
30757
304
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920623
LMB
MALE
30757
319
Emory
River
mile 14.
,5
920622
CHC
FMAL
30760
402
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920623
CHC
FMAL
30760
395
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920623
CHC
FMAL
30760
485
Emory
River
mile 14.
.5
920623
CHC
FMAL
30760
371
Emory
River
mile 14.
,5
920623
CHC
FMAL
30760
426
WEIGHT
748
714
702
1355
1578
521
804
521
693
442
3458
4384
4604
4027
4165
3176
2757
2386
3594
2052
420
1483
3051
407
418
509
500
1203
416
651
Norris Reservoir
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30293
450
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30293
457
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30293
419
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30293
429
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
920929
CHC
MALE
30293
403
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30295
526
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30295
560
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30295
452
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30295
419
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30295
403
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30994
436
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30996
514
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
30998
437
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
31000
439
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31002
475
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31004
525
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
31018
441
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
31020
482
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
31022
433
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31024
511
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31026
564
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31028
455
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31030
654
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31032
519
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
31034
502
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
31036
444
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
FMAL
31042
417
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921209
CHC
MALE
31044
423
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921210
CHC
FMAL
31048
422
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
921210
CHC
FMAL
31050
456
776
988
541
702
588
1552
1880
788
711
589
653
1354
647
770
716
1492
916
895
654
1337
1654
896
3022
1357
977
726
675
656
657
955
34
-------
rable 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
Clinch River
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
LMB
MALE
30762
293
325
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
LMB
MALE
30762
289
298
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
LMB
MALE
30762
298
374
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
CHC
FMAL
30765
391
445
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
FMAL
30765
483
1112
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
FMAL
30765
518
1523
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
FMAL
30765
440
794
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
MALE
30765
436
735
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
C
FMAL
30767
565
2190
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
C
MALE
30767
602
3566
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
C
MALE
30767
771
6798
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
C
MALE
30767
656
3719
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
C
MALE
30767
615
3582
Powell River
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921002
CHC
FMAL
30298
526
1361
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921002
CHC
FMAL
30298
434
677
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921215
CHC
FMAL
30298
428
761
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921002
CHC
MALE
30298
391
511
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921215
CHC
MALE
30298
470
978
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30858
579
19'68
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30874
4 62
895
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30876
437
847
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30878
483
924
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30880
428
681
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30882
449
713
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
CHC
FMAL
30886
663
3345
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
CHC
MALE
30888
510
1488
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
CHC
MALE
30890
445
772
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30898
496
1070
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30900
458
761
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30902
434
702
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30904
448
729
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
FMAL
30906
474
903
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
FMAL
30908
555
1758
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
FMAL
30922
393
559
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
CHC
MALE
30926
997
1914
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
CHC
MALE
30928
476
948
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
CHC
MALE
30930
488
1025
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921208
CHC
FMAL
30934
407
490
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
MALE
30938
608
2554
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30940
607
2743
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30946
625
2703
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30948
517
1584
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30950
494
1437
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
MALE
30952
516
1677
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30954
472
1357
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30970
499
1589
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30972
480
1398
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
MALE
30974
475
1384
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
FMAL
30976
850
6290
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
FMAL
30978
616
2704
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
MALE
30980
499
1548
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
FMAL
30982
495
1488
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
STB
FMAL
30984
480
1526
Powell
River
mile
65 .0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
376
652
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
452
1171
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
427
658
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
597
2776
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
MALE
30770
411
746
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
FMAL
30772
531
2348
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
MALE
30772
353
4 65
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
MALE
30772
365
581
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
MALE
30772
345
487
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
397
935
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
520
2184
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
269
252
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
242
156
35
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
Tel 1j co Reservoir
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30274
446
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30274
422
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
920917
CHC
MALE
30274
572
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
920917
CHC
MALE
30274
397
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
920917
CHC
MALE
30274
395
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
921027
CHC
FMAL
30276
589
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
921027
CHC
FMAL
30276
698
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
921027
CHC
FMAL
30276
461
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
921027
CHC
MALE
30276
463
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
921027
CHC
MALE
30276
493
Fontana Reservoir
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30299
538
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30299
440
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30299
465
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30299
448
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30299
496
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30301
468
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30301
513
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30301
603
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30301
527
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30301
475
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
RRH
FMAL
30804
515
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
RRH
FMAL
30804
513
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
RRH
FMAL
30804
400
Little
TN
River
mile
94 .3
920603
RRH
MALE
30804
432
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
RRH
MALE
30804
407
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
SMB
FMAL
30806
386
Little
TN
River
mile
94 .3
920603
SMB
FMAL
30806
243
Little
TN
River
mile
94 .3
920603
SMB
MALE
30806
243
Little
TN
River
mile
94 .3
920603
SMB
MALE
30806
252
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
CHC
FMAL
30813
382
Little
TN
River
mile
94 .3
920603
CHC
FMAL
30813
352
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
CHC
FMAL
30813
361
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
CHC
MALE
30813
447
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
920603
CHC
MALE
30813
374
French Broad River
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920720
C
FMAL
30796
536
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920722
C
FMAL
30796
542
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920720
C
MALE
30796
543
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920720
C
MALE
30796
534
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920722
C
MALE
30796
517
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920722
LMB
MALE
30799
382
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920720
SPB
FMAL
30799
353
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920720
SPB
FMAL
30799
338
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920720
CHC
FMAL
30801
436
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920720
CHC
MALE
30801
340
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
920722
CHC
MALE
30801
451
Noliclmdcy River
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
C
FMAL
30789
695
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
C
FMAL
30789
405
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
C
MALE
30789
595
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
C
MALE
30789
503
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
C
MALE
30789
405
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
CHC
FMAL
30791
550
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
CHC
FMAL
30791
420
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
FHC
MALE
30791
416
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
FHC
MALE
30791
364
Nolichucky River mile
: 8.5
920708
LMB
FMAL
30794
344
Nolichucky River mile
8.5
920715
SPB
FMAL
30794
292
1016
603
2179
575
478
2494
4497
949
807
1174
1524
806
922
776
977
924
1179
1734
1403
873
1462
1125
724
832
819
747
207
193
202
530
392
408
713
447
2050
2287
2072
2021
1814
737
601
550
659
330
707
5041
1308
3121
2184
1365
1577
637
787
535
578
317
36
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921210
CHC
FMAL
30304
471
861
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30304
766
4032
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921124
CHC
MALE
30304
475
1252
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921210
CHC
MALE
30304
517
1230
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921210
CHC
MALE
30304
495
987
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
FMAL
30305
509
1231
Holston
River
mile
75 .0
921119
CHC
FMAL
30305
490
1267
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
FMAL
30305
422
706
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
MALE
30305
431
748
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
MALE
30305
424
693
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
525
1245
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
518
1488
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
514
1345
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
478
903
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
474
979
olston River
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
FMAL
30777
573
3015
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
FMAL
30777
750
6510
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
MALE
30777
523
1971
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
MALE
30777
540
2271
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
MALE
30777
419
1438
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
CHC
FMAL
30784
495
1582
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
CHC
FMAL
30784
445
905
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
LMB
FMAL
30784
437
1467
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
LMB
MALE
30784
422
986
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
LMB
MALE
30784
333
536
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
CHC
FMAL
30786
500
1553
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
CHC
MALE
30786
570
1989
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
CHC
MALE
30786
484
1330
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
LMB
FMAL
30786
400
866
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
LMB
FMAL
30786
380
989
-------
Table 2.11 Concnetrations (ng/g) of metals in composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations, 1992.
COLLECTION SITE
CADMI CHROMI
LEAD MERCU
ZINC
Tannaasatt River
Tennessee River mile 21.0
30232
< 0.10
< 0.05
0.04
0.13
< 0.20
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 23.0 CHC 30233
Tennessee River mile 60.0 CHC 30235
Tennessee River mile 85.0 CHC 30236
Tennessee River mile 173.0 CHC 30237
Tennessee River mile 206.0 CHC 30240
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.03
0.23
0.60
< 0.02
0.40
0.23
0.12
0.12
< 0.10
0.17
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
Doak River
Duck River mile 22.5
Duck River mile 22.5
Duck River mile 22.5
Normandy Reaervoir
Duck River mile 259.4
Plokwlok Reaervoir
Tennessee River mile 207.0
Tennessee River mile 230.0
Tennessee River mile 259.0
Bear Cr—k Reaarvolr
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
Pppar Baar Creek
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
Littlo Bear Cr—k
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
Cedar CreeX Reaervoir
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
Wilaon Reaervoir
Tennessee River mile 261.0
Tennessee River mile 274.0
Reaervoir
Ilk River
Elk River mile 41.5
Elk River mile 41.5
Elk River mile 41.5
C
LMB
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
30725
30727
30730
30279
30241
30243
30246
30284
30286
30247
30252
Tennessee
River
mi le
277.0
CHC
30254
Tennessee
River
mile
296.0
CHC
30257
Tennessee
river
mi le
300.0
CHC
30258
Tennessee
River
mile
339. 0
CHC
30259
Tennessee
River
mile
347.0
CHC
30260
SPB
CHC
SBU
30732
30735
30736
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0. 10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
<
0.05
0.04
0. 18
0.20
<
0.05
0.03
0.31
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.03
0.11
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.04
0.20
<
0.20
<
0.05
<
0.02
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.03
0.24
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.04
0.24
<
0.20
<
0.05
<
0.02
0.45
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.04
0.29
<
0.20
<
0.05
<
0.02
0.56
<
0.20
<
0.05
<
0.02
0.21
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.02
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
0. 06
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.02
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.07
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.03
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.02
0.17
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.04
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
<
0.02
0.29
<
0.20
<
0.05
0.04
0.17
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.21
0.26
< 0.20
-------
2.11 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES* LABID
Tima Ford Raaorvoir
Elk River mile 135.0
Elk River mile 150.0
CHC
CHC
30287
30292
0.10
0.10
Oontorsvilltt Roaorvoir
Tennessee River mile 350.0 CHC 30261
Tennessee River mile 375.0 CHC 30263
Tennessee River mile 424.0 CHC 30266
0.10
0.10
0.10
Saqoatohift Rlvr
Sequatchie River mile 7.1 LMB 30738
Sequatchie River mile 7.1 FWD 30741
Sequatchie River mile 7.1 CHC 30743
0.10
0.10
0.10
Chiakamaqga Raaorvoir
Tennessee River mile 472.0 CHC 30267
Tennessee River mile 491.0 CHC 30272
Tennessee River mile 526.0 CHC 30273
0.10
0.10
South Moo go Roaarvolr
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
30313
< 0.10
Ooitanaqla Raiarvolr
Oostanaula River mile 0.1 GRH 30307
Oostanaula River mile 0.1 RKB 30312
0.10
0.10
U>
KO
Hiwaaaco Rlwr
Hiwassee River mile 30.0
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
CHC
LMB
C
30815
30746
30748
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
Emory Rlvr
Emory River mile 14.5
Emory River mile 14.5
Emory River mile 14.5
C
LMB
CHC
30755
30757
30760
0. 10
0.10
0.10
Worris Raaarvolr
Clinch River mile 80.0
Clinch River mile 125.0
CHC
CHC
30293
30295
0.10
0.10
Clinoh Rlvor
Clinch River mile 172.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
LMB
CHC
C
30762
30765
30767
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
Powall Rlvor
Powell River mile 30.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
CHC
CHC
FWD
LMB
30298
30770
30772
30775
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
0.10
T«llloo Rftaorvoir
Little TN River mile 1.0 CHC 30274
Little TN River mile 11.0 CHC 30276
0.10
0.10
CADMI CHROMI
COPPR
LEAD
MERCU
NICKL SELEN
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.11
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.06
0. 16
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.25
< 0. 10
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
< 0.10
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.05
< 0.10
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.05
0.19
0.20
<0.05
<
0.02
0.23
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
< 0.10
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
< 0. 10
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0. 14
<
0.20
<
0.02
< 0.10
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.04
< 0.10
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.27
0.30
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.13
0.20
< 0.05
0.04
0.12
<
0.20
<0.05
0.02
0.20
0. 30
< 0.05
<
0.02
0. 10
0.40
< 0.05
0.05
0.32
<
0.20
<0.05
<
0.02
0. 34
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0. 35
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.09
0.31
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.14
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.15
0.30
< 0.05
0.03
< 0.10
0.20
< 0.05
0.03
< 0. 10
0.40
<0.05
<
0.02
< 0.10
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.11
<
0.20
< 0.05
0.11
0.27
0.50
< 0.05
0.06
0.25
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.65
<
0.20
< 0.05
<
0.02
0.36
<
0.20
-------
Table 2.11 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES* LABID ANTIM ARSNI BERYL CADMI
Tontana Reservoir
Little TN River mile 62.0 CHC 30299
Little TN River mile 61.0 CHC 30301
Little TN River mile 94.3 RRH 30804
Little TN River mile 94.3 SMB 30806
Little TN River mile 94.3 CHC 30813
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
Franoh Broad River
French B. River mile 78.0 C 30796
French B. River mile 78.0 BAS 30799
French B. River mile 78.0 CHC 30801
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0, 05
< 0.05
< 0.05
HoliohnoXy Rivor
Nolichucky River mile 8.5 C 30789
Nolichucky River mile 8.5 CAT 30791
Nolichucky River mile 8.5 BAS 30794
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
Ch«gok«« Roflftrvoir
Holston River mile 53.0
Holston River mile 75.0
Holston River mile 91.0
CHC
CHC
CHC
30304
30305
30306
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
Holaton Riwt
Holston River mile 109.9
Holston River mile 109.9
Holston River mile 109.9
C
LMB
CHC
30777
30784
30786
0. 10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
O
CAT - Composite of CHC and FHC.
BAS - Composite of SPB and LMB.
0.02 0.40
0.05 0.53
0.02 0.17
0.03 0.35
0.07 0.14
0.11 0.22
0.04 0.27
0.06 0.13
0.07 0.15
0.03 0.12
0.29 0.25
0.02 0.19
0.02 0.17
0.07 0.29
0.05 0.30
0.08 0.57
0.07 0.15
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
0.30
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
0. 30
< 0.20
< 0.20
-------
Table 2.2 (Continued)
Site4 Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Sitec
Screening Stud/
Tellico Reservoir
LTRM1 X
LTRM11 X
Little Tennessee River Mile 95 X
Douglas Tailwater
FBRM32
French Broad River Mile 77.5
Nolichucky River Mile 8.5
Cherokee Reservoir
HRM53 X
HRM75 X
HRM91 X
Holston River Mile 109.9 X
Watuaga Reservoir
WRM 109.9
South Fork Holston River Mile 51
a. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; DRM = Duck River Mile; ERM = Elk River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River
Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; ToRM = Toccoa River Mile; NRM = Nottely River Mile; CRM = Clinch
River Mile; LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile; HRM = Holston
River Mile; WRM = Watauga River Mile.
b. The Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study uses composited fillets from channel catfish from reservoir
sites.
c. The Ambient Monitoring Study uses composited fillets from catfish, rough fish, and game fish from major
inflow sites collected on an annual basis.
10
-------
Table 2.3 Specific physical information on individual fish collected for tissue analysis from inflow and
reservoir locations, 1991
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
562
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
526
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
497
911106
CHC
FMAL
31748
513
911106
CHC
MALE
31748
431
911105
CHC
FMAL
31750
381
911105
CHC
FMAL
31750
610
911105
CHC
FMAL
31750
509
911105
CHC
MALE
31750
357
911105
CHC
MALE
31750
478
911126
CHC
FMAL
31753
442
911126
CHC
FMAL
31753
455
911127
CHC
FMAL
31753
446
911126
CHC
MALE
31753
477
911127
CHC
MALE
31753
432
911120
CHC
FMAL
31755
437
911120
CHC
FMAL
31755
488
911121
CHC
FMAL
31755
465
911121
CHC
FMAL
31755
450
911121
CHC
MALE
31755
568
911119
CHC
FMAL
31758
503
911119
CHC
FMAL
31758
547
911120
CHC
FMAL
31758
460
911119
CHC
MALE
31758
497
911120
CHC
MALE
31758
476
910724
C
FMAL
17939
639
910724
C
FMAL
17939
675
910724
C
FMAL
17939
590
910724
C
MALE
17939
510
910724
C
FMAL
17941
596
910724
CHC
FMAL
17941
324
910724
CHC
MALE
17941
367
910724
CHC
MALE
17941
321
910724
CHC
MALE
17941
301
910724
CHC
FMAL
17943
403
910724
LMB
FMAL
17943
535
910724
LMB
FMAL
17943
498
910724
LMB
FMAL
17943
299
910724
LMB
MALE
17943
239
911031
CHC
FMAL
31763
450
911031
CHC
FMAL
31763
535
911031
CHC
FMAL
31763
460
911031
CHC
MALE
31763
530
911031
CHC
MALE
31763
435
911030
CHC
FMAL
31764
533
911030
CHC
FMAL
31764
468
911030
CHC
MALE
31764
498
911030
CHC
MALE
31764
460
911030
CHC
MALE
31764
463
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
399
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
424
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
489
911029
CHC
FMAL
31765
563
911029
CHC
MALE
31765
513
WEIGHT
Tonnessee River
Tennessee River mile 21.0
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Duck River
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
Duck
River
mile
22.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
23.0
23. 0
23.0
23.0
23.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
100.0
100 . 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
173.0
173.0
173.0
173.0
173.0
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
207.
207.
207.
207.
207. 0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
255.0
255.0
255.0
255.0
255.0
1725
1325
1115
1460
835
495
2300
1115
395
1010
735
913
826
933
777
810
929
927
684
1668
1254
2003
958
1237
1025
3602
3983
3078
1794
2820
292
485
281
231
529
2452
2238
337
172
784
1334
1008
1158
712
1308
926
1106
874
988
600
530
856
2108
874
11
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Elk River
260.0
260. 0
260.0
260.0
260.0
274.0
274.0
274.0
274.0
274.0
277.0
277.0
277.0
277.0
277. 0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
339. 0
339.0
339.0
339. 0
339. 0
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Elk
River
mile
41.5
Guntersville Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
371.0
371.0
371.0
371.0
371.0
424.0
424 .0
424 .0
424.0
424.0
911211
CHC
FMAL
31766
405
911211
CHC
FMAL
31766
425
911211
CHC
FMAL
31766
401
911211
CHC
MALE
31766
471
911211
CHC
MALE
31766
513
911003
CHC
FMAL
31771
428
911003
CHC
FMAL
31771
497
911003
CHC
MALE
31771
517
911003
CHC
MALE
31771
533
911003
CHC
MALE
31771
423
911008
CHC
FMAL
31773
469
911008
CHC
FMAL
31773
369
911008
CHC
¦ FMAL
31773
392
911008
CHC
FMAL
31773
395
911008
CHC
MALE
31773
4 62
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
485
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
455
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
425
911010
CHC
FMAL
31776
445
911010
CHC
MALE
31776
500
911210
CHC
FMAL
31778
441
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
418
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
440
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
556
911210
CHC
MALE
31778
586
910624
LMB
MALE
17946
293
910624
SMF
MALE
17946
474
910624
SPB
FMAL
17946
281
910624
SPB
MALE
17946
311
910624
BLB
FMAL
17948
585
910624
BLB
MALE
17948
510
910701
CHC
MALE
17948
375
910701
CHC
MALE
17948
317
910624
LMB
FMAL
17948
480
910624
LMB
MALE
17948
348
910624
SMF
FMAL
17948
434
910701
CHC
FMAL
17950
404
910701
CHC
MALE
17950
393
910624
SMF
MALE
17950
480
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
400
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
554
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
408
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
431
910911
CHC
FMAL
19496
490
910918
CHC
FMAL
19498
499
910918
CHC
FMAL
19498
391
910918
CHC
MALE
19498
468
910918
CHC
MALE
19498
355
910918
CHC
MALE
19498
430
911025
CHC
FMAL
31781
389
911025
CHC
FMAL
31781
452
911025
CHC
MALE
31781
463
911106
CHC
MALE
31781
505
911106
CHC
MALE
31781
679
646
722
630
970
1220
618
1052
1208
1174
638
860
384
628
582
734
1374
1006
754
890
1426
834
676
802
1970
2028
349
1792
281
396
2 608
2323
526
254
1797
635
1214
599
614
1657
690
2102
713
878
1157
1396
612
1281
476
847
495
869
777
1060
2806
12
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Sequatchie River
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
Chiclcamauga Reservoir
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
River mile
483.6
483.6
483.6
483.6
483.6
495.0
495.0
495.0
495.0
495.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
526.0
Hiwassee River
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Ocoee Reservoir
Ocoee River mile 12.0
Ocoee River mile 12.0
Ocoee River mile 12.
Ocoee River mile 12.
Ocoee River mile 12.0
Blue Ridge Reservoir
Toccoa River mile 54.1
Toccoa River mile 54.1
Toccoa River mile 54.1
Toccoa River mile 54.1
Toccoa River mile 54.1
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
320
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
299
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
352
910611
DRM
FMAL
17952
318
910611
DRM
MALE
17952
395
910611
RKB
FMAL
17953
193
910611
RKB
FMAL
17953
182
910611
RKB
FMAL
17953
177
910611
RKB
MALE
17953
214
910611
RKB
MALE
17953
181
910611
CHC
FMAL
17955
511
910611
CHC
FMAL
17955
338
910611
CHC
MALE
17955
416
910611
CHC
MALE
17955
351
910611
CHC
MALE
17955
291
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
454
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
337
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
472
911009
CHC
FMAL
19501
507
911009
CHC
MALE
19501
530
911009
CHC
FMAL
19499
433
911009
CHC
FMAL
19499
400
911009
CHC
MALE
19499
482
911009
CHC
MALE
19499
776
911010
CHC
MALE
19499
541
911030
CHC
MALE
31820
509
911030
CHC
MALE
31822
469
911030
CHC
FMAL
31825
509
911030
CHC
MALE
31827
548
911030
CHC
FMAL
31830
466
911030
CHC
MALE
31832
568
911030
CHC
MALE
31835
626
911030
CHC
MALE
31836
472
911030
CHC
MALE
31837
480
911030
CHC
FMAL
31838
559
910708
CHC
MALE
17956
428
910708
CHC
MALE
17956
400
910708
CHC
FMAL
17965
503
910708
LMB
FMAL
17965
357
910708
LMB
MALE
17965
325
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
567
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
555
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
543
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
447
910708
SMF
MALE
17967
498
911015
CHC
FMAL
19492
430
911017
CHC
FMAL
19492
595
911015
CHC
MALE
19492
595
911015
CHC
MALE
19492
503
911017
CHC
MALE
19492
517
911003
CHC
FMAL
19490
4 63
911003
CHC
FMAL
19490
440
911003
CHC
MALE
19490
525
911003
CHC
MALE
19490
550
911003
CHC
MALE
19490
504
394
318
409
358
717
141
117
108
187
120
1434
334
697
331
211
933
757
903
1538
1426
725
557
1138
5968
1517
1193
921
1458
1865
1065
1858
3150
1072
1116
2093
752
613
1531
762
327
2728
2528
2390
1225
1629
783
2214
2197
1137
1279
877
645
1213
1316
974
13
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Hiwas3ee Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
Nottely Reservoir
Nottely River mile 23.5
Nottely River mile 23.5
Nottely River mile 23.5
Nottely River mile 23.5
Nottely River mile 23.5
Chatuge Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
Emory River
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14 .5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14 .5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Norris Reservoir
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.
0
Clinch
River
mile
125.
0
Clinch
River
mile
125.
0
Clinch
River
mile
125.
0
Clinch
River
mile
125.
0
Clinch River
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
911113
CHC
MALE
911113
CHC
MALE
911113
CHC
MALE
911113
CHC
MALE
911113
CHC
MALE
911002
CHC
FMAL
911002
CHC
MALE
911002
CHC
MALE
911002
CHC
MALE
911002
CHC
MALE
911001
CHC
FMAL
911001
CHC
FMAL
911001
CHC
MALE
911001
CHC
MALE
911001
CHC
MALE
910624
C
FMAL
910624
C
FMAL
910624
C
MALE
910624
C
MALE
910624
C
MALE
910624
CHC
FMAL
910624
CHC
FMAL
910624
CHC
FMAL
910624
CHC
MALE
910624
CHC
MALE
910624
LMB
FMAL
910624
LMB
FMAL
910624
LMB
FMAL
910624
LMB
FMAL
910624
LMB
FMAL
911009
CHC
FMAL
911009
CHC
FMAL
911009
CHC
FMAL
911009
CHC
FMAL
911009
CHC
MALE
911010
CHC
FMAL
911010
CHC
FMAL
911008
CHC
MALE
911008
CHC
MALE
911008
CHC
MALE
910618
DRM
FMAL
910618
DRM
FMAL
910618
DRM
FMAL
910618
DRM
FMAL
910618
DRM
FMAL
910618
RKB
FMAL
910618
RKB
FMAL
910618
RKB
FMAL
910618
RKB
FMAL
910618
RKB
FMAL
910618
CHC
FMAL
910618
CHC
FMAL
910618
CHC
FMAL
910618
CHC
MALE
910618
CHC
MALE
31796 591 1641
31796 557 1552
31796 560 1735
31796 495 1007
31796 495 933
19488 584 2046
19488 578 1945
19488 585 2118
19488 583 2144
19488 482 976
19494 465 905
19494 438 625
19494 522 1089
19494 524 1220
19494 504 1124
17969 552 2346
17969 468 1355
17969 582 2683
17969 540 2055
17969 560 2570
17971 351 473
17971 492 1242
17971 442 678
17971 356 368
17971 467 661
17973 361 646
17973 357 549
17973 334 464
17973 417 1003
17973 319 464
31786 447 690
31786 484 1184
31786 427 746
31786 451 794
31786 397 634
31787 430 612
31787 380 444
31787 532 1310
31787 120 674
31787 520 1105
17976 579 3276
17976 562 2315
17976 454 1301
17976 377 687
17976 357 579
17977 202 174
17977 195 154
17977 179 117
17977 179 111
17977 185 122
17979 501 1412
17979 563 2372
17979 437 927
17979 505 1296
17979 413 649
14
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Powell River
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
365
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
350
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
309
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
FMAL
17981
270
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910617
LMB
MALE
17981
262
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
FMAL
17982
325
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
MALE
17982
362
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910617
CHC
FMAL
17991
508
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910612
CHC
MALE
17991
484
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
FMAL
17991
344
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
MALE
17991
374
Powell
River mile 65.
0
910612
GRH
MALE
17991
370
Tellico Reservoir
Little
TN
River
mile
0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
478
Little
TN
River
mile
0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
483
Little
TN
River
mile
0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
416
Little
TN
River
mile
0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
375
Little
TN
River
mile
1 .
0
911205
LMB
FMAL
31801
374
Little
TN
River
mile
0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
604
Little
TN
River
mile
1 .
0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
553
Little
TN
River
mile
0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
516
Little
TN
River
mile
0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
440
Little
TN
River
mile
1 .
0
911205
CHC
MALE
31815
394
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911115
CHC
FMAL
31804
535
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911115
CHC
FMAL
31804
457
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31804
485
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31804
453
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31804
436
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911114
LMB
FMAL
31808
494
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911114
LMB
FMAL
31808
573
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911114
LMB
FMAL
31808
313
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911115
LMB
FMAL
31808
394
Little
TN
River
mile
11
.0
911114
LMB
MALE
31808
342
Little Tennessee River
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
GRH
FMAL
17993
361
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
GRH
FMAL
17993
367
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
GRH
MALE
17993
364
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
GRH
MALE
17993
366
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
GRH
MALE
17993
321
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910715
SMB
FMAL
17994
401
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910715
SMB
FMAL
17994
257
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
SMB
FMAL
17994
301
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
SMB
FMAL
17994
308
Little
TN
River
mile
95
.0
910716
SMB
FMAL
17994
260
Douglas Tallwater
FB River mile 32.0
920114
CHC
MALE
31788
533
FB River mile 32.0
920114
CHC
MALE
31788
413
FB River mile 32.0
920114
CHC
MALE
31788
543
FB River mile 32.0
920114
SAG
FMAL
31788
519
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
FMAL
31788
390
FB River mile 32.0
920110
CHC
FMAL
31790
363
FB River mile 32.0
920110
CHC
MALE
31790
603
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
FMAL
31790
439
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
FMAL
31790
368
FB River mile 32.0
920110
SAG
MALE
31790
410
675
591
475
264
264
470
568
1486
1106
495
582
603
1890
1583
999
790
692
2496
2065
1270
836
477
1521
847
1056
982
707
1981
1637
497
862
641
534
566
569
532
377
604
216
328
396
223
1522
683
1617
1380
482
949
2610
614
469
616
15
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
French Broad River
FB River
mile
77.5
910712
CHC
FMAL
18001
420
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
433
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
396
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
368
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
CHC
MALE
18001
416
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
C
FMAL
18003
618
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
C
FMAL
18003
540
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
c
FMAL
18003
556
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
c
FMAL
18003
522
FB River
mile
77.5
910709
c
FMAL
18003
521
C
1
n
0
*
¦ River
" Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
c
FMAL
17996
610
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
c
MALE
17996
626
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
c
MALE
17996
494
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
c
FMAL
17997
527
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
c
MALE
17997
493
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
FHC
FMAL
17997
420
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
FHC
FMAL
17997
410
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
FHC
MALE
17997
510
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
FHC
FMAL
17999
452
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
FHC
MALE
17999
509
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
SMB
MALE
17999
358
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
SPB
FMAL
17999
256
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
910613
SPB
MALE
17999
225
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston
River
mile
53.0
911105
CHC
FMAL
31789
544
Holston
River
mile
53.0
911105
CHC
MALE
31789
444
Holston
River
mile
53.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31789
478
Holston
River
mile
53.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31789
415
Holston
River
mile
53.0
911115
CHC
MALE
31789
404
Holston
River
mile
75.0
911126
CHC
FMAL
31794
462
Holston
River
mile
75.0
911126
CHC
FMAL
31794
431
Holston
River
mile
75.0
911106
CHC
MALE
31794
518
Holston
River
mile
75.0
911106
CHC
MALE
31794
168
Holston
River
mile
75.0
911126
CHC
MALE
31794
394
Holston
River
mile
91.0
911120
CHC
FMAL
18009
433
Holston
River
mile
91.0
911120
CHC
MALE
18009
556
Holston
River
mile
91.0
911107
CHC
MALE
31799
431
Holston
River
mile
91.0
911107
CHC
MALE
31799
397
Holston
River
mile
91.0
911107
CHC
MALE
31799
430
Holston River
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
C
FMAL
18005
599
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
C
FMAL
18005
536
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
C
FMAL
18005
544
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
C
FMAL
18005
491
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
C
MALE
18005
475
Holston
River
mile
109. 9
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
467
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
530
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
514
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
529
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
CHC
FMAL
18007
447
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
LMB
FMAL
18009
468
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
LMB
FMAL
18009
369
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
LMB
FMAL
18009
311
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
LMB
MALE
18009
360
Holston
River
mile
109.9
910604
LMB
MALE
18009
321
597
729
584
447
541
3425
2637
2311
1990
2042
3602
3564
1636
2204
1692
830
744
1650
1142
1578
653
284
169
1501
787
822
540
564
894
685
1167
901
555
94 6
1966
707
473
668
3305
2315
2251
1606
1486
1042
1630
1383
1499
888
1782
727
434
754
490
16
-------
Table 2.3 (Continued)
Watauga Reservoir
Watauga
River
mile
37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
689
3140
Watauga
River
mile
37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
660
2888
Watauga
River
mile
37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
515
1229
Watauga
River
mile
37.4
911002
CHC
FMAL
31813
465
793
Watauga
River
mile
37.4
911002
CHC
MALE
31813
440
671
South Fork Holston River
SFH
River
mile
51.0
911023
CHC
FMAL
31810
669
3075
SFH
River
mile
51.0
911023
CHC
FMAL
31810
378
394
SFH
River
mile
51.0
911119
CHC
FMAL
31810
555
1818
SFH
River
mile
51.0
911023
CHC
MALE
31810
568
1796
SFH
River
mile
51.0
911119
CHC
MALE
31810
605
2196
17
-------
Table 2.4 Concentrations (ng/g) of metals in composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations, 1991.
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES* LABID ANTIM ARSUI BERYL CADMI CHROMI COPPR
LEAD MERCU NICKL SELEN SILVR THALL
Tennessee River
Tennessee River mile 21.0
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 23.0
Tennessee River mile 61.0
Tennessee River mile 100.0
Tennessee River mile 173.0
Duck River
Duck River mile 22.5
Duck River mile 22.5
Duck River mile 22.5
CHC
31748
<
0.20
CHC
31750
<
0. 20
CHC
31753
<
0.20
CHC
31755
<
0.20
CHC
3175B
<
0.20
LMB
17939
<
0.20
CHC
17941
<
0.20
C
17943
<
0.20
0.13 < 0.01 < 0.05
0. 10
0.10
0. 10
0.24
< 0. 10
< 0. 10
< 0. 10
0.11 <0.10 < 0.20
< 0.05
7.50
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
1.40
0. 04
0.14
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7 . 40
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<1.00
0.02
< 0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
8.00
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<1.00
0. 02
0.14
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
1. 90
0.10
< 0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0. 05
9. 50
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0. 02
0.46
<
0.10
0. 30
<
0.05
6.20
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
0.14
<
0.10
< 0.20
<
0.05
9.20
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
<•
0.02
0.25
<
0.10
0.20
<
0.05
17.00
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River
mile
207 . 0
CHC
31763
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
0. 03
0.11
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6.30
Tennessee River
mile
230. 0
CHC
31764
<
0. 20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<0.02
0.18
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
2.80
Tennessee River
mi le
2 55.0
CHC
31765
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.06
0.19
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
9. 10
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River
mile
260. 0
CHC
31766
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
o
o
<
1. 00
0. 05
< 0.10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6.70
Tennessee River
mi le
274 . 0
CHC
31771
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
< 0 02
< 0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0. 05
8.00
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mile
277.0
CHC
31773
<
0.20
< 0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0. 10
< 0.10
<
0. 10
<
0. 20
<
0.05
7 . 30
Tennessee
River
mi le
300.0
CHC
31776
<
0. 20
0. 14
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
< C».02
<0.10
<
0.10
<
0. 20
<
0.05
7 . 70
Tennessee
River
mile
339.0
CHC
31778
<
0. 20
0.12
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0.17
<
o
o
<
0. 20
<
0.05
6. 10
Elk River
Elk River mile 41.5
Elk River mile 41.5
Elk River mile 41.5
CHC
17946
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
< 0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
8.00
BAS
17948
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1. 00
0.03
0.37
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
9.20
BUF
17950
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0.25
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
8 . 40
GTintersville Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 350.0
Tennessee River mile 371.0
Tennessee River mile 424.0
CHC
1 9496
<
0.20
0. 26
<
0. 01
<
0.05
0.10
1. 00
0. 05
<
0.10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
< 0.05
7.20
CHC
19498
<
0.20
0.25
<
0. 01
<
0.05
< 0.05
1. 00
0. 08
<
0.10
<
0. 10
<
0.20
0.06
8 . 50
CHC
31781
<
0. 20
< 0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
< 0.05
< 1.00
0.10
<
0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
< 0.05
7.20
Sequatchie
River
mile
7.1
RKB
17952
< 0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
0.08
<
1. 00
< 0.02
0.23
<
0.10
0.30
<
0.05
15.00
Sequatchie
River
mile
7.1
CHC
17953
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
0.07
<
1. 00
0. 04
< 0.10
<
0.10
< 0.20
<
0.05
6.60
Sequatchie
River
mile
7 .1
DRM
17955
< 0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
< 0.05
<
1.00
0.03
0. 34
<
0.10
0. 30
<
0.05
7.40
Chickamauga Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 483.6 CHC 19501 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.05 1.70 0.09 < 0.10 0.10 < 0.20
Tennessee River mile 495.0 CHC 19499 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05 0.06 < 1.00 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.20
0.05
0. 05
7.80
7.00
Hiwassee River
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
LMB
17956
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0. 36
<
0. 10
0.20
<
0.05
10.00
Hiwassee
River
mi le
38.0
CHC
17965
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.03
< 0.10
<
0.10
< 0.20
<
0.05
9.20
Hiwassee
River
mi le
38.0
SMF
17967
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 . 00
0. 07
0.24.
<
0. 10
0. 30
<
0.05
8.60
-------
Table 2.4 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES* LABID
BERYL CADMI CHROMI COPPR
LEAD MERCU NICKL SELEN SILVR THALL
ZINC
Ocoee Reaervoir
Ocoee River mile 12.0
19492 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.05
1.00
0.08 < 0.10
0. 30
0.60
< 0.05
"7.80
Blue Ridge Reaervoir
Toccoa River mile 54.1
19490 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05
0.05
2 .00
0.04
0.18 < 0.10
0.30
< 0.05 7.60
Hlvraaaee Reaervoir
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
CHC
31796 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 1.00
0.69 < 0.10 < 0.20
< 0.05 6.50
Nottely Reaervoir
Nottely River mile 23.5
19488 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05
3.00
0.20
0.46 < 0.10 < 0.20
< 0.05 9.10
Chatuge Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
19494 < 0.20 < 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.05
1.70
0.05
0.20
0.20
0. 30
< 0.05
6.80
Emory
River
mile
14.5
LHB
17969
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0.44
<
0.10
0.30
<
0.05
9.20
Emory
River
mile
14 . 5
CHC
1 7971
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.02
0.26
<
0.10
< 0.20
<
0.05
9.60
Emory
Ri ver
mi le
14.5
C
1 7973
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
0.09
0.26
<
0.10
0. 30
<
0.05
9.40
Norria Reaervoir
Clinch River mile 80.0
Clinch River mile 125.0
Clinch River
Clinch River mile 172.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
Powell River
Powell Rivei mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Tellico Reaervoir
Little Til Fiver mile 1.0
Little TN River mile 1.0
Little TN River mile 11.0
Little Til River mile 11.0
3P86 <0.20
0.15 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 1.00 < 0.02
0.31 <0.10 <0.20
CHC
31787
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
o
o
<
1 .00
0.05
0.18
<
0.10
<
0.20
P.KB
1 7976
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 00
<
0.02
0. 14
<
0.10
0.40
CHC
17977
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
0 15
<
0.10
<
0.20
DRM
1 7979
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
<
0.02
0.19
<
0.10
0.30
LI1B
17981
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
<
0.02
0.14
<
0.10
0.40
CHC
1 7982
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
<
0.02
< 0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
GRH
17991
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
<
0.02
O.U
<
0.10
0.30
LI1B
31801
<
0.20
0. 12
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
0.05
0.14
<
0.10
<
0.20
CHC
31815
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
0.03
0. 18
*<
0.10
<
0.20
LI1B
31804
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
0.09
< 0.10
<
0.10
<
0.20
CHC
31808
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1 .00
0.03
0.23
<
0. 10
<
0.20
< 0.05
< 0.05
8.20
7 .60
<
0.05
19.00
<
0.05
8.80
<
0.05
7 .00
<
0.05
13.00
<
0.05
8.60
<
0.05
9.80
<
0.05
7.90
<
0.05
8.90
<
0.05
9.70
<
0.05
7.50
Little Tennessee River
Little TN River mile 95.0 SUB
Little TN River mile 95.0 GRH
17993 < 0.20
17994 < 0.20
< 0.10
< 0.10
0.01
0.01
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 1.00
< 1.00
0.03
0.02
0.61
0.19
0.10 < 0.20
0.10 < 0.20
0.05
< 0.05
20.00
9.00
Douglaa Tailvrater
FB River mile 32.0
FB River mile 32.0
SAG
CHC
31788 < 0.20
31790 <0.20
< 0. 10
< 0.10
0.01
0.01
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 1.00
< 1.00
0.02
0.07
0.18
0.17
< 0.10 <0.20
< 0.10 < 0.20
< 0.05
< 0.05
8.40
7.10
French Broad River
FB River mile 77.5
FB River mi 1e 77.5
CHC
C
18001
18003
0.20
0.20
< 0. 10
< 0. 10
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.05
0.05
1 .00
1.00
0.02
0.04
< 0.10
0.2 4
0. 10
0. 10
< 0.20
0.20
< 0.05
0.05
8.00
19.00
Nolichucky River
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
BAS
17996
<
0.20
<
0. 10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0. 17
<
0.10
< 0.20
<0.05
11
FHC
17997
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0.20
<
0.10
< 0.20
0.05
6
C
17999
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
o
o
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.10
0.14
<
0.10
o
fi
o
< 0.05
23
-------
2.4 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES* LABID ANTIM ARSNI BERYL CADMI CHROMI COPPR
LEAD MERCU NICKL SELEN SILVR THALL
ZINC
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston River mile 53.0
Holston River mile 75.0
Holston River mile 91.0
CHC
CHC
CHC
31789
31794
31799
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
o
o
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.20
0.17
<
o
o
<
0.20
<
0.05
8.40
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0.37
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7.20
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.08
0.41
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7.70
Holston River
Holston River mile 109.9
LMB
18005
<
0. 20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.06
0.43
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
9.40
Holston River mile 109.9
CHC
18007
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0. 05
<
0.05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0.28
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7.60
Holston River mile 109.9
C
18009
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0. 05
<
1.00
< 0.02
0.28
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
32.00
Watauga Reservoir
Watauga River mile 37.4
CHC
31813
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
<
0.05
<
1.00
0.02
0.53
<
0.10
<
0.20
<
0.05
6.20
South Fork Holston River
SFH River mile 51.0
CHC
31810
<
0.20
<
0.10
<
0.01
<
0.05
0. 06
1.00
0.07
0.42
<
0. 10
<
0.20
<
0.05
7.10
BAS - Composite of LMB and SMB.
BUT - Composite of SBU and BLB.
M
O
-------
Table 2.5 Concentrations (|ig/g) of pesticides and PCBs composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations, 1991.
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES* LABID LIPID ALDRIN DIELD TOXOPH
BENZ
CLOR
DDTR
ENDO
EN DR
HEPT
PCB
Tennessee River
Tennessee River mile 21.0
CHC
31748 12.00 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50
< 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
0.80
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 23.0 CHC 31750 5.50
Tennessee River mile 61.0 CHC 31753 9.00
Tennessee River mile 100.0 CHC 31755 9.20
Tennessee River mile 173.0 CHC 31758 16.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 20
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.20
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.40
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
o
o
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.30
Duck River
Duck
River
mile
22.5
LMB
17939
0.60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
< 0. 01
<
0.01
<
o
O
<
0.01
<
0.01
< 0.10
Duck
River
mile
22.5
CHC
17941
3 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0. 02
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0. 20
Duck
River
mile
22.5
r
1 7943
5.80
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<;
0.50
<
0. 01
0. 02
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<0.10
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mile
207.0
CHC
31763
4 . 90
<
0.01
<
o
O
<
0.50
<
o
o
0.32
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0. 20
Tennessee
River
mi le
230. 0
CHC
31764
5.-10
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
0.23
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0. 50
Tennessee
River
mi le
255.0
CHC
31765
3.60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.08
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0. 50
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 260.0 CHC 31766 6. <10 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50
Tennessee River mile 274.0 CHC 31771 8.50 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50
< 0. 01
< 0.01
0. 03
0.31
< 0. 01
< 0. 01
0. 01
0.01
0. 01
0. 01
1 . 20
0.70
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mile
277 .0
CHC
31773
6 . 4 0
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0.11
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0. 50
Tennessee
River
rni 1 e
300.0
CHC
31776
11 .00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.29
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.80
Tennessee
River
mi le
339 . 0
CHC
31778
8 . 30
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.29
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
1. 30
Elk River
Elk
River
mile
41. 5
CHC
17946
3.30
<
0.01
•s
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.20
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
< 0.10
Elk
River
mi le
41.5
BAS
17948
1.10
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
< 0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
< 0.10
Elk
River
mi le
41. 5
BUF
17950
8.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
< 0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 60
Guntersvllle Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mi le
350.0
CHC
194 96
12.00
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.19
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.70
Tennessee
Rivet-
mi le
371.0
CHC
19498
11.00
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.16
<
o
o
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.70
Tennessee
River
nu le
4 2 '1 . 0
CHC
31781
5.20
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.20
<
o
o
<
o
o
<
0. 01
0. 90
Sequatchie
River
mile
7 . 1
RKB
17952
0.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<0.10
Sequatchie
River
mi le
7.1
CHC
17953
6. 60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.20
Sequatchie
River
mile
7 .1
DRM
17955
0.80
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<0.10
-------
1 '..5 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES*
LABID
LIPID
ALDRIN
DIELD
Chickamauga Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 483.6
CHC
19501
7 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
Tennessee River mile 495.0
CHC
19499
9.00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31785
14 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31820
14 .00
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31822
6.40
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31825
11 . 00
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31827
19. 00
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31830
22. 00
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31832
7 . 30
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31835
7.40
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31836
10. 00
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31837
13. 00
Tennessee River mile 526.0
CHC
31838
6. 60
Hiwassee River
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
LI-IB
17 956
1.40
<
0. 01
<
0.01
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
CHC
17965
7 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
SI-1F
17967
4 . 10
<
0.01
<
0. 01
Ocoee Reservoir
Ocoee River mile 12.0
CHC
1 94 92
6.30
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
Blue Ridge Reservoir
Toccoa River mile 54.1
CHC
1 94 90
5.00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
Hiwassee Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 77.0
CHC
31796
2 . 30
<
o
o
<
0. 01
Nottely Reservoir
Nottely River mile 23.5
CHC
19488
7 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
Chatuge Reservoir
Hiwassee River mile 122.0
CHC
1 94 94
4.00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
Emory River
Emory River mile 14.5
LI-IB
17969
0 . 50
<
0.01
<
0.01
Emory River mile 14.5
CHC
17971
2 . 00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
Emory River mile 14.5
C
17973
2.7 0
<
0.01
<
0.01
Norris Reservoir
Clinch River mile 80.0
CHC
31786
7 . 30
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
Clinch River mile 125.0
CHC
31787
2 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0.01
Clinch River
Clinch River mile 172.0
RKB
17976
0.80
<
0.01
<
0.01
Clinch River mile 172.0
CHC
17977
11 . 00
<
0.01
-------
Table 2.5 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE SPECIES* LABID LIPID ALDRIN DIELD TOXOPH BENZ CLOR DDTR ENDO EN PR HEPT PCB
Powell River
Powell River mile 65.0
LMB
17981
1. 60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
0.02
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Powell River mile 65.0
CHC
17982
11.00
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.03
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 10
Powell River mile 65.0
GRH
17991
2.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 10
Telllco Reservoir
Little TN River mile 1.0
LMB
31801
4 .20
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.20
Little TN River mile 1.0
CHC
31815
6. 60
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
1 .40
Little Til River mile 11.0
LMB
31804
2.80
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
Little Til River mile 11.0
CHC
31808
5. 90
<
o
o
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
0.02
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
1.10
Little Tennessee River
Little TN River mile 95.0
SMB
17993
2.00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 05
<
0. 01
<
0 . 03
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
Little TN River mile 95.0
GRH
17994
0 . 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.05
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
Douglas Tailwater
FB River mile 32.0
SAG
31788
o
o
0-J
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 10
FB River mile 32.0
CHC
31790
CO
(-J
o
<
o
o
<
o
o
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0.09
<
0. 01
<
o
o
<
0.01
o
o
French Broad River
FB River mile 77.5
CHC
18001
2.30
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 10
FB River mile 77.5
C
18003
3.40
<
0.01
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0. 08
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0. 02
<
0.01
<
0. 10
23
Nolichucky River
Molichucky River mile 8.5
BAS
17996
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
llolichucky River mile 8.5
FHC
17997
1 .00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
C
17999
1 9. 00
<
o
o
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 10
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston River mile 53.0
CHC
31789
6. 90
<
0.01
-------
Table 2.6 Highest and second-highest concentrations (ng/g) of each metal in fillets (by
collection site) found in fish tissue screening studies in 1991.
Highest Concentration Found Second-Highest Concentration
Found
Detection
Parameter Limit Level* Location1" Sample Level* Location1" Sample
Antimony
2
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Arsenic
0.02
0.26
TRM 350
catfish
0.25
TRM 371
catfish
Beryllium
0.02
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Cadmium
0.05
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Chromium
0.02
0.1
TRM 350
catfish
0.09
TRM 21
catfish
0.09
NRM 23.5
catfish
Copper
0.8
3
NRM 23.5
catfish
2
ToRM 54.1
catfish
Lead
0.02
0.2
NRM 23.5
catfish
0.1
TRM 173
catfish
0.2
HRM 53
catfish
0.1
TRM 277
catfish
0.1
TRM 424
catfish
0.1
TRM 495
catfish
0.1
NolRM 8.5
carp
Mercury
0.1
0.69
HiRM 77
catfish
0.61
LTRM 95
buffalo
Nickel
0.6
0.3
ORM 12
catfish
0.2
HiRM 122
catfish
Selenium
0.02
0.6
ORM 12
catfish
0.4
CRM 172
buffalo
0.4
PRM65
bass
Thallium
0.05
0.06
TRM 371
catfish
0.05
LTRM 95
buffalo
0.05
FBRM 77.5
carp
0.05
NolRM 8.5
catfish
Zinc
0.1
32
HRM 109.9
carp
23
NolRM 8.5
carp
a. ND = not detectable
b. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; NRM = Nottely River Mile; ToTM = Toccoa River Mile; HRM =
Holston River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile; NolRM = Nolichucky River Mile; LTRM =
Little Tennessee River Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile
24
-------
Table 2.7 Highest and second-highest concentrations (ng/g) of organics in fillets (by
collection site) found in fish tissue screening studies in 1991.
Detection
Parameter Limit
Highest Concentration Found
Level" Location1" Sample
Second-Highest Concentration
Found
Level" Location6 Sample
Aldrin
BHC
Chlordane
DDTr
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
PCBs
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.5.
0.1
ND
ND
0.18 HiRM38 catfish
0.32 TRM 207
ND
0.07
0.02
ND
ND
8.5
HRM
109.9
FBRM
77.5
catfish
catfish
carp
0.09 HRM catfish
109.9
0.31 TRM 274 catfish
0.04 ERM 14.5 catfish
ND
HiRM38 catfish
3.2 ERM 14.5 catfish
a. ND = not detectable
b. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; HRM = Holston River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile;
ERM = Emory River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile
25
-------
Table 2.8 Contaminant results (ng/g wet weight) from 1991 reservoir and inflow sites which show
need for futher evaluation.
Location" Species Teir 2 Teir 3
Contaminants which need to Contaminants which need to
be resampled at screening be evaluated in intensive
level study
Wilson Reservoir
TRM260
CHC
PCBs 1.2
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM339
CHC
PCBs 1.3
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM526
CHC
PCBs 1.2
Parksville Reservoir
ORM 12
CHC
PCBs 1.4
Tellico Reservoir'
LTRM 1.0
LTRM 11.0
CHC
CHC
PCBs 1.4
PCBs 1.1
Nottely Reservoir
NRM23.5
CHC
Copper 3.0
Hiwassee Reservoir
HiRM 77
CHC
Mercury 0.69
Watuaga Reservoir
WRM37
CHC
Mercury 0.53
a. TRM - Tennessee River Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile;
NRM = Nottely River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile; WRM - Watuaga River Mile
b. CHC = channel catfish
c. Tellico Reservoir - previous intensive studies found neither an increasing nor decreasing trend;
therefore, catfish continue to be collected at the screening level.
26
-------
Table 2.9
Collection sites included in fish tissue screening studies, autumn 1992.
Site8 Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Sitec
Screening Studyb
Lower Tennessee River
TRM21 X
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM23 X
TRM60 X
TRM 8 5 X
TRM 173 X
TRM206 X
Duck River Mile 22.5 X
Normandy Reservoir
DRM 259.4
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 207 X
TRM 230 X
TRM 259 X
Bear Creek Reservoir
BCRM 75
Upper Bear Creek
BCRM 115 X
Little Bear Creek River Mile 12
Cedar Creek Reservoir
CCRM 25
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 261 X
TRM 274 X
27
-------
Table 2.9 (Continued)
Site" Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Sitec
Screening Studyb
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM277 X
TRM296 X
TRM300 X
TRM339 X
TRM347 X
Elk River Mile 41.5 X
Tims Ford Reservoir
ERM 135 X
ERM 150 X
Guntersville Reservoir
TRM 350 X
TRM375 X
TRM 424 X
Sequatchie River Mile 7.1
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM 472 X
TRM 491 X
TRM 526 X
South Mouse Creek Mile 11.0 X
Oostanaula Creek Mile 0.1 X
Hiwassee River Mile 38 X
Emory River Mile 14.5 X
Norris Reservoir
CRM 80 X
CRM 125 X
PRM30 X
28
-------
Table 2.9 (Continued)
Site8 Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient Monitoring Sitec
Screening Studyb
Clinch River Mile 172
Powell River Mile 65
Tellico Reservoir
LTRM 1 X
LTRM 11 X
Fontana Reservoir
LTRM 62 X
LTRM 81 X
Little Tennessee River Mile 94.3 X
French Broad River Mile 78 X
Nolichucky River Mile 8.5 X
Cherokee Reservoir
HRM53 X
HRM75 X
HRM91 X
Holston River Mile 109.9 X
a. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; DRM = Duck River Mile; BCRM = Bear Creek River Mile; CCRM =
Cedar Creek River Mile; ERM = Elk River Mile; CRM = Clinch River Mile; PRM = Powell River Mile;
LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile; HRM = Holston River Mile.
b. The Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study uses composited fillets from channel catfish from reservoir
sites.
c. The Ambient Monitoring Study uses composited fillets from catfish, rough fish, and game fish from major
inflow sites collected on an annual basis.
29
-------
Table 2.10 Specific physical information on individual fish collected for tissue analysis from
inflow and reservoir locations, 1992
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30232
482
850
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
21.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30232
455
915
Tennessee River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
FMAL
30232
384
450
Tennessee River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
MALE
30232
548
1585
Tennessee River
mile
21.0
920929
CHC
MALE
30232
581
1860
Tennessee River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
FMAL
30233
472
875
Tennessee River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
FMAL
30233
595
2180
Tennessee River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
FMAL
30233
421
705
Tennessee River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30233
525
1660
Tennessee River
mile
23.0
920930
CHC
MALE
30233
458
745
Tennessee River
mile
60.0
921027
CHC
FMAL
30234
521
1375
Tennessee River
mile
60.0
921027
CHC
FMAL
30234
456
9'95
Tennessee River
mile
60.0
921104
CHC
FMAL
30234
434
905
Tennessee River
mile
60.0
921105
CHC
FMAL
30234
422
665
Tennessee River
mile
60.0
921105
CHC
FMAL
30234
384
575
Tennessee River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
375
478
Tennessee River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
440
793
Tennessee River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
510
1474
Tennessee River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
402
602
Tennessee River
mile
85.0
921001
CHC
MALE
30236
394
539
Tennessee River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
524
1765
Tennessee River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
397
685
Tennessee River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
401
565
Tennessee River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30237
384
500
Tennessee River
mile
173.0
921028
CHC
MALE
30237
427
890
Tennessee River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
529
1405
Tennessee River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
325
326
Tennessee River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
392
491
Tennessee River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
FMAL
30240
346
401
Tennessee River
mile
206.0
921006
CHC
MALE
30240
578
1881
Duck River
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
FMAL
30725
650
4786
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
FMAL
30725
585
2488
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
MALE
30725
587
2563
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
MALE
30725
562
2416
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
C
MALE
30725
485
1536
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
FMAL
30727
414
891
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
FMAL
30727
334
563
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
MALE
30727
400
1067
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
LMB
MALE
30727
298
369
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
FMAL
30730
500
1229
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
FMAL
30730
337
330
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
FMAL
30730
291
316
Duck River mile
22.5
920715
CHC
MALE
30730
352
413
Normandy Reservoir
Duck River mile
259.4
921110
CHC
FMAL
30279
532
1825
Duck River mile
259.4
921110
CHC
MALE
30279
627
2365
Duck River mile
259. 4
921110
CHC
MALE
30279
545
1695
Duck River mile
259.4
921110
CHC
MALE
30279
478
1080
Duck River mile
259.4
921111
CHC
MALE
30279
400
780
30
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30241
400
654
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30241
460
988
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
FMAL
30241
523
1580
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
MALE
30241
455
858
Tennessee River mile 207.0
920917
CHC
MALE
30241
391
526
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
FMAL
30243
632
2390
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
FMAL
30243
548
1362
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
MALE
30243
486
1184
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
MALE
30243
491
838
Tennessee River mile 230.0
920916
CHC
MALE
30243
492
1062
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
FMAL
30246
598
2650
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
FMAL
30246
491
1060
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
MALE
30246
583
2046
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
MALE
30246
409
452
Tennessee River mile 259.0
920915
CHC
MALE
30246
593
2168
Bear Creek Reservoir
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30281
499
1154
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30281
475
1005
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30281
410
451
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30281
445
727
Bear Cr. River mile 75.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30281
382
429
Upper Bear Creek
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30284
390
518
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30284
605
2492
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30284
444
804
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30284
548
1662
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30284
602
2112
Little Bear Creek
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
395
454
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
392
417
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
548
1575
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
FMAL
30285
580
2280
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
921013
CHC
MALE
30285
434
795
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
921016
CHC
FMAL
30286
350
360
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
921016
CHC
FMAL
30286
515
1072
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
921016
CHC
MALE
30286
389
440
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 261.0
921007
CHC
FMAL
30247
410
497
Tennessee River mile 261.0
921007
CHC
FMAL
30247
395
491
Tennessee River mile 2 61.0
921007
CHC
FMAL
30247
412
507
Tennessee River mile 2 61.0
921007
CHC
MALE
30247
408
559
Tennessee River mile 261.0
921007
CHC
MALE
30247
575
1986
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
FMAL
30252
465
993
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
FMAL
30252
398
556
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
FMAL
30252
402
565
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
MALE
30252
567
1887
Tennessee River mile 274.0
921008
CHC
MALE
30252
536
1702
31
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mile
277.0
920922
CHC
FMAL
30254
538
Tennessee
River
mile
277.0
920922
CHC
FMAL
30254
410
Tennessee
River
mile
277.0
920922
CHC
MALE
30254
497
Tennessee
River
mile
277.0
920922
CHC
MALE
30254
504
Tennessee
River
mile
277.0
920922
CHC
MALE
30254
487
Tennessee
River
mile
296.0
921230
CHC
FMAL
30257
381
Tennessee
River
mile
296.0
920923
CHC
MALE
30257
550
Tennessee
River
mile
296.0
921230
CHC
MALE
30257
356
Tennessee
River
mile
296.0
921231
CHC
MALE
30257
425
Tennessee
River
mile
296.0
921231
CHC
MALE
30257
412
Tennessee
river
mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
610
Tennessee
river
mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
381
Tennessee
river
mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
354
Tennessee
river
mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
348
Tennessee
river
mile
300.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30258
354
Tennessee
River
mile
339.0
921231
CHC
FMAL
30259
384
Tennessee
River
mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
351
Tennessee
River
mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
347
Tennessee
River
mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
379
Tennessee
River
mile
339.0
930105
CHC
FMAL
30259
430
Tennessee
River
mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
611
Tennessee
River
mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
425
Tennessee
River
mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
339
Tennessee
River
mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
481
Tennessee
River
mile
347.0
920924
CHC
FMAL
30260
396
Elk River
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SPB
FMAL
30732
416
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SPB
FMAL
30732
253
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SPB
MALE
30732
308
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SPB
MALE
30732
246
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
CHC
FMAL
30735
464
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SBU
FMAL
30736
482
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SBU
FMAL
30736
617
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SBU
MALE
30736
424
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SBU
MALE
30736
488
Elk River
mile
41.5
920610
SBU
MALE
30736
577
Tims Ford Reservoir
Elk River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
FMAL
30287
375
Elk River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
FMAL
30287
384
Elk River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30287
489
Elk River
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30287
389
Elk Fiver
mile
135.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30287
344
Elk River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
FMAL
30292
394
Elk River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
FMAL
30292
371
Elk River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
MALE
30292
489
Elk River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
MALE
30292
462
Elk River
mile
150.0
921118
CHC
MALE
30292
373
Guctersville Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mile
350.0
921022
CHC
FMAL
30261
406
Tennessee
River
mile
350.0
921022
CHC
FMAL
30261
480
Tennessee
River
mile
350.0
921022
CHC
MALE
30261
395
Tennessee
River
mile
350.0
921022
CHC
MALE
30261
434
Tennessee
River
mile
350.0
921022
CHC
MALE
30261
482
Tennessee
River
mile
375.0
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
405
Tennessee
River
mile
375.0
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
585
Tennessee
River
mile
375.0
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
4 67
Tennessee
River
mile
375.0
921023
CHC
FMAL
30263
424
Tennessee
River
mile
375.0
921023
CHC
MALE
30263
595
Tennessee
River
mile
424.0
921021
CHC
FMAL
30266
390
Tennessee
River
mile
424.0
921021
CHC
FMAL
30266
380
Tennessee
River
mile
424 .0
921021
CHC
FMAL
30266
383
Tennessee
River
mile
424.0
921021
CHC
MALE
30266
405
Tennessee
River
mile
424.0
921021
CHC
MALE
30266
365
WEIGHT
1505
490
1015
1190
1030
495
1735
320
690
525
2245
595
385
380
315
505
365
340
455
830
2920
1014
399
566
694
1270
190
430
145
862
1726
2957
1201
1741
2814
360
420
910
415
290
490
400
1000
915
385
715
1250
575
720
1095
685
2275
1080
845
1750
540
620
640
620
480
32
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Sequatchie River
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
FMAL
30738
302
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
FMAL
30738
340
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
MALE
30738
245
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
LMB
MALE
30738
227
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
FMAL
30741
398
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
FMAL
30741
283
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
MALE
30741
405
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
MALE
30741
385
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
FWD
MALE
30741
305
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
FMAL
30743
391
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
FMAL
30743
387
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
MALE
30743
253
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
MALE
30743
370
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
920601
CHC
MALE
30743
365
Chickamauga Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30267
481
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921014
CHC
FMAL
30267
558
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921023
CHC
FMAL
30267
494
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921014
CHC
MALE
30267
588
Tennessee River mile 472.0
921023
CHC
MALE
30267
540
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30272
571
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921015
CHC
FMAL
30272
516
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921105
CHC
FMAL
30272
700
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921015
CHC
MALE
30272
544
Tennessee River mile 491.0
921105
CHC
MALE
30272
588
Tennessee River mile 52 6.0
921028
CHC
MALE
30216
475
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30217
631
Tennessee River mile 52 6.0
921028
CHC
FMAL
30218
534
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921028
CHC
MALE
30219
657
Tennessee River mile 52 6.0
921028
CHC
I
30220
515
Tennessee River mile 52 6.0
921030
CHC
FMAL
30221
522
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
MALE
30222
480
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
MALE
30223
494
Tennessee River mile 52 6.0
921030
CHC
FMAL
30224
600
Tennessee River mile 526.0
921030
CHC
MALE
30225
611
South Mouse Reservoir
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
FMAL
30313
150
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
174
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
175
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
156
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
930204
RBS
MALE
30313
169
Oostanaula Reservoir
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
470
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
394
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
372
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
379
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921214
GRH
FMAL
30307
349
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
FMAL
30312
213
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
FMAL
30312
203
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
FMAL
30312
195
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
MALE
30312
195
Oostanaula River mile 0.1
921119
RKB
MALE
30312
205
363
510
151
143
833
310
608
550
270
509
467
517
371
413
950
1754
1015
2277
1083
1960
1226
4653
1563
1559
1135
3264
1909
2983
1464
1480
1229
1336
2436
2751
63
112
108
76
103
1183
714
601
604
461
174
146
148
134
143
33
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
HIwassee River
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Hiwassee
River
mile
38.0
Emory River
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14 .5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Emory
River
mile
14.5
Norris Reservoir
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
80.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
Clinch
River
mile
125.0
920726
CHC
MALE
920726
CHC
MALE
920726
CHC
MALE
920726
CHC
MALE
920726
CHC
MALE
920511
LMB
FMAL
920726
LMB
MALE
920511
LMB
MALE
920726
LMB
MALE
920726
LMB
MALE
920726
C
MALE
920726
C
MALE
920726
C
MALE
920726
C
MALE
920726
C
MALE
920622
c
FMAL
920622
c
FMAL
920622
c
MALE
920622
c
MALE
920622
c
MALE
920622
LMB
FMAL
920622
LMB
FMAL
920622
LMB
FMAL
920622
LMB
MALE
920623
LMB
MALE
920622
CHC
FMAL
920623
CHC
FMAL
920623
CHC
FMAL
920623
CHC
FMAL
920623
CHC
FMAL
920929
CHC
FMAL
920929
CHC
FMAL
920929
CHC
FMAL
920929
CHC
FMAL
920929
CHC
MALE
920930
CHC
MALE
920930
CHC
MALE
920930
CHC
MALE
920930
CHC
MALE
920930
CHC
MALE
921208
CHC
MALE
921208
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
MALE
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
FMAL
921209
CHC
MALE
921210
CHC
FMAL
921210
CHC
FMAL
30815 423 748
30815 399 714
30815 421 702
30815 484 1355
30815 498 1578
30746 330 521
30746 371 804
30746 324 521
30746 362 693
30746 317 442
30748 654 3458
30748 656 4384
30748 668 4604
30748 661 4027
30748 698 4165
30755 619 3176
30755 574 2757
30755 564 2386
30755 659 35'94
30755 529 2052
30757 311 420
30757 448 1483
30757 561 3051
30757 304 407
30757 319 418
30760 402 509
30760 395 500
30760 485 1203
30760 371 416
30760 426 651
30293 450 776
30293 457 988
30293 419 541
30293 429 702
30293 403 588
30295 526 1552
30295 560 1880
30295 452 788
30295 419 711
30295 403 589
30994 436 653
30996 514 1354
30998 437 647
31000 439 770
31002 475 716
31004 525 1492
31018 441 916
31020 482 895
31022 433 654
31024 511 1337
31026 564 1654
31028 455 896
31030 654 3022
31032 519 1357
31034 502 977
31036 444 726
31042 417 675
31044 423 656
31048 422 657
31050 456 955
34
-------
rable 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
Clinch River
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
LMB
MALE
30762
293
325
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
LMB
MALE
30762
289
298
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
LMB
MALE
30762
298
374
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
CHC
FMAL
30765
391
445
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
FMAL
30765
483
1112
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
FMAL
30765
518
1523
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
FMAL
30765
440
794
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
CHC
MALE
30765
436
735
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
C
FMAL
30767
565
2190
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
C
MALE
30767
602
3566
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920618
C
MALE
30767
771
6798
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
C
MALE
30767
65 6
3719
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
920622
C
MALE
30767
615
3582
Powell River
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921002
CHC
FMAL
30298
526
1361
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921002
CHC
FMAL
30298
434
677
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921215
CHC
FMAL
30298
428
761
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921002
CHC
MALE
30298
391
511
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921215
CHC
MALE
30298
470
978
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30858
579
19"68
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30874
462
895
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30876
437
847
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
MALE
30878
483
924
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30880
428
681
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921201
CHC
FMAL
30882
449
713
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
CHC
FMAL
30886
663
3345
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
CHC
MALE
30888
510
1488
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
CHC
MALE
30890
445
772
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30898
496
1070
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30900
458
761
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30902
434
702
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
MALE
30904
448
729
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
FMAL
30906
474
903
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
FMAL
30908
555
1758
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
CHC
FMAL
30922
393
559
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
CHC
MALE
30926
997
1914
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
CHC
MALE
30928
476
948
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
CHC
MALE
30930
488
1025
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921208
CHC
FMAL
30934
407
490
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
MALE
30938
608
2554
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30940
607
2743
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30946
625
2703
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30948
517
1584
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30950
494
1437
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
MALE
30952
516
1677
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30954
472
1357
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30970
499
1589
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
FMAL
30972
480
1398
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921202
STB
MALE
30974
475
1384
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
FMAL
30976
850
6290
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
FMAL
30978
616
2704
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
MALE
30980
499
1548
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921203
STB
FMAL
30982
495
1488
Powell
River
mile
30.0
921204
STB
FMAL
30984
480
1526
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
376
652
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
452
1171
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
427
658
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
FMAL
30770
597
2776
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
CHC
MALE
30770
411
746
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
FMAL
30772
531
2348
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
MALE
30772
353
4 65
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
MALE
30772
365
581
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
FWD
MALE
30772
345
487
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
397
935
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
520
2184
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
269
252
Powell
River
mile
65.0
920630
LMB
FMAL
30775
242
156
35
-------
Table 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Te]1i co Reservoir
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
Little
TN
River
mile
1.0
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
Little
TN
River
mile
11.0
Fontana Reservoir
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
Little
TN
River
mile
62.0
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
Little
TN
River
mile
81.0
Little
TN
River
mile
94 .3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94 .3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
Little
TN
River
mile
94.3
French Broad. River
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
French
B.
River
mile
78.0
Nolichucky River
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
Nolichucky
River
mile
8.5
920917
CHC
FMAL
920917
CHC
FMAL
920917
CHC
MALE
920917
CHC
MALE
920917
CHC
MALE
921027
CHC
FMAL
921027
CHC
FMAL
921027
CHC
FMAL
921027
CHC
MALE
921027
CHC
MALE
921201
CHC
FMAL
921201
CHC
FMAL
921201
CHC
MALE
921201
CHC
MALE
921201
CHC
MALE
921201
CHC
FMAL
921201
CHC
FMAL
921201
CHC
MALE
921201
CHC
MALE
921201
CHC
MALE
920603
RRH
FMAL
920603
RRH
FMAL
920603
RRH
FMAL
920603
RRH
MALE
920603
RRH
MALE
920603
SMB
FMAL
920603
SMB
FMAL
920603
SMB
MALE
920603
SMB
MALE
920603
CHC
FMAL
920603
CHC
FMAL
920603
CHC
FMAL
920603
CHC
MALE
920603
CHC
MALE
920720
C
FMAL
920722
C
FMAL
920720
C
MALE
920720
C
MALE
920722
C
MALE
920722
LMB
MALE
920720
SPB
FMAL
920720
SPB
FMAL
920720
CHC
FMAL
920720
CHC
MALE
920722
CHC
MALE
920708
C
FMAL
920708
C
FMAL
920708
C
MALE
920708
C
MALE
920708
C
MALE
920708
CHC
FMAL
920708
CHC
FMAL
920708
FHC
MALE
920708
FHC
MALE
920708
LMB
FMAL
920715
SPB
FMAL
30274 446 1016
30274 422 603
30274 572 2179
30274 397 575
30274 395 478
30276 589 2494
30276 698 4497
30276 461 949
30276 463 807
30276 493 1174
30299 538 1524
30299 440 806
30299 465 922
30299 448 776
30299 496 977
30301 468 924
30301 513 1179
30301 603 1734
30301 527 1403
30301 475 873
30804 515 1462
30804 513 1125
30804 400 724
30804 432 832
30804 407 819
30806 386 747
30806 243 207
30806 243 193
30806 252 202
30813 382 530
30813 352 392
30813 361 408
30813 447 713
30813 374 447
30796 536 2050
30796 542 2287
30796 543 2072
30796 534 2021
30796 517 1814
30799 382 737
30799 353 601
30799 338 550
30801 436 659
30801 340 330
30801 451 707
30789 695 5041
30789 405 1308
30789 595 3121
30789 503 2184
30789 405 1365
30791 550 1577
30791 '420 637
30791 416 787
30791 364 535
30794 344 578
30794 292 317
36
-------
T able 2.10 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921210
CHC
FMAL
30304
471
861
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921117
CHC
MALE
30304
766
4032
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921124
CHC
MALE
30304
475
1252
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921210
CHC
MALE
30304
517
1230
Holston
River
mile
53.0
921210
CHC
MALE
30304
495
987
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
FMAL
30305
509
1231
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
FMAL
30305
490
1267
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
FMAL
30305
422
706
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
MALE
30305
431
748
Holston
River
mile
75.0
921119
CHC
MALE
30305
424
693
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
525
1245
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
518
1488
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
514
1345
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
478
903
Holston
River
mile
91.0
921208
CHC
MALE
30306
474
979
olston River
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
FMAL
30777
573
3015
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
FMAL
30777
750
6510
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
C
MALE
30777
523
1971
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
c
MALE
30777
540
2271
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
c
MALE
30777
419
1438
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
CHC
FMAL
30784
495
1582
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
CHC
FMAL
30784
445
905
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
LMB
FMAL
30784
437
1467
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
LMB
MALE
30784
422
986
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920610
LMB
MALE
30784
333
536
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
CHC
FMAL
30786
500
1553
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
CHC
MALE
30786
570
1989
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
CHC
MALE
30786
484
1330
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
LMB
FMAL
30786
400
866
Holston
River
mile
109.9
920609
LMB
FMAL
30786
380
989
-------
Table 2.11 Concnetrations (|ig/g) of metals in composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations, 1992.
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES* LABID ANTIM ARSNI BERYL CADMI CHROMI COPPR LEAD MERCU NICKL SELEN SILVR THALL ZINC
TQimaaaoo Rivar
Tennessee River mile 21.0
30232
< 0.10
< 0.05
0.04
0.13
< 0.20
Kontqaky RaaTvolr
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
Tennessee River mile
23.0
CHC
30233
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.03
0.23
<
0.20
60.0
CHC
30235
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.23
0.12
<
0.20
85.0
CHC
30236
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.60
0.12
<
0.20
173.0
CHC
30237
<
0.10
<
0.05
< 0.02
< 0.10
<
0.20
206.0
CHC
30240
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.40
0.17
<
0.20
Duak Rivar
Duck River mile 22.5
30725
< 0.10
< 0.05
0.04
0.18
0.20
Duck River mile 22.5
LMB
30727
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.03
0.31
<
0.20
Duck River mile 22.5
CHC
30730
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.03
0-11
<
0.20
Normandy Reservoir
Duck River mile 259.
4
CHC
30279
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.04
0.20
<
0.20
Fiaktriok Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
207.0
CHC
30241
<
0.10
<
0.05
<0.02
<
0.10
<
0.20
Tennessee River mile
230.0
CHC
30243
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.03
0.24
<
0.20
Tennessee River mile
259.0
CHC
30246
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.04
0.24
<
0.20
Bear Crook Reservoir
Bear Cr. River mile
75.0
CHC
30281
<
0.10
<
0.05
< 0.02
0.45
<
0.20
Upper Bear Creek
Bear Cr. River mile
115.0
CHC
30284
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.04
0.29
<
0.20
Little Bear Creek
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0
CHC
30285
<
0.10
<
0.05
< 0.02
0.56
<
0.20
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0
CHC
30286
<
0. 10
<
0.05
< 0.02
0.21
<
0.20
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
261.0
CHC
30247
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.02
<
0.10
<
0.20
Tennessee River mile
274.0
CHC
30252
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.06
<
0. 10
<
0.20
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
277.0
CHC
30254
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.02
<
0.10
<
0.20
Tennessee River mile
296.0
CHC
30257
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.07
<
0.10
<
0.20
Tennessee river mile
300.0
CHC
30258
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.03
<
0.10
<
0.20
Tennessee River mile
339.0
CHC
30259
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.02
0.17
<
0.20
Tennessee River mile
347.0
CHC
30260
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.04
<
0.10
<
0.20
Elk River
Elk River mile 41.5
SPB
30732
<
0.10
<
0.05
< 0.02
0.29
<
0.20
Elk River mile 41.5
CHC
30735
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.04
0.17
<
0.20
Elk River mile 41.5
SBU
30736
<
0. 10
<
0.05
0.21
0.26
<
0.20
-------
Table 2.11 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE.
Tima Ford Roaarvoir
Elk River mile 135.0
Elk River mile 150.0
CHC
CHC
30281
30292
< 0.10
< 0.10
Oont^ravillo Raaexvoir
Tennessee River mile 350.0 CHC 30261
Tennessee River mile 375.0 CHC 30263
Tennessee River mile 424.0 CHC 30266
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
Sogoatohia Riv«r
Sequatchie River mile 7.1 LMB 30738
Sequatchie River mile 7.1 EVJD 30741
Sequatchie River mile 7.1 CHC 30743
0.10
0.10
0.10
Chiakamaoga Raaervoir
Tennessee River mile 472.0 CHC 30267
Tennessee River mile 491.0 CHC 30272
Tennessee River mile 526.0 CHC 30273
0.10
0.10
South Mooae Raa»rvoir
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
RBS
30313
< 0.10
Ooatanaula lUawvoir
Oostanaula River mile 0.1 GRH 30307
Oostanaula River mile 0.1 RKB 30312
< 0.10
< 0.10
to
vO
Hiwaaaco Rivr
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
CHC
LMB
C
30815
30746
30748
< 0. 10
< 0.10
< 0.10
Emory River
Emory River mile 14.5
Emory River mile 14.5
Emory River mile 14.5
C
LMB
CHC
30755
30757
30760
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
Norrla Roaagyoig
Clinch River mile 80.0
Clinch River mile 125.0
CHC
CHC
30293
30295
0.10
0.10
Cllnoh Rivr
Clinch River mile 172.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
Clinch River mile 172.0
LMB
CHC
C
30762
30765
30767
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
gowll Rivar
Powell River mile 30.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
CHC
CHC
FWD
LMB
30298
30770
30772
30775
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Tqlllco Raa«rvoir
Little TN River mile 1.0 CHC 30274
Little TN River mile 11.0 CHC 30276
0.10
0.10
CADMI CHROMI COPER LEAP MERCU NICKL SELEN SILVR THALL ZINC
< 0.05
< 0.05
<0.02
0.06
0.11
0.16
<
0.05
0.25
<
0.10
<
0.05
< 0.02
<
0.10
<
0.05
0.05
<
0.10
<0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.05 0.19
<0.02 0.2 3
< 0.02 < 0.10
<
0.02
< 0.10
<
0.02
0.14
<
0.02
< 0. 10
< 0.05
0.04 < 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
<0.02
< 0.02
0.27
0. 13
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.04 0.12
0.02 0.20
< 0.02 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.05 0.32
< 0.02 0.34
< 0.02 0.35
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.09
<0.02
0.31
0.14
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
<0.02 0.15
0.03 < 0.10
0.03 < 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.02 < 0.10
< 0.02 0.11
0.11 0.27
0.06 0.25
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
0.20
0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
< 0.20
0.30
0.40
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
0. 30
0.20
0.40
0.20
< 0.20
0. 50
< 0.20
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.02
< 0.02
0.65
0. 36
< 0.20
< 0.20
-------
2.11 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES*
LABID ANTIM ARSNI
Fontana Reservoir
Little TN River mile 62.0 CHC 30299
Little TN River mile 81.0 CHC 30301
Little TN River mile 94.3 RRH 30804
Little TN River mile 94.3 SMB 30806
Little TN River mile 94.3 CHC 30813
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
Trench Broad River
French B. River mile 78.0 C 30796
French B. River mile 78.0 BAS 30799
French B. River mile 78.0 CHC 30801
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
NoliclreoXy Rlvar
Nolichucky River mile 8.5 C 30789
Nolichucky River mile 8.5 CAT 30791
Nolichucky River mile 8.5 BAS 30794
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston River mile 53.0
Holston River mile 75.0
Holston River mile 91.0
CHC
CHC
CHC
30304
30305
30306
< 0. 10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
4^
O
Holaton River
Holston River mile 109.9 C 30777
Holston River mile 109.9 LMB 30784
Holston River mile 109.9 CHC 30786
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
CAT
BAS
Composite of CHC and FHC.
Composite of SPB and LMB.
CHROMI COPPR LEAP MERCU NICKL SELEN SILVR THALL ZINC
< 0.02 0.
0.05 0.
0.02 0.
0.03 0.
0.07 0.
0.11 0.
0.04 0.
0.06 0.
0.07 0.
0.03 0.
0.29 0.
< 0.02 0.
< 0.02 0.
0.07 0.
0.05 0.
0.08 0.
0.07 0.
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
0. 30
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
< 0.20
0. 30
< 0.20
< 0.20
40
53
17
35
14
22
27
13
15
12
25
19
17
29
30
57
15
-------
Table 2.12 Concentrations(ng/g) of pesticides and PCBs in composited fish samples from inflow and reservoir locations, 1992
COLLECTION SITE SPECIES* LABID LIPID ALDRIN DIELD TOXOPH BENZ CLOR DDTR ENDO ENDR HEPT PCB
Tennessee River
Tennessee River mile 21.0 CHC
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 23.0 CHC
Tennessee River mile 60.0 CHC
Tennessee River mile 85.0 CHC
Tennessee River mile 173.0 CHC
Tennessee River mile 206.0 CHC
Duck River
Duck River mile 22.5 C
Duck River mile 22.5 LMB
Duck River mile 22.5 CHC
Hormandy Reservoir
Duck River mile 259.4 CHC
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 207.0 CHC
Tennessee River mile 230.0 CHC
Tennessee River mile 259.0 CHC
Bear Creek Reservoir
Bear Cr. River mile 75-0 CHC
Upper Bear Creek
Bear Cr. River mile 115.0 CHC
Little Bear Creek
L Bear Cr. River mile 12.0 CHC
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Cedar Creek River mile 25.0 CHC
Wilson Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 261.0 CHC
Tennessee River mile 274.0 CHC
Wheeler Reservoir
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
Tennessee river
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
mile 277.0 CHC
mile 296.0 CHC
mile 300.0 CHC
mile 339.0 CHC
mile 347.0 CHC
30232
5.10
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0. 02
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.40
30233
2.50
<
0.01 ¦
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.20
30235
7.20
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.10
30236
6.60
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
30237
8.30
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
30240
4 . 60
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<:
0. 01
0.20
30725
4.80
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.20
30727
1.70
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
30730
2.70
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0.02
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.30
30279
5.30
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0. 02
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 01
<
0.10
30241
7.20
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.20
30243
3. 60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.40
30246
9.40
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
2.50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.70
30281
2.60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
30284
3.40
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.10
30285
4 . 80
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
30286
1.30
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.10
30247
4 . 00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
30252
5.40
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.07
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.10
30254
6. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
1 . 64
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0. 30
30257
B. 80
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
1.65
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.40
30258
7 . 60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
1 . 05
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0. 20
30259
4.70
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.70
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.20
30260
6.10
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 96
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.80
-------
i 2.12 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
SPECIES*
LABID LIPID ALDRIN DIELD
TOXOPH
BENZ
CLOR
DDTR
ENDO
ENDR
HEPT
PCB
Elk River
Elk
River
mile
41. 5
SPB
30732
0.80
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0.02
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
< 0.10
Elk
River
mile
41.5
CHC
30735
5. 40
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.11
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
< 0.10
Elk
River
mile
41. 5
SBU
30736
6.10
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
0.03
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.20
Tims Ford Reservoir
Elk River mile 135.0
Elk River mile 150.0
CHC
CHC
30287
30292
1.50 < 0.01
2.00 <0.01
0. 01
0. 01
<0.50
< 0.50
< 0.01
< 0. 01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0. 01
< 0. 01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0. 01
0. 01
<0.10
< 0.10
Ountersvllle Reservoir
Tennessee
River
mi le
350.0
CHC
30261
8.30
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0.01
0. 96
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.40
Tennessee
River
mile
375.0
CHC
30263
6. 60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
< 0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0. 30
Tennessee
River
mile
424.0
CHC
30266
7.70
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
H
o
o
< 0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.40
Sequatchie River
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
LMB
30738
0. 20
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
FWD
30741
0. 30
Sequatchie River mile
! 7.1
CHC
30743
3.90
Chlckamauga
Reservoir
Tennessee
River mile
472.0
CHC
30267
4.60
Tennessee
River mile
4 91. 0
CHC
30272
6.80
Tennessee
River mile
526. 0
CHC
30216
5.40
Tennessee
River mile
526. 0
CHC
30217
21.00
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
CHC
30218
20.00
Tennessee
River mile
526. 0
CHC
30219
17 . 00
Tennessee
River mile
526. 0
CHC
30220
22.00
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
CHC
30221
8 . 30
Tennessee
River mile
526. 0
CHC
30222
13. 00
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
CHC
30223
11.00
Tennessee
River mile
526. 0
CHC
30224
14 . 00
Tennessee
River mile
526. 0
CHC
30225
19.00
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
CHC
30273
16. 00
South Mouse
Reservoir
S. Mouse River mile 11.0
RBS
30313
1. 80
Oostanaula Reservoir
Oostanaula
River mile
0.1
GRH
30307
1.10
Oostanaula
River mile
0.1
RKB
30312
0.80
Hlwassee River
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
CHC
30815
6.80
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
LMB
30746
2.10
Hiwassee River mile 38.0
C
30748
6.20
Emory River
Emory River mile 14.5
C
30755
2.10
Emory River mile 14.5
LMB
30757
1.80
Emory River mile 14.5
CHC
30760
2.60
<0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0
01
01
0.01
0. 01
0. 01
01 < 0
01
01
0. 50
0.50
0.50
< 0
< 0
01 < 0
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0. 01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.01
0.01
0. 01
0.01
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
50
50
50 < 0
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
<0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
< 0.50
01
01
01
1.80 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.50 < 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.07
0. 01
0.01
0. 01
0. 01
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
01
01
01 < 0
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
01
01
01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
01
01
0.01
0. 01
01 < 0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03.
< 0. 01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
<0.01
< 0.01
0.01 < 0.01
0.01 < 0.01
< 0.01
< 0. 01
< 0.01
0. 01
0. 01
0. 01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.10
< 0.10
0. 30
0. 60
0.70
0. 90
0. 90
1.00
1. 00
1. 20
1.20
0. 90
0.60
1. 20
1. 00
0.70
0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.10
< 0. 01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.10
0.10
0. 01
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.10
< 0.10
0.60
0.40
0.60
1.20
-------
Table 2.12 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE SPECIES* LABID LIPID ALDR.IN DIELD TOXOPH BENZ CLOR DDTR ENDO ENDR KEPT PCB
Morris Reservoir
Clinch River mile 80.0
Clinch River mile 125.0
CHC
CHC
30293
30295
5.90 < 0.01
5.30 < 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0. 50
0. 50
0. 01
0. 01
0. 03
0. 01
0. 01
0.01
0. 01
0. 01
0. 01 < 0.01
0.01 < 0. 01
0. 90
0. 30
Clinch River
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
LMB
30762
0.70
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
< 0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
CI inch
River
mile
172. 0
CHC
30765
6.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.08
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
Clinch
River
mile
172.0
C
30767
5. 60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0. 05
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
Powell River
Powell River mile 30.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Powell River mile 65.0
Telllco Reservoir
Little TN River mile 1.0
Little TN River mile 11.0
Fontana Reservoir
Little TN River mile 62.0
Little TN River mile 81.0
Little TN River mile 94.3
Little TN River mile 94.3
Little TN River mile 94.3
French Broad River
French B. River mile 78.0
French B. River mile 78.0
French B. River mile 78.0
Hollchucfcy River
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
Cherokee Reservoir
Holston River mile 53.0
Holston River mile 75.0
Holston River mile 91.0
Holston River
Holston River mile 109.9
Holston River mile 109.9
Holston River mile 109.9
CHC
CHC
FWD
LMB
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
RRH
SMB
CHC
C
BAS
CHC
C
CAT
BAS
CHC
CHC
CHC
C
LMB
CHC
30298
30770
30772
30775
30274
30276
30299
30301
30804
30806
30813
30796
30799
30801
30789
30791
30794
30304
30305
30306
30777
30784
30786
6.40
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0. 02
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
8.30
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0.03
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
3.30
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
1.00
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
6.70
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0. 22
0. 30
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
2.70
7.90
<
0.01
0.03
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0.20
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
1. 90
5.00
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
4 .60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
1.10
3.30
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
0.70
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
7.60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
4 .40
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
0. 60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.10
2.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
3. 60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01 •
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 30
2.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.40
0.30
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.10
6. 30
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0.01
0.07
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.80
8.30
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0. 03
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.50
6. 60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.50
<
0.01
0. 03
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.50
7 .70
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0. 50
<
0. 01
0. 03
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0. 60
0.30
6. 90
0.01
0.01
0. 01
0. 01
0.50
0. 50
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.01
0.08
0. 01
0. 01
0.01
0. 01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. 01
0.10
0.10
CAT - Composite of CHC and FHC.
BAS - Composite of SPB and LMB.
-------
Table 2.13 Highest and second-highest concentrations (|ig/g) of each metal8 in fillets (by
collection site) found in fish tissue screening studies in 1992.
Highest Concentration Found Second-Highest Concentration.
Found
Detection
Parameter Limit Levelb Location* Sample Level" Locationb Sample
Arsenic
0.02
Cadmium
0.05
Lead
0.02
Mercury
0.1
Selenium
0.02
ND
ND
0.6 TRM 85
0.65 LTRM 1.0
0.5 PRM 65
catfish
0.4
catfish
0.57
drum
0.4
0.4
TRM 206 catfish
HRM 109.9 bass
HiRM 38 carp
CRM 172 carp
a. Antimony, beryllium, chromium, copper, nickel, silver, thallium, and zinc were removed from
the list of analytes because of historically low concentrations in fish tissue samples and to reduce
costs.
b. ND = not detectable
c. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; HRM = Holston River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile;
LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile; PRM = Powell River Mile; CRM = Clinch River Mile
44
-------
Table 2.14 Highest and second-highest concentrations (jig/g) of organics in fillets (by
collection site) found in fish tissue screening studies in 1992.
Highest Concentration Found Second-Highest Concentration
Found
Detection
Parameter Limit Level" Locationb Sample Level* Locationb Sample
Aldrin
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
BHC
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Chlordane
0.01
0.22
LTRM 1
catfish
0.20
LTRM 11
catfish
DDTr
0.01
2.50
TRM 259
catfish
1.65
TRM 296
catfish
Dieldrin
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Endosulfan
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Endrin
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Heptachlor
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Toxaphene
0.5
ND
-
-
-
-
-
PCBs
0.1
2.7
LTRM 1
catfish
1.9
LTRM 11
catfish
a. ND = not detectable
b. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; LTRM = Little Tennessee River
45
-------
Table 2.15 Contaminant results (|ig/g wet weight) from 1992 reservoir and inflow sites which
show need for father evaluation.
Location3 Speciesb Teir2 Teir3
Contaminants which Contaminants which
need to be resampled need to be evaluated in
at screening level intensive study
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM259
CHC
DDTr 2.5
Little Bear Creek
L Bear Cr. Mile 12.0
CHC
Mercury 0.56
Elk River
ERM 41.5
CHC
Chlordane 0.11
Emory River
EmRM 14.5
CHC
PCBs 1.2
Tellico Reservoir'
LTRM 1.0
LTRM 11.0
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
Mercury 0.65
Chlordane 0.22
PCBs 2.7
Chlordane 0.2
PCBs 1.9
Fontana Reservoir
LTRM 81.0
CHC
CHC
PCBs 1.1
Mercury 0.53
Holston River
HRM 109.9
LMB
Mercury 0.57
a. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile
b. CHC = channel catfish; LMB = largemouth bass
c. Tellico Reservoir - previous intensive studies found neither an increasing nor decreasing trend;
therefore, catfish continue to be collected at the screening level.
46
-------
3.0 INTENSIVE RESERVOIR STUDIES
Intensive studies in TVA reservoirs, as described in this report, are undertaken in areas
with known or suspected problems. Two primary objectives of these intensive studies are to
define the geographical boundaries of fish contamination and to determine the temporal trend in
contaminant concentrations in fish from reservoirs where the extent of contamination has been
defined.
Most of the reservoirs that are the subject of this chapter have been under investigation for
several years because of contamination with PCBs. These include Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, and
Melton Hill, all reservoirs in the upper part of the Tennessee Valley, Wheeler and Nickajack
Reservoirs (in the middle section of the Tennessee River) and Parksville Reservoir (on the Ocoee
River). As a result of the contamination, the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) issued several public notices in recent years advising against consumption
of certain fishes from all of these lakes in Tennessee, except Parksville Reservoir (1992 was the
first year of intensive effort there). The Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) has also
issued advisories against consuming certain fish caught in selected areas of Wheeler Reservoir.
TVA participates in these studies, along with TDEC, ADPH, Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency (TWRA), Alabama Department of Conservation (ADC), Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Annual
meetings are usually held among appropriate agencies to design specific study needs and
coordinate efforts to prevent duplication.
47
-------
The purpose of this report is to describe the results of selected organics and metals
analyses offish from these reservoirs in 1991 and 1992 and to compare the 1991 and 1992 results
with results from previous years. Preliminary results were shared with all study team members as
soon as they were received from the analytical laboratory, rather than waiting for a formal report.
48
-------
3.1 Wheeler Reservoir
The Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) issued a fish consumption
advisory for several fish species from the Indian Creek drainage area of Wheeler Reservoir in
September 1991 due to DDT contamination. This was a historic problem area, but an advisory
had not been previously issued. To evaluate the possible need to extend the advisory into the
Tennessee River, a special study designed by TV A and Alabama officials, was conducted in fall
1991. Based on results recieved from this study, the ADPH extended the advisory on selected
species into the Tennessee River. Details of the species and locations for the advisory are listed in
Appendix D. As a result of the high concentrations found in 1991, the study was repeated in
autumn 1992. Results obtained in 1991 and 1992 are presented in this report.
Methods
The design of the special study was established by TVA and the Alabama Departments of
Public Health, Environment Management, and Conservation. The design specified three, five-fish
composites of each of three species (channel catfish, largemouth bass and smallmouth buffalo) to
be collected from four locations (TRMs 308, 315, 320 near the mouth of the Indian Creek
embayment, and 325). The sampling effort was successful as planned in 1991. However,
technical problems were encountered in 1992. A complete set of fish was collected in November
and December of 1992, but could not be used due to potential handling problems. Efforts were
repeated in January 1993 and were successful for largemouth bass and smallmouth buffalo, but
not for channel catfish. The full complement of 15 channel catfish was collected from TRM 308,
49
-------
but repeated efforts resulted in collection of 12 channel catfish (three, four-fish composites) from
TRM 315, three from TRM 320 (one, three-fish composite), and nine from TRM 325 (one,
five-fish composite and one, four-fish composite).
Field handling and processing were similar to the methods described in Appendix B. The
laboratory analyses were conducted similar to the screening study methods described in Appendix
B except that analyses were performed only for PCBs and pesticides. Ortho-para isomers of
DDT, DDD, and DDE were examined in addition to the routine examination of para-para
isomers. These methods will not be repeated here.
Statistical analyses for these results varied from that described in Appendix B in that
covariance analyses were not performed because laboratory analyses were conducted on
composites, preventing examination of relationships between contaminant concentration and fish
weight or lipid content. One-way and two-way ANOVAs were performed.
Included in the design of this special study, was the sharing between TV A and Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) of aliquots of homogenized fish tissue from
one composite sample of each species (channel catfish, smallmouth buffalo, and largemouth bass)
from each sampling location (TRMs 308, 315, 320 and 325). These aliquots, 12 for each year,
were analyzed by TVA and ADEM laboratories for PCBs, chlordane and para-para DDT, DDD
and DDE concentrations and lipid content. The results of the split-sample analyses are reported
in Appendix E.
50
-------
Results and Recommendations
All results are presented in Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-9. Within-year comparisons
indicated fish weight was not significantly different among the four locations for any of the three
species. Comparison of fish weights between years found that significantly larger channel catfish
were collected in 1991 than in 1992. The reverse was true for largemouth bass, with significantly
larger fish collected in 1992 than 1991. There was no significant difference in weights of
smallmouth buffalo among years.
Lipid content in channel catfish followed the same pattern as weight. Lipid content was
not significantly different among the four locations, but was significantly higher in fish collected in
1991 than in 1992. Lipid content in largemouth bass and smallmouth buffalo was not significantly
different among either locations or years.
PCB concentrations in channel catfish followed the same pattern as weight and lipid
content, not significantly different among locations but significantly higher in 1991 than in 1992.
No significant differences among locations or years were found in largemouth bass. There was a
significant interaction between locations and years in the PCB concentrations in smallmouth
buffalo. Examination of location differences using one-way ANOVA revealed that highest
concentrations in smallmouth buffalo occurred at the site near the mouth of the Indian Creek
embayment (TRM 320) in 1991; however, in 1992 the highest concentrations were found at TRM
325.
DDTr (total DDT) concentrations in the three species of fish closely followed the patterns
of PCB concentrations. Channel catfish DDTr concentrations were significantly lower in 1992
than in 1991 and significantly different among locations. DDTr levels in largemouth bass were
51
-------
not significantly different among years nor locations. There was a significant interaction between
years and locations for smallmouth buffalo. Examination of location differences using one-way
ANOVAs revealed that smallmouth buffalo collected from TRM 320 (location near mouth of the
Indian Creek embayment) had significantly higher DDTr concentrations than those collected at
other locations in 1991, but were not significantly different from any other locations in 1992.
Due to much lower DDTr concentrations in fish collected from most locations in January
1993 compared to 1991, the most highly contaminated samples from 1991 (smallmouth buffalo
from TRM 320) were reanalyzed, along with comparable samples from January 1993 (Table
3.1-8). These examinations confirmed that DDTr concentrations were lower in the fish collected
in January 1993. To guard against bias due to seasonal differences, comparable samples from the
fish not used due to potential handling problems (smallmouth bass and channel catfish collected in
November and December 1992) were analyzed (Table 3.1-9). DDTr concentrations in these fish
closely resembled concentrations in fish collected from corresponding locations in January 1993.
Therefore, it would appear that the low DDTr concentrations were not due to seasonal bias.
Because of the substantial differences between the 1991 and January 1993 sample sets, the
study was repeated in autumn 1993. Fifteen fish of each species (channel catfish, largemouth
bass, and smallmouth buffalo) were collected from TRMs 310, 315, 320, and 325. These fish
were separated into three, 5-fish composites from each site and will be analyzed for PCBs, DDTr
and chlordane.
52
-------
Table 3.1-1 Physical information for individual fish collected from Wheeler Reservoir, 1991
and 1992.
1991
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
TRM 310
911007
CHC
FMAL
31526
350
322
TRM 310
911007
CHC
FMAL
31526
390
560
TRM 310
911007
CHC
FMAL
31526
535
1636
TRM 310
911007
CHC
FMAL
31526
590
2280
TRM 310
911009
CHC
MALE
31526
485
1270
TRM 310
911009
CHC
FMAL
31528
590
2186
TRM 310
911009
CHC
FMAL
31528
440
804
TRM 310
911009
CHC
FMAL
31528
460
1102
TRM 310
911009
CHC
MALE
31528
515
1446
TRM 310
911009
CHC
MALE
31528
620
1946
TRM 310
911009
CHC
FMAL
31531
660
3170
TRM 310
911009
CHC
FMAL
31531
415
558
TRM 310
911016
CHC
FMAL
31531
460
1056
TRM 310
911016
CHC
FMAL
31531
430
816
TRM 310
911009
CHC
MALE
31531
435
914
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31533
470
1644
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31533
530
2260
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31533
485
1654
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31533
445
1216
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31533
325
472
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31536
294
306
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31536
310
370
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31536
320
388
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31536
285
308
TRM 310
911009
LMB
MALE
31536
310
446
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31538
300
360
TRM 310
911009
LMB
FMAL
31538
295
314
TRM 310
911007
LMB
FMAL
31538
300
296
TRM 310
911007
LMB
FMAL
31538
270
222
TRM 310
911009
LMB
MALE
31538
298
292
TRM 310
911007
SBU
FMAL
31541
470
1618
TRM 310
911009
SBU
FMAL
31541
470
1728
TRM 310
911007
SBU
MALE
31541
555
2038
TRM 310
911007
SBU
MALE
31541
410
902
TRM 3.10
911009
SBU
MALE
31541
490
1862
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31543
450
1526
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31543
490
1828
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31543
430
1038
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31543
470
1662
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31543
510
2004
TRM 310
911009
SBU
FMAL
31546
500
2262
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31546
555
2302
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31546
475
1706
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31546
505
2374
TRM 310
911009
SBU
MALE
31546
530
2254
53
-------
Table 3.1-1 Continued
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
TRM 315
911015
CHC
FMAL
31547
435
672
7RM 315
911015
CHC
FMAL
31547
430
660
TRM 315
911017
CHC
FMAL
31547
449
940
TRM 315
911017
CHC
FMAL
31547
523
1304
TRM 315
911016
CHC
MALE
31547
508
1318
TRM 315
911009
CHC
FMAL
31550
440
806
TRM 315
911009
CHC
FMAL
31550
400
696
TRM 315
911009
CHC
FMAL
31550
480
836
TRM 315
911017
CHC
MALE
31550
555
2030
TRM 315
911009
CHC
MALE
31550
470
1048
TRM 315
911009
CHC
FMAL
31552
510
1298
TRM 315
911018
CHC
FMAL
31552
640
3046
TRM 315
911022
CHC
FMAL
31552
317
288
TRM 315
911023
CHC
FMAL
31552
621
3262
TRM 315
911023
CHC
MALE
31552
580
2328
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31555
425
1176
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31555
327
450
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31555
429
1222
TRM 315
911015
LMB
MALE
31555
470
1550
TRM 315
911015
LMB
MALE
31555
412
1062
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31557
314
454
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31557
315
474
TRM 315
911015
LMB
MALE
31557
434
1220
TRM 315
911015
LMB
MALE
31557
350
562
TRM 315
911015
LMB
MALE
31557
329
460
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31560
318
408
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31560
290
292
TRM 315
911015
LMB
FMAL
31560
308
356
TRM 315
911015
LMB
MALE
31560
295
338
TRM 315
911015
LMB
MALE
31560
309
366
TRM 315
911015
SBU
FMAL
31562
550
2554
TRM 315
911015
SBU
MALE
31562
355
682
TRM 315
911015
SBU
MALE
31562
465
1466
TRM 315
911015
SBU
MALE
31562
445
1114
TRM 315
911015
SBU
MALE
31562
380
758
TRM 315
911017
SBU
MALE
31565
471
1684
TRM 315
911016
SBU
MALE
31565
479
1812
TRM 315
911016
SBU
MALE
31565
472
1760
TRM 315
911017
SBU
MALE
31565
470
1662
TRM 315
911017
SBU
MALE
31565
554
2636
TRM 315
911018
SBU
FMAL
31567
420
1128
TRM 315
911017
SBU
MALE
31567
560
2932
TRM 315
911018
SBU
MALE
31567
490
2120
TRM 315
911018
SBU
MALE
31567
457
1550
TRM 315
911023
SBU
MALE
31567
466
1610
TRM 320
911021
CHC
MALE
31570
605
2532
TRM 320
911021
CHC
MALE
31570
470
1026
TRM 320
911021
CHC
MALE
31570
556
1596
TRM 320
911021
CHC
MALE
31570
520
1408
TRM 320
911021
CHC
MALE
31570
493
924
TRM 320
911021
CHC
FMAL
31571
412
624
TRM 320
911021
CHC
FMAL
31571
422
686
TRM 320
911022
CHC
FMAL
31571
394
486
TRM 320
911022
CHC
MALE
31571
519
1354
TFM 320
911022
CHC
MALE
31571
471
904
TRM 320
911022
CHC
FMAL
31574
547
2094
TRM 320
911022
CHC
FMAL
31574
623
3164
TFM 320
911023
CHC
FMAL
31574
451
1038
TFM 320
911022
CHC
MALE
31574
616
3240
TRM 320
911023
CHC
MALE
31574
514
1738
54
-------
Table 3.1-1 Continued
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31576
355
624
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31576
317
446
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31576
410
976
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31576
451
1300
TRM 320
911018
LMB
MALE
31576
453
1366
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31579
311
402
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31579
368
662
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31579
400
862
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31579
345
568
TRM 320
911018
LMB
MALE
31579
315
460
TRM 320
911018
LMB
FMAL
31581
315
408
TRM 320
911021
LMB
FMAL
31581
502
1786
TRM 320
911021
LMB
FMAL
31581
474
1636
TRM 320
911021
LMB
FMAL
31581
336
528
TRM 320
911021
LMB
MALE
31581
432
1116
TRM 320
911021
SBU
FMAL
31584
496
1624
TRM 320
911021
SBU
MALE
31584
510
2240
TRM 320
911021
SBU
MALE
31584
460
1552
TRM 320
911021
SBU
MALE
31584
468
1488
TRM 320
911022
SBU
MALE
31584
527
2592
TRM 320
911022
SBU
FMAL
31586
588
3662
TRM 320
911022
SBU
FMAL
31586
511
2186
TRM 320
911022
SBU
MALE
31586
376
776
TRM 320
911022
SBU
MALE
31586
540
2344
TRM 320
911022
SBU
MALE
31586
491
2038
TRM 320
911023
SBU
FMAL
31589
512
2662
TRM 320
911022
SBU
MALE
31589
447
1516
TRM 320
911023
SBU
MALE
31589
443
1148
TRM 320
911023
SBU
MALE
31589
448
1380
TRM 320
911023
SBU
MALE
31589
491
2060
TRM 325
911024
CHC
FMAL
31591
521
1494
TRM 325
911024
CHC
FMAL
31591
481
970
TRM 325
911024
CHC
FMAL
31591
454
1006
TRM 325
911024
CHC
MALE
31591
562
2268
TRM 325
911024
CHC
MALE
31591
435
706
TRM 325
911024
CHC
FMAL
31594
393
580
TRM 325
911029
CHC
FMAL
31594
523
1426
TRM 325
911029
CHC
FMAL
31594
669
4280
TRM 325
911029
CHC
FMAL
31594
611
3190
TRM 325
911030
CHC
MALE
31594
523
1602
TRM 325
911031
CHC
FMAL
31595
536
1382
TRM 325
911031
CHC
FMAL
31595
553
1910
TRM 325
911031
CHC
FMAL
31595
550
1718
TRM 325
911030
CHC
MALE
31595
650
3560
TRM 325
911031
CHC
MALE
31595
493
1066
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31598
430
1154
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31598
443
1400
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31598
364
756
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31598
353
620
TRM 325
911024
LMB
MALE
31598
437
1140
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31600
530
2542
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31600
487
1580
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31600
346
530
TRM 325
911024
LMB
MALE
31600
315
506
TRM 325
911024
LMB
MALE
31600
330
450
TRM 325
911024
LMB
FMAL
31603
321
400
TRM 325
911028
LMB
FMAL
31603
536
2322
TRM 325
911028
LMB
FMAL
31603
397
978
TRM 325
911028
LMB
MALE
31603
309
414
TRM 325
911028
LMB
MALE
31603
354
684
55
-------
Table 3.1 -1 Continued
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
TRM 325
911028
SBU
FMAL
31605
526
2230
TRM 325
911028
SBU
FMAL
31605
618
4294
TRM 325
911028
SBU
MALE
31605
500
1950
TRM 325
911028
SBU
MALE
31605
525
2200
TRM 325
911029
SBU
MALE
31605
379
852
TRM 325
911029
SBU
MALE
31608
405
1018
TRM 325
911029
SBU
MALE
31608
375
802
TRM 325
911029
SBU
MALE
31608
442
1210
TRM 325
911029
SBU
MALE
31608
460
1566
TRM 325
911029
SBU
MALE
31608
435
1158
TRM 325
911030
SBU
FMAL
31610
460
1654
TRM 325
911030
SBU
FMAL
31610
507
2208
TRM 325
911029
SBU
MALE
31610
670
4008
TRM 325
911030
SBU
MALE
31610
488
2094
TRM 325
911031
SBU
MALE
31610
502
1990
1992
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
TRM 310
930115
CHC
FMAL
30316
597
2215
TRM 310
930115
CHC
FMAL
30316
515
1450
TRM 310
930115
CHC
FMAL
30316
496
1365
TRM 310
930115
CHC
MALE
30316
585
2060
TRM 310
930115
CHC
MALE
30316
540
1610
TRM 310
930121
CHC
FMAL
30318
430
800
TRM 310
930115
CHC
FMAL
30318
476
875
TRM 310
930118
CHC
FMAL
30318
524
1260
TRM 310
930115
CHC
MALE
30318
487
1040
TRM 310
930121
CHC
MALE
30318
617
2470
TRM 310
930126
CHC
FMAL
30321
368
435
TRM 310
930126
CHC
FMAL
30321
319
300
TRM 310
930127
CHC
FMAL
30321
450
720
TRM 310
930121
CHC
MALE
30321
416
610
TRM 310
930126
CHC
MALE
30321
439
755
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30322
547
2955
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30322
530
2645
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30322
515
2055
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30322
498
1970
TRM 310
930114
LMB
MALE
30322
503
2180
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30323
337
480
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30323
458
1480
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30323
370
715
TRM 310
930114
LMB
MALE
30323
385
765
TRM 310
930114
LMB
MALE
30323
353
615
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30324
291
365
TRM 310
930114
LMB
FMAL
30324
282
300
TRM 310
930114
LMB
MALE
30324
334
515
TRM 310
930118
LMB
MALE
30324
337
500
TRM 310
930118
LMB
MALE
30324
341
505
56
-------
Table 3.1-1 Continued
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
TRM 310
930114
SBU
FMAL
30325
421
1155
TRM 310
930114
SBU
FMAL
30325
440
1390
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30325
507
1900
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30325
576
2740
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30325
492
2095
TRM 310
930114
SBU
FMAL
30326
467
1530
TRM 310
930114
SBU
FMAL
30326
437
1425
TRM 310
930114
SBU
FMAL
30326
421
1125
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30326
363
760
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30326
368
695
TRM 310
930118
SBU
FMAL
30327
565
2775
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30327
419
1190
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30327
454
1530
TRM 310
930114
SBU
MALE
30327
393
1005
TRM 310
930118
SBU
MALE
30327
529
2285
TRM 315
930121
CHC
FMAL
30330
541
1345
TRM 315
930121
CHC
FMAL
30330
490
1085
TRM 315
930121
CHC
FMAL
30330
486
1065
TRM 315
930121
CHC
FMAL
30330
465
975
TRM 315
930118
CHC
MALE
30330
457
850
TRM 315
930201
CHC
FMAL
30332
510
1000
TRM 315
930121
CHC
FMAL
30332
460
795
TRM 315
930121
CHC
FMAL
30332
464
835
TRM 315
930127
CHC
FMAL
30332
438
670
TRM 315
930128
CHC
FMAL
30332
520
1300
TRM 315
930201
CHC
MALE
30335
433
615
TRM 315
930219
CHC
MALE
30335
478
960
TRM 315
930118
liMB
FMAL
30336
300
320
TRM 315
930121
1MB
FMAL
30336
450
1630
TRM 315
930121
1MB
MALE
30336
465
1600
TRM 315
930121
1MB
MALE
30336
446
1435
TRM 315
930121
1MB
MALE
30336
429
1090
TRM 315
930121
1MB
FMAL
30337
385
790
TRM 315
930121
LMB
FMAL
30337
417
1230
TRM 315
930121
LMB
FMAL
30337
459
1375
TRM 315
930121
LMB
FMAL
30337
362
750
TRM 315
930121
1MB
MALE
30337
355
700
TRM 315
930121
1MB
FMAL
30338
351
595
TRM 315
930121
1MB
FMAL
30338
353
660
TRM 315
930121
1MB
FMAL
30338
324
450
TRM 315
930121
LMB
MALE
30338
365
630
TRM 315
930121
LMB
MALE
30338
315
450
TRM 315
930118
SBU
FMAL
30339
477
1705
TRM 315
930118
SBU
FMAL
30339
455
1320
TRM 315
930118
SBU
MALE
30339
410
1005
TRM 315
933118
SBU
MALE
30339
413
1060
TRM 315
930118
SBU
MALE
30339
438
1270
TRM 315
930118
SBU
FMAL
30340
455
1430
TRM 315
930118
SBU
FMAL
30340
586
3020
TRM 315
930118
SBU
FMAL
30340
550
2520
TRM 315
930118
SBU
MALE
30340
454
1490
TRM 315
930118
SBU
MALE
30340
483
1975
TRM 315
930118
SBU
FMAL
30341
453
1435
TRM 315
930118
SBU
FMAL
30341
450
1305
TRM 315
930118
SBU
MALE
30341
469
1595
TRM 315
930118
SBU
MALE
30341
494
1930
TRM 315
930118
SBU
MALE
30341
442
1180
TRM 320
930125
CHC
FMAL
30344
477
890
TRM 320
930201
CHC
FMAL
30344
350
365
TRM 320
930218
CHC
FMAL
30344
438
675
57
-------
Table 3.1-1 Continued
COLLECTION SITE
OAT 3
SPECIES
SEX
LA3ID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30345
545
2330
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30345
570
3380
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30345
536
2130
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30345
482
1730
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30345
458
1525
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30347
492
1815
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30347
344
540
TRM 320
930125
LMB
MALE
30347
350
540
TRM 320
930125
LMB
MALE
30347
335
605
TRM 320
930125
LMB
MALE
30347
368
730
TRM 320
930125
LMB
FMAL
30350
358
590
TRM 320
930125
LMB
MALE
30350
323
450
TRM 320
930125
LMB
MALE
30350
301
375
TRM 320
930125
LMB
MALE
30350
305
385
TRM 320
930125
LMB
MALE
30350
300
360
TRM 320
930125
SBU
MALE
30351
380
810
TRM 320
930125
SBU
MALE
30351
465
1315
TRM 320
930125
SBU
MALE
30351
434
1160
TRM 320
930125
SBU
MALE
30351
432
1120
TRM 320
930125
SBU
MALE
30351
410
1185
TRM 320
930125
SBU
FMAL
30352
486
2100
TRM 320
930125
SBU
FMAL
30352
432
1225
TRM 320
930125
SBU
FMAL
30352
440
1300
TRM 320
930125
SBU
FMAL
30352
479
1795
TRM 320
930125
SBU
MALE
30352
500
1735
TRM 320
930126
SBU
FMAL
30353
4 67
1460
TRM 320
930126
SBU
FMAL
30353
464
1565
TRM 320
930126
SBU
FMAL
30353
490
1740
TRM 320
930125
SBU
MALE
30353
455
1265
TRM 320
930126
SBU
MALE
30353
443
1290
TRM 320
921130
CHC
FMAL
31384
465
905
TRM 320
921130
CHC
FMAL
31384
399
575
TRM 320
921130
CHC
MALE
31384
490
1060
TRM 320
921130
CHC
MALE
31384
475
1100
TRM 320
921130
CHC
MALE
31384
445
705
TRM 320
921130
CHC
FMAL
31385
440
740
TRM 320
921201
CHC
FMAL
31385
556
2210
TRM 320
921201
CHC
MALE
31385
478
1050
TRM 320
921130
CHC
MALE
31385
415
595
TRM 320
921201
CHC
MALE
31385
610
2960
TRM 320
921201
CHC
FMAL
31386
343
320
TRM 320
921201
CHC
FMAL
31386
330
280
TRM 320
921201
CHC
FMAL
31386
347
340
TRM 320
921201
CHC
FMAL
31386
392
400
TRM 320
921201
CHC
MALE
31386
345
305
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31387
440
1200
TRM 320
921130
SBU
MALE
31387
494
1570
TRM 320
921130
SBU
MALE
31387
420
1030
TRM 320
921130
SBU
MALE
31387
440
1310
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31389
484
1785
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31389
530
2120
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31389
425
1100
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31389
454
1340
TRM 320
921130
SBU
MALE
31389
445
1180
TRM 320
921130
SBU
MALE
31389
454
1300
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31392
445
1520
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31392
444
1280
TRM 320
921130
SBU
FMAL
31392
460
1440
TRM 320
921130
SBU
MALE
31392
480
1440
TRM 320
921130
SBU
MALE
31392
475
1580
58
-------
Table 3.1-1 Continued
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECrES
SEX
IiABID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
TRM 325
930126
CHC
FMAL
30356
434
750
CRM 325
930126
CHC
FMAL
30356
432
660
TRM 325
930126
CHC
MALE
30356
545
1415
TRM 325
930126
CHC
MALE
30356
510
1125
TRM 325
930126
CHC
MALE
30356
417
695
TRM 325
930127
CHC
FMAL
30357
481
990
TRM 325
930128
CHC
FMAL
30357
438
710
TRM 325
930127
CHC
MALE
30357
515
1380
TRM 325
930128
CHC
MALE
30357
462
930
TRM 325
930126
LMB
FMAL
30358
525
2350
TRM 325
930126
LMB
FMAL
30358
455
1440
TRM 325
930126
LMB
FMAL
30358
403
970
TRM 325
930126
LMB
FMAL
30358
377
715
TRM 325
930126
LMB
MALE
30358
494
1890
TRM 325
930126
LMB
FMAL
30360
325
450
TRM 325
930127
LMB
FMAL
30360
440
1185
TRM 325
930127
LMB
FMAL
30360
409
940
TRM 325
930127
LMB
MALE
30360
334
545
TRM 325
930127
LMB
MALE
30360
409
995
TRM 325
930128
LMB
FMAL
30363
406
990
TRM 325
930127
LMB
MALE
30363
327
565
TRM 325
930127
LMB
MALE
30363
310
410
TRM 325
930127
LMB
MALE
30363
294
335
TRM 325
930127
LMB
MALE
30363
304
355
TRM 325
930126
SBU
FMAL
30364
602
4000
TRM 325
930126
SBU
FMAL
30364
481
1710
TRM 325
930126
SBU
MALE
30364
509
2035
TRM 325
930126
SBU
MALE
30364
469
1830
TRM 325
930126
SBU
MALE
30364
463
1430
TRM 325
930126
SBU
FMAL
30365
606
3170
TRM 325
930126
SBU
FMAL
30365
493
2005
TRM 325
930126
SBU
MALE
30365
441
1220
TRM 325
930126
SBU
MALE
30365
440
1195
TRM 325
930126
SBU
MALE
30365
470
1595
TRM 325
930127
SBU
FMAL
30366
504
1755
TRM 325
930127
SBU
FMAL
30366
431
1350
TRM 325
930127
SBU
MALE
30366
406
1135
TRM 325
930127
SBU
MALE
30366
437
1145
TRM 325
930127
SBU
MALE
30366
457
1365
59
-------
Table 3.1-2 Concentrations (|ig/g) of organics in composite samples from Wheeler Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
YEAR=91
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
ALDRIN
DIELD
TOXOPH
CLOR
DDTR
EN DO
HEPT
PCB
TRM
310
CHC
31526
9.5
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
12.83
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.6
TRM
310
CHC
31528
11. 0
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
6.70
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.0
TRM
310
CHC
31531
11. 0
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
5.70
<
0. 01
<
0.01
1.2
TRM
310
LMB
31533
2.3
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
1.15
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.3
TRM
310
LMB
31536
1.3
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
1.02
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.2
TRM
310
LMB
31538
0.6
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
0. 49
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.1
TRM
310
SBU
31541
6.6
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
1.65
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
310
SBU
31543
8.0
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
2 . 76
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
310
SBU
31546
6.4
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
2.90
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
315
CHC
31547
6.0
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
3.42
<
0.01
<
0.01
1. 3
TRM
315
CHC
31550
11. 0
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
1.87
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.9
TRM
315
CHC
31552
9.0
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
7.74
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.7
TRM
315
LMB
31555
2.0
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
2.63
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
315
LMB
31557
1.4
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
4 . 34
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.1
TRM
315
LMB
31560
0.6
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
3.08
0. 05
<
0.01
0.1
TRM
315
SBU
31562
3.0
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
4 . 65
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.5
TRM
315
SBU
31565
4.4
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
0. 07
2 . 31
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.3
TRM
315
SBU
31567
5.3
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
8.54
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.6
TRM
320
CHC
31570
7.2
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
13.33
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.6
TRM
320
CHC
31571
5.9
<
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
8.83
<
0. 01
<
0.01
1.3
TRM
320
CHC
31574
16. 0
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
6. 13
<
0. 01
<
0.01
1.5
TRM
320
LMB
31576
1.2
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
5 . 00
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.5
TRM
320
LMB
31579
1.7
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
6. 61
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.3
TRM
320
LMB
31581
2.1
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
10.50
<
0.01
<
0. 01
2.3
TRM
320
SBU
31584
5.0
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
18.36
<
0.01
<
0.01
1.0
TRM
320
SBU
31586
5.7
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0. 07
20.27
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.8
TRM
320
SBU
31589
6.4
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0. 08
43.25
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.2
TRM
325
CHC
31591
9.7
<
0.01
0. 05
<
0.5
0. 10
2.81
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.9
TRM
325
CHC
31594
5.1
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0. 08
2 . 60
<
0.01
<
0.01
1.1
TRM
325
CHC
31595
9.4
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0. 08
1. 12
<
0.01
<
0.01
1.3
TRM
325
LMB
31598
2.6
<
0.01
<
0. 03
<
0.5
0. 07
11.20
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.6
TRM
325
LMB
31600
2.2
<
0. 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
1. 61
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.1
TRM
325
LMB
31603
1.9
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
0.12
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.2
TRM
325
SBU
31605
5.1
<
0.01
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
5. 52
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.6
TRM
325
SBU
31608
5.0
<
0.01
<
0. 04
<
0.5
<
0. 01
3.12
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.5
TRM
325
SBU
31610
9.9
<
0 . 01
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
1. 99
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.4
-------
Table 3.1-2 Continued
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
ALDRIN
TRM
310
CHC
30316
5.0
<
0.01
TRM
310
CHC
30318
6.8
<
0.01
TRM
310
CHC
30321
5.6
<
0.01
TRM
310
LMB
30322
3.1
<
0.01
TRM
310
LMB
30323
1.2
<
0. 01
TRM
310
LMB
30324
1.0
<
0.01
TRM
310
SBU
30325
7 . 8
<
0. 01
TRM
310
SBU
30326
6.2
<
0. 01
TRM
310
SBU
30327
6.9
<
0. 01
TRM
315
CHC
30330
5.8
<
0. 01
TRM
315
CHC
30332
6.8
<
0. 01
TRM
315
CHC
30335
5.1
<
0.01
TRM
315
LMB
30336
2.6
<
0. 01
TRM
315
LMB
30337
2.0
<
0. 01
TRM
315
LMB
30338
1.1
<
0.01
TRM
315
SBU
30339
4 . 4
+
TRM
315
SBU
30340
6.7
_ +
TRM
315
SBU
30341
4 . 4
<
0.01
TRM
320
CHC
30344
6.0
~
TRM
320
LMB
30345
2 . 9
TRM
320
LMB
30347
0.7
TRM
320
LMB
30350
1.3
<
0.01
TRM
320
SBU
30351
4.1
<
0.01
TRM
320
SBU
30352
7.7
<
0. 01
TRM
320
SBU
30353
3.7
<
0.01
TRM
320
CHC
31384
5.4
<
0.01
TRM
320
CHC
31385
8.2
<
0.01
TRM
320
CHC
31386
3.8
<
0.01
TRM
320
SBU
31387
4 . 5
<
0. 01
TRM
320
SBU
31389
4.6
<
0.01
TRM
320
SBU
31392
6.9
<
0.01
TRM
325
CHC
30356
3.6
<
0.01
TRM
325
CHC
30357
5 . 3
<
0. 01
TRM
325
LMB
30358
1.7
<
0. 01
TRM
325
LMB
30360
2.5
<
0.01
TRM
325
LMB
30363
2.1
<
0.01
TRM
325
SBU
30364
7.1
<
0.01
TRM
325
SBU
30365
4 . 0
<
0.01
TRM
325
SBU
30366
4.5
<
0. 01
analyses not performed
YEAR=92
DIELD
TOXOPH
CLOR
DDTR
EN DO
HEPT
PCB
<
0.01
<
0.5
0.03
3. 09
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.6
<
0.01
<
0.5
0.01
2.34
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.7
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
0. 63
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.2
<
0.01
<
0.5
0. 02
2.61
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.7
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
0. 55
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.1
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
0. 34
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.1
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
1. 07
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.3
0.01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
1.19
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.3
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
1. 53
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.2
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0. 03
2.01
<
0. 01
<
0.01
1.0
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
2.18
<
0.10
<
0.01
1.1
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
2.34
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.9
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
7. 42
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.9
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
7.35
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.7
•A*
<
0.5
<
0. 01
0. 52
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.1
*
<
0.5
<
0.01
2.64
# +
~
0.3
•k
<
0.5
<
0.01
9.20
*
9 *
0.7
¦At
<
0.5
<
0. 01
2.26
+
~
0.4
<
0.01
<
0.5
0.01
1. 60
<
0. 01
<
0. 01
0.6
<
0.5
0. 01
1. 91
•ir
<
0.01
0.5
~
<
0.5
<
0.01
1.48
<
0.01
~
0.3
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
1.81
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.3
0. 03
<
0.5
<
0.01
4.95
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.3
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
3. 39
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.4
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0.01
2.73
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.5
<
0.01
<
0.5
0. 01
2. 99
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.2
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0.02
8. 56
<
0.01
<
0. 01
2.4
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
0. 82
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.7
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0. 02
3.43
<
0. 01
<
0.01
1.1
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0. 02
3.10
<
0.01
<
0. 01
1.1
<
0. 01
<
0.5
0.02
2.83
<
0.01
<
0.01
1.0
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
0.60
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.8
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
0. 72
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.9
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
2.38
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.5
<
0. 01
<
0.5
<
0. 01
2.25
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.4
0.01
<
0.5
0.26
1.27
<
0.01
<
0.01
0.3
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
9.17
<
0.01
<
0. 01
0.6
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
0. 94
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.9
<
0.01
<
0.5
<
0.01
1. 68
<
0. 01
<
0.01
0.6
-------
Table 3.1-3
Summaiy of weight, length, and percent lipid content in catfish, largemouth bass and smallmouth buffalo from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
Channel Catfish
Largemouth Bass
Samllmouth Buffalo
TRM310
TRM315
TRM 320
TRM 325
TRM 310
TRM 315
TRM 320
TRM 325
TRM 310
TRM 315
TRM 320
TRM 325
1991
Weight Range
322-3170
288-3262
486-3240
580-4280
222-2260
292-1550
402-1636
400-2542
902-2374
682-2932
776-3662
802-4294
Mean Weight
1338
1859
1521
1811
703
693
1121
1032
1807
1698
1951
1949
Length Range
350-660
317-621
412-623
393-669
270-530
290-470
311-502
309-536
410-555
355-560
376-588
375-670
Mean Length
492
491
508
530
349
355
386
397
487
469
487
486
Number of Fish
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
% Lipid Range*
9 5-110
6 0-11.0
5 9-16.0
5.1-9 7
0.6-2.3
0 6-2.0
1.2-2.1
1.9-2.6
6 4-8 0
3.0-5.3
5 0-6 4
5.0-9.9
Mean % Lipid
10.5
8.7
9.7
8.1
1.4
1 3
1.7
2.2
7.1
4.2
5 7
6.7
Number of Composites
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1992
Weight Range
300-2470
615-1345
280-2960
660-1415
300-2955
320-1630
360-3380
335-2350
695-2775
1005-3020
810-2120
1135-4000
Mean Weight
1198
958
860
962
1203
914
1166
942
1573
1616
1409
1796
Length Range
319-617
433-541
330-610
432-545
282-547
300-465
300-570
294-525
363-576
410-586
380-530
406-606
Mean Length
484
479
433
470
405
385
404
387
457
469
456
481
Number of Fish
15
12
18
9
15
15
15
15
15
15
30
15
% Lipid Range*
J.0-6.8
5.1-6.8
3.8-8.2
3.6-5.3
1 0-3.1
1.1-2.6
0.7-2.9
1.7-2 5
6.2-7.8
4.4-6.7
3.7-7.7
4.0-7.1
Mean % Lipid
5.8
5.9
5.9
4.5
1.8
1.9
1.7
2.1
6.9
5.2
5.3
5.2
Number of Composites
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
Catfish, largemouth bass, and smallmouth buffalo were analyzed as five-fish composites using methods similar to screening studies. The values listed as "% Lipid Range" correspond to the lipid
content of composites.
-------
Table 3.1-4 Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on lipid content and total weight in
catfish, largemouth bass, and smallmouth buffalo from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
Lipid content Location
Year
Interaction
CATFISH
REGW Multiple Range Test*
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
0.6125
0.0073 1992 1991
0.9244
Total Weight Location 0.5206
Year 0.0026 1992 1991
Interaction 0.2718
LARGEMOUTH BASS
REGW Multiple Range Test*
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content Location 0.4788 No
Year 0.5925 Significant
Interaction 0.8063 Difference
Total Weight Location 0.5022
Year 0.0495 1991 1992
Interaction 0.2592
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test*
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
0.1124
No
Year
0.6875
Significant
Interaction
0.5971
Difference
Total Weight
Location
0.7976
No
Year
0.0533
Significant
Interaction
0.4440
Difference
* Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
63
-------
Table 3.1-5 Summary of total PCB and DDT concentrations (ng/g) in catfish, largemouth bass and smallmouth buffalo composites*
from Wheeler Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
PCB
Channel Catfish Largemouth Bass Samllmouth Buffalo
TRM310 TRM3I5 TRM 320 TRM 325 TRM310 TRM315 TRM 320 TRM 325 TRM310 TRM315 TRM 320 TRM 325
1991
Range
Mean
Number > 2 Ofig/g
Number of composites*
1.0-1.6
1.3
0
3
0.9-1.7
1.3
0
3
1.3-1 6
1.5
0
3
0.9-1 3
1.1
0
3
0.1-0.3
0.2
0
3
0.1-0.2
0.1
0
3
0.5-2.3
1.4
1
3
0.1-0 6
0.3
0
3
0.2-0.2
0.2
0
3
0.3-0.6
0.5
0
3
0.8-1.2
1.0
0
3
0.4-0.6
0.5
0
3
1992
Range 0.2-0.7 0.9-1.1 0 6-2.4 0.8-0.9 0.1-0.7 0.1-0.9 0.3-0.5 0.3-0.5 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.7 0.3-1.1 0.6-0.9
Mean 0.5 1.0 1.2 0 9 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7
CTi
Number > 2 0|ig/g 001000000000
Number of composites* 334233333363
1991
Range
Mean
Number of composites*
DDT
Channel Catfish Largemouth Bass Samllmouth Buffalo
TRM 310 TRM 315 TRM 320 TRM 325 TRM 310 TRM 315 TRM 320 TRM 325 TRM 310 TRM 315 TRM 320 TRM 325
5.70-12.83 1.87-7 74 6.13-13.33 1.12-2.81 0.49-1.15 2.63-3.34 5.00-10.50 0.12-11.2 1.65-2 9 2.31-8.54 18.36-43.25 1.99-5.52
8.41 4.34 9.43 2.18 0.89 3.35 7.37 4.31 2.44 5.17 27.29 3.54
333333333333
1992
Range
Mean
Number of composites*
0.63-3.09 2.01-2.34
2.02 2 17
3 3
0.82-8.56 0.60-0.72
3.49 0.66
4 2
0.34-2.61 0.52-7 42
1.17 5 10
3 3
1.48-1.91 1.27-2.38
1.73 1.97
3 3
1.07-1.53 2.26-9.2
1.26 4.7
3 3
2.73-4.95 0.94-9.17
3.41 3.93
6 3
Catfish, largemouth bass, and smallmouth bufTalo were analyzed as five-fish composites using methods similar to screening studies The values listed as "Number of composites" correspond to the
number of five-fish composites from a particular location in a particular year.
-------
Table 3.1-6 Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on PCB and DDT concentrations in
catfish, largemouth bass, and smallmouth buffalo from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
PCB Location
Year
Interaction
CATFISH
REGW Multiple Range Test*
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
0.2476
0.0004 1992 1991
0.1223
DDT Location 0.0192 325 315 310 320
Year 0.0002 1992 1991
Interaction 0.2431
LARGEMOUTH BASS
REGW Multiple Range Test*
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
0.0526 No
0.8730 Significant
0.0297 Difference
PCB Location
Year
Interaction
DDT
Location 0.0718
Year 0.3046
Interaction 0.3254
No
Significant
Difference
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test*
Mean Rank Low to High
PCB
Location
Year
Interaction
0.0001
0.2261
0.0011
Significant Interaction
DDT Location 0.0013
Year 0.008
Interaction 0.0336 Significant Interaction
* Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
65
-------
Table 3.1-7 One-way analysis of variance (location effects) and REGW Multiple
Range Test on PCB and DDT in smallmouth buffalo from Wheeler
Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
1991
REGW Multiple Range Test*
Analyte P>F Mean Rank Low to High
PCB Location 0.0004 310 315 325 320
DDT Location 0.0012 310 325 315 320
1992
REGW Multiple Range Test*
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
PCB Location 0.0329 310 320 315 325
DDT Location 0.363 No Significant Difference
* Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
66
-------
Table 3.1-8 Results of analysis/reanalysis for DDTr concentrations (ng/g) in composite
samples of smallmouth buffalo collected in October/November 1991 and January
1993, from TRM 320, Wheeler Reservoir.
first analysis reanalysis
October/November Composite 1 18.3 22.3
1991 Composite 2 20.3
Composite 3 43.3 38.6
January 1993 Composite 1 5.0 8.8
Composite 2 3.4
Composite 3 2.7 4.3
Table 3.1-9 Results of analysis for DDTr concentrations (ng/g) in composite samples of
channel catfish and smallmouth buffalo collected in November/December 1992
Channel
Catfish
Composite 1
Composite 2
Composite 3
first analysis
3.0
8.6
0.8
Smallmouth
Buffalo
Composite 1
Composite 2
Composite 3
3.4
3.1
2.8
67
-------
3.2 Nickajack Reservoir
Results of the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study in 1987 found sufficiently high
concentrations of both PCBs and chlordane in channel catfish (the indicator species) from
Nickajack Reservoir to warrant further investigation. Concentrations of these chlorinated
organics exceeded the predetermined tier 3 levels (Table 2.1) established to trigger more in-depth
studies to better define apparent problems. The five-catfish fillet composite sample from the
lower reservoir location (Tennessee River Mile 425) contained 1.9 (j.g/g PCBs and 0.21 (ig/g
chlordane, while the composite sample from the upper area (TRM 457) contained 1.3 ng/g PCBs
and 0.25 ng/g chlordane (Dycus 1989a).
A follow-up study was planned for autumn 1988, but fish were collected in January and
February 1989 (Dycus 1990a). Based on these results, the State of Tennessee (TDEC) in 1989
issued a precautionary advisory for catfish in Nickajack Reservoir suggesting, "that children,
pregnant women, and nursing mothers avoid eating catfish from Nickajack Reservoir and that
other persons limit their consumption of these catfish to 1.2 pounds per week." The most current
advisory from TDEC is Appendix C.
Other follow-up studies were conducted in autumn 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 to further
define the temporal trend of PCB and chlordane contamination in Nickajack Reservoir catfish and
to investigate concentrations in other important species. The results of the 1991 and 1992 studies
are presented in this report as well as comparisons among catfish for the five years of data
(1988-1992).
68
-------
Methods
Ten channel catfish and ten carp were collected from TRM 425 in both 1991 and 1992.
Ten smallmouth buffalo were also captured at this location in 1991. Ten channel catfish and nine
carp were collected from TRM 457 in both 1991 and 1992. Six striped bass and two hybrid
striped bass were collected from TRM 470 in 1992. All procedures involved in field sampling,
processing, and laboratory and data analysis were similar to those described in Appendix B and
will not be repeated here.
Results and Recommendations
The results of the 1991 and 1992 studies and comparisons to previous study results are
shown in Tables 3.2-1 through 3.2-7. Lipid content in catfish tissue was not significantly different
among years. Catfish weight could not be examined statistically because of a significant
interaction between year and location due to small fish being collected in 1989 from one location
and large fish collected from this location in other years. However, examination indicates that the
1991 and 1992 catfish weights were generally similar to fish weights from previous years.
Catfish from both locations in 1991 had PCB concentrations similar to those observed in previous
years. Interestingly, PCB levels in catfish from 1992 were the lowest found in the five years
intensive fish tissue studies have been conducted on Nickajack Reservoir. Thus, 1992 PCB
concentrations were significantly lower than previous years, which were not significantly different
from one another.
Lipid content in carp collected in 1992 were significantly lower than carp collected in
1991, but was not significantly different among locations. However, weight of carp collected in
69
-------
1991 was significantly lower than weight of carp collected in 1992. Weight of carp from TRM
425 was significantly lower than fish from TRM 457. Carp PCB levels could not be examined
statistically among years because of a significant interaction between location and year.
Examinations of 1991 data indicate that PCB levels at TRM 425 were significantly lower than
levels at TRM 457. However, the 1992 data do not indicate a significant difference between
locations.
Statistical analyses for chlordane concentrations were not reported due to interference
between PCB 1254 and cis-chlordane and interference between PCB 1260 and trans-nanochlor.
As a result, if PCB 1254 and/or 1260 were present, the appropriate chlordane isomers would be
reported as "interference" and no concentration provided. In such cases, the reported levels of
chlordane would be conservative. This situation was recognized while analyzing the 1991
samples. Hence, chlordane concentrations for all previous studies would over-estimate the true
concentration.
Catfish and carp were collected from TRMs 425 and 457 and striped bass from TRM 470
in 1993. These fish will be analyzed individually to further identify the trend in concentrations of
PCBs and chlordane in Nickajack Reservoir.
70
-------
Table 3.2-1
Physical information and concentrations (ng/g) of lipids, chlordane, and PCBs in
individual fish fillets from Nickajack Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
YEAR=91
SITE
SPECIES
LABID LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
TRM 425.0
C
16.0
599
3069
<0.01
0.1
TRM 425.0
C
6.0
640
3378
0.06
<0.1
TRM 425.0
C
8.6
602
3017
<0.01
0.3
TRM 425.0
C
7.9
606
3261
<0.01
0.3
TRM 425.0
C
9.0
725
5017
<0.01
0.1
TRM 425.0
C
14.0
586
3056
<0.01
0.8
TRM 425.0
C
11. 0
587
2924
<0.01
0.3
TRM 425.0
C
16.0
477
1602
<0.01
0.3
TRM 425.0
C
4.0
706
4301
<0.01
0.3
TRM 425.0
C
8.0
649
3875
<0. 01
0.3
TRM 425.0
SBU
11.0
431
1307
<0. 01
0.1
TRM 425.0
SBU
23.0
593
3598
<0.01
0.7
TRM 425.0
SBU
12.0
423
1256
<0.01
<0.1
TRM 425.0
SBU
8.8
416
1315
<0.01
<0.1
TRM 425.0
SBU
14.0
495
1903
<0.01
0.1
TRM 425.0
SBU
11.0
456
1696
<0.01
0.6
TRM 425.0
SBU
12.0
441
1439
<0. 01
<0.1
TRM 425.0
SBU
8.7
440
1378
<0. 01
0.1
TRM 425.0
SBU
17. 0
401
1172
<0.01
0.2
TRM 425.0
SBU
7.1
412
1260
<0. 01
<0.1
TRM 426.0
CAT
9.2
395
570
<0. 01
0.4
TRM 426.0
CAT
6.3
592
2512
<0. 01
0.8
TRM 426.0
CAT
8.4
535
1454
<0. 01
1.1
TRM 426.0
CAT
5.4
506
1496
<0. 01
3.0
TRM 426.0
CAT
11.0
583
2241
<0.01
1.0
TRM 426.0
CAT
6.9
597
2417
<0.01
3.6
TRM 426.0
CAT
7.1
455
986
0.01
1.1
TRM 426.0
CAT
7.8
556
2078
<0.01
1.6
TRM 426.0
CAT
4.8
504
1322
<0.01
0.3
TRM 426. 0
CAT
14.0
487
997
<0. 01
1.9
TRM 457.0
C
11.0
702
4772
<0.01
0.3
TRM 457.0
C
9.0
674
4688
<0.01
1.9
TRM 457.0
C
12.0
650
4234
<0.01
0.8
TRM 457.0
C
14.0
719
5892
<0. 01
1.1
TRM 457.0
C
9.0
728
5392
<0.01
2.7
TRM 457.0
C
6.9
780
7932
0.08
0.4
TRM 457.0
C
10.0
633
3522
0.12
1.2
TRM 457.0
C
9.2
651
4524
<0.01
1.1
TRM 457.0
C
3.9
633
3673
<0.01
1.4
TRM 457.0
CAT
13.0
451
962
0.18
0.6
TRM 457.0
CAT
27.0
456
2091
<0.01
0.3
TRM 457.0
CAT
11.0
590
2121
<0.01
0.3
TRM 457.0
CAT
0.1
625
2050
<0.01
0.9
TRM 457.0
CAT
14.0
563
2219
<0.01
1.9
TRM 457.0
CAT
12.0
572
2362
0.06
1.1
TRM 457.0
CAT
5.7
569
1677
<0.01
1.5
TRM 457.0
CAT
23. 0
622
2839
<0.01
0.5
TRM 457.0
CAT
20.0
601
2225
<0.01
1.7
TRM 457.0
CAT
14.0
598
2456
0.19
0.2
TRM 457.0
SBU
14.0
523
2441
<0. 01
0.7
TRM 457.0
SBU
27.0
567
3181
<0.01
0.3
TRM 457.0
SBU
7.0
576
783
<0.01
<0.1
TRM 457.0
SBU
19.0
562
3391
<0. 01
0.3
71
-------
Table 3.2-1 Continued
YEAR=92
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
TRM
425.0
C
30844
3.4
633
3739
<0.01
<0.1
TRM
425.0
C
30846
7.0
775
6608
<0. 01
0.3
TRM
425.0
C
30849
4.7
719
5401
<0.01
<0.1
TRM
425.0
C
30851
2.7
654
4120
<0.01
0.2
TRM
425.0
C
30854
8.5
739
5332
<0. 01
0.7
TRM
425.0
C
30856
6.8
640
3460
0. 01
0.4
TRM
425.0
C
30859
5.9
756
6141
0.01
0.1
TRM
425.0
C
30860
8.6
676
4366
0.02
0.3
TRM
425.0
C
30861
2.6
846
8414
<0.01
0.2
TRM
425.0
C
30862
12.0
641
3921
0.02
0.4
TRM
425.0
CAT
30834
12.0
585
1845
0.03
0.5
TRM
425. 0
CAT
30835
8.2
507
1100
<0.01
0.2
TRM
425.0
CAT
30836
11.0
494
1448
0.03
0.6
TRM
425. 0
CAT
30837
5.6
459
762
<0.01
0.2
TRM
425.0
CAT
30838
2.3
517
1187
0.01
0.4
TRM
425.0
CAT
30839
11.0
464
944
<0. 01
0.4
TRM
425.0
CAT
30840
4.5
468
910
0. 02
0.5
TRM
425.0
CAT
30841
5.7
484
1157
<0.01
0.8
TRM
425.0
CAT
30842
6.6
446
792
<0.01
0.3
TRM
425.0
CAT
30843
6.2
541
1300
<0.01
<0.1
TRM
457.0
C
30874
12. 0
688
4928
<0.01
0.6
TRM
457.0
C
30876
5.0
794
7016
<0.01
0.1
TRM
457.0
C
30878
3.9
787
6977
<0. 01
0.3
TRM
457. 0
C
30881
10.0
646
3635
0. 11
0.6
TRM
457.0
C
30883
6.3
737
5754
<0.01
0.2
TRM
457.0
C
30886
4.4
770
7311
0.03
0.6
TRM
457.0
C
30887
9.8
799
8943
<0. 01
0.3
TRM
457. 0
C
30889
3.8
750
7442
<0. 01
0.2
TRM
457.0
C
30892
3.5
766
6962
<0. 01
0.1
TRM
457.0
CAT
30863
20. 0
554
1762
0. 05
0.8
TRM
457.0
CAT
30864
5.6
463
969
0.01
0.7
TRM
457.0
CAT
30866
9.0
475
947
<0.01
0.3
TRM
457.0
CAT
30867
2.3
585
2010
<0.01
0.4
TRM
457.0
CAT
30868
11.0
470
996
<0.01
0.7
TRM
457.0
CAT
30869
15.0
610
2620
<0.01
0.7
TRM
457.0
CAT
30870
16.0
532
1543
<0. 01
0.7
TRM
457. 0
CAT
30871
5.6
507
1357
<0. 01
0.6
TRM
457.0
CAT
30872
9.4
495
1447
<0. 01
0.2
TRM
457. 0
CAT
30873
5.9
470
883
<0. 01
0.1
TRM
469. 0
HYB
30896
10. 0
494
2
<0. 01
0.6
TRM
469.0
HYB
30905
7.6
550
1716
0.02
0.7
TRM
469. 0
STB
30895
8.2
628
3
0. 03
0.6
TRM
469.0
STB
30897
9.3
574
1923
0.03
0.5
TRM
469.0
STB
30898
7.3
670
2979
<0. 01
1.1
TRM
469. 0
STB
30899
7.7
686
3311
0.02
0.7
TRM
469. 0
STB
30901
11.0
577
1967
0. 04
0.8
TRM
469.0
STB
30904
12.0
576
2055
0.05
1.1
72
-------
Table 3.2-2 Summary of lengths, total weights, and percent lipids of catfish, carp, smallmouth
buffalo, and striped bass from Nickajack Reservoir, collected from 1988 to 1992.
Catfish Carp Smallmouth Buffalo Striped Bass
TRM425
TRM457
TRM 425
TRM 457
TRM 425
TRM 457
TRM 470
1988*
Weight Range
1835-2705
1198-2340
Mean Weight
2175
1854
Length Range
555-650
472-602
Mean Length
J 87
540
% Lipid Range
0.9-18.0
8.9-20.0
Mean % Lipid
11.4
13.6
1989
Weight Range
346-1798
308-1001
Mean Weight
1048
805
Length Range
331-565
332-470
Mean Length
458
397
% Lipid Range
3.0-20.0
3.2-17.0
Mean % Lipid
10.3
10.9
1990
Weight Range
464-2332
736-2429
Mean Weight
1215
1500
Length Range
370-596
426-656
Mean Length
484
528
% Lipid Range
5.4-20.0
3.6-24.0
Mean % Lipid
10.7
12.4
1991
Weight Range
570-2512
962-2839
1602-5017
3522-7932
1172-3598
783-3391
Mean Weight
1607
2100
3350
4958
1632
2449
Length Range
395-597
451-625
477-725
633-780
401-593
523-576
Mean Length
521
565
617
686
451
557
% Lipid Range
4.8-14.0
0.1-27.0
4.0-16.0
3.9-14.0
7.1-23.0
7.0-27.0
Mean % Lipid
8.1
14.1
10.1
9.4
12.5
16.8
1992
Weight Range
762-1845
883-2620
3460-8414
3635-8943
1619-3311
Mean Weight
1144
1453
5150
6552
2305
Length Range
446-585
463-610
633-846
646-799
494-686
Mean Length
497
516
708
749
594
% Lipid Range
2.3-12.0
2.3-20.0
2.6-12.0
3.5-12.0
7.3-12.0
Mean % Lipid
7.3
10.1
6.2
6.5
9.1
73
-------
Table 3.2-3 Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on lipid content and total weight in
catfish and carp from Nickajack Reservoir.
CATFISH
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test*
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
0.0808
Not
Year
0.4664
Significantly
Interaction
0.7898
Different
Total Weight
Location
Year
0.6169
0.0001
Interaction
0.0138
CARP
Significant Interaction
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test*
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
0.9709
Year
0.0034
1992 1991
Interaction
0.7262
Total Weight
Location
0.0018
425 457
Year
0.0005
1991 1992
Interaction
0.8167
* Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
74
-------
Table 3.2-4 Summary of total PCB concentrations (|ig/g) in individual catfish, carp,
smallmouth buffalo, and striped bass fillets from Nickajack Reservoir, collected
from 1988 to 1992.
Catfish Carp Smallmouth Buffalo Striped Bass
TRM425 TRM457 TRM425 TRM457 TRM425 TRM457 TRM470
1988*
Range
0.4-1.9
0.9-1.7
Mean
0.9
1.3
Number > 2.0ng/g
0
0
Number of fish
10
3
1989
Range
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
Mean
1.3
0.7
Number > 2.0f»g/g
1
1
Number of fish
10
10
1990
Range
0.6-1.5
1.4-1.7
Mean
1
1.1
Number > 2.0ng/g
0
0
Number offish
10
10
1991
Range
0.3-3.6
0.2-1.9
0.1-0.8
0.3-2.7
0.1-0.7 0.1-0.7
Mean
1.5
0.9
0.3
1.2
©
o
Number > 2.0ng/g
2
0
0
1
0 0
Number offish
10
10
10
9
10 4
1992
Range
0.1-0.8
0.1-0.8
0.1-0.7
0.1-0.6
Mean
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
Number > 2.0ng/g
0
0
0
0
Number offish
10
10
10
9
fish were actually collected in January and February 1989.
75
-------
Table 3.2-5 Two-way analysis of variance4 (location and year main effects) and REGW
Multiple Range test on PCB concentrations in catfish and carp from Nickajack
Reservoir.
Catfish Location
Year
Interaction
Carp Location
Year
Interaction
REGW Multiple Range Testb
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
0.6024 457 425
0.0001 1992 1990 1988 1991 1989
0.0732
0.0003
0.0011
0.0014 Significant Interaction
a Preliminary test indicated PCB concentrations in catfish and carp were not related to lipid
content or weight, hence, ANOVA was the appropriate test
b Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
76
-------
Table 3.2-6 Results of statistical tests used to compare location differences in PCB
concentrations in catfish, carp, and smallmouth buffalo from Nickajack Reservoir,
1991.
Species
Parameter
Preliminary
Test (Is there a
significant
relationship
between
analyte and
parameter)
Decision based
on preliminary
test
If ANOVA
Analysis of
covariance
(test of
parallel lines)
Analysis of
covariance
results
Catfish Lipid content No Use ANOVA P>F = 0.1724
(P>F = 0.8506) Sites are not
different
Weight No Use ANOVA
(P>F = 0.8267)
Carp Lipid content No Use ANOVA P>F = 0.0004
(P>F = 0.8120) Sites are
different
Weight No Use ANOVA
(P>F = 0.2149)
Smallmouth Lipid content No Do not adjust
Buffalo (P>F = 0.1881) for lipid
Weight Yes Adjust for P>F = 0.2020 P>F = 0.8003
(P>F = 0.0113) weight lines parallel Sites are not
different
77
-------
Table 3.2-7 Results of statistical tests used to compare location differences in PCB
concentrations in catfish, and carp from Nickajack Reservoir, 1992.
Species
Parameter
Preliminary
Test (Is there a
significant
relationship
between
analyte and
parameter)
Decision based
on preliminary
test
If ANOVA
Analysis of
covariance
(test of
parallel lines)
Analysis of
covariance
results
Catfish Lipid content No Use ANOVA
(P>F = 0.4522)
Weight No Use ANOVA
(P>F = 0.1051)
P>F = 0.2881
Sites are not
different
Carp Lipid content No Use ANOVA
(P>F = 0.0832)
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.2540)
Use ANOVA
P>F = 0.5748
Sites are not
different
78
-------
3.3 Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1)
Results from the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study in 1987 found concentrations of
PCBs (0.9 jig/g) and selenium (0.8 ng/g) in catfish from Parksville Reservoir, Ocoee River Mile
(ORM) 12, that closely approached tier 2 levels (Table 2.1) (Dycus, 1989). This location was
sampled again at the screening level in 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 (Dycus, 1990; Hall and
Dycus, 1991; Bates, et al. 1992). Each year concentrations of PCBs and selenium were
sufficiently high to warrant further study. Because of these consistently high concentrations of
PCBs and selenium, an intensive study of Parksville Reservoir was undertaken in 1992. The
results of that study are presented in this report.
Methods
Fish were collected from two locations, ORM 12 and ORM 16. Historically, ORM 12
was used for collection of fish for screening studies. ORM 16 is at the mouth of Sylco Creek
embayment near the upper end of the reservoir. Except for 4-5 channel catfish, the fish reported
from ORM 16 were collected within the lower 1/3 of Sylco Creek embayment.
Ten channel catfish and ten largemouth bass were collected from each of the two sampling
locations (ORM 12 and ORM 16). One fillet from each of these fish was analyzed for lipid
content, PCBs, chlordane, selenium, and mercury. Field handling and processing, laboratory
processing, and data analyses were similar to the procedures outlined in Appendix B and will not
be repeated here.
79
-------
Five bluegill were also collected from each location and three rainbow trout were
collected from ORM 12. Fillets from these fish were composited and analyzed for PCBs,
chlordane, selenium and mercury using methods similar to the screening studies (Chapter 2).
Results
The results from the 1992 intensive study are shown in Tables 3.3-1 through 3.3-6.
Mercury and chlordane levels were low in all fish tissue samples. PCB and selenium levels in
catfish were similar to levels reported in the screening studies. Although concentrations of PCBs
tended to be higher at ORM 12 than ORM 16, concentrations were not significantly different
between the two locations. Concentrations of selenium and mercury were significantly higher in
catfish from ORM 12.
Since preliminary statistical tests indicated a relationship between PCB concentration and
both weight and lipid content in largemouth bass, a statistical test was conducted where lipid
content and weight were considered together. This test indicated that adjustment only for weight
was needed. After adjustment for weight, no significant difference was found between locations.
Levels of PCBs in both the bluegill and rainbow trout composite samples were lower than
levels in catfish and largemouth bass. Selenium concentrations in bluegill were similar to
concentrations in largemouth bass and levels in rainbow trout were between the levels of
largemouth bass and catfish.
No fish consumption advisory had been issued for Parksville Reservoir at the time this
report was prepared. Composite samples of five channel catfish were collected from ORMs 12
and 16 in 1993. These fish will be analyzed with fish from the 1993 screening study for
contaminants on the EPA Priority Pollutant List.
80
-------
Table 3.3-1 Physical information and concentrations (ng/g) of lipids, chlordane, PCBs, mercury,
and selenium in fish fillets from Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee River #1), collected in
SITE
1992.
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
HG
SELEN
OCOEE
12.0
BGS
.
.
189
118
<
<
OCOEE
12.0
BGS
.
162
76
<
<
OCOEE
12.0
BGS
192
119
<
<
OCOEE
12.0
BGS
182
91
<
<
OCOEE
12.0
BGS
30949
• 1.3
<
0.01
<
0.10
<
0.10
0.80
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30913
2.6
413
505
<
0.01
0.40
0.10
0.60
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30914
5.3
415
617
<
0.01
1.30
0.12
0.40
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30915
6.8
473
990
<
0.01
2.20
0.16
0.50
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30917
5.1
404
694
<
0.01
1.10
0.17
0. 60
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30920
7.6
431
790
0.01
1.30
0.14
0.60
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30921
5.7
4 90
1130
<
0.01
3.00
0.10
0. 90
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30923
1.8
530
1529
<
0.01
1.40
0.17
0.60
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30926
6.4
4 67
800
<
0.01
1.50
<
0.10
0.70
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30927
7.8
505
1259
0.02
2.30
0.21
0.70
OCOEE
12.0
CHC
30928
4 . 0
428
749
<
0.01
1. 00
0.15
0. 60
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30929
3.2
389
882
<
0.01
0.20
0.13
1.00
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30930
4 . A
355
682
<
0.01
0. 30
0.15
1.10
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30931
5.3
429
1346
<
0.01
1.00
0.14
1.40
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30933
6.0
487
2040
<
0.01
1.70
0.14
1. 90
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30936
4.0
341
551
<
0.01
0.60
0.15
1.10
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30938
3.9
373
758
<
0.01
0.50
0.18
1.10
OCOEE
12. 0
LMB
30945
3.8
330
503
<
0.01
0.30
0.15
0. 90
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30946
4.3
345
651
<
0.01
0.40
0.13
0. 80
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30947
3.1
321
470
<
0.01
0.30
0.17
0. 80
OCOEE
12.0
LMB
30948
3.3
322
478
<
0.01
0.30
0.14
1. 00
OCOEE
12.0
RBT
312
390
<
<
OCOEE
12.0
RBT
368
731
<
<
OCOEE
12.0
RBT
402
886
<
<
OCOEE
12.0
RBT
30950
8.7
<
0.01
0.30
<
0.10
0.70
OCOEE
16.0
BGS
172
96
<
<
.
OCOEE
16.0
BGS
199
187
<
<
OCOEE
16.0
BGS
169
88
<
<
.
OCOEE
16.0
BGS
182
121
<
<
OCOEE
16.0
BGS
204
176
<
<
OCOEE
16.0
BGS
30980
2.2
<
0.01
<
0.10
<
0.10
0.50
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30952
12.0
482
1189
<
0.01
1. 90
0.12
0.40
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30955
6.8
455
930
<
0.01
1.80
<
0.10
0.30
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30956
7 . 9
512
1510
<
0.01
1. 00
0.11
0.40
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30957
7.3
430
869
<
0.01
0.60
0.11
0. 20
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30958
8.2
516
1339
<
0.01
1.20
0.16
0.40
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30959
16.0
445
980
<
0.01
1.10
<
0.10
0.30
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30960
9.3
416
769
<
0.01
0. 50
<
0.10
0.20
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30961
7.8
392
659
<
0.01
0.70
<
0.10
0.30
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30962
8.6
414
611
<
0.01
0. 60
<
0.10
0. 30
OCOEE
16.0
CHC
30963
8.3
466
989
<
0.01
0.60
0.10
0.20
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30965
4.5
358
798
<
0.01
0.60
0.17
0. 90
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30966
3.5
350
619
<
0.01
0.20
0.15
1. 00
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30967
3.7
345
592
<
0.01
0.50
0.15
1.10
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30968
3.2
360
746
<
0.01
0.30
0.14
1.00
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30969
4.3
489
2129
<
0.01
1.70
0.17
1.50
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30972
4 . 4
370
815
<
0.01
0.40
0.21
0.80
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30974
7.6
495
2510
<
0.01
2.00
0.18
1.40
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30977
3.3
361
668
<
0.01
0.70
0.13
0. 90
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30978
3.6
338
599
<
0.01
0.30
0.14
0. 90
OCOEE
16.0
LMB
30979
2.2
347
585
<
0.01
0. 30
0.19
1.00
81
-------
Table 3.3-2 Summary of lengths, total weights, and % lipids of catfish, largemouth bass,
bluegill and rainbow trout from Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1), collected in 1992.
Catfish
ORM 12
ORM 16
Weight
Range
505-1529
611-1510
Mean
Weight
Length
Range
Mean
Length
906
985
404-530
392-516
456
453
% Lipid
Range
1.8-7.8
6.8-16
Mean %
Lipid
5.3
9.2
Largemouth
Bass
ORM 12
ORM 16
470-2040
585-2510
836
1006
321-487
338-495
369
381
3.1-6.0
2.2-7.6
4.1
4
BluegilP
ORM 12
ORM 16
76-119
88-187
99
134
162-192
169-204
180
185
N/A
N/A
1.3
2.2
Rainbow
Trout"
ORM 12
390-886
669
312-402
361
N/A
8.7
The bluegill and rainbow trout were analyzed in the laboratory as composite samples for each
location similar to the methods used for screening studies.
82
-------
Table 3.3-3 Results of one-way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test
comparing lipid content and total weight in catfish and largemouth
bass between locations in Parksville Reservoir.
Catfish
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test®
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
0.0015
ORM 12 ORM 16
Total Weight
Location
0.5014
Not Significantly Different
Largemouth Bass
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test8
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
0.768
Not Significantly Different
Total Weight
Location
0.5244
Not Significantly Different
a. Locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Locations not so underscored were significantly different.
83
-------
Table 3.3-4 Summary of total PCB, selenium and mercury concentrations (fig/g) in individual channel catfish and largemouth bass
fillets and composited fillets from bluegill and rainbow trout from Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1), collected in 1992.
PCB
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0ng/g
Number of fish
Selenium
Range
Mean
Number of fish
Mercury
Range
Mean
Number of fish
Channel Catfish Largemouth Bass Bluegill" Rainbow Trout*
ORM 12 ORM 16 ORM 12 ORM 16 ORM 12 ORM 16 ORM 12
0.4-3.0
1.5
3
10
0.5-1.9
1.1
0
10
0.2-1.7
0.6
0
10
0.2-2.0
0.7
1
3
N/A
0.1
N/A
5
N/A
0.1
N/A
5
N/A
0.3
N/A
3
0.4-0.9
0.6
10
0.2-0.4
0.3
10
0.8-1.9
1.1
10
0.9-1.1
1
3
N/A
0.8
5
N/A
1
5
N/A
0.7
3
0.1-0.21
0.14
10
0.1-0.16
0.11
10
0.13-0.18
0.15
10
0.15-0.17
0.16
3
N/A
<0.1
5
N/A
0.19
5
N/A
<0.1
3
a The bluegill and rainbow trout were analyzed in the laboratory as composite samples for each location similar to the methods used for
screening studies.
-------
Table 3.3-5 Results of statistical tests used to compare location differences in PCB, selenium, and mercury concentrations in channel
catfish from Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1) in 1992.
Analyte
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between
analyte and
parameter)
Decision based on
preliminary test
If ANOVA
Analysis of
covariance (test of
parallel lines)
Analysis of
covariance results
PCB
Selenium
Mercury
Lipid Content
Weight
Lipid Content
Weight
Lipid Content
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.1464)
No
(P>F = 0.1179)
No
(P>F = 0.8504)
No
(P>F = 0.8546)
No
(P>F = 0.8688)
No
(P>F = 0.9405)
Use Anova
Use Anova
Use Anova
Use Anova
Use Anova
Use Anova
P>F - 0.0709
P>F = 0.0709
P>F = 0.0001
P>F = 0.0001
P>F = 0.0253
P>F = 0.0253
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
Table 3.3-6 Results of statistical tests used to compare location differences in PCB, selenium, and mercury concentrations in
largemouth bass from Parksville Reservoir (Ocoee #1) in 1992.
Analyte
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between
analyte and
parameter)
Decision based on
preliminary test
If ANOVA
Analysis of
covariance (test of
parallel lines)
Analysis of
covariance results
PCB
oo
cn
Selenium
Lipid Content
Weight
Lipid Content
Weight
Yes"
(P>F = 0.0002)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0001)
Yes8
(P>F = 0.0025)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0343)
Adjust for lipids* N/A
Adjust for weight N/A
Adjust for lipids' N/A
Adjust for weight N/A
N/A
P>F = 0.3458
lines parallel
N/A
N/A
P>F = 0.9022
sites are not different
N/A
P>F = 0.1204 P>F = 0.1005
lines parallel sites are not different
Mercury
Lipid Content
Weight
No UseAnova P>F = 0.1336 N/A
(P>F = 0.5437) sites are not different
No UseAnova P>F = 0.1336 N/A
(P>F = 0.9405) sites are not different
N/A
N/A
a Since preliminary tests indicated adjusting for both lipids and weight, a test was conducted where lipids and weight were
considered together. This test indicated that PCB concentrations needed to be adjusted for weight only.
-------
3.4 Watts Bar Reservoir
After several years of extensive PCB examinations, in 1989, Watts Bar Reservoir was
placed in the trend study stage so investigators could look at PCB contamination over time.
Previous collections (1985-88) identified substantial PCB contamination in catfish and striped
bass (Dycus and Hickman 1988; Dycus 1990c). The tailwaters area of Fort Loudoun Dam was
first examined in 1985, and the study reach was expanded downstream each year thereafter. The
first collection of fish from the entire length of Watts Bar Lake was in 1988. During that year
channel catfish were collected from four locations between TRM 532 (near Watts Bar Dam) and
TRM 598 (near Fort Loudoun Dam) and one location on the Clinch River (CRM 2) near its
confluence with the Tennessee River. PCB concentrations in catfish from another location on the
Clinch River (CRM 19), near Melton Hall Dam, collected and analyzed by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL), were provided in the TVA report summarizing the 1988 results (Dycus
1990c), but not included in the statistical analyses. Individual striped bass and smallmouth buffalo
and composites of largemouth bass, crappie, and sauger were also collected and analyzed in 1988
to determine if there was a potential problem with those important game and commercial species.
In the fall of 1989, channel catfish were collected and analyzed for PCBs from the same
five stations as in 1988, plus two additional stations on the Clinch River (CRMs 9.0 and 20.0).
TVA collected the ten catfish at TRMs 598 and 570; ORNL provided results from catfish from
the other five stations. Sauger from TRM 598 and CRM 2.0 and striped bass from TRM 532,
collected in January 1990, were also examined (Hall and Dycus 1991).
This report describes the results of PCB analyses for the trend study on Watts Bar
Reservoir in the fall of 1991 and 1992 and compares the results with those from previous years.
87
-------
The results were shared with cooperating state and federal agencies as soon as they were received
from the analytical laboratory, and decisions on updating existing advisories and selection of study
design for autumn 1993 were necessarily made months before this document was prepared. The
latest Public Health Advisory for Watts Bar Reservoir is included in Appendix C.
Methods
In autumn 1991, ten channel catfish were collected by TVA at TRMs 545 and 600 in
Watts Bar Reservoir. TVA also collected ten sauger from TRM 600, nine sauger from CRM 1.0,
two sauger from CRM 20, ten striped bass from TRM 531, eight striped bass from TRM 600, and
ten striped bass from CRM 20. These fish were analyzed by TVA's Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory in Chattanooga for PCB and chlordane concentrations.
Also in autumn 1991, TVA collected ten channel catfish and ten largemouth bass from
TRMs 530, 562 and 570 and CRM 1.0 under contract with the United States Department of
Energy (DOE). These fish were part of the Clinch River Remediation Investigation (CRRI) and
the data are preliminary pending validation by DOE.
In autumn 1992, ten channel catfish were collected by TVA at TRMs 530, 560, and 600 in
Watts Bar Reservoir. TVA also collected ten sauger from TRM 600 and CRMs 1.0 and 20, 10
striped bass from TRM 530 eight striped bass from TRM 600, and ten striped bass from CRM 20
in 1992. These fish were analyzed by TVA's Environmental Chemistry Laboratory in
Chattanooga for PCB and chlordane concentrations.
In autumn 1992, TVA collected 20 channel catfish from TRMs 545 and 570, 19 channel
catfish from CRM 2.0, and 15 striped bass from TRM 545 and CRM 2.0 for DOE. Fifteen
88
-------
striped bass were also collected in spring 1993 from CRM 19 for DOE. These fish were part of
the CRRI and the data are preliminary pending validation by DOE.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) collects and analyzes eight channel catfish each
year from CRMs 9.0 and 19. These data (Loar 1991; Loar 1992) are summarized in this report
but were not included in the statistical analyses.
Statistical analyses for chlordane concentrations were not reported due to interference
between PCB 1254 and cis-chlordane and interference between PCB 1260 and trans-nanochlor.
As a result, if PCB 1254 and/or 1260 were present, the appropriate chlordane isomers would be
reported as "interference" and no concentration provided. In such cases the reported levels of
chlordane would be conservative. This situation was recognized while analyzing the 1991
samples. Hence, chlordane concentrations for all previous studies would over-estimate the true
concentration.
Results
Channel Catfish
Results of the 1991 and 1992 studies on channel catfish and comparisons of these results
to previous studies are presented in Tables 3.4-1 through 3.4-5 and 3.4-13 and Figures 3.4-1 and
3.4-2. Lipid content in catfish was significantly different among years but did not reveal any
discernible pattern. For weight, there was a significant interaction between years and locations.
This may be the result of smaller fish captured at certain locations during 1989 and 1990.
The two-way co-ANOVA statistics for PCB concentrations in channel catfish among
years and locations could not be used due to inconsistent relationships between lipid content and
PCB concentration and weight and PCB concentration (non-parallel lines). Visual examination of
89
-------
these results indicates lower mean PCB concentrations were found in catfish from most locations
in 1989 and 1990 than in other years. These low mean PCB concentrations coincide with lower
mean weight of fish.
Sauger
Results of the 1991 and 1992 studies on sauger and comparisons of these results to
previous studies are presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-6 through 3.4-9 and 3.4-13 and Figure 3.4-3.
There was a significant interaction between years and locations for both lipid content and weight
in sauger. This may be the result of higher lipid content at CRM 2.0 in 1989 and 1991 and small
fish collected at certain locations in 1991.
Co-ANOVA statistical analyses could not be used because the relationship of PCB
concentrations to weight and lipid content was not constant (non-parallel lines). Visual
examination of the results indicates that in most years, higher mean PCB concentrations occurred
in sauger from CRM 2.0. Analysis of covariance examining location differences for 1991 and
1992 found significantly higher PCB concentrations in sauger from CRM 1 than sauger from
TRM 600 and CRM 20.
Striped Bass
Results of the 1991 and 1992 studies on striped bass and comparisons of these results to
previous studies are presented in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-10 through 3.4-13 and Figure 3.4-4. There
was a significant interaction between years and locations for lipid content in striped bass. This
may be the result of low lipid content at certain locations in 1991. There was no significant
difference in weight of striped bass among years or locations.
90
-------
Preliminary statistical examination identified a need to adjust PCB concentration in striped
bass for both fish weight and lipid content. However, adjustment for lipid content was
inappropriate due to non-parallel lines. If adjustment for weight only was made, there were no
differences between years or locations.
Recommendations
The trend study in Watts Bar Reservoir fish was continued in autumn 1993 following the
same basic study design as in previous years.
91
-------
Table 3.4-1 Physical information and concentrations (ng/g) of lipids, chlordane, and PCBs in
individual fish fillets from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
YEAR=91
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30379
7.1
499
1065
0.17
1.2
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30381
9.1
510
1456
0. 66
3.5
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30383
14.0
535
1546
0.37
2.1
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30385
4.0
537
718
0.37
2.4
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30389
9.5
564
2151
0.31
1.7
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30421
7.7
515
1035
0.24
3.6
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30439
3.2
529
1215
0.26
5.2
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30441
5.9
519
1215
0. 09
2.0
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30443
1.5
475
585
0.12
2.1
CRM
1.0*
CHC
30445
2.8
480
1001
0.13
2.4
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30325
5.0
409
996
0.08
0.7
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30365
0.2
335
467
<
0.01
< 0.1
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30367
0.3
429
1037
<
0. 01
0.2
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30369
2.9
477
1609
0.07
0.8
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30371
2.4
338
474
<
0. 01
0.4
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30373
1.0
507
2163
<
0.01
0.4
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30415
1.3
504
1735
0.02
0.8
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30417
1.3
431
1083
0. 02
0.5
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30419
0.6
362
564
<
0. 01
0.1
CRM
1.0*
LMB
30423
1.1
486
1714
0.02
0.5
CRM
1.0
SAG
31921
3.3
493
1139
0.11
1.0
CRM
1.0
SAG
31922
1.8
510
1149
0.02
0.2
CRM
1.0
SAG
31925
4.3
489
1198
0. 03
0.2
CRM
1.0
SAG
31927
4.1
540
1405
0.10
1.1
CRM
1.0
SAG
31930
4.5
467
1155
0. 06
0.5
CRM
1.0
SAG
31932
6.9
515
1190
0.14
1.3
CRM
1.0
SAG
31935
5.1
535
1472
0.11
1.7
CRM
1.0
SAG
31937
4.4
479
1200
0. 01
0.7
CRM
1.0
SAG
31940
3.7
427
801
0. 02
0.2
CRM
20.0
HYB
31941
6.9
482
1607
0.06
0.4
CRM
20.0
HYB
31952
14.0
501
1781
0.08
0.8
CRM
20.0
STB
31942
6.0
493
1318
0.07
0.6
CRM
20.0
STB
31945
8.9
522
1631
0.06
0.5
CRM
20.0
STB
31947
7.0
522
1735
0. 06
0.5
CRM
20. 0
STB
31950
5.5
454
1040
0. 06
0.5
CRM
20.0
STB
31955
12.0
553
1978
0.09
0.5
CRM
20. 0
STB
31957
14.0
810
6336
0.16
1.7
CRM
20.0
STB
31960
13.0
940
11526
0.82
10.1
CRM
20.0
STB
31961
13.0
994
14338
0.48
8.1
CRM
20.0
SAG
31962
1.3
333
318
0.02
0.2
CRM
20.0
SAG
31963
3.1
428
777
0.02
0.2
These results are part of the Clinch River Remediation Investigation conducted by TVA under contract to
the United States Department of Energy. Data should be considered preliminary until validated by DOE.
92
-------
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30503
4.6
504
1131
0.08
2.1
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30505
5.6
483
994
0.06
0.9
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30511
5.6
568
1988
0.17
2.0
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30513
1.6
566
1655
1.10
1.5
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30515
9.8
478
1273
1.20
1.7
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30517
1.6
520
1133
<
0.01
0.7
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30519
5.4
609
2323
0.24
2.9
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30535
2.0
470
899
0.08
1.8
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30537
11. 0
464
941
0.03
0.8
TRM
530.2*
CHC
30539
6.1
485
1092
0.08
1.4
TRM
530.2*
LMB
30235
2.3
494
2176
0.02
0.4
TRM
530.2*
LMB
30237
1.9
364
779
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
530.2*
LMB
30239
0.8
399
755
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
530.2*
LMB
30241
0.2
395
749
<
0.01
0.1
TRM
530.2*
LMB
30243
2.7
488
2103
0.01
0.4
TRM
530.2*
LMB
30259
1.2
360
742
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
530.2*
LM3
30261
1.9
323
495
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
530.2*
LM3 '
30263
2.3
445
1340
<
0.01
0.3
TRM
530.2*
LM3
30265
2.4
478
1844
0.01
0.4
TRM
530.2*
LM3
30267
2.5
385
805
<
0.01
0.3
TRM
531.0
ST3
31841
9.8
766
5260
0.17
1.2
TRM
531.0
ST3
31843
7.3
475
1490
0.04
0.5
TRM
531. 0
ST3
31846
4.1
524
1837
0.04
0.3
TRM
531.0
ST3
31848
5.9
525
1853
0.04
0.5
TRM
531.0
ST3
31851
5.4
513
1517
0.02
0.5
TRM
531.0
3T3
31853
5.0
479
1357
0.02
0.5
TRM
531.0
ST3
31356
6.6
500
1630
0.02
0.4
TRM
531.0
3T3
31357
8.0
529
1932
0.02
0.8
TRM
531. 0
ST3
31358
7.4
486
1472
<
0.01
0.4
TRM
531.0
3T3
31359
8.5
599
2617
0.03
0.8
TRM
545.0
CHC
32029
4.2
470
1021
0.07
0.7
TRM
545.0
CHC
32 031
1.6
446
802
0.07
0.5
TRM
545.0
CHC
32034
4 . 0
446
789
0.07
0.6
TRM
545.0
CHC
32036
1.4
438
729
0. 04
0.5
TRM
545. 0
CHC
32039
2.1
555
1358
0.09
1.2
TRM
5 45.0
CHC
32041
2.7
385
548
0.05
0.3
TRM
545. 0
CHC
32044
5.3
450
936
0.14
1.2
TRM
545.0
CHC
32045
3.4
403
635
0.13
1.5
TRM
545.0
'_n
32046
2.9
438
918
0. 06
1.4
TRM
545. 0
CHC
32047
11.4
481
1242
0.10
3.6
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30541
5.2
653
2812
0.17
2.4
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30543
3.3
557
1625
0.16
2.7
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30545
10. 0
555
1616
0.30
3.3
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30547
20.0
541
1453
0.37
3.7
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30549
3.3
535
1282
0.25
2.5
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30551
0.4
589
1584
0.06
1.1
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30553
6.9
550
1595
0.39
4.0
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30559
7.4
588
1369
0.06
1.0
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30561
6.8
488
1149
0.04
0.8
TRM
561.9*
CHC
30563
8.5
515
1229
0.08
1.6
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30269
1.3
391
800
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30273
2.8
367
761
<
0.01
0.3
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30275
1.6
370
729
0.01
0.4
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30277
3.5
378
785
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30283
1.7
409
957
0.02
0.4
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30285
0.8
521
1735
<
0.01
0.3
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30287
1.5
356
578
<
0.01
0.3
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30289
0.5
344
487
<
0.01
0.1
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30293
4.0
540
2382
0.04
0.7
TRM
561.9*
LMB
30721
1.7
374
693
<
0.01
0.2
These results are part of the Clinch River Remediation Investigation conducted by TV A under contract to
the United States Department of Energy. Data should be considered preliminary until validated by DOE.
93
-------
SITE SPECIES LABID LIPID LENGTH WEIGHT CLOR PCB
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30355
5.9
391
537
0.39
1.5
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30357
2.5
603
1815
0.28
1.5
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30359
15.0
511
1542
0. 08
0.8
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30361
6.2
516
1151
0. 07
1.1
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30363
1.0
511
972
0. 01
0.7
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30455
6.9
505
1130
0.09
1.4
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30457
5.0
513
1255
0.15
2.2
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30487
5.4
534
1520
0.11
1.7
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30499
4.6
520
1124
0.13
2.4
TRM
570.0*
CHC
30501
4.0
443
844
0.06
0.9
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30331
3.6
468
1848
0.03
0.7
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30333
1.5
404
1163
0.02
0.5
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30335
0.4
351
594
<
0.. 01
<
0.1
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30337
0.5
440
1140
<
CP. 01
0.3
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30339
3.9
515
2253
0.05
0.7
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30447
0.9
452
1520
0. 01
0.5
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30449
1.5
405
1021
<
0.01
0.3
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30451
3.2
431
1287
0. 01
0.8
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30453
1.0
338
538
<
0. 01
0.2
TRM
570.0*
LMB
30463
1.6
530
2704
0. 02
0.6
TRM
600.0
STB
31883
8.6
509
1770
0. 07
0.4
TRM
600. 0
STB
31885
5.5
474
1151
0.06
0.6
TRM
600.0
STB
31888
9.2
449
1006
0. 06
0.4
TRM
600.0
STB
31890
5.9
495
1375
0. 06
0.4
TRM
600.0
STB
31893
6.1
474
1278
0. 07
0.5
TRM
600.0
STB
31895
9.0
429
958
0.07
0.4
TRM
600.0
STB
31898
8.8
476
1246
0.08
0.5
TRM
600. 0
STB
31899
12.0
799
6342
0.20
1.8
TRM
600.0
CHC
31862
3.0
502
1064
0.10
1.1
TRM
600. 0
CHC
31864
5.9
304
549
0. 08
1.1
TRM
600. 0
CHC
31867
6.6
584
1881
0.20
3.0
TRM
600.0
CHC
31869
11.0
521
1627
0.30
4.4
TRM
600. 0
CHC
31872
6.8
4 62
1340
0.15
1.3
TRM
600. 0
CHC
31874
5.0
454
912
0.11
0.9
TRM
600.0
CHC
31877
5.2
390
466
0.05
0.6
TRM
600.0
CHC
31878
3.1
428
723
0. 06
0.5
TRM
600.0
CHC
31879
1.1
411
618
0. 05
0.6
TRM
600.0
CHC
31880
3.0
405
492
0. 05
0.5
TRM
600.0
SAC-
31900
1.8
373
475
0.02
<
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
31901
2.0
390
572
0.02
<
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
31904
3.3
402
616
0.01
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
31906
2.7
445
968
0. 02
0.1
TRM
600. 0
SAG
31909
2.0
383
515
0.01
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
31911
1.7
397
556
0.02
<
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
31914
1.4
394
548
0. 01
<
0.1
TRM
600. 0
SAG
31916
2.4
428
731
0. 01
<
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
31919
3.0
414
727
0. 02
0.2
TRM
600.0
SAG
31920
1.7
398
570
0. 01
0.2
These results are part of the Clinch River Remediation Investigation conducted by TVA under contract to
the United States Department of Energy. Data should be considered preliminary until validated by DOE.
94
-------
YEAR=92
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
CRM
1.0
SAG
30103
1.6
542
1500
0.04
1.2
CRM
1.0
SAG
30105
2.9
471
1048
<
0.01
0.4
CRM
1.0
SAG
30108
4.9
479
988
0.05
1.0
CRM
1.0
SAG
30109
1.4
407
617
<
0.01
<
0.1
CRM
1.0
SAG
30110
2.8
490
1134
<
0. 01
0.3
CRM
1.0
SAG
30112
3.6
485
1157
<
0.01
0.4
CRM
1.0
SAG
30113
1.7
496
1149
<
0. 01
0.2
CRM
1.0
SAG
30114
2.5
577
1699
0.03
0.9
CRM
1.0
SAG
30119
4.2
533
1579
<
0. 01
0.6
CRM
1.0
SAG
30120
2.6
486
1119
<
0.01
0.6
CRM
20.0
SAG
30121
3.2
463
1047
0. 01
0.3
CRM
20. 0
SAG
30122
2.6
485
1153
<
0. 01
0.1
CRM
20.0
SAG
30123
3.4
508
1297
<
0.01
0.2
CRM
20.0
SAG
30125
1.8
513
1438
<
0.01
<
0.1
CRM
20.0
SAG
30128
3.4
473
1010
<
0.01
0.2
CRM
20.0
SAG
30129
1.9
458
1009
<
0.01
<
0.1
CRM
20.0
SAG
30130
3.0
460
1009
<
0.01
<
0.1
CRM
20.0
SAG
30131
3.4
414
848
<
0. 01
<
0.1
CRM
20.0
SAG
30132
2.7
483
1158
<
0.01
0.2
CRM
20.0
SAG
30134
3.6
485
1113 ¦
0. 01
0.3
TRM
530.2
HYB
30007
10.0
578
2528
0. 07
0.9
TRM
530.2
HYB
30009
11.0
551
2104
0. 03
0.8
TRM
530.2
HYB
30012
13. 0
557
2210
0. 07
0.9
TRM
530.2
HYB
30014
13.0
579
2646
0. 08
0.9
TRM
530.2
HYB
30017
14.0
577
2655
0. 07
0.9
TRM
530.2
HYB
30018
7.6
524
1880
0. 08
0.9
TRM
530.2
HYB
30019
8.7
483
1393
0.04
0.6
TRM
530.2
HYB
30020
6.8
529
1395
0.10
1.2
TRM
530.2
STB
30002
6.0
785
5150
0.07
2.6
TRM
530.2
STB
30004
9.4
658
2668
0.09
1.0
TRM
530.2
CHC
30021
11. 0
695
4178
<
0. 01
5.6
TRM
530.2
CHC
30023
10. 0
641
3819
0.27
2.9
TRM
530.2
CHC
30026
2.7
452
825
<
0. 01
1.0
TRM
530.2
CHC
30027
5.0
421
603
<
0. 01
0.6
TRM
530.2
CHC
30028
6.7
510
1172
0.11
1.5
TRM
530.2
CHC
¦30031
4.5
460
827
0. 02
1.0
TRM
530.2
CHC
30032
2.4
485
909
0.06
1.1
TRM
530.2
CHC
30033
5.3
555
1930
0.25
2.7
TRM
530.2
CHC
30035
4 . 0
400
470
<
0. 01
0.3
TRM
530.2
CHC
30036
2.6
380
407
<
0.01
0.3
TRM
559. 6
CHC
30037
12.0
687
3563
0.20
2.2
TRM
559.6
CHC
30040
6.0
509
1172
0.18
2.1
TRM
559. 6
CHC
30041
14 . 0
634
3092
0.37
3.8
TRM
559. 6
CHC
30043
0.7
1559
562
<
0. 01
1.0
TRM
559.6
CHC
30044
7.2
526
1768
0.22
2.2
TRM
559.6
CHC
30047
2.5
556
1455
<
0.01
1.0
TRM
559. 6
CHC
30048
0.3
427
497
<
0. 01
0.2
TRM
559.6
CHC
30049
15.0
536
1292
0.10
2.0
TRM
559.6
CHC
30050
9.7
495
1077
<
0.01
3.5
TRM
559. 6
CHC
30051
1.2
482
926
<
0. 01
1.1
TRM
570.0
WHB
30052
1.3
345
483
0.02
0.7
TRM
570.0
WHB
30053
7.2
329
517
<
0. 01
0.3
TRM
570. 0
WHB
30054
7.8
394
744
0. 08
1.7
TRM
570.0
WHB
30055
2.3
345
505
<
0.01
0.5
TRM
570. 0
WHB
30056
3.9
352
570
<
0. 01
0.6
TRM
570.0
WHB
30057
5.8
362
639
0.05
1.2
TRM
570.0
WHB
30058
0.6
355
527
<
0.01
0.4
TRM
570. 0
WHB
30061
4.4
370
674
<
0.01
1.2
TRM
570.0
WHB
30062
0.4
395
619
<
0. 01
<
0.1
TRM
570.0
WHB
30063
4.0
345
552
<
0.01
0.5
95
-------
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
TRM
600.0
STB
30074
7.6
470
1198
<
0.01
<
0.1
TRM
600.0
STB
30076
7.9
580
2174
<
0.01
1.5
TRM
600.0
STB
30079
6.9
555
2182
0.05
1.2
TRM
600. 0
STB
30081
5.6
562
2292
<
0.01
1.1
TRM
600. 0
STB
30086
2.7
552
1887
<
0.01
0.7
TRM
600.0
STB
30088
6.8
563
1562
0.07
1.3
TRM
600.0
STB
30091
9.3
498
1311
0.06
1.0
TRM
600.0
STB
30092
4.4
571
1961
0.05
1.0
TRM
600.0
CHC
30064
4.1
438
585
<
0.01
0.4
TRM
600. 0
CHC
30065
3.9
360
464
<
0.01
1.2
TRM
600. 0
CHC
30066
1.0
420
529
<
0.01
1.4
TRM
600.0
CHC
30067
1.9
395
492
<
0.01
1.8
TRM
600.0
CHC
30068
5.8
538
1732
<
0.01
1.0
TRM
600.0
CHC
30069
5.0
590
2168
<
0.01
6.2
TRM
600. 0
CHC
30070
9.9
510
1412
<
0.01
0.9
TRM
600.0
CHC
30071
7.4
520
1419
<
0.01
1.7
TRM
600. 0
CHC
30072
3.1
570
701
0.10
2.9
TRM
600.0
CHC
30073
1.9
421
685
0.07
1.8
TRM
600. 0
SAG
30093
3.4
390
498
0.01
0.3
TRM
600.0
SAG
30094
4.0
475
1164
0.02
0.2
TRM
600. 0
SAG
30095
3.2
520
1403
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
600. 0
SAG
30096
3.8
432
1036
<
0.01
<
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
30097
2.2
450
943
<
0.01
0.1
TRM
600. 0
SAG
30098
2.3
485
1186
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
600. 0
SAG
30099
1.3
476
1032
<
0.01
<
0.1
TRM
600.0
SAG
30100
2.9
513
1383
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
600. 0
SAG
30101
3.1
440
1027
<
0.01
0.2
TRM
600.0
SAG
30102
2.6
484
1231
<
0.01
0.2
96
-------
Table 3.4-2 Summary of lengths, total weights, and percent lipids of catfish from Watts Bar
Reservoir, 1992 and previous years.
Year
Length
Range
Mean
Length
Weight
Range
Mean
Weight
% Lipid
Range
Mean%
Lipid
TRM 530/532
1988
398-706
531
494-4210
1763
0.7-16.0
4.6
1989'
342-562
465
320-1695
1033
1.0-5.0
2.9
1990
354-560
423
322-2110
700
0.2-7.1
3.1
1991
464-609
515
899-2323
1342
1.6-11.0
5.3
1992
380-695
500
407-4178
1514
2.4-11.0
5.4
TRM545
1991
385-555
451
548-1358
898
1.4-11.4
3.9
1992"
*
*
*
*
*
*
TRM 557-565
1987
310-561
470
239-1786
1103
1.4-3.8
2.5
1988
390-657
492
411-2765
1124
0.9-13.0
5.5
1989*
347-500
398
324-1015
544
0.8-4.3
2.1
1990
341-544
438
282-1521
838
0.2-6.0
3.2
1991
488-653
557
1149-2812
1571
0.4-20.0
7.2
1992
427-1559
641
497-3563
1540
0.3-15.0
6.9
TRM 570/573
1987
436-640
492
806-2814
1225
1.5-8.3
4.9
1988
346-615
450
264-2425
929
0.2-7.6
3.7
1989
339-649
466
431-2742
1063
1.5-6.4
3.9
1990
427-512
473
627-1557
930
0.2-8.7
3.5
1991
391-603
505
537-1815
1189
1.0-15.0
5.7
1992"
*
*
*
*
*
*
TRM 598/600
1987
360-523
457
336-1330
757
3.3-7.3
5.3
1988
452-659
504
829-2957
1289
2.1-8.5
5.2
1989
382-666
514
425-3229
1437
0.8-14.0
5.9
1990
325-600
436
208-3246
912
0.7-14.0
3.8
1991
304-584
446
466-1881
967
1.1-11.0
5.1
1992
360-590
476
464-2168
1018
1.0-9.9
4.4
CRM 0.5/2.0
1988
435-605
510
745-2262
1278
0.1-11.0
5.3
1989*
368-620
435
393-2380
794
1.0-5.8
3.3
1990
365-529
437
361-1854
846
2.1-8.2
4.9
1991
475-564
516
585-2151
1199
1.5-14.0
6.5
1992"
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRM 9
1989*
400-523
440
521-1505
755
0.4-6.4
3.5
1990*
371-574
451
402-2152
835
0.1-7.3
1.7
1991*
390-514
436
450-1334
725
0.9-7.2
4.4
1992*
390-528
439
506-1494
767
0.9-5.12
2.7
CRM 20/21
1988
370-790
513
406-6118
1774
1.0-11.5
3.8
1989"
374-530
443
414-1321
736
0.3-7.0
3.3
1990*
370-520
429
373-996
588
0.1-3.1
1.3
1991*
405-502
457
465-1003
760
0.1-6.2
2.6
1992*
374-581
447
452-1985
809
0.2-5.1
3.0
a
b.
ORNLdata
Channel catfish collected in 1992 by TVA for DOE as part of Clinch River Remediation
Investigation, data not available at the time this report was prepared.
-------
Table 3.4-3 Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on lipid content and total weight in
catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1988-1992.
Lipid content Location
Year
Interaction
CATFISH
REGW Multiple Range Test*
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
0.5695
0.0005 1989 1990 1988 1992 1991
0.4903
Total Weight Location 0.9156
Year 0.0001
Interaction 0.0400 Significant Interaction
* Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
98
-------
Table 3.4-4 Summary of total PCB concentrations (ng/g) in catfish fillets from Watts Bar
Reservoir, 1987 to 1992.
TRM 530-532
TRM 545
TRM 557-562
TRM 570-573
TRM 598-600
CRM 0 5-2 0
CRM 9 0-9 3
CRM 19-20
1987
Range
0.1-4.4
0.9-3.0
0.4-3.1
Mean
1.4
2.1
1.5
Number > 2.0)ig/g
1
6
3
Number offish
6
10
10
1988
Range
0.1-4.3
1.3-7.5
0.1-7.4
0.8-4.4
0.1-4.6
0.2-2.4
Mean
1.4
2.7
2.1
2.4
2.2
0.6
Number > 2.0fig/g
4
6
4
5
4
1
Number of fish
10
10
10
10
8
8
1989
Range
0.2-1.5*
0.1-0.5*
0.2-2.5
0.4-4.2
0.2-3.8*
0.3-2.1*
0.9-3.1*
Mean
0.8
0.3
1.3
1.8
1.0
0.8
1.2
Number > 2.0fig/g
0
0
3
2
1
1
1
Number offish
10
9
10
7
10
8
8
1990
Range
<0.1-2.7
<0.1-1.8
<0.1-2.2
0.3-5.8
0.2-4.2
0.2-0.8*
0.5-1.1*
Mean
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.6
1.1
0.4
0.8
Number > 2.0|ig/g
1
0
1
3
1
0
0
Number of fish
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
1991
Range
0.8-2.9"
0.3-3.6
0.8-4.011
0.7-2.4"
0.5-4.4
1.2-5.2"
0.2-2.2*
0.4-2.4*
Mean
1.6
1.1
2.3
1.4
1.4
2.6
1.1
1.4
Number > 2.0^g/g
3
1
6
2
2
8
1
1
Number of fish
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
1992
Range
0.3-5.6
0.2-3.8
0.4-6.2
0.36-3.9*
<0.1-1.1"
Mean
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.3
0.4
Number > 2.0(jg/g
3
6
2
2
0
Number offish
10
(20)"
10
(20)b
10
(19)"
8
8
a. ORNL data
b. number in () is number of fish collected for DOE, data available autumn 1993
c. 20 additional channel catfish were collected from CRM 20 in spring 1993 for DOE, data not
available at the time this report was prepared
d. These results are part of the Clinch River Remediation Investigation conducted by TVA under
contract to the United States Department of Energy. Data should be considered preliminary until
validated by DOE.
99
-------
Table 3 .4-5 Results of One-Way Analysis of Variance used to compare location differences in
PCB concentrations in channel catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
Year
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a
significant
relationship
between analyte
and parameter)
Decision based Analysis of
on preliminary covariance (test Analysis of
test of parallel lines) covariance results
1991 Lipid content Yes"
(P>F = 0.0024)
Weight
Yes
(P>F = 0.0053)
Adjust for
lipid"
Adjust for
weight
P>F = 0.1850
lines parallel
P>F = 0.0259
Sites are
difFerentb
1992
Lipid content
Weight
Yes
(P>F = 0.0011)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0001)
Adjust for
lipid0
Adjust for
weight
P>F = 0.0048
lines not parallel
P>F = 0.0217
lines not parallel
a. Since preliminary tests indicated adjusting for both lipids and weight, a test was conducted where lipids
and weight were considered together. This test indicated that neither needed to be adjusted for.
Therefore, only weight was adjusted for since the final model for weight has a higher RJ and the
preliminary test indicated parrallel lines.
b. TRM 545 TRM 570 TRM 530 TRM 600 TRM 560 CRM 1
c. Since preliminaiy tests indicated adjusting for both lipids and weight, a test was conducted where lipids
and weight were considered together. This test indicated that both lipid content and weight needed to be
adjusted for.
100
-------
Figure 3.4-1 Mean PCB concentrations ^g/g) in catfish from individual sites, TRM 530-532, TRM 557-562, TRM 570-573 and TRM
598-600, on Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987-1992
TRM 530-532
TRM 557-562
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TRM 570-573
TRM 598-600
3
3
-------
Figure 3.4-2 Mean PCB concentrations (jig/g) in catfish from individual sites, CRM 0.5-2.0, CRM 9.0-9.3, and CRM 19.0-20.5, on Watts
Bar Reservoir, 1987-1992
1987
CRM 0.5-2.0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
3
25
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1987
CRM 9.0-9.3
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
CRM 19.0-20.5
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
-------
Table 3 .4-6 Summary of lengths, total weights, and percent lipids of sauger from Watts Bar
Reservoir, 1992 and previous years.
Length
Mean
Weight
Mean
% Lipid
Mean %
Year
Range
Length
Range
Weight
Range
Lipid
TRM 598-600
1989
400-556
463
554-1581
979
1.2-4.7
2.4
1991
373-445
402
475-968
627
1.4-3.3
2.2
1992
390-520
467
498-1403
1090
1.3-4.0
2.9
CRM 0.5-2.0
1989
405-568
486
699-2201
1402
2.0-5.2
3.8
1991
427-540
495
801-1472
1190
1.8-6.9
4.2
1992
407-577
497
617-1699
1199
1.4-4.9
2.8
CRM 19.0-20.5
1991
333-428
381
318-777
548
1.3-3.1
2.2
1992
414-513
474
848-1438
1108
1.8-3.6
2.9
103
-------
Table 3.4-7 Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on lipid content and total weight in
sauger from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1988-1992.
Lipid content Location
Year
Interaction
Total Weight Location
Year
Interaction
SAUGER
REGW Multiple Range Test*
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
0.0104
0.8152
0.0034 Significant Interaction
0.0001
0.0001
0.0004 Significant Interaction
* Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different
104
-------
Table 3.4-8 Summary of total PCB concentrations (|ig/g) in sauger fillets from Watts Bar
Reservoir, 1987 to 1992.
TRM 530-532 TRM 545 TRM 557-562 TRM 570-573 TRM 598-600 CRM 0 5-20 CRM 9 0-9 3 CRM 19-205
1987
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0fig/g
Number offish
1988
Range
Mean 1.7»
Number > 2.0ng/g
Number offish
1989
Range 0.1-0.9 0.2-0.5
Mean 0.3 0.3
Number > 2.0(ig/g 0 0
Number of fish 9 8
1990
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0fig/g
Number of fish
1991
Range 0.1-0.2 0.2-1.7 0.2-0.2
Mean 0.1 0.8 0.2
Number > 2.0jig/g 0 0 0
Number offish 10 9 2
1992
Range 0.1-0.3 0.1-1.2 0.1-0.3
Mean 0.2 0.6 0.2
Number >2.0(1^ 0 0 0
Number offish 10 10 10
value is the result of a composite sample
105
-------
Table 3.4-9 Results of One-Way Analysis of Variance used to compare location differences in
PCB concentrations in sauger from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
Year
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a
significant
relationship
between analyte
and parameter)
Decision
based on
preliminary
test
If ANOVA
Analysis of
covariance (test
of parallel lines)
Analysis of
covariance
results
1991 Lipid content No
(P>F = 0.0901)
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.9669)
Use P>F = 0.00133 N/A
ANOVA sites are different
Use P>F = 0.00133 N/A
ANOVA sites are different
N/A
N/A
1992 Lipid content No
(P>F = 0.3514)
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.8725)
Use
ANOVA
Use
ANOVA
P>F = 0.0002b
sites are different
P>F = 0.0002"
sites are different
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
a. TRM 600 CRM 20 CRM 1
b. CRM 20 TRM 600 CRM 1
106
-------
Figure 3.4-3 Mean PCB concentrations (fig/g) in sauger from individual sites, TRM 598-600, CRM 0.5-2.0, and CRM 19.0-20.5, on
Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987-1992
TRM 598-600
CRM 0.5-2.0
1987
1988 1989 1990 1991
1992
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
CRM 19.0-20.5
1987
1988 1989 1990 1991
1992
-------
Table 3.4-10 Summary of lengths, total weights, and percent lipids of striped bass/hybrids from
Watts Bar Reservoir, 1992 and previous years.
Length
Mean
Weight
Mean
% Lipid
Mean%
Year
Range
Length
Range
Weight
Range
Lipid
TRM 530/532
1988
420-795
599
905-7135
3226
7.1-14.0
12.0
1989
364-656
512
666-3512
1919
9.4-17.0
11.8
1990
408-667
519
630-2442
1870
5.3-13.0
8.8
1991
475-766
540
1357-5260
2097
4.1-9.8
6.8
1992
483-785
582
1393-5150
2463
6.0-14.0
10.0
TRM573
1987
535-974
653
2258-11374
4446
6.6-15.0
10.37
TRM 598/600
1987
442-840
602
1047-8900
3414
9.4-16.0
11.9
1990
448-840
640
948-8668
3627
4.3-13.0
10.6
1991
429-799
513
958-6342
1891
5.5-12.0
8.1
1992
470-580
544
1198-2292
1821
2.7-9.3
6.4
CRM 20/21
1990
441-845
675
1065-7552
4264
5.2-11.0
7.4
1991
454-994
515
899-2323
1343
1.6-11.0
5.3
108
-------
Table 3.4-11 Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects) and
REGW Multiple Range Test on lipid content and total weight in
striped bass/hybrids from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1988-1992.
STRIPED BASS/HYBRID
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test*
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
Year
Interaction
0.6055
0.0410
0.0033
Significant Interaction
Total Weight
Location
Year
Interaction
0.9143
0.1322
0.0144
Not
Significantly
Different
* Years or locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
109
-------
Table 3.4-12 Summary of total PCB concentrations (fig/g) in striped bass/hybrid fillets from
Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987 to 1992.
TRM 530-532
TRM545
TRM 557-562 TRM 570-573 TRM 598-600 CRM 0 5-2 0 CRM 9.0-9 3 CRM 19-20 5
1987
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0|ig/g
Number of fish
1.4-4.8
2.9
5
7
0.3-4.8
1.5
2
10
1988
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0|ig/g
Number of fish
0.3-4.8
2.0
3
10
1989
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0ng/g
Number of fish
0.3-0.8
0.6
0
10
1990
Range
Mean
Number > 2 0(ig/g
Number of fish
<0.1-4.7
1.0
1
10
0.4-2.6
1.1
1
10
0.5-2.2
1.2
1
10
1991
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0ng/g
Number of fish
0.3-1.2
0.6
0
10
0.4-1.8
0.6
0
0.4-10.1
2.4
2
10
1992
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0fig/g
Number offish
0.6-2.6
1.1
1
10
(15)-
0.1-1.5
1.0
0
8
(15)*
(15)"
a. 15 fish collected from TRM 545 and CRM 2.0 for DOE autumn 1992, data not available at the time this
report was prepared
b. 15 fish collected for DOE spring 1993, data not available at the time this report was prepared
110
-------
Figure 3.4-4 Mean PCB concentrations (fig/g) in striped bass/hybrid from individual sites, TRM 530-532, TRM 598-600, and
CRM 19.0-20.5, on Watts Bar Reservoir, 1987-1992
TRM 530-532
1987
1988 1989 1990 1991
1992
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
TRM 598-600
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
CRM 19.0-20.5
1987
1988 1989 1990 1991
1992
-------
Table 3.4-13 Results of statistical tests used to compare location and year differences in PCB concentrations in channel catfish,
sauger, and striped bass from Watts Bar Reservoir 1988-1992.
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between Analysis of
analyte and Decision based on ^QyA covariance (test of Analysis of
Species Parameter parameter) preliminary test parallel lines) covariance results
Channel Catfish
Sauger
Striped Bass
Lipid Content
Weight
Lipid Content
Weight
Lipid Content
Weight
Yes
(P>F = 0.0001)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0001)
No
(P>F = 0.0629)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0021)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0098)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0059)
Adjust for lipids N/A
Adjust for weight N/A
Do not adjust N/A
Adjust for weight N/A
Adjust for lipids N/A
Adjust for weight N/A
P>F = 0.0006
lines not parallel
P>F = 0.6044
lines parallel
N/A
P>F = 0.0069
lines not parallel
P>F = 0.0057
lines not parallel
P>F = 0.6184
lines parallel
N/A
-------
3.5 Fort Loudoun Reservoir
Contamination of catfish (mostly channel catfish) and largemouth bass with PCBs in Fort
Loudoun Reservoir, especially the Little River embayment, has been known for several years.
Several warnings and advisories (the latest 1993; Appendix C) have been issued by TDEC against
consumption of catfish and certain largemouth bass from Fort Loudoun Lake; the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) has banned commercial fishing for catfish there.
A series of samples of catfish was collected throughout Fort Loudoun Reservoir in 1981,
and PCB concentrations above 2.0 |ig/g were found at four of five stations. The worst conditions
were at Little River, where 62 of 64 catfish had levels above 2.0 |ig/g and the mean concentration
was 6.6; the second-highest level (4.5 |ig/g) was found at TRM 628. In 1985, sampling was
expanded to seven stations (Dycus, Fehring, and Hickman 1987). In catfish that year, PCB levels
above 2.0 jig/g were found at five locations, with the highest level in Little River; the mean
concentration from ten fish there was 4.4 |ig/g, with seven of those above 2.0 (ig/g. A small
number of bass at five of the stations had PCB concentrations above 2.0 ng/g.
Beginning in 1987, catfish and bass samples for PCBs were confined to the Little River
embayment, (the area considered to be the primary source of PCBs in Fort Loudoun Reservoir)
and an area in the main body of the reservoir (TRM 628), a few miles downstream from the
confluence of Little River and the Tennessee River. In 1987, PCB levels in catfish showed a
considerable decrease from those in 1985, although the mean concentration at both locations was
still slightly above 2.0 jig/g. These lower levels in 1987 were interpreted as a possible indication
that PCB levels in Fort Loudoun Reservoir catfish might be decreasing over time. However,
113
-------
results in 1988 contradicted that when the mean concentration at Little River station rose to 3.5
(ig/g, and eight of ten catfish from there had levels above 2.0 |ig/g. PCB concentrations in catfish
from TRM 628 were similar to those found at that station in 1987; concentrations in largemouth
bass from the same station were lower in 1988 than 1987.
Samples were collected in autumn of 1989 to examine the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations in Fort Loudoun. Study design for 1989 included a special effort to evaluate the
effects of different fillet techniques on PCB concentrations. The test was conducted on 20 catfish
from Little River and 20 from TRM 628 (Hall and Dycus, 1991). Ten largemouth bass were also
collected from TRM 628 and processed the same as in previous years. Mean PCB concentrations
in catfish in 1989 were 2.1 and 4.2 |ig/g at TRM 628 and Little River, respectively; these results
were higher than in 1987 and 1988. At Little River, the mean concentration found in 1989 was
similar to that found in 1985 (4.4 (ig/g). Of the 20 catfish from Little River, 16 had PCB levels of
more than 2.0 (ig/g; at TRM 628, 11 of the 20 fish were above 2 .0 ng/g. Average PCB
concentration in the ten bass collected in 1989 was 0.4 |J.g/g; the highest level was 0.8 jig/g.
The emphasis for 1990 in Fort Loudoun Reservoir was to continue trend studies in catfish
at TRM 628. Sampling was discontinued in Little River in 1990. The location at TRM 628
would serve as the long-term site for trend study. In contrast to 1989, the mean PCB
concentration for ten catfish collected from TRM 628 in 1990 was 1.0 ng/g, with a maximum
concentration of 1.9 (ig/g. These levels were the lowest levels recorded at this station.
This document describes the results of PCB analyses on catfish from on location on Fort
Loudoun Reservoir, TRM 624, in the autumn of 1991 and 1992 and compares them to results
from previous years. The location at TRM 624 replaced the TRM 628 site to capitalize on other
114
-------
sampling activities. The results were shared with cooperating state and federal agencies as soon
as they were received from the analytical laboratory, and decisions on updating existing advisories
and selection of study design for autumn 1993 were necessarily made months before this
document was prepared. The latest Public Health Advisory for Fort Loudoun Reservoir is
included in Appendix C.
Methods
In 1991, one fillet from each of the ten channel catfish collected from TRM 624 was sent
to the TVA laboratory in Chattanooga for analysis of lipids, chlordane and PCBs; the remaining
fillets were retained for future use, if needed. The same procedure was followed in 1992 with 9
channel catfish collected at TRM 624.
White bass and carp are commonly caught for consumption from the area near TRM 651.
So PCB levels in these species were sampled at TRM 651 in 1992. Ten fish of each species were
subjected to the same laboratory analyses done for catfish.
All procedures involved in field sampling, processing, laboratory and data analysis were
similar to those described in Appendix B and will not be repeated here.
Statistical analyses for chlordane concentrations were not reported due to interference
between PCB 1254 and cis-chlordane and interference between PCB 1260 and trans-nanochlor.
As a result, if PCB 1254 and/or 1260 were present, the appropriate chlordane isomers would be
reported as "interference" and no concentration provided. In such cases the reported levels of
chlordane would be conservative. This situation was recognized while analyzing the 1991
115
-------
samples. Hence, chlordane concentrations for all previous studies would over-estimate the true
concentration.
Results and Recommendations
Results of the 1991 and 1992 studies and comparison of these results to previous studies
are shown in Tables 3.5-1 through 3.5-5. The trend study using channel catfish from TRM 624
found that lipid content and fish weight were not significantly different for 1992 and previous
years.
PCB concentrations in catfish from 1991 were among the highest levels recorded for this
location. Seventy percent of the catfish contained levels of PCBs at or above the 2.0 ng/g level.
PCB concentrations in catfish collected in 1992 were lower, with only 30% of the catfish
containing levels above 2.0 fig/g. The preliminary test examining PCB concentrations among
years, found that weight affected the concentration of PCBs in catfish. The analysis of covariance
indicated that, although there were significant differences among years, no temporal pattern was
perceptible. PCB concentrations in white bass and carp collected from TRM 651 in 1992 were
relatively low.
Ten catfish were collected from TRM 624 in 1993. This data will further define the trend
in PCB concentrations at this location.
116
-------
Table 3.5-1 Physical information and concentrations (ng/g) of lipids, chlordane, and PCBs in
individual fish fillets from Fort Loudoun Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
YEAR=91
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
TRM 624.0
CHC
32008
2.3
407
464
<
0.01
1.6
TRM 624.0
CHC
32010
4.4
434
647
<
0.01
1.4
TRM 624.0
CHC
32013
2.7
488
464
<
0. 01
2.0
TRM 624.0
CHC
32015
3.2
545
1661
<
0.01
2.7
TRM 624.0
CHC
32018
5.6
530
1236
<
0.01
4.6
TRM 624.0
CHC
32020
0.8
538
1513
<
0. 01
2.0
TRM 624.0
CHC
32023
4.1
523
1340
<
0. 01
2.8
TRM 624.0
CHC
32024
3.2
605
2139
<
0. 01
2.8
TRM 624.0
CHC
32025
3.2
417
561
<
0. 01
3.1
TRM 624.0
CHC
32026
3.4
401
4 61
<
0. 01
1.9
YEAR=92
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
TRM 624.0
CHC
30175
1.2
520
1291
0.09
1.7
TRM 624.0
CHC
30176
5.8
4 67
715
0.23
4.2
TRM 624.0
CHC
30177
1.9
457
865
0.14
2.7
TRM 624.0
CHC
30178
1.3
442
635
0. 01
1.1
TRM 624.0
CHC
30179
3.8
435
710
0. 05
2.1
TRM 624.0
CHC
30180
0.5
404
536
<
0.01
< 0.1
TRM 624.0
CHC
30181
1.6
411
461
0. 07
1.5
TRM 624.0
CHC
30182
6.1
368
430
0. 09
1.6
TRM 624.0
CHC
30183
1.8
386
468
0. 04
1.1
TRM 651.0
WHB
30184
5.2
327
493
0. 01
0.3
TRM 651.0
WHB
30185
4.3
331
493
0.10
1.2
TRM 651.0
WHB
30186
4.9
350
573
0.04
0.5
TRM 651.0
WHB
30189
4.7
353
586
0. 07
0.6
TRM 651.0
WHB
30190
4.0
331
512
0.03
0.4
TRM 651.0
WHB
30191
3.6
356
633
0.08
0.6
TRM 651.0
WHB
30192
5.6
331
575
0.03
0.3
TRM 651.0
WHB
30193
4.4
335
514
0. 08
0.7
TRM 651.0
WHB
30194
3.6
340
504
0. 05
0.4
TRM 651.0
WHB
30195
5.6
318
460
0. 02
0.3
TRM 652.0
C
30196
5.7
520
1825
0.05
0.7
TRM 652.0
C
30198
12.0
482
1649
0. 06
0.7
TRM 652.0
C
30201
6.7
470
1395
0. 02
0.5
TRM 652.0
C
30203
9.9
469
1410
0.08
0.7
TBM 652.0
C
30206
4.8
515
1508
<
0. 01
0.2
TRM 652.0
C
30208
6.9
509
1672
0.04
0.8
TRM 652.0
C
30212
3.2
501
1803
0. 02
0.4
TRM 652.0
C
30213
6.1
520
1937
0.03
0.5
TRM 652.0
C
30214
7.3
470
1518
0.04
0.6
TRM 652.0
C
30215
6.8
438
1219
<
0. 01
0.9
117
-------
Table 3.5-2 Summary of lengths, total weights, and % lipids of catfish, carp, and white bass from Fort Loudoun Reservoir8, collected
from 1985 to 1992.
Weight Range Mean Weight Length Range Mean Length % Lipid Range Mean % Lipid
Catfish
1985 270-2720 834 330-655 441 2.8-5.6 3.9
1987 580-2275 1385 410-645 507 0.2-11.0 4.5
1988 538-1732 968 391-577 465 0.8-11.0 5.4
1989 292-2169 1002 344-573 474 0.6-14.0 4.4
1990 375-1720 866 375-545 458 0.3-5.0 2.5
1991 461-2139 1049 401-605 489 0.8-5.6 3.3
1992 430-1291 679 368-520 432 0.5-6.1 2.7
Carp
1992 1219-1937 1594 438-520 489 3.2-12.0 6.9
White Bass
1987b
TRM628 162-180 181 221-239 233 b 3.1
TRM640 275-606 435 259-330 302 b 5.8
1992 460-633 534 318-356 337 3.6-5.6 4.6
a.
b.
Catfish were sampled from TRMs 624-629. White bass and carp were collected from TRM 651 in 1992.
Five white bass were collected from TRMs 628 and 640 in 1987. Each set of five was analyzed as a composite sample.
-------
Table 3.5-3 Results of one-way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test
examining differences among years in lipid content and total weight
in catfish from TRM 624-629, Fort Loudoun Reservoir.
CATFISH
REGW Multiple Range Test3
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content Year
0.2028
Not
Significantly
Different
Total Weight Year
0.1003
Not
Significantly
Different
a. Years underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
119
-------
Table 3.5-4 Summary of PCB concentrations in catfish, carp, and white bass collected in Fort
Loudoun Reservoir3, from 1985 to 1992.
Catfish Carp White Bass
198S
Range 0.2-2.8
Mean
1.4
Number > 2.0ng/g
2
Number of fish
10
1987
TRM 628 TRM 640
Range
0.1-4.5
b b
Mean
1.5
<0.1 <0.1
Number > 2.0ng/g
2
b b
Number of fish
10
5 5
1988
Range
0.2-4.4
Mean
1.2
Number > 2.0ng/g
1
Number of fish
10
1989
Range
0.6-4.3
Mean
2.3
Number > 2.0fig/g
11
Number offish
20
1990
Range
0.3-1.9
Mean
1
Number > 2.0jig/g
0
Number of fish
10
1991
Range
1.4-4.6
Mean
2.5
Number > 2.0ng/g
7
Number of fish
10
1992
Range
0.1-4.2
0.2-0.9 0.3-1.2
Mean
1.8
0.6 0.5
Number > 2.0|ig/g
3
0 0
Number offish
9
10 10
a. Catfish were collected from TRMs 624-629. White bass and carp were collected from TRM 651.
b. Five white bass were collected from TRMs 628 and 640 in 1987. Each set of five was analyzed as a
composite sample.
120
-------
Table 3.5-5 Results of statistical tests used to compare yearly differences in PCB
concentrations in catfish from Fort Loudoun Reservoir, 1985-1992.
Analyte
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a
significant
relationship
between analyte
and parameter)
Decision based Analysis of
on preliminary covariance (test Analysis of
test of parallel lines) covariance results
PCB Lipid content
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.2030)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0212)
Do not adjust
for lipid
Adjust for
weight
P>F = 0.8334
lines parallel
P>F = 0.0070
Years are
different
Years underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
1990 1988 1987 1985 1992 1989 1991
121
-------
3.6 Melton Hill Reservoir
Melton Hill Reservoir is currently in the trend study stage. A potential PCB problem (in
catfish only) was first documented in 1984. Two of the 22 catfish collected from Melton Hill
reservoir had detectable PCB concentrations (one in McCoy Branch, 1.0 ^g/g; one at Melton Hill
Dam, 4.7 ng/g) (TVA 1985). Since the latter was collected at the face of the dam, it could have
been transported from below the dam during navigation lock operations.
Results from the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study in 1987 found concentrations of
PCBs and chlordane that were sufficiently high to warrant more in-depth study (Dycus 1989a).
The five-fish composites from lower and mid-reservoir areas (CRMs 23 and 39) contained 1.2 and
2.0 jj.g/g PCBs and 0.16 (ig/g chlordane each.
In 1988, ten channel catfish were collected for individual analysis from each of three
stations: CRM 23, CRM 39, and CRM 50 (Dycus 1990c). In addition, a five-fillet composite of
largemouth bass was analyzed from both CRM 39 and CRM 50. Technical problems experienced
at the primary analytical laboratory (TDEC) resulted in the loss of all its PCB data on catfish from
CRMs 39 and 50. However, one sample each from those stations had been split with TVA and
ORNL labs, so some limited PCB information from those stations in 1988 was still available. The
ten channel catfish from the lower reservoir area (CRM 23 collected and analyzed by ORNL) had
an average PCB concentration of 0.52 jig/g, with a range of 0.10-1.6 (ig/g. The single catfish
samples from the other two reservoir areas had PCB concentrations ranging from 2.0-2.6 jj.g/g,
depending on the laboratory doing the analysis (Dycus 1990c). TVA and ORNL laboratories
122
-------
both reported a PCB concentration of 0.7 ng/g in the largemouth bass composite from CRM 39;
TVA reported <0.1 ng/g and ORNL reported 0.12 ng/g in the bass composite from CRM 50.
In 1989, ORNL collected 8 channel catfish each from CRM 23 and CRM 51. Only one of
these fish (CRM 51) had PCB levels above 2.0 [ig/g. In April 1989, the TDEC issued an advisory
against consumption of catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir (Dycus 1990c). The most recent
advisory is included in Appendix C.
The study was continued in 1990 - two of ten channel catfish collected by TVA at CRM
51 had PCB concentrations above 2.0 ng/g. The PCB values for channel catfish at CRM 23
collected and analyzed by ORNL had to be adjusted (actual PCB value X 1.5) to account for low
spike recoveries in Q/A samples.
This document describes the results of PCB analyses of catfish collected from Melton Hill
Reservoir in the autumns of 1991 and 1992 by TVA and ORNL and comparisons with previous
studies. The results were shared with cooperating state and Federal agencies as soon as they were
received from the analytical laboratory. Decisions on updating existing advisories and selection of
study design for autumn 1993 were necessarily made months before this document was prepared.
Methods
In 1991, eight channel catfish were collected at CRM 24 by ORNL and ten were collected
at CRMs 39 and 51 by TVA. A similar pattern was repeated in 1992, except that in addition to
the eight channel catfish collected by ORNL from CRM 24, TVA collected ten channel catfish
from that location to be shared among the TVA, ORNL, and TDEC labs for QA purposes.
Results for 1992 reported in this document are those from the TVA lab unless otherwise noted.
123
-------
All procedures involved in field sampling and processing, laboratory and data analyses were
similar to those described Appendix B and will not be repeated here.
Results and Recommendations
Results of the 1991 and 1992 intensive studies on Melton Hill Reservoir along with
comparisons to previous studies are presented in Tables 3.6-1 through 3.6-6. Data were
examined temporally and spatially. Lipid content of the channel catfish sampled at CRM 24 was
significantly lower than the other two sites in 1991, but there were no significant differences in
lipid content among sites in 1992. Catfish sampled in 1992 had significantly higher lipid content
than catfish sampled in 1989 and 1990. Catfish weight was not significantly different among sites
or years.
PCB concentrations were generally higher in 1991 than in previous years, with
concentrations in 1992 generally similar to previous years. Statistically there were no significant
differences among years or sites.
In 1993 TVA has collected three, five-fish composite samples of channel catfish from
three embayments near CRM 51. Additionally, TVA has collected five, three-fish composite
samples of channel catfish and five, three-fish composite samples of shad from CRM 51 as part of
a contract with the Department of Energy. ORNL will again collect eight channel catfish from
CRM 24.
124
-------
Table 3.6-1 Physical information and concentrations (ng/g) of lipids, chlordane, and PCBs in
individual fish fillets from Melton Hill Reservoir, 1991 and 1992.
YEAR=91
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
CRM
39.0
CHC
31966
6.4
492
935
<
0.01
0.2
CRM
39.0
CHC
31968
6.5
380
527
<
0. 01
0.3
CRM
39.0
CHC
31971
7.5
396
564
<
0.01
3.7
CRM
39.0
CHC
31973
8.8
498
1072
<
0.01
0.7
CRM
39.0
CHC
31976
11.0
598
2313
<
0. 01
3.7
CRM
39.0
CHC
31978
6.6
611
2581
<
0.01
1.7
CRM
39.0
CHC
31981
4.0
496
1243
<
0. 01
0.5
CRM
39.0
CHC
31982
6.4
471
814
<
0. 01
0.9
CRM
39.0
CHC
31983
6.5
589
814
<
0. 01
0.4
CRM
39.0
CHC
31984
5.0
512
1266
<
0. 01
1.7
CRM
51.0
CHC
31987
6.0
453
768
<
0. 01
2.0
CRM
51.0
CHC
31989
4.6
378
467
<
0. 01
0.3
CRM
51.0
CHC
31992
14.0
591
1223
<
0. 01
0.2
CRM
51.0
CHC
31994
2.6
482
872
<
0. 01
0.7
CRM
51.0
CHC
31997
8.6
435
681
<
0. 01
0.5
CRM
51.0
CHC
31999
15.0
474
931
<
0.01
0.7
CRM
51.0
CHC
32002
9.2
494
1118
<
0. 01
0.5
CRM
51.0
CHC
32003
9.7
441
111
<
0. 01
12.5
CRM
51.0
CHC
32004
5.3
493
1436
<
0. 01
0.3
CRM
51.0
CHC
32005
7.6
514
1397
<
0. 01
1.0
YEAR=92
SITE
SPECIES
LABID
LIPID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
CLOR
PCB
CRM
24.0
CHC
30137
3.8
436
747
0. 03
0.7
CRM
24.0
CHC
30138
9.6
593
2571
0.16
2.3
CRM
24.0
CHC
30139
6.6
427
662
0. 03
0.6
CRM
24.0
CHC
30140
3.9
392
489
0.02
0.5
CRM
24.0
CHC
30141
8.3
616
2323
0.13
1.8
CRM
24.0
CHC
30142
6.3
508
1242
0. 07
0.5
CRM
24.0
CHC
30143
3.2
498
1141
0.01
0.2
CRM
24.0
CHC
30144
11. 0
496
1167
0.08
0.6
CRM
24.0
CHC
30145
6.1
449
699
0. 07
0.8
CRM
24.0
CHC
30146
9.4
445
881
0.05
< 0.1
CRM
39.0
CHC
30149
13.0
515
1347
0.16
0.4
CRM
39.0
CHC
30151
5.9
439
900
0. 04
0.3
CRM
39.0
CHC
30152
11.0
432
797
0.05
0.5
CRM
39.0
CHC
30153
8.2
445
755
0. 03
0.4
CRM
39.0
CHC
30154
6.0
452
738
0.05
0.4
CRM
39.0
CHC
30155
8.9
480
902
0.04
0.3
CRM
39.0
CHC
30156
8.7
589
1767
0. 09
1.3
CRM
39.0
CHC
30159
8.1
578
2296
0.25
2.0
CRM
39.0
CHC
30161
4 . 9
629
2382
0.24
3.9
CRM
39.0
CHC
30164
8.8
709
3981
0.05
0.7
CRM
51.0
CHC
30165
13.0
485
1130
0.05
0.4
CRM
51.0
CHC
30166
4.4
488
1094
0. 02
0.6
CRM
51.0
CHC
30167
3.6
470
935
0.02
0.3
CRM
51.0
CHC
30168
14.0
436
736
0. 08
0.8
CRM
51.0
CHC
30169
4.6
445
765
0.05
0.2
CRM
51.0
CHC
30170
13.0
414
634
0.06
0.9
CRM
51.0
CHC
30171
6.0
392
497
0. 07
0.5
CRM
51.0
CHC
30172
9.1
459
372
0. 03
0.5
125
-------
Table 3.6-2 Summary of lengths, total weights, percent lipids, and PCB concentrations of catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir,
collected from 1989 to 1992.
CRM 23/24 *
CRM 39
CRM 51
CRM 23/24*
CRM 39
CRM 51
1989
1989
Weight Range
401-1695
419-4051
PCB Range
0.1-0.6
0.1-2.93
Mean Weight
810
1917
Mean PCB Concentration
0.3
0.8
Length Range
385-562
362-646
Number > 2.0ng/g
0
1
Mean Length
451
510
Number of fish
8
8
% Lipid Range
1.8-5.4
2.1-14.7
Mean % Lipid
3.6
7 1
1990
1990
Weight Range
409-2358
495-1226
603-1697
PCB Range
0.01-0.8(1.3)*
0.01-1.3
0.1-4.4
Mean Weight
1037
741
1105
Mean PCB Concentration
0.3 (0.5)
0.7
1.2
Length Range
391-616
396-509
408-592
Number > 2.0ng/g
0
0
2
Mean Length
476
439
489
Number offish
8
7
8
% Lipid Range
0-2 5
2.4-7.7
2.5-14.0
Mean % Lipid
0.6
5.3
7.9
1991
1991
Weight Range
406-2031
527-2581
467-1436
PCB Range
0.1-0.9
0.2-3.7
0.2-12.5
Mean Weight
871
1212
967
Mean PCB Concentration
0.3
2.5
1.9
Length Range
364-585
380-611
378-591
Number > 2.0ng/g
0
2
2
Mean Length
447
504
476
Number offish
8
10
10
% Lipid Range
1.3-5 2
4 0-110
2.6-15.0
Mean % Lipid
3.3
69
8.3
1992
1992
Weight Range
489-2571
738-3981
372-1130
PCB Range
0.1-2.3
0.3-3.9
0.2-0.9
Mean Weight
1192
1587
770
Mean PCB Concentration
0.8
1.1
0.5
Length Range
392-616
432-709
392-488
Number > 2.0jig/g
1
2
0
Mean Length
486
527
449
Number offish
10
10
8
% Lipid Range
3.2-11.0
4.9-13.0
3.6-14.0
Mean % Lipid
6.9
8.4
8.5
Fish collected and analyzed by ORNL; values in 0 are adjusted (actual PCB value X 1.5) to account for low spike recoveries in Q/A samples.
-------
Table 3.6-3 Results of two-way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test on
lipid content and total weight in catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir.
Lipid content Location
Year
Interaction
CATFISH
REGW Multiple Range Test8
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
0.0001 CRM 24 CRM 39 CRM 51
0.0031 1990 1989 1991 1992
0.161
Total Weight Location 0.2294 Not
Year 0.6468 Significantly
Interaction 0.042 Different
a. Years and locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Years and locations not so underscored were significantly different.
127
-------
Table 3.6-4
Results of one-way ANOVA and REGW Multiple Range Test on
lipid content and total weight in catfish collected from Melton Hill
Reservoir in 1991 and 1992.
1991
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test3
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
0.0011
CRM 24 CRM 39 CRM 51
Total Weight
Location
0.2666
1992
Not Significantly Different
P>F
REGW Multiple Range Test"
Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content
Location
0.4663
Not Significantly Different
Total Weight
Location
0.0628
Not Significantly Different
a. Locations underscored by the same lines were not significantly different at a = 0.05.
Locations not so underscored were significantly different.
128
-------
Table 3.6-5 Results of Two-Way Analysis of Variance used to compare yearly and location
differences in PCB concentrations in channel catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir,
1989 - 1992.
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a
significant
relationship
between analyte
and parameter)
Decision based
on preliminary
test
Analysis of
covariance (test
of parallel lines)
Analysis of
covariance results
Year Lipid content
Weight
Location Lipid content
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.1724)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0267)
No
(P>F = 0.1724)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0267)
Do not adjust
for lipid
Adjust for
weight
Do not adjust
for lipid
Adjust for
weight
P>F = 0.5422
lines parallel
P>F = 0.6313
Years are not
different
P>F = 0.5422 P>F = 0.1112
lines parallel Sites are not
different
129
-------
Table 3.6-6 Results of statistical tests used to compare location differences in PCB concentrations in channel catfish collected from
Melton Hill Reservoir in 1991 and 1992.
Year
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between
analyte and
parameter)
Decision based on
preliminary test
If ANOVA
Analysis of
covariance (test of
parallel lines)
Analysis of
covariance results
1991
Lipid Content No
(P>F = 0.5936)
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.3353)
Use Anova P>F = 0.1180 N/A
Locations Not
Significantly Different
Use Anova P>F = 0.1180 N/A
Locations Not
Significantly Different
N/A
N/A
1992
Lipid Content
Weight
No
(P>F = 0.2247)
Yes
(P>F = 0.0018)
Do Not Adjust
for Lipid
Adjust for Weight
N/A
N/A
N/A
P>F = 0.2289
Lines are Parallel
N/A
P>F = 0.9560
Locations Not
Significantly Different
-------
REFERENCES
Bates, J. A., D. L. Dycus, and G. E. Hall. 1992. "Reservoir Monitoring -1991 - Fish Tissue
Studies in the Tennessee Valley in 1990." TVA, River Basin Operations, Water
Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVAAVR-92/7
Dycus, Donald L. 1986. "North Alabama Water Quality Assessment: Volume VII -
Contaminants in Biota." TVA, Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development,
Air and Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee. TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/33.
Dycus, Donald L. 1988. "Levels of Selected Metals and PCBs in Channel Catfish from
Chickamauga Reservoir, 1987." TVA, River Basin Operations, Water Resources.
Dycus, Donald L. 1989a. "Results of Fish Tissue Screening Studies from Sites on the Tennessee
and Cumberland Rivers in 1987." TVA River Basin Operations, Water Resources.
Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB—89/5.
Dycus, Donald L. 1989b. "PCB Studies on Fish From Watts Bar, Ft. Loudoun, Tellico and
Chilhowee Reservoirs, 1987." TVA, River Basin Operations, Water Resources,
Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/AWR-89/10.
Dycus, Donald L. 1990a. "Results of PCB and Chlordane Analyses on Fish Collected from
Nickajack Reservoir in Jan-Feb 1989." TVA, River Basin Operations, Water Resources,
Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB-90/9.
Dycus, Donald L. 1990b. "Levels of Selected Metals and PCBs in Channel Catfish from
Chickamauga Reservoir, 1988." TVA, River Basin Operations, Water Resources.
Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB--90/3.
Dycus, Donald L. 1990c. "PCB Studies on Fish from Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, Tellico, and
Melton Hill Reservoir—1988." TVA River Basin Operations, Water Resources.
Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB—90/11.
Dycus, D. L., J. P. Fehring and G. D. Hickman. 1987. "PCB Concentrations in Fish and
Sediment from Fort Loudoun Reservoir--1985." Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of
Natural Resources and Economic Development, Knoxville, Tennessee.
TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/8.
Dycus, D. L. and G. D. Hickman. 1988. "PCB Levels in Fish from Fort Loudoun Reservoir, Fort
Loudoun Dam Tailrace, Tellico Reservoir, and Chilhowee Reservoir, Autumn 1986 to
Winter 1987." Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee.
TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/19.
131
-------
Dycus, D. L. and D. R. Lowery. 1986. "PCB Concentrations in Wilson Reservoir Catfish -
1985." Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Natural Resources and Economic
Development, Knoxville, Tennessee. TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/57.
Dycus, D. L. and D. R. Lowery. 1987. "PCB Concentrations in Wilson Reservoir Catfish -
1986." Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Natural Resources and Economic
Development, Knoxville, Tennessee. TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/2.
Dycus, D. L. and D. R. Lowery. 1988. "PCB Concentrations in Wilson Reservoir Catfish -
1987." Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee.
FWGPM. 1974. "Guidelines on Sampling and Statistical Methodologies for Ambient Pesticide
Monitoring." Federal Working Group on Pesticide Management. Washington, D.C.
October 1974.
Food and Drug Administration. 1987. "Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious Substances
in Human Food and Animal Substances." Industrial Programs Branch, Bureau of Foods.
(HFF-336) 200 C St. SW. Washington, D.C.
Gall, K. and Voiland, M. 1990. "Contaminants in Sport Fish: Managing Risks." See Grant
Extension Fact Sheet. Cornell Cooperative Extension. Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York.
Hall, G. E., and D. L. Dycus. 1991. "Fish Tissue Studies in the Tennessee Valley in 1989."
TVA, River Basin Operations, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
TVA/WR/AB—91/12.
Loar, J. M. 1991. "Fifth Annual Report on the ORNL Biological Monitoring and Abatement
Program." Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Loar, J. M. 1992. "Sixth Annual Report on the ORNL Biological Monitoring and Abatement
Program." Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ORNL/TN - 12083.
McCracken, W. E. 1983. "Edible Tissue Sampling for Fish Contaminant Analyses" in PCB's:
Human and Environmental Hazards. F. M. D'tri and M. A. Kamurin, Editors. Butterworth
Publishers, Toronto, Canada.
Travis, C. C., F. O. Hoffman, B. G. Baylock, K. L. Daniels, C. S. Gist and C. W. Weber, 1986.
"Preliminary Review of TVA Fish Sampling and Analysis Report." Task Group Five
Report, TVA 86/15, December 1986, pp. 901129.
TVA, 1985. "Instream Contaminant Study - Task 4 - Fish Sampling and Analysis."
ONRED/TVA/April 1985.
132
-------
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF TVA REPORTS
RELATING TO TOXICS IN FISH
NOTE: Copies of reports are available from:
Water Management Library
Tennessee Valley Authority
Haney Building 2C
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
(615) 751-7338
Fax:(615) 751-7479
133
-------
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF TVA REPORTS
RELATING TO TOXICS IN FISH
MONITORING OF MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN FISHES COLLECTED FROM PICKWICK
AND KENTUCKY RESERVOIRS MAY 1970 - FEBRUARY 1971 - April 1971
CONTROL AND CONFIDENCE INTERVAL CHARTS FOR MONITORING MERCURY
CONTAMINATION OF FISH - A. L. Jensen - June 1971
SUMMARY OF OCOEE RIVER WATER QUALITY, SEDIMENT, AND BIOLOGICAL DATA
COLLECTED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1975 - Ralph Brown and Dennis Meinert
I-WQ-76-1 - May 1976
EVALUATION OF THE MERCURY MONITORING PROGRAM FROM THE NORTH FORK HOLSTON
RIVER - Thomas W. Toole and Richard Ruane - E-WQ-76-2 -
September 1976
TRENDS IN THE MERCURY CONTENT OF FISH FROM KENTUCKY, PICKWICK, AND
CHICKAMAUGA RESERVOIRS 1970-1977 - Jack Milligan - I-WQ-78-15 -
December 1978
ANALYSIS OF MERCURY DATA COLLECTED FROM THE NORTH FORK OF THE HOLSTON
RIVER - Jack Milligan and Richard Ruane - TVA/EP-78/12 -
December 1978
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 1-DDT LEVELS IN IMPORTANT FISH SPECIES THROUGHOUT
WILSON, WHEELER, AND GUNTERSVILLE RESERVOIRS-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 2 FISH POPULATION ESTIMATES AND DDT
CONCENTRATIONS IN YOUNG-OF-YEAR FISHES FROM INDIAN CREEK AND HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH EMBAYMENTS OF WHEELER RESERVOIR-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING
BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER RESERVOIR,
ALABAMA-TASK 3-ASSESSMENT OF DDT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENTS
CORRESPONDING TO AREA-WIDE FISHERIES STUDIES-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 4-ASSESSMENT OF DDT CONCENTRATIONS AND OTHER
CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS IN REDSTONE ARSENAL VICINITY-Final Data Report -
August 1980
135
-------
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 5-AQUATIC BIOTRANSPORT (EXCLUDING
VERTEBRATES)-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 6-Vol. 1-HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT DATA-Final Data
Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 6-Vol II-HYDROLOGICAL AND SEDIMENTOLOGICAL
CALCULATIONS-DATA ANALYSIS-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 6-Vol III-HYDROLOGICAL AND SEDIMENTOLOGICAL
CALCULATIONS-INPUT DATA-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 7-ASSESSMENT OF DDT LEVELS OF SELECTED
VERTEBRATES IN AND ADJACENT TO WHEELER, WILSON, AND GUNTERSVILLE
RESERVOIRS (SPATIAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION)-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENT-Final Data Report - August 1980
TRENDS IN THE MERCURY CONCENTRATION IN LARGEMOUTH BASS, CARP, AND DRUM
FROM KENTUCKY AND PICKWICK RESERVOIRS 1970-1979 - Jack Milligan -
TVA/ONR/WRF-83/4 - May 1983
POLY CHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCB) CONCENTRATIONS IN CATFISH FROM FLEET
HOLLOW, WILSON RESERVOIR - Donald Dycus, Peter Hackney, and William Barr -
TVA/ONR/WRF-83/11 - May 1983
SUMMARY OF EXISTING WATER, SEDIMENT, FISH, AND SOIL DATA IN THE VICINITY
OF THE OAK RIDGE RESERVATION - August 1983
DETERMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONCENTRATION OF DDT IN SEDIMENT
AND CONCENTRATION OF DDT IN FISH FOR THE HSB-IC TRIBUTARY SYSTEM - January
1984
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES AFFECTING THE UPTAKE AND
LOSS OF DDT BY FISH FROM DDT CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS: REVIEW AND
EVALUATION OF LITERATURE PERTINENT TO HUNTSVILLE SPRING BRANCH-INDIAN
CREEK REMEDIAL ACTIONS - TVA/ONRED/AWR-84/9 - May 1984
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND METALS IN FISH FROM CHATTANOOGA CREEK AND NICKAJACK
RESERVOIR - Jack D. Milligan and Barney S. Neal - TVA/ONRED/AWR-85-1 - November 1984
136
-------
POLY CHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONTAMINATION OF FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR: A
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 1984 REVISION OF
LIMITS FOR PCB IN FISH FLESH - Neil Carriker and David McKinney - 1985
INSTREAM CONTAMINANT STUDY - TASK 4 - FISH SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS -
Prepared for USDOE, Oak Ridge, Tennessee - TVA/ONRED/April 1985
WATER QUALITY IN OCOEE NO. 1 RESERVOIR-VOLUME 1: SUMMARY REPORT - Janice
Cox - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/13 - January 1986
WATER QUALITY IN OCOEE NO. 1 RESERVOIR-VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL REPORT -
Janice Cox - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/13 - January 1986
HEAVY METAL AND PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENTS FROM SELECTED TV A
RESERVOIRS - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/35 - April 1986
NORTH ALABAMA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT: VOLUME VII-CONTAMINANTS IN BIOTA
- Donald Dycus - TVA/ONRED/A WR-86/33 - April 1986
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN WILSON RESERVOIR CATFISH-1985 - Donald Dycus and
Donny Lowery - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/57 - September 1986
CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs, DDTr, AND SELECTED METALS IN BIOTA FROM
GUNTERSVILLE RESERVOIR - Donald Dycus and Donny Lowery - TVA/ONRED/AWR-87/18 -
October 1986
NORTH ALABAMA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT: VOLUME X CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs,
DDTr, AND SELECTED METALS IN CATTISH FROM WHEELER RESERVOIR - Donald Dycus
and Donny Lowery - October 1986
CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs, DDTr, AND METALS IN FISH FROM TELLICO RESERVOIR -
Donald Dycus and Gary Hickman - TVA/ONRED/AWR-87/25 - November 1986
ESTIMATION OF THE BIOACCUMULATION OF MERCURY BY BLUEGILL SUNFISH IN EAST
FORK POPLAR CREEK-Final Report - Richard Young - April 1987
SCREENING FOR TOXICS IN BIOTA AND SEDIMENT FROM THE LOWER TENNESSEE RIVER
- John Jenkinson - TVA/ONR/AWR-87/34 - July 1987
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN WILSON RESERVOIR CATFISH-1986 - Donald Dycus and
Donny Lowery - TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/2 - August 1987
NORTH ALABAMA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT: VOLUME 14-CONCENTRATIONS OF
PCBs, AND DDTr IN CATFISH FROM UPPER PICKWICK RESERVOIR AND PCBs FROM
WILSON RESERVOIR - Donald Dycus and Donny Lowery - TVA/ONRED/AWR 85/22 - September
1987
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH AND SEDIMENT FROM FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR-1985
- Donald Dycus, Joseph Fehring, and Gary Hickman - TVA/ONRED/AWR 88/8 - October 1987
SURFACE WATER MONITORING STRATEGY-AMBIENT MONITORING-RESULTS FROM
ANALYSES ON FISH TISSUE COLLECTED IN 1986 - Donald Dycus - May 1988
137
-------
PCB LEVELS IN FISH FROM FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR, FORT LOUDOUN DAM
TAILRACE, TELLICO RESERVOIR, AND CHILHOWEE RESERVOIR AUTUMN 1986 TO
WINTER 1987 - Donald Dycus and Gary Hickman - TVA/ONRED/AWR 88/19 - June 1988
LEVELS OF SELECTED METALS AND PCBs IN CHANNEL AND BLUE CATFISH FROM
CHICKAMAUGA RESERVOIR-1987 - Donald Dycus - July 1988
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN WILSON RESERVOIR CATFISH-1987 - Donald Dycus and
Donny Lowery - August 1988
CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs IN FISH AND SEDIMENTS FROM UPPER GUNTERSVTLLE
RESERVOIR-1987 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB-89/4 - May 1989
RESULTS OF FISH TISSUE SCREENING STUDIES FROM SITES IN THE TENNESSEE AND
CUMBERLAND RIVERS-1987 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB-89/5 - May 1989
PCB STUDIES ON FISH FROM WATTS BAR, FORT LOUDOUN, TELLICO, AND CHILHOWEE
RESERVOIRS-1987 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB-89/10 - July 1989
LEVELS OF SELECTED METALS AND PCBs IN CHANNEL CATFISH FROM CHICKAMAUGA
RESERVOIR-1988 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB-90/3 - February 1990
RESULTS OF FISH TISSUE SCREENING STUDIES IN THE TENNESSEE AND CUMBERLAND
RIVERS IN 1988 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB-90/7 - July 1990
RESULTS OF PCB AND CHLORDANE ANALYSES ON FISH COLLECTED FROM NICKAJACK
RESERVOIR IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1989 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB-90/9 - July 1990
PCB STUDIES ON FISH FROM WATTS BAR, FORT LOUDOUN, TELLICO, AND MELTON
HILL RESERVOIRS - 1988 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB—90/11 - September 1990
RESERVOIR MONITORING - 1990 - FISH TISSUE STUDIES IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
IN 1989 - Gordon E. Hall and Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB-91/12 - October 1991
RESERVOIR MONITORING - 1991 - FISH TISSUE STUDIES IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY IN 1990 -
Joella A. Bates, Donald L. Dycus, and Gordon E. Hall - TVA/WR-92/7 - December 1992
138
-------
APPENDIX B
RATIONALE AND PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION, PROCESSING,
AND ANALYSIS OF FISH TISSUE SAMPLES
139
-------
Appendix B
RATIONALE AND PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION. PROCESSING.
AND ANALYSIS OF FISH TISSUE SAMPLES
RATIONALE
All fish tissue studies are closely coordinated among TVA and various state agencies
to ensure all needs are met and to avoid duplication of effort. Planning meetings are usually
held in the summer followed by collection efforts in autumn. In many cases efforts are
combined so that one organization collects the fish and another analyzes them. Coordinated
efforts such as these allow for most efficient use of available funds. When more than one
analytical laboratory is involved, samples are split between the labs to allow proper
comparisons.
Several important decisions must be made in studies such as these. Should analyses
be conducted on fish composites or individual fish? Should whole fish or fillets be analyzed?
Should fillets have the skin on or off? Should the bellyflap (which is rich in lipids and
lipophilic contaminants) be left on the fillet or removed? These are all valid options and all
have been used in previous studies (McCracken 1983). Selection of specific protocols is
dependent upon the objective of the study.
Should analyses be conducted on fish composites or individual fish?--TVA's
approach differs between screening studies and intensive studies because the objectives of
those studies differ. Screening studies are intended to identify reservoirs with potential
problems, whereas intensive studies are intended to define the extent of the problem
identified by the screening studies. Therefore, screening studies are based on composited
141
-------
samples analyzed for a broad array of contaminants, and intensive studies are based on
analysis of individual samples for only those analytes identified to be a potential problem.
Analysis of individual samples provides a measure of variation in the population thus
allowing statistical testing among locations and over time.
Should whole fish or fillets be analyzed?—The primary objective of most TVA fish
tissue studies is oriented toward human health. In that case, it makes little sense to examine
whole fish. Therefore, in most cases, TVA fish tissue studies are based on analysis of fillets.
Typically, analysis of whole fish is preferable when fish are used as "environmental monitors"
to determine the condition of the environment or to identify previously unknown
contaminants (FWGPM 1974 and McCracken 1983).
Should fillets have skin on or off? Should the bellvflap be left on the fillet?—The
decision point for both these questions is whether one wishes to produce a "worst-case," or a
less conservative, scenario. Fillets with skin and bellyflap left on usually have higher
concentrations of most contaminants (worst-case), especially organochlorine contaminants,
than skin-off, bellyflap-removed (best-case) fillets. A study by Cornell University has shown
up to a 50 percent reduction in concentration of PCBs and mirex when comparing
"best-case" and "worst-case" prepared fillets (Gall and Voiland 1990). Based on the need
for a conservative approach in protection of public health, TVA studies are designed to
produce a worst-case estimate of contamination so as to best protect the fish consumer.
Therefore, all TVA analyses are conducted on fillets with bellyflap left on for all species and
skin left on for all species except catfish (catfish skin is rarely, if ever, eaten with the fillet).
142
-------
Species Examined
The approach most commonly used in these studies is to examine a reservoir as part
of the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study (described in detail in section 2.1), which
uses channel catfish as an indicator species. Channel catfish was selected as the indicator
species because it is highly sought by both commercial and sport fisherman, because
individuals usually have relatively high concentrations of most contaminants compared to
other species, and because a historical data base exists for that species.
If problems are identified, an intensive study is usually undertaken the next year that
would include analysis of individual channel catfish at a greater number of locations than
sampled in the screening study. Also, other important species would be examined at the
screening level. Depending upon their importance in the reservoir and the availability of
funds, these species would include one or more of the following: largemouth bass, striped
bass, buffalo, crappie, carp, white bass, and possibly others. If problems are identified in any
of these species, they would be examined intensively (i.e., fillets analyzed individually) during
the subsequent year.
143
-------
PROCEDURES
Field Handling
Fish processing techniques have an influence on the accuracy and reliability of data derived
from tissue analysis. For this reason, consistency in the handling and processing of fish for
tissue analysis is vital.
Fish Collection
Fish can be collected by a variety of methods, for example, by various types of nets,
by electrofishing, or by commercial fishing gear. If fish come from a commercial fisherman,
a biologist (TVA, state, or contractor) must accompany the fisherman and see that the fish
pulled are from an approved fishing/sampling area. Fish are removed from the gear, and the
appropriate number/species, as specified in the workplan, are put in plastic bags (one species
per bag) in a cooler of ice. Dead fish may only be used if the gills are still red; otherwise they
are discarded. Fish cannot be held more than 24 hours in a cooler after collection. No fish
with flesh deteriorated beyond that desired for human consumption can be included in the
sample. Every reasonable effort is made to collect the desired number of fish of each species
as outlined in the workplan. Channel catfish must weigh at least one pound; bass should be
at least 12 inches in length. Striped bass/hybrids should be a minimum of two pounds,
however, larger fish are desired. If repeated attempts to collect large fish fail, smaller fish
may be accepted. The lab transfer sheet (attachment 1) accompanies the sample after fish are
removed from the gear.
144
-------
Lab Preparation
All work surfaces and cutting equipment used in fish processing should be washed
with soap, rinsed with tap water, followed by rinsing with pesticide grade propanol and
finally rinsing with distilled water. The cutting board is covered with heavy-duty aluminum
foil. Persons processing fish should wear sterile rubber gloves to prevent fish contamination.
At least two persons are needed to process the fish, a writer and a cutter. Data
should be recorded using a No.2 pencil, or permanent pen and waterproof paper. Much of
the label can be completed prior to fish processing. The proper date for the record sheet is
that when the fish was collected, and not the date of processing. A sheet of clean aluminum
foil is used for wrapping each fillet, one sheet for the liver composite, and one sheet to lay
each fish on the scale while weighing.
Processing
Two waterproof labels (attachment 2) are completed for each fish (one for each
fillet). Total length and weight and the external observations, specified on the lab sheet
(attachment 3), are recorded for each fish. A mid-ventral cut is made from the vent
anteriorly with the scissors lifted to prevent damage to internal organs. The proportion of
the internal organs that are covered by fat after first opening the body cavity are noted, along
with complete observations of the internal organs as specified on the lab sheet. After
observations are recorded, the liver and then the gall bladder are removed from the fish; care
is taken not to rupture and contaminate the liver. If the liver should be contaminated by the
gall bladder it should be thoroughly rinsed with distilled water. After the liver is weighed, it
145
-------
is either archived or discarded, as specified in the workplan. Remaining viscera are then
removed from the body cavity.
All scaled fish should have scales removed prior to opening the gut cavity; the skin is
left on. All catfish should have the skin removed with skinners or pliers (external cuts are
optional for skinning purposes). As little tissue as possible should be discarded with the skin.
Skin should also be removed from the belly section. When removing the fillets, start as close
to the head as possible and cut around the dorsal spine. Each fillet should be removed by a
mid-ventral cut that removes as much of the tissue as possible and includes the ribs and belly.
After both fillets are removed, the pelvic fin is cut out with scissors in a manner that
discards as little tissue as possible. Fat and entrails should be scraped off the inside of the
fillets with a knife. Fillets are rinsed in tap water followed by distilled water. Each fillet is
weighed and the fillet weight recorded on both the lab sheet and the label. Each fillet is
individually wrapped in the piece of foil on which it was weighed. If the fillet is very large, it
may be cut from the inside toward the outside, with a small amount near the skinned side
remaining in tact, and then folded on itself; foil should not be folded within the fillet. Each
wrapped fillet and the label are placed individually in a plastic bag. As much air as possible
should be removed from the bag in order to conserve storage space. The above processing
procedures are repeated for all individuals of a species from one site.
After the electronic weight scales are tared, each subsequent liver should be added to
the aluminum foil containing the liver composite and weighed. If the workplan specifies
livers are to be archived, they are wrapped together in the aluminum foil, labeled, and placed
in a plastic bag for that purpose.
146
-------
Fillet Disposition
The two fillets from a fish will either be sent to the chemistry laboratory (one for
organic analysis and one for metals), or one will be sent to the chemistry laboratory for
appropriate analysis and the other archived. Random selection (coin toss) will decide which
fillet will be used for organics analysis and which for metals. If appropriate, a coin toss will
determine which fillet is sent to the laboratory for analysis and which one archived. This
information is indicated on the lab sheet.
All fillets from the same species from one site that will be used for organics will be
placed in a plastic bag with a common label that includes the following information: study,
river/reservoir, station or river mile, species, collection date and fish numbers with the side
(right or left) that will be used for this analysis. The label should also have "Organics" boldly
printed on it. The metals (or archived) fillets should be packaged the same way. The bag of
organics and the bag of metals will then be placed together in another plastic bag labeled
with the following information: study, reservoir/river, river mile, date, and species. All
samples are to be placed in a freezer as soon as possible after processing. These same
procedures should be repeated for the next species and/or sampling location.
When more than one species is sampled from a site (intensive study), all species from
that site should be grouped together in another common bag for convenience later in finding
samples in the freezer. That bag should be labeled with the following information: study,
reservoir/river, river mile, species collected and their respective collection dates. If screening
studies include numerous sampling sites within a reservoir, these samples can be bagged
147
-------
together and labeled appropriately. All liver composites need to be bagged together and
labeled in the same manner as fillets.
Laboratory Analyses
Laboratory Processing
Preparation of fillets for individual analysis is accomplished by homogenizing the
entire fillet. This is necessary because contaminants are not evenly distributed throughout
the fillet, and homogenization of only a portion would bias the results. Each fillet was
partially thawed and diced with a knife. Diced tissue was then thoroughly ground using a
mechanical grinder. After grinding, tissue was dispersed into glass jars and frozen pending
analysis.
A composite sample is prepared by taking an equal aliquot from each of five
independently homogenized fillets. Preparation of composite samples in this manner is
necessary to avoid biasing of results due to compositing fillets of different sizes. The
alternative way to avoid a size bias is to collect fish of a consistent size. This would allow
homogenizing all five fillets at the same time, thereby reducing time required for that step.
However, TVA's experience has shown that this alternative is not desirable because it
increases collection costs, limits applicability of results to only the size of fish tested, and
prevents samples from maintaining their identity, if the need arises later for individual
analysis.
148
-------
Analvtes
Fish collected for screening studies are usually analyzed for selected metals, PCBs,
and pesticides on EPA's Priority Pollutant List. Fish for intensive studies are analyzed only
for the contaminant of concern, which has been identified by screening studies or is known as
a historic problem. The most common contaminant of concern in the Tennessee Valley is
PCBs, with chlordane a distant second. Several TVA reservoirs have fish consumption
advisories due to PCB-contaminated fish.
The lipid content of a sample (determined gravimetrically and expressed as a
percentage) has been found to be an invaluable quality assurance tool, as well as being
essential in conducting spatial or temporal statistical analyses. For these reasons, lipid
content is determined on all samples.
PCBs were extracted with petroleum ether from individual, homogenized fillets using
a cell disrupter. The extract was then cleaned with concentrated sulfuric acid and analyzed
for Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260 using a precalibrated gas
chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector and an electronic integrator.
Laboratory procedures for chlordane were provided in a previous report on fish from
Nickajack Reservoir in 1989 (Dycus 1990a) and will not be repeated here. Analyses for
pesticides are conducted using the 608 procedure.
149
-------
Quality Assurance
TVA's standard Quality Assurance (QA) program requires running one replicate, one
spike, one blank, and one surrogate out of every ten samples. TVA also routinely splits
samples with other analytical laboratories if that agency is participating in fish tissue studies
on TVA waters.
Data Analyses
Screening Studies
Statistical analyses are not conducted on results from screening studies because
replicate samples are not collected. Results from these studies are compared to preselected,
tiered concentrations. If measured concentrations are low relative to the tiered
concentrations, then no follow-up studies are warranted. If measured concentrations are
high, follow-up studies would be conducted. More thorough explanation of this tiered
approach is provided in section 2.1.
Intensive Studies
A broad array of statistical techniques was used to further examine the results of the
laboratory analysis. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test if lipid
content and/or fish size (length and weight) differed among sample locations or between
years. Lipid content and fish size have been found in other studies to have an important
influence on PCB and chlordane levels.
150
-------
Differences in PCB levels among locations and years were examined using either
ANOVA and Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Multiple Range Test (REGW) or analysis of
covariance. Because PCBs are lipophilic compounds, these data were examined closely to
determine if analysis of covariance was needed to eliminate differences due to variations in
lipid content or fish size. The first step was to test the null hypothesis that PCB levels do not
depend upon lipid content or fish size for one or more stations. This involved regressing
analyte concentration against lipid content and fish size simultaneously for each station. If
the slopes for all stations were not different from zero (failure to reject the null hypothesis),
then no adjustment for lipid content was necessary and ANOVA was the appropriate test. If
the slope for any station was significantly different from zero (rejection of null hypothesis),
then covariance analysis was needed. Before proceeding to covariance analysis, data were
tested for homogeneity of slopes (parallel lines). If this null hypothesis was accepted, data
were analyzed using covariance analysis by comparing the distance between the parallel
regression lines of adjusted means.
Statistical analyses for chlordane concentrations were not reported due to
interference between PCB 1254 and cis-chlordane and interference between PCB 1260 and
trans-nanochlor. As a result, if PCB 1254 and/or 1260 were present, the appropriate
chlordane isomers would be reported as "interference" and no concentration provided. In
such cases the reported levels of chlordane would be conservative. This situation was
recognized while analyzing the 1991 samples. Hence, chlordane concentrations for all
previous studies would over-estimate the true concentration.
151
-------
Prior to statistical analyses, concentrations of PCBs were transformed to approximate
a normal distribution using a log10 (x + 1) transformation (x + 1 was used because some
values were between zero and one). Lipid content was transformed using arc sine. An a of
0.05 was chosen as the level of significance. Samples with less than detectable levels were
included at the detection limit in developing averages.
152
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE OF TENNESSEE
LATEST FISH ADVISORY
153
-------
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
401 Church Street
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Locker: 615-532-0743
Paul Davis: 615-532-0625
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY. MARCH 24.1993
NASHVILLE - The Department of Environment and Conservation's Division of Water Pollution
Control has announced that there will be no revisions at this time to the fishing advisories issued
"The department issues fish consumption advisories when testing indicates that levels of
toxic materials in fish tissue exceed those considered to be protective of human health, "said
Water Pollution Control Director Paul Davis. "Since the consumption of contaminated fish
tissue is an avoidable risk, the department issues advisories so that citizens can make informed
choices concerning their health.
"The results of 1992 studies of sites where advisories already existed or areas where
additional studies were needed have not justified revising or removing existing advisories or
issuing new ones at this time," Davis said. "However, the department will not hesitate to make
changes in the status of advisories during 1993 should new information become available."
Sites where samples were collected in 1992 include, but are not limited to, Watts Bar,
Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Douglas, Woods, Cheatham and Center Hill Reservoirs, as well as
the Mississippi, Wolf and Loosahatchie Rivers.
A list of the current advisories in Tennessee has been printed in the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency's 1993 fishing regulations.
In order to assist citizens in their understanding of the stream posting process in
Tennessee, the Department of Environment and Conservation has prepared a free brochure
entitled "Tennessee Fishing Advisories." This publication explains the types of pollutants
impacting streams and the current locations of fishing advisories.
For more detailed information, or a copy of the brochure, contact the Department of
Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, 7th Floor, Life and
Casualty Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1534.
in 1992.
-------
FISHING ADVISORY BACKGROUND INFORMATION
There are two principal reasons for posting streams in Tennessee. The
first is when bacterial contamination poses a water contact threat. Sources of
bacteria are most frequently from inadequately treated discharges from
municipal sewage systems, but can also be from livestock holding areas and
urban runoff. This type of advisory warns the public to avoid coming in
contact with these waters through activities such as swimming, wading,
fishing and skiing.
Streams are also posted when average levels of toxic materials in the
edible portion of fish pose an increased cancer risk (or other serious illness)
to the general public. The department uses information and guidance from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency on the various contaminants found in fish.
There are two levels of fish consumption advisories used in Tennessee.
The mildest form is a "limit consumption advisory," sometimes referred to as a
precautionary advisory. Scientific studies have shown that developing fetuses
and children may be more susceptible to the harmful effects of toxic materials
than are adults. Thus a precautionary advisory warns that children,
pregnant women and nursing mothers should not eat the type fish that is
contaminated. All others are warned to limit their consumption of these fish.
The second level of advisory is a do-not-consume warning. At this
level, all persons are advised to avoid eating the type fish contaminated.
The department makes every attempt to get advisory information to the
public. A press release is issued whenever a stream or lake is posted. The
department also places warning signs at significant public access points on
posted waters.
-------
CURRENT FISH TISSUE ADVISORIES (MARCH 1993)
STREAM COUNTY PORTION
Loosahatchie River Shelby Mile 0.0-20.9
Wolf River Shelby
Mississippi River Shelby
McKellar Lake and Shelby
Nonconnah Creek
Boone Reservoir
Mile 0.0-18.9
MS line to
mile 745
mile 0.0 to
Horn Lake Road
bridge (milj 1.8)
POLLUTANT
Chlordane
Chlordane
Chlordane
Sullivan,
Washington
Entirety
TYPE ADVISORY
Fish should not be consumed.
Fish should not be consumed.
Fish should not be consumed.
Commercial fishing ban.
Chlordane Fish should not be consumed.
PCBs, chlordane Precautionary advisory for carp and catfish.*
North Fork
Holston River
Sullivan,
Hawkins
Mile 0.0-6.2
TN/VA line
Mercury
Fish should not be consumed.
Fort Loudoun
Reservoir
Loudon, Entirety
Knox, (46 miles)
Blount
PCBs
Commercial fishing for catfish prohibited.
Catfish, largemouth bass over two pounds,
and largemouth bass from the Little River
embayment should not be consumed.
Tellico Lake
Loudon
Entirety
(32.5 miles)
PCBs
Catfish should not be consumed.
Pigeon River Cocke N. Carolina line Dioxin
to Douglas Res.
Fish should not be consumed.
Watts Bar
Reservoir
Melton Hill
Reservoir
Roane,
Meigs,
Rhea
Roane
Knox,
Anderson
Tennessee River PCBs
portion
Clinch River
arm
Entirety
PCBs
PCBs
Catfish, striped bass, and hybrid striped bass-
white bass (Cherokee bass) should not be eaten.
Precautionary advisory* for white bass, sauger,
carp, smallmouth buffalo and largemouth bass.
Striped bass should not be consumed.
Precautionary advisory for catfish and sauger.*
Catfish should not be consumed.
East Fork of
Poplar Creek (incl.
Poplar Creek
embayment)
Anderson,
Roane
Mile 0.0'
15.0
Mercury, metals,
org. chemicals
Fish should not be consumed.
Avoid contact with water.
Nickajack Reservoir Hamilton, Entirety
Marion
PCBs
Precautionary advisory for catfish*
Chattanooga Creek Hamilton GA line to mouth PCBs, chlordane
Woods Reservoir Franklin Entirety PCBs
Fish should not be consumed.
Catfish should not be consumed.
This list subject to revision.
* Precautionary Advisory - Children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should not consume the fish species named.
Ail other persons should limit consumption of the named species to 1.2 pounds per month.
-------
APPENDIX D
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES FOR THE
INDIAN CREEK EMBAYMENT (SPETEMBER 30, 1991)
ON WHEELER RESERVOIR AND SELECTED PORTIONS
OF WHEELER RESERVOIR (NOVEMBER 16, 1992)
159
-------
J:14 ALABAMA PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE
NO. 935 P002/003
OFFICE OF HEALTH PROMOTION AND INFORMATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 687, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36100-170)
The Alabama Department of Public Health announces the issuance of a fish
consumption advisory for the Indian Creek drainage area, Including Huntsvllie Spring
Branch, near Triana. The department bases this decision on data Indicating that
certain species of fish continue to exceed the Food and Drug Administration action
level of 5.0 parts per million of DDT in fish tissue. The species of fish with elevated
levels of DDT are channel catfish, smallmouth buffalo, brown bullhead, big mouth
buffalo and white bass.
The Environmental Protection Agency banned the manufacture, sale and use of
DDT In 1972. However, a DDT manufacturing p!int existed in this area between 1948
and 1970 with Olin Chemical Co. operating this facility under lease from Redstone
Arsenal for most of this period. Discharges from this plant contaminated Huntsvllie
Spring Branch and Indian Creek.
During the 1980s, Olln Chemical Co. developed and Implemented remedial
action to protect humans and the environment from further DDT exposure. The
remedial action is a result of a consent decree which settled litigation between Olin
and various plaintiffs including the State of Alabama.
The data on DDT levels In fish tissue are a part of a long-term monitoring
program established pursuant to that consent decree.
Dr. Claude Earl Fox, state health officer, said, The DDT levels have declined
significantly in recent years due to the remediation of the contamination by industry,
and is expected to continue to decrease. In the early 1980s, before remediation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Brian J. Hughes, Ph.D.
242*5131
Charles H. Woernle, M.D.
242-5131
(more)
-------
.-4:15 ALABAMA PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE NO. 935 P003/003
DDT advisory
Add one
began, the average concentration level among the above species ranged from 21 to
180 parts per million. In 1990 the range was from 3.1 to 41 parts per million.
"However, the levels remain high enough that I remind fishermen to refrain from
eating these species of fish and other bottom-feeding species from this area. The
issuance of this advisory represents an effort to update the surrounding community
about the current situation."
DDT has been found to be a weak ca nogen In animal studies; however, no
evidence exists as to DDT's carcinogenic potential In man. Adverse effects on the liver
may occur but only at very high levels. A 1979 Centers for Disease Control study of the
residents of Triana revealed no DDT-related adverse health effects.
This advisory covers Indian Creek and Huntsville Spring Branch. The Alabama
Department of Public Health, Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority will work together to collect additional data this fall on the Tennessee
River In the vicinity of Indian Creek. Results from these studies will be used to
determine if advisories for the Ten-essee River are appropric-ue.
-30-
9/23/91
-------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Brian J. Hughes, Ph.D.
Chart es H. Woernle, M.D.
242-5131
The Alabama Department of Public Health announces the expansion of an
existing fish consumption advisory for certain areas of the Tennessee River near
Triana, a small Madison County community.
The department bases this decision on fish sampling data from the Tennessee
Valley Authority indicating that certain species of fish exceed the Food and Drug
Administration tolerance level of 5.0 parts per million of DDT in fish tissue.
The information given to the Health Department by the TVA indicates elevated
levels of DDT in largemouth bass, channel catfish, and smallmouth buffalo one mile
either side of the area where Indian Creek and the Tennessee River join.
The public is advised not to eat these species from this area. Other bottom
feeding species (such as carp or sucker) in this area may also have high levels of DDT"
in their tissues and should also be avoided.
Furthermore, elevated levels of DDT were found in channel catfish obtained in
the area where Indian Creek and the Tennessee River join downstream to the
Interstate 65 bridge. The public is advised not to eat channel catfish from this extended
area.
The contamination resulted from the manufacturing of DDT in this area between
1948 and 1970. The DDT manufacturing plant near Redstone Arsenal discharged
DDT into the Huntsville Spring Branch and Indian Creek and may have also
contaminated fish in the Tennessee River.
Dr. Charles Woernle, state epidemiologist, said, "TVA agreed to obtain
additional information on DDT levels in fish tissue last year after meeting with the Ioqi
and state health departments, and the Alabama Departments of Environmental
(more)
-------
DDT advisory
Add one
Management and Conservation and Natural Resources."
The DDT levels in fish tissue ranged from 5.0 to 43.3 parts per million in the
designated area among all species of fish tested. Channel catfish further downstream
of the area ranged from 1.9 to 12.8 parts per million. A similar study will be conducted
this fall.
Dr. Woernle stated, "Many of the residents know about the previous advisory
issued last year regarding DDT contaminated fish tissue in the Huntsville Spring
Branch and Indian Creek area. Reductions in DDT levels in fish from this area have
been observed each year since cleanup and annual testing began in April 1986. The
issuance of a further advisory in this area represents an effort to keep people informed
about the current situation as new data develop."
The EPA banned the manufacture, sale and use of DDT in 1972. DDT has been
found to a weak cancer causing agent in animal studies; however, no evidence exists
as to DDTs cancer causing potential in man.
Adverse effects on the liver occur only at very high amounts. A former Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention study found no DDT-rslated adverse health effects
in the residents of Triana.
Follow-up tests of fish in the expanded advisory area will be conducted this fall.
-30-
11/16/92
-------
APPENDIX E
RESULTS OF THE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
AND ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SPLIT SAMPLE STUDY CONDUCTED
ON WHEELER RESERVOIR
165
-------
Wheeler Reservoir Split Sample Study
The Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) issued a fish consumption advisory
for several fish species from the Indian Creek drainage area of Wheeler Reservoir in September
1991 due to DDT contamination. This was a historic problem area but an advisory had not been
previously issued. To evaluate the possible need to extend the advisory into the Tennessee River,
a special study was designed by TVA and Alabama officials and conducted in autumn 1991 and
1992 (actually collected January 1993).
Included in this special study was the sharing between TVA and Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) of aliquots of homogenized fish tissue from one composite
sample of each species (channel catfish, smallmouth buffalo, and largemouth bass) from each
sampling location (TRMs 308, 315, 320 and 325). These aliquots, 12 for each year, were
analyzed by TVA and ADEM laboratories for PCBs, chlordane and para-para DDT, DDD and
DDE concentrations and lipid content. The results of the DDTr (total DDT) analyses are
reported in table E. 1. It is interesting to note that ADEM did not report any PCBs from 1991
samples but found PCBs in samples from January 1993; TVA found PCBs in both sets of samples.
The results reported by each laboratory for fish collected in January 1993 were compared
using paired-t statistical tests. The only significant difference between the values reported by the
two labs was in lipid content. ADEM reported higher lipid content of fish than did TVA. These
results of the paired-t tests are shown in table E.2.
167
-------
Table E. 1 DDT concentrations (ng/g) reported by TVA and ADEM for split-sample
composites offish collected in October/November 1991 and January 1993 from
Wheeler Reservoir.
TRM308 TRM315 TRM 320 TRM 325
TVA
ADEM
TVA
ADEM
TVA
ADEM
TVA
ADEM
1991
Channel
Catfish
12.8
5.0
3.2
2.0
13.3
18.9
2.8
7.5
Smallmouth
Buffalo
1.6
0.9
4.6
3.6
18.3
13.4
5.5
3.7
Largemouth
Bass
1.1
2.6
2.6
4.6
4.9
6.3
11.2
6.9
1993
Channel
Catfish
3.0
3.3
1.9
0.8
1.5
1.8
0.6
0.9
Smallmouth
Buffalo
1.0
0.8
2.4
3.3
3.8
1.6
7.6
11.5
Largemouth
Bass
2.5
2.2
6.9
6.9
1.9
1.9
2.3
1.0
168
-------
Table E.2 Results of paired-t tests conducted on values reported by TVA and ADEM from
split-sample composites of fish from Wheeler Reservoir.
p,p'-DDD p,p'-DDE PCB % Lipid
x -0.52 -1.61 0.02 -4.87
T Limit 2.2 2.2 2.37 2.2
Note: p,p'-DDT was not tested because it was not detected in most samples.
169
-------
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
Water Management
Chattanooga. Tennessee
TVA/WM - 93/15
June 1993
RESERVOIR MONITORING
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF AQUATIC RESOURCE HEALTH
AND USE SUITABILITY IN TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIRS
CLEAN WATER
INITIATIVE
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Resource Group
Water Management
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF AQUATIC RESOURCE HEALTH
AND USE SUITABILITY IN
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIRS
Prepared by
Donald L. Dycus
and
Dennis L. Meinert
1101 Market Street, HB 2C-C
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
June 1993
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Reservoir Monitoring Objectives 2
1.3 Reservoir Monitoring Approach and Program Design 3
2.0 DATA COLLECTION 7
2.1 Vital Signs 7
2.1.1 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Water 7
2.1.2 Acute Toxicity Screening and Physical/Chemical
Characteristics of Sediment 8
2.1.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling 9
2.1.4 Fish Community Evaluation 9
2.2 Use Suitability 11
2.2.1 Bacteriological Sampling 11
2.2.2 Fish Tissue Analysis 11
3.0 RESULTS EVALUATION AND APPLICATION 13
3.1 Vital Signs 13
3.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Rating Scheme 14
3.1.2 Chlorophyll-a Rating Scheme 19
3.1.3 Sediment Quality Rating Scheme 20
3.1.4 Benthic Community Rating Scheme 21
3.1.5 Fish Community Rating Scheme 24
3.1.6 Overall Reservoir Health Determination 30
3.2 Use Suitability 33
3.2.1 Bacteriological Sampling 33
3.2.2 Fish Tissue Studies 34
4.0 REFERENCES 3 7
-------
FIGURES
Page
1. Schematic of Key Reservoir Sampling Areas 4
2. Time vs. Depth Plots of Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 16
TABLES
1. Physical/Chemical Measurements - Sediment Reservoir
Vital Signs Monitoring, 1992 10
2. Scoring Criteria for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics 25
3. Core Fish Species with Trophic, Tolerance, and Reproductive
Designations for Use in Preliminary Electrofishing Reservoir
Fish Assemblage Index for TVA Reservoirs, 1991 27
4. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Metrics and Scoring Criteria
Developed for TVA Run-of-the-River and Tributary Reservoirs 29
5. Computational Method For Evaluation of Reservoir Health 32
KEY CONTACTS
Overview
Neil Carriker
Don Dycus
Dennis Meinert
Dissolved Oxygen
Dennis Meinert
(615) 751-7330
(615) 751-7322
(615) 751-8962
Chlorophyll-a
Dennis Meinert
Sediment Quality
Don Wade (205) 386-2068
Dennis Meinert
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Anita Masters (615) 751-8697
Fish Assemblage
Gary Hickman (615) 632-1791
Bacteriological
Joe Fehring (615) 751-7308
Fish Tissue
Don Dycus
-------
ABSTRACT
TVA initiated a Reservoir Monitoring Program in 1990 with two objectives--
to evaluate the health of the reservoir ecosystem and to examine how well each
reservoir meets the swimmable and fishable goals of the Clean Water Act. In the
first year (1990) reservoir health was evaluated subjectively using a weight-of-
evidence approach (a reservoir was deemed healthy if most of the physical,
chemical, and biological monitoring components appeared healthy). In the second
year (1991) a more objective, quantitative approach was developed using
information on five important indicators of reservoir health--dissolved oxygen,
chlorophyll, sediment quality, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fishes. The most
recent information (1992) was evaluated with the same basic approach, modified
to incorporate improvements based on comments from reviewers and additional data.
Reservoirs were stratified into two groups for evaluation: run-of-the-river
reservoirs and tributary storage reservoirs. Key locations are sampled in each
reservoir (forebay, transition zone or midreservoir, inflow, and major
embayments) for most or all of these five reservoir health indicators.
For each indicator (or metric), scoring criteria have been developed that
assign a score ranging from 1 to 5 representing poor to good conditions,
respectively. Scores for the metrics at a location are summed and then the sums
for all location are totaled. Each reservoir has one to four sample locations
depending on reservoir characteristics. The resultant total is divided by the
maximum possible score (all metrics good at all locations) for the reservoir.
Thus, the possible range of scores is from 20 percent (all metrics poor) to
100 percent (all metrics good).
This reservoir ecological health evaluation method is proving to be a
valuable tool for providing the public with information about the condition of
the Valley's reservoirs, for allowing meaningful comparisons among reservoirs,
and for tracking changes in reservoir health with time.
-------
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF AQUATIC RESOURCE HEALTH
AND USE SUITABILITY IN
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIRS
1.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1.1 Background
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates over AO reservoirs in the
Tennessee Valley for a variety of uses. These reservoirs generally fall within
two broad categories: run-of-the-river reservoirs with short retention times
(less than 30 days) and annual drawdowns of only a few feet; or storage
impoundments with long retention times (30-400, days) and large drawdowns
(exceeding 100 feet at some projects). Within both categories there are
variations in reservoir sizes, hydrologic operational patterns, water quality
characteristics, trophic status, land use characteristics, etc. Nearly all the
reservoirs are used for water supply, recreation, and flood control, and most of
the dams have hydroelectric units that provide an economical source of
electricity. In addition, the run-of-the-river reservoirs are used for
commercial navigation. TVA manages the reservoir system using funds from federal
appropriations and revenues from power sales.
TVA views its stewardship responsibilities for these reservoirs as one
of the agency's prime reasons for existence. TVA's Strategic Plan states that
one of TVA's prime missions is "to make the Tennessee River the cleanest and most
productive commercial river system in the United States by the year 2000."
An important component of the effort to achieve this goal is a
comprehensive, integrated water quality monitoring program. TVA's ambient
monitoring program is funded by federal appropriations and includes a variety of
activities on major tributary streams and reservoirs. The stream monitoring
program began in 1986; the systemic reservoir monitoring program began in 1990,
when appropriations were increased for TVA to better fulfill its stewardship
responsibi1it ies .
-------
This document describes TVA's Reservoir Monitoring Program and the
technique used to evaluate the ecological health of each reservoir.
1.2 Reservoir Monitoring Objectives
Objectives of the Reservoir Monitoring Program are to provide basic
information on the "health" or integrity of the aquatic ecosystem in each TVA
reservoir (Vital Signs Monitoring) and to provide screening level information for
describing how well each reservoir meets the "fishable" and "swimmable" goals of
the Clean Water Act (Use Suitability Monitoring). The basis of Vital Signs
Monitoring is examination of appropriate physical, chemical, and biological
indicators in important areas of each reservoir. The information is used to
evaluate the ecological health of each reservoir and the overall health of the
reservoir system, and to target areas where detailed assessment studies are
necessary to identify causes of significant problems. In addition, this
information establishes a baseline for comparing future water quality conditions
and monitoring water quality trends for TVA reservoirs.
Use Suitability Monitoring has two components. One is monitoring levels
of toxic contaminants in fillets of important fish species to evaluate
suitability for human consumption (fishable). The other component evaluates
suitability for swimming and other water contact uses (swimmable) through
bacteriological sampling at designated swimming beaches and other popular
recreation areas.
Results from this monitoring program are communicated to professionals
via annual technical reports and to the public via RiverPulse, a nontechnical
document designed to inform the public of the condition of Valley reservoirs and
rivers.
2
-------
1.3 Reservoir Monitoring Approach and Program Design
Four assumptions form.the basis for this monitoring program:
1. It is a long-term program to document the status of the reservoir
system and track water quality improvement efforts;
2. It is responsive by providing current information to resource
managers;
3. It is dynamic and flexible, rather than rigid and static, and will
adopt new techniques of environmental monitoring as they develop to
meet specific needs;
A. It is a monitoring program; as such it does not address cause/effect
mechanisms. (The step beyond monitoring is assessment in which
cause/effect investigations would target specific, identified
concerns.)
In designing a program to meet these objectives, consideration was given
to important reservoir areas (inflow area, transition zone, forebay, overbanks,
and embayments), important water resource elements (physical, chemical, and
biological), and frequency of examination. The program that emerged was a
balance of all these considerations.
Three reservoirs areas were selected for monitoring--the inflow area,
generally riverine in nature; the transition zone or midreservoir area where
water velocity decreases due to increased cross-sectional area, suspended
materials begin to settle, and primary productivity increases due to increased
water clarity; and the forebay, the lacustrine area near the dam (figure 1).
Overbanks, basically the floodplain which was inundated when the dam was built,
are included in transition zone and forebay areas.
Monitoring in all embayments is beyond the scope of this program. There
are too many embayments on TVA reservoirs for monitoring to be cost/effective,
and previous studies have shown they are mostly controlled by activities and
characteristics within their own watersheds, usually with relatively little
3
-------
Figure l. Schematic of Key Reservoir Sampling Areas
-------
influence from the main body of the reservoir. As a result, only four
embayments, all with surface areas over 5000 acres, are included in the Vital
Signs Monitoring Program.
Selection of resource elements (or appropriate indicators) for monitoring
was tailored to the specific objective and type of monitoring location. For
Vital Signs Monitoring (reservoir health), physical, chemical, and biological
information was deemed essential. Indicators were selected to provide
information from various habitats or ecological compartments within a sample area
to evaluate the health for the particular habitat or compartment (figure 1). The
open water, pelagic area was represented by physical and chemical characteristics
of water (including chlorophyll) in midchannel. The shoreline or littoral area
was evaluated by sampling the fish community. The bottom, benthic compartment
was evaluated using two indicators: quality of surface sediments in midchannel
(determined by chemical analysis of sediments and acute toxicity testing of pore
water); and examination of benthic macroinvertebrates from a transect across the
full width of the sample area (including overbanks if present). Information from
each of these indicators was evaluated separately and then combined (without
weighing) to arrive at an overall evaluation of reservoir ecological health.
(Further description of the reservoir evaluation and scoring process is provided
in section 3.1).
\
Monitoring for Use Suitability objectives was limited to bacteriological
examination of swimming areas to address the swimmable goal and to analysis of
fish tissue contamination for the fishable goal.
5
-------
2.0 DATA COLLECTION
2.1 Vital Signs
2.1.1 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Mater
Physical/chemical water quality monitoring activities follow either a
"basic" or "limited" sampling strategy, depending upon reservoir type.
Basic--Monitoring on the run-of-the-river reservoirs follows the basic
sampling strategy. This includes monthly water quality surveys (April through
September) at forebays and transition zones. Basic monthly water quality
sampling includes in situ water column measurements of temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, and conductivity; Secchi depth measurements; surface fecal coliform;
photic zone composite chlorophyll-a samples; and surface composite and near-
bottom samples for nutrients (organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite
nitrogen, total phosphorus, and dissolved orthophosphorus), total organic carbon,
color, and suspended solids. Physical/chemical water quality sampling is not
conducted at most run-of-river reservoir inflows because most of these locations
are tailwater areas of upstream dams, and water quality characteristics would be
representative of ..processes in the upstream reservoir.
Limited--The limited sampling strategy is conducted on tributary storage
reservoirs with monthly (April through October) water quality sampling for a
smaller list of parameters. The limited water quality sampling is the same as
the basic water quality sampling, except that no fecal coliform, color, or
suspended solids samples are collected, and nutrients and organic carbon samples
are collected only in April and August. The April and August nutrient samplings
are designed to provide information on nutrient concentrations available at the
beginning of the growing season, then near the end of the growing season.
Forebays are sampled on all these reservoirs, and midreservoir locations are
sampled on all but the smaller reservoirs.
7
-------
Physical/chemical water quality data are stored on EPA's water quality
data storage and retrieval (.STORET) system.
2.1.2 Acute Toxicity Screening and Physical/Chemical Characteristics
of Sediment
Annual sediment samples and near-bottom water samples are collected
during summer from the forebays and transition zones. Eckman dredge samplers are
used to collect the top three centimeters of sediment from at least three
locations along a transect in the old river bed (i.e., the deepest part of the
reservoir, where active deposition is occurring). Sediment from the three (or
more) locations is composited, thoroughly mixed, and split for acute toxicity
testing and physical/chemical analysis. Kemmerer or Isco water samplers are used
to collect near-bottom water.
Acute Toxicitv--Sediment pore water and near-bottom water samples are
screened for toxicity using acute time-frame Microtox® (light emitting bacteria)
and Rotox® (rotifer survival) tests. Microtox® analyses evaluate the effective
concentration in laboratory duplicate samples at which light output is reduced
relative to a control. The effective concentration used is the EC10, which is
the concentration at which light emission in the samples is reduced by
10 percent. Although Microtox® EC10 values have been shown to correspond with
impairments to insect populations, use here is considered experimental. For this
reason, Microtox® results are not interpreted as a definitive, stand-alone
analysis, and Rotox® testing is also conducted. Rotifer acute (24-hour) toxicity
is reported if the average survival in three replicates is significantly reduced
from controls. Rotox® and Microtox® results are used in conjunction to describe
toxicity. In subsequent years, Microtox® tests will be replaced with an acute
Ceriodaphnia test.
8
-------
Phvsical/Chemical Character1st ics --Sediment samples are also analyzed for
12 metals, total and volatile solids, particle size, and 26 selected trace
organics (table 1).
2.1.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling
Benthic macroinvertebrate community samples are collected in spring from
forebays, transition zones, and inflows of most run-of-the-river reservoirs. At
each sample location, a line-of-sight transect is established across the width
of the reservoir, and ten equally spaced Ponar grab samples are collected along
this transect. When rocky substrates are encountered, a Peterson dredge is used.
Specimens are sorted, counted, and identified to the lowest practical taxon,
typically genus or species, and reported as number per square meter.
2.1.4 Fish Community Evaluation
Data from autumn electrofishing and gill netting are used to evaluate the
fish community at forebays, transition zones, and inflows of most run-of-the-
river reservoirs. Similar information is also collected from forebays and most
midreservoir locations on tributary reservoirs. Ten electrofishing runs are made
at each location, with all habitats sampled, and dominant habitats receiving the
most effort. Habitat distinctions are based on major changes in substrate (e.g.,
bluff, rip-rap, or clay) and/or presence of cover such as brush or boat docks.
Twelve experimental gill nets are also set overnight at each location in all
habitat types where conditions permit. At some inflow locations, flow and/or
lack of suitable sites limit the number of nets that can be set. All fish
collected from both electrofishing and gill netting are enumerated, with length
and weight measurements taken on several important sport species. Largemouth
bass collected as part of the electrofishing survey are transported to a mobile
laboratory for immediate examination of external/internal abnormalities and blood
9
-------
Table 1. Physical/Chemical Measurements (dry weight) - Sediment Reservoir
Vital Signs Monitoring, 1992
Description, units
Metals and Ammonia
Aluminum, mg/g
Cadmium, mg/kg
Calcium, mg/g
Chromium, mg/kg
Copper, mg/kg
Iron, mg/g
Lead, mg/kg
Magnesium, mg/g
Manganese, mg/g
Mercury, mg/kg
Nickel, mg/kg
Zinc, mg/kg
Un-ionized Ammonia (in pore water), jig NH3/1
Solids
Total solids, %
Total volatile solids, %
Particle size,
Particle size,
Particle size,
Particle size,
<0.062 mm diameter, %
<0.125 mm diameter, %
<0.50 mm diameter, %
<2.0 mm diameter, %
Detection
Limit s
1 mg/g
0.5 mg/kg
0.5 mg/g
10 mg/kg
2 mg/kg
1 mg/g
5 mg/kg
0.5 mg/g
0•1 mg/g
0.1 mg/kg
5 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
10 jig/1
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs
Aldrin, MgAg
a-Benzene Hexachloride (BHC), MgAg
p-Benzene Hexachloride (BHC), Mg/kg
y-Benzene Hexachloride (Lindane), MgAg
8-Benzene Hexachloride (BHC), Mg/kg
Chlordane, Mg/kg
Dieldrin, Mg/kg
p,p DDT, Mg/kg
p,p DDD, Mg/kg
p,p DDE, Mg/kg
a-Endosulfan, Mg/kg
E-Endosulfan, Mg/kg
Endosulfan Sulfate, MgAg
Endrin, MgAg
Endrin Aldehyde, MgAg
Heptachlor, MgAg
Heptachlor Epoxide, MgAg
PCB-1221, MgAg
MgAg
J^gAg
H gAg
MgAg
MgAg
MgAg
PCB-1232,
PCB-1242,
PCB-1248,
PCB-1254,
PCB-1260,
PCB-1016,
PCBs, Total, MgAg
Toxaphene, MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
000 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
Sediment
Quality
Guidelines1
6 mgAg
75 mgAg
50 mgAg
60 mgAg
1 mgAg
50 mgAg
200 mgAg
200 Mg/1
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
000 MgAg
0 MgAg
0 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
00 MgAg
1 Guidelines for heavy metals are EPA Region V Guidelines for heavily polluted freshwater sediment (EPA, 1977).
All other guidelines are suggested TVA Guidelines.
10
-------
chemistry characteristics. At each sampling location, 15 individuals greater
than 250 mm total length are examined and a Fish Health Assessment Index (FHAI)
is calculated.
2.2 Use Suitability
2.2.1 Bacteriological Sampling
In 1989, TVA began a program of periodically sampling recreation sites
in the Tennessee Valley for fecal coliform bacteria to determine each site's
suitability for water contact recreation. In addition to swimming beaches, many
other recreation sites are also included in the program, such as canoe launch
areas, picnic areas, boat ramps, marinas, etc. The bacteriological sampling
program includes approximately 260 sites and is designed to sample all locations
on a frequency of about once every other year. Prior to 1993, the sampling
schedule was approximately every five years.
Samples are collected in a manner to conform with state criteria and
federal guidelines, such that at each site at least ten fecal coliform samples
are collected within a 30-day sampling period. Recreation sites are classified
as fully supporting, partially supporting, or not supporting water contact
recreation based on EPA guidelines for fecal coliform bacteria (EPA, 1991).
2.2.2 Fish Tissue Analysis
In cooperation with Valley states, TVA analyzes tissue of Tennessee
Valley fish as part of both "screening" and "intensive" evaluations. In
screening studies, composited fillets of indicator fish species (primarily
channel catfish) are analyzed to identify possible problem areas where intensive
investigation may be needed. For intensive studies, individual fillets from
important fish species are analyzed to better document the number of species
contaminated and level of contamination in each species. More locations are
sampled than in screening to define the geographical extent of the contamination.
11
-------
The intent is to provide information that state public health officials can use
to determine whether fish consumption advisories should be issued to protect
human health.
Fish collected for screening studies usually are analyzed for metals,
PCBs, and pesticides on EPA's Priority Pollutant List. Fish collected for
intensive studies usually are analyzed only for the contaminant of concern.
During the preparation process, observations on external and internal conditions
of each fish are recorded as well as length, weight, sex, fillet weight, and
liver weight.
12
-------
3.0 RESULTS EVALUATION AND APPLICATION
3.1 Vital Signs
The objective of Vital Signs monitoring is to determine the health or
integrity of the aquatic ecosystem within each reservoir. There are no official
or universally accepted guidelines or criteria upon which to base such an
evaluation. Consequently, TVA has developed its own evaluation system for this
program. The system uses five aquatic health indicators--dissolved oxygen,
chlorophyll-a, sediment quality, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fishes.
A critical step in developing an ecological health evaluation is deciding
for each indicator what results represent good conditions and what indicates poor
conditions. This is more easily done for evaluation of natural lakes and streams
because there usually are essentially unaltered reference sites that can be
examined to define "good" conditions for each indicator. Because reservoirs are
man-made alterations of natural streams, there are no "reference reservoirs."
An alternative approach is required. Of several possible alternative approaches,
two were used to develop this evaluation system.
Scoring criteria for the dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll-a indicators
were based on what could be considered a conceptual model. This simply means
that scoring criteria were developed subjectively, based on several years
experience dealing with biological systems in reservoirs. This experience has
shown that below a certain minimum level of chlorophyll primary production is not
sufficient to maintain an active, biologically healthy system. However, above
some threshold level, undesirable conditions occur that indicate eutrophication.
Minimum and maximum chlorophyll concentrations were selected using this
professional judgment and experience. The concept of dissolved oxygen criteria
for a reservoir is quite complicated due to the combined effects of flow
regulation and potential for oxygen depletion in the hypolimmon. The scoring
criteria described below are an attempt at a multidimensional approach that
13
-------
includes consideration of dissolved oxygen levels both in the water column and
near the bottom of the reservoir.
For the benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community indicators, scoring
criteria were developed based on statistical examination of two or more years of
data. For these indicators, all data for a selected community characteristic
(e.g., number of taxa) were ranked and trisected with the top one-third of the
possible values representing the range for good conditions and the bottom one-
third representing the range for poor conditions. Subsequent results are then
compared to these ranges. This is an acceptable approach if the data base is
sufficiently large and if it can be safely assumed that the data base covers the
full spectrum of good to poor conditions.
The sediment quality indicator scoring criteria uses a combination of
approaches. As will be seen in the description below, one component (sediment
toxicity) is based on a subjective approach and the other (sediment chemistry)
is based largely on published guidelines.
Each of the five aquatic health indicators are discussed below along with
the rationale used to arrive at a score for each health indicator.
3.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Rating Scheme
Oxygen is vital for life. In situations where funding is quite limited
and only one indicator of reservoir health could be measured, dissolved oxygen
(DO) would likely be that indicator. Hutchinson (1975) states that you probably
can learn more about the nature of a lake from a series of oxygen measurements
than from any other kind of chemical data. The presence, absence, and levels of
DO in a lake or reservoir both control and are controlled by many physical,
chemical, and biological processes (e.g., photosynthesis, respiration, oxidation-
reduction reactions, bacterial decomposition, DO saturation, etc.). DO
measurements coupled with observations of water clarity (Secchi depth),
14
-------
temperature, nutrients, and some basic hydrologic and morphometric information
provide meaningful insight into the ecological health of a reservoir.
Ideally, a reservoir has near saturation concentrations of DO available
to fish, insects, and zooplankton for respiration throughout the water column.
This is usually the case during winter and spring, when most reservoirs are well
mixed. However, with the onset of summer (typically characterized by more
available sunlight, warmer water temperatures, and lower streamflows) both
thermal stratification and increased biological activity combine to produce a
greater biochemical demand for oxygen than is available, particularly at the
bottom of the water column. As a result, low levels of DO often are observed
under these conditions in the metalimnion and hypolimnion. Hypolimnetic and
metalimnetic oxygen depletion are common, but undesirable occurrences, in many
reservoirs. Not only do lower concentrations of DO in the water column affect
the assimilative capacity of a reservoir, but if low enough and/or sustained long
enough they adversely affect the health of the fish and benthic communities.
This ecological health evaluation considers oxygen concentrations in both
the water column (WCDQ) and near the bottom of the reservoir (Bdq). The final DO
score or rating (ranging from 1 to 5) is the average of these two ratings:
DO Rating = 0.5 (WCpo rating + B00 rating), where:
WCpQ (Water Column DO) Rating--Isopleths of DO concentrations versus depth
and time are plotted for each location during the period when maximum thermal
stratification and hypolimnetic anoxia would be expected to occur. For run-of-
the-river reservoirs this period is about the beginning of April through the end
of September, and for tributary reservoirs this period begins at about the same
time but generally lasts through the end of October (examples provided in
figure 2).
15
-------
WILSON RESERVOIR - TRM 260.8
(Run—of—the—river reservoir)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
160
155
150
'e
w 145
1 HO
v
LlI
135
130
125
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Month
330
CHEROKEE RESERVOIR - HoRM 76.0
(Tributary, storage reservoir)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Figure 2. Time vs. Depth Plots of Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
16
-------
A concentration of 2 mg/L was selected as a level below which undesirable
ecological conditions would exist, primarily adverse impacts to benthic
considered in this decision. Their mobility, which allows them to avoid
undesirable conditions made direct impact to benthos and loss of quality habitat
for both benthos and fish the primary considerations. Historic information for
TVA reservoirs indicated that the burrowing mayfly (Hexaeenia sp.) disappears
from the benthic community at DO concentrations of 2 mg/L and below (Masters and
McDonough, 1993). Most fish species also avoid areas with DO concentration this
low (loss of habitat), fish growth is reduced at these levels, and many highly
desirable species such as sauger and walleye simply cannot survive at such low
levels of DO.
Consequently, the WCDQ rating for each sample location is based on
analysis of the percent of the time x depth profile that the concentration of DO
was less than 2.0 mg/L as shown below:
Because most state DO water quality criteria for fish and aquatic life
specify a minimum of 5.0 mg/L DO at the 1.5 meter (5 foot) depth, the WCDQ
rating is lowered if the measured DO at the 1.5 meter depth at a sampling
location was below 5.0 mg/L at any time. These adjustments are as
follows:
macroinvertebrate organisms and loss of quality habitat. Fish also were
Percent of
[time x depth] WCDQ Rating for
less than 2 me/L Sampling Location
<51
>5% but <102
>10%
5 (good);
3 (fair);
1 (poor).
Minimum DO at
1.5 meter depth
Sampling Location
WCD0 Rating Change
<5.0 mg/L
<4.0 mg/L
<3.0 mg/L
etc.
Decreased one unit (e.g., 5 to A);
Decreased two units;
Decreased three units; and
17
-------
Efforts are continuing to improve the method used to assess water column
DO. One method being explored is to include the cross-sectional area of a sample
location in the assessment. The monthly DO measurements made in the midchannel
at a sample location would be assumed to be representative of the full width and
superimposed on the cross-section of the reservoir at that location. Then the
proportion of the total cross-sectional area with DO concentration less than
2.0 mg/L would be determined for each month. Percentages would then be averaged
over the number of months for which data are collected (e.g., Apri1-October).
This method would tend to improve DO ratings in deep, narrow reservoirs
because the cross-sectional area of bottom water low in DO is small relative to
the cross-sectional area of overlying water with adequate DO concentrations.
This is potentially a bias in the currently used procedure.
B00 (Bottom DO) Rating--Another common but undesirable occurrence in many
development of near bottom anoxia caused by sediment oxygen demands. Sustained
low DO concentrations near the bottom not only adversely impact the health of
aquatic life but also promote release of ammonia and dissolved metals into the
interstitial pore and near bottom water. If this phenomenon persists long
enough, it can result in chronic and/or acute toxicity to bottom-dwelling
animals. The BD0 rating is based on an estimate of the number of months near
bottom DO was less than 2 mg/L, as follows:
Number of Length of
Occurrences time less Sampling Location
B00 <2.0 mg/L than 2 mg/L BD0 Rating
1 Less than one month 5 (good);
2 One to two months 3 (fair); and
>2 Two or more months 1 (poor).
In addition, if anoxic conditions (i.e., 0 mg/L) are observed near the
bottom at a location, the BDQ rating is lowered one unit, with a minimum
rating of 1.
18
-------
3.1.2 Chlorophvll-a Ratine Scheme
Algae are the base of the aquatic food chain. Consequently, measuring
algal biomass or primary productivity is important in evaluating ecological
health. Without algae converting sunlight energy, carbon dioxide, and nutrients
into oxygen and new plant material, a lake or reservoir could not support other
aquatic life. Chlorophyll-a is a simple, long-standing, and well-accepted
measurement for estimating algal biomass, algal productivity, and trophic
condition of a lake or reservoir (Carlson, 1977). Too little primary
productivity (e.g., mean summer chlorophyll-a concentrations less than 3 ug/L)
indicates an inability to sustain a well fed, growing, balanced, and healthy
aquatic community, eventually resulting in low standing stocks of fish. Too much
primary productivity (e.g., mean summer concentrations greater than 15 ug/L),
evidenced by occasional dense algal blooms, poor water clarity, and the
predominance of noxious blue-green algae, indicates poor ecological health. The
large amounts of algal plant material produced under these conditions also
deplete oxygen concentrations as the algae die and decomposed. This can cause
or aggravate problems of low DO in bottom waters.
Scoring criteria for chlorophyll-a are based on the average of monthly
samples collected from April through September (or October). Chlorophyll-a is
rated as follows:
Average Chloroph^ll-a Sampling Location
Concentration Chlorophyll-a Ratine
Less than 3 ug/L 3 (fair);**
3 to 10 ug/L 5 (good);
10.1 to 15 ug/L 3 (fair); and,
Greater than 15 ug/L 1 (poor).
If any single chlorophyll-a sample exceeds 30 ug/L, the value is not included
in calculating the average, but the rating is decreased one unit.
If nutrients are present (e.g., total phosphorus greater than about 0.01 mg/L
and nitrate+nitrite greater than about 0.05 mg/L) but chlorophyll-a
concentrations are generally low (e.g., < 3 ug/L), another/other limiting or
inhibiting factor such as toxicity must be considered. When these conditions
exist, chlorophyll-a is rated 1 (poor).
19
-------
3.1.3 Sediment Quality Rating Scheme
Contaminated bottom sediments can have direct adverse impacts on bottom
fauna. Contaminated sediments can often be long-term sources of toxic substances
to the aquatic environment. They may impact wildlife and humans through the
consumption of contaminated food or water or through direct contact. These
impacts may occur even though the water above the sediments meets water quality
criteria. There are many sediment assessment methods, but there simply is no
single method that measures all contaminated sediment impacts at all times and
to all biological organisms (EPA, 1992). TVA's approach combines two sediment
assessment methods*-one biological, the other chemical--to evaluate reservoir
sediment quality. TVA's scoring criterion is based on ratings for the toxicity
of sediment pore water (ST0X) to test organisms, and the chemical analysis of
sediment (SCHM) for heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides, and un-ionized
ammonia. The final sediment quality score or rating is the average of these two
ratings:
Sediment Quality Rating =0.5 (STQX rating + SCHM rating), where:
STQX (Sediment Toxicity) Rating--Reservoir sediment toxicity is evaluated
using acute time-frame Microtox® (light emitting bacteria) and Rotox® (rotifer,
Brachionus calvciflorus survival) tests. Microtox® and Rotox® acute toxicity
evaluations entail the exposure of these organisms to interstitial pore water
from reservoir sediment. Microtox® analysis evaluates the effective
concentration in laboratory duplicate samples at which the light output is
reduced by 10 percent relative to a control (EC10). Microtox® EC10 values
measured in the laboratory have been shown to correspond with impairments to
insect populations. However, use of Microtox® to describe sediment toxicity in
reservoirs is considered experimental. For this reason, Microtox® results are
20
-------
not considered definitive by themselves. Consequently, rotifer acute toxicity
tests (24-hour exposure) are. also used. Rotifer toxicity is based on the average
survival in three replicate samples. If average survival is significantly
reduced (95 percent probability) from a control, the sample is considered to be
toxic. Reservoir sampling locations were rated as follows:
Note: Microtox® will be replaced with acute (48-hour) Ceriodaphnia tests in
subsequent monitoring efforts.
SCHH (Sediment Chemistry) Rating--Splits of the same sediment used in the
sediment toxicity testing were analyzed for several heavy metals, organochlorine
pesticides, and PCBs (table 1). Ratings for chemical sediment quality were based
on the following--(1) detectable amounts of any organochlorine pesticide or PCB,
(2) un-ionized ammonia concentrations in pore water above 200 ug NH3/L, or
(3) concentrations of heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni , Pb, and Zn) that exceed
EPA Region V guidelines for heavily polluted freshwater sediment (EPA, 1977);
where:
Sediment Toxicity
Sampling Location
ST0X Rating
No Significant rotifer toxicity
and Microtox® EC10 < 252
and Microtox® EC10 > 25%
Significant rotifer toxicity
5 (good);
3 (fair);
1 (poor);
Sediment Chemistry*
Sampling Location
schm Rating
No constituents exceeding guidelines
One constituent exceeding guidelines
Two or more exceeding guidelines
5 (good);
3 (fair);
1 (poor).
* Constituents (organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, ammonia, and
heavy metals) and guidelines are listed in table 1.
21
-------
3.1.4 Benthic Community Ratine Scheme
The six community characteristics listed below were selected to evaluate
the health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community:
1. Taxa Richness--Defined as "apparently" different taxa present. An
increase in total taxa or taxa richness is used to indicate better
conditions than low taxa richness.
2. Longed-Lived species — Defined as the number of taxa (Corbi cula.
Hexaeenia. mussels, and snails) present that include individuals
age 1+ years (excludes Corbi cula <10mm and Hexaeenia <20mm). These
organisms are long-lived and their presence indicates conditions
which allow long-term survival.
3. EPT--Defined as sum of "apparently" different taxa within these
orders (Ephemeroptera-mayflies, Plecoptera-stonef1ies, and
Tricoptera-caddisflies). Higher numbers of this metric indicate
good water quality conditions in streams. A similar use is
incorporated here despite expected lower numbers in reservoirs than
in streams.
A. Proportion as Chironomidae--Defined as the percent of the total
organisms in the sample that were chironmids. A higher proportion
indicates poor water quality conditions.
5. Proportion as Tubificidae--Defined as the percent of the total
organisms present that were tubificids. A higher proportion
indicates of poor water quality.
6. Proportion as Dominant Taxa--Defined as the percent of the total
organisms present that were members of the dominant taxon. This is
used as an evenness indicator, where a large proportion comprised by
one or two taxa indicates poor conditions.
Given substantial habitat differences among forebays, transition zones,
and inflows, it was necessary to develop specific scoring criteria for these
metrics for each area. Data handling also differed among the metrics. Metric 1,
taxa richness, was an average developed by dividing the sum of the total number
of taxa in each sample by the total number of samples at that site. Metrics 2
and 3 were handled similarly. For metric 4 the proportion of chironomids in each
sample was calculated, then this proportion was averaged for a location. An
alternative that was considered was to sum the number of chironomids in all
samples and divide by the sum of the total individuals for all samples. The
22
-------
approach selected gives equal weight to all samples regardless of sample size.
This eliminates the bias introduced in the alternate approach when one sample at
a site has an exceptionally large or small density. Metric 5 was calculated in
the same way. Metric 6, proportion as dominant taxa, was calculated as a
proportion for each sample, similar to computations for metrics 4 and 5. The
proportion was calculated for the dominant taxon in each sample even if the
dominant taxon differed among the samples at a site. This allowed more
discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a
single dominant taxon for all samples at the site.
As stated at the beginning of section 3.1, a quantitative approach was
used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community information. The range
of values for each of the six metrics found in the available data base (in this
case, all the 1991 and 1992 monitoring data) served as the basis for evaluation
criteria. For each metric at each of the three reservoir sampling zones
(forebay, transition zone, and inflow) the range of the data base values is
trisected into poor (lower-third of the values), fair (middle-third of the
values), and good (top-third of the values). Results for each metric for the
current year under evaluation are then compared to these ranges and assigned
quantitative values of 1 (poor), 3 (fair), or 5 (good) if they fall within the
bottom-, middle-, or top-third, respectively. This results in a minimum score
of 6 if all metrics at a site are poor, and a maximum score of 30 if all metrics
are good. This was possible only on the run-of-the-river reservoirs;
insufficient information was available to use this approach on invertebrate
results from tributary, storage reservoirs. Detailed scoring criteria for each
metric in all three reservoir zones are provided in table 2.
Metrics were summed for each reservoir sampling site to yield a final
benthic score and evaluated as follows:
23
-------
Benthic
Community
Score
Sampling Location
Ratine
6-10 1 (poor)
11-15 2
16-20 3 (fair)
21-25 4
26-30 5 (good)
Note: If benthic community scores fall between 11-15 or 21-25, they are
borderline and may be placed into one or the other three groups
depending on professional judgment of the data set.
3.1.5 Fish Community Rating Scheme
A Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) developed by Jennings et. al.
(in press), was used to rate fish communities. The RFAI is based on 11 metrics
with scoring criteria specific to either run-of-the-river reservoirs or storage
reservoirs. Scoring criteria also are specific for the type of sample location
within those reservoirs--forebay, transition zone (or midreservoir), or inflow.
The metrics address the following assemblage characteristics:
Species Richness and Composition
1. Total number of species--Greater numbers of species are considered
representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions
degrade, numbers of species persisting at a site decline.
2. Number of sunfish species—Lepomid sunfish (excludes black basses,
crappies, and rock bass) are basically invertivores, and high
diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltation and high
sediment quality in littoral areas.
3. Number of sucker species—Suckers are also invertivores but inhabit
the pelagic and more riverine sections. This metric closely
parallels the migratory and lithophilic spawning species metrics
(metrics 8 and 9) and may be deleted from future RFAI calculations.
4. Number of intolerant species--This group is made up of species that
are particularly intolerant of habitat degradation. Higher densities
of intolerant individuals represents better environmental quality.
5. Percentage of tolerant individuals sampled (excluding shad)--This
metric signifies poorer water quality with increasing proportions of
individuals tolerant of degraded conditions.
24
-------
Table 2. Scoring criteria
(run-of-the-river
for benthic
reservoirs
macroinvertebrate metrics.
)
FOREBAY SCORES
1
3
5
METRIC
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
# TAXA
<4
4-5.9
>6
LONG-LIVED SPECIES
<0.5
0.6-1.5
>1.5
EPT
<0.3
0.3-0.6
>0.6
% CHIRONOMIDAE
>60
40-60
<40
% TUBIFICIDAE
>30
10-30
<10
% DOMINANT TAXA
>60
50-60
<50
TRANSITION ZONE SCORES
1
3
5
METRIC
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
# TAXA
<4
4-7
>7
LONG-LIVED SPECIES
<0.6
0.7-1.6
>1.7
EPT
<0.5
0.5-0.8
>0.8
% CHIRONOMIDAE
>40
20-40
<20
% TUBIFICIDAE
>20
10-20
<10
% DOMINANT TAXA
>70
50-70
<50
INFLOW SCORES
1
3
5
METRIC
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
# TAXA
<4
4-7
>7
LONG-LIVED SPECIES
<1.0
1-1.5
>1.5
EPT
<0.2
0.3-1.0
>1.0
I CHIRONOMIDAE
>20
5-20
<5
Z TUBIFICIDAE
>10
2-10
<2
Z DOMINANT TAXA
>70
50-70
<50
-------
Trophic Composition
6. Percentage of individuals as omnivores--Omnivores are less sensitive
to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets.
As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist
species such as invertivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous
species increase in relative abundance.
7. Percentage of individuals as invertivores--Due to the special dietary
requirements of this group of species and the limitations of their
food source in degraded environments, proportion of invertivores
increases with environmental quality.
Reproductive Composition
8. Number of migratory spawning species--Spawning requirements increase
the vulnerability of some reservoir fish species. Migratory spawners
need good water quality, low siltation, and adequate flows to
successfully reproduce. Numbers of migratory spawning species will
increase in reservoirs providing suitable conditions reflective of
good environmental quality.
9. Number of lithophilic spawning species--Lithophi1ic broadcast
spawners were selected due to their sensitivity to siltation.
However, this metric has proven to be repetitive of the migratory
spawners and number of sucker species metrics and its use will be
discontinued or combined with migratory spawners in the future.
Abundance and Fish Health
10. Total number of individuals — This metric is based upon the assumption
that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of
individuals (excluding shad).
11. Fish health assessment index--FHAI measures environmental stress on
a top predator, the largemouth bass, based on rigorous external and
internal examinations. The predicted negative correlation with
environmental quality has not occurred over the four years of
sampling. This may be due to the tolerant nature of the largemouth
bass to poor water quality along with an overriding, more localized
factor of the importance of food availability to bass health.
Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites,
deformities, and blindness will be noted for all fish collected and
used in the future to replace the FHAI metric.
Note: Table 3 lists trophic, reproductive, and tolerance designations of
fish species collected during this study.
Each metric is assigned a score of 1, 3, or 5 with 5 representing a
"good" condition, and scores of 3 and 1 indicating "fair" and "poor" conditions,
respectively. In cases where inadequate numbers of largemouth bass are sampled
26
-------
Table 3.
Core fish species list with trophic, tolerance, and reproductive designations (*) for use in
preliminary electrofishing Reservoir Fish Assetnblage Index (RFAI) for TVA reservoirs, 1991.
•Trophic Migratory Lithophilic
Species Guild Tolerance Spauner Spauner
Chestnut lamprey
PS
M
Spotted gar
PI
TOL
Longnose gar
PI
Shortnose gar
PI
TOL
Bowfin
PI
American eel
PI
Skipjack herring
PI
INT
M
Gizzard shad
ON
TOL
Threadfin shad
PL
Mooneye
IN
M
Chain pickerel
PI
Central stoneroller
HB
Goldfish
OM
TOL
Common carp
Silver chub
OM
TOL
SP
INT
Golden shiner
OM
TOL
Emerald shiner
IN
Ghost shiner
IN
Spot fin shiner
IN
TOL
Mimic shiner
IN
Steelcolor shiner
IN
Pugnose minnow
IN
Bluntnose minnow
OH
Fathead minnow
OM
Bullhead minnow
IN
River carpsucker
OH
M
Qui 11back
OH
M
Northern hog sucker
SP
INT
M
Smallmouth buffalo
OM
M
Bigmouth buffalo
PL
M
Black buffalo
OH
M
Spotted sucker
IN
INT
M
Silver redhorse
IN
M
Shorthead redhorse
IN
M
River redhorse
SP
INT
M
Black redhorse
IN
INT
M
Golden redhorse
IN
Blue catfish
OM
Black bullhead
OM
TOL
Yellow bulIhead
OH
TOL
Brown bullhead
OH
TOL
Channel catfish
OM
Flathead catfish
PI
Blackstripe topminnow
IN
Blackspotted topminnow
IN
Mosquitofish
IN
TOL
Brook silverside
IN
White bass
PI
M
Yellow bass
PI
M
Rock bass
PI
INT
Redbreast sunfish
IN
TOL
Green sunfish
IN
TOL
Uarmouth
IN
Orangespotted sunfish
IN
Bluegi11
IN
Longear sunfish
IN
INT
Redear sunfish
IN
Spotted sunfish
IN
Smallmouth bass
PI
Spotted bass
PI
Largemouth bass
PI
White crappie
PI
Black crappie
PI
Yellow perch
Logperch
IN
SP
Sauger
PI
M
WalI eye
PI
M
Freshwater drun
IN
•Designations:
Trophic: herbivore (HB), parasitic (PS), planktivore (PL), omivore (OH), insectivore (IN), piscivore (PI),
specialized benthic insectivore (SP)
Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT)
Migratory spawning species (M)
Lithophilic spawning species (L)
27
-------
to calculate the FHAI, a score of 3 is arbitrarily assigned to the FHAI metric.
As stated above, different scoring criteria were developed for each metric for
run-of-the-river and tributary reservoirs due to the distinct habitat differences
and the differences in fish assemblages they support. Scoring criteria by
reservoir type and zone are listed in table A.
Scores of the 11 metrics were summed to produce preliminary
electrofishing RFAI values for each of three distinct sampling zones per
reservoir. The range of 'attainable' RFAI values (11 to 55) was divided into
five equal groups for the most recent (1992) sampling results.
The 1992 RFAI ratings for reservoir sampling locations are as follows:
RFAI Sampling Location
Score Rating
11-19 1 (poor)
20-28 2
29-37 3 (fair)
38-45 A
A6-55 5 (good)
Note: If RFAI scores fall between 20-28 or 38-45, they are considered
borderline and may be placed into one or the other three groups
depending upon professional judgment of the data set.
If the FHAI, number of suckers, and number of lithophilic broadcast
spawners are omitted, only eight metrics would be available. A minimum of ten
metrics is desired to address the range of sensitivity necessary to accurately
depict biological responses to environmental degradation. Efforts are continuing
to include some measure of piscivores and an evaluation of forage abundance
(primarily shad) in the existing metrics or to develop new metrics for these
community characteristics. It is anticipated that additional metrics addressing
pelagic communities will be included in the near future based upon gill netting
results.
28
-------
Table 4.
Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index metrics and scoring criteria developed for
reservoirs. Scoring reflects relative fish community quality, with a score of 5
a score of 1 the poorest
RUN-OF-THE-RIVER
7VA run-of-the-river and tributary
representing highest quality, and
Metric
Inflow
Transition
Forebay
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
3
1
>27
20-27
<20
>26
21-26
<21
>23
19-23
<19
>4
3-4
<3
>4
3-4
<3
>4
3-4
<3
>6
4-6
<4
>4
3-4
<3
>4
2-4
<2
>3
2-3
<2
>5
3-5
<3
>3
2-3
<2
<.05
.05-.15
>.15
<.05
.05-. 15
>.15
<.05
.05-. 15
>.15
<.05
.05-. 15
>.15
<.05
.05-. 1
>.1
<.05
.05-. 1
>.1
>.7
.45-.7
<.45
>.75
.5-.75
<.5
>.8
.6S-.8
<.65
>7
4-7
<4
>5
3-5
<3
>5
3-5
<3
>6
4-6
<4
>5
3-5
<3
>3
2-3
<2
>599
300-599
<300
>800
400-800
<400
>800
400-800
<400
<34
34-67
>67
<34
34-67
>67
<34
34-67
>67
Species Richness and Composition
1. Total Species
2. Sunfish Species
3. Sucker Species
4. Intolerant Species
5. Percent of individ-
uals as tolerant
species
Trophic Composition
6. Percent of individ-
uals as
omnivores
7. Percent of individ-
uals as
invertivores
Reproductive Composition
8. Migratory spawning
species
9. Lipophilic spawning
species
Abundance and Fish Health
10. Total number of
individuals
11. Fish Health
Assessment
Index (FHAI)
TRIBUTARY
Metric
Species Richness and Composition
1. Total Species
2. Sunfish Species
3. Sucker Species
4. Intolerant Species
5. Percent of individ-
uals as
tolerant species
Trophic Composition
6. Percent of individ-
uals as omnivores
7. Percent of individ-
uals as
invertivores
Reproductive Composition
8. Migratory spawning
species
9. Lipophilic spawning
species
Abundance and Fish Health
10. Total number of
individuals
11. Fish Health
Assessment
Index (FHAI)
Inflow
Transition
Forebay
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
3
1
>20
15-20
<15
>18
12-18
<12
>18
12-18
<12
>4
3-4
<3
>4
3-4
<3
>4
3-4
<3
>4
2-4
<2
>4
3-4
<3
>3
2-3
<2
>2
1-2
<1
>5
3-5
<3
>3
2-3
<2
<.05
.05-.15
>.15
<.05
.05-.15
>.15
<.05
.05-.15
>.15
<•05
.05-. 1
>.1
<.05
.05-. 1
>.1
>.7
.45-.7
<.45
>.75
.5-75
<.5
>.8
.65-.8
<.65
>5
2-5
<2
>5
3-5
<3
>4
2-4
<2
>4
2-4
<2
>5
3-5
<3
>2
1-2
<1
>599
300-599
<300
>600
300-600
<300
>800
400-800
<400
<34
34-67
>67
<34
34-67
>67
<34
34-67
>67
29
-------
3.1.6 Overall Reservoir Health Determination
The overall ecological health of a reservoir is determined by summing the
numeric results (ranging from 5 representing good conditions' to 1 representing
poor) for the five indicators (DO, chlorophyll, sediment quality, benthos, and
fish community) for each location. Each reservoir has one to four sample
locations depending on reservoir size and shape. Location sums are totaled and
that sum divided by the maximum possible score. Thus, the possible range of
scores is 20 percent (all metrics poor) to 100 percent (all metrics good).
During the development of this evaluation process it was necessary to
divide the final scoring range (20-100 percent) into categories representing
good, fair, and poor conditions. This was achieved as follows:
1. Results were plotted and examined for apparent groupings.
2. Groupings were then compared to known, a priori conditions (focusing
on reservoirs with known poor conditions) and necessary adjustments
were made.
3. The three groupings were compared to a trisection of the overall
scoring range. A scoring range was adjusted up or down a few
percentage points to ensure a reservoir with known conditions fell
within the appropriate category. This was done only in circumstances
where a nominal adjustment was necessary.
The final scoring ranges for 1992 information are as follows:
Poor Fair Good
Run-of-the-river reservoirs <52% >52-722 >72%
Storage reservoirs <56% >56-72% >72%
The difference in the poor scoring range between the two types of
reservoirs was due to item 2 above. Two storage reservoirs with known poor
conditions rated slightly higher than the lower (poor) grouping. Hence, the high
end of the lower scoring range for storage reservoirs was shifted upward to
include these reservoirs (56 percent).
30
-------
Based on the experience gained in developing this evaluation process,
feedback from other state and federal professionals upon their review of this
evaluation process, and another year of information, slight modifications were
made in the original evaluation process and the numerical scoring criteria for
each of the five ecological health indicators. An example of the calculations
and final categorization of good, fair, or poor conditions for a run-of-the-river
reservoir and a storage reservoir for the most recent information (1992) are
illustrated in table 5.
This ecological health evaluation system has proven to be a useful tool.
It allows funneling a large amount of data into single index values which can be
compared among reservoirs or used to evaluate year-to-year changes for individual
reservoirs. The index effectively separates the reservoirs into the three
categories of good, fair, and poor. For 1992 results, scores for the 11 run-of-
river reservoirs ranged from 48 percent to 88 percent. Six reservoirs rated
good, four fair, and one poor. Scores for the 12 deep storage reservoirs that
were monitored ranged from 53 percent to 73 percent. Only one reservoir rated
good, seven fair, and four poor.
Index results have not yielded any "big" surprises--ratings for most
reservoirs have fallen within expected categories. Similar results were observed
in both 1991 and 1992, primarily due to similar weather conditions and reservoir
flows those two years. This indicates that the evaluation system is likely to
yield consistent results for similar ecological conditions.
Interestingly, one of the storage reservoirs showed a substantial
improvement in ecological health between 1991 (poor, 53 percent) and 1992 (fair,
64 percent). This particular reservoir is downstream of a site where a weir was
31
-------
Table 5. Computational Method For Evaluation of Reservoir Health
Wilson Reservoir - 1992 (Run-of-the-river reservoir)
Aquatic Health Indicator
Observat ions
Ratings
Forebay
T rans i t i on
Zone
Inflow
Forebay
Transition
Zone
Inflow
Dissolved Oxygen:
X of [time x depth] <2 mg/l
less than Smg/l at 1.5 meter
# months <2mg/l at bottom
4.3 (5)
No
1 (2)*
No Samples
0 (5)
No
0 (5)
3
*D0 was
I mg/l at the
5
bottom
ChlorophylI-a, ug/l:
average
maximum
11.0
146.0 *
No Samples
No Samples
2
•Chloroph
'll-a maximun
> 30 ug/l
Sediment Quality
Rotifer Survival
Microtox (EC10)
Metals/NH3/pesticides
97% (5)
28%
None (5)
No Samples
No Samples
5
Benthic Community:
Dominance
Tubificidae
Chi ronmidae
EPT
Long-lived
Taxa richness
Total
1
1
1
1
1
3
8
No Samples
5
1
3
5
5
5
24
1
it
Fish Community:
RFCI score
33
No Samples
41
3
-
4
Overall Reservoir Evaluation Key:
Less than 52% - poor (red)
>52% and <72X - fair (yellow)
Greater than 72% - good (green)
Sampling Location Sum
14 of 25
13 of 15
Reservoir Sum
27 of 40 [68%]
OVERALL RESERVOIR EVALUATION
"fair" (yellow)
Cherokee Reservoir - 1992 (Tributary storage reservoir)
Aquatic Health Indicator
Observat ions
Ratings
Forebay
Mid-
reservoir
Inflow
Forebay
Mid-
reservoir
Inflow
Dissolved Oxygen:
X of [time x depth] <2 mg/l
less than 5mg/l at 1.5 meter
# months <2mg/l at bottom
31.6 (1)
No
3 (1)*
30.0 (1)
No
3 (1)*
No Samples
1
*D0 was (
1
I mg/l at the
bottom
Chlorophyll-a, ug/l:
average
maximun
9.0
15.0
11.5
17.0
No Samples
5
3
¦
Sediment Quality
Rotifer Survival
Microtox (EC10)
Metals/NH3/pesticides
100X (5)
53-57X
NH3 (3)
100X (5)
65X
Cu, NH3 (1)
No Samples
4
3
Fish Coanunity:
RFCI score
29
25
27
3
2
2
Overall Reservoir Evaluation Key:
Less than 57X - poor (red)
>57X and <72% - fair (yellow)
Greater than 72X - good (green)
Sampling Location Sun
13 of 20
9 of 20
2 of 5
Reservoir Sun
24 of 45 [53%]
OVERALL RESERVOIR EVALUATION
'•poor" (red)
32
-------
being constructed in 1991 to improve dissolved oxygen in the releases of the next
upstream reservoir. During that period, flows from the upstream reservoir were
held to a minimum to facilitate weir construction activities. Construction was
completed and flows returned to normal in 1992 causing improvements in DO levels
(increases) and chlorophyll-a levels (decreases). These results indicate the
evaluation system may be sufficiently dynamic to detect year-to-year differences.
Final evaluation of this dimension of the ecological health evaluation system
will occur in subsequent years as weather and flow conditions vary.
3.2 Use Suitability
3.2.1 Bacteriological Sampline
Among the seven Valley states there is no single set of bacteriological
criteria for the evaluation of the suitability of water for water contact
recreation. Each state has its own unique criteria for classification of waters
for use for water contact recreation. To make comparisons uniform among the many
locations, EPA guidelines for fecal coliform bacteria are applied to TVA results
to determine use suitability for water contact recreation (EPA, 1991).
TVA's water contact recreation criteria using fecal coliform bacteria are
as follows:
Fully Supporting water contact recreation:
a geometric mean of less than 200 colonies per 100 mL for spring and
summer samples (the geometric mean is calculated based on at least
ten individual samples, with samples collected at least 24-hours
apart and within a 30-day period); and
a single sample maximum of 400 colonies per 100 mL is exceeded in
less than 10 percent of samples.
Partially Supporting water contact recreation:
a geometric mean of less than 200 colonies per 100 mL for spring and
summer samples; and
a single sample maximum of 400 colonies per 100 mL is exceeded in 11
to 25 percent of samples.
33
-------
Not Supporting water contact recreation:
a geometric mean, greater than 200 colonies per 100 mL for spring and
summer samples; or
a single sample maximum of 400 colonies per 100 mL is exceeded in
more than 25 percent of samples.
TVA recommends no water contact recreation for at least two days
following rain events at locations which only partially support water contact,
because of the bacteria which are washed into the water. In addition, TVA
recommends no water contact recreation in the immediate vicinity of wastewater
discharges regardless of what fecal bacteria data show, because of the
possibility of mechanical breakdowns and sewage bypasses or overflows.
3.2.2 Fish Tissue Studies
TVA and state agencies coordinate with one another in conducting fish
tissue studies in the Tennessee Valley. There is a shared interest in the status
of TVA reservoirs as important and valuable resources. State agencies are
responsible for regulatory and public health decisions and are interested along
with TVA in the ecological health of Valley reservoirs and knowing if fish from
these reservoirs are safe to eat.
Prior to initiating sample collections each autumn, TVA and involved
Valley state agencies meet to discuss the previous year's results and decide
appropriate direction for further study. Agreements are reached on species to
be examined, locations to be sampled, and the agencies responsible for conducting
each part of the work. TVA provides to the appropriate states the results for
that part of the work for which TVA has responsibility. The states then have the
responsibility to take whatever action as they deem necessary to protect public
34
-------
health. This usually involves deciding whether or not to issue an advisory
against consuming selected species or age classes of fish. TVA's role in this
process is to provide accurate results, to provide consultation to the state(s)
as appropriate, and honor the state's decisions.
35
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
Carlson, R. E. 1977. "A Trophic State Index for Lakes." Limnology and
Oceanography. 22:361*369.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Sediment Classification Methods
Compendium." EPA 823-R-92-006, USEPA, Washington D.C., September 1992.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. "Guidelines for the Preparation of the
1992 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)." USEPA, Washington
D.C., August 1991•
Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. "Guidelines for the Pollutional
Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments." USEPA, Region V, Chicago,
April 1977.
Hutchinson, G. Evelyn. 1975. A Treatise on Limnology. Volume 1, Part 2-Chemistry
of Lakes, J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Masters, A. and T. A. McDonough. 1993. TVA Water Resources, Chattanooga, TN,
Personal Communication, April 1993.
37
-------
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
Water Resources Division
Chattanooga, Tennessee
TVA/WR-92/7
December 1992
RESERVOIR MONITORING -1991
FISH TISSUE STUDIES IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY IN 1990
WATER RESOURCES &
ECOLOGICAL MONITORING
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Resource Development
River Basin Operations
Water Resources
RESERVOIR MONITORINC - 1991
FISH TISSUE STUDIES
IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY IN 1990
Prepared by
Joella A. Bates and Donald L. Dycus
Tennessee Valley Authority
Aquatic Biology Department
Gordon E. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Associates
Chattanooga, Tennessee
December 1992
-------
CONTENTS
Tables v
Figures ix
Executive Summary xi
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Rationale and General Procedures 3
2.1 Sample Collection and Handling 3
2.1.1 Strategy 3
2.1.2 Species Examined 5
2.1.3 Field Handling 5
2.2 Analytical Laboratory 6
2.2.1 Analytes 6
2.2.2 Quality Assurance 8
2.3 Data Analyses 8
,..3.1 Screening Studies 8
2.3.2 Intensive Studies 8
3.0 Screening Studies 9
3.1 Methods 11
3.1.1 Study Species 11
3.1.2 Sample Processing 12
3.1.3 Laboratory Analyses 12
3.2 Results and Discussion 13
3.2.1 Collections and Observations on Fish 13
3.2.2 Tissue Analyses 15
3.3 Recommendations 19
4.0 Intensive Reservoir Studies 49
4.1 Wilson Reservoir 51
4.1.1 Methods 52
4.1.2 Results and Discussion 55
4.1.3 Recommendations 58
4.2 Nickajack Reservoir 69
4.2.1 Methods 70
4.2.2 Results and Discussion 71
4.2.3 Recommendations 7 5
4.3 Chickamauga Reservoir 81
4.3.1 Methods 81
4.3.2 Results and Discussion 82
4.3.3 Recommendations 84
4.4 Watts Bar Reservoir 91
4.4.1 Methods 93
4.4.2 Results and Discussion 94
4.4.3 Recommendations 106
4.5 Fort Loudoun Reservoir 133
4.5.1 Methods 135
4.5.2 Results and Discussion 136
4.5.3 Recommendations 137
4.6 Melton Hill Reservoir 143
4.6.1 Methods 144
4.6.2 Results and Discussions 144
4.6.3 Recommendations 146
i i i
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
References 151
Appendix A - Chronological Listing of TVA Reports
Relating to Toxics in Fish 153
Appendix B - TVA Standard Procedures for Collection and
Processing of Fish Tissue Samples for Laboratory Analysis 159
Appendix C - Comparison of Contaminant Concentrations in
Individual and Composited Samples of Channel Catfish 169
Appendix D - State of Tennessee - Latest Fish Advisory 175
Appendix E - Alabama Department of Public Health
Fish Consumption Advisory for the Indian Creek Embayment
on Wheeler Reservoir 181
IV
-------
TABLES
Page
3.1 Contaminant Concentrations Used as the Cuideline for
Planning the Level of Continued Fish Tissue Studies in the
Tennessee Valley Waters 20
3.2 Collection Sites included in Fish Tissue Screening
Studies, Autumn 1990 21
3.3 Specific Physical Information on Individual Fish Collected for
Tissue Analysis from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1990 . . 23
3.4 Concentrations of Metals in Composited Fish Flesh Samples
from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1990 35
3.5 Concentrations of Pesticides and PCBs in Composited Fish
Flesh Samples from Inflow and Reservoir Locations, 1990 ... 39
3.6 Highest and Second-Highest Concentrations of Each Contaminant
in Fillets Found in Fish Tissue Screening Studies
in 1990 43
3.7 Contaminant Results from Reservoir and Inflow Sites
Which Show Need for Further Evaluation 44
3.8 Listing of Collection Sites for Valley-Wide Fish Tissue
Screening Study for Autumn 1991 46
A.1-1 Minimum, Maximum, and Mean Lengths and Weights
of Channel and Blue Catfish Collected from
Four Stations on Wilson Reservoir 59
4.1-2 Physical Data and Concentrations of Organics in Individual
Channel Catfish Fillets Collected from Wilson Reservoir
in Autumn 1990 60
4.1-3 Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test
on Lipid Content and Total Weight in Catfish from
Wilson Reservoir 62
4.1-4 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations in Individual Catfish
from Wilson Reservoir 63
4.1-5 Selected Results of Analysis of Covariance for Each Sample
Location Over Time Showing Mean PCB Levels Adjusted to a
Common Weight 64
v
-------
1
2
3
A
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Physical Characteristics and Concentrations of Organics
in Channel Catfish from Nickajack Reservoir
Collected November and December 1990 76
Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test on
Lipid Content and Total Weight in Catfish from Nickajack
Reservoir Winter 1989, Fall 1989 and 1990 77
Summary of Total PCB Concentrations in Individual Catfish Fillets
from Nickajack Reservoir, Collected in January-February 1989,
Fall 1989, and Fall 1990 78
Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare Location Differences
in PCB and Chlordane Concentrations in Channel Catfish from
Nickajack Reservoir, 1990 79
Decision Path Followed and Results of Two-Way Testing
by Analysis of Variance or Covariance for PCB and
Chlordane Concentration in Channel Catfish from Nickajack
Reservoir Winter 1989, Fall 1989, and Fall 1990 80
Physical Data and Concentrations of Organics in Individual
Channel Catfish Fillets Collected from Chickamauga Reservoir
in Autumn 1990 85
Results of One-Way Anova on Location of Differences of Fish
Length, Weight, and Lipid Content for Channel Catfish
from Chickamauga Reservoir in 1990 88
Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare PCB and Chlordane
Concentrations among Channel Catfish from the Five Locations
on Chickamauga Reservoir in 1990 89
Summary for Lengths, Weights, and Lipid Contents in
Channel Catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir,
1990 and Previous Years 108
Physical Information and Concentrations of Organics in
Channel Catfish Samples Collected from Watts Bar Reservoir
for Tissue Analysis in Autumn 1990 109
Results of One-Way Anova on Channel Catfish
Weight and Lipid Content Among Sample Sites on
Watts Bar Reservoir in 1990 112
VI
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
4.4-4 Two-Way Anova and Duncan's Multiple Range Test on
Lipid Content and Total Weight of Channel Catfish
from Watts Bar Reservoir 1988, 1989, and 1990 113
4.4-5 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations in Catfish Fillets
from Watts Bar Reservoir in 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 .... 114
4.4-6 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare PCB
Concentrations in Channel Catfish Among Sample Locations
on Watts Bar Reservoir, 1990 115
4.4-7 Decision Path Followed and Results of Two-Way Testing
by Analysis of Variance or Covariance for PCB
Concentration in Channel Catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir
1988, 1989, and 1990 116
4.4-8 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare PCB
Concentrations in Channel Catfish at Station TRM 598/600
Over a Six-Year Period, 1985-90 117
4.4-9 Summary of Total Chlordane Concentrations in Catfish Fillets
from Watts iar Reservoir in 1989 and 1990 118
4.4-10 Decision Path Followed and Results of Two-Way Testing by Analysis
of Variance or Covariance for Chlordane Concentrations in
Channel Catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1990 119
4.4-11 Decision Path Followed and Results of Two-Way Testing by
Variance or Covariance for Chlordane Concentrations in Channel
Catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1989 and 1990 120
4.4-12 Physical Information and Concentrations of Orgamcs in Striped
Bass and Striped Bass x White Bass Hybrid Samples Collected
from Watts Bar Reservoir for Tissue Analysis in Autumn 1990 . 121
4.4-13 Results of One-Way Anova on Striped Bass Weight and
Lipid Content Among Sample Sites on Watts Bar Reservoir
in 1990 123
4.4-14 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations in Striped Bass
Fillets from Watts Bar Reservoir in Winter 1990 and
Autumn 1990 124
4.4-15 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare PCB
Concentrations in Striped Bass Among Sample Locations
on Watts Bar Reservoir, Fall 1990 125
vi i
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
A.4-16 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare Chlordane
Concentrations in Striped Bass Among Sample Locations
on Watts Bar Reservoir, Fall 1990 126
4.A-17 Physical information and Concentrations of Organics for
Individual Fish Collected from Piney River Embayment,
Watts Bar Reservoir, 1990 127
A.A-18 Results of One-Way Anova and Duncan's Multiple Range Test
on Catfish Weight and Lipid Content Among Sample Sites in
Piney River and White Creek Embayments in 1990 130
A.A-19 Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare PCB
and Chlordane Concentrations Among Catfish at Two Sample
Locations in Piney River Embayment and in the Main River of
Watts Bar Reservoir at TRM 532, Fall 1990 131
A.A-20 Fish Tissue Sampling Planned for Fall 1991 132
A.5-1 Minimum, Maximum, and Mean Lengths and Weights of Channel
Catfish Collected from Fort Loudoun Reservoir in 1981, 1985,
1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 138
A.5-2 Physical Information and Concentrations of Organics in
Individual Channel Catfish Samples Collected from Fort Loudoun
Reservoir for Tissue Analysis in October 1990 139
A.5-3 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations in Individual Catfish
Fillets from Fort Loudoun Reservoir, Collected in Spring 1981
and Fall 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 1A0
A.5-A Results of Statistical Tests Used to Compare PCB Concentrations
in Channel Catfish from Fort Loudoun Reservoir 1985, 1987,
1988, 1989, and 1990 1A1
A.6-1 Minimum, Maximum, and Mean Lengths and Weights of Channel Catfish
Collected from Stations on Melton Hill Reservoir in
198A, 1987, 1988, and 1990 1A7
A.6-2 Physical Information and Concentrations of Organics in Catfish.
Samples Collected from Melton Hill Reservoir Analysis in
Autumn 1990 1A8
A.6-3 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations in Individual
Catfish Fillets from Melton Hill Reservoir
Collected Autumn 1990 and Previous Years 1A9
VI 1 1
-------
FIGURES
Page
3.1 Sites Where Fish Were Collected as Part of TVA
Screening Studies in 1990 47
4.1 Collection Locations for CatfLsh Used in PCB Study on
Wilson Reservoir, Autumn 1990 65
4.2 Daily Average Discharges from Wilson Dam (1980-1990) 66
IX
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TVA has been involved in fish tissue studies for a number of years.
Because of the significant interest expressed by Valley states and the
fishing public, TVA's involvement in these studies has been expanded
progressively from year to year. TVA coordinates these efforts with
state and federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort.
TVA analyzes tissues of Tennessee Valley fish as part of both intensive
and screening evaluations. Intensive studies are conducted on reservoirs
where contamination problems are known or suspected, and they include
anaLysis of individual fillets from important fish species from several
areas in the reservoir. Primary objectives of intensive studies are to
define the species affected and the geographical boundaries of
contamination. These studies continue over a period of years to document
when the contaminant ceases to be a problem. This information is used by
state public health officials to determine if fish consumption advisories
are necessary to protect human health. Screening studies, on the other
hand, are based on analysis of composited, rather than individual
fillets, and are intended to identify possible problem areas with a need
for an intensive investigation. Screening studies were initiated in 1987
and are intended to be sampled on a rotational basis, where each
reservoir is revisited every three years as long as concentrations remain
low.
The approach most commonly used in these studies is to examine a
reservoir as part of the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study, which
uses channel catfish as an indicator species. Channel catfish was
selected as the indicator species because it is highly sought by both
commercial and sport fishermen, because individuals usually have
relatively high concentrations of most contaminants compared to other
species, and because an historical data base exists for that species.
If problems are identified, an intensive study is usually undertaken the
next year that would include analysis of individual channel catfish at a
greater number of locations than sampled in the screening study. Also,
other important species would be examined, including one or more of the
following: largemouth bass, striped bass, buffalo, crappie, carp, white
bass, and possibly others.
Immediately after collection, fish are placed on wet ice and a systematic
examination made on the external and internal conditions of each fish.
Other information taken for each fish includes total length, total
weight, sex, fillet weights, and liver weight. Each fillet is wrapped in
aluminum foil and bagged separately to maintain individual identity,
regardless of whether for a screening or an intensive study. All samples
are stored frozen until analyzed in the chemistry laboratory.
Fish collected for screening studies are usually analyzed for metals,
PCBs, and pesticides on EPA's Priority Pollutant List. Fish for
intensive studies are analyzed only for the contaminant of concern, which
has been identified by screening studies, or is known as an historic
problem. Lipid content is determined on all samples.
XI
-------
Screening Studies
Results of screening studies in 1990 did not reveal any new areas in need
of intensive studies. Two areas (Parksville Reservoir on the Ocoee River
and John Sevier Detention Pool on the Holston River) had been identified
in previous years of screening to be in need of more detailed
examination. Because of other priorities, this was not possible in 1990,
so both waterbodies were reexamined at the screening level. The 1990
efforts supported results from previous years. In Parksville Reservoir,
relatively high concentrations of PCBs (1.0 Hg/g) and selenium (1.0
Hg/g) are the contaminants of concern; on John Sevier Detention Pool,
concern exists for one or more of the following: PCBs, chlordane,
mercury, and cadmium.
Like the 1989 studies, an ancillary objective in 1990 was to determine if
increased turbulence and runoff due to heavy rainfall and flood
conditions caused a measurable increase in contaminant concentration.
Screening studies had been conducted on most mainstream reservoirs in
1988. Autumn 1988 continued a prolonged drought in the Tennessee Valley,
starting in summer 1984. The drought came to an abrupt end in 1989, with
significant rainfall and flooding in winter, spring and summer. To
capitalize on this opportunity, the mainstream reservoirs were resampled
in autumn 1989 and 1990. During both years, increased contaminant
concentrations were documented at several sample areas, especially those
in the upper end of the reservoirs (i.e., downstream of the next dam,
where turbulence would be expected to be greatest). The contaminant most
commonly found to increase was PCBs, with greatest increases at areas in
the upper end of the reservoirs where turbulence is greatest. Largest
increases were observed for Wheeler Reservoir for both PCBs and DDT.
Because of these results and a warning by the State of Alabama for the
public not to eat certain fish species from an embayment on Wheeler
Reservoir due to DDT contamination, a more intensive examination of fish
from that reservoir was conducted in autumn 1991. Increases on other
reservoirs were not sufficient to warrant intensive investigations.
Instead, screening level monitoring was conducted again on these
reservoirs in autumn 1991.
Intensive Studies
Six TVA reservoirs were examined intensively in 1990: Wilson, Nickajack,
Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, and Tellico reservoirs. On all
lakes the contaminant of concern was PCBs, and chlordane was of concern
in some. Fish consumption advisories (limit quantity eaten or avoid any
consumption) are in effect for all these reservoirs, except Wilson and
Chickamauga. A copy of the most recent public notice published in
February 1992, providing appropriate advice from the Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation, is provided in appendix C. Advice
provided in this public notice was based in large part on results of
these studies. Most advisories were continued with only a few changes.
Wilson Reservoir (in Alabama) was examined intensively because of an
historic PCB problem, which was first discovered in 198A and decreased
steadily through 1987 to basically non-detectable levels. In 1985, the
XI 1
-------
Northwest Alabama Regional Health Department notified local markets to
discontinue selling catfish from Wilson Reservoir; this notice was
discontinued in early 1987, as a result of decreased concentrations. A
PCB source from TVA's Power Service Center into a small embayment (Flt?et
Hollow), at the downstream end of Wilson Reservoir, was probably
responsible for the problem within that embayment, but not for the
problem throughout the reservoir. Likewise, remediation efforts by TVA
during early to the mid-1980s would be expected to be responsible for
correcting the localized problem, but not the reservoir-wide problem.
The cause of the reservoir-wide problem was never fully known; likewise
the reason for the reservoir-wide recovery was not known. The most
plausible explanation for the observed decreases throughout the reservoir
was that the fish examined in 1984 were collected about four months
following a 100-year flood event. As stated previously, the period
following 1984 was extremely dry through 1988, with little runoff and lov
flows in the Tennessee River. Return of heavy rainfall, particularly in
early summer 1989 (generally similar to that in 1984), provided an
opportunity to determine if high PCB concentrations occurred again. The
1989 results showed an increase at all sample sites with the greatest
increases in Fleet Hollow. However, the increases were not sufficiently
high to warrant advice to the public. Because of the heavy rainfall in
early 1990, the intensive study was conducted again in autumn 1990 to
determine if concentrations increased further. Results from the 1990
samples were not appreciably different from those in 1989. Given the
lack of further increases and the generally low overall magnitude of
contamination, intensive studies were discontinued following 1990.
An intensive study was conducted on Chickamauga Reservoir in 1990 because
previous screening studies had found somewhat elevated PCB concentrations
in catfish, especially in the upper end of the reservoir, and because the
reservoirs immediately upstream (Watts Bar) and downstream (Nickajack)
were both under fish consumption advisories due to PCB contamination.
Average PCB concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 0.7 Hg/g and the high
concentration in any of the 50 catfish was 1.3 Hg/g• Only two other
fish exceeded 1.0 ng/g. As a result, no further intensive
investigations were planned for Chickamauga Reservoir.
XI 1 1
-------
VALLEY-WIDE FISH TISSUE STUDY
O
J' ft/
J ^V?\ I,
You can't tell a fish
by it's cover--is it
safe to eat?
/^ggyj
Routine, cooperative
monitoring by State,
Federal, and other
interested agencies is
necessary to ensure
protection of public
health.
'RB'SOt-TS
COvJ C-£\/£L'S
I
SiatE PUBLIC HEALTH
I
NO dWAMGE
H-I&h LEVELS
4*
5XfKTe fOBQC H&40W-
omce
4-
LAK0 clc*=£P
Ca~iM€ECiAl. .SFbRT
Ffi«e^>iEAj Fcwieii/vieAJ
DC^r.<^c. AvWP i-AKE
CSCOIAJESS MAKWA
Results are provided to
all involved parties
and are used by State
officials to advise the
public appropriately.
(coordinated by Tennesee Valley Authority
-------
FISH TISSUE STUDIES
IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY IN 1990
1.0 INTRODUCTION!
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has been involved in fish
tissue studies for a number of years. Because of the significant
interest expressed by Valley states and the fishing public, TVA's
involvement in these studies has expanded greatly in recent years.
TVA analyzes tissues of Tennessee Valley fish as part of both
intensive and screening evaluations. Intensive studies are conducted
on reservoirs where contamination problems are known or suspected and
usually include analysis of individual fillets from important fish
species from several areas in the reservoir. Primary objectives of
intensive studies are to define the species affected and the
geographical boundaries of contamination. These studies continue over
a period of years to document when the contaminant ceases to be a
problem. This information is used by state public health officials to
determine if fish consumption advisories are necessary to protect
human health. Screening studies, on the other hand, are based on
analysis of composited rather than individual fillets and are intended
to identify possible problem areas with a need for an intensive
investigation.
This report provides results from both intensive studies and
screening studies conducted in 1990. Formerly, intensive studies on
each reservoir were reported individually, resulting in several such
reports each year, whereas screening studies were combined in a single
report each year. The change to a consolidated annual fish tissue
-------
report was first made in 1991 (Hall and Dycus), which provided 1989
results. A list of fish tissue reports prepared for previous years is
provided in appendix A along with instructions for ordering copies of
report s.
Chapter 2 of this report summarizes the philosophical approach
and generic procedures used by TVA in fish tissue studies. Chapter 3
provides results and discussion for all 1990 screening studies, and
chapter k provides similar information for each intensive study.
Chapters 3 and A also identify specific methodologies (e.g., species,
locations, etc.) as appropriate. Appendix A is a chronological
listing of TVA reports relating to toxics in fish. Appendix B
identifies procedures used in the collection and processing of fish by
Aquatic Biology personnel prior to sample delivery to the
Environmental Chemistry Lab. Appendix C gives results of a special
study conducted to determine how well the analysis of a five-fillet
composite represented the mean of those five fillets had they been
analyzed individually. Appendix D is the latest fish advisory
information from Tennessee. Appendix E is a fish consumption advisory
issued by the Alabama Department of Public Health for the Indian Creek
embayment on Wheeler Reservoir.
-2-
-------
2.0 RATIONALE AND GENERAL PROCEDURES
2.1 Sample Collection and Handling
2.1.1 Strategy
All fish tissue studies are closely coordinated among TVA and
various state agencies to ensure all needs are met and to avoid
duplication of effort. Planning meetings are usually held in the
summer followed by collection efforts in autumn. In many cases
efforts are combined so that one organization collects the fish and
another analyzes them. Coordinated efforts such as these allow for
most efficient use of available funds. When more than one analytical
laboratory is involved, samples are split between the labs to allow
proper comparisons.
Several important decisions must be made in studies such as
these. Should analyses be conducted on fish composites or individual
fish? Should whole fish or fillets be analyzed? Should fillets have
the skin on or off? Should the bellyflap (which is rich in lipids and
lipophilic contaminants) be left on the fillet or removed? These are
all valid options and all have been used in previous studies
(McCracken 1983). Selection of specific protocols is dependent upon
the objective of the study.
Should analyses be conducted on fish composites or individual
fish?--TVA's approach differs between screening studies and intensive
studies because the objectives of those studies differ. Screening
studies are intended to identify reservoirs with potential problems,
whereas intensive studies are intended to define the extent of the
problem identified by the screening studies. Therefore, screening
-3-
-------
studies are based on composited samples analyzed for a broad array of
contaminants, and intensive studies are based on analysis of
individual samples for only those analytes identified to be a
potential problem. Analysis of individual samples provides a measure
of variation in the population thus allowing statistical testing among
locations and over time.
Should whole fish or fillets be analyzed?--The primary objective
of most TVA fish tissue studies is oriented toward human health. In
that case, it makes little sense to examine whole fish. Therefore, in
most cases, TVA fish tissue studies are based on analysis of fillets.
Typically, analysis of whole fish is preferable when fish are used as
"environmental monitors" to determine the condition of the environment
or to identify previously unknown contaminants (FWGPM 1974 and
McCracken 1983).
Should fillets have skin on or off? Should the bellvflap be
left on the fillet?--The decision point for both these questions is
whether one wishes to produce a "worst-case," or a less conservative,
scenario. Fillets with skin and bellyflap left on usually have higher
concentrations of most contaminants (worst-case), especially
organochlorine contaminants, than skin-off, bellyflap-removed
(best-case) fillets. A study by Cornell University has shown up to a
50 percent reduction in concentration of PCBs and mirex when comparing
"best-case" and "worst-case" prepared fillets (Call and Voiland
1990). Based on the need for a conservative approach in protection of
public health, TVA studies are designed to produce a worst-case
estimate of contamination so as to best protect the fish consumer.
-------
Therefore, all TVA analyses are conducted on fillets with bellyflap
left on for all species and skin left on for all species except
catfish (catfish skin is rarely, if ever, eaten with the fillet).
2.1.2 Species Examined
The approach most commonly used in these studies is to examine a
reservoir as part of the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study
(described in detail in section 3.1), which uses channel catfish as an
indicator species. Channel catfish was selected as the indicator
species because it is highly sought by both commercial and sport
fisherman, because individuals usually have relatively high
concentrations of most contaminants compared to other species, and
because a historical data base exists for that species.
If problems are identified, an intensive study is usually
undertaken the next year that would include analysis of individual
channel catfish at a greater number of locations than sampled in the
screening study. Also, other important species would be examined at
the screening level. Depending upon their importance in the reservoir
and the availability of funds, these species would include one or more
of the following: largemouth bass, striped bass, buffalo, crappie,
carp, white bass, and possibly others. If problems are identified in
any of these species, they would be examined intensively (i.e.,
fillets analyzed individually) during the subsequent year.
2.1.3 Field Handling
Fish are usually collected with gill nets, or with boat-mounted
electro-fishing gear. Slat baskets are occasionally used for catfish,
-5-
-------
if other collection techniques are not successful. In some cases,
fish (usually catfish or buffalo) are obtained from commercial
fishermen, but only if a TVA (or state) employee accompanies the
fishermen and witnesses that the fish were harvested from the desired
collection area. To the extent possible, collection of these fish is
coordinated with all other on-going collection efforts to minimize
costs.
Immediately after collection, fish are placed on wet ice and as
soon as possible (not to exceed 24 hours) taken to one of TVA's
biological laboratories for examination and processing (appendix B).
Examination involves systematic observations on the external and
internal conditions of each fish. Other information taken for each
fish includes total length, total weight, sex, fillet weights, and
liver weight. Each fillet is wrapped in aluminum foil and bagged
separately to maintain individual identity, regardless of whether for
a screening or an intensive study. All samples are stored frozen
until analyzed in the chemistry laboratory.
2.2 Analytical Laboratory
2.2.1 Analvtes
Fish collected for screening studies are usually analyzed for
metals, PCBs, and pesticides on EPA's Priority Pollutant List. Fish
for intensive studies are analyzed only for the contaminant of
concern, which has been identified by screening studies or is known as
a historic problem. The most common contaminant of concern in the
-------
Tennessee Valley is PCBs, with chlordane a distant second. Several
TVA reservoirs have fish consumption advisories due to
PCB-contaminated fish. These will be further described in chapter k.
The lipid content of a sample (determined gravimetrically and
expressed as a percentage) has been found to be an invaluable quality
assurance tool, as well as being essential in conducting spatial or
temporal statistical analyses. For these reasons, lipid content is
determined on all samples.
Preparation of fillets for individual analysis is accomplished
by homogenizing the entire fillet. This is necessary because
contaminants are not evenly distributed throughout the fillet, and
homogenization of only a portion would bias the results. An aliquot
is then removed from the homogenate for analysis.
A composite sample is prepared by taking an equal aliquot from
each of five independently homogenized fillets. Preparation of
composite samples in this manner is necessary to avoid biasing of
results due to compositing fillets of different sizes. The
alternative way to avoid a size bias is to collect fish of a
consistent size. This would allow homogenizing all five fillets at
the same time, thereby reducing time required for that step. However,
TVA's experience has shown that this alternative is not desirable
because it increases collection costs, limits applicability of results
to only the size of fish tested, and prevents samples from maintaining
their identity, if the need arises later for individual analysis.
-7-
-------
2.2.2 Quality Assurance
TVA's standard Quality Assurance (QA) program requires running
one replicate, one spike, one blank, and one surrogate out of every
ten samples. TVA also routinely splits samples with other analytical
laboratories if that agency is participating in fish tissue studies on
TVA waters. In 1989, a rather extensive split-sample QA effort was
made on several reservoirs in east Tennessee. Laboratories from TVA,
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, EPA Region IV,
and the Oak. Eidge National Laboratory were included. Details of this
effort are provided in appendix B of the 1989 report (Hall and Dycus,
1991).
2.3 Data Analyses
2.3.1 Screening Studies
Statistical analyses are not conducted on results from screening
studies because replicate samples are not collected. Results from
these studies are compared to preselected, tiered concentrations. If
measured concentrations are low relative to the tiered concentrations,
then no follow-up studies are warranted. If measured concentrations
are high, follow-up studies would be conducted. More thorough
explanation of this tiered approach is provided in section 3.1.
2.3.2 Intensive Studies
Statistical techniques used to examine results from intensive
studies range from descriptive statistics to analysis of covariance.
The more sophisticated procedures are used when one variable (such as
PCB concentration) is found to be dependent on another (such as lipid
content or fish weight). Detailed explanation of this approach is
provided in chapter h.
-8-
-------
3.0 SCREENING STUDIES
TVA has two fish-tissue screening programs: One examines fish
annually at inflow points of 11 of the major tributaries to the Tennessee
River reservoir system; the other looks at fish from within the
reservoirs on a rotating basis, with the goal of sampling each reservoir
at least once every three years. To differentiate between the studies,
areas sampled at inflow points are called Fish Tissue-Inflow (FT-I)
sites; areas included in the reservoir efforts are called Fish
Tissue-Reservoir (FT-R) sites. The two studies have different objectives
and slightly different protocols.
FT-I is intended to identify year-to-year trends in contaminants
entering the reservoir system from major watersheds. This program, which
started in 1986, uses catfish, rough fish, and game fish as indicators;
FT-R, initiated in 1987, screens toxic levels in fish throughout the
Tennessee Valley, in coordination with other organizations involved in
such studies. Communication with state, federal, and industry-based
biologists avoids duplication of effort; further, the FT-R study depends
on these biologists to supply some of the fish for TVA analyses. TVA
collects fish from the remaining FT-R sites, analyzes all fish, and
furnishes results to the cooperating groups.
A part of the FT-R study design allows for attention to special
analytical requests by cooperating agencies. For example, in 1990, the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) needed tissue analyses on
catfish they had collected in Center Hill Reservoir, a U.S. Corps of
Engineers impoundment on the Cumberland River. TVA provided the
analytical results under a contract for funding by the Corps of
-------
Engineers. TVA was also able to cake advantage of the opportunity to
obtain analytical data on a different game species, when rainbow trout
were collected along with the catfish sample in Ocoee Reservoir. Since
PCB concentrations in catfish from Ocoee had been averaging around
1.0 )ig/g, it was decided to analyze the trout tissue as well for
further information. Results on both the rainbow trout from Ocoee and
the catfish from Center Hill are included in this report.
Results from FT-R are intended to lead to one of three
alternatives. If all values for toxics in fish flesh from a reservoir
are low (termed tier 1), that reservoir will be resampled in about three
years; if some values are high (termed tier 3), it will be recommended
for an intensive study with detailed plans and funding sources developed
by all involved organizations. If levels of toxics are between those
extremes (termed tier 2), that reservoir will be sampled again at the
screening level the next year to better determine whether a problem
exists. Values termed low and high were selected a priori from a
combination of sources including Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
tolerances and action levels (FDA 1987), Preliminary Guidance Values
(Travis, et al. 1986), and subjective evaluations based on experience
with such studies in the Tennessee Valley. Specific tier levels for each
contaminant included in this study are provided in table 3.1.
This report presents the results from screening studies in 1990.
Results of similar investigations in previous years are included in
appendix A. Collections in 1988, 1989, and 1990 provided a unique
opportunity to evaluate effects of drought versus flood conditions on
certain levels in fish. Fish were collected from all mainstream
Tennessee River reservoirs in autumn 1988 in various studies. At that
time, the Tennessee Valley had been in drought conditions for the
-10-
-------
previous four years, which had resulted in reduced runoff and low river
flows. Heavy rainfall in spring and summer 1989 resulted in periodic
flooding and substantially increased flows. Therefore, FT-R efforts for
1989 were directed at remaining mainstream reservoirs not being sampled
as part of other studies, as well as returning to those FT-R sites where
fish had exceeded the tier 1 level in 1988, and where an observed
increase in concentrations of certain contaminants occurred between 1988
and 1989. In 1990, composite samples were collect-d from most
reservoirs, including those with intensive studies, so comparable
information would be available for the entire Valley. Collection sites
for all 1990 fish screening samples are listed in table 3.2 and shown on
figure 3.1.
3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Study Species
Fish collected for analysis at FT-I monitoring stations include
five specimens each of game fish, catfish, and rough fish. The order of
preference for species within each category are listed below. If five
individuals of the most preferred species within a category could not be
collected, individuals from the next preferred species were substituted
to achieve the full complement of five (e.g., three largemouth bass, one
white crappie, one spotted bass).
Game Cat fish Roueh
Largemouth bass Channel Carp
Crappies Blue Freshwater drum
Spotted bass Flathead Buffalos
Smallmouth bass Bullhead Redhorses
Bluegi11
Other sunfishes
-11-
-------
Because FT-R is such a broad screening effort, a single indicator
species, channel catfish, is used to allow the greatest coverage of
Valley reservoirs at the lowest possible cost. Every effort is made to
collect five channel catfish at each site, but blue or flathead catfish
are utilized as a last resort supplement, if repeated efforts fail to
produce channel catfish.
3.1.2 Sample Processing
Immediately following their collection in the field, all fish are
placed and kept on ice until processing at the biological lab. A
detailed account of collection and processing procedures is included in
appendix B. Prior to processing, each fish is sexed, measured, weighed,
and external and internal (organs) conditions noted. All fish are
filleted with care taken to retain all flesh, including ribs and
bellyflap. Skin is left on game and rough fish (scales are removed), but
the skin is removed from catfish. One fillet from each of the five fish
from each location is randomly selected (coin toss) to form the composite
for metal analyses; the other fillet from each fish provides the
composite for analyses of organic constituents. Each fillet is rinsed in
cold water, weighed, wrapped in aluminum foil, and placed with a label in
a plastic bag; the five fillets to be composited for analysis are then
stored in a common, labeled plastic bag. Samples are frozen immediately
following processing, and stored frozen until laboratory analysis.
3.1.3 Laboratory Analyses
Laboratory analyses for both FT-R and FT-I studies are performed on
composited fillets (five fish per composite), where each fillet is
individually homogenized and an equal aliquot withdrawn from each fillet
-12-
-------
to prevent size bias. Analyses on composited fillets include lipid
content and priority pollutant metals, pesticides and PCBs. For those
organics where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) priority
pollutant list includes more than one isomer or metabolite (e.g., alpha,
beta, and gamma BHC or endrin and endrin aldehyde), these are analyzed
separately in the laboratory, but reported here as a total value. All
data are stored on EPA's STORET system.
3 . 2 Results and Discussion
3.2.1 Collections and Observations on Fish
Specific data for each of the 379 fish in the 1990 collections are
provided in table 3.3. The LABID number provides the means for
connecting the levels of metals and organics found in laboratory analyses
(tables 3.4, 3.5, & 3.6) with the physical data for specific fish samples.
Only 11 of the 390 fish planned for collection at 37 FT-R and 11
FT-I sites in 1990 were missed. Only four of the five desired channel
catfish were collected at EmRM 14.5, 14 of the 15 channel catfish at TRM
495 in Chickamauga Reservoir, and two of the five channel catfish at HiRM
18.5. Three game fish samples contained fewer fish than were planned:
only four of the five bluegill were collected at SRM 7.1, three of five
rainbow trout at ORM 12.0, and two of five striped bass/hybrids at
LTRM 1.0. Therefore, the lab sample for those stations was composited
from one to three fewer fillets than at the other 31 stations.
Externally, most fish collated in this study appeared to be
healthy. Abnormalities were noted with eyes, opercles, gills, and fins
in both tributary and reservoir samples. Overall, the relatively low
occurrence of abnormalities and poor condition ratings indicate rather
healthy fish populations.
-13-
-------
In reservoir (FT-R) samples, three channel catfish were blind in
one eye, and one channel catfish had a cataract on one eye. One channel
catfish had clubbed gills; another had frayed gills; and five had
parasites attached to their gills. One rainbow trout had mildly eroded
fins, and two channel catfish had parasites attached to fins. Five
channel catfish were skinny, one had infections, and one golden redhorse
had attached external parasites. The occurrence of the few physical
anomalies in channel catfish did not show any geographical trend.
In FT-I samples, two largemouth bass and one carp were blind in one
eye, and one channel catfish had a hemorrhagic eye. One channel catfish
had a mildly shortened opercle, and a bluegill had a severely shortened
opercle. Two largemouth bass had frayed gills; two carp and two channel
catfish had mildly eroded fins; and one largemouth bass had severe fin
erosion. A few fish were in physically poor condition including one
infected largemouth bass, three skinny largemouth bass, one skinny
channel catfish, four golden redhorse with swirled scales, and two drum
with external parasites. Again, no geographic trend was noted in the
anomalies.
Although the majority of fish collected in 1990 appeared to have
healthy internal organs, the number observed with some type of problem
was higher than previous years. This is probably a reflection of more
attention being paid to those observations in 1990 through the use of a
better form for recording them since 1989. In reservoir samples,
abnormalities were noted in the kidneys of nine channel catfish (one with
parasites, seven with swollen kidneys, and one with nodules) and five
golden redhorse (three with nodules and two with swollen kidneys). At
FT-I sites, kidney abnormalities occurred in nine largemouth bass, four
-14-
-------
spotted bass, seven channel catfish, one flathead catfish, one carp, and
one golden redhorse. Liver abnormalities occurred in nine FT-I fish and
45 reservoir fish. Abnormalities in the spleen occurred in five
tributary fish (four spotted bass and one channel catfish) and nine
reservoir fish (eight channel catfish and one rainbow trout). There was
little or no fat in 20 fish from tributaries and 57 from reservoirs.
Internal parasites occurred in 26 tributary fish and 63 reservoir channel
catfish. Fourteen catfish, three carp, and three largemouth bass from
the Tennessee Valley and six catfish from Center Hill Reservoir and
tributaries had substantial fat in the visera. High internal fat content
is another indicator of fish health and is especially important as fish
prepare for winter.
3.2.2 Tissue Analyses
Mgtflls
Results of laboratory analyses for metals on the 77 composited
fillet samples are presented in table 3.A. Antimony, beryllium, nickel,
and thallium were not detected in any samples. Although cadmium was not
detected in any of the 1989 tissue samples, it was found in 26 samples in
1990, but in relatively low concentrations (0.003-0.018 Hg/g). Because
copper is an essential life element for .fish, concentrations of i,t would
have to be substantially above 2.0 pg/g to be considered a problem.
Only three samples in 1990 were at that level: fillets of channol
catfish collected at French Broad River mile 71 had 3.A pg/g of copper;
channel catfish from Chickamaug.a TRM 483 had 2.8 pg/g; and a freshwater
drum sampl.e from Sequatchie River mile 7.1 also had 2.8 pg/g of copper.
-15-
-------
Arsenic, chromium, selenium, zinc, lead and mercury were detected
in nearly all fillet composites. Arsenic and chromium concentrations
were all well below tier 2 levels. Selenium and zinc are essential
elements for life and usually found universally in fish tissue samples.
The only high levels of selenium (1.0-1.7 Hg/g) were in fish (catfish
and trout) from Parksville Lake, where they had been observed in previous
years. Zinc is not usually a problem, even at levels up to 75 Hg/g,
but one quite high concentration of zinc (210 ug/g) was found in
channel catfish from French Broad River miLe 71. Both findings indicate
a need for rescreening at these stations. Lead is a common environmental
pollutant due to its many industrial uses. The highest level of lead
found (1.5 Hg/g) was at the tier 2 level, indicating a need to rescreen
at that site (TRM 7) the next year. Mercury was found at or near the
tier 2 level of 0.5 ng/g in game fish from Duck River mile 22.5 and
largemouth bass at Emory River mile 14.5 and the Holston River mile 110
in 1990. Similar levels have been found since 1988 at the Holston River
site, which is below a highly-industrialized area. All of these sites
are part of FT-1 and automatically resampled annually.
As in the previous three years, the higher selenium results, along
with continued high PCB concentrations (discussed later), and a history
of water quality problems in Parksville Reservoir, continue to support
the need for a detailed examination of toxic materials in that reservoir.
Organics
Table 3.5 provides 1990 results from pesticides and PCB analyses.
Pesticides not detected in any samples were aldrin, toxaphene, BHC,
-16-
-------
endosulphan, heptachlor, and mirex. Dieldrin was found only in three
samples--both stations in Nickajack Reservoir and Holston River mile
110--at slightly above the detection limit (0.01-0.05 H-g/g); endrin was
found at low concentrations (0.02 Jig/g) at two stations in Chickamauga
Reservoir; none of these samples are high enough to require rescreening.
As in previous years, chlordane and DDTr were the most commonly
encountered pesticides in fish tissues. Chlordane was detected in A3 of
77 samples, exceeding the tier 2 level of 0.1 Hg/g in one or more
locations within eight reservoirs (Pickwick, Wheeler, Guntersvi11e,
Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, and Tellico). The
highest concentration (0.36 (lg/g) was found in channel catfish in
Wheeler, but it was also found at high levels in catfish from Watts Bar
(0.29 Hg/g) and Tellico reservoirs (0.22*0.25 Hg/g).
DDT was detected in 49 of the 77 samples, most frequently and at
higher levels in the mainstream reservoirs, but only two samples exceeded
the tier 2 level of 2.0 (ig/g. Levels of 3.3 H-g/g and 2.3 tig/g were
found in catfish from TRM 275 and TRM 300 in Wheeler Reservoir, which,
although high, were below the FDA action level of 5.0 Hg/g. The
presence of DDT in the aquatic environment in north Alabama has been
known for many years, so the current high levels in Wheeler Reservoir
fish were not a surprise, especially given the floods and high runoff of
1989 and 1990.
PCBs were found in 51 of 77 samples, but most samples had
concentrations below the tier 2 levels of 1.0 Hg/g (table 3.5).
Samples from 14 sites throughout the Valley exceeded that level. Three
sampl all . i catfish from upper Valley reservoirs, were at or above
the tier 3 level of 1.5 [lg/g: Watts Bar TRM 598 (1.5 ng/g), Fort
Loudoun TRM 628 (2.0 Hg/g), and Tellico LTRM 11 (1.5 Hg/g).
-17-
-------
These results relative to PCB concentrations in 1990 Valley-wide
screening studies continue to verify what is currently known from
intensive studies in specific reservoirs (see sections 4.2-4.6 later in
this report), i.e., that PCBs are still a problem and of concern with
respect to fish consumption in some east Tennessee reservoirs. State of
Tennessee health advisories cautioning against catfish utilization
currently exist for Nickajack, Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, and
Tellico reservoirs (see appendix D), and these 1990 screening
investigations show they are still appropriate.
The highest and second-highest concentration of both metal and
organic contaminants by location and species are summarized in table 3.6
for quick identification of "worst-case" conditions. Several areas stand
out in the table as sites of contamination of fish with toxic materials,
although all those sites were known previously to have problems, most of
which were below tier 2 levels. Exceptions were levels of zinc in fish
at FBRM 71, mercury at EMRM 14.5 and DRM 22.5, lead at TRM 7, and
selenium at ORM 12. The first three locations are annual monitoring
sites. TRM 7 is a highly industrialized area and the subject of
considerable investigation; the need for more intensive study of
Parksville Lake (ORM 12) has been discussed previously in this report.
Concentrations of contaminants at or above the tier 3 levels were
found in five locations (table 3.7): Wheeler, Nickajack, Watts Bar,
Fort Loudoun, and Tellico reservoirs. All but Wheeler have been under
intensive investigation for several years, and studies in Wheeler were
initiated in fall 1991.
-18-
-------
3,. 3 Recommend at 1 ons
Results from 1990 continue to provide evidence of the need for more
thorough evaluations of problems in Parksville Reservoir on the Ocoee
River. Parksville Reservoir has always been slightly acidic because of
its drainage from the mine areas of Copper Basin. The presence of high
concentrations of PCBs and selenium there merit further evaluation.
The Alabama Department of Public Health issed a fish consumption
advisory in September 1991 because of continued high DDT levels (appendix
E); the advisory includes several fish species from the Indian Creek
drainage area of Wheeler Reservoir. Chlordane levels at all three
Wheeler sample sites and PCB concentrations at TRMs 300 and 339 are aLso
of concern. A special study has been designed1 by TVA and1 Alabama
officials to evaluate the need to extend' the advisory into portions of
the Tennessee River; three five-fish composites of three species (channel,
catfish, largemouth bass, and smallmouth buffalo) would be collected from
four locations (TRMs 300, 315, 320, and 325) in Wheeler Reservoir in
autumn 1991.
Planning for 1991 FT-R fish collections had to be completed before
the preparation of this report. Selection of collection sites was
governed by a* need to return to several tributary reservoirs which had
not been examined since 1.987'. Eish- tissue sampling was coordinated with
other sampling activities to. reduce collection costs. Several sites on
mainstream reservoirs, where intensive studies were not underway/, were
also reexamined to continue the documentation of year-to-year variation
in observed contaminant concentrations.. FT-R collection sites for autumn
1991 are identified in table 3.8.
-19-
-------
Table 3.1. Contaminant concentrations® used as the guidelines for planning the level
of continued fish tissue studies in Tennessee Valley waters.
Laboratory
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Detect i on
Return to
Resample at Screening
Recommend
Parameter
Limit
Rotation System
Level Following Year
1ntens i ve Study
(ug/g)
(yg/g)
(yg/g)
(ug/g)
Antimony
2.0
< 5.0
> 5.0
b
Arsenic
0.02
< 0.5
> 0.5
>0.7
Beryl 1 ium
0.02
< 0.1
> 0.1
>0.3
Cacfcni um
0.002
< 0.5
> 0.5
>1.0
Chromi um
0.02
< 0.7
> 0.7c
>I.5C
Copper
0.8
< 3.0
> 3.0
b
Lead
0.02
< 1.5
> 1.5
>2.0
Mercury
0.1
< 0.5
> 0.5
>0.7
N i eke 1
0.6
< 2.0
> 2.0°
>4.0°
Se 1 en i um
0.02
< 1.0
> 1.0
>3.0
ThaIIi um
0.6
< 1.0
> 1.0
>3.0
Zinc
0.1
<75.0
>75.0
b
Aldrin
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Benzene Hexachloride
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Ch1ordane
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
DDT
0.01
< 2.0
> 2.0
> 4.0
Dieldrin
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Endosu1 fan
0.01
< 3.0
> 3.0
> 5.0
Endr i n
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Heptachlor
0.01
< 0.1
> 0.1
> 0.2
Toxaphene
0.5
< 2.0
> 2.0
> 3.0
PCBs
0.1
< 1.0
> 1.0
> 1.5
a. These levels wi11 be used as a general guide. Specific recarmendations will be made on a
caso-by-case basis.
b. Selection of a level for this metal, which would result in a recommendation to conduct
intensive studies, cannot be made at this time.
c. Chromium and nickel frequently occur as a result of laboratory contamination from the
blending process. A suspected source would have to exist before further examination would
be recommended on the basis of metal concentrations found in laboratory analyses.
ABD0095Q-2
-20-
-------
Table 3.2. Collection sites included in fish tissue screening studies,
autumn 1991).
Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient
q be
Site Screening Study Monitoring Site
Lower Tennessee River.
TRM 7 X
TRM 21 X
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM 23 X
TRM 61 X
BSRM 4 X
TRM 100 X
TRM 135 X
TRM 173 X
TRM 200 X
Duck River Mile 22 X
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 207 X
TRM 230 X
TRM 255 X
r
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 260 X
TRM 270 X
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 275 X
TRM 300 X
TRM 339 X
Elk River Mile 41
Guntersvi1le Reservoir
TRM 350 X
TRM 382 X
TRM 415 X
Sequatchie River Mile 7
Nickajack Reservoir
TRM 425 X
TRM 457 X
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM 483 X
TRM 495 X
TRM 526 X
-21-
-------
Tabic 3.2 (Continued)
Valley-wide Fish Tissue Ambient
Site3 Screening Study*3 Monitoring SiteC
Hiwassee River Mile 18.5 X
Parksville Reservoir
ORM 12 X
Watts Bar Reservoir
TRM 532 X
TRM 562 X
TRM 598 X
CRM 21 X
Emory River Mile 14.5 X
Powell RiverMile65 X
Clinch River Mile 172 X
Fort Loudoun Reservoir
TRM 604 X
TRM 628 X
TRM 652 X
Tellico Reservoir
LTRM 1 X
LTRM 11 X
Little Tennessee River Mile 92 X
French Broad River Mile 71 X
Nolichucky River Mile 8.5 X
Holston River Mile 110 X
Center Hill Reservoir
Forebay X
Tributaries X
a. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; BSRM = Big Sandy River Mile; E1RM = Elk
River Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile;
CRM = Clinch River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile; SFHRM = South
Fork Holston River Mile.
b. The Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study uses composited fillets
from channel catfish from reservoir sites.
c. The Ambient Monitoring Study uses composited fillets from catfish,
rough fish, and game fish from major inflow sites collected on an
annual basis.
ABD0089Q
-22-
-------
Table 3.3. Specific physical information on individual fish collected for tissue
analysis from inflow and reservoir locations, 1990.
a b
COLLECTION SITE OATE SPECIES SEX LAB 10 LENGTH WEIGHT
METAL ORGANIC (mm) (g)
Tennessee River
Tennessee
River mile
7.0
901127
CHC
MALE
91/05448
91/05425
400
592
Tennessee
River mile
7.0
901127
CHC
MALE
91/05448
91/05425
386
575
Tennessee
River mile
7.0
901127
CHC
FMAL
91/05448
91/05425
392
627
Tennessee
River mile
7.0
901127
CHC
FMAL
91/05448
91/05425
450
1057
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
7.0
901127
CHC
FMAL
9ir.5448
91/05425
387
581
Tennessee
River mile
22.0
901127
CHC
MALE
91/05449
91/05426
415
69 7
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
22.0
901127
CHC
FMAL
91/05449
91/05426
356
375
Tennessee
Ri ver mi le
22.0
901127
CHC
FMAL
91/05449
91/05426
426
809
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
22.0
901127
CHC
FMAL
91/05449
91/05426
491
1093
Tennessee
River mile
22.0
901127
CHC
MALE
91/05449
91/05426
308
243
Kentucky Reservoir
Tennessee
River mile
23.0
900919
CHC
FMAL
91/03763
91/03763
483
1080
Tennessee
River mile
23.0
900919
CHC
MALE
91/03763
91/03763
477
874
Tennessee
River mile
23.0
900919
CHC
MALE
91/03763
91/03763
488
918
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
23.0
900919
CHC
MALE
91/03763
91/03763
450
798
Tennessee
River mile
23.0
900919
CHC
MALE
91/03763
91/03763
403
421
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
61.0
901016
CHC
FMAL
91/05450
91/05427
391
578
Tennessee
River mile
61.0
901016
CHC
FMAL
91/05450
91/05427
557
1600
Tennessee
River mile
61.0
901016
CHC
FMAL
91/05450
91/05427
491
1024
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
61.0
901016
CHC
FMAL
91/05450
91/05427
452
844
Tennessee
River mile
61.0
901016
CHC
FMAL
91/05450
91/05427
466
926
Big Sandy
Ri ver mile
4.0
901010
CHC
MALE
91/05451
91/05428
439
816
Big Sandy
River mile
4.0
901010
CHC
FMAL
91/05451
91/05428
504
1246
Big Sandy
Ri ver mile
4.0
901010
CHC
MALE
91/05451
91/05428
672
2785
Big Sandy
River mile
4.0
901010
CHC
MALE
91/05451
91/05428
539
1930
Big Sandy
Ri ver mi 1e
4.0
901010
CHC
MALE
91/05451
91/05428
417
860
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
100.0
901129
CHC
MALE
91/05452
91/05429
520
1357
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
100.0
901129
CHC
MALE
91/05452
91/05429
396
688
Tennessee
River mile
100.0
901129
CHC
FMAL
91/05452
91/05429
430
781
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
100.0
901129
CHC
FMAL
91/05452
91/05429
456
945
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
100.0
901129
CHC
FMAL
91/05452
91/05429
490
1158
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
135.0
901211
CHC
FMAL
91/05453
91/05430
493
980
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
135.0
901212
CHC
FMAL
91/05453
91/05430
570
1950
Tennessee
River mile
135.0
901213
CHC
FMAL
91/05453
91/05430
488
940
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
135.0
901213
CHC
MALE
91/05453
91/05430
415
660
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
135.0
901214
CHC
MALE
91/05453
91/05430
356
380
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
a
SPECIES
SEX
b
LAB1D
METAL ORGANIC
LENGTH
(mm)
WEIGH!
(9)
Kentucky Reservoir (Continued)
Tennessee River mile
173.0
901120
CHC
MALE
91/05454
91/05431
466
1036
Tennessee River mile
173.0
901120
CHC
FMAL
91/05454
91/05431
470
962
Tennessee River mile
173.0
901120
CHC
MALE
91/05454
91/05431
442
814
Tennessee River mile
173.0
901120
CHC
MALE
91/05454
91/05431
467
85 2
Tennessee Ri ver mi 1e
173.0
901120
CHC
MALE
91/05454
91/05431
482
1285
Tennessee River mile
200.0
900918
CHC
MALE
91/03764
91/03764
419
674
Tennessee River mile
200.0
900918
CHC
MALE
91/03764
91/03764
462
1008
Tennessee River mile
200.0
900918
CHC
FMAL
91/03764
91/03764
435
672
Tennessee River mile
200.0
900918
CHC
MALE
91/03764
91/03764
495
1343
Tennessee River mile
200.0
900918
CHC
MALE
91/03764
91/03764
459
937
Duck Riverc
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
DRM
FMAL
90/16080
90/16080
395
764
Duck Ri ver mile 22.5
900613
DRM
FMAL
90/16080
90/16080
325
455
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
DRM
FMAL
90/16080
90/16080
341
486
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
DRM
FMAL
90/16080
90/16080
334
482
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
DRM
FMAL
90/16080
90/16080
342
407
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
WHS
FMAL
90/16083
90/16083
317
499
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
LMB
FMAL
90/16083
90/16083
325
467
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
LMB
FMAL
90/16083
90/16083
276
276
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
SP8
FMAL
90/16083
90/16083
317
330
Duck Ri ver mi 1e 22.5
900613
SPB
FMAL
90/16083
90/16083
280
264
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
CHC
FMAL
90/19082
90/16082
454
1044
Ouck River mile 22.5
900613
CHC
FMAL
90/19082
90/16082
321
293
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
CHC
FMAL
90/19082
90/16082
305
259
Duck River mile 22.5
900613
CHC
MALE
90/19082
90/16082
28?
213
Duck River mi 1e 22.5
900613
FHC
FMAL
90/19082
90/16082
308
293
Pickwick Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
207.0
900919
CHC
FMAL
91/03765
91/03765
480
1325
Tennessee River mile
207.0
900919
CHC
FMAL
91/03765
91/03765
395
560
Tennessee River mile
207.0
900919
CHC
FMAL
91/03765
91/03765
540
1850
Tennessee River mile
207.0
900919
CHC
MALE
91/03765
91/03765
495
1310
Tennessee River mile
207.0
900919
CHC
FMAL
91/03765
91/03765
420
820
Tennessee River mile
230.0
900920
CHC
MALE
91/03766
91/03766
550
1854
Tennessee River mile
230.0
900920
CHC
FMAL
91/03766
91/03766
440
864
Tennessee River mile
230.0
900920
CHC
MALE
91/03766
91/03766
370
420
Tennessee River mile
230.0
900920
CHC
MALE
91/03766
91/03766
345
333
Tennessee River mile
230.0
900920
CHC
FMAL
91/03766
91/03766
360
440
-24-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
a
SPECIES
SEX
LAB
b
D
LENGTH
WEIGHT
METAL
ORGANIC
(mm)
(g)
ickwick Reservoir (Continued)
Tennessee
Ri ver
mile
255.0
901129
CHC
MALE
91/05455
91/05432
460
1180
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
255.0
901129
CHC
FMAL
91/05455
91/05432
431
1020
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
255.0
901129
CHC
MALE
91/05455
91/05432
470
980
Tennessee
Ri ver
mile
255.0
901129
CHC
FMAL
91/05455
91/05432
436
960
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
255.0
901129
CHC
FMAL
91/05455
91/05432
500
1650
lilson Reservoir
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
260.0
901023
CHC
FMAL
90/18264
90/18264
403
460
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
260.0
901023
CHC
FMAL
90/18265
90/18265
245
108
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
260.0
901023
CHC
FMAL
90/18266
90/18266
247
114
T ennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
260.0
901023
CHC
MALE
90/18267
90/18267
343
316
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
260.0
901023
CHC
FMAL
90/18268
90/18268
419
403
T ennessee
River
mi 1 e
270.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
90/18286
90/18286
448
930
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
270.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
90/18287
90/18287
440
754
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
270.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
90/18288
90/18288
410
570
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
270.0
901106
CHC
MALE
90/18289
90/18289
426
750
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
270.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
90/18290
90/18290
418
632
Iheeler Reservoir
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
275.0
901107
CHC
FMAL
91/05456
91/05433
439
802
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
275.0
901107
CHC
FMAL
91/05456
91/05433
471
968
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
275.0
901107
CHC
FMAL
91/05456
91/05433
502
1282
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
275.0
901107
CHC
FMAL
91/05456
91/05433
485
874
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
275.0
901107
CHC
FMAL
91/05456
91/05433
424
688
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
300.0
901114
CHC
FMAL
91/05457
91/05434
570
1666
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
300.0
901114
CHC
MALE
91/05457
91/05434
536
1738
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
300.0
901114
CHC
FMAL
91/05457
91/05434
532
1659
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi le
300.0
901114
CHC
FMAL
91/05457
91/05434
492
1307
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
300.0
901114
CHC
FMAL
91/05457
91/05434
430
896
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
339.0
901114
CHC
MALE
91/05460
91/05437
470
1006
Tennessee
Ri ver
mile
339.0
901114
CHC
FMAL
91/05460
91/05437
485
1194
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
339.0
901114
CHC
FMAL
91/054G0
91/05437
505
1364
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
339.0
901114
CHC
MALE
91/05460
91/05437
455
860
Tennessee
Ri ver
mi 1 e
339.0
901114
CHC
FMAL
91/05460
91/05437
504
1416
-25-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
a
SPECIES
SEX
b
LAB ID
METAL ORGANIC
LENGTH
(mm)
WEIGH
(9)
Elk Riverc
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
CHC
MALE
90/18950
90/18950
405
766
Elk River
mi le 41.0
900611
CHC
FMAL
90/18950
90/18950
411
687
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
CHC
FMAL
90/18950
90/18950
270
173
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
CHC
FMAL
90/18950
90/18950
316
260
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
CHC
FMAL
90/18950
90/18950
250
134
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
ORM
FMAL
90/18951
90/18951
363
666
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
DRM
FMAL
90/18951
90/18951
327
430
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
DRH
FMAL
90/18951
90/18951
305
326
Elk River
mi le 41.0
900611
ORM
FMAL
90/18951
90/18951
269
224
Elk River
mi 1e 41.0
900611
DRM
FMAL
90/18951
90/18951
235
166
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
LMB
FMAL
90/18952
90/18952
243
218
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
SPB
MALE
90/18952
90/18952
256
244
Elk River
mile 41.0
900611
SPB
FMAL
90/18952
90/18952
255
240
Elk Ri ver
mile 41.0
900611
SPB
MALE
90/18952
90/18952
244
166
Elk River
mi 1e 41.0
900611
SPB
FMAL
90/18952
90/18952
240
170
Guntersville Reservoir
Tennessee
River mile
350.0
901116
CHC
MALE
91/05461
91/05438
517
1614
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
350.0
901116
CHC
FMAL
91/05461
91/05438
400
725
Tennessee
River mile
350.0
901116
CHC
MALE
91/05461
91/05438
384
492
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
350.0
901116
CHC
FMAL
91/05461
91/05438
426
833
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
350.0
901116
CHC
FMAL
91/05461
91/05438
443
1031
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
382.0
901030
CHC
FMAL
91/05462
91/05439
407
616
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
382.0
901030
CHC
FMAL
91/05462
91/05439
396
574
Tennessee
River mile
382.0
901030
CHC
FMAL
91/05462
91/05439
325
344
Tennessee
River mile
382.0
901030
CHC
MALE
91/05462
91/05439
535
1752
Tennessee
River mile
382.0
901030
CHC
FMAL
91/05462
91/05439
270
158
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
415.0
910109
CHC
MALE
91/05463
91/05440
460
986
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
415.0
910109
CHC
MALE
91/05463
91/05440
420
806
Tennessee
River mile
415.0
910109
CHC
FMAL
91/05463
91/05440
445
920
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
415.0
910109
CHC
MALE
91/05463
91/05440
460
1088
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
415.0
910109
CHC
FMAL
91/05463
91/05440
450
916
Sequatchie
Ri verc
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
CHC
MALE
90/16085
90/16085
457
1144
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
CHC
MALE
90/16085
90/16085
452
959
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
CHC
FMAL
90/16085
90/16085
534
1663
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
CHC
MALE
90/16085
90/16085
397
555
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
CHC
FMAL
90/16085
90/16085
450
919
-26-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
a
SPECIES
SEX
b
LAB ID
METAL ORGANIC
LENGTH
(mm)
WEIGHT
(g)
equatchie River (Cont
i nued)
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
BGS
MALE
90/16087
90/16087
183
143
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
BGS
FMAL
90/16087
90/16087
151
89
Sequatchie River mile 7.1
900524
BGS
MALE
90/16087
90/16087
152
74
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
BGS
MALE
90/16087
90/16087
148
64
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
DRM
FMAL
90/16084
90/16084
733
4013
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
DRM
FMAL
90/16084
90/16084
282
254
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
CRM
FMAL
90/16084
90/16084
295
27]
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
DRM
MALE
90/16084
90/16084
272
220
Sequatchie River mile
7.1
900524
DRM
TMAL
90/16084
90/16084
274
186
lickajack Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
425.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/03342
91/03348
476
1025
Tennessee River mile
425.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/03342
91/03348
370
464
Tennessee River mile
425.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
91/03342
91/03348
490
1297
Tennessee River mile
425.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/03342
91/03348
478
1009
Tennessee River mile
425.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/03342
91/03348
591
2066
Tennessee River mile
457.0
901209
CHC
MALE
91/03346
91/03349
615
2429
Tennessee River mile
457.0
901209
CHC
FMAL
91/03346
91/03349
525
1453
Tennessee River mile
457 .0
901209
CHC
FMAL
91/03346
91/03349
531
1382
Tennessee River mile
457.0
901209
CHC
MALE
91/03346
91/03349
495
996
Tennessee River mile
457.0
901209
CHC
MALE
91/03346
91/03349
426
736
:hickamauga Reservoir
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901101
CHC
FMAL
91/01102
91/01102
399
466
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901101
CHC
FMAL
91/01102
91/01102
472
884
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/01102
91/01102
460
815
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
91/01102
91/01102
405
466
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/01102
91/01102
354
318
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
91/01105
91/01105
4/0
915
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/01105
91/01105
540
1539
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
MALE
91/01105
91/01105
452
671
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
91/01105
91/01105
400
470
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901106
CHC
FMAL
91/01105
91/01105
507
1171
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901107
CHC
MALE
91/01106
91/01106
496
976
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901108
CHC
MALE
91/01106
91/01106
640
2513
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901108
CHC
FMAL
91/01106
91/01106
487
906
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901108
CHC
MALE
91/01106
91/01106
520
1121
Tennessee River mile
483.0
901108
CHC
MALE
91/01106
91/01106
480
989
-27-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
a b
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LAB ID LENGTH WEIGHT
METAL ORGANIC (mm) (g)
Chickamauga Reservoir (Continued)
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901102
CHC
FMAL
91/01107
91/01107
555
1681
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
495.0
901105
CHC
FMAL
91/01107
91/01107
400
486
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
495.0
901105
CHC
MALE
91/01107
91/01107
445
701
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
495.0
901105
CHC
MALE
91/01107
91/01107
465
721
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901107
CHC
MALE
91/01107
91/01107
667
3757
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901107
CHC
FMAL
91/01108
91/01108
350
303
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901107
CHC
MALE
91/01108
91/01108
530
1233
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901107
CHC
MALE
91/01108
91/01108
554
1160
T ennessee
River mile
495.0
901107
CHC
MALE
91/01108
91/01108
573
1662
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901108
CHC
FMAL
91/01108
91/01108
620
3056
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
495.0
901108
CHC
MALE
91/01109
91/01109
517
1527
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901108
CHC
FMAL
91/01109
91/01109
540
1861
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901108
CHC
FMAL
91/01109
91/01109
505
1355
Tennessee
River mile
495.0
901108
CHC
FMAL
91/01109
91/01109
350
353
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
MALE
91/01110
91/01110
448
860
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/01110
91/01110
478
1419
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
526.0
901025
CHC
MALE
91/01110
91/01110
407
552
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
526.0
901025
CHC
MALE
91/01110
91/01110
569
1683
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/01110
91/01110
536
1655
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/01111
91/01111
385
443
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/01111
91/01111
414
613
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/01111
91/01111
618
2705
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/01111
91/01111
395
572
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
MALE
91/01111
91/01111
492
1047
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/0112
d
460
943
Tennessee
Ri ver mi 1e
526.0
901025
CHC
MALE
91/0112
d
490
961
Tennessee
Ri ver mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/0112
d
450
903
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
UNK
91/0112
d
477
952
Tennessee
River mile
526.0
901025
CHC
FMAL
91/0112
d
378
462
iwassee Riverc
Hi wassee
liver mile
18.5
900620
C
MALE
90/16088
90/16088
610
3064
Hiwassee
liver mile
18.5
900620
C
FMAL
90/16088
90/16088
690
4080
Hi wassee
li ver mi le
18.5
900620
SBU
FMAL
90/16088
90/16088
511
1817
Hiwassee
River mile
18.5
900620
SBU
MALE
90/16088
90/16088
479
1446
Hiwassee
li ver mi le
18.5
900620
SBU
MALE
90/16088
90/16088
416
1117
Hiwassee
liver mile
18.5
900620
LMB
FMAL
90/16090
90/16090
383
720
Hiwassee
li ver mi le
18.5
900620
LMB
MALE
90/16090
90/16090
318
331
Hiwassee
liver mile
18.5
900620
LMB
MALE
90/16090
90/16090
290
408
Hi wassee
li ver mi 1 e
18.5
900620
LMB
FMAL
90/16090
90/16090
370
938
Hiwassee
River mile
18.5
900620
LMB
FMAL
90/16090
90/16090
466
1672
Hiwassee
Ri ver mi le
18.5
900620
FHC
MALE
90/16092
90/16092
382
654
Hiwassee
Ri ver mile
18.5
900724
CHC
FMAL
90/16092
90/16092
383
456
-28-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
a
SPECIES
SEX
b
LAB 10
LENGTH
WEIGHT
METAL
ORGANIC
(mm)
(g)
Parksville Reservoir
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901024
CHC
FMAL
91/05464
91/05441
406
470
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901024
CHC
FMAL
91/05464
91/05441
487
1028
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901024
CHC
FMAL
91/05464
91/05441
515
1286
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901024
CHC
FMAL
91/05464
91/05441
402
428
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901024
CHC
MALE
91/05464
91/05441
528
1301
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901025
RBT
FMAL
91/05465
91/05442
355
477
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901025
RBT
MALE
91/05465
91/05442
352
497
Ocoee River mile 12.0
901025
RBI
FMAL
91/05465
91/0544?
383
633
Watts Bar Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 532.1
901010
CHC
FMAL
91/00383
91/00383
354
361
Tennessee River mile 532.1
901010
CHC
FMAL
91/00383
91/00383
365
392
Tennessee River mile 532.1
901010
CHC
MALE
91/00383
91/00383
357
322
Tennessee River mile 532.1
901010
CHC
FMAL
91/00383
91/00383
361
398
Tennessee River mile 532.1
901206
CHC
MALE
91/00383
91/00383
530
1130
Tennessee River mile 562.0
901011
CHC
MALE
91/00384
91/00384
498
1418
Tennessee River mile 562.0
901011
CHC
MALE
91/00384
91/00384
472
' 770
Tennessee River mile 562.0
901011
CHC
MALE
91/00384
91/00384
519
1451
Tennessee River mile 562.0
901011
CHC
MALE
91/00384
91/00384
399
469
Tennessee River mile 562.0
901011
CHC
MALE
91/00384
91/00384
341
325
Tennessee River mile 598.0
901012
CHC
MALE
91/00385
91/00385
469
884
Tennessee River mile 598.0
901012
CHC
MALE
91/00385
91/00385
360
277
Tennessee River mile 598.0
>901012
CHC
MALE
.91/00385
91/00385
345
379
Tennessee River mile 598.0
901012
CHC
FMAL
91/00385
91/00385
325
208
Tennessee River mile 598.0
901012
CHC
FMAL
91/00385
91/00385
350
291
Clinch River mile 2,1.0
901017
jCHC
MALE
91/03767
9;l/03767
401
549
Clinch River mile 21.0
•901018
CHC
MALE
91/03767
91/03767
549
1660
CIinch River mile 21.0
901018
CHC
FMAL
91/03767
91/03767
628
2638
Clinch River mile 21.0
901018
-CHC
MALE
9.1/03767
91/03767
470
840
Clinch River mile 2-1.0
901018
CHC
MALE
91/03767
91/03767
536
1580
Emory Riverc
Emory River mile 14.5
900723
.C
MALE
90/16093
90/16093
550
214/
Emory River mile -14.5
900723
C
MALE
90/16093
90/16093
580
234 1
Emory River,mile 14.5
900723
C
MALE
90/16093
90/16093
625
29«J5
Emory River mile 14.5
900723
C
MALE
90/16093
90/16093
581
2096
Emory River mile 14.5
900723
C
MALE
90/16093
90/16093
585
2488
-29-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
SPECIES
SEX
LAB 10
METAL ORGANIC
LENGTH
(mm)
WEIGHT
(9)
Emory River (Continued)
Emory Ri ver mile 14.5
900723
CHC
MALE
90/16095
90/16095
385
429
Emory River mile 14.5
900723
CHC
FMAL
90/16095
90/16095
555
1527
Emory River mile 14.5
900723
CHC
FMAL
90/16095
90/16095
500
1092
Emory River mile 14.5
900723
CHC
FMAL
90/16095
90/16095
362
388
Emory River mile 14.5
900724
LMB
FMAL
90/16096
90/16096
543
2086
Emory River mile 14.5
900724
LMB
FMAL
90/16096
90/16096
482
2021
Emory River mile 14.5
900724
LMB
FMAL
90/16096
90/16096
472
1503
Emory River mile 14.5
900724
LMB
MALE
90/16096
90/16096
417
1082
Emory River mile 14.5
900724
LMB
FMAL
90/16096
90/16096
380
633
Clinch River0
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
LMB
FMAL
90/16099
90/16099
355
624
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
SPB
MALE
90/16099
90/16099
285
321
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
SPB
MALE
90/16099
90/16099
241
183
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
SMB
FMAL
90/16099
90/16099
215
134
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
SPB
FMAL
90/16099
90/16099
230
160
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
CHC
MALE
90/16100
90/16100
498
1240
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
CHC
MALE
90/16100
90/16100
530
1533
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
CHC
MALE
90/16100
90/16100
435
759
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
CHC
FMAL
90/16100
90/16100
383
510
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
CHC
MALE
90/16100
90/16100
510
1250
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
DRM
MALE
90/16101
90/16101
604
2957
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
DRM
MALE
90/16101
90/16101
431
1145
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
ORM
FMAL
90/16101
90/16101
378
741
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
ORM
FMAL
90/16101
90/16101
330
445
Clinch River mile 172.0
900619
C
FMAL
90/16101
90/16101
588
3422
Fort Loudoun Reservoir
Tennessee River mile 604,
.0
901003
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
530
1522
Tennessee River mile 604,
.0
901003
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
457
804
Tennessee River mile 604,
.0
901003
CHC
FMAL
91/03768
91/03768
436
592
Tennessee River mile 604,
.0
901003
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
455
848
Tennessee River mile 604
.0
901003
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
432
673
-30-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
a
SPECIES
SEX
b
LABID
METAL ORGANIC
LENGTH
(mm)
WEIGHT
(9)
Fort Loudoun Reservoir (Continued)
Tennessee River mile 628.0
901002
CHC
FMAL
91/03768
91/03768
545
1720
Tennessee River mile 628.0
901002
CHC
FMAL
91/03768
91/03768
535
1442
Tennessee River mile 628.0
901002
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
475
810
Tennessee River mile 628.0
901002
CHC
FMAL
91/03768
91/03768
423
600
Tennessee River mile 628.0
901002
CHC .
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
455
710
Tennessee River mile 652.0
901003
CHC
FMAL
91/03768
91/03768
404
446
Tennessee River mile 652.0
901003
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
415
716
Tennessee River mile 652.0
901003
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
449
772
Tennessee River mile 652.0
901003
CHC
FMAL
91/03768
91/03768
425
669
Tennessee River mile 652.0
901003
CHC
MALE
91/03768
91/03768
444
702
Powell River0
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
GRH
FMAL
91/16102
90/16102
392
656
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
GRH
FMAL
91/16102
90/16102
411
774
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
GRH
FMAL
91/16102
90/16102
427
644
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
GRH
FMAL
91/16102
90/16102
384
609
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
GRH
MALE
91/16102
90/16102
372
515
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
SPB
FMAL
91/16103
90/16103
380
875
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
SPB
FMAL
91/16103
90/16103
262
275
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
SPB
FMAL
91/16103
90/16103
299
427
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
SPB
FMAL
91/16103
90/16103
351
682
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
SPB
MALE
91/16103
90/16103
2 56
232
Powell River mile 65.0
900605
CHC
MALE
91/16101
90/16104
411
662
Powell River mile 65.0
900607
CHC
FMAL
91/16104
90/16104
382
743
Powell River mile 65.0
900607
CHC
FMAL
91/16104
90/16104
362
470
Powell River mile 65.0
900607
CHC
FMAL
91/16104
90/16104
325
312
Powell River mile 65.0
900607
CHC
MALE
91/16104
90/16104
281
190
Tel 1i co Reservoi r
Little Tennessee River mile
1.0
901017
CHC
MALE
91/05443
91/05443
422
713
Little Tennessee River mile
1.0
901017
CHC
MALE
91/05443
91/05443
480
1141
Little Tennessee River mile
1.0
901017
CHC
FMAL
91/05443
91/05443
632
2776
Little Tennessee River mile
1.0
901017
CHC
MALE
91/05443
91/05443
682
334 /
Little Tennessee River mile
1.0
901017
CHC
MALE
91/05443
91/05443
479
880
Little Tennessee River mile
1.0
901017
STB
FMAL
91/05443
91/05443
419
926
Little Tennessee River mile
1.0
901017
STB
MALE
91/05443
91/05443
420
743
-31-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
a b
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LABID LENGTH WEIGHT
METAL ORGANIC (mm) (g)
Tellico Reservoir (Continued)
Little
Tennessee River mile
11.0
901218
CHC
FMAL
91/03770
91/03770
588
2207
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
11.0
901218
CHC
FMAL
91/03770
91/03770
556
1555
Little
Tennessee River mile
11.0
901218
CHC
MALE
91/03770
91/03770
524
1615
Little
Tennessee River mi 1e
11.0
901218
CHC
FMAL
91/03770
91/03770
555
1531
Little
Tennessee River mile
11.0
901218
CHC
FMAL
91/03770
91/03770
511
1162
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
CHC
FMAL
91/16105
90/16105
444
869
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
CHC
FMAL
91/16105
90/16105
492
1194
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
CHC
MALE
91/16105
90/16105
446
936
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
CHC
MALE
91/16105
90/16105
371
452
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
CHC
MALE
91/16105
90/16105
410
642
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
GRH
MALE
91/16107
90/16107
345
487
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
GRH
FMAL
91/16107
90/16107
361
630
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
GRH
FMAL
91/16107
90/16107
326
411
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
GRH
MALE
91/16107
90/16107
347
430
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
GRH
FMAL
91/16107
90/16107
282
272
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
SMB
MALE
91/16108
90/16108
304
337
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
SMB
MALE
91/16108
90/16108
340
422
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
SMB
MALE
91/16108
90/16108
322
440
Little
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
SMB
MALE
91/16108
90/16108
254
205
Li ttle
Tennessee River mile
92.0
900605
SMB
MALE
91/16108
90/16108
249
198
-rench Broad River0
French
Broad Ri ver mi 1e 71.
0
900726
LMB
FMAL
90/16114
90/16114
310
407
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
LMB
HALE
90/16114
90/16114
272
262
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
LMB
FMAL
90/16114
90/16114
266
266
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
LMB
MALE
90/16114
90/16114
256
223
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
LMB
MALE
90/16114
90/16114
241
202
French
Broad Ri ver mile 71.
0
900726
C
MALE
90/16116
90/16116
484
1459
French
Broad Ri ver mi 1e 71.
0
900726
C
MALE
90/16116
90/16116
499
175b
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
C
FMAL
90/16116
90/16116
530
1915
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
C
MALE
90/16116
90/16116
436
1202
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
C
MALE
90/16116
90/16116
422
1038
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
CHC
MALE
90/16118
90/16118
337
336
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
CHC
FMAL
90/16118
90/16118
387
538
F rench
Broad Ri ver mile 71.
0
900726
CHC
FMAL
90/16118
90/16118
369
405
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
CHC
FMAL
90/16118
90/16118
335
335
French
Broad River mile 71.
0
900726
CHC
FMAL
90/16118
90/16118
300
219
-32-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
COLLECTION SITE
DATE
a
SPECIES
SEX
b
LAB ID
LENGTH
WEIGHT
METAL
ORGANIC
(mm)
(g)
Noli chucky Ri verc
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
SPB
FMAL
90/16109
90/16109
303
421
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
SPB
FMAL
90/16109
90/16109
246
213
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
SPB
FMAL
90/16109
90/16109
246
226
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
SPB
FMAL
90/!-') 109
90/16109
229
151
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
SMB
FMAL
90/16 i 09
90 ' 16109
343
6G 1
Nolichucky River mile B.5
,900620
CHC
FMAL
90 16110
90/16110
465
982
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
CIIC
FMAL
90/16110
90/16110
456
917
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
CHC
MALE
90/16110
90/16110
399
60 5
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
FHC
FMAL
90/16110
90/16110
476
1182
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
FHC
FMAL
90/16110
90/16110
376
571
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
C
MALE
90/16112
90/16112
629
3804
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
C
MALE
90/16112
90/16112
525
204?
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
C
MALE
90/16112
90/16112
561
2511
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
C
MALE
90/16112
90/16112
545
2285)
Nolichucky River mile 8.5
900620
C
MALE
90/16112
90/16112
369
820
Holston Riverc
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
LMB
MALE
90/16120
90/16120
402
954
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
LMB
MALE
90/16120
90/16120
417
1217
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
LMB
FMAL
90/16120
90/16120
347
635
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
LMB
MALE
90/16120
90/16120
313
45/
Holston River mile 110.0
900626
LMB
FMAL
90/16120
90/16120
358
695
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
C
FMAL
90/16121
90/16121
546
2413
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
C
MALE
90/16121
90/16121
560
2562
Holston River mile 110.0
90062b
C
FMAL
90/16121
90/16121
630
4190
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
C
FMAL
90/16121
90/16121
567
2993
Holston River mile 110.0
900625
C
MALE
90/16121
90/16121
471
1/04
Holston River mile 110.0
900626
CHC
MALE
90/16122
90/16122
501
1335
Holston River mile 110.0
900626
CHC
FMAL
90/16122
90/16122
397
532
Holston River mile 110.0
900626
CHC
FMAL
90/16122
90/16122
374
557
Holston River mile 110.0
900626
CHC
FMAL
90/16122
90/16122
376
465
Holston River mile 110.0
900626
CHC
MALE
90/1612?
90/16122
365
4 53
Center Hill Reservoir
Forebay
910118
CHC
FMAL
91/05468
91/05445
432
705
Forebay
910131
CHC
MALE
91/05168
91/05445
531
14/9
Forebay
910131
CHC
MALE
91/05468
91/05445
505
13/0
Forebay
910205
CHC
MALE
91/05468
91/05,445
406
489
Forebay
910205
CHC
MALE
91/05468
91/05445
434
745
-33-
-------
Table 3.3 (Continued)
a b
COLLECTION SITE DATE SPECIES SEX LAB ID LENGTH WEIGHT
METAL ORGANIC (nun) (g)
Center Hill Reservoir (Continued)
1 ributari es
910118
CHC
FMAL
91/05467
91/05444
582
2314
Tributaries
910118
CHC
FMAL
91/05467
91/05444
406
745
Tributari es
910118
CHC
MALE
91/05467
91/05444
587
2311
Tri butari es
910118
CHC
MALE
91/05467
91/05444
478
1204
Tributaries
910118
CHC
FMAL
91/05467
91/05444
566
2029
a. Species abbreviations: Catfish (CHC = channel catfish; FHC = flathead catfish). Rough
fish (C = carp; DRM = drum; GRH = golden redhorse; SBU = smallmouth buffalo; ), Game fish
(BGS = bluegill; LMB = largemouth bass; RBT = rainbow trout; SMB = smallmouth bass;
SPB = spotted bass; STB = striped bass; WHS = white crappie).
b. The LABID (laboratory identification) number is the mechanism used to relate physical
information in table 3.3 to information on tissue levels of metals in table 3.4 and
organics in table 3.5. Fish with the same LABID number in this table were composited for
laboratory analysis.
c. Tributaries FT-I .
d. Data unavailable due to lab complications.
ABD 0086Q
-34-
-------
Table 3.4. Concentrations (pg/g) of metals in composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations,3 1990.
Collection Site
b
Species
LAB 10°
Antimony
Arsen i c
Beryl 1i um
Cactnium Chromium Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selen i um
Tha11 i um
Z i nc
Tennessee River
TRM 7
CHC
05425
<2
0.22
<0.02
0.002
0.39
<0.8
1.50
<0.1
<0.6
0.15
<0.6
6.4
TRM 22
CHC
05426
<2
0.12
<0.02
0.005
0.12
<0.8
0.15
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
8.3
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM 23
CHC
03763
<2
0.02
<0.02
0.009
0.04
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
5.0
TRM 61
CHC
05427
<2
0.13
<0.02
<0.002
0. 13
<0.8
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0. 14
<0.6
5.7
BSRM 4
CHC
05428
<2
0.08
<0.02
<0.002
0. 1 1
<0.8
<0.02
0. 1
<0.6
0.12
<0.6
7.0
TRM 100
CHC
05429
<2
0.06
<0.02
0.008
0.13
<0.8
0.10
0.2
<0.6
0. 18
<0.6
6.9
TRM 135
CHC
05430
<2
0.08
<0.02
<0.002
0.12
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
6.8
TRM 173
CHC
05431
<2
0.17
<0.02
<0.002
0.08
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0. 16
<0.6
5.6
TRM 200
CHC
03764
<2
0.14
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0. 16
<0.6
4.8
Duck River
DRM 22.5
DRM
16080
<2
0.07
<0.02
0.005
0.12
<0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.30
<0.6
5.5
DRM 22.5
LMB/SP8/WHS
16082
<2
0.06
<0.02
<0.002
0.12
0.8
<0.02
0.5
<0.6
0.24
<0.6
12
DRM 22.5
CHC/FHC
16083
<2
0.07
<0.02
<0.002
0. 17
1.0
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.18
<0.6
7.8
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 210
CHC
03765
<2
0.19
<0.02
0.003
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0. 17
<0.6
5.8
TRM 230
CHC
03766
<2
0.10
<0.02
0.018
<0.02
<0.8
0.09
<0.1
<0.6
0. 16
<0.6
6.9
TRM 255
CHC
05432
<2
0.26
<0.02
<0.002
0.08
<0.8
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.12
<0.6
5.7
WlIson Reservoir
TRM 260
CHC
18300
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
0. 10
<0.8
0.75
<0.1
<0.6
0. 16
<0.6
8.7
TRM 270
CHC
18301
<2
0.10
<0.02
<0.002
0.06
0.8
<0.02
<0. 1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
7.3
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 275
CHC
05433
<2
0.05
<0.02
<0.002
0. 10
<0.8
<0.02
<0. 1
<0.6
0. 13
<0.6
6.3
TRM 300
CHC
05434
<2
0.20
<0.02
<0.002
0.-09
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
6.3
TRM 339
CHC
05437
<2
0.38
<0.02
<0.002
0.22
<0.8
<0.02
<0. 1
<0.6
<0.02
<0.6
5.8
Elk River
ERM
41
SPB/LMB
18951
<2
0.08
<0.02
ERM
41
DRM
18952
<2
<0.02
<0.02
ERM
41
CHC
18950
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
0.003
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
o.a
<0.6
0.33
<0.6
12
<0.02
0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.48
<0.6
5.5
<0.02
1.7
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0. 17
<0.6
9.4
-------
Table 3.4 (Continued)
Collection Site Species LABID Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Thallium Zinc
Guntersville Reservoir
TRM 350
CHC
05438
<2
0.38
<0.02
<0.002
0. 14
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0. 15
<0.6
7.3
TRM 382
CHC
05439
<2
0.15
<0.02
<0.002
0.07
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
7.0
TRM 415
CHC
05440
<2
0.06
<0.02
0.003
0.20
0.8
0.09
<0.1
<0.6
0.34
<0.6
6.2
Sequatch i e R i ver
SRM 7.1
CHC
16085
<2
0.13
<0.02
0.004
0.16
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.15
<0.6
7.7
SRM 7.1
BGS
16087
<2
0.07
<0.02
0.003
0.13
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
""0.6
0.31
<0.6
12
SRH 7.1
DRM
16084
<2
0.20
<0.02
0.006
0.12
2.8
<0.02
0.4
<0.6
0.26
<0.6
8.0
Nickajack Reservoir
TRM 425
CHC
03348
<2
0.23
<0.02
<0.002
0.07
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.10
<0.6
5.5
TRM 457
CHC
03349
<2
0.14
<0.02
<0.002
0. 10
<0.8
0.78
<0.1
<0.6
0.13
<0.6
5.2
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM 483-1
CHC
01102
<2
0.1 1
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
2.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.23
<0.6
7.6
2
CHC
01 105
<2
0.09
<0.02
0.003
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.18
<0.6
5.2
3
CHC
01106
<2
<0.02
<0.02
0.003
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.13
<0.6
6.2
TRM 495-1
CHC
01107
<2
0.04
<0.02
0.005
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
6.6
2
CHC
01108
<2
<0.02
<0.02
0.007
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
7.9
3
CHC
01 109
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
7.3
TRM 526-1
CHC
01 1 10
<2
0.06
<0.02
0.017
<0.02
0.9
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
5.9
2
CHC
01111
<2
0.20
<0.02
0.018
0.03
<0.8
0.80
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
6.2
3
CHC
01 1 12
<2
0.23
<0.02
0.005
<0.02
1.0
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
7.7
lllwassoe River
HiRM 18.5
CHC/FHC
16092
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
0. 10
<0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
6.4
HiRM 18.5
LMB
16090
<2
0.04
<0.02
<0.002
0.04
0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.26
<0.6
1 1
HiRM 18.5
C/SBU/ROUGH
16088
<2
0.08
<0.02
0.003
0. 1 1
1.9
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.65
<0.6
10
Parksvllle Reservoir
ORM 12
CHC
05464
<2
0.29
<0.02
0.003
0.08
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
1.00
<0.6
7.3
ORH 12
RBT
05465
<2
0.05
<0.02
<0.002
0.10
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
1.70
<0.6
1 |
-------
Table 3.4 (Continued)
b c
Collection Site Species LABID Antimony Arsenic Beryllium
Watts Bar
'TRM 552
CHC
00385
<2
0.03
<0.02
TRM 562
CHC
00384
<2
<0.02
<0.02
TRM 598
CHC
00385
<2
<0.02
<0.02
CRM 21
CHC
03767
<2
0.03
<0.02
Emory River
EmRM 14.5
LTO
16096
<2
0.12
<0.02
EmRM 14.5
C
16093
<2
0.06
<0.02
EmRM 14.5
BLC/CHC
16095
<2
0.03
<0.02
CIi nch Rlver
CRM 172
CHC
16100
<2
0.15
<0.02
CRM 172
SPB/L^
16099
<2
0.05
<0.02
CRM 172
DRM/C
16101
<2
0.12
<0.02
PoweII R1ver
PRM 65
CHC
16104
<2
0.05
<0.02
PRM 65
GRH
16102
<2
0.03
<0.02
PRM 65
SP8
16103
<2
0.09
<0.02
Fort Loudoun
Reservoir
TRM 604
CHC
03768
<2
<0.02
<0.02
TRM 628
CHC
00386
<2
<0.02
<0.02
TRM 652
CHC
03769
<2
0.03
<0.02
Tel 1ico Reservoir
LTRM 1
CHC
05443
<2
0.07
<0.02
LTRM 11
CHC
03770
<2
0.07
<0.02
Little Tenn.
Ri ver
LTRM 92
CHC
16105
<2
<0.02
<0.02
LTRM 92
sw
16108
<2
0.18
<0.02
LTRM 92
GRH
16107
<2
0.14
<0.02
Cadnium Chromium Copper
Lead
Mercury
N i eke 1
Se1 en i urn
Tha11i um
Zinc
<0.002
<0.02
1.7
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.24
<0.6
8.0
<0.002
<0.02
0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
6.0
<0.002
<0.02
1.0
<0:02
0. 1
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
6.7
0.004
<0.02 '
<0.8
0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
5.2
<0.002
0.03
• 1.0
<0.02
0.6
<0.6
0.41
<0.6
6.1
0.005
<0.02
0.9
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.41
<0.6
15
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
0.07
0.4
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
8.0
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0. 1
<0.6
0.36
<0.6
7.3
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.89
<0.6
12
<0.002
' <0.02
0.8
<0:02
0.2
<0.6
0.50
<0.6
12
<0.002
. 0.06
0.9
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.32
<0.6
7.1
<0.002
<0.02
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.43
<0.6
1 1
<0.002
<0.02
0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.50
<0.6
13
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
0.74
0.2
<0.6
0.13
<0.6
5.9
0.003
0. 13
1.2
0.07
0.3
<0.6
0.1 1
<0.6
8.2
0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.10
<0.6
5.8
<0.002
0.05
<0.8
0.03
0.5
<0.6
0.08
<0.6
6.7
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
0. 13
0.3
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
5.7
<0.002
0.09
0.9
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.12
<0.6
8.1
<0.002
0.1 2
0.9
<0.02
0.4
<0.6
0.28
<0.6
12
<0.002
0. 1 3
0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.29
<0.6
8.9
-------
Table 3.4 (Continued)
Col lection S i te
b
Spec ies
IABIDC
Ant imony
Arsen ic
Beryl 1i urn
Cacknium Chromium Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selen ium
Tha11i um
Z i nc
French Broad River
FBRM 71
CHC
161 IB
<2
0.1 1
<0.02
0.010
0.44
3.4
<0.02
0. 1
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
210
FBRM 71
LMB
161 14
<2
0.09
<0.02
<0.002
0.10
0.9
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.31
<0.6
1 1
FBRM 71
C
1 1962
<2
<0.02
<0.02
0.012
0.15
1.0
1.0
0.2
<0.6
0.34
<0.6
15
Nolichucky River
NRM 8.5
CHC/FHC
161 10
<2
0.14
<0.02
<0.002
0.18
1.4
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0. 16
<0.6
7.5
NRM 8.5
C
16112
<2
0.12
<0.02
<0.002
0.12
I.I
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.34
<0.6
22
NRM B.5
SPB/SMB
16109
<2
0.22
<0.02
<0.002
0.14
I.I
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.30
<0.6
10
Holston River
IIRM 110
C
16121
<2
0.14
<0.02
<0.002
0.13
<0.0
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.44
<0.6
19
HRM 110
LMB
16120
<2
0.22
<0.02
<0.002
0.14
0.9
<0.02
0.5
<0.6
0.33
<0.6
9.6
HRM 1 10
CHC
16122
<2
0.12
<0.02
<0.002
0.16
<0.8
<0.06
0. 1
<0.6
0.25
<0.6
7. 1
Center Hill Reservoir
Forebay
CHC
05445
<2
0.09
<0.02
0.003
0.12
0.9
0.20
0.2
<0.6
0. 13
<0.6
5.1
Tributaries
CHC
05444
<2
0.07
<0.02
<0.002
0.10
<0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0. 13
<0.6
5.5
a. Station abbreviations: TRM = Tennessee River Mile; BSRM = Big Sandy River Mile; DRM = Duck River Mile; ERM = Elk River Mile; SRM = Sequatchie
River Mile; HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile; ORM = Ocoee River Mile; CRM = Clinch River Mile; EmRM = Emory River Mile; PRM = Powell River Mile; LTRM =
Little Tennessee River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile; NRM = Nolichucky River Mile; and HRM = Holston River Mile.
b. Species abbreviations: Catfish (CHC = channel catfish; FHC = flathead catfish), Game fish (BGS = bluegill sunfish; LMB = largemouth bass; RBT =
rainbow trout; SMB = smallmou+h bass; SPB = spotted bass; WHS = white crappie), Rough fish (C = carp; DRM = drum; GRH = golden redhorse; SBU =
small mouth buffalo).
c. See table 3.3, footnote b.
ABDII06R
-------
Table 3.5. Concentrations (yg/g) of pesticides and PC8s in composited fish flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations,3 1990.
Co I Iect i on s i te
Species LAB ID
Lipid Benzene
(%) Aldrin Oieldrin Toxophene Hexachlo
Chlordane
Endo-
DDTr suI fan Endr i n
Hepta-
chlor PC8s
Mi rex
Tennessee River
TRM 7
CHC
05425
16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.06
0.32
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
TRM 21
CHC
05426
9.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM 23
CHC
03763
3.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.27
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
TRM 61
CHC
05427
13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
0.45
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
BSRM 4
CHC
05428
9.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
0. 16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
TRM 100
CHC
05429
9.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
TRM 135
CHC
05430
7.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
0.79
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
TRM 175
CHC
05431
13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.06
0.39
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
TRM 200
CHC
03764
10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
0.61
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
Duck River
DRM 22.5
DRM
16080
0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
DRM 22.5
LMB/SPB/WHC
16082
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
DRM 22.5
CHC/FHC
16083
3.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 207
CHC
03765
8.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
1.03
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.6
TRM 230
CHC
03766
8.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
1.26
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
TRM 255
CHC
05432
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0. 12
1.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
Wi 1 son Reservoi r
TRM 260
CHC
18300
7.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.46
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
TRM 270
CHC
18301
6.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.45
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 275
CHC
05433
7.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0. 12
3.30
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
TRM 300
CHC
05434
12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.36
2.30
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1 .4
TRM 339
CHC
05437
14
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.1 1
0.75
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
Elk River
ERM 41
SPB/Lf©
18951
4.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.62
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
ERM 4 1
DRM
18952
2.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
ERM 41
CHC
18950
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-------
Table 3.5 (Continued)
Lipid Benzene Endo- Hepta-
D C
Collection site Species LABID (X) Aldrin Oieldrin Toxophone llexachlo Chlordane ODTr sulfan Endrin chlor PCBs Mit
Guntersvi Ile Reservoir
TRM 550
CHC
05438
18
<0.01
<0.01
<0-5
<0.01
0.10
0. 15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.01
TRM 382
CHC
05439
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
TRM 415
CHC
05440
15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.1 1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
<0.01
Sequatchie River
SRM 7.1
CHC
16085
7.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
0.31
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.01
SRM 7.1
BGS
16087
2.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
SRM 7.1
DRM
16084
5.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
<0.01
Nickajack Reservoir
TRM 425
TRM 457
CHC
CHC
03348 13
03349 16
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.05
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.1 I
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
1.2
<0.01
<0.01
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM
483-1
CHC
01 102
6.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
2
CHC
01 105
4.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
3
CHC
01 106
4.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
TRM
495-1
CHC
01 107
7.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
2
CHC
01 108
4.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
3
CHC
01 109
6.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
TRM
526-1
CHC
01 110
8.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
2
CHC
01111
8.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
3
CHC
011I2
-------
Table 3.5 (Continued)
Lipid Benzene Endo- Hepta-
D C
Collection site Species LABID (%) Aldrin Dieldrin Toxophene Hexachlo Chlordane DOTr sulfan Endrin chlor PC8s Mirex
Emory Ri var
EmRM 14.5
LfB
16096
1.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.'
EmRM 14.5
C
16093
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
EmRM 14.5
BLC/CHC
16095
2.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
o.<
PoweII R1ver
PRM 65
CHC
16104
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
PRM 65
GRH
16102
1.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
PRM 65
SPB
16103
1 .0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
CI inch Ri ver
CRM 172
CHC
16100
7.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
CRM 172
SP8/LMB
16099
0.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
CRM 172
DRM/C
16101
3.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.
Ft. Loudoun
TRM 604
CHC
03768
2.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0. 16
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.
TRM 628
CHC
00386
4.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.12
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.
TRM 652
CHC
03769
2.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.07
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.
Tel 1ico Reservoir
LTRM 1
CHC
05443
3.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.22
0.19
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.
LTRM 11
CHC
03770
8.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.25
0.24
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.
Little Tennessee River
LTRM 92
CHC
16105
6.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
LTRM 92
Sf«
16108
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
LTRM 92
GRH
16107
0.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
French Broad River
FBRM 71
CHC
161 18
3.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
FBRM 71
L«
161 14
1.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
FBRM 71
C
161 16
1 . 1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
No Ii chucky R i ver
NRM 8.5
CHC/FHC
161 10
5.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
<0.01
NRM 8.5
SP8/LMB
16109
1.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
<0.01
NRM 8.5
c
161 12
6.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 1
<0.01
-------
Table 5.5 (Continued)
Col lection s i te
, Lipid Benzene
D c ^ s
Species LAB 10 (>) Aldrin Dieldrin Toxophene Hexachlo
Chlordane DDTr
Endo-
suI fan
Endr i n
Hepta-
ch I or
PCBs
Mi rex
llolston River
HRM I 10
MRU I 10
HRM I 10
CHC
LMB
C
16122
16120
16121
12
4.0
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01 <0.2
<0.01 0.1
<0.01 0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Center Hill Reservoir
Forebay CHC 05445 6.8 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 I.I <0.01
Tributaries CHC 05444 4.2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5 <0.01 0.06 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.2 <0.01
a. Station abbreviations are listed in table 3.4, footnote a.
b. Species abbreviations: Catfish (CHC = channel catfish; FHC = flathead catfish), Game fish (BGS = bluegill sunfish; LMB = largemouth bass; RBT =
rainbow trout; SMB - smallmouth bass; SPB = spotted bass; WHS =¦ white crappie), Rough fish (C = carp; DRM = drum; GRH = golden redhorse; SBU =
smallmouth buffalo).
c. See table 5.5, footnote b.
d. Data unavailable due to lab complications.
ABO 1094R
-------
Table 3.6 Highest and second-highest concentrations (yg/g) of each contaminant in fillets
(by collection site) found in fish tissue screening studies in 1990.
Highest Concentration Found Second-Highest Concentration Found
Detect i on
arameter
Limit
a
Level
b
Locat i on
Sample
Level
b
Locat i on
Sample
Meta 1 s
Antimony
2.0
ND
-
-
_
-
-
Arsenic
0.02
0.38
TRM 339
catf ish
0.29
ORM 12
catfish
0.38
TRM 350
catf i sh
Bery11i um
0.02
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Cadmium
0.002
0.018
TRM 230
catfish
0.017
TRM 526
catf ish
0.018
TRM 526
catfish
Chromium
0.02
0.44
FBRM 71
catfish
0.39
TRM 7
catf i r.h
Copper
0.8
3.4
FBRM 71
catf i sh
0.28
SRM 7. 1
rough
0.28
TRM 483
catf ish
Lead
0.02
1.5
TRM 7
catf i sh
1.0
FBRM 71
rough
Marcury
0.1
0.6
EmRM 14.5
game
0.5
DRM 22.5
game
0.5
LTRM 1
catfish
0.5
HRM 110
game
N i eke 1
0.6
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Se1 en ium
0.02
1.7
ORM 12
game
1.0
ORM 12
catf i sh
Tha11i um
0.6
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Zi nc
0.1
210
FBRM 71
catf ish
22
NRM 8.5
rough
Organ i cs
Al dr i n
0.01
ND
_
_
BHC
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
Chlordane
0.01
0.36
I KM 300
catf i sh
0.29
CRM 21
catf i sh
DDT r
0.01
3.3
TRM 275
catfish
2.3
TRM 300
catf i sh
Dieldrin
0.01
0.05
TRM 457
catf i sh
0.03
TRM 457
catf i sh
Cndosulfan
0.01
IVD
-
-
-
-
-
Endr i n
0.01
0.02
TRM 483
catfish
0.02
TRM 495
catf ish
Heptachlor
0.01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Mi rex
C .01
ND
-
-
-
-
-
Toxaphene
0.5
ND
-
-
-
-
-
PCBs
0.1
2.0
TRM 628
catfish
1.5
TRM 598
catf i sh
1.5 LTRM 11 catf i sh
a. ND - not detectable.
b. Location abbreviations:
TRM -Tennessee River Mile
ORM -Ocoee River Mile
FBRM—French Broad River Mile
SRM--Sequatchie River Mile
EmRN--Emory River Mile
CRM -Duck River Mile
LTRM--Littfe Tennessee River Mile
HRM—Holston River Mile
NRM--Nolichucky River Mile
CRM—Clinch River Mile
ABD0087Q
-43-
-------
Table 3.7. Contaminant results (wg/g wet weight) from reservoir and inflow sites which show
need for further evaluation.
Tier 2 Tier 3
Contaminants which need to be Contaminants which need to be
Location8 Species'3 resampled at screening level evaluated In intensive study
Tennessee River
TRM 7
TRM 173
CHC
CHC
Lead 1.5
PC8 0.9^
Duck Ri ver Mile 22
LMB/SPB/WHS
Mercury 0.5
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 230
TRM 255
CHC
CHC
Lead 4.0
Chlordane 0.12
Wheeler Reservoirc
TRM 275
TRM 300
TRM 339
CHC
CHC
CHC
Chlordane 0.12
DDTr 3.3
DDTr 2.3
PC8s 1.4
Chlordane 0.11
PCSs 1.3
Chlordane 0.36
GuntersviIle Reservoir
TRM 350 CHC
TRM 415 CHC
Chlordane 0.10
PCSs 1.2
ChIordane 0.11
PCSs 1.3
Nickajack Reservoirc
TRM 425 CHC
TRM 457 CHC
PCSs 0.9d
Chlordane 0.11
PCSs 1.2
Chickemauga Reservoir
TRM 495 CHC
TRM 526 CHC
Chlordane 0.10
Chlordane 0.09^
Hi wassee River Mile 18.5 CHC/FHC
PCSs I.I
ParksviIle Reservoir
0RM 12
CHC
CHC
R8T
PCSs 1.0
Selenium 1.0
SeI en i urn 1.7
Watts Bar Reservoir c
TRM 562 CHC
TRM 598 CHC
CRM 21 CHC
Emory River Mile 14.5
LMB
PC8s 0.9
-------
Table 3.7 (Continued)
Tier 2 Tier 3
Contaminants which need to be Contaminants which need to be
Location3 Species'5 resampled at screening level evaluated in intensive study
Fort Loudoun Reservoir0
TRM 604 CHC
TRM 628 CHC
Chlordane 0.16
PCBs 0.9^
Chlordane 0.12
PCBs 2.0
Tel Iico Reservoir0
LTRM I
LTRM II
CHC
CHC
PCBs 1.3
Mercury- 0.5
Chlordane 0.22
Chlordane 0.25
PCBs 1.5
Trench Broad River Mile 71 CHC
Zinc 230
Copper 3.4
Holston River Mile 110
Lfffi
Mercury 0.5
Center Hill Reservoir
Forebay CHC
Tributaries CHC
PCBs I.I
PCBs 1.2
a. TRM = Tennessee River Mile; 0RM = Ocoee River Mile; CRM = Clinch River Mile;
LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile.
b. Catfish (CHC = channel catfish; FHC = flathead catfish), Game fish (LMB = largemouth bass;
•SPB = spotted bass; WHS - white crappie).
c. Wheeler Reservoir - intensive study initiated fall 1991.
Nickajack, Watts Bar, Tt. Loudoun - have been under intensive investigation for several years.
Tellico - previous intensive studies found neither an increasing nor decreasing trend; therefore,
catfish continue to be.collected at, the screening level.
d. These concentrations are near but do not exceed tier 2 levels.
ABD0087Q
-45-
-------
Table 3.8. Listing of collection sites for Valley-wide fish tissue screening
study for autumn 1991.
Site3
Site3
Lower Tennessee River
TRM 21
Hiwassee Reservoir
HiRM 77
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM 23
TRM 60
TRM 100
TRM 173
TRM 200
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 207
TRM 230
TRM 255
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 260
TRM 2 70
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 275
TRM 300
TRM 339
Guntersville Reservoir
TRM 350
TRM 370
TRM 415
Chatuge Reservoir
HiRM 122
Nottely Reservoir
NRM 24
Blue Ridge Reservoir
ToRM 54
Norris Reservoir
CRM 20
CRM 125
PRM 30
Tellico Reservoir
LTRM 1
LTRM 11
Cherokee Reservoir
HRM 53
HRM 76
HRM 91
Watauga Reservoir
WRM 37
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM 483
TRM 495
TRM 526
Parksville Reservoir
ORM 12
South Holston Reservoir
SFHRM 51
Douglas Dam Tailwater
FBRM 32
a. Fish from several mainstem reservoirs (Nickajack, Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun)
will also be sampled in autumn 1991 as parts of other studies. TRM =
Tennessee River Mile, ORM = Ocoee River Mile, HiRM = Hiwassee River Mile,
NRM = Nottely River Mile, ToRM = Toccoa River Mile, CRM = Clinch River
Mile, PRM = Powell River Mile, LTRM = Little Tennessee River Mile, HRM =
Holston River Mile, WRM = Watauga River Mile, SFHRM = South Fork Holston
River Mile, FBRM = French Broad River Mile.
ABD0089Q-3
-46-
-------
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
.W VIRGINIA
I
-O
I
MO
MISSISSIPPI
KENTUCKY
\o
TENNESSEE
ALABAMA
VIRGINIA
S CAROLINA
FT-I Site
9 FT-R Site
Figure 3.1 Filled circles identify sites where fish were collected as part of TVA
screening studies in 1990.
-------
4.0 INTENSIVE RESERVOIR STUDIES
Intensive studies in TVA reservoirs as described in this report are
undertaken in areas with known or suspected problems. Two primary
objectives of these intensive studies are to define the geographical
boundaries of fish contamination and to determine the temporal trend in
contaminant concentrations in fish from reservoirs where the extent of
contamination has been defined.
Most of the reservoirs that are the subject of this chapter have
been under investigation for several years because of contamination with
PCBs. They include Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, and Melton Hill, all
reservoirs in the upper part of the Tennessee Valley, and Chickamauga,
Nickajack and Wilson Reservoirs in the middle and lower sections of the
Tennessee River. As a result of the contamination, the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) issued several public
notices in recent years advising against consumption of certain fishes
from those lakes in Tennessee. In addition to TVA and TDEC,
representatives from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) and
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) participated in the design and
conduct of these investigations.
The purpose of this report is to describe the results of PCB and
chlordane analyses of fish from these reservoirs in autumn 1990 and to
compare with results from previous years. Preliminary results were
shared with all study team members as soon as they were received from the
analytical laboratory rather than waiting on this formal report.
-49-
-------
Therefore, decisions on updating existing health advisories and selection
of study areas for autumn 1991 were made months before this document was
prepared. Results are presented in the order of the lowermost reservoir
first (Wilson) and proceeding upstream.
Ordinarily, fish collected for intensive studies are analyzed only
for the analyte(s) of concern. This was not the case for fish collected
for intensive studies in autumn 1990; these fish were also analyzed for
pesticides on the EPA priority pollutant list, in addition to the
analytes of concern. Such a data base does not exist for these
reservoi rs.
-50-
-------
4 .1 Wilson Reservoir
TVA conducted a four-year study (1984-87) on Wilson Reservoir Co
examine polychlorinated byphenyl (PCB) levels in catfish. Substantial
PCB concentrations were found in catfish tissue in the initial study year
(1984, reported in Dycus 1986), prompting the Northwest Alabama Regional
Health Department (NARHD) to issue official notice to retail fish markets
in June 1985 to discontinue selling catfish from Wilson Reservoir.
Catfish collected in subsequent years showed large year-to-year
reductions in PCB concentrations (Dycus and Lovery 1986, 1987, 1988), but
from June 1985 until fall 1987, during which time PCB levels decreased
significantly, area retail markets were not permitted to sell catfish
from that lake. Beginning in late 1987, the sale of catfish from Wilson
Reservoir was allowed to resume.
Available information was not sufficient to determine the cause of
the observed reductions in PCB levels. The source of PCBs in catfish
collected in 1984 outside of Fleet Hollow, an area with known
PCB-contaminated sediments, was never identified. Extreme hydrologic
conditions in the Tennessee River appeared to offer the most plausible
explanation. The 1984 catfish were collected five months after record
high flows in the river due to a 100-year flood, while substantially
reduced flows prevailed in subsequent years due to a severe, extended
drought. Because PCBs have low water solubility, they typically occur in
sediments, and any event substantially influencing sediments, e.g.,
turbulence induced by high flows, would be expected to also influence PCB
levels.
-51-
-------
Because of the low PCB levels observed in 1987, it was decided to
discontinue annual sampling of catfish in Wilson Reservoir; further
sampling at previous levels would not be required unless a major flood
(>200,000 cfs) occurred during May or June. If such a flood had not
occurred in three years, catfish would be collected from the same
locations sampled in earlier studies, but only those from Fleet Hollow
and TRM 260 would be analyzed initially.
In 1989, heavy rainfall occurred in January, March, and late June
with Wilson Dam releases of >200,000 cfs in all periods. Consequently,
it was decided to again collect catfish for PCB analysis in the fall of
1989, for comparison with results from samples in 1984*87. With one
exception (2.2 Jig/g), PCB levels in catfish from all locations in 1989
were low (0.2-1.1 (lg/g), relative to the FDA tolerance; however, PCB
concentrations were higher at most locations in 1989 than those in 1987.
Heavy rainfall occurred again in early 1990; so the decision was made to
resample all Wilson stations in the fall of 1990 to determine if PCB
concentrations increased further.
A.1.1 Methods
Field Sampline and Processing
In 1990, channel catfish were collected from the same four
locations as in previous years. These stations were Fleet Hollow, an
area known to have PCBs in its sediments; TRM 260 in the mouth of Stinson
Hollow, and TRM 270 (near mouth of Town Creek), all areas with historical
PCB and DDT data; and lower Shoal Creek, a heavily fished area with both
sport and commercial methods (figure 4.1).
-52-
-------
Nine catfish were collected with gill nets from each station;
length, weight and sex were recorded on field forms, along with
observations of fish condition. Immediately after collection, fish were
taken to the TVA biological laboratory in Muscle Shoals for processing.
Skin was removed and fish filleted; rib cage and belly flap were left in
tact on each fillet, which was weighed, labeled, wrapped in aluminum foil
and placed in a plastic bag. One fillet from each fish was randomly
selected for laboratory analysis and the other fillet retained for
possible future use. Fillets were frozen immediately for processing, and
those selected for analyses were sent to the TVA analytical lab in
Chattanooga.
Laboratory Processing
Each fish tissue sample was partially thawed and then diced with a
knife. Diced tissue was then thoroughly ground using a mechanical
grinder. After grinding, tissue was dispersed into glass jars and frozen
pending analysis. PCBs were extracted with petroleum ether from
individual, homogenized fillets using a cell disruptor. The extract was
then cleaned with concentrated sulfuric acid and analyzed for Aroclors
1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260 using a precalibrated gas
chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector and a electronic
integrator. Analyses were conducted on pesticides using the 608
procedure. Lipid content of individual fillets was determined
gravimetrically. Specifics of the quality assurance program were
provided in the 1986 study (Dycus and Louery 1987) and will not be
repeated here.
-53-
-------
Data Analyses
A broad array of statistical techniques was used to further examine
these results. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test
if lipid content and/or fish size (length and weight) differed among
sample locations or between years. Lipid content and fish size have been
found in other studies to have an important influence on PCB levels.
Differences in PCB levels among locations and years were examined
using either ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range Test or analysis of
covariance. Because PCBs are lipophilic compounds, these data were
examined closely to determine if analysis of covariance was needed to
eliminate differences due to variations in lipid content or fish size.
The first step was to test the null hypothesis that PCB levels do not
depend upon lipid content or fish size for one or more stations. This
involved regressing PCB concentration against lipid content and fish size
simultaneously for each station. If the slopes for all stations were not
different from zero (failure to reject the null hypothesis), then no
adjustment for lipid content was necessary and ANOVA was the appropriate
test. If the slope for any station was significantly different from zero
(rejection of null hypothesis), then covariance analysis was needed.
Prior to proceeding to covariance analysis, data were tested for
homogeneity of slopes (parallel lines). If this null hypothesis was
accepted, data were analyzed using covariance analysis by comparing the
distance between the parallel regression lines of adjusted means. A
similar procedure was used to compare length/weight relationships
described above.
-54-
-------
Prior to statistical analyses, concentrations of PCBs were
transformed to approximate a normal distribution using a log^o (x + 1)
transformation (x + 1 was used because some values were between zero and
one). Lipid content was transformed using arc sine. An a of 0.05 was
chosen as the level of significance. Samples with less than detectable
levels (0.1 Hg/g) were included at the detection limit in developing
averages.
4.1.2 Results and Discussion
Physical Characteristics
As in previous collections, field and laboratory observations of
catfish collected in 1990 revealed few abnormal external or internal
conditions. Most fish appeared to be normal and healthy; however, three
fish from TRM 270 had no fat in the abdominal cavity. Mean lengths and
weights of channel catfish in 1990 varied by stations from previous years
(table 4.1-1). Specific information for each fish is in table 4.1-2.
Fish collected at TRM 260 in 1990 were considerably smaller than those
from that station in all other years except 1984; those from Shoal Creek
were much larger than in all previous years. Fleet Hollow fish were
larger than fish collected there in all years except 1986. Average
lengths and weights of 1990 fish at TRM 260 were considerably smaller
than at other locations that year.
A two-way ANOVA, to determine if there were differences in lipid
content or fish size among locations and^ years, showod significantly
greater lipid content in 1989 and 1990 than in other years (table
4.1-3). Catfish were significantly smaller in 1984 and 1985 than in
other years. There was no significant difference in the size of fish in
-55-
-------
samples from 1986 through 1990. Tests for weight had a significant
interaction among years and locations. This was due to the inconsistent
average size of fish from TRM 260 relative to the other locations over
time; over all stations, the smallest catfish were collected at TRM 260
in 1984 and 1990, whereas the largest fish came from that location in
1989.
PCB Concentration
PCB levels in catfish from all locations in 1990 were low, relative
to the FDA tolerance of 2.0 |ig/g (table 4.1-4). Channel catfish from
Fleet Hollow had a mean PCB concentration of 0.7 (ig/g (range 0.3-1.2
Hg/g). Mean concentrations for the other three locations were 0.4 (TRM
260), 0.5 (TRM 270), and 0.5 Hg/g (Shoal Creek).
The 1990 results showed some variability in average PCB levels at
all four stations, but no major changes over recent years. Levels at all
locations were similar to those in 1989. None of the 36 catfish had a
level above 2.0 Hg/g. The overall average for 1990 was 0.5 Hg/g,
compared with 2.6, 1.0, 0.5, 0.2, and 0.6 in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, and
1989, respectively (table 4.1-4).
Statistical comparison of PCB levels observed in 1990 to levels in
previous years was based on a two-way analysis of covariance (year and
location main effects) because of a significant relationship between PCB
levels and catfish weight for the entire data set. Preliminary tests for
both lipid content and weight showed PCBs were dependent on weight when
lipids were included but not on lipids when weights were included, i.e.,
mean PCB concentrations showed a significant interaction between location
-56-
-------
and year when adjusted to a common weight, but not when adjusted to a
common lipid content. The interaction occurred because the pattern of
PCB levels among locations di1 f,red from year to year (table A.1-5).
Highest adjusted mean PCB concentrations were at TRM 260 in 1984, at TRM
270 in 1987, and at Fleet Hollow in 1985, 1986, 1989, and 1990. Adjusted
mean PCB concentrations were highest at all locations in 1984, with
decreases in subsequent years, except 1989 and 1990, when levels
increased slightly throughout most of the reservoir. The lowest PCB
levels in 1990 were in Shoal Creek, but in contrast with levels in
1984-85, all reservoir stations in 1990 had relatively low levels.
At Fleet Hollow, the site of historic PCB contamination, corrective
actions taken by TVA in the early 1980s to reduce or eliminate PCB
contaminated soils from entering this small embayment (21 surface acres)
seem to have been successful, as evidenced by the reduced PCB levels
there in catfish. However, similar reductions in PCB levels observed at
the other three locations upstream of Fleet Hollow was not considered to
be the result of the corrective actions in Fleet Hollow. As noted
earlier, the most plausible theory for those reductions was thought to be
related to the extreme hydrologic conditions (severe drought) that
occurred in 1985-88.
This theory that increased PCBs were influenced by hydrologic
conditions could only be tested following additional flood conditions in
early summer. That condition happened in 1989 and again in 1990 (figure
4.2), hence the resumption of sampling in Wilson Reservoir the following
autumns at the same lev.el and stations as in previous years. PCB
concentrations in 1989 increased at all station . reversing the four-year
trend; in 1990, levels were higher at two of the four stations over
-57-
-------
Levels in the previous drought years. AIL of these suggest that fLoods
and high flows in early summer may be expected to result in some
increased PCB levels in reservoirs with historic PCB contamination.
Nevertheless, the mean PCB levels in catfish collected in 1990 were still
substantially below those observed in 1984 and 1985.
Pesticides
Minimum chlordane levels (0.01-0.04 ng/g) were detected in a few
samples at each location in 1990. Previous chlordane samples were not
available from Wilson Reservoir. Except for DDTr, few other pesticides
were detected in Wilson Reservoir channel catfish. DDT ranged from <0.01
to 2.43 in individual catfish with a mean of 0.28 \ig/g at the Fleet
Hollow, 0.29 |ig/g at TRM 260, 0.13 at Shoal Creek, and 0.76 at TRM
270. Although DDT was detected in 31 of the 36 (86 percent) catfish,
only one fish was above 2.0 |i.g/g. Aldrin, endrin, and endosulfate were
each detected at low levels in one catfish. Heptachlor, dieldrin, BHC,
and toxaphene were not found in any of the samples.
4.1.3 Recommendat ions
Since PCB levels dropped at three of the four stations, and summer
rainfall had not been heavy enough to necessitate high flows in TVA
mainstream reservoirs, continuation of separate, intensive PCB studies on
Wilson Reservoir were unnecessary. Therefore, in 1991, it was planned
that stations at TRM 260 and 270 only would be sampled as part of the
Valley-wide screening study.
-58-
-------
Table 4.1-1.
Minimum, maximum,
and mean lengths
and weight
s of channel ai
blue catfish
collected
from four stations on
Wi 1 son Reservo
1984, 1985,
1986,
1987,
1989,
and
1990.
Lenpth
(mm)
W
uip.ht (j>)
Location
Year
Minimum Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Maxlmum
Mean
Fleet Hollow
1984
324
470
370
315
1060
554
1985
281
460
419
144
882
484
1986
259
619
426
274
2315
768
1987
320
480
401
262
956
557
1989
310
460
376
252
982
499
1990
348
489
418
322
1102
698
TRM 260
1984
234
421
331
125
870
388
1985
238
550
420
98
1810
664
1986
335
474
411
316
934
582
1987
416
490
455
594
1036
853
1989
455
530
499
894
15110
1163
1990
245
425
361
108
624
396
TRM 270
1984
268
567
374
120
2270
649
1985
312
474
430
228
1200
656
1986
330
518
413
294
1370
738
1987
385
435
410
414
842
610
1989
307
482
377
226
1080
541
1990
390
448
421
546
930
699
Shoal Creek.
1984
321
432
349
300
900
415
1985
330
451
378
291
940
536
1986
400
452
429
522
888
688
1987
330
530
407
268
1340
611
1989
320
490
422
220
1132
677
19.90
410
480
454
569
1316
938
ABD0094Q-1
-59-
-------
Table 4.1-2. Physical data and concentrations (^ig/g) of organlcs In Individual
Autugn 1990.
Collection
Location Date Length Height Sex Lipids Aldrln Dleldrln BHC
TRM
260
901023
403
460
F
8.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901024
245
108
F
0.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901024
247
114
F
1.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901024
343
316
M
7.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901026
419
1403
F
6.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901031
370
507
H
5.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901101
394
421
M
6.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901101
425
609
M
8.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
260
901101
400
624
F
5.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
MEANS
361
507
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
443
930
F
2.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
440
754
F
4.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
410
570
F
6.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
426
750
M
7.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
418
632
F
9.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
405
602
F
8.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
390
546
F
7.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
414
658
F
10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TRM
270
901106
441
852
F
13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
MEANS
421
699
7.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
SC
1.2
901030
410
569
F
7.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
sc
1.2
901030
480
956
M
3.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
SC
1.2
901030
460
1316
F
5.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
sc
1.2
901030
420
595
M
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
sc
1.2
901030
440
818
M
7.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
sc
1.2
901030
460
836
M
7.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
sc
1.2
901030
465
1142
M
7.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
sc
1.2
901031
480
995
F
7.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
sc
1.2
901101
472
1217
F
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
MEANS
454
938
6.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
ABD0090Q-13
catfish fillets collected froo Wilson Reservoir In
Chlordane DOTr Endosulfan Endrln Heptachlor RCB Toxaphene
0.01
0.44
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.36
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
0.03
1.46
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
0.02
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
0.03
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
0.01
0.29
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
0.01
0.99
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
0.04
0.95
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
0.02
1.10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
0.02
0.63
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
0.03
2.43
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
0.01
0.72
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
0.02
0.37
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
0.02
0.93
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
0.02
0.76
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
0.02
0.28
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
0.01
0.54
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
0.02
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
0.01
0.13
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
-------
Table 4.1-2 (Continued)
Location
Col 1ectlon
Date
Length
Weight Sex
Lipids
Mdrln
DieldHn
BHC
Chlordane
OOTr
Endosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
PCS
Toxaphen
FL 0.4
901023
469
1102 F
4.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.62
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
FL 0.4
901024
357
372 F
8.1
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.56
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
FL 0.4
901024
369
540 F
2.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
FL 0.4
901024
348
322 F
4.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.24
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
FL 0.4
901024
406
526 F
7.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.48
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
FL 0.4
901024
464
1038 F
10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
FL 0.4
901024
462
966 M
4.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
FL 0.4
901025
368
428 F
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
FL 0.4
901025
477
986 F
6.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
MEANS
418
698
6.0
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.28
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
ABD0090Q-14
-------
Table 4.1-3. Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects)
and Duncan's Multiple Range Test on lipid content and total
weight in catfish from Wilson Reservoir, 1984, 1985, 1986,
1987, 1989, and 1990.
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
P>F Mean Rank Low to High
Lipid content Location 0.0665
Year 0.0001 1986 1985 1987 1984 1989 1990
Interaction 0.1563
Total weight Location 0.6838
Year 0.0008 1985 1984 1987 1986 1990 1989
Interaction 0.0010
a. Years underscored by same line were not significantly different at
a = 0.05. Years not so underscored were significantly different.
ABD0094Q-12
-62-
-------
Table 4.1-4. Surmvary of total8 PCB concentrations (yg/g wet weight) in individual
catfish fillets from Wilson Roservoir, collected October 1984, December
1985, October 1986, October 1987, October 1989, and Oc+obor November 1990.
Year
Back Half of
Floet Hoi low
TRMb
260
Lower Shoe I
Creek
TRMb
270
Totals
1984
Range 0.8-10 1.6-7.9 0.8-4.3 0.3-5.0 0.3-10
Mean 2.8 4.2 2.4 1.9 2.6
Number >2.0 yg/g 4 8 5 4 22
Number of Fish 9 9 9 9 45
1985
Range
Mean
Number >2.0 yg/g
Number of Fish
0.56-5.3
1.76
2
9
0.24-3.7
1.17
2
9
<0.1-0.56
0.39°
0
9
0.22-1.5
0.74
0
9
<0.1-5.3
1.01
4
36
1986
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0 yg/g
Number of Fish
<0.1-1.9
0.72
0
9
<0.1-1.5
0.46
0
9
<0.1-0.60
0.22
0
9
0.1-0.90
0.42
0
9
<0.1-1.9
0.46
0
36
1987
Range
Mean
Number >2.0 yg/g
Number of Fish
<0.1-0.5
0.17
0
9
<0.1-0.3
0.13
0
9
<0.I-I.I
0.24
0
9
<0.1-0.3
0.22
0
9
<0.1-1.I
0.19
0
36
1989
Range 0.3-2.2 0.3-1.1
Mean 0.88 0.56
Number >2.0 yg/g I 0
Number of Fish 9 9
0.2-0.9
0.37
0
9
0.2-0.7
0.43
0
9
0.2-2.2
0.56
I
36
1990
Range 0.3-1.2 <0.1-0.7 <0.1-0.4 0.2-0.8 <0.1-1.2
Mean 0.74 0.39 0.22 0.48 0.46
Number > 2.0 yg/g 0 0 0 0 0
Number of Fish 9 9 9 9 36
a. Sum of individual aroclors which occurred in concentrations greater than or equal to
the detection limit of 0.1 yg/g.
b. TRM = Tennessee River Mile.
c. Total PCB concentrations less than detection limit of 0.1 yg/g were averaged as
0.1 yg/g.
ABD0095Q-I
-63-
-------
TaljU- A. 1-5. Selected results of analysis of covariance for each sampLe
location over time showing mean PCB levels adjusted to
a common weight.
Adjusted- Mean PCB level
Locat ion
(1984)
(1985)
(1989)
(1990)
(1986)
(1987)
Fleet Hollow
2.29
1.62
0.87
0.68
0.53
0.18
(1984)
(1985)
(1990)
(1986)
(1989)
(1987)
TRM 260
4.16
1.09
0.42
0.40
0.31
0.05
(1984)
(1985)
(1989)
(1987)
(1986)
(1990)
Shoal Creek
2.43
0.46
0.34
0.21
0.18
0.10
(1984)
(1985)
(1989)
(1990)
¦(1986)
(1987)
TRM 270
1.59
0.75
0.46
0.43
0.36
0.22
-Adjusted to a common weight; adjusted means underscored by the same line
were not significantly different at a = 0.05; means not so underscored
were significantly different.
ABD0094Q-13
-64-
-------
Figure 4.1 Collection Locations for Catfish used in PCB Study on Wilson Reservoir,
Autumn 1990
-------
day or the: year
ENG LAB 04/08/91 ^wdw/wilson/80-83.p»
Figure 4.2 Daily Average Discharges from Wilson Dam (1980-1990)
-------
. DAY OF THE YEAR
ENG LAB 04/08/91
Figure 4.2 (Continued)
~wdiv/wil son/84-87.pit
-------
DAY or THE YEAR
LAB 04/08/91
Figure 4.2 (Continued)
~wdw/wilson/88-90.
-------
4.2 Nickaiack Reservoir
Results of the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study in 1987
found sufficiently high concentrations of both PCBs arid chlordane in
catfish (the indicator species) from Nickajack Reservoir to warrant
further investigation. Concentrations of these chlorinated organics
exceeded the predetermined tier 3 levels (table 3.1-1) established to
trigger more in-depth studies to better define apparent problems. The
five-catfish fillet composite sample from the lower reservoir location
(Tennessee River mile 425) contained 1.9 M-g/g PCBs and 0.21 Hg/g
chlordane, while the composite sample from the upper area (TRM 457)
contained 1.3 |lg/g PCBs and 0.25 Hg/g chlordane (Dycus 1989a).
A follow-up study was planned for autumn 1988, but fish were
actually collected in January and February 1989 (Dycus 1990a). Ten
channel catfish were analyzed individually from two locations, TRM 425
and 435; in addition, tissue was examined from three catfish from TRM
457. Composites of largemouth bass and crappie were analyzed by species
from the first two sites; two smallmouth buffalo samples were analyzed
from TRM 435. No detectable concentrations of chlordane and only
relatively low PCB concentrations were found in the species other than
catfish.
Concentration of both organics in channel catfish in the follou-up
study were slightly lower than observed in the 1987 screening study, but
were still sufficiently high to be of concern. Based on the Jan-Feb 1989
results on PCB levels, the State of Tennessee (TDEC) in 1989 issued a
precautionary adivsory for catfish in Nickajack that suggested, "that
children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers avoid eating catfish from
Nickajack Reservoir and that other persons limit their consumption of
these catfish to 1.2 pounds per week." Another follow-up study was
-69-
-------
conducted in autumn 1989 to further refine geographical distribution of
PCB and chlordane contamination in Nickajack Reservoir catfish and to
investigate concentrations in other important sport species. In autumn
1989, PCB concentrations in channel catfish were lower at both TRMs 435
and 457 (0.7 Hg/g each) than in the previous 1989 study, but higher
(1.3 p.g/g) at TRM 425 (Dycus 1990a; Hall and Dycus 1991). Six catfish
collected at TRM 470 for the first time had an average PCB concentration
of 0.8 |ig/g- Chlordane concentrations in catfish at the same four
locations ranged from 0.05-0.09 Hg/g- Only four striped bass and three
sauger were collected in Nickajack in augumn 1989, and none of these fish
had PCB levels above 0.7 ng/g. Chlordane levels were mostly less than
0.01 ng/g; one striped bass from TRM 425 had a concentration of
0.12 Hg/g.
Similar studies continued on Nickajack Reservoir in autumn 1990 to
examine the trends in PCB concentrations there over time; results are
presented in this report.
4.2.1 Methods
Ten channel catfish were collected from two locations (TRMs 425 and
457) in Nov-Dec 1990. One fillet from each of the 20 channel catfish was
analyzed for lipids, PCBs, and pesticides; the remaining fillets from
each of the catfish were retained for future use.
All procedures involved in field sampling and processing,
laboratory and data analyses were similar to those described for Wilson
Reservoir (section 4.1) earlier in this report, or for chlordane in the
previous report on fish from Nickajack Reservoir in 1989 (Dycus 1990a),
and will not be repeated here.
-70-
-------
4.2.2 Results and Discussion
Channel Catfish
Physical Characteristics--The full complement of ten channel
catfish was collected in autumn 1990 at TRMs 425 and 457 (table 4.2-1).
Gross physical examination of the 20 catfish showed nine were
"normal," six had a few parasites on their livers, and five had parasites
on the spleen and fins; five of the 20 fish had a relatively low amount
of fat stored in their body cavity. None of these observations indicated
an unusual condition.
Catfish in 1990 ranged in size from 464g to 2,429g and averaged
l,215g at TRM 425 and l,538g at TRM 457 (table 4.2-1). There were no
significant differences in lipid content, length, or weight between the
two stations. Catfish collected in winter (Jan-Feb) 1989 and fall 1990
were significantly larger than those collected in autumn 1989. Small
catfish were generally absent in the Jan-Feb 1989 collections
(1,620-2,157g), but many small ones were collected in autumn 1989,
especially at TRM 4-57, when seven of the ten were less than 900g (Hall
and Dycus 1991). The average size of catfish was high again in the
autumn 1990 collections, when 83 percent of the fish were more than
900g. A two-way ANOVA, with location and year as main effects, found
fish weight to be significantly different among the three years and
b.etween the two stations (table 4.2-2). Lip.id content was significant
among the -years, but not between stations. The interaction term was also
significant for weight, probably due to the many small catfish at TRW ,4 5 7
in fall 1989 and significantly larger fish from that station in other
years.
- 71 -
-------
Average lipid content in autumn 1990 was not significantly
different from those observed in Jan-Feb 1989 collections; yet levels in
both of those years were significantly higher than in fall 1989 samples
(table 4.2-2).
Fish weight and percent lipids, as in previous samples, again did
not exhibit a consistent relationship among individual fish; some of the
smaller fish had a high percent lipid content, e.g., 996g (18 percent);
736g (16 percent); 464g (13 percent) (table 4.2-1). Conversely, some
large fish had a low percentage of lipids, e.g., 2,045g (3.6 percent);
2,066g (5.8 percent); however, other large fish had high lipids, e.g.,
2,131g (24 percent) and 2,429g (17 percent). Thus, although it can be
generally expected that large fish will have relatively high lipid
levels, there will obviously be exceptions, as exhibited in these samples.
PCB Concentrations--The screening study in 1987 had found PCB
concentrations of 1.9 and 1.3 Hg/g in the composite samples from TRMs
425 and 457, respectively (Dycus 1989a). Analyses of individual catfish
in the follow-up, intensive study (fish collected in January-February
1989) found lower concentrations at TRM 425 (average 0.9 (ig/g, range
0.4-1.9) than in the screening study, but similar concentrations at TRM
457 (average 1.3 Hg/g; range 0.9-1.7, Dycus 1990a). In 1990, PCB
concentrations at TRM 425 averaged 1.0 |ig/g (range 0.6-1.5 |ig/g); at
TRM 457, they averaged 1.1 Hg/g (range 0.4-1.7 Hg/g) (table 4.2-1).
Average PCB concentrations in autumn 1990 were lower at TRM 425 and
higher at TRM 457 than in the previous autumn 1989 collection (1.3 and
0.7 JJg/g, respectively). No catfish in 1990 samples had PCB
concentrations as high as 2.0 Hg/g; two of the autumn 1989 catfish had
levels of 2.0 |J.g/g. PCB concentrations in catfish collected in 1990
and the two previous seasons are summarized in table 4.2-3.
-72-
-------
PCB concentrations are often related to both fish size and lipid
content. Preliminary regression tests did not detect a significant
relationship between PCB concentration and lipid content or fish weight
at any of the locations, so adjustment was not necessary. A one-way
analysis of variance indicated there were no significant differences in
PCB concentrations between locations (table 4.2-4).
Absence of a significant relationship between PCB concentration and
lipid content and/or fish weight is noteworthy. Such a result was also
found for the two previous Nickajack intensive studies (Dycus 1990a; Hall
and Dycus 1991). These results differ from those for other trend studies
on Fort Loudoun and Wilson Reservoirs, which have shown the importance of
evaluating these relationships among locations and over time (Dycus and
Lowery 1988, Dycus 1989b). The reasons for the lack of these
relationships for catfish from Nickajack Reservoir is not clear at this
point. Further study may shed light on this observation.
Multi-year comparisons were made with similar results, ie, PCBs
were not related to lipids or weight, so adjustments were unnecessary
(table 4.2-5). A two-way ANOVA failed to identify significant
differences among stations (TRM 425 and 457) or years; however the
interaction between them was significant. The greatest difference in PCB
concentrations between years was at TRM 457, where the mean PCB
concentration for catfish was higher in Jan-Feb 1989 (1.3 Hg/g) than in
autumn 1989 (0.7) or 1990 (1.1) samples.
The trend in January-February 1989 was a general increase in PCB
concentrations from down tc upstream; however, in autumn 1989, the
reverse was generally true with higher concentrations at the two upper
stations. Fish from both stations in 1990 had similar PCB levels (about
1.0 Hg/g).
-------
Chlordane--Chlordane concentrations in the composite catfish sample
from the 1987 screening study were 0.21 ng/g at TRM 425 and 0.25 at TRM
457, both exceeding the tier 3 level of 0.20 |ig/g. Concentrations
observed in the more intensive January-February 1989 study averaged 0.22
at TRM 425, 0.11 at TRM 435, and 0.16 ng/g at TRM 457. The larger
sample of 36 fish from the autumn 1989 collection averaged <0.1 Hg/g at
four locations; only at TRM 425 were any of the individual fish above
0.10 ng/g, and none reached 0.20 Hg/g. The 1990 sample of 20 catfish
had average chlordane levels of 0.09 Hg/g at TRM 425 and 0.11 (ig/g at
TRM 457; levels were at or above 0.10 Hg/g in two fish at TRM 425 and
in five fish at TRM 457 (table 4.2-1).
A preliminary test indicated a significant relationship between
chlordane concentration and lipid content in 1990, but not between
chlordane and catfish weight (table 4.2-4); this is the reverse of what
occurred in the previous intensive study. Occurrence of this significant
relationship in the preliminary test indicates that the slope of the line
regressing chlordane concentration against lipid content for at least one
location was significantly different from zero, showing a need to adjust
chlordane concentrations to a common lipid content. Covariance analysis
adjusted for lipid content indicated chlordane concentrations were not
significantly different between the two sites in 1990 (table 4.2-4).
Multi-year statistical comparisons among locations and years
(covariance analysis) showed chlordane concentrations were significantly
related to lipid content but not to fish weight (table 4.2-5). Chlordane
concentrations differed significantly among years, but not between
locations. There was also a significant interaction between location and
years. The difference in time of year when the collections were made and
-74-
-------
the fish size may be factors in this indicated dependency. The
mid-winter collections of January and February 1989 and fall 1990 on the
average were composed of larger (heavier fish) with higher lipid
contents, whereas the autumn 1989 samples consisted of more smaller fish
with lower lipid contents. The greatest significant difference in the
multi-year comparisons of chlordane was at TRM 457 , where the change in
mean weight was greatest. However, chlordane concentrations decreased at
both stations from the first £0 the second collection in 1989 but
increased at TRM 457 xn 1990.
Other Pesticide Concentrations
The concentrations pf other pesticides in catfish collected in 1990
are detailed in table 4.2-1. Aldrin, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor,
mirex, and toxaphene were not observed in any samples. Dieldrin occurred
¦in only one of ten fish (0.12 Hg/g), and BHC occurred in three samples
with a maximum value of 0.28 Hg/g- Although of limited occurrence,
these values are high enough to warrant further examination in future
Nickajack Reservoir samples. DDTr occurred -in 14 of 20 samples, with a
mean of 0.08 Hg/g at TRM 4.25 and ,0.04 [ig/g at TRM 457; such values
for DDT are not .uncommon in reservoir fish.
4. 2.'3 Re commend at ions
Nickaja.ck Reservoir is in the trend study stage, meaning ten
catfish from each of two locations (TRM 425 and 457) will be collected
for several years to determine if concentrations of PCBs and chlordane
are changing over time. Collections in autumn 1991 also included a more
thorough .evaluation of PCB and chlordane concentrations in carp and
smallmouth buffalo, because there is an important local commercial
fishery for these species.
-7-5-
-------
Table 4.2-1. Physical characteristics and concentrations (ng/g wet weight) of organlcs In channel catfish fro* Nlckajack Reservoir, collected
Noveaber and Deceaber 1990.
Collection
Location Date Length Height Sex Lipids Aldrln Dleldrln BHC Chlordane DOTr Endosulfan Endrln Heptachlor Mlrex PCB Toxaphene
TRM 425
901106
476
1025
M
12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.19
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
370
464
M
13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
490
1297
F
20
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.17
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.5
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
478
1009
M
14
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.4
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
591
2066
M
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
472
962
M
7.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
596
2332
F
5.4
<0.01
0.12
0.28
0.07
0.27
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
476
1380
F
8.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 425
901106
426
696
F
12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 425
901108
462
919
M
8.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
Mean
484
1215
10.7
<0.01
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
615
2429
M
17
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
0.10
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
525
1453
F
6.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
531
1382
F
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
495
996
M
18
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
426
736
M
16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
503
960
F
5.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
656
2045
M
3.6
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.06
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
576
1709
M
7.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.6
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
486
2131
F
24
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.7
<0.5
TRM 457
901209
4(7
1156
M
14
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
Mean
534
1538
11.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.11
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
ABD1553R
-------
Table 4.2-2.
Two-way analysis of variance (location and year main effects)
and Duncan's Multifile Range Test oh lipid content and total
weight in catfish from Nickajack Reservoir Winter 1989, Fall
1989, and 1990.
P>F
Duncan's Mult
Mean Rank
lple Range Test3
Low to High
Lipid
content
Locat ion
0.6495
Year
0.0001
1989
(Fall)
1990 1989 (Winter)
Interact ion
0.8568
Total
weight
Locat ion
0.0118
.425
457
Year
0.0001
1989
(Fall)
1990 1989 (Winter)
Interac t ion
0.0360
a. Years underscored by same line were not significantly different at
a = 0.05. Years not so underscored were significantly different.
ABD0094Q-10
-77-
-------
Table 4.2-3. Sunmary of total PCB concentrations (|lg/g) in individual catfish
fillets from Nickajack Reservoir, collected in January-February 1989,
fall 1989 and fall 1990.
TRM TRW TRM TRM
Year 425 435 457 470
Winter 1989
Range 0.4-1.9 0.6-1.9 0.9-1.7 NS
Mean 0.9 1.2 1.3
Number >2.0 JJ.g/g 0 0 0
Number of Fish 10 10 3
Fall 1989
Range 0.6-2.0 0.4-1.2 0.6-2.0 0.6-1.0
Mean 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.8
Number >2.0 Hg/g 10 10
Number of Fish 10 10 10 6
Fall 1990
Range 0.6-1.5 NS 1.4-1.7 NS
Mean 1.0 1.1
Number >2.0 ng/g 0 0
Number of Fish 10 10
NS - No sample at that location.
ABD0095Q-9
-78-
-------
Table 4.2-4. Results of statistical tests used to compare location differences in PC8 and chlordane concentrations
in channel catfish from Nickajack Reservoir, 1990.
Ana Iyte
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between
analy.te and parameter)
Decision based
on preliminary
test -
If analysis of Analysis of
If ANOVA covariance (test covariance
(P>F) of parallel lines) results
PC8
Lipid content
Wei ght
No (P>F. = 0.2198)
No (P>F = 0.4489)
Use ANOVA
Use ANOVA
0.7532
0.7532
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chlordane Lipid content Yes (P>F = 0.0093)
Lipid adjustment
is needed
N/A
P>F = 0.7115
I ines parallei
P>F = 0.1610
Sites are not
di fferent
Wei ght
No (P>F = 0.5706)
Weight adjustment
i s not needed
N/A
N/A
N/A
¦ABD0I04Q-I
-------
Table 4.2-5. Decision path followed and results of two-way tasting (location and year) by analysis of variance or covariance for PC8 and
chlordane concentration in channel catfish from Nickajack Reservoir winter 1989, fall 1989, and fall 1990.
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between
analyte and parameter)
Decision based
on preliminary
test
If ANOVA
(P>F)
If covar i ance
used (test of
parallei Iines)
CovarIance
results
(P>F)
PCB
i
CD
O
I
Lipid
content
We i ght
No (P>F = 0.5221)
No (P>F = 0.3674)
Use ANOVA
Use ANOVA
Locat i on
Year
Interaction
Sign!fleant
Location
Year
Interaction
Sign Ificant
0.9196
0.7065
0.0459
Interaction
0.9196
0.7065
0.0459
Interaction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CHLORDANE
Lipid
content
Yes (P>F = 0.0001)
Need to adjust
N/A
P>F = 0.0677
not parallei
Location 0.0649
Year 0.0004
Interaction 0.0006
Weight
No (P>F = 0.1456)
No need to adjust
for weight
N/A
N/A
ABD0I04Q-2
-------
4 . 3 Chickamauga Reservoir
Previous fish tissue studies on Chickamauga Reservoir have reported
somewhat elevated concentrations of PCBs and chlordane in catfish,
especially in the upper end (TRM 526) (Dycus 1988 and 1990b, Hall and
Dycus 1991). In addition, the reservoirs immediately above and below
(Watts Bar and Nickajack) had a history of PCB contamination in catfish.
Based on these recently observed PCB concentrations and the known
contamination in adjacent reservoirs, there v.--s a distinct need to
conduct an intensive study on Chickamauga in 1990 to determine lf a
problem existed.
A.3.1 Methods
Study design called for ten channel catfish to be collected from
each of five locations (TRMs 472, 483, 495, 502, and 526). One fillet
from each of the 50 catfish would be utilized for individual analysis of
lipids, PCBs, and pesticides, the remaining fillets for composite
analysis of lipids, PCBs, and other pesticides. Composite results were
reported in a separate summary report provided the TVA Office of Power.
All procedures involved in field sampling and processing,
laboratory and data analyses were described for Wilson Reservoir (section
4.1) earlier in this report, or for chlordane in the 1989 Nickajack
Reservoir fish tissue study (Dycus 1990a), and will not be repeated here.
-81-
-------
A.3.2 Results and Discussion
Physical Characteristics
Gross physical examination of the 50 catfish (48 channel and 2 blue
catfish) found numerous fish with some physical anomalies. Six catfish
had parasites on the gills and one had frayed gills. Externally, one of
the catfish was very skinny; however, 10 catfish were considered robust.
Internal fat deposits were 15 percent or less in 25 catfish. Liver
anomalies included five fish with parasites, one with fatty tissue, one
with granular tissue, and six with some other anomaly. Two catfish had
parasites in the spleen and two had parasites in the kidneys.
Sizes (lengths and weight) of catfish are shown in table 4.3-1.
Average weight was largest at TRM 495 (1476 g) and smalLest at TRM 483
(772 g). A one-way ANOVA indicated there was no significant difference
in the size of fish among Chickamauga locations in 1990 (table 4.3-2).
Lipid content ranged from 1.1 to 13 percent; means at the different
stations ranged from 5.3 to 8.8 percent. A one-way ANOVA indicated a
significant difference in percent lipids among Chickamauga locations in
1990, but no upstream/downstream trends (table 4.3-2.).
PCB Concentrations
PCB concentrations in catfish collected in 1990 are detailed in
table 4.3-1. Mean concentrations were 0.7 Hg/g at TRM 472; 0.3 Jig/g
at TRM 483; 0.6 ng/g at TRM 495; 0.6 ng/g at TRM 502; and 0.7 ng/g
at TRM 526. Three catfish equaled or exceeded 1.0 (ig/g (1.1 and 1.3 at
TRM 504 and 1.0 at TRM 526); however, none of the Chickamauga fish
approached the FDA tolerance level of 2.0 (ig/g.
-82-
-------
Preliminary statistical tests showed no significant relationship
between PCB concentration and weight or lipid content. Since adjustments
for weight or lipids were unnecessary, analysis of variance was
appropriate to test for differences among locations (table 4.3-3). PCB
concentrations were significantly lower at TRM 483 than at TRMs 495, 526,
and 472. Higher concentrations had been observed in previous years in
the upper end at TRM 526. This was the first time catfish tissue was
analyzed from TRM 472.
Chlordane Concentrations
Chlordane concentrations in catfish collected in 1990 are detailed
in table 4.3-1. In 1990, mean concentrations ranged from 0.02 Hg/g at
TRM 483 to 0.06 Ug/g at TRM 4,9,5. There were no chlordane
concentrations that approached the FDA action limit of 0.3 Hg/g.
Preliminary statistical tests showed a significant relationship
between chlordane concentration and both lipid content and fish weight
(table 4.3-3). Since adjustment for both was necessary, a test of
parallel lines was checked to determine if covariance could be used; the
lines were parallel for weight but not for lipid content. The covariance
test appropriate for weight indicated there was no significant difference
in chlordane concentrations among locations.
Other Pesticides
The concentrations of pesticides in catfish collected from
Chickamauga Reservoir in 1990 are detailed in table 4.31. Aldrin,
dieldrin, BHC, endosulfan, mirex, and toxaphene were not detected in any
-83-
-------
samples. Endrin was detected at very low levels (0.01-0.03 Jig/g) at
TRMs 495 and 502. Heptachlor was detected in one sample (0.03) from
TRM 502. DDTr was commonly detected at all locations; however, DDTr was
below 1.0 ng/g in all but one fish.
A.3.3 Recommendations
Based on the absence, or very low levels, of organic contamination
in the most recent samples in Chickamauga Reservoir, individual catfish
will be collected only at TRM 526. Continuation of collections there are
deemed necessary because of the PCB problem in catfish just upstream in
Watts Bar Reservoir and the relatively high concentrations at TRM 526 in
previous years.
-84-
-------
Table 4.3-1. Physical data and concentrations (|ig/g) of organlcs in Individual channel catfish
autumn 1990.
collected froa Chlckaaauga Reservoir 1n
Collection
Location Date Length Weight Sex Lipids Aldrln Oleldrln BHC Chlordane ODTr Endosulfan Endrin Heptachlor Hlrex PCB Toxaphene
TRH 472
Qui 106
430
658
M
9.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRH 472
901106
410
532
M
4.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
TRH 472
901106
40S
588
H
12.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRH 472
901106
404
581
F
13.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRH 472
901106
520
1174
M
8.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRM 472
901106
441
724
M
11.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
TRM 472
901106
452
813
M
8.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 472
901106
494
1091
F
3.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRH 472
901107
550
1466
2.8
<0 '1
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
<0.5
TRM 472
901107
612
3073
F
6.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
Mean
47Z
1070
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRM 483
901101
399
466
F
4.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
TRM 463
901101
472
884
F
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 463
901105
460
815
12.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
TRM 483
901106
405
466
F
4.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
TRM 463
901106
354
318
3.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 483
901106
470
915
F
5.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 483
901106
540
1539
4.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRM 483
901106
452
671
4.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 463
901106
400
470
F
4.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 463
901106
507
1171
F
4.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
Mean
446
772
5.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
-------
Table 4.3-1 (Continued)
Collection
Location Date Length Weight Sex Lipids Aldrln Dleldrln
TRM 495
901102
555
1681
F
3.5
<0.01
<0.01
TRH 495
901105
400
486
F
8.7
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 495
901105
445
701
H
8.9
<0.01
<0.01
TRH 495
901105
465
721
M
3.6
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 495
901107
667
3757
H
9.7
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 495
901107
350
303
F
3.8
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 495
901107
530
1233
H
6.1
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 495
901107
554
1160
M
1.3
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 495
901107
573
1662
M
1.1
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 495
901107
620
3056
F
9.6
<0.01
<0.01
Mean
516
1476
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901101
443
790
F
6.1
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901114
457
872
F
6.2
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901114
463
982
M
5.5
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901114
495
1297
F
10.0
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901115
417
702
M
1.7
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901115
455
888
M
10.0
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901115
498
1014
M
2.9
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502
901115
377
406
H
4.6
<0.01
<0.01
TRH 502*
901114
563
1447
F
7.4
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 502*
901114
531
1568
F
7.2
<0.01
<0.01
Mean
470
997
6.2
<0.01.
<0.01
BHC Chlordane ODTr ErxJosul fan Endrln Heptachlor M1rex PCB Toxaphene
<0.01
0.08
0.09
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
<0.01
0.08
0.03
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
<0.01
0.10
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.06
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
0.09
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
<0.01
0.06
0.05
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
<0.01
0.06
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.03
0.02
<0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
-------
Table 4.3-1 (Continued)
Collection
Location Date Length Weight Sex Lipids Aldrln Dleldrln BHC Chlordane DOTr Endosulfan Endrln Heptachlor Ml rex PCB Toxaphene
TRH 526
901025
44a
860
M
13.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
TRH 526
901025
478
1419
F
13.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
TRM 526
901025
407
552
M
8.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 526
901025
569
16B3
M
5.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRH 526
901025
536
1655
F
8.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
TRM 526
901025
385
443
F
7.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
TRM 526
901025
414
613
F
6.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
TRH 526
901025
618
2705
F
8.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
<0.5
TRM 526
901025
395
572
F
9.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 526
901025
492
1047
M
8.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
Mean
474
1155
8.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
i
a
-j
i
a. Blue catfish
ABD0090Q2-4
-------
Table 4.5-2. Results of One-Way ANOVA on location differences of fish length, weight, and lipid content for channel catfi
from Chickamauga Reservoir in 1990.
a
Duncan's Multiple Range Test
Species Parameter P>F Mean Rank Low to High
Channel catfish Length 0.4202
Weight 0.4462
Lipid content 0.0469 483 495 502 472 526
a. Locations underscored by same line were not significantly different at ct=0.05; lines not so underscored were
significantly different.
AB00104Q-12
-------
Table 4.3-3. Results of statistical tests used to compare PC8 and chlordane concentrations among channel catfish from the five locations on
Chickamauga Reservoir in 1990. River miles underscored by the same line are not significantly different.
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between PCS
concentration and parameter?)
Dec i s i on based
on preliminary
test
If ANOVA
used
(P>F)
If covariance used
(test of paralled lines
(P>F)
Covar i ance
results
(P>F)
PCS
Lipid content
Weight
Chlordane
Lipid content
Weight
No (P>F = 0.3707)
No (P>F = 0.2696)
Yes (P>F = 0.0046)
Yes (P>F = 0.0024)
Use ANOVA
Use ANOVA
Use Covariance
Use Covariance
0.0215a
0.0215a
N/A
N/A
N/A Lines not parallel (P>F = 0.0059)
N/A Lines parallel (P>F= 0.6119) P>F
N/A
N/A
N/A
= 0.0652
N/A
N/A
483 502 495 526 472
a. SNK results: 483 502 495 526 472
ABD01040 -1 3
-------
4.U Watts Bar Reservoir
After several years of extensive PCB examinations, in 1989, Watts
Bar Reservoir was placed in the trend study stage so investigators could
look at PCB contamination over time. Previous collections (1985-88)
identified substantial PCB contamination in catfish and striped bass
(Dycus and Hickman 1988; Dycus 1990c). The tailwaters area of Fort
Loudoun Dam was first examined in 1983, and the study reach was expanded
downstream each year thereafter. The first collection of fish from the
entire length of Watts Bar Lake was in 1988. During that year channel
catfish were collected from four locations between TRM 532 (near Watts
Bar Dam) and TRM 598 ( near Fort Loudoun Dam) and one location on the
Clinch River (CRM 2) near its confluence with the Tennessee River.
Individual striped bass and smallmouth buffalo and composites of
largemouth bass, crappie, and sauger were also collected and analyzed in
1988 to determine if there was a potential problem with those important
game and commercial species.
PCB concentrations in catfish from another location on the Clinch
River (CRM 19), near Melton Hall Dam, collected and analyzed by Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), were provided in the TVA report summarizing
the 1988 results (Dycus 1990c), but not included in the statistical
analyses. Chlordane analyses were also run on selected fish from two
locations in the Clinch River for 1988, as an inter-laboratory,
split-sample effort on quality assurance; results were reported in
appendix A of Dycus (1990c).
In the fall of 1989, channel catfish were collected and analyzed
for PCBs from the same five stations as in 1988, plus two additional
stations on the Clinch River (CRMs 9.0 and 20.0). TVA collected the ten
-91-
-------
catfish at TRMs 598 and 570; ORNL provided results from catfish from the
other five stations. ChLordane analyses were only run on catfish from
the two upper Watts Bar Reservoir stations (TRMs 598 and 570). Sauger
from TRM 598 and CRM 2.0 and striped bass from TRM 532, collected in
January 1990, were the only game species examined. PCB analyses were
performed on sauger and striped bass, but not chlordane (Hall and Dycus
1991).
This section describes the results of PCB and chlordane analyses
for the trend study on Watts Bar Reservoir in the fall of 1990 and
compares results with those from previous years. In addition, this
report contains results from two special studies: one on embayment fish
and a further evaluation of fillet techniques. Purpose of the embayment
study was to examine potential PCB and chlordane problems in fish in
large embayments. These areas had not been studied previously and were
some of the most heavily fished places in Watts Bar Reservoir.
The study evaluating fillet techniques was a follow-up to, and
expansion of, the examination of these techniques as they might affect
PCB analyses that was conducted on catfish from Fort Loudoun Reservoir in
1989 (Hall and Dycus 1991). In the first study, complete fillets (i.e.,
ribs and bellyflap attached) were used in the analyses, and no particular
effort was made to avoid puncturing the body cavity and internal organs.
This was the usual procedure for filleting catfish in TVA studies. In
the 1990 samples, however, care was taken not to puncture internal
organs, and the bellyflap was excluded from half of the fillets; the
other halves were treated in the usual manner for comparison in
analyses.
-92-
-------
A.A.I Methods
Trend Studies
Channel catfish were collected in the Eall of 1990 at or near the
same seven Watts Bar Reservoir and Clinch River locations as in 1989.
Unlike 1989, when the majority of catfish collections and sample analyses
were conducted by ORNL, in 1990, TVA did the collections and analyses for
catfish at the four Tennessee River stations and the station at the lower
end of the Clinch River; ORNL provided sample resuLts from the two upper
Clinch River stations. Comparative statistical analyses were done on the
50 channel catfish from the five TVA locations in 1990 for lipids, PCBs,
and chlordane. In addition, analyses were done for a wide range of
pesticides and organic chemicals in individual catfish for the first time
in Watts Bar Reservoir. No statistical comparisons were made on the
pesticide data.
In addition to the catfish samples, striped bass were collected in
1990 and analyzed by the TVA laboratory. Ten striped bass each were
collected from TRMs 532 and 598 and CRM 20.0. Comparative statistical
analyses were done on the 30 striped bass from the three locations for
lipids, PCBs, and chlordane. Laboratory analyses of other pesticides
were also made on the 30 individual striped bass, but, again, no
statistical analyses were done.
Other procedures involved in field sampling and processing,
laboratory and data analyses were similar to those described earlier in
this report for Wilson Reservoir (section 4.1) and will not be repeated
here. Each fillet was analyzed individually.
-93-
-------
Special Studies
Embayment study--In this special investigation in 1990, ten each of
channel catfish, largemouth bass, and crappie (black and white mixed)
were collected at two stations in the Piney River embayment (PRMs 2.4 and
A.8) and one station in Whites Creek embayment (3.5) for a look at
potential PCB and Chlordane problems in fish in large embayments.
Samples of fish from the two Piney River stations were analyzed and
statistically compared (catfish only) with similar data from the nearest
main river station in the reservoir (TRM 532). The Whites Creek station
was geographically isolated from any nearby main river station, and
samples from there were not statistically compared with data elsewhere.
Fillet techniques--This test was conducted on ten channel catfish
from TRM 570. Following measuring, weighing, and observing external
characteristics of a catfish, a coin was tossed to determine if the right
or left fillet was to be removed using the alternative procedure of
excluding the bellyflap; the other fillet was then removed using the old
procedure, where the bellyflap was included with the rib. Each fillet
was then wrapped in aluminum foil and placed in a separate, labeled
plastic bag. Fillets were handled the same after that point. A paired
T-test was used to examine differences in PCB concentrations and lipid
content between the two fillets from each fish. The level of
significance chosen was 0.05.
A.4. 2 Results and Discussion
A.A.2.a Trend Studies
Channel Catfish
Phvsical characteristics — Previous observations on channel catfish
from throughout Watts Bar Reservoir had found no external anomalies, but
- 94 -
-------
internal parasites were noted in about 30 percent of the fish from the
upper part of the Lake in 1986*87. In 1988, a much higher occurrence (90
percent) of internal parasites was found in catfish from the forebay area
(TRM 532) near the dam, with little difference observed at the other
locations.
Observations on physical conditions of catfish in 1989 were only
made in the TVA collections at TRMs 570 and 598, and results were similar
to 1988, i.e, no external anomalies, but internal parasites were numerous
at TRM 598. Ninety percent of the catfish there had many parasites,
mostly on the liver, but they were also observed on the kidney and
spleen. At TRM 570, only one of the ten fish had internal parasites.
Much the same results were found on catfish in 1990 as in previous
years, i.e., no external anomalies but some internal parasites at all
stations. Twelve of the 50 catfish had some internal parasites; on only
two fish were they numerous, mostly on the liver.
Sizes (length and weight) and lipid content of the 50 catfish
analyzed from 1990 collections are summarized in table 4.4-1 and detailed
in table 4.4-2. Neither fish weight nor lipid content differed
significantly among sample locations in 1990 (table 4.4-3), but there
were some significant year-to-year differences. Fish weight and lipid
content were significantly greater in 1988 than in 1989 and 1990, which
were not significantly different from one another (table 4.4-4).
PCB concentrations--PCB concentrations in catfish collected in 1990
and previous years are detailed in table 4.4-2 and summarized in table
4.4-5. In 1988, the first year for PCB examinations throughout the
entire length of Watts Bar Reservoir, concentrations averaged 1.4, 2.7,
2.1 and 2.4 Hg/g at TRMs 532, 569, 573, and 598, respectively. Maximum
concentrations at those same four stations were 4.3, 7.5, 7.4, and 4.4.
-95-
-------
Two locations on the Clinch River arm (CRM 2 and 19) averaged 2.2 and
0.6 Hg/g with maxima of 4.6 and 2.4 ng/g (table 4.4-5). More
important, at all of the stations except the one farthest up the Clinch
River, from 40 to 60 percent of the sampled fish contained concentrations
above the FDA tolerance level 2.0 Hg/g.
In 1989, the PCB levels were much improved (table 4.4-5). Mean
concentrations were below 2.0 \ig/g at all stations, and, except for
stations TRMs 570 and 598, where 30 percent of the individual catfish
showed levels above 2.0 \ig/g, two stations had no fish and three
stations had onLy one of ten fish above that level.
In 1990, the PCB levels in catfish were generally similar to those
in 1989, with slight changes at several locations (table 4.4-5). Mean
concentrations in 1990 were lower at four stations, higher at one, and
about the same at the other, but below 2.0 Hg/g at all stations.
Thirty percent of the individual catfish at TRM 598 had levels above
2.0 Hg/g, while at the other six stations none or only one fish
exceeded that level.
Preliminary statistical tests on the 1990 results indicated
adjustments for both lipid content and fish weight were needed (table
4.4-6). The test of parallel lines for lipid content found nonparallel
lines indicating lipid content did not have the same effect on PCB
concentration at all locations; therefore, further testing on lipid
content was not appropriate. The test adjusting PCB concentrations for
fish weight found significantly lower levels at TRMs 570 and 532 than at
TRM 598. This is somewhat different from 1989, when both lower reservoir
stations (TRMs 532 and 562) had significantly lower PCB levels than the
-96-
-------
two upper stations. Lower PCB concentrations in catfish from the
downstream end of Watts Bar Reservoir had also been noted in 1988 samples
(Dycus 1990c).
Statistical examination of PCB concentrations over time and among
locations was based on analysis of covariance because the preliminary
test found adjustment was needed for both lipid content and weights. The
test of parallel line showed use of covariance analysis was appropriate
for weight but not for lipids. The two.-way analysis of covariance with
PCB concentration adjusted for weight indicated significantly lower
concentrations at TRM 532 than at all other locations, which were not
significantly different from one another. The year effect was also
significant as was the interaction term; the latter was due to the
greatly reduced concentrations at TRM 570 in 1990, compared to previous
years. Using test results as an indication of trends in the data, PCB
concentrations were lowest in 1990 and highest in 1988 (table 4.4-7).
The station immediately below Fort Loudoun Dam (TRM 598/600) has
been sampled for six consecutive years, 1985 through 1990. During that
period mean PCB levels were 1.4, 2.7, 1.5, 2.A, 1.8, and 1.6 |ig/g,
respectively. Maximum levels were 2.0, 4-3, 3.1, 4.4, 4.8, and 5.8,
respectively. From these results, neither means nor maxima indicate any
trends during this period. In 1988, 50 percent of the fish had PCB
concentrations above 2.0 Hg/g; in 1990, three of the ten fish exceeded
that level (table 4.4-5).
Statistical tests also were run on this six-year data set.
Preliminary tests showed a significant relationship existed between PCB
concentration and lipid content, but not between PCB and weight. PCB
-97-
-------
levels adjusted for lipid content were significantly different among
years (table 4.4-8). Concentrations were highest in 1986 and 1988,
lowest in 1985 and 1987, and intermediate in 1989 and 1990. Thus, no
trend or pattern of increase or decrease has been observed for PCB
concentrations in channel catfish at station 598 in Watts Bar in the last
six years.
Chlordane--Chlordane concentrations in catfish collected in 1990
are detailed in table 4.4*2 and summarized in table 4.4-9.
Concentrations in 1990 averaged 0.11, 0.04, 0.07, 0.05, and 0.09 |ig/g
at TRMs 598, 570, 562, 532, and CRM 2, respectively. None of the ten
fish at TRMs 570, 562, 532, and CRM 2 had concentrations above the FDA
action level of 0.3 Hg/g. Only one of the ten fish at station TRM 598
exceeded that level, a 889g male. One other catfish at that same station
(a 936g female) had a level of 0.29 Hg/g. One fish at TRM 562 had
0.25 Hg/g, and one at CRM 2 had a level of 0.21 Hg/g.
Analysis of covariance was used to adjust 1990 chlordane levels for
lipid content and weight because preliminary tests for both were
significant (table 4.4-10). The tests adjusting chlordane levels for
lipids found significantly lower levels at TRM 532 than at TRM 598; other
station concentrations were not significantly different from each other
or from either of those two at the extreme ends of the reservoir.
Adjustment for weight indicated significant differences in chlordane
levels between TRM 570 and 598 with higher levels at the upper station.
Data were only available for year-to-year statistical comparisons
for TRMs 570 and 598 in 1989 and 1990. Preliminary tests found
adjustment was needed for both lipid content and fish weight. The
parallel line test indicated use of covariance was appropriate for
-98-
-------
weight but not for lipids. The two-way CO-ANOVA adjusted for weight
showed chlordane concentrations were not significantly different between
the two locations, but they were different between the two years, with
significantly lower levels in 1990 (table 4.4-11).
Other pesticide concent rat ions--The concentrations of other
pesticides are listed in detail in table 4.4-2. Aldrin, heptachlor,
mirex, and toxaphene were not detected in any samples. Dieldrin, BHC,
and endrin occurred at low levels in a few samples. Endosulfan was found
in six catfish from TRM 570 and in three fish each at TRM 562 and CRM 2
in concentrations ranging from 0.01-0.05 Hg/g, all of which were below
the level for concern (0.3 Hg/g). DDTr occurred frequently in catfish
from all Watts Bar sample locations, but generally at low concentrations
(0.01-0.19 (ig/g). The highest mean concentrations (0.09) came from
CRM 2.
Striped bass and hybrids
Physical characteristics--Qbservat ions on the 30 striped bass and
hybrids collected in 1990 showed most to be in good physical condition.
No external anomalies were found; about 20 percent of the fish had
numerous internal parasites, and, as in the previous year, most of these
were in fish from the station near the dam (TRM 532). Sizes (length and
weight) and lipid content of the 30 individual striped bass are detailed
in table 4.4-12. Average weights were highest (4264g) at CRM 21 and
lowest (1870g) at TRM 532; the smallest individual fish (948g) and the
largest (8668g) were both collected from TRM 598.
Average lipid content was also highest at TRM 598. As found in
previous years in samples of catfish in Watts Bar Reservoir, the
-99-
-------
relationship between percent lipid content and individual fish weight is
not always a direct one. In 1990, most of the largest individual striped
bass were collected at CRM 21, but their lipid content was often much
lower than that of smaller fish at the same and other stations (table
4.4-12). Lipid concentration was not significantly different among
stations in 1990, but fish weight differed significantly among sites
(table 4.4-13).
PCB concentrations--PCB concentrations in individual striped bass
collected in 1990 are detailed in table 4.4-12 and summarized in table
4.4-14. PCB concentrations in these fish averaged 1.1, 1.0, 1.2 ng/g
at station TRM 598, TRM 532, and CRM 21, respectively (table 4.4-14).
One individual at each station had a concentration above the FDA limit of
2.0 Hg/g; the highest (4.7 ng/g) was for a 1791g female at TRM 532.
None of the ten striped bass from the same station during the previous
sample period had PCB levels above 0.8 Hg/g.
Statistical examinations of the fall 1990 results for striped bass
indicated PCB levels were significantly different among stations.
Adjustment of PCB levels for lipid content and weight was needed because
preliminary tests for both were significant (table 4.4-15). However,
tests for parallel lines indicated use of covariance was appropriate for
lipids but not for weight. The test adjusting PCB concentrations for
lipids showed levels were significantly different between TRM 532 and
CRM 20, with the latter having higher levels. Levels at TRM 598 were not
different from the other stations.
Data for year-to-year examination of PCB concentrations in striped
bass were only available for one station (TRM 532) for more than one
-100-
-------
sample period, and statistical comparisons were not run on those data.
PCB levels in January 1990 averaged 0.6 ng/g and ranged from 0.3 to
0.8. In fall 1990, levels again averaged 0.6 |ig/g, even though one
male fish had a level of 2.7 Hg/g and one female 1.8 Hg/g, five of
the ten striped bass at TRM 532 had PCB levels of <0.1 Hg/g¦
Chlordane concentrations--Chlordane concentrations in striped bass
in fall 1990 are detailed for individual fish in table 4.4-12.
Concentrations averaged 0.1, 0.9, and 0.13 Hg/g lor fish from stations
TRM 598, 532, and CRM 21, respectively. Just one of the 30 striped bass
collected had a chlordane level above 0.3 ng/g, a 1791g female at TRM
532; another fish at CRM 21 had a level of 0.28 |ig/g (table 4.4-12).
Statistical analyses of the fall 1990 results indicated chlordane
concentrations in striped bass were significantly different among
stations. Analysis of covariance was used to adjust PCB levels for lipid
content and weight since preliminary tests for both were significant
(table 4.4*16). However, as with PCBs, the test for parallel lines
indicated use of covariance was appropriate for lipid content but not for
weight. Chlordane concentrations adjusted for lipid content were
significantly different between stations TRM 598 and CRM 20; levels at
TRM 532 were not significantly different from the other stations. These
station differences in chlordane levels in striped bass were exactly
opposite from the PCB levels in striped bass at the same stations.
Chlordane data for striped bass were not available in previous years at
these stations for statistical comparison.
Other pesticides--Heptachlor. mirex, and loxaphene were not
detected in any Watts Bar striped bass samples (table 4.4-12). Aldrin
and dieldrin, seldom found in Tennessee River fish samples, were
-101-
-------
represented in one to three fish from TRM 598 at low concentrations
(0.01-0.03 jxg/g)- BHC and Endrin, other rarely observed pesticides,
were each found in one striped bass at both TRM 598 and CRM 21; BHC
concentrations were 0.02-0.08 Hg/g. Endrin levels at those stations
were 0.04 and 0.06 |ig/g • Endrin was also found in three striped bass at
TRM 532 in concentrations of 0.02 to 0.09 Hg/g. DDTr and Endosulfan
commonly occurred at low levels in striped bass from all three sample
locations. Concentrations ranged from 0.03-0.19 Hg/g for DDTr and from
0.01-0.04 for endosulfan.
4.4.2.b Special Studies
Embavment Study
Channel catfish--Observations on the physical condition of the 30
catfish found few external anomaLies. One catfish at PRM 2.4 was blind in
one eye; another at the same station had a swollen dorsal fin. Internal
parasites were numerous in the livers of seven catfish at PRM 4.8 and in
five of ten catfish at PRM 2.4. Sizes (lengths and weights) and lipid
content of the 30 individual catfish are detailed in table 4.7-17.
Average weights were highest (1747g) at PRM 2.4 and lowest (705g) at
WCM 3.5. Similarly, the largest individual catfish (4600g) was from
PRM 4.8 and the smallest (199g) from WCM 3.5. Lipid content averaged 3.5,
3.6, and 3.7 at PRM 2.4, PRM 4.8, and WCM 3.5, respectively, and ranged
from a low of 0.4 to a high of 7.5 at the same station (PRM 2.4). Lipid
content was not significantly different among the three stations, but
weights were significantly lower at WCM 3.5 than at the two Piney River
locations (table 4.4-18).
-102-
-------
PCB concentrations in cattish collected in Piney and Whites Creek
embayments are detailed in table 4.4-17. Concentrations averaged 0.6,
0.4, and 0.1 \ig/g at stations PRM 2.4, PRM 4.8, and WCM 3.5,
respectively. Only one fish in the Whites Creek sample showed any
detectable PCB concentration, and that was only 0.5 Hg/g in a
blue catfish. At PRM 2.4, the PCB levels ranged from 0.2-1.1 ng/g and
at PRM 4.8 from <0.1-1.1 (ig/g • Thus, none of the 30 fish samples in
these embayments showed a PCB level above the FDA Limit of 2.0 |J.g/g •
Statistical comparison of PCB levels at the two Piney River stations
in 1990 with those at TRM 532 was conducted because these locations are
geographically close to one another. Results indicated no significant
differences among levels at those stations. Preliminary tests found
adjustment of lipids and use of covanance was appropriate, but adjustment
for weight was not necessary. The test adjusting PCB concentrations for
lipid content found somewhat lower- levels at PRM 4.8 than at TRM 532, but
the differences were not significant (table 4.4-19). LeveLs at PRM 2.4
were between those at the other two sites.
Chlordane concentrations in catfish collected at the three embayment
stations are detailed in table 4.4-17. Concentrations averaged 0.03,
0.02, and 0.04 tig/g at PRM 2.4, PRM 4.8, and WCM 3.5, respectively.
Only one catfish at PRM 2.4 had a high level (0.23 Hg/g); the other nine
fish had less than detectable levels. At PRM 4.8, only one fish had a
detectable level, and that was just 0.07 Hg/g. At the White Creek
station, six of ten catfish had detectable Levels of chlordane, ranging
from 0.02 to 0.09 Hg/g-
Chlordane levels in catfish from the two Piney River stations were
compared statistically with those at TRM 532, a nearby reservoir station.
-103-
-------
Preliminary tests indicated adjustment for lipid content and weight was
necessary; covariance tests with adjustment for lipids found significantly
lower chLordane levels at PRM 4.8 than at TRM 532; levels at PRM 2.4 did
not vary significantly from either of the other stations. With adjustment
for weight, there were significant differences between both embayment
stations and the main river station, with the higher levels still at
TRM 532 (table 4.4-19).
Larg.emouth Bass--Qbservat ions on the bass collected in the three
embayment stations showed no external anomalies and few internal parasites
at PRM 4.8; at the other two stations, three bass at PRM 2.4 and two fish
at upper Whites Creek station had popeye. In addition, one fish at the
latter station had a dorsal fin infection and another hook mouth.
Internal parasites were scarce.
Sizes (lengths and weights) and lipid content of the 30 individual
bass are detailed in table 4.4-17. Average weight was highest (1565g) at
PRM 4.8 and lowest (638g) at WCM 3.8; weights ranged from 334 to 3160g.
Lipid content averaged 1.7, 2.0, and 1.7 at stations PRM 2.4, 4.8, and
WCM 3.5, respectively, and ranged from 0.3 to 3.5.
PCB and Chlordane concentrations were practically nonexistent in the
largemouth bass collected from the embayments. Neither toxin was detected
in any of ten fish from White Creek embayment. Only one bass from PRM 2.4
showed a detectable PCB concentration, and that was only 0.2 Ug/g; none
from that station exhibited any chlordane. At PRM 4.8, six of the bass
showed low levels of PCBs (0.1-0.5 ng/g); only one bass had a detectable
chlordane level (0.05 Hg/g). The few detectable levels of PCB and
Chlordane in bass did not differ significantly between stations.
-104-
-------
Crappie (black/white mixed 2/1 ratio)--Observations on the physical
condition of the crappie collected in the embnyments included two fish
with enlarged spleens and two others with popeye at PRM 2.4; two fish at
WCM 3.5 with popeye, one vith enlarged spleen, and two with fin fungus;
one fish at PRM 4.8 had an enlarged spleen. No internal parasites were
found in crappie at any station.
Sizes (lengths and weights) and lipid content of the 30 individual
crappie are detailed in table 4.4-17. Weights averaged 400g (134-698g),
395g (328-644g), and 253g (186-341g) at stations PRM 2.4, PRM 4.8, and
WCM 3.5, respectively. Lipid content averaged 2.0, 1.5, and 1.4 at the
same stations. Neither PCB nor Chlordane was detectable in any of the 30
crappie from the three embayment stations.
Fillet Techniques
Details of lipid content and PCB and chlordane concentration for
each pair of fillets is provided in table 4.4-2. In six of the ten
catfish fillets with ribs and bellyflap, lipid content was higher than in
fillets without ribs and bellyflap; however, due to inconsistencies in the
pattern, there was not a significant difference between fillet techniques
(P>F=0.3788). Chlordane concentrations were the same in seven of the ten
pairs of fillets, and PCB concentrations were equal in three pairs of
fillets. Both chlordane and PCB concentrations fluctuated among the
different fillet samples; therefore, significant differences did not occur
in chlordane (P>F=0.4673) or PCBs (P>F=0.6875).
From these results and those from similar tests in Fort Loudoun
catfish in 1989, when no significant differences occurred in PCB
concentrations, it would appear that either fillet technique would provide
-105-
-------
satisfactory data for analysis. However, the rather small sample of
fillets in 1990 (ten pairs) should be considered before the data are
applied too broadly.
4.4.3 Recommendations
Trend Studies
PCB concentrations in channel catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir were
little changed from those observed in 1989. Mean concentrations were
slightly lower at two stations, slightly higher at two stations, and about
the same at one station; mean concentrations were also lower at the two
upper Clinch River stations. The number of fish with levels of
> 2.0 Jig/g was the same in the main river stations (6), but there were
minor changes among stations where the individual fish with > 2.0
occurred. As in previous years, catfish from the uppermost reservoir
station (TRM 598) contained the highest PCB levels, with three
individual fish > 2.0 Jig/g; one individual had a level of 3.8 Hg/g,
another one with 3.7 Hg/g. PCB levels in striped bass in fall 1990 were
generally low; only one fish of ten at each of three stations had a
concentration > 2.0 |ig/g, although the one at TRM 532 had a rather high
level of 4.7 Hg/g. Chlordane samples were collected and analyzed from
catfish for the first time at all five reservoir stations. Mean
concentrations of chlordane were low at all locations, and only two
catfish of 50 collected throughout the reservoir had a level near
0.3 Hg/g, this at TRM 598 and TRM 532. Only one of 30 striped bass had
a chlordane level above 0.3 Hg/g, this at TRM 532.
Decisions on selection of study design for fall 1991 m Watts Bar
Reservoir were made by the study team considerably before completion of
-106-
-------
this report. Little change in PCB levels from previous years was noted in
catfish from Watts Bar locations in 1990, but it was decided to continue
the sampling and analysis of PCB levels in catfish at the same four
locations in the main reservoir and two in the Clinch River for further
examination of long-term trends in PCB levels and to strengthen the data
base for those species for "which there was limited nonconclusive data
(table 4.4-20). Because there existed a 30-mile stretch of the lower
reservoir between TRMs 532-562, for which no PCB data wire available, it
was decided to add another collection station for catfish in 1991 at
TRM 545. Chlordane levels would also be analyzed on all fish samples.
Health advisories and precautions against eating fish already in effect on
Watts Bar Reservoir were to remain unchanged.
Special Studies
Embavment study--This was planned as a one-time examination of PCB
and chlordane levels in embayment fishes, unless high levels of these
chemicals were found in fish tissue. Results of the analyses verified
that further examinations of fish in these areas are unnecessary at this
time.
Fillet techniques--Based on the results of the expanded 1990 study
of fillet techniques on catfish, it would appear that there is no
significant difference with respect to PCB or chlordane analyses between
the two techniques. Although the second test on Watts Bar catfish was
based on just ten pairs of fillets, the 1989 study on Fort Loudoun
included 40 pairs of fillets and either procedure should provide
comparable results. The "older" historical procedure that includes ribs
and bellyflap with the fillet will continue to be used in TVA fish tissue
studies.
-107-
-------
Table 4.4-1. Summary (minimum, maximum, and mean) for lengths, weights, and lipid contents in channel
catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1990 and previous years.
Location
Year
Number
Lenqth (mm)
Weight (q)
Lipid Content
(*)
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
i Maximum
Mean
Mi nimum
Maximum
Mean
TRM 53?
1988
10
398
706
531
494
4210
1763
0.7
16.0
4.0
1989
10*
342
562
465
320
1695
1033
1.0
5.0
2.9
1990
10
354
560
423
322
2110
700
0.2
7.1
3.1
TRM 5G5
1987
6
310
561
470
239
1786
1103
1.4
3.8
2.5
565
1988
10
390
657
492
411
2765
1124
0.9
13.0
5.5
557
1989
9*
347
500
398
324
1015
544
0.8
4.3
2.1
502
1990
10
341
544
438
282
1521
838
0.2
0.0
3.2
TRM 573
1987
10
436
640
492
806
2814
1225
1.5
8.3
4.9
1988
10
346
615
450
264
2425
929
0.2
7.6
3./
TRM 570
1989
10
339
649
466
431
2742
1063
1.5
6.4
3.9
1990
10
427
512
473
627
1557
930
0.2
8.7
3.5
TRM 598/600
1987
10
360
523
457
336
1330
757
3.3
7.3
5.3
1988
10
452
659
504
829
2957
1289
2.1
8.5
5.2
1989
7
382
666
514
425
3229
1437
0.8
14.0
5.9
1990
10
325
600
436
208
3246
912
0.7
14.0
3.8
CRM 0.5/2.0
1988
8
435
605
510
745
2262
1278
0.1
11.0
5.3
1989
10*
368
620
435
393
2380
794
1.0
5.8
3.3
1990
10
365
529
437
361
1854
846
2.1
8.2
4.9
CRM 9
1989
8*
400
523
440
521
1505
755
0.4
6.4
3.!.
CRM 20/21
1988
10
370
790
513
406
1118
1774
1.0
11.5
3.8
1989
8*
374
530
443
414
1321
736
0.3
7.0
3.3
"Collected by Oak Ridge National Laboratory
AB00096Q
-108-
-------
Table 4.4-2. Physical Information and concentrations (jig/g) of organic* In channel catfish saaples collected froa Watts Bar Reservoir for tissue analysis
In tut mm 1990.
Collection
Location Date Length Height Sex Lipids Aldrln Dleldrln BHC Chlordane DDTr Endosulfan Endrln Heptachlor Hire* PCB Toxaphene
TRM 532
901010
354
361
F
4.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
365
392
F
Z.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
357
322
M
2.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
361
398
F
1.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901206
530
1130
M
3.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
496
895
F
2.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
360
411
F
6.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.17
0.08
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
1.8
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
560
2110
F
7.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.29
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.7
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
409
496
M
0.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
435
493
F
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
Mean
423
701
3.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.4
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
498
1418
M
6.0
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.16
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
472
770
M
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
519
1451
M
5.4
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.05
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
399
469
M
3.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.04
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
341
325
M
2.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
544
1521
F
5.8
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
0.25
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.4
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
537
1416
M
1.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
CO
H
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
368
367
M
2.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
342
282
M
1.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 562
901011
361
356
M
3.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.06
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
Mean
438
838
3.2
<0.01
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.08
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
-------
Table 4.4-2 (Continued)
Collection
Location Date Length Height Sex Lipids Aldrln Dleldrln
TRM 570*
901023
443
658
F
4.1
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570®
901023
472
765
M
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570*
901023
464
888
F
8.7
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570*
901023
512
1090
F
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570*
901213
509
1557
M
4.9
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570*
901213
508
1349
F
3.4
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570*
901213
444
666
M
1.3
<0.01
0.02
TRM 570*
901213
451
633
M
2.4
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570*
901213
427
627
M
2.6
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570*
901213
496
1047
H
1.9
<0.01
<0.01
Mean
473
930
3.5
<0.01
0.01
TRM 570b
901023
443
658
F
3.2
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570b
901023
472
785
M
0.3
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570b
901023
464
888
F
5.7
<0.01
0.03
TRM 570b
901023
512
1090
F
4.5
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570b
901213
509
1557
M
4.9
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570b
901213
508
1349
F
4.8
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570b
901213
444
666
M
1.2
<0.01
0.02
TRM 570b
901213
451
633
M
2.9
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570b
901213
427
627
M
2.7
<0.01
<0.01
TRM 570b
901213
496
1047
N
1.7
<0.01
<0.01
Mean
473
930
3.2
<0.01
0.01
BHC Chlordane DOTr Endosulfan Endrln HeptacMor Ml rex PCS Toxaphene
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
<0.01
0.03
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
<0.01
0.08
0.09
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.5
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
0.15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.2
<0.5
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
0.03
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
1.4
<0.5
<0.01
0.03
0.04
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
0.06
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
<0.01
0.08
0.07
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.7
<0.5
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
-------
Table 4.4-2 (Continued)
Location
Col lection
Date
Length
Weight
Sex
Lipids
Aldrln
Dleldrln
BMC
Chlordane
DOTr
Endosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Mire*
PCB
Toxaphene
TOM 598
901012
469
889
M
10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5.8
<0.5
TOM 598
901012
360
277
M
1.7
<0.01
'0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
345
379
M
2.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
TRH 598
901012
325
208
F
1.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
350
291
F
1.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 598
"01012
600
3246
F
14
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
0.13
0.18
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
3.7
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
570
1545
H
0.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
490
936
F
2.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.29
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
390
454
M
1.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
457
899
F
1.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
Mean
436
912
3.8
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
1.6
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
529
1854
H
6.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.6
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
475
1100
M
4.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.0
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
469
1080
M
6.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
0.07
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
406
713
F
4.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.13
0.01
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
470
895
F
2.1
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.10
0.05
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
4.2
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
410
763
M
6.2
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.21
0.19
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
448
629
M
3.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
399
490
M
3.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
396
570
F
8.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
CRM 2
910105
365
361
M
4.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.15
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
Mean
437
856
4.9
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.09
0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
a. Catfish '^ve bellyflap and ribs Included with fillet.
b. Catfish do not have bellyflap and ribs Included with fillet.
ABD0090Q-8
-------
Table 4.4-3. Results of One-Way Anova on channel catfish weight
and lipid content among sample sites on Watts Bar
Reservoir in 1990.
P>F
Lipid Content 0.4216
Weight 0.5853
ABD0119Q-1
-112-
-------
Table 4.4-4. Two-Way Anova and Duncan's Multiple Range Test on lipid content
and total weight of channel catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir,
1988, 1989, and 1990 (location and year main effects).
Duncan's Multiple Range Test3
P>F Moan Rank Low to Hieh
Lipid Content
Location
Year
Interaction
Total Weight
Locat ion
Year
Interaction
0.2137
0.0409
0.2440
1989 1990 1988
0.2737
0.0124
0.2601
1990 1989 1988
a. Location or years underscored were not significantly different at a = 0.05;
years not so underscored were significantly different.
ABD0094Q-14
-113-
-------
Table 4.4-5. Surmwry of total PC8 concentrations in catfish fillets from Watts Bar Reservoir in 1987,
1988, 1989, and 1990.
TRM TRM TRM TRH CRM CRM CRM
/ear 550-532 557-562 570-573 598-600 0.5-2.0 9.0-9.3 19-20.5
1987
Range NS 0.1-4.4 0.9-3.0 0.4-3.1
Mean 1.4 2.1 1.5 NS NS NS
Number >2.0 pg/g I 6 3
Number of fish 6 10 10
1988
Range 0.1-4.3 1.3-7.5 0.1-7.4 0.8-4.4 0.1-4.6 0.2-2.4
Mean 1.4 2.7 2.1 2.4 2.2 0.6
Number >2.0 pg/g 4 6 4 5 4 NS I
Number of fish 10 10 10 10 8 8
1989
Range 0.2-1.5® 0.1-0.5° 0.2-2.5 0.4-4.2 0.2-3.8° 0.3-2.1° 0.9-3.1°
Mean 0.8 0.3 1.3 1.8 1.0 0.8 1.2
Number >2.0 ng/g 0 0 3 2 III
Number of fish 10 9 10 7 10 8 8
1990
Range <0.1-2.7 <0.1-1.8 <0.1-2.2 0.3-5.8 0.2-4.2 0.2-0.8° 0.5-1.1°
Mean 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.6 I.I 0.4 0.8
Number >2.0 pg/g I 0 1 3 10 0
Number of fish 10 10 10- 10 10 8 8
NS = No sample from that location,
a = 0RNL data.
ABD0095Q-3
-114-
-------
Table 4.4-6. Results of statistical tests used to compare PCB concentrations in channel catfish among sample locations on Watts
Bar Reservoir, 1990.
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(I s there a signi.fi cant
relationship between PC8
concentration and parameter?)
Dec Is i on based
on preIiminary
test
If covariance used
(test of para I lei
Ii nes)
Covar i ance
resuIts
(P>F)
Lipid content
Yes
Adjust PCS concen-
tration for both
lipid content and
weight; use analysis
of covariance
Lines not para I lei
M/A
F i sh wei ght
Yes
Lines para I lei
P>F = 0.0001
TRM TRM TRM CRM TRM
570 532 562 2.0 598
ABD0104(3-3
-------
Table 4.4-7. Decision path followed and results of two-way testing (location and year) by analysis of variance or covariance for PC8
concentration In channel catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1988, 1989, and 1990.
Species
Parameter
Preliminary test results
(Is there a significant
relationship between PCS
concentration and parameter?)
Deci s i on based
on preliminary
test
If covariance used
(test of parallel line)
Covar iance
results
(P>F)
Channel catfish
Lipid content
Yes
Adjust PCS con-
centration for
lipid content;
use covariance
Lines not parallei
N/A
Weight
Yes
Adjust PCS con-
centration for
weightj use
covar1ance
Lines parallei
Location 0.0056
Year 0.0002*
Interaction 0.0464
TRM TRM TRM CRM TRM
532 562 570 0.5 598
1990 1989 1988
• PCS concentrations were significantly lower in 1989 and 1990 than in 1988.
ABDOI04Q-4
-------
Table 4.4-8. Results of statistical tests used to compare PC8 concentrations in channel catfish at station TRM 598/600 over a
six-year period, 1985-90.
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between PC®
concentration and parameter?)
Decision based
on prelimi nary
test
If covariance used
(test of para Ilel
Iines)
Covari ance
resuIts
(P>F>
Lipid contend-
Yes
Adjust PC8 concen-
tration for lipid
content use
covar i ance
Lines para Ilel
1985
P>F = 0.0006
1987 1989 1990 1988 1986
Fish weight
No
No need to
adjust
N/A
ABDO104(3-5
-------
lablo 1.4-9. Summary of total chlordane concentrations in calfish fillets from Watts Bar Reservoir
in 1989 and 1990.
TRM TRM TRM TRM CRM
Yoar 532 562 570 598/600 2.0
I <>89
Range <0.01-0.32 0.02-0.49
Moan 0.16 0.20
N=0.3|jg/g I I
No. of fish 10 7
1990
Range <0.01-0.18 <0.01-0.25 <0.01-0.15 <0.01-0.34 <0.01-0.21
Mean 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.1 I 0.09
N=0.3yg/g 0 0 0 10
No. of fish 10 10 10 10 10
ABD0095Q-4
-1 L8-
-------
Table 4.4-10. Decision path followed and results of two-way testing (location and year) by analysis of variance or covariance
for chlordane concentrations in channel catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1990.
Parameter
Preliminary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between PC8
concentration and parameter?)
Decision based
on prelimi nary
test
If covar i ance used
(test of para IleI
Ii nes)
Covar i ance
resuIts
(P>F)
Lipid content
Yes
Adjust for both
lipid content and
weight; use analysis
of covariance
L i nes para I IeI
P>F = 0.0007
TRM TRM TRM CRM TRM
532 570 562 2.1 598
F i sh weight
Yes
L i nes para I Ie i
P>F = 0.0001
TRM TRM CRM TRM TRM
570 562 2.0 532 59B
ABD01 049 -6
-------
Table 4.4-11. Decision path followed and results of two-way testing (location and year) by analysis of variance or covariance for chlordane
concentration in channel catfish from Watts Bar Reservoir, 1989 and 1990.
Spec i es
Parameter
Preliminary test results
(Is there a significant
relationship between PCB
concentration and parameter?)
Decision based
on preliminary
test
If covariance used
(test of parallel line)
Covar i ance
resu1ts
(P>F)
Channel catfish
Lipid content
Yes
Adjust both for
lipid content
and weight;
use covariance
L i nes not para 11 el
N/A
We i ght
Yes
L i nes para 1le1
(P>F)
Location 0.8158
Year 0.0061
1nteract ion 0.2511
ABD0I04Q-7
-------
Table 4.4-12. Physical information and concentrations (jlg/g) of organics In striped bass and striped bass x trtilte bass hybrid sables collected
frca Watts Bar Reservoir for tissue analysis In autiroi 1990.
Col lection
Location Date Length Weight Sex Lipids Aldrln DleldHn BHC Chlordane DDTr Endosulfan Ervdrln Heptachlor Mlrex PCB Toxaphene
TRM 532
901010
667
630
M
10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.07
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
630
2337
F
5.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
TRM 532
901010
568
2442
F
6.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
TRM 532
901211
503
1903
F
7.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901211
489
1791
F
13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.38
0.19
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
4.7
<0.5
TRM 532
901211
415
1092
F
11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.14
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 532
901211
517
1840
M
7.0
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.16
0.08
0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
1.6
<0.5
TRM 532
901211
550
2143
F
10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
TRM 532
901211
438
1179
M
11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
TRM 532
901211
408
1066
M
7.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
Mean
519
1870
8.8
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
506
1542
M
12
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
614
2512
F
12
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
448
948
M
4.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.03
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
647
3089
M
11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
665
3485
M
13
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.10
<0.01
<0.C1
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
576
2063
F
7.8
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
v-O.'-l
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
840
8668
M
12
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.12
0.18
<0.01
I O'.i
<0.01
<0.01
2.6
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
645
3885
M
8.7
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.15
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
660
3745
M
9.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
0.03
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
TRM 598
901012
795
6329
M
11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
1.5
<0.5
Mean
640
3627
10.6
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.02
0.0/
0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
-------
Table 4.4-12 (Continued)
Col lection
Location Date Length Weight Sex Lipids Aldrin Dleldrln BHC Chlordane DDTr Endosulfan Ervdrln Heptachlor Hirex PCB Toxaphene
CRM 21
901018
610
3994
M
11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.28
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.7
<0.5
CRM 21
901018
639
2591
M
5.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
CRM 21
901018
441
1065
F
6.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
CRM 21
901018
477
1274
F
9.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.13
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
CRM 21
901206
780
6216
F
8.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.08
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.7
<0.5
CRM 21
901206
835
6714
F
7.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.19
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.2
<0.5
CRM 21
901206
845
7552
F
7.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.13
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.4
<0.5
CRM 21
901206
720
4063
F
5.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.1
<0.5
CRM 21
901206
830
6994
F
6.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.14
0.04
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
<0.5
CRM 21
901206
570
2175
M
5.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
Mean
675
4264
7.4
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.13
0.04
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
ABD0090Q-10
-------
Table 4.4-13. Results of One-Way Anova on striped bass weight
and 1i j> id content among sample sites on Watts Bar
Reservoir in 1990.
P>F
Lipid Content 0.0547
Weight 0.0397
ABD0119Q-2
-1.2 3-
-------
Table 4.4-14. Summary of total PCB concentrations in striped bass fillet:,
from Watts Bar Reservoir in winter 1990 and autumn 1990
TRM 598
CRM 21
NS
0.4-2 6
1 . 1
1
10
0.5-2 2
1 . 2
1
10
Year
TRM 532
Winter
199Q
Range
Mean
Number < 2.0^g/g
Number of Fish
0.3-0.8
0.6
0
10
Autumn
1990
Range
Mean
Number < 2.0(ig/g
Number of Fish
<0.1-4.7
1.0
1
10
ABD0122Q-1
-124-
-------
Table 4.4-15. Results of statistical tests used to compare PCB concentrations in striped bass among sample locations on Watts
Bar Reservoir, fall 1990.
Parameter
Pre I imi nary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between PCB
concentration and parameter?)
Decision based
on prelimi nary
test
If covariance used
(test of para I IeI
Ii nes)
Covar i ance
resuIts
(P>F)
Lipid content
Fish weight
Yes
Adjust PCB concen-
tration for both
lipid content and
weight; use analysis
of covariance
Yes
L i nes para I lei
L i nes not para I lei
P>F = 0.0039
TRM TRM CRM
532 59B 20
N/A
ABD0104Q-8
-------
Table 4.4-16. Results of statistical tests used to compare chIordane concentrations in striped bass among sample locations on
Watts Bar Reservoir, fall 1990.
Parameter
Preli mi nary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between PCB
concentration and parameter?)
Dec i s f on based
on pre Ii mi nary
test
If covar i ance used
(test of parallel
I ines)
Covar i ance
resuIts
(P>F>
Lipid content
Yes
Adjust for both
lipid content and
weight; use analysis
of covariance
L ines parallel
P>F = 0.0124
TRM TRM CRM
598 552 20
Fish weight
Yes
L i nes not parallel
N/A
ABD0I04Q-9
-------
Table 4.4-17. Physical information and concentrations (pg/g) of organics for individual fish
collected from Pinoy River ombayment, Watts Bar Reservoir, 1990.
Piney River Mile 2.4
Channel Catfish
No.
It.
Wt.
Sex
Lipids
PCBs
Chlordane
1
628
2898
M
1 .7
0.4
<0.01
2
634
2017
M
0.4
0.7
<0.01
3
613
2088
F
0.6
0.5
<0.01
4
543
1880
M
2.8
0.5
<0.01
5
605
2510
M
7.3
0.9
0.23
6
498
1 108
F
7.5
0.6
<0.01
7
571
191 1
F
3.6
1. 1
<0.01
8
481
1 163
M
4.8
0.2
<0.01
9
480
1052
r
3.8
0.4
<0.01
10
485
847
r
3.0
0.2
<0.01
Mean
554
1747
3.5
0.6
0.03
Largemouth Bass
1
374
785
I
0.3
<0. 1
<0.01
2
354
683
F
2.6
<0. 1
<0.01
3
360
706
M
1 .5
<0.1
<0.01
4
382
819
F
2.7
<0. 1
<0.01
5
346
669
M
2.6
<0.1
<0.01
6
344
643
M
1.7
<0.1
<0.01
7
359
687
F
1.2
<0.1
<0.01
8
315
469
M
1.0
<0.1
<0.01
9
284
334
F
1.8
<0.1
<0.01
10
537
2502
F
1.3
0.2
<0.01
Mean
366
830
1.7
0.1
<0.01
Croppie - BL
1
262
315
F
BL
2
231
209
F
BL
3
200
134
F
WH
4
227
182
F
WH
5
277
340
M
BL
6
290
425
F
BL
7
290
460
M
BL
8
309
587
M
BL
9
334
698
M
BL
10
331
648
F
Mean
275
400
Pinoy River Mile 4.8
Channel Catfish
1
700
4600
F
2
544
1371
M
3
526
1 189
F
4
510
1062
F
5
474
971
r
6
459
948
F
7
450
749
F
8
459
834
M
9
465
880
F
10
462
754
M
Mean
505
1336
2.5
1.6
1.0
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.8
4. I
I .6
2.4
2.0
6.6
5.6
2.1
1.2
1.8
5.2
2.4
5.3
I. I
4.4
3.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0. I
<0.2
<0.1
I.I
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.8
<0. I
0.1
0.5
<0. I
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.02
1 21 -
-------
"labIra 4.4-17 (Continued)
F'moy River Mile 4.8
(Cont i nued)
I argetnouth Bass
Crappie - WH
WH
WH
WH
Wll
WH
WH
WH
BL
BL
White Creek Mile 3.5
Channel Catfish
Blue Catf i sh
Largemouth Bass
No.
Lt.
Wt.
1
545
2822
2
520
2337
3
463
1482
4
352
546
5
305
374
6
374
860
7
360
706
8
459
1535
9
470
1828
10
546
3160
Mean
439
1565
1
307
368
2
290
390
3
285
382
4
277
333
5
277
320
6
288
328
7
288
350
8
282
339
9
323
644
10
306
492
Mean
292
395
1
438
785
2
470
819
3
391
509
4
449
835
5
403
549
6
310
199
7
455
754
8
426
689
9
498
1203
10
469
708
Mean
431
705
1
469
1554
2
326
541
3
334
532
4
319
489
5
320
459
6
336
645
7
352
549
8
346
665
9
306
434
10
31 1
516
Mean
340
638
Sex L i p i ds
F 2.6
F 3.5
F 2.9
M 0.9
F 1.6
F 2.4
F 1.8
M 2.0
F 1.2
F 1.0
2.0
F 1.6
M 1.6
H 0.9
F 1.6
M 1.6
M 0.7
F 1.7
M 1.2
M 2.4
M 1.8
1.5
F 4.7
M 1.9
H 6.9
F 5.4
F 1.0
F 2.4
F 4.3
F 4.9
F 0.6
M 3.5
3.7
F 1.7
M 1.6
M 2.2
F 1.4
F 1.7
M 2.7
H 1.7
F 1.6
F 1.3
M I .4
1.7
1 2ft-
F*CBs Chlordane
0.5 <0.01
<0.1 0.05
0.2 <0.01
0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
0.2 <0.01
0.1 <0.01
0.1 <0.01
0.2 0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.I 0.05
<0.1 0.02
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 0.08
<0.1 0.05
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 0.09
<0.1 0.09
0.1 0.01
0.5 <0.01
0.1 0.04
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
<0.1 <0.01
-------
Table 4.1-17 (Continuod)
Wh ito Creek Wile h.b
(Cont i nuod)
Crappie - BL
N°!.
Lt.
Wt.
Sex
L i pi ds
PCBs
Ch lor d.
1
236
22b
F
1 .0
<0. 1
<0.01
2
243
279
r
1.8
<0. 1
<0.01
3
262
341
M
1 .!>
<0. 1
<0.01
4
242
267
F
1.3
<0. 1
<0.01
b
236
239
F
1.3
<0. 1
<0.01
6
234
7.48
M
1.3
<0.1
<0.01
7
244
261
M
1.6
<0. 1
<0.01
8
229
241
M
1.3
<0.1
<0.01
9
22b
186
M
1.4
<0. 1
<0.01
10
239
239
r
1
<0. 1
<0.01
Mean
239
2t>3
1 .4
<0. 1
<0.01
ABD0095Q-B
-129-
-------
Table A . A -18.
Results of One-Way Anova and Duncan's Multiple Range Test
on catfish weight and lipid content among sample sites 111
Piney River and White Creek embayments in 1990.
P>F
Lipid Content 0.9836
Weight 0.0008 WCM 3.5 PRH U . 8 PRM 2.U
ABD0119Q-3
-] 30-
-------
Table <3.4-19. Results of statistical tests used to compare PC8 and chlordane concentrations among catfish at two sample
locations in Piney River embayment and in the main river of Watts Bar Reservoir at TRM 532, fall 1990.
Parameter
Pre I imi nary Test
(Is there a significant
relationship between PCB
concentration and parameter?)
Decision based
on prelimi nary
test
If covariance used
(test of para I IeI
Ii nes)
Covar i ance
resuIts
(P>F)
PCS
Lipid content
Yes
Adjust for lipid content
use covariance
L i nes parallel
P>F = 0.0691
Fish weight
ChIordane
Lipid content
T i sh we i ght
No
Yes
Yes
Adjuslment not needed
Adjust for lipid content
and we i ght
N/A
L i nes parallel
L i nes para I i e'
N/A
P>F = 0.0046
PRM PRM TRM
4.8 2.4 532
P>F = 0.0264
PRM PRM TRM
2.4 4.8 552
ABD0104IJ-1 I
-------
Table A.4-20. Eish tissue sampling planned for fall 1991 (FY 1992)
Ruscrvoir
Location
Number/Spec 1es
Respons1bi11ly
Walts Bar
TRM 5 30-532
Walts Bar
Watts Bar
Walts Bar
Watts Bar
Watts Bar
TRM 54 5
TRM 561-562
TRM 5 70
TRM 598-560
CRM 1-2
Watts Bar
CRM 20-21
10 channel cat
10 largemouth bass
3 shad composites
10 striped bass
10 channel cat
10 channel cat
10 largemouth bass
3 shad composites
10 channel cat
10 largemouth bass
3 shad composites
10 channel cat
10 striped bass
10 sauger
10 channel cat
10 largemouth bass
3 shad composites
10 sauger
10 channel cat
10 striped bass
10 sauger
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA
TVA
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/TWRA
TVA/TWRA
TVA/TWRA
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/ORNL/DOE
TVA/TWRA
0RN1,
TVA/TWRA
TVA/TWRA
All collections showmg, responsibility as TVA/ORNL/DOE will be funded under
contractual agreements between TVA and DOE.
ABD0122Q-2
-------
4 5 Fort l.oudoun Reservoir
Contamination of catfish (mostly channel catfish) and largemouth
bass with PCBs 111 Fort Loudoun Reservoir, especially the Little River
embayment. has been known for several years. Several warnings and
advisories (the latest 1992; appendix D) have been issued by the
Tennessee Department ol Environment and Conservation (TDKC) against
consumption of catfish and 1 argemouth bass froin Fori Loudoun Lake; the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) has banned commercial fishing
for catfish there.
A series of samples of catfish was collected throughout Fort
L.oudoun Reservoir in 1981, and PCB concentrations above 2.0 pg/g we
foun.. at four of five stations. The worst conditions were at Little
River, where 62 of 64 catfish had levels above 2.0 |ig/g and the mean
concentration was 6. fa; the second-In jtiest level (4.5 pg/g) was i ound at
TRM 628. In 1985, sampling was expanded to seven siaLions (Dycus,
Feb ring, and Hickman 1 987 ). In catfish that year, PCB levels above 2.0
M&/& were found at five locations with the highest level in Little
River; the mean concentration from ten fish there was 4.4 pg/g, with
seven of those registering above 2.0. A small number of bass at five ol
the stations had PCB concentrations above 2.0 pg/g.
Beginning in 1987, catfish arid bass samples for PCBs were confined
to the LittLe River embayment, (the area considered to be the primary
source of PCBs in Fort Loudoun Reservoir) and an area in ihe main body of
Lhe reservoir (TRM 628), a few miles downstream from the confluence of
Little River and Lhe Tennessee River. In 1987, PCB levels in catfish
showed a considerable decrease from those in 1985, although tin: mean
-133-
-------
concentration at both locations was still slightly above 2.0 Hg/g .
These lower levels in 1987 were interpreted as a possible indication that
PCH leveLs in Fort l.oudoun Reservoir catfish might be decreasing over
time. However, results in 1988 contradicted that when the mean
concentration at LittLe River station rose to 3.5 Hg/g , and eight of
ten catfish from there had levels above 2.0. PCB concentrations in
catfish from TRM 628 were similar to those found at that station in 1987;
concentrations in 1 argemoutli bass from the same station continued their
dec 1inc since 1987.
Samples were collected again 111 autumn of 1989 to examine the
temporal trend in PCB concentrations in Fort Loudoun. Study design for
1989 included a special effort to evaluate the effects of different
fillet techniques on PCB concentrations. The test was conducted on 20
catfish from Little River and 20 from TRM 628. Ten largemouth bass were
also collected from TRM 628 and processed the same as in previous years.
Mean PCB concentrations in catfish in 1989 were 2.1 and A. 2 |.ig/g at TRM
628 and Little River, respectively; llmse results were hi)',her than in
1987 and 1988. At Little River, the mean concent rat ion continued its
increase over the last three years, with the 1989 level there nearly back
to that found in 1985 (4.4 |ig/g)• Of the 20 catfish from Little River,
16 had a PCB level of more than 2.0 (ig/g; at TRM 628, 11 of the 20 fish
were above 2.0. Average PCB concentration in the ten bass collected in
1989 was 0.4 ng/g; the highest level was 0.8 Hg/g.
The emphasis for 1990 in Fort Loudoun Reservoir was to be a
continuation of trend studies in catfish at TRM 628, which would also
serve as an indicator of c hang i ng condition', in Little River, samples
-134-
-------
there (Little River) were to be discontinued in 1990. Fort Loudoun,
along with yever.il other TV A mainstream reservoirs, w.v, n] so included in
Llie 1990 Valley wide fish tissue study, in winch live catfish are
collected at three reservoir Locations and composites of tissue by
location are analyzed tor PCBs, pesticides, and ineLals (see section 3 1
for Chose results). No largemough bass were to he collected in 1990.
This document describes the results of PCB analyses on cat! ish from
fort Loudoun Reservoir TRM 628 in the autumn of 1990 -md compares them to
results from previous years. The results were shared with cooperating
state and federal agencies as soon as they were received from the
analytical laboratory, and decisions on updating, existing advisories and
selection of study design for autumn 1991 were necessarily made months
before this document was prepared. Tlx' latest Public Health Advisory I or
lrort Loudoun Reservoir, based on these data, was issued in February 1992
(see appendix D).
4.5.1 Methods
In 1990, one fillet from each of the ten channel catfish collected
from TRM 628 was sent to the TVA laboratory in Chattanooga for analysis
of lipids, chlordane and PCBs, and selected pesticides; the remaining
fillets were retained for future use, if needed.
All procedures involved in lield sampling and processing,,
laboratory and data analysis were similar to those described for Wilson
Reservoir (section 4.1) earLier in this report, or for chlordane in the
previous report on fish from Nickajack in 1989 (bycus 1990a), and will
not be repeated here.
-135-
-------
A.5.2 Results and Discussion
All Che desired catfish at TRM 628 were collected in October 1990.
Physical Characteristics--In the early years (1981-85) of this Fort
Loudoun study, catfish collected in the vicinity of Little River were in
poorer condition and had more anomalies than those from other sections of
the reservoir. In 1987 and 1988, most of the catfish collected in the
reservoir had no observed parasites or external anomalies. In 1989,
however, nine of 20 catfish from TRM 628 had parasites on the liver, two
were skinny, one was blind, and one had a small spleen. In the Little
River sample of 20 catfish, four were observed to be skinny, seven had
swollen kidneys, and 13 had numerous internal parasites, mostly on the
liver, but also on the kidneys, spleen and throughout the gut cavity on
some. In 1990, fish appeared to be in a relatively healthy state;
however, six of the ten catfish had no fat in the viceral cavity and one
catfish had a few internal parasites. Fish conditions in 1990 appeared
to be similar to the better conditions observed in 1987 and 1988 and a
reversal of the conditions noted in 1981 and 1985.
Sizes (length and weight) of catfish collected in 1990 are
summarized in table 4.5~1 and detailed in table A.5-2. Neither catfish
weight nor lipid content differed significantly among years for the
samples at TRM 628 (weight, P>F = 0.2403; lipid content, P>F = 0.1584).
PCB Concent rat ions--PCB concentrations in catfish collected in 1990
and previous years are summarized in table 4.5-3; details for 1990 are
given in table 4.5-2. Mean concentration in 1990 was 1.0 Hg/g at-
TRM 628, which is lower than in all previous years. Five of the ten
catfish had a PCB concentration of at least 1.0 Hg/g; however, no fish
exceeded the FDA tolerance level of 2.0 Hg/g.
-136-
-------
Preliminary statistical tests showed no significant re 1 ationship
between PCB concent ration and lipid content or fish weight
(table 4.5-4). Tests were run on data lor all years to examine any
differences among years. Since no adjustments for weight or lipid
content were necessary, ANOVA was the appropriate test. The one-way
ANOVA indicated significant differences in PCB concentrations among
years, with significantly higher concentrations 111 1989 catfish.
Pestic i des--The concentrations of chlordane and other pesticides
are detailed in table 4.5-2. Mean chlordane concentrations in catfish at
TRM 628 in 1990 was 0.11 Hg/g, with a range of 0 01-0.31. Three of the
ten fish had a level above 0.20 1-ig/g, the tier 3 level of concern, and
two of these fish were > 0.3U. No comparative data on chlordane for
other stations or years were available for Fort Loudoun Reservoir.
Aldrin, dieldrin, B1IC, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene were not detected
in any samples. DDTr and endrin were both detected at low levels in one
sample. Endosulfan occurred in three of the ten samples wiLh a mean
concentration of 0.02 pg/g.
4.5.3 Recommendat 1 oris
Since none of the fish sampled had levels of pesticides that were
high enough to warrant additional sampling, ten channel catfish were to
be collected from TRM 628 in 1991 to continue the trend data base on PCBs
and chlordane. No additional fish species will be collected because of
higher priorities for available funds and personnel
-137-
-------
TabLe 4.5-1. Minimum, maximum, and mean lengths and weights of channel
catfish collected from Fort Loudoun Reservoir 1981, 1985,
1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990.
Length (mm) Weight (p )
Location Year Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean
TRM 628 1981a 483 610 549 1587 2948 2313
1985a 330 655 441 270 2720 834
1987 410 645 507 580 2275 1385
1988 391 577 466 538 1732 968
1989 344 573 474 292 2169 1002
1990 375 545 458 375 1720 866
a. Some individuals were blue catfish.
ABD0094Q-15
-138-
-------
Table 4.5-2. Physical 1nforuat1on and concentrations (|ig/g) of organfcs In Individual channel catfish sables collected froo Fort Loudoun Reservoir
(TRH 628) for tissue analysis In October 1990.
Collection
Date Length Weight Sex Lipids Aldrln Dleldrln BHC Chlordane OOTr Endosulfan 'Endrln Heptachlor Mire* PCB Toxaphene
901002
545
1720
F
3.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.14
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.5
901002
535
1442
F
3.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
901002
475
810
H
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
901002
425
600
F
1.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
901002
455
710
M
1.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
901002
402
565
H
4.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.23
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.9
<0.5
901002
478
1020
F
5.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.30
<0.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.6
<0.5
901002
375
375
M
0.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
901002
454
835
M
4.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.31
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.9
<0.5
901002
436
580
M
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
Mean
458
866
2.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
,1.0
<0.5
ABD0090Q-11
-------
Table; 4.5-3. Sunrnary of Total3 PCB Concentrations (pg/g Wet Weight) in Individual Catfish
Tilletr. from Fort Loudoun Reservoir, Collected in Spring 1981 and Tall of 198t>,
1987, 1988, 1989, 1990
TRM TRM TRM Little TRH TRM TRM
604 617 628 River 638 643 651
19(11
Range 1.5-5.8 c 2.3-7.2 <1.0-22 c <1.0-1.6 <1.0-4.4
Mean^ 3.5 4.5 6.6 1.4 2.1
Number >2.0 pg/g 4 5 62 0 1
Number of fish 5 5 64® 5 5
1985
Range <0.1-2.9 0.18-2.4 0.16-2.8 1.3-9.3 <0.1-4.9 <1.0-1.1 <0.1-1.0
Mfj/iri 1.7 1.2 1.4 4.4 1.3 0.75 0.62
Number >2.0 pg/g 3 3 2 7 2 0 0
Number of fish 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1987
Range c c 0.1-4.5 0.2-5.3 c c c
Mean I.5f 2.4
Number >2.0 pg/g 2 5
Number of fish 10 10
1988
Range c c 0.2-4.4 1.8-7.1 c c c
Mean I.I 3.5
Number >2.0 V*g/g ' ®
Number of fish 10 10
1989
Range 0.6-4.3 1.2-8.3
Moan 2.1 4.2
Numbor >2.0 pg/g I I 16
Number of fish 20 20
1990
Range 0.3-1.9
Mean I.0
Number > 2.0 pg/g 0
Numbor of fish 10
a. Sum of individual aroclors which occurred in concentrations greater than or equal to the
detection limit of I pg/g 'n 1981 and 0.1 pg/g in 1985.
b. Additional catfish were collected in 1982 but not reported here.
c. Tish were not collected from this location.
d. Total PCS concentration less than detection limit (I pg/fl in 1981 and 0.1 pg/g in 1985)
wore averaged as the detection limit.
e. Four of theso specimens were collected in spring 1981 at the same time as specimens from the
other locations. The remaining 60 were collected in December 1981.
f. Previous reports showed the mean PCB concentration in catfish at this station in 1987 to bo
2.2 pg/g; re-examination of these data showed that figure to be in error.
ABD0095Q-5
-140-
-------
Table 4.5-4. Results of statistical tests used to compare PC8 concentrations in channel catfish from Fort Loudoun Reservoir 1985, 1987,
1968, 1989, and 1990
Preliminary test results
a
1t i p1e Range Test
(Is there a significant
Decision based
If ANOVA
Duncan's Mu
relationship between PCB
on preliminary
used
Year Wi th
Year With
Species
Parameter concentration and parameter?)
test
(P>F)
Lowest Mean
Highest Mean
Channel catfish
Lipid content No (P>F = 0.6463)
Use ANOVA
0.0027
1990 1988
1987 1985 1989
Weight No (P>F = 0.3955)
Use ANOVA
0.0027
a. Locations underscored by same line were not significantly different at a=0.05; lines not so underscored were significantly different.
ABDO104Q-10
-------
4 . 6 Melton H'l I I Reservoir
Melton Hill Reservoir is currently in the trend study stage. A
potential PCB probl-pm (in catfish only) was first documented in 1984
Two of the 22 catfish collected from Melton liill reservoir had delectable
PCB concentrations (one in McCoy Branch, l.G mg/k g; one at Melton Hill
Dam, 4.7 mg/kg) (.TVA 1985). Since the Latter was collected at the face
of the dam, it could have been transported from below the dam during
navigation lock operations.
Results from the Valley-wide Fish Tissue Screening Study in 1987
found concentrations of PCBs and chlordane that were sufficiently high
to warrant more indepth study (Dyeus 1989a). The live-fish composites
from lower and mid-reservoir areas (CRMs 23 and 39) contained 1 2 and
2.0 (Xg/g PCBs and 0.16 pg/g chlordane each.
In 1988, ten channel catfish were collected for individual analysis
from each of three stations: CRM 23, CRM 39, and CRM 50 (Dycus 1990c).
In addition, a five-fillet composite of largemouth bass was analysed from
both CRM 39 and CRM 50. Technical problems experienced' at the primary
analytical laboratory (TDEC) resulted in the loss of all its PCB data on
catfish from CRMs 39 and 50. However, one sample each from those
stations had previously been split with TVA and ORNL labs, so some
limited PCB information from those stations in 1988 was still available
The ten channel catfish- from the lower reservoir area (CRM 23) had an
average PCB concentration of 0.52 pg/g, with a range of 0 10-
1-6 The single catfish samples from the other two reservoir
areas had PCB concentrations ranging from 2.0-2.6 pg/g, depending on
the laboratory doing the analysis (see table 4.6-3 for details). TVA and
-143-
-------
OKNI, laboratories both reported a PCB concentration of 0.7 Hg/g 111 the
largemouth bays composite from CRM 39; TVA reported <0.1 ng/g and ORNL
reported 0.12 |J.g/g ln the bass composite from CRM 50.
In April 1989, the TDEC issued an advisory against consumption of
catfish from Melton Hill Reservoir (Dycus 1990c).
This document describes the results of organic analyses of catfish
collected in the autumn of 1990 by TVA and ORNL from Melton Hill
Reservoir. The results were shared with cooperating state and Federal
nancies as soon as they were received from the analytical laboratory.
Decisions on updating existing advisories and selection of study design
for autumn 1991 were necessarily made months before tins document was
prepared. The Public Health advisory against eating catfish from Melton
Hill Reservoir remained in effect through this sampling period
(appendix D).
A.6.1 Methods
In 1990, eight channel catfish each were to be collected at CRM 39
and CRM 51 by TVA; eight channel catfish were to be collected by ORNL at
CRM 23. All procedures involved in field sampling and processing,
laboratory and data analyses were similar to those described for Wilson
Reservoir samples earLier in the report (section 4.1) and will not be
repeated here. Each fish was analyzed individually.
A. 6 2 Results and Discussion
Physical Charactenstlcs--Only seven catfish were collected at
CRM 39. All eight desired fish were collected at the other two
- 1A4-
-------
stations. One of the catfish from CRM 39 had nodules in the liver In
addition, one catfish had swollen kidneys, another hat1 no vici/ral iai ,
and one fish had a few internal parasites. At CRM 51, one catfish was
blind in one eye, another had a liver anomaly, and two catfish had a Icu
internal parasites. Physical condition of catfish from CRM 23 was not
avallable.
Sizes (length and weight) of catfish arc suminar i ::ed in table A.6-1
and detailed in table A.6-2. A one-way ANOVA indicated neither catfish
weight, length, nor lipid content differed significantly among the two
sample locations in 1990; similar data for CRM 23 was not available for-
tius report.
PCB Concent ratlonsPCB concentrations in catfish collected from
Melton Hill Reservoir in 1990 and previous years are summarized in
tabic A.6-3; details for 1990 are given in table A.6-2. Mean
concentrations in 1990 were 0.30-0.A5 (see table A.6-3 for explanation)
at CRM 23, 0.7A at CRM 39, and i.18 at CRM 51. The concentra: ons were
lower than other years at all three locations. Two catfish from CUM 51
exceeded the FDA tolerance level of 2.0 H&/£- Because of
inconsistencies in the collection and analysis of catfish from previous
years, statistical comparisons were only conducted on resuLts from CRM i9
and CRM 51 in 1990, since fish from both sites were collected and
analyzed by TVA.
Preliminary statistical tests showed no significant relationship
between PCB concentration and lipid content or weight Since no
adjustments were needed for lipids or weight, a one-way ANOVA was used to
lest differences in PCB concentration between the two stations.
Significant differences were not detected.
- 1A5-
-------
Pes t i c i d''s - ~ Cone enL rat ions ol chlordane and oLher pesticides in
catfish collected in 1990 are detailed in table A.6-2. Chlordane
concentrations ranged from <0.01 to 0.21 (.ig/g and averaged 0.11 Hg/g
at both CRM 39 and CRM 51 and 0.011 |ig/g at CRM 23. No catfish
exceeded the FDA action level of 0.3 U£/g¦ Preliminary statistical
tests showed no significant relationship between chlordane concentration
and lipid content (0.9436), but one was indicated between chlordane and
fish weight (0.0388). Since a weight adjustment was necessary and the
lines were parallel (0.0991), an analysis of covariance was used to test
for differences between CRMs 39 and 51 for 1990. The analysis of
covariance corrected for weight indicated there was a significant
difference between the two locations 111 chlordane concentrations
(0.0056); they were significantly higher at CRM 39 than at CRM 51.
None of the other pesticides occurred at levels of concern.
Aldnn, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene were not
detected in any samples. BHC was detected in two catfish (0.03-0.06) and
endosulfan occurred in four catfish from CRM 51 (maximum value of
0. OA |ig/g). DDT was detected in 17 of 23 catfish wi th a mean of
0.02 ng/g at CRM 23 and CRM 51 and 0.05 ng/g at CRM 39.
A.6.3 Recommendat ions
Since an advisory prohibits consumption of catfish from Melton Hill
Reservoir, and the historical data have been inconsistently collected and
analyzed, in 1991, ten channel catfish were to be collected from CRM 23
by ORNL and ten channel catfish from both CRMs 39 and 51 to be collected
by TWRA and TVA for further analyses and establishment of a better data
base for PCBs on this lake.
-146-
-------
Table 4.6-1. Minimum, maximum, and mean lengths and weight.;, of channel
catfish collected from stations on Melton Hill Reservoir
in 1984, 1987, 1988, and 1990.
Lenplh (mm)
Ueip.lit (p.)
Location
Year
Minimum Maximum Mean
Minimum Maximum Mean
CRM 23
1984
1987
1988
1990
323
266
370
391
528
514
790
616
406
379
513
476
316
148
406
409
1270
1265
6118
2358
655
5 G 2
1774
10 3 7
CRM 39
1987
1988
1990
360
55 3
396
463
690
509
421
620
439
413
I 748
495
851
3906
1226
6 24
2630
741
CRM 51
1988
1990
462
408
640
592
531
489
1010
603
34 70 159 7
1697 1105
ABD0094Q-4
-147-
-------
Table 4.6-2. Physical information and concentrations (|ig/g) of organlcs In catfish samples collected fro« Helton Hill Reservoir analysis In
autian 1990.
Location
Col 1ectlon
Date
Length
Weight
Sex
Lipids
Aldrln
Dleldrln
BHC
Chlordane
DOTr
Endosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Hlrex
PCB
Toxaphene
CRM 23b
900820
490
973
F
0.22
Nc
N
N
0.033
0.033
N
N
N
N
0.64
N
CRM 23
900820
479
897
M
0.00
N
N
N
<0.001
0.001
N
N
N
N
<0.01
N
CRM 23
900820
454
700
M
0.05
N
N
N
0.001
0.005
N
N
H
N
0.15
M
CRM 23
900820
395
506
F
0.29
H
N
N
0.028
0.065
N
N
N
N
0.83
N
CRM 23
900820
391
409
F
2.5
H
N
N
0.014
0.008
N
N
N
N
0.31
N
CRM 23
900904
616
1889
M
0.07
N
N
N
0.002
0.005
N
N
N
N
0.17
N
CRM 23
901009
398
592
M
0.95
N
N
N
0.006
0.003
N
N
N
N
0.11
N
CRM 23
901009
582
2358
M
0.50
N
N
N
0.005
0.010
N
N
N
N
0.18
N
Mean
476
1037
0.57
0.011
0.016
0.30
CRM 39
901212
425
548
M
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
CRM 39
901212
396
495
M
6.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.5
CRM 39
901216
448
765
F
4.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.15
0.20
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.8
<0.5
CRM 39
901216
435
644
M
4.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
CRM 39
901217
460
833
M
2.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.17
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
CRM 39
910105
509
1226
F
7.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
0.04
<0»01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
<0.5
CRM 39
910105
400
673
M
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.5
Mean
439
741
5.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.11
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
458
868
F
14
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
592
1590
M
2.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
473
1027
F
9.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.02
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
528
1390
M
11
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.21
0.05
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.2
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
551
1697
M
6.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.15
0.03
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
408
603
M
5.1
<0,01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
432
715
M
9.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.5
CRM 51
901207
473
953
M
5.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
4.4
<0.5
Mean
489
1105
7.9
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.5
a. CRM = Clinch River alle
b. Fish were collected and analyzed by ORNL (Loar 1991).
c. N * Hot analyzed
ABD009(K)-12
-------
Table 4.6-3. Summary of total PCB concentrations (ng/g wet weight) in
individual catfish fillets from Melton Hill Reservoir,
collected autumn 1990 and previous years.
Year CRM 23 CRM 39 CRM 50/51
1984a
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0 (ig/g
Number of Fish
1987b
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0 Hg/g
Number of Fish
1988c
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0 Hg/g
Number of Fish
1990
Range
Mean
Number > 2.0 |ig/g
Number of Fish
a. (TVA 1985).
b . (Dycus 1989a).
c. (Dycus 1990d).
d. Results for CRM 23 are from ORNL studies. Due to technical problems,
only limited results are available for CRMs 39 and 50. Although a
complete complement of fish were collected, results for only one fish
from each of these locations are available. These individual fish
plus one fish from CRM 23 were part of a QA split-sample effort
between the TVA lab and ORNL lab. Results for CRMs 23, 39, and 50
were as follows: TVA 1.6, 2.0, and 2.2 Hg/g, respectively, and
ORNL 1.4 and 2.6 (ig/g for CRMs 23 and 39, respectively (ORNL
results for CRM 50 are not available).
e. Fish collected and analyzed by ORNL; values in () are adjusted
(actual PCB value x 1.5) to account for the low spike recoveries in
Q/A samples.
ABD0094Q-6
=0.1-4.7
1.6
1
3
1.2 2.0
1.2 2.0
0 0
(5 fish composite) (5 fish composite)
0.10-1.6
0.52
0
10
<0.01-0.83 (1.25)e 0.2-1.3 0.1-4.4
0.30 (0.45) 0.7 1.2
0 0 2
8 7 8
-14 9-
-------
REFERENCES
Dycus, Donald L. 1986. "North Alabama Water Quality Assessment:
Volume Vll - Contaminants in Biota." TVA, Office of Natural
Resources and Economic Development, Air and Water Resources,
Knoxvilie, Tennessee. TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/33.
Dycus, Donald L. 1988. "Levels of Selected Metals and PCBs in
Channel Catfish from Chickamauga Reservoir, 1987." TVA, River Basin
Operations, Water Resources.
Dycus, Donald L. 1989a. "Results of Fish Tissue Screening Studies
from Sites on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers in 1987."
TVA River Basin Operations, Water Resources. Chattanooga,
Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB-- 89/5.
Dycus, Donald L. 1989b. "PCB Studies on Fish From Watts Bar, Ft
Loudoun, Tellico and Chilhowee Reservoirs, 1987." TVA, River Basin
Operations, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/AWR-89/10
Dycus, Donald L. 1990a. "Results of PCB and Chlordane
Analyses on Fish Collected from Nickajack Reservoir in Jan-Feb
1989." TVA, River Basin Operations, Water Resources, Chattarioogn ,
Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB-90/9.
Dycus, Donald L. 1990!. "Levels of Selected Metals and PCBs
in Channel Catfish from Chickamauga Reservoir, 1988."
TVA, River Basin Operations, Water Resources. Chattanooga,
Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB--90/3.
Dycus, Donald L. 1990c. "PCB Studies on Fish from Watts Bar,
Fort Loudoun, Tellico, and Melton Mill Reservoii— 1988."
TVA River Basin Operations, Water Resources. Chattanooga,
Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB--90/11.
Dycus, D. L. , J. P. Fehring and C. D. llickinan. 1987. "PCB Concentration!,
in Fish and Sediment from Fort Loudoun Reservoir-- 1985." Tennessee
Valley Authority, Office of Natural Resources and Economic
Development, Knoxville, Tennessee. TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/8.
Dycus, D. L. and C. D. Hickman. 1988. "PCB Levels in Fish from Fort
Loudoun Reservoir. Fort Loudoun Dam Tailrace, Tellico Reservoir,
and Chilhowee Reservoir, Autumn 1986 to Winter 1987." Tennessee
Valley Authority, Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee.
TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/19.
Dycus, D. L. and D. R. Lowery. 1986. "PCB Concentrations in Wilson
Reservoir Catfish - 1985." Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of
Natural Resources and Economic Development, Knoxville, Tennessee.
TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/5 7.
-151-
-------
Dycus, D. L. and D. R. Lowery. 1987. "PCB Concentrations in Wilson
Reservoir Catfish - 1986." Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of
Natural Resources and Economic Development, Knoxville, Tennessee.
TVA/ONRED/AWR- 88/2.
Dycus, D. L. and D. R. Lowery. 1988. "PCB Concentrations in Wilson
Reservoir Catfish - 1987." Tennessee Valley Authority, Water
Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee.
FWCPM. 1974. "Guidelines on Sampling and Statistical Methodologies
for Ambient Pesticide Monitoring." Federal Working Croup on
Pesticide Management. Washington, D.C. October 1974.
Food and Drug Administration. 1987. "Action Levels for Poisonous or
Deleterious Substances in Human Food and Animal Substances."
Industrial Programs Branch, Bureau of Foods. (HFF-336)
200 C St. SW. Washington, D.C.
Gall, K. and Voiland, M. 1990. "Contaminants in Sport Fish:
Managing Risks." See Grant Extension Fact Sheet. Cornell
Cooperative Extension. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Hall, G. E., and D. L. Dycus. 1991. "Fish Tissue Studies in the
Tennessee Valley in 1989." TVA, River Basin Operations, Water
Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee. TVA/WR/AB--91/12.
McCracken, W. E. 1983. "Edible Tissue Sampling for Fish Contaminant
Analyses" in PCB's: Human and Environmental Hazards. F. M. D'tn
and M. A. Kamurin, Editors. Butterworth Publishers, Toronto, Canada.
Travis, C. C., F. 0. Hoffman, B. G. Baylock, K. L. Daniels, C. S.
Gist and C. W. Weber, 1986. "Preliminary Review of TVA Fish Sampling
and Analysis Report." Task Group Five Report, TVA 86/15, December
1986, pp. 901129.
TVA, 1985. "Instream Contaminant Study - Task 4 - Fish Sampling and
Analysis." ONRED/TVA/Apr11 1985.
-152-
-------
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTINC OF TVA REPORTS
RELATINC TO TOXICS IN FISH
NOTE: Copies of reports are available Irom:
Waler Resources Library
Tennessee Valley Authority
Haney BuiIdi ng 2C
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
(615) 751-7338
-153-
-------
CHRONOLOGICAL L1STINC OF TVA REPORTS
RELATINC TO TOXICS IN FISH
MONITORINC OF MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN FISHES COLLECTED FROM PICKWICK
AND KENTUCKY RESERVOIRS MAY 1970 - FEBRUARY 1971 - April 1971
CONTROL AND CONFIDENCE INTERVAL CHARTS FOR MONITORINC MERCURY
CONTAMINATION OF FISH - A. L. Jensen - June 1971
SUMMARY OF OCOEE RIVER WATER QUALITY, SEDIMENT, AND BIOLOGICAL DATA
COLLECTED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1975 - Ralph Brown and Dennis Meinrrl
I-WQ-76-1 - May 1976
EVALUATION OF THE MERCURY MONITORING PROCRAM FROM THE NORTH FORK HOLSTON
RIVER - Thomas W. Toole and Richard Ruane - E-WQ-76-2 -
September 1976
TRENDS IN THE MERCURY CONTENT OF FISH FROM KENTUCKY, PICKWICK, AND
CHICKAMAUCA RESERVOIRS 1970- 197 7 - Jack Milligan - I-WQ-78-15 -
December 1978
ANALYSIS OF MERCURY DATA COLLECTED FROM THE NORTH FORK OF THE HOLSTON
RIVER * Jack Milligan and Richard Ruane - TVA/EP-78/12 -
December 1978
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 1 - DDT LEVELS IN IMPORTANT FISH SPECIES
THROUGHOUT WTLSON, WHEELER, AND CUNTERSVILLE RESERVOIRS-FinaL Data
Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 2 FISH POPULATION ESTIMATES AND DDT
CONCENTRATIONS IN YOUNC-OF-YEAR FISHES FROM INDIAN CREEK AND
HUNTSVILLE SPRING BRANCH EMBAYMENTS OF WHEELER RESERVOIR-Fma 1 Data
Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE SPRING
BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 3-ASSESSMENT OF DDT CONCENTRATIONS IN
SEDIMENTS CORRESPONDING TO AREA-WIDE FISHERIES STUDIES-Final Dnt.a
Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK A-ASSESSMENT OF DDT CONCENTRATIONS AND OTHER
CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS IN REDSTONE ARSENAL VICIN1TY-Fina1 Data
Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 5-AQUATIC BIOTRANSPORT (EXCLUDING
VERTEBRATES)-Fina1 Data Report - August 1980
-155-
-------
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION IIUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 6-Vol. 1 -11YDROLOCIC AND SEDIMENT DATA-Final
Data Report. - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION IIUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 6-Vol II-HYDROLOGICAL AND SEDIMENTOLOGICAL
CALCULATIONS-DATA ANALYSIS-Fina1 Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 6-Vol 111-HYDROLOGICAL AND SEDIMENTOLOGICAL
CALCULATIONS-INPUT DATA-Final Data Report - August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-TASK 7-ASSESSMENT OF DDT LEVELS OF SELECTED
VERTEBRATES IN AND ADJACENT TO WHEELER, WILSON, AND CUNTERSV1LLE
RESERVOIRS (SPATIAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION)-Final Data Report -
August 1980
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DDT CONTAMINATION HUNTSVILLE
SPRING BRANCH, INDIAN CREEK, AND ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS, WHEELER
RESERVOIR, ALABAMA-QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENT-Final Data Report -
August 1980
TRENDS IN THE MERCURY CONCENTRATION IN LARGEMOUTH BASS, CARP, AND DRUM
FROM KENTUCKY AND PICKWICK RESERVOIRS 1970-1979 - Jack MilLigan -
TVA/ONR/WRF-83/4 - May 1983
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCB) CONCENTRATIONS IN CATFISH FROM FLEET
HOLLOW, WILSON RESERVOIR - Donald Dycus, Peter Hackney, and WiLLiam
Barr - TVA/ONR/WRF-83/11 - May 1983
SUMMARY OF EXISTING WATER, SEDIMENT, FISH, AND SOIL DATA IN THE VICINITY
OF THE OAK RIDGE RESERVATION - August 1983
DETERMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONCENTRATION OF DDT IN SEDIMENT
AND CONCENTRATION OF DDT IN FISH FOR THE HSB-IC TRIBUTARY SYSTEM -
January 1984
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOCICAL PROCESSES AFFECTING THE UPTAKE AND
LOSS OF DDT BY FISH FROM DDT CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS: REVIEW AND
EVALUATION OF LITERATURE PERTINENT TO HUNTSVILLE SPRING BRANCH-INDIAN
CREEK REMEDIAL ACTIONS - TVA/ONRED/AWR-84/9 - May 1984
ORCANIC COMPOUNDS AND METALS IN FISH FROM CHATTANOOGA CREEK AND NICKAJACK
RESERVOIR - Jack D. MiLIigan and Barney S. Neal - TVA/ONRED/AWR-85* 1 -
November 1984
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONTAMINATION OF FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR: A
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO THE FOOD AND DRUC ADMINISTRATION 1984 REVISION
OF LIMITS FOR PCB IN FISH FLESH - Neil Carriker and David McKinney -
1985
-156-
-------
INSTREAM CONTAMINANT STUDY - TASK A - FISH SAMPL1NC AND ANALYSIS -
Prepared for USDOE, Oak Ridge, Tennos sue - TVA/ONRKL)/A]> r i 1 1985
WATER QUALITY IN OCUEE NO. 1 RESERVOIR-VOLUME 1: SUMMARY REPORT - Janice
Cox - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/13 - January 1986
WATER QUALITY IN OCOEE NO. 1 RESERVOIR-VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL REPORT
Janice Cox - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/13 - January 1986
HEAVY METAL AND PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENTS FROM SELECTED TVA
RESERVOIRS - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/35 - April 1986
NORTH ALABAMA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT: VOLUME VII -CONTAMINANTS IN BIOTA
- Donald Dycus - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/33 - April 1986
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN WILSON RESERVOIR CATFISH-1985 - Donald Dycus and
Donny Lowery - TVA/ONRED/AWR-86/57 - September 1986
CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs, DDTr, AND SELECTED METALS IN BIOTA FROM
CUNTERSVILLE RESERVOIR - Donald Dycus and Donny Lowery -
TVA/ONRED/AWR-87/18 - October 1986
NORTH ALABAMA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT: VOLUME X CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBb,
DDTr, AND SELECTED METALS IN CATFISH FROM WHEELER RESERVOIR - Donald
Dycus and Donny Lowery - October 1986
CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs, DDTr, AND METALS IN FISH FROM TEI..L1 CO RESERVOIR
DonaLd Dycus and Cary Hickman - TVA/ONRED/AWR-87/25 - November 1986
ESTIMATION OF THE BIOACCUMULATION OF MERCURY BY BLUECTLL SUNFISH IN EAST
FORK POPLAR CREEK-Fina1 Report - Richard Young - April 1987
SCREENINC FOR TOXICS IN BIOTA AND SEDIMENT FROM THE LOWER TENNESSEE RIVER
- John Jenki rison - TVA/ONR/AWR - 8 7/3 A - July 1987
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN WILSON RESERVOIR CATFISH-1986 - Donald Dycus and
Donny Lowery - TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/2 - August 1987
NORTH ALABAMA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT: VOLUME 1A - CONCENTRATIONS OF
PCBs, AND DDTr IN CATFISH FROM UPPER PICKWICK RESERVOIR AND PCBs FROM
WILSON RESERVOIR - Donald Dycus and Donny Lowery - TVA/ONRED/AWR 85/22
- September 1987
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH AND SEDIMENT FROM FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR- 1985
- Donald Dycus, Joseph Fehring, and Cary Hickman - TVA/ONKKD/AWR 8B/8
- October 1987
SURFACE WATER MON1TORINC STRATEGY-AMBIENT MON1 TOR 1NC-RESULTS FROM
ANALYSES ON FISH TISSUE COLLECTED IN 1986 - Donald Dycus - May 1988
PCB LEVELS IN FISH FROM FORT LOUDOUN RESERVOIR, FORT LOUDOUN DAM
TAILRACE, TELLICO RESERVOIR, AND CHILHOWEE RESERVOIR AUTUMN 1986 TO
WINTER 1987 - Donald Dycus and Cary Hickman - TVA/ONRED/AWR 88/19 -
June 1988
-157-
-------
LEVELS OF SELECTED METALS AND PCBs IN CHANNEL AND BLUE CATFISH FROM
CHICKAMAUGA RESERVOIR-1987 - Donald Dycus - July 1988
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN WILSON RESERVOIR CATFISH-1987 - Donald Dycus and
Donny Lowery - August 1988
CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs IN FISH AND SEDIMENTS FROM UPPER CUNTERSVILLE
RESERVOIR- 1987 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB--89/4 - May 1989
RESULTS OF FISH TISSUE SCREENING STUDIES FROM SITES IN THE TENNESSEE AND
CUMBERLAND RIVERS-1987 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB--89/5 - May 1989
PCB STUDIES ON FISH FROM WATTS BAR, FORT LOUDOUN, TELLICO, AND CHILHOWEE
RESERVOIRS-1987 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB--89/10 - July 1989
LEVELS OF SELECTED METALS AND PCBs IN CHANNEL CATFISH FROM CHICKAMAUGA
RESERVOIR-1988 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB--90/3 - February 1990
RESULTS OF FISH TISSUE SCREENING STUDIES IN THE TENNESSEE AND CUMBERLAND
RIVERS IN 1988 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB--90/7 - July 1990
RESULTS OF PCB AND CHLORDANE ANALYSES ON FISH COLLECTED FROM NICKAJACK
RESERVOIR IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1989 - Donald Dycus -
TVA/WR/AB--90/9 - July 1990
PCB STUDIES ON FISH FROM WATTS BAR, FORT LOUDOUN, TELLICO, AND MELTON
HILL RESERVOIRS - 1988 - Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB--90/11 -
September 1990
RESERVOIR MONITORING - 1990 - FISH TISSUE STUDIES IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
IN 1989 - Gordon E. Hall and Donald Dycus - TVA/WR/AB--91/12 - October
1991
-158-
-------
APPEND I X B
TVA STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF
FISH TISSUE SAMPLES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS
-139-
-------
Appendix B
TVA STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF
FISil TISSUE SAMPLES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Fish tissue studies are conducted throughout the Tennessee Valley
to address human health issues associated with fish consumption. Fish
processing techniques have an influence on the accuracy and reliability
of data derived from tissue analysis. For this reason, consistency in
the handling and processing of fish for tissue nr.-: lysis is vital. The
intent of these procedures is to standardize the collection, lab
preparation, and processing for fish tissue studies.
Fish Col 1ect i on
Fish can be collected by a variety of methods, lor example, by
various types of nets, by electrolishing, or by commercial fishing gear
If fish come from a commercial fisherman, a biologist (TVA, state, or
contractor) must accompany the fisherman and see that the fish pulled are
from an approved fishing/sampling area. Fish are removed from the gear,
and the appropriate number/species, as specified in the uorkplan, are put
in plastic bags (one species per bag) in a cooler of ice. Dead fish may
only be used if the gills are still red; otherwise they are discarded.
Fish cannot be held more than 24 hours in a cooler after collection. No
fish with flesh deteriorated beyond that desired for human consumption
can be included in the sample. Every reasonable effort is made to
collect the desired number of fish of each species as outlined in the
workplan. Channel catfish must weigh at least one pound; bass should be
at least 12 inches in length. Striped bass/hybrids should be a minimum
of two pounds, however, larger fish are desired. If repealed attempts to
collect large fish fail, smaller fish may be accepted.
-161-
-------
The lab transfer sheet (attachment 1) accompanies the sample after
fish are removed from the gear.
l.ab Preparation
All work surfaces and cutting equipment used in fish processing
should be washed with soap, rinsed with tap water, followed by rinsing
with pesticide grade propanol and finally rinsing with distilled water.
The cutting board is covered with heavy-duty aluminum foil. Persons
processing fish should wear sterile rubber gloves to prevent fish
contamination.
At least two persons are needed to process the fish, a writer and a
cutter. Data should be recorded using a #2 pencil, or permanent pen and
waterproof paper. Much of the label can be completed prior to fish
processing. The proper date for the record sheet is that when the fish
was collected, and not the date of processing. A sheet of clean aluminum
foil is used for wrapping each fillet, one sheet for the liver composite,
and one sheet to lay each fish on the scale while weighing.
Processi ng
Two waterproof labels (attachment 2) are completed for each fish
(one for each fillet). Total length and weight and the external
observations, specified on the lab sheet (attachment 3), are recorded for
each fish. A mid-ventral cut is made from the vent anteriorly with the
scissors lifted to prevent damage to internal organs. The proportion of
the internal organs that are covered by fat after first opening the body
cavity are noted, along with complete observations of the internal organs
as specified on the lab sheet. After observations are recorded, the
liver and then the gall bladder are removed from the fish; care is
-162-
-------
taken not to rupture and contaminate the liver. If the liver should be
contaminated by the gall bladder it should be thoroughl y rinsed with
distilled water. After the liver is weighed, it is either archived 01
discarded, as specified in the uorkplan. Remaining viscera are then
removed from the body cavity.
All scaled fish should have scales removed prior to opening the gut
cavity; the skin is left on. All catfish should have the skin removed
with skinners or pliers (external cuts are optional for skinning
purposes).. As little tissue as possible should be discarded with the
skin. Skin should also be removed from the belly section. When removing
the fillets, start as close to the head as possible and cut around the
dorsal spine. Each fillet should be removed by a mid-ventral cut that
removes as much of the tissue as possible and includes the ribs and
be!ly.
After both fillets are removed, the pelvic fin is cut out with
scissors in a manner that discards as little tissue as possible. Fat and
entrails should be scraped off the inside of the fillets with a knife
Fillets are rinsed in tap water followed by distilled water. Each fillet
is weighed and the fillet weight recorded on both the lab sheet and the
label. Each fillet is individually wrapped in the piece of foil on which
it was weighed. If the fillet is very large, it may be cut from the
inside toward the outside, with a small amount near the skinned side
remaining in tact, and then folded on itself; foil should not be folded
within the fillet. Each wrapped fillet and the label are placed
individually in a plastic bag. As much air as possible should be removed
from the bag in order to conserve storage space. The above processing
procedures are repeated for all individuals of a species from one site.
-163-
-------
Afcer the scales are cared, each subsequent liver should be added
to the aluminum foil containing the liver composite and weighed. If the
workplan specifies livers are to be archived, they are wrapped together
in the aluminum foil, labeled, and placed in a plastic bag for that
purpose.
[•' 1 1 1 et d l spos 11 ion
The two fillets from a fish will either be sent to the chemistry
lab (one for organic analysis and one for metals), or one will be sent to
the chemistry laboratory for appropriate analysis and the other
archived. Random selection (coin toss) will decide which fillet will be
used for organics analysis and which for metals. If appropriate, a coin
toss will determine which fillet is sent to the laboratory for analysis
and which one archived. This information is indicated on the lab sheet.
All fillets from the same species from one site that will be used
for organics will be placed in a plastic bag with a common label that
includes the following information: study, river/reservoir, station or
river mile, species, collection date and fish numbers with the side
(right or left) that will be used for this analysis. The label should
also have "Organics" boldly printed on it. The metals (or archived)
fillets should be packaged the same way. The bag of organics and the bag
of metals will then be placed together in another plastic bag labeled
with the following information: study, reservoir/river, river mile, date,
and species. All samples are to be placed in a freezer as soon as
possible after processing. These same procedures should be repeated for
the next species and/or sampling location.
-164-
-------
When more than one species is sampled from a site (intensive
study), all species from that site should be grouped together in another
common bag for convenience later in finding samples in the freezer. That
bag should be labeled with the following information' study,
reservoir/river, river mile, species collected and their respective
collection dates. If screening studies include numerous sampling sites
within a reservoir, these samples can be bagged together and labeled
appropriately. All liver composites need to be bagged together and
labeled in the same manner as fillets.
Attachments
-165-
-------
FISH TISSUE SAMPLE LOG/TRANSFER FORM
Project Reservoir/River Location.
Fish Collection E. Chen. Fillets ¦ Fish Collection E. Chem. Fillets *
Species Mjmber Date Muober Left Right Liver Species Nuaber Date Nunber Left Right Liver
* Indicate disposition of fillets and liver for analysis by placing the letter In the appropriate colunn. M - Metals 0 = Organics A - Archived
Date
Delivered by
(Signature)
Received by
(Signature)
Action
(e.g., N Lab to Chea Lab)
ABD0966R
-------
STUDY
I'l-'SliRVOIR
* MI LE
SPECIES
SAMPLE MO. DATE / /
RIGHT FILLET ( ) LEFT FILLET ( ) LIVER ( )
TOTAL LENGTH nun
TOTAL WEIGHT grams
FILLET WEIGHT grams
STUDY
RESERVOIR
RIVER M J L E
SPECIES
SAMPLE NO. DATE / /
RIGHT FILLET ( ) LEFT FILLET ( ) LIVfciR ( )
TOTAL LENGTH mm
TOTAL WEIGHT grams
FILLET WEIGHT grams
STUDY
K !•S E R VOIR
RIVER MILE
SPECIES
SAMPLE NO. DATE I /
RIGHT FILLET ( ) LEFT FILLET ( ) LIVER ( )
LENGTH mm
WEIGHT grams
!•' I LLET WEIGHT grams
STUDY
RESERVOIR
RIVER MILE
SPECIES
SAMPLE NO. DATE / /
RIGHT FILLET ( ) LEFT FILLET ( ) LIVER ( )
TOTAL LENGTH mm
TOTAL WEIGHT grams
FILLET WEIGHT grams
STUDY
K K SERVCIR
HI VER MILE
SPECJ ES
SAMPLE NO. DATE / /
RIGHT FILLET ( ) LEFT FILLET ( ) LIVER ( )
TOTAL LENGTH mm
TOTAL WEIGHT grams
I LLET WEIGHT grams
STUDY
RESERVOIR,
RIVER MILE
SPECIES
SAMPLE NO. DATE / /
RIGHT FILLET ( ) LEFT FILLET ( ) LIVER ( )
TOTAL LENGTH mm
TOTAL WEIGHT grams
FILLET WEIGHT grams
-167-
-------
Fish Tissue Studies - Biological Laboratory Form
Page
of
Project
River:
Reservoir :
Sta/Rlver Mile :
Sample Method :
Collectors ;
Processors :
Sample ID : Catfish
Gamefish
Rough fish
Other
Fish Status : Anesthetized
Near Dead
Dead
Other (frozen)
! Collect j SDedes
Lt.
(mm)
WL
(flm)
External
Observations
Internal
Observations
Lett
Filet
wt (flm)
Right i
Filet Uver
REMARKS
Sample
No.
Dal® j
Eye
Oper.
Gill
Fin
Cond.
Fat
Uv.
Bile
Spl.
KM.
Sex
Para
wt (gm)
wt (gm)
Coda
P84014
P39
P19
P85666
P85685
P85664
EYE
N * NORMAL
E (1 or 2 ) - EKO^THALWLA
H (1 Of 2 ) - HEMORRHAGIC
B (1 Of 2 ) • BUND
M ( 1 or 2 ) - MLSSJNQ
0T- OTHER
OPERCULUM
0 - NO SHORTENING
1 - MILD
SHORTENING
2-SEVERE
SHORTENING
ota
N-NORMAL
F - mAYED
C - CLUBBED
M - MARGINATE
OT - OTHER
DM
0 - HEALED OR NO
EROSION
1 - MILD, ACTTVE
EROStON
2 » SEVERE, ACTTVE
EROS>ON
OONDmON
N- NORMAL
R« ROBUST
S - SKINNY
I - INFECTIONS
EAI
0-100%
USE 10%
INCREMENTS
TO IDENTIFY
PROPORTION
OT ORGANS
COVERED
BYJ
LTVER
A - NORMAL
B ¦ NOOULES
OR UNUSUAL
GROWTHS
C - OTHER
BtL£
0 • YELLOW. NOT PULL
1 - YELLOW, FULL
2 - LT. GREEN
3 - DK. GREEN
SP1FFN
B- BLACK
R • RED
G-GFUWULAft
NO-NODULES
E - ENLARGED
OT •THER
WONG
N - NORMAL
8 - SWOLLEN
G -ORANULAft
U-UROLJTHC
PARASTTES
0 - NONE
1 - FFW
2 ¦ NLWEBOUS
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPARISON OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN INDIVIDUAL AND
COMPOSITED SAMPLES OF CHANNEL CATFISH
-169-
-------
COMPARISON OF CONTAM1NANT CONCENTRATIONS IN INDIVIDUAL AND
COMPOSITED SAMPLES OF CHANNEL CATFISH
Fish tissue studies conducted in autumn 1990 offered a unique
opportunity to compare contaminant concentrations from analysis of a
five-fish composite to the mean concentration of the five fillets
analyzed separately. Typically, compos 1Les for screening purposes are
not colLected on reservoirs which arc under intensive investigation; fish
for intensive studies are analyzed separately and only lor selected
analytes. In 1990, there were several reservoirs lhat had been under
intensive investigation for three to five years with information for only
one or two contaminant:,. Therefore, in addition to the routine analysis
of individual fish, aliquots were removed froin the first five fillets,
composited, and analyzed for pesticides and PCBs.
There were 14 locations which had both types of analyses
performed. PCBs, chlordane, and lipid content were the common analyl.e;,
ResuLts were compared with a paired T-test at significance level of
0.05.
Table C-l compares results from individual analysis to that lor
composite analysis. Lipid content in the composite analysis was
generally lower than the mean for the five fillets analyzed individually
(10 o,f the 14 samples). Lipid content based on individual analysis was
significantly higher than that from composite analysis (PR -- T = 0.0493).
PCB concentrations did not show any consistent trend --composite
analysis higher in five cases, mean of the individual f i 1 lets hi)-,tier in
five cases, and concentrations identical in four cases There was no
significant difference detected (PR > T = 0.3375).
-171-
-------
Chlordane concentrations were lower in the composite analysis in
eight cases, the same in five cases, and greater in one case. These
differences were not statistically significant (PR > T = 0.0589).
These results indicate that in a large data set composite analysis
can provide a fairly good estimate of the mean. However, on a case by
case basis, substantial differences can occur, and caution should be
exercised when basing conclusions on limited composite information.
- 1 72-
-------
Table C.l Lipid Content (%) and Concentrations (ng/g wet weight) of PCBs and Chlordane in Individual
and Composited Channel Catfish Samples in the Tennessee Valley in Autumn 1990.
Mean Composite Mean Composite Mean Composite Lipid PCB Chlordane
Location Lipids Lipids PCBs PCBs Chlordane Chlordane Difference Difference Difference
TRM
598
3.5
4.4
1 . 5
1.5
0.08
0.17
-0.9
0.0
-0.09
TRM
562
3.5
3.8
0.4
0.9
0.05
0.05
-0.3
-0.5
0.00
TRM
532
2.9
4 . 1
0.1
0.5
0.01
0.03
-1.2
-0.4
-0 .02
TRM
483
6.2
6.0
0.3
0.2
0.01
0.02
0.2
0 1
-0.01
TRM
483
4.4
4.0
0.2
0.3
0.02
0.02
0.4
-0. 1
0.00
TRM
495
6.7
7.0
0.5
0.5
0.06
0.07
-0.3
0.0
-0.01
TRM
495
4. 4
4 . 6
0.6
0.6
0.05
0.07
-0.2
0.0
-0 02
TRM
526
9. 7
8.3
0.7
0.6
0.03
0.09
1 .4
0. 1
-0.06
TRM
526
8.0
8.7
0.6
0.6
0.04
0.06
-0.7
0.0
-0 .02
TRM
270
6 . 1
7.0
0.5
0.1
<0.01
<0.01
-0.9
0.4
0 . 00
TRM
260
5.0
6.2
0.4
0 . 1
<0 .01
<0.01
-1.2
0.3
0 .00
TRM
425
13
13
1 . 1
0.9
0.11
0 .07
0.0
0.2
0 . 04
TRM
457
13
16
0.9
1.3
0.11
0 11
-3.0
-0 4
0.00
TRM
625
1.9
4 . S
0.7
2.0
0 05
0. 12
-2.9
-1.3
-0.07
ABD1555R
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE OF TENNESSEE
LATEST FISH ADVISORY
-175-
-------
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT
Mary Locker (615) 742-6738
Paul Davis (615) 741-2275
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1992
Nashville The Department of Environment and Conservation's
Division of Water Pollution Control today announced modifications
In its existing fishing advisories that affect Chattanooga Creek.
In Hamilton County, Poplar Creek in Anderson and Roane counties
and Watts-Ear Reservoir.
These are the only revisions in the 1991 fishing advisory
list. All previous fishing advisories issued for other bodies of
water remain unchanged.
"The department Issues fish consumption advisories uhen
testing Indicates that levels of toxic materials in fish tissue
have exceeded those thought to be protective of human health,"
said Water Pollution Control Director Paul Davis. "Since the
consumption of contaminated fish Is an avoidable risk, the
department' Issues advisories so the public can make Informed
choices concerning their health," Davis said.
The 1992 advisory cautions the public to avoid consumption
of striped bass taken from tH|e Clinch River arm of Watts Bar
Reservoir due to elevated levels of polych1orinated blphenyls
(PCBs). This striped bass advisory 16 in addition to the
precautionary advisory currently In effect for catfish and sauger
in the Clinch River arm of the reservoir.
The previous advisory, which cautioned the public to avoid
consumption of catfish, striped bas6 and hybrid striped bass
whltebass (also called Cherokee bass) taken from the entire
Tennessee River portion of Watts Bar Reservoir, remains in
effect. A precautionary advisory for whltebass, sauger, carp,
smallraouth buffalo and largemouth bass Is also still in place
"This modification of an existing fish consumption advisory
should not be interpreted to mean that contaminant levels in
Clinch River fish have increased," said Davis. "As new
In formation is gathered by our own monitoring programs, or those
of other agencies, we modify fishing advisories accordingly."
(more)
-J 77-
-------
In another modification, last year'6 "no consumption"
advisory for the East Fork of Poplar Creek has been expanded to
Also Include the Poplar Creek embayment.
The third fishing advisory revision is that',of Chattanooga
Creek in Hamilton County. Due to high levels of sewage bacteria
and contaminated sediments, the department has advised the public
since 1982 not to 6ulm, wade or fish in its waters. Past tests
of fish from the creek did not indicate elevated levels of
contaminants in the fish tissue. Recent tests, however, showed
levels of PCBs in channel catfish that were above Food and Drug
Administration action levels. Average chlordane levels in these
fish were slightly below FDA action levels. Other contaminants
were found at relatively lower levels in the catfish. The
largemouth bass collected also had lower levels of all
contaminants .
"We do not have a good explanation concerning why the levels
of coniam1 hants In Chattanooga Creek fish have Increased over
those collected in the early and mid I980's," said Davis.
"However, dye to this recently collected Information, the
division would like to remind the public not to fish in or eat
fish from Chattanooga Creek."
F1s ti tissue sampling for toxic materials Is carried out in
conjunction with other agencies such as the Tennessee Valley
Authority, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the
Environmental Protection Agency and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
A list of the current flBhlng advisories in Tennessee will
be included in the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency's fishing
regulations for 1992.
The Department of Environment and Conservation also
publishes a brochure entitled "Tennessee Fishing Advisories."
The brochure lists the locations of current fishing advisories
and provides information on the pollutants Involved. For more
information, or to obtain a copy of the brochure, contact the
Division of Water Pollution Control, TERRA Building, 150 Ninth
Avenue North, Nashville, Tennessee, 37247-34 20, (615) 741-6623.
(30)
Note to Editors: Attached for your information are a current
listing of statewide fishing advisories and a fact sheet.
-178-
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
There are two principal reasons for posting streams in
Tennessee. The first is bacterial contamination which poses
a water contact threat. Sources of bacteria most frequently
are from inadequately treated discharges from municipal
sewage s y, stems, but may also come from livestock, holding
areas and urban runoff. This type of advisory warns the
public to avoid contact with these waters; i.e. jwimming,
wading, fishing, skiing.
Streams are also posted when average levels of toxic
materials in the edible portion of fish pose an increased
health risk to the general public due to the consumption o£
these contaminated fish. In issuing fish consumption
advisories, the department relies upon published guidance or)
the various contaminants from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
There are generally two levels of fish consumption
advisories. The mildest form is a "limit consumption
advisory," sometimes referred to as a precautionary
advisory. Because scientific studies have shown that
developing fetuses and children may be more susceptible than
adults to the harmful effects of toxic materials, a
precautionary advisory warns that children, pregnant women
and nursing mothers should not eat the type fish that are
contaminated. All other persons are warned to limit
consumption to 1.2 pounds per month. An exception to this
guideline is dioxin, with an intermediate precautionary
advisory level which warns people to limit consumption t; o
approximately one-half pound per month.
The second level of advisory is a "do not consume"
warning. At this level, all persons are advised to avoid
eating the type fish affected. The public is advised to
avoid fishing as well as other water contact activities in
areas where bacterial contamination has caused a water
contact advisory to be issued.
To help inform the public, a press release is issued
when a stream or lake is posted or advisories are Issued.
With the exception of some precautionary advisories, the
department also places warning signs at significant public
access points on posted waters.
-179-
-------
CURRENT FISH TISSUE ADVISORIES (FEBRUARY, 1992) IN TKNNESSI :k
STREAM COUNTY PORTION POLLUTANT TYPE ADVISORY
Loosahatchie River Shelby Mile 0.0-20.9 Chlordane Fish should not be consumed.
Wolf River
Shelby
Mile 0.0-18.9
Chlordane
Fish should not be consumed.
Mississippi River
Shelby
MS line to
mile 745
Chlordane
Fish should not be consumed.
Commercial fishing ban.
McKellar Lake and
Nonconnah Creek
Boone Reservoir
Shelby
mile 0.0 to
Horn Lake Road
bridge (mile 1.8}
Sullivan, Entirety
Washington
Chlordane
Fish should not be consumed.
PCBs, chlordane Precautionary advisory (or carp and catfish.'
North Fork
Holston River
Sullivan,
Hawkins
Mile 0.0-6.2
TNA/A line
Mercury
Fish should not be consumed.
Fort Loudoun
Reservoir
Loudon, Entirety
Knox. (46 miles)
Blount
PCBs
Commercial fishing for catfish prohibited.
Catfish, largemouth bass over two pounds,
and largemouth bass from the Little River
embayment should not be consumed.
Tellico Lake
Loudon
Entirety
(32.5 miles)
PCBs
Catfish should not be consumed.
Pigeon River Cocke N. Carolina line Dioxin
to Douglas Res.
Fish should not be consumed.
Watts Bar
Reservoir
Roane,
Meigs,
Rhea
Roane
Anderson
Tennessee River PCBs
portion
Clinch River
arm
PCBs
Catfish, hybrid striped bass-whitebass (Cherokee
bass), and striped bass, should not be consumed
Precautionary advisory for whhebasp, sauge'r,
carp, smallmoulh buffalo and largemouth bass.
Striped bass should not be consumed.
Precautionary advisory for catfish and sauger."
Motton Hill
Reservoir
Knox, Entirety
Anderson
PCBs
Catfish should not be consumed.
East Fork of
Poplar Creek (incl.
Poplar Creek
embayment)
Anderson,
Roane
Mile 0.0-
15.0
Mercury, metals,
org. chemicals
Fish should not be consumed.
Avoid contact with water.
Nickajack Reservoir
Hamilton,
Marion
Entirety
PCBs
Precautionary advisory for catfish*
Chattanooga Creek
Woods Reservoir
Hamilton
Franklin
GA line to mouth PCBs, chlordane
Entirety
PCBs
Fish should not be consumed.
Avoid contact with water.
Catfish should not be consumed.
This list subjocl to revision.
Precautionary Advisory - Children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should not consume the fish species named.
All other persons should limit consumption of the named species to 1.2 pounds per"month.
-180-
-------
APPENDIX E
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT 01-' PUBLIC HEALTH
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY FOR THE
INDIAN CREEK EMBAYMENT ON WHEELER RESERVOIR
- 181 -
-------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Brian J. Hughes, Ph.D.
242-5131
Charles H. Woernle, M.D.
242-5131
The Alabama Department of Public Health announces the Issuance of a fish
consumption advisory tor the Indian Creek drainage area, Including Huntsvllle Spring
Branch, near Trlana. The department bases this decision on data Indicating that
certain species of fish continue to exceed the Food and Drug Administration action
level of 5.0 parts per million of DDT In fish tissue. The species of fish with elevated
levels of DDT are channel catfish, smallmouth buffalo, brown bullhead, blgmouth
buffalo and white bass.
The Environmental Protection Agency banned the manufacture, sale and use of
DDT in 1972. However, a DDT manufacturing plant existed in this area between 1948
and 1970 with Olin Chemical Co. operating this facility under lease from Redstone
Arsenal for most of this period. Discharges from this plant contaminated Huntsvllle
Spring Branch and Indian Creek.
During the 1980s, Olln Chemical Co. developed and Implemented remedial
action to protect humans and the environment from further DDT exposure. The
remedial action is a result of a consent decree which settled litigation between Olln
and various plaintiffs Including the State of Alabama.
The data on DDT levels In fish tissue are a part of a long-term monitoring
program established pursuant to that consent decree.
Dr. Claude Earl Fox, state health officer, said, "The DDT levels have declined
significantly In recent years due to the remediation of the contamination by Industry,
and l6 expected to continue to decrease. In the early 1980s, before remediation
(more)
-183-
-------
DDT advisory
Add one
began, the average concentration level among the above species ranged from 21 to
180 parte per million, In 1990 the range was from 3.1 to 41 parts per million.
"However, the levels remain high enough that I remind fishermen to refrain from
eating these species of fish and other bottom-feeding species from this area. The
Issuance of this advisory represents an effort to update the surrounding community
about the current situation."
DDT has been found to be a weak carcinogen In animal studies; however, no
evidence exists as to DDT's carcinogenic potential In man. Adverse effects on the liver
may occur but only at very high levels. A 1979 Centers for Disease Control study of the
residents of Triana revealed no DDT-related adverse health effects.
This advisory covers Indian Creek and Huntsvilie Spring Branch. The Alabama
Department of Public Health, Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority will work together to collect additional data this fall on the Tennessee
River In the vicinity of Indian Creek. Results from these studies will be used to
determine If advisories for the Tennessee River are appropriate.
9/23/91
-184-
-------
TVA/WR--92/27
Tennessee Valley Authority
USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES TO EVALUATE
TVA'S FISH TISSUE CONTAMINANT DATA
Chattanooga, Tennessee
November, 1992
-------
USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES TO EVALUATE
TVA'S FISH TISSUE CONTAMINANT DATA
Prepared by Janice P. Cox -
Water Resources Division
TVA/WR-92/27
-------
CONTENTS
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
Preface xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
What is risk assessment?
Why use risk assessment?
Aren't the states already using risk assessment?
Why not use FDA tolerances or EPA guidelines?
2.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 11
Toxicity assessment of TVA's target analytes
Recommendations for changes in list of target analytes
Quantitation limits
3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 21
Assumptions
Recommendations
4.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 27
Graphic presentation of risk information
Risks of individual contaminants
Aggregate risks, by location
5.0 DISCUSSION OF KEY UNCERTAINTIES 153
Uncertainties in PCB analysis and risk characterization
Uncertainties in exposure assumptions
Uncertainties associated with sampling and analysis
Uncertainties in toxicity assessment
6.0 PUTTING THE RESULTS IN PERSPECTIVE 165
How significant is fish consumption relative to
other sources of exposure to individual toxicants?
How significant is fish consumption relative to
background risks in the U.S. food supply?
7.0 REFERENCES CITED 173
APPENDIXES
A. Glossary and Acronyms
B. 1990 Screening-Level Data Set
C. Development of RfD Estimates
-i-
-------
TABLES
1. Fish Consumption Advisory Policies of the Tennessee
Valley States 3
2. Fish Consumption Advisories and Bans Due to Toxic
Contaminants in Tennesee Valley Waters 5
3. Comparison of FDA and EPA Fish Tissue Criteria 8
4. Toxicity Assessment of TVA's Fish Tissue Analytes -
Inorganics 12
5. Toxicity Assessment of TVA's Fish Tissue Analytes -
Organics - 14
6. Target SQLs for Fish Tissue Analytes 19
7. Summary of Fish Tissue Data Collected in TVA's Valleywide
Screening Study in 1990 28
8. Evaluation of 1990 Data on Essential Trace Element
Concentrations in Fish Tissue 38
9. Aggregate Risks, by Location, at a Fish Consumption Rate
of 30 grams per day 76
10. Comparison of Intake of Fish Tissue Analytes with
Background Levels in the U.S. Food Supply 166
iii-
-------
FIGURES
1. Comparison of Assumed Fish Consumption Rates 23
2. Generic Risk Nomograph for Noncarcinogenic Effects 29
3. Generic Risk Nomograph for Carcinogenic Effects 31
4. Effects of Antimony Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 32
5a. Effects of Beryllium Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 34
5b. Effects of Beryllium Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 35
6. Effects of Cadmium Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 36
7. Lead Intake through Fish Consumption Relative to PTTDI
and Estimated RfD 40
8. Effects of Methyl Mercury Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient 41
9. Effects of Nickel Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 43
10. Effects of Selenium Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 44
11. Effects of Thallium Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 45
12a. Effects of Aldrin Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 47
12b. Effects of Aldrin Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 48
13a. Effects of gamma-HCH Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient 49
13b. Effects of alpha-HCH Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 50
-v-
-------
13c. Effects of beta-HCH Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 5](
14a. Effects of Chlordane Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient 52
14b. Effects of Chlordane Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 53
15a. Effects of DDT Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 55
15b. Effects of DDE Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 56
15c. Effects of DDD Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 57
15d. Effects of the Sum of DDE Plus DDT Concentrations
and Fish Consumption Rates on Incremental Lifetime
Cancer Risk 58
15e. Effects of DDD Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 59
16a. Effects of Dieldrin Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 6Qf
16b. Effects of Dieldrin Cpncentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 62
17. Effects of Endosulfan Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 63
18. Effects of Endrin Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 64
19a. Effects of Heptachlor Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient 65
19b. Effects of Heptachlor Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 66
20a. Effects of Heptachlor Epoxide Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient 67
20b. Effects of Heptachlor Epoxide Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 69
21. Effects of Mirex Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient 70
-vi-
-------
22a. Effects of PCB Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate
on Hazard Quotient 71
22b. Effects of PCB Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate
on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 72
23. Effects of Toxaphene Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk 73
24. Risk Characterization for TRM 7
(Kentucky Reservoir tailwater) 81
25. Risk Characterization for TRM 22
(Kentucky Reservoir tailwater) 82
26. Risk Characterization for TRM 23 (Kentucky Reservoir) 83
27. Risk Characterization for TRM 61 (Kentucky Reservoir) 84
28. Risk Characterization for BSRM 4 (Kentucky Reservoir) 85
29. Risk Characterization for TRM 100 (Kentucky Reservoir) 86
30. Risk Characterization for TRM 135 (Kentucky Reservoir) 87
31. Risk Characterization for TRM 173 (Kentucky Reservoir) 88
32. Risk Characterization for TRM 200 (Kentucky Reservoir) 89
33a. Risk Characterization for DRM 22.5a (Duck River) 90
33b. Risk Characterization for DRM 22.5b (Duck River) 91
33c. Risk Characterization for DRM 22.5c (Duck River) 92
34. Risk Characterization for TRM 210 (Pickwick Reservoir) 93
35. Risk Characterization for TRM 230 (Pickwick Reservoir) 94
36. Risk Characterization for TRM 255 (Pickwick Reservoir) 95
37. Risk Characterization for TRM 260 (Wilson Reservoir) 96
38. Risk Characterization for TRM 270 (Wilson Reservoir) 97
39. Risk Characterization for TRM 275 (Wheeler Reservoir) 98
40. Risk Characterization for TRM 300 (Wheeler Reservoir) 99
41. Risk Characterization for TRM 339 (Wheeler Reservoir) 100
-vii-
-------
42a. Risk Characterization for ERM 41a (Elk River) 101.
42b. Risk Characterization for ERM 41b (Elk River) 10?
42c. Risk Characterization for ERM 41c (Elk River) 103
43. Risk Characterization for TRM 350 (Guntersville Reservoir)..104
44. Risk Characterization for TRM 382 (Guntersville Reservoir)..105
45. Risk Characterization for TRM 394 (Guntersville Reservoir)..106
46a. Risk Characterization for SqRM 7.1a (Sequatchie River) 107
46b. Risk Characterization for SqRM 7.1b (Sequatchie River) 108
46c. Risk Characterization for SqRM 7.1c (Sequatchie River) 109
47. Risk Characterization for TRM 425 (Nickajack Reservoir) 110
48. Risk Characterization for TRM 457 (Nickajack Reservoir) Ill
49. Risk Characterization for TRM 483 (Chickamauga Reservoir)...112
50. Risk Characterization for TRM 495 (Chickamauga Reservoir)...113
51. Risk Characterization for TRM 526 (Chickamauga Reservoir) ... 1141
52a. Risk Characterization for HiRM 18.5a (Hiwassee River) 115
52b. Risk Characterization for HiRM 18.5b (Hiwassee River) 116
52c. Risk Characterization for HiRM 18.5c (Hiwassee River) 117
53a. Risk Characterization for ORM 12a (Parksville Reservoir)...118
53b. Risk Characterization for ORM 12b (Parksville Reservoir)...119
54. Risk Characterization for TRM 532 (Watts Bar Reservoir) 120
55. Risk Characterization for TRM 562 (Watts Bar Reservoir) 121
56. Risk Characterization for TRM 598 (Watts Bar Reservoir) 122
57. Risk Characterization for CRM 21 (Watts Bar Reservoir) 123
58a. Risk Characterization for EnLRM 14.5a (Emory River) 124
58b. Risk Characterization for EmRM 14.5b (Emory River) 125
58c. Risk Characterization for EmRM 14.5c (Emory River) 126
-viii-
-------
59a. Risk Characterization for CRM 172a (Clinch River) 127
59b. Risk Characterization for CRM 172b (Clinch River) 128
59c. Risk Characterization for CRM 172c (Clinch River) 129
60a. Risk Characterization for PRM 65a (Powell River) 130
60b. Risk Characterization for PRM 65b (Powell River) 131
60c. Risk Characterization for PRM 65c (Powell River) 132
61. Risk Characterization for TRM 604 (Fort Loudoun Reservoir)..133
62. Risk Characterization for TRM 628 (Fort Loudoun Reservoir)..134
63. Risk Characterization for TRM 652 (Fort Loudoun Reservoir)..135
64. Risk Characterization for LTRM 1 (Tellico Reservoir) 136
65. Risk Characterization for LTRM 11 (Tellico Reservoir) 137
66a. Risk Characterization for LTRM 92a
(Little Tennessee River) 138
66b. Risk Characterization for LTRM 92b
(Little Tennessee River) 139
66c. Risk Characterization for LTRM 92c
(Little Tennessee River) 140
67a. Risk Characterization for FBRM 71a (French Broad River).... 141
67b. Risk Characterization for FBRM 71b (French Broad River).... 142
67c. Risk Characterization for FBRM 71c (French Broad River).... 143
68a. Risk Characterization for NRM 8.5a (Nolichucky River) 144
68b. Risk Characterization for NRM 8.5b (Nolichucky River) 145
68c. Risk Characterization for NRM 8.5c (Nolichucky River) 146
69a. Risk Characterization for HRM 110a (Holston River) 147
69b. Risk Characterization for HRM 110b (Holston River) 148
69c. Risk Characterization for HRM 110c (Holston River) 149
70. Risk Characterization for Center Hill Reservoir forebay 150
-ix-
-------
71. Risk Characterization for Center Hill Reservoir
tributaries 151|
72. Congener Profile of PCB Residues from Various Sources 154
73. Sensitivity of Hazard Indices to RfD Estimate for PCBs 159
74. Sensitivity of Hazard Indices and Upper Bound Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk Estimates to Fish Preparation
Method 161
75. Sensitivity of Hazard Indices to RfD Estimate for Lead 163
-x-
-------
PREFACE
Toxicity information and data contained in this report may have changed or
been revised since the preparation of the original manuscript and are
presented only with the intent of modeling an approach to risk assessment
of fish tissue data. The fish tissue data cited are screening level data
that are not intended to provide a statistically sound basis for risk
management decisions. RfDs and slope factors are updated on IRIS on a
monthly basis: readers of this report should access current IRIS
information directly on-line.
The views presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
-xi-
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Risk assessment (RA) can be used to quantitatively evaluate the potential
risks to human health from consumption of chemically contaminated fish.
The results of risk assessment are scientifically more credible than-and
more useful than-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) criteria:
• RA moves beyond the black-or-white thinking inherent in defining
contaminant concentrations as either "safe" or "unsafe" by
illustrating potential risk as a function of exposure; that is, RA
makes it possible to define how much fish consumption is acceptable
given a target maximum acceptable risk level.
« RA allows evaluation of aggregate risks from multiple contaminants.
• RA identifies the most sensitive adverse health effects so that
special "at risk" subpopulations (such as children or pregnant women)
can be targeted for risk management.
« RA provides the technical underpinning for effective risk
communication with the public by permitting qualitative and
quantitative comparisons with health risks from other sources.
This report demonstrates a simple graphic method for illustrating cancer
and other health risks as a function of fish consumption rate. The method
can be used by risk management agencies to define acceptable fish
consumption frequencies at a chosen acceptable risk level and to indicate
the noncancer toxicity endpoint of greatest concern for consumption of
fish from any given location. The method can also be used by resource
monitoring agencies to identify areas where more detailed data should be
collected, and to provide a performance indicator of "fishability."
For this evaluation, cancer risks were calculated according to EPA methods
codified for Superfund risk assessments using data from TVA's 1990 fish
tissue screening studies. The incremental lifetime cancer risks
calculated by this method are upper-bound estimates; by definition, the
cancer risk is highly unlikely to be greater than the estimate and may
actually be significantly lower. Although there are uncertainties about
the interpretation of PCB residue data, the potential cancer risk
associated with frequent (weekly) consumption of fish from most upper
tributary areas sampled in 1990 was calculated to be of the same order of
magnitude as the 10 background cancer risk posed by pesticides and
industrial chemicals in the general food supply in the United States.
Locations where the screening data suggest that weekly consumption of
channel catfish might pose a cancer risk in excess of 10~3 were largely
confined to the mainstem Tennessee River and downstream portions of its
-xiii-
-------
tributaries. PCBs accounted for an average of nearly 90 percent of the
total carcinogenic risk in individual samples. Public education on
special fish cleaning and cooking techniques might reduce the risk
considerably (potentially by 50 percent or more) by reducing the
concentrations of PCBs and other fat-soluble organic contaminants.
Hazard indexes were calculated as indicators of potential noncancer toxic
effects (such as neurobehavioral effects or liver damage) from multiple
contaminants. For about half of the fish tissue screening samples
collected in 1990, the hazard index for frequent consumption by adults was
higher than the background level for the general U.S. food supply. In
most locations with elevated hazard indexes, PCBs were the most
significant contaminant. However, even if special fish cleaning and
cooking techniques reduced fat-soluble organic contaminant exposure by 50
percent, about two-thirds of the samples would still have a hazard index
greater than 1.0 (theoretically, the maximum value without potential for
chronic health hazard) for frequent consumption. Lead was the most
significant contaminant in about 10 percent of the samples with elevated
hazard indexes. The noncancer toxicity endpoint of most concern for both
lead and PCBs is neurobehavioral deficits in individuals exposed as
fetuses or young children. -
The data used in this report to illustrate the graphic risk assessment
method are screening level data from TVA's 1990 fish tissue studies; more
detailed and comprehensive data are generally collected to support risk
management decisions. Nonetheless, a limited correspondence was apparent
between the calculated cancer risk to the average recreational fisherman
(one eating 30 grams of fish per day) and whether or not the site was
under a state-issued fish consumption advisory. All sites with a
calculated lifetime incremental cancer risk from fish consumption of
5 X 10 or greater were under a consumption advisory; however, most of
the sites with calculated risks between 1 X 10"4 and 5 X 10 were not
under advisories. Correspondence was poor, however, between sites with
advisories and sites with high hazard indexes for recreational fishermen;
less than half of the sites with a hazard index of 10 or greater were
under an advisory.
The results of this risk assessment depended more on PCBs than on any
other single contaminant. PCBs accounted for most of the potential cancer
risk from fish consumption as well as most of the potential developmental
toxicity hazard to young children and the infants of pregnant or lactating
women. However, there are great uncertainties about the significance of
the data being collected on PCBs in fish tissue. TVA, like most other
environmental and health agencies, analyzes and reports PCBs in terms of
an equivalent concentration of an Aroclor (a commercial mixture of PCBs).
However, PCBs are a group of 209 individual congeners that vary
tremendously in toxicity: some are relatively nontoxic to mammals, while
others are extremely toxic and appear to behave like the most potent
dioxins. The weathered and metabolized PCB residues in biological samples
bear only limited resemblance to the commercial Aroclors on which most of
-------
the available information on toxicity and carcinogenicity is based.
Consequently, prediction of potential toxic and carcinogenic effects of
these residues is extremely uncertain. The results presented in this
report reflect the best peer-reviewed information available. However, as
congener-specific analysis becomes more routine and as congener-specific
toxicity information becomes more readily available, the risks posed by
PCBs in fish tissue may be shown to be either significantly greater or
significantly less than are presently estimated.
-xv-
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS RISK ASSESSMENT?
Risk assessment is the characterization of the types of adverse health
effects expected from exposure to a toxicant and estimation of the
probability (risk) of their occurrence.
Risk assessment consists of four steps:
(1) Hazard Identification - determining whether exposure to an agent
could cause an increase in the incidence of an adverse health
condition (cancer, birth defects, etc.) Up-to-date information for
this step is available on IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System).
(2) Dose-response assessment - characterization of the relation
between the dose of the toxicant and the incidence of an adverse
health effect in exposed populations. Information for this step is
also available on IRIS.
(3) Exposure assessment - estimation of the intensity, frequency, and
duration of exposure to the toxicant. In the case of fish tissue
contamination, the exposure assessment deals with how much fish people
eat, how often they eat it and over a period of how many years, which
species they eat, how they clean them, and how they cook them.
(4) Risk characterization - estimation of the potential incidence of a
health effect, arrived at by integrating Information from the
dose-response assessment with information from the exposure
assessment. Risk characterization can also be used to define a
contaminant concentration of concern, or to compare the relative risks
of different contaminants.
WHY USE RISK ASSESSMENT?
Risk assessment is an integral part of the contemporary environmental
regulatory scene and the push to use risk assessment to increase
objectivity in setting environmental priorities is likely to increase.
For example, the Science Advisory Board, in its 1990 report to EPA
entitled "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection," made several recommendations that focused
around using risk-based priorities in strategic planning and in the budget
process (SAB 1990). Similarly, one of the tour major conclusions in the
1991 GAO report to Congress entitled "Environmental Protection: Meeting
Public Expectations with Limited Resources* was stated thus:
-1-
-------
"Federal budget priorities should reflect an understanding of relative
risks to the environment and public health, as well as the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of various approaches to reduce these risks, rather
than relying so heavily on public perceptions of risk" (GAO 1991).
The specific values of risk assessment in evaluating the fish tissue data
that TVA collects include:
(1) Risk assessment provides a means to evaluate aggregate risks from
multiple contaminants in a single sample;
(2) Risk assessment provides a means to estimate both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risks;
(3) Risk assessment allows TVA to target fish tissue monitoring resources
more effectively by focusing on contaminants or locations that pose
the greatest potential risk;
(4) Risk assessment enhances TVA's ability to provide the technical
support needed by the states for making defensible risk management
decisions; and
(5) Risk assessment provides a rational and consistent measure from which
TVA can derive a metric for a performance indicator of "fishability"
for use in river cleanup and assessment activities.
ARENT THE STATES ALREADY USING RISK ASSESSMENT?
At present, the seven Valley states do not have consistent policies for
evaluating the risk posed by eating contaminated fish (table 1). The
Valley states are not unique, however. As indicated in the 1990 Research
Triangle Institute (RTI) report to EPA entitled "Results of the 1989
Census of State Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Programs," 11 states
issue advisories based entirely on existing risk assessment methodologies,
8 states are developing their own risk assessment methodologies, 10 states
use risk assessment only when there is no FDA action level available, 10
states did not plan to use a risk assessment approach at all, and the
responses of 11 states were unclear as to whether they use a risk
assessment approach or not. Even among states using risk assessment
methodologies to develop advisories, however, there are major differences
in exposure assumptions (e.g., states' assumptions on the amount of fish
eaten per day vary from 5.2 g to 165 g) and in the level of risk that is
considered acceptable (policies reported varied from 1:10,000 to
1:1,000,000).
Among the valley states, North Carolina issues advisories based on risk
assessment (RA) only for contaminants without FDA action levels; Virginia,
Kentucky and Mississippi were reported to be developing their own RA
-2-
-------
Table I. Fish Consumption Advisory Policies of the Tennessee Valley States
(Source: RTI 1990)
State
Tennesseea
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Kentucky
North Carolina
Virginia
Position on using risk assessment
In Issuing advisories
survey response unclear
does not use RA
survey response unclear
developing own RA process
developing own RA process
use RA only if FDA action level
is not aval table
developing own RA process
Risk assessment method
used
modified EPA
does not use RA
survey response unclear
EPA method
modified EPA
own method
survey response unclear
Maximum acceptable risk
level used
I0"6, I0"5
does not use RA
no polIcy
no policy
I0"6
I0"6
survey response unclear
a. A February 1992 internal memo in the Tennessee Department of Health reconmends that risk assessment be
used in consideration of whether to issue an advisory, and that a carcinogenic risk of less than or equal to
10-3 will be considered acceptable (Bashor and Yarbrough 1992).
WRC 0589-5J
-3-
-------
approach; Georgia did not plan to use an RA approach; and the
questionnaire responses from Tennessee and Alabama were unclear as to
whether RA was used.
Table 2 lists the fish consumption advisories and bans in effect on
Tennessee Valley waters. EPA's information indicates that Tennessee,
North Carolina, Alabama and Virginia have issued advisories for some
waters due to contamination with DDT, PCBs, dioxins, chlordane, lead and
mercury.
WHY NOT USE FDA ACTION LEVELS OR EPA GUIDELINES?
Table 3 compares EPA and FDA criteria for eleven fish tissue
contaminants. The criteria usually differ by several orders of magnitude
because they were derived by different mechanisms for different purposes.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) responsibility in fish tissue
contamination is limited to regulation of fish shipped in interstate
commerce. FDA states that their tolerances and action levels are intended
to protect the average consumer eating from a typical "national market
basket* - but not sport fishermen, subsistence fishermen, or anybody who
regularly eats fish from a particular body of water. FDA tolerances and
action levels are not based solely on human health considerations, and in
some cases incorporate out-of-date information on health effects
(Institute of Medicine 1991). Furthermore, FDA has promulgated action
levels or tolerances for only a few of the many potential contaminants.
In developing ambient water quality criteria under Section 304(a) of the
Clean Water Act, EPA used a risk assessment approach that also provided
corresponding fish tissye criteria. The criteria were calculated using an
acceptable risk of 10 for carcinogens (i.e., an incremental lifetime
cancer risk of 1 in a million) and a fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams
per day. in 1989, EPA Region IV stated an opinion that these criteria
were the appropriate ones for evaluation of fish tissue results for local
recreational and subsistence fisheries (Tidwell 1989). EPA is in the
process of developing guidance for the states in conducting fish tissue
studies. The agency may be backing off on the stringency of its original
criteria, however: the risk level used in the draft document to define
the need for more intensive study was 10"4, although the estimated daily
fish consumption was the same as in the earlier guidelines (i.e., 6.5
grams/day) (EPA 1991a). Based on comments received from review of the
draft guidance document, EPA is proposing to use a 10"5 risk level
rather than 10 to define the need for more intensive sampling
(Southerland 1991). EPA is also apparently in the process of reviewing
the 6.5 g/day fish consumption rate (Southerland 1991).
Fish tissue criteria - whether developed by EPA or FDA - are convenient
administrative concepts but they have two fundamental drawbacks. The
first drawback is that criteria for individual contaminants usually do not
-4-
-------
Table 2. Fish Consumption Advisories and Bans Due to Toxic Contaminants
in Tennessee Valley Waters
(Source: EPA Nonpoint Source Bulletin Board System, Fish
Consumption Advisory SIG, April 1992).
State Waterbodv
Contaminant Type of Actiona
AL
Huntsville Spring Branch
and Indian Creek
DDT
largemouth buffalo ¦
smallmouth buffalo ¦
brown bullhead - B
channel catfish - B
white bass - B
B
B
GA
KY
- no advisories in Tennessee Valley waters -
- no advisories in Tennessee Valley waters
- no advisories in Tennessee Valley waters -
NC
Pigeon River from Canton, dioxins
NC to NC/TN line
all fish - B
TN
Pigeon River, NC/TN line
to Douglas Reservoir
Boone Reservoir
dioxins
PCBs,
chlordane,
1 eadb
all fish - B
all fish0 - A
East Fork Poplar Creek,
miles 0 - 15
Woods Reservoir
Little River embayment
of Fort Loudon Reservoir
mercury,
metals^,
organi cs"
PCBs
PCBs
all fish - B
catfish - B
catfish - B
largemouth bass - Ad
crappie - Ad
-------
Table 2. Cont'd.
State Waterbodv Contami nant
TN Fort Loudon Reservoir PCBs
TN Chilhowee Reservoire PCBs
TN Tellico Reservoir PCBs
TN Watts Bar Reservoir PCBs
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
Melton Hill Reservoir PCBs
Clinch River, Melton Hill
Dam to Kingston, TNe PCBs
North Fork Holston mercury
River, mouth to TN/VA
line"
Nickajack Reservoir PCBs
Chattanooga Creek, PCBs,
mouth to TN/GA line" chlordane
VA
North Fork Holston River, mercury
Saltville, VA to TN/VA line
Type of Action3
catfish - B & C
1argemouth
bass > 21bs - B
carp - B
rainbow trout - A
catfish - B f
sportfish - A'
catfish - B
striped bass - B
hybrid white X
striped bass - B
white bass - A
sauger - A
carp - A
smallmouth buffalo - A
largemouth .
bass > 21bs - Ad.
smallmouth bass - Ad
catfish - B
catfish - A
all fish - B
catfish - A
all fish - B
all fish - B
Notes continued on next page
-------
Table 2. Cont'd .
NOTES
a. A = Some limitation on consumption by the general population or a
specific subpopulation (e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers,
or children).
B = No consumption by general population
C ¦= Commercial fishing ban: no commercial harvest or sale
b. As of March 1992, Tennessee listed the advisory as being for PCBs
and chlordane only, and applied it to carp and catfish only.
c. Tennessee advisoiy document dated March 1992 lists metals and
organics in addition to mercury.
d. Tennessee advisory document dated March 1992 indicates' a
'no consumption' advisory for the general population on
largemouth bass, but does not mention crappie.
e. Not listed in Tennessee's March 1992 Fishing Advisory document
f. Tennessee advisory document dated March 1992 does not make any
recommendation on sport fish at this location.
g. Tennessee advisory document dated March 1992 does not indicate
size on largemouth bass advisory and does not show any
advisory for smallmouth bass.
h. Appears in Tennessee advisory document dated March 1992 but not
on EPA Bulletin Board System.
-------
Table 3. Comparison of FDA and EPA Fish Tissue Criteria
(Source: EPA 1988)
Contaminant
EPA Criteria
FDA Action Levels
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Dioxina
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Mercury
PCBs
Toxaphene
0.000635 ppm
0.0083 ppm
0.0316 ppm
0.00067 ppm
0.07 pptrillion
3.23 ppm
0.0024 ppm
0.0024 ppm
3.23 ppm
-0.0014 ppm
0.0098 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
5.0 ppm
0.3 ppm
25 pptrillion
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
1.0 ppm
2.0 ppmc
5.0 ppm
a. based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalents
b. "level of concern," not an "action level"
c. "tolerance," not an "action level"
-8-
-------
provide a mechanism to evaluate aggregate effects from multiple
contaminants. This is likely to lead to significant underestimation of
actual risk when there is more than one contaminant present. The second
drawback is that use of a single numerical value for each contaminant
encourages all-or-none thinking by implying that contaminant levels below
the criterion are 'safe", while levels above the criterion are "unsafe."
In truth, however, estimates of risks from consuming contaminated fish
fall along a continuum determined by exposure. Furthermore, the
quantitative evaluations of toxicity and carcinogenicity of individual
contaminants have a relatively high degree of inherent uncertainty.
The responsibility for establishing the fishability of any individual body
of water lies with environmental agencies and health departments at the
State and local levels. However, FDA action levels and tolerances have
been widely used by the states, perhaps for several reasons: (1) some may
have been unaware that the FDA numbers are inappropriate for evaluating
local recreational fisheries; (2) EPA's proposed criteria (based on a
10 acceptable risk level) are so stringent that a great many
waterbodies would be classified unsuitable for providing fish for
consumption; and (3) developing risk assessment expertise makes demands on
personnel resources that may already be in critically short supply.
State and local agencies have expressed extreme frustration over the
disparity between FDA and EPA statutory authorities and methodologies.
Based on responses to the national survey conducted by the American
Fisheries Society (RTI, 1990) and discussion at a Federal-State Forum at
the American Fisheries Society's 1990 meeting, EPA officials developed a
prioritized list of federal actions needed to support state fish advisory
activities (Prothro 1990). The highest priority item (i.e., the item most
commonly requested by the states) was for EPA and FDA to develop
consistent risk assessments that could be used as a basis for developing
advisories. As a first step, EPA and FDA have distributed papers that
describe the methods used by each agency to assess health risks from the
consumption of contaminated fish. In addition, EPA and FDA have pledged
to work together to resolve differences in cancer potency factors and
other assumptions used in their risk assessments. At this time, however,
no consolidated guidelines have been issued.
-9-
-------
2.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
For the sake of simplicity, the hazard assessment and dose-response
assessment are combined in this toxicity assessment.
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT OF TVA'S TARGET ANALYTES
Toxicity information from IRIS for TVA's present list of target analytes
is summarized in Tables 4 and 5. All of these numbers are subject to
revision in updates of the IRIS database. There are several important
gaps in the Information that is presently available on IRIS:
1. Reference doses (RfDs) are not presently available on IRIS for copper,
lead, zinc, DDD, DDE, toxaphene, or PCBs.
2. Carcinogenicity assessments of antimony, trivalent chromium, methyl
mercury, nickel, endosulfan, and mirex are not available.
3. Cadmium, hexavalent chromium and lead are known or suspected
carcinogens but oral slope factors are not presently available.
4. Quantitative toxicity information is available for inorganic arsenic,
but not for arsenic in the organic form that is typically present in
fish tissue.
5. Carcinogenic potency of some PCB congeners may be significantly less
than others (see Section 5.0, below). However, only a single slope
factor (based on Aroclor 1260) is presently available.
Estimated RfDs were developed for lead, DDD, DDE and PCBs using
information in ATSDR's Toxicological Profile reports and from the FDA
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (Appendix B). These
estimated RfDs should not be invoked as a basis for action, but rather are
intended to provide a coarse-scale measure of relative risk until final
peer reviewed RfDs are incorporated in IRIS.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN TARGET ANALYTES
Modifications
Arsenic present in marine fish tissue is generally in the organic form of
arsenobetaine or arsenochoiine (Institute of Medicine 1991; ATSDR 1989a).
There are no oral reference doses (RfDs) available for these compounds,
but animal data indicate they have very low toxicity (ATSDR 1989a).
Inorganic arsenic is very toxic and is a known human carcinogen, but it
-11-
-------
Table 4. Toxicity Assessment of TVA's Fish Tissue Analytes - Inorganics (Source: IRIS, July 1991)
TVA Analyte IRIS f1le(s) RfD (mg/kg/dav) Noncarclnogenlc endpolnt1
Antimony Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic,
InorganIc
Bery111um Bery111 urn
Cacfcnium Cadmium
4 X I0"4
3 X I0"4
5 X 10-3
I X 10
-3
reduced longevity, altered blood
glucose and cholesterol (rats)*;
myocarcial damage, some epidemiological
evidence of increased spontaneous
abortion and premature delivery (humans)
hyperplgmentatlon, keratosis and
possible vascular complications
(humans)*
NOAEL (rats)*; some evidence
of embryolethalIty and teratogenicity
(chicks)
NOAEL (humans)*; renal toxicity
Carcinogenicity
classification^
has not been evaluated
Class A
(bladder, liver,
lung, skin, kidney,
colon)
Class B2
(lung, osteosarcoma)
Class Bl
(lung, prostate, mammary
and other sites)
Slope factor
(mg/kg/dav)
not available
unit risk=5E-5 (ug/l)-'
4.3
not ava11abIe
Chromium Chromium III I
Copper
Lead
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead and
compounds,
Inorganic
5 X 10"
no data
not available
on IRIS; see
Appendix C
NOAEL for reduced 11ver and
spleen weight (rats)*
NOAEL (rats)*
no data
developmental toxicity, reduced IQ,
slow growth, interference with heme
synthesis with effects on all major
organ systems (humans)
has not been evaluated
Class A (lung)
Class D
Class B2
not aval I able
not available
not available
not avallable
WRC 0589-1J
-------
Table 4, continued.
TVA Analyte IRIS fIle(s) RfD (mq/kq/day) NoncarcI oogenic endpolnt
Mercury
Mercury,
methyl
3 X I0-4
NOAEL for CNS effects (humans)*
Carcinogenicity
classification
has not been evaluated
Slope factor
(mo/kg/dav)~1
not available
NIeke I
Mercury,
Inorganic
NIekeI,
soluble salts
under review
2 X I0"3
under review
decreased body and organ weights*;
some evidence of increased neonatal
mortality (rats)
Class D
has not been evaluated
not avallable
not aval I able
Selenium
Tha111 urn
Selenium and
compounds
Thai Ilum(l)
suI fate
5 X 10-3
6.4 X I0"5
as Tl
NOAEL (humans)*; selenosls, liver
dysfunction
NOAEL (rats)*; peripheral nerve and
testicular changes; alopecia, altered
blood chemistry
Class D
Class 0
not available
not avallable
Zinc
Zinc and
compounds
pendIng
not avallable
Class D
not avallable
1. Endpolnt marked with '*' Is used to calculate the RfD
2. EPA weight of evidence classifications for carcinogens
Group A: human (or animal) carcinogen with sufficient epidemiological (or experimental) evidence to support
a causal association
Group 8: probable human carcinogen
Bl - Iimited epidemiological evidence
B2 - inadequate or no epidemiological evidence; sufficient experimental evidence
Group C: possible human carcinogen; limited or inadequate experimental evidence
Group D: not classified due to inadequate evidence
Group E: evidence of noncarcinogenlclty based on adequate experimental data or adequate experimental
and human data
WRC 0589-2J
-------
Table 5. Toxicity Assessment of TVA's Fish Tissue Analytes - Organics (Source: IRIS, July 1991)
TVA Analvte
IRIS file
RfD
(mg/kg/dav)
NoncarcInogenesIs endpoint
Care i nogen i c1 ty
Slope factor
classification8
(mg/kg/dav)~1
Aldrin
Aldrin
3 X
lO-5
1Iver toxicity
Class B2
17
alpha-8HC
a 1pha-HCH
not
avallable
not available
Class B2
6.3
beta-BHC
beta-HCH
not
aval
able
not avallable
Class C
1.8
delta-BHC
delta-HCH
not
avallable
not avallable
Class D
not
avallable
gamna-BHC
gatmta-HCH
3 X
10-4
liver and kidney toxicity
not available
not
avallable
(chlordane)
Ch1ordane
6 X
I0"5
regional liver hypertrophy
Class B2
1.3
cls-chtordane
not avallabte
not
aval
able
not available
not aval
able
not
avallable
trans-chlordane
not avallable
not
aval
able
not available
not aval
able
not
avallable
a 1 pha-ch1ordene
not avallable
not
aval
able
not avallable
not aval
able
not
avallable
beta-ch1ordene
not avallable
not
aval
able
not available
not aval
able
not
avallable
gamma-ch1ordene
not avallable
not
aval
able
not avallable
not aval
able
not
avallable
trans-nonachlor
not avallable
not
aval
able
not available
not aval
able
not
avallable
cls-nonachlor
not avallable
not
aval
able
not avallable
not aval
able
not
avallable
chlordene
not avallable
not
aval
able
not available
not aval
able
not
avallable
oxych1ordane
not avallable
not
aval
able
not available
not aval
able
not
avallable
p,p'DDD
DDD
not
aval
able
not avallable
Class B2
2.4
X 10-'
p.p'DOE
DDE
not
aval
able
not avallable
Class B2
3.4
X io-i
p,p'DOT
DDT
5 X
10-4
liver lesions; some evidence of
Class B2
3.4
x io-i
reproductive effects
Dieldrln
Dieldrln
5 X
10-5
liver lesions
Class B2
16
Endosulfan sulfate
Endosu1 fan
5 X
10-5
nephrotoxic, fetotoxic
has not been evaluated
not
avallable
a 1pha-endosu1 fan
not avallable
not
aval
able
not avallable
not avallable
not
avallable
beta-encosu1 fan
not avallable
not
aval
able
not aval lable
not avallable
not
aval 1 able
WRC 0589-3J
-------
Table 5, continued.
TVA Analvte
IRIS file
RfD (mq/kq/day)
Noncarcinoqenic endpoint
Carcinogenicity
Slope factor
classi ficationa
(mg/ka/dav)~1
Endr In
Endrin
3 X I0"4
liver changes, convulsions
Class D
not avallable
Heptachlor
Heptach1or
5 X I0"4
increased liver weight
Class B2
4.5
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
1.3 X I0"5
Increased 11ver-to-body weight
Class B2
9.1
epoxide
epoxide
Mi rex
Mi rex
2 X lO"6
fototoxic, decreased survival of
pending
not avallable
offspring
PCBs
PCBs
not avallable
chloracne, reproductive
Class B2
7.7
and developmental effects;
hepatotox1cIty
PC8-I22I
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
PC8-I232
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
not ava11ab1e
not avaI1ab1e
PC8-I248
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
not avaIIab1e
not avallable
PC8-I260
not avallable
not avallable
not ava11ab1e
not avallable
not avallable
PC8-I0I6
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
not avallable
PC8-I242
not avallable
not available
not avallable
not available
not available
PC8-I254
not avallable
not avallable
not available
not avallable
not avallable
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
not avallable
not avallable
Class B2
I.I
a. EPA weight of evidence classifications for carcinogens
Group A: human (or animal) carcinogen with sufficient epidemiological (or experimental evidence to
support a causal association
Group B: probable human carcinogen
Bl - limited epidemiological evidence
B2 - inadequate or no epidemiological evidence; sufficient experimental evidence
Group C: possible human carcinogen; limited or inadequate experimental evidence
Group D: not classified due to inadequate evidence
Group E: evidence of noncarcinogenicity based on adequate experimental data or adequate experimental
and human data
WRC 0589-4 J
-------
does not appear that arsenobetaine gives rise to inorganic arsenic during
metabolism following ingestion. Although arsenobetaine is well absorbed
following oral dosing, ingested arsenobetaine is excreted as
arsenobetaine. Arsenocholine is metabolized to arsenobetaine and
excreted. Arsenobetaine shows no evidence of mutagenicity. TVA's
analysis of total arsenic is not useful for risk assessment purposes. TVA
should conduct a limited scope study to verify that the total arsenic
concentrations reported for freshwater fish tissue do indeed represent
arsenobetaine or arsenocholine, rather than more toxic inorganic or
organic arsenic compounds.
The RfD on IRIS for mercury is for methyl mercury, and methyl mercury is
the predominant (i.e., generally 70 to 90%) form of mercury in fish
tissue. TVA's analysis for total mercury in fish tissue therefore
somewhat overestimates the probable methyl mercury concentration. As will
be shown later, mercury is a contaminant of potential concern in some
locations in the Tennessee Valley. In areas where total mercury levels
indicate significant potential risk, TVA should refine the risk estimates
by specifically analyzing for methyl mercury.
The acute toxicity of hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) is about one
thousand-fold greater than the acute toxicity of trivalent chromium
(Cr[lll]). In addition, hexavalent chromium is a known human carcinogen,
while trivalent chromium is an essential nutrient. Based on the strong
oxidizing nature of hexavalent chromium, it appears likely that any
chromium found in fish tissue would be in the trivalent form. However,
without laboratory confirmation of this assumption, total chromium is not
a directly usable parameter in risk assessment.
Presently, IRIS does not report RfDs for any PCBs and only a single oral
slope factor for all PCBs that is based on Aroclor 1260. Given
accumulating evidence that the acute toxicity and carcinogenicity of
various PCB congeners are not equivalent, there is considerable impetus
for EPA to reevaluate IRIS's treatment of PCBs. In anticipation that
peer-reviewed congener-specific toxicity data will be becoming more
readily available, TVA should evaluate the potential costs and benefits of
performing congener-specific PCB analysis on fish tissue samples.
TVA presently analyzes fish tissue for nine components and metabolites of
technical chiordane. The toxicity and carcinogenicity information on IRIS
is based on total chiordane. Therefore, if the more detailed (i.e., nine
component) analysis represents a significant increase in analytical cost,
analysis of total chiordane could be substituted without affecting our
ability to use the data in risk assessment.
TVA presently analyzes fish tissue for three isomers and degradation
products of endosulfan. The toxicity and carcinogenicity information on
IRIS is based on total endosulfan. If the more detailed (i.e., three
component) analysis represents a significant increase in analytical cost,
analysis of total endosulfan could be substituted without affecting our
ability to use the data in risk assessment.
-16-
-------
Recommended Additions
• EPA's National Bioaccumulation Study used four selection criteria for
choice of approximately 70 analytes from a list of 400 candidate
compounds: (1) bioaccumulative (minimum BCF=300), (2) persistent in
the environment, (3) toxic to humans, and (4) analytically feasible
(Whittington 1986). Using similar criteria, EPA's May 1991 draft
guidance document on Fish Sampling and Analysis recommended that all
states monitor fish tissue for at least 26 specific analytes. TVA's
fish tissue screening already includes most of the latter list of
analytes with the following exceptions:
hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
PAHs
pentachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
pentachlorophenol
kepone
dioxin
TVA should give strong consideration to adding these analytes to its
current list.
• TVA should undertake a systematic evaluation of the predominant
pesticides used in the Valley states. Each commonly used pesticide
should be evaluated in terms of toxicity and carcinogenicity, BCF,
metabolic transformations, and persistence in water or sediment.
Pesticides used in TVA's vector control and aquatic plant management
activities should be included in this evaluation. Pesticides with a
potential to impact human health by bioaccumulating in fish tissue
should be added to the list of target analytes, and analytical
protocols should be developed.
• TVA should consider routine analysis for toxic contaminants that
other programs or agencies have shown to occur in fish tissue from the
Tennessee Valley. Examples include PAHs, dioxins and furans, and
phthalate esters.
QUANTITATION LIMITS
The sample quantitation limits (SQLs) for several parameters in the 1990
data base are inadequate for human health risk assessment purposes.
Wherever the analytical technology exists, It would be desirable for TVA's
SQLs to be at least a factor of 10 lower than the concentration
constituting a 10 incremental lifetime cancer risk or hazard quotient
-17-
-------
equal to 1.0 (whichever is lower) to recreational fishermen with a
consumption rate of 30 grams per day.a Target SQLs for risk assessment
purposes are shown in table 6. Note that there is a need for the SQLs for
the following parameters to be at least 10-fold more sensitive than
reported for the 1990 samples: antimony, thallium, aldrin, dieldrin, PCBs,
and mirex. Target SQLs may change depending on the fish consumption
rates and acceptable risk levels adopted by the various risk management
agencies.
a. Use of 10"4 as a maximum acceptable risk level is a professional
judgement. Reasoning behind this judgement is presented in Section 6.0.
-18-
-------
Table 6. Target SQLs for Fish Tissue Analytes
Analvte Sample Quantitation Limits (mq/kq)
Tarqet
1990 Screeninq Level
Antimony
0.09
2.0
Arsenic
0.01 (inorganic)
0.02 (total)
Beryllium
0.005
0.02
Cadmium
0.2
0.002
Chromium
1.0 (CrVI)a
0.02 (total)
200.0 (CrIII)
Mercury
0.07 (methyl)
0.1 (total)
Lead
0.01
0.02
Nickel
0.5
0.6
Thallium
0.01
0.6
Aldrin
0.001
0.01
alpha-BHC
0.004
0.01
beta-BHC
0.01
0.01
delta-BHC
0.01
0.01
gamma-BHC
0.07
0 • 01
Chlordane
0.01 (total)
0.01b
DDD
0.1
0.01
DDE
0.07
0.01
DDT
0.07
0.01
Dieldrin
0.001
0.01
Endosulfan
0.05 (total)
0.01b
Endrin
0.07
0.01
Heptachlor
0.005
0.01
Heptachlor epoxide
0.003
0.01
Mi rex
0.0005
0.01
PCBs
0.003
0.1
Toxaphene
0.02
0.5
a. Likely to be revised to a much lower level when IRIS
finalizes an oral slope factor for Cr(VI)
b. Quantitation limit for each of various isomers,
degradation products, and metabolites.
-19-
-------
3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
ASSUMPTIONS
Fish Consumption Rates
TVA does not have fish consumption data specific to residents of the
Tennessee Valley. Furthermore, much of the fish consumption information
available in the literature is of limited utility for the following
reasons:
* Much of the information is rather dated (commonly collected in the
1970s), and fish consumption has been increasing in recent years. A
National Ocean Pollution Program Office report estimated that average
fish consumption increased fifty percent between 1980 and 1988 from 10
pounds to 15 pounds per person per year (NOAA 1990).
* Some of the studies do not distinguish between freshwater fish
and marine fish (e.g., ATSDR Health Assessment Guidance Manual); most
include estuarine species (e.g., crabs, lobster, flounder, shrimp,
oysters, etc.) and anadromous species (e.g., salmon) in the
freshwater total.
* Many of the studies are based on short period recall (i.e., what
the survey respondent ate over the last day or so) and are likely to
be biased unless they contain a very large number of subjects.
* Some studies (e.g., the one that gave rise to the commonly used
figure of 6.5 grams per day) averaged the intakes of "fish eaters"
with "non fish eaters' to get a per capita average that is misleading
for both categories of consumers.
* Fish consumption varies with demographic variables such as age,
sex, ethnic group and region of the country. The most commonly cited
studies of recreational fishermen were done on the west coast.
Given the relative paucity of site-specific data and the critical nature
of the exposure assumptions to risk assessment, federal agencies have made
various recommendations for default assumptions:
(1) Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 1989a) recommends use of the following
values for fish consumption rates among recreational fishermen:
50th percentile - 30 g/day
90th percentile - 140 g/day
-21-
-------
(2) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (EPA 1989b) recommends use of the following values
for fish consumption rates in evaluating residential exposure:
50th percentile - 38 g/day
95th percentile - 132 g/day
(3) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Supplemental Guidance
"Standard Default Exposure Factors" (EPA 1991a) requires the
following assumptions about fish consumption rates:
subsistence fishermen - 132 g/day
recreational fishermen - 54 g/day
(4) Guidance Manual for Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish (EPA 1989c) makes no general
recommendations, but discusses values from 6.5 g/day (U.S. per capita
average) to 180 g/day (reasonable worst case).
(5) The FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has evaluated the
potential intake of subsistence fishermen by assuming that fish is
substituted for the red meat and poultry in a normal diet. Using
information from the -Market Research Corporation of America Menu
Census VI (1977-78), FDA derived the following assumptions
(Bolger et al. 1990):
mean for subsistence fishermen - 69 g/day
90th percentile for subsistence fishermen - 116 g/day
(6) Bolger et al. (1990) cite a U.S. Department of the Interior survey of
fishing in 1985 which assumed that one fishing trip lead to
consumption of 8 ounces of fish. Their estimate of fish consumption
rates of recreational fishermen-based on the number of recreational
fishing trips they make-were:
average 13.1 g/day
90th percentile estimated at 26 to 40 g/day
Figure 1 shows the relation between these ingestion rate assumptions and
the more familiar unit of meals per unit time.
It is not necessary at this point to choose any single hypothetical
exposure scenario as most appropriate for residents of the Tennessee
Valley. Until such time as region-specific consumption data become
available, it is more useful to do the risk assessment for a variety
of hypothetical exposure scenarios and let the states base their risk
management decisions on the exposure scenario they consider the most
appropriate for their region.
NOTE: The 6.5, 30, 54, and 140 grams/day consumption rates
shown in the figures are potential default assumptions that
are shown merely to provide a point of reference.
-22-
-------
Figure 1. Comparison of Assumed Fish Consumption Rates
(Note: Typical "meal" size assumed to be 0.5 pounds)
grams/day
230 '
1 meal/day
4 meals/week
3 meals/week
2 meals/week
1 meal/week
1 meal/month
210
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
10
'Reasonable worst case" (EPA 1988a)
90th percentile for recreational fishermen (EPA 1989a)
95th percentile for Superfund RA (EPA 1989b);
default for subsistence fishermen (EPA 1991a)
FDA's 90th percentile for subsistence fishermen (Bolger et al. 1990)
FDA's average for subsistence fisherman (Bolger et al. 1990)
default for recreational fishermen
in Superfund RA (EPA 1991a)
50th percentile for Superfund RA (EPA 1989b)
50th percentile for recreational fishermen (EPA 1989a)
average recreational fisherman (USD11985)
U.S. average per capita (EPA 1988a)
23
-------
Bodyweight
Average bodyweight of adults varies from 78 kg for males aged 18 through
75, to 64 kg for females of reproductive age (18 to 45) (EPA 1989a).
Based on convention, an average bodyweight of 70 kg was used for the
generic adult (male or female). A bodyweight of 64 kg was used in
calculations dealing specifically with females of reproductive age. A
mean bodyweight of 14.5 kg was used for evaluation of exposure to children
ages 1 to 6 (EPA 1989a).
Exposure Duration
An average life expectancy of 70 years is standard (EPA 1989a) and is used
here. For assessment of incremental lifetime cancer risk, it is necessary
to make an assumption about exposure duration. Two alternative
assumptions about exposure duration are used in Section 4.0.
(1) To the extent that this assessment is evaluating something closer to a
"background" risk rather than a risk from a particular contaminated site,
an exposure duration of a full 70-year lifetime may be appropriate. This
is a reasonable assumption if sport fish from the Tennessee Valley are not
significantly more contaminated than sport fish from other locations, and
if sport fishermen of all age groups eat their catch and/or share it with
their families. This assumption is the more conservative of the two and
was used in evaluating potential risks from individual contaminants
(figures 4 - 23).
(2) When evaluating a particular source of exposure (such as a Superfund
site), it is commonly assumed that any given individual only spends a
portion of their lifetime in close proximity to the source. The
assumptions commonly used are that the 50th and 90th percentile values for
living in a particular location are 9 years and 30 years, respectively
(EPA 1989a). Given that a 30-year exposure duration is the standard
default assumption used in Superfund for the reasonable maximum exposure
duration, the aggregate risk characterizations in Section 4.0
(figures 24 - 71) show incremental lifetime cancer risk for a 30-year
exposure as well as a 70-year exposure.
Fish Cleaning and Preparation
This risk assessment makes the conservative assumption that fatty areas of
the fish are not removed during cleaning, and that there is no net
reduction in contaminant concentrations during cooking. This assumption
is considered further in Section 5.0 'Discussion of Key Uncertainties."
-24-
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The absence of region-specific exposure data is a weak link in this risk
assessment process. TVA should pursue cooperative projects with state
fish and wildlife agencies, state water pollution control agencies, or
local health departments to develop an information base on region-specific
fish consumption habits. At a minimum, the types of data needed include:
• what species are most commonly eaten
« what size fish are commonly kept for eating
• how often recreationally-caught fish are eaten, and typical
serving size
• how the fish are usually cleaned (e.g., skin on/skin off, belly
flap on/off, visible fat on/off)
• how fish are normally prepared (fried, baked, grilled, etc.)
• who normally eats the fish (i.e., fisherman only, entire family
including children, etc.)
• what specific areas of lakes or streams are usually fished
EPA recently released an evaluation of survey methods best suited for
obtaining information on fish consumption rates for recreational and
subsistence fishermen (EPA 1992). The document also makes recommendations
for collection of information that would be useful to risk managers
designing a risk management and communication strategy.
-25-
-------
4.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Data collected in 1990 under the Valleywide Screening project are
summarized in table 7 (the complete data set is presented in Appendix B).
The reader should be aware that these data were collected to identify
areas for more intensive study and were not intended to be detailed or
comprehensive enough to support risk management decisions such as whether
or not to issue an advisory. The risk assessment method is demonstrated
first for individual contaminants, then for aggregate (multi-contaminant)
risks, by sample location.
GRAPHIC PRESENTATION OF RISK INFORMATION
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate how the data for each contaminant can be
presented to permit graphic estimation of risk of noncarcinogenic and
carcinogenic effects. These types of plots were specifically developed to
illustrate how TVA can provide its data to risk managers in a format that
does not require additional computations, but still allows complete
flexibility for assumptions about consumption rate and judgements about
acceptable risk level.
NOTE: Analytes with carcinogenic as well as noncarcinogenic
health effects have two plots (assuming that both RfDs and
oral slope factors are available). Both plots must be considered
in evaluating whether a particular contaminant represents a
significant health risk.
Noncarcinogenic Effects
The figures developed for evaluating noncarcinogenic effects consist of a
plot of fish consumption rate (y-axis) vs. analyte concentration (x-axis)
(figure 2). Potential default assumptions on consumption rate
(e.g., 50th percentile recreational consumption) have been overlaid for
reference. The x-axis has been marked to show the detection limit and,
when appropriate, mean and maximum values from the 1990 data base. The
curve labeled 'Hazard Quotient = 1.0" divides the plot into two areas: in
areas above the curve, analyte concentration and/or fish consumption rate
result in "unacceptable" conditions (i.e., the reference dose would be
exceeded) while areas below the curve correspond to "acceptable"
conditions for this analyte. The analyte-specific curves can be used for
three purposes:
(1) to determine whether sample quantitation limits (SQLs) are
adequate to support risk management decisions at the risk levels of
concern;
-27-
-------
Table 7. Summary of Fish Tissue Data Collected in TVA's Valleywide
Screening Study in 1990.
Parameter
Concentration.
ma/ka-
Mean
Maximum
Antimony
<2
<2
Arsenic
0.10
0.38
Beryllium
<0.02
<0.02
Cadmium
0.003
0.018
Chromium (total)
0.08
0.44
Copper
0.6
3.4
Lead
0.08
1.5
Mercury (total)
0.1
0.6
Selenium
0.26
1.7
Nickel
<0.6
<0.6
Thallium
<0.6
<0.6
Zinc
10.7
210
Aldrin
<0.01
<0.01
alpha-BHC
<0.01
<0.01
beta-BHC
<0.01
<0.01
delta-BHC
<0.01
<0.01
gamma-BHC
<0.01
<0.01
Chlordane®
0.05
0.36
DDD
0.07
1.20
DDE
0.14
2.10
DDT
<0.01
0.21
Dieldrin
<0.01
0.05
Endosulfan0
<0.01
<0.01
Endrin
<0.01
0.02
Heptachlor
<0.01
<0.01
Heptachlor epoxide
<0.01
0.03
Mirex
<0.01
<0.01
PCBs
0.5
2.0
Toxaphene
<0.05
<0.05
a. Statistics for 71 composites consisting of five fish each;
48 of the 71 composites were of channel catfish. For species
composition of individual composites, see Appendix B.
Samples were prepared with skin on (except catfish), and with
dorsal, lateral line and belly flap fat left on.
b. Sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, alpha-chlordene,
beta-chlordene, gamma-chlordene, trans-nonachlor, cis-nonachlor,
chlordene, and oxychlordane.
c. Sum of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfat,
-28-
-------
Figure 2. Generic Nomograph for Noncarcenogenic Effects
-------
(2) to define 'concentrations of concern' for individual analytes
(based on a particular assumption about consumption rate) for use in
tiered sampling approaches; and
(3) to provide a graphic means of comparing the relative risks of
individual contaminants at various concentrations.
NOTE: These graphs do not take into account the potential
aggregate risks of the multiple contaminants likely to be
found in actual fish tissue samples. Therefore, these
analyt&-specific graphs should not be used to define 'criteria,'
or to make judgements about safe consumption rates at any given
analyte concentration.
Carcinogenic Effects
The figures developed for evaluating carcinogenic risk consist of a plot
of upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer risk (y-axis) versus analyte
concentration (x-axis) (figure 3). Note that the y-axis is actually a
logarithmic function that has been represented on a linear scale. A goal
of many environmental regulations is to reduce significant carcinogenic
risks to the range of 10 to 10"6: risks less than 10"6 are usually
considered "de minimus" (below the level of regulatory concern) and risks
greater than 10"4 to 10"3 are usually considered "de manifestis" (of
obvious or evident concern) (Travis et al. 1987)a. The x-axis has been
marked to show the detection limit and, where appropriate, the mean and
maximum analyte concentration from the 1990 data set. Curves representing
different fish consumption rates have been overlaid on the plots; the area
between the curves includes most consumption rates of interest for
protection of recreational fishermen. These plots can be used for the
same purposes as the analyte-specific plots for noncarcinogenic effects;
however, for the same reasons as noted above, these graphs should not be
used to define "criteria" or safe consumption rates based on any
individual contaminant.
RISKS OF INDIVIDUAL CONTAMINANTS
Antimony
Antimony was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1990. However,
the laboratory detection limit of 2.0 mg/kg is insufficient to determine
a. Based on analysis of 132 recent federal regulatory decisions in the
region between de manifestis and de minimis risks, Travis et al. (1987)
concluded that "substances with risk reduction costs of less than
$2 million per life saved were regulated; substances that cost more were
not regulated."
-30-
-------
co
o
_c
"O
c
Z3
o
CO
0)
CL
Q.
Z)
10
-2
CO
q:
E
'¦S 10 *
ro
c
v
E
a>
10
-5
10"
10
-7 '
Analyte Concentration (mg/kg)
A grams/day
B grams/day
C grams/day
D grams/day
Figure 3. Generic Risk Nomograph for Carcenogenic Effects
-------
SQL = 2.0
CO
ro
>»
CO
To
E
E
O)
o"
CO
o:
c
o
4-*
Q.
E
=>
tn
c
o
O
j=
(0
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
RfD = 4x10 mtykg/day
RfD confidence = low
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
. Superfund default
for recreation
. 50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
1.25
2.5
3.75
Antimony Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 4. Effects of Antimony Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate
on Hazard Quotient.
-------
whether the hazard quotient exceeds 1.0 for any rate of consumption in
excess of about 15 grams of fish per day (figure 4). EPA has not
evaluated the potential carcinogenicity of antimony.
Arsenic
As noted previously, arsenic accumulated in fish tissue is predominantly
In relatively nontoxic organic forms rather than the extremely toxic and
carcinogenic inorganic forms. Therefore, comparison of TVA's results for
total arsenic with the toxicity parameters for inorganic arsenic is
clearly inappropriate. However, the Institute of Medicine (1991)
concluded: 'Although arsenobetaine constitutes the bulk of arsenic in
fish, available studies are inadequate to conclude that the amounts of
more toxic inorganic forms of arsenic (or organic forms that can be
metabolized to inorganic arsenic in humans) are negligible in all fish."
Consequently, the potential chronic toxicity and carcinogenic risks posed
by the arsenic concentrations In TVA's 1990 data base cannot be evaluated
without information on the portion of total arsenic that is present either
in inorganic forms or in organic forms that can be metabolized to
inorganic forms.
Beryllium
Beryllium was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1990. Figure 5a
shows that consumption of fish with a beryllium concentration equal to the
present quantitation detection limit is not likely to exceed the RfO.
However, figure 5b shows that the upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer
risk from eating fish containing beryllium at concentrations less than the
quantitation limit exceeds 10~5 for typical recreational fishermen, and
might exceed 10 for subsistence fishermen.
Cadmium
Concentrations of cadmium in the 1990 data base do not constitute a
significant noncarcinogenic health risk to recreational fishermen or
subsistence fishermen (figure 6). However, it was not possible to
evaluate the possible carcinogenic risk posed by the cadmium
concentrations detected, as IRIS has not published an oral slope factor
for cadmium. Although cadmium is a class B1 carcinogen, that designation
was based on exposure through inhalation. Oral ingestion studies to date
have not shown any evidence of carcinogenicity (ATSDR 1989b). At this
time, the carcinogenic risk from cadmium in fish tissue cannot be
quantitatively evaluated.
-33-
-------
SQL = 0.02
Beryllium Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 5a. Effects of Beryllium Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate
on Hazard Quotient.
-------
00
Qr
Qj
U
'0-2
SQL
¦02
r;
°-05
B
erw//,
ylllUrr) n
UfSh ^nsu^ylH
^^ CaZPti°n R
°er R,
-------
Maximum = 0.018
Mean = 0.0026
SQL = 0.002
CO
o>
(0
;o
~t/5
E
2
o>
0"
¦*—>
CO
o:
c
o
'¦*->
CL
E
ZJ
CO
c
o
O
t/3
LL
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
RfD = 1x10* mgfeg/day
RfD confidence = high
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
0
1.5
4.5
Cadmium Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 6. Effects of Cadmium Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate
on Hazard Quotient.
-------
Chromium
As noted previously, hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) is the species of
greatest concern for toxicity and carcinogenicity. However, the ATSDR
Toxicological Profile for chromium indicates that although Cr[VI] is more
readily absorbed and yields higher tissue chromium levels than does
Cr[lll] administration, chromium in most biological systems is ultimately
reduced to the trivalent form. In humans, the reduction of Cr[VI] to
Cr[lll] occurs in the plasma: if the plasma reduction capacity is
overwhelmed, Cr[VI] enters the erythrocytes and becomes bound to
hemoglobin after being reduced to the Cr[lll] form (ATSDR 1989c). Given
that Cr[VI] is relatively unstable in the presence of organic material,
and assuming that other animals have chromium toxicity reduction
mechanisms similar to humans, it appears likely that most of the chromium
detected in fish tissue samples is present as Cr[lll], However, while
comparison of the fish tissue chromium data directly with toxicity
parameters for hexavalent chromium would be clearly inappropriate, it
cannot be stated with certainty that all of the chromium present in fish
tissue is in the trivalent form. Consequently, the potential carcinogenic
risk posed by the chromium concentrations in TVA's 1990 data base cannot
be confidently stated to be negligible. Further research is needed to
clarify the form of chromium in fish tissue.
If indeed all the chromium present in fish tissue is present as Cr[lll] (a
reasonable assumption at this point), consumption of fish by recreational
or subsistence fishermen would provide a chromium intake well within
recommended levels for nutrition and significantly less than the RfD
(table 8).
Copper
Copper is an essential trace element and is relatively nontoxic to
humans. The Committee on Dietary Allowances of the Food and Nutrition
Board noted that "a daily copper intake of 2 to 3 mg is recommended for
adults" and "it can be assumed that an occasional intake of up to 10 mg is
safe for human adults" (National Academy of Sciences 1980). As shown in
table 8, even the maximum copper concentration in the 1990 data set would
not provide an unacceptable intake for recreational or subsistence
fishermen.
Lead
IRIS does not report an oral RfD for lead. Recent information suggests
that lead toxicity may not exhibit a threshold (i.e., there is no "safe"
dose) and that fetuses and preschooi-age children are at much greater risk
of toxicity than adults (ATSDR 1990a). Based on information presented in
Appendix C, lead concentrations in the 1990 data set were evaluated
-37-
-------
Table 8. Evaluation of 1990 Data on Essential Trace Element Concentrations In Fish Tissue
Ana Iyte Concentration In fillets (mg/kg)
Mean Maximum
Dose at fish ingestion rate RfD
of 30 grams/day (mg/kg/day)
Mean
Maximum
Other guidelines
Copper
0.55
3.4
0.017 mg/day 0.10 mg/day not available
2 to 3 mg/day reconmended
(NAS 1980)
Zinc
10.7
210
0.32 mg/day 6.3 mg/day
not available Recommended dietary allowances
children: 10 mg/day
adults: 15 mg/day
pregnant females: 20 mg/day
lactating females: 25 mg/day
Chromium
0.08a
0.44a
0.0024 mg/day
(3.4 X I0"5
mg/kg/day)
0.013 mg/day
(1.9 X I0"4
mg/kg/day)
1.0 (CrC IM1)
5 X 10-' (CrtVI ])
50 to 200 ug/day of CrCIII]
recommended (NAS 1980)
Se I en I um
0.26
1.7
0.008 mg/day
(I X 10-4
mg/kg/day)
0.051 mg/day
(7.3 X 10-4
mg/kg/day)
5 X 10"
50 to 200 ug/day safe and
adequate for adults (NAS 1980)
a. analysis was for total chromium (CrC III] + CrtVI])
WRC 0589-6J
-------
relative to an estimated RfD of 5 X 10"® mg/kg/day and the slightly less
conservative Provisional Tolerable Total Dietary Intakes (PTTDIs) used by
the FDA (Bolger, personal communication):
child, 0 to 6 years - 6 ug/day
pregnant female - 25 ug/day
adult male - 75 ug/day
Figure 7 shows the amount of fish with different lead concentrations that
young children, pregnant or lactating women, and adult men could
theoretically consume without exceeding various levels of concern.
NOTE: Figure 7 gives an indication of the potential
risk that lead-contaminated fish tissue-by Itself-
might pose. However, It Is vital to recognize that
there are other significant dietary and non-dietary
sources of lead exposure that are not taken, into
consideration in figure 7. The potential significance
of these other sources is discussed in more detail
in Section 6.0, below.
Nonetheless, the PTTDIs and estimated RfD can provide a very preliminary
indication of levels of concern for fish tissue. Given that fish
consumption is unlikely to be the major source of a person's lead intake,
it is desirable to interpret figure 7 in the most conservative way
possible by using the estimated RfD rather than the PTTDIs. Because the
average lead exposure of a 2-year old child from inhalation and dust
ingestion already exceeds the 6 ug/day PTTDI (see Section 6.0), in theory
any further intake of lead through fish consumption would be unacceptable.
For pregnant and lactating women, weekly consumption of fish becomes
unacceptable (exceeds the estimated RfD) when the concentration of lead
exceeds 0.1 mg/kg, and once per month consumption of fish becomes
unacceptable when the iead concentration exceeds 0.5 mg/kg. In the 1990
data base, at least one of the composite samples from each of eight sites
exceeded 0.10 mg/kg: Kentucky Reservoir tailwater, Wilson Reservoir,
Nickajack Reservoir, Chickamauga Reservoir, Fort Loudoun Reservoir,
Tellico Reservoir, French Broad River mile 71, and Center Hill Reservoir.
Of these eight sites, only Tellico Reservoir and Center Hill Reservoir
fish had lead concentrations that did not exceed 0.5 mg/kg as well.
Mercury
As noted previously, mercury in fish tissue occurs predominantly (i.e., 70
to 90 percent) in the methylated form, while TVA presently analyzes fish
tissue for total mercury. Given that methyl mercury is more toxic by
ingestion than is inorganic mercury, evaluation of TVA's data relative to
the RfD for methyl mercury is conservative (i.e., slightly overestimates
the actual risk).
-39-
-------
Maximum = 1.5
0.5 1.0 1.5
Lead Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 7. Lead Intake Through Fish Consumption
Relative to PTTDI and Estimated RfD.
-------
Even with the conservative assumption that all of the mercury detected is
in the form of methyl mercury, none of the samples collected in 1990 had
mercury concentrations that would pose an unacceptable risk to the typical
recreational fisherman (50th percentile = 30 grams of fish consumed/day)
(figure 8). However, consumption of more than one meal per week would be
undesirable at the location of the maximum concentration (0.6 mg/kg at
Emory River mile 14.5). Consumption of more than two meals per week would
be undesirable from any location with a mercury concentration greater than
0.3 mg/kg; this includes 26% of the total samples analyzed in 1990. Half
of the sites sampled in 1990 had mercury concentrations of 0.2 mg/kg or
greater; consumption of more than three meals per week of these fish could
exceed the RfD for methyl mercury.
Nickel
Concentrations of nickel commonly detected in fish in the Tennessee Valley
do not present a health hazard to recreational or subsistence fishermen
(figure 9).
Selenium
Concentrations of selenium commonly detected in fish in the Tennessee
Valley do not present a health hazard to recreational or subsistence
fishermen (figure 10) and are well within recommended levels for
nutritional purposes (Table 8, above). The maximum concentration of 1.7
mg/kg, which was found in fish from Parksville Reservoir, is unlikely to
be a significant problem since the existence of a subsistence fishery at
this location would be extremely unlikely given the limited fish
populations.
Thallium
Thallium was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1990. However, a
concentration equal to the 1990 SQL (0.6 mg/kg) would represent a health
hazard to recreational and subsistence fishermen (figure 11). The
detection limit for thallium must be reduced to 0.01 mg/kg before the
potential risk from this analyte can be evaluated in the range of
interest.
Zinc
IRIS does not report an oral RfD for zinc. Zinc is an essential trace
element in the human diet and has been administered to patients in tenfold
excess of the dietary allowances for months and years without adverse
reactions (National Academy of Sciences 1980). The zinc exposure from
subsistence level consumption of fish with the highest concentration found
in the 1990 data set is well within safe bounds (Table 8).
-41-
-------
SQL (or total mercury = 0.01
Estimated Mean = 0.12 *
Estimated Maximum = 0.48 *
FDA Action Level
-fc.
NJ
CO
V)
E
TO
i_
O)
0)
CO
en
c
o
Q.
E
-------
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.6
10 20 30 40
Nickel Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 9. Effects of Nickel Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Selenium Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 10. Effects of Selenium Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
SQL = 0.6
-b.
CJl
(0
"to
E
2
CJ)
-------
Aldrin
Aldrin was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1990. The detection
limit (0.01 mg/kg) is adequate to assure that consumption by recreational
or subsistence fishermen would not exceed the RfD for noncarcinogenic
effects (Figure 12a). However, the detection limit is not adequate to
assure an upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer risk of less than 10"4
for fishermen consuming more than 40 grams/day (between 1 and 2 meals per
week) (figure 12b).
BHC (aka HCH, hexachlorocyclohexane)
No HCH isomers (alpha, beta, delta or gamma) were detected in fish tissue
samples in 1990. IRIS has an oral RfD for gamma HCH (lindane)
(figure 13a) and oral slope factors for alpha and beta HCH (figures 13b
and 13c, respectively). The detection limit for gamma HCH (0.01 mg/kg) is
adequate to assure that consumption by recreational or subsistence
fishermen would not exceed the RfD for noncarcinogenic effects (figure
13a). The 0.01 mg/kg detection limit for alpha-HCH corresponds to an
upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer risk between 10"5 and 10"4 for
the average recreational fisherman and slightly greater than 10"4 for
subsistence fishermen (figure 13b). Beta-HCH is a less potent carcinogen
than alpha-HCH, and the 0.01 mg/kg detection limit for beta-HCH
corresponds to an upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer risk between
10~i and 10 for the average recreational fisherman and between
10 and 10"4 for subsistence fishermen (figure 13c).
Chlordane
Chlordane was detected in 43 of 76 composite samples in 1990. The
chlordane exposure of an average recreational fishermen (eating 30 grams
of fish per day) would exceed a hazard quotient of 1.0 at some sites in
Wheeler Reservoir (1 out of 3 samples), Watts Bar Reservoir (2 out of 4
samples), Fort Loudon Reservoir (1 out of 3 samples), and Tellico
Reservoir (2 out of 2 samples) (figure 14a). For these fishermen, the
upper-bound incremental lifetime cancer risk would also exceed 10"4 at
some sites in Wheeler, Watts Bar, and Tellico Reservoirs (figure 14b).
One sample from Wheeler Reservoir exceeded the 0.3 ppm FDA action level.
Given the potential risks indicated by the 1990 data base, the 1989 and
1988 data on chlordane were reviewed as well. The data are not directly
comparable because the species sampled and precise sample locations were
not necessarily consistent from year to year. However, two general
conclusions can be drawn from the historical data: (1) the samples from
Boone Reservoir, collected in 1989, showed excessive levels of chlordane
(mean 0.24 mg/kg)a; and (2) chlordane concentrations in the same species
a. Boone Reservoir has a fishing advisory due to elevated concentrations
of chlordane and PCBs.
-46-
-------
SQL = 0.01
FDA Action level for sum of aldrln plus dieldrin
¦Ft
^1
CO
175
E
ro
i_
O)
0)
CO
a:
c
o
Q.
E
3
C/3
c
o
O
.c
(/}
Ll
150-
140-
130-
120-
110-
100-
90
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
RfD = 3x10"5mg/kg/day
RfD confidence = medium
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean
for subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Aldrin Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 12a. Effects of Aldrin Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate
on Hazard Quotient
-------
SOL = 0 01
Aldrin Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 12b. Effects of Aldrin Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
o.oi
RfD = 3x10 mg/kg/doy;
RfD confidence = medium
0.375 0.75 1.125
gamma-HCH Concentration, mg/kg
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
overage per
capita
1.5
gure 13a. Effects of gamma —HCH Concentration and
Fish Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
SOL = 0.01
i
l_n
O
I
CO
oE
0)
o
c
o
o
(D
E
0)
o
c
(D
E
-------
SQL = 0.01
beta —HCH Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 13c. Effects of beta —HCH Concentration and
Fish Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
SQL = 0.01
Maximum = 0.36
Chlordane Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 14a. Effects of Chlordane Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate on
Hazard Quotient.
-------
SQL = 0.01
Mean = 0.05
Maximum = 0.36
FDA Action Level = 0.3
Chlordane Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 14b. Effects of Chlordane Concentration and
Fish Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
from the same locations can show a great deal of variation from year to
year.
DDTr
DDTr (DDT + DDD + DDE) was detected in 46 of 76 samples in 1990. IRIS has
an oral RfD for DDT, but not for the metabolites DDD or DDE. RfDs for DDD
and DDE were estimated for this report based on hepatic toxicity LOAELs
and NOAELs from the National Cancer Institute's 1978 carcinogenicity
bioassay (Appendix C). Although based on the best available information,
these estimates are gross at best. There are no studies available on
reproductive and developmental effects of chronic exposure to DDD or DDE
In humans or animals. Therefore, the RfD estimates for DDD and DDE could
potentially be orders of magnitude too high (i.e., underprotective) if,
like DDT, the doses that produce developmental effects are much lower than
the minimum doses required to produce other health effects (ATSDR I989d).
Based on available information, DDT is the most toxic of the three, but as
shown in figure 15a, the low concentrations found in 1990 would not
constitute a significant noncarcinogenic risk to recreational or
subsistence fisherman. Figure 15b shows that DDE intake via fish is
unlikely to exceed the estimated RfD for any reasonable level of
consumption. Because DDD appears to be relatively nontoxic, DDD
concentrations an order of magnitude higher than found in the 1990 data
base would not exceed the estimated RfD for any reasonable level of fish
consumption.
The oral slope factors of DDE and DDT are equivalent, so these
contaminants are evaluated together in figure 15c. The sums of DDE and
DDT in the 1990 data set varied from <0.01 to 2.1 mg/kg with a mean of
0.15 mg/kg. Some channel catfish composites from both Wheeler and
Pickwick Reservoirs would pose greater than a 10"^ incremental lifetime
cancer risk to the average recreational fisherman. Risk levels could
exceed 10"4 for subsistence fishermen at a variety of locations,
including the Elk river and Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler and
Tellico Reservoirs. As shown in figure 15d, the average DDD concentration
would pose less than a 10"4 risk to recreational and subsistence
fishermen, but the DDD concentrations found in Wheeler Reservoir would
pose greater than a 10"4 risk to the 50th percentile recreational
fisherman (i.e., a fisherman eating 30 grams of fish per day).
Dieldrin
Dieldrin was detected only in fish from Nickajack Reservoir, where the
maximum concentration was 0.05 mg/kg. As shown in figure 16a, the
detection limit of 0.01 mg/kg is adequate to ensure that consumption of
fish by recreational or subsistence fishermen would not exceed the RfD if
dieldrin were not detected. The graph also shows that exposure to
-54-
-------
SQL = 0.01
. Maximum = 0.21
Ol
en
150-i
140-
130-
"O
120-
w
E
110—
CO
L_
o>
100-
CD
90-
CO
a:
80-
c
70-
o
Q.
60-
h
3
50-
(/>
C
o
40-
O
n
30-
V)
LL
20-
10-
0-
0
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean
for subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
DDT Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 15a. Effects of DDT Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
150
140
130
120
1 10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
Mean =0.14
Maximum = 2.1
estimated RfD = 1.2 x10 mg/kg/day
3.75 7.5 11.25
DDE Concentration, mg/kg
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
overage per
capita
Figure 15b. Effects of DDE Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
SQL = 0.01
\
i Ln
•^1
I
500 1000 1500
DDD Concentration, mg/kg
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
2000
Figure 15c. Effects of DDD Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
= 0.01
Mean = 0.15
Maximum = 2.1
DDE 4- DDT Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 15d. Effects of Sum of DDE + DDT Concentrations
and Fish Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
SOL = 0.01
Maximum = 1.2
140 g/day
54 g/day
30 g/day
6.5 g/day
0.5 1 1.5
DDD Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 15e. Effects of DDD Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate On Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
SQL = 0.01
Maximum = 0.05
FDA Action level for sum of aldrln and dieldrin
CD
O
>%
CO
T3
W
E
2
O)
ai"
4—'
TO
UL
c
o
Q.
E
zz
-------
dieldren through consumption of fish from Nickajack Reservoir could exceed
the RfD if the fish consumption rate were greater than about 70 grams/day.
Figure 16b shows that the incremental lifetime cancer risk from a
dieldrin concentration equal to the analytical detection limit would not
exceed 10"4 for the average recreational fisherman, but could exceed
that level for people eating more than 30 grams of fish per day. The risk
posed by a dieldrin concentration of 0.05 mg/kg (as found in Nickajack
Reservoir) is greater than 10 for recreational fishermen and would
probably exceed 10"^ for subsistence fishermen.
Endosulfan
Endosulfan was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1990. As shown
in figure 17, the detection limit (0.01 mg/kg) is adequate to ensure that
endosulfan intake from recreational or subsistence consumption of fish
would not exceed the RfD for noncarcinogenic effects if endosulfan is not
detected. Endosulfan has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity (table
5).
Endrin
Endrin was detected in small amounts in some samples from Pickwick
(0.01 mg/kg) and Chickamauga Reservoirs (0.02 mg/kg) in 1990. As shown in
figure 18, consumption of fish with these levels of contamination would
not exceed the RfD for noncarcinogenic effects. Endrin does not appear to
be carcinogenic.
Heptachlor
Heptachlor was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1990. As shown
in figure 19a, the laboratory detection limit of 0.01 mg/kg is adequate to
assure that consumption by recreational or subsistence fishermen would not
exceed the RfD for noncarcinogenic effects. The laboratory detection
limit also corresponds to a risk of less than 10"4 for the average
recreational fisherman (consumption rate 30 g/day) (figure 19b).
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor epoxide was detected in some fish tissue composites from
Pickwick (maximum 0.02 mg/kg) and Nickajack (maximum 0.03 mg/kg)
Reservoirs. As shown in figure 20a, consumption of more than 30 grams/day
of fish from Nickajack Reservoir could exceed a hazard quotient of 1.0. A
concentration equal to the detection limit could result in exposure
exceeding the RfD only if fish consumption was greater than about
100 grams/day.
-€1-
-------
SOL = 0.01
Maximum = 0.05
Dieldrin Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 16b. Effects of Dieldrin Concentration and
Fish Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
SQL = 0.01
O)
CO
>»
ro
T3
~CO
E
£5
cn
C
o
O
JZ
w
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean
for subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
Endosulfan Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 17. Effects of Endosulfan Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate on
Hazard Quotient.
-------
Maximum = 0.02
SQL = 0.01
2
:o
~5>
E
2
O)
0)
CO
Ol.
c
o
Q-
E
3
(0
c
o
o
sz
to
u_
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund default
for recreation
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
Endrin Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 18. Effects of Endrin Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate
on Hazard Quotient.
-------
SOL = 0.01
0
RfD = 5x10 mg/kg/day
RfD confidence = low
1:5 T 4.5
Heptachlor Concentration, mg/kg
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund defoult
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
. average per
capita
6
Figure 19a. Effects of Heptachlor Concentration and Fish
Consumption Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
SOL = 0.01
I
cr>
I
CO
in
(D
(J
C
o
(J
0
E
~a>
o
-l-J
c
CD
E
d>
o
_c
X?
c
D
o
CQ
0>
Q_
CL
Z)
140 g/day
54 g/day
30 g/day
6.5 g/day
Class B2 carcinogen
oral slope factor — 4.5 (mg/kg/day)"
0.5
Heptachlor Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 19b. Effects of Heptachlor Concentration and
Fish Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
SQL = 0.01
Maximum = 0.02
RfD = 1.3x1(J mg/kg/day
RfD confidence = lew
0.0375 0.075 0.1125
Heptachlor Epoxide Concentration, mg/kg
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
0.15
Figure 20a. Effects of Heptachlor Epoxide Concentration and Fish Consumption
Rate on Hazard Quotient.
-------
Figure 20b shows that for a heptachlor epoxide concentration equal to the
detection limit, the upper bound incremental lifetime cancer risk for the
average recreational fisherman (consuming 30 grams of fish per day) would
be between 10'® and 10"4. The upper bound risk could exceed 10"4
for the average recreational fisherman eating fish from Nickajack
Reservoir.
Mirax
Mirex was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1990. As shown in
figure 21, the laboratory detection limit of 0.01 mg/kg is adequate to
ensure that ingestion will not exceed a hazard quotient of 1.0 for most
recreational or subsistence fishermen. The adequacy of the detection
limit will have to be reevaluated after EPA finalizes the carcinogenicity
assessment and oral slope factor for IRIS.
PCBS
PCBs were detected in 5r of 76 samples in 1990, with a mean concentration
of 0.48 mg/kg and a median of 0.40 mg/kg. IRIS does not presently list an
oral RfD for PCBs. There are a variety of papers in the literature that
suggest subtle behavior effects and deficits in animals (including humans)
exposed to PCBs prenatally or during lactation. Based on information
presented in Appendix C, a maternal exposure of 5 X 10 mg/kg/day was
estimated as a level of concern (figure 22a). Based on this assumption, a
fish tissue PCB concentration of 0.48 mg/kg would be of concern for the
average consumer (i.e., fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams/day) and a
concentration of 0.1 mg/kg would be of concern for the average
recreational fisherman (fish consumption rate of 30 grams/day). A
detection limit of less than 0.1 mg/kg is needed to protect consumers
eating more than 30 grams of fish per day.
As shown in figure 22b, a PCB concentration of 0.14 mg/kg theoretically
corresponds to a 10"4 cancer risk level for the average consumer (6.5
grams of fish per day). In 1990, 48 of 76 samples exceeded this
concentration. For the average recreational fisherman eating 30 grams of
fish per day, the risk begins to exceed 10"4 as soon as the PCB
concentration exceeds 0.03 mg/kg. Consequently, every sample with
detectable PCBs (i.e., greater than 0.1 mg/kg) poses a potential risk
greater than 10"4 to the recreational fisherman.
Toxaphene
Toxaphene was not detected in any fish tissue samples in 1989 or 1990.
However, as shown in figure 23, the detection limit of 0.5 mg/kg is
inadequate in that it corresponds to a cancer risk level of greater than
10"4 for the average recreational fisherman.
-68-
-------
SQL = 0 01
)
o>
vo
I
(/)
'oa
v_
(D
U
C
o
U
E
C
(D
E
-------
SQL = 0.01
->l
O
CTJ
IO
1/5
E
CO
t_
O)
0)
00
OH
CI
o
o.
E
CO
c
o
O
x:
52
Ll
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
R(D = 2x10r®mg/kg/day
RfD confidence = low
0
0.025 0.05 0.075
Mirex Concentration, mg/kg
90th percentile
recreational
Superfund default
for subsistence
FDA mean for
subsistence
Superfund
default
50th percentile
recreational
average per
capita
0.1
Figure 21. Effects of Mirex Concentration and Fish Consumption Rate on
Hazard Quotient.
-------
SQL = 0.1
Mean = 0.48
Maximum = 2.0
150
140
130
120
re
¦o
110
E
e
100
O)
90
-------
SOL = 0.1 Mean = 0.48 Maximum = 2.0
CO
PCB Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 22b. Effects of PCB Concentration and
Fish Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
-------
SQL = 0.5
i
u>
I
00
'Cd
V-
Q_
CL
Z)
10
-2
10
-3
10~4 -
-5 -
10
10"6 -
10
-7
Class B2 carcinogen
oral slope factor = 1.1 (mg/kg/day)
0.2 0 4 0.6 0.8
Toxaphene Concentration, mg/kg
Figure 23. Effects of Toxaphene Concentration and
Fish Consumption Rate on Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk.
140 g/day
54 g/day
30 g/day
6.5 g/day
1 0
-------
AGGREGATE RISKS, BY LOCATION
Assumptions
• EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA 1986a) state that
when interactive effects between chemicals cannot be precisely
determined, an assumption of additivity should be used to predict the
upper-bound cancer risk from exposure to multiple carcinogens.
Therefore, aggregate cancer risks in Figures 24 through 71 were
calculated as the sum of the risks attributable to chlordane, DDD,
DDE, DDT, dieldrin, hepachlor epoxide, and PCBs.
• It may be biologically appropriate to sum hazard quotients to estimate
a hazard index only when the contaminants lead to essentially the same
health endpoint. However, this evaluation followed the guidance
provided by EPA for risk assessments for Superfund (EPA 1989b) which
states: "To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects
posed by more than one chemical, a hazard index (HI) approach has been
developed based on EPA's Guidelines for Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA 1986b). This approach assumes that
simultaneous subthreshold exposures to several chemicals could result
in an adverse health effect. It also assumes that the magnitude of
the adverse effect will be proportional to the sum of the ratios of
the subthreshold exposures to acceptable exposures."
It Is important for the reader to remember that hazard indices and
hazard quotients are not probabilities: therefore, the probability of
occurrence or potential severity of an adverse effect does not
necessarily increase linearly with the calculated value. As with
hazard quotients, it is a goal of risk management to keep the total
hazard index less than 1.0. Figures 24 - 71 show total hazard indices
as well as the relative contributions by the most sensitive endpoints
as follows:
Pb, DDT and PCBs = "developmental"
Hg = "central nervous system (CNS)"
Se, chlordane, DDD and DDE = "hepatic"
Note that these endpoints do not represent the entire spectrum of
toxic effects that can be attributed to the analytes detected, but
only the endpoint that occurs at the lowest dose. For instance, the
hazard quotient for lead is based on developmental effects, but lead
at higher doses also causes CNS and cardiovascular effects.
-74-
-------
• Analytes which were reported as not detected in a sample were handled
consistent with EPA's guidance for Superfund risk assessments
(EPA 1989b). If the analyte was reported as not detected In a
particular sample but was present in at least 50 percent of the other
samples in the data base, the calculations were run assuming a
concentration equal to half the SQL (e.g., a lab report of <0.1 ug/g
PCBs was entered into the calculations as "0.05 ug/g PCBs").
Parameters affected by this assumption included mercury, chlordane,
DDE and PCBs. If the analyte was present in less than 50 percent of
the other samples in the data base (so that there was no compelling
reason to assume that the analyte was indeed present in some
concentration less than the SQL), the calculations were run assuming a
concentration of zero.
• Given that fish consumption is not the major contributor to total lead
intake, lead concentrations were evaluated relative to the more
conservative estimated RfD (5 X 10 mg/kg/day) rather than to the
PTTDIs.
• Data on total mercury was treated as representative of methyl mercury
concentration. As noted previously, this is a conservative
assumption.
Results
Aggregate (multi-contaminant) risks, by sample location, are presented in
table 9 and figures 24 - 71. To facilitate comparisons between the
various sample collection sites, table 9 was prepared assuming a fish
consumption rate of 30 grams per day (approximately one 0.5-pound meal per
week). For this series of calculations, mercury, chlordane, DDE or PCBs
reported as less than the SQL were assumed to be present at a
concentration equal to half the SQL
As shown in table 9, at a consumption rate of 30 grams per day, only 20 of
71 samples had a hazard index (sum of hazard quotients) of less than 1.0,
and 15 samples had a hazard index greater than 10.0. The largest
contributor to the hazard index values is PCBs, which accounted for an
average of 66 percent of the total value. The second largest contributor
to the hazard index values is lead. As a consequence, developmental
toxicity is the noncancer end point of greatest concern at most sites.
Incremental upper-bound lifetime cancer risks varied from a minimum of
2 X 10"4 to a maximum of 7 X 10"3. PCBs were also the largest single
contributor to the cancer risk, accounting for an average of 89 percent of
the total value. On average, chlordane was the second largest contributor
to the cancer risk, although this varied from one location to another.
There is a fair degree of correspondence between the calculated risks and
whether or not a fish consumption advisory has been issued for a
particular area. The average hazard index (based on channel catfish only)
-75-
-------
Table 9. Aggregate Risks, by Location, at a Fish Consumption Rate
of 30 grams per day
LOCATION
SPECIES-
HAZARD UPPER-BOUND
INDEX INCREMENTAL
LIFETIME CANCER
RISK
Kentucky Dam tailwater
TRM 7 CHC
TRM 22 CHC
20
5
2E-03
1E-03
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM 23
TRM 61
BSRM 4
TRM 100
TRM 135
TRM 173
TRM 200
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
1
6
4
6
5
8
2
4E-04
2E-03
1E-03
2E-03
2E-03
3E-03
8E-04
Duck River
DRM 22.5
DRM 22.5
DRM 22.5
DRM 0.9
LMB/SPB/WHS 1
CHC/FHC 2
2E-04
2E-04
7E-04
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 210
TRM 230
TRM 255
CHC
CHC
CHC
6
7
8
2E-03
3E-03
3E-03
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 260
TRM 270
CHC
CHC
7
0.6
2E-04
2E-04
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 275
TRM 300
TRM 339
CHC
CHC
CHC
9
10
10
3E-03
5E-03
4E-03
Elk River
ERM 41
ERM 41
ERM 41
SPB/LMB
DRM
CHC
1
0.8
0.8
2E-04
2E-04
2E-04
-76-
-------
Table 9, cont'd.
LOCATION
SPECIES-
HAZARD UPPER-BOUND
INDEX INCREMENTAL
LIFETIME CANCER
RISK
Guntersville Reservoir
TRM 350 CHC
TRM 382 CHC
TRM 394 CHC
10
4
10
4E-03
1E-03
4E-03
Sequatchie River
SQRM 7.1
SQRM 7.1
SQRM 7.1
Nickajack Reservoir
TRM 425
TRM 457
CHC
BGS
DRM
CHC
CHC
2
4
2
9
20
7E-04
1E-03
2E-04
3E-03
4E-03
Chickamauga Reservoir
TRM 483 CHC
TRM 495 CHC
TRM 526 CHC
3
6
8
1E-03
2E-03
2E-03
Hiwassee River
HiRM 18.5
HiRM 18.5
HiRM 18.5
CHC/FHC
LMB
C/SBU
10
0.9
4
4E-03
2E-04
1E-03
Ocoee No. 1 Reservoir
ORM 12 CHC
ORM 12 RBT
9
4
3E-03
1E-03
Watts Bar Reservoir
TRM 532
TRM 562
TRM 598
CRM 21
CHC
CHC
CHC
CHC
5
8
10
10
2E-03
3E-03
5E-03
4E-03
Emory River
EmRM 14.5
EmRM 14.5
EmRM 14.5
LMB
C
BLC/CHC
5
0.9
5
1E-03
2E-04
1E-03
-77-
-------
Table 9, cont'd.
LOCATION
Clinch River
CRM 172
CRM 172
CRM 172
Powell River
PRM 65
PRM 65
PRM 65
Fort Loudoun Reservoir
TRM 604
TRM 628
TRM 652
Tellico Reservoir
LTRM 1
LTRM 11
Little Tennessee River
LTRM 92
LTRM 92
LTRM 92
French Broad River
FBRM 71
FBRM 71
FBRM 71
Nolichucky River
NRM 8.5
NRM 8.5
NRM 8.5
Holston River
HRM 110
HRM 110
HRM 110
SPECIES1 HAZARD UPPER-BOUND
INDEX INCREMENTAL
LIFETIME CANCER
RISK
CHC 0.6 2E-04
SPB/LMB 0.8 2E-04
DRM/C 1 3E-04
CHC 0.6 2E-04
GRH 0.6 2E-04
SPB 0.9 2E-04
CHC 20 3E-03
CHC 20 7E-03
CHC 7 2E-03
CHC 10 4E-03
CHC 20 5E-03
CHC 0.9 2E-04
SMB 1 2E-04
GRH 0.8 2E-04
CHC 0.6 2E-04
LMB 0.9 2E-04
C 9 2E-04
CHC/FHC 0.8 2E-04
C 0.8 2E-04
SPB/SMB 0.8 2E-04
C 4 1E-03
LMB 2 3E-04
CHC 0.9 3E-04
-78
-------
Table 9, cont'd.
LOCATION
SPECIES-
HAZARD UPPER-BOUND
INDEX INCREMENTAL
LIFETIME CANCER
RISK
Center Hill Reservoir
forebay CHC
tributaries CHC
10
10
4E-03
4E-03
1. CHC=channel catfish, DRM=drum, LMB=largemouth bass,
DRM=drum, SPB=spotted bass, WHS=white crappie,
FHC=flathead catfish, C=carp, SBU=smallmouth buffalo,
RBT=rainbow trout, BLC=blue catfish, GRH=golden redhorse
-79-
-------
was 12.4 in those waters with fish consumption advisories in effect. All
of the reservoirs/river reaches with an advisory in effect had an average
hazard index of at least 10. Two reservoirs/river reaches with average
hazard indices greater than 10 do not presently have consumption
advisories: Kentucky Dam tallwater and Center Hill Reservoir. The
average incremental upper-bound lifetime cancer risk in areas with fish
consumption advisories in effect was 3.9 X 10~3 (based on channel
catfish only). All of the reservoirs/river reaches with an advisory in
effect had an average incremental cancer risk of at least 3.5 X 10"3.
Center Hill Reservoir is the only area with a risk greater than 3.5 X
10 that does not have an advisory. However, there are numerous
reservoirs/river reaches with calculated risks greater than 1 X 10"^
that do not have advisories, including: Kentucky Dam tailwater, Kentucky
Reservoir, Pickwick Reservoir, Guntersville Reservoir, Chickamauga
Reservoir, Hiwassee River, Ocoee Reservoir, and Emory River.
The cancer and noncancer risks posed by consumption of channel catfish are
higher than the risks posed by game fish at only three of the 12
reservoirs/river reaches where both game fish and channel catfish were
collected. (Note, however, that this pattern might be different after
cooking of the fish due to their differences in lipid content).
Figures 24 through 71 show how the potential cancer and noncancer risks
for each site vary with fish consumption rate. Each figure has two parts:
(1) the top portion shows aggregate upper-bound incremental lifetime
cancer risk as a function of fish ingestion rate; and (2) the lower
portion shows the hazard index for noncarcinogenic effects-as well as
sub-components of the hazard index by most sensitive endpoint-as a
function of fish ingestion rate.
-80-
-------
3 10-3
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
Total and
developmental
Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 24. Risk Characterization for TRM 7 (Kentucky Reservoir tailwater)
(species = channel catfish)
-81-
-------
"9 « ,n-4
o 10^
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I-
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 25. Risk Characterization for TRM 22 (Kentucky Reservoir tailwater)
(species = channel catfish)
-82-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
+
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 26. Risk Characterization for TRM 23 (Kentucky Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-83-
-------
o 10^
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 27. Risk Characterization tor TRM 61 (Kentucky Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-84-
-------
^ « «#*-4
o 10^
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
.... Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
I \-
4-
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 28. Risk Characterization for BSRM 4 (Kentucky Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-85-
-------
m co a
¦ O 10"4
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 29. Risk Characterization for TRM 100 (Kentucky Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-86-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
.... Developmental
— Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
+
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 30. Risk Characterization for TRM 135 (Kentucky Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-87-
-------
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 31. Risk Characterization for TRM 173 (Kentucky Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-88-
-------
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
I—| 1 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 32. Risk Characterization for TRM 200 (Kentucky Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-89-
-------
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
and CNS
Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 33a. Risk Characterization for DRM 22.5a (Duck River)
(species = drum)
-90-
-------
m re .
Jj. O 10^
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 33b. Risk Characterization for DRM 22.5b (Duck River)
(species = largemouth bass, spotted bass, and white crappie)
-91-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 33c. Risk Characterization for DRM 22.5c (Duck River)
(species = channel catfish and flathead catfish)
-92-
-------
"O
c
3
0
CD
1
i
CD
Q.
Q.
D
ffl
CO
O)
0}
w
cn
O)
<
(A
0)
U
c
n
O
ffi
E
*-»
it:
CO
c
-------
-5C
CO
10-
"O "*
3 ®
O c
CD
^ o
05
Q_ ®
Si
a> ^
ra '-J
D5 •=
03 jS
S S
< E
03
h_
O
c
10"
10'5
10"e
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 35. Risk Characterization for TRM 230 (Pickwick Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-94-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
4-
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 36. Risk Characterization for TRM 255 (Pickwick Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-95-
-------
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 37. Risk Characterization for TRM 260 (Wilson Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-96-
-------
m ro a
' o 10"4
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
---¦ Hepatic
and CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I V
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 38. Risk Characterization for TRM 270 (Wilson Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-97-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
—- Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 39. Risk Characterization for TRM 275 (Wheeler Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-98-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 40. Risk Characterization for TRM 300 (Wheeler Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-99-
-------
" O 10^
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
.... Developmental
Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
I—I 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 41. Risk Characterization for TRM 339 (Wheeler Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-100-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
.... Developmental
--- Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 42a. Risk Characterization for ERM 41a (Elk River)
(species = spotted bass and largemouth bass)
-101-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 42b. Risk Characterization for ERM 41 b (Elk River)
(species = drum)
-102-
-------
m Is .
¦ o 10"4
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
I h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 42c. Risk Characterization for ERM 41c (Elk River)
(species = channel catfish)
-103-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
• ¦ Developmental
Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 43. Risk Characterization for TRM 350 (Guntersville Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-104-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 44. Risk Characterization for TRM 382 (Guntersville Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-105-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
--- Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 45. Risk Characterization for TRM 394 (Guntersville Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-106-
-------
LLI m A
o 10-4 -
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
— Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—h
4-
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 46a. Risk Characterization for SqRM 7.1a (Sequatchie River)
(species = channel catfish)
-107-
-------
(O
TJ ""
§ ®
O g
m «
* «
& E
-J «£-
5 §
ro —*
a 2
3 S
< £
a>
k.
o
c
10"3
10"4
10*5
10J
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 46b. Risk Characterization for SqRM 7.1b (Sequatchie River)
(species = bluegill)
-108-
-------
m n .
• O 10-4
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I-
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 46c. Risk Characterization for SqRM 7.1c (Sequatchie River)
(species = drum)
-109-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 47. Risk Characterization for TRM 425 (Nickajack Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-110-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
— Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 48. Risk Characterization for TRM 457 (Nickajack Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-111-
-------
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 49. Risk Characterization for TRM 483 (Chickamauga Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-112-
-------
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
I h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 50. Risk Characterization for TRM 495 (Chickamauga Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-113-
-------
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 51. Risk Characterization for TRM 526 (Chickamauga Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-114-
-------
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
— CNS
0.15
I h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 52a. Risk Characterization for HiRM 18.5a (Hiwassee River)
(species = channel catfish and flathead catfish)
-115-
-------
UJ « .-A
te O 10* -
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
.... Developmental
and CNS
— Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 52b. Risk Characterization for HiRM 18.5b (Hiwassee River)
(species = largemouth bass)
-116-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
— Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 52c. Risk Characterization for HiRM 18.5c (Hiwassee River)
(species = carp and smallmouth buffalo)
-117-
-------
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
Total and
developmental
— Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 53a. Risk Characterization for ORM 12a (Parksviile Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-118-
-------
10
10-
10-5
10"
-3 -
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05
0.1
0.15
— Total
Developmental
— Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 53b. Risk Characterization for ORM 12b (Parksville Reservoir)
(species = rainbow trout)
-119-
-------
®9 « -.«-4
o 10*
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 54. Risk Characterization for TRM 532 (Watts Bar Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-120-
-------
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
I h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 55. Risk Characterization for TRM 562 (Watts Bar Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-121-
-------
CD eg a
¦ O 10
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 56. Risk Characterization for TRM 598 (Watts Bar Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-122-
-------
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
— Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 57. Risk Characterization for CRM 21 (Watts Bar Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-123-
-------
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
— Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
I h
4-
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 58a. Risk Characterization for EmRM 14.5a (Emory River)
(species = largemouth bass)
-124-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
.... Developmental
and CNS
— Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 58b. Risk Characterization for EmRM 14.5b (Emory River)
(species = carp)
-125-
-------
ID g .4
' o 10"4
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 58c. Risk Characterization for EmRM 14.5c (Emory River)
(species = blue catfish and channel catfish)
-126-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
Total
Developmental
Hepatic
and CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
+
4-
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 59a. Risk Characterization for CRM 172a (Clinch River)
(species = channel catfish)
-127-
-------
•X
w
10
¦a
cc
c
3
o
CO
l-
ffi
o
c
n
10
1
0)
O
Q_
®
Q.
E
D
**
ffi
a
3r
«
o
-------
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
1 meal 1 meat 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 59c. Risk Characterization for CRM 172c (Clinch River)
(species = drum and carp)
-129-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
.... Developmental
—¦ Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 60a. Risk Characterization for PRM 65a (Powell River)
(species = channel catfish)
-130-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
--- Hepatic
and CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 60b. Risk Characterization for PRM 65b (Powell River)
(species = golden redhorse)
-131-
-------
mi ,
te O 10"4 -
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
.... Developmental
and CNS
--- Hepatic
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 60c. Risk Characterization for PRM 65c (Powell River)
(species = spotted bass)
-132-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—h
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 61. Risk Characterization for TRM 604 (Fort Loudoun Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-133-
-------
co
10"
¦D
C
3
O
ID
O
c
CO re .
i O 10-»
n
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 63. Risk Characterization for TRM 652 (Fort Loudoun Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-135-
-------
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
I 1-
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 64. Risk Characterization for LTRM 1 (Tellico Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-136-
-------
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 65. Risk Characterization for LTRM 11 (Teliico Reservoir)
(species = channel catfish)
-137-
-------
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
.... Developmental
and CNS
---¦ Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meaJs
per week
Figure 66a. Risk Characterization for LTRM 92a (Little Tennessee River)
(species = channel catfish)
-138-
-------
to co „-.4
± o 10^ -
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 66b. Risk Characterization for LTRM 92b (Little Tennessee River)
(species = smallmouth bass)
-139-
-------
o 10^
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 66c. Risk Characterization for LTRM 92c (Little Tennessee River)
(species = golden redhorse)
-140-
-------
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
--- Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
+
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 67a. Risk Characterization for FBRM 71a (French Broad River)
(species = channel catfish)
-141-
-------
d 10
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
.... Developmental
and CNS
--- Hepatic
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 67b. Risk Characterization for FBRM 71 b (French Broad River)
(species = largemouth bass)
-142-
-------
m n .
1 o 10"4
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 67c. Risk Characterization for FBRM 71c (French Broad River)
(species = carp)
-143-
-------
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 68a. Risk Characterization for NRM 8.5a (Nolichucky River)
(species = channel catfish and flathead catfish)
-144-
-------
¦s 10-3
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meats
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 68b. Risk Characterization for NRM 8.5b (Nolichucky River)
(species = carp)
-145-
-------
o £
& O 10"4
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
.... Developmental
—¦ Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I 1 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 68c. Risk Characterization for NRM 8.5c (Nolichucky River)
(species = spotted bass and smallmouth bass)
-146-
-------
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—I 1 1 1 1
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 69a. Risk Characterization for HRM 110a (Holston River)
(species = carp)
-147-
-------
o 10*
0.15
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
— Total
Developmental
Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
I—l-
1 meal
per month
1 meal
per week
2 meals
per week
3 meals
per week
4 meals
per week
Figure 69b. Risk Characterization for HRM 110b (Holston River)
(species = largemouth bass)
-148-
-------
m n a
' o 10"4
70-year
exposure
30-year
exposure
0.15
— Total
Developmental
--- Hepatic
— CNS
0.05 0.1
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
0.15
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 69c. Risk Characterization for HRM 110c (Holston River)
(species = channel catfish)
-149-
-------
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 70. Risk Characterization for Center Hill Reservoir forebay
(species = channel catfish).
-150-
-------
Fish Consumption Rate (kg/day)
1 meal 1 meal 2 meals 3 meals 4 meals
per month per week per week per week per week
Figure 71. Risk Characterization for Center Hill Reservoir tributaries
(species = channel catfish)
-151-
-------
5.0 DISCUSSION OF KEY UNCERTAINTIES
The quantitative results of risk assessment can imply a degree of
scientific certainty and precision that may not, in fact, be warranted.
Risk assessment-of necessity-employs scientific judgements and
simplifying models as well as empirical evidence. Some of the most
significant uncertainties in risk assessment (low-dose extrapolation
models; use of uncertainty factors; extrapolation from laboratory animals
to humans; assumption of no threshold for tumor initiation; lack of
distinction between tumor initiators, promoters, and progressors;
additivity of effects; etc.) have to do with the "state-of-the-art" of
risk assessment and are beyond the scope of this discussion.
The majority of these fundamental scientific uncertainties are handled in
standardized risk assessment procedures by employing the most conservative
assumption. As a result, projected cancer risks are upper bound
estimates; that is, the cancer risk is highly unlikely to be greater than
the estimate and may actually be significantly lower. Hazard indices and
hazard quotients for noncarcinogenic effects are somewhat more
straightforward in that they do not rely on some of the more problematic
assumptions needed for cancer risk assessment; nonetheless, hazard indices
and hazard quotients do have significant inherent uncertainties and should
be considered conservative.
The following discussion focuses on the uncertainties in this risk
assessment that result from assumptions not specifically codified in EPA
risk assessment techniques. For various reasons, which are discussed
below, the uncertainties in the interpretation of PCB data have the
greatest potential impact on the results of this risk assessment.
UNCERTAINTIES IN PCB ANALYSIS AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The PCBs are a group of 209 congeners varying in the number and position
of chlorine substituents on the biphenyl nucleus. The commercial Aroclors
are mixtures of various congeners; for example, analysis of Aroclor 1254
by capillary gas chromatography shows nearly 70 congeners (Cairns et al.
1986). Once a commercial Aroclor is introduced into the environment, the
mixture of congeners is altered by metabolic processes and abiotic
degradation (photodegradation, preferential adsorption, or volatilization)
(Safe 1980; and numerous others). As a consequence, the PCB residues
found in biological samples usually have a congener profile significantly
different from that of the parent Aroclor. Furthermore, the congener
profile of PCB residues varies from species to species and from one tissue
to another within a single species, as well as with the source of exposure
and time elapsed since exposure (figure 72) (Lech and Peterson 1983;
Luotamo et al. 1991). However, for practical reasons, PCB analysis of
biological samples (except for certain research applications) is usually
-153-
-------
I II I -llll- ¦ I II. -
J L
Fathead
Minnow
jlL
_¦ Ll
¦ I ¦ ¦¦ lil I i ¦ 11 I
Carp
¦ I ¦
J _1
I IL-
Human
Milk
Human
Adipose
¦ 1 1 ¦ ¦ ll I 1 1
1
¦ I. ¦ 1 1 ¦
"Clophen A 60" 8
. .1 1 1 I.I 1-
¦ll
. . Ll J. 1 _ .
« • it v n « t* a n ti • » «• in Di
UK HLMSR
144 1
1 m iti m n» i«
Figure 72. Congener Profile of PCB Residues from Various Sources
[adapted from data presented in McFarland and Clarke
(1989) and Jensen and Sundstrom (1974)]
a. a technical PCB mixture with 60% chlorirw.
similar to tha U S product Aioclor 1260
-------
done by standardizing instrument response against commercial Aroclors.
Quantitation of PCB residues in the sample is based on the best match
between the sample peaks and their corresponding peaks in the commercial
Aroclor reference material. In effect, the analyst may be forced to
report "apples" in terms of an equivalent number of "oranges." Schwartz
et al. (1987), using a principal components analysis technique (SIMCA,
Soft Independent Modeling of Gass Analogy) determined that PCB residues
from their fish and turtle samples could not be adequately described in
terms of an Aroclor or Aroclor mixture and concluded that it would be
inappropriate to report them as such.
The problem with the standard analytical technique is twofold. First, the
various congeners range widely in toxicity: although many (if not most)
PCB congeners are not believed to be particularly toxic to mammals, the
so-called "coplanar" congeners are believed to act by essentially the same
mechanism as the most toxic dioxin-2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD) (Murdock 1992; Safe et al. 1985). The key to the variable
acute toxicity and carcinogenic potency of the individual congeners is the
degree and, more importantly, the position of chlorine substitution.
Therefore, reporting a PCB residue in terms of the closest matching
Aroclor (a congener "soup," if you will) does not provide the information
needed to determine its potential toxicity. Secondly, the electron
capture detector used in analysis is itself sensitive to the degree and
position of chlorine substitution, so that a wide range of detector
responses can be obtained within the same molecular weight group. As
noted by Cairns et al. (1986), "Because of the disproportionality of
detector response, the choice of a suitable reference standard can
significantly affect the final analytical result" Holden (1986) states,
"Comparison of a chromatogram from a sample with that of a standard
commercial product can only provide a crude assessment of the total
quantity of PCBs present, information which is often of doubtful value,
and may be misleading."
The next logical step would appear to be congener-specific analysis.
However, even quantification of individual congeners does not provide
sufficient information for quantitative risk assessment because toxicity
information on individual congeners is largely lacking. What little
information is available is based on hypothetical structure-activity
relationships rather than empirical data. As a consequence, even leading
edge laboratories doing congener-specific analysis often resort to adding
the congeners together and reporting "total PCBs" (Anderson, personal
communication).
The acutely toxic coplanar PCBs induce the enzyme aryl hydrocarbon
hydroxylase (AHH) by binding to the same site on the Ah receptor as does
the dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and the symptoms of acute PCB intoxication (loss
of body weight, thymic atrophy, etc.) resemble the symptoms of dioxin
intoxication. Based on these similarities, in vitro bioassay techniques
have been developed that provide information on PCB content in terms of an
equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Casterline et al. 1983; Sawyer
-155-
-------
and Safe 1985; Safe 1987; Tanabe et al. 1987). However, it has not been
demonstrated that the ability to induce AHH is correlated with the
developmental and neurobehavioral toxicity that are of the greatest
concern in humans with chronic, low level exposure to PCBs. It is already
becoming apparent, for instance, that the most acutely toxic (and
strongest AHH-lnducing) congeners are not the only ones with significant
carcinogenic activity (Robertson et al. 1991). Furthermore, there is some
indication that the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents approach may ultimately
prove invalid for PCBs. Aroclor 1254 appears to act as a dioxin
antagonist in rodents, perhaps by competitively inhibiting binding to the
Ah receptor (Kamrin and Fischer 1991). As noted by McFarland and Clarke
(1989), "...If competitive inhibition by less effective PCB congeners in a
mixture reduces the enzyme-inducing effectiveness and the toxicity of
[other] congeners ...then summation of toxic equivalents cannot be a
viable approach for estimating the toxic significance of these chemicals
in the environment." Safe (1987) pointed out that the in vivo toxicity of
the readily metabolized PCB congeners (i.e., those with two adjacent
unsubstituted carbon atoms) is overestimated by the in vitro AHH induction
assay. Safe (personal communication) also indicates that PCBs clearly
show interactive effects in the AHH induction bioassay that can result in
significant overestimation or toxicity.
The "state of the art" of PCB analysis and data interpretation, then,
dearly leave a great deal to be desired. Given that the PCB residues in
fish tissue bear only a partial resemblance to the commercial Aroclors on
which most of the quantitative PCB toxicity information is based, it is
legitimate to question whether there is any evidence that the PCB
congeners found in fish tissue pose a hazard to people who eat fish. The
answer to this question is both "yes" and "no."
Kimbrough (1987) relates that no adverse health effects have been
identified in adults receiving an average PCB dose of 46.5 mg/year
from consumption of contaminated fish from Lake Michigan. This dose
corresponds theoretically to a weekly 0.5-pound meal of fish with a
PCB content of 4 ppm-signtficantly higher than found in any location
in the TVA 1990 data set. However, Kimbrough also notes that this
does not exclude the possibility that the effects are subtle or have a
long latent period.
Jacobson et al. are following the development of a cohort of children
whose mothers ate Lake Michigan fish contaminated with PCBs.
Even after accounting for confounding variables, they found that
prenatal PCB exposure from maternal consumption of fish (evaluated by
PCB level in the serum of umbilical cord blood) was associated with
reduced birthweight and bodyweight at 4 years of age, shorter
gestation, hyporesponsiveness in the newborn, deficits in motor
development, deficits in short term memory function at 4 years of age,
and altered activity levels (Fein et al. 1984; Jacobson et al. 1984;
Jacobson et al. 1990a; and Jacobson et al. 1990b). Paneth (1991),
however, has pointed out several methodologic concerns with the
-156-
-------
Michigan cohort, such as limited comparability of case and control
mothers, and weak correlation of recalled fish consumption history
with serum or breastmilk PCB levels.
Rogan et al. (1986) examined a cohort of infants from North Carolina
and reported that higher PCB and DDE levels in milk fat at birth were
associated with reduced muscle tone and reflex responses in newborns
as indicated by the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scales.
They did not find a significant association between PCB exposure and
birthweight, howwever. Gladen et al. (1988) reported that lower
psychomotor scores in these infants at 6 and 12 months of age was also
associated with transplacental PCB and DDE exposure.
Although the PCB dose delivered to infants breastfed by women who
ate PCB-contaminated fish was larger than the transplacental dose,
the growth and cognitive deficits noted in these children were
statistically associated with the transplacental dose rather than the
breastmilk ingestion dose (Jacobson et al. 1989; Gladen et al. 1988).
The only effect of PCB exposure through breastmilk reported by
Jacobson et al. (1990a) was a reduced activity level in the children
at 4 years of age (i.e., the children were more likely to be rated by
investigators as "unusually quiet and inactive" relative to their
peers) .
These apparent effects of prenatal PCB exposure on humans are
consistent with the neurobehavioral effects of prenatal PCB exposure
(via Aroclor-spiked diet) in rhesus monkeys (Schantz et al. 1991)
Several studies have investigated the effects on laboratory animals of
diets that included PCB-contaminated fish from the Great Lakes.
Hepatic enzyme induction and hepatomegaly indicative of hepatic
toxicity, immunosuppression, reproductive failure, hypothyroidism, and
behavioral anomalies were reported in these animals (Cleland et al.
1. There are several potential explanations for the differences in effect
between transplacental PCB exposure and exposure through breastmilk.
Jacobson et al. (1990b) note that the fetus may be Inherently more
vulnerable to PCB insult due to the sensitivity of migratory cells and
cells undergoing mitosis, incomplete development of the Wood-brain
barrier, or absence of xenobiotic-metabolizing capabilities that
develop after birth. It may also be significant that the fetus is
exposed via the placental circulation to whatever congeners have been
ingested both before and after the mother's PCB-metabolizing processes
have been brought into play, while the nursing neonate is presumably
exposed more to the congeners that are not well metabolized, have been
stored in adipose tissue, and are now being actively excreted in
breastmilk.
-157-
-------
1987; Cleland et al. 1989; Hertzler 1990; and Murdock 1992).
Furthermore, Hornshaw et al. (1983) concluded that the PCBs
bioaccumulated in fish are more toxic to mink than are corresponding
quantities of commercial Aroclors. However, because the fish used in
some of these studies contained other contaminants besides PCBs (such
as Mirex, HCB, chlordane, DDE, DDD and DDT), it is not clear what
portion of the effects were attributable strictly to PCB exposure.
Until some of these fundamental questions about PCBs are resolved, risk
assessors are forced to rely on estimated RfDs with tremendous Inherent
uncertainties. The RfD estimated for this risk assessment
(5 X 10-5 mg/kg/day) is about midway between the high and low estimates
in use by others. Cogliano (personal communication) has indicated that
Canada is presently using 3 X 10"5, while EPA Region II is using
1 X 10"4. Tilson et al. (1990) estimated a reference dose of
2.7 X10"6 to 9.3 X 10"6 mg/kg/day for neurobehavioral endpoints in
human infants. As shown in figure 73, the results of this risk assessment
change by a relatively small amount if a less conservative RfD estimate of
1 X 10 mg/kg/day is applied to TVA's 1990 fish tissue data set.
UNCERTAINTIES IN EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
Impact of Fish Cleaning and Cooking Techniques
Because of the way TVA prepares fish tissue samples for analysis (skin
left on [except for catfish]; dorsal, lateral line and belly flap fat left
on) the actual laboratory results used as the basis for this risk
assessment probably reflect a "worst case" scenario. Fishermen who skin
and trim away the fatty areas of fillets may reduce their exposure to the
lipophilic contaminants (PCBs, DDT, chlordane, etc.) by as much as 60%
(Gall and Voiland 1990; Reinert et al. 1972; Skea et al. 1979;
Armbruster et al. 1989; and others). However, as noted in the pamphlet
"Lake Michigan Sport Fish: Should You Eat Your Catch?" prepared by the
National Wildlife Federation, not all studies indicate a consistent
reduction in toxics through use of these techniques. In addition,
trimming would not be expected to significantly reduce concentrations of
metals.
Cooking fish may also reduce the concentrations of some lipophilic
contaminants, although there is disagreement about which methods are most
effective. Baking, grilling, or broiling are often recommended so that
rendered fats can drip away or be discarded. However, Skea et al. (1979)
reported that deep frying was the only cooking method that consistently
reduced concentrations of Mirex, DDE, and Arochlor 1254, while
Smith et al. (1973), Armbruster et al. (1987) and Armbruster et al. (1989)
found no statistically significant differences among cooking techniques.
Several researchers have reported that actual concentrations of lipophilic
contaminants in the filet (on a ug/g wet weight basis) sometimes increase
during cooking because proportionately more water than fat is lost from
-158-
-------
25
r 5„
Assumption: PCB RfD = 5X10 mg/kg/day
8 10
Hazard Index
25
20
S 15
_©
Q.
E
aj
CO
o
* 10
Assumption: PCB RfD = 1X10 mg/kg/day
8 10
Hazard Index
Figure 73. Sensitivity of Hazard Indices to RfD Estimate for PCBs.
Note: Fish consumption rate in both instances is 30 grams/day.
159
-------
the filet during cooking (Wanderstock et al. 1971 and Skea et al. 1979).
Therefore although the total amount of lipophilic contaminants (on a
ug/filet or ug/g dry weight basis) decreases, exposure would not decrease
if consumption rates (grams/day) are based on cooked rather than uncooked
fish. However, even on a 'ug/filet' or 'ug/g dry weight basis,' cooking
reduces lipophilic contaminants by a relatively small amount if the filet
has already been trimmed and skinned (Armbruster et al. 1989).
Figure 74 shows the effect on the calculated risk estimates for the 1990
data set if one makes the plausible assumption that skinning, trimming,
and cooking the filets decreases lipophilic contaminant concentrations by
fifty percent. The number of samples with a hazard index of less than 1
(i.e., the risk management "goal*') is increased only slightly (from 20 to
24), but the number of samples with a hazard index greater than 10 is
reduced from 15 to 4. The assumption also increases the number of
samples with an upper bound incremental lifetime cancer risk value in the
range of 10"4 - 10"5 from zero to 21, and reduces the number of
samples with a risk greater than 10"3 from 40 to 25. The implication
for risk managers is that public education on fish preparation techniques
may bring the risks to frequent consumers of fish within acceptable limits
for some-but not all-locations.
Potential for Disproportionate Exposure of Children
Information in ATSDR's Health Assessment Guidance Manual (ATSDR 1992)
suggests that the potential exposure to fish contaminants of children of
recreational fishermen may be greater-on a per kilogram bodyweight
basis-than the potential exposure of adult family members. While fish
and shellfish make up (on average) four to seven percent of the total meat
+ poultry + fish intake of both adults and children, the daily fish and
shellfish intake of children from ages 1 to 6 is about 0.3g/kg bodyweight,
while the daily intake for adults is closer to 0.2g/kg bodyweight. If a
similar pattern occurs in fish consumption among recreational fishermen
and their families, the exposure of children may be significantly
underestimated.
UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Values Close to the SQL
In general, the closer the analyte concentration is to the method
detection limit, the more one would expect background "noise* to impact
the analysis. Therefore, analyte concentrations close to the detection
limit have a relatively high degree of analytical uncertainty. This
uncertainty is particularly significant in the case of PCBs because the
PCB concentration "drives" the risk in these samples. For example, if one
takes a hypothetical fish tissue sample with analyte concentrations equal
to the means of the 1990 data set and then varies the PCB concentration
-160-
-------
Figure 74. Sensitivity of Hazard Index and Upper Bound Incremental Lifetime
Cancer Risk Estimates to Fish Preparation Method.
Assumption: Lipophilic contaminant concentrations as analyzed
Upper bound incremental lifetime cancer risk (R)
Assumption: Trimming, skinning and cooking filet reduces lipophilic
contaminants to 50% of analyzed value
40 -
Hazard Index (HI) Values Upper bound incremental lifetime cancer risk (R)
-------
from zero to 0.25 ug/g, the hazard index for a consumption rate of
30 grams per day increases from 1 to 3 and the upper-bound incremental
lifetime cancer risk Increases from 6 X 10'5 to 9 X 10"4. Therefore,
the analytical confidence limits around a relatively low PCB value may
encompass both acceptable and unacceptable risks.
"Missing" Analytes
As can be seen from Table 7 (above), several analytes were not detected in
any of the samples in the 1990 data set. The SQLs for antimony, thallium,
mirex and toxaphene are sufficiently high relative to the RfD and/or slope
factor that the results of this risk assessment could be significantly
changed (in the direction of higher risk) by concentrations below the
SQLs.
There are several contaminants not included in the 1990 data set that have
been detected in some fish tissue samples in other studies. The most
significant of these are probably the dioxins (especially 2,3,7,8-TCDD).
Additional toxic contaminants, if present, would change the risk
assessment in the direction of higher risk.
Sample Variability
It is important to bear in mind that these risk estimates are only
"snapshots" in time: the risk estimates can never be any more stable than
the data, inspection of the fish tissue screening data from previous
years shows a great deal of variation in some of the parameters that are
the largest contributors to the aggregate risk. Lead provides a good
example of this variability. In 1989, the highest lead value found was
0.55 ug/g in fish from TRM 192 in Kentucky Reservoir; in 1990 lead was not
detected in fish tissue from this station. In 1990, the highest lead
value found was 1.5 ug/g in fish from TRM 7 in Kentucky Dam tailwater; in
1989, however, lead had not been detected. In any given year, there is
also often a high degree of variability within any given reservoir. This
variability highlights the need for more intensive sampling before risk
management decisions are made.
UNCERTAINTIES IN TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
Sensitivity of Results to the RfD Estimate for Lead
This risk assessment assumed an RfD for lead of 5 X 10"5 mg/kg/day.
As shown in figure 75, the 'bottom line" results are changed very little
if one uses the less conservative estimate of 3.6 X 10"4 mg/kg/day based
on extrapolation from FDA's provisional total tolerable intake for
children and pregnant women.
-162-
-------
25
-5
Assumption: Pb RfD = 5x10 mg/kg/day
<1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Hazard Index
25
<1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Hazard Index
Figure 75. Sensitivity of Hazard Indices to RfD Estimate for Lead.
Note: Fish consumption rate in both instances is 30 grams/day.
163
-------
6.0 PUTTING THE RESULTS IN PERSPECTIVE
HOW SIGNIFICANT IS FISH CONSUMPTION RELATIVE TO OTHER SOURCES
OF EXPOSURE TO INDIVIDUAL TOXICANTS?
EPA recommends that when exposure to a chemical occurs through more than
one source, the reference dose should be multiplied by a factor which
represents the fraction contributed by the source of concern (EPA 1989b).
While this "total human exposure" (THE) approach is an area actively being
pursued by EPA (Ott 1992), good quantitative information for all media is
simply not available at this time. However, a qualitative analysis of
total probable exposure based on available data can and should be done to
help ensure that risk reduction and risk management activities focus on
the right risk source(s). At the very least, as noted by Reinert et al.
(1991), "risk comparisons in fish consumption advisories should include
dietary risks from other foods, specifically alternative protein sources."
As part of FDA's surveillance of the food supply, it conducts Total Diet
Studies (aka Market Basket Programs)3 to determine typical daily dietary
intakes of selected pesticides, industrial chemicals and elements.
Results of the two most recent available Total Diet Studies are contrasted
with the potential intakes of various chemicals through consumption of
fish in table 10. Relative to typical "background" dietary intakes,
consumption of fish from some areas could lead to significantly increased
dietary intakes of mercury, lead, chlordane, DDT and its metabolites,
dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, and PCBs.
Lead
While diet used to be a primary source of lead exposure, average dietary
intake of lead has decreased significantly (by nearly an order of
a. Gartrell et al. (1986) reported the results of Adult Total Diet
Samples collected between October 1980 and March 1982. The study
involved the retail purchase (from 27 U.S. cities) and analysis of
approximately 120 individual foods representative of the typical
14-day diet of 16- to 19-year-old males. The choice of foods varied
regionally, based on food consumption surveys conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture in 1965. Before analysis, the foods were
prepared in the manner in which they are usually consumed (i.e.,
washed, peeled, cooked, etc. as appropriate). The Total Diet Study
results reported by Gunderson (1988) reflect modifications in study
design to incorporate updated dietary survey information and permit
evaluation of intakes of several age-sex groups.
-165-
-------
Table 10. Comparison of Intake of Fish Tissue Analytes with Background Levels in the U.S.
Ana Iyte
Average Dietary Intake (ug/dav)
I980-I982a I982-I984k 1990°
Additional
Intake by Average TN Valley
Recreational Fishermen (ug/dav)
Meand
Maximum®
Arsenic 45.9 45.3
Cadmiun 27.8 15.0
Copper NR 1240
Mercury (total) 3.23 3.9
Lead 56.5 40.9
Selenium 139 100
Zinc 1750 1615
NRf 3.0 11.4
NR 0.075 0.54
NR 16.5 102
NR 4.35 18.0
NR 2.4 45
NR 7.8 51
NR 321 6300
Aldrin NR <0.007
a Ipha-BHC 0.58 0.413
beta-BHC 0.0309 0.028
delta-BHC 0.0019 <0.0007
gamma-BHC 0.150 0.175
Chlordane 0.0788 0.168
p.p'-DDD 0.0358 0.042
p.p'-DDE 3.21 2.142
p,p'-0DT 0.0387 0.112
Oieldrin 1.09 0.476
Endosulfan 3.044 0.672
Endrin NR 0.007
HeptachIor 0.0757 <0.007
HeptachIor
epoxide 0.467 0.175
PC8s 0.196 0.042
Toxaphene 1.59 0.476
NR <0.3 <0.3
<0.3 <0.3
0.046 (sum) <0.3 <0.3
NR <0.3 <0.3
0.0832 <0.3 <0.3
0.0325 1.5 10.8
2.1 36.0
4.2 63.0
1.69 (sum) <0.3 6.3
0.104 <0.3 1.5
0.876 <0.3 <0.3
NR <0.3 0.6
<0.3 <0.3
0.0325 (sum) <0.3 0.90
NR 14.4 60.0
0.553 <1.5 <1.5
a. FDA Total Diet Study results reported by Gartere11 et al. (1986).
b. FDA Total Diet Study results reported by Gunderson (1988) and Pennington et al. (1986).
Results shown are for males age 25-30 years with an assumed body weight of 70 kg.
c. FDA Total Diet Study results reported by FDA (1991). Results shown are for males age 14-16
years with an assumed body weight of 65 kg.
d. Reflects consumption of 30 grams of fish per day, with an analyte concentration equal to the mean in
TVA's 1990 fish tissue data set.
e. Reflects consumption of 30 grams of fish per day, with an analyte concentration equal to the maximum in
TVA's 1990 fish tissue data set.
f. NR = not reported.
WRC 0591J
-166-
-------
magnitude) in recent years.8 The lead content of individual foods is
quite variable, but the lead content of fish from several locations In the
1990 data set exceeds - by at least an order of magnitude - the typical
lead concentrations in alternative protein sources.
Although consumption of lead-contaminated fish is unlikely to be the
largest source of an individual's lead exposure, it may be more readily
controlled than most other background sources of exposure.0 As noted by
Carrington and Bolger (1991): "...diet [is] a minor contributor to the
total lead exposure of most of the population. Nonetheless, dietary lead
is a major source of lead exposure for some individuals and a contributor
to an overall lead exposure problem among the entire population' [emphasis
added] .Given that FDA cannot limit the overall lead exposure of the
population, FDA's intent in using the PTTDIs is to limit the increased
number of people placed "at risk" because of the contribution of dietary
lead (Bolger, personal communication).
a. FDA has estimated that average dietary intake of lead decreased from
95 ug per day in 1978 to 57 ug per day in 1981. In 1986, EPA
estimated the average dietary lead intake to be 25.1 ug/day for
children, 37.5 ug/day for adult females, and 45.2 ug/day for adult
males. Carrington and Bolger (1991) report that the average dietary
lead intake is now estimated to be 5 to 11 ug/day. To a large extent,
these decreases reflect decreased use of lead solder in food cans.
b. ATSDR (1990a) reported lead concentrations of 0.003 to 0.083 ug/g in
dairy foods, and 0.002 to 0.159 ug/g in meat, fish and poultry.
According to Gartrell et al. (1986), FDA market basket surveys in
1981-82 found the average lead concentration in meat, fish and poultry
to be 0.016 ppm.
c. EPA (1986) estimated that the average adult in a non-urban setting
ingests about 4.5 ug of lead per day from dust, while the average
2-year old child ingests about 21 ug of lead per day from dust. The
ingestion results from normal hand-to-mouth behavior, which is
particularly pronounced in very young children. Inhaled air and
drinking water also add to background exposure. EPA (1986) estimated
that inhaled air provides a lead dose of 0.5 to 1.0 ug/day. The
figure is considerably higher in urban areas. EPA has estimated the
lead content of tap water as less than 5 ug/L for 99 percent of the
U.S. population, so average ingestion in drinking water would be less
than 10 ug/day for an adult and less than 5 ug/day for small
children. Consumption of wine (100 ug/l), cigarette smoking (about 20
ug per pack), occupational exposure, or eating produce grown in an
urban environment may also be significant contributors to lead
intake.
d. Travis and Hester (1991) report that nationwide there are three to
four million children believed to be at risk of adverse health effects
and impaired cognitive development from lead. To the extent that the
Tennessee Valley is representative of the nation as a whole, this
would correspond to approximately 71,000 children at risk in the
Tennessee Valley.
-167-
-------
EPA's draft uptake/biokinetic model could be used to refine an estimate of
the lead concentrations in fish that should be considered to be of
concern, because It is capable of estimating blood lead levels in young
children by integrating various sources of lead exposure that may be
absorbed or metabolized differently.
Recreational fishermen who eat one meal of fish per week would essentially
double their dietary lead intake if the lead concentration in the fish
were greater than 0.27 ug/g. For a pregnant or lactaating woman who ate
one fish meal per week in addition to an average diet, lead concentrations
in fish in excess of 0.47 ug/g would increase her dietary lead intake to
exceed the PTTDi.
Mercury
The major source of mercury exposure in the general population is
consumption of contaminated foodstuffs, primarily fish (ATSDR 1989e). The
average mercury concentration in the meat, fish and poultry food group
(the food group with the highest concentrations) in FDA's 1980-1982 Total
Diet Study was a mere 0.01 ppm. Clearly, regular consumption of fish from
some areas of the Tennessee Valley would contribute a very significant
additional mercury exposure beyond 'background" dietary exposure.
However, the average concentration of mercury in TVA's 1990 samples (0.145
ppm, estimated to be equivalent to about 0.116 ppm methyl mercury) is
within the range of concentrations commonly found in some seafoods. Tuna
(average 0.2 to 0.3 ppm), swordfish (average 0.8 ppm) and halibut (average
0.2 ppm) are reported to be among the most contaminated species commonly
eaten (Tollefson 1989). About half of the samples TVA analyzed in 1990
had total mercury concentrations in this range, but the highest value was
only 0.6 ppm (largemouth bass from Emory River mile 14.5).
Chlordane
The two major routes of exposure to chlordane in the United States are
living in a house treated with chlordane and consumption of
chiordane-contaminated food.3 Within the food supply, fish is known to
a. Until 1978 (when registration for use on food supply crops was
cancelled) chlordane was used to treat field crops, especially corn.
Chlordane was also extensively used as a termiticide (especially in
the southeastern U.S.) until registration for that use was cancelled
in 1988. Chlordane persists in the air of treated homes for up to 15
years after treatment; therefore, inhalation exposure is still
occurring today. In a 1980-82 study of the U.S. food supply,
chlordane was detected in only slightly more than 1% of samples,
extending over a range from below detection to 0.0021 ppm
(ATSDR 1989f).
-168-
-------
be one of the foods most likely to be contaminated with chlordane. Based
on TVA's 1990 data set, the chlordane intake of the average recreational
fisherman (i.e., eating 30 grams of fish/day) exceeds the national average
dietary intake of chlordane by nearly an order of magnitude (1.5 ug/day
vs. 0.168 ug/day, respectively) (Gunderson 1988). For the recreational
fisherman eating fish exclusively from Wheeler Reservoir, dietary
chlordane Intake could be nearly 100-fold higher than the national
average.
DDT and Metabolites
The major source of exposure to DDT and its metabolites among the general
population is consumption of contaminated foods (ATSDR 1989d). The most
recent national market basket surveys indicate that DDT and DDE levels are
presently very low in most foods after having decreased significantly over
the past two decades. Nonetheless, p,p'-DDE was the single most
frequently occurring residue found in the 1980-1982 Total Diety Study
(Gunderson 1988). Intake of DDE is typically much higher than intake of
DDT artd/or DDD, accounting for approximately 97% of the total
DDT + DDD + DDE. Tho largest single contributor to total DDE intake in
the Total Diet Study was dairy products, but the highest average DDE
concentration (4.6 ppb) occurred in the root vegetables group. The
average concentration in the meat, fish and poultry group was 3 ppb. For
comparison. DDE concentrations in the fish from TVA's 1990 samples
averaged 140 ppb with a maximum value of 2100 ppb. Consumption of one
meal per week of the "average" fish would approximately double the
background dietary intake of DDE, while weekly consumption of fish from
Wheeler Reservoir could Increase DDE intake by thirty-fold.
The average concentration of DDD in TVA's 1990 fish tissue data set was
70 ppb and the maximum value was 1200 ppb: the most contaminated food
group in the 1980-1982 Total Diet Study was 'meat, fish and poultry,' with
an average concentration of 0.1 ppb. The average concentration of DDT in
TVA's 1990 fish tissue data set was less than 10 ppb and the maximum value
was 210 ppb: the most contaminated food group In the 1980-1982 Total Diet
Study was root vegetables with an average concentration of 0.6 ppb.
Clearly, regular consumption of fish - even from the less contaminated
sites in the 1990 data base - would be expected to Increase dietary
intake of DDT and its metabolites significantly.
Dieldrin
Aldrin and dieldrin were widely used in agriculture, termite control, and
vector control from the 1950s to the 1970s. ATSDR (1989g) has Indicated
that, in the past, food products grown in soil treated with either aldrin
or dieldrin were probably the primary source of dieldrin exposure to the
general population. Because dieldrin readily bioaccumulates, the
-169-
-------
1980-1982 Total Diet Study found that the food group with the highest
concentration of dieldrin was meat, fish and poultry, with an average
concentration of 1.2 ppb (Gartrell et al. 1986). Gunderson (1988)
estimated average dietary intake of dieldrin to be 0.476 ug/day and noted
that dieldrin intakes today are only about 5% of what they were in the
early 1960s. Dieldrin was not detected in most of the fish analyzed by
TVA In 1990; however, the two composites of channel catfish from Nickajack
Reservoir had concentrations of 30 to 50 ppb. While regular consumption
of these fish would significantly increase the total dietary intake of
dieldrin typical today, a weekly meal would provide a dose approximately
equivalent to the background dietary dose estimated by Gartrell et al.
(1986) based on the 1980-1982 Total Diet Study.
Endrin
ATSDR (1990c) reports that the potential for endrin exposure among the
general population is low: the most recent National Human Adipose Tissue
Survey did not detect endrin in adipose tissues from the general
population. Endrin was detected infrequently in fish in 1990, and the
maximum concentration of 20 ppb is close to the quantitation limit of 10
ppb. However, consumption of fish with any detectable concentration of
endrin would significantly increase dietary intake over the 0.007 ug/day
average estimated by Gunderson (1988) based on the 1982-1984 Total Diet
Study.
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor was used on some food crops until 1982 and as a termiticide
until 1988. Limited data indicate that heptachlor could be detected in
indoor air for at least a year after treatment for termite control. More
recent data on the potential exposure to heptachlor through inhalation was
not available; consequently, it could not be determined for this analysis
whether diet is the most significant source of exposure to the general
population.
Heptachlor epoxide, the metabolic degradation product of heptachlor, was
detected in only two fish tissue samples analyzed in 1990: a channel
catfish composite from TRM 425 had a concentration of 30 ppb, and a
channel catfish composite from TRM 255 had a concentration of 20 ppb. The
food group with the highest heptachlor epoxide concentrations in the
1980-1982 Total Diet Study was meat, fish and poultry, with an average
concentration of 0.7 ppb. Consequently, regular consumption of fish with
any level of heptachlor epoxide that could be detected by TVA's laboratory
would significantly increase total dietary intake above background levels.
-170-
-------
PCBs
Consumption of fish is the primary source of exposure to PCBs among the
general population (ATSDR, no date; Fiore et al. 1989). In fact,
according to the National Research Council (1991), "Persons who consume
fish from contaminated waters have average blood levels of PCBs that are
several times those found in other general population groups, in ranges
that extend into concentrations typically found in industrially exposed
workers."
Gartrell et al. (1986) report that the meat, fish and poultry group was
the only significant dietary source of PCBs in the 1980-1982 Total Diet
Study, with an average concentration of 1 ppb. The average dietary intake
based on that survey was 0.196 ug/day. Gartrell et al. also indicate that
daily PCB intake per unit of body weight declined steadily from
0.027 ug/kg/day in 1978 to 0.003 ug/kg/day in 1981/1982. Gunderson
(1988) did not report PCB concentrations in individual food groups, but
estimated total dietary intake to be 0.0006 ug/kg/day.
PCBs were detected (i.e., > 0.1 ug/g) in the majority of fish tissue
samples that TVA analyzed in 1990. At a PCB concentration of 0.1 ug/g,
the average recreational fisherman (i.e., consuming 30 grams of fish per
day) would have a PCB intake one to two orders of magnitude greater than
the background dietary intake. Using the average PCB concentration found
in the 1990 samples (0.48 ug/g), the intake of an average recreational
fisherman is over one hundred-fold greater than the background dietary
intake.
HOW SIGNIFICANT IS FISH CONSUMPTION RELATIVE TO BACKGROUND
RISKS FROM THE U.S. FOOD SUPPLY?
Using data from the FDA 1982-1984 Total Diet Study (the most comprehensive
of recent data reports), cancer slope factors from IRIS and EPA risk
assessment techniques, the incremental upper-bound lifetime cancer risk
from an average intake of pesticides and organic industrial chemicals in
market basket samples is approximately 2 X 10"4 At least half of that
risk is accounted for by dieldrin residues. Further, as noted by
Ames et al. (1987), the potential impact of naturally occurring
carcinogens may be as great or greater than the potential impact of
synthetic carcinogens in the U.S. food supply. This finding provides some
perspective to risk managers trying to determine whether the cancer risks
posed by fish consumption should be considered "de minimis,"
"de manifestis," or somewhere in between.
Using the same data base and methods, the aggregate hazard index from
consumption of organic contaminants in a typical American diet is about
0.8 for a typical adult male. The most significant contributors to this
-171-
-------
value are heptachlor epoxide and endosulfan. This calculation does not
reflect the contribution of lead to the hazard index, as the 1982-1984 FDA
data on lead are not believed to be representative of current levels. If
one assumes an average current daily intake of 10 ug in adults (based on
Carrington and Bolger [1991]) and an estimated RfD of
5 X 10-5 mg/kg/day, the aggregate hazard index for the average adult
diet increases to be in the range of 3 to 4. At a fish consumption rate
of 30 grams/day (i.e., the average recreational fisherman), about half of
the fish tissue samples screened in 1990 would yield a hazard index that
exceeds the background dietary risk for adults.
FDA data show that the average 2-year old child has a higher contaminant
intake on a 'per kilogram bodyweight' basis than the average adult
(Gunderson 1988). Considering only organics, the aggregate hazard index
for typical dietary consumption by an average 2-year old child is 2, with
heptachlor epoxide and endosulfan again the largest contributors. If
children also have an average dietary lead intake of 10 ug/day, the
aggregate hazard index for the average 2-year old child's diet is in the
range of 15 to 16—significantly higher than for the average adult. If
children also tend to eat 50 percent more fish on a
'kg fish consumed/kg bod/weight/da/ basis (ATSDR 1992), the hazard
indices calculated for the adult recreational fisherman (table 9, above)
may underestimate the hazard indices for children by about 50 percent as
well. However, even K the children of recreational fishermen eat 50
percent more fish on a 'per kg bodyweight' basis than their parents, only
about 10 percent of the 1990 fish tissue samples would yield a hazard
index that exceeds the background dietary risk for children, because the
background risk for children is already elevated. Nevertheless, the
magnitude of the hazard index in some of these samples (up to 30) seems to
justify evaluating the potential risk to children separately from the
potential risk to adults, particularly when the elevated hazard index is
attributable to lead contamination.
-172-
-------
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Ames, B., R. Magaw and L Gold. 1987. Ranking Possible Carcinogenic
Hazards. Science 236:271-280.
Anderson, H. 1992. Wisconsin Department of Health. Personal
communication.
Armbruster, G., K. Gall, W. Gutenmann and 0. Usk. 1989. Effects of
trimming and cooking by several methods on polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) residues in bluefish. J. Food Safety 9:235-244.
Armbruster, G., K. Gerow, W. Gutenmann, C. Uttman and D. Usk. 1987.
The effects of several methods of fish preparation on residues of
polychlorinated biphenyls and sensory characteristics in striped bass.
J. Food Safety 8:235-243.
ATSDR. 1989a. Toxicologica! Profile for Arsenic. U.S. Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
ATSDR/TP-88/02.
ATSDR. 1989b. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. U. S. Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
ATSDR/TP-88/08.
ATSDR. 1989c. Toxicological Profile for Chromium. U.S. Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
ATSDR/TP-88/10.
ATSDR. 1989d. Toxicological Profile for p,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDD.
U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. Report No. 8532F.
ATSDR. 1989e. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Report No. 8540F.
ATSDR. 1989f. Toxicological Profile for Chlordane. U.S. Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Report No. 8530F.
ATSDR. 1989g. Toxicological Profile for Aidrin/Dieidrin. U.S. Public
Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
ATSDR/TP-88/01.
ATSDR 1990a. Toxicological Profile for Lead. U.S. Public Health Service,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR/TP-88/17.
-173-
-------
ATSDR. 1990c. Toxicological Profile for Endrin/Endrin Aldehyde.
U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. Report No. TP-90-14.
ATSDR. 1992. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. U. S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. March 1992.
ATSDR. No date. Toxicological Profile for PCBs. U.S. Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Report No.
8520F. 135pp.
Bashor, B„ and M. Yarbrough. 1992. Memo dated February 3, 1992 to Paul
Davis. Subject: South Fork Holston River Recommendations Concerning
Fish Advisories. Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville.
Bolger, M. 1992. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition. Personal communication.
Bolger, M., M. Adams, L Sawyer, J. Burke, C. Coker and R. Scheuplein.
1990. Risk Assessment Methodology for Environmental Contaminants in
Fish and Shellfish. United States Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
Cairns, R., G Doose, J. Frogerg, R. Jacobson and E. Siegmund. 1986.
Analytical Chemistry of PCBs. pp. 1-45 Jd J.S. Waid, ed. "PCBs and
the Environment, Volume I." CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.
Carrington, C. and M. Bolger. 1991. An Assessment of the Hazards of Lead
In Food. Fundam. Appli. Toxicol, in press.
Casterline, J., J. Bradlaw, B. Puna and Y. Ku. 1983. Screening of Fresh
Water Fish Extracts for Enzyme-Inducing Substances by an Aryl
Hydrocarbon Hydroxylase Induction Bioassay Technique. J. Assoc. Off.
Anal. Chem. 66:1136-1139.
CDC. 1991. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A Statement by
the Centers for Disease Control - October 1991. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Centers for Disease
Control.
Qeland, G., J. Leatherland, and R. Sonstegard. 1987. Toxic Effects in
C57B1/6 and DBA/2 Mice Following Consumption of Halogenated Aromatic
Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Great Lakes Coho Salmon (Oncorhvnchus kisutch
Walbaum). Env. Health Perspectives 75:153-157.
Cleland, G., P. McElroy and R. Sonstegard. 1989. Immunomodulation in
C57B1/6 Mice Following Consumption of Halogenated Aromatic
Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Coho Salmon (Oncorhvnchus kisutch) from Lake
Ontario. J. Tox. Env. Health 27:477-486.
-174-
-------
Cogllano, J. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment. Personal communication.
Cohrssen, J. and Covello, V. 1989. Risk Analysis: A Guide to Principles
and Methods for Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks. U.S.
Council on Environmental Quality.
EPA. 1986. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development. EPA 600/8-83-018F.
EPA. 1986a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. 51 Fed. Reg. 33992
(September 24, 1986).
EPA. 1986b. Guidelines for Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.
51 Fed. Reg. 34014 (September 24, 1986).
EPA. 1988a. A Discussion of EPA and FDA Criteria for Fish Tissue. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV.
EPA. 1988b. Glossary of Terms Related to Health, Exposure, and Risk
Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air Risk
Information Support Center. EPA/450/3-88/016.
EPA. 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. USEPA Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/8-89/043.
EPA. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human
Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). USEPA, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA. 1989c. Guidance Manual for Assessing Human Health Risks from
Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish. U.S. EPA, Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection. EPA/503/8-89/002.
EPA. 1991a. Fish Sampling and Analysis: A Guidance Document. Prepared by
Research Triangle Institute for USEPA. Draft.
EPA. 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual. Supplemental Guidance - "Standard Default Exposure
Factors." USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA. 1991c. Workshop Report on Toxicity Equivalency Factors for
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners. U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum.
EPA/625/3-91/020.
EPA 1992. Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish: A Review and
Analysis of Survey Methods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water. EPA 822/R-92-001.
-175-
-------
FDA. 1991. Residues in Foods: 1990. Food and Drug Administration
Pesticide Program, Food and Drug Administration.
Fein, G.t J. Jacobson, S. Jacobson, P. Schwartz and J. Dowier. 1984.
Prenatal exposure to polychlorinated blphenyls: effects on birth size
and gestational age. J. Pedlatr. 105:315-320.
Flore, B., H. Anderson, L Hanrahan, L Olson and W. Sonzognl. 1989.
Sport Fish Consumption and Body Burden Levels of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons: A Study of Wisconsin Anglers. Arch. Env. Health
44:82-88.
Gall, K. and M. Voiland. 1990. Contaminants in Sport Fish: Managing
Risks. Sea Grant, Cornell Cooperative Extension. Fact sheet.
GAO. 1991. Environmental Protection: Meeting Public Expectations with
Limited Resources. United States General Accounting Office Report to
the Congress. GAO/RCED-91-97.
Gartrell, M., J. Craun, D. Podrebarac and E. Gunderson. 1986. Pesticides,
Selected Elements, and Other Chemicals in Adult Total Diet Samples,
October 1980 - March 1982. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 69:146-161.
Gladen, B., W. Rogan, P. Hardy, J. Thullen, J. Tinglestad, and M. Tully.
1988. Development after exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and
dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethene transplacental^ and through human
milk. J. Pediatr. 113:991-995.
Gunderson, E. 1988. FDA Total Diet Study, April 1982 - April 1984, Dietary
Intakes of Pesticides, Selected Elements, and Other Chemicals. J.
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 71:1200-1209.
Hertzler, D. 1990. Neurotoxic Behavioral Effects of Lake Ontario Salmon
Diets in Rats. Neurotox. Teratol. 12:139-143.
Holden, A. 1986. The Reliability of PCB Analysis, pp. 65-78 jo J.S. Waid,
ed. "PCBs and the Environment, Volume I." CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton,
Florida.
Hornshaw, T., R. Aulerich, and H. Johnson. 1983. Feeding Great Lakes
Fish to Mink: Effects on Mink and Accumulation and Elimination of PCBs
by Mink. J. Tox. Environ. Health 11:933-946.
Institute of Medicine. 1991. Seafood Safety. Committee on Evaluation of
the Safety of Fishery Products, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of
Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 432p.
Jacobson, J., S. Jacobson, G. Fein, P. Schwartz and J. Dowier. 1984.
Prenatal exposure to an environmental toxin: a test of the multiple
effects model. Dev. Psychol. 20:523-532.
-176-
-------
Jacobson, J., H. Humphrey, S. Jacobson, S. Schantz, M. Mullin and R.
Welch. 1989. Determinants of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),
Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs), and Dichlorodiphenyl TricNoroethane
(DDT) Levels in the Sera of Young Children. Am. J. Public Health
79:1401-1404.
Jacobson, J., S. Jacobson, and H. Humphrey. 1990a. Effects of Exposure
to PCBs and Related Compounds on Growth and Activity in Children.
Neurotox. Teratol. 12:319-326.
Jacobson, J., S. Jacobson, and H. Humphrey. 1990b. Effects of in utero
exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and related contaminants on
cognitive functioning in young children. J. Pediatr. 116:38-45.
Jensen, S. and G. Sundstrom. 1974. Structures and Levels of Most
Chlorobiphenyls In Two Technical PCB Products and in Human Adipose
Tissue. Ambio 3:70-76.
Kamrin, M. and L Fischer. 1991. Workshop on Human Health Impacts of
Halogenated Biphenyls and Related Compounds. Env. Health Persp.
91:157-164.
Kimbrough, R. 1987. Human Health Effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) and Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs). Ann. Rev. Pharmacol.
Toxicol. 27:87-111.
Lech, J. and R. Peterson. 1983. Biotransformation and Persistence of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Fish, pp 187-201 jn "PCBs: Human
and Environmental Hazards", F. D'ltri and H. Kamrin, eds. Butterworth
Publishers. 443pp.
Luotamo, M., J. Jarvisalo and A. Aitio. 1991. Assessment of Exposure to
Poiychlorlnated Biphenyls: Analysis of Selected Isomers in Blood and
Adipose Tissue. Envir. Res. 54: 121-134.
McFarland, V. and J. Clarke. 1989. Environmental Occurrence, Abundance,
and Potential Toxicity of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners:
Considerations for a Congener-Specific Analysis. Env. Health
Perspectives 81: 225-239.
Murdock, B. 1992. Dioxins and Their Cousins: The Dioxin '91 Conference.
Health and Environment Digest 5:1-4.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Recommended Dietary Allowances.
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990. State-Issued Fish
Consumption Advisories: A National Perspective. National Ocean
Pollution Program Office.
-177-
-------
National Research Council. 1991. Environmental Epidemiology Volume I:
Public Health and Hazardous Wastes. Committee on Environmental
Epidemiology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National
Research Council. National Academy Press.
Ott, W. 1992. Total Human Exposure: Basic Concepts, EPA Field Studies,
and Future Research Needs. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 40:966-975.
Paneth, N. 1991. Human Reproduction After Eating PCB-Contaminated Fish.
Health and Environment Digest 5:4-6.
Pennington, J., B. Young, D. Wilson, R. Johnson and S. Vanderveen. 1986.
Mineral content of foods and total diets: the selected minerals in
Food Survey, 1982 to 1984. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 86:876-891.
Prothro, M. 1990. Printout dated 11/08/90 with title "Current State Fish
and Shellfish Consumption Advisories and Bans. Personal communication
dated Nov. 19, 1990.
Relnert, R., B. Knuth, M. Kamrin and Q. Stober. 1991. Risk Assessment,
Risk Management, and Fish Consumption Advisories in the United
States. Fisheries 16:5-12.
Reinert, R., D. Stewart and H. Seagran. 1972. Effects of dressing and
cooking on DDT concentrations in certain fish from Lake Michigan. J.
Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:525-529.
Robertson, L, E. Silberhorn, H. Glauert, M. Schwarz and A. Buchmann.
1991. Do structure-activity relationships for the acute toxicity of
PCBs and PBBs also apply for induction of hepatocellular carcinoma?
Env. Tox. and Chem. 10:715-726.
Rogan, W., B. Gladen, J. McKinney, N. Carreras, P. Hardy, J. Thullen, J.
Tinglestad and M. Tully. 1986. Neonatal effects of transplacental
exposure to PCBs and DDE. J. Pediatr. 109:335-341.
RTI. 1990. Results of the 1989 Census of State Fish/Shellfish Consumption
Advisory Programs. Prepared by P. Cunningham, J. McCarthy and D.
Zeitlin for USEPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Research
Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park.
SAB. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Science Advisory Board. SAB-EC-90-021.
Safe, S. 1992. Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, College of
Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University. Personal communication.
Safe, S. 1987. Determination of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxic Equivalent Factors
(TEFs): Support for the Use of the In Vitro AHH Induction Assay.
Chemosphere 16:791-802.
-178-
-------
Safe, S. 1980. Metabolism, uptake, storage and bioaccumulation.
p. 81-107 Jn Kimbrough, R., ed. "Halogenated biphenyls, terphenyls,
naphthalenes, dibenzodioxins and related products.'
Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press.
Safe, S., S. Bandiera, R. Sawyer, L Robertson, L Safe, A. Parkinson, P.
Thomas, D. Ryan, L Reik, W. Levin, M. Denomme and T. Fujita. 1985.
PCBs: Structure-Function Relationships and Mechanism of Action. Env.
Health Perspect. 60:47-56.
Sawyer, T. and S. Safe. 1985. In Vitro AHH Induction by Poiychlorinated
Biphenyl and Dibenzofuran Mixtures: Additive Effects. Chemosphere
14:79-84.
Schantz, S., E. Levin, and R. Bowman. 1991. Long-term Neurobehavioral
Effects of Perinatal Poiychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Exposure in
Monkeys. Env. Tox. Chem. 10:747-756.
Schwartz, T., D. Stalling and C. Rice. 1987. Are Poiychlorinated
Biphenyl Residues Adequately Described by Aroclor Mixture
Equivalents? Isomer-Cpedfic Principal Components Analysis of Such
Residues in Fish and Turtles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:72-76.
Skea, J., H. Simonin, E. Harris, S. Jackling, J. Spagnoli, J. Symula and
J. Colquhoun. 1979. Reducing levels of mirex, aroclor 1254, and DDE by
trimming and cooking Lake Ontario brown trout (Salmo trutta Linnaeus)
and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomleul lacepede). Internat.
Assoc. Great Lakes Res. 5:153-159.
Smith, W„ K. Funk and M. Zabik. 1973. Effects of cooking on concentration
of PCB and DDT compounds in Chinook (Oncorhvnchus tshawvtscha) and
Coho (Q. klsutch) salmon from Lake Michigan. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
30:702-706.
Southertand, B. 1991. Memo dated December 6, 1991, subject "Status of
Guidance Document: Sampling and Analysis of Fish." U.S. EPA, Risk
Assessment and Management Branch.
Southerland, E. and A. Greene. 1991. Federal Assistance Plan for State
Fish Consumption Advisories. U.S. EPA, Office of Science and
Technology.
Stachiw, N., M. Zabik, A. Booren and M. Zabik. 1988.
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin residue reduction through
cooking/processing of restructured carp fillets. J. Agric. Food Chem.
36:848-852.
Tanabe, S. 1988. PCB Problems in the Future: Foresight from Current
Knowledge. Environ. Pollut. 50:5-28.
-179-
-------
Tanabe, S., N. Kannan, A. Subramanlan, S. Watanabe and R. Tatsukawa.
1987. Higher Toxic Coplanar PCBs: Occurrence, Source, Persistency
and Toxic Implications to Wildlife and Humans. Environ. Pollut.
47:147-163.
TDHE. 1991. Tennessee Fishing Advisories. Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville,
Tennessee.
Tidwell, G. 1989. August 4, 1989 memo from Greer C. Tidwell,
Administrator, EPA Region IV, to William K. Reilly, Administrator,
USEPA, Subject: Criteria for Assessing Toxic Chemicals in Fish Tissue.
Tilson, H., J. Jacobson and W. Rogan. 1990. Polychlorinated Biphenyts and
the Developing Nervous System: Cross-Species Comparisons.
Neurotox. Terat. 12:239-248.
Tollefson, L 1989. Methylmercury in Fish: Assessment of Risk for U.S.
Consumers, pp. 845-867 jn D. Paustenbach, ed. "The Risk Assessment of
Environmental Hazards: A Textbook of Case Studies."
Wiley-lnterscience Publications, New York. 1155p.
Travis, C. and S. Hester. 1991. Global Chemical Pollution. Environ. Sci.
Technoi. 25:814-819.
Travis, C., S. Richter, E. Crouch, R. Wilson and E. Wema. 1987. Cancer
risk management: A review of 132 federal regulatory decisions.
Environ. Sci. Technoi. 21:415-420.
USDI. 1985. Original not seen, referenced in Bolger et al. 1990.
Wanderstock, J., W. Iskat, W. Gutenmann and D. Usk. 1971. Effect of
several cooking methods on concentrations of DDT residues in lake
trout and coho salmon. New York Fish and Game Journal 18:70-72.
Whittington, W. 1986. Memo dated July 28, 1986 to Regional Water Division
Directors, subject "Description of the Bioaccumulation Study." U.S.
EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
-180-
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
-------
action level: level set to provide regulatory guidance to FDA field
personnel to determine whether or not a product should be deemed
adulterated and an appropriate enforcement action imposed. Action
levels are normally established for inadvertant contaminant residues,
such as residues of cancelled, but environmentally persistent
pesticides. FDA action levels are not binding.
aggregate risk: the sum of individual increased risks or an adverse health
effect in an exposed population.
Ah receptor: soluble intracellular protein to which certain dioxins,
furans, PCBs, and other PAHs bind to produce a toxicologically active
receptor complex that is translocated into the nucleus and alters gene
expression to induce the synthesis of AHH.
AHH: aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase, an enzyme that catalyzes the metabolism
of certain xenobiotics such as PCBs.
Aroclor: Monsanto's trade name for commercial PCB products. Usually
characterized by a four digit number '12XX' with the XX indicating the
percent chlorine by weight.
ATSDR: U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BHC: hexachlorocyclohexane, also known as HCH
cancer: the uncontrolled, Invasive growth of cells.
carcinogenic: able to produce malignant tumor growth.
CNS: central nervous system
congener: any one particular member of the same chemical family; e.g.,
there are 209 PCB congeners.
coplanar PCBs: PCBs chlorinated 4 to 6 positions, including both para
positions (4 and 4), a variable number of meta positions (3, 3', 5,
or 50, but no ortho positions (2, 2', 6, or 6'). The coplanar PCBs
are isostereomers of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
DDD: diphenylethanedichlorophenyl(ethane), a metabolite of DDT. Also
known as TDE.
DDE: dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, a metabolite of DDT.
DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, a chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide.
DDTr: Sum of DDT, DDE and DDD
-A1-
-------
de manifestis risk: risk of obvious or evident concern
de minimis risk: risk below the level of regulatory concern
developmental toxicity: adverse effects on the developing organism that
may result from exposure prior to conception (either parent), during
prenatal development, or postnatally to the time of sexual maturation.
dose: the quantification of exposure. For oral exposure, usually
expressed as milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight.
endpoint: a biological effect used as an index of the effect of a
substance on an organism.
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
exposure: contact between a substance (e.g., a fish tissue contaminant)
and a potentially affected biological system that permits interaction.
FDA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration
hazard index, HI: the sum of more than one hazard quotient for multiple
substances and/or multiple exposure pathways.
hazard quotient, HQ: the ratio of a single substance exposure level to
the reference dose for a similar exposure period.
hepatic: pertaining to the liver
inducer: a chemical substance that stimulates a cell to produce the
enzymes involved in its metabolism.
initiator: a chemical substance which can start the cancer process.
Effects caused by initiators (e.g., mutations) are not reversible.
IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System): an EPA data base containing
verified RfDs and slope factors as well as up-to-date health risk and
EPA regulatory information for numerous chemicals.
latency: the period of time between exposure and the manifestation of a
response.
LOAEL: lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, the lowest dose or exposure
level to a chemical at which there is a statistically or biologically
significant increase in the frequency or severity of adverse effects
in the exposed popuolation as compared with an appropriate control
group.
-A2-
-------
multistage model: dose-response model that assumes there are a given
number of biological stages through which the carcinogen must pass
(e.g., metabolism, covalent binding, or DNA repair) without being
deactivated, for cancer to occur. A linearized multistage model
assumes the data are linear at low doses.
NOAEL: no-observed-adverse-effect level, the highest dose or exposure
level to a chemical at which there is no statistically or biologically
significant increase in the frequency or severity of an adverse effect
observed between the exposed population and its appropriate control
group.
oral slope factor: the 95% upper-bound estimate of the linearized slope of
the oral dose-response curve in the low dose region as determined by
the multistage model. Also called q^.
PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, also known as polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons.
PCBs: polychlorinated biphenyts
progressor: a chemical substance which interacts with initiated and
promoted tissue to bring about malignancy from benign tumors.
promoter: a chemical substance which enhances development of cancer in
initiated cells. Promoter effects seem to be reversible, require
large exposures to exert their promoting effects, and operationally
exhibit dose thresholds.
PTTDI: Provisional Tolerable Total Dietary Intake
reference dose (RfD): an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a dally exposure to the general public that is
likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a
lifetime.
risk: the probability of injury, disease, or death under specific
circumstances.
risk assessment: the process of determining the potential adverse health
effects of exposure to environmental hazards.
risk management: the decision-making process in which an action is taken
or a policy developed once a risk has been determined to exist. It
integrates the risk assessment with technical, political, social, and
economic issues.
SQL sample quantitation limit: the lowest concentration at which a
chemical can be accurately and reproducibly quantitated.
-A3-
-------
2,3,7,8-TCDD: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
tolerance: maximum permissible residue level, enforced by FDA. Tolerances
are normally established to reflect residues resulting from current
pesticide uses.
toxicity equivalents: the product of the concentration of a chemical
substance and Its potency relative to the dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
TRM: Tennessee River mile, given as miles upstream from the mouth at the
Ohio River.
-A4-
-------
APPENDIX B
1990 SCREENING-LEVEL DATA SET
-------
Concentrations (pg/g) of metals in composited fish flesh
Col lection Site
Species
LA8ID Antimony Arsenic Beryllium
Tennessee River
TRM 7
CMC
05425
<2
0.22
<0.02
TRM 22
CHC
05426
<2
0.12
<0.02
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM 23
CHC
03763
<2
0.02
<0.02
TRM 61
CHC
05427
<2
0.13
<0.02
BSRM 4
CHC
05428
<2
0.08
<0.02
TRM 100
CHC
05429
<2
0.06
<0.02
TRM 135
CHC
05430
<2
0.08
<0.02
TRM 173
CHC
05431
<2
0.17
<0.02
TRM 200
CHC
03764
<2
0.14
<0.02
Duck River
DRM 22.5
DRM
16080
<2
0.07
<0.02
DRM 22.5
LMB/SP8/WHS
16082
<2
0.06
<0.02
DRM 22.5
CHC/FHC
16083
<2
0.07
<0.02
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 210
CHC
03765
<2
0.19
<0.02
TRM 230
CHC
03766
<2
0.10
<0.02
TRM 255
CHC
05432
<2
0.26
<0.02
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 260
CHC
18300
<2
<0.02
<0.02
TRM 270
CHC
18301
<2
0.10
<0.02
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 275
CHC
05433
<2
0.05
<0.02
TRM 300
CHC
05434
<2
0.20
<0.02
TRM 339
CHC
05437
<2
0.38
<0.02
Elk River
ERM 41
SPB/LMB
18951
<2
0.08
<0.02
ERM 41
DRM
18952
<2
<0.02
<0.02
ERM 41
CHC
18950
<2
<0.02
<0.02
ss from inflow and reservoir locations," 1990.
Cadtoium Chromium Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
0.002
0.39
<0.8
1.50
<0.1
<0.6
0.15
<0.6
6.4
0.005
0.12
<0.8
0.15
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
8.3
0.009
0.04
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
5.0
<0.002
0.13
<0.8
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.14
<0.6
5.7
<0.002
0.11
<0.8
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.12
<0.6
7.0
0.008
0.13
<0.8
0.10
0.2
<0.6
0.18
<0.6
6.9
<0.002
0.12
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
6.8
<0.002
0.08
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
5.6
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
4.8
0.005
0.12
<0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.30
<0.6
5.5
<0.002
0.12
0.8
<0.02
0.5
<0.6
0.24
<0.6
12
<0.002
0.17
1.0
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.18
<0.6
7.8
0.003
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
5.8
0.018
<0.02
<0.8
0.09
<0.1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
6.9
<0.002
0.08
<0.8
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.12
<0.6
5.7
<0.002
0.10
<0.8
0.75
<0.1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
8.7
<0.002
0.06
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
7.3
<0.002
0.10
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.13
<0.6
6.3
<0.002
0.09
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
6.3
<0.002
0.22
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
<0.02
<0.6
5.8
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
0.4
<0.6
0.33
<0.6
12
0.003
<0.02
0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.48
<0.6
5.5
<0.002
<0.02
1.7
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
9.4
-------
Col lection Site
r. , •»
Species
LABI0C
Antimony
Arson i c
Beryl 1ium
Cadmium Chromium Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Se1en i um
Tha11i um
Zinc
Guntersvl1le Reservoir
TRM 350
CHC
05438
<2
0.38
<0.02
<0.002
0.14
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.15
<0.6
7.3
TRM 382
CHC
05439
<2
0.15
<0.02
<0.002
0.07
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
7.0
TRM 415
CHC
05440
<2
0.06
<0.02
0.003
0.20
0.8
0.09
<0.1
<0.6
0.34
<0.6
6.2
Sequatchie River
<0.1
SRM 7.1
CHC
16085
<2
0.13
<0.02
0.004
0.16
0.8
<0.02
<0.6
0.15
<0.6
7.7
SRM 7.1
BGS
16087
<2
0.07
<0.02
0.003
0.13
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.31
<0.6
12
SRM 7.1
DRM
16084
<2
0.20
<0.02
0.006
0.12
2.8
<0.02
0.4
<0.6
0.26
<0.6
8.0
Nickajack Reservoir
TRM 425
CHC
03348
<2
0.23
<0.02
<0.002
0.07
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.10
<0.6
5.5
TRM 457
CHC
03349
<2
0.14
<0.02
<0.002
0.10
<0.8
0.78
<0.1
<0.6
0.13
<0.6
5.2
Chlckamauga Reservoir
TRM 485-1
CHC
01102
<2
0.11
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
2.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.23
<0.6
7.6
2
CHC
01105
<2
0.09
<0.02
0.003
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.18
<0.6
5.2
3
CHC
01106
<2
<0.02
<0.02
0.003
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.13
<0.6
6.2
TRM 495-1
CHC
01107
<2
0.04
<0.02
0.005
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
6.6
2
CHC
01108
<2
<0.02
<0.02
0.007
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
7.9
3
CHC
01109
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
<0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
7.3
TRM 526-1
CHC
OHIO
<2
0.06
<0.02
0.017
<0.02
0.9
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
5.9
2
CHC
01111
<2
0.20
<0.02
0.018
0.03
<0.8
0.80
<0.1
<0.6
0.21
<0.6
6.2
3
CHC
01112
<2
0.23
<0.02
0.005
<0.02
1.0
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
7.7
Hiwassee River
H1RM 18.5
CHC/FHC
16092
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
0.10
<0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
6.4
HIRM 18.5
Lm
16090
<2
0.04
<0.02
<0.002
0.04
0.8
<0.02
0.3
<0.6
0.26
<0.6
II
HIRM 18.5 C/SBU/ROUGH
16088
<2
0.08
<0.02
0.003
0.11
1.9
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.65
<0.6
10
Parksville Reservoir
ORM 12
CHC
05464
<2
0.29
<0.02
0.003
0.08
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
1.00
<0.6
7.3
ORM 12
RBT
05465
<2
0.05
<0.02
<0.002
0.10
0.8
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
1.70
<0.6
II
Watts Bar
TRM 532
CHC
00383
<2
0.03
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
1.7
<0.02
<0.1
<0.6
0.24
<0.6
8.0
TRM 562
CHC
00384
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
0.8
<0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.20
<0.6
6.0
TRM 598
CHC
00385
<2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
<0.02
1.0
<0.02
0.1
<0.6
0.17
<0.6
6.7
CRM 21
CHC
03767
<2
0.03
<0.02
0.004
<0.02
<0.8
0.02
0.2
<0.6
0.16
<0.6
5.2
-------
b c
Col lection Site Species LABID Antimony Arsenic Beryllium
Emory River
EmRM
14.5
1MB
16096
<2
0.12
<0.02
EmRM
14.5
C
16093
<2
0.06
<0.02
EmRM
14.5
BLC/CHC
16095
<2
0.03
<0.02
CI inch River
CRM 172
CHC
16100
<2
0.15
<0.02
CRM 172
SPB/LMB
16099
<2
0.05
<0.02
CRM 172
DRM/C
16101
<2
0.12
<0.02
Powell River
PRM 65
CHC
16104
<2
0.05
<0.02
PRM 65
GRH
16102
<2
0.03
<0.02
PRM 65
SPB
16103
<2
0.09
<0.02
Fort Loudoun Reservoir
TRM 604
CHC
03768
<2
<0.02
<0.02
TRM 628
CHC
00386
<2
<0.02
<0.02
TRM 652
CHC
03769
<2
0.03
<0.02
Tel 1Ico Reservoir
LTRM 1
CHC
05443
<2
0.07
<0.02
LTRM II
CHC
03770
<2
0.07
<0.02
Little Tenn. River
LTRM 92
CHC
16105
<2
<0.02
<0.02
LTRM 92
SMB
16108
<2
0.18
<0.02
LTRM 92
GRH
16107
<2
0.14
<0.02
French Broad River
FBRM 71
CHC
16118
<2
0.11
<0.02
FBRM 71
LMB
16114
<2
0.09
<0.02
FBRM 71
C
11962
<2
<0.02
<0.02
Nolichucky River
<0.02
NRM 8.5
CHC/FHC
16110
<2
0.14
NRM 8.5
C
16112
<2
0.12
<0.02
NRM 8.5
SPB/SMB
16109
<2
0.22
<0.02
Cadnium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Thallium Zinc
<0.002
0.005
<0.002
0.03
<0.02
<0.02
1.0
0.9
<0.8
<0.02
<0.02
0.07
0.6
0.3
0.4
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
0.41
0.41
0.17
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
6.1
15
8.0
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.8
<0.8
0.8
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.1
0.2
0.2
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
0.36
0.89
0.50
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
7.3
12
12
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.06
<0.02
<0.02
0.9
0.8
0.8
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
0.32
0.43
0.50
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
7.1
II
13
<0.002
0.003
0.002
<0.02
0.13
<0.02
<0.8
1.2
<0.8
0.74
0.07
<0.02
0.2
0.3
0.3
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
0.13
0.11
0.10
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
5.9
8.2
5.8
<0.002
<0.002
0.05
<0.02
<0.8
<0.8
0.03
0.13
0.5
0.3
<0.6
<0.6
0.08
0.17
<0.6
<0.6
6.7
5.7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.9
0.9
0.8
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.3
0.4
0.2
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
0.12
0.28
0.29
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
8.1
12
8.9
0.010
<0.002
0.012
0.44
0.10
0.15
3.4
0.9
1.0
<0.02
<0.02
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
0.20
0.31
0.34
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
210
II
15
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.18
0.12
0.14
1.4
I.I
I.I
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.2
0.2
0.2
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
0.16
0.34
0.30
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
7.5
22
10
-------
Collection Site
b c
Species LABID Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadnium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Thallium Zinc
Hoiston River
HRM 110
HRM 110
HRM 110
C
LHB
CHC
16121
16120
16122
<2
<2
<2
0.14 <0.02 <0.002 0.13 <0.8 <0.02 0.3 <0.6 0.44
0.22 <0.02 <0.002 0.14 0.9 <0.02 0.5 <0.6 0.33
0.12 <0.02 <0.002 0.16 <0.8 <0.06 0.1 <0.6 0.25
<0.6
<0.6
<0.6
19
9.6
7.1
Center Hill Reservoir
Forebay
Tributaries
CHC
CHC
05445
05444
<2
<2
0.09 <0.02 0.003 0.12 0.9 0.20 0.2 <0.6 0.13
0.07 <0.02 <0.002 0.10 <0.8 <0.02 0.2 <0.6 0.13
<0.6
<0.6
5.1
5.5
a. Station abbreviations: TRM = Tennessee River Mile; BSRM = Big Sandy River Mile; DRM = Duck River Mile: CRM = Elk River Mile; SRM = Sequatchie
River Mile; HIRM = Hiwassee River Mile; 0RM = Ocoee River Mile; CRM = Clinch River Mile; EmRM = Emory River Mile; PRM = Powell R iver Mile; LTRM -
Little Tennessee River Mile; FBRM = French Broad River Mile; NRM = Nolichucky River Mile; and HRM = Holston River Mile.
b. Species abbreviations: Catfish (CHC = channel catfish; FHC = flathead catfish), G*ne fish (BGS = bluegill sunfish; LMB = largemouth bass; RBT =
(Ja rainbow trout; SMB = smalImouth bass; SPB = spotted bass; WHS = white crappie), Rough fish (C = carp; DRM = drum; GRH - golden redhorse; SBU =
smal Imouth buffalo).
c. See table 3.1-3, footnote b.
AB0II06R
-------
Concentrations (pg/g) of pesticides and PCBs in composi
sh flesh samples from inflow and reservoir locations,® 191
I
w
Ui
I
Col lection site
Spec i es^
LABID0
Lipid
(%)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Toxophene
Benzene
Hexachlo
Chlordane
DDTr
Endo-
sulfan
Endrin
Hepta-
ch lor
PCBs
Mi rex
Tennessee River
TRM 7
CHC
05425
16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.06
0.32
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.01
TRM 21
CHC
05426
9.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
Kentucky Reservoir
TRM 23
CHC
03763
3.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.27
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
<0.01
TRM 61
CHC
05427
13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
0.45
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.01
BSRM 4
CHC
05428
9.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
TRM 100
CHC
05429
9.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.01
TRM 135
CHC
05430
7.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
0.79
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.01
TRM 173
CHC
05431
13
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.06
0.39
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.01
TRM 200
CHC
03764
10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
0.61
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.01
Duck River
ORM 22.5
DRM
16080
0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
DRM 22.5
LM8/SPB/WHC
16082
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
ORM 22.5
CHC/FHC
16083
3.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.01
Pickwick Reservoir
TRM 207
CHC
03765
8.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
1.03
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.01
TRM 230
CHC
03766
8.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
1.26
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.01
TRM 255
CHC
05432
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.12
1.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.7
<0.01
Wilson Reservoir
TRM 260
CHC
18300
7.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.46
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
TRM 270
CHC
18301
6.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.45
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
Wheeler Reservoir
TRM 275
CHC
05433
7.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.12
3.30
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.01
TRM 300
CHC
05434
12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.36
2.30
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.4
<0.01
TRM 339
CHC
05437
14
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.11
0.75
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
<0.01
Elk River
ERM 41
SPB/LMB
18951
4.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.62
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
ERM 41
DRM
18952
2.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
ERM 41
CHC
18950
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
-------
k Lipid Benzene Endo- Hepta-
Cotlection site Species LABID (%) Aldrln Dieldrin Toxophene Hexachlo Chlordane DOTr sulfan Endrin chlor PC8s Hi rex
Guntersville Reservoir
TRM 350
CHC
05438
18
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.10
0.15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.01
TRM 382
CHC
05439
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
TRM 415
CHC
05440
15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
<0.01
Sequatchie River
SRM 7.1
CHC
16085
7.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
0.31
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.01
SRM 7.1
B6S
16087
2.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
SRM 7.1
DRM
16084
5.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
Nlckajack Reservoir
TRM 425
CHC
03348
13
<0.01
0.03
<0.5
<0.01
0.07
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.01
TRM 457
CHC
03349
16
<0.01
0.05
<0.5
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.2
<0.01
Chlckamauga Reservoir
TRM 483-1
CHC
01102
6.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.2
<0.01
2
CHC
01105
4.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.3
<0.01
3
CHC
01106
4.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.03
0.04
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
TRM 495-1
CHC
01107
7.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.07
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.01
2
CHC
01108
4.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.07
0.05
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.6
<0.01
3
CHC
01109
6.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.10
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.01
TRM 526-1
CHC
OHIO
8.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.09
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.01
2
CHC
OIIIK
8.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.08
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.6
<0.01
3
CHC
01112d
Hiwassee River
HRM 18.5
CHC/FHC
16092
3.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
I.I
<0.01
HRM 18.5
16090
1.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
HRM 18.5
C/SBU
16088
6.6
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
Parksville Reservoir
ORM 12
CHC
05441
3.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.0
<0.01
ORM 12
RBT
05442
3.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.01
Watts Bar Reservoir
TRM 532
CHC
00383
4.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.03
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.5
<0.01
TRM 562
CHC
00384
3.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.05
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
<0.01
TRM 598
CHC
00385
4.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.5
<0.01
CRM 21
CHC
03767
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
0.29
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
I.I
<0.01
-------
Col lection site
k Lipid Benzene Endo- Hepta-
Species LABID (%) Aldrln Dleldrln Toxophene Hexachlo Chlordane DOTr sulfan Endrln chlor PC8s Hi rex
Emory River
EmRM 14.5
EmRM 14.5
EmRM 14.5
LMB
C
BLC/CHC
16096
16093
16095
1.8
5.6
2.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Powell River
PRM 65
PRM 65
PRM 65
CHC
GRH
SPB
16104
16102
16103
5.6
1.7
1.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
CI Inch River
CRM 172
CRM 172
CRM 172
CHC
SPB/LMB
DRM/C
16100
16099
16101
7.4
0.9
3.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Ft. Loudoun
TRM 604
TRM 628
TRM 652
CHC
CHC
CHC
03768 2.9
00386 4.8
03769 2.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.16
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.9
2.0
0.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Tel 11co Reservoir
LTRM I
LTRM II
CHC
CHC
05443
03770
3.7
8.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
0.25
0.19
0.24
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.3
1.5
<0.01
<0.01
Llt+|e Tennessee River
LTRM 92 CHC 16105 6.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01
LTRM 92 SMB 16108 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01
LTRM 92 GRH 16107 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01
French Broad River
FBRM 71
FBRM 71
FBRM 71
CHC
LMB
C
16118
16114
16116
3.5
1.0
1.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NoIichucky River
NRM 8.5
NRM 8.5
NRM 8.5
CHC/FHC
SPB/LM8
C
16110 5.7
16109 1.2
16112 6.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-------
Col lection site
k Lipid Benzene Endo- Hepta-
Species LABID (%) Aldrin Oieldrin Toxophene Hexachlo Chlordane DDTr suffan Endrin chlor PCBs Ml rex
Holston River
HRM MO
HRM 110
HRM 110
CHC
LMB
C
16122 12 <0.01 0.01 <0.5
16120 4.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5
16121 8.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.03
0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.2 <0.01
0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.1 <0.01
0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 <0.01
Center Hill Reservoir
Forebay
Tributaries
CHC
CHC
05445 6.8 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5
05444 4.2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 I.I <0.01
0.06 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.2 <0.01
a. Station abbreviations are listed In table 3.1-4, footnote a.
b. Species abbreviations: Catfish (CHC = channel catfish; FHC = flathead catfish), Game fish (BGS = bluegill sunfish; LMB = largemouth bass; RBT =
rainbow trout; SMB = smal I mouth bass; SPB = spotted bass; WHS = white crappie), Rough fish (C = carp; DRM = drum; GRH = golden redhorse; SBU =
smallmouth buffalo).
c. See table 3.1-3, footnote b.
d. Sample lost in laboratory.
ABDI094R
-------
APPENDIX C
DEVELOPMENT OF RfD ESTIMATES
-------
LEAD
Background Information on Toxicity
(Sources: ATSDR 1990; CDC 1991; Carrington and Bolger, In press)
> The endpoints most sensitive to low level exposure to lead are
neurobehaviorai deficits and growth retardation in young children and
hypertension in middle-aged men. At higher levels of exposure, lead
causes brain and kidney damage.
> There is no evident threshold for lead toxicity. In the past, CDC has
recommended immediate treatment of children whose blood lead exceeded 25
ug/dL, but it has now become clear that there are definite adverse effects
at blood levels greater than 10 ug/dL, and possible effects at blood
levels less than 10 ug/dL
> Primary sources of exposure to lead are inhalation, ingestion of food
and water, and (in children) ingestion of lead-containing dust. Almost
all of the lead that enters the lungs enters the blood and moves to other
parts of the body. A lesser amount of the lead that is ingested actually
reaches the bloodstream. Adults absorb from 8 to 15 percent of the lead
they ingest, while children absorb about 50 percent of the lead they
ingest. Adults also excrete the lead they ingest more readily than
children do.
> Once lead enters the body, it has a half-life in the blood of about a
month in adults, and about 10 months in children. However, exposure is
cumulative with most of the body burden of lead being stored in bone. The
half-life of lead in bone is on the order of decades. Remobilization of
bone lead is of particular concern during the physiological stresses of
pregnancy and lactation.
> There is no barrier to the uptake of lead by the fetus from the
maternal bloodstream; therefore, exposure of women to lead before or
during pregnancy results in uptake by the fetus. Low level prenatal
exposure can lead to reduced birthweight and gestation age (i.e.,
premature birth) and to neurobehaviorai deficits or delays.
> Lead toxicity can be augmented or decreased by other metals in the
diet. Iron, copper and zinc appear to reduce lead uptake and/or
toxicity. However, cadmium increases the toxic effects of lead, and lead
increases the toxic effects of mercury. Low calcium intake also increases
susceptibility to lead toxicity.
> The average baseline intake of lead in 1982-83 by 2-year old children,
adult females, and adult males has been estimated to be 46.6, 37.5, and
50.7 ug/day, respectively. Food, water, and other beverages are the major
-C1-
-------
sources of lead intake for all ages, but intake of lead-contaminated dust
(through normal hand-to-mouth behavior such as thumb sucking) is also very
significant to the total lead intake of young children.
> Populations at greatest risk from lead are fetuses, preschool-age
children, and white males between 40 and 59 years of age. Young children
are inherently more susceptible to the effects of lead because they
usually have a higher intake per unit body weight; they absorb lead more
easily and excrete it less readily; they have a greater prevalence of
nutrient deficiency (which can affect lead absorption in the Gl tract);
they are less efficient at sequestering lead in bone; and they have
incomplete development of the blood-brain barrier, which increases the
risk of entry of lead into the nervous system.
Dose-Response Relationships
(Sources: ATSDR 1990; Bolger, personal communication)
> There is no RfD for lead on IRIS. It is conceivable that no RfD will
ever be approved, given that there does not appear to be a threshold for
the chronic toxicity effects.
> Monkeys given 0.05 mg/kg/day Pb as a soluble lead compound 5 days per
week from birth through testing at 3 to 4, 6 to 7, and 9 to 10 years of
age performed significantly less well in learning discrimination-reversal
and delayed alternation. This value is plotted as a LOAEL in figure VW.
Typically, an RfD would be derived from this by applying an uncertainty
factor of 1,000 (10 for extrapolation from LOAEL to NOAEL, 10 for animal
to human extrapolation, and 10 for variation in human sensitivity).
Therefore, for this effect (extrapolating on a bodyweight to bodyweight
basis rather than surface area to surface area), a reasonable estimate for
an RfD would be 5 X 10"5 mg/kg/day.
> FDA uses the following Provisional Tolerable Total Dietary Intakes for
lead:
child, 0 to 6 years old: 6 ug/day
pregnant and lactatlng women: 25 ug/day
adult male: 75 ug/day
These PTTDIs were derived to prevent blood lead concentrations from
exceeding 10 ug/dL for children and pregnant women, and 30 ug/dL for adult
men. FDA applied a safety factor of 10 to the exposure effect level to
provide a margin of safety.
Note that the PTTDI for children and pregnant women is within an order of
magnitude of the estimated RfD, after correcting for bodyweight.
-C2-
-------
DDD and DDE
Background Information on Toxicity
(Source: ATSDR 1989d)
In humans, Ingested DDT is dechlorinated to DDD, which is further degraded
and excreted as DDA. DDT is also dehydro-chlorinated to DDE, but this
occurs at a slower rate than the DDT to DDD pathway. Further metabolism
of DDE is slow and the body burden of DDE tends to increase with continued
exposure. DDT and its metabolites DDE and DDD are lipid soluble and tend
to be stored in adipose tissue. The half-life for elimination is longest
for DDE, followed by DDT and then DDD. DDE is commonly found in
significant concentrations in human breast milk.
Dose-Response Relationships
Although there are many studies available about the effects of DDT, there
are relatively few studies available on the effects of chronic exposure to
DDD or DDE. The NCI 1978 carcinogenesis bioassay found hepatic necrosis
to be the most sensitive serious noncarcinogenic endpoint evaluated after
DDE administration and they reported a LOAEL in rats of 12 mg/kg/day.
Administration of DDD to rats and mice produced hepatic NOAELs of 165 and
107 mg/kg/day, respectively. Using standard uncertainty factors as given
by EPA (1989), RfDs can be estimated as follows:
DDE - 1.2 X 10"2 mg/kg/day (UF = 1000)
DDD - 1.36 mg/kg/day (average of mouse and rat NOAELs, UF = 100)
It should be noted that developmental effects are the most sensitive
noncarcinogenic endpoint in animals with chronic exposure to DDT. There
is no information available on developmental effects of exposure to DDD or
DDE. Therefore, the RfDs estimated above for DDE and DDD may not be
sufficiently protective of pregnant women or their infants.
-C3-
------- |