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 Drinking Water Threat was not scored because the Human Food 

Chain and Environmental Threats produce an overall score above the minimum required for the site to qualify for the 

National Priorities List (NPL). In addition, there are 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 because it does not contribute significantly to the site score. 

Air: No samples were collected to characterize the Air Migration 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: Trainer, 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 former 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 references. Historical documents indicate the facility is located at 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 (CERCLIS) database lists the address as such [Ref. 3, p. 1]. 

However, according to the Delaware County Real Estate Parcels & Tax Records System, the current property owner and 

operator, Trainer Industries, LLC (Trainer Industries), is located at “200 Price Street” [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 threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus 

is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site 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 certain 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 scoring will be refined as more information 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 S2

 

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 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 (Ssw) 100.00 10,000,00

Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score. 

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) Not Scored

(from Table 5-1, line 22) 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) Not Scored

(from Table 6-1, line 12) 

5. Total of Sgw2

 + Ssw2 + Ss

2

 + Sa

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 

DRINKING WATER THREAT 

MAXIMUM 

 VALUE 

 VALUE 

 ASSIGNED 

Likelihood 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 

Waste Characteristics 

6. Toxicity/Persistence 

7. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

8. Waste Characteristics 

 * 

 * 

100 

 not scored 

 not scored 

not scored 

Targets 

9. Nearest Intake 

10. Population 

 10a. Level I Concentrations 

 10b. Level II Concentrations 

 10c. Potential Contamination 

 10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) 

11. Resources 

12. 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 

HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT 

MAXIMUM 

 VALUE 

 VALUE 

 ASSIGNED 

Likelihood of Release 

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

Waste Characteristics 

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 

16. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

17. Waste Characteristics 

 * 

 * 

1,000 

 5.00E+08 

 10,000 

1,000 

Targets 

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) 

20. 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT 

MAXIMUM 

 VALUE 

 VALUE 

 ASSIGNED 

Likelihood of Release 

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

Waste Characteristics 

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 

24. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

25. Waste Characteristics 

 * 

 * 

1,000 

 5.00E+08 

 10,000 

1,000 

Targets 

26. Sensitive Environments 

 26a. Level I Concentrations 

 26b. Level II Concentrations 

 26c. Potential Contamination 

 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c) 

27. 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 (Sof) 

 100 100.00 

SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 

SCORE (Ssw) 

 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/sites/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 Calculations. June 23, 2011. [2 pp.] 

10. MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH). Site Characterization Report, Trainer Industries, LLC/Former Metro 

Container Corporation, Trainer, Pennsylvania, 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 and Sediment Sampling Event, Metro Container Site, 

Trainer, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. July 6, 2011. [201 pp.]. 

12. Reference Reserved. 

13. Delaware County Real Estate Parcels & Tax Records System and Homestead Status. Property Records 

Search Results. Available from http://w01.co.delaware.pa.us/pa/publicaccess.asp?real.x=13&real.y=83. 

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

14. Borough of Trainer Zoning Map. Prepared by Stantec Consulting 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 Site. 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 Container Site, Trainer, Delaware County, 

Pennsylvania: CERCLA Removal Action/RP Takeover, 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). Flood 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. Technical 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 County 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, Agency 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 Environmental 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 Container 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 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: 

C01A5, Site: Metro Container Corp. May 15, 2007. [65 pp.] 

9 
10 

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 Region 3. Memorandum with attachments to Khin-Cho 

Thaung (ESAT Region 3 Project Officer), Subject: Organic Data Validation (Level M2), Site: Metro 

Container Corporation, Case: 36225 SDG: 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 Region 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 Container. April 9, 2007. [34 pp.] 

63. Alpizar, Mirna (Inorganic 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: Inorganic Data Validation (IM2 Level), Case: 36225 

SDG: MC01B8, Site: Metro Container. April 12, 2007. [28 pp.] 

64. Alpizar, Mirna (Inorganic 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: Inorganic Data Validation (IM2 Level), Case: 36225 

SDG: MC0197, Site: Metro Container. April 12, 2007. [30 pp.] 

65. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Geospatial Wetlands 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 Container 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 Corporation, 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 Control 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 Assessment, Witco Corporation, Trainer Plant, 

3300 West 4th 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 substances, 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-southwest of the intersection of W. 2nd Street and Price Street, 

in a heavily industrialized area of southeastern Pennsylvania [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 disposal 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 contamination, as a result of 

releases of hazardous substances via overland flow migration 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) are 39°49'29.93" north latitude (39.824981) 75°23'56.57" west 

longitude (75.399047) [Figure 1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 5, p. 1; 9, p. 1]. 

The Metro Container facility is located in a predominantly industrial-zoned area, and is bordered to the north-northwest 

by an automobile salvage yard operated by Carters Auto Salvage; 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 February 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 include an approximately 40,000-square-foot (ft2

) former main manufacturing and 

drum reconditioning building, and an approximately 6,000-ft2

 office building [Ref. 11, p. 5]. The former drum 

reconditioning building is a brick structure with steel I-beam supports, 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 the roof, have continued to degrade [Ref. 10, Vol. 2 – pp. 67 – 

84]. The current property owner and operator, Trainer Industries, 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 blasting 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 wastewater 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 the Price Street right-of-way is dirt-covered and is used for 

staging various pipes and storage vessels. Some areas of the property, including the Price Street right-of-way and a road 

between the two structures on the property, are asphalt-paved [Figure 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 19th 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 tanks, refinery stills, an agitator 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 office 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 several subrooms, including rooms for the storage of raw stock 

and finished products, a boiler room, and an oven room. There were also outbuildings that included a waste burner and 

tanks for chemical storage and a railroad siding that branched 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 Stauffer 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 lagoon 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 historical 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; Ref. 

20, p. 2, 4]. When the partially filled lagoon was observed in the early 1980s, it was approximately 5,000 ft2

 (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 the building. It appears that the boiler room in the oven 

building continued to serve the same function. Historical maps from the mid-1960s show the location of the waste 

disposal lagoon as a “pond”. Aerial photographs 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 the property itself was conveyed to the Delaware County 

Industrial Development Authority in December 1970 [Ref. 10, Vol. 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 [Ref. 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 First 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 functional operations, Metro Container received approximately 450,000 to 

500,000 drums per year, many filled with 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 converted drum reclaiming building. 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 performed [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8]. Following the caustic 

cleaning, two cycles of interior metal stripping was performed using hydrochloric acid (HCI) followed by two cycles of 

cold rinsing. After phosphatizing, siphoning, drying, de-denting, short blasting, and leak testing were performed, the 

drums were dried, repainted, baked, and 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 drums 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 flocculation 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 removed and replaced by fresh water 

to control the build-up of chlorides. This removed wastewater was reportedly discharged to the Delaware County 

Regional Water Quality Control Authority (DELCORA) sewer system after additional treatment and pH adjustment [Ref. 

10, Vol. 1 - p. 8; Ref. 18, p. 11]. Sludge from the wastewater 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 environmental 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) ordered 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 discharging 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 and 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 discharges would occur unabated into the early 1970s and even after 

the wastewater treatment system was installed in 1971 by Universal Container, the various facility operators would be 

repeatedly charged with violating the restriction on waste 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 Department of Health and Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP; formerly known as Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

[PADER]) site inspections identified the following deficiencies: oil seeps from the waste disposal lagoon; a “black 

substance” seeping from the site to adjacent railroad tracks; 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 Assessment actions have been conducted related to the 

Metro Container facility, including a Preliminary Assessment (PA), three Removal Assessments, a Potentially 

Responsible Party (PRP) search, two EPA-lead Removal 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 preconditioned 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 throughout the facility; and (3) the property was unfenced and 

drums containing sludge were in extremely poor condition, 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 health 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 migration from the Metro Container facility into the Delaware 

River, requested EPA Emergency Response to assess the potential threat of this migration [Ref. 24, pp. 3, 5, 37]. Due to 

the inability of Metro Container management and failure of a PRP “Steering Committee” composed of representatives of 

the companies that were the source of the thousands of drums 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, and sludge from the concrete holding tank or its secondary 

containment, both of which had overflowed and impacted Stoney Creek on previous occasions [Ref. 24, pp. 3, 5, 10, 19]. 

 In addition, 136,700 gallons of oil-contaminated rain water from the concrete holding 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 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 Committee contracted MK 

Environmental to conduct Removal Action activities at the facility. Between June 1989 and January 1990, the contractor 

disposed of approximately 6,000 tons of waste, including sludge, 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 backfilled [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; Ref. 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 discharge 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 and 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 pollution 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 waste 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 Industries) who were considering the purchase of the abandoned Metro Container 

property [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - pp. 37, 38]. In 1999, based on the 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), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and 

metals. Analysis of sediment samples collected from Stoney Creek indicated the presence of PAHs, PCBs, and metals. 

During the course of the investigation, Pennoni installed ten on-site monitoring wells. Subsequent sampling of these 

wells indicated the presence of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals 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 samples 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 comprehensive 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 included 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 geophysical 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 contaminated 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 brought 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 locations, 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 encountered in the test trenches included layers of flyash, 

deposits of crushed and apparently incinerated drums with small amounts of residual 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 background 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, south and downgradient of the former waste disposal lagoon, 

and southeast and downgradient of the former drum reconditioning 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 Technical 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 collected to determine whether substances at the site posed an 

immediate threat to human health and welfare or the environment [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 detected in various matrices at concentrations exceeding 

applicable RBCs [Ref. 17, pp. 17-22]. Specifically, the 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 applicable 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 Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) determined 

that the collection of sediment samples from the Delaware River was necessary to determine potential downstream 

impacts [Ref. 31, p. 6]. Subsequently, in August 2008, Tetra 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 Benchmarks [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 originated 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 samples 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 River sediments at elevated concentrations (i.e., significantly 

above background concentrations) downstream of Metro Container 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 tract: EP-S3-10-05 

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.mxd 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware River 

Wilmington/Newark Rail Line 

Cr eek 

W. 2nd St. 

Price St. 

Stoney Creek

Technologies
 

Residential Area 

Stoney 

Auto

Salvage

Yard
 

Scrap

Metal

Yard 

ConocoPhillips

Refinery 

PPE No. 1 Metro Container Corporation 

Stoney Creek

Guard Basin 

Regional

Wastewater

Treatment

Plant 

Rail Yard 

PPE No. 2 

ConocoPhillips

Refinery 

ConocoPhillips

Refinery 

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	 

0 200 400 Site Vicinity Map

Wetland Code: E2USN
 Feet
 

TDD#: 0	 0.05 0.1 

Con 

WS03-11-01-001 tract: 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.mxd 
ConocoPhillips

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

ps
Ston

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 See Inset MC07-48

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 

ConocoPhillips MC07-21

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 

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

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

Surface Water/Sediment Wetland Code: E2USN 0 200 400 600 Stream Sample Location Map

Soil/Groundwater Feet

Railroad Tracks 0 0.05 0.1 TDD#:

Con WS03-11-01-001 tract: 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 

200 
Refinery Metro Container Corporation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Wastewater 

Treatment

Plant 

Railyard 

PPE No. 2 Former Waste

Disposal Lagoon 

MC-SD-10 

MC-SD-06 

ConocoPhillips 

Refinery 

MC-SD-09 

MC-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.mxd 
0

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, 

Sediment Sample Location Stream 40-56. June 2010

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

Miles 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 lagoon 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; Ref. 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 purpose of containing waste generated from facility operations 

and is evaluated based on HRS source type “Surface Impoundment” (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 southwest corner of the Metro Container facility, adjacent to 

(east of) Stoney Creek and west of the former drum reconditioning 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 seeps directly downgradient of the source indicate that a 

variety of hazardous substances (PAHs, PCBs, and metals) 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 contamination 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 depths that had the highest concentration of organic vapors 

or most visually impacted hydrocarbon contamination and submitted 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 contaminants in the former waste disposal lagoon, including, but 

not limited to, VOCs (benzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, tricholoroethylene); PAHs (anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, 

benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, 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, Vol. 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 comprehensive source characterization data is not being used 

quantitatively to confirm the presence of hazardous substances in the former waste disposal lagoon. 

Tetra Tech START 2007 Sampling 

In March 2007, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech START collected soil samples from the Metro Container property as part 

of a Removal Assessment [Figure 4 of this HRS documentation 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 [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. 1-15; Ref. 17, pp. 10-13]. One soil sample 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 concentrations 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 concentrations 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 directly into sampling containers. Following VOC sample 

collection, soil was placed into a dedicated aluminum pan 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 similar 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 sampling 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 similar to allow for comparison to document an increase in 

contaminant levels. Samples were analyzed for volatiles, semivolatiles, 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]. Samples were analyzed for metals and cyanide in 

accordance with Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Statement 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 reporting 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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(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 

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/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-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 

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 (0.69) 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/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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 multiplied 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). 

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program
 

U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantitation 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 associated 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 

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/kg 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/kg 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/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 57, pp. 21, 26 

Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-114 C01C7 5,300 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 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/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 47; 60, pp. 26, 31 

Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-115 C01C5 30,000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 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/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 47; 63, pp. 10, 14 

Cadmium MC07-SS-115 MC01C5 15.5 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 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/kg 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/kg 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/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 

Reference(s) 

Mercury MC07-SS-C1 MC01C9 3 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 51; 63, pp. 10, 14 

Mercury MC07-SS-110 MC0189 4.6 + mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 49; 62, pp. 13, 20 

Mercury MC07-SS-115 MC01C5 1.6 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 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/kg 16, p. 10; 17, p. 46; 63, pp. 9, 14 

Notes: 

1 Estimated “J” qualified data flagged as “high” or “unknown” and detected above the 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). 

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program
 

U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantitation 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 soil sample was collected from 6 to 12 inches bgs in the same 

boring as the surface soil sample. The subsurface soil was also placed into a dedicated, disposable aluminum pan from 

the hand-auger and homogenized with a dedicated, disposable plastic scoop prior to placement into the laboratory 

containers [Ref. 11, p. 9]. Due to refusal of the hand auger, 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 Organic and Inorganic Data Review [Ref. 11, pp. 58, 59, 

136, 137, 162, 163]. 

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

samples, ranging from silt to fine-grained sand, and all samples displayed a brown or brown-to-gray color [Ref. 11, pp. 

10, 44, 49, 52, 53, 55]. The percent moisture in the background 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 

μg/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 

μg/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 reconditioning building. Historical maps indicate that a pond that 

fed into Stoney Creek may have been converted into the 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 generated 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 disposal, 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 scored; Tier C is assigned a value of 0. 

Volume (V) Value: 0 

2.4.2.1.4 Area 

Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity is scored; 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 Metro 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 surface. 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 Committee 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 reconditioning 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 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, among other 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 property. (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 and 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 depths that had the highest concentration of organic vapors 

or most visually impacted hydrocarbon contamination and submitted the samples for laboratory analysis [Ref. 10, Vol. 1, 

pp. 50, 51, 52]. Figures 4-5 through 4-15 in Vol. 2 of Reference 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, tricholoroethylene); PAHs (anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, 

benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 

naphthalene, pentachlorophenol and pyrene); PCBs (Aroclor-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 comprehensive source characterization data is not being used 

quantitatively to confirm the presence of hazardous substances in contaminated soil. 

Tetra Tech START 2007 Sampling 

In March 2007, on behalf of EPA, Tetra Tech START collected soil samples from the Metro Container property as part 

of a Removal Assessment [Figure 4 of this HRS documentation 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, MC07-50, 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 sample 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 concentrations 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 concentrations 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 directly into sampling containers. Following VOC sample 

collection, soil was placed into a dedicated aluminum pan 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 pesticides/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 samples 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 similar 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 sampling 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 similar to allow for comparison to document an increase in 

contaminant levels. 

Soil background concentrations for Source 2 soil samples collected 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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/kg 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 multiplied 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). 

CLP = Contract Laboratory Program
 

U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantitation Limit 

(CRQL). 

μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
 

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
 

Analytical evidence of contamination in soil samples associated 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 Reference(s) 

Anthracene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 3,100 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 

Anthracene MC07-SB-C5-6.0 C01E0 2,800 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 55; 60, pp. 22, 32 

Anthracene MC07-SB-56-4.5 C0187 1,600 170 μg/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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/kg 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/kg 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/kg 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/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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/kg 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/kg 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/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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/kg 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/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 

Pyrene MC07-SB-C4-10 C01D8 9,100 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 22, 32 

Pyrene MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 2,400 μg/kg 170 μg/kg 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/kg 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/kg 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/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 60, pp. 26, 32 

Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 39000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 27, 32 

Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 18000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 27, 32 

Aroclor-1254 MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 6800 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 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/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 60, pp. 26, 32 

Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C3 C01D7 62000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 60, pp. 27, 32 

Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C4 C01D9 36000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 60, pp. 27, 32 

Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-C5 C01E1 13000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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/kg 16, p. 9; 17, p. 44; 61, pp. 19, 22 

Aroclor-1260 MC07-SS-109 C01B4 2000 + μg/kg 33 μg/kg 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 107

) 

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/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 11, 15 

Cadmium MC07-SS-C3 MC01D7 31.5 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15 

Cadmium MC07-SS-C4 MC01D9 64.8 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 12, 15 

Cadmium MC07-SS-C5 MC01E1 16.7 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 Reference(s) 

Cadmium MC07-SB-133-08 MC0193 5.6 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 17, p. 35; 62, pp. 14, 20 

Chromium MC07-SS-C2 MC01D5 526 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 52; 63, pp. 11, 15 

Chromium MC07-SS-C3 MC01D7 306 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15 

Chromium MC07-SS-C4 MC01D9 528 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 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/kg 16, p. 8; 17, p. 39; 64, pp. 11, 15 

Chromium MC07-SB-C2-14 MC01D3 127 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 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/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 12, 15 

Mercury MC07-SS-C5 MC01E1 3.1 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 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/kg 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 

Concentration1

) 

Reporting 

Limit2 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/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 53; 63, pp. 11, 15 

Zinc MC07-SB-C4-10 MC01D8 1,400 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 16, p. 11; 17, p. 54; 63, pp. 11, 15 

Zinc MC07-SB-C5-6.0 MC01E0 624 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 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/kg 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 data flagged as “high” or “unknown” and detected above the reporting 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 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). 

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. The associated numerical value is the Contract Required Quantitation 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 Tier 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 ft2

 = >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 Migration 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 Delaware River Drainage Basin [Ref. 33; 34]. The western 

portion of the Metro Container property is located within the 100-year floodplain [Ref. 35, pp. 1-2]. In general, the 

topography of the property slopes gently to the west-southwest towards Stoney Creek, with elevations ranging from 

about 10 to 15 feet above mean sea level [Ref. 5, p. 1]. The property is currently graded; however, site investigations 

have revealed that the western end of the property underwent 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 point at which runoff from Sources 1 and 2 flows into Stoney 

Creek. From PPE2, Stoney Creek flows southerly for approximately 0.2 miles to its mouth on the Delaware River, an 

area characterized as a tidal mudflat [Ref. 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 water 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 the entire boundary between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and 

most of the boundary between Delaware and New Jersey. The boundaries of these three states meet in the Delaware 

River, approximately 2.25 miles from the PPE [Figures 1 and 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, Pennsylvania 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 Stoney 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 establishing 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 freshwater 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 that either migrate through or spend the winter. Also found 

in the Delaware Estuary is the largest population of spawning 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 contamination, 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 are 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):

Marcus 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 observation 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 observation is supported by numerous PDH and PADER NOVs issued to 

the various facility operators for discharging 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 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]. Analytical results of leachate seep and sediment samples collected 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 seep locations contained compounds in excess of PADEP 

Surface Water Human Health Criteria, including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, bix(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 

chloroform, chrysene, pyrene, arsenic, Aroclor-1248 and Aroclor-1260 [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 – p. 42]. 

The observed release to Stoney Creek by direct observation is further supported by the owners and operators of Metro 

Container pleading guilty in Federal court in July 1991 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 discharge of contaminated water into Stoney Creek, storing hazardous waste 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 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 pollution 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 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 Delaware 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-site 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, and Liability Act (CERCLA) petroleum exclusion policy and 

will not be evaluated. 

The off-site migration assessment revealed that no active runoff over the banks into Stoney Creek was occurring; 

however, signs of past runoff were observed, as several points along the creek bank showed signs of past erosion. In 

several locations along Stoney Creek, active runoff was observed occurring that originated from points within the stream 

bank [Ref. 24, pp. 38, 157]. Debris that had been pushed over the bank made it impossible to deduce the origin of the 

runoff (i.e., no piping could be observed). The areas of unknown discharge included three areas close to the southern 

47 
 

 

 

SWOF-Observed Release 

border of the facility property discharging a white material, and 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 START 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 [Figure 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 document 

background 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; Ref. 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 the most downstream location first, and samplers worked their 

way upstream. At each of the sampling locations, the VOC fraction 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 laboratory containers [Ref. 17, pp. 14, 15]. The sampling was 

conducted in accordance with Tetra Tech’s January 2007 Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Metro Container site 

[Ref. 17, p. 10]. 

All sediment samples collected during this sampling event were submitted to EPA-assigned CLP laboratories and 

analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides/PCBs, and 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]. 

Background and release sediment samples were collected from similar depths, employed the same sampling and 

analytical methods, and were collected during the same sampling 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 substances 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 Concentrations Meeting Observed Release Criteria 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Evidence 

Field Sample 

ID 

CLP Sample 

ID 

Concentration 

(Adjusted Concentration1

) Reporting Limit2 Reference 

Background Levels for Stoney Creek 

Benzo(a)pyrene MC07-SD-07 C0199 220 μg/kg 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/kg 5.0 μg/kg 16, p. 6; 59, pp. 11, 29 

Cadmium MC07-SD-07 MC0199 0.35 J (0.49) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 16, p. 6; 64, pp. 13, 17 

Mercury MC07-SD-07 MC0180 0.070 J (0.13) mg/kg 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 Concentration1

) Reporting Limit2 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 data flagged as “low” or “unknown” and detected above the reporting limit were multiplied by an 

adjustment factor, and estimated “J” qualified observed release sample data flagged as “low” or “unknown” and detected above the 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 level reported in laboratory or field blanks 

U = Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. 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 HRS Documentation Record; Ref. 11, pp. 8-13]. Three sediment 

samples (MC-SD-01, MC-SD-02, and MC-SD-03) were collected 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 there is an ongoing EPA Removal Action [Ref. 11, pp. 9-11, 46­

50, 55, 56]. Sediment sample MC-SD-01 was collected upstream of both sites (Stoney Creek Technologies and Metro 

Container) [Figure 6 of this HRS Documentation Record; Ref. 11, pp. 10, 56]. Three sediment samples (MC-SD-05, 

MC-SD-06 and MC-SD-07) were collected from submerged locations 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. These three samples were collected along the bank of Stoney Creek 

during low tide, in areas that are submerged by the Delaware 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 vicinity 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 Delaware 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 event were submitted to EPA-assigned CLP laboratories and 

analyzed for TCL SVOCs and pesticides/PCBs, and TAL metals 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 validated by the Region 3 ESAT according to the Region 3 

Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for Organic and Inorganic Data Review [Ref. 11, pp. 58, 59, 136, 

137, 162, 163]. 

The background and release samples displayed similar physical characteristics. 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 percent solids in the Delaware River background samples ranged 

from 48% to 72%, while percent solids in the Delaware River release samples ranged from 49% to 64% [Ref. 11, pp. 35­

36, 145-147]. TOC concentrations in Stoney Creek background 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 background 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 solid values, and similar physical descriptions) among the 

background and release samples, 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 substances 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 Delaware 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 Observed Release Criteria 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Evidence 

Field Sample ID CLP Sample ID Concentration 

(Adjusted Concentration1

) 

Reporting Limit2 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 data flagged as “low” or “unknown” and detected above the reporting limit were multiplied 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). 

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

SWOF-Observed Release 

Attribution 

PCBs belong to a broad family of man-made organic chemicals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons [Ref. 46, p. 1]. 

PCBs were manufactured domestically from 1929 until their manufacture 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 many 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 property 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 with 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 converted drum reclaiming building [Ref. 10, Vol. 1 - p. 8]. 

Historical documentation indicates that over 670 companies contributed 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, including 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]. During the 1960s and 1970s, PADH and PADER 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]. Exploratory borings advanced into the waste 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, fluoranthene, 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 sediment 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, are 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 numerous industrial complexes since the turn of the 20th century, 

including shipbuilding and drydocks, several oil refineries, locomotive works, an automobile assembly plant, paper mills, 

and various manufacturing facilities [Ref. 44, p. 1]. Industries that have operated in the Trainer area include 

ConocoPhillips (formerly, BP Oil), Wilkinson Electronics, Inc., 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 Creek, receives inflow from area industries, including Sun Oil’s 

Marcus Hook Refinery and Kimberly-Clark’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 alkylbenzene sulfonates (LIMOH), (2) magnesium alkylbenzene 

sulfonates (MAG), and (3) Severe Atmospheric Corrosion Inhibitors (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 filtering and centrifuging. Solvents such as heptane, mineral spirits and alcohols 

are utilized in product manufacture [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 fabrication, concrete products, auto sales and service, retail 

petroleum sales, paint sales, commercial 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 bankruptcy. PADEP suspended the operating permits and EPA 

Region III became involved on the site to assure that the chemicals 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/remove 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 property [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 105 2, p. 469 

Benzo(a)anthracene 1, 2 No 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 107 2, p. 470 

Benzo(a)pyrene 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 2, p. 470 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1, 2 No Values for this compound 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 105 2, p. 470 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1, 2 Yes 100 1 50,000 5 x 106 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 108 2, p. 470 

Chromium 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 500 5 x 106 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 108 2, p. 472 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 No 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 107 2, p. 476 

Lead 1, 2 No 10,000 1 5,000 5 x 107 2, p. 476 

Mercury 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 2, p. 476 

PCBs [Aroclor-1248, 

Aroclor-1254, Aroclor1260, Aroclor-1262] 

1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 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 106 2, p. 478 

Zinc 1, 2 No 10 1 50,000 5 x 105 2, p. 480 

Notes: 

*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, 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 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 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, located 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 bioaccumulation 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 hazardous substances associated with the highest 

toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value with a quantity of 5 x 108

. 

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 [Ref. 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)anthracene, mercury, and PCBs) associated with the waste 

sources, which have a surface water pathway containment 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 Value) × (Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) = 10,000 × 10,000 = 1 x 108 

(Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) 

× (Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value) = (1 x 108

) × (50,000) =5 x 1012 

Subject to a maximum of 1 x 1012 

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/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 108 

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, and 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 Creek, with tidal influence reaching 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 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 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, located 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 bioaccumulation 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 documentation 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, mercury, 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 Concentrations/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 the 15-mile downstream surface water migration pathway target 

distance limit. Therefore, the Level I Concentrations 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 documented, 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 (Pi) 

Dilution 

 Weight (Di) Pi x Di 

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

Sum of Pi x Di: 0.000003 

(Sum of Pi x Di)/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 108 2, p. 469 

Benzo(a)anthracene 1, 2 No 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 2, p. 470 

Benzo(a)pyrene 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 2, p. 470 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1, 2 No Values for this compound 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 107 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 108 2, p. 470 

Chromium 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 500 5 x 106 2, p. 471 

Chrysene 1, 2 Yes 1,000 1 5,000 5 x 106 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 107 2, p. 476 

Mercury 1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 2, p. 476 

PCBs [Aroclor-1248, 

Aroclor-1254, Aroclor1260, Aroclor-1262] 

1, 2 Yes 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 2, p. 478 

Phenanthrene 1, 2 No 10,000 0.4 50,000 2 x 108 2, p. 477 

Pyrene 1, 2 No 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 2, p. 478 

Zinc 1, 2 No 100 1 50,000 5 x 106 2, p. 480 

Notes: 

*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, 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 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 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, located 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 evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and marine 

water toxicity factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51621]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Toxicity Factor Value 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 evaluated are in brackish water, assign 

the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulation potential factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, pp. 51617, 51622]. Therefore, the 

higher Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for each hazardous substance is used for the Delaware River. 

Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium, mercury, PCBs and pyrene are the hazardous substances associated with the highest ecotoxicity/persistence/ 

bioaccumulation factor value with a quantity of 5 x 108. 

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

 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 108 

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 greater 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 containment 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 108 

(Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) 

x (Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value) = (1 x 108

) x (50,000) = 1 x 1012 

Subject to a maximum of 1 x 1012 

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 downgradient 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]. However, 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 Creek, with tidal influence reaching 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 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 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, located 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 evaluated are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and 

marine water toxicity factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 51621]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Toxicity Factor Value 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 evaluated 

are in brackish water, assign the higher of the fresh water and salt water bioaccumulation potential factor values to each hazardous substance [Ref. 1, p. 

51622]. Therefore, the higher Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for each hazardous substance is used for the Delaware 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. Therefore, 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