HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Matlack, Inc.

Date Prepared: September 2012

Contact Persons:

Documentation Record: Ildefonso Acosta

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 New York, NY 

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored:

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component: The surface water overland/flood migration component 

is not scored for Matlack, Inc. The ground water to surface water migration component, environmental threat 

produces an overall score above the minimum required for the site to qualify for the National Priorities List. 

Soil Exposure: No samples were collected to characterize the soil exposure pathway; there is no documentation 

of areas of observed contamination within 2 feet of the ground surface. The soil exposure pathway is not scored 

[Ref. 5, 10, 12, 23, 24, 25, 28, 48]

Air: No samples were collected to characterize the air migration pathway; there is no documentation of an 

observed release to air. The air migration pathway is not scored [Ref. 5, 10, 12, 23, 24, 25, 28, 48]. 
This page has been left blank intentionally.

 
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Matlack, Inc. Date Prepared: September 2012 

EPA ID No.: NJD043584101 

EPA Region: 2 

Street Address of Site*: Route 322 East, Woolwich Township

County and State: Gloucester County, New Jersey 08085 

General Location in the State: Southwest New Jersey, in the Delaware River Watershed

Topographic Map: Bridgeport, NJ-PA

Latitude: 39° 45' 47.1821" North Longitude: 75° 19' 19.8088" West

Site Reference Point: Monitoring Well #6 located directly adjacent to and downgradient of Source 1, 

the former unlined lagoon.

[Ref. 3, p. 1; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 1; 27, Figure 2] 

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record 

identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations 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 

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: 68.55

Surface Water Pathway: 60.00

Soil Exposure Pathway: Not Scored

Air Pathway: Not Scored

HRS SITE SCORE: 45.54

1
WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

MATLACK, INC.

 S S2 

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 68.55 4,699.10

(from Table 3-1, line 13)

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Not Scored

(from Table 4-1, line 30)

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component 60.00 3,600.00

(from Table 4-25, line 28)

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) 60.00 3,600.00

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 + Sa2 8,299.10

6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5

 by 4 and take the square root 45.54

2
GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORESHEET

MATLACK, INC.

GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

Factor Categories & Factors

MAXIMUM 

VALUE

VALUE 

ASSIGNED

Likelihood of Release

1. Observed Release 550 0

2. Potential to Release

2a. Containment 10 10

2b. Net Precipitation 10 6

2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 3

2d. Travel Time 35 5

2e. Potential to Release

[lines 2a (2b+2c+2d)]

500 140

3. Likelihood of Release

(higher of lines 1 and 2e)

550 140

Waste Characteristics

4. Toxicity/Mobility * 10,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity * 10,000

6. Waste Characteristics 100 100

Targets

7. Nearest Well 50 20

8. Population

8a. Level I Concentrations ** 0

8b. Level II Concentrations ** 0

8c. Potential Contamination ** 374

8d. Population (lines 8a+8b+8c) ** 374

9. Resources 5 5

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 5

11. Targets (lines 7+8d+9+10) ** 404

12. Aquifer Score (lines 3x6x11 divided by 82,500)*** 100 68.55

13. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw)

(highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated)***

100 68.55

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

** Maximum value not applicable.

*** Do not round to nearest integer.

3
GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

MATLACK, INC.

GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER 

MIGRATION COMPONENT

Factor Categories & Factors

DRINKING WATER THREAT

MAXIMUM

VALUE

VALUE

ASSIGNED

Likelihood of Release

1. Observed Release

2. Potential to Release

 2a. Containment

 2b. Net Precipitation

 2c. Depth to Aquifer

 2d. Travel Time

 2e. Potential to Release (lines 2a [2b + 2c + 2d])

 

3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e)

550

10

10

5 

35 

500

550

550

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

550

Waste Characteristics

4. Toxicity/Mobility/Persistence

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity

6. Waste Characteristics

* 

* 

100

not scored

not scored

not scored

Targets

7. Nearest Intake

8. Population

 8a. Level I Concentrations

 8b. Level II Concentrations

 8c. Potential Contamination

 8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c)

9. Resources

10. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9)

50

**

**

**

**

5 

**

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

11. DRINKING WATER THREAT SCORE

([lines 3 x 6 x 10]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100)

100 not scored

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

** Maximum value not applicable

4
GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

MATLACK, INC.

GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER 

MIGRATION COMPONENT

Factor Categories & Factors

HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT

MAXIMUM

VALUE

VALUE

ASSIGNED

Likelihood of Release

12. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 3) 550 550

Waste Characteristics

13. Toxicity/Mobility/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

14. Hazardous Waste Quantity

15. Waste Characteristics

* 

* 

1,000

not scored

not scored

not scored

Targets

16. Food Chain Individual

17. Population

 17a. Level I Concentrations

 17b. Level II Concentrations

 17c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination

 17d. Population (lines 17a + 17b + 17c)

18. Targets (lines 16 + 17d)

50

**

**

**

**

**

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

19. HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT SCORE

([lines 12 x 15 x 18]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 

100)

100 not scored

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

** Maximum value not applicable

5
GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

MATLACK, INC.

GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER 

MIGRATION COMPONENT

Factor Categories & Factors

ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT

MAXIMUM

VALUE

VALUE

ASSIGNED

Likelihood of Release

20. Likelihood of Release (same as line 3) 550 550

Waste Characteristics

21. EcosystemToxicity/Mobility/Persistence/

Bioaccumulation

22. Hazardous Waste Quantity

23. Waste Characteristics

 * 

 * 

1,000

2.0E+06 

10,000

320

Targets

24. Sensitive Environments

 24a. Level I Concentrations

 24b. Level II Concentrations

 24c. Potential Contamination

 24d. Sensitive Environments (lines 24a + 24b + 

24c)

25. Targets (value from line 24d)

**

**

**

**

**

0 

100

not scored

100

100

26. ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT SCORE

([lines 20 x 23 x 25]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 60)

60 60.00

27. WATERSHED SCORE (lines 11 + 19 + 26, subject to 

a maximum of 100)***

100 60.00

28. COMPONENT SCORE (highest score from Line 27 

for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 

100)***

100 60.00

SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 

SCORE (Ssw)

100 60.00

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

** Maximum value not applicable

*** Do not round to the nearest integer

6
REFERENCES

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Revised Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, 40 CFR 

300, Part II. Federal Register. December 14, 1990. [137 pages]

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, SCDM Data Version: 1/27/2004, Appendix B-I (Hazardous 

Substances Factor Values), Methodology for Determining Human Toxicity Factor Values and Air 

Inhalation Benchmarks for Volatile Substances and SCDM Volatile Substances and Corresponding 

Human Toxicity Factor (HTF) Values and Air Inhalation Benchmarks. January 2004, Updated 

December 2011 and March 2012. [21 pages]

3. EPA. CERCLIS Hazardous Waste Sites, Matlack, Inc.: Site Information and Actions. Accessed from 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0200307. April 5, 2012. [2 pages]

4. Gilliland, Gerry, Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON), EPA Region 2 Site Assessment Team (SAT). 

Field Logbook SAT.074.001, Matlack, Inc., Woolwich Township, NJ; with attached Photograph Log. 

June 19, 2003. [24 pages]

5. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON), Field Logbook, Matlack, Inc., 

20405.012.013.1645, Logbook Doc. Control No.: 1645-4E-AUDS, with attached: Sample Collection 

Data Sheets; Ground water Sampling Logs (Low-Flow), and Matlack Inc. - Photo Documentation Log. 

January 31, 2012 through May 25, 2012. [109 pages]

6. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS). Bridgeport Quadrangle, New 

Jersey-Pennsylvania, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic). 1995. [1 page]

7. Earth Point, State Plane Coordinate System. Convert State Plane to Latitude and Longitude, June 8, 

2012. [2 pages]

8. Hayton, Robert, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Email Message with 

attachment to Gerry Gilliland, Weston®, Subject: Matlack. July 3, 2003. [3 pages]

9. Mobilia, Philip N., Matlack, Inc. (MATLACK). Letter with attachments to Pamela A. Lange, NJDEP, 

Re: Swedesboro Terminal, Community Relations Activities. August 25, 1988. [6 pages]

10. O’Neil, Christopher D. and Kent V. Littlefield, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 

Revised Phase II Remedial Investigation Report, Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro, Gloucester County, New 

Jersey, Terminal No. M-52, Volume I of III, SAIC Project 01-1633-00-4246-107. Prepared for 

Matlack, Inc. June 2001 (Volume I) and August 2000 (Volumes II and III). [2,495 pages]

11. Whittaker, Clare, NJDEP. RCRA Facility Assessment for RCRA Corrective Action Program, Matlack 

Trucking, Route 322, Swedesboro, Gloucester County. June 1988. [298 pages]

12. Morin, Paul R. et al, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM). Revised Draft Remedial 

Investigation Report, Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro Terminal, Woolwich Township, Gloucester County, 

New Jersey. Prepared for Matlack, Inc. August 8, 1990. [729 pages]

13. LeVon, Peter and Al Funk, ERM. Draft Preliminary Risk Assessment Report, Matlack, Inc., 

Swedesboro Terminal, Gloucester County, New Jersey. Prepared for Matlack, Inc. August 8, 1990. 

[172 pages]

7
REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

14. Marrs, Thomas O. and Kent V. Littlefield, R.E. Wright, Inc. (REWAI). Phase II Remedial 

Investigation Work Plan, Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro, New Jersey, Terminal No. M-052. Prepared for 

Matlack, Inc. March 1998. [132 pages]

15. Peet, John C., Jr., MATLACK. Letter to Honorable Walter F. Sullivan, A.L.J., RE: Matlack, Inc. v 

NJDEP, Docket No. EWM-03399-87, Agency Reference No. 87-101. November 11, 1987. [15 pages]

16. Peet, John C., Jr., MATLACK. Letter to Loraine Otis, State of New Jersey Department of Law and 

Public Safety, RE: Department of Environmental Protection v. Matlack, OAL Docket No. 

EWM-3399-87. May 11, 1989. [3 pages]

17. McFeaters, Scott L. and Kent V. Littlefield, SAIC. Remedial Action Work Plan, Matlack, Inc.,

Swedesboro, Gloucester County, New Jersey, NJDEP Case #NJD043584101. Prepared for Matlack, 

Inc. June 2001. [610 pages]

18. Payne Thomas, Rhonda L., Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling (KRLS). Facsimile Transmittal, Letter to 

Robert Hayton, NJDEP, Re: Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro Terminal; RR#8, Box 183; Case No. 

99-11-18-1007-35. October 16, 2001. [6 pages]

19. Campbell, Bradley M., NJDEP. Letter to George Pavlou, EPA, Re: Matlack, Inc. Swedesboro 

Terminal. December 16, 2002. [4 pages]

20. MATLACK. Interim Remedial Action Report, Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro Terminal, Woolwich 

Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. June 7, 1994. [218 pages]

21. Landon, Ronald A., ERM. Letter to Joseph R. Douglass, NJDEP, RE: Meeting Confirmation and 

Enclosed Work Scope for Hydrogeologic Investigation at Matlack-Woolwich Township Terminal. 

June 6, 1984. [6 pages]

22. McCarthy, Karen A., NJDEP. Stenographic Transcript of Public Meeting, In the Matter of: Matlack, 

Inc. Site. October 4, 1988. [32 pages]

23. Schuller, Rudolph M. and Ronald A. Landon, ERM. Phase I Hydrogeologic Investigation of the 

Matlack Inc. Terminal, Woolwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. September 17, 1984. 

[82 pages]

24. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G&M). Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Former Disposal Pit at the 

Matlack Facility, Swedesboro, New Jersey. April 1985. [115 pages]

25. ERM. Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Matlack Inc. Terminal, Woolwich Township, Gloucester 

County, New Jersey, Phase II. September 12, 1986. [160 pages]

26. Peterson, Eleanor, NJDEP. Memo to Thomas W. Downey, Subject: Matlack, Inc. AO/NOCP 

(Inspection 10/23/87) FNOV 4/28/88. April 29, 1988. [2 pages]

8
REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

27. Weston Solutions, Inc. Figure 1, Matlack, Inc. May 2012; Figure 2, Study Area Map, Matlack, Inc.

May 2012; Figure 3A, 4-Mile Radius Map, Matlack, Inc. May 2012; and Figure 4, 15-Mile Surface 

Water Pathway Map, Matlack, Inc. May 2012. [4 maps] 

28. NJDEP Bureau of Environmental Measurements and Site Assessment. Site Reassessment, Matlack, 

Inc., EPA ID No.: NJD043584101, Woolwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. September 

2011. [1383 pages]

29. Lowry, William, NJDEP. NJDEP Inspection Form, Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro, EPA ID# 

NJD043584101. April 13 and 19, 1983. [29 pages]

30. Ostrander, Terry, NJDEP. Inspection Report, Matlack, Inc. Swedesboro, NJ, EPA ID# 

NJD043584101. September 10, 1985. [27 pages]

31. Ostrander, Terry, NJDEP. Fax Transmittal to Eleanor Peterson, C&E. February 14, 1986. [14 pages]

32. Gomez, Bob, NJDEP. RCRA Land Disposal Restriction Generator Checklist, Matlack, Inc., 

Swedesboro, NJ, EPA ID# NJD043584101. May 8, 1990. [13 pages]

33. Kosierowski, Michael, NJDEP. Generator Inspection Report, Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro, NJ, EPA ID# 

NJD043584101. June 17 and 18, 1992. [58 pages]

34. Gomez, Bob, NJDEP. Memorandum to File, Subject: Matlack, Inc. - CESQG Inspection/NOV Issued 

for Illegal 10 Day Facility, RD#1, Route 322, Swedesboro, NJ 08085, NJD 043584101. September 14, 

1998. [1 page]

35. NJDEP. Fact Sheet, Public Meeting to Discuss Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at the 

Matlack, Inc. Superfund Site, Woolwich Township, Gloucester County. October 4, 1988. [2 pages]

36. Hamilton, James K., NJDEP. Letter to John O’Brien, Matlack, RE: Hydrogeological Investigation at 

Matlack, Incorporated, Woolwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. January 18, 1984. [7 

pages]

37. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject: 

Volume Calculation, Source 1, Using ArcGIS 10.0. April 3, 2012. [1 page]

38. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject: 

Distance Calculations, Using ArcGIS 10.0. April 3, 2012. [1 page]

39. Kuhlwein, Ernest J. Jr., NJDEP. Letter to Philip N. Mobilia, Matlack, RE: Matlack, Inc., Partial 

Closure Plan, Swedesboro Terminal, EPA ID No. NJD 043 584 101. July 12, 1988. [4 pages]

40. Gomez, Bob, NJDEP. Memorandum with Attachments to Jack Skoviak, Subject: Matlack -

Swedesboro Terminal Sampling on October 2, 1991. October 2, 1991. [13 pages]

41. Ostrander, Terry, NJDEP. Generator Inspection Report, Matlack, Inc., EPA ID Number 

NJD043584101. January 27, 1995. [24 pages]

9
REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

42. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject: 

Determination of sensitive environments associated with the Matlack Inc. Site. June 11, 2012. [16

pages]

43. Environmental Data Resources (EDR). Historical Topographic Map Report, Inquiry Number: 

3250602.4, Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry Number: 3250602.5, The EDR Radius MapTM Report 

with GeoCheck®, Inquiry Number: 3354515.2s, Matlack Inc. 1260 Route 322 Swedesboro, NJ. 

February 1, 2012 and June 27, 2012. [132 pages].

44. Sutton, David, NJDEP. Memo to Terry Ostrander and file, Subject: Matlack, Inc., Swedesboro 

Terminal 10/23/87, RCRA Inspection-Addendum. April 27, 1988. [1 page]

45. Schmidl, Joseph, CWS, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject: 

Wetland Categories and Boundary Delineation, Grand Sprute Run, Matlack, Inc. Site Woolwich 

Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. April 3, 2012. [4 pages]

46. Schmidl, Joseph, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject: Mean 

Annual Flow Rate Estimation, Grand Sprute Run, Matlack, Inc., Woolwich Township, Gloucester 

County, New Jersey. April 19, 2012. [2 pages] 

47. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Documentation of Communication with Owner of 

Viereck Farm. Subject: Verification of production of commercial food crops on a farm over five acres. 

June 7, 2012. [1 page]

48. Landle, Robert C., NJDEP. Memorandum to Project File, Subject: Matlack, Inc., Woolwich Twp., 

Gloucester County - Test Pit Excavations in Areas of Magnetic Anomalies. April 4, 1986. [7 pages]

49. Carlson, Daniel, Weston Solutions, Inc. Letter to Juan Davila, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Subject: Sampling Trip Report, Work Assignment No.: 1645, Matlack Inc., Contract No.: EP-S5-06-04, 

TDD No.: S05-0013-1110-012. April 25, 2012. [21 pages]

50. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Letter to Margaret Alferman, On-Scene Coordinator and 

Juan Davila, Work Assignment Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Subject: Surface 

Water Migration Pathway and Removal Assessment Sampling Trip Report, Matlack Inc., Contract No.: 

EP-S5-06-04, TDD No.: S05-0013-1110-012 and EP-W-06-072, TDD No.: TO-0024-0204. May 2, 

2012. [70 pages]

51. Henderson, Diane, Senior Business Professional, Weston Solutions, Inc. E-mail correspondence from 

Margaret Alferman, On-Scene Coordinator to Juan Davila, Environmental Engineer and Michele 

Capriglione, Senior Project Scientist. Subject: Fw: Regionally Assessed Organic Data for the Matlack, 

Inc Site---Case # 42434, 42434--BA8D4.SampleSummary.pdf, Y42434.EPW11032.BA8D4.edm.xls 

(excerpts); 42434---BNA doc; 42434—BA8D4—PCB.doc; 42434—BA8D4—TRACE-VOA.docx. 

May 8, 2012. [220 pages]

10
REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

52. Henderson, Diane, Senior Business Professional, Weston Solutions, Inc. E-mail correspondence from 

Margaret Alferman, On-Scene Coordinator to Juan Davila, Environmental Engineer and Michele 

Capriglione, Principal Project Scientist. Subject: Fw: Regionally Assessed Inorganic Data for the 

Matlack, Inc Site—Case # 42434, 42434-MBA8D5.SampleSummary[1].pdf;

42434—MBA8D6.SampleSummary[1].pdf; 42434-MBA8D7.SampleSummary[1].pdf; 

Y42434.EPW09037.MBA8D5.edm(1).xls; Y42434.EPW09037.MBA8D6.edm(1).xls; 

Y42434.EPW09037.MBA8D7.edm(1).xls; 42434—MBA8D5—MBA8D6—MBA8D7—DA.doc. May 

9, 2012. [110 pages]

53. Henderson, Diane, Senior Business Professional, Weston Solutions, Inc. E-mail correspondence from 

Margaret Alferman, On-Scene Coordinator to Juan Davila, Environmental Engineer and Michele 

Capriglione, Principal Project Scientist. Subject: Fw: Attached are the regionally assessed data for the 

Matlack Inc. site under the CLP Case # 42434, SDG # BA8D7, BA8J3, 

10504.42434.EPW11032.BA8J3.SampleSummary.pdf; 

10505.42434.EPW11032.BA8D7.SampleSummary.pdf; 42434_BA8D7_BA8J3_ICC_605_PCB.doc; 

149070.Y42434.EPW11032.BA8J3.edm.xls; 149304.Y42434.EPW11032.BA8D7.edm.xls; Data 

Assessment Case# 42434_SDG#BA8D7_SOMBNA_2012.DA.doc; Data Assessment Case# 

42434_SDG#BA8J3_ SOMBNA_2012.DA.doc; Data Assessment Case#42434 SDG#BA8D7_ 

SOMVOA_2012.DA.doc; Data assessment Case#42434_SDG BA8J3_TRACE-VOA _ SOM1.2.docx. 

May 10, 2012. [350 pages]

54. Henderson, Diane, Senior Business Professional, Weston Solutions, Inc. E-mail correspondence from 

Margaret Alferman, On-Scene Coordinator to Juan Davila, Environmental Engineer and Michele 

Capriglione, Principal Project Scientist. Subject: Fw: Attached are the regionally assessed data for the 

Matlack Inc. site under the CLP Case # 42434, SDG # MBA8F7, MBA8H4, MBA8H5, 

10527.42434.EPW09037.MBA8H4.SampleSummary[1].pdf; 

10542.42434.EPW09037.MBA8H5.SampleSummary[1].pdf; 

10545.42434.EPW09037.MBA8F7.SampleSummary[1].pdf; 42434, MBA8F7, MBA8H4, MBA8H5 

DA.doc; 149475.Y42434.EPW09037.MBA8H4.edm(1).xls; 

149482.Y42434.EPW09037.MBA8F7.edm(1).xls; 149484.Y42434.EPW09037.MBA8H5.edm(1).xls. 

May 10, 2012. [153 pages]

55. Henderson, Diane, Senior Business Professional, Weston Solutions, Inc. E-mail correspondence from 

Margaret Alferman, On-Scene Coordinator to Juan Davila, Environmental Engineer and Michele 

Capriglione, Principal Project Scientist. Subject: Fw: Attached are the regionally assessed data for the 

Matlack Inc. site under the CLP Case # 42434, SDG # BA8G5, BA8J2, 

10514.42434.EPW11032.BA8G5.SampleSummary[1].pdf; 

10519.42434.EPW11032.BA8J2.SampleSummary.pdf; 42434, BA8G5 BNA DA.doc; 42434, BA8G5 

TVOA DA.docx; 42434, BA8G5, Aroclor DA.doc; 149342.Y42434.EPW11032.BA8G5.edm(1).xls; 

149459.Y42434.EPW11032.BA8J2.edm.xls; Case#42434_BA8J2_SOMPCB_2007.DA.doc; Data 

Assessment Case# 42434_SDG#BA8J2_SOMBNA_2012.DA.doc; Data Assessment Case#42434_ 

SDG#BA8J2_ SOMVOA_2012.DA.doc. May 14, 2012. [324 pages]

11
REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

56. Henderson, Diane, Senior Business Professional, Weston Solutions, Inc. E-mail correspondence from 

Russell Arnone, Chemist to Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 NPL Coordinator; Michele Capriglione, 

Principal Project Scientist and Gerald Gilliland, Senior Technical Manager. Subject: Attached are the 

regionally assessed data for the Matlack site under the CLP Case # 42450, SDG # B49W0, 

10580.42450.EPW11030.B49W0.SampleSummary.pdf; 42450_B49w0_ICC_614_BNA.doc; 

42450_B49w0_ICC_614_PCB.doc; 42450_B49w0_ICC_614_VOA_.DA.doc; 

149731.Y42450.EPW11030.B49W0.edm.xls. May 17, 2012. [138 pages]

57. Henderson, Diane, Senior Business Professional, Weston Solutions, Inc. E-mail correspondence from 

Muhammad Sheikh, Chemist to Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 NPL Coordinator; Michele Capriglione, 

Principal Project Scientist and Gerald Gilliland, Senior Technical Manager. Subject: Regionally 

Assessed Inorganic Data for the Matlack, Inc Site---Case # 42450, 

42450...MB49W0.SampleSummary.pdf; Y42450.EPW09039.MB49W0.edm.xls; 

42450--MB49W0--DA.doc. May 15, 2012. [38 pages]

58. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject: 

Ground Water Population Apportionment (with attachments). May 25, 2012. [90 pages]

59. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject: 

Elevations of Top of Uppermost Aquifer and Bottom of Surface Water (with attachments). June 7, 

2012. [5 pages]

60. Bourbon, John R., Chief, DESA/LB, US EPA Region 2 Laboratory. Letter to Gerry Gilliland, Weston 

Solutions Inc. RE: Matlack Inc. – 1204021, with enclosed results. May 11, 2012. [20 pages]

61. EPA, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Using 

Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination, Quick Reference Fact 

Sheet. November 1996. [18 pages]

62. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions Inc. E-mail correspondence with Yunru Yang. Subject: data 

bias for Matlack Inc. June 6, 2012. [1 page]

63. American Hi-Tech, Inc. Site Investigation Report, NJDEP CASE # 99-11-18-1007-35. October 25, 

1999. [539 pages]

64. Littlefield, Kent V., Project Director, Science Applications International Corporation. Letter to Mr. 

Robert Hayton, Case Manager, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. RE: Matlack, Inc.

Swedesboro Facility, Woolwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, SAIC Project 

01-1408-00-4246-107. June 3, 1999. [14 pages]

65. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Trichloroethylene, Cas # 79-01-6, 

Division of Toxicology ToxFAQsTM. July 2003. [2 pages]

66. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Tetrachloroethylene, Cas # 127-18-4, 

ATSDR ToxFAQsTM. September 1997. [2 pages]

12
REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

67. Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Health, Health Assessment Section. 

Trichloroethylene (TCE), Answers to Frequently Asked Health Questions. June 25, 2012. [2 pages]

68. Ervin, Elisabeth, M., Lois M. Voronin, and Thomas V. Fusillo. U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 94-4113, Water Quality of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer 

System in the Coastal Plain, West-Central New Jersey. 1994. [122 pages]

69. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of water Supply and Geoscience. 

Digital Geodata Series DGS02-2 Well Head Protection Areas For Public Community Water Supply

Wells In New Jersey. Accessed from http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs02-2.htm. Last 

updated July 11, 2011. [2 pages]

70. CompuChem, A division of Liberty Analytical Corporation. SDG Narrative, Case # 42434, SDG # 

BA8J3, SOW # SOM01.2, Contract # EPW11032, Laboratory Chain of Custody Records, and Form 1 

Volatile Organic Analysis Data Sheets. April 2012. [37 pages]

71. CompuChem, A division of Liberty Analytical Corporation. SDG Narrative, Case # 42434, SDG # 

BA8D4, SOW # SOM01.2, Contract # EPW11032, Laboratory Chain of Custody Records, and Form 1 

Volatile Organic Analysis Data Sheets. April 2012. [74 pages]

72. CompuChem, A division of Liberty Analytical Corporation. SDG Narrative, Case # 42434, SDG # 

BA8G5, SOW # SOM01.2, Contract # EPW11032, Laboratory Chain of Custody Records, and Form 1 

Volatile Organic Analysis Data Sheets. April 2012. [67 pages]

73. CompuChem, A division of Liberty Analytical Corporation. SDG Narrative, Case # 42434, SDG # 

BA8J2, SOW # SOM01.2, Contract # EPW11032, Laboratory Chain of Custody Records, and Form 1 

Volatile Organic Analysis Data Sheets. April 2012. [36 pages]

74. CompuChem, A division of Liberty Analytical Corporation. SDG Narrative, Case # 42434, SDG # 

BA8D7, SOW # SOM01.2, Contract # EPW11032, Laboratory Chain of Custody Records, and Form 1 

Volatile Organic Analysis Data Sheets. April 2012. [93 pages]

75. Chemtech Consulting Group. SDG Narrative, Case # 42450, SDG # B49W0, Contract # EPW11030, 

Laboratory Chain of Custody Records, and Form 1 Volatile Organic Analysis Data Sheets. April-May

2012. [43 pages]

76. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4198, Hydrogeology of the Region 

of Greenwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. 1991. [87 pages]

77. Test America, South Burlington, Vermont. Sample Data Summary Package, SDG: 127732 (Volatile 

Organic Analysis and Aroclor Organic Analysis excerpts). October 21, 2008. [320 pages]

78. Test America, South Burlington, Vermont. Sample Data Summary Package, SDG: 127665. October 

16 2008. [197 pages]

13
SS-Site Summary

SITE SUMMARY

The Matlack, Inc. site (EPA ID No. NJD043584101) consists of Source 1, an unlined former wastewater 

disposal lagoon, as well as observed releases to the uppermost aquifer at the site and the in-water segment of the 

surface water migration pathway. The site is scored for potential to release to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

(PRM) aquifer and potential contamination of targets in the ground water migration pathway, and for observed 

release and actual contamination of targets in the ground water to surface water component of the surface water 

migration pathway environmental threat.

The Matlack, Inc. (Matlack) facility (EPA ID No. NJD043584101) is located along Route 322 East in Woolwich 

Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, at geographic coordinates 39° 45' 47.1821" North Latitude and 75°

19' 19.8088" West Longitude [Ref. 3, p. 1; 4, p. 1; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 1]. The facility includes Matlack’s former 

Swedesboro terminal, which occupied the northern portion of a Woolwich Township parcel (Block 6, Lot 5) in 

rural surroundings [Ref. 9, pp. 1-2; 11, pp. 2, 17; 12, pp. 13-14; 13, pp. 9-10, 12]. Matlack was in the business 

of transporting chemicals, petrochemicals, and food-grade material in bulk, mostly liquid chemicals in tank 

trailers (“tankers”) [Ref. 11, pp. 18, 27; 15, p. 3; 16, p. 1]. Prior to its use by Matlack, the property had been 

used as a sand and gravel quarry for obtaining construction materials [Ref. 10, p. 6; 11, p. 2; 17, p. 4]. The 

location of the Matlack facility is shown on Figure 1. 

Operations at the Swedesboro terminal included tanker washing, truck maintenance, parking, and dispatching

[Ref. 11, p. 265; 28, p. 11]. Truck and tanker washing activities included purging tanks of residual material, 

and rinsing the tanker interiors with one or more of the following: steam and detergent water solution, mild 

caustic or acid solution, or organic solvent solution [Ref. 11, p. 3, 289, 294; 28, p. 11; 44, p. 1]. Solvents used 

in the cleaning process were reported to include: trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), methylene 

chloride, toluene, acetone, methanol and ethanol [Ref. 28, p. 11]. From 1962 or 1963* through 1976, resultant 

wash waters from the tanker and trailer cleaning were discharged into an unlined lagoon located south and west 

of the terminal building [Ref. 9, p. 2; 11, pp. 4, 8, 265; 22, p. 5; 28, p. 11]. The unlined lagoon is considered 

Source 1 and is shown on Figure 2. Once the use of the unlined lagoon ceased, wastewaters were transported 

off-facility for disposal [Ref. 28, p. 11]. Prior to disposal, the wastewaters were pre-treated and stored in two 

18,000-gallon open-top, in-ground concrete tanks [Ref. 11, pp. 237, 295-296; 33, p. 3; 39, p. 1; 40, p. 3]. 

Matlack, Inc. discontinued tanker cleaning operations in November 1997, but continued to service and store 

vehicles at the facility until 2001 when Matlack, Inc ceased operations and submitted a petition for Chapter 11 

bankruptcy [Ref. 17, p. 4; 18, pp. 2, 3, 6; 19, pp. 1, 3; 28, p. 11]. *Both 1962 and 1963 are cited in reference 

materials as the year that tanker washing operations began at the Matlack property.

Numerous environmental investigations have taken place at the Matlack, Inc. facility, as summarized below:

• December 1982 – New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) conducted an 

investigation of Matlack, Inc. in relation to potable well contamination within the area surrounding the 

facility. Chemical odors were noted from hand auger boreholes advanced within the former lagoon 

area [Ref. 28, pp. 11, 24, 34, 88].

• May 1983 – NJDEP collected three soil samples from the former lagoon area. Analysis of the samples 

revealed elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) including PCE and TCE [Ref. 11, p. 

266; 23, p. 6; 28, pp. 11, 88].

• September 1984 – Environmental Resource Management (ERM) completed a hydrological 

investigation of the facility focused on determining the extent of soil and ground water contamination 

as well as to define the hydrogeologic framework in the vicinity of the former lagoon. The 

investigation concluded that there are two aquifers beneath the facility separated by a clay layer; 

ground water flow direction of the shallow aquifer was determined to be toward the north-northwest 

[Ref. 23, pp. 4-7, 17, 19, 25].

• April 1985 – Geraghty & Miller Inc. submitted a hydrogeologic Investigation of the Former Disposal 

Pit at the Matlack Facility. The work included the advancement of 22 soil borings in and around the 

former lagoon. Soil samples were collected from the soil borings; analysis of the samples indicate the 

presence of mercury in four samples submitted for metals analysis [Ref. 24, pp. 1, 4-6, 19, 27, 36, 48, 

49, 115]. 

14
CLIENT NAME: DATE: FIGURE #:

PROJECT:

LEGEND: TITLE:

!(

Site Reference Point

0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Graphic Scale In Feet

Site Reference Point

National Geographic TOPO! U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 7.5 Minute 

Series (Topographic) Quadrangles: Bridgeport, NJ & PA, 1995.

EPA

Matlack, Inc.

May 2012 1

Matlack, Inc.

Woolwich Township

Gloucester County, NJ

®

"!( Study Area

NJ PA

NY

!(

SOURCE:

dmx2.7151_0ap_Mtei_Skaclat_M62131\DMX\SIG\kcaltaM2\TAS\:P

15
<! 

<!

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

") ") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

Probable Point of Entry (PPE)985 Feet from Source 1

MW-24

Site Reference Point

Grand Sprute Run

PZ-2

Shortest DistancProbable Point o

C3

C4

C2

C1

B1

A2

D1

D2

E1

D3

E2

E3

F3

F4

F5

GSR-MID-2

GSR-BKG-1

GSR-DST-3

GSR-DST-2

GSR-DST-1

GSR-BKG-2

P:\SAT2\Matlack\GIS\MXD\11377_Matlack_Study_Area.mxd

1. Approximate sample locations based from: NJDEP Site Reassessment, September 2011.2. Base Map: 2007 - 2008 High Resolution Orthophotography. NJ Office of Information Technology (NJOIT), Office of Geographic Information Systems (OGIS). October 2008. http://njgin.nj.gov/OIT_IW/index.jsp3. Probable Point of Entry (PPE) defined as shortest distance straight-line from source 1 to the surface water;  as stated in section 4.2.1.2 of the Federal Register.4. Weston Solutions Inc. Matlack Inc. Logbook. Doc. Control No.: 1645-4E-AUDS. March 28, 2012 to  April13,2012.5. Based on March 28th and 29th, 2012 Wetland Delineation.

Notes

Legend

!( Site Reference Point

!( Approximate Soil Boring Location(1)

") Sediment / Surface Water Sample Location(4)

<! Monitoring Well Sample Location

Zone of Contamination(4)Grand Sprute RunWetland Delineation Location(5)Wetland Delineation Location (Inferred)Approximate Source1 Boundary: Unlined LagoonFacility Boundary

16
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS-Site Summary 

•	 March 1986 – ERM conducted a Phase II Hydrogeological Investigation including test pit excavations, 

monitoring well installation, and soil and ground water sampling. Test pits excavated in the area of 

the former unlined lagoon revealed a 55-gallon drum; a liquid sample collected from the drum 

indicated 31% TCE, 17% PCE, 1.7 % xylene, and 0.7 % toluene. A soil sample collected beneath the 

drum exhibited TCE at 82,000 parts per million (ppm) and PCE at 52,000 ppm. The drum was 

over-packed and removed from the facility while the remaining material was returned to the excavation 

[Ref. 25, pp. 12-18, 22; 48, pp. 1-8]. 

•	 October 1986 – NJDEP issued Matlack, Inc. a directive to conduct a remedial investigation of the 

facility and to implement a remedial action [Ref. 28, pp. 12, 24, 34]. 

•	 May 1987 – NJDEP and Matlack, Inc. entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) [Ref. 28, 

pp. 12, 139, 1169, 1222]. 

•	 August 1990 – ERM completed a remedial investigation which included the installation of on- and 

off-facility monitoring wells and the collection of additional soil samples within the lagoon area. The 

report identified the former lagoon as a minor source of contamination. TCE and PCE were detected 

in MW-6, located down gradient of the former unlined lagoon [Ref. 12, pp. 1, 9-12, 52-54, 63, 74, 

111-113]. 

•	 February 1992 – ERM installed three pumping wells and two piezometers to assist in the design of an 

interim ground water remedial measure [Ref. 28, pp. 12, 203, 292]. 

•	 April and May 1992 – Matlack removed two buried waste tanks (T-7 and T-8) located west of the 

terminal building [Ref. 28, pp. 12, 21, 166, 203, 292]. 

•	 August 1992 through April 1993 – Matlack conducted excavation and removal of contaminated soil 

associated with the diesel fuel line leak area [Ref. 28, pp. 21, 179, 203, 292]. 

•	 November 1995 – Matlack activated a ground water treatment system at the facility. The ground 

water treatment system consisted of twelve recovery and monitoring wells located in a line 

downgradient of the former tank and unlined lagoon areas; a 424-foot long, 5-foot deep infiltration 

trench located upgradient of the former lagoon area; and an aerator system for the removal of VOCs 

[Ref. 28, p. 12]. 

•	 May 1997 – NJDEP requested that the ground water treatment system be turned off pending submittal 

and approval of a discharge to ground water permit [Ref. 28, pp. 1174, 1179]. 

•	 September 1999 – American Hi-Tech excavated and removed nine underground storage tanks (UST) 

including four diesel USTs, three #2 fuel oil USTs, a motor oil UST, and a TCE UST. In addition, 

approximately 375 feet of piping leading from the diesel tanks located west of the terminal building to 

the pump island located north of the terminal building was also excavated and removed. Upon 

excavation and removal of the four diesel USTs, located west of the terminal building, evidence of a 

release was noted due to a leaking pipe fitting. Approximately 255 tons of diesel-contaminated soil 

was excavated and manifested off-facility. The other oil UST removed from the western side of the 

terminal building did not exhibit any contamination or indicate any VOCs in post-excavation samples 

collected. However, the TCE UST located along the eastern side of the terminal building indicated 

TCE at 0.83 ppm in one of the post-excavation soil samples [Ref. 28, pp. 12-13, 21-22; 63, pp. 1-16]. 

•	 November 2000 – Matlack reactivated the ground water remediation system [Ref. 28, p. 13]. 

•	 March 2001 – Matlack filed for bankruptcy and remediation at the facility ceased [Ref. 18, pp. 2-3, 6]. 

17
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS-Site Summary 

•	 June 2001 – A Phase II Remedial Investigation was completed at the Matlack property. The 

investigation included the collection of ground water samples from the Matlack property, and seep 

samples collected from Grand Sprute Run. The investigation concluded that VOCs consisting of PCE 

and TCE are present in shallow ground water at the Matlack property. The shallow ground water 

flows on top of the Woodbury Clay westward to Grand Sprute Run [Ref. 10, pp. 1, 11-18, 24] 

•	 May 2002 – NJDEP collected four potable well samples from four homes located directly north of the 

Matlack facility along Route 322. No contaminants exceeded NJDEP drinking water standards; 

VOCs were not detected in the samples [Ref. 28, pp. 13, 14, 1110-1121]. 

•	 January 2003 – NJDEP collected potable well samples from the same four homes located north of the 

Matlack facility. No VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), or polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCB) were detected above NJDEP drinking water standards. Lead was detected above NJDEP 

standards in one potable well, along with aluminum, iron, and magnesium in several wells [Ref. 28, pp. 

1123-1125]. 

•	 June 2005 – NJDEP collected surface water and sediment samples from nine locations along Grand 

Sprute Run; sediment and aqueous samples were also collected from seeps entering Grand Sprute Run. 

Significant concentrations, with respect to background, of TCE and PCE were detected in surface 

water and sediment samples [Ref. 28, pp. 470-486, 488-592]. 

•	 June 2006 – NJDEP reactivated the ground water treatment system at the Matlack facility [Ref. 28, pp. 

15, 23, 25, 27, 34]. 

•	 July 2006 through July 2007 – NJDEP sampled, excavated and removed three aboveground storage 

tanks (AST) and two USTs associated with the former waste water treatment system; 2,000 cubic yards 

of contaminated soil was removed from the area. The excavation was backfilled with clean soil, 

concrete and other fill. In addition, two USTs located very close to the ground water treatment 

building were abandoned and left in place. Post-excavation samples indicated significant detections 

of VOCs and PCBs. The remedial action work plan states that the samples will be collected using an 

excavator bucket and that no personnel will enter the excavation. NJDEP personnel informed EPA 

that the samples were collected at approximately 15 feet deep. It is unclear if the samples are 

representative of soil removed from the excavation or soil that remained on the walls and bottom of the 

excavation [Ref. 5, pp. 3-4; 11, p. 4; 28, pp. 15, 20, 23, 603-604, 615, 617, 628, 630-874, 1193-1196]. 

•	 August 2006 – NJDEP sampled twenty monitoring and/or pumping wells. Analysis revealed 

significant detections of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride in 

monitoring wells located down gradient of Source 1, the former unlined lagoon [Ref. 28, pp. 16, 27, 

887-942]. 

•	 September 2008 – NJDEP collected ground water samples from 31 monitoring and/or pumping wells 

located on and in the vicinity of the Matlack facility. Analytical results indicated the significant 

presence of cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride in monitoring wells located down gradient of 

Source 1, the former unlined lagoon. NJDEP also collected subsurface soil samples from the area of 

the former unlined lagoon and former waste water treatment tank area. Analytical results indicated 

significant detections of VOCs and PCBs in the area of the former unlined lagoon [see Section 2.2.2] 

[Ref. 28, pp. 16, 117-118, 957, 944, 946, 955-958, 960-987]. 

•	 December 2008 – NJDEP collected ground water samples from twelve direct push technology borings 

advanced in the area of the former unlined lagoon. The analysis confirmed the presence of 

cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride [Ref. 28, pp. 18, 60-61990, 992-993, 1028-1056]. 

•	 August 2009 – NJDEP collected ground water samples from 19 monitoring wells located on and off the 

Matlack facility. The significant presence of cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride was 

confirmed in monitoring wells located down gradient of Source 1, the former unlined lagoon [Ref. 28, 

pp. 27, 1088-1095]. 

18
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS-Site Summary 

•	 April 2012 - EPA collected aqueous and sediment samples from the stream and seeps of Grand Sprute 

Run in order to document an observed release to the in-water segment. Ground water migrating from 

beneath the source was observed to be discharging to the eastern banks of Grand Sprute Run via seep 

locations; six discrete seeps were identified and designated as “Seep A through Seep F”. EPA also 

collected ground water samples from six monitoring wells and one piezometer located on and in the 

vicinity of the Matlack property in order to confirm background and release conditions. An observed 

release of VOCs (cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride) was documented to monitoring wells 

located down gradient of Source 1. Additionally, an observed release of cis-1,2-DCE, TCE and PCE 

was documented to Grand Sprute Run [see Sections 3.1.1 and 4.2.1.3] [Ref. 5, pp. 8-110]. 

19
SD-Characterization and Containment 

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 Source Identification 

Number of the source: Source No. 1

Name and description of the source: Former Unlined Lagoon 

Source Type: Surface Impoundment (buried/backfilled)

Source 1 is the former unlined lagoon located in the central portion of the Matlack property, southwest of the 

terminal building [Ref. 27, Figure 2]. Source 1 is shown on Figure 2. The unlined lagoon was used for 

wastewater disposal generated from the tanker cleaning operations which took place at the Matlack property

from 1962* until 1976 [Ref. 9, p. 2; 11, pp. 3, 4, 8, 265; 22, p. 5]. The tanker cleaning operations generated 

approximately 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of wastewater per working day [Ref. 11, p. 265; 21, p. 2; 22, pp. 5, 20]. 

The unlined lagoon, a former sand and gravel borrow pit, was 12 to 15 feet deep and intersected the water table

[Ref. 11, pp. 4, 8; 24. pp. 16-21, 27; 33, p. 2]. A hydrogeologic investigation of the unlined lagoon (referred to 

as the “former disposal pit”) reported that the extent and location of the former disposal pit, as well as the 

presence of water within it, are clearly visible in historical aerial photographs of the property (from 1965, 1970, 

and 1975) [Ref. 24, pp. 4, 5, 7-8, 27; 43, pp. 16-17]. Aerial photographs reviewed confirmed the presence of 

the lagoon on aerial photographs dated 1965 and 1970 [Ref. 43, pp. 16-17]. When disposal to the unlined 

lagoon ceased in 1976, wastewater, sludge and affected soil resulting from wastewater disposal were left in 

place and the unlined lagoon was filled with a variety of demolition rubble and other fill material [Ref. 9, p. 2; 

11, pp. 3, 4; 36, p. 1]. The reference materials reviewed did not identify the source of the fill material used to 

fill in the lagoon. *Both 1962 and 1963 are cited in reference materials as the year that tanker washing 

operations began at the Matlack property. 

In May 1983, representatives of the NJDEP advanced four hand-auger borings into the former lagoon area and 

collected subsurface soil samples and one ground water sample for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis

[Ref. 11, p. 266, 36, pp. 1, 4-7]. Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were detected in the soil 

samples at concentrations as high as 15,835 parts per billion (ppb) and 19,850 ppb, respectively [Ref. 11, p. 266; 

36, pp. 1, 4-7]. In October 1984, Matlack drilled 22 soil borings to confirm the horizontal and vertical extent of

the unlined lagoon [Ref. 11, p. 268; 24, pp. 4, 7, 27]. Observations of waste material such as: wood fragments, 

plastic, glass, cardboard, metal scraps, and concrete were encountered in several borings as well as black streaks 

in the sand which were reportedly the result of leachate from material disposed of in the lagoon [Ref. 24, pp. 7, 

16-21]. VOC and metals analyses were performed on 12 soil samples from the borings [Ref. 24, pp. 5, 27, 30, 

115]. PCE, TCE, and mercury were detected in several samples [Ref. 24, pp. 23, 25, 29 through 115].

In March 1986, test pits were excavated in the area of magnetic anomalies [Ref. 12, pp. 15, 23; 25, pp. 12-13, 21; 

48, p. 1; 28, p. 11]. Material, possibly from the former lagoon described as black and brown silty sand were 

encountered in two test pits, TP-7A and 7B and during this investigation [Ref. 25, pp. 13-15] Sample TP7A-1 

was collected from the aforementioned material from TP-7A and revealed TCE at 400 ppb and PCE at 5,600 ppb 

[Ref. 25, pp. 21-23, 68, 155]. 

In August 2011, NJDEP personnel conducted a “site visit” of Matlack, Inc; the area of the former lagoon was 

observed to be overgrown with grass, weeds, and small trees with metal and other debris observed at the ground 

surface [28, pp. 1190-1191]. The most recent sampling and analysis of unlined lagoon (buried/backfilled 

surface impoundment) took place in 2008 and is summarized in Section 2.2.2, Hazardous Substances.

20
SD-Characterization and Containment

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

The unlined lagoon (buried/backfilled surface impoundment) located in the central portion of the Matlack 

property, southwest of the terminal building, as can be seen in an aerial photograph of the property from 1970 

[Ref. 43, p. 17]. The approximate location is shown in Figure 2. 

Containment

Release to ground water: 

The lagoon was unlined; therefore, a ground water containment factor value of 10 is assigned for this source 

[Ref. 1, p. 51596, Table 3-2; 11, pp. 4, 265].

Release to surface water via ground water: 

The lagoon was unlined; therefore, a ground water to surface water containment factor value of 10 is assigned 

for this source [Ref. 1, p. 51609, Table 4-2; 11, pp. 4, 265].

21
SD-Hazardous Substances

Source No.: 1 

2.2.2 Hazardous Substances

Twenty-four soil borings were advanced into and around the former unlined lagoon on behalf of NJDEP in 

September 2008 to depths ranging between 11 and 28 feet below ground surface (bgs) [Ref. 28, pp.116,

997-1026]. The presence of clay, was encountered in five borings at depths ranging between 12 and 25.9 feet 

bgs [Ref. 28, pp. 993, 999-1001, 1008, 1016, 1020]. The tar and black stained sands were encountered in five

soil borings at depths ranging between 4.0 and 13.1 feet bgs [Ref. 11, pp. 3, 265; 28, pp. 999, 1001, 1006-1007, 

1012]. The analyses of samples collected from 4 to 9 feet bgs within the footprint of the former unlined lagoon 

indicated the presence of vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE, Aroclor-1242, 

Aroclor-1260, and styrene at concentrations significantly above background soils; Table 1 shows samples that 

document background and observed release concentrations. While not required for scoring, background soil 

concentrations were compared to source soil samples to identify the relative increase of contaminant levels in 

the source (Ref. 1, Section 2.2). 

Notes on Sample Similarity:

The background soil samples and the contaminated samples collected from the unlined lagoon of the Matlack, 

Inc. property were handled the same procedurally and were similar physically, as follows:

• Sampling Depth: Background and release samples were collected at depth intervals between 4 and 9.5

feet below ground surface [Table 1; Ref. 28, pp. 1002-1003, 1006-1007, 1012, 1017, 1020].

• Sample Description: Visual descriptions from boring logs show that background and release samples

collected within and just outside of the unlined lagoon consist predominantly of the same material 

(sand) [Table 1; Ref. 27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 1002-1003, 1006-1007, 1012, 1017, 1020, 1022].

• Sampling Methods: The background and release soil samples were all collected using dual tube boring

devices [Table 1; Ref. 28, pp. 1002-1003, 1006-1007, 1012, 1017, 1020, 1022]. 

• Samples were analyzed for VOA, BNA, Pesticides, and/or PCB analyses according to USEPA CLP 

Method SOM02.1 and metals analyses according to USEPA CLP Method ILM05.4, the NJDEP Office 

of Data Quality, Hazardous Site Science Element performed a review of the data [Ref. 28, pp. 1029, 

1042-1044; 77, pp. 2-10; 78, pp. 2-6].

• Percent Solids: The analytical results indicate that the ranges of background and release percent 

solids significantly overlap. The percent solids for background samples range from 87.3 – 93.2 

percent; similarly, the release samples range from 88-92.8 percent solids [Ref. 28, pp. 1032-1034, 

1036, 1048-1050, 1054-1055].

22
Sample ID Date Depth Sample Description Percent 

Solids Substance Results (μg/kg) References

BACKGROUND

A4B 9/17/2008 7.5-8.0 feet light brown sand 87.3 Vinyl Chloride

1,1-Dichloroethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

5.2 U

5.2 U

5.2 U

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17, 57, 

116, 992-993, 1002, 1028-

1029, 1036; 78, pp. 73-74

Trichloroethylene 5.2 U

Tetrachloroethene 5.2 U

Stryene 5.2 U

A5B 9/17/2008 7.5-8.0 light brown sand 90.4 Vinyl Chloride

1,1-Dichloroethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

5.0 U

5.0 U

5.0 U

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17, 57, 

116, 992-993, 1003, 1028-

1029, 1036; 78, pp. 76-77

Trichloroethylene 5.0 U

Tetrachloroethene 5.0 U

Stryene 5.0 U

C5B 9/17/2008 6.5-7.5 feet light brown fine to 

medium sand

87.6 Vinyl Chloride

1,1-Dichloroethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

5.0 U

5.0 U

5.0 U

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17, 58, 

116, 992-993, 1017, 1028-

1029, 1036; 78, pp. 88-89

Trichloroethylene 5.0 U

Tetrachloroethene 5.0 U

Stryene 5.0 U

T2C 9/23/2008 8.5-9.0 feet red brown mixed sand 93.2 Vinyl Chloride

1,1-Dichloroethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethene

5.0 U

5.0 U

5.0 U

5.0 U

5.0 U

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17, 58, 

116, 992-993, 1020, 1041-

1043, 1048-1049; Ref. 77, pp. 

126-127

Stryene 5.0 U

TABLE 1 - BACKGROUND AND RELEASE SAMPLES

SOURCE 1 - FORMER UNLINED LAGOON

MATLACK INC HRS

23
Sample ID Date Depth Sample Description Percent 

Solids Substance Results (μg/kg) References

U2C 9/19/2008 8.0-9.0 feet brown fine to medium 

sand with some gravel

89.6 Vinyl Chloride

1,1-Dichloroethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethene

Aroclor-1242

Aroclor-1260

Stryene

260 U

260 U

260 U

260 U

260 U

37 U

37 U

260 U

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17, 58-59, 

116, 992-993, 1022, 1041-

1043; 77, pp. 198-199, 255

RELEASE

B2B 9/19/2008 4.0-5.0 feet dark brown medium to 

fine sand, trace coarse 

sand; tar encountered 

at 4.0-4.1 feet

92 Aroclor-1242

Aroclor-1260

9200 D

260

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17-18, 57, 

59, 116, 992-993, 1006, 1041-

1043, 1054-1056; 77, pp. 252-

253

B3B 9/18/2008 6.5-7.0 feet dark grey and brown 

silty fine to medium 

sand, trace coarse sand; 

tar encountered in 

boring at 10.35-10.40 

88 Vinyl Chloride

1,1-Dichloroethane

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

Stryene

1,000

1,800

8,000

1,200

620

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17, 57, 

116, 992-993, 1007, 1028-

1029, 1031-1033; 78, pp. 140-

141

C2C 9/18/2008 9.0-9.5 feet grey/red brown fine to 

medium sand, trace 

coarse sand; sample 

collected just above tar 

at 9.5-9.6 feet and tar 

stained sand at 9.6-9.8 

feet

92.8 Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethene

Stryene

350,000

48,000

40,000

27, Figure 2; 28, pp. 17-18, 58, 

116, 992-993, 1012, 1028-

1029, 1033-1034; 78, p. 147

Notes:

1. The reporting limit is presented in the results column for non -detected (U) analytes [Ref. 77, pp. 44-45, 87; 78, pp. 15-16]. 

2. D - The reported result is derived from a dilution analysis [Ref. 28, p. 1056].

TABLE 1 - BACKGROUND AND RELEASE SAMPLES

SOURCE 1 - FORMER UNLINED LAGOON

MATLACK INC HRS

24
25

SD-Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Source No.: 1

2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Documentation indicating either the type and/or mass of CERCLA hazard substances associated with 

Source 1 is unavailable; therefore, information is not sufficient to adequately support the evaluation of 

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

The mass of hazardous wastestream allocated to Source 1 cannot be calculated because there are no 

available facility records that would document the actual amount of wastewater that was discharged to 

the unlined lagoon. Therefore, hazardous wastestream quantity is not scored (NS).

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (W) Value: NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

From 1962 or 1963 until 1976, the unlined lagoon was used for wastewater disposal generated from 

the tanker cleaning operations which took place at the Matlack property [Ref. 9, p. 2; 11, pp. 4, 8, 265; 

22, p. 5; 24, p. 3]. The extent of the unlined lagoon (referred to as the “former disposal pit”) is clearly 

visible in historical aerial photographs of the property (from 1965, 1970, and 1975) [Ref. 24, pp. 4, 5, 

7-8, 27]. Aerial photographs reviewed confirmed the presence of the lagoon on aerial photographs 

dated 1965 and 1970 [Ref. 43, pp. 16-17]. The unlined lagoon was 12 to 15 feet deep and intersected 

the water table [Ref. 24. pp. 3, 4, 16-21]. The volume of the unlined lagoon was calculated to be 

47,302 cubic yards (yd3) [Ref. 37, p. 1]. According to Table 2-5 of the HRS Rule, when calculating 

volume of a buried/backfilled surface impoundment, the cubic yards measure is divided by 2.5 [Ref. 1, 

p. 51591].

Dimension of source (yd3): 47,302

Volume (V) Assigned Value: 18,921

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Tier D (area) is not evaluated when the volume of the source is adequately determined [Ref. 1, p. 

51591, Table 2-5].

Area of source (ft2): N/A

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 18,921 for Tier C - Volume [Ref. 1, p. 

51591, Table 2-5].

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 18,921
2.5 Other Possible Sources

Disposal Pits

A magnetometer survey in October 1984 revealed several locations with magnetic anomalies throughout the 

Matlack property; follow-up test-pit excavations in March 1986 identified crushed drums and other debris 

buried at those locations [Ref. 10, p. 7; 12, pp. 21, 27, 189; 25, pp. 12 through 15; 42, p. 1; 47, pp. 2, 9, 10; 48, p. 

1]. The test pits uncovered crushed drums, plastic drum liners, drum lids, rusted metal scraps, burnt wood, 

pieces of copper and lead piping, oil filters, rubber hoses, garbage, tubing, and very black soil [Ref. 25, pp. 20, 

21; 48, pp. 1 through 7]. A liquid sample from one buried, crushed drum was found to contain 31% TCE, 17% 

PCE, 1.7% xylenes, and 0.7% toluene. Soil from the test pit beneath the drum contained TCE at 82,000 ppm, 

PCE at 52,000 ppm, toluene at 1,140 ppm, and ethylbenzene at 253 ppm. Soil samples from other test pits 

contained benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), TCE, and 

PCE at individual concentrations ranging from 200 ppb to 36,000 ppb [Ref. 12, pp. 26, 28; 25, pp. 67 through 77, 

154, 155]. The drum containing liquid was overpacked and removed from the facility [Ref. 12, p. 88; 17, p. 

206; 48, p. 5]. The test pit excavations were backfilled with all other previously removed material [Ref. 11, p. 

270; 25, p. 15].

Contaminated Soil at the Former Solvent Tank

Matlack stored its cleaning solvent in a 6,000-gallon underground storage tank (UST) on the east side of the 

main building [Ref. 28, p. 21; 63, pp. 5, 13]. The solvent UST was most commonly listed as “Tank 15" but was 

ultimately identified and is hereinafter referred to as Tank T7 [Ref. 20, p. 26; 33, pp. 3, 6; 63, pp. 5, 13, 25, 28]. 

A sample collected in 1986 from the tank contained 18% TCE and 0.3% PCE [Ref. 11, pp. 237, 244, 247]. In 

1992, NJDEP obtained a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Matlack’s cleaning solvent indicating that the 

solvent contained TCE, methylene chloride, methanol, and ethyl alcohol [Ref. 33, pp. 1, 6, 10]. Matlack 

reiterated in 1999 that the 6,000-gallon UST contained TCE [Ref. 64, p. 13]. Tank T7 was excavated, cleaned, 

and removed from the facility in September 1999, by which time it was empty and out of service [Ref. 63, pp. 5,

6, 13, 14, 46 through 50; 64, p. 13;]. TCE was detected at a concentration of 830 micrograms per kilogram 

(μg/kg) in a post-excavation soil sample [Ref. 63, pp. 13, 20, 28, 285, 290, 324].

Residual Contaminated Soil at the Former Wastewater Treatment Tanks and Drum Storage Area

After discontinuing the use of the surface impoundment in 1976, Matlack collected the wastewater associated 

with truck cleaning operations in two 18,000-gallon*, open-top, in-ground concrete tanks until 1997 [Ref. 11, 

pp. 237, 295-296; 33, p. 3; 40, p. 3]. The storage of wastewaters in the 18,000-gallon tanks occurred after 

treatment (such as, oil/water separation, physical/chemical flocculation, and pH adjustment) for which a series 

additional storage tanks were used [Ref. 11, pp. 231, 237; 19, p. 1; 40, p. 1]. After temporary storage in the two 

18,000-gallon, open-top, in-ground concrete tank tanks, Matlack hauled approximately 5,000 to 11,000 gallons 

of wastewater per day off-facility for treatment and disposal [Ref. 11, pp. 18, 265; 22, p. 20]. *The capacity of 

the tanks are also reported as 10,000- and 15,000-gallon tanks; however, EPA believes that the 18,000-gallon 

volume is correct as it is reported by the NJDEP Bureau of Design and Construction [Ref. 28, p. 615].

NJDEP collected a sample described as turbid, “milkie-like” liquid from one of the open-top tanks in September 

1984 [Ref. 31, pp. 7-8]. Analytical results of the sample and its duplicate indicated the presence of 62,000 to 

68,000 parts per billion (ppb) of methylene chloride; 140,000 to 160,000 ppb of TCE; 59,000 to 73,000 ppb of 

toluene; and 180,000 to 220,000 ppm of petroleum hydrocarbons [Ref. 31, pp. 4-6]. During an inspection in 

September 1985, NJDEP observed an oil layer at the surface of the material in the concrete tanks [Ref. 30, pp. 1, 

3, 4]. In April 1988, the NJDEP documented on public record the concern that hazardous waste constituents 

present in the rinsate are discharged to the tanks located on the facility [Ref. 44, p. 1]. In October 1991, NJDEP 

found 1.0 ppm of TCE in a wastewater sample from one of Matlack’s tankers that had been dispatched from the 

Swedesboro terminal [Ref. 40, p. 1]. 

26
In July 2006, under direction of the NJDEP, three ASTs (the two aforementioned 18,000-gallon open-top tanks 

and a 50,000-gallon holding tank) and two USTs (a 3,000-gallon sump and an 800-gallon lift station to 

separator) were removed from the Matlack property [Ref. 28, pp. 15, 612, 615, 617]. Post-excavation samples 

collected in December 2006* indicated the presence of TCE, PCE, and Aroclor-1248 [Ref. 28, pp. 628, 630, 

712, 722, 723, 760, 780, 790, 850, 860]. The remedial action work plan states that the samples will be collected 

using an excavator bucket and that no personnel will enter the excavation [Ref. 28, pp. 603-604] NJDEP 

personnel informed EPA that the samples were collected at approximately 15 feet deep [Ref. 5, pp. 3-4]. It is 

unclear if the samples are representative of soil removed from the excavation or soil that remained on the walls 

and bottom of the excavation [Ref. 5, p. 4; 11, p. 4; 28, pp. 15, 604, 615, 617]. * The hand drawn map 

incorrectly states 2007. 

In addition to the collection of waste water associated with the washing of tanks, Matlack stored containerized 

waste residues gained from “heels” remaining in the tank trailers in 55 gallon steel drums on a concrete pad of 

the outdoor truck cleaning rack [Ref. 11, pp. 4, 8]. During a June 1988 inspection the drum storage area all 

drums were labeled and dated [Ref. 11, p. 4]. It was reported that no records of spills or releases have been 

associated with the drum storage area; however, there was no secondary containment associated with the area 

[Ref. 11, p. 4]. The documentation reviewed did not indicate that any samples were ever collected of the 

contents of the drums [Ref. 11, pp. 4, 8; 28, p. 23]. The concrete pad was removed in July 2006 during the 

aforementioned tank removal [Ref. 28, pp. 23, 620].

As of May 2007, approximately 2,000 tons of visually contaminated soil associated with the wastewater 

treatment tank removal was staged at the Matlack property [Ref. 28, pp. 607-608, 611-612]. In July 2007, 

under direction of the NJDEP, both the 4,000-gallon flocculation tank (referred to as the Floc Tank) and the 

4,000-gallon oil skimming tank were abandoned in place (emptied, cleaned and filled with concrete) due to their 

close proximity to the treatment building [Ref. 28, pp. 15, 612, 615, 617]. The contaminated soils were 

removed and properly disposed of; the excavation was then backfilled with clean soil, concrete and other fill 

[Ref. 28, pp. 16 (this page says cubic yards), 612 (this page says tons), 1191]. 

27
SD-Summary

SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Containment

Source Hazardous

Source Waste Quantity Ground Surface Air

No. Value Water Water Gas Particulate

1 18,921 10* 10* NS NS

NS = Not Scored

* The ground water to surface water containment factor is 10 for the source.

28
GW-General

3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 

Matlack, Inc. is situated within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province [Ref. 23, p. 8; 28, pp. 26, 156; 

68, pp. 2-3]. The hydrogeologic units beneath the Matlack property are, from shallowest to deepest: Pensauken 

Formation, Woodbury Clay/Merchantville Formation, and undifferentiated Magothy-Raritan Formations [Ref. 

23, p. 8; 28, pp. 1228-1233]. The Pensauken Formation is a minor source of water for domestic use in 

Gloucester County [Ref. 23, pp. 8-9, 1228-1233; 58, pp. 1-4]. The undifferentiated Magothy-Raritan 

Formations unit is part of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) aquifer system, which consists of upper, 

middle, and lower aquifers that function as a single hydrologic unit and constitute the principal water-supply 

aquifer in the region; the unit is hereinafter referred to as the PRM aquifer [Ref. 23, pp. 8-9, 1228-1233; 58, pp. 

1-4; 68, pp. 2-3, 5-10]. The Woodbury Clay and Merchantville Formation function together as a continuous 

confining unit (hereinafter referred to as the Woodbury/Merchantville aquiclude) between the upper Pensauken 

Formation and deeper PRM aquifer (i.e., the Pensauken Formation and PRM aquifer are not interconnected and 

they are evaluated as separate aquifers) [Ref. 1, p. 51595, Section 3.0.1.2.1; 10, p. 10; 23, p. 17; 28, pp. 26, 156, 

1228-1233].

The aquifer being evaluated for the likelihood of release is the PRM aquifer, because there are numerous 

domestic and public supply wells that withdraw drinking water from the PRM aquifer within the 4-mile target 

distance limit (TDL) of the source [Ref. 58, pp. 1-4]. Observed release is not documented for the PRM aquifer; 

therefore, the ground water migration pathway score is based on potential-to-release factors [Ref. 1, p. 51595, 

Section 3.1]. 

The Pensauken Formation aquifer is not scored for the ground water migration pathway likelihood of release 

because there are no known target wells completed in it within the TDL [Ref. 58, pp. 6-16, 85-86]. However, 

an observed release of site-attributable contaminants by chemical analysis is documented for the Pensauken 

Formation [see Section 3.1.1]. The observed release to the uppermost aquifer is not used to assign the 

likelihood of release value to the ground water migration pathway, but it is used to score the ground water to 

surface water component of the surface water migration pathway as described in Section 4.2.1.3. 

Aquifer/Stratum 1 (shallowest)

Aquifer/Stratum Name: Pensauken Formation (upper aquifer)

Description: 

The uppermost stratum at the Matlack property is the Pleistocene-age Pensauken Formation, which consists 

predominantly of sand (fine-, medium-, and coarse-grained) with varying amounts of gravel, silt, and clay. 

According to facility-specific boring logs, this upper aquifer ranges in thickness from 10 to 52 feet and contains 

thin, discontinuous layers of gravel, silt, clay, and peat. The assigned hydraulic conductivity of the type of 

material in the Pensauken Formation (i.e., predominantly sand) is 10-4 centimeter per second (cm/s). The 

Pensauken Formation is not considered a major source of water; however, a few wells within the county are 

reported to yield from 10 to 50 gallons of water per minute from this formation. Ground water within this 

water-table aquifer at the facility flows north-northwest and discharges to Grand Sprute Run, which has incised 

through the Pensauken Formation and is flowing on top of the Woodbury Clay.

References: 

Ref. 1, p. 51601, Table 3-6; 10, pp. 10, 22, 26-28, 93-101; 12, pp. 271-278; 23, pp. 8, 15-17, 28, 34, 40-46; 24, 

pp. 16-21; 25, pp. 5, 45-60; 28, pp. 1228, 1249-1257; 59, pp. 1, 3-5 

29
GW-General

Aquifer/Stratum 2

Aquifer/Stratum Name: Woodbury /Merchantville aquiclude

Description: 

The Cretaceous-age Woodbury Clay and Merchantville Formation form a continuous, confining clay unit (i.e., 

the Woodbury/Merchantville aquiclude) ranging from approximately 54.6 to 61.5 feet thick according to 

on-facility boring logs (MW-1B, MW-2B, and MW-7B) which were used to calculate the range from where clay 

was first encountered to where the underlying formation (i.e., sand) is encountered. At the facility, the 

Woodbury Clay consists of dark-gray clay with intermittent trace silt and trace fine sand, and the Merchantville 

Formation consists of dark-gray or dark-green-gray clay with trace to some silt and trace fine sand; there are no 

intervening layers between the formations. The assigned hydraulic conductivity of the type of material in this 

continuous clay unit (i.e., the Woodbury/Merchantville aquiclude) is 10-8 cm/s. Regionally, there are sandy 

zones within the Merchantville Formation, but these generally were not encountered at the facility except in the 

basal few feet of the formation. The top of the Woodbury Clay is scoured with an undulating contour. In 

some areas of the subject property, ground water flow atop the clay is channeled through depressions between 

mounded clay surfaces. 

References: 

Ref. 1, p. 51601, Table 3-6; 10, pp. 10, 11, 22, 29; 23, pp. 10, 12, 15-17, 39-32, 34-38; 24, pp. 18-19, 21; 25, pp. 

45-46, 61-65; 28, pp. 26, 156, 294, 397, 1227-1233; 68, pp. 6-7; 76, pp. 16-17

Aquifer/Stratum 3 (deepest)

Aquifer/Stratum Name: PRM aquifer

Description: 

The PRM aquifer at and in the vicinity of the facility consists of the Magothy Formation and Raritan Formation, 

which generally are not differentiated in Gloucester County because of similar lithology and the limited extent 

of the confining unit between the upper and middle portions of the aquifer. The undifferentiated 

Magothy-Raritan Formation (i.e., the PRM aquifer) in the county consists of light-gray or white, fine to coarse 

sand interbedded with thinly-bedded, dark-gray or black clay, clayey silt, and fine to medium sand. The 

on-facility boring logs for monitoring wells MW-1B, MW-2B, and MW-7B describe the uppermost portion of 

the aquifer as light-brown, light-gray, or white sand (fine-, medium-, and coarse-grained) with intermittent trace 

silt, trace gravel, and thin gravel and clay lenses. The assigned hydraulic conductivity of the type of material in 

the aquifer (i.e., predominantly sand) is 10-4 cm/s. Ground water flow in the PRM aquifer is generally to the 

south-southeast. There are numerous private and public drinking water wells withdrawing water from the 

PRM aquifer, which is approximately 500 feet thick in the facility vicinity and is the principal aquifer within the 

TDL.

References: 

Ref. 1, p. 51601, Table 3-6; 23, pp.15-18, 20, 31, 37; 25, pp. 5, 64-65; 28, pp. 1227-1233; 58, pp. 7-15; 68, pp. 6, 

9; 76, pp. 1, 19-20, 24-25

30
GW-Observed Release

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

An observed release is documented by chemical analysis for the uppermost aquifer (the Pensauken Formation); 

however, the deeper PRM aquifer is scored for likelihood of release because the ground water drinking water 

targets are associated with the PRM aquifer. 

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Observed Release by Direct Observation

An observed release by direct observation is not being scored.

Observed Release by Chemical Analysis: Pensauken Formation

An observed release to ground water within the Pensauken Formation is established by chemical analysis of 

monitoring well samples collected by NJDEP in 2008 and EPA in 2012. In September 2008, ground water 

samples were collected under NJDEP oversight from monitoring wells located on and in the vicinity of the 

Matlack property [Ref. 28, pp. 957-958]. At each monitoring well the depth to ground water was gauged and 

recorded, required purge volumes were calculated, then the ground water was evacuated from the monitoring 

well [Ref. 29, p. 958]. The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds according to US EPA CLP 

Method 01.2 [Ref. 28, p. 961]. Observed release conditions of chlorinated solvents were documented in 

monitoring wells downgradient of Source 1 (i.e., MW02, MW06 and MW24) as compared to background 

conditions with no detections in upgradient wells (MW10 and MW22) [Ref. 28, pp. 52-54, 915, 942, 972-979]. 

In August 2009, ground water samples that were collected from monitoring wells on and in the vicinity of the 

Matlack property yielded similar results with respect to observed release in MW06 and MW24 with comparison 

to background [Ref. 28, pp. 18, 62-63].

From April 16-18, 2012, Weston Solutions, Inc. collected ground water samples from six monitoring wells and 

one piezometer located on and in the vicinity of the Matlack property in order to confirm background and 

release conditions [Ref. 5, pp. 35-45; 49, pp. 3, 5, 12-21]. The monitoring wells sampled for this event are all 

screened in the Pensauken Formation (i.e., the uppermost aquifer) on and in the vicinity of the Matlack property 

[Ref. 10, p. 104; 23, pp. 44-45; 25, pp. 51-52; 28, pp. 1243-1244, 1247-1248; 59, p. 3]. The ground water 

treatment system remained in operation during the ground water sampling and depth to ground water 

measurement events; the data confirms that the wells sampled to document background conditions are 

hydraulically upgradient of the release wells [Ref. 5, p. 51; 59, pp. 3-5].

The April 2012 ground water samples were collected using a bladder pump with dedicated, disposable teflon 

bladders, and dedicated teflon-lined polyethylene tubing [Ref. 5, pp. 81-93; 49, p. 3]. Ground water samples 

were collected utilizing low stress/low flow purging and sampling techniques [Ref. 5, pp. 81-93]. All ground 

water samples were designated for analysis for target compound list (TCL) VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL Aroclors, 

and target analyte list (TAL) inorganics including mercury and cyanide through the EPA Contract Laboratory 

Program (CLP) [Ref. 49, pp. 3-4, 12-21]. All samples designated for organic analyses were analyzed according 

to Statement of Work SOM01.2 and validated according to US EPA Region II Data Validation Standard 

Operating Procedures for Statement of Work SOM01.2 [Ref. 56, pp. 1-14]. 

As consistent with historic sample analyses, the monitoring wells sampled in April 2012 confirm the presence of 

cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride at observed release conditions in monitoring wells down gradient of 

Source 1, the former unlined lagoon [Ref. 27, Figure 2; 56, pp. 29-30, 49-50, 79, 85-86, 88-89]. The ground 

water extraction system was in operation during the April 2012 sampling event; ground water elevations for 

background wells (MW05, MW10, and MW22) range from approximately 25 to 30 feet above mean sea level 

(amsl) [Ref. 5, p. 51; 59, pp. 1, 3]. Ground water elevations for the release wells (MW06 and MW24), and the

piezometer (PZ2) range from approximately 17 to 25 feet amsl [Ref. 59, pp. 1, 3, 4]. Ground water sample 

results collected from monitoring wells indicating observed release conditions are presented in Table 2A. The 

locations of monitoring wells, and piezometer sampled in April 2012 can be seen on Figure 2. 

31
Sample 

Number

Monitoring 

Well

CLP 

Sample 

Number

Sample 

Delivery 

Group

Date Substance Results 

(μg/L) Qualifier Reporting Detection Limit References

BACKGROUND

1645-GW05 MW05 B49T8 B49W0 4/17/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethene

Vinyl Chloride

5

5

5

5

U

U

U

U

5

5

5

5

Ref. 5, pp. 39-40, 84; 

49, p. 5; 56, pp. 23-24, 

106; 75, pp. 19-20

1645-GW10 MW10 B4A31 B49W0 4/16/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethene

Vinyl Chloride

5

5

5

5

U

U

U

U

5

5

5

5

Ref. 5, pp. 36-38, 82; 

49, p. 5; 56, pp. 88-89, 

116-117; 75, pp. 16-17

1645-GW22 MW22 B49T9 B49W0 4/17/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethene

Vinyl Chloride

5

5

5

5

U

U

U

U

5

5

5

5

Ref. 5, pp. 38, 40, 83; 

49, p. 5; 56, pp. 29-30, 

106-107; 75, pp. 22-23

RELEASE

1645-GW06 MW06 B4A27 B49W0 4/18/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Vinyl Chloride

30

14

5

5

Ref. 5, pp. 41, 44, 89; 

49, pp. 5; 56, pp. 49, 

112; 75, p. 43

1645-GW24 MW24 B4A30 B49W0 4/17/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethene

5.3

160

3000

5

120

120

Ref. 5, pp. 40, 87-88; 

49, p. 5; 56, pp. 79-80, 

115; 75, pp. 31-32, 35

1645-GW02 PZ2 B4A26 B49W0 4/18/2012 Tetrachloroethene 2300 120 Ref. 5, pp. 41, 43-44, 

90; 49, p. 5; 56, pp. 43-

44, 111; 75, p. 41

U - Non-detect [Ref. 56, p. 2]

The Reporting Detection Limit is equivalent to the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL) as described in the HRS [Ref. 1, pp. 51585-51586, 51589, 

Table 2-3; 56, pp. 106-108, 110, 112, 115, 117; 62, p. 1]

The Volatile Organic sample analyses were performed according to USEPA Method SOM1.2/Low/Med Volatiles, and the current SOP HW33/VOA (Revision 1) August 2007, USEPA Region II Data Validation SOP has been applied [Ref. 56, pp. 2-6; 75, pp. 1-9] 

TABLE 2A - GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER COMPONENT OBSERVED RELEASE

GROUND WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 2012

MATLACK INC HRS

32
Attribution

Matlack was in the business of transporting mostly liquid chemicals in tank trailers (“tankers”) [Ref. 11, pp. 18, 

27; 15, p. 3; 16, p. 1]. Historic operations included tanker washing, truck maintenance, parking, and 

dispatching [Ref. 28, p. 11]. Truck and tanker washing activities included purging tanks of residual material, 

and rinsing the tanker interiors with one or more of the following: steam and detergent water solution, mild 

caustic or acid solution, or organic solvent solution [Ref. 11, pp. 3, 289, 294; 28, p. 11; 44, p. 1]. Solvents used 

in the cleaning process included TCE and PCE [Ref. 28, p. 11; 33, pp. 1, 6, 10]. The tanker cleaning operations 

generated approximately 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of wastewater per working day [Ref. 11, p. 265; 21, p. 2; 22, 

pp. 5, 20]. The wastewaters associated with this process were discharged into an unlined lagoon (Source 1) 

located south and west of the terminal building [Ref. 9, p. 2; 11, pp. 4, 8, 265; 22, p. 5, 28, p. 11]. The unlined 

lagoon, a former sand and gravel borrow pit, was 12 to 15 feet deep and intersected the water table (Pensauken 

Formation) [Ref. 11, pp. 4, 8; 24. pp. 3-5, 16-21, 27; 33, p. 2]. The liquid contents of the unlined lagoon 

discharged along the north/northwesterly direction of ground water flow toward Grand Sprute Run; Grand 

Sprute Run incised through the Pensauken Formation and is flowing on top of the Woodbury Clay. [Ref. 10, pp. 

10; 59, pp. 1, 4-5]. 

As consistent with historic sample analyses, the monitoring wells sampled in April 2012 confirm the presence of 

cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride at observed release conditions in monitoring wells MW-6, MW-24 

and piezometer PZ-2 completed in the water table; all are located down gradient of Source 1 [Ref. 27, Figure 2; 

56, pp. 29-30, 49-50, 79, 85-86, 88-89; 59, pp. 3, 4]. TCE and PCE are not thought to occur naturally in the 

environment and are found in ground water as a result of use and or disposal of the chemicals [Ref. 65, p. 1; 66, 

p. 1]. Sample 1645-GW06 collected from MW06, located on the western boundary closest to Source 1 

indicated the presence of cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride [Ref. 5, p. 89, 49, p. 5; 56, pp. 49, 112]. Cis-1,2-DCE 

and vinyl chloride are breakdown products of TCE [Ref. 67, p. 1]. As consistent with documented ground 

water flow direction there were no detections of cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE, or vinyl chloride reported in any 

ground water samples collected from monitoring wells (MW-10, MW-22, MW-05) up gradient of Source 1 

during the April 2012 sampling event [Ref. 5, pp. 82-84; 49, p. 5; 56, pp. 23-24, 29-30, 88-89]. This also 

provides evidence that there are no sources of chlorinated compounds upgradient of the source. 

A review of State and Federal environmental databases indicates that there are no known additional sources of 

cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE, or vinyl chloride in the vicinity of the Matlack facility [Ref. 43, pp. 29-38]. There are 

two facilities at equal or higher elevations in relation to the Matlack facility that are listed as “known 

contaminated sites in NJ”; however, these facilities are associated with unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel tanks 

[Ref. 43, pp. 32, 34, 65-66, 68-69]. There are two businesses, Venezia Transport and Interstate Aerials located 

approximately 2,000 feet south-southwest of the Matlack facility; these businesses are located cross-gradient of 

observed release ground water contamination associated with Source 1. The businesses are not listed in the State 

and Federal environmental database [Ref. 27, Figure 2; 28, p. 109; 43, p. 32]. A third business, Excel 

Hydraulics, located approximately 1,000 feet north of Source 1, is not listed in the State and Federal 

environmental database reviewed [Ref. 28, p. 109; 43, p. 32]. 

Hazardous Substances Meeting the Criteria for Observed Release by Chemical Analysis:

cis-1,2-DCE

PCE

TCE

Vinyl Chloride

Although an observed release is documented in the Pensauken Formation, likelihood of release is evaluated 

based on the PRM aquifer. An observed release is not documented for the PRM aquifer; therefore, the observed 

release factor value for the ground water migration pathway is 0 and the ground water migration pathway score 

is based on potential to release factors [Ref. 1, p. 51595, Section 3.0.1].

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

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 0 

33
GW-Potential to Release

3.1.2 POTENTIAL TO RELEASE

Aquifer Being Evaluated: PRM aquifer 

Observed release is not documented for the PRM aquifer. Therefore, the ground water migration pathway 

score is based on potential to release factors [Ref. 1, p. 51595, Section 3.0.1].

3.1.2.1 Containment

The ground water containment factor value for Source 1 is 10 [see Section 2.2.1].

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

Containment Factor Value: 10

3.1.2.2 Net Precipitation

The net precipitation factor value for the site location is 6 [Figure 1; Ref. 1, Section 3.1.2.2, Figure 3-2].

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

Net Precipitation Factor Value: 6 

3.1.2.3 Depth to Aquifer

The depth to aquifer is the distance from the surface to the top of the aquifer minus the distance from the surface 

to the lowest known point of hazardous substances eligible to be evaluated for that aquifer [Ref. 1, p. 51600, 

Section 3.1.2.3]. Based on boring logs for on-facility monitoring wells screened in the aquifer being evaluated, 

MW-1B, MW-2B, and MW-7B, the depth to the top of the PRM aquifer from the surface is at least 78.6 feet

below ground surface as recorded in the boring log for MW-7B [Ref. 23, pp. 8-10, 16, 28-38; 25, pp. 10-16, 

61-65]. The lowest known point of site-attributable hazardous substances is defined by observed release 

concentrations in on-facility monitoring well PZ2 [see Table 2A]. The depth to ground water in well PZ2, as 

measured in April and May 2012 and corrected for well standpipe height, is approximately 22 feet from the 

surface [Ref. 5, pp. 42-44, 47-49; 59, pp. 1-5]. Therefore, the depth to aquifer is approximately 56.6 feet, and a 

depth to aquifer factor value of 3 is assigned [Ref. 1, p. 51600, Section 3.1.2.3, Table 3-5].

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

Depth to Aquifer Factor Value: 3 

3.1.2.4 Travel Time

The travel time factor is based on the geologic materials between the lowest known point of hazardous 

substances at the site and the top of the aquifer being evaluated. The layer with the lowest hydraulic 

conductivity from within this interval is used to assign the travel time factor value. Layers less than 3 feet thick 

are not considered and layers or portions of layers within the first 10 feet of the depth to aquifer are not 

considered [Ref. 1, p. 51600, Section 3.1.2.4]. The lowest known point of hazardous substances at the site 

(PZ2) is 22 feet from the surface [see Section 3.1.2.3 above], so the considered interval for travel time begins at 

32 feet below the surface [Ref. 1, p. 51600, Section 3.1.2.4]. Based on the boring logs that span the full interval 

above the aquifer being evaluated (MW-1B, MW-2B, and MW-7B), all of the geologic materials from the

32-foot depth to the top of the aquifer consist of dark-gray and dark-green-gray clays, some layers of which

contain trace to some silt and trace fine sand [Ref. 23, pp. 29-32, 34-38; 25, pp. 45-46, 61-65]. The assigned 

hydraulic conductivity of this type of material (i.e., clay) is 10-8 cm/s [Ref. 1, p. 51601, Table 3-6]. Since the 

depth to aquifer is greater than 10 feet and the layers that underlie the sources are not karst, the total thickness of 

the layer(s) with the lowest hydraulic conductivity within the considered interval (i.e., clay) is selected to 

evaluate travel time [Ref. 1, p. 51600, Section 3.1.2.4]. The minimum total thickness of the clay layers from 

the 32-foot depth to the top of the aquifer is 52 feet at monitoring well MW-2B, as shown below [Ref. 23, pp. 

29-32, 34-38; 25, pp. 45-46, 61-65]. 

34
GW-Potential to Release

Layer Composition Thickness

(below 32 feet)

Hydraulic 

Conductivity

References

Dark-gray clay Clay 9 feet 10-8 cm/s 1, p. 51601, Table 3-6; 

23, pp. 29-32, 34-38; 25, 

Dark-green-gray pp. 45-46, 61-65 

clay, trace silt

Clay with trace silt 4 feet 10-8 cm/s

Dark-green-gray 

clay, trace silt, 

trace fine sand

Clay with trace silt and 

trace fine sand

35 feet 10-8 cm/s

Gray fine sand Sand 1 foot 10-4 cm/s

Dark-gray clay, 

trace silt, trace 

fine sand

Clay with trace silt and

trace fine sand

4 feet 10-8 cm/s

Based on this information, the travel time factor is assigned a value of 5 [Ref. 1, pp. 51600-51601, Table 3-7].

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

Travel Time Factor Value: 5 

3.1.2.5 Calculation of Potential to Release Factor Value

The potential to release factor value is calculated as the factor value for containment multiplied by the sum of the 

factor values for net precipitation, depth to aquifer, and travel time [Ref. 1, p. 51601, Section 3.1.2.5].

Potential to Release Factor Value = 10(6 + 3 + 5) = 140

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

Potential to Release Factor Value: 140

35
GW-Toxicity/Mobility

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 Toxicity/Mobility

Hazardous 

Substance

Source Toxicity 

Factor 

Value

Mobility 

Factor 

Value

Toxicity/Mobility Reference 

1,1-DCA 1 10 1 10 2, pp. 5, 20

Cis-1,2 DCE 1, OR 1,000 1 1,000 2, pp. 6, 20

PCBs 1 10,000 2 x 10-7 0.02 2, p. 8

Styrene 1 10 0.01 0.1 2, pp. 8, 20

PCE 1, OR 100 0.01 100 2, pp. 9, 20

TCE 1, OR 1,000 1 1,000 2, pp. 9, 19, 20

Vinyl Chloride 1, OR 10,000 1 10,000 2, pp. 10, 20

Mercury 1 10,000 0.01 100 2, pp. 7, 20

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

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000

36
GW-Hazardous Waste Quantity

3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Hazardous Is source hazardous

Waste Quantity constituent quantity

Source Number Value (Section 2.4.2.1.5.) data complete? (yes/no)

1 18,921 no

Sum of values: 18,921 (rounded to the nearest integer as specified in HRS Section 2.4.2.2)

The sum corresponds to a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 in Table 2-6 of the HRS [Ref. 1, 

Table 2-6, p. 51591]. Therefore, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 is assigned for the ground 

water pathway [Ref. 1, Sections 2.4.2.2 and 2.4.3, pp. 51591, 51592]. 

3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

One hazardous substance (vinyl chloride) associated with the waste source, which has ground water pathway 

containment factor greater than 0, corresponds to a toxicity/mobility factor value of 10,000, as shown previously 

[Ref. 1, Section 3.2. pp. 51601-51602; 2, pp. 11, 24].

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

 = 10,000 x 10,000 = 1 x 108 [Ref. 1, Section 3.2, pp. 51601-51602]

The product corresponds to a waste characteristics factor category value of 100 in Table 2-7 of the HRS [Ref. 1, 

pp. 51592, Table 2-7, p. 51602, Section 3.2.3].

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

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 100

37
GW-Targets/Nearest Well

3.3 TARGETS

Observed release conditions are not documented for the aquifer being evaluated (i.e., the PRM aquifer) [Ref. 23, 

pp. 18-19, 24; 28, pp. 49, 52-53]. Therefore, the ground water migration pathway score is based on potential 

contamination of target wells [Ref. 1, p. 51603, Section 3.3.2]. There are numerous domestic and public supply 

wells withdrawing water from the upper and middle portions of the PRM aquifer [Ref. 58, pp. 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, 

85-86]. 

3.3.1 Nearest Well

The nearest potable wells are private domestic wells located on the opposite side of Route 322 from the Matlack 

facility, within 1⁄4 mile of Source 1 [Ref. 58, pp. 1-3, 5, 89-90]. Observed release of site-attributable 

contaminants to nearby potable wells was not documented during sampling events conducted in May 2002, 

January and February 2003, and August 2008 [Ref. 28, pp. 1097-1121, 1123-1125, 1127-1136, 1138-1149, 

1151-1167].

Well: Potable Domestic Well

Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): Potential

If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: The nearest domestic potable well is located within 1⁄4 

mile of the source [Ref. 58, pp. 1-3, 5, 90]. According to Table 3-11 of the HRS; if potable wells are located 

within 1⁄4 mile of the source the nearest well factor value assigned is 20 [Ref. 1, p. 51603, Table 3-11]. 

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

Nearest Well Factor Value: 20

38
GW-Level I/Level II Concentrations

3.3.2 Population

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

The Level I concentrations factor value is 0 because there are no drinking water wells subject to Level I 

concentrations [Ref. 1, p. 51603, Section 3.3.2].

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

 Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

The Level II concentrations factor value is 0 because there are no drinking water wells subject to Level II 

concentrations [Ref. 1, p. 51603, Section 3.3.2].

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

 Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0

39
GW-Potential Contamination

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

Due to the accessibility of the four residential properties and one business located within 1⁄4 mile of the site 

source, each property was visited to obtain the ground water population; the ground water population was 

determined to be 13 [Ref. 58, pp. 2, 3, 5, 89-90]. A NJDEP database was accessed in order to produce the 

domestic potable records within the 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 and 1⁄2 to 1 mile distance rings [Ref. 58, pp. 2, 3, 81-86]. The 

number of domestic potable well permits within each distance ring was multiplied by the county average of 

persons per household (2.73) in order to obtain the populations associated with each distance ring [Ref. 58, pp. 

2, 3, 81-86]. The populations for the aforementioned rings were determined to be 120.12 people (44 domestic 

potable wells × 2.73 persons per household) in the 1⁄4 - 1⁄2 mile distance ring and 155.61 people (57 domestic 

potable wells × 2.73 persons per household) in the 1⁄2 to 1 mile distance ring [Ref. 58, p. 3]. Using information 

obtained by the NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation it was determined that the remainder of the distance rings 

are served by public supply wells [Ref. 58, pp. 1-4]. There are four water purveyors managing the public 

supply wells located within the 4-mile TDL; each was contacted and the information obtained is summarized as 

follows:

New Jersey American Water Company:

Logan System: 

There are four active wells that comprise the Logan System (Well 2, Well 4, Well 6, and Well 7); none 

of the wells contribute more than 40% to the systems total. The system serves 5,796 people. The 

population can be apportioned as follows:

5,796 people / 4 wells = 1,449 people per well. These wells are located in different distance rings (see 

below).

Bridgeport System:

There are two active wells that comprise the Bridgeport System (Well 2 and Well 3); the system serves 

1,054 people. The population for each well does not need to be apportioned because both wells are 

within the same distance ring (see below).

Harrison System:

There are three active wells that comprise the Harrison System; none of the wells contributes more than 

40% to the systems total. The system serves 6,850 people. The population can be apportioned as 

follows: 6,850 people / 3 wells = 2,283.33 people per well. One of the three active wells (Well 5) is 

located within the 4-Mile Radius (see below).

[Ref. 58, pp. 1-4, 17-65]

Swedesboro Water Department:

There are three active wells that comprise the Swedesboro Water Department (Well 2, Well 3, and 

Well 4); the system serves 2,535 people. The population for each well does not need to be apportioned 

because both wells are within the same distance ring (see below). 

[Ref. 58, pp. 67-69]

Aqua New Jersey Woolwich System:

There are five active wells that comprise the Aqua New Jersey Woolwich System (Well 1, Well 2, Well 

4, Well 5, and Well 6); the system serves 5,149 people. The population for each well does not need to 

be apportioned because all wells are within the same distance ring (see below). 

[Ref. 58, pp. 70-72]

40
GW-Potential Contamination

East Greenwich Water Department System:

There are three active wells and two surface water sources that comprise the East Greenwich Township 

Water Department System. The East Greenwich Township Water Department distributes 460 million 

gallons of water per year to 3,218 service connections. The surface water, purchased from NJAW, 

contributes approximately 60 % of the systems total. Well #2 contributes approximately 8%; Well #3 

contributes approximately 16%, and Well #4 contributes approximately 16% of the systems total

contributes approximately 16%, and Well #4 contributes approximately 16% of the systems total.

According to the most recent US Census Bureau Data, the Gloucester County average of persons per 

household is 2.73 people. Therefore 3,218 service connections are multiplied by the county average 

of persons per household to determine that 8,785.14 people are served by water provided by the East 

Greenwich Township Water Department.

Well #4 is located within the 4-Mile Radius of Source 1 (see below); therefore a population is 

apportioned to that well as follows:

Total population x percentage of contribution

8,785.14 people x 16% = 1,405.62 people served by Well #4.

[Ref. 58, pp. 73-82]

Distance Distance-Weighted

Category Population Population Value

0 - 1⁄4 Mile 13 17

[Ref. 1, p. 51604, Table 3-12; 58, pp. 2, 3, 5, 89-90]

1⁄4 - 1⁄2 Mile 120.12 102

[Ref. 1, p. 51604, Table 3-12; 58, pp. 2, 3, 81-86]

1⁄2 - 1 Mile 155.61 52

[Ref. 1, p. 51604, Table 3-12; 58, pp. 2, 3, 81-86]

1 - 2 Miles 2,898 (Well 2 and Well 7 - Logan System)

5,149 (All 5 Wells – Aqua New Jersey Inc – Woolwich System)

2,535 (All 3 Wells - SwedesboroWater Department) 

10,582 (Total Population per Distance Ring) 2,939

[Ref. 1, p. 51604, Table 3-12; 58, pp. 3-4, 17]

2 - 3 Miles 1,054 (2 Wells – Bridgeport System) 212

[Ref. 1, p. 51604, Table 3-12; 58, pp. 3-4, 17]

3 - 4 Mile 2,898 (Well 6 and Well 4 - Logan System)

2,283.33 (Well 5– Harrison System)

1,405.62 (Well 4 - East Greenwich Water Department) 

6,586.95 (Total Population per Distance Ring) 417

[Ref. 1, p. 51604, Table 3-12; 58, pp. 3-4, 17, 73]

Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 3,739

The sum of the distance-weighted population values is divided by 10 to calculate the potential contamination 

factor value (PC) of 373.9; since PC is 1 or more, it is rounded to the nearest integer of 374 [Ref. 1, pp. 

51603-51604, Section 3.3.2.4].

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

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 374

41
GW-Resources/Wellhead Protection Area

3.3.3 RESOURCES

There are several wells screened in the aquifer being evaluated, the PRM aquifer, that supply irrigation water for 

commercial food crops [Ref. 58, pp. 6-13]. One farm located within the TDL was contacted and confirmed that 

there are more than 5 acres of commercial food crops irrigated using well water [Ref. 58, p. 6; 47, p. 1] 

Therefore, a resources factor value of 5 is assigned [Ref. 1, p. 51604, Section 3.3.3]. 

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

Resources Factor Value: 5 

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA 

Source 1 does not lie within or above any designated Wellhead Protection Areas, and the observed ground water 

contamination attributable to the source does not lie within or above any designated Wellhead Protection Areas

[Ref. 27, Figure 3A]. There are designated Wellhead Protection Areas (designated in accordance with the Safe 

Drinking Water Act) applicable to the aquifer being evaluated (i.e., surrounding public supply wells finished in 

the PRM aquifer) within the TDL [Ref. 27, Figure 3A; 69, p. 1]. Therefore, a Wellhead Protection Area factor 

value of 5 is assigned [Ref. 1, p. 51604, Section 3.3.3].

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

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 5 

42
GWSW-Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Pathway

4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

4.0.1 MIGRATION COMPONENTS

The surface water migration pathway score is based on the ground water to surface water migration component, 

as shown below [Ref. 1, pp. 51604-51605, Section 4.0.1].

4.2 GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER MIGRATION COMPONENT

4.2.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.2.1.1 ELIGIBLE SURFACE WATERS

Grand Sprute Run is documented to be an eligible surface water for the ground water to surface water migration 

component, as described below [Ref. 1, Section 4.2.1.1]. 

A portion of Grand Sprute Run is located within 1 mile of one or more sources at the site having a 

containment factor value greater than 0:

Grand Sprute Run is located approximately 985 feet from the edge of Source 1. 

References: 

Ref. 27, Figure 2; 38, p. 1

Source Number Distance to Surface Water Body

1 985 feet 

No aquifer discontinuity is established between the source and the portion of Grand Sprute Run within 1 

mile of Source 1:

In the vicinity of the Matlack property, the Pensauken Formation is approximately 30 feet thick; Grand 

Sprute Run has incised through the Pensauken Formation and is flowing on top of the Woodbury Clay. 

There are no geologic, topographic, or other structures or features present between Source 1 and Grand 

Sprute Run; the ground water beneath the property flows toward and is intercepted by Grand Sprute 

Run.

References: 

Ref. 10, pp. 22, 26-28, 30; 23, pp. 8, 15-16; 28, pp. 26, 156, 294

43
GWSW-Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Pathway

The top of the uppermost aquifer (Pensauken Formation) is at or above the bottom of surface water 

(Grand Sprute Run):

Elevation of Top of Uppermost Aquifer:

The uppermost aquifer in the vicinity of the Matlack property is the Pensauken Formation, an 

unconfined water table aquifer that consists primarily of sand. NJDEP and U.S. EPA have observed 

ground water discharge seeps along the eastern bank of Grand Sprute Run and have observed this 

surface expression of ground water flowing into Grand Sprute Run. Ground water elevations of the 

water table aquifer (i.e., the top of the uppermost aquifer) at on-facility monitoring wells ranges from 

11.79 to 30.16 feet above mean sea level, using North American Vertical Datum (NAVD29). As 

shown in Figure 1A, the USGS 7.5-minute topographic map for the site location depicts elevation 

contours in feet above mean sea level using NAVD29. The map shows that Grand Sprute Run is 

wholly contained within the 10-foot elevation contour along the entire length of the study area, 

showing that the maximum elevation of the top of the stream is 10 feet above MSL. Grand Sprute Run 

is a shallow stream with a minimum depth of 2 inches (0.16 feet). Using the most conservative values 

(maximum stream elevation of 10 feet and minimum stream depth of 0.16 foot), the maximum 

elevation of the bottom of Grand Sprute Run is 9.84 feet above MSL using NAVD29. Based on these 

considerations, the top of the uppermost aquifer is at or above the bottom of the surface water.

References:

Ref. 5, pp. 5, 8, 41-49, 52-53, 59, 60, 66, 71, 74, 76, 78-79, 102-105; 59, pp. 1-5 

4.2.1.2 DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MIGRATION PATH FOR GROUND WATER 

TO SURFACE WATER COMPONENT

Aquifer/Stratum Name: Pensauken Formation

Description: The Pensauken Formation (i.e., the uppermost aquifer) is described in the ground water migration 

pathway; see Section 3.0.1.

Ground water within the Pensauken Formation underlying Source 1 flows north-northwest and discharges to 

Grand Sprute Run [Ref. 10, pp. 10, 22, 30; 59, pp. 1, 4-5]. Grand Sprute Run is located to the north and west of 

the Matlack property [Ref. 27, Figures 1 and 2]. NJDEP and U.S. EPA have observed ground water discharge 

seeps along the eastern bank of Grand Sprute Run and have observed this surface expression of ground water 

flowing into Grand Sprute Run [Ref. 5, pp. 5, 8, 103-106]. The surface water in-water segment begins at the 

probable point of entry (PPE) from the uppermost aquifer (i.e. Pensauken Formation) to the surface water (i.e. 

Grand Sprute Run) [Ref. 1, p. 51626; 27, Figure 2; 38, p. 1]. The PPE is defined as the point at the surface 

water that yields the shortest straight-line distance from the sources to the surface water [Ref. 1, p. 51626; 27, 

Figure 2]. The shortest straight-line distance to surface water from Source 1 is 985 feet [Ref. 27, Figure 2; 38, 

p. 1]. The mean annual flow rate for Grand Sprute Run is 1.274 cubic feet per second (cfs); it is described as a 

minimal stream [Ref 1, p. 51613; 46, pp. 1-2]. Grand Sprute Run flows for approximately 0.75 mile to 

Raccoon Creek, which flows for approximately 7 miles to the Delaware River [Ref. 27, Figure 4].

The distance to surface water from Source 1 is 985 feet as described in Section 4.2.1.1.

Dilution Weight Adjustment

Dilution weights are not calculated because the inclusion of potential contamination of sensitive environments 

does not contribute significantly to the site score.

44
GWSW-Observed Release to Surface Water In-Water Segment

4.2.1.3 Observed Release by Chemical Analysis

As discussed in Section 3.1.1 and shown in Tables 2A an observed release of site-attributable contaminants is 

established for the uppermost aquifer [Ref. 1, p. 51589, Section 2.3, Table 2-3; p. 51595, Section 3.1.1; p. 

51629, Section 4.2.2.1.1]. Therefore, an observed release factor value of 550 is assigned for the watershed 

[Ref. 1, p. 51629, Section 4.2.2.1.1].

An observed release of a hazardous substance to the surface water in-water segment is established only when 

that hazardous substance meets the criteria for an observed release both to ground water and to surface water by 

chemical analysis [Ref. 1, p. 51626, Section 4.2.1.3]. The following section presents the necessary information 

to support the observed release conditions present in the uppermost aquifer (i.e., Pensauken Formation) [see 

Section 3.1.1] and to define the observed release conditions present in Grand Sprute Run. 

Chemical Analysis: Aquifer Being Evaluated: Pensauken Formation [see Section 3.1.1]

Hazardous Substances Meeting the Criteria for Observed Release by Chemical Analysis:

cis-1,2-DCE

PCE

TCE

Vinyl Chloride

Chemical Analysis: Surface Water Body Being Evaluated: Grand Sprute Run

All stream bed samples were collected from depositional environments during low tide conditions on the eastern 

banks of Grand Sprute Run [Ref. 5, pp. 52-55, 61-61, 67, 70-72, 75; 50, p. 5]. All stream bed samples were 

collected in the following order: first surface water, then pore water (where available), and lastly sediment with 

the sampler standing directly down gradient of the sample collection activity [Ref. 5, pp. 52-80; 50, pp. 5, 7-15, 

19]. Aqueous and sediment samples collected from the stream bank of Grand Sprute Run (i.e., within perennial 

surface water) are representative of the surface water in-water segment.

The VOC fraction of all sediment samples were collected using dedicated EnCore sampling devices [Ref. 50, p. 

5]. All sediment and aqueous samples were designated for analysis for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL 

Aroclors and TAL inorganics including mercury and cyanide through the EPA CLP [Ref. 50, pp. 6, 21-23, 

25-26, 28-33, 37-46, 48-52, 54-64]. In addition, the sediment samples were designated for total organic carbon 

and grain size by the EPA Region 2 DESA laboratory [Ref. 50, pp. 6, 34, 66-70]. All samples designated for 

organic analyses were analyzed according to Statement of Work SOM01.2 and validated according to US EPA 

Region II Data Validation Standard Operating Procedures for Statement of Work SOM01.2 [Ref. 56, pp. 1-14]. 

When compared to up gradient, upstream background locations (GSR-BKG-1, GSR-BKG-2, and A2) surface 

water samples collected from Grand Sprute Run in April 2012 document an observed release by chemical 

analysis of cis-1,2-DCE, TCE and PCE from the most downstream location, GSR-DST-1 to the most upstream 

location, GSR-MID-2 [See Table 3A and Figure 2; Ref. 1, Table 2-3]. As shown in Table 3A an observed 

release by chemical analysis is documented in the Grand Sprute Run between the GRS-MID-2 and GSR-DST-1, 

which defines the portion of Grand Sprute Run subject to actual contamination [Ref. 38, p. 1, See Table 3A; Ref. 

1, Sections 4.2.2.3, 4.1.3.3, and 4.1.4.3.1, ]. The surface water sample locations can be seen on Figure 2.

All sediment sample locations were collected either within the in-water segment of Grand Sprute Run or within 

HRS-eligible wetlands contiguous to perennially flowing water and are therefore considered part of the in-water 

segment [Ref. 1, p. 51605, Section 4.0.2; 45, pp. 1-4; 27, Figure 2]. The range of total organic carbon (TOC) 

concentrations in background samples (2,400 mg/kg to 120,000 mg/kg) is similar to the range of TOC in release 

samples (2,600 to 220,000 mg/kg) [Ref. 50, pp. 8, 10-15; 60, pp. 8, 11-19]. The range of percent fines in 

background samples (3.8% to 60%) is slightly higher than the range of percent fines of release samples (0.7% to 

47.6%); this indicates similarity between background and release samples [Ref. 50, pp. 8, 10-15; 60, pp. 8, 

11-19]. As shown in Table 3B an observed release by chemical analysis of sediment samples is documented 

for Grand Sprute Run. The sediment sample locations can be seen on Figure 2.

45
Sample 

Number

Sample 

Location

CLP 

Number

Sample Delivery 

Group Date Substance Results (ug/L) Qualifier

Reporting 

Detection 

Limit

References

BACKGROUND

SW-026-001 GSR-BKG-1 BA8L6 BA8G5 4/16/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.5

0.5

0.5

U

U

U

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 33, 79; 50, p. 

14; 55, pp. 110-111, 

257; 72, pp. 62-63

SW-027-001 GSR-BKG-2 BA8L7 BA8G5 4/16/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.5

0.5

0.5

U

U

U

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 33, 80; 50, p. 

15; 55, pp. 113-114, 

258; 72, pp. 65-66

SW-021-001 A2 BA8J7 BA8J3 4/13/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.5

0.5

0.5

U

U

U

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 31-33, 75; 50, 

p. 13; 53, pp. 214-215, 

327-328; 70, pp. 20-21

RELEASE

SW-001-001 GSR-DST-1 BA8D5 BA8D4 4/9/2021 Tetrachloroethene 2.4 0.5 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 16, 51; 

50, p. 7; 51, pp. 28, 169; 

71, p. 22

SW-002-001 GSR-DST-2 BA8E0 BA8D4 4/10/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.58

3.1

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 17, 20, 53; 

50, p. 7; 51, pp. 48-49, 

171; 71, 30-31

SW-003-001 GSR-DST-3 BA8E1 BA8D4 4/11/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.62

3.1

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 20, 21, 24, 

54; 50, p. 7; 51, pp. 59-

60, 172; 71, pp. 33-34

SW-009-001 C4 BA8E6 BA8D4 4/12/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.97

0.59

2.8

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 25, 29, 60; 

50, p. 9; 51, pp. 100-

101, 176; 71, pp. 48-49

SW-004-001 F5 BA8E8 BA8D4 4/11/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.70

3.4

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 21, 22, 24, 

55; 50, p. 8; 51, pp. 112-

113, 178; 71, 54-55

SW-010-001 E3 BA8F9 BA8D4 4/12/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

1.9

2.7

18

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 26, 29, 61; 

50, p. 9; 51, pp. 125-

126, 180; 71, pp. 63-64

SW-016-001 D3 BA8H6 BA8G5 4/12/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

61

62

490

25

25

25

Ref. 5, pp. 27, 29, 67; 

50, p. 11; 55, pp. 49-50, 

249; 72, pp. 32-33

SW-025-001 GSR-MID-2 BA8K9 BA8G5 4/16/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.79 0.5 Ref. 5, pp. 33, 77; 50, p. 

14; 55, pp. 86, 253; 72, 

pp. 47

U - Non-detect [Ref. 53, p. 176; 55, pp. 2, 3]

The Reporting Detection Limit is equivalent to the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL) as described in the HRS [Ref. 1, pp. 51585-51586, 51589, Table 2-3; 

51, pp. 169, 171-172, 176, 178, 180; 53, pp. 327-328; 55, pp. 249, 253, 257-258; 62, p. 1]

The Volatile Organic sample analyses were performed according to USEPA Method SOM1.2/Trace Volatiles, and the current SOP HW-34 (Revision 1) 

August 2007, USEPA Region II Data Validation SOP has been applied [Ref. 51, pp. 2-6; 53, pp. 176-181; 55, pp. 2-7; 70, pp. 1-7; 71, pp. 1-14; 72, pp. 1-16] 

TABLE 3A - OBSERVED RELEASE TO SURFACE WATER IN-WATER SEGMENT

SURFACE WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM GRAND SPRUTE RUN APRIL 2012

MATLACK INC HRS

46
Sample Number Sample 

Location

CLP 

Number

Sample 

Delivery 

Group

Date

Depth 

(in 

inches)

Sample 

Description

Percent 

Moisture

Total Organic 

Carbon 

(mg/kg)

Grain Size 

(% fines) Substance Results (ug/kg) Qualifier Adjusted Result*

Reporting 

Detection 

Limit

References

BACKGROUND

SD-024-0006-0001 A1 BA8K6 B8AJ2 4/13/2012 3-6 gray silty mud, 

some sand with 

decomposed 

organics

63.81 120,000 20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

16

16

16

U

U

U

16

16

16

Ref. 5, pp. 31, 33-34; 50, p. 

14; 55, pp. 197-198, 291; 60, 

p. 18; 73, pp. 25-26

SD-021-0006-0001 A2 BA8K0 B8AJ2 4/13/2012 0-4 tan medium sand 

some coarse sand 

with pebbles

12.61 2,400 3.8 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

4.6

4.6

4.6

U

U

U

4.6

4.6

4.6

Ref. 5, pp. 31-33, 75; 50, p. 

13; 55, pp. 166-167, 288; 60, 

p. 16; 73, pp. 13-14

RELEASE

SD-023-0006-001 B1 BA8K5 B8AJ2 4/13/2012 0-6 brown fine to 

coarse sand, some 

rounded pebbles, 

little organic 

23.73 12,000 1.7 Tetrachloroethene 7.20 J (low bias) 7.20 6.4 Ref. 5, pp. 32, 34, 74; 50, p. 

14; 55, p. 188-189, 290; 60, p. 

17; 61, p. 8; 62, p. 1; 73, pp. 

22-23

matter

SD-005-0006-001 F4 BA8F3 BA8D7 4/11/2012 0-6 dark brown clay 

and sand; 

abundent 

decomposed 

organics

76.65 190,000 37.8 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

67

47

J (low bias)

J (low bias)

66

47

35

35

Ref. 5, pp. 22, 24, 56; 50, p. 

8; 53, p. 59, 266; 60, p. 8; 61, 

p. 8; 62, p. 1; 74, pp. 37-38

SD-010-0006-001 E3 BA8G2 BA8D7 4/12/2012 0-4 dark brown clayey 

sand and partially 

decomposed 

organic matter

77.71 97,000 47.6 Tetrachloroethene 76 J (low bias) 76 39 Ref. 5, pp. 26, 29, 61; 50, p. 

10; 53, pp. 90, 91, 270; 60, p. 

11; 61, p. 8; 62, p. 1; 74, p. 53

SD-011-0006-001 C3 BA8G4 BA8D7 4/12/2012 0-6 brown to black 

fine to coarse 

sand, little 

rounded pebbles, 

trace organic 

32.37 31,000 2.3 Tetrachloroethene 21 8.4 Ref. 5, pp. 29, 62; 50, p. 10, 

53, pp. 96, 97, 271; 60, p. 11; 

74, p. 56

matter 

SD-012-0006-001 C2 BA8G6 BA8D7 4/12/2012 3-6 brown fine to 

coarse sand, some 

rounded gravel, 

trace organic 

21.94 9,600 0.7 Tetrachloroethene 11 5.6 Ref. 5, pp. 29, 63; 50, p. 10; 

53, pp. 102-103, 272; 60, p. 

12; 74, p. 59

matter

SD-013-0006-001 E2 BA8G8 BA8D7 04/12/2012 0-5 dark brown and 

gray clayey sand

81.42 220,000 26.5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

80

140

1200

J (low bias)

J (low bias)

J (low bias)

80

140

1200

40

40

40

Ref. 5, pp. 26-27, 29, 64; 50, 

p. 11; 53, pp. 104-105, 272-

273; 60, p. 12; 61, p. 8; 62, p. 

1; 74, pp. 61-62

TABLE 3B - OBSERVED RELEASE TO SURFACE WATER IN-WATER SEGMENT

SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 2012

MATLACK INC HRS

47
Sample Number Sample 

Location

CLP 

Number

Sample 

Delivery 

Group

Date

Depth 

(in 

inches)

Sample 

Description

Percent 

Moisture

Total Organic 

Carbon 

(mg/kg)

Grain Size 

(% fines) Substance Results (ug/kg) Qualifier Adjusted Result*

Reporting 

Detection 

Limit

References

SD-014-0006-001 E1 BA8G9 BA8D7 4/12/2012 0-6 brown sand with 17.36 13,000 3.6 Trichloroethene 54 5.9 Ref. 5, pp. 26, 29, 65; 50, p. 

pebbles, some silt, 11; 53, pp. 110-111, 117, 273-

trace clay Tetrachloroethene 930 370 274; 60, p. 13; 74, pp. 65, 68

SD-015-0006-001 C1 BA8H0 BA8D7 04/12/2012 0-6 tan, brown fine to 19.67 2,600 3.9 Trichloroethene 13 5.3 Ref. 5, pp. 29, 66; 50, p. 11; 

coarse sand, some 53, pp. 119-120, 275; 60, p. 

pebbles, little 

clay, little silt Tetrachloroethene 410 J (unknown 

bias)

41 5.3 13; 61, pp. 8, 12; 62, p. 1; 74, 

p. 71

SD-017-0006-001 D2 BA8H2 BA8D7 4/12/2012 0-4 dark brown 15.5 3,700 2.7 Trichloroethene 91 6.6 Ref. 5, pp. 27, 29, 68; 50, p. 

medium sand and 11; 53, pp. 135-136, 278; 60, 

some fine gravel Tetrachloroethene 6000 380 p. 14; 74, pp. 80, 83

SD-018-0006-001 D1 BA8H3 BA8D7 4/12/2012 0-5 medium brown 70.84 64,000 4.7 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 230 J (low bias) 230 31 Ref. 5, pp. 28-29, 69; 50, p. 

sand abundent 

organic matter Trichloroethene 1000 J (low bias) 1000 31 12; 53, pp. 143-144, 279; 60, p. 15; 61, pp. 8, 12; 62, p. 1; 

Tetrachloroethene 11000 J (unknown 1100 31 74, pp. 85-86

bias)

% Fines = sum of the percentage of silt and the percentage of clay particles [Ref. 60, pp. 8, 10-19]

The Reporting Detection Limit is equivalent to the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL) as described in the HRS [Ref. 1, pp. 51585-51586, 51589, Table 2-3; 53, p. 266, 270-275, 278-279; 55, p. 288, 290-291, 293-294; 62, p. 1].

The Volatile Organic sample analyses were performed according to USEPA Method SOM1.2/Low Volatiles, and the current SOP HW-33/VOA (Revision 1) August 2007, USEPA Region II Data Validation SOP has been applied 

[Ref. 53, pp. 2-7; 74, pp. 1-21]. 

The Volatile Organic sample analyses were performed according to USEPA Method SOM1.2/Low Volatiles, and the current SOP HW-33 (Revision 1) August 2007, USEPA Region II Data Validation SOP has been applied [Ref. 55, 

pp. 136-141; 73, pp. 1-9].

* Determinations regarding the type of bias associated with estimated results were made by a chemist and the estimated results were adjusted for bias in accordance with "Using Qualified Data to Document and Observed Release and 

Observed Contamination" [Ref. 61, pp. 4-8, 14, 16, 18; 62, p. 1]

TABLE 3B - OBSERVED RELEASE TO SURFACE WATER IN-WATER SEGMENT

SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 2012

MATLACK INC HRS

48
GWSW/Environment-Likelihood of Release

Additional Supporting Documentation 

From April 9-16, 2012, Weston Solutions Inc collected aqueous and sediment samples from the stream and 

seeps of Grand Sprute Run [Ref. 5, pp. 5, 13-24]. The sample locations were divided into two groups: stream 

bed sample locations from the eastern bank of Grand Sprute Run and seep sample locations from the seep 

locations adjacent to Grand Sprute Run [Ref. 50, p. 5]. Ground water migrating from beneath the source was 

observed to be discharging to the eastern banks of Grand Sprute Run via seep locations; six discrete seeps were 

identified and designated as “Seep A through Seep F” [Ref. 5, pp. 8-11; 50, p. 5; 59, pp. 4, 5]. In addition, pore 

water samples were collected from beneath the Grand Sprute Run [Ref. 50, p. 5]. The aqueous samples 

collected from seeps (i.e., water before discharge into the creek) are considered representative of ground water 

conditions of the uppermost aquifer; the sediment sample locations were collected either within the in-water 

segment of Grand Sprute Run or within HRS-eligible wetlands contiguous to perennially flowing water and

therefore considered part of the in-water segment [Ref. 1, p. 51605, Section 4.0.2; 5, pp. 56-59, 62-66, 68-69, 71, 

73-74, 76; 50, pp. 8-14]. Aqueous seep samples collected along “Seeps B, C, D, E, and F” can be compared to 

aqueous seep samples collected from “Seep A”, which is located up gradient and upstream of the other seeps; the 

observed release to the uppermost aquifer was previously documented [see Section 3.1.1] [Ref. 5, p. 76; 27, 

Figure 2; 50, p. 14; 51, pp. 70-71, 77, 144; 53, pp. 245-246; 55, pp. 26-29, 36-37, 49-50, 55-56, 68-69]. 

Aqueous seep sample results supporting observed release conditions of cis,1-2-DCE, TCE and PCE are 

presented in Table 3C. The locations of seeps sampled in April 2012 can be seen on Figure 2.

At seep locations, seep water and sediment samples were collected along transect lines heading from the stream 

bed to the beginning of the seep where the initial (most eastward) expression of seep water was observed in the 

following order: first the aqueous sample then the sediment sample [Ref. 5, pp. 52-80; 50, p. 5]. 

Sediment samples collected from the seeps adjacent to the eastern bank of Grand Sprute Run exhibit releases of 

cis-1,2-DCE, TCE and PCE [See Table 3A and Figure 2]. Sediment samples collected from at least one point 

along “Seeps B, C, D, E, and F” and the sediment sample location E3, collected along the eastern bank of Grand 

Sprute Run were compared to background locations represented by “Seep A” (sample locations A1 and A2), 

which are located up gradient and upstream of comparable stream and seep locations [Ref. 5, pp. 56, 61-66, 

68-69, 74-76, 79-80; 27, Figure 2; 50, pp. 8, 10-15; 53, pp. 59, 90-91, 96-97, 102-105, 110-111, 119-120, 

135-136, 143-144; 55, pp. 166-167, 188-189, 197-198, 212-213, 220-221]. 

49
Sample 

Number

Sample 

Location

CLP 

Number

Sample 

Delivery 

Group

Date Substance Results 

(ug/L) Qualifier

Reporting 

Detection 

Limit

References

Background

SW-024-001 A1 BA8K7 BA8J3 4/13/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.5

0.5

0.5

U

U

U

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 32-34, 76; 50, p. 

14; 53, pp. 245-246, 331-

332; 70, pp. 35-36

RELEASE

SW-005-001 F4 BA8E2 BA8D4 4/11/2012 Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

0.85

5.1

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 22, 24, 56; 50, p. 

8; 51, p. 70-71, 173; 71, pp. 

36-37

SW-006-001 F3 BA8E3 BA8D4 4/11/2012 Tetrachloroethene 0.97 0.5 Ref. 5, pp. 22-24, 57; 50, p. 

8; 51, p. 77, 173-174; 71, p. 

40

SW-011-001 C3 BA8G3 BA8D4 4/12/2012 Tetrachloroethene 4.9 0.5 Ref. 5, pp. 29, 62; 50, p. 10; 

51, p. 144, 182-183; 71, p. 

73

SW-023-001 B1 BA8K4 BA8J3 4/13/2012 Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

1.7

5.1

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 32, 34, 74; 50, p. 

13; 53, pp. 239-240, 330-

331; 70, pp. 32-33

SW-012-001 C2 BA8G5 BA8G5 4/12/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

1.8

1.2

9.3

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 29, 63; 50, p. 10; 

55, pp. 26-27, 245; 72, pp. 

17-18

SW-013-001 E2 BA8G7 BA8G5 4/12/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

15

10

56

0.5

0.5

0.5

Ref. 5, pp. 26-27, 29, 64; 50, 

p. 10; 55, pp. 28-29, 245-

246; 72, pp. 20-21, 23-24

SW-014-001 E1 BA8H4 BA8G5 4/12/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

29

49

340

18

18

18

Ref. 5, pp. 29, 65; 50, p. 11; 

55, p. 36-37, 247; 72, pp. 26-

27

TABLE 3C SEEP WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 2012

MATLACK INC HRS

50
Sample 

Number

Sample 

Location

CLP 

Number

Sample 

Delivery 

Group

Date Substance Results 

(ug/L) Qualifier

Reporting 

Detection 

Limit

References

SW-015-001 C1 BA8H5 BA8G5 4/12/2012 Trichloroethene 7.3 6.3 Ref. 5, pp. 29, 66; 50, p. 11; 

Tetrachloroethene 160 6.3 55, pp. 45-46, 248; 72, pp. 

29-30

SW-017-001 D2 BA8H7 BA8G5 4/12/2012 Trichloroethene 150 83 Ref. 5, pp. 27, 29, 68; 50, p. 

Tetrachloroethene 1700 83 11; 55, pp. 55-56, 249-250; 

72, pp. 35-36

SW-018-001 D1 BA8H8 BA8G5 4/12/2012 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 80 21 Ref. 5, pp. 27-29, 69; 50, p. 

Trichloroethene 83 21 12; 55, pp. 68-69, 250-251; 

Tetrachloroethene 360 21 72, pp. 38-39

U - Non-detect [Ref. 53, p. 176]

The Reporting Detection Limit is equivalent to the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL) as described in the HRS [Ref. 1, pp. 51585-51586, 

51589, Table 2-3; 51, pp. 173-174; 53, pp. 331-332; 55, pp. 245-248, 250-251; 62, p. 1].

The Volatile Organic sample analyses were performed according to USEPA Method SOM1.2/Trace Volatiles, and the current SOP HW-34 

(Revision 1) August 2007, USEPA Region II Data Validation SOP has been applied [Ref. 51, pp. 2-6; 53, pp. 176-181; 55, pp. 2-7; 70, pp. 

1-7; 71, pp. 1-14; 72, pp. 1-16].

TABLE 3C SEEP WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 2012

MATLACK INC HRS

51
Attribution

Matlack was in the business of transporting mostly liquid chemicals in tank trailers (“tankers”) [Ref. 11, pp. 18, 

27; 15, p. 3; 16, p. 1]. Historic operations included tanker washing, truck maintenance, parking, and 

dispatching [Ref. 28, p. 11]. Truck and tanker washing activities included purging tanks of residual material, 

and rinsing the tanker interiors with one or more of the following: steam and detergent water solution, mild 

caustic or acid solution, or organic solvent solution [Ref. 11, pp. 3, 289, 294; 28, p. 11; 44, p. 1]. Solvents used 

in the cleaning process included TCE and PCE [Ref. 28, p. 11; 33, pp. 1, 6, 10]. The tanker cleaning operations 

generated approximately 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of wastewater per working day [Ref. 11, p. 265; 21, p. 2; 22, 

pp. 5, 6, 20]. The wastewaters associated with this process were discharged into an unlined lagoon (Source 1) 

located south and west of the terminal building [Ref. 9, p. 2; 11, pp. 4, 8, 265; 22, pp. 5, 6; 28, p. 11]. The 

unlined lagoon, a former sand and gravel borrow pit, was 12 to 15 feet deep and intersected the water table [Ref. 

11, pp. 4, 8; 12, p. 16; 24. pp. 3-5, 16-21, 27; 33, p. 2]. Therefore, EPA maintains that the liquid contents of the 

unlined lagoon discharged along the north/northwesterly direction of ground water flow toward Grand Sprute 

Run via channel-like depressions incised into Woodbury Clay prior to the deposition of the Pensauken

Formation [Ref. 10, pp. 10; 11, pp. 4, 8; 59, pp. 1, 4-5].

As consistent with historic sample analyses, the surface water and sediment sampled in April 2012 confirm the 

presence of cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride at observed release conditions in Grand Sprute Run and 

the adjacent wetlands downstream of the PPE associated with Source 1 when compared to similar background 

[Tables 3A and 3B; Ref. 5, pp. 52-55, 60-61, 67, 75, 77, 79-80; 27, Figure 2; 51, pp. 28, 48-49, 59-60, 100-101, 

112-113, 125-126; 53, pp. 214-215, 327-328; 55, pp. 49-50, 86, 110-111, 113-114]. TCE and PCE are not 

thought to occur naturally in the environment and are found in ground water as a result of use and or disposal of 

the chemicals [Ref. 65, p. 1; 66, p. 1]. 

A review of State and Federal environmental databases indicates that there are no known additional sources of 

cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE, or vinyl chloride in the vicinity of the Matlack facility [Ref. 43, pp. 29-38]. There are 

two facilities at equal or higher elevations in relation to the Matlack facility that are listed as “known 

contaminated sites in NJ”; however, these facilities are associated with unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel tanks 

[Ref. 43, pp. 32, 34, 65-66, 68-69]. There are two businesses, Venezia Transport and Interstate Aerials located 

approximately 2,000 feet south-southwest of the Matlack facility; these businesses are located downstream of 

the zone of contamination associated with Source 1 and neither business is listed in the State and Federal 

environmental database [Ref. 27, Figure 2; 28, p. 109; 43, p. 32]. A third business, Excel Hydraulics, located 

approximately 1,000 feet north of Source 1, is not listed in the State and Federal environmental database 

reviewed [Ref. 28, p. 109; 43, p. 32] 

Hazardous Substances Meeting the Criteria for Observed Release by Chemical Analysis:

cis-1,2-DCE

PCE

TCE

Vinyl Chloride 

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

Observed Release Factor Value: 550

52
GWSW/Environment-Toxicity/Mobility/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

4.2.4.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.2.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/Mobility/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous 

Substance

Source Ecosystem 

Toxicity 

Factor 

Value

Mobility 

Factor 

Value

Persistence 

Factor Value

Bioaccumulation 

Factor Value

(Section 

4.1.3.2.1.2)

Ecosystem 

Toxicity/ 

Persistence/ 

Mobility/

Bioaccumulation 

Factor Value 

(Table 4-30) 

1,1-DCA 1, OR 0 1 0.4 5 0

Cis-1,2 DCE 1, OR 0 1 0.4 5 0

PCBs 1 10,000 2 x 10-7 1 50,000 350

Styrene 1 100 0.01 0.4 50 20

PCE 1, OR 0 1 0.4 50 0

TCE 1, OR 100 1 0.4 50 2,000

Vinyl Chloride 1 0 1 0.0007 5 0

Mercury 1 10,000 0.01 0.4 50,000 2,000,000

[Ref. 1, pp. 51638-51643, Tables 4-29 and 4-30; 2, pp. 5-20] 

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

Ecosystem Toxicity/Mobility/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 106

53
GWSW/Environment-Hazardous Waste Quantity

4.2.4.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Hazardous Is source hazardous

Waste Quantity constituent quantity

Source Number Value (Section 2.4.2.1.5.) data complete? (yes/no)

1 18,921 no

Sum of values: 18,921 (rounded to the nearest integer as specified in HRS Section 2.4.2.2)

The sum corresponds to a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 in Table 2-6 of the HRS [Ref. 1, 

Table 2-6, p. 51591]. Therefore, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 is assigned for the surface 

water pathway [Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2, pp. 51591, 51592]. 

 

4.2.4.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

One hazardous substance (mercury) associated with the waste source, which has ground water to surface water 

pathway containment factor greater than 0 for the watershed, corresponds to an ecosystem 

toxicity/mobility/persistence factor value of 40 and ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value of 50,000, 

as shown previously [Ref. 1, Section 4.2.4.2.3; 2, pp. 7, 20] 

(Ecosystem toxicity/mobility/persistence factor value) x (hazardous waste quantity factor value) =

40 x 10,000 = 4 x 105 [Ref. 1, p. 51644, Section 4.2.4.2.3] 

(Ecosystem toxicity/mobility/persistence factor value x hazardous waste quantity factor value) x 

(bioaccumulation potential factor value) = (4 x 105

) x (50,000) = 2 x 1010 [Ref. 1, p. 51644, Section 4.2.4.2.3] 

The product corresponds to a waste characteristics factor category value of 320 in Table 2-7 of the HRS [Ref. 1, 

Table 2-7, Sections 2.4.3 and 4.2.4.2.3, pp. 51592, 51644].

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

Ecosystem Toxicity/Mobility/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 106 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320

54
GWSW/Environment-Targets

4.2.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT – TARGETS

As described in Section 4.2.1.3 and presented in Tables 3A and 3B, an observed release to the in-water segment 

is documented. The observed release data are used to establish Level II concentrations as shown below.

Grand Sprute Run is a New Jersey Natural Heritage Priority Site (i.e., a State-designated Natural Area) and 

habitat known to be used by a New Jersey endangered species, the Bald Eagle [Ref. 1, p. 51624; 27, Figure 2; 42, 

p. 1]. In addition, 2,068 feet (0.4 mile) of HRS-eligible wetlands are located along Grand Sprute Run within the 

portion of Grand Sprute Run subject to actual contamination [Ref. 45, pp. 1-4]. Therefore, actual 

contamination is documented, and the target sensitive environments are evaluated for actual contamination. 

There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment and there are no established environmental benchmarks 

for the contaminants documented in the observed release, so the target sensitive environments are subject to 

Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, Section 2.5, pp. 51592-51593, Table 4-22 and Section 4.1.4.3.1, pp. 

51624-51625].

Level I Concentrations

There are no Level I concentrations; therefore the Level I concentration factor value is 0.

Most Distant Level II Sample

Sample ID: GSR-DST-1 

Distance from the probable point of entry: over 1,628 feet (zone of actual contamination = 1,628 feet)

Reference: 27, Figure 2; 38, p. 1

 

55
GWSW/Environment-Level I/Level II Concentrations

4.2.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments

4.2.4.3.1.1. Level I Concentrations

There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment and there are no established environmental benchmarks 

for the contaminants documented in the observed release [Ref. 1, Table 4-22, Section 4.1.4.3.1, Ref. 2, pp. 

12-15]. Therefore, there are no sensitive environments subject to Level I concentrations and the Level I 

concentrations factor value is 0 [Ref. 1, Table 4-22, Section 4.1.4.3.1, pp. 51592-51593, 51624-51625]. 

4.2.4.3.1.2. Level II Concentrations

Sensitive Environments

Grand Sprute Run is a New Jersey Natural Heritage Priority Site (i.e., a State-designated Natural Area) and 

habitat known to be used by a New Jersey endangered species, the Bald Eagle [Ref. 1, p. 51624; 27, Figure 2; 42, 

pp. 1-10]. Therefore, actual contamination is documented, and the target sensitive environments are evaluated 

for actual contamination, within the zone of actual contamination. 

Distance from Probable

Point of Entry to Nearest Sensitive

Point of Sensitive Environment

Sensitive Environment Environment Reference Value(s) 

Bald Eagle Habitat 0.0 42, pp. 1-10 50

Natural Heritage Priority Site 0.0 42, pp. 1-10 25 

Sum of Sensitive Environments Value: 75

Wetlands

HRS-eligible wetlands (0.4 mile) are located along Grand Sprute Run within the zone of actual contamination, 

according to Table 4-24 this length of wetlands is assigned a value of 25 [Ref. 1, p. 51625; 45, pp. 1-4; 46, p. 1].

Wetland Wetland Frontage Reference

Grand Sprute Run Wetlands 

within the Zone of Actual Contamination 0.4 mile 1, p. 51625; 27, Figure 2; 45, 

pp. 1-4 

Wetland Value: 25

Sum of Sensitive Environments Value + Wetland Value: 100

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

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 100

56
GWSW/Environment-Potential Contamination

4.2.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination

There are targets subject to potential contamination associated with the surface water bodies downstream of the 

zone of contamination (Grand Sprute Run, Raccoon Creek, and Delaware River) and within the TDL, including 

HRS-eligible wetlands and a federally-listed endangered species; however the dilution weights are such that the

potential contamination factor value does not contribute significantly to the pathway score [Ref. 27, Figure 4]. 

Therefore, potential contamination is not scored.

Sum of Aj(Wj + Sj): Not Scored

(Sum of Aj(Wj + Sj))/10: Not Scored

 

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

Potential Contamination Factor Value: Not Scored

57