U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

GROUND-WATER FLOW AND DISTRIBUTION OF 

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, RUTGERS 

UNIVERSITY BUSCH CAMPUS AND VICINITY, 

PISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4256

A

Prepared in cooperation with

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

science 

USGS

for a changing world
GROUND-WATER FLOW AND DISTRIBUTION OF 

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, RUTGERS 

UNIVERSITY BUSCH CAMPUS AND VICINITY, 

PISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

By Jean C. Lewis-Brown and Vincent T. dePaul

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4256

Prepared in cooperation with

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

West Trenton, New Jersey 

2000

ZUSGS

science for a changing world
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Charles G. Groat, Director

For additional information Copies of this report can be

write to: purchased from:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey

U.S Geological Survey Branch of Information Services

Mountain View Office Park Box 25286

810 Bear Tavern Road Denver, CO 80225-0286

West Trenton, NJ 08628
CONTENTS

Page 

Abstract.............................................................................................................................; ..............l

Introduction......................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and scope................................................................................................................3

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................3

Methods of data collection...............................................................................................................3

Geologic coring....................................................................................................................3

Borehole geophysical logging..............................................................................................3

Well installation ...................................................................................................................7

Measurement of water levels and streamflow......................................................................9

Aquifer testing.....................................................................................................................9

Collection and analysis of water-quality samples..............................................................10

Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................11

Geologic setting.................................................................................................................11

Hydrogeologic framework.................................................................................................11

Estimates of hydraulic properties.......................................................................................14

Ground-water flow.........................................................................................................................16

Conceptual model.............................................................................................................. 16

Simulated ground-water flow system.................................................................................18

Description of digital model..................................................................................18

Model area and grid ...................................................................................18

Model boundaries.......................................................................................22

Assumptions, limitations, and appropriate uses of the model ...................22

Model calibration...................................................................................................25

Hydraulic parameters.................................................................................25

Areal recharge................................................................................25

Transmissivity................................................................................26

Vertical hydraulic conductivity and vertical leakance ...................27

Streambed hydraulic conductance .................................................28

Specific yield and storage coefficient ............................................29

Pumpage.........................................................................................29

Calibration criteria.....................................................................................29

Simulated ground-water budget.............................................................................31

Ground-water quality and distribution of volatile organic compounds.........................................31

Ground-water quality.........................................................................................................31

Quality assurance procedures ............................................................................................33

Distribution of volatile organic compounds ......................................................................33

Carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene........................................................33

Other volatile organic compounds .........................................................................34

Relation of distribution of contaminants to ground-water flow paths ...................35

Carbon tetrachloride...................................................................................36

Tetrachloroethylene....................................................................................40

Summary and conclusions .............................................................................................................46

References cited.............................................................................................................................50

in
ILLUSTRATIONS

Page 

Figure 1. Map showing location of the study area, Rutgers University Busch Campus

and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey ..................................................4

2. Map showing location of wells and coreholes in the study area.................................5

3. Generalized section along dip of bedding showing transmissivity measured at

wells and interpreted location of hydrogeologic units in the study area.............13

4. Map of area of ground-water flow model showing horizontal discretization and

lines of hydrogeologic section............................................................................19

5. Section B-B' along strike of bedding showing interpreted hydrogeologic framework in the study area and assumed framework outside the study area in 

the area of the ground-water flow model ............................................................20

6. Section C-C' along dip of bedding showing interpreted hydrogeologic framework in the study area and assumed framework outside the study area in 

the area of the ground-water flow model ............................................................21

7. Section C-C' showing vertical discretization of ground-water flow model ............23

8. Simulated ground-water budget................................................................................32

9. Map showing concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected 

from wells in 1995 and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed 

carbon tetrachloride source area under steady-state conditions with no 

pumpage from the irrigation well .......................................................................37

10. Map showing concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected 

from wells in 1995 and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed 

carbon tetrachloride source area under steady-state conditions with average 

annual pumpage from the irrigation well............................................................38

11. Map showing concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected 

from wells in 1995 and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed 

carbon tetrachloride source area under steady-state conditions with maximum 

pumpage from the irrigation well .......................................................................39

12. Section A-A' showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of carbon

tetrachloride in water samples collected from wells in 1995, and simulated 

area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area under steady-state conditions with no pumpage from 

the irrigation well................................................................................................41

13. Section A-A' showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of carbon

tetrachloride in water samples collected from wells in 1995, and simulated 

area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area under steady-state conditions with both average 

annual and maximum pumpage from the irrigation well....................................42

14. Map showing concentration of tetrachloroethylene in water samples collected 

from wells in 1995 and simulated ground-water flow paths from the 

assumed tetrachloroethylene source area under steady-state conditions 

with no pumpage from the irrigation well ..........................................................43

IV
ILLUSTRATIONS-Continued

Page

Figure 15. Map showing concentration of tetrachloroethylene in water samples collected 

from wells in 1995 and simulated ground-water flow paths from the 

assumed tetrachloroethylene source area under steady-state conditions 

with average annual pumpage from the irrigation well ......................................44

16. Map showing concentration of tetrachloroethylene in water samples collected 

from wells in 1995 and simulated ground-water flow paths from the 

assumed tetrachloroethylene source area under steady-state conditions 

with maximum pumpage from the irrigation well ..............................................45

17. Section A-A' showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of

tetrachloroethylene in water samples collected from wells in 1995, and 

simulated area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed 

tetrachloroethylene source area under steady-state conditions with no 

pumpage from the irrigation well .......................................................................47

18. Section A-A showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of

tetrachloroethylene in water samples collected from wells in 1995, and 

simulated area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed 

tetrachloroethylene source area under steady-state conditions with both 

average annual and maximum pumpage from the irrigation well ......................48

TABLES

Table 1. Borehole geophysical logs collected in wells and coreholes at the Rutgers

University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey ..........6

2. Construction information for wells and piezometers at the Rutgers University

Busch Campus and vicinity .....................................................................................8

3. Transmissivity and horizontal hydraulic conductivity at selected wells, Rutgers

University Busch Campus and vicinity..................................................................15

4. Transmissivity in the weathered zone, water-bearing units, and confining units,

Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity....................................................16

5. Hydraulic parameters used in digital model of ground-water flow, Rutgers

University Busch Campus and vicinity..................................................................25

6. Measured and simulated water levels on October 28, 1996, and drawdown on 

October 29, 1996, in wells in the study area, Rutgers University Busch 

Campus and vicinity ..............................................................................................30

7. Concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds in, and chemical and

physical properties of, water samples from wells, Rutgers University Busch 

Campus and vicinity, 1993-96 ...............................................................................52
APPENDIXES

Page

Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity,

Piscataway Township, New Jersey, 1992-96 ......................................................56

2. Volatile organic compounds determined in ground-water samples, Rutgers

University Busch Campus and vicinity...............................................................63

3. Selected chemical constituents in ground-water samples collected at the

Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, 1993-94..................................64

4. Maximum contaminant levels for selected organic compounds and inorganic 

constituents, New Jersey.....................................................................................66

5. Results of analyses of quality-assurance blank samples for selected organic

compounds, 1993-96...........................................................................................67

VI
CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND 

ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS

Multiply

inch 

foot (ft) 

mile (mi)

square foot (ft2) 

square mile (mi2)

gallon (gal) 

gallon (gal) 

million gallons (Mgal) 

cubic foot (ft3)

foot per day (ft/d) 

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 

gallon per minute (gal/min) 

million gallons per day (Mgal/d)

degree Fahrenheit (°F)

foot per day (ft/d)

By

Length

25.4

0.3048

1.609

To obtain

millimeter

meter

kilometer

Area

0.09294

2.590

Volume

3.785

0.003785

3,785

0.02832

Flow

0.3048

0.02832

0.06308

0.04381

Temperature 

°C = 5/9 x (°F-32)

Hydraulic conductivity 

0.3048

square meter 

square kilometer

liter

cubic meter 

cubic meter 

cubic meter

meter per day 

cubic meter per second 

liter per second 

cubic meter per second

degree Celsius (°C)

meter per day

vn
CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND 

ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS-Continued

Multiply By To obtain

Transmissivitv 

square foot per day (ft2/d)l 0.09290 square meter per day

Vertical datum: In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929-- 

a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United 

States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.

Water-quality abbreviations:

mg/L - milligrams per liter

Hg/L - micrograms per liter

mS/cm - microsiemens per centimeter at

25 degrees Celsius

VOC - volatile organic compound 

- micrometer

1 This unit is used to express transmissivity, the capacity of an aquifer to transmit water. Conceptually, 

transmissivity is cubic feet (of water) per day per square foot ( of aquifer area) times feet (of aquifer 

thickness), or (fr/d)/fr x ft. In this report, this expression is reduced to its simplest form, fr/d.

Vlll
GROUND-WATER FLOW AND DISTRIBUTION OF

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, RUTGERS

UNIVERSITY BUSCH CAMPUS AND VICINITY,

PISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

By Jean C. Lewis-Brown and Vincent T. dePaul

ABSTRACT

Volatile organic compounds, primarily 

carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene 

(PCE), were detected in shallow ground water 

near the Chemical Engineering building also 

called the C-Wing building-at the Rutgers 

University Busch Campus in Piscataway 

Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The 

C-Wing building overlies the Passaic Formation, which comprises a water-supply aquifer, 

and is about 2,500 feet north-northeast of several domestic wells.

In the area of the Busch Campus, the Passaic Formation consists of dipping layers of 

extensively fractured coarse-grained siltstone 

and sandstone alternating with layers of 

sparsely fractured finer grained siltstone and 

mudstone. Ground water is primarily stored in 

and transmitted through interconnected fractures in these rocks. The extensively fractured 

layers comprise water-bearing units; the 

sparsely fractured layers comprise confining 

units. The rock layers dip 11° to the northwest. 

Near land surface, the rocks are weathered. 

Clay and silt derived from the weathering process fills many of the fractures in the weathered 

zone, causing it to be less permeable than the 

underlying water-bearing units. Four waterbearing units, alternating with confining units, 

are present in the study area. The median transmissivity of the water-bearing units and confining units, respectively, is 84 and 3.7 ft2/d (feet 

squared per day). The median transmissivity of 

the weathered zone is 4.8 ft2/d.

Recharge to the ground-water flow system 

is by downward leakage of infiltrated precipitation. The transmissivity contrasts and the dipping hydrogeologic units of the multiunit 

aquifer system cause large-scale anisotropic 

flow. Ground-water flow through the system is 

predominantly southwest, parallel to the strike 

of the rock layers. Ground-water discharges 

predominantly to the Raritan River and its tributaries; minor amounts flow to a pumped irrigation well and several domestic wells. The 

northeastern half of the study area is a recharge 

area and the southwestern half, which is nearer 

to the Raritan River, is a discharge area.

A digital model was developed to simulate 

both steady-state and transient ground-water 

flow in the study area.The configuration of simulated ground-water flow paths from the vicinity of the C-Wing building are primarily 

horizontal in the water-bearing units and vertical in the confining units. Horizontal flow generally is parallel or subparallel to the strike of 

the rock layers. When the irrigation well is not 

being pumped, all water that passes through the 

vicinity of the C-Wing building discharges to 

the Raritan River and its tributaries. Pumping 

from the irrigation well causes flow lines to 

shift toward the well and away from the nearby 

domestic wells.

Water samples were collected from 25 

wells in the study area at least once during 

1993-96. The spatial distributions of the two 

primary contaminants at Busch Campus carbon tetrachloride and PCE~differ from each 

other. The carbon tetrachloride plume is localized near the C-Wing building, although trace 

amounts were detected in wells as far as 750 

feet from the building. The occurrence of PCE, 

in contrast, is discontinuous. This compound
was detected in concentrations greater than the 

New Jersey maximum contaminant level of 

1.0 microgram per liter at several locations in 

the study area. Concentrations were highest in 

shallow wells less than 10 feet from the CWing building and in the irrigation well, which 

is 2,370 feet from it. PCE was not detected in 

samples from nine wells between the C-Wing 

building and the irrigation well, however.

All wells in which carbon tetrachloride 

was detected are within the area encompassed 

by the simulated flow lines from the assumed 

carbon tetrachloride source area at the C-Wing 

building, and the concentration of carbon tetrachloride decreases along the flow lines. Therefore, the flow-path analysis supports the 

hypothesis that all of the carbon tetrachloride 

detected in the study area originated in the CWing area. Some wells that contained PCE, 

however, are outside the area encompassed by 

the flow lines from the assumed PCE source 

area at the C-Wing building. Consequently, 

both the simulated flow paths and the discontinuous distribution of PCE are inconsistent 

with the hypothesis that all of the PCE detected 

in the study area originated at the broken pipe 

near the C-Wing building. Because actual 

ground-water flow paths through the fracturedrock aquifer system are undoubtedly more 

complex than the simulated paths, however, the 

possibility that all of the PCE originated at the 

broken pipe cannot be conclusively ruled out.

INTRODUCTION

In 1988, during a renovation in the basement of the Chemical Engineering building 

(hereafter called the C-Wing building) at the 

Rutgers University Busch Campus, volatile 

organic compounds (VOC's) were detected in 

excavated soils surrounding a former laboratory. Concentrations of total VOC's as great as 

125,000 fig/L subsequently were detected in 

ground-water samples collected near the CWing building (ENSR Consulting and Engineering, 1989). The contaminants may have 

originated from a damaged sump piping system 

in the basement of the building (ENSR Consulting and Engineering, 1989). This piping 

system served as a drain for acid wastes and 

organic solvents used in the C-Wing building. 

The major compounds identified in the groundwater samples are carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The C-Wing building 

overlies the Passaic Formation, which comprises a regional water-supply aquifer, and is 

about 2,500 ft north-northeast of several 

domestic wells.

In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey, in 

cooperation with Rutgers, the State University 

of New Jersey, began an investigation of the 

hydrogeology and extent of contamination in 

the vicinity of the C-Wing building. The study 

was conducted in two phases. The first phase, 

which was conducted during 1991-92, consisted of reconnaissance of contamination in 

the unsaturated zone and shallow ground water 

near the C-Wing building, including collection 

and analysis of soil-gas samples, ground-water 

samples, water-level data, and electrical-resistivity data (dePaul, 1996). In the second phase 

of the investigation, which was conducted during 1993-97, the study area was expanded to 

include areas potentially affected by contaminated ground-water flowing from the C-Wing 

building. This report describes the second 

phase of the investigation.

The study area is within the Newark Basin, 

which extends from southeastern New York, 

through New Jersey, and into Pennsylvania. 

The Newark Basin comprises a fractured-rock 

aquifer composed of layered sedimentary 

rocks. Methods used in this investigation to 

characterize the hydrogeologic framework and 

to simulate ground-water flow using a digital 

model may be applicable to other areas in the 

Newark Basin where site-specific groundwater flow patterns are of concern.
Purpose and Scope

This report describes the hydrogeologic 

framework, the development of and results of 

simulations made with a digital model of 

ground-water flow, and the extent of VOC contamination in the vicinity of the Rutgers University Busch Campus, Piscataway Township, 

northwestern Middlesex County, New Jersey 

(fig. 1). The study area comprises 0.3 mi2 , 

including parts of the Rutgers University Busch 

Campus and the Rutgers University Golf 

Course. Results of field investigations conducted in the study area from May 1993 to 

October 1996 are presented, including collection of geologic cores, borehole video surveys, 

and geophysical logs; installation of 19 monitor 

wells; collection and analysis of water samples 

from 25 wells; aquifer testing; and measurement of ground-water levels and streamflow.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Michael Quinlan and 

Martin Costello of the Rutgers Environmental 

Health and Safety Department for providing 

facilities for the storage of equipment and supplies, coordinating site safety during drilling, 

and providing equipment for removal of hazardous waste during drilling and sampling. The 

assistance of Joseph Spang in providing access 

to the Rutgers University Golf Course also is 

appreciated. The authors also thank Michael 

Ayres of Rutgers University Grounds Operation and Facilities Maintenance Services for 

allowing access to Busch Campus grounds during field work. The assistance of Nicholas 

Smith and Eric Jacobsen of the U.S. Geological 

Survey during collection of water samples and 

installation of monitor wells also is appreciated.

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

Most of the data used in this study were 

collected in accordance with procedures

approved by the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Types of data collection for which these 

agencies have not issued approved procedures 

were performed according to established practices of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Geologic Coring

In order to determine the hydrogeologic 

framework, three coreholes were drilled in the 

study area. Corehole sites were chosen to 

encompass sediments overlain by the C-Wing 

building, while presumably lying outside the 

contaminant plume (fig. 2). Coreholes CH-1 

and CH-2 were aligned approximately along 

strike; corehole CH-3 was approximately 600 ft 

downdip from the other two coreholes. The 

overburden at each site was stabilized by 

installing temporary casing to 10 or 15 ft below 

land surface. Continuous 10-ft lengths of 

2-inch-diameter core were collected at each site 

by the wireline method. CH-1, CH-2, and CH3 were cored to 110,100, and 221 ft below land 

surface, respectively. Upon removal from the 

core barrel, the rock cores were placed in 

wooden boxes and catalogued on site. After all 

borehole geophysical logs were collected and 

borehole video surveys were completed, each 

corehole was sealed with cement grout to land 

surface.

Borehole Geophysical Logging

Geophysical logs were collected in nine 

boreholes in the study area. These logs provide 

information on the physical characteristics of 

the formation intersected by the well bore as 

well as the borehole fluid. The geophysical 

logs, together with borehole video surveys, 

were used to help determine the three-dimensional hydrogeologic framework in the study 

area. A summary of the logs collected in each 

borehole and the principal application of each 

log are presented in table 1.
40°32'

Boundary of groundwater-flow model

0.200

i l l

0 0.200 0.400 KILOMETER

Base from Rutgers University; Modified from Aerial 

Data Reduction Associates, 1:600,1988; Aerial 

photography by Keystone Aerial Surveys, March 1985

EXPLANATION

Location of study area

0 15 30 KILOMETERS

Figure 1. Location of the study area, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey.
SUNlV^RSITY

:kc$MP

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 

GOLF COURSE

Base from Rutgers University, Modified from Aerial 

Data Reduction Associates, 1:600,1988, Aerial 

photography by Keystone Aerial Surveys, March, 1985

0 100 200 300 400 FEET

I___i___i___i___i I r i i n

0 25 50 75 100 METERS

Line of hydrogeologicsection

. 80 __ Topographic contour-Shows altitude

of land surface. Contour interval 10 feet. 

Datum is sea level

ill Average strike direction and dip

angle of rock layers

EXPLANATION

o MW-3A Observation well location and identifier 

<o>cH-2 Corehole location and identifier 

O Irrigation well location 

 Domestic well location 

& B-e Piezometer location and identifier

Figure 2. Location of wells and coreholes in the study area, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, 

Piscataway Township, New Jersey.

5
0)

Table 1. Borehole geophysical logs collected in wells and coreholes at the Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey

P(, log collected; - log not collected]

Local well name

Log type

Caliper

Electromagnetic 

induction

Fluid resistivity Fluid temperature

Gamma (natural)

Single-point 

resistance

Spontaneous 

potential

Video

Property measured1Borehole diameterElectrical conductivity of rock 

and fluid surrounding borehole

Electrical resistance of borehole 

fluid 

Temperature of borehole fluid

Natural gamma radiation

Electrical resistance of rock and borehole fluid

Electrical potential between borehole fluid and surrounding earth materials

Borehole recorded on videotape

Principal application1

Casing or borehole diameter, 

fracture locations

Lithology, stratigraphic correlation, 

location of fractures

Water quality, identification of water 

producing zones 

Location of water-producing zones, 

identification of intervals of vertical 

flow within the borehole

Lithology, stratigraphic correlation

Lithology, fracture location

Lithology, changes in water qualityLithology, location of fracture zones, 

seeps above standing water level, stratigraphic correlation, well-casing inspection

Rutgers Golf 

Course (Irrigation 

CH-1 CH-2 CH-3 MW-2A well)X X X X X

x

X X X - X 

X X X - X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X - X X X - X

Rutgers 

Golf 13 Obs

X-X 

X

XX

X

X

MW-5A MW-6A MW-7A

XXX

X

XXX 

XXX

XXX --- 1 Keys and MacCary, 1971.
Well Installation

In order to refine the description of the 

hydrogeologic framework and to provide a 

monitor-well network to observe changes in 

contaminant concentrations and ground-water 

levels over time, nineteen 4-inch-diameter 

wells were installed in the study area. Well 

installation was completed during two phases 

of drilling from 1993 to 1995. Six wells and 

three piezometers that had been installed prior 

to 1993 also were used during this study. Locations of all wells and piezometers are shown in 

figure 2. Construction information for all wells 

and piezometers in the study area is presented 

in table 2.

During the first phase of drilling, MayJune 1993,13 wells were installed. Wells were 

grouped at sites and screened at different 

depths to facilitate determination of hydraulic 

characteristics, vertical-flow gradients, and 

water quality in discrete water-bearing units. 

Open and screened intervals were selected on 

the basis of a framework derived from measured strike and dip and previous identification 

of water-bearing units at well RU-5 (fig. 2). 

Some well positions and depths were altered 

during the drilling process as interpretation of 

new data (geophysical logs and drilling observations) warranted. These monitor wells 

ranged in depth from 30 to 170 ft below land 

surface.

Six monitor wells were installed during the 

second phase of drilling, August-September 

1995. A cluster of three wells-MW-6A, MW6B, and MW-6C~was installed approximately 

350 ft northeast of the Rutgers Golf Course 

well (hereafter referred to as the irrigation well) 

to provide additional information regarding the 

source and distribution of contaminants near 

the irrigation well. Open intervals were chosen 

to intersect three discrete water-bearing units 

that contribute to the irrigation well. Two 

wells~MW-7A and MW-7B were installed 

approximately 470 ft northeast of the nearest 

domestic well. This site was chosen to provide

a detection point between the C-Wing building 

and downgradient domestic wells. These wells 

are open to the same water-bearing units as the 

nearest domestic well. Well MW-5A was completed between existing monitor wells along 

the southwestern wall of the C-Wing building 

in order to provide a deeper sampling point in 

the area where contaminant concentrations are 

highest. The monitor wells installed during the 

second phase of drilling range in depth from 90 

to 265 ft below land surface.

All drilling and well construction were 

performed by private contractors under the 

supervision of a New Jersey-licensed well 

driller. The air-rotary method was used. Occasionally, potable water was injected to control 

dust and to cool the bit until sufficient water 

was produced in the formation.

Three types of wells were installed. Shallow wells were completed by lowering 4-inchdiameter black carbon-steel casing attached to 

10 ft of stainless-steel continuous-slot wirewound screen with 0.020 slotted openings into 

a nominal 8-inch-diameter borehole. A fine 

gravel pack was placed around the screen. One 

to 2 ft of fine-grained sand and then 2 ft of bentonite pellets were placed above the gravel pack 

to prevent infiltration of the casing seal. The 

remaining annular space was sealed from the 

bottom up by pressure grouting through a 

tremie pipe with either a neat cement slurry or 

a portland cement'bentonite mixture.

Most deeper wells were completed by 

installing 4-inch-diameter black carbon-steel 

casing in a nominal 8-inch diameter borehole 

from land surface to the top of the proposed 

open interval. The annular space was sealed 

with either a neat cement slurry or a portland 

cement/bentonite mixture as described above. 

After the annular seal had set, the proposed 

open interval of the well was drilled through the 

casing with a 3-7/8-inch bit. No screens were 

installed in these deeper wells because the bedrock suiTounding the open intervals is assumed 

to be sufficiently competent to preclude collapse of the aquifer material.
Table 2. Construction information for wells and piezometers at the Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, 

Piscataway Township, New Jersey

[PVC, polyvinylchloride; SS, stainless steel; W, weathered zone; CU, confining unit]

U.S. 

Geological

Survey 

well 

number

Local well 

name

Latitude 

(degrees)

Longitude 

(degrees)

Layer 

number

Date of 

well 

construction

Altitude

of land

surface

(feet

above

sea

level)

Depth of 

screened 

or open 

interval 

(feet 

below 

land surface)

Diameter 

of

screen 

or open 

Interval 

(Inches)

Casing 

material

Type of

opening

or

screen

material

23-1191 

23-1190 

23-1187 

23-1221 

23-1218

23-1223 

23-1224 

23-1225 

23-1229 

23-1230

Iliilli!

B-l

B-4

B-6

CH-1MW

CH-2MWB

403118

403117

403112

403115

403114

742757

742743

742754

742746

742751

^lii§is|?g

MW-2A 

MW-2B 

MW-2C 

MW-3A 

MW-3B

23-1263 

23-1264 

23-1184 

23-1186 

23-1185

MW-7A

MW-7B

RU-2

RU-3

RU-4

403115

403115

403115

403117

403117

403107

403107

403118

403120

403118

742801

742801

742801

742753

742753

mill

w 

w 

w 

w 

w

Illllli

lHili

CU9 

9

CU8 

CU9 

9 

-to

11-16-91

12-17-91 

06-23-92 

06-21-93 

06-28-93

PVC 

PVC 

PVC

Steel 

Steel

Mill

PVC 

PVC 

PVC

SS 

SS

Ilil

06-24-93 

06-24-93 

06-24-93 

06-25-93 

06-25-93

742805

742805

742743

742742

742743

ii

II

10

w 

w 

w

09-22-95 

09-23-95 

08-25-88 

08-25-88 

08-30-88

79.47 14-15 .5

96.14 2-4 .5

84.01 14-16 .75

99.75 30 - 40 4

91.31 30-40 4.

'''''''''''':'':'''r '"'''''iiiiiilipiiiiipiiii 

'""x^^^^^^

72.80 150-170 4

72.43 90-110 4

72.51 60 - 80 4

83.16 120-140 4

83.06 70 - 90 4

67.73 110-136 4 Steel SS

67.92 65-90 4 Steel Open hole

108.67 7-27 4 PVC PVC

110.93 7-27 4 PVC PVC

107.45 7-27 4 PVC PVC

Steel Open hole 

Steel Open hole 

Steel Open hole 

Steel Open hole 

Steel Open hole 

^e^;S;;??;^;;;;;i;SijS|5s
Three of the deeper wells-MW-5 A, MW6 A, and MW-7 A were completed with 25 ft of 

stainless-steel screen instead of an open hole so 

that the entire borehole could be geophysically 

logged at one time. The continuous geophysical logs from these deep boreholes were used to 

select open intervals of proposed shallower 

wells at the same sites. A large slot size of 0.10 

was used so as not to restrict the natural flow 

through the fractured bedrock.

Wells MW-1 A, MW-1B, and MW-5A 

were constructed with an 8-inch-diameter outer 

casing set in a 12-3/4-inch-diameter borehole 

to 40,40, and 80 ft, respectively. This was done 

in order to reduce the risk of downward migration of contaminants during drilling.

All wells were finished to land surface 

with a concrete collar and a water-resistant 

flush-mounted cover. After completion, wells 

were developed by surging and pumping with a 

stainless-steel submersible pump until the 

water was relatively clear and free of debris. 

Wells that had low yields-CH-lMW and MW4~were later redeveloped by use of a surge 

block and a centrifugal pump. Altitudes of land 

surface and top of casing were surveyed to the 

nearest hundredth of a foot, and the location 

was determined to the nearest tenth of a second.

In order to reduce the possibility of introducing foreign contaminants and of cross-contamination during well installation, all well 

casings and screens were washed with laboratory-grade detergent and potable water, then 

steam-cleaned inside and out. All other equipment (drill rod, bits, pumps, and hoses) including the drill rig was steam-cleaned prior to use 

at each site. At sites near the C-Wing building, 

drill cuttings and borehole water were assumed 

to be hazardous. The water and cuttings were 

collected in a portable basin and subsequently 

removed and placed in containers for testing 

and proper disposal. At sites farther away from 

the C-Wing building, drill cuttings and borehole water were not expected to contain significant contamination. Water encountered during

drilling was allowed to discharge to the ground 

in the vicinity of the well. Drill cuttings were 

removed from the well sites and stockpiled at a 

location designated by Rutgers University.

Measurement of Water Levels and 

Streamflow

Water levels in all wells and piezometers 

were measured synoptically 12 times during 

September 1993-October 1996 to determine 

head gradients and to provide data for calibration of the digital ground-water flow model 

used in this study. In addition, water levels in 

each well were recorded during routine site 

visits. Water-level data are presented in appendix 1.

Water levels were measured manually with 

either with a steel or an electric tape that was 

decontaminated with laboratory soap and 

deionized water at each well site. The water 

level in the irrigation well, a flowing artesian 

well, was measured by attaching a clear plastic 

extension to a fitting near the well head and 

measuring the height of the water column 

above land surface.

On March 13,1995, and October 28,1996, 

base-flow discharge measurements were made 

on unnamed stream 1. (The location of these 

measurements is shown in figure 4, farther on.) 

The measurement was made volumetrically, 

because all flow was concentrated in two culverts and could easily be diverted into a container. This is the most accurate method for 

measuring small discharges (Rantz and others, 

1982, p. 262).

Aquifer Testing

Slug tests were chosen as a means of estimating the transmissivity and horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer because 

slug tests do not require the handling and disposal of large volumes of potentially contaminated water, and testing can be completed in a
relatively short period of time. The main limitation of slug tests is that the results can be 

applied only to a small area surrounding the 

well and are dependent on well construction in 

addition to the formation characteristics.

The slug tests were conducted by using a 

solid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cylinder that 

was decontaminated between sites. Water levels were measured by using a 2.5-psi pressure 

transducer and a data logger. At each well, several static-water-level measurements were 

made; then a transducer was placed in the well 

and allowed to stabilize to water temperature. 

A static-water-level measurement was then 

made with the transducer in the well. The PVC 

cylinder was then quickly lowered into the 

well, and the decline in water level was measured. Measurements were made at 1-, 2-, or 

5-second intervals on the basis of expected 

response time for a particular well. The cylinder was then removed and the rise in water 

level recorded. The static water level was measured again at the end of the test.

Collection and Analysis of Water-Quality 

Samples

Water-quality samples were collected from 

25 wells in the study area during four rounds of 

sampling from August 1993 to October 1996. 

No newly installed monitor wells were sampled 

until at least 30 days after development. Wells 

were purged by pumping three to five casing 

volumes of water whenever possible, and samples were collected after water temperature, 

pH, specific conductance, and dissolved-oxygen concentration had stabilized to ensure that 

the sample was representative of aquifer water. 

For low-yielding wells that were slow to 

recover, standing water was evacuated at a low 

pumping rate to the top of the open interval one 

to two times, then allowed to recover sufficiently before sampling. Well purging at most 

sites was accomplished by using a variablepumping-rate stainless-steel submersible pump

attached to 1/2-inch-diameter polyethylene 

hose. In shallow wells in which the static water 

level was less than 20 ft below land surface, a 

peristaltic pump outfitted with silicone and 

polyethylene hose was used. All samples 

except that from the irrigation well were collected with Teflon bailers attached to Tefloncoated stainless-steel wire. Water in the irrigation well was evacuated by using its high-volume pump, and the sample was drawn through 

a stainless-steel fitting attached to a sampling 

spigot near the wellhead. Samples to be analyzed for dissolved constituents were filtered in 

the field with an 0.45-jnm filter. Immediately 

following collection, samples were preserved 

and prepared for shipment to the laboratory.

In order to reduce the potential for crosscontamination during sampling, wells were 

sampled in ascending order of known or 

expected total-VOC concentration. The hose 

used for well purging was flushed with deionized water prior to use and disposed of after one 

use. Submersible pumps used for purging were 

decontaminated between uses by an external 

wash with laboratory-grade detergent and tap 

water, an internal flush with a detergent-andwater solution, a cold tap-water rinse and flush, 

and, finally, a deionized-water rinse and internal flush. When pumps were used to purge 

wells in which total-VOC concentrations were 

500 ng/L or greater, the final step was preceded 

by an external methanol rinse and internal 

flushing with a methanol/deionized-water solution. In addition, several times during each 

sampling event, the pumps were disassembled 

in the laboratory and thoroughly cleaned. Bailers were dedicated to one well per sampling day 

and returned to the laboratory for cleaning. 

Bailers and bailer parts were decontaminated 

by scrubbing with a solution of tap water and 

laboratory-grade detergent, rinsing with tap 

water, rinsing with deionized water, rinsing 

with reagent-grade methanol, purging with 

pure nitrogen or allowing them to thoroughly 

air-dry, rinsing with deionized water, and then

10
air-drying. Equipment used to collect water to 

be analyzed for organic constituents was 

wrapped in aluminum foil; equipment used to 

collect water to be analyzed for inorganic constituents was sealed in polyethylene until use.

During the initial round of sampling in 

1993, purge and equipment-cleaning water 

from all wells except the irrigation well and 

Rutgers golf 13 obs was placed in containers. 

Thereafter, all purge and equipment-cleaning 

water only from wells known or suspected to 

have significant contamination was pumped 

directly into 55-gallon drums for proper disposal.

VOC's in ground-water samples were 

determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency method 524.2 (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1991,1992, 

and 1994). Compounds measured and their 

respective reporting limits are listed in appendix 2. All VOC analyses were performed by 

two laboratories certified by the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection: 

Quanterra-East of Somerset, New Jersey, and 

Analab Inc., of Edison, New Jersey. All other 

analyses were performed by Quanterra-East.

HYDROGEOLOGY

Geologic Setting

The study area is within the Piedmont 

Physiographic Province. In New Jersey, this 

province coincides with the Newark Basin, 

which is the largest of a series of fault-block 

basins that extend from Nova Scotia to South 

Carolina (Froelich and Olsen, 1985). The 

basins were formed during initial continental 

rifting during the Triassic Period (Van Houten, 

1969). The Newark Basin consists of Triassicand Jurassic-age red shales, siltstones, mudstones, sandstones, argillites, and intrusive and 

extrusive igneous rock. The Passaic Formation,

which is part of the Newark Supergroup (Olsen, 

1980), forms the bedrock in the study area.

Hydrogeologic Framework

In the study area, the Passaic Formation 

consists of interbedded layers of reddish-brown 

mudstone and siltstone with a few thin zones of 

reddish-brown shale and sandstone. Two zones 

of fine-grained purple siltstone about 10 ft thick 

also are present. The uppermost of these purple 

beds was observed in rock cores and cuttings 

from 10 boreholes throughout the study area. 

The orientation of the plane formed by the top 

of this bed in the 10 boreholes indicates that 

bedding consistently strikes N. 57° E. and dips 

11° to the northwest throughout the study area. 

This bedrock orientation is consistent with the 

findings of dePaul (1996), which are based on 

measurements at outcrops. The pervasiveness 

of the purple marker bed in the study area also 

indicates that each rock stratum probably is 

continuous throughout the study area.

The Passaic Formation is a gently dipping, 

multiunit leaky aquifer system that consists of 

thin water-bearing units and thick intervening 

confining units, all of which are parallel to bedding. The rock has little primary porosity or 

permeability as a result of compaction and 

cementation; therefore, the principal means of 

ground-water movement is through a network 

of interconnected fractures.

Rock fractures in the study area are either 

parallel or perpendicular to bedding. Fractures 

perpendicular to bedding are near-vertical. 

Most of these near-vertical fractures are either 

parallel to the strike of bedding or perpendicular to it. On the basis of observations of 29 nearvertical fractures in outcrops in and near the 

study area, these two vertical sets contain a 

similar number of fractures. A few vertical 

fractures oriented in other directions also are 

present (dePaul, 1996). Fractures parallel to 

bedding are more continuous and extensive 

than vertical fractures (Michalski, 1990). Many

11
vertical fractures terminate at contacts between 

rock types (Houghton, 1990).

Two types of water-bearing units are 

present in the Passaic Formation. One type is 

formed by major fractures parallel to bedding. 

The other type consists of thin geologic strata 

that are intensely fractured both parallel and 

perpendicular to bedding. All water-bearing 

units are bounded by confining units that are 

only sparsely fractured. Widely spaced vertical 

fractures through confining units allow water to 

leak from one water-bearing unit to another 

(Michalski, 1990).

Rocks near land surface are weathered. 

Clay and silt from the weathering process have 

partly filled the fractures in these rocks and 

reduced their permeability. Consequently, the 

framework of dipping water-bearing units and 

confining units is draped by a shallow weathered zone that is less permeable than deeper 

water-bearing units. Hydraulic-conductivity 

data from three sites in the Newark Basin indicate that the transition from the weathered zone 

to the unweathered zone occurs at a depth of 

about 50 to 60 ft (Michalski, 1990). For purposes of this study, the base of the weathered 

zone was assumed to be at 50 ft below land 

surface.

The upper part of the aquifer system is 

unconfined because the well-connected fractures in this material are open to the atmosphere 

and contain water under atmospheric pressure. 

At increasing depth, fractures are increasingly 

isolated from the atmosphere by confining 

units. Below a certain depth, which varies from 

about 50 to about 150 ft, the aquifer system is 

semiconfined (Houghton, 1990). For purposes 

of this study, the base of the unconfined zone 

was assumed to be at the same position as the 

base of the weathered zone~50 ft below land 

surface.

At least 23 fracture zones are present in the 

strata penetrated by boreholes and coreholes in 

the study area. These zones were identified on

the basis of observations of rock cores and 

borehole video logs and interpretations of geophysical logs. Transmissivity data from wells 

completed in these boreholes, however, indicate that only four of these fracture zones are 

capable of transmitting significant volumes of 

water. The interpreted position of these four 

water-bearing units in a section through the 

study area along the dip of bedding is shown in 

figure 3. The open intervals of all wells in 

which transmissivity was measured are projected onto this section. Mean transmissivity is 

shown for wells in which transmissivity was 

measured more than once. Confining units were 

delineated on the section by connecting the 

open intervals of wells in which the measured 

transmissivity is relatively low (less than 

11 ft2/d). Water-bearing units were delineated 

likewise by connecting the open intervals of 

wells in which the measured transmissivity is 

relatively high (greater than 43 ft2/d). The lines 

delineating the units are drawn along the dip of 

the bedding 11°. During this process, waterbearing units and confining units were assumed 

to be continuous throughout the study area. In 

addition, it was recognized that a water-bearing 

unit probably intersects only part of the open 

interval of a well where high transmissivity was 

measured, whereas a confining unit probably 

spans the entire open interval of a well where 

low transmissivity was measured. Consequently, the lines separating water-bearing 

units from confining units are not necessarily 

coincident with the tops and bottoms of open 

intervals of wells. The transmissivity data used 

in this analysis are discussed in detail later in 

the report.

Two anomalies are present in the section 

(fig. 3). The transmissivity measured in well 

CH-2MWA is relatively high although this well 

appears to be open to the same strata as four 

wells (MW-2A, MW-3 A, MW1 A, and MW1B) 

in which the measured or estimated transmissivity was less than 11 ft2/d. The anomalously 

high transmissivity in the immediate vicinity

12
NW

MW-2C MW-6CMW-2B MW-6B

CH-3MW MW-2A MW-6A

MW-3B MW-3A

MW-1A RU-5 MW-7B MW-1B MW-5A CH-2MWA MW-7A

100 - WEATHERED ZONE

-240

100

SS3S«*M;iB!t.iv:

200 300 400 

DISTANCE (FEET)

500 600 700

EXPLANATION

Water-bearing 

unit and number

Confining unit 

and numberOpen interval of 

well at which 

measured 

transmissivity is 

101-1000 feet 

squared per day

Open interval of well at which 

measured 

transmissivity is 

11-100 feet 

squared per dayOpen interval of 

well at which 

measured 

transmissivity is 

0-10 feet 

squared per day

Hydrogeologic 

characteristics 

unknown

Figure 3. Generalized section along dip of bedding showing transmissivity measured at wells and interpreted location of hydrogeologic units 

in the study area, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.
of well CH-2MWA probably is caused by a vertical fracture. A vertical fracture is present in 

cores from the adjacent corehole at the same 

depth as that of the screen in well CH-2MWA. 

The vertical fracture probably is one of the 

widely spaced fractures that are present in confining units.

The other anomaly is at well RU-5, where 

the measured transmissivity is relatively iow 

2 ft2/d although the transmissivity at four 

other wells in the same stratum (CH-3MW, 

MW2B, MW6C, and MW3B) is greater than 

40 ft2/d. The reason for this anomaly is 

unknown.

Data from drilling and geophysical logs 

indicate that the four water-bearing units in the 

study area are relatively coarse-grained. Zones 

where loss or gain of water was significant in 

boreholes during drilling and zones where drilling rods were observed to drop quickly during 

drilling are coarse-grained siltstone and, in 

some cases, sandstone. Low natural-gammaradiation counts measured in these zones also 

indicate that these water-bearing units are relatively coarse-grained. On the basis of these 

findings, it is assumed that the four water-bearing units identified in the study area comprise 

sandstone and coarse-grained siltstone strata 

whereas the confining units comprise finegrained siltstone and mudstone. In the waterbearing units, fractures oriented both parallel 

and perpendicular to bedding are observed in 

rock cores and borehole video logs. Whether 

one or both types of fractures actually transmit 

water in these water-bearing units is unknown.

Estimates of Hydraulic Properties

The hydraulic properties of the rocks in the 

study area were estimated for use in determining the location and thickness of hydrogeologic 

units (described earlier) and in developing the 

ground-water flow model. Horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity and transmissivity, which are 

measures of the ability of a permeable medium

to transmit water in the horizontal direction, 

were determined at wells in the study area by 

slug testing. The methods of Bouwer and Rice 

(1976) and Hvorsiev (1951) were used to analyze data from slug tests conducted in wells 

open to the unconfined weathered zone. The 

method of Cooper and others (1967) was used 

to analyze data from slug tests conducted in the 

deeper wells considered to be open to confined 

parts of the aquifer system.

At the time of testing, the water level in 

some wells was recovering or being drawn 

down in response to recent pumping at the irrigation well. If interference was minimal, data 

from these tests were adjusted to remove the 

effects of this pumping. Otherwise, the test was 

repeated at a later time.

The methods used to analyze slug-test data 

from wells in the unconfined zone provide an 

estimate of horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 

the tested aquifer, whereas the method used to 

analyze slug-test data from wells in the confined zone provides an estimate of transmissivity of the tested aquifer. The transmissivity of 

an aquifer is equal to its horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity multiplied by its saturated thickness. Hydraulic conductivity in the unconfined 

zone ranges from 0 to 1.2 ft/d, with a median of 

0.12 ft/d. If this zone is assumed to be 40 ft 

thick (the distance from the water table, which 

is approximately 10 ft below land surface, to 

the base of the unconfined zone at 50 ft below 

land surface), then the median transmissivity of 

this zone is 4.8 ft2/d. The median transmissivity 

measured in wells in the confined water-bearing and confining units, respectively, is 84 and 

3.7 ft2/d. Detailed results of slug testing are 

listed in table 3 and summarized in table 4.

14
Table 3. Transmissivity and horizontal hydraulic conductivity at selected wells, Rutgers University Busch 

Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey

[CU, the confining unit below the indicated layer; W, weathered zone; NA, not applicable; C, Cooper and others, 1967; E, estimate based 

on extremely low recovery after insertion or removal of slug; B, Bouwer and Rice, 1976; H, Hvorslev, 1951. Well locations shown in 

fig. 2]

Local well 

name

CH1-MW

CH-2MWA

CH-2MWB

CH-3MW

MW-1A

1

1

1

i

I

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-5A

MW-6A

MW-6B

jf

:{

1 1

l$f|f||ifi M

RU-5

Layer 

number

W

CU9

W

9

CU9

i 1

!

' ' ' f> ne i i?

;:j||'|a0- j g

CU9

9

11

12

11

iiill i 11

1

1

1

9

Depth of 

screened

or open 

interval

(feet below Transmissivity 

land Date of (feet squared 

surface) test per day)

30 - 40 09-08-94 NA

70 - 90 09-01-94 140

11-20-96 54

30 - 40 08-30-94 NA

140-160 08-31-94 94

80-100 08-24-94 1.4

II illllliiljillliiiiiiii yiiiiiifi till

1 Si IH 111 iill

|f |j HI jl 1| | |; 111 | If f III

M in i ii i ill i i ii 1 1 ii i ill

1 If; 111 111 lIliliiBlil Wljmmmmm.:m

120-140 09-01-94 10

70 - 90 09-01-94 44

178-204 11-19-96 70

239-265 11-20-96 910

190-215 11-18-96 58

j | HI :

1 1 | || i fill

1 1 1 ! 1 1 ! Ill

i 1 1 ! Ill

1 i i j ||

55 - 75 09-08-94 2.0

Hydraulic 

conductivity 

(feet per day)

0

NA

.065

NA

NA

III

|| 1

lillll^f ji(

:."-;*-^,f*:::::::::::: > x :|: : j:

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

^: :ii|S5;SS?iw jw;

5 ; ; i-! * ft¥::x::' ': ::-f: :::::::: 

;S 1 ^|li§;K i;i; ':? ;: :; f. vK-f/K- ::;:::::;: ::::::'-: :

NA

Analytical 

method

E

C

B,H

C

C

\ Iliiii' 1

j: ::::X:3S:::: :$S ':g:| 

:: rgxygx: :;g -:g

: -SSS-iS? S$:' ::: :

i; ^m\m m

: ivfcjKi; : -ft? :i S*;;^;;;® :«

C

C

c

c

c

1

1

;

! I

1

c

15
The transmissivity contrasts and the dipping hydrogeologic units of the aquifer system 

cause large-scale anisotropic flow. The predominant direction of ground-water flow 

through the aquifer system is the direction of 

strike of the bedding units, although minor 

variations from that direction attributable to 

topography, flow boundaries, and pumping are 

possible (Michalski, 1990). Because of this 

anisotropy, no attempt was made to derive flow 

directions from hydraulic-head gradients.

Vertical head gradients are useful in delineating ground-water recharge and discharge 

areas. Water-level altitudes measured on October 28, 1996, were used for this purpose 

because they include data from all wells on the 

campus and golf course. During the 8-day 

period preceding the measurements, only 0.08 

inch of rain was recorded in the vicinity of the 

study area, and the irrigation well had not been 

pumped for at least 3 days. Water-level data 

indicate that these time lapses allow water levels to return to static conditions after being 

stressed by precipitation or by pumping the irrigation well. The irrigation well is the only well 

that affects water levels in wells on the campus 

and golf course. Therefore, these water levels 

represent steady-state, nonpumping conditions.

A downward vertical gradient (decreasing 

head with depth) was observed at well clusters 

at relatively high altitudes in the study area-- 

clusters MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, CH-2, and the 

cluster composed of wells RU-4, RU-5, and 

MW-5 A (fig. 2). An upward vertical gradient 

was observed, however, at the MW6 and MW7 

well clusters, which are at lower altitudes and 

closer to the Raritan River than the other clusters. Water in both Rutgers golf 13 obs and the 

irrigation well flows under artesian pressure 

when water levels are high. Water levels as 

high as 3.0 and 17.6 ft above land surface, 

respectively, have been observed at these wells. 

These wells are the closest to the Raritan River. 

The upward gradients and flowing wells near 

the Raritan River are indicative of an area of

ground-water discharge. Therefore, the transition from a recharge area to a discharge area 

apparently occurs somewhere between well 

clusters MW2 and MW6.

Drawdowns in water levels resulting from 

pumping are useful in determining the effectiveness of confining units in this multiunit 

aquifer system. To obtain drawdown data, the 

pump in the irrigation well was turned on after 

water levels were measured on October 28, 

1996. After the well was pumped continuously 

for 19 hours and 11 minutes, water levels were 

measured again. Water levels continued to 

decline after these measurements were made. 

Therefore, this data set represents transient 

conditions.

In the weathered zone, drawdown was 

greatest (1.96 ft) in well MW1C; drawdown in 

8 of the 10 wells in the weathered zone was less 

than 0.5 ft. Drawdown in the confined waterbearing units was much greater. Drawdown in 

water-bearing unit 9 ranged from a minimum of 

6.81 ft in well RU-5 to a maximum of 18.98 ft 

in well MW-6C, and in water-bearing unit 11 

ranged from a minimum of 13.08 ft in well 

MW-7A to a maximum of 29.52 ft in well 

MW-6B.

The relatively minor drawdown in the 

weathered zone compared to drawdown in the 

confined water-bearing units indicates a lack of 

hydraulic connection between the weathered 

zone and the confined water-bearing units. The 

irrigation well is cased through the weathered 

zone and open to water-bearing units 9 through 

12. Another reason for the relatively minor 

drawdown in the weathered zone may be that 

the sediments that fill the fractures in the weathered zone increase ground-water storage.

The wide range in drawdown in the confined water-bearing units is caused partly by the 

difference in the distance of the wells from the 

irrigation well. The unit to which the well is 

open appears to be a more important factor, 

however. For example, drawdown in wells

17
Table 4. Transmissivity in the weathered zone, waterbearing units, and confining units, Rutgers University 

Busch Campus and vicinity Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey

[ft2/d, feet squared per day]

Weathered zone

Water-bearing units

Confining units

Median 

(ft2/d)

4.8

84

3.7

Range 

(ft2/d)

0-48

2-910

0-97

The vertical hydraulic conductivity of 

rocks similar to those in the study area was estimated at four locations in previous studies by 

model calibration. The vertical conductivity of 

the Passaic Formation at a site in northern Mercer County, New Jersey, is on the order of 

0.0001 ft/d (Carleton and others, 1999). In parts 

of Mercer, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties, 

New Jersey, the vertical conductivity of the 

Passaic Formation is about 32 ft/d in rocks less 

than 75 ft below land surface and 0.032 ft/d in 

rocks at depths between 75 and 500 ft below 

land surface (Lewis-Brown and Jacobsen, 

1995). Gerhart and Lazorchick (1988) report 

vertical conductivities ranging from 0.13 to 

3.34 ft/d in fractured sedimentary rocks in the 

Gettysburg Triassic rift basin in Pennsylvania 

and Maryland. Chichester (1996) reports a 

range of 0.1 to 0.6 ft/d in the vertical conductivity of rocks in the Cumberland Valley of Pennsylvania, which includes parts of the 

Gettysburg Triassic rift basin. The overall 

range in vertical hydraulic conductivity at these 

locations is 0.0001 to 32 ft/d.

Estimates of vertical hydraulic conductivity made on the basis of calibration of digital 

models of ground-water flow rely on the 

premise that the values of other parameters in 

the model are much better known because they 

are based on field measurements. The value of 

vertical hydraulic conductivity is then solved 

for by adjusting this value until the simulated

ground-water system closely matches the real 

system. The ground-water system in most of 

these models, however, was reported to be relatively insensitive to the value of vertical 

hydraulic conductivity. Consequently, the wide 

range of reported values is not unexpected.

GROUND-WATER FLOW

Ground-water flow in the study area is controlled primarily by the distribution of waterbearing fractures in the dipping strata that make 

up the hydrogeologic framework and by contrasts in transmissivity within the aquifer system. Both a conceptual and a digital model 

were used to analyze the flow system in the 

study area and its effect on the distribution of 

contaminants.

Conceptual Model

Recharge to the ground-water system is by 

downward leakage of precipitation. After passing vertically through the unsaturated zone, 

water reaches the top of the weathered zone. 

Because the weathered zone is much less permeable than the underlying water-bearing 

units, water probably flows only a few hundred 

feet laterally before reaching the bottom of the 

weathered zone and flowing into one of the 

underlying confined water-bearing units.

Water that reaches one of the confined 

water-bearing units water typically flows in that 

unit for some distance before reaching the contact between the water-bearing unit and a confining unit. The water then typically passes 

through a vertical fracture in the confining unit 

and into the next water-bearing unit. Flow 

through confining units generally is vertical as 

a result of head differences between the waterbearing units. Ground water discharges primarily to the Raritan River and its tributaries. 

Smaller amounts of water discharge to the irrigation well and 11 domestic wells in the study 

area.

16
MW-6A, MW-6B, and MW-6C, all of which 

are equidistant from the irrigation well, was 

63.68,29.52, and 18.98 ft, respectively. These 

wells are open to water-bearing units 12, 11, 

and 9, respectively (fig. 3). The irrigation well 

is open to all of these units. The large differences in drawdown among these wells probably result from effective separation of these 

units from one another by the intervening confining units.

Water levels and drawdowns in wells on 

October 28 and 29, 1996, are shown in table 6 

(farther on). All water-level data for wells in 

the study area are presented in appendix 1.

Simulated Ground-Water Flow System

A digital model of the ground-water flow 

system was developed for three purposes: (1) to 

test hypotheses developed in the conceptual 

model concerning the movement of ground 

water, (2) to help guide the placement of new 

monitor wells, and (3) to estimate potential 

paths of contaminated water from the vicinity 

of the C-Wing building. The model was used to 

simulate both steady-state and transient flow 

conditions, although the transient simulation 

was used only for calibration.

Description of digital model

A three-dimensional, finite-difference 

Fortran code (MODFLOW) developed by 

McDonald and Harbaugh (1988) was used. No 

modifications were made to the published code.

Model area and grid

The model area was extended beyond the 

study area to include natural hydrologic boundaries. It encompasses 2.3 mi2, including McEttis Brook near its northwestern boundary and 

the Raritan River at its southwestern boundary 

(fig. 4). The model grid was oriented so that the 

columns are parallel to the strike of the rock 

layers. The model was discretized horizontally

into 100 rows and 63 columns. Model cells are 

smallest in the part of the model that represents 

the study area, where each cell is 49 ft long and 

49 ft wide. At the edges of the model, cells are 

217 ft long and 217 ft wide.

The model is discretized vertically into 20 

layers. Throughout the model area, layer 1 represents the 40-ft-thick unconfined weathered 

zone just below the water table. The other 19 

model layers represent dipping water-bearing 

units. Confining units are represented by low 

rates of vertical leakance between water-bearing units, as described by McDonald and 

Harbaugh (1988).

Model layers 9-12 represent the four 

water-bearing units identified in the study area. 

Because the geologic strata dip to the northnorthwest, these four units are increasingly 

deep in parts of the model area north-northwest 

of the study area and increasingly shallow 

south-southeast of the study area. Water-bearing units similar to these four units are assumed 

to be present stratigraphically above and below 

them in the northwestern and southeastern parts 

of the model area, respectively. Layers 2-8 and 

13-20 represent these hypothetical water-bearing units that are stratigraphically above and 

below layers 9-12. These additional layers are 

assumed to have the same strike, dip, and 

hydraulic properties as those in the study area. 

Each hypothetical unit was assigned a thickness approximately twice the average thickness 

of the units in the study area to minimize the 

number of hypothetical units needed to fully 

represent the model area and, in turn, reduce 

computation time during model calibration. 

This assumed hydrogeologic framework in the 

model area is shown in sections B-B' (parallel 

to strike) and C-C' (parallel to dip) in figures 5 

and 6, respectively.

Representation of water-bearing units as 

model layers is complicated by the fact that the 

units dip. The model code requires that each 

model layer be represented in some way over 

the full extent of the model area even though

18
 Domestic well 

o Irrigation well

11

Line of hydrogeologic 

section

Strike direction and

dip angle of rock layers A Location of discharge

measurement 

0 Observation well

X Observation well 

cluster

400 800 1,200 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

Figure 4. Area of ground-water flow model showing horizontal discretization and lines 

of hydrogeologic sections, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway 

Township, New Jersey.

19
10

o 200 r

100

LU LU

-100 HI w

m

8m

LU 

£-200

HI 

D^

-300

-400

-500

13

14

INACTIVE ZONE

EXPLANATION

Water-bearing 

unit and model layer number

^- Confining unit

2,000 4,000 6,000 

DISTANCE (FEET)

8,000 10,000

Figure 5. Section B-B' along strike of bedding showing interpreted hydrogeologic framework in the study area and assumed 

framework outside the study area in the area of the ground-water flow model of the Rutgers University Busch Campus and 

vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.
200 r

WEATHERED ZONE

-500

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 

DISTANCE (FEET)

5,000 6,000 6,500

Figure 6. Section C-C'along dip of bedding showing interpreted hydrogeologic framework in the study area and 

assumed framework outside the study area in the area of the ground-water flow model of the Rutgers University 

Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.

EXPLANATION

Water-bearing 

unit and model 

layer number

Confining unit
the actual water-bearing units are not present 

over the full area. Each water-bearing unit terminates updip at the base of the weathered 

zone. Although each water-bearing unit probably extends thousands of ft downdip, groundwater flow is assumed to be negligible at depths 

greater than 500 ft below land surface, as 

explained in the section on model boundaries 

(below). In order to represent these changes in 

the character of each water-bearing unit, each 

model layer is made up of three segments. 

These segments are illustrated for hydrogeologic section C- C', as represented in the 

model, in figure 7. The most downdip of these 

segments is an inactive zone and represents the 

part of the water-bearing unit that is deeper 

than 500 ft below land surface. The next segment is the active zone, representing the part of 

the water-bearing unit between the weathered 

zone and 500 ft. The next segment is pseudoactive and represents the imaginaiy extension 

of the water-bearing unit updip from its outcrop. Although this part of a model layer represents imaginaiy sediments above the weathered 

zone, the entire model layer is positioned below 

the weathered zone. Therefore, the pseudoactive segment is modeled as active in order to 

allow water to flow from the weathered zone, 

through the pseudo-active zone, to the first 

water-bearing unit that is actually beneath the 

weathered zone.

Model boundaries

The upper boundary of the model represents the water table and is the top of model 

layer 1, the weathered zone. A specified flux is 

applied to the top of this uppermost layer to 

represent areal recharge from precipitation. 

The northwestern and southeastern edges of the 

model area are bounded by no-flow cells. 

Because these boundaries are parallel to the 

strike of the rock layers, and ground water 

flows parallel or subparallel to the strike direction, it is assumed that these boundaries are parallel to flow lines and that a negligible amount 

of water crosses them.

The southwestern limit of the active model 

area coincides with the Raritan River. This 

boundary was simulated as a head-dependent 

flux boundary. In cells beneath the river, it was 

assumed that ground-water flow is vertically 

upward toward the river and that no horizontal 

flow occurs beneath the river. Model cells 

southwest of the river are inactive (no-flow 

boundaries).

The northeastern boundary of the model 

initially was placed at a surface-water drainage 

divide near the northeastern border of the study 

area. During model calibration, however, it 

became evident that some ground water probably crosses that boundaiy from the northeast, 

but a flow rate could not be determined. Therefore, a no-flow boundary was placed throughout row 1 of the model, which is 2,800 ft 

northeast of the study area. Although some flow 

probably crosses this boundaiy, it is assumed 

that any such flow is sufficiently far from the 

study area that its effect on simulated flow in 

the study area is minimal.

The bottom of the active model is 500 ft 

below land surface throughout the modeled 

area. All model cells that represent parts of 

water-bearing units deeper than 500 ft are inactive. This depth was chosen for two reasons: (1) 

The deepest well in the study area is 300 ft 

deep; therefore, no field data for depths greater 

than 300 ft are available. (2) It is assumed that 

any flow that may occur below 500 ft is separated by confining units from flow occurring in 

the O-to-300-ft-depth zone and, therefore, 

ground-water flow and contaminant transport 

in the study area are not affected by any flow 

that may occur at depths greater than 500 ft.

Assumptions, limitations, and appropriate uses of 

the model

Ground-water flow in fractured rocks is 

too complex to be succinctly simulated with a 

digital model. If several necessary but simplifying assumptions are made, however, a model 

can be constructed that is capable of approximating flow through the fractured framework.

22
1,000 2,000

C'

EXPLANATION

3 Model layer 

number

3,000 4,000 

DISTANCE (FEET)

5,000 6,000 6,500

Figure 7. Section C-C'showing vertical discretization of ground-water flow model of the Rutgers University Busch 

Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.
The model structure is based on a simplified conceptualization of the ground-water 

flow system. The fractured rocks are modeled 

as equivalent porous media. Thus, we assume 

that ground-water flow can be described by 

using a standard three-dimensional flow 

equation based on Darcy's Law. In this 

approach, the hydraulic-conductivity and storativity values used in the model represent the 

bulk properties of the fractured rock represented by each model layer. Water flux, which 

in reality may occur in only a small fraction of 

the layer that is occupied by fractures, is 

simulated as being distributed throughout each 

layer. This assumption means that the model 

cannot be used to simulate local or small-scale 

ground-water flow paths that are controlled by 

a few discrete fractures. Each model cell represents a volume of aquifer material that 

contains many fractures. The model calculates 

the flow path from one cell to the next by 

simulating the net effect of all of the fractures 

in that interval. Therefore, the model cannot be 

used to simulate paths on a scale smaller than 

the cell size. In the study area, this means that 

paths on a scale that is smaller than a 49-ft by 

49-ft square cannot be simulated.

The primary intended use of this model is 

simulation of ground-water flow and advective 

contaminant transport in the study area. Most 

of the data used to calibrate the model are from 

the study area. Therefore, use of the model to 

obtain detailed predictions of ground-water 

conditions outside the study area would be 

inappropriate.

The digital model used in this study simulates only the advective flow of ground water. 

Dilution and dispersion of dissolved contaminants, movement of dense non-aqueous phase 

liquids due to gravity effects, and mixing of 

variable-density fluids are not simulated in the 

model. The model can be used to estimate flowpaths; however, it cannot appropriately be used 

alone to identify or rule out suspected sources 

of contamination.

The model can be used to estimate the 

effects of stresses such as ground-water pumping, drought, or artificial recharge on the flow 

system. If the effects of simulated pumping 

extend beyond the model boundaries, however, 

drawdown within the model area will be overestimated.

The model was calibrated by using water 

levels measured in October 1996. Although 

water levels generally are low in early fall, 

1996 was an unusually wet year. Precipitation 

during 1996 was the second highest of that in 

all years during 1968-97. Consequently, the 

water levels used to calibrate the model probably were somewhat higher than mean water 

levels under static conditions. Ideally, a steadystate model is calibrated to average conditions, 

when the amount of water entering the groundwater system equals the amount leaving it. 

Under wet conditions, more water is entering 

the system than leaving it.

The use of wet-condition water levels to 

calibrate the model probably has little effect on 

the simulated flow paths. The relatively high 

water levels probably caused the hydraulichead gradient to be steeper than average, however, especially in the weathered zone. A steep 

gradient would cause more water to flow 

through the system at higher velocities than 

average, but flow paths would not be different.

The hydraulic parameters determined by 

model calibration probably are different than 

they would have been if average water levels 

had been used during calibration. Recharge and 

storativity may be overestimated, and the horizontal hydraulic conductivity, vertical hydraulic conductivity, and streambed conductivity 

may be underestimated in the model. These 

potential overestimates and underestimates 

need to be considered if these parameters are 

used in other applications.

24
Model Calibration

During calibration of the digital model, 

values of hydraulic parameters were varied 

within reasonable ranges until acceptable 

matches were achieved between measured and 

simulated static ground-water levels, drawdown, and base flow to unnamed stream I.

Hydraulic parameters

The hydraulic parameters that were 

adjusted during calibration are areal recharge, 

transmissivity, vertical hydraulic leakance, 

streambed conductance, specific yield, and 

storage coefficient. Values that were relatively 

well known were adjusted over smaller ranges 

than values that were less well known. The 

value of each parameter used in the final calibrated model is listed in table 5.

Area! recharge

Areal recharge was considered to be one of 

the better known parameter values because an 

estimate of recharge to the Passaic Formation 

was available from a previous study (LewisBrown and Jacobsen, 1995). That estimate of 

8.2 inches per year was derived from measurements of base flow, ground-water pumpage, 

and sewage inflows to streams in west-central 

New Jersey and was used as the starting value 

of recharge during calibration. Land use differs 

between the two areas, however. In the westcentral New Jersey study area, most land is 

either undeveloped or farmed, whereas the 

Busch Campus has been extensively developed. Many buildings, roads, and parking lots 

intercept precipitation at the campus, and most 

of the intercepted precipitation flows to storm 

sewers. In addition, several drains have been 

installed in grassy areas of the campus and golf 

course to prevent these areas from becoming

Table 5. Hydraulic parameters used in digital model of ground-water flow, Rutgers University 

Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey

[ft/d, feet per day; ft2/d, feet squared per day]

Parameter

Areal recharge

Transmissivity 

-Layer 1 (weathered zone) 

-Layers 2-8 and 13-20 

-Layers 9 and 1 2 

-Layers 1 0 and 1 1

Value

0.001 7 ft/d

16ft2/d 

110-440ft2/d 

120-500ft2/d 

470- I,900ft2/d

Comments

Decreases with depth 

Decreases with depth 

Decreases with depth

Governing 

equation

4550/depth0'6 

5200/depth06 

19,500/depth06

Vertical hydraulic conductivity

-Layer 1 (weathered zone)

-Confining units below layers 2-8 

and 10-19

-Confining unit below layer 9

-Streambeds and riverbed

4.0 x 10'3 ft/d

1.9 x 10'8 -7.7x 10-5 ft/d

1.9xlO-4 -7.7x lO^ft/d 

1.0 ft/d

Decreases with depth 102/depth3.6

Conductivity is high 106/depth3 '6

because confining unit is

leaky

Storage coefficient

-Layer 1

-Layers 2-20

3.0 x 10'2 

4.0 x 10-7

25
muddy. Therefore, the amount of areal recharge 

at the west-central New Jersey study area was 

considered to be the maximum reasonable 

value of recharge in the current study area. In 

the calibrated model, simulated water levels 

and base flow best matched the measured values when an areal recharge of 7.4 inches per 

year (0.0017 ft/d) was applied.

Transmissivity

Transmissivity was considered to be one of 

the better known parameter values in the model 

because estimates were available from analysis 

of slug-test data. The actual values of measured 

transmissivity were assumed to be subject to a 

potential error of about one order of magnitude 

because of uncertainty related to curve-matching and interference caused by pumping at the 

irrigation well.Therefore, adjustments of up to 

about one order of magnitude from the measured values were allowed during calibration.

In the digital model, the weathered zone 

was initially assigned a transmissivity of 4.8 

ft2/d~the mean transmissivity measured in this 

zone by slug testing. During model calibration, 

the transmissivity in this zone was adjusted to 

16 ft2/d.

The water-bearing units represented by 

model layers 2-20 were initially assigned a 

transmissivity of 84 ft2/d~the mean transmissivity measured in water-bearing units 9-12. 

During model calibration, it was found that 

simulated water levels, drawdown, and base 

flow better matched the measured values if the 

transmissivity in each of these units decreased 

with depth. Although the transmissivity data 

obtained in the study area by slug testing do not 

indicate any trend as a function of depth, only 

10 wells are open to water-bearing units; therefore, it is not surprising that no trend is indicated in so few data. In a previous study in 

west-central New Jersey, however, the specific 

capacity per foot of open hole of 709 wells in 

the Passaic Formation was found to decrease 

with depth (Lewis-Brown and Jacobsen, 1995).

There the median specific capacity per foot of 

open hole in wells 76 to 100 ft deep is 0.00771, 

and the median specific capacity of deeper 

wells is increasingly smaller. The specific 

capacity per foot of open hole of the deepest 

wells (251-300 ft deep) is 0.00051. Specific 

capacity per foot of open hole is a parameter 

used to estimate transmissivity (Heath, 1983).

During model calibration, it was also 

determined that simulated conditions best 

match measured conditions when the transmissivity assigned to model layers 9 and 12 ranges 

from 120 ft2/d at the greatest depths to 

500 ft2/d at the shallowest depths; the transmissivity assigned to model layers 10 and 11 

ranges from 470 to 1,900 ft2/d; and the transmissivity assigned to all of the hypothetical layers ranges from 110 to 440 ft2/d. The depthdependent transmissivity at each model cell 

was calculated by using a computer program 

separate from the model. The equations used to 

determine transmissivity at each cell are listed 

in table 5.

During model calibration, several model 

runs were made with anisotropy incorporated 

into each water-bearing unit by varying the 

ratio of horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the 

strike direction to that in the dip direction. 

Ratios varying from 1:2 to 1:10 were tested. 

The best model calibration was achieved when 

no anisotropy was incorporated into individual 

model layers; however, the large-scale anisotropy present in the study area, wherein water 

flows preferentially in the strike direction, is 

simulated by the model. The large-scale anisotropy is a result of transmissivity contrasts in the 

aquifer system. Water is impeded from flowing 

horizontally across units in the dip direction 

because of the low transmissivity of the confining units (fig. 6). Likewise, water is impeded 

from flowing any great distance downdip 

within a water-bearing unit because the transmissivity of each unit decreases with depth. 

Consequently, water flows along the path of 

least resistance (greatest transmissivity), which

26
is through a water-bearing unit and in the strike 

direction (into the page in figure 6). All of these 

transmissivity contrasts are represented in the 

model, with the result that simulated flow paths 

are predominantly along strike.

Pseudo-active cells were assigned a transmissivity of zero. The purpose of this zone, as 

described earlier, is to allow instantaneous vertical flow, but no horizontal flow, through parts 

of model layers that represent non-existent 

extensions of water-bearing units updip from 

their outcrops.

Vertical hydraulic conductivity and vertical ieakance

All of the estimates of vertical hydraulic 

conductivity in rocks similar to those in the 

study area, which vary from 0.0001 to 32 ft/d, 

apply to the bulk vertical conductivity of aquifer systems composed of both water-bearing 

and confining units. Therefore, vertical hydraulic conductivity was allowed to vary over several orders of magnitude during model 

calibration.

Simulated heads, drawdown, and base 

flow best matched measured conditions when 

the vertical conductivity of the weathered zone 

was 4.0 x 10"3 ft/d and the vertical conductivity 

of each confining unit, like the horizontal transmissivity of the water-bearing units, decreased 

with depth. The best model calibration was 

achieved when all confining units except the 

one below water-bearing unit 9 were assigned 

vertical-conductivity values ranging from 1.9 x 

10'8 to 7.7 x 10"5 ft/d. The confining unit below 

water-bearing unit 9 was assigned vertical-conductivity values four orders of magnitude 

higher than those of the other confining units. 

This is an indication that this confining unit is 

leakier than the others. Values of vertical 

hydraulic conductivity used in the model and 

the equations used to calculate the depthdependent values are listed in table 5.

Vertical Ieakance, rather than vertical 

hydraulic conductivity, is the parameter actually incorporated into the model. Vertical Ieakance is the vertical conductivity of the depth 

interval between the center of a model cell and 

the center of the model cell beneath it divided 

by the length of that interval. The vertical Ieakance applied to model cells representing the 

weathered zone depends on the type of unit that 

is below the weathered zone. In some places, a 

water bearing unit is directly beneath the 

weathered zone, and in other places a confining 

unit is directly beneath the weathered zone (fig. 

6). The case in which a water-bearing unit 

directly underlies the weathered zone is analogous to the situation described by McDonald 

and Harbaugh (1988) in which two adjacent 

model layers are used to represent two vertically adjacent hydrogeologic units. In this case, 

the vertical Ieakance assigned to the cell representing the weathered zone is defined as

Vcont =

1

mwb (1)

where

Vcont is the vertical Ieakance,

is the thickness of the weathered zone,

is the thickness of the water-bearing 

unit directly beneath the weathered zone,

Kzw is the vertical hydraulic conductivity 

of the weathered zone, and

K^b is the vertical hydraulic conductivity 

of the water-bearing unit directly beneath the 

weathered zone.

An analysis of the reasonable ranges of 

values of the parameters in equation 1 indicates 

that the vertical conductivity of the weathered 

zone controls the value of vertical Ieakance 

because the vertical conductivity of the weathered zone is orders of magnitude lower than 

that of the water-bearing units. Consequently, 

the terms for vertical conductivity and thickness of the water-bearing unit underlying the

27
weathered zone can be disregarded, and the 

resulting equation is

Vcont =

Vcont = mw (2)

The case in which a confining unit is 

present between the weathered zone and the 

underlying water-bearing unit is analogous to 

the situation described by McDonald and Harbaugh (1988) in which two adjacent model layers are used to represent two water-bearing 

units separated by an interbedded confining 

unit. In this case, the vertical leakance assigned 

to the cell representing the weathered zone is 

defined as

Vcont =

1

mw mc , mwb (3)

where

and

is the thickness of the confining unit,

K^ is the vertical hydraulic conductivity 

of the confining unit.

In this case, the vertical conductivity of 

both the weathered zone and the confining unit 

is much lower than that of the water-bearing 

unit, so the terms representing the thickness 

and conductivity of the water-bearing unit can 

be disregarded, and the resulting equation is

Vcont =

(4)

Model layers 2-19 each represent a waterbearing unit that is underlain by a confining 

unit which, in turn, is underlain by another 

water-bearing unit. In this situation, the vertical 

conductivity of the confining unit is orders of 

magnitude smaller than that of the water-bearing units, and the vertical leakance is defined by 

the equation:

mc

(5)

A computer program separate from the 

model was used to calculate the leakance at 

each model cell according to equation 2,3, or 4. 

Pseudo-active cells were assigned a vertical 

leakance of 100 ft/d to allow near-instantaneous vertical flow through these cells.

Streambed hydraulic conductance

Streams were simulated as head-dependent 

flux boundaries by using the "river module" of 

MODFLOW. In this module, the head in the 

stream is specified, and water flows between 

the aquifer and the stream through the streambed. The rate of flow between the aquifer and 

the stream is controlled by the head difference 

between the stream and the aquifer, and the 

hydraulic conductance of the streambed. 

McDonald and Harbaugh (1988) define this 

conductance according to the equation:

Cnv ~ = K - 

SLW

ms

(6)

where

QJV is the hydraulic conductance of the 

stream-aquifer interconnection;

Ks is the vertical hydraulic conductivity of 

the streambed material,

L is the length of the reach,

W is the width of the stream, and

in,, is the thickness of the streambed.

Streambed material in the study area consists of silt or fractured bedrock with silt filling 

the fractures. Heath (1983) estimated the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of silt to range 

from 0.003 to 10 ft/d. In the calibrated model, 

simulated heads, drawdown, and base flow 

were nearest measured conditions when a vertical conductivity of 1 ft/d was assigned to the 

bed material of the Raritan River and its tributaries.

28
The length of the tributaries to the Raritan 

River within each model cell was determined 

from topographic maps by means of a geographic information system. The width of these 

three streams was estimated to be 3 ft on the 

basis of measurements at a few representative 

sites. Because the Raritan River is about 300 ft 

wide in the model area, its area (L x W) within 

each model cell was determined by digital 

scanning of topographic maps. The thickness 

of the streambed was estimated to be 5 ft in the 

tributaries and 10 ft in the Raritan River.

Specific yield and storage coefficient

Specific yield is used to define the storage 

capacity of model layer 1, the weathered zone, 

which is assumed to be unconfined. Specific 

yield is defined as the ratio of the volume of 

water that can be drained from a rock to the volume of the rock. In the calibrated model, the 

specific yield of the weathered zone was set at 

3.0 xlO'2 .

The storage term used in the model for 

confined water-bearing units below the weathered zone is storage coefficient specific storage of the water-bearing unit multiplied by the 

thickness of the water-bearing unit. Specific 

storage is the amount of water released from or 

taken into storage per unit volume of aquifer 

material per unit change in head. Rima and others (1962) found that the storage coefficient of 

the upper part of the Stockton Formation in 

southeastern Pennsylvania is about 1.37x10"4. 

Because the transmissivity of the Passaic 

Formation is lower than that of the Stockton 

Formation, it is assumed that the storage coefficient of the Passaic Formation is less than 

10"4. As a result of model calibration, specific 

storage in layers 2-20 was set at 4.0 x 10"7.

Pumpage

In the study area, the only wells from 

which water is withdrawn are 11 domestic 

wells and the irrigation well. Pumpage at the 

domestic wells was estimated by assuming that

each household includes four persons and that 

each person uses 75 gal of water per day. The 

pumping rate at the domestic wells was 

assumed to be constant over time.

Pumpage at the irrigation well initially was 

distributed equally among the four model layers intersected by the well opening (layers 9- 

12). During calibration of the transient model, 

the pumpage was redistributed until the best 

match between measured and simulated drawdown was achieved. In the calibrated model, 

18,17,22, and 43 percent of the total pumpage 

is applied to layers 9, 10, 11, and 12, respectively. This distribution also was used in the 

steady-state simulations.

The total volume of water pumped over the 

19-hour period simulated by the transient 

model was 40,561 ft3 . No records were kept of 

any changes in pumping rate over that period, 

but it is assumed that the rate decreased with 

time because of drawdown in the well. Therefore, in the transient model, the total pumping 

time is divided into five equal stress periods; 

the pumping rate decreases from each stress 

period to the next, and in the last stress period 

it is approximately one-half the pumpage in the 

first period.

Calibration criteria

The digital model was calibrated by adjusting values of hydraulic parameters until acceptable matches were achieved between measured 

and simulated static ground-water levels and 

drawdown. Base flow to unnamed stream 1 also 

was used in calibrating the model.

Water levels used in calibration of the 

steady-state model were measured on October 

28,1998. As explained earlier, these water levels are representative of steady-state conditions 

with no pumping from the irrigation well. Measured and simulated water levels at each well 

are listed in table 6. Simulated water levels in 

wells open to confining units are approximate 

because flow in confining units is not expressly

29
Table 6. Measured and simulated water levels on October 28,1996, and drawdown on October 29,1996, in 

wells in the study area, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey

[CU, confining unit]

Local well 

name

Static water level, October 28, 1996

(feet above sea level)

Model 

layer Simulated 

number Measured Simulated minus

measured

Drawdown, October 29, 1996 

(feet)

Measured Simulated

Simulated

minus 

measured

B-l

B-4

B-6

CH-1MW

CH-2MWA

1 75.64

1 95.54

1 79.92

1 86.58

CU9 72.12

ta:.:-s:>SWJ:tea*k»«»¥*»»:-:-

83.64

88.73

80.10

84.89

75.71

8.00

-6.81 

.28

-1.69 

3.59

0.15

.05

.33

.06

8.00

0.04

.09

.10

.09

4.53

-0.11 

.04

-.23 

.03

-3.47

:":":::::::::::::::ii»:::::::::::::::-::x:

MW-2A 

MW-2B 

MW-2C 

MW-3A 

MW-3B

CU9

9

CU8

CU9

9

59.92

61.13

68.21

67.91

68.66

66.64

66.71

70.76

68.79

68.95

6.72

5.58

2.55

.88

.29

6.10 11.45

12.73 12.82

3.61 6.43

19.04 9.93

9.43 10.69

5.35 

.10 

2.83 

-9.11 

1.26

""""

MW-7A

MW-7B

RU-3

RU-4

RU-5

11

10

1

1

9

61.94

61.92

99.32

94.33

73.23

60.38

64.30

97.62

90.81

71.08

-1.56

2.38

-1.70

-3.52

-2.15

13.0o

8.50

.08

0

6.81

MU

10.36

.05

.09

9.20

7.33

1.86

-.03

.09

2.39

30
simulated in the model. The approximated 

water level is the average of the water levels 

simulated in the water-bearing units above and 

below the confining unit. These approximations were made to provide additional data 

points for calibration purposes.

All simulated water levels were within 

14 ft of the measured levels, and 60 percent 

were within 2.6 ft of the measured levels. All 

simulated head-gradient directions matched 

actual gradient directions.

Base flow of 0.407 ft3/s (35,200 ft3/d) was 

measured in unnamed stream 1 near its confluence with the Raritan River (fig. 4) on October 

28,1996, the same day the steady-state water 

levels were measured. Streamflow on that day 

was assumed to consist entirely of base flow 

because only a trace of precipitation had fallen 

during the 8-day period preceding the measurement and because streamflow in nearby gaged 

streams was at base-flow conditions (R.S. 

Schopp, U.S. Geological Survey, oral comnum., 1996). Simulated base flow at the measurement site is 32,300 ft3/d~92 percent of the 

measured base flow. Consequently, the model 

is considered to be adequately calibrated with 

respect to base flow.

The transient model was calibrated to the 

total drawdown observed in wells after the irrigation well had been pumped for 19 hours and 

11 minutes. All simulated drawdowns were 

within 9.2 ft of the measured levels, and 60 percent were within 1.9 ft of the measured levels.

Simulated Ground-Water Budget

Data from the calibrated model can be 

used to estimate the ground-water-flow budget 

in the study area. Most of the inflow into the 

model area is areal recharge, and most of the 

outflow is discharge to the Raritan River and its 

tributaries. Regional flow into the model area 

across the northeastern boundary accounts for 

the rest of the inflow, and pumping from wells 

accounts for the rest of the outflow. When the

irrigation well is pumped at its average annual 

rate, 78 percent of the water captured by the 

well is intercepted base flow to unnamed 

stream 1. The remainder is intercepted base 

flow to the Raritan River. Budgets for the simulations with no pumping and with average 

annual pumpage from the irrigation well are 

shown schematically in figure 8.

GROUND-WATER QUALITY AND 

DISTRIBUTION OF VOLATILE 

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Water samples were collected from each 

accessible well in the study area at least once 

during 1993-96 and analyzed for VOC's. Samples were collected from 15 wells during 

August-September 1993, from 17 wells during 

June-July 1994, from 24 wells in 1995, and 

from 25 wells in 1996. The shallow upgradient 

well (MW-4) was sampled twice in 1995 

because attempts to sample this well in 1993 

and 1994 were not successful because of its low 

yield.

Ground-Water Quality

All water samples were analyzed for 

VOC's. Eleven VOC's were present at concentrations above the reporting limit (table 7, at 

end of report). The reporting limits of these 11 

compounds, as well as the 48 VOC's for which 

the samples were analyzed but were not 

detected in concentrations above the reporting 

limit, are listed in appendix 2. The areal distribution of VOC's in the study area did not vary 

greatly from 1993 to 1996.

Samples from 12 of the wells in the study 

area were analyzed for dissolved cations, 

anions, nutrients, metallic trace elements, and 

phenols, and samples from 11 wells were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls. Results of 

these analyses are listed in appendix 3. No primary maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 

any of these constituents was exceeded in any

31
Ground-water 

recharge 

1.22 

7.22

GROUND-WATER SYSTEM

Base flow to 

Raritan River

0.447

0.436

Base flow to

tributaries

0.773

0.734

i

Pumpage from

wells 

0.00509 

0.05430

EXPLANATION

1.22 No pumpage at irrigation well. 

Value in cubic feet per second

7.22 Average annual pumpage at irrigation well. 

Value in cubic feet per second

Figure 8. Simulated ground-water budget, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, 

Piscataway Township, New Jersey.

32
of these samples, and no poly chlorinated 

biphenyls were detected in any sample. The 

MCL is the maximum concentration of a constituent allowable in public drinking water. 

MCLs are generally based on health criteria. 

MCLs for selected inorganic constituents and 

organic compounds are listed in appendix 4.

Quality Assurance Procedures

VOC-concentration data were reviewed to 

veriiy the results of the laboratory analyses. 

Recoveries of the surrogate analyte added to all 

samples prior to analysis as well as the accuracy of the measurement of compounds of 

interest in the laboratory-fortified blanks were 

within accepted precision limits.

Twelve sequential replicate samples were 

submitted blind to the laboratory for analysis 

for VOCs during 1993-96. Results of analyses 

of these samples are included in table 7. Of the 

708 sets of analyses (including those for compounds listed in appendix 2 that were not 

detected in any sample), 688 were duplicated 

exactly. Only two sets of analyses had relative 

percent differences greater than 27 percent; 

these two were analyses for methylene chloride, a common laboratory contaminant. For 

the purposes of this study, the quality of the 

replicate analyses are acceptable.

Thirty-one field blanks and 23 trip blanks 

also were submitted for VOC analysis. Results 

of these analyses are presented in appendix 5. 

Methylene chloride was the prevalent compound found in blanks; this compound was 

detected in concentrations up to 6.3 j^g/L in 13 

field blanks and up to 5.0 j^g/L in 9 trip blanks. 

In most cases, methylene chloride was detected 

also in the associated laboratory method blank; 

therefore, occurrence of this compound in 

blanks is attributed to contamination originating in the analyzing laboratory. A concentration of 0.6 (j,g/L of chloroform was detected in 

the trip blank for September 19,1995, and a 

concentration of 0.6 jag/L of 1,2-dichloropropane was detected in the trip blank for October 

4, 1996, but neither of these compounds was 

detected in other samples in the same shipments. No other organic compounds were 

detected.

As a simple check on analyte loss during 

transportation and laboratory holding time and 

on GC/MS accuracy, samples collected from 

two wells (MW-2A and CH3-MW) in 1995 

were spiked in the field with a known concentration of an organic compound. The only compound detected in these two samples was this 

field surrogate; percent recoveries for this surrogate were 100 and 87 percent, respectively.

Distribution of Volatile Organic 

Compounds

Carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene

Carbon tetrachloride was detected at 

higher concentrations than any other VOC and 

was detected in samples from 5 wells. Concentrations of this compound ranged from less than 

0.5 j^g/L to 24,000 j^g/L and were highest in 

samples from wells less than 10 ft from the CWing building-RU-2, RU-4, and RU-5. These 

wells are 27,27, and 75 ft deep, respectively. 

Concentrations of carbon tetrachloride in all 

samples from these wells greatly exceeded the 

MCL of 2.0 |-ig/L (New Jersey Administrative 

Code, 1990). Carbon tetrachloride also was 

detected consistently in samples from well 

MW-3B, which is 750 ft from the C-Wing 

building and 90 ft deep, and intermittently in 

samples from well MW-1 A, which is 370 ft 

from the C-Wing building and 100 ft deep. The 

concentrations of carbon tetrachloride in all 

samples from these two wells were below the 

MCL. Trace amounts of carbon tetrachloride 

(below the reporting limit of 0.5 j-ig/L) were 

detected in water from wells MW-1 A, MW-3 A, 

MW-2B, and MW-2C in 1993. These wells are 

330,750,1,380, and 1,380 ft from the C-Wing 

building and are 100, 140, 110, and 80 ft deep, 

respectively.

33
Well MW-5A, which was installed in 1995 

to help define the vertical distribution of contaminants near the C-Wing building, is 

screened from 179 to 204 ft below land surface. 

It is more than 100 ft deeper than the adjacent 

well, RU-5, which is 75 ft deep. The sample 

from well MW-5 A contained no detectable carbon tetrachloride although the samples from 

well RU-5 contained up to 8,500 j^g/L of this 

compound.

The analytical data indicate that the carbon 

tetrachloride contaminant plume as defined by 

points where this compound has been detected 

at concentrations exceeding the MCL~is localized in an area within 10 ft of the C-Wing building and to a depth of somewhere between 75 

and 179 ft.

The areal distribution of PCE is very different from and much more discontinuous than 

the distribution of carbon tetrachloride. PCE, 

the most frequently detected compound, was 

present in 22 samples from nine wells in concentrations ranging from less than 0.5 to 1,300 

jig/L. PCE was detected in concentrations 

exceeding the MCL (1.0 |^g/L) in all samples 

from wells RU2, RU-4, RU-5, MW-5A, CH2MWB, and the irrigation well. These wells are 

5 to 2,370 ft from the C-Wing building and 27 

to 300 ft deep.

Concentrations of PCE were highest in 

samples from wells less than 10 ft from the CWing building~RU-2, RU-4, and RU-5, which 

are 27, 27, and 75 ft deep, respectively. The 

sample from well MW-5 A, the 204-ft-deep 

well near the C-Wing building, contained 

1.4 ng/L of PCE. The presence of PCE, but not 

carbon tetrachloride, at this depth may be the 

result of an earlier release time for PCE or its 

slightly greater specific density (1.63 compared 

to 1.59) and lower viscosity.

The next highest concentrations of PCE 

were found in the irrigation well, which is 

2,370 ft from the C-Wing building. PCE concentrations detected in this well range from 16

to 23 jag/L. The irrigation well is 300 ft deep 

and open to water-bearing units 9-12.

No PCE was detected in many wells 

between the C-Wing building and the irrigation 

well (all wells in clusters MW-1 and MW-3 and 

the deepest wells in clusters MW-2 and MW-6). 

Moreover, where PCE was detected in wells 

between the C-Wing building and the irrigation 

well, concentrations were low (at or below the 

MCL). At the well cluster closest to the irrigation well, PCE was detected at 0.5 j^g/L in well 

MW-6C, which is open to water-bearing unit 9, 

but was not detected in samples from the two 

deeper wells open to water-bearing units 11 and 

12.

PCE also was consistently present in samples from Rutgers golf 13 obs. This well is 200 

ft deep, open to water-bearing units 9-11, and 

2,500 ft from the C-Wing building-farther 

from the building than is the irrigation well. 

Concentrations of PCE in samples from this 

well are either slightly above or below the 

MCL.

Other volatile organic compounds

Four other VOC's were detected in concentrations exceeding their MCL's. Trichloroethylene (TCE) was detected in concentrations 

exceeding the MCL (1.0 jig/L) in water from 

well MW-5 A in 1995 and 1996, from RU-4 in 

1994, and from well CH-IMW in 1993. TCE 

was detected in a concentration below the MCL 

in water from well RU-5 in 1994. TCE in the 

study area commonly is associated with PCE 

and cis-l,2-dichloroethene. PCE degrades to 

TCE, to the 1,2-dichloroethenes, and finally to 

vinyl chloride by the process of reductive 

dehalogenation (Freedman and Gossett, 1989). 

Therefore, TCE in the study area probably is a 

degradation product of PCE.

Benzene was detected in samples from two 

wells in concentrations greater than the MCL of 

1.0 jag/L-well CH-IMW in 1993 (2.9 jag/L) 

and well RU-4 in 1994 (3.4 ng/L). The 1994

34
water sample from well RU-4 also contained 

36 (ig/L of 1,2-dichloroethane, which exceeds 

the MCL of 2.0 (ig/L. These results, however, 

were not duplicated in previous or subsequent 

sampling. The only water sample in which the 

MCL of 100 (ig/L for total trihalomethanes was 

exceeded was collected from well RU-2 in 

1994. Chloroform, one of the trihalomethanes, 

was detected in this sample at a concentration 

of 110ng/L.

The only VOC's detected at the MW-7 

well cluster were toluene and chloroform. 

These compounds were detected in concentrations of 29 and 0.6 (ig/L, respectively, which 

are far below the MCL's of 1,000 and 

100 (J.g/L. This well cluster is between the CWing building and the domestic wells but is 

much closer to the domestic wells. It was 

installed to serve as an early warning to detect 

any contaminants that may be moving from the 

C-Wing building area toward the domestic 

wells.

Relation of Distribution of Contaminants to 

Ground-Water Flow Paths

The digital model was used to approximate 

the configuration of ground-water-flow paths 

from the vicinity of the C-Wing building. These 

approximations were made to determine 

whether the broken sump pipe at the C-Wing 

building is a plausible source of all carbon tetrachloride and PCE detected in wells in the 

study area and to estimate the effects of pumping on flow paths. MODPATH, a particle-tracking post-processor for MODFLOW developed 

by Pollack (1994), was used to compute the 

paths. Actual ground-water flow paths through 

the fractured-rock aquifer system are undoubtedly more complex than the simulated paths; 

however, the simulated paths are considered 

the best available estimate of the general configuration of flow paths on the scale of the study 

area.

Both of the primary contaminants at the CWing building carbon tetrachloride and PCEare dense nonaqueous-phase liquids 

(DNAPLs). Although these compounds have 

been detected in the study area only in the dissolved phase, it is possible that undissolved 

masses of these DNAPLs are present near their 

assumed source area. Because undissolved 

DNAPLs are denser than water, they move in 

different directions and at different velocities 

than the surrounding water. Their density 

causes them to move more slowly and have a 

greater downward vertical component of flow 

than the surrounding water. As water flows past 

the DNAPLs, it dissolves the DNAPLs, which 

can then move advectively with the water. The 

digital model used in this study simulates only 

the advective transport of dissolved contaminants it cannot predict the movement of the 

undissolved DNAPLs. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the "assumed source area" over 

which undissolved DNAPLs are present in 

order to use the model to estimate advective 

flow paths beginning at the source area.

Kueper and McWhorter (1991) found that 

DNAPLs travel along dipping fracture planes 

at a speed directly proportional to the dip of the 

plane from the horizontal. They also found that 

DNAPLs tend to pool above confining units but 

that if a DNAPL encounters an open fracture in 

the confining unit it may move through the fracture to lower water-bearing units. These findings were used to estimate the potential 

movement of DNAPLs from the site of the broken sump pipe at the C-Wing building. If any 

DNAPL were present, it probably would move 

along bedding-plane fractures in the waterbearing units in the direction of the dip of the 

bedrock (northwest) and also downward 

through vertical fractures in confining units. 

Consequently, any DNAPLs that ever were 

present near the broken sump pipe probably 

have moved both to the northwest and vertically downward. The extent of this movement 

is unknown, but water-quality data for wells 

RU-5 and MW5-A indicate that the maximum 

depth of dissolved carbon tetrachloride is

35
somewhere between the bottom of water-bearing unit 9 and the top of water-bearing unit 11 

and that the maximum depth of dissolved PCE 

is approximately at the bottom of water-bearing 

unit 11. Water-quality data from well CH3-MW 

indicate that both contaminants have moved 

less than 500 ft downdip. Consequently, the 

assumed source area of undissolved carbon tetrachloride was conservatively estimated to 

extend 130 ft below and 250 ft northwest from 

the broken sump pipe. Similarly, the assumed 

source area of PCE was estimated to extend 

200 ft below and 250 ft northwest from the 

broken sump pipe.

The flow paths were estimated from simulations of the ground-water system under three 

hypothetical steady-state conditions. In all 

three simulations, 11 domestic wells in the 

model area are pumped. In Simulation 1, the 

irrigation well is not pumped; in Simulation 2, 

the irrigation well is pumped at the average 

yearly rate (22.1 gal/min); and in Simulation 3, 

the irrigation well is pumped at a rate equal to 

its maximum short-term yield (262 gal/min). It 

is not known, however, whether this pumping 

rate could actually be sustained in the well or 

whether the drawdown caused by the pumping 

would adversely affect yields in the domestic 

wells.

Three different pumping rates were simulated because actual pumping from the irrigation well is intermittent. The well is pumped 

only during late April through October, and 

during those months it is pumped only when 

precipitation is inadequate to maintain grass on 

the golf course. Even at those times, the well is 

pumped for a maximum of about 16 hours per 

day. Consequently, steady-state ground-water 

conditions probably occur only rarely during 

the spring, summer, and fall. The simulated 

flow paths under the two "end-member" conditions no pumping and maximum pumping 

provide a reasonable range of actual flow paths 

of water from the C-Wing building. The simulated flow paths under the average-yearlypumpage condition provide an intermediate 

estimate of actual flow paths.

Carbon tetrachloride

Simulated paths of ground-water flow 

from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source 

area in the three simulated pumping conditions 

are shown in map view in figures 9-11. Only a 

few representative flow paths, including the 

two outermost paths, are shown. The two outermost flow paths enclose the entire simulated 

area through which water from the C-wing 

building could flow. In all three simulations, 

flow lines trend predominantly northeast to 

southwest-parallel to the strike of the waterbearing units. This predominant flow direction 

is consistent with the conceptual model and is a 

result of the dip of the water-bearing units and 

confining units that make up the hydrogeologic 

framework.

Pumping from the irrigation well affects 

the configuration of the simulated flow paths. 

When the well is not pumped, all water that 

passes through the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area flows generally southwest and 

discharges to unnamed stream 1. Water originating in the weathered part of the carbon tetrachloride source area flows nearly vertically 

from the weathered zone into the underlying 

water-bearing unit (unit 9). Most of the water 

flows through unit 9 to the unit's outcrop in 

unnamed stream 1, where it discharges to the 

stream, but some water from the southeasternmost part of the source area flows from unit 9 to 

unit 10 and back to unit 9 before discharging to 

the stream. It is unlikely that water reaching the 

stream from the C-wing building still contains 

carbon tetrachloride because this compound 

has not been detected in concentrations above 

the MCL at distances greater than 10 ft from the 

building.

In the model simulation in which the irrigation well is pumped at the average annual 

rate, all water from the assumed source area

36
EXPLANATION 

Simulated ground-water o Well location; carbon 0 400 800 1,200 FEET

11

flow path

Strike direction and 

dip angle of rock layers

 Domestic well

 Well location: carbon 

tetrachloride not detected

tetrachloride concentration 

less than 2.0 micrograms per 

liter

« Well location; carbon 

tetrachloride concentration 

greater than 2.0 micrograms 

per liter

0 100 200 300 METERS

Figure 9. Concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected from wells in 1995 

and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area under 

steady-state conditions with no pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University Busch 

Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.

37
EXPLANATION

 Simulated ground-water 

flow path

Strike direction and 

dip angle of rock layers 11 i H- I di

 Domestic well

 Well location: carbon 

tetrachloride not detected

o Well location; carbon 

tetrachloride concentration 

less than 2.0 micrograms per 

liter

e Well location; carbon 

tetrachloride concentration 

greater than 2.0 micrograms 

per liter

0 400 800 1,200 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

38

Figure 10. Concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected from wells in 1995 

and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area under 

steady-state conditions with average annual pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University 

Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.
EXPLANATION

 Simulated ground-water 

flow path

11 Strike direction and 

dip angle of rock layers

Domestic well

Well location: carbon 

tetrachloride not detected

o Well location; carbon 

tetrachloride concentration 

less than 2.0 micrograms per 

liter

e Well location; carbon 

tetrachloride concentration 

greater than 2.0 micrograms 

per liter

0 400 800 1,200 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

Figure 11. Concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected from wells in 1995 

and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area under 

steady-state conditions with maximum pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University 

Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey. 39
discharges to the irrigation well, which is open 

to water-bearing units 9-12, and all paths 

remain in water-bearing unit 9. In the model 

simulation in which the irrigation well is 

pumped continuously at its maximum shortterm yield, flow paths follow the same pattern 

but are farther downdip, toward the northwest, 

as a result of drawdown in the vicinity of the 

irrigation well.

The concentrations of carbon tetrachloride 

(greater than 2 ^ig/L, less than 2 (ig/L, or not 

detected) in samples from wells also are shown 

in figures 9-11. All wells in which carbon tetrachloride was detected are within the area 

encompassed by the flow lines from the 

assumed carbon tetrachloride source area, and 

the concentrations of carbon tetrachloride 

decrease along flow paths. Consequently, the 

flow-path analysis supports the hypothesis that 

ail the carbon tetrachloride detected in the 

study area originated at the broken pipe near 

the C-Wing building.

In ail three pumping simulations, none of 

the flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area (figs. 9-11) reaches any 

domestic well. The shortest distance between a 

flow path and a domestic well in any of the simulations is about 700 ft. That flow path was 

generated in the simulation with no pumping 

from the irrigation well. The simulation results 

show that pumping from the irrigation well 

widens the distance between flow paths of 

potentially contaminated water and the domestic wells.

A section view through the study area 

showing the extent of the simulated flow paths 

from the assumed carbon tetrachioride source 

area with no pumping from the irrigation well 

and concentrations of carbon tetrachioride in 

samples from wells are shown in figure 12. As 

in the map views (figs. 9-11), ail wells in which 

carbon tetrachloride was detected are within 

the area encompassed by the flow lines from 

the carbon tetrachloride source area, and concentrations decrease along flow lines. The same 

information for both the average-annual-pumpage and maximum-pumpage simulations is 

shown in figure 13. The area that includes the 

flow lines is identical in these two simulations, 

and, as in the no-pumping simulation, all wells 

in which carbon tetrachloride was detected are 

located within this area.

Tetrachloroethylene

Simulated paths of ground-water flow 

from the assumed PCE source area in the three 

steady-state simulations are shown in map view 

in figures 14-16. Flow paths from the assumed 

PCE source area are more numerous than those 

from the assumed carbon tetrachioride source 

area because the PCE source area encompasses 

two additional water-bearing units units 10 

and 11. In the simulation with no pumping from 

the irrigation well (fig. 14), the discharge points 

of flow paths in units 10 and 11 are farther 

southwest than the discharge points of flow 

paths in unit 9 because these units crop out farther southwest than does unit 9; paths in unit 11 

extend to the Raritan River (fig. 14).

When the irrigation well is pumped at its 

average annual rate, most of the flow paths 

originating in the assumed PCE source area are 

captured by the well (fig. 15); when the well is 

pumped at a rate equal to its maximum shortterm yield, all of the flow paths are captured 

(fig. 16). Like the flow paths originating in the 

assumed carbon tetrachloride source area, 

paths originating in the PCE source area shift to 

the northwest as pumpage from the irrigation 

well increases.

The concentrations of PCE detected in 

samples from wells are also shown in figures 

14-16. The distribution of PCE, unlike the distribution of carbon tetrachloride, is complex 

and discontinuous. PCE was detected in concentrations above the 1.0 jjg/L MCL in samples 

from wells as far as 2,500 ft from the C-Wing 

building but not at several wells closer to the CWing building (fig. 14). In addition, simulated 

ground-water flow paths from the building area 

do not encompass ail of the wells in which PCE 

was detected.

40
150 r

WEATHERED ZONE

-250_ 500 1,000 1,500 

DISTANCE (FEET)

2,000 2,500 2,700

EXPLANATION

Water-bearing 

unit and number

Confining unitAssumed carbon 

tetrachloride 

source area

Extent of area 

containing flow 

paths from 

assumed carbon 

tetrachloride 

source area

Well screen or open 

interval and carbon 

tetrachloride concentration in water samples 

(micrograms per liter)-

I Greater than 2.0

Less 

than 2.0

Not detected

Figure 12. Section A-A' showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected from 

wells in 1995, and simulated area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area under steady-state conditions with no pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway 

Township, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in fig. 2)
150 r

MW-3B MW-3A

MW-1C 

MW-1A MW-1B

RU-4 

RU-5 

MW-5A

A'

-250_ 500 1,000 1,500 

DISTANCE (FEET)

2,000 2,500 2,700

EXPLANATION

Water-bearing 

unit and number

Confining unit

Assumed 

carbon 

tetrachloride 

source area

Extent of area 

containing flow 

paths from 

assumed carbon 

tetrachloride 

source area

Well screen or open 

interval and carbon 

tetrachloride concentration in water samples 

(micrograms per liter)-

Greater 

than 2.0

Less 

than 2.0

Not detected

Figure 13. Section A-A1 showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of carbon tetrachloride in water samples collected from 

wells in 1995, and simulated area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area under 

steady-state conditions with both average annual and maximum pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in fig. 2)
EXPLANATION

 Simulated ground-water 

flow path

Strike direction and 

dip angle of rock layers 11 \ H- 1 di

« Domestic well

Well location: tetrachloroethylene not detected

o Well location; tetrachloroethylene concentration 

less than 1.0 microgram per 

liter

e Well location; tetrachloroethylene concentration 

greater than 1.0 microgram 

per liter

400 800 1,200 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

Figure 14. Concentration of tetrachloroethlyene in water samples collected from wells in 1995 

and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed tetrachloroethlyene source area under 

steady-state conditions with no pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University Busch 

Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.

43
EXPLANATION

Simulated ground-water 

flow path

Strike direction and 

dip angle of rock layers

Domestic well

Well location: tetrachloroethylene not detected

o Well location; tetrachloroethylene concentration 

less than 1.0 microgram per 

liter

® Well location; tetrachloroethylene concentration 

greater than 1.0 microgram 

per liter

0 400 800 1,200 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

44

Figure 15. Concentration of tetrachloroethlyene in water samples collected from wells in 1995 

and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed tetrachloroethlyene source area under 

steady-state conditions with average annual pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University 

Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.
EXPLANATION

 Simulated ground-water 

flow path

.... i Strike direction and

 dip angle of rock layers

 Domestic well

 Well location: tetrachloroethylene not detected

o Well location; tetrachloroethylene concentration 

less than 1.0 microgram per 

liter

® Well location; tetrachloroethylene concentration 

greater than 1.0 microgram 

per liter

0 400 800 1,200 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

Figure 16. Concentration of tetrachloroethlyene in water samples collected from wells in 1995 

and simulated ground-water flow paths from the assumed tetrachloroethlyene source area under 

steady-state conditions with maximum pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University 

Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey.

45
A section view through the study area 

showing the area containing simulated flow 

paths from the assumed PCE source area in the 

no-pumping simulation and concentrations of 

PCE detected in samples from wells are shown 

in figure 17. The same information for both the 

average-annual-pumpage and maximumpumpage simulations is shown in figure 18. As 

in the map views (figs. 14-16), some wells in 

which PCE was detected are outside the area 

encompassed by the flow lines from the 

assumed source area. Consequently, the distribution of PCE and the simulated flow paths are 

inconsistent with the hypothesis that all the 

PCE detected in the study area originated at 

the broken pipe near the C-Wing building. As 

described earlier, however, simulations of 

ground-water flow through fractured rocks 

cannot exactly duplicate the actual paths. 

Consequently, the possibility that all PCE 

found in the study area is derived from the 

C-Wing building area cannot be conclusively 

ruled out.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Volatile organic compounds, primarily 

carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene 

(PCE), were detected in shallow ground water 

near the Chemical Engineering building also 

called the C-Wing building-at the Rutgers 

University Busch Campus in Piscataway 

Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The 

C-Wing building overlies the Passaic Formation, which comprises a water-supply aquifer, 

and is about 2,500 ft north-northeast of several 

domestic wells. During 1993-96, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Rutgers, the 

State University of New Jersey, conducted field 

investigations and data analysis to determine 

the extent and distribution of contamination 

and characteristics of the ground-water flow 

system in a study area comprising 0.3 mi2 in the 

vicinity of the Busch Campus. Field investigations included geologic coring, collection of

borehole-geophysical logs, installation of monitor wells, measurement of ground-water levels 

and streamflow, aquifer testing, and collection 

of water-quality samples.

In the study area, the Passaic Formation 

consists of dipping layers of extensively fractured coarse-grained siltstone and sandstone 

interbedded with layers of sparsely fractured, 

finer grained siltstone and mudstone. Ground 

water is primarily stored in and transmitted 

through interconnected fractures in these rocks. 

The rocks are weathered near land surface. 

Clay and silt derived from the weathering process fills many of the fractures in the weathered 

zone, causing it to be less permeable than the 

underlying water-bearing units.

At least 23 fracture zones are present in the 

study area. Transrnissivity data from wells 

completed in these zones, however, indicate 

that only four of these fracture zones are actually water-bearing units. No other fracture 

zones transmit significant volumes of water and 

all are within confining units. The median 

transmissivity of zones identified as waterbearing units and confining units, respectively, 

is 84 and 3.7 ft2/d. The median transmissivity 

of the weathered zone is 4.8 fi^/d.

Recharge to the ground-water system is by 

downward leakage of infiltrated precipitation. 

The transmissivity contrasts and the dipping 

hydrogeologic units of the multiunit aquifer 

system cause large-scale anisotropic flow. 

Ground-water flow through the system is predominantly southwest, parallel to the strike of 

the rock layers. Discharge is predominantly to 

the Raritan River and its tributaries; minor 

amounts flow to pumped wells. The northeastern half of the study area lies in a recharge area 

and the southwestern half which is nearer to 

the Raritan River lies in a discharge area.

A digital model was developed to simulate 

both steady-state and transient ground-water 

flow and to analyze ground-water flow in the 

study area. The digital model used in this inves46
150 r EXPLANATION

Water-bearing 

unit and numberConfining unit

Assumed tetrachloroethylene source 

area

Extent of area 

containing flow 

paths from assumed 

tetrachloroethylene source 

area

Well screen or open 

interval and tetrachloroethylene 

concentration in water 

samples 

(micrograms per liter)--

I Greater than 1.0I Less than 1.0I Not detected

-250_ 500 1,000 1,500 

DISTANCE (FEET)

2,000 2,500 2,700

Figure 17. Section A-A' showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of tetrachloroethylene in water samples collected from wells in 1995, and simulated area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed tetrachloroethylene source area under steady-state 

conditions with no pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey. 

(Line of section shown in fig. 2)
150

100

50

LLJ LJJLJJ 

W 

UJ

8CD 

<

fcLJJ

-50

LJJ 

-100-150

-200-250

IRRIGATION 

WELL

MW-6C MW-6B 

MW-6A

MW-2C 

MW-2B MW-2A

MW-3B MW-3A

WEATHERED ZONE

EXPLANATION

Water-bearing 

unit and number

Confining unit

Assumed tetrachloroethylene source area

Extent of area 

containing flow 

paths from assumed 

tetrachloroethylene source area

Well screen or open 

interval and 

tetrachloroethylene 

concentration in water samples 

(micrograms per liter):

( Greater than 1.0I Less than 1.01 Not detected

500 1,000 1,500 

DISTANCE (FEET)

2,000 2,500 2,700

Figure 18. Section A-A' showing hydrogeologic framework, concentration of tetrachloroethylene in water samples collected from wells 

in 1995, and simulated area containing ground-water flow paths from the assumed tetrachloroethylene source area under steady-state 

conditions with both average annual and maximum pumpage from the irrigation well, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, 

Piscataway Township, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in fig. 2)
tigation simulates only advective transport of 

constituents dissolved in the water; dilution and 

dispersion of dissolved contaminants and the 

movement of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids 

cannot be simulated. The model area, which 

encompasses 2.3 mi2, was extended beyond the 

study area to natural hydrologic boundaries.

Areal recharge was represented in the 

model as specified flux of 7.4 inches per year 

applied to the uppermost active model layer. 

Surface-water bodies were simulated as headdependent-flux boundaries. The value of vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed 

material used in the model is 1.0 ft/d.

In the calibrated model, the horizontal 

transmissivity of the weathered zone is 

and the transmissivity of the underlying waterbearing units ranges from 110 to 1,900 ft2/d 

depending on lithology and depth. Vertical 

hydraulic conductivity in the calibrated model 

is 4.0 x 10"3 ft/d in the weathered zone and 

ranges from 1.9 x 10'8 ft/d to 7.7 x 10' 1 ft/d in 

the confining units, depending on lithology and 

depth. Below the weathered zone, both the 

transmissivity of the water-bearing units and 

the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining units decrease with depth. Storage coefficients are 3.0 x 10"2 in the weathered zone and 

4.0 x 10"7 in all of the water-bearing units.

Water samples were collected from each of 

the 25 wells in the study area at least once during 1993-96. The spatial distributions of the 

two primary contaminants in the study area-- 

carbon tetrachloride and PCE~differ from each 

other. The carbon tetrachloride plume, as 

defined by the points where this compound has 

been detected at concentrations exceeding the 

MCL, is localized in the C-Wing building area, 

although trace amounts were detected in wells 

as far as 750 ft from the C-Wing building. The 

plume's vertical extent is somewhere between 

75 and 179 ft below land surface.

The distribution of PCE, in contrast, is discontinuous. This compound was detected in

concentrations above the New Jersey MCL of 

1.0 |ag/L at several locations in the study area. 

Concentrations were highest in shallow wells 

less than 10 ft from the C-Wing building. PCE 

was detected in samples from six additional 

wells in the study area. Of these six wells, the 

irrigation well, which is 2,370 ft from the CWing building, contained the highest concentration of PCE. PCE was not detected in samples from nine wells between the C-Wing 

building and the irrigation well, however.

The digital model was used to estimate the 

configuration of ground-water flow paths from 

the vicinity of the C-Wing building. Actual 

flow paths through the fractured-rock aquifer 

system undoubtedly are more complex than the 

simulated paths. The simulated flow paths are 

primarily horizontal in the water-bearing units 

and vertical in the confining units. Horizontal 

flow generally is parallel or subparallel to the 

strike of the rock layers. When the irrigation 

well is not being pumped, all water that passes 

through the vicinity of the C-Wing building discharges to the Raritan River and its tributaries. 

It is unlikely that water reaching the stream 

from the C-wing building still contains carbon 

tetrachloride because this compound has not 

been detected in concentrations above the MCL 

at distances greater than 10 ft from the building.

Pumping at the irrigation well causes flow 

lines to shift toward the well. Analysis of flow 

paths shows that if this well were pumped continually at its current maximum short-term 

yield, all water that originates at or passes 

through the C-Wing building area would discharge to the irrigation well. The simulated 

flow paths do not reach any domestic well when 

the irrigation well is not pumped, and the distance between the flow paths and the nearest 

domestic well increases as simulated pumping 

from the irrigation well increases.

All wells in which carbon tetrachloride 

was detected are within the area encompassed 

by the flow paths from the assumed carbon tetrachloride source area, and the concentration of

49
carbon tetrachloride decreases along flow 

paths. Therefore, the flow-path analysis supports the hypothesis that all of the carbon tetrachloride detected in the study area originated at 

the broken pipe near the C-Wing building.

Some wells in which PCE was detected, 

however, are located outside the area encompassed by the flow paths from the assumed PCE 

source area. Consequently, both the simulated 

flow paths and the discontinuous distribution of 

PCE are inconsistent with the hypothesis that 

all of the PCE detected in the study area originated at the broken pipe near the C-Wing building. Because of the complexity of actual 

ground-water flow paths through the fracturedrock aquifer system, however, it is not possible 

to state conclusively that an additional source 

of PCE must be present.

REFERENCES CITED

Aerial Data Reduction Associates, 1988, 

Topographic survey, Rutgers University, 

Middlesex County, N.J.: Pennsauken, 

New Jersey, Aerial Data Reduction 

Associates, scale 1:600.

Bouwer, H., and Rice, R.C., 1976, A slug test 

for determining hydraulic conductivity of 

unconfined aquifers with completely or 

partially penetrating wells: Water 

Resources Research, v. 12, no. 3, p. 423- 

428.

Carleton, G.B., Welty, C., and Buxton, H.T., 

1999, Design and analysis of tracer tests 

to determine effective porosity and 

dispersivity in fractured sedimentary 

rocks, Newark Basin, N.J.: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 98-4126, 80 p.

Chichester, D.C., 1996, Hydrogeology of, and 

simulation of ground-water flow in, a 

mantled carbonate-rock system, 

Cumberland Valley, Pennsylvania: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94-4090,39 p.

Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J.D., and 

Papadopoulos, I.S., 1967, Response of a 

finite-diameter well to an instantaneous 

charge of water: Water Resources 

Research, v. 3, no. 1, p. 263-269.

dePaul, Vincent, 1996, Reconnaissance of 

volatile organic compounds in the 

subsurface at Rutgers University, Busch 

Campus, Piscataway Township, New 

Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 95-729, 26 p.

ENSR Consulting and Engineering, 1989, 

Preliminary ground water assessment for 

the engineering building C-wing 

basement, Piscataway, New Jersey: 

Somerset, New Jersey, ENSR Consulting 

and Engineering, 47 p., 4 app.

Freedman, D.L., and Gossett, J.M., 1989, 

Biological reductive dechlorination of 

tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene 

to ethylene under methanogenic 

conditions: Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, v. 55, p. 2,144 to 2,151.

Froelich, A.J., and Olsen, P.E., 1985, Newark 

Supergroup, a revision of the Newark 

Group in eastern North America, in 

Robinson, G.R., and Froelich, A.J., eds, 

Proceedings of the second U.S. 

Geological Survey workshop on the Early 

Mesozoic basins of the eastern United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

946, p. 1-3.

Gerhart, J.M., and Lazorchick, G.J., 1988, 

Evaluation of the ground-water resources 

of the Lower Susquehanna River basin, 

Pennsylvania and Maryland: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2284, 128 p.

Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water

hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2220, 84 p.

Houghton, H.F., 1990, Hydrogeology of the 

early Mesozoic rocks of the Newark 

Basin, New Jersey, in Kroll, R.L., and 

Brown, J.O, comp., Aspects of ground 

water in New Jersey: Seventh Annual 

Meeting of the Geological Association of 

New Jersey, October 26-27, 1990, Kean 

College, Union, N.J., p. E1-E36.

50
Hvorslev, M.J., 1951, Time lag and soil 

permeability in ground water 

observations: U.S Army Corps of 

Engineers Waterway Experimentation 

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Bulletin 

36, 56 p.

Keys, W.S., and MacCary, L.M., 1971, 

Application of borehole geophysics to 

water-resources investigations: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 2, chap. 

El, 126 p.

Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc., 1985, Aerial 

photographs of Rutgers University: 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Keystone 

Aerial Surveys, unpublished photographs.

Kueper, B.H., and McWhorter, D.B., 1991, 

The behavior of dense, nonaqueous phase 

liquids in fractured clay and rock: Ground 

Water, v. 29, no. 5, p 716-728.

Lewis-Brown, J.C., and Jacobsen, Eric, 1995, 

Hydrogeology and ground-water flow, 

fractured Mesozoic structural-basin rocks, 

Stony Brook, Beden Brook, and Jacobs 

Creek drainage basins, west-central New 

Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 94-4147, 

83 p.

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W, 1988, 

A modular three-dimensional finitedifference ground-water flow model: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 6, chap. 

Al,576p.

Michalski, Andrew. 1990, Hydrogeology of 

the Brunswick (Passaic) Formation and 

implications for ground water monitoring 

practice: Ground Water Monitoring 

Review, v. 10, no. 4, p 134-143.

New Jersey Administrative Code, 1990, Safe 

drinking-water act: Secondary Drinking 

Water Regulations, Title 7, Chapter 10, 

Subchapter 7, p. 10-19 to 10-21.

Olsen, P.E., 1980, Triassic and Jurassic

Formations of the Newark Basin, in Field 

studies of New Jersey geology and guide 

to field trips, 52nd annual meeting of the 

New York State Geological Association, 

p. 2-39.

Pollack, D.W, 1994, User's guide for

MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 

3: A particle tracking post-processing 

package for MODFLOW, the U.S. 

Geological Survey finite-difference 

ground-water flow model: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 94-464,104 p., 6 app.

Rantz, S. E., and others, 1982, Measurement 

and computation of streamflow Volume 

1. Measurement of stage and discharge; 

Volume 2. Computation of discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2175, 631 p.

Rima, D.R., Meisler, Harold, and Longwill, 

Stanley, 1962, Geology and hydrology of 

the Stockton Formation in southeastern 

Pennsylvania: A study of the effect of 

lithology upon the yield of wells: 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Fourth 

series, Bulletin W14, 46 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, 

Methods for the determination of organic 

compounds in drinking water: 

EPA 600/4-88/039.

___1992, Methods for the determination of 

organic compounds in drinking water, 

Supplement II: EPA 600/R-92/129.

___1994, Technical notes on drinking water 

methods: EPA 600/R-94/173.

Van Houten, F.B., 1969, Late Triassic Newark 

Group, north-central New Jersey and 

adjacent Pennsylvania and New York, in 

Subitzky, Seymour, ed., Geology of 

selected areas in New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania and guidebook of 

excursions: New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers 

University Press, p. 314-347.

51
Table 7. Concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds in, and chemical and physical properties of, water 

samples from wells, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey, 1993-96

[All concentrations in micrograms per liter, unless otherwise noted; <, less than; B, compound present in method blank; (iS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; deg C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; E, compound was positively detected but the amount detected is below 

where it can be reliably quantified; , no data; all volatile organic compounds analyzed are listed in Appendix 2]

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey well Date 

number Local well name sampled

23-1190

23-1221

23-1221

23-1221

23-1221

23-1221

23-1219

23-1219

23-1219

23-1219

23-1219

23-1218

23-1218

23-1218

23-1218

23-1232

23-1232

23-1232

23-1232

23-1232

23-1226

23-1226

23-1226

23-1226

23-1227

23-1227

23-1227

23-1227

23-1228

23-1228

23-1228

23-1228

23-1223

23-1223

23-1223

23-1223

23-1224

23-1224

23-1224

23-1224

23-1225

23-1225

23-1225

23-1225

23-1229

23-1229

23-1229

23-1229

23-1229

23-1230

23-1230

23-1230

23-1229

23-1231

23-1231

23-1231

B-4

CH-1MW

CH-2MWA

CH-2MWB

CH-3MW

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-1C

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-2C

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4

09-23-96

09-13-93

07-14-94

07-14-94

09-28-95

10-08-96

08-24-93

07-14-94

09-26-95

10-07-96

10-07-96

08-23-93

07-14-94

09-26-95

10-08-96

08-19-93

08-19-93

07-06-94

09-22-95

09-17-96

09-14-93

07-08-94

09-19-95

10-03-96

09-15-93

07-06-94

09-19-95

10-04-96

08-23-93

07-06-94

11-21-95

10-04-96

08-17-93

07-08-94

09-20-95

09-26-96

08-18-93

07-08-94

09-20-95

10-02-96

08-18-93

07-08-94

09-25-95

09-26-96

08-25-93

08-25-93

07-12-94

09-21-95

10-01-96

09-13-93

07-12-94

09-26-95

10-02-96

01-19-95

11-08-95

09-24-96

specific 

conductance

(nS/cm)

727

5,390

921

921

1,133

1,504

342

324

324

328

328

423

458

586

637

510

510

525

560

553

276

286

276

307

293

288

245

283

459

513

517

537

745

270

443

409

411

433

457

454

425

574

491

535

315

315

331

290

296

411

450

451

481

240

247

230

pH, field 

(standard 

units)

6.76

11.52

11.88

11.88

11.64

12.14

7.12

7.89

7.85

8.04

8.04

7.17

7.53

7.34

7.75

6.77

6.77

7.48

7.51

7.51

7.66

8.15

8.16

8.04

7.21

8.64

8.83

8.31

6.99

7.43

7.35

7.38

7.26

8.85

8.10

8.05

6.91

7.84

6.46

7.92

6.26

7.11

6.63

6.76

7.24

7.24

7.88

8.15

8.12

6.90

7.74

7.69

7.79

9.16

9.26

9.53

Temperature, water 

(degC)

21.1

15.0

16.0

16.0

12.5

12.8

14.5

13.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

14.5

13.0

12.5

13.1

17.0

17.0

16.5

16.5

17.0

14.5

16.5

16.0

14.5

15.5

14.0

15.0

14.3

16.5

16.5

14.5

14.3

15.5

16.5

16.0

17.0

14.0

13.5

13.0

13.0

14.5

15.0

14.0

14.5

15.0

15.0

14.0

14.0

13.8

14.5

13.5

13.5

13.3

16.5

17.5

17.0

Oxygen, dissolved Carbon tet- 

(mg/L) Benzene rachloride

<0.5 100

.8 2.9 < .5

.2 < .5 < .5

.2 < .5 < .5

1.1 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5

6.3 < .5 < .5

6.6 < .5 < .5

6.0 < .5 < .5

5.49 < .5 < .5

5 49 < .5 < .5

6.0 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

4.6 < .5 < .5

5.31 < .5 < .5

2.5 < .5 < .5

2.5 E .14 < .5

1.7 <.5 <.5

1 .4 < .5 < .5

1.18 <.5 <.5

1.1 <.5 E.29

1 .0 < .5 < .5

1.7 <.5 1.2

y £,,O\J OR < ^ .J R < ^ .JR

< 5 < 5

< 1 < 5 < 5

1 .2 < .5 < .5

3.00 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

2.8 < 'jS <'.5

.9 < .5 < .5

2.70 < .5 < .5

1.9 <.5 <.5

<.1 < .5 < .5

.2 < .5 < .5

.90 < .5 < .5

1.2 <.5 E.17

5 < 5 < 5

.5 < .5 < .5

.6 < .5 < .5

E .07 E .08

1.6 <.5 <.5

2.3 < .5 < .5

1 .36 < .5 < .5

2.1 < .5 E .05

2.1 < .5 E .06

.5 < .5 < .5

.3 < .5 < .5

.55 < .5 < .5

E .26 .80

1 .9 < .5 .57

2.0 < .5 .8

2.39 < .5 .8

< .5 < .5

3.4 < £ <-5

< .5 < .5

cis-1,2- 

DichloroChloroform ethylene

4.6 < 0.5

< .5 E .23

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

.68 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

.50 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

1 .4 < .5

1.4 <.5

E .44 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

E .05 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

E .07 < .5

E .066 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

E .25 < .5

< .5 < .5

< 5 < 5

< .5 < .5

E .42 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

E .21 < .5

< .5 < .5

0.5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

52
Table 7. Concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds in, and chemical and physical properties of, water 

samples from wells, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey, 1993-96 -- 

Continued

[All concentrations in micrograms per liter, unless otherwise noted; <, less than; B, compound present in method blank; nS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; deg C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; E, compound was positively detected but the amount detected is below 

where it can be reliably quantified; , no data; all volatile organic compounds analyzed are listed in Appendix 2]

U.S.

Geological 

Survey well 

number Local well name

23-1268 MW-5A

23-1268

23-1268

23-1265 MW-6A

23-1265

23-1266 MW-6B

23-1266

23-1267 MW-6C

23-1267

23-1267

23-1263 MW-7A

23-1263

23-1263

23-1264 MW-7B

23-1264

23-1184 RU-2

23-1184

23-1184

23-1184

23-1184

23-1185 RU-4

23-1185

23-1185

23-1185

23-1183 RU-5

23-1183

23-1183

23-1183

23- 1 1 65 Rutgers golf 1 3 obs

23-1165

23-1165

23-1165

23-1165

23- 1 053 Rutgers golf course

(Irrigation well)

23-1053

23-1053

23-1053

23-1053

Date 

sampled

11-28-95

10-09-96

10-09-96

11-22-95

09-25-96

11-21-95

09-24-96

11-22-95

09-24-96

09-24-96

11-08-95

11-08-95

09-18-96

11-08-95

09-18-96

08-20-93

07-15-94

11-28-95

10-09-96

10-09-96

07-15-94

11-28-95

11-28-95

10-10-96

07-15-94

11-29-95

10-10-96

10-10-96

08-24-93

07-12-94

09-28-95

09-28-95

09-19-96

08-17-93

06-01-94

09-19-95

09-25-96

09-25-96

specific 

conductance 

(|iS/cm)

347

381

381

1,373

1,414

597

507

429

449

449

427

427

490

644

574

954

1,034

569

462

462

524

268

268

630

364

374

395

395

954

832

859

859

786

2,170

2,080

2,330

2,120

2,120

pH, field 

(standard 

units)

7.97

7.95

7.95

7.45

7.48

7.64

7.70

7.32

7.29

7.30

7.92

7.92

7.92

7.94

7.73

6.47

7.39

7.29

7.10

7.10

6.87

6.60

6.60

6.85

7.46

7.75

7.85

7.85

6.84

7.63

7.59

7.59

7.40

6.42

7.49

7.41

7.43

7.43

Temperature, water 

(degC)

14.0

14.6

14.6

13.5

13.2

13.0

13.2

12.5

12.7

12.7

12.5

12.5

12.9

13.0

13.3

24.5

20.5

19.0

21.0

21.0

18.0

18.5

18.5

18.4

18.0

16.0

17.5

17.5

14.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

13.0

14.0

16.0

13.5

13.4

13.4

Oxygen, dis 

solved 

(mg/L)

2.4

2.07

2.07

<1

.03

<-,

!09

2.7

2.11

2.11

2.5

2.5

3.46

2.4

1.28

1.4

-

6.3

5.57

5.57

1.6

-

-

5.96

6.3

6.6

5.40

5.40

.4

.5

.2

.2

<.1

0.5

<.1

0.1

<.1

- 

Carbon tet 

Benzene rachloride

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

<.5 150

< .5 6,600

<50 2,100

<.5 300

< .5 230

3.40 24,000

<250 21 ,000

<250 18,000

<25 25,000

< .5 6,000

<50 8,500

<25 6,400

<25 5,600

.5 .5

.5 .5

.5 .5

.5 .5

.5 .5

<0.5 <0.5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

Chloroform

< .5

< .5

<.5

< 5

<.5

< 5

< .5

< 5

< .5

< .5

.5

< 5

.6

< 5

< .5

14

110

<50

12

10

50

<250

<250

35

25

<50

<25

28

E.13

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

<0.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

cis-1,2- 

Dlchloroethylene

1.3

1.6

1.5

< 5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< 5

< .5

<.5

< 5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< 5

< .5

<50

< .5

< .5

5.20

<250

<250

<25

<.5

<50

<25

<25

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

<0.5

< .5

E.19

< .5

< .5

53
Table 7. Concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds in, and chemical and physical properties of, water 

samples from wells, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey, 1993-96- 

Continued

u. s. 

Geological 

Survey well Date 

number Local well name sampled

23-1190

23-1221

23-1221

23-1221

23-1221

23-1221

23-1219

23-1219

23-1219

23-1219

23-1219

23-1218

23-1218

23-1218

23-1218

23-1232

23-1232

23-1232

23-1232

23-1232

23-1226

23-1226

23-1226

23-1226

23-1227

23-1227

23-1227

23-1227

23-1228

23-1228

23-1228

23-1228

23-1223

23-1223

23-1223

23-1223

23-1224

23-1224

23-1224

23-1224

23-1225

23-1225

23-1225

23-1225

23-1229

23-1229

23-1229

23-1229

23-1229

23-1230

23-1230

23-1230

23-1229

23-1231

23-1231

23-1231

B-4

CH-1MW

CH-2MWA

CH-2MWB

CH-3MW

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-1C

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-2C

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4

09-23-96

09-13-93

07-14-94

07-14-94

09-28-95

10-08-96

08-24-93

07-14-94

09-26-95

10-07-96

10-07-96

08-23-93

07-14-94

09-26-95

10-08-96

08-19-93

08-19-93

07-06-94

09-22-95

09-17-96

09-14-93

07-08-94

09-19-95

10-03-96

09-15-93

07-06-94

09-19-95

10-04-96

08-23-93

07-06-94

11-21-95

10-04-96

08-17-93

07-08-94

09-20-95

09-26-96

08-18-93

07-08-94

09-20-95

10-02-96

08-18-93

07-08-94

09-26-95

09-26-96

08-25-93

08-25-93

07-12-94

09-21-95

10-01-96

09-13-93

07-12-94

09-26-95

10-02-96

01-19-95

11-08-95

09-24-96

1,2 

Dichloroethane

<0.5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

Hexachlorobutadiene

<0.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

<.5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

Methylene Tetrachlorochloride ethylene

<0.5

< .5

2.3B

2.2B

< .5

1.2B

.746

2.4B

< .5

1.2B

1.3B

0.8

2.1B

< .5

2.1B

E.23

E.24

E.37

< .5

< .5

<'.5

< .5

< .5

6.1B

< .5

E.36

< .5

1.3

< .5

< .5

< .5

1.3

E.24

< .5

< .5

2.1

< .5

<.5

<.5

3.7

< .5

< .5

< .5

3.8

.85B

.82B

.536

< .5

.5

< .5

.576

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

1.7

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.21

.5

.5

.5

.5

3.7

1.7

4.2

1.4

<.5

E.16

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

E.44

< .5

< .5

< .5

1.0

.74

.8

.6

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

Toluene

<0.5

1.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

E.22

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

E.30

E.29

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

E.09

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

E.20

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

E.06

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

Trichloroethylene

<0.5

1.1

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<. 5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

Trichlorofluorom ethane

<0.5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<. 5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

54
Table 7. Concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds in, and chemical and physical properties of, water 

samples from wells, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey, 1993-96- 

Continued

u. s. 

Geological 

Survey well 

number

23-1268

23-1268

23-1268

23-1265

23-1265

23-1266

23-1266

23-1267

23-1267

23-1267

23-1263

23-1263

23-1263

23-1264

23-1264

23-1184

23-1184

23-1184

23-1184

23-1184

23-1185

23-1185

23-1185

23-1185

23-1183

23-1183

23-1183

23-1183

23-1165

23-1165

23-1165

23-1165

23-1165

23-1053

23-1053

23-1053

23-1053

23-1053

Local well name

MW-5A

MW-6A

MW-6B

MW-6C

MW-7A

MW-7B

RU-2

RU-4

RU-5

Rutgers golf 13obs

Rutgers golf course

(Irrigation well)

Date 

sampled

11-28-95

10-09-96

10-09-96

11-22-95

09-25-96

11-21-95

09-24-96

11-22-95

09-24-96

09-24-96

11-08-95

11-08-95

09-18-96

11-08-95

09-18-96

08-20-93

07-15-94

11-28-95

10-09-96

10-09-96

07-15-94

11-28-95

11-28-95

10-10-96

07-15-94

11-29-95

10-10-96

10-10-96

08-24-93

07-12-94

09-28-95

09-28-95

09-19-96

08-17-93

06-01-94

09-19-95

09-25-96

09-25-96

1,2 

Dichloro- Hexachlor- Methylene 

ethane obutadiene chloride

< .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 1 .9

< .5 < .5 2.2

< .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 1 .6

< .5 < .5 < .5

< '.5 < .5 1.5

< .5 < .5 .5

< .5 < .5 .5

< .5 < .5 .5

< 5 < 5 5

< 5 < 5 5

< .5 <.B .5

< .5 < .5 .5

< .5 < .5 .5

< .5 < .5 E .16

< .5 3.7 3.0B

<50 <50 <50

< .5 < .5 2.2

< .5 < .5 4.4

36 .95 1 .38

<250 <250 <250

<250 <250 <250

<25 <25 100

< .5 < .5 2.4B

<50 <50 <50

<25 <25 94

<25 <25 89

.5 .5 1 .OB

.5 .5 < .5

.5 .5 < .5

.5 .5 < .5

.5 .5 1 .2

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5

< .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 .8

< .5 < .5 2.1

Tetrachloroethylene Toluene

1 .4 < .5

1 .0 < .5

.9 <.5

< .5 0.8

.5 <.5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

.5 <.5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

< .5 < .5

<.5 29

< .5 < .5

5.1 < .5

34 <.5

<50 <50

5.1 < .5

4.4 < .5

1 ,000 2.0

1 ,300 <250

990 <250

1,200 <25

100 <.5

130 <50

96 <25

99 <25

1 .7 < .5

.86 < .5

1 .7 < .5

1 .6 < .5

< .5 < .5

21 <0.5

16 <.5

23 <.5

26 <.5

26 <.5

Trichloroethylene

1.6

1.3

1.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<50

< .5

<.5

9

<250

<250

<25

0.81

<50

<25

<25

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

<0.5

E.13

< .5

< .5

< .5

Trichlorofluorom ethane

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< .5

< .5

<.5

< 5

<.5

E.15

< .5

<50

< .5

<.5

.88

<250

<250

<25

1.6

<50

<25

<25

<.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

<.5

<0.5

< .5

< .5

< .5

< .5

55
Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1992-96

[<, less than; >, greater than]

Depth of 

U.S. screened Altitude WaterGeologi- or open of land level 

cal interval surface altitude 

Survey Local (feet below (feet Date (feet 

well well land above sea measured above sea 

number name surface) level) (YYMMDD) level)

23-1191 B-1 14-15 79.47 920113

920404

921123

951019

961028

961029

23-1190 B-4 2-4 96.14 920113

920404

921123

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

23-1187 B-6 14-16 84.01 921123

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940427

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

23-1221 CH-1MW 30-40 99.75 930913

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

75.62

75.73

75.55

75.23

75.64

75.49

96.12

95.96

95.93

95.93

95.82

95.98

95.42

95.91

94.82

94.40

96.25

94.95

94.71

95.49

95.54

95.49

76.40

79.17

80.01

78.88

76.79

79.99

79.24

78.07

76.80

78.40

76.20

78.17

79.92

79.59

79.46

83.28

85.53

84.28

86.24

97.40

87.86

84.94

80.16

82.20

Remarks

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

940913 80.48

56
Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1992-96 -Continued 

[<, less than; >, greater than]

Depth of 

U.S. screened Altitude WaterGeologi- or open of land level 

cal interval surface altitude 

Survey Local (feet below (feet Date (feet 

well well land above sea measured above sea 

number name surface) level) (YYMMDD) level)

951019

961028

961029

23-1219 CH-2MWA 70-90 91.03 930824

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

23-1218 CH-2MWB 30-40 91.31 930823

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

23-1232 CH-3MW 140-160 103.98 930819

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

23-1226 MW-1A 80-100 96.29 930914

930930

931103

82.62

86.58

86.52

65.42

68.69

71.24

71.52

70.43

72.56

73.19

65.07

62.38

68.35

69.79

68.14

72.12

64.12

80.73

83.16

84.27

84.15

83.88

86.72

84.73

83.42

83.13

83.47

82.30

83.75

84.89

84.33

63.56

68.78

71.21

71.50

70.39

72.52

72.24

64.73

62.84

68.50

65.24

68.32

71.97

62.30

65.10

68.86

71.31

Remarks

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

57
Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1992-96 -Continued

[<, less than; >, greater than]

U.S.

Geological

Survey Local

well well

number name

23-1227 MW-1B

23-1228 MW-1C

23-1223 MW-2A

Depth of

screened Altitude

or open of land

interval surface

(feet below (feet Date

land above sea measured

surface) level) (YYMMDD)

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

120-140 97.00 930915

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

30 - 40 97.82 930823

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

150-170 72.80 930817

930930

931103

931202

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

Waterlevel

altitude

(feet

above sea

level)

71.62

70.64

72.70

73.28

66.82

62.36

68.44

64.95

68.26

72.12

64.42

65.44

68.65

71.09

71.34

70.43

72.54

73.62

68.36

65.60

68.22

64.56

68.11 I

71.83

67.64

71.23

74.40

76.69

77.06

76.65

78.54

78.84

74.97

70.09

74.53

71.50

74.08

77.69

75.73

49.03

57.63

58.79

58.53

66.95

61.21

57.69

65.67

56.39

Remarks

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

May not be static-nearby irrigation well recently pumped

2" rain previous night

58
Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1992-96--Continued

[<, less than; >, greater than]

U.S.

Geological

Survey Local 

well well

number name

23-1224 MW-2B

23-1225 MW-2C

23-1229 MW-3A

23-1230 MW-3B

Depth of 

screened

or open 

interval

(feet below 

land

surface)

90-110

60-80

120-140

70-90

Attitude

of land 

surface

(feet Date 

above sea measured

level) (YYMMDD)

940913

951019

961028

961029

72.43 930818

930930

931103

931202

940324 

940426

940601 

940630 

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

72.51 930818

930930

931103

931202

940324

940426

940601 

940630 

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

83.16 930825

930930

931103

931202

940324

940426

940601

940630 

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

83.06 930913

930930

931103

931202

940324

Waterlevel 

altitude

(feet 

above sea

level)

52.56

58.35

59.92

53.83

55.00

60.15

61.18

61.02

61.21 

60.88

51.97 

53.65 

59.13

55.94

59.17

61.13

48.41

63.63

65.51

64.09

64.05

68.71

67.91

63.97 

64.33

67.11

64.90

66.65

68.21

64.60

61.38

65.95

67.52

67.50

69.46

68.19

57.55

59.65 

65.49

62.31

65.23

67.91

48.87

62.85

66.71

68.35

68.36

68.93

Remarks

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

May not be static-nearby irrigation well recently pumped 

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

May not be static-nearby irrigation well recently pumped 

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions
Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1992-96 -Continued

[<, less than; >, greater than]

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey Local 

well well 

number name

23-1231 MW-4

23-1268 MW-5A

23-1265 MW-6A

23-1266 MW-6B

23-1267 MW-6C

23-1263 MW-7A

Depth Of 

screened Altitude 

or open of land 

interval surface 

(feet below (feet Date 

land above sea measured 

surface) level) (YYMMDD)

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

20-30 110.84 930817

930819

930820

930823

930824

930825

930913

930914

930915

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

179-204 107.70 95101 9

951128

961028

961029

239-265 65.51 951019

961028

961029

190-215 65.22 951019

961028

961029

75-100 65.42 951019

961028

961029

110-136 67.73 951019

951108

961028

961029

Waterlevel 

altitude 

(feet 

above sea 

level) Remarks

68.83

60.80

59.73 2" rain previous night

66.09

62.28

65.79

68.66

59.23

<80.21 Dry

<80.21 Dry

<80.21 Dry

<80.21 Dry

<80.21 Dry

<80.21 Dry

<80.21 Dry

<80.21 Dry^

<80.21 Dry

90.69

89.55

88.61

91.04

91 .78 Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

91.01

89.81

84.88 2" rain previous night

81.98

85.16

92.85

92.96

92.92

66.69

67.35

70.18

54.67

62.74

64.28

.60

60.33

62.24

32.72

55.18

58.44

39.46

59.75

62.20

61.94

48.86

60
Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1992-96 -Continued

[<, less than; >, greater than]

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey 

well 

number

23-1264

23-1184

23-1186

23-1185

23-1183

Depth of 

screened Altitude 

or open of land 

interval surface 

Local (feet below (feet 

well land above sea 

name surface) level)

MW-7B 65 - 90 67.92

RU-2 7-27 108.67

RU-3 7-27 110.93

RU-4 7-27 107.45

RU-5 55-75 107.59

Date 

measured 

(YYMMDD)

951019

951108

961028

961029

920113

920404

921123

930820

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

920113

920404

921123

930930

931103

931202

940207

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

920113

931209

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940813

951019

961028

961029

920404

931209

940207

940324

940426

940601

Waterlevel 

altitude 

(feet 

above sea 

level)

59.48

62.08

61.92

53.44

96.82

96.82

96.84

96.75

96.79

96.80

96.96

96.85

96.79

96.78

96.79

96.95

96.82

96.83

96.95

96.85

96.66

98.71

99.00

101.65

99.62

99.52

99.12

98.52

99.78

98.31

98.94

101.90

98.96

98.40

99.24

99.32

99.24

92.19

95.11

95.15

94.26

94.03

94.90

94.13

94.41

95.10

94.33

94.36

73.35

71.76

71.66

73.73

73.79

66.99

Remarks

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions)

2" rain previous night

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions)

61
Appendix 1. Water-level altitudes in wells, Rutgers University Busch campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1992-96--Continued 

[<, less than; >, greater than]

U.S.

Geological

Survey

well

Local

well

Depth of

screened

or open

interval

(feet below

land

Altitude

of land

surface

(feet

above sea

Date

measured

Waterlevel

altitude

(feet

above sea

number name surface) level) (YYMMDD) level) Remarks

940630

940801

940813

951019

961028

64.27

69.71

66.50

69.55

73.23

2" rain previous night

23-1165 Rutgers 

golf 1 Sobs

50-200 58.8

23-1053 Rutgers

golf

course

(irrigation

well)

55-300 55.71

961029

920113

920404

930818

931202

940125

940324

940426

940601

940630

940801

940913

951019

961028

961029

931202

940601

951019

66.42

56.86

58.06

55.52

60.36

57.78

60.27

59.05

48.20

53.57

58.32

55.76

58.20

61.56

21.31

> 55.71

> 55.71 

62.25

Ice melt may cause non-static conditions

May not be static-nearby irrigation well recently pumped 

2" rain previous night

Flowing ~ 19 gallons per minute

"Barely flowing" - pumped 7 hours overnight 

flowing about 9.2 gallons per minute

62
Appendix 2. Volatile organic compounds determined in ground-water samples, Rutgers University Busch Campus and 

vicinity, Piscataway Township, New Jersey

Compound

Benzene

Bromobenzene

Bromochloromethane

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Bromomethane

n-Butylbenzene

sec-Butylbenzene

tert-Butylbenzene

Carbon tetrachloride

Chlorobenzene

Chloroethane

Chloroform

Chlorom ethane

2-Chlorotoluene

4-Chlorotoluene

Dibromochloromethane

1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloro-propane

1 ,2-Dibromomethane

Dibromomethane

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1,1-Dichloroethane

1 ,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1rans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

1 ,2-Dichloropropane

Reporting limit 

(micrograms per 

liter)

0.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

Compound

1 ,3-Dichloropropane

2 ,2-Dichloropropane

1 ,1-Dichloropropene

cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene

trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene

Ethylbenzene

Hexachlorobutadiene

1-Methylethylbenzene (Cumene)

p-lsopropyltoluene (p-Cymene

Methylene chloride

Napthalene

n-Propyl benzene

Styrene

1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

Toluene

1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethylane

Trichloroethene

Trichlorofluoromethane

1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane

1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

Vinyl chloride

o-Xylene

meta/para-Xylene

Reporting limit 

(micrograms per 

liter)

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

.50

1.0

63
Appendix 3. Selected chemical constituents in ground-water samples collected at Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1993-94

[Well locations are shown in figure 2; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ng/L, micrograms per liter; -, no data; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl; <, 

neutralizing capacity; E, compound was positively detected but the amount detected is below where it can be reliably quantified]

less than; ANC, acidU.S. Geological 

Survey

well 

number

23-1219

23-1218

23-1232

23-1226

23-1227

23-1228

23-1223

23-1224

23-1225

23-1229

23-1230

23-1053

U.S. Geological 

Survey

well

number

23-1219

23-1218

23-1232

23-1226

23-1227

23-1228

23-1223

23-1224

23-1225

23-1229

23-1230

23-1053

U.S. Geological 

Survey

well 

number

23-1219

23-1218

23-1232

23-1226

23-1227

23-1228

23-1223

23-1224

23-1225

23-1229

23-1230

23-1053

Local well name

CH-2MWA

CH-2MWB

CH-3MW

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-1C

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-2C

MW-3A

MW-3B

Rutgers golf course 

(irrigation well)

Date 

sampled

08-24-93

08-23-93

08-19-93

09-14-93

09-15-93

07-06-94

08-17-93

08-18-93

08-18-93

08-25-93

09-13-93

08-17-93

Date 

sampled

08-24-93

08-23-93

08-19-93

09-14-93

09-15-93

07-06-94

08-17-93

08-18-93

08-18-93

08-25-93

09-13-93

08-17-93

Chloride,

dissolved

(mg/L 

asCI)

13.3

45.8

26.2

5.3

2.1

13.0

6.7

17.6

35.8

4.1

26.4

18.8

Chromium, 

dissolved

(Mfl/L 

asCr)

<10

< 10

<10

<10

<10

< 10

<10

<10

< 10

< 10

< 10

<10

Date 

sampled

08-24-93

08-23-93

08-19-93

09-14-93

09-15-93

07-06-94

08-17-93

08-18-93

08-18-93

08-25-93

09-13-93

08-17-93

Fluoride,

dissolved

(mg/L 

asF)

0.12

E.05

<.1

<.1

<.1

E.053

<.1

E.05

<.1

<.1

<.1

.11

Copper, 

dissolved

(nfl/L 

asCu)

< 10

<10

< 10

<10

< 10

< 10

< 10

< 10

<10

< 10

<10

<10

Depth of well

(feet below 

land surface)

90

40

160

100

140

40

170

110

80

140

90

300

Nitrogen,

nitrite

dissolved

(mg/L 

asN)

.29

.24

.085

.056

E.016

E.049

E.016

<.050

<.050

E.023

.051

<.050

Iron, 

dissolved

(H9/L 

asFe)

<100

E7.2

<100

E6.2

<100

260

<100

<100

320

E9.9

E6.2

260

Calcium, 

dissolved

(mg/L 

asCa)

17.3

50.8

5.3

28.3

27.9

66.4

39.6

27.9

48.4

28.2

44.5

445

Nitrogen,

nitrate

dissolved

(mg/L 

asN)

.16

.86

.18

1.3

.57

.094

.14

.27

1.5

.40

.93

E.02

Lead, 

dissolved

(^ asPb)

<7.5

<7.5

-

<7.5

-

<7.5

--

<7.5

<7.5

<7.5

Magnesium, 

dissolved

(mg/L 

asMg)

4.1

10.9

3.0

9.8

13.1

14.5

21.3

11.6

12.6

14.4

14.0

51.3

Nitrogen,

ammonia

dissolved

(mg/L 

asN)

<0.20

<.20

<.20

<.20

<.20

E.15

<.20

<.20

<.20

<.20

<.20

<.20

Manganese 

dissolved

asMn)

<10

81

<10

16

49

59

81

21

260

16

26

350

Sodium, 

dissolved

(mg/L 

asNa)

10.4

12.4

26.8

13.2

12.9

18.1

41.1

28.1

16.0

13.6

14.9

96.2

Arsenic,

dissolved 

(ng/L as As)

E3.4

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

E2.8

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

6.7

<5.0

E3.9

Nickel, 

dissolved

(^ asNi)

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

<40

Potassium, 

dissolved

Stf

<5.0

E1.4

25.7

E2.9

E4.1

<5.0

7.2

7.0

E2.2

E3.1

E2.9

E4.6

Barium,

dissolved

(\iQfiasBa)

110

540

17

280

100

880

<10

23

210

150

390

<10

Zinc, 

dissolved

(ng/L 

asZn)

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

<20

E2.7

<20

<20

310

ANC,

lab

(mg/L as 

CaCO3)

37.4

130

55.0

136

140

201

79.2

110

114

165

170

103

Beryllium,

dissolved

(ng/L 

as Be)

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

Mercury, 

dissolved

(nfl/L 

asHg)

<0.20

< .20

< .20

< .20

< .20

< .20

< .20

< .20

< .20

< .20

< .20

<.20

Sulfate, 

dissolved

(mg/L 

as SO4)

26.4

14.5

31.3

E1.1

11.2

15

346.0

41.4

43.1

E2.8

E2.7

2,030

Cadmium,

dissolved

H'L 

asCd)

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

Phenols,

total 

(HO/L)

220

37

46

32

20

78

<10

20

24

33

710

17

64
Appendix 3. Selected chemical constituents in ground-water samples collected at Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey, 1993-94-Continued

U.S. Geological 

Survey Date

well sampled 

number

Aroclor10l6 

PCB

total

Arodor1221 Aroclor1232 Aroclor1242 Aroclor1248 Aroclor1254 Aroclor1260

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

total total total total total total

(ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)

23-1219 

23-1218 

23-1232 

23-1226

23-1227 

23-1228 

23-1223 

23-1224

23-1225 

23-1229 

23-1230

23-1053

08-24-93 

08-23-93

08-19-93

09-14-93

09-15-93

07-06-94

08-17-93 

08-18-93

08-18-93

08-25-93

09-13-93

08-17-93

<0.50 

<.50 

<.50 

<.50

.50 

.50 

.50 

.50

.50 

.50

<.50

<0.50 

.50 

.50 

.50

.50 

.50 

.50 

.50

<.50 

<.50

<.50

<0.50 

<.50 

<.50 

<.50

<.50 

<.50 

<.50 

<.50

<.50 

<.50

<.50

<0.50 

<.50 

<.50 

<.50

<.50 

.50 

.50 

.50

.50 

.50

<.50

<.50 

<.50 

<.50 

<.50

<.50 

<.50 

<.50 

<.50

<.50 

<.50

<.50

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

< 1

<1

65
Appendix 4. Maximum contaminant levels for selected organic compounds and inorganic 

constituents, New Jersey

[Maximum contaminant levels from New Jersey Administrative Code, 1990]

Organic compound

Maximum contaminant level 

(micrograms per liter)

Benzene

Carbon tetrachloride

meta-Dichlorobenzene

ortho-Dichlorobenzene

para-Dichlorobenzene

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1 -Dichloroethylene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

Methylene chloride

Polychlorinated biphenyls

Tetrachloroethylene

Toluene

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

Trihalomethanes

Vinyl chloride

Xylenes (total)

Inorganic constituent

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cyanide

Fluoride

Mercury

Nickel

Nitrate (as nitrogen)

Nitrite

Nitrate/nitrite

Selenium

1

2

600

600

75

2

2

10

10

2

1

1,000

8

26

1

100

2

44

50

2,000

4

5

100

200

4,000

2

100

10,000

1,000

10,000

50

.5

66
Appendix 5. Results of analyses of quality-assurance blank samples for selected organic compounds, 1 993-96

[All concentrations in micrograms per liter; <, less than minimum reporting limit]

Sample type

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Equipment blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Equipment blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Bromo- BromoBromo- chloro- dichloroDate Benzene benzene methane methane

08-19-93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

08-25-93 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

08-19-93 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-14-93 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-06-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-15-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-06-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

01-19-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

01-18-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

08-23-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-20-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-21-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-26-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

11-08-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-21-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-22-95 < .5 < 5 < 5 < .5

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

11-29-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-20-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-22-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-25-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-07-95 < .5 <.5 <.5 <.5

11-21-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-11-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

09-17-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-17-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-19-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-23-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-25-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-26-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

10-01-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

10-01-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

10-02-96 <.5 .5 <.5 < .5

10-04-96 < .5 .5 < .5 < .5

10-04-96 < .5 .5 < .5 < .5

10-07-96 <.5 .5 <.5 < .5

10-07-96 <.5 .5 <.5 < .5

10-08-96 < .5 .5 < .5 < .5

10-09-96 <.5 .5 <.5 < .5

10-09-96 < .5 .5 < .5 < .5

Bromomethane 

(methyl n-Butyl- sec-Butyl- lert-Bulyl- Carbon 

Bromoform bromide) benzene benzene benzene tetrachloride

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< 5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <-5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <-5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .3 < .5 ^ .O ^ .O ^ .O ^ .O

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< ,5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

Field blank 10-10-96

67
Appendix 5. Results of analyses of quality-assurance blank samples for selected organic compounds, 1993-96~Continued

Sample type

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Equipment blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Equipment blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

1,2- 

Dibromo-3- 

chloroChloro- 2-Chloro- 4-Chloro- propane 

methane toluene toluene Chloro- (dibromo- 1,2- 

Chloro- Chloro- (methyl (o-chloro- (p-chloro- dibromo- chloro- Dibromo- DibromoDate benzene ethane Chloroform chloride) toluene) toluene methane propane) ethane methane

08-19-93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

08-25-93 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

08-1 9-93 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-14-93 <.5 < .5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-06-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-1 2-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-1 5-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-06-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-1 4-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

01 -1 9-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

01-18-95 < .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

08-23-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-1 9-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-20-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-26-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-08-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-22-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-29-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 .6 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-20-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-22-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-25-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-07-95 < .5 < .5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-21-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-11-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-1 7-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-1 8-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-1 7-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-1 9-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-23-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < -5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-24-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-24-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-25-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-26-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-01-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-01-96 < .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-02-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

1 0-04-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

1 0-04-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-08-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-09-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-09-96 < .5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-10-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

68
Appendix 5. Results of analyses of quality-assurance blank samples for selected organic compounds, 1993-96-Continued

Sample type

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

Equipment blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Equipment blank

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene Dichloro- 

(o-chloro- 1 ,3-Dichloro- 1 ,4-Dichloro- difluoroDate benzene benzene benzene methane

08-19-93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

08-25-93 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

08-19-93 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-14-93 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

07-06-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

07-15-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

07-06-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

07-12-94 <5 <5 <5 <5 

07-14-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

01-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 

01-18-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

08-23-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-20-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

09-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-26-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

11-08-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 

11-22-95 <.5 <5 <5 <5 

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

11-29-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-20-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-22-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

no oc oc -- c *» c ^ c *> c uy~fcO*yo ^ .0 < .0 < .D ^ .D

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

11-07-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-11-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

09-17-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-17-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-19-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-23-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

09-25-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 

09-26-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

10-01-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-01-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < 5 

10-02-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

10-04-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

10-04-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

10-08-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

10-09-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 

10-09-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

cis-1,2- trans-1,2- 

1,1-Dichloro- 1 ,2-Dichloro- 1,1-Dichloro- Dichloro- Dichloro- 1 ,2-Dichloroethane ethane ethylene ethene ethene propane

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

:i il ii il il \\

:i :i is is is is

il ij ij ij ij ij

ij ij ij ij ij ij

< .5 ^ .5 ^ i5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ i5 

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 ^ .5 ^ i5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5

II ij jj | jj ii

Field blank 10-10-96

69
Appendix 5. Results of analyses of quality-assurance blank samples for selected organic compounds, 1993-96--Continued

Sample type

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Equipment blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Equipment blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

cis-1 ,3- 

1 ,3-Dichloro- 2,2-Dichloro- 1,1-Dichloro- DichloroDate propane propane propene propene

08-19-93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

08-25-93 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

08-19-93 <^5 <.S <.S <.S

09-14-93 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-06-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-15-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-06-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

01-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

01-18-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

08-23-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-20-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-26-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

11-08-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

11-22-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

1 1 -28-95 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5

11-29-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-20-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-22-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-25-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-07-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-11-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

09-17-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-17-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-19-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-23-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-25-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

09-26-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5

10-01-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-01-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

10-02-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

10-04-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-04-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

10-08-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-09-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5

10-09-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

4-lsopropyltrans-1 ,3- toluene 

Dichloro- Ethyl- Hexachloro- Isopropyl- (p-lsopropyl- Methylene 

propene benzene butadiene benzene toluene) chloride

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .81

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 .54

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 2 50

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 1 .20

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 2.40

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 1 .40

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.S <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 1.0

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .9

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .7

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 1.5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 2.0

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 6.3

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 4.5

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .8

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 1 .4

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 1 .3

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 26

<.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 .9

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 1 .0

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

<5 <5 <5 <.5 <.5 3.0

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 5.8

Field blank 10-10-96 3.9

70
Appendix 5. Results of analyses of quality-assurance blank samples for selected organic compounds, 1993-96-Continued

Sample type

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

Equipment blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Equipment blank

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Field blank 

Trip blank

N-propylDate Naphthalene benzene Styrene

08-19-93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

08-25-93 <.5 <.5 < .5 

08-19-93 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-14-93 <.5 <.5 <.5 

07-06-94 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-08-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 

07-14-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 

07-15-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 

07-06-94 <.5 <.5 < .5

07-08-94 <.5 <.5 < .5 

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 

01-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

01-18-95 < .5 < .5 < .5

08-23-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-20-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-26-95 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-28-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 

11-08-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

11-22-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5

11-29-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-20-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-22-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-25-95 <.5 <.5 < .5

09-28-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 

11-07-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-11-96 <.5 <.5 <.5

09-17-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-17-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-19-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 <.5

09-23-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-24-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-25-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 

09-26-96 <.5 <.5 < .5

10-01-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-01-96 <.5 <-5 <.5 

10-02-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-04-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-04-96 <.5 <.5 <.5

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-07-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-08-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-09-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 

10-09-96 <.5 <.5 <.5

1,1,1,2- 1,1,2,2-Tetra- 1,2,3- 1,2,4- 1,1,1- 

Tetrachloro- chloro- Tetrachloro- Trichloroben Trichloro- Trichloroethane ethane ethene Toluene zene benzene ethane

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

:1 il il il il il il

il il \\ *l il il \\

il I! il il il II il

il il il II il il il

:l :i il i! ll il il

< .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 < .5 

< .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 

< .5 ^ i5 ^ .5 ^ f5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 

< .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 

< .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

< .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 ^ .5 < .5 < .5 

< .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 ^ .5 ^ .5 < .5

:! :l il il il il il

il il :! :! il il :l

Field blank 10-10-96

71
Appendix 5. Results of analyses of quality-assurance blank samples for selected organic compounds, 1993-96-Continued

Sample type

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Field blank

Trip blank

Equipment blank 

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Trip blank 

Equipment blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank

Trip blank

Trip blank 

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank

Trip blank 

Field blank

Field blank

Field blank

Trip blank

Field blank

1,1,2- Trichloro- 1,2,3- 1,2,4-Tri- 1,3,5-TriTrichloro- Trichloro- fluoro- Trichloro- methyl- methyl- Vinyl 

Date ethane ethene methane propane benzene benzene chloride

08-19-93 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

08-25-93 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

08-19-93 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-14-93 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

07-06-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-12-94 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 < .5

07-14-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-15-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-06-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

07-08-94 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

07-12-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

07-14-94 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

01-19-95 < .5 < .5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

01-18-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5

08-23-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-19-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-20-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-21-95 < .5 < .5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-26-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-08-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-22-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-28-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

11-29-95 < .5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-19-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-20-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-22-95 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-25-95 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 <5 < .5

09-28-95 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

11-07-95 <.5 < .5 < .5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

11-21-95 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

1 1 1 1 -98 CM Q*? 573 <<> ^ ,*} «r ** . > *f ^ < . ^ J <<> ^ .*) < ** . S J < ^ ** *5 <5^ **

09-11-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-17-96 <.5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-18-96 <.5 < .5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-17-96 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-1 9-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-18-96 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-23-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-24-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-24-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

09-25-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

09-26-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-01-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

10-01-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-02-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-04-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

10-04-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-07-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 

10-07-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-08-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-09-96 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-09-96 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

10-10-96 <.5 < .5 <.5 <.5 < .5 < .5 < .5

meta/parao-Xylene Xylene

<0.5 <0.5

<.5 .5

<.5 .5 

<.5 .5 

<.5 .5

<.5 .5

<.5 .5

<.5 .5

<.5 .5

< c c

^ ,*J .*}

<.5 .5 

<.5 .5 

<.5 .5

<.5 <1.0

<5 <10

< .5 <1.0

< .5 <1.0

<.5 <1.0

<5 <10

< .5 <1.0

< .5 <1.0

< .5 <1.0

<.5 <1.0

<.5 <1.0

is <:i:S

:i Is

<.5 <1.0

< .5 <1.0

<i <i!o

<.5 <1.0

<i <1S

<l <i3

<.5 <1.0

:i :;:°

< .5 <1.0

<l <i!o

<! <w < .5 <1.0

< .5 <1 .0

<.5 <1.0

<.5 <1.0

72 *U.S. GCVEraMEMT PRINTING OFFICE: 2000-511-472