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, Comp onents, or Threats Not Scored:

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component : T he s urface w ater o verland/ f lood m igration c omponent is not scored for Matlack, Inc

. The g round w ater to s urface w ater m igration c omponent, e nvironmental t hreat 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 s oil e xposure p ath way; there is no documentation of areas of observed contamination within 2 feet of the ground surface. The s oil e xposure p athway is not scored [Ref. 5, 10, 12, 23, 24, 25, 28, 48]

Air: No samples were collected to characterize the a ir m igration p athway; there is no documentation of an observed release to air . The a ir m igration p athway 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 genera l 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 : 45.54WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE MATLACK, INC.

S S 2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) 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 6 0.00 3, 600.00 (from Table 4

- 25, line 28)

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S sw ) 6 0.00 3, 600.00 Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S s ) Not Scored (from Table 5

- 1, line 22)

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S a ) Not Scored (from Table 6

- 1, line 12)

5. Total of S gw 2 + S sw 2 + S s 2 + S a 2 8, 299.1 0

6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 45.5 4GROUND 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 14 0

Waste Characteristics

4. Toxicity/Mobility * 10,000 5. Hazardous Waste Quantity * 10 ,00 0 6. Waste Characteristics 100 100

Targets

7. Nearest Well 50 2 0 8. Population 8a. Level I Concentrations ** 0 8b. Level II Concentrations ** 0 8c. Potential Contamination ** 37 4 8d. Population (lines 8a+8b+8c) ** 37 4 9. Resources 5 5 10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 5 11. Targets (lines 7+8d+9+10) ** 40 4 12. Aquifer Score (lines 3x6x11 divided by 82,500) *** 100 68.55

13. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) (highe st 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.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. Poten tial to Release 2a. Containment 2b. Net Precipitation 2c. Depth t o 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 8 a. Level I Concentrations 8 b. Level II Concentrations 8 c. Potential Contamination 8 d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8 c) 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 applicableGROUND 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 . Likel ihood 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 17 a. Level I Concentrations 17 b. Level II Concentrations 17 c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination 17 d. Population (lines 17a + 17b + 17 c)

18. Targets (lines 16 + 17 d) 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 applicableGROUND 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 . Likel ihood of Release (same as line 3 ) 550 550

Waste Characteristics

21 . Ecosystem Toxicity/ Mobility/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation 22 . Hazardous Waste Quantity 23 . Waste Characteristics *

* 1,000 2.0E+0 6

10 ,0 00

320

Targets

24 . Sensitive Environments 24 a. Level I Concentrations 24 b. Level II Concentrations 24 c. Potential Contamination 24 d. Sensitive Environments (lines 24a + 24b + 24 c)

25. Targets ( value from line 24 d) **

**

**

**

** 0 100 not scored 100

10 0

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 6 0.00

SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE (S sw ) 100 6 0.00

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

** Maximum value not applicable

*** Do not round to the nearest integerREFERENCES

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 Dat a 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 , 20 12. [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: Matla ck . 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 M at lack, 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 page s]

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 Matl ack, 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. [17 2 pages]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, Sta te 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 Hy drogeologic 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 Disposa l 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, Elean or, NJDEP. Memo to Thomas W. Downey, Subject: Matlack, Inc. AO/NOCP (Inspection 10/23/87) FNOV 4/28/88 . April 29, 1988. [2 pages]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 3 A
, 4- Mile Radius Map, Matlack, Inc. May 2012; and Figure 4, 15

- Mile Surface Water Pathway Map , Matlack, Inc. May 2012. [4 map s]

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 E leanor 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 Inspectio n 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, Jam es 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 Calculation s , 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 Att achments 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]REFERENCES (continued)

Reference Number Description of the Reference

42. Capriglione, Michele, Weston Solutions, Inc. Project Note to Matlack Inc HRS Site File, Subject : Determina tion of sensitive environments associated with the Matlack Inc. Site

. June 11 , 2012 . [ 16 pages]

43. Environmental Data Resources (EDR). Histor ical 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 Cat e gories 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 page s]

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 D avila, 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]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, Dia ne , 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 Asses s ment Case# 42434_SDG#BA8D7_SOMBNA_2012.DA.doc; Data Asses s ment Case# 42434_SDG#BA8J3_ SOMBNA_2012.DA.doc; Data Asses s ment Case#42434 SDG#BA8D7_ SOMVOA_2012.DA.doc; Data asse s sment 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: Attac hed 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]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 # B49W 0, 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 Professiona l , 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 Ino rganic 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 Botto m 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 pag es]

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. Ag ency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR ). Tetrachloroethylene, Cas # 127

- 18

- 4, ATSDR ToxFAQsTM . September 1997. [2 pages]REFERENCES (continued)

Reference Number Description of the Reference

67. Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Environm e ntal 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 Geo science. Digital Geodata Series DGS02

- 2 Well Head Protection Areas For Public Community Water Suppl y 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, L aboratory 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 She ets. 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 Packag e, SDG: 127665

. October 16 2008. [ 197 pages]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 occupi ed the northern portion of a Woolwich Township parcel (Block 6, Lot 5) in

ru ral surro undings [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.

Operati ons at the Swedesboro t erminal 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), tetrachloroeth yl ene (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 w est 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

, wastewater s were transported off

- facility for disposal [R ef. 28, p. 11]. Prior to disposal

, the wastewater s were pre

- treated and stored in two 18,000

- gallon open

- top, in -g round concrete tanks [Ref. 11, pp. 237, 295

- 296; 33, p. 3; 39, p. 1; 40, p. 3]

. Matlack

, Inc. discontinued tanker cleaning operations in Nov ember 1 997, but continued to service and store vehicles at t he facility until 2001 when Matlack, Inc ceased operations and submitted a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy [Re f. 17, p. 4; 18, pp. 2, 3, 6; 19, pp. 1, 3 ; 28, p. 11]. *Both 1962 and 1963 are c ited 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 t he 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 fram ework 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].FIGURE #: DATE: CLIENT NAME: PROJECT: LEGEND: TITLE: 

# ! ( Site Reference Point

0 2,000 4,000 1,000

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 1MW-15MW-24Terminal BuildingSite Reference PointGrand Sprute RunPZ-2Shortest Distance Line ForProbable Point of Entry (PPE)U2T2A4A5C5B2C2B3MW-6MW-22MW-10MW-05C3C4C2C1B1A2D1D2E1D3E2E3F3F4F5GSR-MID-2GSR-BKG-1GSR-DST-3GSR-DST-2GSR-DST-1GSR-BKG-2 FIGURE #: DRAWING NUMBER: CLIENT NAME:

PROJECT:

LEGEND: TITLE: PROJECT MANAGER: SCALE: DATE:

DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: MATLACK, INC. USEPA MAY 2012 2

Study Area Map Matlack, Inc. Woolwich Township Gloucester County, NJ

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

1" = 200'

G. GILLILAND

M. CAPRIGLIONE

J. LYNES2000200400Graphic Scale In Feet1. 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 toApril13,2012.5. Based on March 28th and 29th, 2012 Wetland Delineation.Notes SEE MAPLegend!(Site Reference Point!(Approximate Soil Boring Location(1)")Sediment / Surface Water Sample Location(4)!<Monitoring Well Sample LocationZone of Contamination(4)Grand Sprute RunWetland Delineation Location(5)Wetland Delineation Location (Inferred)Approximate Source1 Boundary: Unlined LagoonFacility Boundary®17 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 act ion [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

- facil ity 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 t wo 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 r emoval 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 c eased [Ref. 1 8, pp . 2

- 3, 6 ].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 well s [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 sa mples [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 20 06 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 ba ckfilled 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 reveale d significant detections of cis

- 1,2 -d ichloroethene (cis

- 1,2

- DCE), PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride in monitoring wells located down gradient of Source 1, the former unlined lagoon [Ref. 2 8, 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 sign ificant 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 in dicated significant detections of VOCs and PCBs in the area of the former unlined lagoon [see S ection 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 o f cis

- 1,2

- DCE, PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride [Ref. 28, pp

. 18, 60

- 61 990, 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].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 loca ted on and in the vicinity of the Matlack property in order to confirm background and release conditions

. An observed release o f 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 S ection s 3.1.1 and 4.2.1.3] [Ref. 5, pp. 8- 110 ].SD

- Characterization and Containment

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 S OURCE C HARACTERIZA TION

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 , south west 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, p p . 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 ; 2 1, 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”) rep orted that the extent and loc ation of the former disposal pit , as well as the presence of water within it, are clearly visible in historica l aerial photographs of the property (from 1965, 19 70, 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 dis posal to the unlined lagoon ceased in 1976, wastewater, sludge and affected soil resulting from wastewater disposal were left in
p lace 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 la goon. *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 su bsurface 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 detect ed 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, p p. 7
, 16

- 21 ]. VOC and metals analyses were perfor med 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. 2 5, 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 201 1, N JDEP personnel conducted a “site visit” of Matla ck, 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. 119 0- 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.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. 4 3, p. 1 7]. The approximate location is s hown in Figure 2

.

Containment

Release to ground water :

T he lagoon was unlined; t herefore, 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; t herefore, 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 ].SD

- Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1

2.2.2 Hazardous Substances

Twenty

- four s oil 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]. T he presence of clay, was encountered in five borings at depths ranging between 12 and 25.9 feet bgs [Ref. 28, pp. 993, 999 -1 001, 1008, 1016, 1020]. T he t ar and black sta ined sands were encountered in five soil borin gs at depths ranging between 4.0 and 13.1 f eet bgs [R ef. 11, pp. 3, 265; 28, pp. 999, 1001, 1006

- 1007, 1012 ]. The a nalyses 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 -d ichloroethane, cis

- 1,2

- DCE
, TCE
, PCE , Aroclor

- 1242, Aroclor

- 1260
, and st yr ene at concentrations significantly above ba ckground soils; Table 1 show s samples that document background and observed release concentrations. While not required for scoring, b ackground soil

conc entrations were compared to source soil samples to identify the relative increase of con taminant 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 collec ted 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 : V isual descriptio ns 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 ) [Tabl e 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 dev ices [Table 1; Ref. 28 , pp. 1002

- 1003, 1006

- 1007, 1012, 1017, 1020, 1022 ].

• Samples were analyzed for VOA , BNA, Pesticides, and /or PCB analyse s 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 [R ef. 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; simil arly, the release samples range from 88

- 92.8 percent solids [Ref. 28 , pp. 1032

- 1034, 1036, 1048

- 1050, 1054

- 1055].

### Sample ID Date Depth Sample Description Percent Solids Substance Results ( μ g/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

### Sample ID Date Depth Sample Description Percent Solids Substance Results ( μ g/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 HRS25 SD

- Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Source No.: 1

2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Documentation indicating either th e 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 waste st ream 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 . T herefore, hazardous wastestream quantity is not scored (NS).

Hazardous Wa stestream 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 historica l aerial photographs of the property (from 1965, 19 70, 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 th e unlined lagoon was calculated to be 47,302 cubic yards ( yd 3 ) [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 (yd 3 ): 47,302 V olume (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 (ft 2 ): 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 fo r Tier C

- Volume [Ref. 1, p. 51591 , Table 2

- 5 ].

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Valu e: 18,9212.5 Other Possible Sources

Disposal Pits

A magnetometer survey in October 1984 revealed several location s with magnetic anomalies throughout the Matlack property; follow

- up test

- pit excavations in March 1986 id entified crushed drums and other debr is 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, an d 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 exc avations 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

ma in building [Ref. 28, p. 21 ; 63, p p . 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 -g allon 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 ou t 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 sam ple [Ref. 63, pp. 13, 20, 28, 285, 290, 324].

Residual Contaminated Soi l at the Former Wastewater Treatment Ta nks 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, 29 5- 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 ad ditional storage tanks were used [Ref. 11, p p. 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 ga llons of wastewater per day off

- facility for treatme nt and disposal [Ref. 11, pp. 1 8, 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 constituent s present in the rinsate are discharged to the tanks located on the facility [Ref. 44, p. 1 ]. In October 199 1, NJDEP found 1.0 ppm of TCE in a wastewater sample from one of Matlack’s tankers that had been dispatched from the Swedesboro t erminal [Ref. 40, p. 1 ].In July 2006, under direction of the NJDEP, three A STs (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* in dicated the presence of TCE, PCE, and Aroclor

- 1248 [Ref. 28, p p . 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 exca vation [Ref. 28, p p . 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 w alls 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 w ere 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 soi l 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

- ga llon 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), 1 191].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.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 hydrogeolog ic units beneath the Matlack property are, from shallowest to deepes t: Pensauken Formation, Woodbury Clay/Merchantville Formation, and undifferentiated Magothy

- Raritan Formations [Ref. 23, p. 8; 28, pp. 122 8- 1233]. The Pensauken Formation is a minor source of water for domestic use in Gloucester County [Ref. 23, pp. 8

- 9, 122 8- 1233; 58, pp. 1

- 4]. T he 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 pri ncipal water

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

- 9, 122 8- 1233; 58, pp. 1-4 ; 6 8 , 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. 5 1595, Section 3.0.1.2.1; 10, p. 10; 23, p. 17; 28, pp. 26, 156, 122 8- 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 Formati on [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) w ith varying amounts of gravel, silt, and clay. According to facility

- specific b oring 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 th e type of material in the Pensauken Formation (i.e., predominantly sand) is 10 -4 c entimeter 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

- tab le 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 -5GW

- 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 -7 B) 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 , t he 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 ; t here are no intervening layers between the formations

. The assigned hydraulic conductivity of th e type of material in th is continuo us 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 a quifer

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 midd le portion s of the aquifer

. The undifferentiated Magothy

- Raritan Formation (i.e., the PRM aquifer) in the county consist s 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 th e type of material in the aquifer (i.e., predominantly sand) is 10 -4 cm/s . Ground water flow in th e PRM aquifer is generally to the south

- southeast. There are numerous private and public drinking water wells withdrawing water from th e 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, 6 4- 65; 28, pp. 1227

- 1233 ; 58, pp. 7

- 15; 68, p p . 6
, 9 ; 76, pp. 1 , 19

- 20 , 24

- 25GW

- Observed Release

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

An observed release is documented by chemical analysis for the uppermost aquifer (the Pensauken Formation); however, the deepe r PRM aquifer is scored for likelihood of release because the ground water drinking water targets are associated with th e PRM aqui fer

.

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Observed Release by D irect 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, p p . 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 th e 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 det ections in upgradient wells (MW 10 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, p p . 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 s ampled 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
treatm ent 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 g round 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. 8 1-93 ]. 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 pr esence of cis

- 1,2

- DCE , PCE, TCE, a nd vinyl chloride at observed release conditions in monito ring 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; g round water elevations for backgr ound wells (MW05, MW10, and MW22) range from approximately 25 to 30 feet above mean sea level (amsl) [Ref. 5, p. 51; 59, p p . 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

.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 HRSAttribution

Matlack was in the business of transpor ting 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 or ganic solvent solution [Ref. 11, p p . 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 wast ewater per working day [Ref. 11, p. 265 ; 2 1, 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, 2 8, p. 11]. The unlined lagoon , a former sand and gravel borrow pit, was 12 to 15 feet deep and intersected the water table (Pensauken F ormation) [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 sam ple analyses, the monitoring wells sampled in April 2012 confirm the pr esence 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 Sour ce 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, lo cated 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 samp les collected from monitoring wells (MW

- 10, MW

- 22, MW

- 05) up gradient of Source 1 during the April 2012 sampling even t [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 compoun ds 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
t wo 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, 3 4, 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 1,0 0 0 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 ; t herefore, the observed release factor value for the ground water migration pathway is 0 and the ground water migration pathway score i s based on potential to release factors [Ref. 1, p. 51595, Section 3.0.1].

======= ==================== === ===== = ======================================== Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 0GW

- 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 th e 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 obs erved 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]. Theref ore, 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 eva luated . The layer with the lowest hydraulic conductivity from within th is interval is used to assign the t r avel time factor va lue . L ayers 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 th e 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., cla y) 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].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, pp. 45

- 46, 61 -65 Dark

- green

- gray 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: 140GW

- Toxici ty/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 , 2 0 Cis

- 1,2 DCE 1, OR 1,000 1 1,000 2, pp. 6 , 2 0 PCBs 1 10,000 2 x 10 - 7 0.02 2, p. 8 St y r ene 1 10 0.0 1 0. 1 2, pp. 8 , 2 0 PCE 1, OR 100 0.01 100 2, pp. 9, 2 0 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 , 2 0 Mercury 1 10,000 0.01 100 2, p p

. 7, 2 0

======================= ======================================================
Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000GW

- 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 1 0,000 in Table 2

- 6 of the HRS [Ref. 1, Table 2

- 6, p. 51591]. Therefore, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10 ,00 0 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 ha s ground water pathway containment factor greater than 0

, corresponds to a toxicity/mobility factor value of 10,000 , as shown previously [Ref. 1, Sect ion 3.2. pp. 516 01

- 51602 ; 2, pp. 11, 24].

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

= 10,000 x 10,000 = 1 x 10 8 [Ref. 1, Section 3.2, pp . 516 01

- 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. 516 02, Section 3.2.3 ].

====================================================== === ====================
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 100GW

- 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] . Therefo re, 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 with d rawing w ater 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 , with in 1⁄4 mile of Source 1 [Ref. 58, pp. 1

- 3, 5, 89

- 90]. Observed release of site

- attributable contaminants to nearby potable wells wa s not documented during sampling events conducted in May 2002, January and February 2003, and August 2008 [Ref. 28, pp. 1097 -1 121, 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 o f 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: 20GW

- 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. 516 03, Section 3.3.2 ].

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

3.3.2. 3 Level I I Concentrations

The Level I I concentrations factor value is 0 because there are no drinking water wells subject to Level I I concentrations [Ref. 1, p. 516 03, Section 3.3.2 ].

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

- 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 vi sited 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 15 5.61 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 pu rveyors 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 appor tioned 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 compr ise 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 Ne w 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]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 Dep artment 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 househo ld 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 Greenw ich 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 cont ribution 8,785 .14 people x 16% = 1,40 5.62 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 1 02 [Ref. 1, p. 51604, Table 3

- 12; 58, pp. 2, 3, 81

- 86]

1⁄2 - 1 Mile 15 5.61 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 M iles 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) 1,40 5.62 (Well 4 - East Greenwich Water Department) 6,58 6.95 (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: 374GW

- Resources / Wellhead Protection Area

3.3.3 RESOURCES

Th ere 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 com mercial 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 Fa ctor Value: 5

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ARE A

Source 1 does not lie within or above any designated W ellhead P rotection A reas , and the observed ground water contamination attributable to the source does not lie within or above any designated W ellhead P rotection A reas [Ref. 27, Figure 3A] . There are designated W ellhead P rotection A reas (designated in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act) applicable to the aquifer being evaluated (i.e., surround ing 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 Are a Factor Value: 5GWSW

- Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Pathway

4. 0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

4. 0.1 MIGRATION COMPONENTS

T he 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 G ENERAL 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 9 85 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 Pensau ken 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 in tercepted by Grand Sprute Run.

References : Ref. 10, pp. 22, 26

- 28 , 30 ; 23, pp. 8, 15

- 16; 28, pp. 26, 156, 294GWSW

- 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:

T he upper most 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 wate r discharge seeps along the eastern bank of Grand Sprute Run and have observed this surface expression of ground water flowing into Grand Sprute Run. G round water elevations of the water table aquifer (i.e., the top of the uppermost aquifer) at on

- facilit y monitoring wells ranges from 11.79 to 30.16 feet above mean sea level, using North American Vertical Datum (NAV D 29)

. As shown in Figure 1A, the USGS 7.5

- minute topographic map for the site location depicts elevation contours in fee t 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 M SL. 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 underl y ing Source 1 flows north

- northwest and discharges to Grand Sprute Ru n [Ref. 1 0, p p . 10 , 22, 30; 59, pp. 1, 4 -5]

. Grand Sprute Run is located to the north and west of the Matlack property [Ref. 27, Figure s 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 , 10 3- 10 6 ]. 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 dista nce from the sources to the surface water [Ref. 1, p. 51626; 27, Figure 2]. The sh ortest 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, Fig ure 4].

The distance to surface water from Source 1 is 985 feet as described in Section 4.2.1 .1.

Dilution Wei ght Adjustment

Dilution weights are not calculated because the inclusion of potential contamination of sensitive environments does not contribute significantly to the site score.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 establishe d 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 obs erved release conditions present in the upper most 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 av ailable), 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 perenn ial

sur face water) are representative of the surface water in

- water segment.

The VOC fraction of a ll sediment samples were collected using dedicated EnCore sampling devices [Ref. 50, p. 5]. All sediment and aqueous samples were designated for analysis fo r 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 Regio n 2 DESA laboratory [Ref. 50, p p . 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 documen ted 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 loca tions 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

se gment [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 220,0 0 0 mg/kg) [Ref . 50, p p . 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.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 HRSSample 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 HRSSample 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 HRSGWSW /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 S prute 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 grou nd 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 i n- 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 support ing 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 g radient 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].

### 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

### 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 HRSAttribution

Matlack was in the business of transpor ting 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 detergen t water solution, mild caustic or acid solution, or organic solvent solution [Ref. 11, p p . 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 ; 2 1, 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 term inal 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]. Th erefore, 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 Pen sauken 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 condi tions 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 r eview 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 e levations 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 Federa l 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 Chlorid e

======================================================================== ===== Observed Release Factor Value: 550GWSW/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 St yr ene 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, p p . 5163 8- 51643, Table s 4- 29 and 4

- 30 ; 2, pp. 5

- 20 ]

================================================================= === =========
Ecosystem Toxicity/Mobility/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 10 6GWSW/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 1 0,000 in Table 2

- 6 of the HRS [Ref. 1, Table 2

- 6, p. 51591]. Therefore, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10 ,00 0 is assigned for the s urface water pathway [ Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2, pp . 51 591 , 51592 ]

.

4.2.4.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

One hazardous substance ( mercury ) associated with the waste source , which ha s ground water to surface water pathway containment factor greater than 0 for the watershed

, corresponds to an e co system toxicity/ m obility/ p ersistence f actor v alue of 40 and ecosystem b ioaccumulation p otential f actor v alue of 50,000, as shown previously [Ref. 1, Section 4.2.4.2.3 ; 2, pp. 7, 20 ]

(Eco system toxicity/mobility/ persistence factor value) x (hazardous waste quantity factor value) = 40 x 1 0,000 = 4 x 10 5 [Ref. 1, p. 516 44 , 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 10 5 ) x (50,000) = 2 x 10 10 [Ref. 1, p. 516 44 , Section 4.2.4.2.3 ]

The product corresponds to a waste characteristics factor category value of 32 0 in Table 2

- 7 of the HRS [Ref. 1, Table 2

- 7, Sections 2.4.3 and 4.2.4.2.3, pp. 51592, 516 44 ].

================================================================= === ========= Ecosystem Toxicity/ Mobility/P ersistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 10 6 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320GWSW/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 a long Grand Sprute Run within the portion of Gran d Sprute Run subject to actual contamination [Ref. 45, pp. 1 -4 ]. Therefore, a ctual

c ontamination is documented, and the target sensitive environment s are evaluated for a ctual c ontamination. 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 sensitiv e environment s 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. 5162 4- 5162 5].

Level I Concentrations

There are no L evel I concentrations; therefore the L evel 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. 1GWSW/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 rel ease [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 t he Level I

c oncentrations f actor v alue is 0 [ Ref. 1, Table 4

- 22, Section 4.1.4.3.1, pp. 51592

- 51593, 5162 4- 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 B ald Eagle [Ref. 1, p. 51624; 27, Figure 2; 42,
pp . 1

- 10 ]. Therefore, a ctual c ontamination is documented, and the target sensitive environment s are evaluat ed for a ctual c ontamination , 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, p p. 1

- 10 50 Natural Heritage Priority Site 0.0 42, p p . 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

, a ccording 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: 100GWSW/Env ironment

- Potential Contamination

4.2.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination

The re 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 Ri ver ) 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 A j (W j + S j ): Not Scored (Sum of A j (W j + S j ))/10: Not Scored

====================================================================== ====== Potential Contamination Factor Value: Not Scored