Woonasquatucket River
Sediment/Water Quality Analysis
Project Report
July 31, 1998
.GrwCnvlllfl-
Woonasquatucket
watershed area of
Rhode Island
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I, New England
Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation
Ecosystem Assessment

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY	 1
Background 	 1
Purpose and Scope	 1
Conclusions 	 2
SAMPLING PROGRAM 	 3
Water Sampling	 4
Sediment Sampling 	 4
DATA SUMMARY			5
Water Column Analysis		5
Sediment Analysis 		5
Sediment Analysis by Parameter		5
Acid Volatile Sulfide and Simultaneously Extracted Metals 		5
Total Organic Carbon 		5
Metals and Total Cyanide 		6
Chlorinated Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls		6
Dioxins and HCX 		7
Petroleum Aromatic Hydrocarbons		8
Data Usability 		9
REFERENCES 				 10
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table I: Sampling Site Summary		3
Table II: Locational Data of Sites 		4
Table III: Water Quality Results 		5
Table IV: Metals and Total Cyanide Results		6
Table V: Pesticide/PCB Results			7
Table VI: Dioxin Results		8
Table VII: HCX vs. 2,3,7,8-TCDD 		8
Table VIII: PAHs Results 				9
APPENDIXES
Inorganic Analytical Results 	 A-l
Pesticide and PCB Analytical Results 	 A-2
Semivolatile (PAHs) Analytical Results 	 A-3
Dioxin and HCX Analytical Results 	 A-4
Pest/PCB SEL Calculation Worksheet	 A-5
PAH SEL Calculation Worksheet 	__A-6
Human Health Risk Screening Analysis for a Recreational Exposure to Sediments in the Woonasquatucket River,
Providence, RI 		B
Memorandum: Woonasquatucket River Sediment - PCDD/Fs 	C
Preliminary Ecological Risk Screening Information	 D
Memorandum: Review of Woonasquatucket Dioxin/Furan Results 	 E
Site Location Map 	 F
Basin Map 	G

-------
SUMMARY
Background
The Woonasquatucket River, with its tributaries, is about 30 kilometers long and encompasses an
area of approximately 200 square kilometers. The river begins in the hills near North Smithfield,
in the north western corner of Rhode Island and flows to Narragansett Bay, an inlet to the
Atlantic Ocean. The upper half of the river is zoned primarily for residential development. The
lower half of the river contains some areas of good habitat but in others is heavily industrialized
and urbanized with many mill complexes.
There are 6 cities and towns in the watershed including: Providence, Smithfield, Johnston, North
Providence, North Smithfield and Glocester. The lower basin is highly urbanized from the
Dyerville Dam in Providence to the mouth of the River in Downtown Providence.
The Woonasquatucket has been polluted and physically altered since the industrial revolution.
The lower basin, once a tidal estuary, is now impounded with extensive channelization. Present
conditions in the river are the result of current and historical activities. The upper basin ending at
the Smithfield/Johnston town line is influenced by non-point sources and one point source,
Smithfield WWTP, which discharges into the river just above the Johnston town line. In the
lower basin, from Johnston to the mouth in the Providence River, point sources, storm water
runoff and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are major sources of bacteriological pollutants.
The river is also littered with trash, tires, hot water heaters, refrigerators, and shopping carts
which contribute to non-point sources in the lower basin. See Appendix G for a map of the
basin.
Today, people use the Woonasquatucket River for a number of recreational activities such as
canoeing, kayaking.and boating in the lower river from the Lonigan Dam to Waterplace Park. A
9 hole golf course is planned in the area above the Olneyville Dam. A greenway is planned and
being developed along the lower basin.
Purpose and Scope
The Woonasquatucket River is a priority waterbody for EPA-New England and the RI Urban
Team. In June 1996, fish were collected and analyzed by EPA's Narragansett Laboratory and
Providence Urban Initiative personnel. Based on elevated dioxin levels detected in fish, a fish
consumption advisory was issued by Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH). In January
1997, the EPA, Office of Ecosystem Protection and the Rhode Island State Program, requested
assistance from EPA's Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation(OEME). The
assistance requested was to examine and evaluate ambient sediment quality in the
Woonasquatucket River, and in conjunction with this, begin to identify sources that may have
resulted in these elevated fish tissue concentrations.
1

-------
EPA collaborated with the Providence Plan on the scope and objectives of the study. The project
objectives identified in the quality assurance project plan included determining current chemical
concentrations in the sediments. EPA, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
(RIDEM) and RIDOH will use the results of this study to conduct a risk screening for human and
ecological health, and target future monitoring.
Conclusions
Dioxin contamination was detected at all seven sampling sites. Two sites, Allendale Dam and
Lymansville dam had levels significantly higher than the other sediment sampling locations.
(Appendix A-4). Various metals were present in concentrations above the ecologically
significant screening values i.e. Lower Effects Level (LEL) and Severe Effects Level (SEL)
(Appendix A-l). Only one site, however, the Dyerville Dam, had a simultaneous extracted
metals/acid volatile sulfide (SEM/AVS) ratio greater than one. A ratio greater than one indicates
a potential for acute toxicological impacts to benthos from these metals. Numerous polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
were also detected at all seven sites at concentrations that may pose a chronic risk to the benthic
community as well as upper food chain receptors (Appendices A-2 and A-3). In addition,
because of the biomagnification potential of dioxin and, based on NYDEC sediment guidelines
that take into consideration upper food chain impacts, as well as the TOC values present in the
river, the possibility of acute effects to piscivores is also present (Appendix D).
The human health risk screening evaluated exposure to an older child and adult, ages 7-31, who
might occasionally utilize areas along the river to picnic, wade or walk i.e. visits of 2days/wk
during the summer months of June through August, and lday/wk in May, September and
October. Results of this risk screen indicate that adverse health effects from direct contact to
sediments in the river during recreational exposures is unlikely for an older child or adult
(Appendix B). These results would be expected due to the low frequency of exposure assumed
for this type of a scenario. This analysis did not evaluate exposure to a child, (young or older),
who might have more frequent exposures to the river, (for instance if a beach or home existed
along the river). This is not the same type of exposure that would occur under a residential
setting in which the existing level of contamination would be considered a health hazard.
In addition, as noted earlier, a conservative human health risk screening to evaluate the
consumption of fish was performed in 1996. The results of this screening led to the issuance of a
fish consumption advisory. The fish consumption advisory was based on tissue data of fish
caught in areas with the lower dioxin concentrations. Fish tissue concentrations from areas with
higher sediment concentrations of dioxin may show higher concentrations and pose a greater
risk-
Both risk screening assessments raise concerns about the limited data and recommend additional
sediment sampling be conducted to define the lateral and vertical extent of the contamination.
Water quality measurements, biosurveys and/or toxicity tests, as well as additional fish tissue
2

-------
sampling should also be considered. Lastly, additional information to define the duration and
frequency of recreational exposures and other present and potential uses of the river is also
needed.
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Water and sediment sampling was conducted during October 23-24,1997, by a team of OEME
personnel. Sediment samples and water column measurements were collected at seven sites in
the Woonasquatucket River, from the Esmond Dam area of North Providence, just south of the
Smithfield line, to the lower basin upstream from Valley Street Bridge in Providence. Sampling
locations were selected based on discussions with the Urban Initiative team, Providence Plan
personnel and site visits by EPA OEME and UEI personnel. See the site location map in
Appendix F.
The water at each of the sites was analyzed on-site for dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature,
conductivity and pH. Sediments were collected using an Eckman dredge, and analyzed for total
metals, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, AVS , SEM, dioxin and total organic carbon(TOC). Table I
lists the sites and parameters analyzed at each site. EPA's New England Regional Laboratory in
Lexington, MA performed the analyses for metals, AVS, SEM, PCBs, pesticides, PAHs and
TOC. Analyses for Dioxins and Furans were performed by EPA's Narragansett Lab using a low
resolution mass spectrometer and confirmed by EPA Region VII Laboratory in Kansas City,
Kansas through high resolution mass spectrometry analysis. Data was reviewed for usability by
the EPA Region I, OEME quality assurance section.
Table I: Sampling Site Summary

Water column
Analyses
Sediment Analyses
Station
Temp.
Conductivity
& pH
Metals (Cu, Zn,
Pb, Cd, Cr, Ni,
Hg)
AV5&SEM (Cu,
Zn, Pb, Cd, Ni,
Hg)
PAHs
PCB&.&
Dioxins
roc
DAM001, Esmond Dam,
North Providence
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DAM002, Allendale Dam,
North Providence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DAM003, Lymansville Dam,
North Providence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DAM004, Manton Dam,
Providence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DAM005, Dyerville Dam,
Providence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DAM006, Olneyville Dam,
Providence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DAMO07, Lonigan Dam,
Providence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3

-------
Sampling sites were reached using a jon boat or wading into the stream near the center of the
channel. Samples were collected at the deep holes near the outlets. Locational data for each
sampling station was collected using Global Positioning System(GPS) referencing the NAD-83
Coordinate System. These locations are presented in table II.
Table II: Locational Data of Sites ( 2 meters)

Latitud
e
Longitude
Station #
Site
Deg
Min
Sec
illp
Min
Sec
DAM001
Esmond Dam
41
51
58.68
71
29
33.49
DAM002
Allendale Mill Dam
41
51
4.28
71
28
53.68
DAM003
Lymansville Dam
41
50
24.36
71
28
38.95
DAM004
Manton Dam
41
50
6.19
71
28
19.98
DAM005
Dyerville Dam
41
49
40.76
71
27
47.39
DAM006
Olneyville Dam
41
49
6.67
71
26
56.43
DAM007
Loniqan Dam
41
49
19.3
71
26
31.39
Water Sampling
Field water quality measurements were made using an electronic multi-parameter monitor, YSI
Model 30 for conductivity and temperature and an Orion Model 250 meter for pH. At the
Esmond Dam site, conductivity was not recorded due to an instrument calibration problem.
Field water quality measurements were collected at 0.2 meters below the water's surface.
Sediment Sampling
The sampling crew selected sampling sites in depositional areas with silty and clay bottoms.
Areas such as this are likely to contain the highest concentration of contaminants due to the
binding tendency of these substrates. A stainless steel Eckman dredge was used to collect
sediment samples from the upper four inches of bottom substrate. The dredge was used several
times at each site to obtain adequate sample volumes. Samples were emptied from the dredge
into a clean plastic tray. Detritus and pebbles were removed and excess water was poured off.
Samples for AVS/SEM and metal analyses were collected first with a new plastic spoon used at
each site to scoop samples from the plastic tray into the sample jars. The sediment in the plastic
tray was then mixed (homogenized) with a clean stainless steel spoon. From this homogenized
sample, samples for PAHs, PCBs, pesticides and TOC analyses were taken. All samples were
placed in precleaned containers. The dredge and stainless steel spoon were decontaminated
between sampling stations with soapy water, deionized water, isopropanol rinse and deionized
water rinse. Samples were collected according to OEME Standard Operating Procedures and
the quality assurance project plan (QAPP).
4

-------
DATA SUMMARY
Water Column Analysis
The field water quality data, found in Table III, met Ambient Water Quality Criteria. The pH
difference of 2.2 s.u. between the Manton Dam to the Dyerville Dam may warrant further
investigations to a possible point source discharger.
Table III: Water Quality Results
(site
fcsmond
Allendale
Lymansvwe
Manton
""Dam
Duplicate ot
"Manton Dam
Dyerville
uineyviiie
(.onigan

Dam
Uam
Dam
Dam
D^m
Dam
bitefli
UftMUUi
DAM002
>-v
UAMUU3
UAMUU4
UAMU4A
LMMUU5
LkAMUUti
UAM007
pH(s u)
6.6
6.8
6.B
6.6
6.6
8.8
84
8.6
TemperaSureiCi
10
11
11
11
11
9
8
9
Conductivity (ms/cm)
-
206
242
246
246
250
225
230
Sediment Analysis
Results of the sediment analysis were used for the development of an ecological and human
health risk screen. For ecological risk screening purposes comparisons were made to
biologically significant sediment quality guidelines. The human health risk screening was
performed considering specific exposure scenarios with associated assumptions. For a detailed
human health and ecological risk screening see Appendix B and D, respectively.
Sediment Analysis by Parameter
Acid Volatile Sulfide and Simultaneously Extracted Metals (AYS and SEMI
AVS and SEM concentrations were determined for each site. The SEM/AVS ratio can be used
to predict the bioavailability and potential acute toxicity from nickel, zinc, cadmium, copper,
and lead. Sulfides bind these metals to the sediment which reduces their availability to benthic
biota. AVS is typically highest during summer months because warmer temperatures, increased
microbial activity, and lower dissolved oxygen, produce an environment where sulfides
predominate. In the winter time AVS is lower and these metals are more bioavailable. At any
time of the year, if the SEM/AVS ratio is greater than one the above metals are potentially
bioavailable and may cause toxicity. If the SEM/AVS ratio is less than one the metals are
usually not bioavailable (W. Berry 1996). The Dyerville Dam site was the only site which had
an SEM/AVS ratio greater than 1.0. The SEM/AVS ratio was 2.5.
Total Organic CarbonCTQC)
TOC concentrations were analyzed at each site. Examining the TOC component is important
because of it's ability to bind non-polar hydrophobic organic compounds, thereby reducing their
5

-------
bioavailability potential. The highest concentration measured was 10.9% at the Esmond Dam site.
The Manton Dam Site had the lowest measured TOC of 3.8%.
Metals and Total Cyanide
The sediments were analyzed for metals and total cyanide at all sites. Elevated levels of heavy metals
were detected at all site at varying concentrations and frequencies. Table IV below summarizes the
inorganics detection frequency and concentration.
Table IV: Metals and Total Cyanide Results
Site
tsmond
~ Dam"
Allendale
Dam""
Lymansviiie
Mjnton
Uyerville
Ulneyvillti
Lcnigan
Dam

Dam
Dam
Dam
Dam
Site#
UAM001
UAM002
UAM003
UAM004
UAM005
DAMU06
UAM007
S irnpl-1,
6197
,'6198
b199
6200
b202
b2U3
6205
Aluminum (mg/Kg)
	18700	
11100
18300
5490
10700
7300
5310
Antimcny (iry eg)
10U
llu
1UU
iou
9u
iou
10U
Arsenic (mg/kg)
35.Ou
lO.bu
3b.Ou
10.4U
20.OU
9.9u
1U.1U
barium (mg/kg)
3/ 5
218
310
97.8
lib
138
106
beryllium (mg/Kg)
5.4
2.5
3.8
1.0
1.5
1.2
0.9
Uaicium (mg/Kg)
4830
3480
4bt)0
21B0
2450
2750
22B0
(jadmum (mg/kg)
4.2
3u
4.b
3u
4
3U
3u
Uirom.um(total)(mg/kg)
117
13b
204
62.4
385
b3
48.4
Uobalt (mg/kg)
IB
12.6
1! A
/.5
9.1
9.2
b.8
Ujpper (mg/kg)
19b
13b
20b
47.8
210
89.3
88.1
iron (mg/kg;
29100
24/00
2J>t>00
12300
15300
1/200
15400
Lead (mg/kg)
317
250
414
128
30/
205
275
Manganese (mg/kg)
1980
1340
99/
500
598
1000
8/9
Magnesium (rrg/kg)
2910
22b0
3b20
1450
2770
2130
1570
Mercury, I otal (mg/kgj
0.b3
0.5
0./3
0.1b
1.06
0.2b
0.3b
NCKei(rrig'Kg)
53.4
38.4
/b
2/
35
29.1
26.2
Selenium (mg/kg)
iu.ou
lO.bu
io.uu
10.4U
B.bu
9.9U
io.iu
s iver (mg/kg)
3.UU
3.2U
5.0U
3.1U
2.bU
3.0U
3.0U
ihalliun (mg/kg)
10.0U
lU.bU
10.Ou
10.4U
B.bu
9.9u
io.iu
Vanadium imy kg)
39.5
33
4/.b
1b.4
28.4
24.b
30.OU
L nc (mg/kg)
BIB
5b8
/5/
23/
1930
38b
34b
lotal Cyanide (mg/kg)
12.BU
6.4U
7.5U
2.4U
2.6U
3.3U
2.8U
SFM/AVS Ratio (Cu ZnPb Cd Cr Hg Ni)
0.45
0.8
0.71
0.b8
2.5
0.38
0.83
u= not detected above associated reporting limit, approximate value
Chlorinated Pesticides and Polvchlorinated Biphenvls
Polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides were analyzed at each site(see Table V).
Several pesticides and their breakdown products were detected. PCB Arochlors 1242 ,1254 and
1268 were also detected.
6

-------
Table V: Pesticide/PCB Results
bite
hsmond
""Darn
Allendale
Lymansville
Manton
uyeiYiie
Ulneyville
Lonigan

Dam
Dam
Dam
Dam
Dam
Bam
Sample 3
DAM001
6197
DAM002
6198 "
DAM003
" "6199
DAM 004
6200
DAM005
6202
UAM006
62C3
DAM 007
'B205 ~
Aldrin
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
aipha-UH(J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
beta-BHU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
delta-tSHU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
gamma-t3h(J
ND
NU
NU
ND
ND
NU
ND
Alpha Chlordane
1b
34
40
13
11
21
24
gamma Chlordane
1.6
ND
18
l.d
ND
8.9
M
Uhloidane (technical)
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4 4-DDD
9.6
16
19
8.5
13
12
12
4.4'-DDb
1 /
25
3b
10
2.8
12
11
4 4-DDI
b.2
10
ND
NU
6.3
6.3
12
Uieldun
ND
11
8.6
NU
3D
b./
4.4
bndosuitan 1
ND
ND
ND
2.3
NU
ND
b
tndosulfan II
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
12
12
tndosultan sulfate
ND
ND
ND
NU
11
ND
ND
Lndrin
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
tndrin aldehyde
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
3.6
b.4
bndrin ketone
ND
23
ND
NU
ND
l.l
ND
Heptachloi
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Heptachlor epoxide
ND
ND
ND
NU
NU
ND
ND
Methoxychior
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
loxaphene
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
NU
Aroclor-lOib
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
NU
Arocior-1221
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1232
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
Arocior-1242
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
120
2b0
Aroclor-124a
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-l2b4
120
b90
1100
210
1300
290
2b0
Arocior-l2U0
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1262
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
Arocior-i2b8
88
120
91
1/
12U
NU
NU
lotal HUBS
208
710
1191
227
1420
410
bOO
lotal Organic Carbun {u,b)
10.9
/.6
9.3
3.8
4.b
5
b.9
ND =Not Detected
ND=Not Detected
Units are in ug/Kg
Dioxins and HCX
Dioxins were detected at all seven locations sampled. Concentrations were considerably higher
in samples taken upstream of and in close proximity to the Allendale and Lymansville Dams.
Results were highest at the Allendale Dam and Lymansville Dam (See Table VI and note that
the dioxin results reported are those from EPA's Region VII laboratory). Additional discussion
on the dioxin analysis can be found in the attached Appendix C: "Memorandum:
Woonasquatucket River Sediment - PCDD/Fs".
7

-------
OCLC Connexion
Page 1 of 1
OCLC 1141781653 Held by EHA - no other holdings
Rec stat n
Entered 20200225
Replaced
20200225

Type a
ELvl K
Srce d
Audn
Ctrl
Lang eng
BLvl m
Form
Conf 0
Biog
MRec
Ctry mau

Cont b
GPubf
LitF 0
Indx 0

Desc i
Ills ab
Fest 0
DtSt s
Dates 1988 ,

040 EHA *b eng #e rda #c EHA
088 EPA 901-R-98-007
099 EPA 901-R-98-007
049 EHAD
245 0 0 Woonasquatucket River sediment/water quality analysis : project report / *c prepared by: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation,
Ecosystem Assessment.
264 1 [Boston, MA]: *b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Office of Environmental
Measurement and Evaluation, Ecosystem Assessment, *c 1988.
300 1 volume (various pagings): ^b figures, tables, maps; *c 28 cm
336	text *b txt #2 rdacontent
337	unmediated *b n *2 rdamedia
338	volume *b nc +2 rdacarrier
500 Cover title.
500 "July 31, 1998."
504 Includes bibliographical references.
651 0 Woonasquatucket River (R.I.)
650 0 Dioxins *x Environmental aspects.
710 1 United States. *b Environmental Protection Agency. *b Region I. *b Office of Environmental
Measurement and Evaluation. *b Ecosystem Assessment, *e issuing body.
Delete Holdings- Export- Label- Submit- Replace- Report Error- Update Holdings-C Validate-C
Workflow-In Process
about:blank
2/25/2020

-------
Table VI: Dioxin Results
?!eNcme
AAL0001-
AALOOQ2
AAL0003
AAL00W
AAL0005
AAL000G
AAL0007
Reg 110
^ 06197 4
06198
06199
0G200
(>>202
06203
06205
Sample Description:
Esmond Dam
Allendale Dam
Lymansville Dam
Man ton Dam
Dyorvlllo Dam
Oln^/vH|r Cam
Lonlgan Dam
2,3,7,8-TCDD
11U
7350
8200
444
94.2
483
251
11,3 7,6 PrCDD
5U
5U
9
5U
5U
5U
5U
1.2.3A7.B-HXCDD
6.9
12.7
14
5U
13.1
9.5
7.6
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
24.5
45.7
45
11
32.1
23.8
23.5
1,2,37,8,9 HiCDD
28
43.1
42
8.5
36.8
25
23.8
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
683
916
1050
241
452
652
752
OCDD
3750
5580
6690
1790
1870
3940
7260
2,3.7^-TCDF
11U
18U
29U
11U
62U
18U
14U
1,2,3,7,8 P*CDF
5U
6.3
9
5U
11.9
5U
5U
2,3 4,7,0-PeCDF
5
11
12U
5U
25.9
5U
5U
UU7 B-HxCDF
5U
34.2
5U
7.7
50.3
13.9
15.4
1,2,3,6,7 B HCDF
15.5
23.2
27
5U
36
10.6
9.1
1,2,3,7,89 HiCDF
5U
5U
5
5U
5U
5U
5U
2,3*6,7,8 H>CDF
9.7
16.3
19
5U
23
6.6
8.5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H pC D F
195U
333U
283U
79
343
66U
174U
1A3A7.8.9-HPCDF
5U
14
5U
5U
17.5
5U
1U1
OCDF
162
328
386
79
43U
183
390








u=detection limit
Units are in pg/g
The compound 1,2,4,5,7,8-Hexachloro(9H)xanthene (HCX) was also detected at all seven of the
sites (see Table VII). Again the highest concentrations were found at the Allendale and
Lymansville Dams. The fluctuation in the concentration of HCX mimics the fluctuation in
dioxin concentration from site to site.
Dioxin and HCX are both biproducts in the production of certain chemical products. As such
the presence of these compounds may help in leading to the identification of potential sources.
See Appendix C for further discussion.
Table VII: HCX vs. 2.3.7.8-TCDD Results
Sample Description:
Esmond Dam
Allendale Dam
Lymansville Dam
Manton Dam
Dyerville Dam
Olneyville Dam
Lonlgan Dam
HCX
" 600
131000
1B2uuG
7760
2460
14000
52ou
2,3,7,8-TCDD
11U
4170
8200
444
94.2
483
251
Units are in pg/g
Petroleum Aromatic HvdrocarbonsCPAHs^
Numerous PAHs were detected at all seven locations sampled. Total PAHs which were
calculated by adding the concentrations of the 16 individual compounds analyzed are listed in
Table VIII. PAH concentrations were quite variable with no recognizable trend. The Allendale
Dam site had the highest total PAH of 67,320 ug/Kg. The Dyerville Dam site had the lowest
total PAH with 18,392 ug/Kg. See Appendix A-3 for analytical results compared to LEL and
SEL site specific limits.
8

-------
Table VIII; PAHs Results
bite
Lsmond
Allendale
Lymansvine
Manton
Dyerville
uineyviiie
Lonigan

Dam
"Dam
Dam
Dam
Dam
Dam
Dam
bite #
UAM001
DAM002
UAM003
UAM004
UAM005
UAM006
DAM007
sample #|
6197
6198
6199
6200
6202
6203
6205
Acenaphihene
150
200
120
510
68
190
460
Acenaphlhylene
110
320
280
140
270
160
130
Ant'iracent!
410
7/0
490
2100
260
980
1100
Benzo(a)anthracene
1600
4500
2600
3800
1300
3/00
3100
Benzoib)lluoranthene
3/00
400
6000
5100
2800
6500
6300
benzo(k jtiuorantnene
1100
3300
2300
1 /00
890
2800
2000
derzo(ajpyrene
2600
5400
3500
3600
1/00
4200
3500
Benzo(gtii)peryiene
iyoo
4500
3000
2100
1400
3200
2600
Chrysene
3000
7000
4400
4300
iyoo
5400
4200
Uibenzo(a, h)anthracene
470
/00
560
5yo
250
380
390
Muoranthene
MOO
12000
MOO
9000
2400
9300
8000
Nuorene
200
320
210
740
120
310
350
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2200
5400
3600
2/00
1800
4000
3400
Naphthalene
8b
110
6/
150
64
60
230
Hhenanthrene
2600
4800
2600
/OOO
8/0
4400
6200
Hyrene
4/00
8600
6500
/300
2300
7700
7800
latal HAHs
30126
67320
43627
50/30
18392
53280
4//60
lotal Organic Carbon (%)
10.9
7.6
9.3
3.8
4.6
b
5.9
Units: TOC is in %, all others in ug/Kg
Data Usability
Chain of custody records were maintained for all collected samples. Holding times were met for all
parameters analyzed by EPA Region I. At site DAM004, blind duplicate samples were collected for all
reported compounds. Laboratory blanks were analyzed for pesticides, PCBs and dioxins. All reported
compounds from the duplicate samples met the relative percent difference goals established in the
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Dioxin samples were frozen at the Narragansett Lab when they were received. Low resolution mass
spectrometry was performed by Narragansett. High Resolution analysis was performed by EPA's
Region 7 laboratory in Kansas City, Kansas. Samples were shipped frozen between the two labs.
Dioxin results were reviewed by EPA, Region I, Quality Assurance Unit.(see Appendix E)
Method blanks were analyzed for metals, PCBs, pesticides and dioxins. The results indicate no
laboratory contamination.
Meeting the above QA parameters indicate that the use of the data resulting from this project for the
purposes of risk screening and targeting future investigation is appropriate.
9

-------
REFERENCES
W. Berry. 1996. An Overview of Sediment Assessment Methods For Metals Contaminated Sediments
and the EPA Approach to Developing Metals Sediment Quality Criteria. USEPA, Atlantic Ecology
Division. Narragansett, RI. 4 pp
10

-------
Final 08/10/98
Appendix A-1
INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Woonasquatucket Sediment Sampling
REGION I LABORATORY
| = Above LEL
| =Above SEL
Freshwater
SEL
Freshwater
LEL
Site#
Sample #
Aluminum (mg/kg)
18700
1100
18300
10700
Antimony (mg/kg)
Arsenic (mg/kg)
35.Ou
10.6u
35.Ou
10.4u
20.Ou
9.9u
10.1u
33
Barium (mg/kg)
37 5
218
310
97.8
116
138
106
NA
NA
Beryllium (mg/kg)
5.4
2.5
3.8
1.0
1.5
1.2
0.9
Calcium (mg/kg)
4830
3480
4650
2160
2450
2750
2260
~4 2~
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cadmium (mg/kg)
3u
4.6
3u
3u
3u
0.6
10
Chromium(total)(mg/kg)
117
136
204
62.4
385
63
48.4
Cobalt (mg/kg)
18.0
12.6
17.4
7.5
9.1
9.2
6.8
Copper (mg/kg)
196
136
206
47.8
210
89.3
88.1
Iron (mg/kg)
29100
24700
25500
12300
15300
17200
15400
Lead (mg/kg)
317
250
414
128
307
Manganese (mg/kg)
1980
1340
997
"205"
275
598
1000
879
Magnesium (mg/kg)
2910
2260
3620
1450
2770
2130
1570
Mercury, Total (mg/kg)
0.63
0.5
0.73
0.16
1.06
0.26
Nickel (mg/kg)
0.36
53.4
38.4
76.0
27.0
35.0
29.1
26.2
26
NA
16
20000
31
460
NA
0.2
16
110
NA
110
40000
250
1100
NA
75
Selenium (mg/kg)
10.Ou
10.6u
10.Ou
10.4u
8.6u
9.9u
10.1u
NA
NA
Silver (mg/kg)
3.0u
3.2u
5.0u
3.1u
2.6u
3.0u
3.0u
NA
NA
Thalliun (mg/kg)
10.Ou
10.6u
10.Ou
10.4u
8.6u
9.9u
10.1u
NA
NA
Vanadium (mg/kg)
39.5
33.0
47.6
16.4
Zinc (mg/kg)
616
568
757
237
Total Cyanide (mg/kg)
12.8U
6.4U
7.5U
2.4U
28.4
2.6U
24.6
30.Ou
386
346
3.3U
2.8U
NA
120
NA
NA
820
NA
SEM/AVS Ratio (Cu,ZnPb,Cd,Cr,Hg,Ni)
0.45
0.80
0.71
0.68
2.50
0.38
0.83
u = not detected above associated reporting limit, approximate value
NA= Not Applicable
LEL and SEL Levels Obtained from. Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.
Sediment samples were collected 10/23-24/97.

-------
Appendix A-2
Woonasquatucket Sediment Sampling PESTICIDE AND PCB ANALYTICAL RESULTS
REGION I LABORATORY	Units are in ug/kg except for TOC.	=Above LEL
Site







Site # |&gKffl@ig@g^5g
Sample





Aldrin
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
alpha-BHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
beta-BHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
delta-BHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
gamma-BHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Alpha Chlordane
15
34
" 40
13
11
21
24
gamma Chlordane
7.3
ND
18
7.3
ND
8.9
17
Chlordane (technical)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4,4'-DDD
9.6
16
19
8.5
13
12
12
4,4'-DDE
17
25
35
10
2.8
12
11
4,4'-DDT
5.2
10
ND
ND
6.3
6.3
12
Dieldrin
ND
11
8.6
ND
30
5.7
4.4
Endosulfan I
ND
ND
ND
2.3
ND
ND
5
Endosulfan II
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
12
12
Endosulfan sulfate
ND
ND
ND
ND
11
ND
ND
Endrin
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Endrin aldehyde
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6
5.4
Endrin ketone
ND
23
ND
ND
ND
7.7
ND
Heptachlor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Heptachlor epoxide
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Methoxychlor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Toxaphene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1016
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1221
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1232
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1242
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
120
250
Aroclor-1248
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroctor-1254
120
590
1100
210
1300
290
250
Aroclor-1260
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1262
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aroclor-1268
88
120
91
17
120
ND
ND
Total PCBs
208
710
1191
227
1420
410
500
Total Organic Carbon (%)
10.9
7.6
9.3
3.8
4.6
5.0
5.9
ND = Not Detected
LEL Values Obtained from: Persaud. D., R. Jaagumagi. and A. Hayton. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.
Sediment samples were collected 10/23-24/97.

-------
[
Final 7/31/98
Appendix A-3
Woonasquatucket Sediment Sampling
REGION I LABORATORY
Site
SEMIVOLATILES (PAHs) ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MiWMMMISIIII =Above LEL
All units are in ug/Kg except TOC
Site#
Sample # H^^HI

Acenaphthene
150
200
120
510
68
190
450
Acenaphthylene
110
320
280
140
270
160
130
Anthracene
410
770
490
2100
260
980
1100
Benzo(a)anthracene
1600
4500
2600
3800
1300
3700
r 3100
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
3700
9400
6000
5100
2800
6500
5300
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1100
3300
2300
1700
890
2800
r 2000
Benzo(a)pyrene
2500
5400
3500
3500
1700
4200
3500
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1900
4500
3000
2100
1400
3200
2600
Chrysene
3000
7000
4400
4300
1900
5400
4200
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
470
700
560
590
250
380
390
Fluoranthene
5400
12000
7400
9000
2400
9300
8000
Fluorene
200
320
210
740
120
310
350
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
2200
5400
3500
2700
1800
4000
3400
Naphthalene
86
110
67
150
64
60
230
Phenanthrene
2600
4800
2600
7000
870
4400
5200
Pyrene
4700
8600
6500
7300
2300
7700
7800
Total PAHs
30126
67320
43527
50730
18392
53280
47750
Total Organic Carbon (%)
10.9
7.6
9.3
3.8
4.6
5
5.9
Sediment samples were collected 10/23-24/97.
LEL &SEI. levels obtained from: Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi. and A. Hayton, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.

-------
Final 7/31/98
Appendix A-4
Woonasquatucket Sediment Sampling
USEPA Region 7 Analysis
DIOXIN and HCX ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Units are in PG/G DRY WT.
U=Detection Limit
""s* Equivalence

AAL0002
AAL0003




Sample DescHptl^
/TCEM
06107
06198
06199

gr} ..
: v.-" ;

Allendale Dam

m
KMSim


2,3,7,8-TCDD
1
11U
7350
8200
444
94.2
483
251
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
0.5
5U
5U
9
5U
5U
5U
5U
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
6.9
12.7
14
5U
13.1
9.5
7.6
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
24.5
45.7
45
11
32.1
23.8
23.5
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
0
28
43.1
42
8.5
36.8
25
23.8
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0.01
583
916
1050
241
452
652
752
OCDD
0.0001
3750
5580
6690
1790
1870
3940
7260
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
11U
18U
29U
11U
62U
18U
14U
J,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
0.05
5U
6.3
9
5U
11.9
5U
5U
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
0.5
5
11
12U
5U
25.9
5U
5U
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
5U
34.2
5U
7.7
50.3
13.9
15.4
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
15.5
23.2
27
5U
36
10.6
9.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
0.1
5U
5U
5
5U
5U
5U
5U
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
9.7
16.3
19
5U
23
6.6
8.5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
0.01
195U
333U
283U
79
343
66U
174U
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
0.01
5U
14
5U
5U
17.5
5U
11U
OCDF
0.001
162
328
386
79
43U
183
390
Toxic Equivalent Concentrations

20.7
/390 8240
462

b03
275
| = Exceed High Risk TCDD Concentrations
Sediment samples were collected 10/23-24/97.
HCX = 1,2,4,5,7,8-hexachloro(9H)xanthene
HCX
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1600
131000
182000
7760
2460
14000
5280
11U
7350
8200
444
94.2
483
251

-------
Final 7/31/98
Appendix A-5	Pest/PCB SEL CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Woonasquatucket Sediment Sampling
Pest/PCR I FLand SFI Valiiftsfl]
Pest/PCB SEL Values Adjusted for Site Specific TQC
Compound ! LEL
Freshwater
Aldrin
2
NA
aipha-BHC
6
NA
beta-BfHC
5
NA
delta-BHC
NA
NA
gamma-BHC
3
NA
Alpha Chlordane
7
6000
gamma Chlordane
7
6000
Chlordane (technical)
7
6000
4,4'-DDD
8
6000
4,4'-DDE
5
19000
4,4'-DDT
8
71000
Dieldrin
2
91000
Endosulfan 1
NA
NA
Endosulfan II
NA
NA
Endosulfan sulfate
NA
NA
Endrin
3
130000
Endrin aldehyde
NA
NA
Endrin ketone
NA
NA
Heptachlor
NA
NA
Heptachlor epoxide
5
NA
Methoxychlor
NA
NA
Toxaphane
NA
NA
Arocfor-1016
7
NA
Aroclor-1221
NA
NA
Aroclor-1232
NA
NA
Aroclor-1242
NA
NA
Aroclor-1248
30
150000
Aroclor-1254
60
34000
Aroclor-1260
5
24000
Aroclor-1262
NA
NA
Aroclor-1268
NA
NA
Total PCBs
70
530000
Site
Esr
Dam
Allendale
Dam
Lymansville
Dam
i Manton
I . Dam _
. Dyerviile
Olneyville
Dam
| -Dam, ^
Sample #
DAM001
6197

DAM003
.6199
i DAM004
6202
ftAMOOfi
03
DAM007
! . 6205
Alpha Chlordane
654
456
558
228
276
300
354
gamma Chlordane
654
456
558
228
276
300
354
Chlordane (technical)
654
456
558
228
276
300
354
4,4'-DDD
654
456
558
228
276
300
354
4,4'-DDE
2071
1444
1767
722
874
950
1121
4,4'-DDT
7739
5396
6603
2698
3266
3550
4189
Dieldrin
9919
6916
8463
3458
4186
4550
5369
Endrin
14170
9880
12090
4940
5980
6500
7670
Aroclor-1248
16350
11400
13950
5700
6900
7500
8850
Aroclor-1254
3706
2584
3162
1292
1564
1700
2006
Aroclor-1260
2616
1824
2232
912
1104
1200
1416
Total PCBs
57770
40280
49290
20140
24380
26500
31270
Total Organic Carbon (%)
10.9
7.6
9.3
3.8
4.6
5
5.9
NA = Not Applicable
LEL Values are in ug/Kg.
SEL Values are in ug/KgOC
[1] Obtained from: Persaud, D.. R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy.
Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.

-------
Final 7/31/98
Appendix A-6
PAH SEL CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Woonasquatucket Sediment Sampling
PAH LEL and SEL Values T11
PAH SEL Adjusted to Site Specific TOC
Compound
NA
Freshwater
SEL I
NA
Acenaphthylene
NA
NA
Anthracene
220
3.70E+005
Benzo(a)anthracene
320
1.48E+006

NA
NA


240
1.34E+006


370
1 44E+006
Benzol
ghi)perylene
170
3.20E+005
Chtysene
60
4.60E+005
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
60
1 30E+005
Fluoranthene
750
1.02E+006
Fluorene
190
1.60E+005
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
200
3.20E+005
Naphthalene
NA
NA
Phenanthrene
560
9.50E+005
Pyrene
490
8.50E+005
Total PAHs
4000
1.00E+007
Site
	sto#
.'Oam
DAM001
6197
Dam
r DAM002
6198
Dam
DAM003
6199
14060
 Apfvp
bam
	DAM006	
e>2o;< "
Dam "I
Anthracene
40330
2812?T^
34410
17020
18500
21830
I
148000
112480
137640
56240
68080
74000
87320
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
134000
101840
124620
50920
61640
67000
79060
Benzo(a)pyrene
144000
109440
133920
54720
66240
72000
84960
Benzo(ghi)perylene
32000
24320
29760
12160
14720
16000
18880
Chrysene
46000
34960
42780
17480
21160
23000
27140
Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
13000
9880
12090
4940
5980
6500
7670
Fluoranthene
102000
77520
94860
38760
46920
51000
60180
Fluorene
16000
12160
14880
6080
7360
8000
9440
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
32000
24320
29760
12160
14720
16000
18880
Phenanthrene
95000
72200
88350
36100
43700
47500
56050
Pyrene
85000
64600
79050
32300
39100
42500
50150
Total PAHs
1000000
760000
930000
380000
460000
500000
590000
Total Organic Carbon (%)
10.9
7.6
9.3
3.8
4.6
5.0
5.9
Units are in ug/kg except for TOC.
NA = Not Applicable
LEL values are in ug/Kg.
SEL values are in ug/KgOC.
[1] Obtained from: Persaud. D.. R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. August 1993.

-------
Appendix B
Page B-l
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211
DATE: February 24,1998
SUB J: Human Health Risk Screening Analysis for a Recreational Exposure to
sediments in the Woonasquatucket River, Providence, RI
FROM: Ann-Marie Burke, Toxicologist
Technical Support Section
TO:	Woonasquatucket Team
INTRODUCTION
The following is a human health risk screening analysis for an older child or an adult who may be
exposed to sediments in the Woonasquatucket river during recreational activities. A risk
screening analysis is similar to a risk assessment in that similar formulas and methods are used to
assess risk. The major difference is that the results of a risk screening are generally more
uncertain than those of a risk assessment due to a) a limited data set (resulting in an uncertain
exposure dose), b) limited information about exposure, and/or c) data of lower quality than is
typically used in a risk assessment. In the case of the Woonasquatucket river this assessment is
defined as a risk screening because it is based on limited data, (i.e. 7 samples collected over 7
miles of river in areas that are not very representative of actual exposure), and there is limited
information about exposure, (i.e. who is exposed and how often?). Thus this risk screening
analysis adopts conservative but reasonable estimates of exposure and toxicity. As a result the
true risk is likely to be lower than that estimated here. The results of the risk screen indicate that
adverse health effects from exposures to sediments along the river under a recreational scenario
are unlikely. If you have any questions about this calculation, do not hesitate to call me at
(617)223-5528.
BACKGROUND
In May, 1996 EPA collected sunfish and eel from the Woonasquatucket River and analyzed fillet
and offal for cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel lead, zinc, mercury, PCB congeners,

-------
Appendix B
Page B-2
hexachlorobenzene, DDE, DDD, DDT, lindane, chlordane, nonachlor and dioxin homologues1. A
risk screen was performed for a hypothetical subsistence fisherman who would harvest all the
fish he ingests from the Woonasquatucket River. The results of the screen indicated that adverse
cancer and noncancer health effects could occur in subsistence fishermen who ingested 70g/dy of
whole eel or sunfish, (or fish similar to these), for a lifetime from the Woonasquatucket river.
Estimated cancer risks in sunfish were due mainly to PCBs (1.3E-03), and 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(equivalents) (2.5E-02). Noncancer risks were due mainly to mercury (HQ=1.9), PCBs
(HQ=76), and lindane (HQ=1.5).
Over a year later limited sediment sampling was conducted along a seven mile stretch of the
Woonasquatucket River. Samples were analyzed for metals, pesticides, total PCBs and congeners
77, 126 and 169, PAHs, and dioxins. Seven samples were collected from the top 4 inches of
sediment in low flowing areas directly behind 7 dams in the river. Since there is an immediate
need to assess whether exposure to river sediments should be restricted, I have conservatively
assumed that the bottom sediment samples collected for this effort would have similar
concentrations as the more accessible bank areas. NOTE: This is a very uncertain assumption and
may result in an overestimate of the actual risk since most of the sediment samples collected are
below water and in areas not likely to be accessed by recreational visitors, (i.e. middle of river
instead of on banks).
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
This screen is focussed on those chemicals which are expected to be the major contributors to
excess cancer and noncancer risks. These chemicals are chosen by comparing the maximum
concentrations detected in river sediments to a residential risk-based screening level. A
residential risk-based screening level is a concentration in soil which is associated with a 1E-06
cancer risk or hazard quotient of 0.1 assuming a young child and adult would be exposed to these
soils 350 days/yr for 30 years. These levels are considered to be protective of public health. The
Woonasquatucket river is not a residential setting so screening with a risk-based concentration is
conservative. The screen results in 7 contaminants of concern (COCs). These are PCBs,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and dioxins.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Receptor: The receptor for this analysis is an older child or adult who might use areas along the
river to picnic, wade or walk. Since this is a screen I have assumed adult body weights, surface
areas, and adherence factors for both the older child and adult, rather than conducting an age-
1 Memo from A. Burke to I. Balkissoon, "Human Health Risk Screening Analysis for a
Subsistence Fisherman in the Woonasquatucket River, Providence, RI," 9/30/96.

-------
Appendix B
Page B-3
specific analysis. This type of analysis is unlikely to result in a big difference in risk estimates
but could result in a slight underestimate of risk.
The City of Providence is developing areas around sections of the river as a "Greenway" or an
area with grass, groomed paths and bikepaths. Since it is unknown where the Greenway will
extend to and thus which parts of the river an individual might be exposed to, each dammed area
along the river will be considered a discrete exposure area.
Pathway: A recreational user could be exposed to contaminated sediments in the
Woonasquatucket river by coming in direct contact with sediments and by accidentally ingesting
sediments which had adhered to the hands. These pathways are evaluated in this risk screen.The
inhalation pathway is not expected to contribute significantly to the total risk from contaminated
sediments since all of the COCs have low vapor pressures and would not be expected to
volatilize to any great extent.
Frequency and Duration of Exposure: It will be assumed that the same individual will frequent a
discrete exposure area consistently over the long term. This is a very conservative assumption
since individuals are likely to visit different areas along the river over time. It was also assumed
that an individual would visit the river twice a week during the summer months (June, July,
August) and once a week during May, September and October. This results in an exposure
frequency of 32 days/yr. A long term duration of 24 years (for ages 7-31) was assumed.
Ingestion Rate: Upper end estimates of the amount of soil that an adult would accidentally ingest
approximate lOOmg/dy. This is a typical default assumption for soil ingestion in residential
settings. There is no information on how much sediment an adult or young child might
accidentally ingest in a recreational scenario. Since this is a risk screen I have assumed the same
ingestion rate as for residential soils. This is a very conservative assumption and actual sediment
ingestion rates are likely to be much lower.
RISK SCREENING RESULTS
The equation for deriving a protective level of a contaminant in soil or sediment is described
below. To estimate risk one simply puts in the site-specific contaminant concentration and
solves for TR or target risk. The default value used in this assessment for each exposure
parameter is listed next its' symbol below.
Cs (mg/kg) =	TR x BW xAtr	
F x Dx CPF IRAF.x IR + fSAxAFx RAF^I
106 mg/kg 106mg/kg
Where:
C s = contaminant concentration in soil = risk-based concentration (mg/kg)

-------
Appendix B
Page B-4
TR = target excess lifetime cancer risk - 1E-06
Bwa = adult body weight (70kg)
ATC = averaging time, carcinogen (70yrs x 365dys/yr) - 25550 days
CPF = cancer potency factor (chemical specific)
F = exposure frequency (32 dys/yr)
IR= soil ingestion rate, (lOOmg/dy) x FI (fraction ingested from source (1)
AF - soil adherence factor, Kissel et al (1996) - 0.23mg/cm2 (reed gatherers)
RAF0 = oral relative absorption factor = amount absorbed from the oral route from the site/amt
absorbed fromtox study = chemical specific
RAFderma| = dermal relative absorption factor = amount absorbed via the dermal route from the
site/amt absorbed from tox study (chemical specific)
Tables 1 through 4 report the estimated cancer and noncancer risks for each contaminant of
concern in the first four areas of the river, (i.e Esmond Dam, Allendale Dam, Lymansville Dam
and Manton Dam). Risks were not calculated for other areas of the river due to time constraints
but the risks in these sections of the river, (i.e. Dyerville, Olneyville and Lonigan Dams), are
likely to be lower than the Manton Dam since concentrations of contaminants continue to drop
off with distance from the Allendale Dam.
TABLE 1
RME CANCER RISK AND HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR DIRECT CONTACT TO
SEDIMENTS IN THE WOONASQUATUCKET RIV ER
FROM RECREATIONAL EXPOSURES
ESMON
D DAM
CHEMICAL
EXPOSURE PT.
CONCENTRATION
(MG/KG)
EXCESS CANCER
RISK
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
Total PCBs
0.21
5.1E-08
0.07
B(a)A
1.6
1.3E-07
NA
B(b)F
3.7
1.3E-07
NA
B(a)P
2.5
1.3E-06
NA
DBA
0.47
3.7E-07
NA
IP
2.2
1.8E-07
NA
TCDDTEQS
0.00003
2.7E-07
NA
TOTAL

3.3E-06
0.07

-------
Appendix B
Page B-5
TABLE 2
RME CANCER RISK AND HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR DIRECT CONTACT TO
SEDIMENTS IN THE WOONASQUATUCKET RIV ER
FROM RECREATIONAL EXPOSURES
ALLENDALE DAM
CHEMICAL
EXPOSURE PT.
CONCENTRATION
(MG/KG)
EXCESS CANCER
RISK
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
Total PCBs
0.71
1.7e-07
0.23
B(a)A
4.5
3.8E-07
NA
B(b)F
9.4
8E-07
NA
B(a)P
5.4
4.5E-06
NA
DBA
0.7
5.5E-07
NA
IP
5.4
4.5E-07
NA
TCDD TEQS
0.004
3.6E-05
NA
TOTAL

4.1E-06
0.07
TABLE 3
RME CANCER RISK AND HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR DIRECT CONTACT TO
SEDIMENTS IN THE WOONASQUATUCKET RTV ER
FROM RECREATIONAL EXPOSURES
LYMANSVILLE DAM
CHEMICAL
EXPOSURE PT.
CONCENTRATION
(MG/KG)
EXCESS CANCER
RISK
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
Total PCBs
1.2
2.9E-07
0.4
B(a)A
2.6
2.2E-07
NA
B(b)F
6.0
5.1E-07
NA
B(a)P
3.5
2.9E-06
NA
DBA
0.56
4.7E-07
NA
IP
3.5
2.9E-07
NA
TCDD TEQS
0.006
5.4E-05
NA
TOTAL

5.7E-06
0.07

-------
Appendix B
Page B-6
TABLE 4
RME CANCER RISK AND HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR DIRECT CONTACT TO
SEDIMENTS IN THE WOONASQUATUCKET RIV ER
FROM RECREATIONAL EXPOSURES
MANTON DAM
CHEMICAL
EXPOSURE PT.
CONCENTRATION
(MG/KG)
EXCESS CANCER
RISK
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
Total PCBs
0.23
5.5E-08
0.08
B(a)A
3.8
3.2E-07
NA
B(b)F
5.1
4.3E-07
NA
B(a)P
3.5
2.9E-06
NA
DBA
0.59
4.6E-07
NA
IP
2.7
2.2E-07
NA
TCDD TEQS
0.0004
3.6E-06
NA
TOTAL

7.8E-06
0.08
At the Esmond Dam (prior to the proposed source for dioxins) it can be seen that benzo(a)pyrene
is responsible for the majority of the cancer risk. As one moves downstream past the Allendale
Dam TCDD and benzo(a)pyrene are about equal in their contribution towards the total cancer
risk. And finally by the time one reaches the Lymansville Dam (at which the highest
concentrations of dioxins are measured, the majority of the cancer risk is from TCDD. After this
the risks from benzo(a)pyrene and TCDD again are about equal (at the Manton Dam). All
estimated cancer risks and hazard quotients are well within EPA's acceptable risk range for the
Superfund program. Given the estimated cancer risk and HQ, adverse effects from recreational
exposures to river sediments is unlikely. Although additional dams downstream of the Manton
Dam were not quantitatively evaluated, the risks area expected to be less than the Manton dam
since the concentrations of PAHs and TCDD decrease.
UNCERTAINTIES
There are several uncertainties in this risk screening evaluation which could result in and under-
or overestimate of the actual risk, although most tend to overestimate the risk. These include the
following;

-------
Appendix B
Page B-7
1.	Exposure Point Concentration - Since there were no sediment samples in areas where a
recreational user might be exposed, (i.e. along the banks), it was assumed that sediment samples
collected at the bottom of the river behind dams was representative of what an individual might
be exposed to along the banks. This is a very conservative assumption which may overestimate
the true risk since bank sediment samples may be much lower than those collected at depth in
depositional areas.
2.	Frequency and Duration of Exposure - Because there was limited sampling along the river, it
was assumed that the area around each dam was a discrete exposure area and that an individual
would visit the same spot 32 times per year. This is likely to overestimate actual exposure since
it is more likely that an individual would visit different areas along the river over time. In
addition, the duration assumed was 24 years when in fact the average individual doesn't live in
one place more than 9 years.
3.	Sediment ingestion rate - Since there is little to no information on sediment ingestion rates, it
was assumed that the sediment ingestion rate would equal a residential soil ingestion rate. This is
likely to overestimate the actual sediment intake since the exposure time in a recreational event is
much shorter than in a residential event and the same types of activities (resulting in a higher
ingestion rate), are not being performed.
4.	Adult exposure parameters Because this is a screen and due to time constraints, an age-specific
analysis was not conducted for the older child (ages 7-31). Instead adult parameters were adopted
for the older child. Although this is not expected to result in a large difference in the estimated
risk, it may result in a slight underestimate of risk.
5.	Dioxins - acute exposure An acute exposure is defined as a short-term exposure to high
concentrations of a chemical. A characteristic sign of acute exposures to dioxins is delayed
lethality after a pronounced wasting syndrome. Dermal effects similar to chloracne are also a
prominent sign of acute toxicity. The estimated dose for a recreational user exposed to dioxins
inb Woonasquatucket river sediments is not high enough to result in this type of acute toxicity.
6.	Dioxins - Noncancer effects - Dioxins have been shown to result in a myiad of noncancer
effects such as developmental toxicity, impaired reproduction, alterations in endocrine function,
immutoxicity, liver damage,etc. EPA does not currently quantitatively evaluate the health
hazards for noncarcinogenic effects since some adverse effects might be occurring at or near
background levels of exposure. Thus this risk screen may underestimate noncancer risks f rom
exposures to dioxins. However, it is important to note that the estimated exposure dose for
dioxin is very low even for many of the noncancer endpoints.
7.	Dermal toxicity to carcinogenic PAHs Carcinogenic PAHs were present in fairly high
concentrations in several stretches of the Woonasquatucket river. Although EPA quantitatively
evaluates systemic effects from dermal exposure to PAHs, we are currently unable to evaluate
dermal toxicity. Carcinogenic PAHs are known to cause skin cancer in laboratory animals

-------
Appendix B
Page B-8
B(a)P is used as a positive control for skin cancer in many animal bioassays. It is likely that skin
cancer effects occur at lower levels than do systemic effects. Thus the potential for skin cancer
may be underestimated in this risk screen.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This risk screen indicates that adverse health effects from recreational exposures to sediments in
the Woonasquatucket river are unlikely for an older child or adult. There are several
uncertainties in this assessment but most are likely to overestimate rather then underestimate
exposure and thus risk. Perhaps the greatest uncertainty is what individuals are actually exposed
to. I have taken the highest concentrations present in bottom sediments, which recreational users
are not expected to be exposed to, and assumed these represent shoreline concentrations. If there
are unexpected higher concentrations of contaminants in bank samples this would result in higher
risks than those estimated in this screen.
In general, risks are expected to be low due to the low frequency of exposure inherent in this
type of a recreational scenario. This is not the same type of exposure that would occur under a
residential setting in which this type of contamination would be considered a health hazard. Very
short term exposures, such as from a one day clean up of the river, are not expected to result in
adverse effects. There is the potential, however, for skin irritation and it would be expected that
anyone wading through the river would have protective thigh high rubber waders and rubber
gloves.
DATA NEEDS: In order to more accurately assess exposure to a recreational user of the
Woonasquatucket river shoreline sediment samples in areas of high access are necessary.
Samples should be collected in areas where the proposed "Greenway" is expected to run and
should include analysis for cPAHs, dioxins, PCBs and dioxin-like congeners.

-------
Appendix C
Page C-l
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS LABORATORY
ATLANTIC ECOLOGY DIVISION
27 TARZWELL DRIVE
NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND 02882
February 5, 1998
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Woonasquatucket River Sediment - PCDD/Fs
FROM:	Richard J. Pruell, Research Chemist
TO:	Tim Bridges, EPA-Region I
The following is my preliminary assessment of our results for dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and
dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in the sediments collected from the Woonasquatucket River. Analysis of the sediment
samples indicates the presence of several PCDD/F congeners, particularly 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dioxin, octachloro-
p-dioxin and octachlorodibenzofiiran. No PCDD/Fs were detected in either the Field Blank or Procedural Blank. A
Certified Reference Material was also analyzed with this batch of samples. The concentrations measured in this
sample were all within the ranges of the Certified levels. All of this indicates that the sediments collected from the
river contain significant amounts of some PCDD/F congeners.
There can be many sources of PCDD/Fs to the environment including combustion processes, paper
bleaching, chemical manufacturing, the use of chlorophenols and many more. Each source type tends to produce
distinct congener distributions or ratios that can be used to fingerprint potential sources. The distributions of
PCDD/F congeners is the Woonasquatucket River sediments are very unusual and do not appear to match any one
source type. Instead, it appears that there may be two major source types contributing to these distributions.
The high molecular weight PCDD/Fs (hepta- and octachloro congeners) are probably associated with the
use of pentachlorophenol. This compound has been widely used as a wood preservative and in the textile industry.
Based on the concentrations measured in the sediments, this compound may have entered the river at several
locations.
It appears that another source of PCDD/Fs may have been located between the Esmond and Allendale
dams. This source was highly enriched in 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dioxin which indicates a chemical manufacturing
process that involved the use of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol. Well known cases of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dioxin
contamination have resulted from the production of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol for use in herbicides and from the
production of hexachlorophene.
Please call me at (401)782-3091 if you have any questions.
cc:N. Rubinstein
S. Schimmel
B. Taplin
R. McKinney

-------
Appendix D
D-l
Woonasquatucket River Sediment Sampling
(3/1/98)
Preliminary Ecological Risk Screening Information
Individual surface sediment samples (0-10 cm) were taken at seven low energy locations
along the Woonasquatucket River. From up to downstream they were the Esmond Dam,
Allendale Dam, Lymansville Dam, Manton Dam, Dyerville Dam, Olneyville Dam and Lonigan
Dam.
Analyses of these samples were performed at EPA's regional laboratory in Lexington,
MA. for total metals, total cyanide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total organic carbon, acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and the
simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, and Ni. Analyses for dioxins and furans
in sediment was performed at the EPA Narragansett Laboratory.
The following techniques were used to provide a preliminary screening of potential
ecological risk from the above analytes to the biological community along this section of the
river.
Where available, analytes detected were compared to sediment guidelines shown in
Appendix A-l, A-5 and A-6 (Persaud et al. 1993). These include low effect levels (LELs) and
severe effect levels (SELs). The LEL indicates a sediment is clean to marginally polluted and
has no significant effect on a majority of freshwater benthos. Exceedance of these values may
require additional study. The SEL indicates a sediment is likely to be heavily contaminated, and
so, would impact a majority of benthos in the study area. Consequently, further examination
would be required in an attempt to define the extent and magnitude of impact.
One vehicle used to better define the risk potential associated with metals at these
locations is SEM/AVS ratios. The SEM/AVS ratio is a means to attempt to evaluate the
bioavailability potential. It reflects the solid phase sulfides ability to bind certain metals. This
ratio will be used to identify the potential for metals associated toxicity.
A second vehicle used particularly in the evaluation of non- polar organics is
normalization to site specific organic carbon content. TOC is being used in conjunction with
SEL values to establish location specific sediment effects benchmarks.
Organics
Comparison to site specific SEL values in Appendix A-6 show no exceedances.
Comparison to LEL values show significant exceedances of numerous PAHs, pesticides and
Arochlor 1254 (see Appendixes A-5 and A-6). Furthermore, total PAH values far exceed i.e.
>10x the total PAH LEL value. This may give some indication of the additive or synergistic
effects potential. The same can be seen for total PCB values.

-------
Appendix D
D-2
An attempt was made to better define the impact potential that is reflected by an exceedance
of one threshold value i.e. LELs, by incorporating a comparison to two other sediment quality
benchmarks. These values are the threshold effect concentration (TEC) and the probable effect
concentration (PEC) developed for the USEPA under the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) project (USEPA 1996). TEC values are associated with the
upper concentration showing little or no effect. The PEC value is that concentration that is
almost always associated with adverse impacts to benthic species. As discussed in (Jones et al
1997), the TEC and PEC values for PAHs have a moderate to high confidence rating. The PAH
compounds benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene, pyrene and total PAHs
exceed both the TEC and PEC at all locations sampled. From the ARCS project, only a total
PCB benchmark value was available. The PEC of 245 ug/Kg was exceeded at all but the
Esmond and Manton Dam locations.
Dioxins
Available sediment data (Appendix A-4) indicates that 2,3,7,8 TCDD has been detected
in samples from Allendale, Lymansville, Manton, Olneyville and Lonigan Dams. Concentrations
in dry weight range from 8200pg/g at Lymansville Dam to 94.2pg/g at Dyerville Dam. There
was no 2,3,7,8 TCDD detected at Esmond Dam. Other dioxins and furans were detected in the
sediments as well. As seen in Appendix A-4 the detected isomers and congeners of both the
dioxins and furans were equated to 2,3,7,8 TCDD using toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs)
(USEPA 1993a). These values were then compared to 2,3,7,8, TCDD sediment values
associated with predictions of low and high risk to sensitive fish species i.e. 60 pg/g and 100
pg/g, respectively (USEPA 1993b). These sediment quality values were developed from sensitive
fish effects data and a biota to sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) of 0.3. Generally speaking,
more tolerant aquatic species appear to be at a lesser risk, perhaps in the range of 10 times less
than sensitive species. In addition, these values are based on a sediment organic carbon
concentration of 3%. Comparison of TEF concentrations from Appendix A-4 indicate that all
locations except Esmond Dam and Dyerville Dam show exceedances of the high risk screening
value.
Additional documents were consulted in an attempt to gauge the 2,3,7,8 TCDD
guidelines identified in the above paragraph.
According to the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) theory, sediment quality values (SQV)
can be calculated for non-polar hydrophobic organic chemicals. The equation for such a
calculation is SQV(ug/goc) = Koc(L/Kg)*FCV (ug/L)* lKg/lgoc. National chronic ambient
water quality criteria (AWQC) for 2,3,7,8 TCDD is <0.00001 ug/L and for the acute value is 0.01
ug/L. These criteria values are actually a lowest observed effect level (LOEL) because there is
not enough data to support the determination of actual AWQC values. A Koc value of 107 was
estimated based on analysis of measurements and models (USEPA 1993b). Based on this
information and a 0.01 ug/L acute value, an acute SQV of 100 ug/g(oc) would result. TOC
normalized acute SQV values would range from 3800 ug/Kg for 3.8%TOC to 10,900 ug/Kg for
10.9% TOC. Based on chronic WQC a chronic SQV of 0.1 ug/g(oc) would be calculated. This

-------
Appendix D
D-3
would result in a TOC normalized range of 3.8 -10.9 ug/Kg for chronic criteria.
Dioxins sediment concentrations detected at this site would appear not to pose an acute
significant risk to the benthic invertebrate community based on these calculated site specific
SQVs. However, based on the chronic calculated SQVs, chronic impacts to the benthic
community would be expected.
A 10 ug/g(oc) sediment criteria for the protection of the benthic community was proposed
for use in New York (New York Bureau of Environmental Protection 1989) and was based on
aquatic toxicity data. Normalizing this value to site specific organic carbon data would results in
a criteria range of 380 - 1090 ug/Kg. Calculated sediment criteria or guidelines based on Koc
values have its own uncertainty associated with it. Some would say that because of the
uncertainty involved, bounds of 1 order of magnitude to either side is appropriate (New York
Bureau of Environmental Protection 1989). This is to say that sediment concentrations
approaching 10 times the New York criteria would likely result in chronic impacts to benthos.
Values exceeding 100 times (assuming an acute to chronic factor of 10) the New York guidance
values are likely to elicit acute effects. Using this criteria, again acute impacts to benthic
organisms would not be expected. As for chronic impacts this range of error would suggest a
lack of chronic impacts as well.
Though the sediment quality guidance is mixed, the fact that the "low" and "high" risk
values of 50 and 100 pg/g for sediment are based on a back calculation of impacts to a sensitive
fish species (one not expected in this area of the Woonasquatucket River) coupled with the fact
that benthic invertebrates that have been tested are less sensitive than fish in general would
suggest that these values may be conservative. Use of the EqP method because of its growing
acceptance within a critical scientific community may provide a better range of appropriate
guidance values for protection to the benthic community.
Another level of the aquatic community that was examined was the pelagic fish
community. A publication of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
(SETAC 1996) provides a compilation of calculated body burden effects data for various fish
species and effects endpoints. These endpoints are associated with early and adult life-stages.
Calculated body burden data from this document were selected based on the fish species caught
in the river for tissue analysis or those expected to inhabit this area. Lethal effects in adult stages
were associated with a calculated effect body burden range of 5 -16 ug/Kg in older fish. A
lethal body burden of 5 ug/Kg for Bullhead Catfish was calculated from LD50 data. A calculated
effect body burden of 11 ug/Kg for Largemouth Bass LC50 data was listed. A 16 ug/Kg effect
body burden for Bluegill Sunfish based on LD50 data was also identified. Calculated sublethal
body burden concentrations were also listed. A 0.08 ug/Kg effect body burden based on a no
observable effect concentration (NOEC) for Guppy fin necrosis was calculated. An effect body
burden concentration of 8 ug/Kg associated with a growth and survival NOEC was also
calculated.
Proper comparison of this information to site specific fish tissue data collected would
require sample weights. This was not currently available.

-------
Appendix D
D-4
A general comparison of this information with fish tissue data for 2,3,7,8 TCDD would seem to
indicate that a significant acute lethality issue, at least to adult fish, may not be present.
However, the possibility of sublethal effects is present. Note that because of increased
sensitivity, early life stage effects concentrations can be much lower.
Another point should be made that the fish tissue data used for this comparison was taken
from a location which has, relatively speaking, dioxin sediment concentrations on the low end of
the data range. It would be safe to say that an increase in tissue concentrations would be
expected in fish from areas of higher sediment concentrations. The likely increase in fish tissue
concentrations would increase the likelihood of chronic and possibly acute impacts to fish
species in these areas.
Due to its propensity to biomagnify in the foodchain, protective sediment values for
2,3,7,8 TCDD suggested for the protection of piscivores i.e. fish eating birds and mammals, is in
some cases lower than for either fish or benthos. A sediment criteria value of 0.0002 ug/goc
based on wildlife residues was proposed (New York Bureau of Environmental Protection 1989).
Based on this, site sediment values exceeding 0.008 to 0.022 ug/Kg would pose a risk.
Low and high risk sediment values associated with upper food chain piscivores were identified
(USEPA 1993b) as 0.0025 and 0.025 ug/Kg for mammalian species and 0.021 to .210 ug/Kg for
avian species. These values again were based on sensitive species.
Comparison of these values with site sediment concentration would certainly indicate a
chronic, and very possibly, an acute risk to upper trophic level species.
Inorganics
Various metals detected in the sediment samples exceeded their associated LEL and SEL
values (AppendixA-1). SEL exceedances at the Esmond Dam were identified for chromium,
copper, lead and manganese. Exceedance of the same metals were found at the Allendale Dam.
SEL exceedances of chromium, copper, lead and nickel were identified at the Lysmanville Dam.
The sample from the Dyerville Dam exceeded the SEL for chromium, copper, lead and zinc.
Lastly, the lead SEL was exceeded at the Lonigan Dam. There were no SEL exceedances at
either Mariton or Olneyville Dams.
Bulk sediment chemistry in itself is not likely to present a clear picture of actual risk.
Actual effects may be governed by other chemical and physical factors associated with sediment.
One such factor is the sulfides, in particular, acid volatile sulfides. An SEM/AVS ratio in
umol/g of <1.0 can accurately predict the lack of acute toxicity from detected SEM divalent
metals (Hansen et al 1996). Based on this research and the sediment data provided, the highest
likelihood of toxicity from metals would be found at the Dyerville Dam location with a
SEM/AVS ratio of 2.5. All other location have SEM/AVS ratios well below 1, which indicates a
lack of significant acute risk to benthos from SEM metals. Currently SEM/AVS sreening is not
applicable to other metals such as mercury and chromium. However, based on the assumption

-------
Appendix D
D-5
that the total chromium detected is not in the hexavalent form, significant acute risk from
chromium is unlikely.
As for mercury, again acute risk is unlikely but one must keep in mind chronic impacts and that
mercury, primarily methymercury, does have the potential to biomagnify in the foodchain.
Uncertainty Analysis
Various uncertainties are associated with this evaluation. Attempts were made to reduce
at least some of them through the use of site specific information. It is also pertinent to keep in
mind that this is a screening level risk evaluation using limited data.
The first is the amount of data available. Risk to aquatic life is based on the use of one
sediment sample at each of the seven locations. The spatial extent of the contamination is not
known. Additionally, fish tissue analyses is from one location and any extrapolation of risk
estimates to other locations is limited.
A second point is that there is no background data available and so this evaluation is site
specific with no relative comparison to similar lotic systems.
For PAH, pesticide, PCB and dioxin evaluation, comparison was made to TOC
normalized criteria guidelines. Other physical and chemical characteristics of the site may
influence an over or underestimation of the actual effects posed to biota associated with the site.
The evaluation of dioxin is based on values associated with an early life stage of a
sensitive fish species. The extrapolation to sediment "low" and "high" risk values are done so
with a non site specific TOC value of 3 % and a BSAF from a sensitive fish species that is not be
found in this urban setting. The species of fish likely to be found at the site may be less
sensitive. This would mean that any estimation of ecological risk to the aquatic environment
based solely on these guidelines is likely to be an overestimation. In addition, the actual organic
carbon content at each location is greater than 3 again likely to lead to an over estimation.
The Koc value used is an estimated average. The literature reports a range of values. The
Koc value selected may over or underestimate the actual risk potential.
TEC and PEC values used were based on a compilation of sediment toxicity data. Site
specific characteristics may mean the use of these values could potentially over or underestimate
the actual risk.
The evaluation of risk from bioaccumulation and biomagnification in the foodchain was
limited. This is due to limited data related to contaminants in fish tissue and habitat suitability
and use.
Inorganics were evaluated through the use of SEM/AVS ratios. While ratios may exceed
1, actual toxicological impacts may not be present due to other binding factors. In addition,

-------
Appendix D
D-6
while SEM/AVS ratio <1 provide a good indication of a lack of acute toxicity, chronic effects
may be present and impacts while not likely may be caused by other metals .
With mixtures of chemicals synergistic, additive and/or antagonistic effects may lead to
an over or underestimation of actual risk.
Summary
The screening level ecological risk evaluation is limited primarily due to limited
information. However, based on the sediments and fish tissue data available the following points
can be made.
The inorganic fraction based on SEM/AVS data would pose little if any immediate acute
risk. This is not to say that there is not risk from other inorganics which are not evaluated
through SEM/AVS ratios.
At this time it appears the majority of risk from chemical contaminants to the aquatic
community in this study area would be from the organic component. Individual and total PAHs
exceeded guidelines used in this screening risk evaluation. Total PCBs also exceeded its
associated guideline values. Impacts to the benthic community from both PAHs and PCBs seem
possible. Based on the information reviewed, dioxin would appear to be at least one possible
cause of chronic impacts to the benthic community in the river. The pelagic community may also
be at risk from chronic exposure to dioxin. More uncertain are the impacts to upper trophic level
species. A primary reason for this is the lack of information on available habitat and the use of
this river area by mammalian and avian piscivores for feeding. If significant use is probable,
then based on the sediment concentrations of dioxin impacts may be likely.
Recommendations
The present sediment sampling data is limited both in lateral and vertical extent. Due to
the risk and the source of that risk it would be important to better define this extent through
additional sampling. Analysis of these sediments should include inorganics and organics as well
as TOC and SEM/AVS. Co-located surface water sampling should also be performed with
analysis of both the total and dissolved fractions.
Historical fish tissue data was based on samples taken from a location showing a lower
level of dioxin contamination. Since higher levels are probable in fish that would be taken from
those areas with higher levels of dioxin additional fish sampling should also be considered. Fish
sampling undertaken in the future should be done in such a way that ecological, as well as human
health risk evaluations can be performed.
Due to the complexed nature of sediment chemical and physical impacts on contaminants
detected, it would be prudent to attempt to confirm or deny with biosurveys and/or toxicity
testing the actual predicted through any risk assessment.

-------
Appendix D
D-7
For exposure assessment purposes an evaluation of habitat quality and availability is also
necessary.
References
Persaud. D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines For The Protection and
Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality In Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Water Resources Branch.
USEPA. 1996. Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations for the Amphipod
Hvalella azteca and the midge Chironomus rinarius. EPA 905-R96-008. Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, 111.
Jones. D.S., G. W. Suter and R. N. Hull. 1997: Toxicoloeical Benchmarks for Screening
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 revision.
USEPA. 1993a. Wildlife Criteria Portions Of The Proposed Water Quality Guidance For The
Great Lakes System. EPA-822-R-93-006. July 1993. Office of Water. Office of Science and
Technology. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1993b. Interim Report on Data and Methods for Assessment of 2.3.7.8-
Tetrachlorobenzo-p-dioxin Risks To Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. EPA/600/-R-93/055.
March 1993. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
Hansen D.J., W. J. Berry, J.D. Mahony, W.S. Boothman, D. M. Ditoro, D.L. Robson, G.T.
Ankley, D. Ma, Q. Yan, and C.E. Pesch. 1996. Predicting The Toxicity of Metal-Contaminated
Field Sediments Using Interstitial Concentrations of Metals and Acid Volatile Sulfide
Normalization. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 15, no. 12, pp 2080-2094.
New York Bureau of Environmental Protection 1989. Sediment Criteria-December 1989: Used
As Guidance bv The Bureau of Environmental Protection. Division of Fish and Wildlife. New
York State Department
SET AC 1996. Environmental Contaminants In Wildlife: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations.
SET AC Special Publication Series. Lewis Publishers, pp 483.

-------
Appendix E
Page E-l
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT & EVALUATION
60 Westview Street, Lexington, MA 02173-3185
Memorandum
B^ATE: June 8, 1998
SUBJ: Review of Woonasquatucket Dioxin/Furan Results
/
J"ROM: Steve Stodola, QA Chemist
TO: Tim Brigdes, Environmental Scientist
As we discussed, a preliminary review of the dioxin/furan results
from Region 7 has been completed. These results from Region 7
covered the analysis of the sediment samples which were taken
from the Woonasquatucket River in the fall of 1997. The samples
were initially analyzed for dioxin/furan by the National Health
and Environmental Effects Laboratory (NHEEL) in Narragansett, RI.
The samples were split and portions were sent to EPA Region 7 in
Kansas City for analysis of the 17 standard dioxin/furan
congeners as well as hexachloroxanthene (HCX). The purpose of
the work at Region 7 was to confirm the screening results from
NHEEL. Region 7 was also expected to quantitate more accurately
the results for HCX.
A full data validation on the data package was not done at this
time. The Data Quality Record: Organic Form from Region 7 was
reviewed and no major problems were found. However, several
specific items need to be drawn to your attention as you
incorporate these results into your final report for this
project.
	The analyses done at NHEEL were done by low resolution
GC/MS, while the ones done in Region 7 were done by high
resolution GC/MS. Low resolution GC/MS can be considered a
screening method confirmed done by the high resolution
method. Also, the low resolution method will have higher
detection limits for the analytes than the high resolution
GC/MS. The extraction procedures for these samples were
essentially equivalent, both used an acetone/hexane mixture
for the extraction.
	The sediment samples were oven dried by NHEEL before
analysis. The split samples were dried by Region 7 in an
air stream in a hood at room temperature overnight. This
removed all but 5% (approximately) of the moisture as
observed by visual inspection by the Region 7 analyst. This
small amount of excess moisture could lead to slightly lower
results when compared to the same samples analyzed by NHEEL.
However, given the variability in sediment sample
composition this uncertainty is not significant.

-------
Appendix E
Page E-2
	Region 7 reported their EMPC (Estimated Maximum Possible
Concentration) values as "U", non-detected results. These
items are marked on the attached tables with an	Even
if these "U" values had been reported as EMPC values, the
interpretation of the 2378-TCDD Total Equivalency (TEQ)would
not be changed. Namely, the two sediment samples with TEQ
values higher than 1000 ng/kg (lppb) will still be
significant. The five samples with TEQ's less than 1000
ng/kg (lppb) will remain below that level. Therefore, we
recommend keeping the "U" qualifiers as reported by Region
7. A value of 1000 ng/kg (lppb) is often used as an action
level for remediation in dioxin/furan work.
	The HCX results reported by NEEHL should not be used since
these values were calculated using an estimated response
factor. NEEHL did not have an analytical standard to use in
their analysis.
	Region 7 had HCX contamination in their method blank. As a
result, the detection limits for HCX had to raised in
reporting the results for this compound. Therefore, only
the high levels of HCX in samples 002, 003, and 006 can be
considered reportable at this time.
	The Region 7 PE sample results were acceptable.
The results from NHEEL and Region 7 can be compared if these
items mentioned above are taken into account. The results from
Region 7 are summarized on the attached tables. The Percent
Differences (%D) were calculated for all of the analytes that had
positive results from both laboratories. The %D's for each of
the seven samples were then averaged to give an indication of
how favorably the results compared. The results can be
summarized as follows:
Location	% Difference
Esmond Dam	79%
Allendale Dam	40%
Water Street Dam	53%
Manton Dam	30%
Dyerville Dam	18%
Olneyville Dam	50%
Lonigin Dam	46%
The averages ranged from 79% to 18%. For the two samples (002
and 003) with the highest TEQ values, the average %D's were 40
and 53%, respectively. This degree of comparability is
acceptable for sediment samples given the amount of handling that
the samples went through during the laboratory splitting
operation and the fact that two different mass spectrometer
methods were used.
Another important pattern to note is the relative concentrations
of OCDD and OCDF in the samples. In all seven samples from both

-------
Appendix E	Page E-3
laboratories, the concentrations of OCDD are significantly higher
than the OCDF concentrations. This indicates that the two mass
spectrometer methods are producing consistent results across the
set of seven samples.
Summary
	The results from NHEEL and Region 7 agree reasonably well
for sediment samples.
	The High Resolution GC/MS analyses performed at Region 7
confirm the Low Resolution GC/MS screening results from
NHEEL.
	The fact that the two sets of data compared as closely as
they do and that no major data quality issues were found
with the Region 7 data indicates that the Region 7 results
can be incorporated into your final report in order to meet
the final goals of the project.
	The HCX results from Region 7 should be used and not the one
from NHEEL since NHEEL did not have an adequate analytical
standard for HCX.
	In the next phase of the project the dioxin/furan results
should be submitted along with a full CLP-like deliverables
package and a Tier III data validation be performed on the
data.
If you have any questions, please call me at 781-860-4634.
cc: A. Beliveau, OEME
N. Barmakian, OEME
C. Wood, OEME

-------
Site Location Map	Appendix F
smond Dam
Allendale Dam
Lymansville Dam [&Q

iton Dam
'yervilleDaml
Olneyville Dam

-------
Slatersville
Res.
LEGEND
~	Sediment Sampling Location
	Fish Tissue Sampling Location
N Hydrography
A' Woonasquatucket Basin
Boundary
N Town Boundary
= Dam Location	_ i.
North
Smithfield
Tarkiln
Smithfield
Linco
Georgiaznlle
, Pond
Sprague
Res.
Lower Sprague
Res.
Mountaindale
Res. \ V
Wenscott
Waterman
Moswansicut
Pond
Providence
Regulating
J\ Res.
Scituate
Spectacle
Pond
Mashapaug
 Appendix G: Basin Map

-------