### HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site : Metro Container Corporation

EPA ID No. : PAD044545895

Date Prepared : September 2011

Contact Person(s) : Lorie Baker U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (215) 814-3355 Baker.Lorie@epa.gov

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

Surface Water: The Surface Water Migration Pathway Drinki ng Water Threat was not scored because the Human Food Chain and Environmental Threats produce an overall score a bove the minimum required for the site to qualify for the National Priorities List (NPL). In addition, there ar e no surface water intakes along the target distance limit.

Ground Water: The Ground Water Migration Pathway is not scored because the pathway does not contribute significantly to the site score.

Soil Exposure: The Soil Exposure Pathway is not scored becau se it does not contribute significantly to the site score.

Air: No samples were collected to characterize the Air Mi gration Pathway; therefore, there is no documentation of an observed release. The Air Migration Pathway is not scored because it does not contribute significantly to the site score.

### This page has been intentionally left blank.

### HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Metro Container Corporation Date Prepared: September 2011

EPA ID No.: PAD044545895

EPA Region: 3

Street Address of Site*: Corner of W. 2nd Street & Price Street

City, County, State, and Zip Code: Trai ner, Delaware County, Pennsylvania 19061

General Location in the State: Approximately 10 miles northeast of Wilmington, Delaware (DE) and 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (southeast portion of state).

Topographic Map(s): Marcus Hook, PA-NJ-DE

Latitude*: 39°49'29.93" North Longitude*: 75°23'56.57" West

Site Reference Point: Southern corner of the fo rmer Metro Container Corporation drum reconditioning building. This location was chosen because the building is a permanent structure on the property.

[Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 3, p. 1; Ref. 4, p. 1; Ref. 5, p. 1; Ref. 9, p. 1]

* The street address for the site is inconsistent across refere nces. Historical documents indicate the facility is located at “2nd [or Second] & Price Streets” [Ref. 18, p. 1; Ref. 19, p. 1]. Consequently, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCL IS) database lists the addre ss as such [Ref. 3, p. 1]. However, according to the Delaware County Real Estate Pa rcels & Tax Records System, the current property owner and operator, Trainer Industries, LLC (Trainer Industries), is located at “200 Price St reet” [Ref. 13, p. 1]. The Delaware County Planning Department, as well as publically available Internet mapping websites, label 2nd Street as “W. 2nd St.” [Ref. 53, pp. 1-5]. For the purposes of this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation record, the street address of the site will be referred to as “W. 2nd Street and Price Street.”

The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area where the site is located. They represent one or more locations the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or thr eatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A s ite is defined as where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located ." Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a cer tain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scor ing will be refined as more in formation is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located. Scores

Ground Water Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway 100.00 Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Air Pathway Not Scored

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00

1

### WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE METRO CONTAINER CORPORATION

S S 2



### 1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw 

### ) Not Scored (from Table 3-1, line 13)

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 100.00 10,000.00 (from Table 4-1, line 30)

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component Not Scored (from Table 4-25, line 28)

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S sw 

### ) 100.00 10,000,00 Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S s 

### ) Not Scored (from Table 5-1, line 22)

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S a 

### ) Not Scored (from Table 6-1, line 12)

5. Total of S gw 2 

### + S sw 2 

### + S s 2 

### + S a 2 

### 10,000.00

6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 50.00

2

### SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET METRO CONTAINER CORPORATION

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT Factor Categories & Factors D RINKING WATER THREAT MAXIMUM VALUE VALUE ASSIGNED

L ikelihood of Release

1. Observed Release 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow 2a. Containment 2b. Runoff 2c. Distance to Surface Water 2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a [2b + 2c]) 3. Potential to Release by Flood 3a. Containment (Flood) 3b. Flood Frequency 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) 4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c)

5 . Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550

10 25 25 500

10 50 500

500

550 550

not scored
not scored
not scored
not scored

not scored
not scored
not scored

not scored

550

W aste Characteristics
6. Toxicity/Persistence 7. Hazardous Waste Quantity

8 . Waste Characteristics * *

100 not scored
not scored

not scored

T argets

9. Nearest Intake 10. Population 10a. Level I Concentrations 10b. Level II Concentrations 10c. Potential Contamination 10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) 11. Resources

1 2. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) 50

**   **  5

** not scored

not scored
not scored
not scored
not scored
not scored

not scored

13. DRINKING WATER THREAT SCORE ([lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500) 100 not scored

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. ** Maximum value not applicable

3

### SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET METRO CONTAINER CORPORATION

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT Factor Categories & Factors H UMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT MAXIMUM VALUE VALUE ASSIGNED

L ikelihood of Release
14. Likelihood of Release (same as line 5) 550 550

W aste Characteristics
15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 7. Waste Characteristics * *

1,000 5.00E+08 10,000

1,000

T argets

18. Food Chain Individual 19. Population 19a. Level I Concentrations 19b. Level II Concentrations 19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination 19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c)

2 0. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) 50

**   ** 

** 45

0 0 0.0000003 0.0000003

45.0000003

21. HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT SCORE ([lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500) 100 100.00

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. ** Maximum value not applicable

4

### SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET METRO CONTAINER CORPORATION

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT Factor Categories & Factors E NVIRONMENTAL THREAT MAXIMUM VALUE VALUE ASSIGNED

L ikelihood of Release
22. Likelihood of Release (same as line 5) 550 550

W aste Characteristics
23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity

2 5. Waste Characteristics * *

1,000 5.00E+08 10,000

1,000

T argets

26. Sensitive Environments 26a. Level I Concentrations 26b. Level II Concentrations 26c. Potential Contamination 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c)

2 7. Targets (line 26d) **   ** 

** not scored 175 not scored 175

175

28. ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT SCORE ([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500) 60 60

29. WATERSHED SCORE (lines 13 + 21 + 28) 100 100.00

30. SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE (S of 

### ) 100 100.00

SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE (S sw 

### ) 100 100.00

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. ** Maximum value not applicable

5

### REFERENCES

Reference Number Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule . Federal Register, Volume 55, No. 241, pp. 51532-51667. December 14, 1990. Available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm . [138 pp.]

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) . January 2004. A complete copy of SCDM is available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/site s/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm . [518 pp.]

3. EPA. Superfund Information Systems, CERCLIS Database Search Results for Metro Container Corporation: Site Information. Available from http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/ cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0300939 . Internet, accessed on July 19, 2011. [4 pp.]

4. EPA. Envirofacts, Multisystem Search Query Results for Metro Container Corporation. Available from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/multisystem.html . Internet, accessed February 9, 2011. [2 pp.]

5. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Marcus Hook, PA.-N.J.-Del. Quadrangle (7.5×7.5-minute series topographic map). 1995. [1 map]

6. USGS. Penns Grove, N.J.-Del. Quadrangle (7.5×7.5-minute series topographic map). 1995. [1 map]

7. USGS. Wilmington North, Del.-PA Quadrangle (7.5×7.5-minute series topographic map). 1997. [1 map]

8. USGS. Wilmington South, Del.-N.J Quadrangle (7.5×7.5-minute series topographic map). 1997. [1 map]

9. Schrot, Paul. Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON). Project Note to Metro Container Corporation File, Subject: Site Latitude and Longitude Ca lculations. June 23, 2011. [2 pp.]

10. MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH). Site Characterization Report, Trai ner Industries, LLC/Former Metro Container Corporation, Trainer, Pe nnsylvania, Volume 1 (Narrative & Tables) and Volume 2 (Figures & Appendices). November 11, 2005. [Vol. 1 - Narrative & Tables, 190 pp.; Vol. 2 – Figures & Appendices, 288 pp.]

11. WESTON. Final Trip Report for the June 2010 Soil a nd Sediment Sampling Event, Metro Container Site, Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylva nia. July 6, 2011. [201 pp.].

12. Reference Reserved.

13. Delaware County Real Estate Parcels & Tax Record s System and Homestead Status. Property Records Search Results. Available from http://w01.co.delaware.pa.us/pa/pub licaccess.asp?real.x=13&real.y=83

. Internet, accessed February 21, 2011. [4 pp.]

14. Borough of Trainer Zoning Map. Prepared by Stantec C onsulting Services Inc. July 27, 2007. Available from http://www.trainerborough.org/ . [1 p.]

15. Borough of Trainer Street Map. Available from http://www.trainerborough.org/ . [1 p.]

6

### REFERENCES (continued)

Reference Number Description of the Reference

16. Tetra Tech. Field Logbook for the Metro Container S ite. November 27, 2006 to September 4, 2007. [15 pp.]

17. Tetra Tech. Trip Report for the Metro Container Site (excerpt) . November 7, 2007. [90 pp.]

18. Moorshead-Siddiqui and Associates. Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Universal Container Steel Drum Corporation Plant Property in Trainer, Pennsylvania . March 1982. [77 pp.]

19. McGuigan, Roger L., P.E. Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Plan (PPCP) for the Universal Container Steel Drum Corporation . June 1982. [22 pp.]

20. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADR). Preliminary Assessment for Metro Container Corporation, Pennsylvania. PA No. 2025 (excerpts) . Undated. [4 pp.]

21. NUS Corporation (NUS) Field Investigation Team (FIT). Target Population Study, Metro Container Corporation 9 (excerpts) . January 6, 1989. [24 pp.]

22. NUS FIT. Non-Sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report, Metro Container Corporation . March 10, 1989. [61 pp.]

23. NUS FIT. Field Trip Report of Metropolitan Container Corporation . October 3, 1990. [97 pp.]

24. EPA. Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Report: Metro C ontainer Site, Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania: CERCLA Removal Action/RP Take over, September 19, 1998 through June 2, 1989. EPA Region 3, Philadelphia, PA. [262 pp.]

25. Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADH), Division of Sanitary Engineering. Waste Discharge Report, Universal Container Corp. April 3, 1969. [2 pp.]

26. NUS FIT. Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Screening, Metro Container Corporation . September 21, 1990. [37 pp.]

27. Reference Reserved.

28. Reference Reserved.

29. Reference Reserved.

30. Reference Reserved.

31. Tetra Tech. Final Trip Report for the Metro Container Site, 2008 Sediment Sampling Event . April 14, 2009. [116 pp.]

7

### REFERENCES (continued)

Reference Number Description of the Reference

32. Schrot, Paul. WESTON. Project Note to Metro Container Corporation File, Subject: Wastewater Quantity Calculations. July 05, 2011. [1 p.]

33. Watersheds of the Delaware River Basin Map. Prepared by the Delaware River Basin Commission. Available from http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/edweb/maps.htm . [1 p.]

34. Delaware County Water Features Map. Prepared by the Delaware County Planning Department. March 2008. Available from http://www.co.delaware.pa.us/planning/mapgalley.html . [1 p.]

35. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Fl ood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Delaware County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions). Panel 184 of 250. Map No. 42045C0184F (excerpt). Map Revised: November 18, 2009. Available from http://www.fema.gov/hazard/map/firm.shtm . [2 pp.]

36. Delaware River Basin Commission. State of the Delaware River Basin Report . 2008. Available from http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/SOTB/index.htm . [92 pp.]

37. Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program. Tec hnical Report, Delaware Estuary Fish Consumption Survey. Project No.: CZ1:02PD.09. March 31, 2004. Available from http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/fishing.htm . [43 pp.]

38. Delaware Riverkeeper. River Facts, The Estuary. Available from http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org /delaware-river/estuary.asp . Internet, accessed February 28, 2011. [2 pp.]

39. Reference Reserved.

40. EPA. Envirofacts, Multisystem Search Query Results for Stoney Creek Technologies, Delaware County, PA. Available from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/multisystem.html . Internet, accessed February 28, 2011. [9 pp.]

41. EPA. Quick Reference Fact Sheet EPA 540-F-94-028: Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination . Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. November 1996. [18 pp.]

42. Brownfields Remediation in Delaware County, PA. Environmental Studies Capstone Seminar, Spring 2009, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA. [97 pp.]

43. PADEP Newsroom Article. DEP Orders Stoney Creek Technologies, LLC to Cease Operations . Available from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server. pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=7668&typeid=2

. Internet, accessed March 1, 2011. [1 p.]

44. County of Delaware, PA. The History of Delaware County. Available from http://www.co.delaware.pa.us/ycounty/history.html . Internet, accessed March 1, 2011. [2 pp.]

45. Delaware County Planning Department. Delaware C ounty Historic Resources Survey Report and Findings For Trainer Borough. August 1981. [3 pp.]

8

### REFERENCES (continued)

Reference Number Description of the Reference

46. EPA. Basic Information: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB). Available from http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/about.htm . Internet, accessed on March 1, 2011. [4 pp.]

47. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Ag ency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Division of Toxicology ToxFAQs – Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Available from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=140&tid=26 . Internet, accessed on March 1, 2011. [2 pp.]

48. Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. 2011 Pennsylvania Fishing Summary. Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws . Available from http://www.fish.state.pa.us/bookfish.htm . [36 pp.]

49. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. Fish Smart, Eat Smart - A Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New Jersey Waters . Available from http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/njmainfish.htm . [30 pp.]

50. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Envi ronmental Control, Division of Fish & Wildlife. 2011 Delaware Fishing Guide . Available from http://www.fw.delaware.gov/Fisheries/Pages/Fisheries.aspx . [54 pp.]

51. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Data Report 2009, Delaware River Basin, 01463500 Delaware River at Trenton NJ. Available from: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/de/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01463500& agency_cd=USGS . [44 pp.]

52. MWH. Field Logbook for the Metro Container Site. No. 020-08-07-009. August 18 – 19, 2008. [7 pp.]

53. Schrot, Paul. WESTON. Project Note to Metro Cont ainer Corporation File, Subject: Site Address and Street Name. July 5, 2011. [5 pp.]

54. EPA. Administrative Order on Consent. In the Matter of: Metro Container Corporation Site. Docket No. III-89-11-DC. June 16, 1989. [59 pp.]

55. Schrot, Paul. WESTON. Project Note to Metro Container Corporation File, Subject: News Articles. July 5, 2011. [7 pp.]

56. Schrot, Paul. WESTON. Project Note to Metro Container Corporation File, Subject: PADH and PADER Inspections and NOVs. July 6, 2011. [19 pp.]

57. Udani, Shilpa (Organic Data Reviewer) and Mecanic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Region 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Level M2 Organic Data Validation for Case 36225, SDG: C01K9, Site: Metro Container Corp. May 8, 2007. [59 pp.]

58. Brown, Donald (Organic Data Reviewer) and Mecan ic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Region 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Level M2 Organic Data Validation for Case 36225, SDG: C01A5, Site: Metro Container Corp. May 15, 2007. [65 pp.]

910 

### REFERENCES (continued)

Reference Number Description of the Reference

59. Curry, Kenneth W. (Senior Data Reviewer) and Mecanic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Regi on 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Or ganic Data Validation (Level M2), Site: Metro Container Corporation, Case: 36225 S DG: C0168. May 16, 2007. [82 pp.]

60. Udani, Shilpa (Organic Data Reviewer) and Mecanic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Region 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Level M2 Organic Data Validation for Case 36225, SDG: C01C5, Site: Metro Container Corp. May 18, 2007. [81 pp.]

61. Udani, Shilpa (Organic Data Reviewer) and Mecanic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Region 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Level M2 Organic Data Validation for Case 36225, SDG: C0191, Site: Metro Container Corp. May 24, 2007. [62 pp.]

62. Alpizar, Mirna (Inorganic Data Reviewer) and Mecanic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Regi on 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Inorganic Data Validation (IM2 Level), Case: 36225 SDG: MC0168, Site: Metro Containe r. April 9, 2007. [34 pp.]

63. Alpizar, Mirna (Inorganic Data Reviewer) and Mecanic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Regi on 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Inorganic Data Validation (IM2 Level), Case: 36225 SDG: MC01B8, Site: Metro Contai ner. April 12, 2007. [28 pp.]

64. Alpizar, Mirna (Inorganic Data Reviewer) and Mecanic, Mahboobeh (Senior Oversight Chemist). Lockheed Martin Information Technology, ESAT Regi on 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Inorganic Data Validation (IM2 Level), Case: 36225 SDG: MC0197, Site: Metro Containe r. April 12, 2007. [30 pp.]

65. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Geospatial We tlands Data Download by State. Available from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html . Internet, accessed on July 8, 2011. [3 pp.]

66. Schrot, Paul. WESTON. Project Note to Metro C ontainer Corporation File, Subject: Wetland Frontage Located Along the 15-Mile Surface Water Pathway Target Distance Limit (TDL). July 14, 2011. [7 pp.]

67. United States of America vs. Metro Container Corpora tion, Metro-Enterprise Container Corporation, Lewis Maslow, Sidney S. Levy, Steven Zurbin. Nineteen Count Indictment. Criminal No.: 90-00359. Date Filed: June 4, 1991. [34 pp.]

68. Delaware County Regional Water Quality Cont rol Authority (DELCORA) Available from http://www.delcora.org/ . Internet, accessed on July 18, 2011. [7 pp.]

69. Fluor Daniel GTI, Inc. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessmen t, Witco Corporation, Trainer Plant, 3300 West 4 th 

### Street, Trainer, Pennsylvania (excerpt) . August 15, 1997. [29 pp.]

### SS-Site Summary

SITE SUMMARY

The Metro Container Corporation (Metro Container) site (CERCLIS ID No. PAD044545895) in the Borough of Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania consists of sources that contain hazardous substa nces, as well as releases of hazardous substances to surface water from the site’s long history of industrial use, initially in the production of chemicals, followed by reconditioning of drums [Ref. 3, p. 1; 4, p. 1; 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 5–60; 11, pp. 5 – 8; 17, pp. 8, 9; 31, pp. 4-6]. The site is located along Pennsylvania Route 291, south-southw est of the intersection of W. 2nd Street and Price Street, in a heavily industrialized area of southeastern Penns ylvania [Ref. 3, p. 1; 4, p. 1; 5, p. 1].

For the purpose of this HRS evaluation, the site is composed of two sources and releases of hazardous substances to surface water. The sources include the former waste dispos al lagoon (Source 1), and contaminated soil (Source 2) in the facility area. These sources contain hazardous substances , including PAHs, cadmium, mercury, and PCBs, that have been or potentially could be released into Stoney Creek and the Delaware River. Level II c ontamination, as a result of releases of hazardous substances via overland flow migrati on and direct deposition, has been documented in sediment within Stoney Creek and the Delaware River. This contamination threatens the Delaware River human food chain fishery and sensitive environments.

The geographic coordinates for Metro Container, as measured at the southern corner of the former main drum process and reconditioning building (a permanent structure) ar e 39°49'29.93" north latitude (39.824981) 75°23'56.57" west longitude (75.399047) [Figure 1 of this HRS docum entation record; Ref. 5, p. 1; 9, p. 1].

The Metro Container facility is located in a predominantly i ndustrial-zoned area, and is bordered to the north-northwest by an automobile salvage yard operated by Carters Auto Sa lvage; to the north-northeast by Price Street/Pennsylvania Route 291, across which lies mixed residential and commercial properties; to the east by a scrap metal yard operated by International Scrap; to the south by a rail yard; and to the west by the ConocoPhillips Company Trainer (ConocoPhillips) oil refinery [Ref. 5, p. 1; Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 43; Ref. 11, p. 3; Ref. 14, p. 1]. The Stoney Creek Technologies facility (formerly, Witco Chemical Corporation [Witco] facility) (CERCLIS ID No. PAN000306567) is located approximately 0.25 miles north of the Metro Container site [Ref. 40, pp. 1 – 9]. Stoney Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River, flows between the Metro Container property and the ConocoPhillips oil refinery in a southerly direction, discharging into the Delaware River approximately 0.2 miles to the south [Ref. 5, p. 1]. The ConocoPhillips refinery operates a non-contact cooling water effluent basin (Stoney Creek Guard Basin) that discharges to Stoney Creek directly west of the Metro Container facility [Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 41, 42, Vol. 2 - p. 5; 11, p. 4].

The Metro Container facility is a graded industrial-zoned property, encompassing approximately 11 acres, and currently consists of two parcels of land identified by the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds Office as Folio No. 46-00-00444-00 (8.9 acres) and Folio No. 46-00-00445-00 (2.157 acres) [Ref. 13, pp. 1–4; 14, p. 1]. The parcels are separated by the Price Street right-of-way [Ref. 14, p. 1; 15, p. 1]. The current property owner and operator, Trainer Industries, LLC (Trainer Industries), took ownership of both parcels in Februa ry 2001. According to County real estate records, Trainer Industries is located at 200 Price Street, Trainer, Pennsylvania [Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 13, pp. 1–4].

Structures currently on the property incl ude an approximately 40,000-square-foot (ft 2 

### ) former main manufacturing and drum reconditioning building, and an approximately 6,000-ft 2 

### office building [Ref. 11, p. 5]. The former drum reconditioning building is a brick structure with steel I-beamsupports, steel trusses, and several brick 2-story loadbearing walls [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 6]. In January 1987, a multiple-alarm fire tore through a portion of the former drum reconditioning building. The heat of the blaze was so intense that the metal roof of the building buckled and the roof over a portion of the south side of the building was completely lost [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 19, 20, Vol. 2 – pp. 71; 11, p. 6]. Since the fire, conditions of the building, particularly th e roof, have continued to degrade [Ref. 10, Vol. 2 – pp. 67 – 84]. The current property owner and operator, Trainer Industr ies, utilizes the building only as a storage area for paints and chemicals which the company uses in its off-site painting contracts. An open area located west of the former drum reconditioning building is used by Trainer Industries for sand bl asting pipes and vessels prior to repainting. The office building is used as the business office for Trainer Industries [Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 43].

By agreement with the current property owner, most of the property was graded by a neighboring property owner,

11

### SS-Site Summary

ConocoPhillips, and was used in 2006 for overflow parking [Ref . 11, p. 5]. The parking area is gravel-covered, and wooden telephone poles have been staged in horizontal rows on the gravel surface for parking control. The northwest portion of the property is characterized by trees and shrubs and ground cover vegetation. A mounded area south of the gravel-covered parking lot is the location of a decommissioned and backfilled concrete holding tank. The holding tank was initially used as part of the aeration process in a wa stewater treatment system, but was subsequently commissioned to hold untreated wastewater and sludge from drum reconditioning operations [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 8, 17, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 50, 51, 91, 92]. The portion of the property northeast of th e Price Street right-of-way is dirt-covered and is used for staging various pipes and storage vessels. Some areas of th e property, including the Price Street right-of-way and a road between the two structures on the property, are asphalt-paved [F igure 3 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 11, p. 5].

Operational and Regulatory History

The Metro Container property has a long industrial history. At the close of the 19 th 

### century, the property was occupied by the Delaware Oil Works. By 1913, the property was occupied by an expansive operation of the Manufacturers Paraffin Company, which included dozens of iron storage ta nks, refinery stills, an agita tor house, a boiler house, open water condensers, finished product storage facilities, and a packing shed and barreling house for the finished wax products [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 5, 6].

From 1920 until 1959, the Stauffer Chemical Company, Inc. (Stauffer) operated a chemical manufacturing plant on the property. Stauffer produced a variety of chemicals, including sulfuric acid, carbon bisulfide (also referred to as carbon disulfide) and dithiocarbonic anhydride [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 6; Ref. 18, pp. 4, 10; Ref. 20, p. 2; Ref. 21, p. 6; Ref. 22, p. 3]. The buildings on the property were constructed by Stauffer, including the office building and a “locker room” (which was a separate building but is now connected to the offi ce building), and the former drum reconditioning building, referred to during Stauffer’s tenure as the “oven building” [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 6]. Historical maps indicate that the oven building, under Stauffer ownership, was divided up into seve ral subrooms, including rooms for the storage of raw stock and finished products, a boiler room, and an oven room. Ther e were also outbuildings that included a waste burner and tanks for chemical storage and a railroad siding that bran ched around the northern portion of the oven building [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 6, Vol. 2 - p. 5].

Historical maps and aerial photographs indicate that Stauffe r constructed a waste disposal lagoon in the 1950s in the southwest corner of the property, adjacent to Stoney Creek and west of the former drum reconditioning building. Historical maps also indicate that the waste disposal la goon might have been converted from a pond that fed into Stoney Creek [Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, Vol. 2 – pp. 137–142]. Estimates of the original size and shape of the disposal lagoon vary, but in hi storical documentation, the lagoon is often estimated to be 0.5 acre and roughly square [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, Vol. 2 - pp. 5, 90; Ref. 18, pp. 4, 7, 12; Ref. 19, pp. 3, 4, 6, 8; Re f. 20, p. 2, 4]. When the partially filled lagoon was observed in the early 1980s, it was approximately 5,000 ft 2 

### (0.12 acres) [Ref. 10, p. 7; Ref. 18, p. 12; Ref. 20, p. 2, 4]. The unlined lagoon was eventually filled in with soil and artificial fill materials by 1982 and is not currently accessible [Ref. 18, p. 12; Ref. 19, p. 8; Ref. 22, p. 3; Ref. 23, p. 5].

In April 1963, after standing idle for 4 years, the property was purchased by the Joseph A. Reis Company and converted into a steel drum reconditioning facility [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 7]. Historical maps indicate that the Stauffer oven building underwent a major alteration with the raw stock storage rooms being converted into paint spraying rooms, the oven room being converted into a drum claiming room, and the finished product room being converted into a storage area for paints [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 7]. One significant addition to the building was constructed under Joseph A. Reis Company ownership, a shipping room located on the eastern side of th e building. It appears that the boiler room in the oven building continued to serve the same function. Histori cal maps from the mid-1960s show the location of the waste disposal lagoon as a “pond”. Aerial pho tographs from 1965 and 1970 indicate that the disposal lagoon contained a liquid at that time [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 7, Vol. 2 - pp. 137–142].

The Joseph A. Reis Company filed for bankruptcy sometime prior to January 1969, when the Universal Container Corporation (Universal Container) took ownership of the property from a bankruptcy trustee. Universal Container continued the drum reconditioning operations even though th e property itself was conveyed to the Delaware County Industrial Development Authority in December 1970 [Ref. 10, Vo l. 1 - p. 7]. In 1971, Universal Container installed a wastewater treatment system on site. By 1977, a closed loop system for treating and recycling rinse water was initiated The treatment system included an open-top/uncovered concrete holding tank or basin, a 50-foot long, 20-foot wide, and

12

### SS-Site Summary

13-foot deep structure extending 4 feet above the ground surface, located in the western portion of the property, north of the waste disposal lagoon [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8; Ref. 18, pp. 7, 11; Ref. 20, p. 2; Ref. 22, pp. 5, 10, 14, 21, 22]. Historical aerial photographs indicate that the holding tank was an original Stauffer structure; however, its use under Stauffer operations is not documented [Ref. 10, Vol. 2 – pp. 91, 137–142]. The holding tank was used initially as part of the wastewater aeration process, but was subsequently commissioned to hold untreated wastewater and sludge when facility operations began to fail in the 1980s [R ef. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 7; Ref. 18, pp. 7, 11, 12; Ref. 20, p. 2; Ref. 22, pp. 5, 10, 14, 21, 22]. An earthen secondary containment berm was built around the holding tank in 1986 [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 19]. In 1989, the holding tank was closed and decommissioned as part of a Removal Action [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 32, 33; Ref. 23, pp. 7, 15; Ref. 24, p. 29].

In February 1983, the property was conveyed to the Firs t Union Commercial Corporation and then to the Metro Container Corporation (Metro Container), the last in the series of owners who were to conduct drum reconditioning operations at the facility which ended in December 1987 with Metro Container filing for bankruptcy [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 7, 23; 24, p. 35]. At the height of its functiona l operations, Metro Container received approximately 450,000 to 500,000 drums per year, many filled with h azardous materials, paints, solvents, pe troleum products, and other substances [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 7]. The drums would arrive at the fac ility and be stored in stacked rows on the western end of the facility just north of the converted drum reclaiming build ing. The drums would be moved into the building via a conveyor where they were emptied into two different types of product tanks/vessels and pre-flushed prior to caustic being applied to the exterior to strip off the paint. The outside of the drums were then rinsed before two cycles of interior cleaning using caustic and two cycles of hot rinsing was pe rformed [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8]. Following the caustic cleaning, two cycles of interior metal stripping was perform ed using hydrochloric acid (HCI) followed by two cycles of cold rinsing. After phosphatizing, siphoni ng, drying, de-denting, short blasting, and leak testing were performed, the drums were dried, repainted, baked, a nd moved to the warehouse before shipment to customers [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8; Ref. 18, p. 11]. Storage tanks were distributed throughout the property to support treatment of the generated rinsate water and the recovering of product and sludges from the drum s themselves, including storage of acid, alum, caustic, toluene, No. 5 fuel oil, waste oil, spent caustic, DAF sludge, wastewater, chemicals, and paints [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8; Ref. 19, pp. 4, 6].

The contents of the drums and the fluids generated in the drum cleaning process were reportedly treated to remove oil and grease, and then underwent pH adjustment and floccula tion through the addition of aluminum sulfate and a polymer [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8; 18, p. 11]. The treated wastewater was decanted and reused as rinse water in the drum cleaning operations. During each day of operation, about 10% of the reused rinse water was remove d and replaced by fresh water to control the build-up of chlorides. This removed wast ewater was reportedly discharged to the Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority (DELCORA) sewer sy stem after additional treatment and pH adjustment [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8; Ref. 18, p. 11]. Sludge from the wastew ater operation was thickened with lime and transported off-site to the Sumptor Landfill in Sumptor, Michigan, although site investigations have shown that sludge was also buried on site [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8; Ref. 18, p. 11].

The Metro Container facility has a long history of environmen tal impacts and regulatory involvement related primarily to the drum reconditioning operations conducted at the facility by the Joseph A. Reis Company, Universal Container, and Metro Container. The earliest recorded Notice of Violation (NOV) at the Metro Container facility occurred in June 1965 when the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADH) or dered the Joseph A. Reis Company to cease discharging untreated waste directly into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 9]. In April 1969, PADH filed a Waste Discharge Report noting that Universal Container had cut a trench into the waste disposal lagoon allowing the accumulated “oily waste” to flow directly into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 9; Ref. 25, p. 1]. In June 1969, PADH filed another Waste Discharge Report indicating that the waste disposal lagoon was overflowing and dischargi ng into Stoney Creek. PADH noted that the discharge had soaked the ground with oil along Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 10]. In August 1970, a PADH Site Inspection Report noted that both drum waste a nd water used in reconditioning drums were conveyed to smaller tanks within a concrete-bermed containment area (which showed evidence of releases), then to a separator, and then to the disposal lagoon adjacent to Stoney Creek, which showed evidence of a large volume overflow discharge to the creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 11]. These types of discha rges would occur unabated into the early 1970s and even after the wastewater treatment system was installed in 1971 by Univ ersal Container, the various facility operators would be repeatedly charged with violating the restriction on wast e discharge to the creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 9–26]. Unpermitted discharges to Stoney Creek from facility operations would continue into the 1980s [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 9– 26].

13

### SS-Site Summary

From the late 1960s until the mid 1980s, Pennsylvania Depa rtment of Health and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP; formerly known as Pe nnsylvania Department of Environmental Resources [PADER]) site inspections identified the following deficienci es: oil seeps from the waste disposal lagoon; a “black substance” seeping from the site to adjacent railroad track s; improperly stored drums and wastes; poor housekeeping; drum wastes flowing into Stoney Creek via building floor drains connected to the stormwater drainage system; filling and dumping in the Stoney Creek floodplain; a “red material” flowing on the ground and into Stoney Creek; a “black substance” leaking into Stoney Creek; leaking drums stored outside on the ground; and puddles of oily wastes seeping into the ground surface [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 9–26; Ref. 11, p. 6; Ref. 20, p. 3; Ref. 56, pp. 1-19]. PADEP issued numerous NOVs to the facility for these observed violations. However, follow-up inspections indicated that the facility remained in noncompliance with environmental regulations and violations described in the NOVs were not mitigated [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 9–26; Ref. 56, pp. 1-19].

Since the mid-1980s, numerous CERCLA Removal and Site A ssessment actions have been conducted related to the Metro Container facility, including a Preliminary Assessm ent (PA), three Removal Assessments, a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) search, two EPA-lead Remova l Actions and one PRP-lead Removal Action, and an Administrative Order on Consent (Consent Order) [Ref. 3, pp. 3, 4; Ref. 54, pp. 1-6]. In December 1987, a site inspection and sampling were performed by EPA Emergency Response and Technical Assistance Team (TAT) personnel to determine if an immediate threat existed at the site [Ref. 24, pp. 4, 37, 142–152]. The following observations were made during the inspection: (1) approximately 60,000 precond itioned drums were estimated to be on site; (2) shutdown of the facility’s wastewater treatment system resulted in the build-up of untreated sludge, which was stored in the concrete holding tank and thousands of unsecured drums th roughout the facility; and (3) the property was unfenced and drums containing sludge were in extremely poor conditi on, many of which were leaking [Ref. 24, pp. 142–152]. Sampling during the assessment included an ash pile, sludge in drums and in the concrete holding tank, and liquid discharge from a drain-pipe leading into nearby Stoney Creek. Results from the sampling showed a variety of contaminants in the sludge, including benzene, toluene, several chlorinated hydrocarbons, phenols, and lead; however, none of the characteristics exhibited a threat to public hea lth and so EPA determined that a Removal Action was not warranted at that time [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 22, 23, 24; Ref. 24, pp. 3, 4, 5, 142–152].

In February 1988, the U.S. Coast Guard, due to material mi gration from the Metro Container facility into the Delaware River, requested EPA Emergency Response to assess the potential th reat of this migration [Ref. 24, pp. 3, 5, 37]. Due to the inability of Metro Container manageme nt and failure of a PRP “Steering Committee” composed of representatives of the companies that were the source of the thousands of dr ums present at the facility, EPA initiated a Removal Action in September 1988 to secure and stabilize the site [Ref. 24, pp. 3, 5]. Removal Action activities included installing a fence around the perimeter of the property to limit public contact with on-site materials. Also, a 300-foot long plywood retaining wall was constructed along Stoney Creek to serve as a barrier to material migration into Stoney Creek in the event of a catastrophic release of wastewater, oil, a nd sludge from the concrete holding tank or its secondary containment, both of which had overflowed and impacted Stone y Creek on previous occasions [Ref. 24, pp. 3, 5, 10, 19]. In addition, 136,700 gallons of oil-contaminated rain water from the concrete hol ding tank and its secondary containment was removed for off-site disposal [Ref. 24, pp. 3, 5, 154–159].

In June 1989, after lengthy negotiations, the PRP Steeri ng Committee signed a Consent Order and took over cleanup responsibility [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 31; Ref. 24, pp. 3, 11; Ref. 54, pp. 1-6]. The PRP St eering Committee contracted MK Environmental to conduct Removal Action activities at the f acility. Between June 1989 and January 1990, the contractor disposed of approximately 6,000 tons of waste, including sl udge, tanks, drums, and contaminated soil. The concrete holding tank was decommissioned and closed, which included removal of the liquids and sludge from the holding tank and secondary containment. The walls of the holding tank were power-washed, the upper 1-foot of soil within the secondary containment area was removed, and the area was back filled [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 32, 33; Ref. 23, pp. 7, 15; Ref. 24, p. 29]. Visually impacted soils in the areas west and northwest of the drum reconditioning building were scrapped down to an approximate depth of 1 to 1.5 feet, resulting in approximately 6,500 cubic yards of soil being excavated [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 32, 33; Re f. 24, pp. 11, 13, 29; Ref. 54, p. 49].

In July 1991, owners and operators of Metro Container plead guilty in Federal court to charges of violating Federal environmental statutes and with conspiracy to violate the statues during Metro Container’s ownership of the facility. Violations included dumping of hazardous waste and discha rge of contaminated water into Stoney Creek, storing

14

### SS-Site Summary

hazardous waste illegally, disposing of hazardous waste on the property illegally, particularly burying the waste outside, dumping it inside the former drum reconditioning building a nd covering it with concrete to conceal the waste; and walling-up a room where hundreds of drums containing hazardous chemicals were stored [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 35, 37; Ref. 55, pp. 1-7]. In addition to discharging polluted water into Stoney Creek, violations included discharging wastewater into the sewers of DELCORA that exceeded polluti on effluent limits specified in the facility permit, and for sabotaging DELCORA’s effluent monitoring devices so that Metro Container could pump untreated wastewater into the DELCORA system without detection. After DELCORA shut off the facility’s access to the sewer system (which occurred in December 1987), Metro Container operators dumped wa ste directly into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 35, 37; Ref. 67, pp. 18, 23, 25].

In 1998, Pennoni Associates, Inc. (Pennoni) conducted an environmental site assessment (ESA) on behalf of Service Painting, Inc. (presently, Trainer I ndustries) who were considering the purchase of the abandoned Metro Container property [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 37, 38]. In 1999, based on th e findings of the ESA, Pennoni conducted on-site sampling in support of a Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment. Analytical results of soil samples indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorin ated biphenyls (PCB), and metals. Analysis of sediment samples collected from Stone y Creek indicated the presence of PAHs, PCBs, and metals. During the course of the investigation, Pennoni installed te n on-site monitoring wells. Subsequent sampling of these wells indicated the presence of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and meta ls in ground water samples [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 39, 40].

In 2000, Pennoni collected additional samples to address PADEP comments on the Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report, including several sediment and seep samp les in Stoney Creek. Analytical results indicated the presence of PAHs and PCBs at concentrations in excess of PADEP Surface Water Human Health Criteria. Based on the seep analytical results and the quality of the emerging ground water from the Stoney Creek seeps, Pennoni recommended the removal of impacted soils, in the location of what they called Seep-3, which was located directly downgradient of the former waste disposal lagoon [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 41, 42].

In 2005, MWH America’s Inc. (MWH) performed a comprehensiv e site characterization of the Metro Container property on behalf of one the adjacent property owners, ConocoPhillips, who was considering the purchase of the Metro Container property [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 5]. The investigation incl uded mapping of anthropogenic fill and sludge deposits [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 50, 52-54]. A geophysical survey was conducted to investigate the presence of metals, such as 55-gallon drums, buried below the ground surface [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 50, 52-53]. Based on the geophysical data, four test trenches were advanced at the locations of the highest geophys ical anomalies to verify whether the intense magnetic field readings were indicative of 55-gallon drums or other metallic objects [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 50, 52-54]. MWH advanced approximately 130 soil borings on the property and collected one sample from each of the borings that had the highest concentration of organic vapors or most visually impacted hydrocarbon contamination and submitted them for laboratory analysis [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 50, 51, 54-56]. At 84 of the 130 soil boring locations, temporary well points were installed in the soil boreholes and ground water samples were collected [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 51, 57]. In addition, sediment samples were collected along the margins of Stoney Creek, biased toward locations where seeps into the creek have been observed or the most likely areas of contamin ated ground water discharge [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 51, 59].

MWH’s investigation revealed that the western end of the property (adjacent to Stoney Creek) underwent filling over time that channelized Stoney Creek farther to the west and br ought the property up to a consistent grade with the eastern end of the property [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 52]. The fill materials include demolition debris, flyash, metallic debris, and crushed drums [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 52]. Interbedded in this fill material in the western and southwestern areas of the property are sludge deposits. MWH reported in a few locati ons, that the sludge deposits comprise nearly the entire thickness of the fill [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 52, Vol. 2, pp. 106 – 110, 155-287].

Based on the geophysical survey results, four test trenches were excavated to ground truth areas of anomalies suggestive of metallic objects [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 52-54]. Materials en countered in the test trenches included layers of flyash, deposits of crushed and apparently inci nerated drums with small amounts of resi dual solids, a concrete slab/foundation, metallic debris, unknown steel pipelines, bricks, cast concrete block, and demolition debris, primarily brick and rebarreinforced concrete [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 52-54; Vol. 2 – pp. 6, 143–154, 113-130].

With regard to the soil borings, MWH reported that numerous locations contained layers of sludge, non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), brick, coke, and coal slag. In addition, hydrocarbon odors were noted in several of the borings, with

15

### SS-Site Summary

16 

### some PID screening results several thousand units above backgr ound levels [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 50, 51, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 250, 251, 256, 257, 261–269, 274-276]. Analytical results of MWH soil boring samples indicate the presence of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 54, 91 – 95, 110 - 114, 127, 128, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 7, 8]. Analytical results of MWH ground water samples indicate a VOC-, PAH-, PCB-, and-metals-contaminated plume underlies most of the western end of the Metro Container property. MWH reported that well-defined hot spots of high concentrations include locations downgradient of the former concrete holding tank, s outh and downgradient of the former waste disposal lagoon, and southeast and downgradient of the former drum reconditi oning building [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 57, 58, Vol. 2 – pp. 20-41].

In March 2007, on behalf of EPA, the Tetra Tech EM, Inc. (Tetra Tech) Superfund Tec hnical Assessment and Response Team (START) collected 25 surface soil, 24 subsurface soil, 19 ground water, four soil gas, nine surface water, and ten sediment samples as part of a Removal Assessment of the Metro Container site [Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 9-15, 57-58]. The samples were collect ed to determine whether substances at the site posed an immediate threat to human health and welfare or the environm ent [Ref. 17, p. 4]. Analytical results of the soil, ground water, surface water and sediment samples were compared to EPA Region 3 risk-based concentrations (RBC) [Ref. 17, p. 16]. VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals were de tected in various matrices at concentrations exceeding applicable RBCs [Ref. 17, pp. 17-22]. Specifically, th e PCB’s Aroclor-1248, Aroclor-1254, and Aroclor-1260 were detected at concentrations exceeding their applicable RBCs in surface soil samples, including maximum concentrations up to 15,000; 39,000; and 62,000 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) , respectively [Ref. 17, pp. 19, 67, 68]. Analytical results from sediment samples collected from Stoney Creek adjacent to the property indicated Aroclor-1248, Aroclor1254, and Aroclor-1260 at concentrations exceeding applicab le RBCs, including maximum concentrations up to 2,000; 9,500; and 9,400 μg/kg, respectively [Ref. 17, p. 20, 67]. Tetra Tech START compared PCB congeners reported in the sediment samples collected from Stoney Creek to congeners detected in ground water samples collected from on-site monitoring wells and concluded that the PCBs detected in the Stoney Creek sediment samples had migrated from the Metro Container facility [Ref. 17, pp. 22, 88].

Based on the March 2007 sampling results, EPA Region 3’s Bi ological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) determined that the collection of sediment samples from the Delawa re River was necessary to determine potential downstream impacts [Ref. 31, p. 6]. Subsequently, in August 2008, Te tra Tech START collected 16 composite and grab sediment samples from an area of Delaware River tidal mudflats located in the vicinity of Stoney Creek’s mouth [Figure 5 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 31, pp. 6-14, 19-21, 23-27]. The analytical results obtained from this sampling event indicate that sediments are contaminated with PAHs and PCBs at concentrations significantly exceeding corresponding BTAG Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchm arks [Ref. 31, pp. 11-13]. In addition, a comparison of the concentrations of PCB congeners reported in sediment samples collected from the Delaware River during this assessment to the PCB congeners detected in samples collected from the property during the 2007 Removal Assessment show a strong correlation, indicating that the PCBs likely may have origin ated on the Metro Container property [Figure 5 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 31, pp. 12-14, 36, 50, 51].

In June 2010, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech START collected five surface soil and three subsurface soil samples from the Metro Container property. In addition, 15 sediment sample s were collected from Stoney Creek and the Delaware River [Figure 6 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 11, pp. 9-15, 22]. Sample analytical results indicate the presence of PCBs and/or heavy metals in Stoney Creek and Delaware Rive r sediments at elevated concentrations (i.e., significantly above background concentrations) downstream of Metro C ontainer source areas [Ref. 11, pp. 8-13, 24, 34-36].Metro Container Corporation

PPE No. 1

PPE No. 2


### Delaware River



## Legend

Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

Facility Boundary

Surface Water Pathway SOURCE(S): Base map is a portion of the following 7.5-minute series U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24000-scale topographic map(s): Marcus Hook, PA-NJ-DE, 1993 (Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record). Digital raster graphic available from ESRI Maps and Data: http://www.arcgis.com/home/index.html

0 0.25 0.5

Miles 0 1,000 2,000

Feet Metro Container Corporation Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania



### FIGURE 1 Site Location Map

TDD#: Con WS03-11-01- 001 05

- tract: EP-S3-10

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:55:58 AM C:\Users\schrotp\Desktop\ArcGIS\Project_Site_Name\USEPA\START_Region3\Metro_Container\MXDs\RevisedDraft\Fig 1_Site Location.mxdDelaware River Wilmington/Newark Rail Line

Cr eek W. 2nd St. Price St.

Stoney Creek Technologies

Residential AreaStoney

Auto Salvage

Yard Scrap Me tal Yard

ConocoPhillips

Re finery PPE No. 1 Metro Container Corporation

Stoney Creek G u ard Basin Regional W

a stewater Treatment

Plant

Rail Yard

PPE No. 2

ConocoPhillips

R e finery

ConocoPhillips Re finery

SOURCE(S): Base map digital orthophoto imagery obtained 

### Legend from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) website: Metro Container Corporation http://www.pasda.psu.edu/default.asp Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania Probable Point of Entry (PPE) Road Wetlands data available from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html (Ref. 65). Facility Boundary Stream Nearby property operators available from the following HRS documentation record Reference(s): 17, pp. 5, 7. 

### FIGURE 2 Estuarine and Marine Wetland Railroad Tracks 

### Site Vicinity Map 0 200 400 Wetland Code: E2USN Feet

TDD#: 0 0. 05 0.1
Con WS03-11-01-001 tr act: EP-S3-10-05 Miles

Monday, July 18, 2011 5:49:45 PM C:\Users\schrotp\Desktop\ArcGIS\Project_Site_Name\USEPA\START_Region3\Metro_Container\MXDs\RevisedDraft\Fig 2_Site Vicinity.mxdConocoPhillips Refinery Stoney

Stoney Creek Guard Basin

PPE No. 1

Creek Former Drum Reconditioning Building Auto Salvage Yard

Scrap Metal Yard

Railyard Residential Area
Price St. W. 3rd St.

Right of Way

Office Building

Former Concrete

Holding Tank

Former Waste Disposal Lagoon PPE No. 2 Wilcox St.

W. 2nd St. Mary St.

Tuttle St.

Metro Container Corporation Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania

TDD#: WS03-11-01-001 Contract: EP-S3-10-05 SOURCE(S): Base map digital orthophoto imagery obtained from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) website: http://www.pasda.psu.edu/default.asp Adjacent operators and Source locations available from the following HRS documentation record Reference(s): 17, pp. 5, 7; 10, Vol. 2, p. 5. 

### FIGURE 3 Facility Layout Map

Monday, August 15, 2011 11:05:30 AM C:\Users\schrotp\Desktop\ArcGIS\Project_Site_Name\USEPA\START_Region3\Metro_Container\MXDs\Fig 3_Facility Layout.mxd 0 50 100 150

Feet 

### Legend
Probable Point of Entry (PPE) Facility Boundary
Road
Stream
Railroad Tracks ConocoPhillips

RefinerySton

Creek e y

Cr eek Price St. W. 2nd St.

Delaware River S t o n e y Price St. W. 2nd St. Right of Way MC07-SW/SD-07

MC07-SW/SD-01

MC07-SG01
MC07-38 MC07-SG02

MC07-SG03 MC07-48 

### See Inset MC07-12
MC07-133

PPE No. 1

MC07-129 MC07-SG04

MC07-SW/SD-03 MC07-SW/SD-06

MC07-72 Metro Container Corporation MC07-56

MC07-75 MC07-21 ConocoPhillips MC07-50 Refinery

Former Concrete

MC07-SW/SD-05 Holding Tank

MC07-100 MC07-62 MC07-C3 MC07-C5 MC07-C2 MC07-109 MC07-SW/SD-02 MC07-C4

MC07-SD-09 MC07-107

MC07-119 MC07-SD-10

MC07-125

0 50 100 Former Waste MC07-110 Disposal Lagoon MC07-C1

Feet MC07-115 MC07-SW/SD-04 PPE No. 2 MC07-114 

### Inset

SOURCE(S): Base map digital orthophoto imagery obtained 

### Legend Metro Container Corporation from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) website: http://www.pasda.psu.edu/default.asp Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania Probable Point of Entry (PPE) Wetlands data available from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife website: Facility Boundary Road http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html (Ref. 65). Sample and Source locations available from the following HRS Sample Locations Estuarine and Marine Wetland Zone of Contamination documentation record Reference(s): 17, pp. 9-23; 

### FIGURE 4

10, Vol. 2, p. 5. 

### March 2007 Wetland Code: E2USN Surface Water/Sediment 0 200 400 600 

### Sample Location Map Stream

Soil/Groundwater Feet Railroad Tracks 0 0.05 0.1 TDD#: Con WS03-11-01-001

tr act: EP-S3-10-05 Soil Gas Miles Monday, July 18, 2011 5:50:30 PM C:\Users\schrotp\Desktop\ArcGIS\Project_Site_Name\USEPA\START_Region3\Metro_Container\MXDs\RevisedDraft\Fig 4_March 2007 Samples.mxd 200ConocoPhillips

Refinery Metro Container Corporation PPE No. 1

Delaware River MC-SD-01A, MC-SD-01B MC-SD-05A/MC-SD-07A, MC-SD-05B MC-SD-04A, MC-SD-04B MC-SD-03A, MC-SD-03B MC-SD-02A, MC-SD-02B Former Concrete

Holding Tank Regional W a stewater Treatment

Plant

Railyard

PPE No. 2 Former Waste D i sposal Lagoon

MC-SD-10

M C -SD-06

ConocoPhillips R e finery

MC-SD-09

M C -SD-08A, MC-SD-08B



### Legend SOURCE(S): Base map digital orthophoto imagery obtained Metro Container Corporation from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) website: http://www.pasda.psu.edu/default.asp Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania Facility Boundary Wetlands data available from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html (Ref. 65). 

### FIGURE 5 Probable Point of Entry (PPE) Composite Sampling Line

Sample and Source locations available from the following HRS Sediment Sample Location Road Oil-Stained Area documentation record Reference(s): 10, Vol. 2, p. 5; 31, p. 19. 

### August 2008

Stream Estuarine and Marine Wetland 

### Sample Location Map

Wetland Code: E2USN 0 100 200 300 Railroad Tracks TDD#: WS03-11-01-001 Feet Contract: EP-S3-10-05

Monday, July 18, 2011 5:50:56 PM C:\Users\schrotp\Desktop\ArcGIS\Project_Site_Name\USEPA\START_Region3\Metro_Container\MXDs\RevisedDraft\Fig 5_Aug 2008 Samples.mxd0

ConocoPhillips Refiner y￿ Co Residental Ar ea￿ 79198.358569

Delaware River Wilmington/Newark Rail Line Stoney

Creek Price St. W. 2nd St. MC-SD-01

MC-SS-04 MC-SD-02 MC-SB-04

MC-SD-03

MC-SD-05 Scrap Metal Yard

Regional Wastewater Treatment

Plant

PPE No. 1 MC-SD-06 MC-SD-15 Metro Container Corporation

ConocoPhillips Stoney Creek

Refinery Guard Basin MC-SD-07



### See Inset MC-SD-16 Former Concrete MC-SS-03 Holding Tank MC-SB-03 Railyard MC-SS-01 Former Waste Disposal Lagoon PPE No. 2 MC-SS-02 ConocoPhillips MC-SB-02

Refinery

MC-SD-10/MC-SD-13 nocoPhillips Refinery
MC-SD-11 MC-SD-19 MC-SS-05 MC-SD-12 100 0 100 200 300 MC-SD-18 Feet 

### Inset MC-SD-17

SOURCE(S): Base map digital orthophoto imagery obtained Metro Container Corporation 

### Legend from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) website: http://www.pasda.psu.edu/default.asp Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania

Wetlands data available from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife website: Facility Boundary Road http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html (Ref. 65). 

### FIGURE 6 Probable Point of Entry (PPE) Sample and Source locations available from the following HRS Zone of Contamination documentation record Reference(s): 10, Vol. 2, p. 5; 11, pp. 10-12, 

### June 2010 Sediment Sample Location Stream 40-56.
0 500 1,000 1,500 

### Sample Location Map Estuarine and Marine Wetland Soil Sample Location Railroad Tracks Feet Wetland Code: E2USN 0 0.1 0.2 TDD#: Con WS03-11-01-001 Mi les tract: EP-S3-10-05

Monday, July 18, 2011 5:51:18 PM C:\Users\schrotp\Desktop\ArcGIS\Project_Site_Name\USEPA\START_Region3\Metro_Container\MXDs\RevisedDraft\Fig 6_June 2010 Samples.mxd

### 2.2 SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 Source Identification

Number of the source: Source No. 1

Name and description of the source: Former Waste Disposal Lagoon

Source Type: Buried/Backfilled Surface Impoundment

Source 1 consists of the waste disposal lagoon, which was used for disposal of wastewater until a wastewater treatment system was constructed at the facility [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, 8, 11]. Historical maps and aerial photographs indicate that Stauffer constructed the waste disposal lagoon in the 1950s . Historical maps also indicate that the disposal lagoon might have been converted from a pond that fed into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, Vol. 2 – pp. 137–142]. Estimates of the original size and shape of the disposal la goon vary, but in historical documentation, the lagoon is often estimated to be 0.5 acres and roughly square [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, Vol. 2 - pp. 5, 90; Re f. 18, pp. 4, 7, 12; Ref. 19, pp. 3, 4, 6, 8; Ref. 20, p. 2]. When the partially filled lagoon was observed in the early 1980s, it was approximately 5,000 square feet (0.12 acres) [Ref. 18, p. 12; Ref. 20, p. 2]. The unlined lagoon was eventually filled in with soil and artificial fill materials by 1982 and is not currently accessible [Ref. 18, p. 12; Ref. 19, p. 8; Ref. 22, p. 3; Ref. 23, p. 5]

. The waste disposal lagoon was created specifically for the pur pose of containing waste generated from facility operations and is evaluated based on HRS source type “Surface Im poundment” (buried/backfilled) [Ref. 1, Table 2-5].

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

The former waste disposal lagoon is located in the southw est corner of the Metro Container facility, adjacent to (east of) Stoney Creek and west of the former drum r econditioning building. The facility layout is shown in Figure 3. See also Figure 4 of the HRS documentation record.

Containment

Release to surface water via overland migration and/or flood:

In the 1960s and 1970s, PADH and PADEP site inspections reported numerous releases for the waste disposal lagoon overflowing and discharging into Stoney Creek [Ref . 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 9–14; Ref. 56, pp. 1-19]. Site investigations have reported the presence of leachate seeps immediately downgradient of the waste disposal lagoon flowing into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 36, 41, 42, Vol. 2 – pp. 131–136]. In addition, analytical results of sediment collected from leachate s eeps directly downgradient of the source indicate that a variety of hazardous substances (PAHs, PCBs, and meta ls) have migrated into Stoney Creek from the source [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 41, 42, 181, 182, Vol. 2 – p. 5]. Soil boring logs indicate that neither of the following is present: (1) maintained engineered cover, or (2) functioning and maintained run-on control system and runoff management system [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 52, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 256, 257, 261 – 269, 274 – 275; Ref. 17, pp. 46, 47, 49, 51]. Furthermore, no liner is present [Ref. 19, p. 8; Ref. 22, p. 3]. Therefore, a surface water containment factor value of 10 is assigned for this source [Ref. 1, p. 51609, Table 4-2].

23

### SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

MWH 2005 Sampling

As part of the 2005 comprehensive site characterization, MWH advanced approximately 130 borings across the Metro Container property, including 12 borings within the perimeter of the former waste disposal lagoon. Figure 3-1 in Vol. 2 of Reference 10 illustrates the MWH sample locations [Ref. 10, Vol. 2, p. 5]. Soil boring logs indicate layers of sludge, non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), brick, coke, and coal slag in the former waste disposal lagoon. In addition, PID screening results of the borings indicate hydrocarbon contamina tion in the former waste disposal area [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 50, 51, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 256, 257, 261–269, 274-276].

MWH collected one soil sample from each of the borings, at de pths that had the highest concentration of organic vapors or most visually impacted hydrocarbon contamination and submitt ed the samples for laboratory analysis [Ref. 10, Vol. 1, pp. 50, 51, 52]. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 in Vol. 2 of Reference 10 summarize the analytical results of soil boring samples collected from the former waste disposal lagoon [Ref. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 7, 8]. Analytical results of the MWH samples qualitatively indicate the presence of elevated levels of contam inants in the former waste disposal lagoon, including, but not limited to, VOCs (benzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, tricholoroethylene); PAHs (ant hracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene , benzo(k)fluoranthene, chryse ne, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, naphthalene, pyrene); PCBs (Aroclor-1248, Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1260); and metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, thallium, zinc) [Ref. 10, Vo l. 1 – pp. 54, 91 – 95, 110 - 114, 127, 128, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 7, 8].

Due to its age and unvalidated status, the 2005 MWH comprehe nsive source characterization data is not being used quantitatively to confirm the presence of hazardous s ubstances in the former waste disposal lagoon.

Tetra Tech START 2007 Sampling

In March 2007, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech START collect ed soil samples from the Metro Container property as part of a Removal Assessment [Figure 4 of this HRS documentati on record; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 9-15, 57-58]. Samples were collected from locations previously sampled by MWH in 2005, including four soil sample station locations (MC07-C1, MC07-110, MC07-114, and MC07-115) located within Source 1 [F igure 4 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 17, pp. 10-12].

No soil samples collected during the March 2007 sampling activities were collected specifically to represent background levels [Ref. 16, pp. 1-15; Ref. 17, pp. 10-13]. One soil samp le station (MC07-12) was located in an area upgradient of potential on-site source areas. MC07-12 was located in a grassy area, north of the office building [Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record]. Historical facility maps indicate this sample location is outside areas used for historical facility operations, including drum storage [Ref. 18, p. 8; Ref. 19, p. 4; Ref. 22, p. 5; Ref. 23, p. 7; Ref. 24, pp. 32, 86]. As a result, for the purposes of this HRS documentation record, the c oncentrations of hazardous substances detected in the soil samples collected from station MC07-12 (surface soil sample MC07-SS-12 and subsurface soil sample MC07-SB-12-09) 

### were used to establish background concen trations for the March 2007soil samples.

For this sampling event, all surface soil samples were grab samp les collected from 0 to 12 inches (bgs). Subsurface soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 1.5 to 17 feet bgs [Ref. 17, pp. 32-55, 57, 58]. At each of the sampling locations, the VOC fraction was first collected in-situ di rectly into sampling containers. Following VOC sample collection, soil was placed into a dedicated aluminum pa n and homogenized with a dedicated plastic scoop prior to placement in laboratory containers. The soil samples were collected in accordance with SOPs [Ref. 17, pp. 12, 13].

All soil samples collected during this sampling event were submitted to EPA-assigned Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories and analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, SVOCs and pesticides/PCBs, and Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and cyanide [Ref. 17, p. 16]. All analytical data were validated by EPA Region 3 ESAT according to the Region 3 Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for Organic and Inorganic Data Review [Ref. 57, p. 1; Ref. 58, p. 1; Ref. 59, p. 1; Ref. 60, p. 1; Ref. 61, p. 1; Ref. 62, p. 1; Ref. 63, p. 1; Ref, 64, p. 1].

The background and source characterization samples displayed sim ilar characteristics. The texture was similar in all soil

24

### SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

samples, ranging from silty clay, and gravel, and all samples displayed a brown or brown-to-gray color [Ref. 17, pp. 32­ 55]. Due to the similarities (i.e., same time frame, same sa mpling and analytical methods, same laboratories, similar physical setting and sampling depths, and similar physical descriptions) among the background and source samples, the background and source samples are considered sufficiently sim ilar to allow for comparison to document an increase in contaminant levels. Samples were analyzed for volatiles, se mivolatiles, pesticides and aroclor according to Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Statement of Work.(SOW) SOM01. 1 through Routine Analytical Services (RAS) program [Ref. 57, p. 1; Ref. 58, p. 1; Ref. 59, p. 1; Ref. 60, p.1; Ref. 61, p. 1]. Sample s were analyzed for metals and cyanide in accordance with Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Statem ent of Work (SOW) ILM05.3 through Routine Analytical Services (RAS) program [Ref. 62, p. 1; Ref. 63, p. 1; Ref. 64, p. 1].

Soil background concentrations for Source 1 soil samples collected in March 2007 are summarized in the table below. In cases where a chemical had no detections above its reporti ng limit, the sample quantitation limit (SQL) was used as the designated background concentration.

Background Soil Sample Analytical Results March 2007 Sampling Source 1 – Former Waste Disposal Lagoon

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Anthracene MC07-SS-12 C0197 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26
Anthracene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SS-12 C0197 220 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Chrysene MC07-SS-12 C0197 210 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Chrysene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26
Fluoranthene MC07-SS-12 C0197 340 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26
Phenanthrene MC07-SS-12 C0197 230 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Pyrene MC07-SS-12 C0197 340 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Pyrene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-12 C0197 71 J (710) μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-12 C0197 55 μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 5.0 U μg/kg 5. 0 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 9, 23
Cadmium MC07-SS-12 MC0197 0.63 J (0.89) mg/kg 0.5 m g/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Cadmium MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 0.49 J (0.69) mg/kg 0. 5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20
Chromium MC07-SS-12 MC0197 67.7 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Chromium MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 26.5 J (34.2) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20
Lead MC07-SS-12 MC0197 118 J (170) mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Lead MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 13.0 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20 Mercury MC07-SS-12 MC0197 0.27 J (0. 49) mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17

25

### SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Mercury MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 0.092 J (0.168) mg/kg 0. 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20

Zinc MC07-SS-12 MC0197 104 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Zinc MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 23.3 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20

Notes:

1 Estimated “J” qualified data flagged as “low” or “ unknown” and detected above the reporting limit were mu ltiplied by an adjustment factor consistent with EPA’s fact sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Obse rved Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 41).

2 The Reporting Limit is the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL).

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. Th e associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantita tion Limit (CRQL). μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

26

### SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

Analytical evidence of contamination in soil samples asso ciated with the former waste disposal lagoon source is summarized in the table below.

Soil Sample Analytical Results Elevated Above Background March 2007 Sampling Source 1 – Former Waste Disposal Lagoon

Hazardous Substance Evidence Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Anthracene MC07-SB-115-13 C01C6 8,500 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 60, pp. 18, 31 Chrysene MC07-SS-C1 C01C9 720 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 18, 31 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SS-C1 C01C9 1,100 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 18, 31 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-C1-13 C01D0 1,600 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 20, 31 Chrysene MC07-SB-C1-13 C01D0 1,900 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 20, 31 Chrysene MC07-SB-115-13 C01C6 4,700 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 60, pp. 18, 31
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-C1-13 C01D0 2,200 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 20, 31
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-115-13 C01C6 9,300 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 60, pp. 18, 31
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-115-13 C01C6 25,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 60, pp. 18, 31 Pyrene MC07-SS-110 C0189 1,100 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 57, pp. 16, 26 Pyrene MC07-SB-115-13 C01C6 10,000 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 60, pp. 18, 31
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C1 C01C9 7,000 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 26, 31
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-110 C0189 14,000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-114 C01C7 5,300 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 47; 60, pp. 26, 31
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C1 C01C9 13,000 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 26, 31
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-110 C0189 22,000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-114 C01C7 8,600 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 47; 60, pp. 26, 31
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-115 C01C5 30,000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 57, pp. 26, 31
Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-C1-13 C01D0 120 μg/kg 5.0 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 60, pp. 13, 29
Cadmium MC07-SS-C1 MC01C9 28.0 mg/kg 0.5 mg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51;63, pp. 10, 14
Cadmium MC07-SB-C1-13 MC01D0 3.3 mg/kg 0.5 mg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 63, pp. 10, 14
Cadmium MC07-SS-110 MC0189 23.3 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 62, pp. 13, 20
Cadmium MC07-SS-114 MC01C7 11.9 mg/kg 0.5 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 47; 63, pp. 10, 14
Cadmium MC07-SS-115 MC01C5 15.5 mg/kg 0.5 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14
Cadmium MC07-SB-115-13 MC01C6 25.1 mg/kg 0.5 mg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14
Chromium MC07-SS-C1 MC01C9 275 mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 63, pp. 10, 14
Chromium MC07-SS-115 MC01C5 248 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14
Chromium MC07-SB-115-13 MC01C6 722 mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14
Lead MC07-SS-C1 MC01C9 1,220 J (847) mg/kg 1 mg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 63, pp. 10, 14

Lead MC07-SS-110 MC0189 1,240 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 62, pp. 13, 20
Lead MC07-SS-114 MC01C7 756 J (525) mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 47; 63, pp. 10, 14
Lead MC07-SB-115-13 MC01C6 4,370 J (3,035) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14

27

### SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

Hazardous Substance Evidence Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Mercury MC07-SS-C1 MC01C9 3 mg/kg 0.1 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 63, pp. 10, 14 Mercury MC07-SS-110 MC0189 4.6 + mg/kg 0.1 mg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 62, pp. 13, 20 Mercury MC07-SS-115 MC01C5 1.6 mg/kg 0.1 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14 Mercury MC07-SB-115-13 MC01C6 47.0 + mg/kg 0.1 mg /kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14

Zinc MC07-SS-C1 MC01C9 1,080 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 63, pp. 10, 14
Zinc MC07-SB-C1-13 MC01D0 863 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 63, pp. 10, 14
Zinc MC07-SS-110 MC0189 1,330 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 62, pp. 13, 20
Zinc MC07-SS-114 MC01C7 10,300 + mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 47; 63, pp. 10, 14
Zinc MC07-SS-115 MC01C5 1,000 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14
Zinc MC07-SB-115-13 MC01C6 3,850 mg/kg 6 mg/k g 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14

Notes:

1 Estimated “J” qualified data flagged as “hi gh” or “unknown” and detected above the reporting limit were divided by an adjustmen t factor consistent with EPA’s fact sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Obse rved Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 41).

2 The Reporting Limit is the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL).

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. Th e associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantita tion Limit (CRQL).
+ = Indicates the results are reported from diluted analysis. μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram



### Tetra Tech START 2010 Sampling

On June 7, 2010, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech START collected two surface soil samples (MC-SS-01 and MC-SS-02) and one subsurface soil sample (MC-SB-02) from within the perimeter of the former waste disposal lagoon area bgs (see Figure 6) [Ref. 11, pp. 9, 10, 24, 44, 52, 53]. On June 8, 2010, Tetra Tech collected two surface soil samples (MCSS-04 and MC-SS-05) and one subsurface soil sample (MC-SB-04) from off-site areas to document background conditions (see Figure 6) [Ref. 11, pp. 9, 10, 24, 48, 55].

For this sampling event, surface soil samples were collected from 0 to 6 inches bgs and subsurface soil samples were collected from 6 to 12 inches bgs [Ref. 11, pp. 9, 10, 44, 49, 52, 53, 55]. The soil samples were collected with a stainless-steel hand-held auger. Initially, the soil from 0 to 6 inches bgs was collected with a hand auger; placed into a dedicated, disposable aluminum pan; and homogenized with a dedicated, disposable plastic scoop prior to placement into the laboratory containers [Ref. 11, p. 9]. The subsurface so il sample was collected from 6 to 12 inches bgs in the same boring as the surface soil sample. The subsurface soil was al so placed into a dedicated, disposable aluminum pan from the hand-auger and homogenized with a dedicated, disposab le plastic scoop prior to placement into the laboratory containers [Ref. 11, p. 9]. Due to refusal of the hand auge r, subsurface soil samples were not collected from the borings where surface soil samples MC-SS-0l and MC-SS-05 were collected [Ref. 11, p. 9]. The soil samples were collected in accordance with SOPs [Ref. 11, p. 9].

All soil samples collected during this sampling event were submitted to EPA-assigned Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories and analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) SVOCs and pesticides/PCBs, and Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and cyanide [Ref. 11, pp. 13, 83-88, 151-153, 173, 174]. Soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs and PCBs according to CLP SOW SOM01.2; soil samples were analyzed for TAL metals and Hg according to CLP SOW ILM05.4 ICP-AES [Ref. 11, p. 89]. In addition, a portion of each sample was submitted to the EPA Region 3 Laboratory for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) analysis [Ref. 11, pp. 13, 185-189]. All analytical data, except TOC, were validated by the Region 3 Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT) according to the Region 3

28

### SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for Or ganic and Inorganic Data Review [Ref. 11, pp. 58, 59, 136, 137, 162, 163].

The background and source characterization samples displayed sim ilar characteristics. The texture was similar in all soil samples, ranging from silt to fine-grained sand, and all samples displayed a brow n or brown-to-gray color [Ref. 11, pp. 10, 44, 49, 52, 53, 55]. The percent moisture in the bac kground samples ranged from 5% to 6%, while percent moisture in the source samples ranged from 3% to 6% [Ref. 11, pp. 26-28, 67, 68, 71, 72, 75, 146-148, 171]. TOC concentrations in background samples ranged from 35,300 mg/kg to 184,000 mg /kg, while TOC in the source samples ranged from 42,900 mg/kg to 63,200 mg/kg [Ref. 11, pp. 29, 190-198]. Due to the similarities (i.e., same time frame, same sampling and analytical methods, same laboratories, similar physical setting and sampling depths, overlapping ranges of percent moisture values, and similar physical descriptions) among the background and source samples, the background and source samples are considered sufficiently similar to allow for comparison to document an increase in contaminant levels.

Soil background concentrations for Source 1 soils are summarized in the table below.

Background Soil Sample Analytical Results June 2010 Sampling Source 1 - Former Waste Disposal Lagoon

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration CRQL Reference(s)

Phenanthrene MC-SS-05 C45B9 440 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 49, 76, 86
Fluoranthene MC-SS-05 C45B9 830 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 49, 76, 86 Pyrene MC-SS-05 C45B9 650 μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 49, 76, 86 Benzo(a)anthracene MC-SS-05 C45B9 370 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 49, 76, 86 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC-SS-05 C45B9 300 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 49, 76, 86 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene MC-SS-05 C45B9 260 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 49, 76, 86
Aroclor-1260 MC-SB-04 C45B2 230 μg/kg 33 μg/kg 11, pp. 48, 80, 87

Cadmium MC-SB-04 MC45B2 3.3 mg/ kg 0.5 mg/kg 11, pp. 48, 171, 173
Chromium MC-SS-04 MC45B5 36.8 mg /kg 1 mg/kg 11, pp. 48, 171, 173 Mercury MC-SS-05 MC45B9 0.75 mg/ kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 49, 148, 153

Notes:

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program CRQL = Contract Required Quantitation Limit
μ g/kg = micrograms per kilogram mg/kg = milligram per kilogram


### Analytical evidence of contamination in soil samples associated with the former waste disposal lagoon is summarized in the table below.

29

### SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 1

Soil Sample Analytical Results Elevated Above Background June 2010 Sampling Source 1 - Former Waste Disposal Lagoon

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration CRQL Reference(s)

Phenanthrene MC-SB-02 C4598 2,100 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 52, 68, 83
Fluoranthene MC-SB-02 C4598 3,100 + μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 52, 68, 83 Pyrene MC-SB-02 C4598 2,700 + μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 52, 68, 83 Benzo(a)anthracene MC-SB-02 C4598 1,700 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 52, 68, 83 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC-SB-02 C4598 1, 400 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 52, 68, 83 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene MC-SB-02 C4598 1, 200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 11, pp. 52, 68, 83
Aroclor-1260 MC-SS-03 C45B1 750+ μg/kg 33 μg/kg 11, pp. 53, 80, 85

Cadmium MC-SS-01 MC45A9 13.9 mg/ kg 0.5 mg/kg 11, pp. 52, 146, 152
Cadmium MC-SB-02 MC4598 18.2 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 11, pp. 52, 148, 151
Chromium MC-SS-01 MC45A9 143 mg/ kg 1 mg/kg 11, pp. 52, 146, 152
Chromium MC-SS-02 MC45B0 184 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 11, pp. 52, 147, 152
Chromium MC-SB-02 MC4598 184 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 11, pp. 52, 148, 151 Mercury MC-SS-01 MC45A9 2.6 mg/ kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 52, 146, 152 Mercury MC-SB-02 MC4598 3.1 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 52, 148, 151

Notes:

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program CRQL = Contract Required Quantitation Limit
μ g/kg = micrograms per kilogram mg/kg = milligram per kilogram + = Indicates the results are reported from diluted analysis.

30

### SD-Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 1

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier A source hazardous waste quantity; therefore, hazardous constituent quantity is not scored (NS).

Hazardous Constituent Quantity (C) Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

In the 1950s, the wastewater disposal lagoon was constructed in the southwest corner of the Metro Container facility, adjacent to Stoney Creek and west of the former drum recond itioning building. Historical maps indicate that a pond that fed into Stoney Creek may have been converted into th e waste disposal lagoon. The lagoon was used by facility operators for wastewater disposal until 1971, after which an on-site wastewater treatment system was constructed with treated effluent discharged to DELCORA [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, 8, 11-13, Vol. 2 – pp. 137–142; Ref. 18, pp. 4, 8, 12; Ref. 19, p. 4; Ref. 20, p. 2].

According to an April 1969 Waste Discharge Report completed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, approximately 65,000 gallons per day of wastewater were gene rated by the facility and discharged to the lagoon [Ref. 25, pp. 1, 2].

Assuming conservative estimates of 250 operating days per year, 5 years of wastewater di sposal, and 10,000 gallons per day, the total volume that passed through the waste disposal lagoon is estimated as follows:

5 years at 250 operating days per year × 10,000 gallons per day = 12,500,000 gallons

200 gallons = 2,000 pounds (lbs)

12,500,000 gallons × 2,000 lbs ÷ 200 gallons = 125,000,000 lbs

The mass (W) is divided by 5,000 to assign the value of 25,000 for hazardous wastestream quantity [Ref. 1, pp. 51590­ 51591; Ref. 32, p. 1]

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (W) Value: 25,000

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity is sc ored; Tier C is assigned a value of 0. Volume (V) Value: 0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity is sc ored; Tier D is assigned a value of 0.

Area (A) Value: 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 1 is 25, 000 for Tier B – Hazardous Wastestream Quantity [Ref. 1,
p. 51591].

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 25,000

31

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

2.2.1 Source Identification

Number of the source: Source No. 2

Name and description of the source: Contaminated Soil

Source Type: Contaminated Soil

Source 2 includes an area of contaminated soil on the Me tro Container facility property. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, PADER site inspections documented the presence of improperly stored drums and wastes; poor housekeeping; a “red material” flowing on the ground and into Stoney Creek; leaking drums stored outside on the ground; and puddles of oily wastes seeping into the ground surf ace. PADEP issued numerous NOVs to the facility for these observed violations. However, follow-up inspections indicated that the facility remained in noncompliance with environmental regulations and violations described in the NOVs were not mitigated [Ref. 10, Vol. 1, pp. 9 – 26; Ref. 11, p. 6; Ref. 20, p. 3; Ref. 56, pp. 1-19]. In June 1989, the PRP Steering Committee signed a Consent Order and took over cleanup responsibility [Ref. 10, Vol. 1, p. 31; Ref. 24, pp. 3, 11; Ref. 54, pp. 1-6]. The PRP Steering Co mmittee contracted MK Environmental to conduct Removal Action activities at the facility, including the removal of approximately 6,500 tons of visually impacted soils only in the areas west and northwest of the drum rec onditioning building [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 32, 33; Ref. 24, pp. 11, 13, 29; Ref. 54, p. 49]. In July 1991, owners and operators of Metro Cont ainer plead guilty in Federal court to charges of violating Federal environmental statutes and with conspiracy to violate the statues during Metro Container’s ownership of the facility. Violations included, among ot her things, disposing of hazardous waste on the property illegally, particularly burying the waste outside [Ref . 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 35, 37; Ref. 55, pp. 1-7].

Source 2 is comprised of contaminated soil which has resulted from the migration, deposition, or spillage of wastes from the Metro Container facility. Source 2 has been evaluated based on the HRS source type “Contaminated Soil” [Ref. 1, Table 2-5].

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

Contaminated soil is located on the Metro Container pr operty. (see Figures 3 and 4 of the HRS documentation record).

Containment

Release to surface water via overland migration and/or flood:

No dam or berm is present to prevent releases to nearby surface water bodies. No maintained engineered cover or functioning and maintained run-on control system a nd runoff management system exists for the source. Therefore, the containment factor for the surface water migration pathway is assigned a value of 10 [Ref. 1, Table 4-2].

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

MWH 2005 Sampling

As part of the 2005 comprehensive site characterization, MWH advanced approximately 130 borings across the Metro Container property, including numerous borings within Source 2. Figure 3-1 in Vol. 2 of Reference 10 illustrates the MWH sample locations [Ref. 10, Vol. 2, p. 5].

MWH collected one soil sample from each of the borings, at de pths that had the highest concentration of organic vapors or most visually impacted hydrocarbon contamination and submitt ed the samples for laboratory analysis [Ref. 10, Vol. 1, pp. 50, 51, 52]. Figures 4-5 through 4-15 in Vol. 2 of Re ference 10 summarize the analytical results of soil boring samples collected from Source 2 [Ref. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 9- 19]. Analytical results of the MWH soil and ground water samples qualitatively indicate the presence of elevated levels of contaminants in Source 2, including, but not limited to,

32

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

VOCs (benzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, tricholor oethylene); PAHs (anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene , benzo(k)fluoranthene, chryse ne, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, naphthalene, pentachlorophenol and pyrene); PCBs (Aroclo r-1248, Aroclor-1254, Aroclor- 1260); and metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, thallium, and zinc) [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 54-59, 74-136, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 9-19].

Due to its age and unvalidated status, the 2005 MWH comprehe nsive source characterization data is not being used quantitatively to confirm the presence of h azardous substances in contaminated soil.

Tetra Tech START 2007 Sampling

In March 2007, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech START collect ed soil samples from the Metro Container property as part of a Removal Assessment [Figure 4 of this HRS documentati on record; Ref. 17, pp. 4, 9-15, 57-58]. Samples were collected from locations previously sampled by MWH in 2005, including 19 soil sample station locations (MC07-C2, MC07-C3, MC07-C4, MC07-C5, MC07-21, MC07-38, MC07-48, MC 07-50, MC07-56, MC07-62, MC07-72, MC07-75, MC07-100, MC07-107, MC07-109, MC07-119, MC07-125, MC07-129, MC07-133) located within Source 2 [Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 17, pp. 10-12].

No soil samples collected during the March 2007 sampling activities were collected specifically to represent background levels [Ref. 16, pp. 3-15; Ref. 17, pp. 10-13]. One soil samp le station (MC07-12) was located in an area upgradient of potential on-site source areas. MC07-12 was located in a grassy area, north of the office building [Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record]. Historical facility maps indicate this sample location is outside areas used for historical facility operations, including drum storage [Ref. 18, p. 8; Ref. 19, p. 4; Ref. 22, p. 5; Ref. 23, p. 7; Ref. 24, pp. 32, 86]. As a result, for the purposes of this HRS documentation record, the c oncentrations of hazardous substances detected in the soil samples collected from station MC07-12 (surface soil sample MC07-SS-12 and subsurface soil sample MC07-SB-12-09) 

### were used to establish background concen trations for the March 2007soil samples.

For this sampling event, all surface soil samples were grab samples collected from 0 to 12 inches bgs. Subsurface soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 1.5 to 17 feet bgs [Ref. 17, pp. 32-55, 57, 58]. At each of the sampling locations, the VOC fraction was first collected in-situ di rectly into sampling containers. Following VOC sample collection, soil was placed into a dedicated aluminum pa n and homogenized with a dedicated plastic scoop prior to placement in laboratory containers. The soil samples were collected in accordance with SOPs [Ref. 17, pp. 12, 13].

All soil samples collected during this sampling event were submitted to EPA-assigned CLP laboratories and analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticid es/PCBs, and TAL metals and cyanide [Ref. 17, p. 16]. Soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs and PCBs according to CLP SOW SOM01.2; soil sample s were analyzed for TAL metals and Hg according to CLP SOW ILM05.4 ICP-AES [Ref. 11, p. 89]. All analytical data were validated by EPA Region 3 ESAT according to the Region 3 Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for Organic and Inorganic Data Review [Ref. 57, p. 1; Ref. 58, p. 1; Ref. 59, p. 1; Ref. 60, p. 1; Ref. 61, p. 1; Ref. 62, p. 1; Ref. 63, p. 1; Ref, 64, p. 1].

The background and source characterization samples displayed sim ilar characteristics. The texture was similar in all soil samples, ranging from silty clay, and gravel, and all samples displayed a brown or brown-to-gray color [Ref. 17, pp. 32­ 55]. Due to the similarities (i.e., same time frame, same sa mpling and analytical methods, same laboratories, similar physical setting and sampling depths, and similar physical descriptions) among the background and source samples, the background and source samples are considered sufficiently sim ilar to allow for comparison to document an increase in contaminant levels.

Soil background concentrations for Source 2 soil samples coll ected in March 2007 are summarized in the table below.

33

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Background Soil Sample Analytical Results March 2007 Sampling Source 2 – Contaminated Soil

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Anthracene MC07-SS-12 C0197 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26
Anthracene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Benzo(a)anthracene MC07-SS-12 C0197 180 J (1,800) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Benzo(a)anthracene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26

Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SS-12 C0197 200 J (2,000) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SS-12 C0197 190 J (1,900) μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene MC07-SS-12 C0197 120 J (1,200) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene MC07-SB-12- 09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SS-12 C0197 220 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Chrysene MC07-SS-12 C0197 210 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Chrysene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene MC07-SS-12 C0197 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26
Fluoranthene MC07-SS-12 C0197 340 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene MC07-SS-12 C0197 110 J (1,100) μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26
Phenanthrene MC07-SS-12 C0197 230 μg/kg 170 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26 Pyrene MC07-SS-12 C0197 340 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 18, 26 Pyrene MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 170 U μg/kg 170 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 16, 26
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SS-12 C0197 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-12 C0197 71 J (710) μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-12 C0197 55 μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1262 MC07-SS-12 C0197 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1262 MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/ kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 21, 26
Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-12-09 C0192 5.0 U μg/kg 5. 0 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 57, pp. 9, 23
Cadmium MC07-SS-12 MC0197 0.63 J (0.89) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Cadmium MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 0.49 J (0.71) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20

34

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Chromium MC07-SS-12 MC0197 67.7 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Chromium MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 26.5 J (34.2) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20
Lead MC07-SS-12 MC0197 118 J (170) mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Lead MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 13.0 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20 Mercury MC07-SS-12 MC0197 0.27 J (0.49) mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17 Mercury MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 0.092 J (0.168) mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20

Zinc MC07-SS-12 MC0197 104 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 64, pp. 13, 17
Zinc MC07-SB-12-09 MC0192 23.3 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 34; 62, pp. 14, 20

Notes:

1 Estimated “J” qualified data flagged as “low” or “ unknown” and detected above the reporting limit were mu ltiplied by an adjustment factor consistent with EPA’s fact sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Obse rved Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 41).

2 The Reporting Limit is the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL).

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. Th e associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantita tion Limit (CRQL). μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram


### Analytical evidence of contamination in soil samples associat ed with the contaminated soil source is summarized in the table below.

Soil Sample Analytical Results Elevated Above Background March 2007 Sampling Source 2 – Contaminated Soil

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Anthracene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 3,100 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32
Anthracene MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 2,800 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32
Anthracene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 1,600 170 μg/k g 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 18, 28
Anthracene MC07-SS-72 C0196 1,500 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 38; 57, pp. 18, 26
Anthracene MC07-SS-75 C0194 620 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 37; 57, pp. 16, 26
Anthracene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 24,000 J (2,400) 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Anthracene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 13,000 J (1,300) 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(a)anthracene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 6,000 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32 Benzo(a)anthracene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 13,000 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Benzo(a)anthracene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 210,000 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(a)anthracene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 490,000 + J (49,000) 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 13,000 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32

35

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 170,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 100,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 6,900 μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 16,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 77,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 38,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene MC07-SB-C4- 10 C01D8 4,600 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 56,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 31,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 6,700 μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 11,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 2,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 1,600 μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 20,000 J (2,000) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 18, 28

Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SS-72 C0196 3,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 38; 57, pp. 18, 26 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SS-75 C0194 2,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 37; 57, pp. 16, 26 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 C01C8 4,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 60, pp. 18, 31

Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 44,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 32,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SS-129 C0195 770 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 36; 57, pp. 18, 26 Chrysene MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 1,200 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 22, 32 Chrysene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 5,200 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32 Chrysene MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 2,400 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Chrysene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 9,700 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Chrysene MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 2,000 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32 Chrysene MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 2,000 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32 Chrysene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 46,000 + μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 18, 28 Chrysene MC07-SS-72 C0196 4,100 + μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 38; 57, pp. 18, 26 Chrysene MC07-SB-72-4.0 C01A4 2,900 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 61, pp. 11, 23 Chrysene MC07-SS-75 C0194 1,900 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 37; 57, pp. 16, 26 Chrysene MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 C01C8 5,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 60, pp.18, 31

Chrysene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 1,500,000 + J (150,000) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Chrysene MC07-SS-133 C0198 960 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 57, pp. 18, 26

36

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 4,100 μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 6,100 J (610) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 18, 28 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 C01C8 1,400 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 60, pp.18, 31

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 46,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 30,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Fluoranthene MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 2,100 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 22, 32
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 7,100 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32
Fluoranthene MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 590 J (59) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32
Fluoranthene MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 3,200 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 5,600 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32
Fluoranthene MC07-SS-21 C0191 1,300 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 8; 17, p. 40; 61, pp. 11, 23
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 5,000 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 18, 28
Fluoranthene MC07-SS-62 C01A2 1,900 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 61, pp. 11, 23
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-72-4.0 C01A4 3,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 61, pp. 11, 23
Fluoranthene MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 C01C8 3,800 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 60, pp.18, 31

Fluoranthene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 32,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Fluoranthene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 35,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Fluoranthene MC07-SB-133-08 C0193 1,300 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 57, pp. 16, 26 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 5,400 μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 9,600 μg/ kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 21,000 J (2,100) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 18,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Phenanthrene MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 3,000 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 22, 32
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 4,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32
Phenanthrene MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 1,200 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 7,100 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32
Phenanthrene MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 2,300 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 2,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32
Phenanthrene MC07-SS-62 C01A2 850 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 61, pp. 11, 23
Phenanthrene MC07-SS-72 C0196 7,200 + J (720) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 38; 57, pp. 18, 26
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 9,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 18, 28
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-72-4.0 C01A4 1,500 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 61, pp. 11, 23
Phenanthrene MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 C01C8 1,800 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 60, pp.18, 31

37

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Phenanthrene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 99,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Phenanthrene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 77,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Pyrene MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 2,100 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 22, 32 Pyrene MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 4,800 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 20, 32 Pyrene MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 2,200 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Pyrene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 9,100 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 Pyrene MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 2,400 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32 Pyrene MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 3,200 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32 Pyrene MC07-SS-21 C0191 1,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 40; 61, pp. 11, 23 Pyrene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 17,000 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 18, 28 Pyrene MC07-SS-62 C01A2 2,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 61, pp. 11, 23 Pyrene MC07-SB-72-4.0 C01A4 4,600 μg/kg 170 μg /kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 61, pp. 11, 23 Pyrene MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 C01C8 4,200 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 60, pp.18, 31

Pyrene MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 270,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp.13, 22

Pyrene MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B4 290,000 + J (29,000) μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp.13, 22

Pyrene MC07-SB-125­ 8.5 C01B9 1,700 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 42; 61, pp. 15, 22

Pyrene MC07-SS-129 C0195 1,100 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 36; 57, pp. 18, 26 Pyrene MC07-SB-133-08 C0193 1,700 μg/kg 170 μg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 57, pp. 16, 26
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SS-38 C01A7 3,100 J (310) μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 41; 58, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SS-48 C0186 120 μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 33; 59, pp. 24, 27
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SS-56 C0188 720 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 24, 28
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SS-62 C01A2 15,000 + J (1,500) μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 61, pp. 19, 23

Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C2 C01D5 17000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 60, pp. 26, 32
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 39000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 27, 32
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 18000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 27, 32
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 6800 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 27, 32
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 5000 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 27, 32
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-72 C0196 3700 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 38; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SB-72-4.0 C01A4 28000 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 61, pp. 19, 23
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SB-75-4.0 C01B1 26000 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 37; 61, pp. 19, 23
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C2 C01D5 23000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 60, pp. 26, 32
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 62000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 27, 32
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 36000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 27, 32
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 13000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 27, 32
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 9200 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 27, 32

38

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-56 C0188 270 μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 59, pp. 24, 28
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-62 C01A2 2,500 J (250) μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 61, pp. 19, 23
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-72 C0196 3500 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 38; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SB-72-4.0 C01A4 28000 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 61, pp. 19, 23
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-75 C0194 1500 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 37; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SB-75-4.0 C01B2 37000 + μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 37; 61, pp. 19, 23
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-100 C0190 1400 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 50; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-107 C01B1 1800 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp. 19, 22
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-109 C01B4 2000 + μg/kg 33 μg/k g 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 61, pp. 19, 22
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-119 C01B6 500 μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 43; 61, pp. 20, 22
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-129 C0195 1300 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 36; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-133 C0198 610 + L (6,100) μg/kg 33 μg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 57, pp. 21, 26
Aroclor-1262 MC07-SB-62-5.5 C01A3 20,000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 61, pp. 19, 23
Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-C2-14 C01D3 240,000 μg/kg 5. 0 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 60, pp. 13, 31
Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-C3-8.0 C01D6 1,200,000 μg/kg 5.0 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 13, 30
Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 280,000 + μg/kg 5. 0 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 15, 30
Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 C01C8 3,500,000 μg/kg 5.0 μg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 60, pp. 11, 29

Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-107­ 7.5 C01B3 22,000,000 + L (22 x 10 7 ) μg/kg 5.0 μg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 58, pp. 14, 25

Carbon disulfide MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 C01B5 8,800 K (880) μg/kg 5.0 μg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 58, pp. 12, 23

Cadmium MC07-SS-C2 MC01D5 57.9 mg/kg 0.5 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 11, 15
Cadmium MC07-SS-C3 MC01D7 31.5 mg/kg 0.5 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15
Cadmium MC07-SS-C4 MC01D9 64.8 mg/kg 0.5 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 12, 15
Cadmium MC07-SS-C5 MC01E1 16.7 mg/kg 0.5 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 63, pp. 12, 15
Cadmium MC07-SS-62 MC01A2 4.4 J (3.1) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 64, pp. 10, 15
Cadmium MC07-SS-72 MC0196 4.5 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 38; 62, pp. 14, 20
Cadmium MC07-SS-75 MC0194 4.8 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 37; 62, pp. 14, 20
Cadmium MC07-SS-100 MC0190 5.8 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 50; 62, pp. 13, 20
Cadmium MC07-SS-109 MC01B4 12.4 J (8.6) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 64, pp. 12, 16
Cadmium MC07-SS-129 MC0195 13.4 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 36; 62, pp. 14, 20
Cadmium MC07-SS-133 MC0198 4.5 J (3.1) mg/kg 0.5 mg /kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 64, pp. 13, 17
Cadmium MC07-SB-C4-10 MC01D8 3.5 mg/kg 0.5 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 11, 15
Cadmium MC07-SB-C5-6.0 MC01E0 13.8 mg/kg 0.5 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 63, pp. 12, 15
Cadmium MC07-SB-48-4.5 MC0185 3.0 mg/kg 0.5 mg /kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 33; 62, pp. 12, 18
Cadmium MC07-SB-72-4.0 MC01A4 6.8 J (4.8) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 64, pp. 10, 15
Cadmium MC07-SB-75-4.0 MC01B1 13.6 J (9.4) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 37; 64, pp. 11, 15
Cadmium MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 MC01B5 172 J (119) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 64, pp. 12, 16

39

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Cadmium MC07-SB-133-08 MC0193 5.6 mg/kg 0.5 mg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 62, pp. 14, 20
Chromium MC07-SS-C2 MC01D5 526 mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 11, 15
Chromium MC07-SS-C3 MC01D7 306 mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15
Chromium MC07-SS-C4 MC01D9 528 mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 12, 15
Chromium MC07-SS-38 MC01A7 618 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 41; 64, pp. 11, 15
Chromium MC07-SS-50S MC01A9 437 mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 8; 17, p. 39; 64, pp. 11, 15
Chromium MC07-SB-C2-14 MC01D3 127 mg/kg 1 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 10, 15
Chromium MC07-SB-C5-6.0 MC01E0 170 mg/kg 1 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 63, pp. 12, 15
Chromium MC07-SB-38-4.5 MC01A5 634 mg/kg 1 mg /kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 41; 64, pp. 10, 15
Chromium MC07-SB-48-4.5 MC0185 990 J (767) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 33; 62, pp. 12, 18
Chromium MC07-SB-50S1.5 MC01A8 106 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 39; 64, pp. 11, 15

Chromium MC07-SB-75-4.0 MC01B1 215 mg/kg 1 mg /kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 37; 64, pp. 11, 15
Chromium MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 MC01B5 549 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 64, pp. 12, 16

Lead MC07-SS-C2 MC01D5 2,060 J (1,430) mg/kg 1 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 11, 15
Lead MC07-SS-C3 MC01D7 1,340 J (931) mg/kg 1 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15
Lead MC07-SS-C4 MC01D9 2,340 J (1,625) mg/kg 1 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 12, 15
Lead MC07-SS-129 MC0195 652 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 36; 62, pp. 14, 20
Lead MC07-SB-C5-6.0 MC01E0 738 J (513) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 63, pp. 12, 15
Lead MC07-SB-56-4.5 MC0187 549 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 62, pp. 13, 19
Lead MC07-SB-75-4.0 MC01B1 1,240 J (861) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 37; 64, pp. 11, 15
Lead MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 MC01B5 4,300 J (2,986) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 64, pp. 12, 16

Lead MC07-SB-133-08 MC0193 837 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 62, pp. 14, 20 Mercury MC07-SS-C2 MC01D5 4.9 + mg/kg 0.1 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 11, 15 Mercury MC07-SS-C3 MC01D7 5.5 + mg/kg 0.1 mg /kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15 Mercury MC07-SS-C4 MC01D9 2.5 mg/kg 0.1 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 12, 15 Mercury MC07-SS-C5 MC01E1 3.1 mg/kg 0.1 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 63, pp. 12, 15 Mercury MC07-SS-129 MC0195 2.0 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 36; 62, pp. 14, 20 Mercury MC07-SB-56-4.5 MC0187 12.3 + mg/kg 0.1 mg /kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 62, pp. 13, 19 Mercury MC07-SB-133-08 MC0193 1.5 mg/kg 0.1 mg/k g 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 62, pp. 14, 20

Zinc MC07-SS-C2 MC01D5 1,490 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 11, 15
Zinc MC07-SS-C3 MC01D7 780 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15
Zinc MC07-SS-C4 MC01D9 1,410 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 12, 15
Zinc MC07-SS-C5 MC01E1 861 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 63, pp. 12, 15
Zinc MC07-SS-62 MC01A2 959 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 45; 64, pp. 10, 15
Zinc MC07-SS-100 MC0190 1,080 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 50; 62, pp. 13, 20
Zinc MC07-SS-107 MC01B1 1,930 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 64, pp. 12, 16
Zinc MC07-SS-109 MC01B4 676 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 64, pp. 12, 16

40

### SD- Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference(s)

Zinc MC07-SS-129 MC0195 480 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 36; 62, pp. 14, 20
Zinc MC07-SB-C2-14 MC01D3 777 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 10, 15
Zinc MC07-SB-C3-8.0 MC01D6 348 mg/kg 6 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15
Zinc MC07-SB-C4-10 MC01D8 1,400 mg/kg 6 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 11, 15
Zinc MC07-SB-C5-6.0 MC01E0 624 mg/kg 6 mg/k g 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 63, pp. 12, 15
Zinc MC07-SB-48-4.5 MC0185 582 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 33; 62, pp. 12, 18
Zinc MC07-SB-56-4.5 MC0187 321 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 4; 17, p. 32; 62, pp. 13, 19
Zinc MC07-SB-72-4.0 MC01A4 802 mg/kg 6 mg/k g 16, p. 8; 17, p. 38; 64, pp. 10, 15
Zinc MC07-SB-100­ 17.5 MC01C8 381 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 50; 63, pp. 10, 16

Zinc MC07-SB-109­ 6.0 MC01B5 1,450 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 48; 64, pp. 12, 16

Zinc MC07-SB-133-08 MC0193 532 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 62, pp. 14, 20

Notes:

1 Estimated “J” and “K” qualified da ta flagged as “high” or “unknow n” and detected above the repor ting limit were divided by an adjustment factor, and estimated “L” qualified data flagged as “Low” and detected above the reporting limit were multiplied by an adjustment fact or, consistent with EPA’s fact sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Obse rved Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 41).

2 The Reporting Limit is the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL).

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program K = Indicates the analyte is present but the reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower. L = Indicates the analyte is present but the reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher. U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. Th e associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantita tion Limit (CRQL).
+ = Indicates the results are reported from diluted analysis. μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

41

### SD-Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 2

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Ti er A source hazardous constituent quantity; therefore, hazardous constituent quantity is not scored (NS). Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1).

Hazardous Constituent Quantity (C) Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier B source hazardous wastestream quantity; therefore, hazardous wastestream quantity is not scored (NS). Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier C, volume (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2).

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (W) Value: NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier C volume; therefore, volume is not scored (NS). Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier D, area (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3).

Volume (V) Value: NS

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Contaminated soil has been documented at the site, but the area of contamination has not been determined (see Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record). Because the information available is insufficient to evaluate Tier D as required in Section 2.4.2.1.4 of Reference 1, the area is determined to be greater than (>) 0.

Area of source in ft 2 

### = >0 Area (A) Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 2 is >0 for Tier D – Area [Ref. 1, p. 51591].

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0

42

### Summary of Source Descriptions

SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Containment

Source Number Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Ground Water Surface Water Gas Air Particulate

1 2 25,000 >0.0 NS NS 10 * 10 * NS NS NS NS

NS = Not Scored

* The overland migration/flood containment factor is 10 for the source.

43

### SWOF-Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway

4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT

4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Mi gration Path for Overland/Flood Component

The hazardous substance migration path includes both the overland and the in-water segment that hazardous substances would take as they migrate away from sources at the site (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.1.1). The hazardous substance migration path for overland and in-water segments for the sources is described below. The surface water pathway is presented on Figure 7 of the HRS documentation record.

Overland Segments

The Stoney Creek watershed is a sub-watershed of the Dela ware River Drainage Basin [Ref. 33; 34]. The western portion of the Metro Container property is located within th e 100-year floodplain [Ref. 35, pp. 1-2]. In general, the topography of the property slopes gently to the west-sout hwest towards Stoney Creek, with elevations ranging from about 10 to 15 feet above mean sea level [Ref. 5, p. 1]. Th e property is currently graded; however, site investigations have revealed that the western end of the property underwen t filling over time that channelized Stoney Creek farther to the west and brought the property up to a consistent grade with the eastern end of the property [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 52]. Several stormwater drains located in the central portion of the property discharge to Stoney Creek. In addition, as part of the PRP-lead Removal Action in 1989/1990, visually impacted soils in the areas west and northwest of the drum reconditioning building were excavated and the area regraded to create sheet flow drainage to Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 32, 33].

From Source 1 and Source 2, precipitation runoff flows via overland sheet flow downhill and west-southwest directly into Stoney Creek (Figures 3 and 7). Some runoff from Source 2 also flows into stormwater drains located in the central portion of the property and discharge to Stoney Creek [Ref. 5, p. 1; Ref. 11, pp. 49-50].

In-Water Flow Segments

The most upstream probable point of entry (PPE1) to surface water is located in Stoney Creek, at the northwestern corner of the facility boundary, west of the contaminated soil (Source 2). PPE 1 is the most upgradient point at which runoff from Source 2 flows into Stoney Creek. A second PPE (PPE2) to surface water is located in Stoney Creek, at the southwestern corner of the site, west of the former waste disposal lagoon (Source 1) [Figures 2, 3, and 7 of this HRS documentation record]. PPE 2 is the most downgradient poi nt at which runoff from Sources 1 and 2 flows into Stoney Creek. From PPE2, Stoney Creek flows southerly for approxima tely 0.2 miles to its mouth on the Delaware River, an area characterized as a tidal mudflat [R ef. 5, p. 1]. The Delaware River makes up the remaining 14.8 miles of the 15­ mile downstream target distance limit (TDL). The Delaware River flows in a southwest direction where Stoney Creek empties into the river. The 15-mile downstream surface wate r pathway terminus occurs in the Delaware River in the vicinity of New Castle, New Castle County, Delaware and Pennsville, Salem County, New Jersey [Figure 7 of this HRS documentation record]. The Delaware River constitutes th e entire boundary between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and most of the boundary between Delaware and New Jersey. Th e boundaries of these three states meet in the Delaware River, approximately 2.25 miles from the PPE [Figures 1 a nd 7 of this HRS documentation record]. The 14.8-mile portion of the TDL within the Delaware River is located entirely within the Delaware Estuary, which stretches 134 miles from Trenton, New Jersey to the mouth of the Delaware Bay between Cape May, New Jersey and Cape Henlopen, Delaware [Ref. 36, p. 6]. For HRS scoring, the zone of actual contamination extends from the most upgradient PPE (PPE1) in Stoney Creek to the most downgradient sample documenting an observed release (sample MC-SD-11) in the Delaware River [Section 4.1.2.1. 1 and Figures 3, 6, and 7 of the HRS documentation record].

The Delaware River is a tidally influenced surface water body at its confluence with Stoney Creek, with tidal influence reaching as far north as the vicinity of Morrisville, Penns ylvania and Trenton, New Jersey, located approximately 50 miles upstream of Stoney Creek [Ref. 36, pp. 11-14]. The salt line is an estimation of where the 7-day average chloride concentration equals 250 ppm along the tidal Delaware River. The salt line naturally advances and retreats with each tidal cycle and with seasonal variations in freshwater flow. For most of the year, the salt line in the Delaware River is located between the Commodore Barry Bridge, approximately 1.25 miles upstream of Stoney Creek’s mouth, and Reedy Island, located approximately 27 miles downstream of Stone y Creek [Ref. 36, p. 14]. There is no documentation to suggest that the tidal run has carried hazardous substances from the site to upstream targets. Therefore, the tidal

44

### SWOF-Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway

influence was not taken into consideration when establishi ng the TDL of the surface water migration pathway [Ref. 1, Section 4.1.1.2]. Moreover, inclusion of upstream targets would not change the overall surface water migration pathway

score.
The Delaware Estuary supports the world’s largest freshwate r port (Port of Philadelphia) and second largest refining petrochemical center [Ref. 38, pp. 1-2]. The Estuary is also a vital ecosystem, creating habitat for more than 130 species of finfish, as well as clams, oysters and crabs [Ref. 36, pp. 54, 55; Ref. 38, pp. 1-2]. The second largest concentration of migrating shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere is found in the Estuary, along with habitat for 15 different species of waterfowl, which total more than half-a-million individuals th at either migrate through or spend the winter. Also found in the Delaware Estuary is the largest population of sp awning horseshoe crabs in the world [Ref. 38, pp. 1-2].

The Delaware Estuary is fished for human consumption, via shore and boating, along the entire TDL. Species that inhabit the Delaware River that are targeted by anglers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware include largemouth bass, striped bass, American eel, channel catfish, white catfish, and white perch [Ref. 37, pp. 4-12]. However, as a result of pollution, in particular, mercury and PCB contaminati on, the Estuary states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware have all issued advisories for the consumption of fish [Ref. 36, p. 43]. Many fish, including the American eel, white perch, channel catfish, striped bass and white sucker ar e subject to no-eat fish advisories in many parts of the Estuary. Consumption of other fish such as chain pickerel , largemouth bass, and bluefish are advised to be eaten in limited quantities [Ref. 38, pp. 1-2; Ref. 48, pp. 5; 31; Ref. 49, pp. 3-7, 10; Ref. 50, pp. 27, 38-41].

45

### 0 100 200 400 600

Feet 

# See Inset

PPE No. 1



### 1

PPE No. 2



### 2

3



# Inset

4

5

6

7

8

9



# Figure 7

10 

# 15-Mile Surface Water Pathway Target Distance Limit Metro Container Corporation Trainer, Delaware County, PA

Legend

11 

# Probable Point of Entry (PPE) Surface Water Pathway Mile Marker

HRS-Eligible Wetlands

Property Boundary

Surface Water Pathway 12



### 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet 13 

### 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles



## SOURCE(S): Base map is a portion of the following 7.5-minute series U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24000-scale topographic map(s): Marcu s Hook, PA-NJ-DE, 1993; Penns Grove, NJ-DE, 1993; Wilmington North, NJ-DE, 1993; Wilmington South, DE, 1993. (References 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively of the HRS 14 

## documentation record). ESRI Maps and Data: http://www.arcgis.com/home/index.html

Wetlands data from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service wetlands geodatabase website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html Reference 65 of the HRS documentation record).

15



### Monday, July 18, 2011 5:51:37 PM C:\Users\schrotp\Desktop\ArcGIS\Project_Site_Name\USEPA\START_Region3\Metro_Container\MXDs\RevisedDraft\Fig 7_15Mile.mxd

### SWOF-Observed Release

An observed release to Stoney Creek is documented by direct observation and chemical analysis, and an observed release to the Delaware River is documented by direct obser vation and chemical analysis, as discussed below.

4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release

4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release

Direct Observation

Stoney Creek

The observed release to Stoney Creek by direct observati on is supported by numerous PDH and PADER NOVs issued to the various facility operators for discharg ing industrial waste directly to Stoney Creek. Drum contents and wastewater from reconditioning operations were discharged to floor drains inside the former drum reconditioning building that were connected to the stormwater drainage system, which discharged into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 17-19, 26]. PDH observed numerous occasions in which the contents of the waste disposal lagoon were drained into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 9-11; Ref. 25, p. 1; Ref. 56, pp. 1-10]. Site investigati ons have reported the presence of leachate seeps immediately downgradient of the waste disposal lagoon flowing into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 36, 41, 42, Vol. 2 – pp. 131 – 136]. Analytical results of leachate seep and sediment samples co llected from along Stoney Creek directly downgradient of Source 1 provides evidence that a variety of hazardous substances (PCBs and metals) have migrated into Stoney Creek from on-site sources [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 41, 42, 181, 182, Vol. 2 – p. 5; Ref. 17, pp. 16-20, 61-68]. January 2001 samples collected at Stoney Creek s eep locations contained compounds in excess of PADEP Surface Water Human Health Criteria, including benzo(a)an thracene, benzo(a)pyrene, bix(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, chloroform, chrysene, pyrene, arsenic, Aroclo r-1248 and Aroclor-1260 [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 42].

The observed release to Stoney Creek by direct observation is further supported by the owne rs and operators of Metro Container pleading guilty in Federal court in July 1991 to char ges of violating Federal environmental statutes and with conspiracy to violate the statues during Metro Container’s ownership of the facility. Violations included dumping of hazardous waste and discharge of contaminated water into Stoney Creek, storing hazardous wa ste illegally, disposing of hazardous waste on the property illegally, particularly burying the waste outside, dumping it inside the former drum reconditioning building and covering it with concrete to c onceal the waste; and walling-up a room where hundreds of drums containing hazardous chemicals were stored [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 35, 37; Ref. 55, pp. 1-7]. In addition to discharging polluted water into Stoney Creek, violations in cluded discharging wastewater into the sewers of DELCORA that exceeded pollution effluent limits specified in the facility permit, and for sabotaging DELCORA’s effluent monitoring devices so that Metro Container could pump unt reated wastewater into the DELCORA system without detection. After DELCORA shut off the facility’s access to the sewer system (which occurred in December 1987), Metro Container operators dumped waste directly into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 35, 37; Ref. 67, pp. 18, 23, 25].

Delaware River

On February 12, 1988, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Captain of the Port of Glouster City, NJ responded to a spill on the Delaware River. USCG traced the release observed on the De laware River back to the Metro Container facility. The USCG reported that an “oily substance” was running over the banks of the Metro Container facility into Stoney Creek and, ultimately, into the Delaware River [Ref. 24, pp. 3, 5, 27, 36, 48, 154, 166-167]. Subsequently, EPA, USCG, and Technical Assistance Team (TAT) personnel performed an off-s ite migration assessment of the facility on February 19, 1988 [Ref. 24, pp. 39, 154, 156, 162]. Petroleum products, such as oil, are ineligible for evaluation due to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, a nd Liability Act (CERCLA) petroleum exclusion policy and will not be evaluated.

The off-site migration assessment revealed that no activ e runoff over the banks into Stoney Creek was occurring; however, signs of past runoff were observed, as several point s along the creek bank showed signs of past erosion. In several locations along Stoney Creek, activ e runoff was observed occurring that orig inated from points within the stream bank [Ref. 24, pp. 38, 157]. Debris that had been pushed ove r the bank made it impossible to deduce the origin of the runoff (i.e., no piping could be observed). The areas of unknow n discharge included three areas close to the southern

47

### SWOF-Observed Release

border of the facility property discharging a white material, a nd several areas from a former discharge pipe discharging a red-orange material that created slight sheens when disturbed [Ref. 24, pp. 38, 157]. Soil and runoff water samples were collected from each of the discharge points [Ref. 24, pp. 38, 39, 157, 158]. Analytical results of soil samples indicated levels of lead, chromium, and zinc [Ref. 24, pp. 38, 39, 157, 158].

Chemical Analysis

Sediment samples collected from Stoney Creek by Tetra Tech START downstream of the Metro Container site in March 2007 and June 2010 document that hazardous substances (PCBs , PAHs, carbon disulfide, and metals) are present in sediment at levels that meet the criteria for observed release by chemical analysis [Ref. 1, p. 51609; 2, p. BI-10; 16, pp. 6, 10; 17, pp. 9-12, 14-20, 26, 56-74; 59, pp. 11-29; 62, pp. 11-18; 64, pp. 13-17].

Stoney Creek - Tetra Tech START March 2007 Sampling

On March 6 and 7, 2007, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech ST ART collected sediment samples from station locations in Stoney Creek (MC07-SD-03 through MC07-SD-07, MC07-SD- 09, and MC07-SD-10) and the Delaware River (MC07­ SD-01 and MC07-SD-02) as part of a Removal Assessment [Fi gure 4 of this HRS documentation record]. One sediment sample (MC07-SD-07) was collected from Stoney Creek at a location upstream of the Metro Container site to documentbackground conditions for samples collected from Stoney Creek; five samples (MC07-SD-04, MC07-SD-05, MC07-SD06, MC07-SD-09, and MC07-SD-10) were collected from Stoney Creek adjacent to the Metro Container site; one sample (MC07-SD-03) was collected from Stoney Creek downstream of the site; one sample (MC07-SD-02) was collected from the Delaware River near its confluence with Stoney Creek , and one sample (MC07-SD-01) was collected from the Delaware River, upstream of its confluence with Stoney Creek, to document background condition for samples collected from the Delaware River [Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 16, pp. 1-15; Re f. 17, pp. 10-12, 14, 26, 57].

For this sampling event, sediment samples were collected from depositional areas and were taken from the upper 6 inches of sediment [Ref. 17, p. 14]. Samples were collected at th e most downstream location first, and samplers worked their way upstream. At each of the sampling locations, the VOC fr action was first collected in-situ directly into sampling containers. Following VOC sample collection, sediment was placed into a dedicated aluminum pan and homogenized with a dedicated plastic scoop prior to placement in laborat ory containers [Ref. 17, pp. 14, 15]. The sampling was conducted in accordance with Tetra Tech’s January 2007 Final Sa mpling and Analysis Plan for the Metro Container site [Ref. 17, p. 10].

All sediment samples collected during this sampling ev ent were submitted to EPA-assigned CLP laboratories and analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides/PCBs, and TAL me tals and cyanide [Ref. 17, p. 16]. All analytical data were validated by EPA Region 3 ESAT according to the Region 3 Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for Organic and Inorganic Data Review [Ref. 57, p. 1; Ref. 58, p. 1; Ref. 59, p. 1; Re f. 60, p. 1; Ref. 61, p. 1; Ref. 62, p. 1; Ref. 63, p. 1; Ref, 64, p. 1].

Background and release sediment samples were collected from similar depths, employed the same sampling and analytical methods, and were collected during the same samp ling event [Ref. 16, pp. 1-15; Ref. 17, pp. 10-12, 14-16]. Therefore, the background and release samples are considered sufficiently similar to allow for comparison to document an observed release.

The below table presents the analytical results for the subs tances that meet observed release criteria in Stoney Creek sediment samples collected by Tetra Tech START in March 2007.

48

### SWOF-Observed Release

March 2007 Stoney Creek Sediment Sample Con centrations Meeting Observed Release Criteria

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference

Background Levels for Stoney Creek Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SD-07 C0199 220 μg/k g 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 18, 29 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SD-07 C0199 300 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 18, 29 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SD-07 C0199 220 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 18, 29 Chrysene MC07-SD-07 C0199 240 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 18, 29
Fluoranthene MC07-SD-07 C0199 420 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 18, 29 Pyrene MC07-SD-07 C0199 390 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 18, 29
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SD-07 C0199 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 24, 29
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SD-07 C0199 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 24, 29
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SD-07 C0199 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 24, 29
Aroclor-1262 MC07-SD-07 C0199 33 U μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 24, 29
Carbon disulfide MC07-SD-07 C0199 1.1 B μg/k g 5.0 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 11, 29
Cadmium MC07-SD-07 MC0199 0.35 J (0.49) mg/k g 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 64, pp. 13, 17 Mercury MC07-SD-07 MC0180 0.070 J (0.13) mg/k g 0.1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 64, pp. 13, 17 Observed Release Sediment Samples for Stoney Creek Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SD-05 C0180 1, 400 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27 Benzo(b)fluoranthene MC07-SD-05 C0180 1,800 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27 Benzo(k)fluoranthene MC07-SD-05 C0180 1,100 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27 Chrysene MC07-SD-03 C0175 1,300 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 14, 26 Chrysene MC07-SD-05 C0180 1,500 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27
Fluoranthene MC07-SD-03 C0175 1,400 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 14, 26
Fluoranthene MC07-SD-05 C0180 2,300 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27
Fluoranthene MC07-SD-09 C0183 2,000 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27 Pyrene MC07-SD-03 C0175 1,900 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 14, 26 Pyrene MC07-SD-05 C0180 2,300 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27 Pyrene MC07-SD-10 C0183 1,200 μg /kg 170 μg/kg 59, pp. 16, 27
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SD-09 C0183 6,900 + J (690) μg/kg 33 μg/kg 59, pp. 23, 27
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SD-09 C0183 9,500 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 59, pp. 23, 27
Aroclor-1260 MC07-SD-09 C0183 9,400 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 59, pp. 23, 27
Aroclor-1248 MC07-SD-10 C0184 2,000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 59, pp. 23, 27
Aroclor-1254 MC07-SD-10 C0184 1,000 + J (100) μg/kg 33 μg/kg 59, pp. 23, 27
Aroclor-1262 MC07-SD-10 C0184 710 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 59, pp. 23, 27
Carbon disulfide MC07-SD-09 C0183 390,000 + μg/kg 5.0 μg/kg 59, pp. 11, 27
Carbon disulfide MC07-SD-10 C0184 69,000 + J (6,900) μg/kg 5.0 μg/kg 59, pp. 11, 27
Cadmium MC07-SD-03 MC0175 2.1 mg /kg 0.5 mg/kg 62, pp. 11, 18
Cadmium MC07-SD-04 MC0177 1.8 mg /kg 0.5 mg/kg 62, pp. 11, 18
Cadmium MC07-SD-05 MC0180 1.9 mg /kg 0.5 mg/kg 62, pp. 12, 18

49

### SWOF-Observed Release

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference

Cadmium MC07-SD-09 MC0183 45.0 mg /kg 0.5 mg/kg 62, pp. 12, 18
Cadmium MC07-SD-10 MC0184 9.5 mg /kg 0.5 mg/kg 62, pp. 12, 18 Mercury MC07-SD-05 MC0180 0.75 mg /kg 0.1 mg/kg 62, pp. 12, 18 Mercury MC07-SD-09 MC0183 1.7 mg /kg 0.1 mg/kg 62, pp. 12, 18 Mercury MC07-SD-10 MC0184 0.77 mg /kg 0.1 mg/kg 62, pp. 12, 18

Notes:

1 Estimated “J” qualified background sample da ta flagged as “low” or “ unknown” and detected above the reporting limit were multip lied by an adjustment factor, and estimated “J” qualifie d observed release sample data flagged as “low” or “unknown” a nd detected above th e reporting limit were divided by an adjustment factor consistent with EPA’s fact sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 41).

2 The Reporting Limit is the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL).

B = Not detected substantially above the le vel reported in laboratory or field blanks U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not de tected. The associated numerical value is the CRQL.
+ = Indicates the result reported from diluted analysis. μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

50

### SWOF-Observed Release

Stoney Creek and Delaware River - Tetra Tech START June 2010 Sampling

On June 7, 8, and 10, 2010, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech START collected a total of 15 sediment samples at and in the vicinity of the Metro Container site [Figure 6 of this HR S Documentation Record; Ref. 11, pp. 8-13]. Three sediment samples (MC-SD-01, MC-SD-02, and MC-SD-03) were coll ected from Stoney Creek upstream of the Metro Container site to document background conditions [Ref. 11, pp. 9-11, 46-50]. Samples MC-SD-02 and MC-SD-03 were collected adjacent to the Stoney Creek Technologies site, where ther e is an ongoing EPA Removal Action [Ref. 11, pp. 9-11, 46­ 50, 55, 56]. Sediment sample MC-SD-01 was collected ups tream of both sites (Stoney Creek Technologies and Metro Container) [Figure 6 of this HRS Documentation Record; Re f. 11, pp. 10, 56]. Three sediment samples (MC-SD-05, MC-SD-06 and MC-SD-07) were collected from submerged lo cations within Stoney Creek directly adjacent to and downgradient of source areas [Ref. 11, pp. 9-11, 42-44]. In addition, three sediment samples (MC-SD-17, MC-SD-18, and MC-SD-19) were collected from Stoney Creek downstream of the Metro Container facility, within the stream portion that forms the confluence with the Delaware River. Thes e three samples were collected along the bank of Stoney Creek during low tide, in areas that are submerged by the De laware River during high tide [Figure 6 of this HRS Documentation Record; Ref. 11, pp. 12, 13, 48].

Four sediment samples (MC-SD-10, MC-SD-11, and MC -SD-12, and MC-SD-13 [duplicate of MC-SD-10]) were collected from three locations in the Delaware River in the vi cinity of its confluence with Stoney Creek, which is an area characterized by tidal mudflats [Figure 6 of this HRS Documentation Record; Ref. 11, pp. 11-13, 53, 54]. Two sediment samples (MC-SD-15 and MC-SD-16) were collected from De laware River tidal mudflats located upstream of its confluence with Stoney Creek to document background conditions [Figure 6 of this HRS Documentation Record; Ref. 11, pp. 12, 13, 44, 45]. The Delaware River mudflats are exposed during low tide and submerged during high tide [Ref. 5; 11, p. 45].

All sediment samples were collected in accordance with the May 2010 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the Metro Container Site and applicable SOPs [Ref. 11, pp. 8, 9, 13, 14]. At each location, sediment was collected from 0 to 8 inches bgs using a hand auger. The sediment was placed into a dedicated aluminum pan and homogenized using a dedicated plastic scoop prior to placement into the laboratory containers [Ref. 11, pp. 10].

All sediment samples collected during this sampling ev ent were submitted to EPA-assigned CLP laboratories and analyzed for TCL SVOCs and pesticides/PCBs, and TAL meta ls and cyanide [Ref. 11, pp. 13, 83-88, 151-153, 173, 174]. In addition, a portion of each sample was submitted to the EPA Region 3 Laboratory for TOC analysis [Ref. 11, pp. 13, 185-189]. All analytical data, except TOC, were valid ated by the Region 3 ESAT according to the Region 3 Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for Orga nic and Inorganic Data Review [Ref. 11, pp. 58, 59, 136, 137, 162, 163].

The background and release samples displayed similar physical ch aracteristics. The texture in sediment samples included clay, silt, fine sand, and some organic material [Ref. 11, pp. 10-12, 42-56]. The percent solids in the Stoney Creek background samples ranged from 70% to 77%, while percent solids in the Stoney Creek release samples ranged from 74% to 79% [Ref. 11, pp. 35-36, 145-147, 171]. The percen t solids in the Delaware River background samples ranged from 48% to 72%, while percent solids in the Delaware Rive r release samples ranged from 49% to 64% [Ref. 11, pp. 35­ 36, 145-147]. TOC concentrations in Stoney Creek b ackground samples ranged from 54,200 mg/kg to 68,700 mg/kg, while TOC in the Stoney Creek release samples ranged from 11,600 mg/kg to 74,600 mg/kg [Ref. 11, pp. 35, 36, 190­ 198]. TOC concentrations in Delaware River backgr ound samples ranged from 18,100 mg/kg to 18,500 mg/kg, while TOC in the Delaware River release samples ranged from 9,200 mg/kg to 20,400 mg/kg [Ref. 11, pp. 35, 36, 190-198]. Due to the similarities (i.e., same time frame, same sampling and analytical methods, same laboratories, similar physical setting and sampling depths, overlapping ranges of percent so lid values, and similar physical descriptions) among the background and release samples, the background and release sa mples are considered sufficiently similar to allow for comparison to document an observed release.

The below table presents the analytical results for the substa nces that meet observed release criteria in Stoney Creek and Delaware River sediment samples collected by Tetra Tech START in June 2010. Sediment background concentrations established for Stoney Creek and the De laware River were based on the highest concentrations identified in the background data set.

51

### SWOF-Observed Release

June 2010 Stoney Creek and Delaware River Sediment Sample Concentrations Meeting Ob served Release Criteria

Hazardous Substance Evidence

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration (Adjusted Concentration 1 ) Reporting Limit 2 Reference

Background Levels for Stoney Creek

Chromium MC-SD-03 MC45B4 66.9 mg/ kg 1 mg/kg 11, pp. 46, 47, 55, 171 Mercury MC-SD-02 MC45B3 0.1 J (0.183) mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 47, 55, 171 Background Levels for Delaware River

Mercury MC-SD-15 MC45A7 0.21 mg/ kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 44, 45, 146 Observed Release Sediment Samples for Stoney Creek

Chromium MC-SD-05 MC45A0 239 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 11, pp. 44, 145 Mercury MC-SD-05 MC45A0 0.81 mg /kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 44, 145 Observed Release Sediment Samples for Delaware River Mercury MC-SD-10 MC45A3 2.0 mg /kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 54, 145 Mercury MC-SD-11 MC45A4 1.2 mg /kg 0.1 mg/kg 11, pp. 54, 145

Notes:

1 Estimated “J” qualified background sample da ta flagged as “low” or “ unknown” and detected above the reporting limit were multip lied by an adjustment factor consistent with EPA’s fact sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Obse rved Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 41).

2 The Reporting Limit is the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL).

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

52

### SWOF-Observed Release

Attribution

PCBs belong to a broad family of man-made organic chem icals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons [Ref. 46, p. 1]. PCBs were manufactured domestically from 1929 until their ma nufacture was banned in 1979 [Ref. 46, p. 1]. Due to their non-flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point, and electrical insulating properties, PCBs were used in a variety of industrial applications, including electrical, heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products; in pigments , dyes, and carbonless copy paper; and ma ny other industrial applications [Ref. 46, p. 1; 47, p. 1]. Once released, PCBs do not readily break down and therefore remain in the environment for long periods of time [Ref. 46, p. 2].

The Metro Container property was used for industrial activities relating to the chemical industry for at least 75 years. Stauffer operated a chemical manufacturing plant on the prope rty between 1920 and 1959. Stauffer produced a variety of chemicals, including sulfuric acid and carbon bisulfide, also referred to as carbon disulfide and dithiocarbonic anhydride [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 6; 18, pp. 4, 10; 20, p. 2; 21, p. 6; 22, p. 5]. Between 1963 and 1988, the property was used as a steel drum reconditioning facility by multiple operators. At the height of its functional operations, the facility received approximately 450,000 to 500,000 drums per year, many filled w ith hazardous materials, paints, solvents, petroleum products, and other substances [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 7]. The drums would arrive at the facility and be stored in stacked rows on the western end of the facility just north of the c onverted drum reclaiming building [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8]. Historical documentation indicates that over 670 companies c ontributed drums to the Metro Container facility during its operation [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 26, 30-34; 24, pp. 3-6, 10, 11; Ref. 54, pp. 2, 25].

Historical documentation indicates that Stauffer constructed the waste disposal lagoon in the 1950s, possibly converting a natural pond that feed into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, Vol. 2 – pp. 137–142]. Prior to 1971, this unlined lagoon was used for waste disposal, incl uding drum contents and wastewater sludge generated from drum reconditioning operations [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 6, 7, 8, 11; 18, pp. 4, 6, 7, 12]. Duri ng the 1960s and 1970s, PADH and PADER site inspections reported numerous releases for the waste dis posal lagoon overflowing and discharging into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 9 – 14; Ref. 56, pp. 1-19]. Site investigations have reported the presence of leachate seeps immediately downgradient of the waste disposal lagoon flowing into Stoney Creek [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 36, 41; 42, Vol. 2 – pp. 131–136]. Exploratory borings advanced into the wast e disposal lagoon reveal obvious visual impacts, including layers of sludge, NAPL, brick, and coke and coal slag [Ref . 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 50, 51, 54, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 250, 251, 256, 257, 261 – 269, 274-276]. Sampling and analysis of the borings indicate the presence of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – pp. 54, 91 – 95, 110 - 114, 127, 128, Vol. 2 – pp. 5, 7, 8].

Four PCBs (Aroclor-1248, Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1260, and Aroclor-1262), six PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fl uoranthene, pyrene), one VOC (carbon disulfide), and three metals (cadmium, chromium, mercury) were detected in sediment samples at concentrations that document an observed release to Stoney Creek and the Delaware River [Ref. 11, pp. 44, 54, 145; Ref. 59, pp. 11, 16, 19, 23, 27, 29; Ref. 62, pp. 11, 18]. These hazardous substances were also detected at elevated concentrations in soil samples collected from on-site source areas, as discussed in Section 2.4. 1. Therefore, their presence in sedime nt samples collected downstream of the facility are considered at least partially attributable to source areas located on the Metro Container property.

Other Possible Off-Site Sources

The boroughs of Trainer and Marcus Hook, and Chester City, ar e heavily industrialized. Historical information indicates that various industries have operated in Delaware County, Pennsylvania since the mid-1800s [Ref. 44, p. 1]. The Delaware River waterfront area has maintained numer ous industrial complexes since the turn of the 20 th 

### century, including shipbuilding and drydocks, several oil refineries, loco motive works, an automobile assembly plant, paper mills, and various manufacturing facilities [Ref. 44, p. 1]. Indus tries that have operated in the Trainer area include ConocoPhillips (formerly, BP Oil), Wilkinson Electronics, In c., International Scrap Iron and Metal Co., Stoney Creek Technologies (formerly, Witco Chemical Corporation), and Congoleum Company [Ref. 45, p. 3]. The heavy industrial presence has resulted in contamination of the Delaware River, most notably with mercury and PCBs [Ref. 36, pp. 30, 37; 38, p. 2].

53

### SWOF-Observed Release

DELCORA’s Western Regional Treatment Plant (WRTP), built in 1974 and located along the Delaware River approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the mouth of Stoney Cr eek, receives inflow from area industries, including Sun Oil’s Marcus Hook Refinery and Kimberly-Cla rk’s Chester Mill [Ref. 68, pp. 1-7].

Stoney Creek Technologies (formerly, Witco Chemical Corp) is a 14

‐ acre chemical manufacturing facility that producesbase products to be used in corrosion inhibitors, motor oil additives, and grease feed compounds, which can be generally divided into three categories: (1) calcium al kylbenzene sulfonates (LIMOH), (2) magnesium alkylbenzene sulfonates (MAG), and (3) Severe Atmospheric Corrosion Inhib itors (SACI) [Ref. 69, pp. 2, 9]. Major components of plant production include the manufacture of sulfonic acid and heptane sulfonic acid (sulfonation); carbonation (with calcium or magnesium carbonates), and filter ing and centrifuging. Solvents such as heptane, mineral spirits and alcohols are utilized in product manuf acture [Ref. 69, p. 9].

The property has been historically utilized for chemical manufacturing since the 1940s. Prior to Witco’s ownership, various portions of the site were utilized for plastics fabr ication, concrete products, au to sales and service, retail petroleum sales, paint sales, commerc ial food and beverage service, and steel tank manufacturing, and mechanized equipment sales [Ref. 69, pp. 2, 9].

The facility has a history of non

‐ compliance with PADEP and in April 2007, EPA Region III staff were notified that the facility was facing serious financial difficulties and bankr uptcy. PADEP suspended the operating permits and EPA Region III became involved on the site to assure that the chemi cals at the facility were safeguarded in the absence of the company’s ability to do so. At that time, an estimated 17 million pound of chemicals were stored on the facility. Since 2007, EPA has been working on the property to reduce/rem ove the chemical inventory. EPA has removed 142,000 gallons of chemicals from the facility. As of February 2009, there were 5 million pounds of flammable, combustible, and/or corrosive chemicals on the prope rty [Ref. 42, pp. 76-78; 43, p. 1].

Hazardous Substances Released:

PCBs (Aroclor-1248, Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1260, Aroclor-1262) PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, pyrene) Carbon disulfide Cadmium Chromium Mercury

=================================================================================== Observed Release Factor Value: 550

54

### SWOF/Food Chain-Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat - Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Source No. Substance in Observed Release? Toxicity Factor Value River Persistence Factor Value Food Chain Bioaccumulation Value* Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation

Factor Value Reference

Anthracene 1, 2 No 10 0.4 50,000 2 x 10 5 2, p. 469 Benzo(a)anthracene 1, 2 No 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 7 2, p. 470 

### Benzo(a)pyrene 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 470 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1, 2 No Values for this com pound were not readily available Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1, 2 No 0 1 50,000 0 2, p. 470 Benzo(j,k)fluorene [Fluoranthene] 1, 2 No 100 1 5,000 5 x 10 5 2, p. 470



### Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1, 2 Yes 100 1 50,000 5 x 10 6 2, p. 470

Carbon Disulfide 1, 2 Yes 10 0.4 500 2,000 2, p. 471
Cadmium 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 470
Chromium 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 500 5 x 10 6 2, p. 471 Chrysene 1, 2 Yes 10 1 5 50 2, p. 471 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2 No 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 472 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 No 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 7 2, p. 476
Lead 1, 2 No 10,000 1 5,000 5 x 10 7 2, p. 476 Mercury 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 476 PCBs [Aroclor-1248,Aroclor-1254, Aroclor1260, Aroclor-1262] 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 478

Phenanthrene 1, 2 No 0 0.4 5,000 0 2, p. 477 Pyrene 1, 2 No 100 1 50,000 5 x 10 6 2, p. 478
Zinc 1, 2 No 10 1 50,000 5 x 10 5 2, p. 480

Notes:

*The Delaware River is a tidally influenced surface water body at its confluence with Stoney Cr eek, with tidal influence reachi ng as far north as the vicinity of Morrisville, PA and Trenton, NJ, located approximately 50 miles upstream of Stoney Creek [Ref. 36, pp. 11-14]. The salt line is an estimation of where the 7-day average chlo ride concentration equals 250 ppm along the tidal Delaware River. The salt line natu rally advances and retreats with each tidal cycle and with seasonal variations in fr eshwater flow. For most of the year, the location of the salt line in the Delaware River is between the Commodore Barry Bridge, located approximately 1.25 miles upstream of Stoney Creek’s mouth, and Reedy Island, locate d approximately 27 miles downstream of Stoney Creek [Figure 7 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 36, p. 20].

The HRS (Section 4.1.3.2.1.3) states that if any fisheries being evaluated are in fresh water and some are in salt water, or if any are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulati on potential factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1 , p. 51617]. Therefore, the higher Food Chain Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Values are used for the Delaware River fishery.

Benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium, dibenzo( a,h)anthracene, mercury, and PCBs are the hazar dous substances associated with the highest toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation fact or value with a quantity of 5 x 10 8

.

55

### SWOF/Food Chain-Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Number Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (HRS Section 2.4.2.1.5) Is source hazardous constituent quantity data complete? (yes/no)

1 2 25,000 >0 No No

Sum of Values: 25,000

A hazardous waste quantity of 25,000 is estimated for all of the Sources at the Metro Container site that when applied in HRS Table 2-6, yields a pathway hazardous waste quantity of 10,000. A value of 10,000 is assigned as the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value [R ef. 1, Table 2-6, pp. 51591-51592].

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 10,000

4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

Five substances (benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium, dibenzo(a,h)an thracene, mercury, and PCBs) associated with the waste sources, which have a surface water pathway containmen t factor of 10 for the watershed, correspond to a Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value of 10, 000 and Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value of 50,000, as shown previously in section 4.1.3.2.1 of this documentation record [Ref. 1, pp. 51618, 51620; 2, pp. 470, 472, 476, 478].

(Toxicity/Persistence Factor Valu e) × (Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) = 10,000 × 10,000 = 1 x 10 8



### (Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x H azardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) × (Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value) = (1 x 10 8 

### ) × (50,000) =5 x 10 12 

### Subject to a maximum of 1 x 10 12



### The product corresponds to a Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 1,000 in Table 2-7 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51592].

=================================================================================== Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumu lation Factor Value: 5 x 10 8 

### Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000

56

### SWOF/Food Chain-Targets/Food Chain Individual

4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat - Targets

The Delaware Estuary is fished for human consumption, via shore and boating, along the entire TDL. Species that inhabit the Delaware River that are targeted by anglers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware include largemouth bass, striped bass, American eel, channel catfish, white catfish, and white perch [Ref. 36, p. 43; 38, pp. 1-2; 48, pp. 5, 30, 31; 49, pp. 3-7, 10; 50, pp. 27, 38-41]. The Delaware Estuary is located within the zone of contamination for the Metro Container site [Figure 6 of this HRS documentation record]. For HRS scoring, the zone of actual contamination extends from the most upgradient PPE (PPE1) in Stoney Creek to the most downgradient sample documenting an observed release (sample MC-SD-11) in the Delaware River [Section 4. 1.2.1.1 and Figures 3, 6, a nd 7 of the HRS documentation record].

Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target fishery is evaluated for Actual Human Food Chain Contamination. There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620-51621].

Sediment Samples for Observed Release

Bioaccumulation Distance Hazardous Potential Sample ID from PPE2 Substance Factor Value * Reference(s)

MC-SD-10

MC-SD-11 1,000 feet

1,080 feet Mercury

Mercury 50,000

50,000 Figure 6; Ref. 1, p. 51620; Ref. 2, p. 476; Ref. 11, pp. 54, 145 Figure 6; Ref. 1, p. 51620; Ref. 2, p. 476; Ref. 11, pp. 54, 145

*The Delaware River is a tidally influenced surface water body at its confluence with Stoney Cr eek, with tidal influence reachi ng as far north as the vicinity of Morrisville, PA and Trenton, NJ, located approximately 50 miles upstream of Stoney Creek [Ref. 36, pp. 11-14]. The salt line is an estimation of where the 7-day average chlo ride concentration equals 250 ppm along the tidal Delaware River. The salt line natu rally advances and retreats with each tidal cycle and with seasonal variations in fr eshwater flow. For most of the year, the location of the salt line in the Delaware River is between the Commodore Barry Bridge, located approximately 1.25 miles upstream of Stoney Creek’s mouth, and Reedy Island, locate d approximately 27 miles downstream of Stoney Creek [Figure 7 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 36, p. 14].

The HRS (Section 4.1.3.2.1.3) states that if any fisheries being evaluated are in fresh water and some are in salt water, or if any are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulati on potential factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1 , p. 51617]. Therefore, the higher Food Chain Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Values are used for the Delaware River fishery.

57

### SWOF/Food Chain-Targets/Food Chain Individual

4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual

Sample ID: MC-SD-10, MC-SD-11 Hazardous Substance: Mercury Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000 References: Figure 6 of this HRS documentati on record; Ref. 2, p. 476; Ref. 11, pp. 54, 145

Type of Dilution Identity of Fishery Surface Water Body Weight Reference(s)

Delaware River Large river 0.0001 1, Table 4-13, p. 51613; 51, p. 6.

There is an observed release of a hazardous substance, merc ury, with a Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Values of 500 or greater, and there is Level II Actual Contamination of the Delaware River fishery [Figure 6 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51621; 2, p. 476]. Therefore, a Food Chain Individual Factor Value of 45 is assigned [Ref. 1, p. 51620].

=================================================================================== Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 45

58

### SWOF/Food Chain-Level I/Level II Con centrations/Potential Contamination

4.1.3.3.2 Population

4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations

No Level I concentrations have been documented within th e 15-mile downstream surface water migration pathway target distance limit. Therefore, the Level I Concentrati ons Factor Value is 0 [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620-51621].

=================================================================================== Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations

The Delaware Estuary is fished for human consumption, via shore and boating, along the entire TDL. Species that inhabit the Delaware River that are targeted by anglers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware include largemouth bass, striped bass, American eel, channel catfish, white catfish, and white perch [Ref. 37, pp. 4-12]. The fish consumption rate for the Delaware River fishery is not docum ented, so the fishery is assigned to the category “Greater than 0 to 100 pounds per year” [Ref. 1, p. 51621]. The category corresponds to the assigned Human Food Chain Population Value of 0.03 in Table 4-18 of the HRS, which is assigned as the Level II Concentrations Factor Value [Ref. 1, p. 51621].

=================================================================================== Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03

4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination

People catch fish and crabs for consumption from the rest of the Delaware Estuary within the 15-mile TDL of the site [Ref. 48, p. 5; Ref. 49, pp. 3-7; Ref. 50, pp. 23, 27]. The fish consumption rate for the downstream fishery is not documented, so the fishery is assigned to the category “Greater than 0 to 100 pounds per year” , which corresponds to the assigned Human Food Chain Population Value of 0. 03 in Table 4-18 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51621].

Identity of Fishery Annual Production (pounds) Type of Surface Water Body Average Annual Flow (cfs) Population Value (P i 

### ) Dilution Weight (D i 

### ) P i 

### x D i



### Delaware River 0-100 Large River 11,900 0.03 0.0001 0.000003

Sum of P i 

### x D i 

### : 0.000003 (Sum of P i 

### x D i 

### )/10: 0.0000003

[Ref. 1, pp. 51613, 51621; 48, pp. 5, 30, 31; 49, pp. 3-7; 50, pp. 23, 27, 38-41]

=================================================================================== Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.0000003

59

### SWOF/Environment-Waste Characteristics

4.1.4.2 Environmental Threat - Waste Characteristics

4.1.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Source No. Substance in Observed Release? Ecotoxicity Factor Value River Persistence Factor Value Environment Bioaccumulation Value* Ecotoxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation

Factor Value Reference

Anthracene 1, 2 No 10,000 0.4 50,000 2 x 10 8 2, p. 469 Benzo(a)anthracene 1, 2 No 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 470 Benzo(a)pyrene 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 470 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1, 2 No Values for this com pound were not readily available Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1, 2 No 0 1 50,000 0 2, p. 470 Benzo(j,k)fluorene [Fluoranthene] 1, 2 No 10,000 1 5,000 5 x 10 7 2, p. 470

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1, 2 Yes 0 1 50,000 0 2, p. 470
Carbon Disulfide 1, 2 Yes 100 0.4 500 20,000 2, p. 471
Cadmium 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 470
Chromium 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 500 5 x 10 6 2, p. 471 Chrysene 1, 2 Yes 1,000 1 5,000 5 x 10 6 2, p. 471 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2 No 0 1 50,000 0 2, p. 472 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 No 0 1 50,000 0 2, p. 476
Lead 1, 2 No 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 7 2, p. 476 Mercury 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 476 PCBs [Aroclor-1248,Aroclor-1254, Aroclor1260, Aroclor-1262] 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 478

Phenanthrene 1, 2 No 10,000 0.4 50,000 2 x 10 8 2, p. 477 Pyrene 1, 2 No 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 2, p. 478
Zinc 1, 2 No 100 1 50,000 5 x 10 6 2, p. 480

Notes: *The Delaware Rive r is a tidally influenced surface water body at its conf luence with Stone y Creek, with tidal influence reachi ng as far north as the vicinity of Morrisville, PA and Trenton, NJ, located approximately 50 miles upstream of Stoney Creek [Ref. 36, pp. 11-14]. The salt line i s an estimation of where the 7­ day average chloride concentration equals 250 ppm along the tidal Delaware River. The salt line naturally advances and retreat s with each tidal cycle and with seasonal variations in freshwater flow. For most of the year, the location of the salt line in the Delaware River is between t he Commodore Barry Bridge, located approximately 1.25 miles upstream of Stoney Creek’s mouth, and Reedy Island, located approximately 27 miles downstream of Stone y Creek [Figure 7 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 36, p. 14].

The HRS (Section 4.1.4.2.1.1) states that if any sensitive environments being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the highe r of the fresh water and marine water toxicity factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51621]. Ther efore, the higher Ecosys tem Toxicity Factor V alue for each hazardous substance is used for the Delaware River. Similarly, the HRS (Section 4. 1.4.2.1.3) states that if any sensitive environments being evalu ated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water a nd salt water bioaccumulati on potential factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, pp. 5 1617, 51622]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for each hazardous substance is used for th e Delaware River.

Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo( a)pyrene, cadmium, mercury, PCBs a nd pyrene are the hazardous substan ces associated w ith the highest ecotoxicity/persistence/ bioaccumulation factor value with a quantity of 5 x 10 8

.



### ================================================================= ==================== Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bio accumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 8

60

### SWOF/Environment-Waste Characteristics

4.1.4.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Number Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (HRS Section 2.4.2.1.5) Is source hazardous constituent quantity data complete? (yes/no)

1 2 25,000 >0 No No

Sum of Values: 25,000

A hazardous waste quantity of 25,000 is estimated for all of the Sources at the Metro Container site that when applied in HRS Table 2-6, yields a pathway hazardous waste quantity of 10,000. A value of 10,000 is assigned as the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value since it is the gr eater value [Ref. 1, Table 2-6, pp. 51591-51592].

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 10,000

4.1.4.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

Six hazardous substances (benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium, mercury, PCBs, and pyrene) associated with the waste sources, which have a surface water pathway cont ainment factor of 10 for the watershed, correspond to a Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor Value of 10,000 and Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value of 50,000, as shown previously [Ref. 1, pp. 51618, 51620; 2, pp. 470, 470, 476, 478].

(Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor Value) x (Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) = 10,000 x 10,000 = 1 x 10 8



### (Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x (Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value) = (1 x 10 8 

### ) x (50,000) = 1 x 10 12 

### Subject to a maximum of 1 x 10 12



### The product corresponds to a Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 1,000 in Table 2-7 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51592].

================================================================= ==================== Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000

61

### SWOF/Environment-Targets

4.1.4.3 Environmental Threat - Targets

The Delaware River Estuary is a sensitive area identified under the National Estuary Program [Ref. 36, p. 12]. In addition, a federally designated endangered species, the shortnose sturgeon, spends at least part of its life cycle in the Delaware River Estuary [Ref. 36, p. 59]. For HRS scoring, the zone of actual contamination extends from the most upgradient PPE (PPE1) in Stoney Creek to the most downgrad ient sample documenting an observed release (sample MCSD-11) in the Delaware River [Section 4.1.2.1.1 and Figures 3, 6, and 7 of the HRS documentation record].Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target sensitive environments are evaluated for Actual Contamination. There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target sensitive environments are subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51624-51625].

No HRS-eligible wetland frontage is located along the TDL in Stoney Creek [Ref. 66, pp. 1-7]. The Delaware River mudflats located in the vicinity of Stoney Creek’s mouth are mapped as estuarine and marine wetlands (wetland code E2USN), which indicates the wetland may meet the meet the 40 CFR 230.3 determination of a wetland if emergent hydrophytes are present [Ref. 65; Ref. 66, pp. 1-7]. Howe ver, no documentation exists to support this conclusion; therefore, the wetland is not considered HRS eligible and will not be evaluated further. .

Sediment Samples for Observed Release Bioaccumulation Distance Hazardous Potential Sample ID from PPE2 Substance Factor Value * Reference(s)

MC-SD-10 1,000 feet Mercury 50,000 Figure 6; Ref. 1, p. 51620; Ref. 2, p. 476; Ref. 11, pp. 54, 145 MC-SD-11 1,080 feet Mercury 50,000 Figure 6; Ref. 1, p. 51620; Ref. 2, p. 476; Ref. 11, pp. 54, 145

*The Delaware River is a tidally influenced surface water body at its confluence with Stoney Cr eek, with tidal influence reachi ng as far north as the vicinity of Morrisville, PA and Trenton, NJ, located approximately 50 miles upstream of Stoney Creek [Ref. 36, pp. 11-14]. The salt line is an estimation of where the 7-day average chlo ride concentration equals 250 ppm along the tidal Delaware River. The salt line natu rally advances and retreats with each tidal cycle and with seasonal variations in fr eshwater flow. For most of the year, the location of the salt line in the Delaware River is between the Commodore Barry Bridge, located approximately 1.25 miles upstream of Stoney Creek’s mouth, and Reedy Island, locate d approximately 27 miles downstream of Stoney Creek [Figure 7 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 36, p. 14].

The HRS (Section 4.1.4.2.1.1) states that if any sensitive environments being evalua ted are in brackish water, assign the highe r of the fresh water and marine water toxicity factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51621]. Th erefore, the higher Ecosystem Toxicity F actor Value for each hazardous substance is used for the Delaware River. Simila rly, the HRS (Section 4.1.4.2.1.3) states that if any sens itive environments being evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulation potential factor values to each haza rdous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51622]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Bio accumulation Potential Factor Value for each hazardous substance is used for the De laware River. The maximum factor value of 50,000 applies to mercury [Ref. 2, p. 476].

62

### SWOF/Environment-Level I/Level II Concentrations 4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments

4.1.4.3.1.1 Level I Concentrations

There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment. Theref ore, there are no sensitive environments subject to Level I concentrations and the Level I Concentrations Factor Value is 0 [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51624-51625].

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

4.1.4.3.1.2 Level II Concentrations

Sensitive Environments

The Delaware River Estuary is a sensitive area identified under the National Estuary Program [Ref. 36, p. 12]. In addition, a federally designated endangered species, the shortnose sturgeon, spends at least part of its life cycle in the Delaware River Estuary [Ref. 36, p. 59].

Sensitive Environment Distance from PPE2 to Sensitive Environment Reference Sensitive Environment Value(s)

Delaware River Estuary (Sensitive Area identified under National Estuary Program) 900 feet 1, pp. 51624-51625; 36, p. 12 100

Delaware River Estuary (Shortnose Sturgeon [Federal 900 feet 1, pp. 51624-51625; 75

Designated Endangered Species] Habitat) Sum of Sensitive Environments Value: 175

Wetlands

Wetland Wetland Frontage Reference(s)

N/A

Total Wetland Frontage: N/A Wetland Value: 0

Sum of Sensitive Environments Value + Wetland Value: 175

======================================================================== ============

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 175

63

### SWOF/Environment-Potential Contamination 4.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination

Since a maximum score of 100.00 was achieved for the surface water migration pathway, the Potential Contamination Factor Value was not scored (NS).

================================================================= ==================== Potential Contamination Factor Value: NS

64