Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality, and Simulation 

of Ground-Water Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, 

Bergen County, New Jersey

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5280 
Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water 

Quality, and Simulation of Ground-Water 

Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field 

Superfund Site, Bergen County, New Jersey 

By Jean C. Lewis-Brown, Donald E. Rice, Robert Rosman, and 

Nicholas P. Smith 

In cooperation with the 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5280 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services


Box 25286, Denver Federal Center


Denver, CO 80225


For more information about the USGS and its products:


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/


Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply


endorsement by the U.S. Government.


Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to


reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

 iii 

Contents 

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


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


Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


Description of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Hydrogeologic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Unconsolidated Overburden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Borehole-Geophysical Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Straddle-Packer Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Methods of Slug Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Transmissivity and Hydraulic Connection Between Adjacent Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Transmissivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Hydraulic Connection Between Adjacent Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


Orientation and Location of Bedrock Hydrogeologic Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


Ground-Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Overburden Observation Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Well FLS-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Well FLP-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Bedrock Observation Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Well FL4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Well FL12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Well FL18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Well FL23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Well FL27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Well FL29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Ground-Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


Compounds Detected in Individual Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


Well FL4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


Well FL12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


Well FL18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41


Well FL23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41


Well FL27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43


Well FL29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43


Distribution of Volatile Organic Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


Simulation of Ground-Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


Description of Ground-Water Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Conceptual Model of Ground-Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Grid and Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Hydrologic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51


Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity of the Unconsolidated Overburden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

iv 

Transmissivity of the Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51


Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54


Areal Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54


Simulation of Discharge Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54


Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54


Pumped Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56


Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56


Static Ground-Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56


Base Flow to Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60


Water-Level Rise Resulting from Increased Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60


Water-Level Rise During Shutdown of Pumped Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64


Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64


Simulated Water Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65


Model Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65


Simulated Ground-Water Flowpaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70


Simulated Contributing Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70


1991 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70


2000 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70


High-Recharge Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77


Simulated Contaminant Plumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77


1991 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Fisher Scientific Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Sandvik, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Eastman Kodak Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


2000 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Fisher Scientific Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Sandvik, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81


Eastman Kodak Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81


Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104


Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107


Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

 v 

Figures 

1-4.	 Maps showing— 

1.	 Location of model area, production well fields, and industrial park in and near 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3


2.	 Location of study area (active area of the ground-water flow model), surface-water 


basins, and streamflow-measurement sites in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5


3.	 Wells with monitored water levels, and production wells within the study area 


(active area of the ground-water flow model) in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . .6


4.	 Surficial geology and streams within the study area (active area of the ground-water 


flow model) in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


5.	 Schematic diagram of straddle-packer assembly and air-slug apparatus with conceptual 


representation of bedrock hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


6.	 Graph of slug-test data showing depth of water in relation to elapsed time for well FL27, 


interval 4, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


7.	 Section C-E along dip of bedding units showing wells that were packer-tested and 


interpreted water-bearing and confining units, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22


8.	 Map showing subcrops of interpreted water-bearing units and confining units and line of


section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


9.	 Section B-F along dip of bedding units showing interpreted water-bearing and confining units 


and Fair Lawn Water Department production wells and observation wells, Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


10.	 Graph showing daily precipitation recorded at the National Weather Service precipitation gage 


at Little Falls, New Jersey, April 7, 2000-March 19, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


11.	 Ground-water hydrographs from two observation wells open to the water table in Fair Lawn,


New Jersey, June 8, 2000-March 19, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


12.	 Graphs showing discharge of the Passaic River at Little Falls, and the Saddle River at 


Ridgewood, New Jersey, April 7, 2000-March 19, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 27


13.	 Ground-water hydrographs from six deep Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey, April 7, 2000-March 19, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


14.	 Section B-D along dip of bedding units showing interpreted water-bearing and confining units


and concentration of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in Fair Lawn Water Department production 


wells, straddle-packer intervals in Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells, and 


monitor wells at three known contaminated sites, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1997-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45


15.	 Section B-D along dip of bedding units showing interpreted water-bearing and confining units 


and concentration of trichloroethylene (TCE) in Fair Lawn Water Department production wells,


straddle-packer intervals in Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells, and monitor 


wells at three known contaminated sites, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1997-2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


16.	 Map showing finite-difference grid for the ground-water flow model of Fair Lawn,


New Jersey, and vicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48


17.	 Section showing vertical discretization of the ground-water flow model along section A-E, 

Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49


18-20. Maps showing location of —


18.	 Observation and recovery wells at Fisher Scientific Company and Sandvik, Inc., 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


19.	 Observation wells at Einson, Freeman, and deTroy industrial site, Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58


20.	 Observation wells at the Cole Engineering, Inc., and Archery Plaza industrial sites, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

vi 

21-23. Graphs showing sensitivity of simulated— 

21.	 Water levels to variations in the values of hydrologic parameters, Fair Lawn,


New Jersey, and vicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66


22.	 Stream base flow to variations in the values of hydrologic parameters, Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey, and vicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


23.	 Water levels and stream base flow to variations in the areal recharge rate, Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey, and vicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68


24.	 Map showing location of known contaminated sites, Fair Lawn and Glen Rock, 

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72


25-30. Maps showing simulated contributing areas to—


25.	 Wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, for 1991 conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73


26.	 Production wells in the Westmoreland well field and other wells in and near Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey, for 1991 conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74


27.	 Wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, for 2000 conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75


28.	 Production wells in the Westmoreland well field and other wells in and near Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey, for 2000 conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76


29.	 Wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, for the high-recharge scenario for 2000 


conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78


30.	 Production wells in the Westmoreland well field and other wells in and near Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey, for the high-recharge scenario for 2000 conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79


31.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Fisher 


Scientific Company for 1991 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82


32.	 Generalized view along section J-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


overburden at Fisher Scientific Company for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83


33.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Fisher 


Scientific Company for 1991 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84


34.	 Generalized view along section H-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


bedrock at Fisher Scientific Company for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85


35.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Sandvik, Inc., 


for 1991 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87


36.	 Generalized view along section J-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the


overburden at Sandvik, Inc., for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88


37.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Sandvik, Inc., 


for 1991 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89


38.	 Generalized view along section H-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


bedrock at Sandvik, Inc., for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90


39.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Eastman 


Kodak Company for 1991 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91


40.	 Generalized view along section H-O of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


bedrock at Eastman Kodak Company for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92


41.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Fisher 


Scientific Company for 2000 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93


42.	 Generalized view along section I-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


overburden at Fisher Scientific Company for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94


43.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Fisher 


Scientific Company for 2000 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95


44.	 Generalized view along section H-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


bedrock at Fisher Scientific Company for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96


45.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Sandvik, Inc., 


for 2000 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 vii 

46.	 Generalized view along section K-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


overburden at Sandvik, Inc., for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99


47.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Sandvik, Inc., 


for 2000 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100


48.	 Generalized view along section H-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


bedrock at Sandvik, Inc., for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101


49.	 Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Eastman 


Kodak Company for 2000 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102


50.	 Generalized view along section H-O of simulated plume of ground water originating in the 


bedrock at Eastman Kodak Company for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103


Tables 

1.	 Well-construction and pumpage data for selected wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . .7


2.	 Characteristics of unconsolidated overburden sediments in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . 10


3.	 Strike and dip measurements of sedimentary bedrock layers in outcrops, Fair Lawn,


New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


4.	 Transmissivity of slug-tested zones, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


5.	 10-percent times and quantitative and estimated qualitative transmissivities for selected 


slug-test zones, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


6.	 Oscillation period, percent recovery, and qualitative transmissivity for zones with oscillating 


water levels during slug tests, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


7.	 Water-level decline in the upper and lower open intervals and the associated time from 


the start of the slug test to the maximum decline for wells in Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


8.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in water samples from wells in the Westmoreland 


well field, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1991, 1996, and 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


9.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in water samples from wells in the Cadmus well field, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1991 and 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


10.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in water samples from wells in the Memorial well field, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1991 and 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


11.	 Maximum reported concentration of volatile organic compounds in ground water at 


three contaminated sites, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1997, 1998, and 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33


12.	 Constituents detected in quality-assurance/quality-controlblank samples for packed 


intervals in wells in Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


13.	 Field parameters for samples from packed intervals in wells in Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . 36


14.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from a packed interval in well FL4, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37


15.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL12, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


16.	 Metals detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL12, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . 39


17.	 Pesticides and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) detected in samples from 


packed intervals in well FL12, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


18.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from a packed interval in well FL18, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41


19.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL23, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


20.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL27, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

viii 

21.	 Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL29, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


22.	 Summary of published values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity of fluvial sediments, 


lacustrine sediments, and till in Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


23.	 Hydraulic conductivity and thickness of unconsolidated overburden sediments in and near 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


24.	 Summary of transmissivity measured in bedrock hydrogeologic units in Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


25.	 Ground-water recharge in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 2000-2001, estimated from 


base flow, ground-water pumpage, industrial discharge to streams, and ground-water 


evapotranspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


26.	 Sources of water-level data at four industries in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, measurement dates,


mean daily streamflow at a nearby gaging station, and number of days since precipitation. . . . . . . . 60


27.	 Measured and simulated ground-water levels, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61


28.	 Measured and simulated base flow to streams, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63


29.	 Measured and simulated water-level rise resulting from increased recharge, Fair Lawn, 


New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64


30.	 Measured and simulated water-level rise in observation wells during shutdown of nearby 


production wells, Fair Lawn, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65


31.	 Simulated water budgets in surface-water drainage basins in and near Fair Lawn,


New Jersey, 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


32.	 Known contaminated sites, Fair Lawn and Glen Rock, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


33.	 Simulated flux of ground water originating at or passing through Fisher Scientific Company, 


Sandvik, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company and discharging to wells and streams, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86


34.	 Simulated flux of ground water originating at or passing through Fisher Scientific Company, 


Sandvik, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company and discharging to wells and streams, 


Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm) 

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

Area 

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2) 

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2) 

Volume 

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

Flow rate 

gallon per minute (gal/min) 3.785 milliliter per minute (mL/min) 

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s) 

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr) 

cubic feet per day (ft3/d) 0.02832 cubic meter per day (m3/d) 

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3/s) 

Pressure 

pound per square inch (lb/in2) 6.895 kilopascal (kPa) 

Hydraulic conductivity 

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d) 

Transmissivity* 

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) 

 ix 

Conversion Factors and Vertical Datum 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum. 

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times 

foot of aquifer thickness [(ft

3/d)/ft2

]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot 

squared per day (ft

2

/d), is used for convenience. 

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius 

(μS/cm at 25°C). 

Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality, and 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow at the Fair Lawn Well 

Field Superfund Site, Bergen County, New Jersey 

By Jean C. Lewis-Brown, Donald E. Rice, Robert Rosman, and Nicholas P. Smith 

Abstract 

Production wells in the Westmoreland well field, Fair 

Lawn, Bergen County, New Jersey (the “Fair Lawn well field 

Superfund site”), are contaminated with volatile organic compounds, particularly trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and 

1,1,1-trichloroethane. In 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) placed the Westmoreland well field on 

its National Priority List of Superfund sites. In an effort to determine ground-water flow directions, contaminant-plume boundaries, and contributing areas to production wells in Fair Lawn, 

and to evaluate the effect of present pump-and-treat systems on 

flowpaths of contaminated ground water, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the USEPA, developed a 

conceptual hydrogeologic framework and ground-water flow 

model of the study area. MODFLOW-2000, the USGS threedimensional finite-difference model, was used to delineate contributing areas to production wells in Fair Lawn and to compute 

flowpaths of contaminated ground water from three potential 

contaminant sources to the Westmoreland well field. Straddlepacker tests were used to determine the hydrologic framework 

of, distribution of contaminants in, and hydrologic properties of 

water-bearing and confining units that make up the fracturedrock aquifer underlying the study area. 

The study area consists of about 15 square miles in and 

near Fair Lawn. The area is underlain by 6 to 100 feet of glacial 

deposits and alluvium that, in turn, are underlain by the Passaic 

Formation. In the study area, the Passaic Formation consists of 

brownish-red pebble conglomerate, medium- to coarse-grained 

feldspathic sandstone, and micaceous siltstone. The bedrock 

strata strike N. 9o E. and dip 6.5o to the northwest. The bedrock 

consists of alternating layers of densely fractured rocks and 

sparsely fractured rocks, forming a fractured-rock aquifer. 

Ground-water flow in the fractured-rock aquifer is anisotropic as a result of the interlayering of dipping water-bearing 

and confining units. Wells of similar depth aligned along the 

strike of the bedding intersect the same water-bearing units, but 

wells aligned along the dip of the bedding may intersect different water-bearing units. Consequently, wells aligned along 

strike are in greater hydraulic connection than wells aligned 

along dip.

 The Borough of Fair Lawn pumps approximately 770 million gallons per year from 13 production wells. Hydrographs 

from six observation wells ranging in depth from 162 to 

505 feet in Fair Lawn show that water levels in much of the 

study area are affected by pumping. 

Straddle packers were used to isolate discrete intervals 

within six open-hole observation wells owned by the Fair Lawn 

Water Department. Transmissivity, water-quality, and staticwater-level data were obtained from the isolated intervals. Measured transmissivity ranged from near 0 to 8,900 feet squared 

per day. The broad range in measured transmissivity is a result 

of the heterogeneity of the fractured-rock aquifer. 

Eight water-bearing units and eight confining units were 

identified in the study area on the basis of transmissivity. The 

water-bearing units range in thickness from 21 to 95 feet; the 

mean thickness is 50 feet. The confining units range in thickness from 22 to 248 feet; the mean thickness is 83 feet. Waterlevel and water-quality data indicate effective separation of 

water-bearing units by the confining units. 

Water-quality samples were collected from the six observation wells at 16 depth intervals isolated by the straddle packers in 2000 and 2001. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds generally were low in samples from four of the wells, 

but were higher in samples from a well in Fair Lawn Industrial 

Park and in a well in the Westmoreland well field. 

The digital ground-water flow model was used to simulate 

steady-state scenarios representing conditions in the study area 

in 1991 and 2000. These years were chosen because during the 

intervening period, pumpage from the Westmoreland well field 

decreased by more than one-half, and a system of shallow wells 

(less than 19 feet deep) and trenches was installed at one of the 

contaminant sources to capture shallow ground water. Because 

precipitation was below average in 2000, a “high-recharge” scenario also was simulated to represent 2000 pumpage conditions 

during more typical ground-water-recharge conditions. 

The digital model was used to delineate contributing areas 

to production well fields in Fair Lawn and contaminant plumes 

from three contaminant sources. Two of these sources, Fisher 

Scientific Company and Sandvik, Inc., are known contaminated 

sites that were previously identified by the N.J. Department of 

Environmental Protection as potential sources of volatile 
2 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

organic compounds to the Westmoreland well field. The third 

source, Eastman Kodak Company, is a known contaminated 

site not previously identified as a potential source of volatile 

organic compounds to the Westmoreland well field. In 1991, 

when 130 million gallons of water was pumped from the Westmoreland well field, the contributing area to that well field 

included nearly all of the Fisher Scientific Company property, a 

small part (less than 1 percent) of the Sandvik, Inc., property, 

and about three-quarters of the Eastman Kodak Company property. In 2000, when only 40 million gallons of water was 

pumped from the Westmoreland well field, the contributing 

area included only small parts of the Fisher Scientific Company 

and Eastman Kodak Company properties, and none of the Sandvik, Inc., property. In the 2000 high-recharge scenario, contributing areas to every pumped well were similar to, but smaller 

than, the contributing areas in the 2000 scenario.

 Contaminant plumes from the three potential contaminant 

sites were delineated using the ground-water flow model. In 

1991, most of the plume from the overburden at Fisher Scientific Company discharged to a well in the Westmoreland well 

field; about half of the plume from the bedrock discharged to 

deep recovery wells at Fisher Scientific Company and half 

discharged to two wells in the Westmoreland well field. Only 

3 percent of the water from the overburden and 4 percent of the 

water from the bedrock was not captured by any well. 

In 1991, 3 percent of the plume from the overburden at 

Sandvik, Inc., discharged to wells in the Westmoreland well 

field; 93 percent of the plume from the bedrock discharged to 

wells in that well field. Nearly all (97 percent) of the water from 

the overburden and 7 percent of the water from the bedrock at 

Sandvik, Inc., was not captured by any well and flowed instead 

to Henderson Brook. 

In 1991, 73 percent of the plume from the bedrock at Eastman Kodak Company discharged to a well in the Westmoreland 

well field; the remainder flowed to the Passaic River. No plume 

from the overburden at Eastman Kodak Company was delineated because simulation results indicate that the overburden 

was unsaturated. 

In 2000, wells in the Westmoreland well field captured less 

water than in 1991 from all three sites because of the decreased 

pumpage. Only 6 percent of the plume from the overburden at 

Fisher Scientific Company discharged to a well in the Westmoreland well field; more than half (55 percent) was captured by 

the recently installed shallow recovery system and 4 percent 

was captured by the deep recovery wells at the site. Thirty-four 

percent of the plume from the bedrock discharged to a well in 

the Westmoreland well field, and 58 percent was captured by 

the deep recovery wells at the site. In this simulation, 35 percent 

of the water from the overburden and 9 percent of the water 

from the bedrock at Fisher Scientific Company flowed to Henderson Brook and the Passaic River rather than to any well. 

In 2000, all of the water originating in the overburden at 

Sandvik, Inc., discharged to Henderson Brook; none was captured by any well. Twenty-three percent of the plume from the 

bedrock at Sandvik, Inc., discharged to two wells in the Westmoreland well field; 2 percent discharged to a deep recovery 

well at Fisher Scientific Company, and the remainder (74 percent) flowed to Henderson Brook and the Passaic River rather 

than to any well. 

In 2000, 9 percent of the water from the bedrock at Eastman Kodak Company discharged to a well in the Westmoreland 

well field; the remainder discharged to Henderson Brook and 

the Passaic River. 

Introduction 

Since 1978, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have 

been detected in ground water in three production wells in the 

Westmoreland well field in the Borough of Fair Lawn, Bergen 

County, New Jersey (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2003). The most commonly occurring compounds in these 

wells are trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 

and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) (Kenneth Garrison, Fair 

Lawn Water Department, written commun., 2002). In 1983, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) placed the 

well field on its National Priority List of Superfund sites. In 

1987, the Borough of Fair Lawn installed air strippers to treat 

water pumped from the contaminated wells. An investigation 

by the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

identified Fisher Scientific Company (Fisher) and Sandvik, Inc. 

(Sandvik), as contributing sources of the contamination (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). These two companies are next to each other in Fair Lawn Industrial Park, northeast of the Westmoreland well field (fig. 1). During the course 

of this study, a third potential contributing source, Eastman 

Kodak Company (Kodak), also in Fair Lawn Industrial Park, 

was identified. Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak are all on the 

NJDEP list of known contaminated sites (N.J. Department of 

Environmental Protection, 2001). 

In 1999, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the USEPA, began a study to determine: 

•	 Ground-water flow patterns in the Borough of Fair 

Lawn, 

•	 Contributing areas to production wells in Fair Lawn, 

•	 Contaminant-plume boundaries, and 

•	 The effect of present pump-and-treat systems at the 

Westmoreland well field and Fisher on flowpaths of 

contaminated ground water. 

Purpose and Scope 

This report describes the results of ground-water flow simulations that were done to (1) delineate contributing areas and 

potential sources of contamination to production wells in Fair 

Lawn, New Jersey; (2) delineate plumes of contaminated water 

originating from three potential sources of ground-water contamination in Fair Lawn—Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak; and 

(3) determine the effect of present pump-and-treat systems at 

the Westmoreland well field and Fisher on flowpaths of contaminated ground water. 
 3 

01391500

01390500 

Passa ci R vi er

Route 17 

80 

Saddle

River

Route 46 

Map el Ave 

River Rd 

l B

n

a

e

L

c M

dv

Route 46 

Route 208 

Distance to Little Falls weatherstation and streamflow-gagingstation 01389500 is 2.1 miles

Garden S at e t Parkway 

74 09' 74 06' 75 74 

4140

40 57' 

EXPLANATION

FAIR LAWN

WELL FIELD--

CadmusDorothy Street 39 MemorialWestmoreland

BOUNDARY OF FAIR LAWN
INDUSTRIAL PARK


EXTENT OF MODEL GRID
MAJOR ROAD
 40 54' 

01390500 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION
AND NUMBER


0

0 

10 

10 

20 MILES

20 KILOMETERS 

AT

AL

TN CI

CO

NAE

ATLANTIC 

SALEM

CUMBERLAND

GLOUCESTER CAMDEN

BURLINGTON

CAPE

MAY 

OCEAN

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX 

MERCER

SOMERSET RARITAN

BAY

DELAWARE

PENNSYLVANIA 

NEW JERSEY 

DELAWARE

BAY

HUDSON New 

HUNTERDON

SUSSEX

MORRIS

PASSAIC 

BERGEN

ESSEX

UNION

NEW YORK 

WARREN 

City 

ork Y

Philadelphia

D ELAW ARE

I R VE R

Model area 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:24,000Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD 83 0 1 2 MILES 

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS 

Figure 1. Location of model area, production well fields, and industrial park in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

Introduction
4 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

The ground-water flow model and the limitations of using 

the model to simulate movement of water are described. Data 

and interpretations used to develop the ground-water flow 

model are presented. The hydrogeologic framework in the Fair 

Lawn area, including the location, extent, and geometry of 

water-bearing and confining units, the character of the unconsolidated overburden, and its hydraulic connection with bedrock, is described, and the transmissivity of water-bearing and 

confining units is estimated. 

The distribution of VOCs, metals, pesticides, semivolatile 

organic compounds (SVOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs) in discrete depth intervals in six observation wells is 

described, as are simulated water budgets for 10 surface-water 

basins in and near Fair Lawn. 

Data collected during this project include borehole geophysical logs of six deep wells (162-505 ft deep), streamflow 

measurements at five sites, continuous water levels at eight 

observation wells, and static hydraulic heads and concentrations of VOCs in discrete depth intervals isolated by straddle 

packers in six observation wells. Water samples from one of the 

six wells were analyzed for VOCs plus total metals, SVOCs, 

pesticides, and PCBs. 

Description of Study Area 

The study area is the area represented by the active part of 

the ground-water flow model used in this study (fig. 2). It 

encompasses approximately 15 mi2, extending beyond the 

boundaries of Fair Lawn Borough, as described in the Grid and 

Boundary Conditions section of this report. Most of the study 

area is bounded on the east and west by the Saddle and Passaic 

Rivers, respectively. Four tributaries to the Saddle River 

(Hohokus, Jordan, Beaver Dam, and Pehle Brooks) and four 

tributaries to the Passaic River (Diamond, Henderson, Lyncrest, 

and Fleischer Brooks) are in the study area. The drainage basins 

of these rivers and tributaries are shown in figure 2. 

The Borough of Fair Lawn pumps water from 13 wells 

located in four well fields (fig. 1). Eight observation wells and 

one production well no longer in use also are owned by the 

municipality. The Memorial well field consists of production 

wells FL15, FL16, FL17, and FL19 (USGS well numbers 

030460, 030319, 030318, and 030317, respectively), and observation wells FL18 and FLS-1 (USGS well numbers 030619 and 

030618, respectively). The Dorothy Street well field consists of 

production wells FL25, FL26, and FL28 (USGS well numbers 

030355, 030356, and 030354, respectively), and observation 

wells FL27 and FLP-1 (USGS well numbers 030357 and 

030620, respectively). The Cadmus well field consists of production wells FL2, FL7, FL8, and FL9 (USGS well numbers 

030423, 030352, 030411, 030353, respectively), and observation wells FL4 and FL29 (USGS well numbers 030531 and 

030617, respectively). The Westmoreland well field consists of 

production wells FL10, FL11, and FL14 (USGS well numbers 

030461, 030462, and 030424, respectively), and observation 

well FL12 (USGS well number 030512). Well FL11 has been 

out of service since 1997 and well FL12, although used sporadically as a production well in the past, has been out of service 

since 1999. For purposes of this study, well FL12 was used as 

an observation well and is referred to as such in this report. The 

other observation well owned by Fair Lawn Borough, FL23 

(USGS well number 030621), is in Fair Lawn Industrial Park 

(fig. 1). The Fair Lawn Borough wells and other wells included 

in this study are shown in figure 3 and listed in table 1. 

In 1991, the Borough of Fair Lawn pumped approximately 

754 Mgal of water: 351 Mgal from the Memorial well field, 

137 Mgal from the Dorothy Street well field, 136 Mgal from the 

Cadmus well field, and 130 Mgal from the Westmoreland well 

field. By 2000, the distribution of pumpage among the well 

fields had changed, mostly in response to the continued contamination of the Westmoreland well field. During the intervening 

period, pumpage from that well field decreased from 130 to 

49 Mgal, whereas pumpage from the Cadmus well field 

increased from 136 to 234 Mgal. Total pumpage from all well 

fields in 2000 was nearly the same (approximately 770 Mgal) 

as in 1991, as was pumpage from the Memorial well field 

(332 Mgal) and the Dorothy Street well field (154 Mgal). 

Hydrogeologic Framework 

Data obtained from the results of borehole geophysical 

logging and slug testing of small volumes of rock were used to 

determine the location of water-bearing and confining zones in 

the study area. The water-bearing and confining zones were 

then connected on the basis of the regional strike and dip of the 

bedrock strata to form water-bearing and confining hydrogeologic units, respectively. The hydrogeologic units in the bedrock comprise a fractured-rock aquifer, and the fractured-rock 

aquifer and the overlying unconsolidated overburden comprise 

the aquifer system in the study area. In this report, 

•	 An interval is defined as the part of a well’s borehole 

that is isolated by straddle packers; 

•	 A zone is the volume of rock around the interval; and 

•	 A hydrogeologic unit (water-bearing or confining unit) 

is an areally extensive layer of rock. 

Geology 

Unconsolidated glacial sediments and alluvium that range 

in thickness from 6 to 100 ft overlie bedrock throughout the 

study area. Bedrock consists of the Passaic Formation. 

Unconsolidated Overburden 

The unconsolidated sediments are described in table 2 and 

their distribution is shown in figure 4. Throughout most of the 

study area, the Rahway till forms a 10- to 30-ft-thick veneer 

over bedrock. Other glacial sediments and alluvium overlie the 

till in most of the study area. Near the Passaic River, the 
Hydrogeologic Framework 5 

S

Location of study area (active area of the ground-water flow model), surface-water basins, and streamflowmeasurement sites in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Location of model area shown in figure 1) 

01389873 

01391250 

01391109 

01389860 

01389865 

Passa

ci R vi er

a

ddle

River

Ridgewood 

Glen Rock 

Fair Lawn 

Paterson 

Elmwood Park 

EXPLANATION 

SURFACE-WATER BASIN WITHIN 

ACTIVE MODEL AREA 

Beaver Dam Brook 

Diamond Brook 

Fleischer Brook 

Jordan Brook 

Henderson Brook 

Hohokus Brook 

Lyncrest Brook 

Passaic River 

Pehle Brook 

Saddle River 

INACTIVE MODEL AREA 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

01391109	 STREAMFLOW-MEASUREMENT 

SITE AND NUMBER 

0 0.5 1 MILE 

0 0.5 1 1.5 KILOMETERS 

Figure 2. 
6 

FL4 

FL12 

FL27 

FL29 

FL18 

FL23 

FLS-1 

FLP-1 

SL2 

MP3 MP5

MP2 

NB2 

RW-WEST 

RW-GLEN 

RW-MAIN 

RW-LEIGH 

RW-SPRING 

RW-LINWOOD 

RW-WALTHERY 

RW-ACKERMAN 

RW-NEWCOMBE 

RW-PROSPECT 

FL8 

FL9 

FL7 

FL11 

FL28 

FL25 

FL26 

FL16 

FL15 

FL14 

FL10 

FL19 

FL2 

FL17 

OBSERVATION WELL WITH 

MONITORED WATER LEVEL 

AND WELL NUMBER-­

INDUSTRIAL SITES SHOWN IN 

FIGURES 18, 19, and 20 

Passa

ci

R

vi er

a

ddle

River

Ridgewood 

Glen Rock 

Fair Lawn 

Paterson 

Elmwood Park 

FLS-1 

FL4 

FL2 

0 0.5 1 MILE 

MP1 0 0.5

MP4 

MP6

S

Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Wells with monitored water levels, and production wells within the study area (active area of the ground-water flow model) in 

and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Location of model area shown in figure 1) 

EXPLANATION 

Archery Plaza 

Cole Engineering, Inc. 

Einson-Freeman and deTroy site 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID 

Water level only 

Packer test and 

water level 

PRODUCTION WELL 

1 1.5 KILOMETERS 

Figure 3. 
Hydrogeologic Framework 7 

Table 1. Well-construction and pumpage data for selected wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; PF, Passaic Formation; AV, alluvium; GL, undifferentiated glacial sediments; Ridgewood WD, 

Village of Ridgewood Water Department; FLWD, Fair Lawn Borough Water Department; FS, Fisher Scientific Company; Hayward, Hayward Industries, Inc.; 

Sandvik, Sandvik, Inc.; EFD, Einson Freeman and deTroy; na, no data available; Steam Leasing Co, Steam Leasing Company] 

Owner 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

Well name 

FL2 

FL41 

FL7 

FL8 

FL9 

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

well 

number 

030423 

030531 

030352 

030411 

030353 

NJDEP 

well permit 

number 

46-00147 

46-00149 

46-00151 

46-00152 

46-00153 

Geologic 

unit 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

Screened or open 

interval 

(feet below land 

surface) 

Top Bottom 

na na 

na na 

60 458 

na na 

47.75 404 

Depth of 

well 

(feet 

below 

land 

surface) 

300 

300 

458 

430 

404 

Pumpage 

(million gallons) 

1991 2000 

21.568 15.414 

0 0 

87.485 77.925 

17.314 107.903 

9.326 32.771 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FL10 

FL11 

FL121 

FL14 

FL15 

030461 

030462 

030512 

030424 

030460 

23-00249 

23-00250 

23-00251 

43-00097 

26-00393 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

35 

54 

40 

na 

46 

300 

400 

400 

na 

402 

300 

400 

400 

400 

402 

39.042 

39.042 

0 

52.056 

88.306 

22.659 

0 

0 

26.744 

109.178 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FL16 

FL17 

FL181 

FL19 

FL231 

030319 

030318 

030619 

030317 

030621 

26-00465 

26-01032 

na 

26-01197 

na 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

49 

52 

na 

47 

na 

413 

350 

na 

400 

na 

413 

350 

162 

400 

400 

72.645 

78.084 

0 

112.409 

0 

60.010 

63.799 

0 

98.883 

0 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FL25 

FL26 

FL271 

FL28 

FL291 

030355 

030356 

030357 

030354 

030617 

23-07538 

23-07539 

23-07540 

23-07541 

26-13928 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

59 

51 

69 

50 

53 

370 

400 

340 

355 

505 

370 

400 

340 

355 

505 

15.447 

0 

0 

121.064 

0 

62.607 

33.389 

0 

58.407 

0 

FLWD 

FLWD 

EFD 

EFD 

EFD 

FLP-1 

FLS-1 

MW-1 

MW-2 

MW-3 

030620 

030618 

030657 

030658 

030659 

23-11661 

na 

23-09962-3 

23-09963-1 

23-09964-0 

AV 

AV 

GL 

GL 

GL 

18.35 

na 

19.7 

13.5 

20.3 

21.35 

na 

34.7 

28.5 

35.3 

21.35 

20.15 

34.7 

28.5 

35.3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

EFD 

EFD 

EFD 

FS 

FS 

MW-4 

MW-5 

MW-6 

PW-2 

PW-4 

030682 

030680 

030681 

030539 

030538 

23-10505-4 

23-11085 

23-11086 

23-05038 

23-08701 

GL 

GL 

GL 

PF 

PF 

15.3 

12 

9 

50 

28 

30.3 

22 

19 

335 

400 

30.3 

22 

19 

335 

400 

0 

0 

0 

7.357 

15.432 

0 

0 

0 

4.585 

15.825 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

PW-5 

TPW1R 

TPW2 

TPW3 

TPW4 

030537 

030576 

030575 

030574 

030572 

23-08700 

23-14311 

23-14020 

23-14021 

23-14023 

PF 

GL 

GL 

GL 

GL 

24 

na 

na 

na 

na 

350 

na 

na 

na 

na 

350 

17 

12 

12 

12 

12.420 

0 

0 

0 

0 

19.143 

.006 

.007 

.022 

.006 
8 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 1. Well-construction and pumpage data for selected wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey.—Continued 

[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; PF, Passaic Formation; AV, alluvium; GL, undifferentiated glacial sediments; Ridgewood WD, 

Village of Ridgewood Water Department; FLWD, Fair Lawn Borough Water Department; FS, Fisher Scientific Company; Hayward, Hayward Industries, Inc.; 

Sandvik, Sandvik, Inc.; EFD, Einson Freeman and deTroy; na, no data available; Steam Leasing Co, Steam Leasing Company] 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

Owner Well name 

TPW5 

TPW6 

TPW7 

FS-02 

FS-05 

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

well 

number 

030573 

030571 

030570 

030696 

030712 

NJDEP 

well permit 

number 

23-14018 

23-14019 

23-14017 

23-7399A 

na 

Geologic 

unit 

GL 

GL 

GL 

GL 

PF 

Screened or open 

interval 

(feet below land 

surface) 

Top Bottom 

na na 

na na 

na na 

5 25 

19 40 

Depth of 

well 

(feet 

below 

land 

surface) 

12 

12 

12 

25 

40 

Pumpage 

(million gallons) 

1991 2000 

0 .120 

0 .028 

0 .010 

0 0 

0 0 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS-07 

FS-9R 

FS-11 

FS-14 

FS-15R 

030688 

030693 

030711 

030718 

030689 

23-7404A 

23-13429 

na 

na 

23-13428 

GL 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

3 

74 

70 

21 

44 

23 

99 

100 

50 

54 

23 

99 

100 

50 

54 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS-17 

FS-18 

FS-19 

FS-20 

FS-21 

030716 

030715 

030697 

030694 

030683 

na 

na 

23-08699 

23-08693 

23-08694 

PF 

PF 

PF 

GL 

GL 

20 

70 

72 

5 

6 

40 

100 

125 

17 

16 

40 

100 

125 

17 

16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS-22 

FS-23 

FS-39 

FS-40 

FS-41 

030692 

030691 

030698 

030719 

030717 

23-08695 

23-08696 

23-12443 

23-12444 

23-12445 

GL 

GL 

GL 

PF 

PF 

5 

5 

30.5 

75 

75 

25 

19 

55 

100 

100 

25 

19 

55 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

FS 

FS 

FS 

Marcal Paper Mills 

Marcal Paper Mills 

FS-42 

PZ-4R 

PZ-5 

MP1 

MP2 

030710 

030714 

030713 

030484 

030485 

23-12446 

23-13427 

23-13426 

46-00008 

46-00009 

PF 

GL 

GL 

PF 

PF 

75 

4 

10 

na 

na 

100 

19 

20 

na 

na 

100 

19 

20 

150 

280 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

26.438 

68.906 

Marcal Paper Mills 

Marcal Paper Mills 

Marcal Paper Mills 

Marcal Paper Mills 

National Biscuit Co 

MP3 

MP4 

MP5 

MP6 

NB2 

030233 

030486 

030487 

030488 

030324 

46-00010 

46-00011 

46-00012 

46-00013 

23-03369 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

30 

na 

na 

na 

58 

325 

na 

na 

na 

393 

325 

80 

125 

300 

393 

31.640 

4.646 

0 

52.113 

82.939 

61.524 

0 

30.762 

0 

36.094 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

RW-Ackerman 

RW-Glen Rock 

RW-Leigh 

RW-Linwood 

RW-Main 

030360 

030327 

030325 

030369 

030229 

23-02227 

23-01835 

23-04171 

23-01445 

23-01443 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

49 

49 

86 

45 

52.5 

303 

300 

300 

300 

302 

303 

300 

300 

300 

302 

270.852 

27.606 

126.390 

33.261 

.998 

0 

52.251 

33.119 

22.085 

101.190 
Hydrogeologic Framework 9 

Table 1. Well-construction and pumpage data for selected wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey.—Continued 

[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; PF, Passaic Formation; AV, alluvium; GL, undifferentiated glacial sediments; Ridgewood WD, 

Village of Ridgewood Water Department; FLWD, Fair Lawn Borough Water Department; FS, Fisher Scientific Company; Hayward, Hayward Industries, Inc.; 

Sandvik, Sandvik, Inc.; EFD, Einson Freeman and deTroy; na, no data available; Steam Leasing Co, Steam Leasing Company] 

Owner 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

Ridgewood WD 

Well name 

RW-Newcombe 

RW-Prospect 

RW-Spring 

RW-Walthery 

RW-West End 

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

well 

number 

030359 

030362 

030586 

030376 

030463 

NJDEP 

well permit 

number 

23-04170 

23-01770 

23-01644 

23-01643 

23-05931 

Geologic 

unit 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

Screened or open 

interval 

(feet below land 

surface) 

Top Bottom 

70 300 

50 300 

na na 

64 300 

41 300 

Depth of 

well 

(feet 

below 

land 

surface) 

300 

300 

300 

300 

300 

Pumpage 

(million gallons) 

1991 2000 

43.348 76.442 

416.201 122.962 

5.100 93.494 

.998 0 

77.608 105.191 

Steam Leasing Co 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

SL2 

SV-4s 

SV-5s 

SV-6s 

SV-1D 

030598 

030684 

030686 

030690 

030699 

23-13895 

23-7692 

23-7691 

23-7690 

23-7689 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

56 

28 

20 

22 

70 

310 

40 

41.5 

41.5 

100 

310 

40 

41.5 

41.5 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

26.980 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

Hayward 

Hayward 

SV-2D 

SV-4D 

SV-5D 

MW-1s 

MW-4s 

030695 

030685 

030687 

030678 

030675 

23-7688 

23-7687 

23-7686 

23-9614-4 

23-10245 

PF 

PF 

PF 

GL 

GL 

65 

71 

72 

7.6 

10 

99.5 

100 

104 

17.6 

25 

99.5 

100 

104 

17.6 

25 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

MW-5s 

MW-6s 

MW-7s 

MW-8s 

MW-9s 

030670 

030673 

030676 

030668 

030664 

23-10247 

23-10249 

23-10265 

23-11629 

23-11630 

GL 

GL 

GL 

GL 

GL 

8 

8 

5 

5 

10 

23 

23 

20 

20 

25 

23 

23 

20 

20 

25 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

MW-10s 

MW-13s 

MW-14s 

GMW-15s 

GMW-17s 

030662 

030666 

030667 

030701 

030708 

23-11631 

23-11633 

23-11634 

23-13804 

23-13490 

GL 

GL 

GL 

GL 

GL 

7 

5 

10 

6 

5 

17 

20 

25 

16 

15 

17 

20 

25 

16 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

MW-18s 

GTW-4 

MW-1d 

GMW-4d 

GMW-15d 

030707 

030705 

030702 

030674 

030679 

23-13491 

na 

23-10244 

23-10246 

23-13803 

GL 

GL 

PF 

PF 

PF 

5 

13 

20 

28 

33 

15 

18 

44.5 

53.5 

58 

15 

18 

44.5 

53.5 

58 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

GMW-17d 

GTW-1 

GTW-3 

MW-7d 

MW-8d 

030709 

030703 

030706 

030677 

030669 

23-13489 

na 

na 

23-10266 

23-11653 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

PF 

28 

23 

15 

22 

30 

48 

33 

40 

48 

55 

48 

33 

40 

48 

55 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
10 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 1. Well-construction and pumpage data for selected wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey.—Continued 

[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; PF, Passaic Formation; AV, alluvium; GL, undifferentiated glacial sediments; Ridgewood WD, 

Village of Ridgewood Water Department; FLWD, Fair Lawn Borough Water Department; FS, Fisher Scientific Company; Hayward, Hayward Industries, Inc.; 

Sandvik, Sandvik, Inc.; EFD, Einson Freeman and deTroy; na, no data available; Steam Leasing Co, Steam Leasing Company] 

Screened or open Depth of U.S. Geological NJDEP Geo- interval well Pumpage 

(feet below land (feet (million gallons) Owner Well name Survey well permit logic surface) below 

well number unit land number Top Bottom surface) 1991 2000 

Hayward MW-10d 030663 23-11655 PF 37 62 62 0 0 

Hayward MW-5d2 030672 na PF 51 76 76 0 0 

Hayward MW-11d 030700 23-11656 PF 30 55 55 0 0 

Hayward MW-13d 030661 23-11658 PF 35 43 43 0 0 

Hayward GMW-5d3 030671 23-13805 PF 117 132 132 0 0 

Hayward MW-9d 030665 23-11654 PF 50 75 75 0 0 

Hayward GMW-16d2 030660 23-13807 PF 190 215 215 0 0 

Hayward MW-19d 030704 23-14983 PF 120 140 140 0 0 

1

Well for which borehole geophysical logs and straddle-packer test data are available. 

Table 2. Characteristics of unconsolidated overburden sediments in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[<, less than] 

Geologic unit 

(Stanford and others, 1990) 

(fig. 4) 

Geologic name 

(Stone and others, 

1995) 

Age Generalized description of sediments 

(Stone and others, 1995) 

Thickness 

(feet) 

Continuous till Rahway till Late Wisconsinan Sandy to clayey till; compact, firm to hard 

consistency 

10–30 

Deltaic and lacustrine-fan deposits Hohokus deposits Late Wisconsinan Deltaic and esker deposits < 100 

Fluvial deposits Glacial Lake Paramus 

deposits 

Late Wisconsinan Fluvial sand, silt, and gravel < 20 

Fluvial over lacustrine deposits Glacial Lake Paramus 

deposits 

Late Wisconsinan Fluvial sand, silt, and gravel overlying 

lake-bottom silt, fine sand, and clay 

< 70 

Ice-contact deposits Ice-contact deposits, 

undifferentiated 

Late Wisconsinan Sand and gravel <150 

Alluvium in flood plains of major 

rivers 

Alluvium Holocene and 

Late Wisconsinan 

Laminated and thinly bedded silt, clay, 

and sand overlying gravel and sand 

6–30 

Alluvium in tributaries to major 

rivers 

Alluvium Holocene and 

Late Wisconsinan 

Poorly sorted sand and gravel < 13 
Hydrogeologic Framework 11 

Ridgewood 

Glen Rock 

Fair Lawn 

Paterson 

Elmwood Park 

EXPLANATION 

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY 

Alluvium 

Fluvial deposits 

Fluvial over lacustrine deposits 

Deltaic and lacustrine-fan deposits 

Ice-contact deposits 

Continuous till 

Inactive model area 

Stream or river 

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

0 0.5 1 MILE 

0 0.5 1 1.5 KILOMETERS 

Geology from Stanford and others, 1990 

Figure 4. Surficial geology and streams within the study area (active area of the ground-water flow model) in and near Fair Lawn, New 

Jersey. (Location of model area shown in figure 1) 
12 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Rahway till and any glacial sediments that may have been 

present probably have been eroded so that alluvium directly 

overlies the bedrock. Discontinuous undifferentiated icecontact deposits consisting of sand and gravel of Late Wisconsinan age overlie the till in some areas. Glacial Lake Paramus 

deposits include Late Wisconsinan-age lake-bottom deposits of 

fine sand, silt, and clay overlain by deltaic and glaciolacustrine 

fan deposits consisting of sand, silt, and gravel. 

Bedrock 

At Fair Lawn Borough, the Passaic Formation consists of 

layers of brownish-red pebble conglomerate, medium- to 

coarse-grained feldspathic sandstone, and micaceous siltstone. 

North and west of Fair Lawn, the Passaic Formation consists of 

a reddish-brown quartzite pebble conglomerate, pebbly sandstone, and sandstone (Drake and others, 1996). The rock layers 

are inclined, striking slightly east of north and dipping 7 to 

9 degrees northwest. The mean regional orientation of the bedrock was determined from three strike and dip measurements 

made in the Borough of Fair Lawn (Parker, 1993) (table 3). 

Table 3. Strike and dip measurements of sedimentary bedrock 

layers in outcrops, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[From Parker, 1993] 

Location Strike 

direction 

Dip angle and 

direction 

Northeastern corner of Fair North 11o East 7o Northwest 

Lawn Borough (Lincoln 

Avenue at intersection with 

Conrail tracks) 

Central part of Fair Lawn North 3o East 8o Northwest 

Borough (Fair Lawn Avenue at 

intersection with Conrail 

tracks) 

Western part of Fair Lawn North 12o East 9o Northwest 

Borough (Saddle River at 

intersection with Route 208) 

Mean strike and dip North 9o East 8o Northwest 

Borehole-Geophysical Logging 

Borehole geophysical logs collected by the USGS were 

used to determine the location of potential water-bearing and 

confining zones in the study area. Natural gamma, spontaneous 

electric potential, resistivity, caliper, fluid temperature, and 

heat-pulse flowmeter logs were collected from six deep observation wells owned by the Borough of Fair Lawn. The six wells 

are shown in figure 3 and identified in table 1. The potential 

water-bearing zones identified from geophysical logs were later 

isolated by straddle packers for determination of hydraulic 

properties and for water-quality sampling. 

Potential water-bearing zones were first identified using 

caliper and temperature logs. Zones where the caliper log indicates a high degree of fracturing and zones where the temperature log indicates a change in the gradient of fluid temperature 

are zones where water may be entering or leaving the borehole 

and, therefore, are potential water-bearing zones. The heatpulse flowmeter was then used to test each potential water-bearing zone. The flowmeter measures the rate of vertical groundwater flow at discrete points in the borehole. The flowmeter was 

placed above and below each potential water-bearing zone. 

Where the rate of flow above the targeted zone was different 

from the flow rate below the zone, it was assumed that water is 

entering or leaving the borehole in that zone, and that the zone 

may be water bearing. 

Borehole video surveys also were run in the six observation wells. The videos indicate the location and character of 

fractures, vugs, and seeps in the boreholes. Video logs were 

used to determine the optimum position of packers in order to 

obtain a tight seal against the borehole wall. 

Straddle-Packer Testing 

Straddle-packer testing is a means of isolating discrete 

intervals within open-hole wells. In this study, three types of 

data were obtained from the isolated intervals: 

•	 Water-level changes in response to introducing a slug 

of pressurized air (slug testing). This data set was used 

to determine the transmissivity of each isolated zone, 

which, in turn, was used to determine the hydrogeologic framework in the study area. 

•	 Water-quality data. These data were used to determine 

the distribution of contaminants in the study area and 

are discussed in the Ground-Water Quality section of 

this report. 

•	 Static water levels. These data were used to calibrate 

the ground-water flow model and are discussed in the 

Ground-Water Levels section of this report. 

The methods and results of slug testing are discussed in 

this section. Methods and results of water-quality sampling and 

static-water-level measurements are discussed in subsequent 

sections of this report. Zones to be packer tested were selected 

primarily on the basis of results of heat-pulse flowmeter logging. In parts of boreholes where heat-pulse logging was not 

possible, zones were selected on the basis of temperature logs 

and (or) caliper logs. All zones identified as potential waterbearing zones were packed off and slug tested for determination 

of transmissivity. 

Methods of Slug Testing 

Each packed interval was isolated with straddle packers, 

and then the packed zone was slug tested using a procedure 

modified from Greene and Shapiro (1995). The slug-test procedure involved pressurizing the headspace above the packed 
Hydrogeologic Framework 13 

interval with nitrogen gas; the release of the pressure started the 

slug test. The slug testing in a well was done from the uppermost zone to the lowermost zone. If a water-quality sample was 

collected from the packed interval, the sample was collected 

first and then the interval was slug tested. This sequence was 

changed only when more than 12 hours had elapsed between the 

slug test and sampling of the packed interval. The packed intervals were approximately 12 ft long. The procedure used to isolate the selected zone and slug test the isolated zone was: 

1.	 The packer assembly was lowered into the borehole on 

2-in. pipe until the packers straddled the selected zone 

(fig. 5). A steel tape graduated to 0.01 ft attached at the top 

of the packer assembly was used to position the packers 

accurately to isolate the specified packed interval. If a 

water sample was collected from the packed zone, the 

packed interval waslocated such that the major fracture(s) 

in the zone would be adjacent to the pump used to sample 

the zone. The pump was lowered into the packed interval 

and rested on a bolt 2.06 ft from the bottom of the packed 

interval. If no sample was to be collected, the packed 

interval was located such that the major fracture in the 

zone was in the center of the interval. 

2.	 When the packers were in position to isolate the selected 

interval, the 2-in. pipe was secured at the surface, and the 

upper and lower packer inflation lines were connected to 

the pressure gauge attached to the nitrogen gas cylinder. 

Depth to water from a common measuring point was 

measured for the upper open, packed, and lower open 

intervals. The inflation pressure of each packer was then 

calculated using the formula 

IP = [(Head × 0.433 + K) × 1.3] (1) 

where 

“IP” is the inflation pressure, in pounds per 

square inch (lb/in2

, or psi); 

“Head” (ft) = (Depth in feet below land surface to middle of the packer) – (Depth to water in feet 

below land surface); 

0.433	 is the conversion factor from feet of water to 

psi; 

“K”	 is a well constant representing the pressure 

required to seat the packers in the well in 

psi. (For an 8-in.-diameter well, K = 40; for 

a 10-in.-diameter well, K = 160; for a 12-in.- 

diameter well, K = 180); 

and 

1.3 	 is a “protection factor” that was used to 

ensure that the packers were inflated to a 

pressure great enough to compensate for the 

head of water pushing against them when 

inflated at depth in a well. 

3. The slug-test apparatus was attached to the top of the 2-in. 

pipe (fig. 5). 

4.	 The upper open, packed, and lower open interval 

transducers were placed in the well, 2-in. pipe, and 1-in. 

pipe, respectively (fig. 5). 

5.	 The transducers were connected to the data logger and the 

data logger was connected to the laptop computer. Using 

the laptop computer, the transducers were calibrated to 

the water levels measured in step 2. Recording of water 

levels from the transducers was then started. 

6.	 The upper packer was inflated. When the pressure gauge 

that measured pressure in the upper packer indicated a 

pressure equal to the pressure calculated in step 2, 

inflation was stopped. The lower packer was inflated in 

the same manner. The valves between the inflation lines 

and the nitrogen cylinder and the valve on the nitrogen 

cylinder were closed, and the lines were disconnected 

from the pressure gauge. 

7.	 Water levels in the three intervals, measured with the 

transducers, were monitored until the levels stabilized. If 

the stable water levels in the upper and lower open 

intervals were different from the stable water level in the 

packed interval, it was assumed that the packers had 

seated and isolated the packed interval. If the water level 

in the upper and (or) lower open zone did not differ from 

the water level in the packed interval, it was assumed 

there was a connection between the intervals with the 

same water levels. This connection could be the result of 

interconnecting fractures or of inadequate seating of a 

packer. Occasionally, the water level in an interval did 

not stabilize. If the level had not stabilized after a 

reasonable period of time (typically about 1 hour after 

both packers were inflated completely), preparations for 

slug testing proceeded to step 8. 

8.	 The manual measuring port in the slug-test apparatus was 

sealed. 

9.	 The valve used to release pressure in the packed interval 

was closed. 

10.	 The transducer used to monitor the pressure in the 

headspace of the packed interval was placed into the 

slug-test apparatus. 

11.	 A different, more sensitive gauge was attached to the 

nitrogen cylinder, and the pressure line from the top of 

the slug-test apparatus was connected to this gauge. 

12.	 The valve on the nitrogen cylinder was opened and the 

headspace in the packed interval was pressurized until 

the gauge read 5 psi. The valve on the nitrogen cylinder 

was then closed. 

13.	 The water levels in the three intervals and the pressure in 

the headspace were again monitored with the 

transducers. When the levels were stable, the slug test 

could begin. Occasionally, the water level in one of the 

zones did not stabilize. If the level had not stabilized after 

a reasonable period of time (typically about 1 hour after 

the headspace was pressurized), the slug test was started. 
14 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Air-tight seal 

Nitrogen 

tank 

Land surface 

Well casing 

Manual 

measurement 

opening 

Pressure line 

Tank pressure 

gauge 

Delivery 

pressure 

gauge 

Pressure 

release valve 

Data logger 

Packed-zone transducer line 

Upper open 

zone transducer 

line 

Head-space 

transducer 

line 

Lower open 

zone transducer 

line 1-inch PVC pipe connected 

to lower open zone 

monitoring line 

Low-range 

pressure gauge 

(0-15 psi) 

Shut-off 

valve 

Regulator 

Upper-packer Valves 

inflation line 

Lower-packer 

inflation line 

Unconsolidated material 

2-inch steel pipe 

to packed interval 

Bedrock 

Lower open zone 

monitoring intake 

Water-transmitting 

fracture zone 

Non-water-transmitting fracture 

Lower-packer 

inflation line 

Water-transmitting 

fracture zone 

Lower open zone 

monitoring line 

Packed interval 

Bedrock 

Packer 

Packer 

Bolt 

Lap top computer 

EXPLANATION 

Water, upper open zone 

Water, packed zone 

Water, lower open zone 

Not to scale 

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of straddle-packer assembly and air-slug apparatus with conceptual 

representation of bedrock hydrogeology. 
14.	 All transducers were set to record the time elapsed from 

the beginning of the test on a log scale. This setting 

allowed rapid recording of water levels during the first 

minutes of the slug test, and as the slug test progressed 

and the change in water levels slowed, the time interval 

between measurements lengthened. 

15.	 The pressure-release valve was opened to begin the slug 

test. 

16.	 The water level in the packed interval was monitored. 

When the water level had stabilized at or near the level 

prior to pressurization of the packed interval, the test was 

finished and recording of water levels from the 

transducers was stopped. 

17.	 A second slug test was then run for all intervals where 

pressurization of the headspace had resulted in water 

levels depressed below the static level in the packed 

interval. The valve used to release pressure in the packed 

interval was closed, and steps 12 to 16 were repeated. 

18.	 When slug testing was complete, the recording of 

transducer water levels was stopped and the water-level 

data from the transducers were saved to a file on both the 

laptop and a floppy disk. The data logger was 

disconnected from the laptop, and the transducers were 

disconnected from the data logger. 

19.	 The packers were deflated and the slug-test apparatus 

was detached from the 2-in. pipe. The transducers were 

removed from the well and decontaminated using a soap 

and deionized-water rinse followed by a deionized-water 

rinse. 

The transducers in the upper open, packed, and lower open 

intervals effectively measured total head (water level above 

NAVD 88), which is the sum of pressure head, elevation head, 

and velocity head. Velocity head is negligible and is considered 

to have a value of zero, and before pressurization, pressure head 

was due only to the atmospheric pressure, which was compensated for by the vented transducer. 

Pressurizing the packed interval with nitrogen gas to about 

5 psi, or about 11.55 ft of water (2.31 ft/psi), effectively confined the water-bearing zone isolated by the packers. As pressurization progressed, the elevation head in the packed interval 

was decreased until a new equilibrium was reached within the 

water-bearing zone isolated by the packers. The elevation head 

in the packed interval was reduced by exactly the amount that 

the pressure was increased. At this new equilibrium, the 

packed-interval transducer indicated a total head equal to the 

pressure head plus the elevation head, which also equaled the 

total head before pressurization. For example, if the elevation in 

the packed interval were 50 ft before pressurization, the new 

elevation head after pressurization would be 38.45 ft. The total 

head after pressurization in this example would be 38.45 ft + 

11.55 ft of pressure head, or 50 ft. 

The test began when the nitrogen-gas pressure was 

released nearly instantaneously, returning pressure head to 

atmospheric pressure. For an instant, then, the depth to water 

Hydrogeologic Framework 15 

remained lower than the static level by an amount equal to the 

pressure formerly exerted by the nitrogen gas. Generally, the 

water level in the packed interval began to rise rapidly, with the 

packed-zone transducer recording this increase in elevation 

head. When the water level in the packed interval had stabilized 

at the initial static water level, the equilibrium between elevation head and total head in the packed zone was re-established, 

and the test was ended. 

Transmissivity and Hydraulic Connection Between 

Adjacent Zones 

Two data sets were obtained during slug testing. Waterlevel recovery data from the packed interval were used to calculate the transmissivity of the packed zone. Water-level data 

from the upper and lower open zones were examined to determine whether these zones responded to the pressurization of the 

packed zone. A substantial response in these zones was an indication that the packed zone was interconnected with the 

responding zone. This connection could have been the result of 

interconnecting fractures or of inadequate seating of a packer. 

Transmissivity 

The transmissivity of the packed zones was determined 

from the slug-test data by using three methods. The method of 

Cooper and others (1967) was used to analyze most of the slugtest data. Some packed intervals did not respond to the slug-test 

stress; it was assumed that these packed intervals isolated a zone 

with a transmissivity near zero. Some of the slug-test data from 

the packed intervals did indicate a response to the slug-test 

stress but, when graphed, the data did not fall on any of the Cooper type curves and could not be analyzed with this method. The 

transmissivity of these zones was evaluated qualitatively—that 

is, designated as being high or medium. The transmissivity of 

the packed zones determined from the slug tests is listed in 

table 4. 

The broad range in measured transmissivity (from near 0 

to 8,900 ft2/d) is a result of the heterogeneity of the fracturedrock aquifer. Zones in which measured transmissivities were 

high probably are those in which one or more vertical fractures 

intersect horizontal fractures, whereas zones in which measured 

transmissivities were low probably are between vertical fractures. 

The method described by Cooper and others (1967) was 

used to analyze the results of slug tests with a normal response 

to the pressurizing of the slug-test zone. A normal response is 

considered to be an initial rapid rise in water level when the 

pressure was released instantaneously, followed by a slower 

recovery to the initial, unstressed water level within the packed 

interval. Additionally, a normal response is considered to be 

one in which the water levels in the packed interval recorded 

during the slug test, when plotted in relation to elapsed time 

from the start of the test, fell approximately on a Cooper type 

curve. 
16 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 4. Transmissivity of slug-tested zones, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

Well 

FL4 

FL4 

FL4 

FL4 

FL4 

Zone 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Top 

(feet below land surface) 

55 

64.09 

163.76 

251.83 

260.52 

Bottom 

(feet below land surface) 

66.74 

75.83 

175.5 

263.57 

272.26 

Transmissivity 

(feet squared per day) 

Medium1 

2.4 

6.2 

Medium1 

78 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

35 

95 

154 

177 

223.74 

275 

326 

47.09 

111 

170.49 

193.49 

240.23 

291.49 

365 

High2 

8,900 

1,000 

1,700 

2,000 

1.1 

9.8 

FL18 

FL18 

1 

2 

26 

60.33 

39 

160 

2,000 

1,400 

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

40.65 

59.98 

249.57 

271 

314.11 

349.83 

52.39 

71.72 

261.31 

282.74 

325.85 

361.57 

850 

High2 

High2 

High2 

High2 

860 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

64 

85.06 

107.06 

177.4 

204.22 

241.98 

266.72 

319.85 

75.74 

96.8 

118.8 

189.2 

215.96 

253.7 

278.44 

340 

29 

High2 

400 

Not determined 

High2 

670 

3

0 

3

0 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

64.04 

81.95 

129.15 

147.03 

205.53 

309.03 

309.03 

75.78 

93.69 

140.89 

158.77 

217.27 

320.77 

495 

780 

780 

590 

1,400 

840 

3

0 

50 

2Transmissivity assumed to be from 10 to 100 feet squared per day.


3

Transmissivity assumed to be greater than 100 feet squared per day.


4Approximate value. The zone did not respond to the slug-test stress; transmissivity assumed to be near 0 feet 


squared per day. 
Hydrogeologic Framework 17 

In the Cooper slug-test analysis, the aquifer (in this case, a 

single water-bearing unit) is assumed to be confined and apparently infinite in areal extent; to be isotropic, homogeneous, and 

of uniform thickness over the area affected by the slug test; and 

to be penetrated completely by the well (or packed interval) 

being tested, which therefore receives water only by horizontal 

flow. It is probable that the packers isolated zones within the 

aquifer that were confined and sufficiently extensive to approximate infinite areal extent within the zone of influence of the 

test; therefore, this assumption is reasonable. It is also reasonable to assume that the packed interval completely penetrated 

the aquifer. It is uncertain, however, whether the packers isolated homogeneous and isotropic zones within the aquifer. 

Transmissivities calculated from slug-test data can be assumed 

to be representative of only the aquifer volume immediately 

adjacent to the slug-test interval. It is probable that these limited 

aquifer volumes were homogeneous and isotropic; if not, however, this assumption should be considered a limitation of the 

analysis of slug-test data by the Cooper method. 

All unique numerical values of transmissivity greater than 

zero in table 4 were obtained using the Cooper method. Two 

slug tests were run for all intervals with a transmissivity greater 

than zero. The transmissivities obtained by the Cooper method, 

reported in table 4, are either the result that best fit a Cooper 

type curve, or, if results of both slug tests for an interval 

appeared to be similar (that is, fit the same Cooper type curve), 

the higher of the two transmissivity values. 

The water level in three of the packed intervals (intervals 

7 and 8 in well FL27 and interval 6 in well FL29) did not decline 

below the static water level in the packed zone when the pressure was released at the start of the slug test (table 4). It is likely 

that no fractures were present within these three intervals; therefore, when the interval was pressurized, water could not enter 

the aquifer. Consequently, the displaced water could go only up 

into the 2-in. pipe connected to the packed interval. In these 

three tests, the water level in the 2-in. pipe rose approximately 

12 ft when the packed zone was pressurized. After the pressure 

was released, the water level immediately returned to the static 

water level. These three zones are assumed to have a transmissivity near zero. 

In 10 slug tests, water levels responded normally to the 

pressurization of the packed interval but could not be analyzed 

by the Cooper method. Two of these tests were in isolated intervals in well FL4, one was in well FL12, four were in well FL23, 

and three were in well FL27. Long-term water-level data (discussed in the Ground-Water Levels section of this report) indicate that water levels in these four wells are affected by 

unknown stresses, probably pumping in nearby wells. Water 

levels in the isolated intervals during these 10 tests might have 

been responding not only to the pressurization of the packed 

interval, but also to pumping stresses. The pumping stress could 

result in a declining water level during pumping and (or) a rising water level soon after pumping ended. 

In 4 of these 10 tests, the plot of the slug-test data, although 

in the general shape of a Cooper type curve, did not fall on any 

of the type curves. These four slug tests are for intervals 1 and 

4 in well FL4, and intervals 2 and 3 in well FL23. A quantitative 

analysis for these four intervals was not possible; instead, the 

transmissivity for these intervals was evaluated qualitatively. 

As an indicator of the relative transmissivity associated with 

these four intervals, the time required for the depressed water 

levels to recover to within 10 percent of the respective static 

levels was examined. These times were compared to the equivalent times for the slug-test data analyzed with the Cooper 

method. The “10-percent time” is defined as the time required 

for the depressed water level to recover to a water level equal to 

the initial static water level minus 1.155 ft, or 10 percent of 

11.55 ft, which is the approximate water-level decline in the 

slug-tested intervals. The 10-percent times for slug tests analyzed by the Cooper method and for the four tests described 

above are listed in table 5. The 10-percent time is inversely 

related to transmissivity. Therefore, for the four intervals for 

which the Cooper method could not be used, a qualitative transmissivity of high was assigned to those intervals with a 

10-percent time of less than 1 min, and a transmissivity of 

medium was assigned to those intervals with a 10-percent time 

of 1 to 5 min. None of the 10-percent times for these four intervals was greater than 5 min. 

In 6 of the 10 tests that could not be analyzed by the Cooper method, the plot of the slug-test data was not in the general 

shape of a Cooper type curve, but rather showed a regular oscillation in water level. This result occurred in intervals in wells 

FL12, FL23, and FL27. A plot of head in relation to elapsed 

time for an oscillating slug test in interval 4 in well FL27 is 

shown in figure 6. Water-level oscillations can occur during a 

slug test in a highly permeable aquifer when the inertia of the 

slug of displaced water is high (Springer and Gelhar, 1991). The 

length of the oscillation period and the percent recovery from 

the depressed water level (11.55 ft below the static level) to the 

static level at the end of that period were examined (table 6). 

The length of the oscillation period for interval 4 in well FL27 

extended through the entire test; therefore, a qualitative transmissivity for this interval could not be determined. The other 

four intervals had an oscillation period of less than 1 min with 

at least 89-percent recovery. This result is believed to indicate 

that transmissivity in these intervals in high. This assessment is 

in agreement with those of Van Der Kamp (1976) and Springer 

and Gelhar (1991). 

Approximate numerical values were assigned to the highand medium-transmissivity designations to facilitate comparison with the transmissivities determined using the Cooper 

method. As a generalization, it is assumed that “high” corresponds to a transmissivity of 100 ft2/d or greater and “medium” 

corresponds to a transmissivity of 10 to 99 ft2

/d. 
18 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 5. 10-percent times and quantitative and estimated 

qualitative transmissivities for selected slug-test zones, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey. 

[ft

2

/d, feet squared per day; >, greater than] 

Well Zone1 10-percent time2 

(minutes) 

Transmissivity3 

(ft2

/d) 

FL18 1 0.1073 2,000 

FL23 2 .108 High4 

FL23 3 .1902 High4 

FL23 6 .2989 860 

FL12 2 .432 8,900 

FL23 1 .4384 850 

FL27 3 .494 400 

FL18 2 .6965 1,400 

FL29 4 .879 1,400 

FL27 6 .9307 670 

FL29 3 1.124 590 

FL29 2 1.351 780 

FL12 4 1.369 1,700 

FL12 5 1.37 2,000 

FL4 1 1.609 Medium4 

FL29 5 1.668 840 

FL29 1 2.855 780 

FL12 3 3.42 1,000 

FL4 4 4.633 Medium4 

FL29 7 11.84 50 

FL27 1 13.32 29 

FL4 2 >15 2.4 

FL4 5 16.74 78 

FL12 7 >17 9.8 

FL4 3 >59.49 6.2 

5 Zones are listed in order of increasing 10-percent times. 

610-percent time is the time required for the water level to recover to 


within 10 percent of the static water level prior to the slug test.


7Transmissivity was determined using the method of Cooper and others 

(1967). 

8Qualitative transmissivity was estimated from the 10-percent times of 

the quantitatively determined transmissivities. 

Hydraulic Connection Between Adjacent Zones 

Water levels in the upper and lower open intervals near the 

start of the slug test (when pressure was released) were examined to determine whether these water levels responded similarly to those in the packed interval. A substantial response in 

these intervals is an indication of a connection to the packed 

zone. The connection could be the result of either a packer not 

sealing off the packed interval completely or of interconnecting 

fractures between the packed zone and the upper or lower open 

zone. It is believed that the packers did isolate the packed interval because (1) a 1.3 “safety factor” multiplier was built into the 

calculated inflation pressure, (2) caliper and video logs of the 

boreholes were examined to ensure that the packers were 

inflated against smooth sections of the borehole, and (3) the difference among water levels in the three intervals increased after 

packer inflation. Therefore, if the water levels in the upper and 

lower open intervals responded to the change in water level in 

the packed interval during the slug test, the response was 

assumed to be a result of interconnecting fractures. 

The maximum decline in water levels in the upper and 

lower open intervals and the associated elapsed time from the 

start of the slug test are shown in table 7. A small decline over 

a long time indicates little interconnection with the packed 

zone; a large decline over a short time indicates substantial 

interconnection. Results of 10 of the 35 tests indicated a connection to an adjoining zone. 

After the start of the slug test in interval 1 in well FL4, the 

water level in the upper open interval declined by 0.236 ft in 

0.215 min. Because the water level in the packed interval was 

only 6.17 ft above the top of the packed interval, the packed 

interval was pressurized with only 2 psi of nitrogen gas to prevent the gas from entering the packed interval. If the packed 

interval had been pressurized with 5 psi (2-1/2 × 2 psi) of nitrogen gas, the water-level decline in the upper open interval likely 

would have been about 2-1/2 times 0.236 ft, or 0.59 ft. This 

decline represents a substantial response to the slug test in a 

short period of time; therefore, it is probable that the packed and 

upper open zones were connected. 

Responses of less than 0.8 ft in more than 0.29 minutes 

were observed in the upper open interval in well FL18 interval 

2, the lower open intervals in well FL12 intervals 3 and 5, and 

the lower open interval in well FL23 interval 5. The responses 

in these four intervals, although modest, occurred sufficiently 

soon after the start of the slug tests to conclude that the zones 

probably are connected to the corresponding packed zones. 

The borehole video log of well FL18 revealed a 3⁄4-in. pipe 

in the borehole starting at about 50 ft below land surface. Efforts 

to remove all or part of this pipe were unsuccessful. A 4-in. cap 

was attached to the bottom of the packer assembly in this well, 

in the hope that the cap might help break off or crush the pipe 

while the packers were being lowered down the well. It is not 

known whether this attempt was successful. It was clear, however, that the inflated packers did not isolate a packed interval 

at 80 to 93 ft below land surface in this well because water levels in upper and lower open intervals were nearly identical to 

the water level in the packed interval. Because that interval 

could not be isolated by the packers, no attempt was made to 

perform slug tests in it. Instead, the entire zone from 60.33 ft 

below land surface to the bottom of the well (interval 2) was 

tested by inflating only the packer above the packed interval. 

The difference in water levels between the upper open interval 

and the packed interval for interval 2 was 0.15 ft, a sufficiently 

large difference to indicate that the upper packer had successfully isolated the upper open zone from the packed zone. The 

response observed in the upper open interval during the slug 

test, however, might contradict this conclusion. 
Hydrogeologic Framework 19 

TIME ELAPSED FROM BEGINNING OF TEST, IN MINUTES 

Figure 6. Slug-test data showing depth of water in relation to elapsed time for 

well FL27, interval 4, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Well location shown in figure 3) 

0.1 1 10 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

22 

24 

DEPTH 

TO WATER, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE 

Table 6. Oscillation period, percent recovery, and qualitative transmissivity for zones with oscillating water 

levels during slug tests, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[>, greater than] 

Well Zone Oscillation period 

(minutes from start of test) 

Percent recovery to 

static water level Qualitative transmissivity 

FL12 1 0.216 99 High 

FL23 4 .9924 99 High 

FL23 5 .8748 98.2 High 

FL27 2 .2683 89 High 

FL27 4 > 21 Unknown Not determined 

FL27 5 .607 96.1 High 
20 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 7. Water-level decline in the upper and lower open intervals and the associated time from the start of the slug test to the 

maximum decline for wells in Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[--, not applicable] 

Well 

(fig. 3) 

FL4 

FL4 

FL4 

FL4 

FL4 

Packed 

interval 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Depth of packed interval 

(feet below land surface) 

Top Bottom 

55 66.74 

64.09 75.83 

163.76 175.5 

251.83 263.57 

260.52 272.26 

Upper open interval 

Water-level 

decline 

(feet) 

Time 

(minutes) 

10.236 10.215 

Rising water level 

Rising water level 

0 0 

0 0 

--

--

Lower open interval 

Water-level 

decline 

(feet) 

Time 

(minutes) 

Indeterminate 

0 0 

Rising water level 

.798 3.04 

.079 .03 

--

--

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

35 

95 

154 

177 

223.74 

275 

326 

47.09 

111 

170.49 

193.49 

240.23 

291.49 

365 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.11 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

.51 

0 

0 

.072 

.23 

.77 

.06 

.39 

0 

Indeterminate 

0 

.38 

1.3 

0 

.88 

0 

--

FL18 

FL18 

1 

2 

26 

60.33 

39 

160 

.167 

.365 

.4 

.43 

0 

Indeterminate 

0 

--

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

FL23 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

40.65 

59.98 

249.57 

271 

314.11 

349.83 

52.39 

71.72 

261.31 

282.74 

325.85 

361.57 

Rising water level 

Rising water level 

.013 

.035 

.047 

.094 

--

--

.08 

.93 

.82 

.22 

Indeterminate 

Falling water level 

Falling water level 

.136 

.345 

Falling water level 

--

--

--

.73 

.3 

--

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

64 

85.06 

107.06 

177.4 

204.22 

241.98 

266.72 

319.85 

75.74 

96.8 

118.8 

189.2 

215.96 

253.7 

278.44 

340 

0 

Rising water level 

0 

.014 

Oscillation 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

.8 

0 

0 

0 

--

--

0 

.029 

0 

.093 

.05 

Falling water level 

Falling water level 

0 

0 

.32 

0 

.44 

.14 

0 

--

--

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

FL29 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

7 

64.04 

81.95 

129.15 

147.03 

205.53 

309.03 

75.78 

93.69 

140.89 

158.77 

217.27 

495 

0 

.37 

.017 

.227 

Falling water level 

Rising water level 

0 

3.77 

.83 

2.23 

--

--

.943 

.036 

1.007 

1.93 

.194 

Indeterminate 

1.04 

.81 

.72 

.49 

.49 

--

9 Slug test done at 2 pounds per square inch. 
Hydrogeologic Framework 21 

In three intervals in well FL29—1, 3, and 4—the water 

level in the lower open interval declined by at least 0.9 ft. The 

declines occurred in the first minute of the slug test. These large 

declines in a short time indicate a substantial interconnection 

between the packed zones and the lower open zones. 

In two intervals—the lower open interval in well FL4 

interval 4 and the upper open interval in well FL29 interval 

2—the water-level response was small but occurred more than 

3 min after the start of the slug test; this result probably indicates a slight connection between these zones and the packed 

zone. 

When the bottom packer was not inflated for a slug test, 

there was no lower open interval, and the water-level change is 

reported as “indeterminate.” When the water level in the lower 

open interval did not rise into the 1-in. pipe connected to the 

interval (fig. 5), the water level could not be measured, and this 

water-level change also is reported as “indeterminate.” During 

some slug tests, the water level in the upper or lower interval 

rose part of the time and fell part of the time, so it was not possible to determine a water-level change. 

Orientation and Location of Bedrock Hydrogeologic 

Units 

The strike of the bedrock hydrogeologic units in the study 

area was assumed to be equal to the mean measured strike of 

bedding in Fair Lawn (N. 9o

 E.). The dip of the units was 

assumed to approximate the mean measured dip (8o

 to the 

northwest). 

The location of water-bearing and confining units within 

the fractured-rock aquifer was determined primarily on the 

basis of transmissivity measurements made during straddle 

packer testing (table 4) and results of geophysical logging. The 

six wells that were packer-tested were plotted on a cross section 

oriented along the dip of the units, with each well projected onto 

the section (fig. 7). The transmissivity of each packed zone also 

was plotted on the section. The transmissivities of the packed 

zones were divided into three categories. Transmissivities of 

0 to 10 ft2/d were considered to be low, and the entire packed 

zone for which a low transmissivity was measured was considered to be in a confining unit. Transmissivities of 10 to 

100 ft2/d were considered to be moderate, and a packed zone for 

which a moderate transmissivity was measured was considered 

to be in either a leaky confining unit or a unit that is marginally 

water-bearing. Transmissivities greater than 100 ft2

/d were considered to be high, and at least part of a packed zone for which 

a high transmissivity was measured was considered to be in a 

water-bearing unit. Packer testing was done only on intervals 

that were determined to be in possible water-bearing zones on 

the basis of geophysical logs. All other intervals were assumed 

to be in confining units. 

Eight water-bearing units and eight confining units were 

identified in the study area on the basis of transmissivity. The 

dip of the units, 6.5o to the northwest, was determined by connecting water-bearing and confining zones along the section to 

form continuous hydrogeologic units. The water-bearing and 

confining units are shown in figure 7, a section along the dip of 

the beds, and figure 8, a map view of the subcrops of the units 

below the unconsolidated overburden. The water-bearing units 

range in thickness from 21 to 95 ft; the mean thickness is 50 ft. 

The confining units range in thickness from 22 to 248 ft; the 

mean thickness is 83 ft. 

In most instances in which water-level data indicated a 

hydraulic connection between the packed zone and adjacent 

strata, the packed zone and adjacent strata were interpreted as 

being part of the same water-bearing or confining unit. However, although water-level data indicated hydraulic connections 

between packed zone 5 in well FL23 and the strata below it, 

between zone 4 in well FL29 and the strata below it, and 

between zone 1 in well FL4 and the strata above it, low to moderate transmissivity measurements for packed zones 1 and 2 in 

well FL4 indicate the presence of a leaky confining unit (confining unit 6) between water-bearing units 6 and 7 (fig. 7). 

The open intervals of the wells that were packer-tested 

span nearly all of the stratigraphic section in Fair Lawn, including the Westmoreland well field and Fair Lawn Industrial Park. 

For purposes of simulation of ground-water flow, hypothetical 

water-bearing and confining units were assigned in areas where 

no transmissivity data are available (east of well FL27 and west 

of well FL18). The hypothetical units were assigned the same 

strike and dip as the defined units and the mean thickness of the 

defined units. 

The location of all Fair Lawn Borough production and 

observation wells projected onto a section along the dip of the 

beds is shown in figure 9. Because the section is oriented along 

dip, wells that are near each other on the section are aligned 

along the strike of the beds. This section illustrates the reasons 

for the patterns in water-level responses in observation wells 

when pumps in production wells are turned on or off. For example, production wells FL28 and FL26 are approximately the 

same distance from observation well FL27, with well FL28 

along strike and well FL26 updip. Well FL28 is open to two of 

the same water-bearing units as well FL27 (water-bearing units 

8 and 9), but well FL26 does not intersect any of the same units 

as well FL27. Consequently, the water level in well FL27 

responds by declining 5 to 6 ft when the pump in well FL28 is 

turned on, but does not decline at all when the pump in well 

FL25 or FL26 is turned on. Similarly, observation wells FL4 

and FL29 and production wells FL2 and FL7 all are open to 

water-bearing zone 7. Water-level data from the continuous 

recorders indicate strong responses in the observation wells 

when the pumps in one or both of the production wells are 

turned on. 
-30

0 

0 

100 

C

FL23 

E EXPLANATION

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS

IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88 ALTITUDE, -100 -200 

U

N

C

O

N

S

OLID

ATED 

O

VER

B

U

R

DEN (1) 

FL18 

FL12 

FL29 

FL4 

FL27 

1

2 

1

2

3 

4 

5

6

7 

WB2 (11) 

WB3 (13) 

WB4 (15) 

C1(10) 

C2 (12) 

C3 (14) 

1 

2 

3 

5 

4 

6

1

2

3

5 

4 

6

7 

1

2

3

4 

2

7 

8

6 

4 

5

1

3 

5 

WB8 (23)

C8 (24) 

WB6 (19) 

WB7 (21) 

WB9 (25) 

WB10 (27) 

C6 (20) 

C7 (22) 

C9 (26) 

C10 (28) 

C4 (16) 

WB5 (17)

C5 (18) 

Water-bearing WB2 unit and number; (11) model layernumber inparenthesesConfining unit C2 and number; (12) model layernumber inparentheses

TRANSMISSIVITY, IN FEETSQUARED PER DAY—

Less than 1010 - 100Greater than 100Not determined 

FL23 WELL NUMBER

-400 

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 5 PACKER NUMBER INTERVAL 

DISTANCE, IN FEET 

Figure 7. Section C-E along dip of bedding units showing 

wells that were packer-tested and interpreted water-bearing and confining units, Fair Lawn, New 

Jersey. (All wells projected onto line of section; location of section shown in figure 8) 

22 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 
MODEL ROW 58 

MODEL ROW 314 

MODELCOLUMN 5 COLUMN 242 MODEL

A

EXPLANATION

INDUSTRIAL SITE-­

Fisher Scientific CompanyEastman Kodak CompanySandvik, Inc. 

Fair Lawn 

FL10 D FL11 FL27 E FL12 

B C GENERALIZED SUBCROP OF-­

FL23 Water-bearing unit, and 2 number

F G FL14 Confining unit 

1 2 3 4 5
 6 7 8 9 10
 Boundary of industrial park

Municipal boundary 

FL28 FL26 FL25 Model grid line

Stream

Road

FL4 

FL9 FL2 Railroad

FL7 

A G Line of hydrogeologic

section 

FL18 

FL17 FL15 FL2 Production well and number

FL19 FL29 

FL16 FL4 Packer-test well

and number FL8 

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

0 250 500 750 1,000 METERS 

Figure 8. Subcrops of interpreted water-bearing units and confining units and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Location of Fair Lawnshown in figure 1) 

Hydrogeologic Framework 23 0 
WB2 (11) 

WB3 (13)

WB4 (15)

WB5 (17) 

WB6 (19) 

WB7 (21) 

WB8 (23) 

WB9 (25) 

WB10 (27) 

WB11 (29) 

WB12 (31)

UNCONSOLIDATED OVERBURDEN (1) 

7 1 FL

6 1 FL 

9 1 FL

4 1 FL 

01 FL L15 F

2 1 FL 

L18 F 1 1 FL 

9 FL

L23 F 

9 2 FL 

7 FL 

2 FL

4 FL

8 FL 

L27 F

L28 F 

L26 F

5 2 FL

C1 (10) 

C2 (12) 

C3 (14) 

C4 (16) 

C5 (18) 

C6 (20) 

C7 (22) 

C8 (24) 

C9 (26) 

C10 (28) 

C11 (30) 

C12 (32) 

EXPLANATION

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS

Water-bearing

WB2 unit and number; (11) model layer

number inparenthesesConfining unit C2 and number; (12) model layer

B

F number in

100 parentheses

PRODUCTION WELL IN-­

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88 Memorial well field 0 -100 -200 -300 Westmoreland well field Cadmus well field Dorothy Street well field OBSERVATION WELL IN-­ Memorial well field Westmoreland well field

Cadmus well fieldDorothy Street well field

-400 

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Fair Lawn Industrial Park 

DISTANCE, IN FEET 

FL8 WELL NUMBER 

24 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Figure 9. Section B-F along dip of bedding units showing interpreted water-bearing and confining units and Fair Lawn Water Department production wells and observation wells, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (All wells projected onto line of section; line of section shown in figure 8) 
Ground-Water Levels 

Continuous water-level data from eight wells in Fair Lawn 

during 2000–02 supplemented transmissivity data used to 

develop the hydrogeologic framework. Water-level responses 

in wells to nearby pumping and to precipitation can be used to 

determine the degree of connection between bedrock waterbearing units and confining units, between the bedrock and the 

overburden, and between the overburden and streams. 

Overburden Observation Wells 

Water-level recorders were installed in two shallow observation wells (wells FLS-1 and FLP-1) screened in the overburden (fig. 3 and table 1). These wells are about 20 ft deep. Waterlevel depth was recorded every 15 min from early June 2000 

until late March 2002. Precipitation data from the National 

Weather Service precipitation gage (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2000-02) at Little Falls, New Jersey (fig. 10), were used to aid in the interpretation of seasonal 

fluctuations in water levels. 

Well FLS-1 

Observation well FLS-1 (fig. 11), in the Memorial well 

field, is less than 200 ft from the bank of the Passaic River and 

150 to 1,200 ft from the four production wells in the well field. 

The well was drilled into the alluvial overburden to a depth of 

20 ft below land surface. Water levels ranged from about 9 ft to 

13 ft below land surface. Water levels generally declined from 

late August 2000 to mid-December 2000, increasing only in 

response to precipitation, a pattern typical of normal seasonal 

fluctuations. The water-level decline from October 2001 to 

spring 2002 was the result of drought. Large water-level 

increases in the well were caused by infiltration of precipitation 

and possibly in part by increases in the stage of the Passaic 

River (fig. 12). Although about 330 Mgal/yr of water is withdrawn from wells in the Memorial well field, no effect of the 

withdrawals on water levels in well FLS-1 is apparent. The lack 

of response indicates either that the bedrock aquifer is not well 

connected to the alluvial overburden, or that a strong connection 

between the Passaic River and the alluvium moderates the water 

levels in well FLS-1. It is likely that the alluvium is well connected to the river because the alluvium contains abundant sand 

and gravel. 

Well FLP-1 

Observation well FLP-1 (fig. 11), in the Dorothy Street 

well field, is approximately 0.5 mi west of the Saddle River, 

170 ft east of production well FL25, and 620 ft southeast of production well FL26. The well was drilled in the overburden to a 

depth of 21 ft below land surface. Although the well is not near 

a stream, alluvium is present at land surface. The alluvium probably was formed by an abandoned tributary to Beaver Dam 

Brook. Water levels in well FLP-1 ranged from about 6.5 ft to 

Hydrogeologic Framework 25 

11.75 ft below land surface for the period of record (early June 

2000 to late March 2002). Water levels were high in summer 

2000 and declined from late August through mid-November 

2000. Drought conditions from October 2001 through spring 

2002 resulted in the lowest water levels for the period of record. 

Large water-level increases clearly were caused by precipitation. Withdrawals from nearby production wells FL25 and 

FL26 had no apparent effect on water levels in well FLP-1, 

probably because the overburden in this area is poorly connected to the bedrock aquifer; the hard-packed Rahway till at 

the base of the overburden impedes flow between the overburden and the bedrock. Water levels in well FLP-1 also did not 

appear to be affected by fluctuations in the stage of the Saddle 

River (fig. 12), probably because the well is more than 2,000 ft 

from the river. 

Bedrock Observation Wells 

Water-level recorders were installed in the six deep Fair 

Lawn Water Department bedrock observation wells (FL4, 

FL12, FL18, FL23, FL27, and FL29) (fig. 3 and table 1). These 

wells range in depth from 162 ft to 505 ft below land surface. 

Water levels recorded in these wells reflect a composite head of 

all water-bearing units within the open interval. Water-level 

depth was recorded every 15 min beginning in early May 2001 

in well FL12 and beginning in early April 2000 in the other five 

wells. Recording was discontinued in all six wells in late March 

2002. Gaps in the data reflect short periods when the recorders 

were removed from the wells for geophysical logging, packer 

testing, or recorder malfunction. 

Hydrographs of the six deep observation wells (fig. 13) 

show that water levels were stressed during most of the datacollection period. About 770 Mgal was withdrawn in 2000 from 

Fair Lawn Water Department production wells. Water-level 

recoveries of 5 to 13 ft occurred when pumps in the production 

wells were turned off for static-water-level measurements, 

scheduled maintenance, or repairs. These documented shutdowns are useful markers for determining the effects of withdrawals from production wells on water levels in observation 

wells. Other fluctuations in water levels in some of the wells can 

be attributed to the cycling off and on of nearby pumps used by 

local industrial or commercial users. An area-wide rise in water 

levels from late December 2000 through March 2001 probably 

was caused by increased recharge from precipitation and 

decreased ground-water withdrawals from Fair Lawn Water 

Department wells. Water-level declines in the study area from 

fall 2001 through winter 2002 were from 1.5 to 4 ft greater than 

those during the same period in 2000 as a result of drought. 

Well FL4 

Water levels in observation well FL4 (fig. 13), in the Fair 

Lawn Water Department Cadmus well field, ranged from about 

33 to 69 ft below land surface during the period of record (April 

2000 through March 2002). Fair Lawn Water Department production wells FL2 and FL7 were in operation in the Cadmus 
ACE BELOW LAND SURF TER LEVEL, IN FEET A W 6

8

101214 

TION, IN INCHES A PRECIPIT Precipitation gages 1872 and 1873

A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M 

2002 

43 210

2000 2001 

A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 

2000 2001 

Well FLP-1Well FLS-1 

Little Falls, New Jersey 

J F M 

2002 

4

26 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey Figure 10. Daily precipitation recorded at the National Weather Service precipitation gage at Little Falls, New Jersey, April 7, 2000-March 19, 2002. 

Figure 11. Ground-water hydrographs from two observation wells open to the water table in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, June 8, 2000-March 19, 2002. (Well locations

shown in figure 3) 
Hyd

rogeologic Framework 27 

1,000

800600400200

0 

A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M 

2000 2001 2002 

6,000

Streamflow-gagingstation 01390500Saddle River at Ridgewood, N.J. 

4,0002,000

0 

A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M 

2000 2001 2002 

Missing data 

Streamflow-gagingstation 01389500Passaic River at Little Falls, N.J. 

Figure 12. Discharge of the Passaic River at Little Falls, and the Saddle River at Ridgewood, New Jersey, April 7, 2000-March 19, 2002. 

 PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET
75

5

10152025303540455055606570

0 

Well FL27 Fair Lawn Water Department well 28 off 

ACE BELOW LAND SURF TER LEVEL, IN FEET A W

Well FL12

Well FL18

Well FL4 

Well FL23 

Well FL29 

Localized pumping spring-fall 

Localized pumping summer-fall Increased ground-water withdrawals

Localized pumping spring-fall

Local well(s) off 

Local well(s) off 

Local well(s) off 

Local well(s) off 

Fill swimming pool 

Fill swimming pool Drain swimming pool Drain swimming pool 

Local well(s) off 

Maintain water-level in swimming pool Maintain water-level in swimming pool 

Fair Lawn Water Department wells 2 and 7 off for static water-level measurements 

Fair Lawn Water Department wells 2 and 7 off for static water-level measurements

Fair Lawn Water Department wells 2 and 7 off for static 

water-level measurements 

Fair Lawn Water Department wells 2 and

7 off for static water-level 

measurements 

Local well(s) off 

A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M 

2000 2001 2002 

Figure 13. Ground-water hydrographs from six deep Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, April 7, 2000-March 19, 2002. (Well locations shown in figure 3) 

28 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 
Hydrogeologic Framework 29 

well field during that period. Well FL2 is approximately 500 ft 

west-southwest of well FL4, and well FL7 is more than 1,100 ft 

from well FL4 in the same general direction (fig. 8). The three 

wells (FL2, FL4, and FL7) are hydraulically connected because 

all are open to water-bearing unit 7 (fig. 9). Scheduled minimum 

12-hour shutdowns for static-water-level measurements at wells 

FL2 and FL7 resulted in 8- to 27-ft rises in water levels in well 

FL4 (fig. 13). In early February 2001, an increase in groundwater withdrawals from the Cadmus well field caused water 

levels to fall from about 45 to about 60 ft below land surface. 

Long-term static water levels ranged from 33 ft to almost 54 ft 

below land surface. Daily cyclical fluctuations of about 

1.5 ft occurred between mid-May and early November of each 

year. These fluctuations apparently were caused by pumping at 

another nearby well. 

Well FL12 

A water-level data recorder was installed in observation 

well FL12, in the Fair Lawn Water Department Westmoreland 

well field (fig. 8), in May 2001. Westmoreland production wells 

FL10 and FL14 were pumped during the period of the 

hydrograph (May 2001 through March 2002). Water levels in 

well FL12 ranged from 12 to 17 ft below land surface. The 

many irregular spikes in the record indicate that the well probably is affected by nearby pumping. Well FL12 is hydraulically 

connected to production wells FL10 and FL14 because all three 

are open to water-bearing units 3, 4, and 5 (fig. 9). The small 

rise (about 1 ft) in the water level in well FL12 during September 11-13, 2001, probably is a result of that connection. Well 

FL14 was turned off for 12 hours on each of those days, and 

well FL10 was turned off for 12 hours on September 11. 

Well FL18 

Water levels in observation well FL18 (fig. 13), in the 

Memorial well field near the Borough swimming pool, ranged 

from about 12.5 to 23.5 ft below land surface during the period 

of record (April 2000 through March 2002). Well FL18, the 

shallowest of the six bedrock observation wells, is 162 ft deep. 

Wells in operation in the Memorial well field during 2000-02 

are wells FL15, FL16, FL17, and FL19 (fig. 8). These wells 

range in depth from 350 to 413 ft, are within 900 ft of observation well FL18, and are open to the same two water-bearing 

units (2 and 3) as well FL18 and to two deeper water-bearing 

units (4 and 5) (fig. 9). Leakage from the swimming pool apparently creates a water-level mound in the area, as shown on the 

hydrograph for well FL18. Each year, the pool is filled with 

water from Fair Lawn production wells in May and is drained 

into the Passaic River in September. The water level in well 

FL18 rose 9 ft from mid-May to late June 2000 and remained 

about constant until late September, when it began to fall. 

Well FL23 

Water levels in Fair Lawn Water Department observation 

well FL23 (fig. 13), in Fair Lawn Industrial Park, ranged from 

about 30 to 47.5 ft below land surface during the period of 

record (June 2000 through March 2002). The Westmoreland 

well field, where wells FL10 and FL14 were pumped during the 

period, is only about 1,850 ft west of well FL23. Wells FL10, 

FL14, and FL23 are open to one common water-bearing unit, 

unit 5 (fig. 9). Withdrawals from the Westmoreland well field 

appear to have had a small effect on water levels in well FL23, 

as the hydrograph of water levels in well FL23 shows 1- to 2-ft 

rises in water levels on the days when wells in the Westmoreland well field were off line for 12 hours (September 11-13, 

2001). 

Production well FL9 is about 4,300 ft southwest of and 

along strike with well FL23. Although these two wells are open 

to the same three water-bearing units, well FL9 probably is too 

far from well FL23 to cause the small, irregular spikes in water 

levels in well FL23. Rather, the fluctuations probably are 

caused by changes in pumpage at one or more nearby commercial wells. The water level in well FL23 declined 14 ft from 

mid-April 2001 to February 2002 as a result of drought conditions. 

Well FL27 

Water levels in observation well FL27, in the Dorothy 

Street well field and more than 3,400 ft east of Fair Lawn Industrial Park (fig. 8), ranged from about 3.5 to 12 ft below land surface during the period of record (April 2000 through March 

2002) (fig. 13). Withdrawals from Fair Lawn Water Department production well FL28 apparently resulted in 5 to 6 ft of 

drawdown in well FL27. Well FL28 is approximately 2,200 ft 

south of and along strike with well FL27. Both wells are open 

to water-bearing units 8 and 9 (fig. 9). Because the pump in well 

FL28 was shut off for more than 15 days six times during the 

period of record, water levels in well FL27 reached near-static 

conditions during these shutdowns. Effects of local pumping by 

other users are evident in the hydrograph record for the spring 

and summer months. 

Well FL29 

Fair Lawn Water Department observation well FL29 is in 

the Cadmus well field (fig. 8). Water levels ranged from about 

21 to 37 ft below land surface during the period of record (April 

2000 through March 2002) (fig. 13). The hydrograph of water 

levels in this well mimics the hydrograph for observation well 

FL4 (also in the Cadmus well field), indicating that these two 

wells are hydraulically connected. Both wells are open to waterbearing unit 7 (fig. 9). Pump shutdowns at production wells FL2 

and FL7 in the Cadmus well field resulted in 4- to 10-ft rises in 

the water level in observation well FL29. These three wells are 

open to the same water-bearing units (6 and 7) (fig. 9). The 
30 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

water level in well FL29 declined from 28 to 32 ft below land 

surface in early February 2001, when pumpage from production 

well FL2 increased from about 26,000 to about 140,000 gal/d. 

The water level in well FL29 declined steadily from 28 ft 

below land surface in April 2001 to 37 ft below land surface by 

March 2002. As in observation well FL4, daily cyclical waterlevel fluctuations from mid-May to early November each year 

were caused by other, local withdrawals. Fluctuations in water 

levels in well FL29 were smaller than those in well FL4 because 

well FL29 is farther from pumping sources. 

Ground-Water Quality 

The contaminants of concern in the study area, as identified by the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2003), are the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in 

production wells in the Westmoreland well field (wells FL10, 

FL11, and FL14) and at the two industrial sites identified by the 

NJDEP as contributing sources of those VOCs (Fisher and 

Sandvik). The location of these wells and source-area sites are 

shown in figure 8. Although some production wells in other Fair 

Lawn well fields (Cadmus and Memorial) also are contaminated, concentrations of contaminants in these well fields generally are lower than those in the Westmoreland well field. 

VOCs detected in wells in the Westmoreland, Cadmus, and 

Memorial well fields are listed in tables 8, 9, and 10, respectively. 

VOCs detected in water samples from monitor wells at 

Fisher and Sandvik are listed in table 11. Because the results of 

ground-water flow simulation indicate that some contaminated 

water from the Kodak site flows to the Westmoreland well field, 

as described in the Simulated Contaminant Plumes section of 

this report, VOCs detected in water samples from monitor wells 

at that site also are listed in table 11. Kodak is a known contaminated site (N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 

2001) in Fair Lawn Industrial Park. 

The wells at Fisher are from 19 to 125 ft deep; those at 

Sandvik are 40 to 104 ft deep (table 1). The monitor wells at 

Kodak are described as being open to shallow bedrock (Quest 

Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc., 2002). Although 

no wells at Sandvik are completed in the overburden, soil samples from this site contained VOCs at concentrations that 

exceed drinking-water standards (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1994). 

The compounds detected in wells in the Westmoreland 

well field also are found at Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak, and the 

Westmoreland wells, which draw water from water-bearing 

units 2, 3, 4, and 5 (fig. 9), are hydraulically connected to waterbearing units underlying all three of these sites. The subcrops of 

water-bearing units 3 and 4 underlie the Sandvik and Kodak 

sites; the subcrops of water-bearing units 4 and 5 underlie the 

Fisher site (fig. 8). 

Sampling Methods 

Water samples were collected from intervals isolated by 

straddle packers in Fair Lawn Water Department observation 

wells FL4, FL12, FL18, FL23, FL27, and FL29. At well FL12, 

all potential water-bearing zones were sampled. At the other 

five wells, all zones for which the heat-pulse flowmeter data 

indicated that water was entering the borehole (receiving zones) 

and all water-bearing zones for which it could not be determined whether water was entering or leaving the borehole were 

sampled. Samples were not collected from losing intervals in 

these wells (intervals for which the heat-pulse flowmeter data 

indicated that water was leaving the borehole) because the 

water in these intervals likely would be a composite of water 

entering at one or more receiving intervals. Packed intervals 

were pumped for sampling using a variable-rate stainless-steel 

and Teflon submersible pump (Grundfos Redi-Flo 2) attached 

to 3⁄4-in.-diameter Teflon-lined high-density polyethylene 

(HDPE) tubing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lowflow sampling procedures (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1998) were followed: 

1.	 The Grundfos pump was lowered through the 2-in. pipe 

connected to the packed interval until the pump rested on 

the bolt within the packed interval (fig. 5). 

2.	 Water levels in the upper open, packed, and lower open 

intervals were measured manually prior to sampling. 

These measurements were used to calibrate the pressure 

transducers, which then were set to record water-level 

measurements at 15-second intervals during sampling. 

3.	 The pump was started and a flow rate of 500 mL/min was 

established. Water-level drawdown never was greater 

than 0.3 ft, so this rate was maintained during purging. 

4.	 Field water-quality parameters (pH, dissolved-oxygen 


concentration, turbidity, temperature, and specific 


conductance) were measured at approximately 5-min 


intervals during purging and were allowed to stabilize 


before a sample was collected.


5.	 Purge water generated by low-flow sampling was 

disposed of on the ground, approximately 30 ft from the 

well. 

6.	 When purging was completed, the samples were collected 

in VOC vials preserved with hydrochloric acid. 

7.	 For well FL12 only, samples to be analyzed for the 


following constituents also were collected:


•	 Total metals, in a 1-L HDPE bottle preserved with 

nitric acid; 

•	 Cyanide, in a 1-L HDPE bottle preserved with sodium 

hydroxide; 

•	 SVOCs, in two 1-L amber glass bottles; and 

•	 Pesticides/arochlors in 1-L amber glass bottles. 
Ground-Water Quality 31 

Table 8. Volatile organic compounds detected in water samples from wells in the Westmoreland well field, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 

1991, 1996, and 20001

. 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; --, not detected; data from Kenneth Garrison, Fair Lawn Water Department, written commun., 2000] 

1991 1996-2000 

Compound Well FL10 Well FL11 Well FL14 Well FL10 Well FL11 Well FL14 

(7/23/91) (7/30/91) (7/30/91) (2/2/00) (1/23/96)

2 (2/2/00) 

Carbon tetrachloride 10 1.3 0.5 7.15 -- 2.62 

Chloroform 24.8 5.5 2.8 13.2 14.0 2.64 

1,1-Dichloroethane 4.6 -- 2.2 4.22 3.11 2.37 

1,2-Dichloroethane 1.1 -- -- -- 1.33 --

1,1-Dichloroethylene 24.8 -- -- 22.0 19.80 8.56 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 29.4 7.9 3.2 81.6 36.2 3.88 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene -- -- -- 1.75 -- --

Methyl tert-butyl ether 1.1 -- 1.52 2.65 --

Tetrachloroethylene 538 83.8 11.6 580 406 16.5 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 83 12 25.3 23.90 30.80 6.98 

Trichloroethylene 35.5 8.8 5.2 57.80 41.4 4.44 

Trichlorofluoromethane -- -- -- -- 1.19 --

10Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database.


11No samples were collected from well FL11 in 2000; results of analysis of the most recently collected sample are listed here.


Table 9. Volatile organic compounds detected in water samples from wells in the Cadmus well field, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1991 

and 20001

. 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; --, not detected; data from Kenneth Garrison, Fair Lawn Water Department, written commun., 2002] 

1991 2000 

Compound Well FL2 Well FL7 Well FL8 Well FL9 Well FL2 Well FL7 Well FL8 Well FL9 

(3/5/91) (3/5/91) (2/13/91) (2/13/91) (1/4/00) (1/4/00) (1/11/00) (1/11/00) 

Carbon tetrachloride -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.52 

Chloroform -- -- -- 9 0.58 0.67 1.66 3.81 

1,1-Dichloroethylene -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.99 

1,2-Dichloroethylene -- -- -- 28.0 1.34 1.57 -- 11.80 

Tetrachloroethylene 11.01 19.87 -- -- 14.00 23.60 1.68 4.22 

1,1,1- Trichloroethane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .87 

Trichloroethylene -- -- -- 25.0 2.11 2.15 .82 8.21 

12 Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 
32 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 10. Volatile organic compounds detected in water samples from wells in the Memorial well field, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1991 

and 20001

. 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; --, not detected; data from Kenneth Garrison, Fair Lawn Water Department, written commun., 2000] 

Compound Well FL15 

(1/22/91) 

1991 

Well FL16 

(1/22/91) 

Well FL17 

(3/5/91) 

Well FL19 

(3/5/91) 

Well FL15 

(2/12/00) 

2000 

Well FL16 

(2/12/00) 

Well FL17 

(2/20/00) 

Well FL19 

(2/15/00) 

Carbon tetrachloride -- -- -- -- 1.56 0.98 -- 0.43 

Chloroform -- -- -- -- .91 -- -- 3.44 

1,1-Dichloroethane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1,2-Dichloroethylene -- 59.21 -- -- -- 111.00 32.80 .78 

Methyl tert-butyl ether 3.70 41.63 13.38 40.41 -- 2.00 111.00 6.20 

Tetrachloroethylene 14.43 28.53 -- -- 11.10 12.00 10.20 10.70 

Toluene 3.79 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.27 11.14 -- -- -- -- -- --

Trichloroethylene -- 9.97 -- -- -- 2.83 3.66 .44 1

Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 

A limitation of the Grundfos pump is the 300-ft powercord length. Several packed intervals were more than 300 ft 

below land surface. Because it was not possible to lower the 

Grundfos pump to these packed intervals, a Bennett Model 140 

submersible piston pump was used instead. The Bennett pump 

used nitrogen gas to drive the piston; therefore, by using 500-ft 

drive and pressure-relief lines, the pump could be lowered into 

the packed interval. The sampling procedure used with the Bennett pump was the same as that used with the Grundfos pump. 

New Teflon-lined HDPE tubing was used in every sampled interval. The tubing used for sampling was flushed with 

deionized water prior to use. The submersible pumps used for 

sampling were decontaminated between intervals within each 

well by an external and internal wash with laboratory-grade 

detergent and deionized water, an external and internal deionized water rinse, and an internal flush. After all intervals in a 

well had been sampled, the pump was disassembled in the laboratory and cleaned thoroughly. All equipment used to collect 

samples was wrapped in aluminum foil until use. To minimize 

any cross-contamination by the packers, the packer assembly, 

the pipe used to lower the equipment into the well, and the inflation lines were steam-cleaned between wells using potable 

water. 

A quality-assurance/quality-control (QA/QC) plan for collection of samples was used to ensure that any sources of error 

introduced by field practices were identified. The plan called for 

collection and analysis of the following QA/QC samples: 

•	 One field-duplicate sample per well, 

•	 One field blank per sampling day, 

•	 One trip blank per sampling day, and 

•	 One equipment blank each time sampling equipment 

was decontaminated in the field. 

Additionally, to ensure the quality of the laboratory analysis, at least one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) 

sample was collected per well. All coolers were shipped overnight and were received at a laboratory contracted by the 

USEPA less than 24 hours after the samples were collected. 

Water-quality samples were collected from a total of 16 

isolated intervals: 1 interval in well FL4, 5 in well FL12, 1 in 

well FL18, and 3 intervals each in wells FL23, FL27, and FL29. 

Samples from all intervals were analyzed for VOCs. Samples 

from intervals in well FL12 also were analyzed for total metals, 

cyanide, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. Samples from the four 

wells nearest to the Fisher site (FL4, FL12, FL18, and FL23) 

also were analyzed for acetonitrile because high concentrations 

(higher than 200,000 μg/L) of that compound had been detected 

there (table 11). 

An MS/MSD sample used for laboratory QA/QC checks 

was collected from six intervals (well FL4, interval 1; well 

FL12, intervals 1 and 2; well FL18, interval 1; well FL23, interval 1; and well FL27, interval 6). Field-duplicate samples for 

VOC analysis were collected from four intervals (well FL4, 

interval 1; well FL12, interval 2; well FL18, interval 1; and well 

FL23, interval 2). The field-duplicate sample from well FL12, 

interval 2, also was analyzed for total metals, cyanide, SVOCs, 

pesticides, and PCBs. The following QA/QC blank samples 

were prepared and analyzed: 
Ground-Water Quality 33 

•	 Equipment blanks (all intervals except well FL29, 

interval 2), 

•	 Trip blanks (all intervals except well FL27, interval 3, 

and well FL29, interval 4), and 

•	 Field blanks (well FL4, interval 1; well FL18, 

interval 1; well FL23, intervals 1, 2, and 6; well FL27, 

intervals 2 and 6; and well FL29, intervals 2 and 3). 

Analysis results for these blank samples, summarized in 

table 12, are discussed along with the associated environmental 

samples from the sampled packed intervals within each well. 

Field parameters were monitored prior to sampling each 

interval. The final field-parameter measurements before 

sampling are listed in table 13. Dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations in the sampled intervals were low to moderate 

(less than 1 mg/L) in the sampled intervals in wells FL18 and 

FL29, and in well FL23 interval 6. Dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations in the other sampled intervals ranged from 1.09 

to 5.51 mg/L. The range in pH (6.86-8.22) was small, but the 

range in specific conductance (265-1,242 μS/cm) was large. 

The range in final turbidity measurements also was large 

(0.18-46.5 nephelometric turbidity units). 

Table 11. Maximum reported concentration of volatile organic compounds in ground water at three contaminated sites, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey, 1997, 1998, and 20021

. 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; data for Fisher Scientific Company from Jacqueline Bobko, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, written 

commun., 2002; data for Sandvik, Inc., from Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1998; data for Eastman Kodak Company from Jamie MacBlane, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2002; --, not detected, NA, the sample was not analyzed for this compound; NR, not reported] 

Eastman Kodak Company Fisher Scientific Company Sandvik, Inc. Compound (6/24-25/97) (11/4-8/02) (5/21-22/98) 

Acetone NA 3,600 NR 

Acetonitrile NA 230,000 NR 

Benzene 3.2 2,700 9.1 

Bromodichloromethane 7.1 -- -­

Carbon tetrachloride .23 1,500 37.8 

Chlorobenzene -- 120 -­

Chloroform 40.4 32,000 152 

Dibromochloromethane 1.2 -- -­

1,2-Dichlorobenzene -- -- 1.6 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.5 -- NR 

1,1-Dichloroethane 92.7 69 14 

1,2-Dichloroethane -- 5,500 8.4 

1,1-Dichloroethylene 198 130 58.8 

1,2-Dichloroethylene (total) NA2 NA2 53.5 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 13.4 14,000 NA3 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene -- 2.2 NA3 

Ethyl benzene -- 1,500 NR 

Methylene chloride -- 25,000 -­

Tetrachloroethylene -- 78 551 

Toluene -- 5,400 NR 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2,920 410 103 

Trichloroethylene 4.6 2,000 96.4 

Trichlorofluoromethane -- 2.8 NR 

Vinyl chloride 73.6 570 -­

Xylenes (total) -- 6,600 NR 

13Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database.


14Reported separately as cis-1,2-dichloroethylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene.


15Reported as total 1,2-dichloroethylene.

Table 12. Constituents detected in quality-assurance/quality-control blank samples for packed intervals in wells in Fair Lawn, New Jersey1. [Concentrations in micrograms per liter, --, not detected; NA, sample was not analyzed for this constituent; B, estimated result (result is less than reporting limit); J, estimated; QFure of one or more quality-control criteria] 

Well Packed interval 

Depth of interval, in 

feet below land 

surface 

Sample type 

Volatile organic compounds 

c

Top Bottom Ace­ tone 2­ Butanone Carbon disul­ fide Chloro­ methane 1,1­ Dichloro­ ethylene cis-1,2­ Dichloro­ ethylene Methy­ lene chloride Tol­ uene Tri­ chloro­ ethylene 

Et

p

FL4 1 55 66.74 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Field blank -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.6 J -- -- Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL12 1 35 47.09 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL12 2 95 111 Equipment blank 1.6 QF -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL12 3 154 170.49 Equipment blank 1.2 QF -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL12 4 177 193.49 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL12 5 223.74 240.23 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL18 1 26 39 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Field blank -- 5.4 J -- -- -- -- -- 0.9 -- Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL23 1 40.65 52.39 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Field blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trip blank -- -- -- -- 0.9 13 -- 0.5 J 13 

FL23 2 59.98 71.72 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.6 J -- -- 

Field blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL23 6 349.83 361.57 Equipment blank 7 J -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Field blank 15 J -- -- -- -- -- 1 J -- 1 Trip blank 8 J -- -- -- -- -- 4 J -- -- 

FL27 2 85.06 96.8 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 J 

Field blank 4 J -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trip blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL27 3 107.06 118.8 Equipment blank -- -- 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Table 12. Constituents detected in quality-assurance/quality-control blank samples for packed intervals in wells in Fair Lawn, New Jersey1.—Contin[Concentrations in micrograms per liter, --, not detected; NA, sample was not analyzed for this constituent; B, estimated result (result is less than reporting limit); J, estimated; QFure of one or more quality-control criteria] 

Well Packed interval 

Depth of interval, in 

feet below land 

surface 

Sample type 

Volatile organic compounds 

c

Top Bottom Ace­ tone 2­ Butanone Carbon disul­ fide Chloro­ methane 1,1­ Dichloro­ ethylene cis-1,2­ Dichloro­ ethylene Methy­ lene chloride Tol­ uene Tri­ chloro­ ethylene 

Et

p

FL27 6 241.98 253.7 Equipment blank -- -- -- 8 -- -- -- -- -- 

Field blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trip blank -- -- -- 10 -- -- -- -- -- 

FL29 2 81.95 93.69 Field blank -- -- -- 0.3 J -- -- -- -- -- 

Trip blank -- -- -- 0.3 J -- -- -- -- -- 

FL29 3 129.15 140.89 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Field blank 11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trip blank 13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

FL29 4 147.03 158.77 Equipment blank -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

16Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 
FL29 

3 

4 

36 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 13. Field parameters for samples from packed intervals in wells in Fair Lawn, New Jersey.1 

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25° C ; ° C degrees Celsius; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units] 

Well 

FL4 

Interval 

1 

Depth of packed interval 

(feet below land surface) 

Top Bottom 

55 66.74 

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L) 

2.67 

pH 

(standard 

units) 

7.29 

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm) 

479 

Temperature 

(° C) 

16.1 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

2.17 

FL12 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

35 47.09 

95 111 

154 170.49 

177 193.49 

223.74 240.23 

4.17 

2.17 

3.87 

1.09 

1.22 

6.86 

7.35 

6.86 

6.87 

8.1 

751 

844 

700 

708 

470 

16.7 

16.2 

15.8 

14.7 

14.5 

4.5 

2.26 

10.7 

46.2 

8.04 

FL18 1 26 39 0.74 7.28 704 14.5 0.85 

FL23 1 

2 

6 

40.65 52.39 

59.98 71.72 

349.83 361.57 

4.19 

4.45 

.18 

7.01 

7.19 

7.94 

1242 

820 

1051 

17.4 

17.4 

15.8 

.18 

.4 

1.07 

FL27 2 

3 

6 

85.06 96.8 

107.06 118.8 

241.98 253.7 

4.13 

5.51 

4.2 

8.17 

8.22 

8.1 

265 

345 

420 

16.1 

16.2 

15 

11 

3.11 

13.1 

2 81.95 93.69 .16 7.73 551 14.9 2.09 

129.15 140.89 .23 7.19 584 15.3 2.04 

147.03 158.77 .2 7.12 590 15.4 1.82 

17Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 

Compounds Detected in Individual Wells 

Water samples were collected from intervals isolated by 

straddle packers in six Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells. The purpose of sampling was to determine the distribution of the contaminants of concern in discrete water-bearing 

units throughout Fair Lawn Borough. 

Well FL4 

Well FL4, in the Cadmus well field, is about 5,600 ft 

south-southeast of Fisher and Sandvik and 4,200 ft south-southeast of Kodak. Four water samples were collected from the sampled interval in well FL4. Five compounds were detected in 

these four samples (table 14). Toluene, at low concentrations 

(less than 1 μg/L), was detected in all four samples. The other 

detected compounds were found in one or two of the samples, 

at concentrations of 2 μg/L or less. Only one compound— 

methylene chloride, a common laboratory contaminant—was 

detected in the QA/QC blank samples from well FL4 (table 12). 

This compound was found only in the field blank. 

The sampled interval in the well is in confining unit 6 

(fig. 7). The subcrop of confining unit 6 is about 2,300 ft east of 

the Fisher property and 2,600 ft east of the Kodak property 

(fig. 8). Confining unit 5 lies between well FL4 and the Fisher, 

Sandvik, and Kodak sites. Therefore, well FL4 is not hydraulically connected to any of these sites, and the low concentrations 

of VOCs detected in well FL4 probably are not related to the 

contamination originating at Fisher, Sandvik, or Kodak. 

Well FL12 

Well FL12, in the Westmoreland well field, is about 

2,200 ft south-southwest of Fisher and Sandvik and 1,350 ft 

west-southwest of Kodak. Samples were collected from intervals 1 through 5 in well FL12. A duplicate sample was collected 

from interval 2. Intervals 6 and 7 could not be sampled because 

of low well yield. Sampled intervals 1 through 5 are in waterbearing units 2, 3, 4, and 5 (fig. 7). The subcrops of water-bearing units 3 and 4 underlie the Sandvik and Kodak property; the 

subcrops of water-bearing units 4 and 5 underlie the Fisher 

property (fig. 8). 
Ground-Water Quality 37 

Table 14. Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from a packed interval in well FL4, Fair Lawn, New Jersey.

1 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; J, estimated; --, not detected] 

Depth of interval, in feet 

Packed below land surface Chloro- Chloro- 4-Methyl-2- Tetrachlorointerval Sample type benzene methane pentanone ethylene 

Toluene 

Top Bottom 

1 55 66.74 Environmental2 -- -- 2 J -­ 0.6 

Environmental2 -- -- 2 J -- .6 

Field duplicate -- 0.5 -- 0.5 J .8 

Environmental2 0.4 J -- -- .5 J .8 

18Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 

19Although only one environmental sample was required by the laboratory, extra samples were submitted and analyzed as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the number of environmental samples required. 

VOCs detected in well FL12 are listed in table 15. Chloroform, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and TCE were detected in all water 

samples from the sampled intervals in well FL12. The highest 

chloroform concentration was 9.2 μg/L in the sample from the 

deepest sampled interval (interval 5 in water-bearing unit 5). 

The highest PCE concentration was 13 μg/L in the sample from 

interval 2 (in water-bearing unit 3), and the highest 1,1,1-TCA 

concentration was 35 μg/L in the field-duplicate sample from 

interval 2. (The 1,1,1-TCA concentration was qualified as being 

biased low because the sample holding time was exceeded prior 

to analysis.) The highest TCE concentration was 60 μg/L in the 

sample from the deepest sampled interval (interval 5 in waterbearing unit 5); this result was qualified as being biased low 

because of low recovery. 

Degradation products of PCE and TCE also were detected 

in all samples from well FL12. The highest cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE) concentration, 72 μg/L, was found in 

the sample from the deepest sampled interval (interval 5 in 

water-bearing unit 5). The highest concentrations of 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) and 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) (8.2 

and 28 μg/L, respectively) were found in the sample from interval 2 (in water-bearing unit 3); these results were qualified as 

being biased low because the sample holding time was 

exceeded prior to analysis. 

These seven VOCs detected in samples from well FL12 

(chloroform, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCA, 

and 1,1-DCE) also were present at Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak 

(except that PCE was not present at Kodak (table 11)). On the 

basis of the distribution of VOCs and the hydraulic connection 

between well FL12 and the three sites, it is possible that any or 

all of these sites contribute VOCs to well FL12. 

Four additional VOCs were detected in water samples 

from well FL12. Of these, the compound present at the highest 

concentration was toluene, with a reported concentration of 

65 μg/L in the sample from interval 4. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 

was detected in samples from all intervals except the shallowest; the concentration was highest (23 μg/L) in the sample from 

interval 4 (in water-bearing unit 4). Acetone and 2-butanone 

were detected in concentrations less than 5 μg/L in some samples. 

A markedly different set of VOCs predominates in each 

water-bearing unit. In water-bearing unit 3, the three VOCs 

detected at the greatest concentrations were 1,1,1-TCA 

(35 μg/L), 1,1-DCE (28 μg/L), and PCE (13 μg/L). In waterbearing unit 5, the three VOCs detected at the greatest concentrations were cis-1,2-DCE (72 μg/L), TCE (60 μg/L), and chloroform (9.2 μg/L). Similarly, the predominant contaminants differ among the other water-bearing units, indicating that the 

confining units effectively separate the water-bearing units 

from one another and that the source of contamination to each 

water-bearing unit is different. Because the subcrop of each 

water-bearing unit in well FL12 is beneath at least one of the 

three potential contaminant source areas (Fisher, Sandvik, and 

Kodak), it is likely that all of these sites contribute contaminants 

to this well. 

The results of analyses for total metals are listed in 

table 16. Arsenic was found in the samples from the three lowermost intervals (in water-bearing units 4 and 5), at concentrations ranging from 8.3 to 102 μg/L. Barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and sodium were detected in all 

sampled intervals. Cobalt, copper, nickel, and zinc were 

detected in all but the lowermost sampled interval (interval 5). 

Chromium was detected at a low concentration (2.5 μg/L) in 

interval 3 and vanadium was detected at low concentrations 

(less than 8 μg/L) in intervals 3 and 5. Cyanide was detected at 

low concentrations (less than 6 μg/L) in one sample each from 

intervals 1, 2, and 4, but was not detected in the other samples 

from intervals 1 and 2. 

Although the primary contaminants of concern in this 

study are VOCs, the detection of arsenic in well FL12 is an 

important finding. The concentration of 102 μg/L in the sample 

from the deepest interval (interval 5 in water-bearing unit 5) 
Table 15. Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL12, Fair Lawn, New Jersey1. [Concentrations in micrograms per liter; --, not detected; QF, estimated value because of failure of one or more quality-control criteria; QH, holding time exceeded (results consi

values”); QR, low recovery obtained from the matrix spike sample associated with this sample (results considered “biased low” or “minimum values”)] 

Depth of interval, Water- 1,1-Di- 4- Tetra- 

Packed in feet below land bearing 2- Chloro- 1,1- chloro- cis-1,2- Methyl- chloro- 

interval surface unit Sample type Acetone Buta- form Dichloro- ethyl- Dichloro- 2-penta- ethyl- 

Top Bottom number none ethane ene ethylene none ene 

1 35 47.09 2 Environmental -- -- 1.1 1.1 1.9 2.0 -- 8.1 2 95 111 3 Environmental 2.2 QF -- 3.7 8.2 28 QH 2.1 1.7 13 

Field duplicate 1.8 QF -- 3.7 8.0 25 QH 2.1 1.4 12 

3 154 170.49 4 Environmental -- -- 2.1 1.5 3.6 11 2.3 3.8 4 177 193.49 4 Environmental 4.9 QF 3.1 1.6 1.3 2.8 6.1 23 5.2 5 223.74 240.23 5 Environmental -- -- 9.2 3.8 15 72 QR 2.3 2.7 

20Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 
Table 16. Metals detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL12, Fair Lawn, New Jersey1. [Concentrations in micrograms per liter; --, not detected; B, estimated result (result is less than reporting limit)] 

Packed 

interval 

Depth of interval, 

in feet below 

land surface 

Top Bottom 

Waterbearing 

unit 

number 

Sample 

type Arsenic Barium Cal­ cium Chro­ mium Cobalt Cop­ per Cyan­ ide Iron Mag­ nesium Man­ ganese Nickel P

1 35 47.09 2 Environmental2 -- 182 B 75,900 -- 2.3 B 1.9 B -- 778 13,900 16.3 8.0 B 1,

Environmental2 -- 189 B 77,400 -- 2.2 B 2.1 B 2.8 B 741 14,100 15.7 7.6 B 1,Environmental2 -- 186 B 76,800 -- 2.7 B 1.7 B -- 738 14,000 15.7 7.7 B 1,

2 95 111 3 Environmental2 -- 200 B 90,900 -- 21.8 B 5.0 B 5.4 B 486 22,100 5.3 B 75.3 1,

Environmental2 -- 200 B 91,200 -- 21.4 B 5.3 B 4.5 B 522 22,100 6.0 B 75.0 1,Field duplicate 

-- 200 91,600 -- 21.4 B 5.0 B -- 568 22,100 6.3 B 74.1 1,

3 154 170.49 4 Environmental 17.2 162 B 70,400 2.5 B 3.2 B 4.4 B -- 1,470 14,000 11.8 B 12.8 B 1,4 177 193.49 4 Environmental 8.3 B 171 B 75,100 -- 3.8 B 3.6 B 4.0 B 3,950 14,900 56.8 15.0 B 1,5 223.74 240.23 5 Environmental 102 60.7 B 40,200 -- -- -- -- 570 14,300 6.0 B -- 1,

21Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 22Although only one environmental sample was required by the laboratory, extra samples were submitted and analyzed as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the numb

quired. 
40 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

exceeds both the current USEPA drinking-water standard of 

50 μg/L, which has been in effect since 1975 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001a), and the 10-μg/L standard, which 

will take effect in 2006 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2001b). It is not known whether the arsenic is naturally occurring or anthropogenic. If it is anthropogenic, Fisher, which overlies the subcrop of water-bearing unit 5, is a possible source. 

Concentrations of metals varied widely from interval to 

interval. For example, arsenic was detected only in samples 

from intervals 3, 4, and 5, at concentrations of 17.2, 8.3, and 

102 μg/L, respectively. The concentration of iron ranged from 

486 μg/L in interval 2 to 3,950 μg/L in interval 4. Nickel was 

found in the samples from interval 2 at concentrations of 

approximately 75 μg/L, but nickel concentrations in samples 

from the other intervals did not exceed 15 μg/L. 

The wide differences in water quality among the waterbearing units present in this well result from their separation by 

the confining units. Each water-bearing unit has a unique waterquality signature. 

Pesticides were detected in all but the lowermost interval 

in well FL12 (table 17). Alpha-chlordane, dieldrin, gammachlordane, and heptachlor epoxide were found in the sample 

from interval 1. The samples from interval 2 and the sample 

from interval 3 contained all of these pesticides except heptachlor epoxide. The sample from interval 4 contained alphachlordane, gamma-chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide. The only 

SVOC detected in well FL12 was phenol (at an estimated concentration of 2.5 μg/L in interval 4) (table 17). No PCBs were 

detected in any sample from well FL12. 

The QA/QC blank samples for well FL12 were unremarkable except for the equipment blanks. Sodium was detected in 

all of the equipment blanks at estimated concentrations ranging 

from 614 to 846 μg/L (compared to concentrations in the environmental samples ranging from 27,200 to 45,700 μg/L). 

Although this finding indicates that the concentrations of 

sodium detected in the environmental samples may be slightly 

higher or lower than those actually in the sampled zones, the 

reported concentrations are less than the New Jersey secondary 

maximum contaminant level (SMLC) of 50,000 μg/L 

(N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 2002). Similarly, potassium was detected in all of the equipment blanks at 

estimated concentrations ranging from 88.8 to 105 μg/L (compared to concentrations detected in environmental samples of 

1,210 to 1,750 μg/L). (There is no New Jersey SMLC for potassium.) Neither sodium nor potassium is a contaminant of concern in this study. 

Table 17. Pesticides and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL12, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey1

. 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; J, estimated; JN, presumptive evidence for the presence of the material at an estimated value; --, not detected] 

Depth of interval, 

in feet below land Water- Pesticides SVOC 

Packed 

interval 

surface 

Top Bottom 

bearing 

unit 

number 

Sample type 

alphaChlordane gammaChlordane Dieldrin 

Heptachlor 

epoxide 

Phenol 

1 35 47.09 2 Environmental 0.067 0.028 JN 0.023 0.020 JN -­

2 95 111 3 Environmental2 .057 .033 JN .04 -- -­

Environmental2 .038 JN .044 JN .041 -- -­

Field duplicate .059 J .031 JN .048 -- -­

3 154 170.49 4 Environmental .085 .043 JN .026 J -- -­

4 177 193.49 4 Environmental .03 J .024 JN -- .021 JN 2.5 J 

5 223.74 240.23 5 Environmental -- -- -- -- -­

23Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 

24Although only one environmental sample was required by the laboratory, extra samples were submitted and analyzed as a result of a misunderstanding 

regarding the number of environmental samples required. 
Ground-Water Quality 41 

Two of the equipment blanks contained acetone at concentrations less than 2 μg/L; however, the highest concentration of 

acetone in the related environmental samples was only slightly 

higher (2.2 μg/L). Therefore, the detection of acetone in the 

samples from well FL12 is questionable. The detection of bis 

(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in the equipment blank for interval 4 is 

unremarkable because that compound was not detected in any 

environmental sample from the well. 

Well FL18 

Well FL18, in the Memorial well field, is about 7,100 ft 

south-southwest of Fisher and Sandvik and 5,700 ft southsouthwest of Kodak. All four water samples from well FL18, 

interval 1, contained three VOCs: chloroform, methyl tertbutyl ether (MTBE), and toluene (table 18). MTBE was present 

at the highest concentrations. These compounds commonly are 

detected in areas contaminated with petroleum products. 

Because toluene was detected in the field blank at a concentration of 0.9 μg/L, the concentrations of toluene detected in the 

environmental samples are questionable. One other compound, 

2-butanone, was found in the field blank but not in any environmental sample. No VOCs were detected in the other QA/QC 

blank samples for well FL18. 

The sampled interval in well FL18 is in water-bearing unit 

2 (fig. 7); therefore, this interval is not hydraulically connected 

to the Fisher, Sandvik, or Kodak property, and the low concentrations (less than 11 μg/L) of VOCs detected in that interval 

probably are not related to the contamination at the three industrial sites. Most likely, the contaminants detected in well FL18 

originated at sources closer to the well. 

Well FL23 

Well FL23, in Fair Lawn Industrial Park, is about 1,200 ft 

south of Fisher and Sandvik and immediately east of Kodak. 

The sampled intervals in the well (intervals 1, 2, and 6) are in 

water-bearing units 5 and 7 (fig. 7). 

Nine VOCs were detected in the water samples from the 

three sampled intervals in well FL23 (table 19). TCE was 

detected in all samples from the sampled intervals, in concentrations up to 120 μg/L. Cis-1,2-DCE, a degradation product of 

TCE, was detected in concentrations up to 140 μg/L in all but 

one of the samples from well FL23. Two other TCE degradation 

products, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and 1,1-DCE, were 

detected in samples from intervals 1 and 2. Two samples from 

interval 1 and a sample from interval 2 were diluted by the analytical laboratory by factors ranging from 2 to 10, presumably 

to allow for the measurement of high concentrations of TCE and 

cis-1,2-DCE. The dilution prevented the detection of any compounds that may have been present in these samples at concentrations less than 1, 3, and 5 μg/L for dilution factors of 2, 5, and 

10, respectively. The remaining water samples from intervals 1 

and 2 were diluted for measurement of only two compounds 

(cis-1,2-DCE and TCE), however, and additional compounds 

were detected in these samples. The sample from interval 6, the 

deepest interval in well FL23, contained low concentrations 

(less than 10 μg/L) of TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and acetone. 

Contaminant concentrations generally were much higher 

in intervals 1 and 2 (in water-bearing unit 5) than in interval 6 

(in water-bearing unit 7). Water-bearing unit 5 is directly 

beneath the overburden at the Fisher property and is less than 

100 ft below land surface in the eastern parts of the Sandvik and 

Kodak properties (figs. 14 and 15, farther on). The subcrop of 

water-bearing unit 7 is more than 4,500 ft east of all three 

properties. The VOCs detected in well FL23, like those in 

Table 18. Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from a packed interval in well FL18, Fair Lawn, New Jersey1 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter] 

Depth of interval, in feet 

Packed below land surface Water-bearing Methyl tertinterval unit number Sample type Chloroform butyl ether Toluene 

Top Bottom 

1 26 39 1 Environmental2 5.6 10 1.9 

Environmental2 5.2 9.8 1.8 

Field duplicate 5.1 9.4 1.7 

Environmental2 5.3 10 1.8 

1 Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 

2

Although only one environmental sample was required by the laboratory, extra samples were submitted and analyzed as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the number of environmental samples required. 
Table 19. Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL23, Fair Lawn, New Jersey1 [Concentrations in micrograms per liter; J, estimated; --, not detected; D, sampled was diluted (number following “D” is dilution factor used for analysis); all concentrations in m

Packed 

interval 

Depth of interval, 

in feet below land 

surface 

Top Bottom 

Waterbearing 

unit 

number 

Sample type Acetone Chloro­ form 1,1-Di­ chloro­ ethane 1,1-Di­ chloro­ ethylene cis-1,2-Di­ chloro­ ethylene trans-1,2­ Dichloro­ ethylene 1,1,1-Tri­ chloro­ ethane 

1 40.65 52.39 5 Environmental2 -- 1 2 13 130 D10 0.8 2 

Environmental2 -- D5 -- D5 -- D5 -- D5 61 D5 -- D5 -- D5 Environmental2 -- D2 1 D2 2 D2 14 D2 120 D10 -- D2 2 D2 

2 59.98 71.72 5 Environmental2 9 J 4 2 12 140 D10 1 2 

Environmental2 -- D10 -- D10 -- D10 4 J D10 110 D10 -- D10 -- D10 Field duplicate -- 4 2 13 130 D10 0.6 2 

6 349.83 361.57 7 Environmental2 5 J -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Environmental2 8 J -- -- -- 0.4 J -- -- 

3 Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 4Although only one environmental sample was required by the laboratory, extra samples were submitted and analyzed as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the numb

required. 
well FL12, were present at one or all of the three sites; consequently, the VOCs detected in well FL23 could be derived from 

any or all of the sites. 

Well FL23, like well FL12, showed a large difference in 

constituent concentrations in samples from different waterbearing units, indicating effective separation of water-bearing 

units by confining units. The samples from intervals 1 and 2 in 

well FL23 (table 19) and the sample from interval 5 in well 

FL12 (table 15), however, were similar with respect to the concentrations of TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and 1,1-DCE. All three of 

these intervals are in water-bearing unit 5 (fig. 7). 

The QA/QC blank samples for the sampled intervals in 

well FL23 were unremarkable, with three exceptions. TCE and 

two of its degradation products (cis-1,2-DCE and 1,1-DCE) 

were found in the trip blank for interval 1 (table 12). The source 

of these contaminants is unknown. Although the reported concentrations of these compounds in water samples from this 

interval are questionable as a result, the fact that the reported 

concentrations were much higher in the environmental samples 

than in the blank indicates that although these compounds were 

present in the environmental samples, concentrations may have 

been lower than those reported. Acetone was found in all three 

of the QA/QC blanks for interval 6. Acetone also was found in 

the two environmental samples from interval 6, but its presence 

in the blanks makes this result questionable. Likewise, the presence of TCE in the field blank for interval 6 makes the presence 

of TCE in the environmental sample from that interval questionable. 

Well FL27 

Well FL27, in the Dorothy Street well field, is about 

4,300 ft east-southeast of Fisher and Sandvik and 4,500 ft east 

Ground-Water Quality 43 

of Kodak (fig. 8). The sampled intervals in the well (intervals 3 

and 6) are in water-bearing units 8 and 9 (fig. 7). It is unlikely 

that the VOCs detected in this well are related to contamination 

at the Fisher, Sandvik, or Kodak site because confining units 5, 

6, and 7 effectively separate the units open to well FL27 from 

these sites. 

Toluene was the only VOC detected in all water samples 

from well FL27 (table 20). Xylene was found at a concentration 

of 0.7 μg/L in a sample from interval 6. These compounds commonly are detected in areas contaminated with petroleum products. Chloroform and PCE were found in all of the sampled 

intervals, although they were detected in only one of the samples from interval 6. Three additional compounds (cis-1,2­

DCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and TCE) were detected in 

samples from interval 6, at concentrations less than 9 μg/L. 

Four VOCs (acetone, carbon disulfide, chloromethane, 

and trichloroethylene) were detected in the QA/QC blank samples for well FL27. None of these compounds was detected in 

the environmental samples from these intervals, however, and 

only chloromethane was detected in more than one QA/QC 

sample—it was found in the equipment blank and trip blank 

from interval 6. 

Well FL29 

Well FL29, in the Cadmus well field, is about 7,300 ft 

south of Fisher and Sandvik and 5,700 ft south of Kodak. The 

sampled intervals in the well (intervals 2, 3, and 4) are all in 

water-bearing unit 6. It is unlikely that the VOCs detected in 

this well are related to contamination at the Fisher, Sandvik, or 

Kodak site because confining unit 5 effectively separates them 

from the well. 

Table 20. Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL27, Fair Lawn, New Jersey1 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; J, estimated ; --, not detected; D, sample was diluted (number following “D” is dilution factor used for analysis] 

Packed 

interval 

Depth of interval, in 

feet below land 

surface 

Waterbearing 

unit Sample type 

Chloroform 

cis-1,2­

Dichlorotrans1,2-DichloroTetrachloroethylTrichloroethyl- Toluene Xylene 

Top Bottom number ethylene ethylene ene ene 

2 85.06 96.8 8 Environmental 0.3 J -- -- 0.8 J -- 41 J D5 --

3 107.06 118.8 8 Environmental .5 J -- -- .5 J -- 12 J --

6 241.98 253.7 9 Environmental2 -- -- -- -- -- 0.5 0.7 

Environmental2 .5 8 2 .8 2 13 --

5Data in this table are not included in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 

6

Although only one environmental sample was required by the laboratory, extra samples were submitted and analyzed as a result of a misunderstanding 

regarding the number of environmental samples required. 
44 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 21. Volatile organic compounds detected in samples from packed intervals in well FL29, Fair Lawn, New Jersey1 

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter; J, estimated; --, not detected] 

Depth of interval, Water- Packed in feet below land surface Methyl tert- Methylene 

interval bearing unit Sample type butyl ether chloride Toluene 

Top Bottom number 

2 81.95 93.69 6 Environmental 0.8 0.3 J 2 

3 129.15 140.89 6 Environmental .6 -- -­

4 147.03 158.77 6 Environmental .6 -- -­

7

Data in this table are not in any U.S. Geological Survey database. 

Only MTBE, a gasoline additive, was detected in all three 

samples from well FL29 (table 21). The concentrations of 

MTBE in these samples were low, less than 1 μg/L. Toluene, a 

component of gasoline, was found in the sample from interval 

2. The only other compound detected was methylene chloride, 

a common laboratory contaminant—it was found in the sample 

from interval 2. 

Acetone was found at concentrations of 11 and 13 μg/L in 

the field blank and trip blank, respectively, for interval 3. The 

only other compound detected in the QA/QC blanks for sampled intervals in well FL29 was chloromethane, at an estimated 

concentration of 0.3 μg/L. Neither of these compounds was 

detected in the environmental samples from this well. 

Distribution of Volatile Organic Compounds

 Two of the VOCs detected at the highest concentrations in 

the production wells in the Westmoreland well field are PCE 

and TCE (table 8). The distribution of these two compounds in 

production and observation wells in Fair Lawn in 2000-01 is 

shown in section view in figures 14 and 15, respectively. Also 

shown schematically in these figures is the highest concentration of these compounds detected in monitor wells at Fisher, 

Sandvik, and Kodak in November 2002, May 1998, and June 

1997, respectively (table 11). 

Concentrations of PCE were highest (greater than 

500 μg/L) in monitor wells at Sandvik and in Westmoreland 

well FL10 (fig. 14; tables 8 and 11). Concentrations of TCE 

were highest at Fisher (2,000 μg/L); moderate concentrations 

(51-500 μg/L) were detected at Sandvik, in the two shallowest 

packed intervals in well FL23, and in Westmoreland well FL10. 

Lower concentrations (1-10 μg/L) were detected at Kodak and 

in nine other wells, including Westmoreland well FL14 (fig. 15; 

tables 8 and 11). 

Wells in the Westmoreland well field (production wells 

FL10 and FL14 and observation well FL12) are hydraulically 

connected to the Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak sites (figs. 14 and 

15). All three wells draw water from water-bearing units 2 

through 5; the subcrops of water-bearing units 3 and 4 underlie 

the Sandvik and Kodak sites, and the subcrops of water-bearing 

units 4 and 5 underlie the Fisher site. 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 

Four steady-state ground-water scenarios were simulated 

with the ground-water flow model. In steady-state conditions, 

water levels and all stresses on the ground-water system are 

static and the amount of water stored in the system remains constant. Two of the simulations represent ground-water conditions 

in 1991 and 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 1991 scenario 

and the 2000 scenario, respectively). These two years were chosen because pumpage in the Westmoreland well field and 

Fair Lawn Industrial Park differed substantially between these 

two years. Because 2000 was a relatively dry year (with 

44.45 inches of precipitation at nearby Little Falls, N.J., compared to the 98-year average precipitation of 49.79 inches 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000)), a 

third scenario (hereinafter referred to as the high-recharge scenario) was developed to represent pumpage in 2000, but with a 

higher recharge rate. The purpose of this scenario was to determine the effect of an increase in the recharge rate on the contributing areas to wells. The contributing areas to production, 

industrial, and recovery wells were delineated for the 1991, 

2000, and high-recharge scenarios. Contaminant plumes from 

three potentially contributing sources of ground-water contamination were delineated for the 1991 and 2000 scenarios. 

The fourth scenario (hereinafter referred to as the recovery 

scenario) was used for model calibration purposes only. This 

scenario represents a period during December 2000 when 

pumps in Fair Lawn Water Department wells FL2, FL7, and 

FL28 (fig. 3) were turned off for 0.5, 2, and 20 days, respectively. Data from continuous water-level recorders indicate that 

water levels in Fair Lawn Water Department wells FL4 and 
-100 

-200 -300 

0 

100 

WB2 (11) 

WB3 (13) 

WB4 (15) 

WB5 (17) 

WB6 (19) 

WB7 (21) 

WB8 (23) 

C1 (10) 

C2 (12) 

C3 (14) 

C4 (16) 

C5 (18) 

C6 (20) 

C7 (22) 

FL17 

FL16 

FL18 FL19 

FL14 

FL10 FL15 

FL12 

9 FL 

FL23 

9 FL2 

FL7 

FL2 

FL4 

UNCONSOLIDATEDOVERBURDEN (1) 

C8 (24) 

highest PCE concentration551 micrograms per liter 

Eastman Kodak Company Fisher Scientific Company
(9 monitor wells); (36 monitor wells);


B Sandvik, Inc. no PCE detected highest PCE concentration D
 (11 monitor wells);
 77 micrograms per liter EXPLANATION

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS

Water-bearing WB2 unit and number; (11) model layer

ALTITUDE , IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88 

number inparenthesesConfining unit C2 and number; (12) model layernumber inparentheses

CONCENTRATION OFTETRACHLOROETHYLENE(MICROGRAMS PER LITER)

Not detected

0.01 – 10

10.01 – 50

50.01 – 100

100.01 – 500 

500.01 – 1,000 

Greater than 1,000

-400 FL23 WELL NUMBER 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 

DISTANCE, IN FEET 

Figure 14. Section B-D along dip of bedding units showing interpreted water-bearing and confining units and concentration of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in Fair Lawn Water Department production wells, straddle-packer intervals in Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells, and monitor wells at three known contaminated sites, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1997-2002. (Location of section shown in figure 8) 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 45 
-100 

-200 -300 

0 

100 

Eastman Kodak Company Fisher Scientific Company(9 monitor wells); (36 monitor wells);


Sandvik, Inc. highest TCE concentration highest TCE concentration
(11 monitor wells);
 B 4.6 micrograms per liter 2,000 micrograms per liter D EXPLANATION highest TCE concentration

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88 

WB2 (11) 

WB3 (13) 

WB4 (15) 

WB5 (17) 

WB6 (19) 

WB7 (21) 

WB8 (23) 

C1 (10) 

C2 (12) 

C3 (14) 

C4 (16) 

C5 (18) 

C6 (20) 

C7 (22) 

C8 (24) 

FL17 

6 FL1

FL18 FL19 FL14 

FL10 FL15 

FL12 

FL9 

FL23 

29 FL

FL7 

FL2 

FL4 

UNCONSOLIDATEDOVERBURDEN (1) 

96.4 micrograms per liter 

-400 

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 

DISTANCE, IN FEET 

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS

Water-bearing WB2 unit and number; (11) model layernumber inparenthesesConfining unit C2 and number; (12) model layernumber inparentheses

CONCENTRATION OFTRICHLOROETHYLENE(MICROGRAMS PER LITER)

Not detected

0.01 – 10

10.01 – 50

50.01 – 100

100.01 – 500

500.01 – 1,000 

Greater than 1,000

FL23 WELL NUMBER 

Figure 15. Section B-D along dip of bedding units showing interpreted water-bearing and confining units and concentration of trichloroethylene (TCE) in Fair Lawn 

Water Department production wells, straddle-packer intervals in Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells, and monitor wells at three known contaminated sites, 

Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1997-2002. (Location of section shown in figure 8) 

46 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 
FL29 reached steady-state conditions less than 12 hours after 

pumps in wells FL2 and FL7 were turned off; similarly, water 

levels in Fair Lawn Water Department well FL27 reached 

steady state within 12 hours after the pump in well FL28 was 

turned off. These water-level changes in wells FL4, FL29, and 

FL27 were used to calibrate the simulation of the recoveryscenario. 

Description of Ground-Water Flow Model 

A three-dimensional, finite-difference digital groundwater flow model was used to simulate ground-water flow in 

and near Fair Lawn. The MODFLOW-2000 code (Harbaugh 

and others, 2000) was used for the simulation. A particle-tracking post-processor—MODPATH (Pollock, 1994)—was used to 

compute flowpaths and delineate contributing areas to wells. 

Conceptual Model of Ground-Water Flow 

The overburden sediments in the study area generally consist of unconsolidated, poorly sorted fluvial, deltaic, and lacustrine sediments overlying hard-packed, fine-grained glacial till. 

The hydraulic conductivity of the fluvial, deltaic, and lacustrine 

deposits is greater than that of the till. Precipitation recharging 

the overburden probably flows short distances (less than 500 ft) 

horizontally through these sediments before reaching either a 

nearby stream, where it discharges, or the till. After reaching the 

till, water probably moves predominantly downward into bedrock. 

The Passaic Formation forms a fractured-bedrock aquifer 

in the study area. Ground-water flow in the Passaic Formation 

is predominantly through fractures, and flow is controlled primarily by the distribution of fractures in the dipping bedrock. 

The rocks of the Passaic Formation commonly contain waterbearing fractures along bedding planes in fissile layers separated by massive layers with virtually no bedding-plane partings. Near-vertical fractures perpendicular to bedding planes 

can transmit water across the massive layers that separate the 

fissile units (Carleton and others, 1999). The fissile strata comprise water-bearing units, whereas the massive strata comprise 

confining units. 

Anisotropic ground-water flow has been documented at 

various sites in the Newark Basin (Lewis-Brown and dePaul, 

2000; Lacombe, 2000; Carleton and others, 1999; Michalski, 

1990). Anisotropy in the Passaic Formation is caused by the 

interlayering of the dipping water-bearing and confining units. 

Wells of similar depths aligned along the strike of the bedding 

intersect the same water-bearing units, but wells of similar 

depths aligned along the dip of the bedding intersect different 

water-bearing units. Consequently, wells of similar depths 

aligned along strike are in greater hydraulic connection than 

wells aligned along dip. 

The predominant direction of ground-water flow in 

unstressed conditions is in the direction of strike of the bedding 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 47 

units; minor variations from that direction are attributable to 

topography and flow boundaries (Michalski, 1990). Where a 

pumped well intersects a water-bearing unit, flow in the nearby 

parts of that unit generally is toward the well because of the 

induced gradient. 

Grid and Boundary Conditions 

The finite-difference model used in this study is discretized into interconnected rectangular cells, each having its 

own hydrologic characteristics. The cells make up a grid consisting of 329 rows, 248 columns, and 41 layers (fig. 16). The 

large number of model layers is needed to represent each waterbearing and confining unit individually and to simulate the 

effects of the anisotropy caused by these dipping, heterogeneous units. The model grid is oriented along the strike of the 

bedding units. Cells within the area containing the Westmoreland well field and Fair Lawn Industrial Park are 25 ft × 25 ft. 

Elsewhere, the cells are larger, with a maximum size of 500 ft × 

500 ft near the model boundaries 

The size of cells in the Westmoreland well field and Fair 

Lawn Industrial Park areas was set at 25 ft × 25 ft in order to 

simulate accurately the hydrogeologic framework of the area. 

When fractured-rock aquifers are simulated as a porous 

medium, the net effect of many fractures is simulated rather 

than the effect of each individual fracture. Instead of simulating 

the actual contorted path of the water through all the fractures 

within an individual cell, only a straight-line path is simulated 

from the point where water enters a cell to the point where it 

leaves the cell. Consequently, the volume of rock represented 

by a single model cell must contain a sufficient number of fractures so that the net cell-to-cell flow is simulated correctly. 

Houghton (1990) suggests that the Passaic Formation contains 

approximately 15 to 30 fractures across each 25- × 25-ft area. 

Therefore, the large number of fractures represented by each 

cell helps to ensure that the net effect of all of the fractures in a 

cell is simulated. 

The vertical structure of the model is shown in figure 17. 

Model layer 1 represents the unconsolidated overburden materials overlying bedrock. These materials range in thickness 

from 10 to 100 ft. Water-bearing units 2 through 9 and confining units 2 through 9 (fig. 7) are represented in the model as layers 11 through 26 (fig. 17). Because the model extends beyond 

the Fair Lawn area, hypothetical layers 2 through 10 and 27 

through 41 were added downdip and updip from the layers identified during this study. Water-bearing and confining units represented by these additional layers were assigned the mean 

thicknesses of the defined water-bearing and confining units, 

respectively. Model layer 1 was simulated as unconfined; all 

other model layers were simulated as confined units. 

Representation of bedding units as model layers is complicated by the dip of the units. Each model layer must be present 

over the full model area even though the bedding units they 

represent may not be. Each bedding unit terminates updip at the 
48 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

2 7 24 171 236 240

COLUMNS 

20 

24 

66 

256 

161 

312 

316 

ROWS 

0 500 1,000 METERS 

0 2,000 4,000 FEET 

Stream 

Boundary of area in which largest 

cells are 100 feet x 100 feet 

Boundary of area in which cells 

are 25 feet x 25 feet 

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL 

AREA-­

No-flow boundary 

Head-dependent flow boundary 

Specified-flux boundary 

MODEL GRID-­

Inactive cell (Largest cells are 

500 feet x 500 feet) 

Active cell 

PRODUCTION WELL IN--

Cadmus well field 

Dorothy Street well field 

Memorial well field 

Westmoreland well field 

EXPLANATION 

Figure 16. Finite-difference grid for the ground-water flow model of Fair Lawn, New Jersey, and vicinity. (Location shown in figure 1) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 49 

THICKNESS OF MODEL LAYERS, IN FEET 

2,800 

2,600 

2,400 

2,200 

2,000 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

A E 

ACTIVE CELLS (UNCONSOLIDATED OVERBURDEN) 

PASS-THROUGH CELLS 

ACTIVE CELLS (BEDROCK) 

INACTIVE CELLS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

19 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 

DISTANCE, IN FEET 

EXPLANATION


1 Model layer number


Figure 17. Section showing vertical discretization of the ground-water flow model along section A-E, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey (Location of section shown in figure 8) 
50 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

base of the overburden deposits. Although each bedding unit 

probably extends thousands of feet downdip, ground-water flow 

was assumed to be negligible at depths greater than 500 ft below 

land surface, as explained in the Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity and Transmissivity section of this report. In order to represent these changes in the character of each bedding unit, each 

model layer is made up of three zones. The most downdip of 

these zones is inactive, representing the part of the bedding unit 

deeper than 500 ft. The middle zone is active, representing the 

part of the bedding unit between the unconsolidated overburden 

and a depth of 500 ft below land surface. The most updip zone 

is a pass-through zone that represents the extension of the bedding unit beyond its outcrop area and above land surface. This 

zone is composed of pass-through cells that allow water to flow 

vertically from the unconsolidated overburden (model layer 1) 

to the bedding unit that actually lies directly beneath the overburden (fig. 17). 

The model extends as far as 3.5 mi beyond Fair Lawn. The 

hydrogeologic framework outside Fair Lawn was assumed to be 

the same as in Fair Lawn. No hydrogeologic data were collected 

outside Fair Lawn during this study; however, Houghton 

(1990), in his description of the geology of the Newark Basin, 

did not note any variation in the framework within the model 

area. 

The model boundaries (fig. 16) were chosen to ensure that 

the entire flowpath of any water that passes through Fair Lawn 

is included in the model. Most of the model boundaries are noflow boundaries. Criteria for delineating the boundary of the 

active model, in order of importance, were 

•	 Any ground-water sources and sinks (rivers and wells) 

in Fair Lawn must be in the active area. 

•	 No-flow boundaries are far enough from the area of 

interest (Westmoreland well field and Fair Lawn Industrial Park) so that any flow that actually occurs across 

the boundaries will have no effect on the area of interest. Because the ground-water system is anisotropic, 

with flow predominantly in the strike (NNE-SSW) 

direction, the model was extended farther beyond the 

area of interest in the strike direction than in the dip 

direction. The boundary is 9,000 ft SSW and 14,000 ft 

NNE beyond the area of interest. The model was 

extended at least far enough in the dip direction so that 

any model layers that include pumped wells are wholly 

within the active model area. These two criteria ensure 

that any ground-water flow into, out of, or through the 

area of interest is represented accurately in the model. 

•	 Where feasible, entire surface-water drainage basins 

were included in the active area so that simulated 

ground-water budgets could be calculated for each 

basin. The entire basins of Diamond Brook, Henderson 

Brook, Jordan Brook, Beaver Dam Brook, Pehle 

Brook, and Lyncrest Brook (fig. 2) were included in the 

active model area. The basins of the Passaic River, 

Saddle River, Fleischer Brook, and Hohokus Brook 

extend too far from the area of interest to be included in 

the active model area in their entirety. 

The model boundaries, based on these criteria, are as 

follows: 

•	 The eastern part of the southern boundary (fig. 16) is 

formed by the boundary of the Pehle Brook drainage 

basin (fig. 2). The western part of the southern boundary is a line beginning at the southernmost point of the 

Pehle Brook drainage basin and extending westward to 

the western boundary of the model area. The entire 

southern boundary is a no-flow boundary. 

•	 The entire eastern boundary is formed by the Saddle 

River (figs. 2 and 14) and is represented by a headdependent flux boundary. 

•	 The eastern part of the northern boundary (fig. 16) is 

the line separating drainage to the Saddle River above 

and below USGS streamflow-gaging station 01390500 

at Ridgewood, N.J. (fig. 1). The western part of the 

northern boundary is a line through the northernmost 

point in the Diamond Brook drainage basin and parallel 

to the dip direction of the bedding planes (fig. 2). This 

boundary is 14,000 ft from the area of interest. The 

entire northern boundary is a no-flow boundary. 

•	 The western boundary is composed of three segments. 

The northernmost segment (fig. 16) is formed by the 

boundary of the Diamond Brook drainage basin (fig. 2) 

and is a no-flow boundary. The central segment, also a 

no-flow boundary, is a line beginning at the westernmost point of the Diamond Brook drainage basin and 

extending southward to the southernmost segment. The 

southernmost segment is a specified-flux boundary. 

Flux was applied because the contributing area to wells 

in the Memorial well field impinges on the western 

model boundary, indicating that the contributing area 

actually extends beyond the boundary and that water 

flows across the model boundary. 

To determine the amount of water that flows across the 

specified-flux boundary, the final, calibrated model was 

extended temporarily beyond the boundary by increasing the 

width of the three westernmost model columns. The widths of 

columns 1, 2, and 3 were changed temporarily from 500, 500, 

and 420 ft to 25, 3,800, and 1,420 ft, respectively. In the temporary model, the width of column 3 equals the sum of the widths 

of columns 1, 2, and 3 in the final model. Therefore, the amount 

of water flowing from column 2 to column 3 in the temporary 

model is equal to the amount flowing across the western boundary of the final model. In the temporary model, column 2 was 

widened incrementally until it encompassed the western edge of 

the contributing area to the Memorial well field (that is, until 

column 1 was not included in the contributing area). Column 1 

was made narrow (25 ft) so that the temporary model would not 

include the reach of the Passaic River west of the final model 

area (fig. 1). The amount of water flowing from column 2 to column 3 in the temporary model (135,680 ft3/d) was applied to 

column 1 in the final model as a specified-flux boundary. 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 51 

About half of the flow into the model area at the flux 

boundary is induced by pumping from wells in the Fair Lawn 

Water Department Memorial well field (wells FL15, FL16, 

FL17, and FL19) and wells owned by Marcal Paper Mills (wells 

MP1, MP2, MP3, MP4, MP5, and MP6) (fig. 3). In the final, 

calibrated model, about 45 percent (60,800 ft3

/d) of the flux 

entering the model at this border discharges at the Memorial 

well field, where the total pumpage in 2000 was 121,500 ft3

/d. 

About 7 percent (9,500 ft3/d) discharges at wells owned by 

Marcal Paper Mills near the southern border of the model area. 

Pumpage from those wells totaled 68,720 ft3

/d in 2000. 

Although the change in column widths is large near the 

western boundary of the temporary model, the accuracy of the 

contributing areas and pathlines simulated by the final model in 

the area of interest (the Westmoreland well field and Fair Lawn 

Industrial Park) is not reduced. The large change in column 

widths may affect slightly the configuration of the contributing 

area to the Memorial well field, which is not part of the defined 

USEPA Superfund site and, therefore, is outside the area of 

interest of this study. 

Hydrologic Parameters 

Hydrologic parameters used in the model for this study 

were based on field measurements made in Fair Lawn. Parameters that cannot be measured directly were estimated initially 

on the basis of values used in digital ground-water flow models 

of hydrologically similar areas. During model calibration in this 

study (discussed in the Calibration section of this report), all of 

the parameters were adjusted within reasonable ranges. 

Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity of the Unconsolidated 

Overburden 

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the unconsolidated overburden has been measured in monitor wells at two 

industrial sites in Fair Lawn using slug tests and aquifer tests 

(Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1984 and 1985; Golder Associates, Inc., 

2000), and estimated by calibration of a previous digital model 

(Geotrans, Inc., 1985) (table 22). Fluvial and lacustrine sediments overlie till at both of these sites. The thickness of the 

overburden at these two sites generally is on the order of 25 ft, 

and the screens in wells completed in the overburden generally 

are from 10 to 20 ft long. Consequently, the wells used in the 

slug and aquifer tests probably are open to more than one, and 

possibly all, of these sediment types; therefore, the measurements probably represent the composite conductivity of the 

entire overburden. 

The horizontal hydraulic conductivities of the other types 

of unconsolidated overburden sediments (deltaic, lacustrine 

fan, ice-contact, alluvium) found elsewhere in the model area 

have not been measured. Hydraulic conductivity values 

reported by Heath (1983) for these sediment types and the conductivities used in the calibrated ground-water flow model are 

listed in table 23. 

Transmissivity of the Bedrock 

The approximate transmissivity of water-bearing and confining units in the bedrock at Fair Lawn was determined from 

the results of slug tests conducted during straddle-packer testing 

at six observation wells. The measurements are listed in table 4 

and summarized in table 24. In cases where slug tests were conducted in more than one interval in the same hydrogeologic unit 

and in the same well, the measured transmissivity values were 

added to obtain the total transmissivity of that unit at that well. 

For example, in well FL23, intervals 1 and 2 are both in waterbearing unit 5 (fig. 7). The transmissivities in the zones adjacent 

to the two intervals, 850 and 500 ft2

/d, respectively, were added 

to obtain a total transmissivity of 1,350 ft2/d for water-bearing 

unit 5 at well FL23. 

Some of the packed intervals were assigned qualitative 

“high,” “medium,” or “near-zero” transmissivity on the basis of 

slug-test results, as discussed in the Straddle-Packer Testing 

section of this report. High transmissivity was assumed to represent transmissivity greater than 100 ft2

/d, and medium transmissivity, a range from 10 to 100 ft2/d. To estimate the transmissivity of each hydrogeologic unit, these qualitative results 

were assigned an estimated quantitative value. “High” transmissivity was assigned a value of 860 ft2/d, which is the median 

of the 15 transmissivity values quantitatively determined to 

exceed 100 ft2/d (table 4). “Medium” transmissivity was 

assigned a value of 50 ft2/d, which is the median of the three 

transmissivity values quantitatively determined to be from 10 to 

100 ft2/d. 

The thickness of each hydrogeologic unit is constant 

throughout most of the model area. In the shallowest part of the 

bedrock, however, each unit pinches out in the updip direction, 

and in the deepest part, each unit pinches out in the downdip 

direction (fig. 7). In order to represent accurately the diminishing transmissivity of the units in these shallow and deep areas, 

the transmissivity of each unit was converted into hydraulic 

conductivity, and the hydraulic conductivity was multiplied by 

the unique thickness of each model cell to obtain the transmissivity of each model cell. The transmissivity was converted into 

hydraulic conductivity by dividing the total transmissivity of 

the unit by the total thickness of the layer (table 24). The final 

values of hydraulic conductivity used in the calibrated model 

are equal or nearly equal to these calculated conductivities. 

In the model, conductivities used for water-bearing units in 

which no measurements were made initially were set at 38 ft/d, 

the median measured conductivity of water-bearing units in 

which measurements were made. Similarly, the hydraulic conductivity of confining units in which no measurements were 

made initially was set at 0.13 ft/d, the median hydraulic conductivity of confining units in which measurements were made. In 

the final, calibrated model, hydraulic conductivities of 44 and 

0.60 ft/d were assigned to these water-bearing and confining 

units, respectively. 

In the fractured-rock aquifer composed of rocks in the Passaic Formation, transmissivity decreases with depth because the 

density of fractures decreases with depth (Lewis-Brown and 
52 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 22. Summary of published values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity of fluvial sediments, lacustrine sediments, and till in Fair 

Lawn, New Jersey. 

[--, not applicable] 

Location Reference 

Number of 

wells 

Testing 

method Analysis method 

Horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity 

(feet per day) 

Range Median 

Cole Engineering, Inc. Golder Associates, Inc., 2000 9 Slug tests Hvorslev (1951) 0.01 – 8.82 0.93 

Cole Engineering, Inc. Golder Associates, Inc., 2000 4 Aquifer tests 

Aquifer tests 

Aquifer tests 

Theis (1935) 

Jacob (1950) 

Theis (1935) 

.13 – 2.29 

.11 – 1.11 

.08 – 9.93 

.34 

.42 

.36 

Fisher Scientific Company Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1984 3 Slug tests Not reported .6 – 1.4 1.3 

Fisher Scientific Company Geotrans, Inc., 1985 -- -- Calibration of 

digital model 

-- 5.07 

Fisher Scientific Company Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1985 2 Aquifer test Jacob (1950) 

Theis (1935) 

Theis (1935) 

4.2 

4.8 

.42 

4.2 

Table 23. Hydraulic conductivity and thickness of unconsolidated overburden sediments in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[<, less than; na, no data available] 

Geologic unit 

(Stanford and 

others, 1990) 

(fig. 4) 

Generalized description of sediments 

(Stone and others, 1995) 

Thickness 

(feet) 

Generalized horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity 

of sediment type 

(Heath, 1983) 

(feet per day) 

Hydraulic conductivity 

used in calibrated 

ground-water flow model 

(feet per day) 

Horizontal Vertical 

Continuous till Sandy to clayey till; compact, firm to hard 

consistency 

10 – 30 10-6 – 100 30 0.1 

Deltaic and lacustrinefan deposits Deltaic and esker deposits < 50 na 30 .1 

Fluvial deposits Fluvial sand, silt, and gravel < 20 1 – 104 5 .1 

Fluvial over lacustrine 

deposits 

Fluvial sand, silt, and gravel overlying lakebottom silt, fine sand, and clay < 50 1 – 104 (fluvial) 

10-6 – 10 (lake-bottom) 

5 .1 

Ice-contact deposits Sand and gravel <50 1 – 104 30 .1 

Alluvium in flood 

plains of Passaic River 

Laminated and thinly bedded silt, clay, and 

poorly sorted sand overlying poorly sorted 

gravel and sand 

50 – 100 10-6 – 10 

1 – 104 

30 .1 

Alluvium in tributaries to Passaic River Poorly sorted sand and gravel < 15 1 – 104 30 .1 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 53 

Table 24. Summary of transmissivity measured in bedrock hydrogeologic units in Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[WB, water-bearing unit; CU, confining unit; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; ft/d, feet per day] 

Measurement Transmissivity determined from slug testing Horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity site (ft

2

/d)	 (ft/d) 

Hydro- Layer Initial value Final 

Model (Median calibrated geologic layer 

thickness Total Median 

unit (ft) Packed transmissivity transmissivity measured value 

Well This test	 transmissivity (at 25 ft interval of this unit at of this unit at divided by below this well all wells layer land 

thickness) surface) 

WB2 11 48 FL18 1 2,000 2,000 1,400 29.0 57.0 

FL12 1 860 860 

CU2 12 35 (No tests in this unit) .6 

WB3 13 21 FL18 2 1,400 1,400 5,200 250 67.0 

FL12 2 8,900 8,900 

CU3 14 45 (No tests in this unit) .6 

WB4 15 35 FL12 3 1,000 2,700 2,700 77.0 79.0 

FL12 4 1,700 

CU4 16 22 (No tests in this unit) .6 

WB5 17 39 FL12 5 2,000 2,000 1,900 49.0 51.0 

FL23 1 850 1,700 

FL23 2 860 

CU5 18 159 FL12 6 1.1 11 11 .069 .6 

FL12 7 9.8 

WB6 19 95	 FL23 3 860 2,600 3,100 33.0 37.0 

FL23 4 860 

FL23 5 860 

FL29 1 780 3,600 

FL29 2 780 

FL29 3 590 

FL29 4 1,400 

CU6 20 25 FL4 1 50 52 52 2.1 2.0 

FL4 2 2.4 

WB7 21 39 FL23 6 860 850 850 22 22 

FL29 5 840 

CU7 22 248 FL29 6 0 50 71 .20 .35 

FL29 7 50 

FL4 3 6.2 

FL4 4 50 130 

FL4 5 78 

FL27 1 29. 29 

WB8 23 39 FL27 2 860 1,300 1,300 33 23 

FL27 3 400 

CU8 24 50 (No tests in this unit) .6 

WB9 25 85 FL27 5 860 1,500 1,500 18 14 

FL27 6 670 

CU9 26 86 FL27 7 0 0 0 0 .12 

FL27 8 0 
54 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

DePaul, 2000). Therefore, horizontal hydraulic conductivity 

values used in the model were set to decrease as a function of 

depth. The model conductivity values listed in table 24 represent the conductivity at a depth of 25 ft below land surface. 

Below 25 ft, the conductivity decreases linearly; at the base of 

the active model, 500 ft below land surface, the conductivity is 

1/10 the conductivity at 25 ft below land surface. 

Vertical HydraulicConductivity 

Vertical hydraulic conductivity cannot readily be measured in the field, especially in fractured rock; therefore, this 

parameter was determined by model calibration. The best 

model calibration was achieved when the vertical hydraulic 

conductivity of the overburden was set at 0.10 ft/d. This low 

conductivity reflects the presence of the dense, clayey Rahway 

till at the base of the overburden. In confined bedrock waterbearing units, vertical hydraulic conductivity is assumed to be 

lower than horizontal hydraulic conductivity because the number of horizontal fractures per unit volume of aquifer is greater 

than the number of vertical fractures; the horizontal fractures 

also are more continuous. Vertical conductivity in the bedrock 

was set at 4.4 ft/d for the water-bearing units and 0.12 ft/d for 

the confining units. Vertical leakance, the parameter actually 

used in the model, was calculated with a computer program (not 

part of the model) by dividing the vertical hydraulic conductivity at each cell by the thickness of the unit represented by the 

cell. 

Cells in the pass-through zone were assigned a vertical leakance of 100 ft/d to ensure nearly instantaneous movement of 

water through these cells from the overburden to the model 

layer that represents the bedding unit directly beneath the overburden. 

The rate of flow between a stream and the adjacent aquifer 

is affected primarily by the vertical hydraulic conductivity and 

thickness of the streambed material. Because the vertical 

hydraulic conductivity of a streambed is difficult to measure in 

the field, this parameter was determined by model calibration. 

The best model calibration was achieved when the vertical 

hydraulic conductivity and thickness of all streambed material 

were set at 1 ft/d and 1 ft, respectively. 

Areal Recharge 

The effective areal recharge rate used in the model is 

20 in/yr. A range of reasonable effective areal recharge rates 

was determined to be from 16.9 to 22 in/yr. The high end of this 

range, 22 in/yr, is based on reported recharge to a valley-fill 

glacial aquifer system in the New Jersey Highlands area 

(Nicholson and others, 1996). Because the Fair Lawn area is 

more developed than the Highlands area, it has a greater percentage of impervious surface area and, consequently, probably 

less ground-water recharge than the Highlands. 

The low end of the range is estimated on the basis of 

streamflow measurements, ground-water pumpage, and 

ground-water evapotranspiration (table 25). Streamflow measurements were made at base-flow conditions in five tributaries 

to the Passaic and Saddle Rivers in Fair Lawn (fig. 2) by USGS 

personnel. The actual effective areal recharge rate for the area 

encompassing the drainage basins of these five tributaries is the 

sum of (1) base flow measured at the mouth of each stream 

minus any industrial discharges to the stream at the time of 

measurement, (2) ground water pumped from each basin, 

(3) ground-water evapotranspiration, (4) underflow (precipitation that falls on the tributary basins but discharges to other 

streams), and (5) change in ground-water storage. Base flow, 

industrial discharges to the streams, and ground-water pumpage 

were measured directly. Ground-water evapotranspiration from 

similar rocks in southeastern Pennsylvania was estimated at 

2 in/yr by Sloto and Schreffler (1994). Underflow and change 

in ground-water storage cannot be measured directly, and estimates of these processes are associated with a large degree of 

uncertainty. Consequently, the recharge estimate of 16.9 in/yr 

shown in table 25 is considered to be low because it does not 

include underflow. The change in ground-water storage, which 

also is omitted from the estimate, may cause the estimate to be 

either high or low, depending on whether storage increases or 

decreases. 

Simulation of Discharge Features 

Features in the model area that allow ground water to discharge—streams and pumped wells—were included in the 

model by use of the “River” and “Wells” modules of MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh and others, 2000). 

Streams 

Streams in the model area are the Passaic and Saddle Rivers and Lyncrest, Henderson, Diamond, Hohokus, Jordan, Beaver Dam, Pehle, and Fleischer Brooks (fig. 2). The position of 

these streams relative to the model grid was determined by 

overlaying the model grid on topographic maps by means of a 

geographic information system. 

Stream data were obtained from three sources. Stream 

locations, lengths, widths, and altitudes of the tops of streambeds were derived from reports of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1976, 1981, 1991) for Beaver Dam 

Brook, Diamond Brook, Henderson Brook, Jordan Brook, the 

Passaic River, the southernmost mile of Hohokus Brook, and 

the southernmost 3.2 mi of the Saddle River. The location, 

length, and stage of Fleischer Brook and the remaining reaches 

of Hohokus Brook and the Saddle River were obtained from 

USGS topographic maps. Widths of these streams were derived 

from discharge-measurement records on file at the USGS office 

in West Trenton, N.J. For each of these streams, the average 

width reported for all measurements made during base-flow 

conditions from October 2000 through March 2002 was used. 

For all streams, the depth of water (difference between stream 

stage and altitude of the top of the streambed) was derived from 

the same base-flow discharge-measurement records. For each 

stream, an average depth computed from these measurements 

was used in the model. 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 55 

Table 25. Ground-water recharge in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 2000-2001, estimated from base flow, ground-water pumpage, 

industrial discharge to streams, and ground-water evapotranspiration. 

[mi

2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; in/yr, inches per year; nm, not measured; na, not applicable] 

Estimate based on September 2000 conditions Estimate based on June 2001 conditions 

Stream- Mean Mean Mean 

flow Location of daily daily Mean daily daily gaging Drainage 

Base 

ground- industrial Drainage Base ground- industrial 

station streamflow-gaging 

area 

flow, water discharge area flow, water discharge number station 

(mi2

) 9/7/2000 

pumpage, to stream, (mi2

) 6/20/2001 pumpage, to stream,

(fig. 2) (ft

3

/s) 9/2000 9/2000 (ft

3

/s) 6/2001 6/2001 

(ft

3

/s)	 (ft

3

/s) (ft

3

/s) (ft

3

/s) 

01389860	 Diamond Brook at na nm na 0 3.19 2.87 1.626 0 

Bindary Entrance 

Road 

01389865	 Henderson Brook 1.25 1.61 .567 .257 1.25 .861 .745 .487 

at River Road 

01389873	 Lyncrest Brook at .45 .078 .437 0 .45 .113 .479 0 

River Road 

01391109	 Jordan Brook at 1.05 .382 .265 0 1.05 .717 .324 0 

Saddle River Road 

01391250	 Beaver Dam Brook .74 .107 .405 0 .74 .192 .313 0 

at Saddle River 

Road 

Total:	 3.49 2.177 1.674 0.257 6.68 4.753 3.487 0.487 

Base flow plus pumpage minus 3.594 7.753 

industrial discharge (ft

3/s) 

Base flow plus pumpage minus 14.0 15.8 

industrial discharge (in/yr) 

Estimated ground-water evapo- 2.0 2.0 

transpiration (in/yr) 1 

Estimated ground-water recharge 16.0 17.8 

(in/yr) 

Mean estimated ground-water 16.9 

recharge (in/yr) 

8Sloto and Schreffler, 1994. 
56 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

The streams were simulated with the “River” module of 

MODFLOW-2000. This module treats streams as head-dependent flux boundaries. McDonald and Harbaugh (1988) define 

the flow between a stream and the adjacent aquifer in a given 

model cell according to the equation 

KsLW

Q = --------------(hriv – haq) (1) ms 

where 

Q is the flux between the stream and the aquifer, 

taken as positive if it is directed into the aquifer, in cubic feet per day; 

Ks is the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the 

streambed material, in feet per day; 

L is the length of the reach within the given 

model cell, in feet; 

W is the width of the stream, in feet; 

ms is the thickness of the streambed, in feet; 

hriv is the hydraulic head in the stream, in feet; 

and 

haq is the hydraulic head in the aquifer, in feet. 

Pumped Wells 

All of the model simulations made as a part of this study 

included well pumpage. Most of the pumped wells are open to 

more than one model layer. Pumpage from these wells was 

apportioned among the model layers on the basis of the ratio of 

the final calibrated transmissivity of each layer to the total transmissivity of all model layers intersected by the well opening. 

Calibration 

Three of the four scenario simulations were used in model 

calibration. The 2000 scenario was used in the most rigorous 

calibration because far more measured data were available for 

calibration purposes than for the other three scenarios. Most of 

the measurements made for this study were made during 2000. 

Water levels in 70 wells, water levels in 15 intervals isolated by 

straddle packers in deep observation wells, and base flow in five 

streams were used in calibrating the 2000 model. The initial 

estimates of hydrologic parameters described in previous sections were adjusted within reasonable limits until 75 percent of 

simulated water levels were within 10 ft of measured water levels and simulated base flow at the five measurement sites was 

within 8 percent of the mean measured base flow. 

The rise in water levels in response to increased recharge 

was used to calibrate the simulation of the high-recharge scenario. The rise in water levels in response to cessation of pumping in production wells was used to calibrate the recovery scenario. Data and methods used to calibrate these scenarios are 

described in the following sections. 

Static Ground-Water Levels 

Water levels in 70 wells were used in model calibration. 

Sixty-eight of the wells are located at five industrial 

sites—Fisher Scientific Company and Sandvik, Inc. (fig. 18); 

Einson, Freeman and deTroy (fig. 19); and Cole Engineering, 

Inc., and Archery Plaza (fig. 20). The other two wells are owned 

by the Fair Lawn Water Department; these are FLS-1 and 

FLP-1 (USGS well numbers 030618 and 030620, respectively) 

(fig. 3, table 1). 

Water-level measurements at the five industrial sites were 

made at various times by various contractors. At each of the 

sites, various sets of measurements were made over the years. 

In choosing the sets of measurements to use for calibration purposes, an attempt was made to choose sets that were made under 

similar, static hydrologic stress conditions. One tool used to 

assess the similarity of stress conditions was streamflow at the 

USGS gaging station in the Saddle River at Lodi (station 

01391500, fig. 1). All water-level measurements were made on 

days when the mean daily flow at that gaging station was 

between 30 and 60 ft3/s. For comparison, the overall range in 

streamflow at that station over the period of record (1924-2000) 

is 4.9 to 2,970 ft3/s. 

Precipitation recorded at Little Falls, N.J., about 5 mi 

southwest of Fair Lawn, also was used to assess whether measurements were made under static stress conditions. Because at 

least 3 days had passed since the last recorded precipitation 

(table 26), conditions were assumed to be static with respect to 

ground-water recharge. It is unknown whether the water-level 

measurements were made under static stress conditions with 

respect to ground-water pumping because daily pumpage 

records for some nearby pumped wells are not available; however, pumpage from production wells was constant during the 

3-day period prior to the dates when the selected sets of waterlevel measurements were made. 

Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells FLP-1 and 

FLS-1, screened in the unconsolidated overburden, also were 

used in model calibration. These wells were equipped with continuous water-level recorders. The mean water-level altitude 

recorded on September 12, 2000, was used for calibration for 

four reasons: (1) this date falls during the same time period as 

most of the packer testing; (2) no precipitation fell during the 

9-day period preceding this date; (3) no known changes in 

pumpage at nearby wells occurred during the 3 days preceding 

this date; and (4) streamflow in the Saddle River at Lodi on that 

day was 59 ft3/s, which falls within the 30- to 60-ft

3

/s range 

mentioned above. 

Water levels measured in isolated intervals of five of the 

deep Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells during 

packer testing also were used for model calibration. These 

measurements include 11 made in wells FL4, FL23, FL27, and 

FL29 from August 16 to October 26, 2000, and 4 made in well 

FL12 from October 23 to October 30, 2001. These 

measurements were made when ground-water levels were 

static; measurements made during non-static conditions were 

not used for model calibration. Measured and simulated water 

levels in wells and packer-test intervals used for calibration are 

listed in table 27. 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 57 

TPW7 

TPW5 

TPW6 

TPW4 

TPW2 TPW1R 

PZ-5 

TPW3 

SV-1D 

SV-2D 

SV-5D 

SV-4D SV-5S 

SV-4S 

SV-6S FS-41 

FS-11 

FS-18 

FS-42 

FS-19 

FS-40 

FS-17 

FS-05 

FS-14 

FS-39 

FS-21 

PZ-4R 

FS-07 

FS-20 FS-23

FS-22 

FS-02 

FS-09R 

FS-15R 

PW-5 

PW-4 

PW-2 

0 25 50 75 METERS 

0 100 200 300 FEET 

Henderson Brook 

M

Nevins Road cBride 

Aven

u

e 

Pollitt Drive 

MODEL ROW 95 

MODEL ROW 142 

MODEL COLUMN 86 

MODEL COLUMN 140 

EXPLANATION 

INDUSTRIAL SITE-­ FS-17 Observation well and well number 

Shallow-recovery trench 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

PW-4 

TPW6 

Deep recovery well and well number 

Shallow recovery well and well number 

Model grid line 

Railroad 

Figure 18. Location of observation and recovery wells at Fisher Scientific Company and Sandvik, Inc., Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

(Location shown in figure 3; model grid shown in figure 16) 
58 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

MW-5 

MW-6 

MW-1 

MW-4 

MW-3 

MW-2 

Diamond Brook 

MODEL ROW 170 

MODEL ROW 203 

MODEL COLUMN 5 

MODEL COLUMN 1

1 

0 100 200 FEET EXPLANATION 

0 25 50 METERS 

Einson, Freeman, and deTroy site 

Model grid line 

Road 

MW-1 Observation well and well number 

Figure 19. Location of observation wells at Einson, Freeman, and deTroy industrial site, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Location 

shown in figure 3; model grid shown in figure 16) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 59 

MW-8s 

MW-4s 

GTW-1 GTW-3 

GTW-4 

MW-1d 

MW-1s 

MW-7s 

MW-7d 

MW-5s 

MW-6s 

MW-8d 

MW-9d 

MW-9s 

MW-19d 

GMW-4d 

MW-5d2 MW-11d 

MW-13s 

MW-13d 

MW-10s 

MW-10d 

MW-14s 

GMW-17d 

GMW-17s 

GMW-18s 

MW-15s 

GMW-15d 

GMW-16d2 

GMW-5d3 

MODEL ROW 232 

MODEL ROW 264 

MODEL COLUMN 176 

MODEL COLUMN 192 

EXPLANATION 0 100 200 300 FEET 

Industrial site-­

0 25 50 75 METERS 

Archery Plaza 

Cole Engineering, Inc. 

Model grid line 

Railroad 

MW-4s Observation well and well number 

Figure 20. Location of observation wells at the Cole Engineering, Inc., and Archery Plaza industrial sites, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

(Location shown in figure 3; model grid shown in figure 16) 
60 	 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 26. Sources of water-level data at four industries in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, measurement dates, mean daily streamflow at a 

nearby gaging station, and number of days since precipitation. 

[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; ft

3/s, cubic feet per second] 

Industrial site 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Source of water-level data 

Jacqueline Bobko, NJDEP, 

written commun., 2002 

Date of 

measurement 

06/05/2000 

Mean daily streamflow at 

gaging station 01391500 

(ft

3

/s) 

60 

Number of days preceding 

measurement when no 

precipitation was reported 

at Little Falls, New Jersey 

3 

Sandvik, Inc. James De Noble, NJDEP, 

written commun., 2001 

12/07/2000 33 8 

Einson, Freeman and deTroy EnviroSciences, Inc., 1991 08/30/1991 34 6 

Cole Engineering, Inc., and 

Archery Plaza 

Ann Wolf, NJDEP, written 

commun., 2001 

11/1/2000 30 5 

Base Flow to Streams 

Streamflow was measured under base-flow conditions at 

or near the most downstream point of Diamond, Henderson, 

Lyncrest, Jordan, and Beaver Dam Brooks (fig. 2) in Fair Lawn. 

Two measurements were made at each site except Diamond 

Brook, where only one measurement was made. The measured 

and simulated base flow in each of these five streams are listed 

in table 28. Simulated ground-water discharge to streams was 

calculated by use of the computer program ZONEBUDGET 

(Harbaugh, 1990). All simulated base flows are within 8 percent 

of the mean measured base flow. The uncertainty in these baseflow measurements is 10 percent; therefore, the model calibration is considered to be acceptable with respect to simulated 

base flow to streams. 

Water-Level Rise Resulting from Increased Recharge 

The accuracy of the model output for the high-recharge 

(22 in/yr) scenario was evaluated by comparing measured and 

simulated rises in base flow and ground-water levels as a result 

of the increased recharge. Base flow at the USGS gaging station 

in the Saddle River at Lodi (station 01391500, fig. 1) was used 

for this analysis. Ground-water levels at Cole Engineering, Inc., 

were used because that site is farther from pumping stresses 

than the other three sites for which large sets of measurements 

are available. The steps used to evaluate the high-recharge scenario simulation results are described below: 

1.	 Base flow to the Saddle River simulated with the digital 

model in the high-recharge scenario was compared to 

simulated base flow in the 2000 scenario. The highrecharge scenario resulted in a 10-percent increase in base 

flow to the Saddle River. 

2.	 Streamflow records for the Saddle River at Lodi indicate 

that base flow at the gaging station was 30 ft3/s on 

November 1, 2000 (the date of the water-level 

measurements at Cole Engineering, Inc., used to calibrate 

the 2000 model). 

3.	 Streamflow records for the Saddle River at Lodi for all 

other dates when water levels were measured at Cole 

Engineering, Inc., were examined. (There were 18 sets of 

measurements from 1995 to 2001.) Any date when the 

river was not at base-flow conditions was discarded. 

From the remaining dates, the one on which streamflow 

was closest to 110 percent of 30 ft3/s (33 ft

3

/s) was 

chosen to represent the high-recharge scenario. This date 

was July 22, 1998, when measured streamflow was 

32 ft

3/s. Precipitation records from the Little Falls, New 

Jersey, weather station (fig. 1) were examined to ensure 

that recharge, rather than an unknown stress, caused the 

increased streamflow and higher ground-water levels 

on July 22, 1998. During the 12 months preceding 

July 22, 1998, total precipitation was 55.46 in.; during 

the 12 months preceding November 11, 2000, total 

precipitation was 44.64 in. 

4.	 Water levels measured at Cole Engineering, Inc., on 

July 22, 1998, were compared to water levels measured 

on November 1, 2000. The measured difference in water 

levels was compared to the difference in water levels 

between the 2000 simulation and the high-recharge 

simulation. 

Measured and simulated increases in water levels in 

23 wells resulting from the increased recharge are listed in 

table 29. The simulated water-level rise is within 2 ft of the 

measured rise at 68 percent of the sites. 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 61 

Table 27. Measured and simulated ground-water levels, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[FLWD, Fair Lawn Water Department; --, no data; na, not applicable; OB, unconsolidated overburden; WB, water-bearing unit; CU, confining unit; Hayward, 

Hayward Industries, Inc. (the owner of the property where the Cole Engineering, Inc., site is located); Sandvik, Sandvik, Inc.; FS, Fisher Scientific Company, 

EFD, Einson Freeman and deTroy] 

Well 

owner 

EFD 

EFD 

EFD 

EFD 

EFD 

Well name 

(figs. 3, 

18-20) 

MW-1 

MW-2 

MW-3 

MW-4 

MW-5 

Packedinterval 

number 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

Modellayer 

number 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Hydrogeologic 

unit 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

Water-level 

measurement date 

08-30-1991 

08-30-1991 

08-30-1991 

08-30-1991 

08-30-1991 

Measured 

37.11 

40.77 

39.91 

40.27 

39.12 

Water-level altitude 

(feet above NAVD 88) 

Simulated 

Difference 

(simulated minus 

measured) 

47.35 10.24 

40.11 -0.66 

41.28 1.37 

39.90 -0.37 

39.71 0.59 

EFD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FS 

FS 

MW-6 

FLP-1 

FLS-1 

FS-02 

FS-07 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

08-30-1991 

09-12-2000 

09-12-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

40.60 

41.79 

18.46 

76.07 

74.21 

40.50 

51.54 

27.99 

67.66 

67.42 

-0.10 

9.75 

9.53 

-8.41 

-6.79 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS-20 

FS-21 

FS-22 

FS-23 

PZ-4R 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

72.53 

70.16 

75.98 

75.68 

74.03 

65.06 

65.27 

65.43 

65.06 

66.16 

-7.47 

-4.89 

-10.55 

-11.62 

-7.87 

FS 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

PZ-5 

MW-1s 

MW-4s 

MW-5s 

MW-6s 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

06-05-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

72.39 

66.36 

61.99 

61.85 

58.13 

65.60 

61.88 

60.97 

60.92 

62.04 

-6.79 

-4.48 

-1.02 

-0.93 

3.91 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

MW-7s 

MW-8s 

MW-9s 

MW-10s 

MW-13s 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

60.92 

60.35 

57.47 

59.79 

58.37 

62.58 

60.26 

62.29 

59.92 

60.81 

1.66 

-0.09 

4.82 

0.13 

2.44 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

MW-14s 

MW-15s 

GMW-17s 

GMW-18s 

GTW-4 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

OB 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

57.47 

66.64 

73.59 

71.74 

67.34 

61.94 

62.21 

63.25 

62.92 

62.11 

4.47 

-4.43 

-10.34 

-8.82 

-5.23 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

Sandvik 

FS 

FL12 

FL12 

FL12 

SV-5s 

FS-05 

1 

2 

3 

na 

na 

11 

13 

14 

14 

15 

WB2 

WB3 

CU3 

CU3 

WB4 

10-23-2001 

10-24-2001 

10-25-2001 

12-07-2000 

06-05-2000 

44.80 

39.21 

38.93 

58.07 

67.23 

48.37 

49.98 

51.07 

60.99 

61.37 

3.57 

10.77 

12.14 

2.92 

-5.86 
62 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 27. Measured and simulated ground-water levels, Fair Lawn, New Jersey.—Continued 

[FLWD, Fair Lawn Water Department; --, no data; na, not applicable; OB, unconsolidated overburden; WB, water-bearing unit; CU, confining unit; Hayward, 

Hayward Industries, Inc. (the owner of the property where the Cole Engineering, Inc., site is located); Sandvik, Sandvik, Inc.; FS, Fisher Scientific Company, 

EFD, Einson Freeman and deTroy] 

Well 

owner 

FS 

FS 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

Well name 

(figs. 3, 

18-20) 

FS-39 

FS-17 

SV-4s 

SV-6s 

SV-1D 

Packedinterval 

number 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

Modellayer 

number 

15 

15 

15 

15 

16 

Hydrogeologic 

unit 

WB4 

WB4 

WB4 

WB4 

CU4 

Water-level 

measurement date 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

12-07-2000 

12-07-2000 

12-07-2000 

Measured 

60.02 

64.33 

60.16 

59.64 

55.94 

Water-level altitude 

(feet above NAVD 88) 

Simulated 

Difference 

(simulated minus 

measured) 

63.56 3.54 

62.36 -1.97 

61.10 0.94 

61.62 1.98 

63.42 7.48 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FL12 

FL23 

FS-11 

FS-14 

FS-15R 

5 

2 

na 

na 

na 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

WB5 

WB5 

WB5 

WB5 

WB5 

10-30-2001 

09-25-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

45.22 

63.76 

52.00 

70.67 

73.59 

51.47 

58.76 

62.11 

64.26 

63.82 

6.25 

-5.00 

10.11 

-6.41 

-9.77 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS 

FS-18 

FS-19 

FS-40 

FS-41 

na 

na 

na 

na 

17 

17 

17 

17 

WB5 

WB5 

WB5 

WB5 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

51.67 

51.12 

56.50 

51.30 

62.99 

64.46 

63.91 

62.44 

11.32 

13.34 

7.41 

11.14 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

Sandvik 

FS 

FS 

SV-2D 

SV-4D 

SV-5D 

FS-9R 

FS-42 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

17 

17 

17 

18 

18 

WB5 

WB5 

WB5 

CU5 

CU5 

12-07-2000 

12-07-2000 

12-07-2000 

06-05-2000 

06-05-2000 

52.03 

53.24 

53.69 

58.66 

45.56 

62.84 

61.75 

61.60 

64.98 

63.51 

10.81 

8.51 

7.91 

6.32 

17.95 

FLWD 

FLWD 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

FL23 

FL29 

MW-1d 

GMW-4d 

GMW-15d 

5 

3 

na 

na 

na 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

WB6 

WB6 

WB6 

WB6 

WB6 

10-02-2000 

08-21-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

52.44 

29.67 

59.13 

57.82 

57.75 

61.98 

44.91 

60.70 

59.75 

61.04 

9.54 

15.24 

1.57 

1.93 

3.29 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

FLWD 

Hayward 

GMW-17d 

GTW-1 

GTW-3 

FL4 

MW-7d 

na 

na 

na 

1 

na 

19 

19 

19 

20 

20 

WB6 

WB6 

WB6 

CU6 

CU6 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

10-16-2000 

11-01-2000 

71.84 

64.76 

65.18 

32.35 

60.76 

62.11 

61.32 

60.92 

53.10 

61.58 

-9.73 

-3.44 

-4.26 

20.75 

0.82 

Hayward 

Hayward 

FLWD 

FLWD 

Hayward 

MW-8d 

MW-10d 

FL23 

FL29 

MW-5d2 

na 

na 

6 

5 

na 

20 

20 

21 

21 

21 

CU6 

CU6 

WB7 

WB7 

WB7 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

10-04-2000 

08-22-2000 

11-01-2000 

58.51 

53.54 

53.41 

24.84 

53.33 

59.11 

58.73 

62.07 

44.86 

59.98 

0.60 

5.19 

8.66 

20.02 

6.65 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 63 

Table 27. Measured and simulated ground-water levels, Fair Lawn, New Jersey.—Continued 

[FLWD, Fair Lawn Water Department; --, no data; na, not applicable; OB, unconsolidated overburden; WB, water-bearing unit; CU, confining unit; Hayward, 

Hayward Industries, Inc. (the owner of the property where the Cole Engineering, Inc., site is located); Sandvik, Sandvik, Inc.; FS, Fisher Scientific Company, 

EFD, Einson Freeman and deTroy] 

Well 

owner 

Well name 

(figs. 3, 

18-20) 

Packedinterval 

number 

Modellayer 

number 

Hydrogeologic 

unit 

Water-level 

measurement date 

Measured 

Water-level altitude 

(feet above NAVD 88) 

Simulated 

Difference 

(simulated minus 

measured) 

Hayward 

Hayward 

FLWD 

FLWD 

Hayward 

MW-11d 

MW-13d 

FL4 

FL27 

GMW-5d3 

na 

na 

4 

1 

na 

21 

21 

22 

22 

22 

WB7 

WB7 

CU7 

CU7 

CU7 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

10-16-2000 

09-11-2000 

11-01-2000 

57.02 

53.78 

32.93 

49.58 

53.34 

60.13 

59.57 

54.60 

56.22 

59.89 

3.11 

5.79 

21.67 

6.64 

6.55 

Hayward 

Hayward 

Hayward 

MW-9d 

GMW-16d2 

MW-19d 

na 

na 

na 

22 

22 

22 

CU7 

CU7 

CU7 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

11-01-2000 

56.83 

46.79 

55.10 

61.12 

59.31 

61.00 

4.29 

12.52 

5.90 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FLWD 

FL27 

FL27 

FL27 

3 

5 

8 

23 

25 

26 

WB8 

WB9 

CU9 

09-14-2000 

09-18-2000 

09-22-2000 

49.55 

47.16 

49.93 

57.53 

57.39 

56.86 

7.98 

10.23 

6.93 

Table 28. Measured and simulated base flow to streams, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[ft

3

/s, cubic feet per second; nm, not measured] 

Base flow Base flow 

Measurement site Stream 

Measured 

streamflow, 

9/7/2000 

(ft

3

/s) 

Industrial discharges, 

9/2000 

(ft3

/s) 

(streamflow 

minus 

industrial 

discharges), 

9/2000 

(ft

3

/s) 

Measured 

streamflow, 

6/20/2001 

(ft

3

/s) 

Industrial discharges, 

6/2001 

(ft

3

/s) 

(streamflow 

minus 

industrial 

discharges), 

6/2001 

(ft

3

/s) 

Mean 

base 

flow 

(ft3

/s) 

Simulated 

base 

flow 

(ft

3

/s) 

Percent 

difference 

between 

measured 

and 

simulated 

base flow 

01389860 Diamond nm 0 nm 2.87 0 2.87 2.87 2.80 2.4 

Brook 

01389865 Henderson 1.61 .257 1.353 .861 .487 .374 .864 .862 .2 

Brook 

01389873 Lyncrest .078 0 .078 .113 0 .113 .0955 .103 7.9 

Brook 

01391109 Jordan .382 0 .382 .717 0 .717 .550 .585 6.4 

Brook 

01391250 Beaver .107 0 .107 .192 0 .192 .150 .148 1.3 

Dam Brook 
64 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Table 29. Measured and simulated water-level rise resulting from increased recharge, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. 

[Hayward, Hayward Industries, Inc., (the owner of the property where the Cole Engineering, Inc., site is located); OB, overburden; 

WB, water-bearing unit; CU, confining unit] 

Rise in water level 

(feet)

Well Well name Model layer Hydrogeologic 

owner (fig. 20) number unit Difference 

Measured Simulated (simulated minus 

measured) 

Hayward MW-1s 1 OB 2.33 2.97 0.64 

Hayward MW-4s 1 OB 4.56 2.98 -1.58 

Hayward MW-6s 1 OB 4.96 2.94 -2.02 

Hayward MW-7s 1 OB 5.70 2.93 -2.77 

Hayward MW-8s 1 OB 7.56 2.98 -4.58 

Hayward MW-9s 1 OB 2.70 2.93 .23 

Hayward MW-13s 1 OB 4.56 2.93 -1.63 

Hayward MW-14s 1 OB 3.09 2.95 - .14 

Hayward MW-15s 1 OB 0.62 2.99 2.37 

Hayward GMW-17s 1 OB 1.53 2.97 1.44 

Hayward GMW-18s 1 OB 1.44 2.97 1.53 

Hayward MW-1d 19 WB6 2.37 2.84 .47 

Hayward GMW-4d 19 WB6 3.27 2.84 - .43 

Hayward GMW-15d 19 WB6 2.69 2.85 .16 

Hayward GMW-17d 19 WB6 2.11 2.82 .71 

Hayward MW-7d 20 CU6 5.59 2.84 -2.75 

Hayward MW-8d 20 CU6 4.90 2.83 -2.07 

Hayward MW-11d 21 WB7 5.45 2.85 -2.60 

Hayward MW-13d 21 WB7 1.89 2.83 .94 

Hayward MW-9d 22 CU7 2.70 2.72 .02 

Hayward GMW-16d2 22 CU7 1.48 2.72 1.24 

Hayward MW-19d 22 CU7 2.53 2.68 .15 

Water-Level Rise During Shutdown of Pumped Wells 

Continuous water-level recorders were used to measure 

rises in water levels in observation wells in response to shutdown of pumps in production wells. Water levels in the recovery-scenario simulation were compared to water levels in the 

2000 scenario simulation to determine the simulated waterlevel rise in Fair Lawn Water Department observation wells 

FL4 and FL29 when the pumps in Fair Lawn Water Department 

wells FL2 and FL7 were turned off and in well FL27 when the 

pump in well FL28 was turned off. Measured and simulated 

water-level rises in these observation wells are listed in table 30. 

Sensitivity Analysis 

The purpose of a sensitivity analysis is to quantify the 

uncertainty in the calibrated model. In the model used in this 

study, uncertainty is created, in part, by estimation of horizontal 

and vertical hydraulic conductivity and recharge rates. A sensitivity analysis was performed by systematically changing the 

values of these parameters within hydrologically reasonable 

ranges. Although the simulation results also may be sensitive to 

boundary conditions, grid discretization, and spatial and temporal variations in parameter values, sensitivity testing of these 

factors is impractical. Results of the sensitivity analysis are 

reported as the effects of changes in parameter values on the 

simulated water levels and base flow to streams. 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 65 

Table 30. Measured and simulated water-level rise in observation wells during shutdown of nearby production wells, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey. 

[--, not applicable] 

Water-level rise in well FL4 Water-level rise in well FL29 Water-level rise in well FL27 

Pumped well Duration of shutdown (feet) (feet) (feet)

of pumped well 

Measured Simulated Measured Simulated Measured Simulated 

FL2 and FL7 12 hours 9.78 4.79 5.15 2.64 -- -­

FL28 20 days -- -- -- -- 4.11 1.18 

The calibrated 2000 model was used for sensitivity analysis. Variation in water levels and base flow to streams as a result 

of variations in hydraulic-conductance properties (horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, vertical leakance, and 

streambed conductance) are shown in figures 21 and 22, respectively. The change in base flow is given as the ratio of base flow 

to tributaries to the Passaic and Saddle Rivers to the total base 

flow to tributaries and rivers. This ratio is an indicator of 

changes in the proportion of recharge to tributary basins that 

eventually discharges to the tributary as opposed to flowing 

under the tributary and discharging to the more distant river. 

Changes in hydraulic properties were applied equally to all 

model cells. Conductivity was varied over a range of five orders 

of magnitude. Variations in hydraulic head and base flow as a 

result of variations in recharge are shown in figure 23. Changes 

in recharge were applied equally to all active cells in layer 1 

(representing the overburden) (or the uppermost active layer at 

cells where layer 1 was dry). Recharge was varied over a range 

of 8 in/yr. The model was most sensitive to changes in transmissivity (layers 2-41, representing the bedrock) and horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity (layer 1, representing the overburden) 

and least sensitive to changes in vertical hydraulic leakance. 

Simulated Water Budgets 

Simulated water budgets for the drainage basins of streams 

in the study area are listed in table 31. These budgets represent 

ground-water conditions in 2000. The budgets were calculated 

with the computer program ZONEBUDGET (Harbaugh, 1990). 

The budgets indicate a great deal of interbasin transfer of 

ground water. For example, in the Henderson Brook drainage 

basin, approximately 136,000 ft3

/d of water flows into the basin 

from neighboring basins, and approximately 175,000 ft3

/d 

flows out of the basin to neighboring basins. To put these 

amounts in perspective, recharge to the basin from precipitation 

is approximately 159,000 ft3

/d. 

Most (66 percent) of the water that enters the unconsolidated overburden (model layer 1) flows downward into the bedrock layers (model layers 2-41). The other 34 percent remains 

in layer 1 and discharges to nearby streams and to recovery 

wells and trenches at Fisher. About 72 percent of the water that 

enters the bedrock layers eventually flows back into layer 1 and 

discharges to streams. The remainder flows to pumped wells. 

Model Limitations 

Ground-water flow in fractured rocks is too complex to be 

simulated succinctly with a digital model. By making certain 

necessary simplifying assumptions, however, a model can be 

constructed that is capable of approximating flow through the 

fractured-rock units. 

An important assumption incorporated into the model is 

that ground-water flow at depths greater than 500 ft is negligible. If this assumption is false, then some of the simulated flowpaths—especially those beginning in deep bedrock 

units—could be shallower than the actual flowpaths, and their 

discharge points could be simulated inaccurately. 

All of the data used to calibrate the model were collected 

in Fair Lawn; therefore, the model cannot be used to obtain 

detailed simulations of ground-water conditions outside Fair 

Lawn. This limitation has no effect on the primary intended 

uses of this model, which are to delineate contributing areas to 

the Westmoreland well field, delineate contaminant plumes 

from Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak, and estimate the effect of 

pumping at the Westmoreland well field and Fisher on flowpaths of contaminated water. 

The model represents a porous medium, and the pores in 

this hydrogeologic setting consist of a network of fractures in 

three orientations that generally are at right angles to and interconnected with each other. Each model cell represents a volume 

of space that contains many fractures. The model calculates the 

flowpath from one cell to the next by simulating the net effect 

of all of the fractures in that interval. Therefore, flowpaths on a 

scale smaller than the cell size cannot be simulated. In the area 

encompassing Fair Lawn Industrial Park and the Westmoreland 

well field, this limitation means that flowpaths within areas 

smaller than a 25-ft-by-25-ft square cannot be simulated. 
66 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey CHANGE IN MEAN SIMULATED WATER LEVEL, IN FEET

-20 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

600 

620 

640 

660 

680 

700 

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 

MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FROM CALIBRATED VALUES 

EXPLANATION 

Aquifer horizontal hydraulic conductivity, model layer 1 (overburden)


Aquifer transmissivity, model layers 2 - 41 (bedrock)


Aquifer vertical leakance, model layer 1 (overburden)


Aquifer vertical leakance, model layers 2 - 41 (bedrock)


Streambed conductance


Figure 21. Sensitivity of simulated water levels to variations in the values of hydrologic parameters, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey, and vicinity. 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 67 

MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FROM CALIBRATED VALUES 

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

0.6 

0.7 

RATIO OF SIMULATED BASE FLOW 

TO TRIBUTARIES 

T

O

SIMULATED COMBINED BASE FLOW 

TO TRIBUTARIES AND RIVERS 

EXPLANATION 

Aquifer horizontal conductivity, model layer 1 (overburden) 

Aquifer transmissivity, model layers 2 - 41 (bedrock) 

Aquifer vertical leakance, model layer 1 (overburden) 

Aquifer vertical leakance, model layers 2 - 41 (bedrock) 

Streambed conductance 

Figure 22. Sensitivity of simulated stream base flow to variations in the values of hydrologic parameters, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey, and vicinity. 
68 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

-8 

-6 

-4 

-2 

0 

2 

4 

6 

CHANGE IN MEAN SIMUL.ATED

WATER LEVEL, IN FEET 

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 


CHANGE IN RECHARGE RATE FROM CALIBRATED VALUE, IN INCHES PER YEAR


0.39 

0.40 

0.41 

0.42 

0.43 

0.44 

0.45 

0.46

RATIO OF SIMULATED BASE FLOW

TO TRIBUTARIES 

TO SIMULATED

COMBINED BASE FLOW 

T

O

TRIBUTARIES AND RIVERS 

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 


CHANGE IN RECHARGE RATE FROM CALIBRATED VALUE, IN INCHES PER YEAR


Figure 23. Sensitivity of simulated water levels and stream base flow to variations in the areal recharge rate, Fair 

Lawn, New Jersey, and vicinity. 

6 

6 
Table 31. Simulated water budgets in surface-water drainage basins in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 2000. [na, not applicable; all values represent flow, in cubic feet per day] 

Water entering ground-water system as: 

Beaver 

Dam 

Brook 

Diamond 

Brook 

Fleischer 

Brook 

Henderson 

Brook 

Hohokus 

Brook1 

Jordan 

Brook 

Lyncrest 

Brook 

Passa

Rive

Recharge 94,579 407,420 178,390 159,050 336,150 136,010 55,937 579,90Inflow from streams 3,709 6,302 0 2,839 0 651 1,777 3,45Inflow from flux boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135,68Inflow from Beaver Dam Brook Basin na 0 39 0 0 9,078 2,786 Inflow from Diamond Brook Basin 0 na 0 83,679 36,543 0 0 62,92Inflow from Fleisher Brook Basin 1,959 0 na 0 0 0 12,182 49,72Inflow from Henderson Brook Basin 0 69,695 0 na 4,170 33,805 0 66,94Inflow from Hohokus Brook Basin 0 35,607 0 10,889 na 5,521 0 Inflow from Jordan Brook Basin 13,608 0 0 17,705 1,454 na 2,108 45,39Inflow from Lyncrest Brook Basin 1,980 0 6,968 0 0 45 na 56,79Inflow from Passaic River Basin 0 15,881 2,629 23,464 0 503 41,159 na Inflow from Pehle Brook Basin 0 0 15,831 0 0 0 0 Inflow from Saddle River Basin 10,521 0 0 0 62,456 4,062 0 Total entering ground-water system in drainage 126,356 534,905 203,857 297,627 440,773 189,675 115,949 1,000,8basin Water leaving ground-water system as: Base flow to streams 16,489 248,090 127,280 77,283 232,480 51,169 10,656 715,09Flow to pumped wells 35,159 104,630 0 47,824 107,260 21,392 39,519 202,33Outflow to Beaver Dam Brook Basin na 0 1,959 0 0 13,608 1,980 Outflow to Diamond Brook Basin 0 na 0 69,695 35,607 0 0 15,88Outflow to Fleisher Brook Basin 39 0 na 0 0 0 6,968 2,62Outflow to Henderson Brook Basin 0 83,679 0 na 10,889 17,705 0 23,46Outflow to Hohokus Brook Basin 0 36,543 0 4,170 na 1,454 0 Outflow to Jordan Brook Basin 9,078 0 0 33,805 5,521 na 45 50Outflow to Lyncrest Brook Basin 2,786 0 12,182 0 0 2,108 na 41,15Outflow to Passaic River Basin 0 62,925 49,729 66,947 0 45,399 56,797 na Outflow to Pehle Brook Basin 0 0 12,463 0 0 0 0 Outflow to Saddle River Basin 62,825 0 245 0 49,203 37,053 0 Total leaving ground-water system in drainage 126,376 535,867 203,858 299,724 440,960 189,888 115,965 1,001,0basin 

9Part of the drainage basin of this stream is outside the active model area. 
70 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Only advective movement of contaminants can be simulated with the model. Non-advective processes (density-driven 

movement, dispersion, diffusion, dilution, and biological and 

chemical degradation of contaminants) cannot be simulated 

with the model. The effects of density-driven movement, dispersion, diffusion, and dilution widen contaminant flowpaths, 

whereas the effects of degradation shorten and narrow flowpaths. In the bedrock of the Newark Basin, however, advection 

is by far the primary mechanism of contaminant movement. The 

low porosity of the Passaic Formation (0.0014 or less as determined by Carleton and others (1999)) results in high groundwater velocities. Where ground-water velocities are high, the 

effects of the much slower non-advective processes of contaminant transport are diminished. Non-advective processes probably are more important in the unconsolidated overburden, however. 

Simulated Ground-Water Flowpaths 

Ground-water flowpaths were computed on the basis of 

the digital model described in this report using the post-processor MODPATH (Pollock, 1994). Flowpaths were computed for 

the 1991, 2000, and high-recharge scenarios. The 1991 and 

2000 scenarios are different in two important ways: (1) at 

Fisher, seven shallow (less than 19 ft deep) recovery wells and 

two interceptor trenches, with a total pumpage of 5.5 Mgal in 

2000, were installed in the overburden during the intervening 

period; and (2) pumpage from the Westmoreland well field 

decreased from 130 Mgal in 1991 to 49 Mgal in 2000. 

Simulated Contributing Areas 

The contributing area to a pumped well is defined as the 

surface area on the three-dimensional boundary of the groundwater system where the water that eventually discharges at the 

well enters the ground-water system (modified from Reilly and 

Pollock, 1993). Because only advective flow is simulated with 

the model, the effects of density, dispersion, diffusion, dilution, 

and degradation of contaminants are not accounted for in the 

simulated contributing areas. The contributing areas to wells in 

the model area include some of the contaminated sites in and 

near Fair Lawn that have been identified by the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection (2001). All of the contaminated sites identified by the NJDEP are listed in table 32 

and shown in figure 24 and in subsequent figures depicting contributing areas. 

1991 Scenario 

The simulated contributing areas to Fair Lawn Water 

Department well fields (Cadmus, Dorothy Street, Memorial, 

and Westmoreland) in 1991 are shown in figure 25; the contributing area to the Westmoreland well field is shown in more 

detail in figure 26. In 1991, when 130 Mgal of water was 

pumped from the Westmoreland well field, the contributing 

area to that well field encompassed about one-fourth of Fair 

Lawn Industrial Park and included nearly all of the Fisher property, a small part (less than 1 percent) of the Sandvik property, 

and about three-fourths of the Kodak property (fig. 26). The 

contributing area extended about 2.5 mi north of Fair Lawn. 

This area includes or is less than 200 ft from two other known 

contaminated sites (an Exxon service station and a Hess service 

station (table 32)). The ground-water contaminants at the service stations, however, probably are gasoline byproducts unrelated to the contamination at the Westmoreland well field. Consequently, the contributing-area analysis indicates that Fisher, 

Sandvik, and Kodak all are potential sources of the VOCs at the 

Westmoreland well field and that no other potential sources are 

known. 

In 1991, the contributing area to the Memorial wells was 

northeast of the wells and south and east of the Fisher, Sandvik, 

and Kodak properties. It did not include any known contaminated sites but was less than 500 ft from three sites: the site 

known as 12-59 12th Street, Topps Cleaners and Launderers, 

and an Exxon service station (table 32). 

In 1991, the contributing area to the Cadmus wells encompassed an area generally northeast of the wells and included five 

known contaminated sites: the site known as 12-59 12th Street, 

Topps Cleaners and Launderers, an Exxon service station, Borden Chemical Printing Ink Division, and Cole Engineering, Inc. 

(table 32). Another Exxon service station was less than 500 ft 

from this contributing area. 

In 1991, the contributing area to the Dorothy Street wells 

included two known contaminated sites and was less than 

500 ft from another site; however, no contamination has been 

detected in water samples from the Dorothy Street wells. 

2000 Scenario 

The simulated contributing areas to Fair Lawn Water 

Department well fields in 2000 are shown in figure 27; the contributing area to the Westmoreland well field is shown in more 

detail in figure 28. In 2000, the contributing area to the Westmoreland well field was much smaller than in 1991 because 

pumpage from the Westmoreland well field had decreased from 

about 130 Mgal in 1991 to about 49 Mgal in 2000. The configuration of the contributing area to the Westmoreland well field 

also changed substantially from 1991 to 2000, primarily as a 

result of the installation of the shallow recovery system at 

Fisher (seven shallow wells and two trenches with a total pumpage of 2,025 ft3

/d). In contrast to the 1991 contributing area, the 

2000 contributing area included only a small part of the Fisher 

property. 

In 2000, the contributing area to the Westmoreland well 

field also included a small part of the Kodak property but none 

of the Sandvik property. The area remained less than 200 ft 

from a Hess service station (table 32) and still extended about 

2 mi north of Fair Lawn. The contributing-area analysis indicates that Fisher and Kodak both are potential sources of the 

VOC contamination in the Westmoreland well field and that no 

other potential sources are known. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 71 

Table 32. Known contaminated sites, Fair Lawn and Glen Rock, New Jersey. 

[Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001] 

Map number in 

figure 24 Name Address Municipality 

1-33 36th Street 1-33 36th Street Fair Lawn Borough 

1-38 Cyril Avenue 1-38 Cyril Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

12-59 12th Street 12-59 12th Street Fair Lawn Borough 

14-23 Third Street 14-23 Third Street Fair Lawn Borough 

17-17 to 17-71 River Road 17-17 to 17-71 River Road Fair Lawn Borough 

27-11 Kipp Street 27-11 Kipp Street Fair Lawn Borough 

30-13 High Street 30-13 High Street Fair Lawn Borough 

Amtech, Incorporated 20-21 Wargaraw Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Auto Sumser, Incorporated 7-06 Saddle River Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Berdan Holding Company 11-12 River Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Biocraft Labs, Incorporated 18-01 River Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Borden Chemical Printing Ink Division 8-10 22nd Street Fair Lawn Borough 

Citgo Station Fair Lawn 12-32 Maple Drive Fair Lawn Borough 

Cole Engineering, Incorporated 13-00 Plaza Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Eastman Kodak Company 16-31 Route 208 Fair Lawn Borough 

Einson Freeman & deTroy Corporation 20-10 Maple Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

Engine Reguilders 18-02 River Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Exxon Service Station Fair Lawn Borough Plaza Road & Morlot Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

Exxon Service Station Fair Lawn Borough 20-22 Plaza Road & Fairlawn Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

Fair Lawn Borough Board of Education 5-01 Bergen Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

Fair Lawn Self Storage 16-01 McBride Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

Fisher Scientific Company 1 Reagent Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

Getty Service Station Fair Lawn Borough 22-02 Broadway Fair Lawn Borough 

Kem Manufacturing Company, Inc. 18-35 River Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Parkway Friendly Service, Incorporated 30-09 Broadway Fair Lawn Borough 

Sandoz Chemical Corporation Fair Lawn Avenue & 3rd Street Fair Lawn Borough 

Sandvik, Incorporated 17-02 Nevins Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Sealed Air Corporation 19-01 Route 208 Fair Lawn Borough 

State Tire Automotive Discount Center 15-10 River Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Steam Leasing Associates 20-21 Wargaraw Road Fair Lawn Borough 

Topps Cleaners & Launderers 22-02 Fairlawn Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

TSS Realty, Inc. 24-28 Maple Avenue Fair Lawn Borough 

Zero Twenty Four Service Station 40-10 Route 4 East Fair Lawn Borough 

64 Highland Road 64 Highland Road Glen Rock Borough 

Exxon Service Station Glen Rock Borough 650 Maple Avenue Glen Rock Borough 

FSI Company 175 Rock Road Glen Rock Borough 

Glen Rock Borough Department of Public Works 473 Doremus Avenue Glen Rock Borough 

Glen Rock Park Allen Street Glen Rock Borough 

Hess Service Station Glen Rock Borough 390 Maple Avenue Glen Rock Borough 

Manhattan Industries 25 deBoer Drive Glen Rock Borough 

Ridgewood Police Firing Range 561 Prospect Street Glen Rock Borough 

Saddle River County Park Prospect Avenue Glen Rock Borough 

Texaco Service Station Glen Rock Borough 531 Prospect Street Glen Rock Borough 
 ROW 308 

MODEL

MODEL

 COLUMN 1 

MODEL ROW 18 

MODEL COLUMN 243 

72 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

39 

37 43 

41 36


35
 34 42 

38 

Glen Rock 

40


32
 27


13
 22 

21


28


16 

30 15 8 7


24


11 31
 19 

17 5 

20 14 

29 9 

26 6 

3 

4 

12 

10 18 

Fair Lawn 1 33 

25 

23 

2 

0 2,000 4,000 FEET EXPLANATION 

INDUSTRIAL PARK PRODUCTION WELL-­ 0 400 800 1,200 METERS 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY Cadmus well field 

MODEL GRID LINE Dorothy Street well field 

Memorial well field ROAD 

Westmoreland well field 

RAILROAD 

20 KNOWN CONTAMINATED SITE AND 

NUMBER 

Figure 24. Location of known contaminated sites, Fair Lawn and Glen Rock, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16; 

contaminated sites from N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 2001) 
Saddle 

River 

Passaic 

River 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 73 

MODEL ROW 3 

Ridgewood 

39 

43 

EXPLANATION 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

CONTRIBUTING AREA TO: 

Cadmus wells 

Dorothy Street wells 

Memorial wells 

Westmoreland wells 

MODEL COLUMN 240

41 37 42 35 

34 36 38 

Glen Rock


Fisher Scientific deep wells 

Other wells 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

MODEL GRID LINE 

PRODUCTION WELL IN: 

MODEL COLUMN 3

40 Cadmus well field 

32 27 22 

13 21 Fair Lawn Dorothy Street well field 

28 7 Memorial well field 

16 15 Westmoreland well field 

30 8 31 19 9 

24 

31 Known contaminated site 

and number 

11 14 6 17 5 29 20 

26 3 12 

4 18

10 33 1 

25 

23 

2 

Elmwood Park 

MODEL ROW 320 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 MILE 

0 0.5 1 1.5 KILOMETERS 

Paterson


Figure 25. Simulated contributing areas to wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, for 1991 conditions. (Model grid shown in 

figure 16; contaminated sites from N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 2001) 
74 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

21 

32 

37 

43 

35 

39 

31 19

28 

15 

22 27 

42 

36 34

41 

Ridgewood 

Glen Rock 

Fair Lawn 

MODEL ROW 244 

MODEL ROW 16 

MODEL COLUMN 19

MODEL COLUMN 195 

EXPLANATION 

Known contaminated site 

and number 

Production well in 

Westmoreland well field 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

CONTRIBUTING AREA TO: 

Cadmus wells 

Dorothy Street wells 

Memorial wells 

Fisher Scientific deep wells 

Other wells 

35 

MODEL GRID LINE 

Westmoreland wells 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 FEET 

0 200 400 600 METERS 

Figure 26. Simulated contributing areas to production wells in the Westmoreland well field and other wells in and near Fair 

Lawn, New Jersey, for 1991 conditions. (Model grid shown in figure 16; contaminated sites from N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 2001) 
Saddle 

River 

Passaic 

River 

MODEL ROW 326 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 75 

MODEL ROW 4 

EXPLANATION 

Ridgewood Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

39	 Sandvik, Inc. 

CONTRIBUTING AREA TO: 43 

37 41 Cadmus wells 

36 35 34 42 38	 Dorothy Street wells 

Memorial wells 

Glen Rock	 Westmoreland wells 

Fisher Scientific deep wells 

Fisher Scientific shallow wells 40 and trenches


32 27 22 Other wells


13 21 Fair Lawn
 28 7 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY


16 MODEL GRID LINE
 MODEL COLUMN 246 

PRODUCTION WELL IN--

Cadmus well field 

Dorothy Street well field 

Memorial well field 

15 30 8	 31 19 

24 9

11 5 14 17 20	 29

MODEL COLUMN 3

6 

26 3 12 18 4 

10 1 33 

Westmoreland well field 

25 

31	 Known contaminated site 

and number 23 2 

Elmwood Park 

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 MILE 

0 0.5 1 1.5 KILOMETERS 

Paterson


Figure 27. Simulated contributing areas to wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, for 2000 conditions. (Model grid shown in 

figure 16; contaminated sites from N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 2001) 
76 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

21 

32 

37 

43 

35 

39 

31 19

28 

15 

27 22

42 

34 

36 

41 

Ridgewood 

Glen Rock 

Fair Lawn 

MODEL ROW 244 

MODEL ROW 16 

MODEL COLUMN 19 

MODEL COLUMN 195 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 FEET 

0 200 400 600 METERS 

Known contaminated site 

and number 

Production well in 

Westmoreland well field 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

35 

MODEL GRID LINE 

EXPLANATION 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

CONTRIBUTING AREA TO: 

Cadmus wells 

Dorothy Street wells 

Memorial wells 

Westmoreland wells 

Fisher Scientific deep wells 

Other wells 

Fisher Scientific shallow wells 

and trenches 

Figure 28. Simulated contributing areas to production wells in the Westmoreland well field and other wells in and near Fair Lawn, New 


Jersey, for 2000 conditions. (Model grid shown in figure 16; contaminated sites from N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 2001)

In 2000, the contributing area to the Memorial well field 

was nearly identical to the area in 1991, probably because 

pumpage had changed only minimally (from about 351 Mgal in 

1991 to 332 Mgal in 2000). 

The contributing area to the Cadmus wells was larger in 

2000 than in 1991 and added an area of about 0.3 mi2

 around 

well FL8. This additional area reflects the increase in pumpage 

from 17 Mgal in 1991 to 108 Mgal in 2000. The 2000 contributing area to all of the Cadmus wells included or was less than 

300 ft from eight known contaminated sites (1-38 Cyril Avenue; 12-59 12th Street; Borden Chemical Printing Ink Division; 

Cole Engineering, Inc.; two Exxon service stations; a Getty service station; and Topps Cleaners and Launderers (table 32)). 

The configuration of the contributing area to the Dorothy 

Street wells changed substantially from 1991 to 2000 because 

of changes in the distribution in pumpage among the three 

wells. The 2000 contributing area includes two known contaminated sites, 20-11 Kipp Street and an Exxon service station 

(table 32). 

High-Recharge Scenario 

In the high-recharge scenario, the simulated contributing 

area to each well field is smaller than the contributing area in the 

2000 scenario because the higher recharge rates enable wells to 

draw the same amount of water from smaller areas. The 

contributing areas to Fair Lawn Water Department well fields 

in the high-recharge scenario are shown in figure 29; the 

contributing area to the Westmoreland well field is shown in 

more detail in figure 30. The contributing area to the 

Westmoreland well field is small; none of the Fisher or Sandvik 

property and only a small part of the Kodak property is included 

in the contributing area (fig. 30). The contributing areas to other 

well fields all are similar to but smaller than the contributing 

areas in the 2000 scenario. 

Simulated Contaminant Plumes 

A simulated contaminant plume is defined as the threedimensional area containing flowpaths from a contaminated 

source area to their point of discharge at a stream or a pumped 

well. As previously noted, because only advective flow is simulated with the model, the effects of density, dispersion, diffusion, dilution, and degradation of contaminants are not 

accounted for in the plumes. Plumes were tracked from the 

three industrial sites (Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak). 

The starting area of each plume was determined from 

water-quality data from the three sites. Paths were started in all 

model cells that represent areas known to be contaminated at 

each site. One starting particle was placed at the center of each 

model cell in the starting area. Although ground water in the 

starting area of each plume is known to contain VOCs, it is not 

known whether VOCs are present along the entire path of the 

plumes, except at points where the plumes pass through wells 

known to be contaminated with VOCs. 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 77 

Monitor wells are located over nearly all of the Fisher 

property except the southeastern part, and water samples from 

all of them have contained VOCs at concentrations in excess of 

drinking-water standards at some time in the past 2 decades 

(Jacqueline Bobko, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2004). The wells are 16 to 125 ft deep. 

Some are screened in the overburden (model layer 1); others are 

screened in or open to the bedrock (model layers 15, 16, 17, and 

18). The starting points of the contaminant plume from Fisher 

encompass nearly all of the company’s property in the overburden and the upper part of the bedrock (model layers 1, 15, 16, 

17, and 18). 

Far fewer monitor wells are located at the Sandvik property than at the Fisher property. Eleven monitor wells encompass about the southeastern two-thirds of the property, and 

water samples from all of them have contained VOCs at concentrations higher than drinking-water standards at some time 

in the past 2 decades (James DeNoble, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2004). These wells are 

from 40 to 104 ft deep and are screened in or open to bedrock 

layers 14 through 17. No monitor wells are present in the overburden at Sandvik; however, soil samples from the site were 

found to contain VOCs (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1994). The starting points of the contaminant plume from Sandvik encompass 

the southeastern two-thirds of the company’s property in model 

layers 1, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 

Eleven monitor wells are distributed over the Kodak property. All 11 are described as being open to shallow bedrock 

(Quest Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc., 2002). 

Water samples were collected from nine of the wells in 1997, 

and samples from eight of them contained VOCs at concentrations in excess of drinking-water standards (Jamie MacBlane, 

N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2004). The starting points of the contaminant plume from 

Kodak encompass the half of the property known to contain 

contaminated ground water in the shallow bedrock (model layers 14, 15, 16, and 17). Although VOCs have been detected in 

the soil at Kodak, no particles were started in the overburden 

(model layer 1) because simulation results indicate that the 

overburden at Kodak is unsaturated. 

Map and section views of the plumes from the three industrial sites were generated for the 1991 and 2000 scenarios and 

are presented below. The map views show actual computed 

pathlines of water, but the section views are generalized, showing a two-dimensional representation of the area containing the 

same pathlines along a representative plane through the plume. 

The volumes of water originating at or passing through 

each of the three industrial sites and discharging to each discharge point (stream or well) also are presented below. These 

volumes were computed using two USGS computer programs. 

The discharge point of water starting in each model cell representing a contaminated point at each site was determined using 

MODPATH (Pollock, 1994). After the starting model cells 

were grouped by discharge point, ZONEBUDGET (Harbaugh, 

1990) was used to compute and compile the volume of water 

leaving each group of model cells. 
Passaic 

R

vi er 

Saddle 

River 

MODEL ROW 326 

78 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

MODEL ROW 4


Ridgewood 

EXPLANATION 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company


39


Sandvik, Inc. 

43


37	 CONTRIBUTING AREA TO: 41


Cadmus wells
 36
 35 34 42
 38


Dorothy Street wells 

Glen Rock	 Memorial wells 

Westmoreland wells 

Fisher Scientific deep wells 

Fisher Scientific shallow wells 40


and trenches 

32 27 22


21 Other wells
 Other wells 13


28	 Fair Lawn 7	 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

16	 15


MODEL COLUMN 246

MODEL GRID LINE 

PRODUCTION WELL IN--

Cadmus well field 

Dorothy Street well field 

Memorial well field 

30
 8	 31 19
 24 9


11 6
 14


MODEL COLUMN 3

17 5


20 29


3
 26
 12


18
 4


10	 1 33


Westmoreland well field 

25


31 Known contaminated site 

23


and number 2


Elmwood Park 

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 MILE 

0 0.5 1 1.5 KILOMETERS 

Paterson


Figure 29. Simulated contributing areas to wells in and near Fair Lawn, New Jersey, for the high-recharge scenario for 2000 conditions. 

(Model grid shown in figure 16; contaminated sites from N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 2001) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 79 

21 

32 

37 

43 

35 

39 

19 

31 

28 

15 

22 

27 

42 

34 

36 

41 

MODEL ROW 244 

MODEL ROW 16 

MODEL COLUMN 19

MODEL COLUMN 195 

EXPLANATION 

Known contaminated site 

and number 

Production well in 

Westmoreland well field 

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

CONTRIBUTING AREA TO: 

Cadmus wells 

Dorothy Street wells 

Memorial wells 

Westmoreland wells 

Fisher Scientific deep wells 

Other wells 

35 

Fisher Scientific shallow wells 

Ridgewood 

Glen Rock 

Fair Lawn 

MODEL GRID LINE 

and trenches 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 FEET 

0 200 400 600 METERS 

Figure 30. Simulated contributing areas to production wells in the Westmoreland well field and other wells in and near Fair Lawn, New 

Jersey, for the high-recharge scenario for 2000 conditions. (Model grid shown in figure 16; contaminated sites from N.J. Department of 

Environmental Protection, 2001) 
80 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

1991 Scenario 

The simulated plumes from the three industrial sites in the 

1991 scenario are described below. These plumes represent 

conditions during a year when 130 Mgal of water was pumped 

from the Westmoreland well field and the shallow recovery system at Fisher was not yet operating. 

Fisher Scientific Company 

The simulated plume from the overburden at Fisher in 

1991 is shown in figures 31 and 32; the plume from the bedrock 

is shown in figures 33 and 34. The plume extends from Fisher 

generally southwest to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson 

Brook, and the Passaic River. Part of the plume passes through 

the southeastern part of the Sandvik property and the northwestern corner of the Kodak property (figs. 31 and 33). Part of the 

plume originating in the overburden flows through bedrock 

water-bearing units 2, 3, and 4 and reaches a maximum depth of 

about 200 ft below land surface (fig. 32). The plume from the 

bedrock flows through bedrock water-bearing units 1 through 5 

and reaches a maximum depth of about 260 ft below land 

surface (fig. 34). 

In the 1991 scenario, Westmoreland well FL14 captured 

94 percent of the water from the overburden and 31 percent of 

the water from the bedrock at Fisher. Well FL11, also in the 

Westmoreland well field, captured 16 percent of the water from 

the bedrock. Water originating at or passing through the Fisher 

overburden contributed 11 percent of the water pumped by well 

FL14, whereas water from the bedrock contributed 20 percent 

of the water pumped by well FL14 and 14 percent of the water 

pumped by well FL11 (table 33). The plume from the bedrock 

at Fisher does not reach well FL10, but it does pass within 

150 ft of it. Because the plume does not include the effects of 

diffusion or dispersion, the possibility that some of the water 

from the Fisher property discharged to well FL10 in 1991 cannot be ruled out. 

In 1991, the deep recovery wells at Fisher (PW2, PW4, and 

PW5) captured 3 percent of the water originating in or passing 

through the overburden and 49 percent of the water from the 

bedrock at Fisher (table 33). In 1991, 3 percent of the water 

from the overburden and 4 percent of the water from the bedrock at Fisher was not captured by any well; rather, it discharged to Henderson Brook (table 33). 

Sandvik, Inc. 

The simulated plume from the overburden at Sandvik in 

1991 is shown in figures 35 and 36; the plume from the bedrock 

is shown in figures 37 and 38. The plume extends generally 

southwest to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, 

and the Passaic River (figs. 35 and 37). Part of the plume originating in the overburden flows into bedrock water-bearing units 

2, 3, and 4 and reaches a maximum depth of about 110 ft below 

land surface (fig. 36). The plume from the bedrock flows 

through bedrock water-bearing units 1 through 5 and reaches a 

maximum depth of about 200 ft below land surface (fig. 38). 

In the 1991 scenario, Westmoreland well FL14 captured 

3 percent of the water from the overburden and 24 percent of the 

water from the bedrock at Sandvik. Westmoreland well FL10 

captured 27 percent of the water from the bedrock and well 

FL11 captured 42 percent. Water originating at or passing 

through the Sandvik overburden contributed less than 1 percent 

of the water pumped by wells in the Westmoreland well field. 

Water from the Sandvik bedrock contributed 24 percent of the 

water pumped by well FL10, 38 percent of the water pumped by 

well FL11, and 16 percent of the water pumped by well FL14 

(table 33). 

In the 1991 scenario, 97 percent of the water from the overburden and 7 percent of the water from the bedrock at Sandvik 

was not captured by any well; rather, the water discharged to 

Henderson Brook (table 33). 

Eastman Kodak Company 

The simulated plume from the bedrock at Kodak in 1991 is 

shown in map view in figure 39 and in section view in figure 40. 

(A plume from the overburden was not simulated because the 

model simulations indicate that the overburden at Kodak is 

unsaturated.) The plume extends from Kodak generally southwest to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, and the 

Passaic River (fig. 39). The plume flows through bedrock 

water-bearing units 1 through 5 and reaches a maximum depth 

of about 260 ft below land surface (fig. 40). 

In the 1991 scenario, well FL14 in the Westmoreland well 

field captured 73 percent of the water from the bedrock at 

Kodak. None of the water from Kodak was captured by well 

FL10 or FL11 in the same well field. Water from the bedrock at 

Kodak contributed 49 percent of the water pumped from well 

FL14 (table 33). Under 1991 conditions, 26 percent of the water 

from Kodak was not captured by any well; rather, the water discharged to the Passaic River (table 33). 

2000 Scenario 

The simulated plumes from the three industrial sites in the 

2000 scenario are described below. These plumes represent 

conditions during a year when 49 Mgal of water was pumped 

from the Westmoreland well field and the shallow recovery system at Fisher was operating. 

Fisher Scientific Company 

The simulated plume from the overburden at Fisher in 

2000 is shown in figures 41 and 42; the plume from the bedrock 

is shown figures 43 and 44. The plume extends from Fisher generally southwest to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson 

Brook, and the Passaic River. Part of the plume from Fisher 

passes through the southeastern part of the Sandvik property 

and the northwestern corner of the Kodak property (figs. 41 and 

43). Part of the plume originating in the overburden flows in 
bedrock water-bearing units 1 through 4 and reaches a maximum depth of about 130 ft below land surface (fig. 42). The 

plume from the bedrock flows through bedrock water-bearing 

units 1 through 5 and reaches a maximum depth of about 260 ft 

below land surface (fig. 44). 

In the 2000 scenario, Westmoreland well FL14 captured 

6 percent of the water from the overburden and 34 percent of the 

water from the bedrock at Fisher (table 34). Although the plume 

from the bedrock at Fisher does not reach Westmoreland well 

FL10, it does pass within 300 ft of it. Because the plume does 

not include the effects of diffusion or dispersion, the possibility 

that well FL10 captured some of the water from the bedrock at 

Fisher in 2000 cannot be ruled out. Westmoreland well FL11 

was not pumped in 2000. Water originating at or passing 

through the Fisher overburden contributed only 1 percent of the 

water pumped from well FL14, whereas water originating in or 

passing through the Fisher bedrock contributed 45 percent of 

the water pumped from well FL14 (table 34). 

In 2000, the shallow recovery system at Fisher, consisting 

of seven wells and two trenches, captured 55 percent of the 

water originating in or passing through the overburden at 

Fisher. This system had begun operating in 1998. The deep 

recovery wells at Fisher (PW2, PW4, and PW5) captured 4 percent of the water from the overburden and 58 percent of the 

water from the bedrock at Fisher (table 34). 

In 2000, 35 percent of the water from the overburden and 

9 percent of the water from the bedrock at Fisher was not captured by any well; rather, it discharged to Henderson Brook and 

the Passaic River (table 34). 

Sandvik, Inc. 

The simulated plume from the overburden at Sandvik in 

2000 is shown in figures 45 and 46; the plume from the bedrock 

is shown in figures 47 and 48. The plume from the overburden 

is nearly entirely contained on the Sandvik property (fig. 45); 

the plume from the bedrock extends from Sandvik generally 

southwest to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, 

and the Passaic River (fig. 47). Part of the plume from the overburden flows downward into bedrock water-bearing units 2, 3, 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 81 

and 4 and reaches a maximum depth of about 100 ft below land 

surface before flowing back up into the overburden and into 

Henderson Brook (fig. 46). The plume originating in the bedrock flows through bedrock water-bearing units 1 through 5 and 

reaches a maximum depth of about 260 ft below land surface 

(fig. 48). 

In 2000, none of the water originating in or passing 

through the overburden at Sandvik was captured by any well; all 

of the water discharged to Henderson Brook, and most of that 

water discharged in the reach of the brook on the Sandvik property (fig. 45). Of the water originating in or passing through the 

bedrock at Sandvik, 54 percent discharged to Henderson Brook 

and 20 percent discharged to the Passaic River (table 34). 

In 2000, Westmoreland well FL10 captured 3 percent of 

the water from the bedrock at Sandvik; well FL14 captured 

20 percent. (Westmoreland well FL11 was not pumped in 

2000.) Water originating at or passing through the Sandvik bedrock contributed 15 percent of the water pumped from wells in 

the Westmoreland well field (table 34). 

Eastman Kodak Company 

The simulated plume from the bedrock at Kodak in 2000 is 

shown in map view in figure 49 and in section view in figure 50. 

(A plume from the overburden was not simulated because the 

model simulations indicate that the overburden at Kodak is 

unsaturated.) The plume extends from Kodak generally to the 

southwest to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, 

and the Passaic River (fig. 49). The plume flows through bedrock water-bearing units 1 through 5 and reaches a maximum 

depth of about 260 ft below land surface (fig. 50). 

In 2000, Westmoreland well FL14 captured 9 percent of 

the water from the bedrock at Kodak. None of the water from 

Kodak was captured by Westmoreland well FL10; Westmoreland well FL11 was not pumped in 2000. Water from the bedrock at Kodak contributed 12 percent of the water pumped from 

well FL14 (table 34). In 2000, 91 percent of the water from 

Kodak was not captured by any well; rather, the water discharged to the Passaic River and Henderson Brook (table 34). 
82 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

FL11 

FL14 

FL10 

PW-5 

PW-4 

PW-2 

Fair Lawn 

J 

N 

Henderson

Brook 

MODEL ROW 1 1 8 

MODEL ROW 220 

MODEL COLUMN 27 

MODEL COLUMN 144 

0 200 400 600 800 FEET 

0 50 100 150 200 METERS 

J N 

FL10


PW-4


EXPLANATION 

Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

Simulated flowpath 

Model grid line 

Line of section 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

well field and well number 

Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 31. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Fisher Scientific Company for 1991 

conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 83 

Figure 32. Generalized view along section J-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Fisher Scientific Company for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 31) 
MODEL ROW 127 

MODEL COLUMN 14 

MODEL COLUMN 143 

n o s r e d n e H 

ko o r B 

P assaic River 

MODEL ROW 260 

84 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

N


PW-2 

PW-5 

PW-4 

FL10 

FL11 

Fair Lawn 

FL14 

H


0 200 400 600 800 FEET 

0 50 100 150 200 METERS 

EXPLANATION 

Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

Simulated flowpath 

Model grid line 

H
 N
 Line of section 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

FL10 well field and well number 

PW-4 Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 33. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Fisher Scientific Company for 1991 

conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 85 

Figure 34. Generalized view along section H-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock 

at Fisher Scientific Company for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 33) 
Table 33. Simulated flux of ground water originating at or passing through Fisher Scientific Company, Sandvik, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company an

streams, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1991. 

[All fluxes shown in cubic feet per day; na, not applicable] 

Ground water originating at or passing through 

Fisher Scientific Company site Ground water originating at or passing through Sandvik, Inc., site 

G

E

From overburden From bedrock From overburden From bedrock 

Discharge point 

Total flux 

pumped 

from well 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Henderson Brook Passaic River Well FL10 Well FL11 Well FL14 

na na 

14,299 14,299 19,066 

75 

0 0 0 

2,034 

3 0 0 0 

94 

na na 

0 0 

11 

485 

59 

0 

1,962 3,779 

4 0 0 

16 31 

na na 

0 

14 20 

1,308 

0 0 0 

46 

97 

0 0 0 3 

na na 

0 0 0 

963 

3 

3,456 5,407 3,062 

7 0 

27 42 24 

na na 

24 38 16 

39

Shallow recovery wells and trenches, Fisher Scientific Company 

Not pumped in 1991 

Well PW2 Well PW4 Well PW5 

2,694 5,652 4,549 

0 0 

61 

0 0 3 

0 0 1 

223 

1,973 3,867 

2 

16 31 

8 

35 85 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 87 

FL11 

FL14 

FL10 

PW-5 

PW-4 

PW-2 

Fair Lawn 

J 

M 

Henderson

Brook 

MODEL ROW 1 18 

MODEL ROW 220 

MODEL COLUMN 27 

MODEL COLUMN 144 

0 200 400 600 800 FEET 

EXPLANATION 

0 50 100 150 200 METERS 

Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

J M	 Line of section 

Simulated flowpath 

Model grid line 

Production well in the Westmoreland FL10 

well field and well number 

PW-4 Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 35. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Sandvik, Inc., for 1991 conditions, 

and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
88 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Figure 36. Generalized view along section J-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden 

at Sandvik, Inc., for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 35) 
MODEL ROW 260 

MODEL ROW 127 

MODEL COLUMN 14 

MODEL COLUMN 143 

n o s r e d n e H 

ko o r B 

P assaic River 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 89 

PW-5 PW-2 

M


PW-4 

FL10 

FL11 

Fair Lawn FL14 

H


0 200 400 600 800 FEET EXPLANATION 

0 50 100 150 200 METERS Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

H
 M


FL10 

Line of section 

Simulated flowpath 

Municipal boundary 

Model grid line 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

well field and well number 

PW-4 Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 37. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Sandvik, Inc., for 1991 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
90 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey !,4)45$%!"/6%.!6$).&%%4 0ASSAIC2IVER (ENDERSON &,

7



















"

#ONFININGUNITAND UNIT WELLANDWELLIDENTIFIER

7"

&,

( - &, &,

#

7"

#





#

#

#

#

#

7"

7"

7"

7"

7"

"ROOK

     

$)34!.#%).&%%4

6%24)#!,%8!''%2!4)/.X

(ENDERSON

"ROOK

%80,!.!4)/.

07

5NCONSOLIDATED OVERBURDEN 'ENERALIZEDSIMULATED

PLUMEOFGROUNDWATER 7ATER
BEARINGUNIT

ANDUNITNUMBER

7ELLSCREENOFPUMPED

NUMBER

Figure 38. Generalized view along section H-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at 

Sandvik, Inc., for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 37) 

#
MODEL ROW 264 

MODEL ROW 128 

MODEL COLUMN 11 

MODEL COLUMN 150 

n o s r e d n e H 

ko o r B 

P assaic River 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 91 

PW-2 

PW-5 

PW-4 

FL10 

FL11 

FL14 

O


Fair Lawn 

H


0 400 800 FEET EXPLANATION 

0 100 200 METERS Industrial park 

Fisher ScientificCompany 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

H
 O


FL10 

Line of section 

Simulated flowpath 

Municipal boundary 

Model grid line 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

well field and well number 

PW-4 Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 39. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Eastman Kodak Company for 

1991 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
92 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Figure 40. Generalized view along section H-O of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at 

Eastman Kodak Company for 1991 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 39) 
I 

Hen ed

sr on B or ok 

MODEL ROW 118 

MODEL ROW 220 

MODEL COLUMN 27 

MODEL COLUMN 144 

MODEL ROW 1

18 

MODEL COLUMN 144 

TPW2 PW-2 N TPW1R 

PW-5 

PW-4 TPW3 PW-2 

Inset A 

PW-5 

TPW4 

TPW5 

TPW6 

FL10 TPW7 

Fair Lawn 

PW-4 

Inset A 

FL14 0 20 40 60 METERS 

0 400 800 FEET I N 0 100 200 METERS 

FL10

PW-4 

TPW1 

0 100 200 FEET 

EXPLANATION

Industrial parkFisher Scientific CompanyEastman Kodak CompanySandvik, Inc.

Line of section

Simulated flowpath

Model grid line

Shallow recovery trench

Production well in the Westmorelandwell field and well numberDeep recovery well and well numberShallow recovery well and well number 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 93 Figure 41. Map view of simulated plume of ground

water originating in the overburden at Fisher Scientific Company for 2000 conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
94 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Figure 42. Generalized view along section I-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at 

Fisher Scientific Company for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 41) 
P assaic River 

n o s r e d n e H 

k o o r B 

MODEL ROW 269 

MODEL ROW 129 

MODEL COLUMN 6 

MODEL COLUMN 152 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 95 

PW-2 N


PW-5 

PW-4 

FL10 

Fair Lawn 

FL14 

H


0 400 800 FEET EXPLANATION 

0 100 200 METERS Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

H
 N


FL10 

Line of section 

Simulated flowpath 

Municipal boundary 

Model grid line 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

well field and well number 

PW-4 Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 43. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Fisher Scientific Company for 2000 

conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
96 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Figure 44. Generalized view along section H-N of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at 

Fisher Scientific Company for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 43) 
Table 34. Simulated flux of ground water originating at or passing through Fisher Scientific Company, Sandvik, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company an

streams, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 2000. 

[All fluxes shown in cubic feet per day; na, not applicable] 

Ground water originating at or passing through 

Fisher Scientific Company site Ground water originating at or passing through Sandvik, Inc., site 

From overburden From bedrock From overburden From bedrock 

Discharge point 

Total flux 

pumped 

from well 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Flux 

Percent 

of total 

flux from 

site 

discharging at 

well or 

stream 

Percent of 

total 

pumpage 

from well 

originating at or 

passing 

through 

site 

Henderson Brook na 768 35 na 507 4 na 1,443 100 na 6,645 54 na Passaic River na 0 0 na 628 5 na 0 0 na 2,497 20 na 1Well FL10 8,298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375 3 5 Well FL11 Not pumped in 2000 Well FL14 9,795 141 6 1 4,414 34 45 0 0 0 2,419 20 25 Shallow recovery wells 2,025 1,197 55 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and trenches, Fisher Scientific Company Well PW2 1,679 0 0 0 76 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well PW4 5,796 0 0 0 1,740 13 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well PW5 7,011 88 4 1 5,683 44 81 0 0 0 276 2 4 
98 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

FL14 

FL10 

PW-5 

PW-4 

PW-2 

Fair Lawn 

M 

Henderson

Brook 

MODEL ROW 1 18 

MODEL COLUMN 27 

MODEL ROW 220 

MODEL COLUMN 144 

K 

0 400 800 FEET 

0 100 200 METERS 

K M 

FL10


PW-4


EXPLANATION 

Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

Line of section 

Simulated flowpath 

Model grid line 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

well field and well number 

Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 45. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden at Sandvik, Inc., for 2000 conditions, 

and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 99 

Figure 46. Generalized view along section K-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the overburden 

at Sandvik, Inc., for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 45) 
n o s r e d n e H 

ko o r B 

P assaic River 

MODEL ROW 260 

MODEL COLUMN 14 

MODEL COLUMN 143 

MODEL ROW 127 

100 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

M
 PW-2 

PW-5 

PW-4 

FL10 

Fair Lawn 

FL14 

H


0 400 800 FEET 

0 100 200 METERS 

HM 

FL10


PW-4


EXPLANATION 

Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

Line of section 

Simulated flowpath 

Municipal boundary 

Model grid line 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

well field and well number 

Deep recovery well and well number 

Figure 47. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Sandvik, Inc., for 2000 conditions, 

and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 101


Figure 48. Generalized view along section H-M of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at 

Sandvik, Inc., for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 47) 
MODEL ROW 281 

MODEL ROW 136 

MODEL COLUMN 3 

MODEL COLUMN 157 

Hend rson Brook 

Passaic River 102 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

PW-2 PW-5 

PW-4 

FL10 O 

Fair Lawn 

e FL14

H 

0 400 800 FEET 

EXPLANATION 

Industrial park 

Fisher Scientific Company 

Eastman Kodak Company 

Sandvik, Inc. 

Line of section 

Simulated flowpath 

Model grid line 

Production well in the Westmoreland 

well field and well number 

Deep recovery well and well number 

0 100 200 METERS 

H O 

FL10


PW-4


Figure 49. Map view of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at Eastman Kodak Company for 2000 

conditions, and line of section, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Model grid shown in figure 16) 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 103


Figure 50. Generalized view along section H-O of simulated plume of ground water originating in the bedrock at 

Eastman Kodak Company for 2000 conditions, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. (Line of section shown in figure 49) 
104 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Summary and Conclusions 

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in 

ground water in production wells in the Westmoreland well 

field, Fair Lawn, Bergen County, New Jersey, since 1978. The 

predominant compounds detected in these wells are trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA). 

Results of an investigation by the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) showed that two industrial 

sites—Fisher Scientific Company (Fisher) and Sandvik, Inc. 

(Sandvik)—are contributing sources of the contamination. During the course of the current study, a third potential contributing 

source, Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) (also on the NJDEP 

list of known contaminated sites), was identified. VOCs 

detected in wells in the Westmoreland well field also have been 

detected in soil, overburden, and shallow bedrock at these three 

sites. In 1999 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 

began a study to determine ground-water flow patterns and contributing areas to production wells in Fair Lawn, contaminantplume boundaries, and the effect of present pump-and-treat systems at the Westmoreland well field and at Fisher on flowpaths 

of contaminated ground water. 

The hydrogeologic framework of, distribution of 

contaminants in, and ground-water flow patterns in Fair Lawn 

were determined from the results of borehole-geophysical 

logging and straddle-packer testing and by the use of a digital 

ground-water flow model. Contributing areas to production 

wells, contaminant-plume boundaries, and the effect of the 

pump-and-treat systems on flowpaths were simulated using the 

digital model. 

The study area, which encompasses about 15 mi2 in and 

near Fair Lawn, is underlain by 6 to 100 ft of glacial deposits 

and alluvium which, in turn, are underlain by the Passaic Formation. In the study area, the Passaic Formation consists of 

brownish-red pebble conglomerate, medium- to coarse-grained 

feldspathic sandstone, and micaceous siltstone. The bedrock 

strata strike generally N. 9o E. and dip 6.5o to the northwest. 

Anisotropic ground-water flow in the fractured-rock aquifer formed by rocks of the Passaic Formation is caused by the 

interlayering of dipping water-bearing and confining units. 

Ground water flows predominantly in the direction of strike of 

the bedding, although in some places pumping skews flowpaths 

toward pumped wells. Wells of similar depths aligned along the 

strike of the bedding intersect the same water-bearing units, but 

wells of similar depths aligned along the dip of the bedding 

intersect different water-bearing units. Consequently, wells 

aligned along strike are in greater hydraulic connection than 

wells aligned along dip.

 In 2000, the Borough of Fair Lawn pumped approximately 

770 Mgal of water from 13 production wells: 332 Mgal from 

the Memorial well field, 154 Mgal from the Dorothy Street well 

field, 234 Mgal from the Cadmus well field, and 49 Mgal from 

the Westmoreland well field. Hydrographs from six deep observation wells in Fair Lawn show that water levels in many parts 

of the study area are affected by pumping from production 

wells. The water-level rise in the observation wells ranges from 

1 to 27 ft when pumps in production wells are turned off. 

Straddle packers were used to isolate discrete intervals in 

six open-hole observation wells owned by the Fair Lawn Water 

Department: wells FL4 and FL29, in the Cadmus well field; 

well FL12, in the Westmoreland well field; well FL18, in the 

Memorial well field; well FL23, in Fair Lawn Industrial Park; 

and well FL27, in the Dorothy Street well field. Transmissivity, 

water-quality, and static-water-level data were obtained from 

the isolated intervals. Measured transmissivity ranged from 

near 0 to 8,900 ft2/d. The broad range in measured transmissivity is a result of the heterogeneity of the fractured-rock aquifer. 

Eight water-bearing units and eight confining units were 

identified in the study area on the basis of transmissivity. The 

water-bearing units range in thickness from 21 to 95 ft; the 

mean thickness is 50 ft. The confining units range in thickness 

from 22 to 248 ft; the mean thickness is 83 ft. Long term, continuous water-level data indicate a hydraulic connection 

between wells open to the same water-bearing units but no connection between wells that are not open to any of the same 

water-bearing units. 

Water samples were collected from the six observation 

wells at 16 depth intervals isolated by the straddle packers (one 

interval in well FL4, five intervals in well FL12, one interval in 

well FL18, and three intervals each in wells FL23, FL27, and 

FL29) for analysis for VOCs. The samples from well FL12 also 

were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, 

polychlorinated biphenyls, and metals. Contaminant 

concentrations in the samples from wells FL4, FL18, FL27, and 

FL29 generally were low and probably are unrelated to the 

contamination at the Fisher, Sandvik, or Kodak property 

because the sampled intervals in these four wells are not 

hydraulically connected to the overburden or the bedrock at any 

of these three sites. Also, in some cases, the types of 

contaminants in the wells are different from those found at the 

industrial sites. VOC concentrations were higher in samples 

from wells FL12 and FL23 than in samples from the other four 

wells. 

Water samples were collected from intervals in waterbearing units 2, 3, 4, and 5 in well FL12 in the Westmoreland 

well field. Subcrops of water-bearing units 3 and 4 underlie the 

Sandvik and Kodak sites; subcrops of water-bearing units 4 and 

5 underlie the Fisher site. PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and TCE were 

detected in all samples from well FL12. The highest PCE concentration (13 μg/L) and the highest 1,1,1-TCA concentration 

(35 μg/L) were detected in water-bearing unit 3; the highest 

TCE concentration (60 μg/L) was detected in water-bearing unit 

5. Degradation products of PCE and TCE (cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1­

dichlorethane (1,1-DCA) and 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)) 

also were detected in all samples from well FL12. The highest 

concentrations of 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE were in samples from 

water-bearing unit 3; the highest concentration of cis-1,2-DCE 

was in the sample from the water-bearing unit 5. 
Summary and Conclusions 105 

All six of these VOCs (PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, cis-1,2­

DCE, 1,1-DCA, and 1,1-DCE) also were present at the Fisher 

and Sandvik sites; all but PCE were present at the Kodak site. 

On the basis of the distribution of VOCs and the hydraulic connection between well FL12 and the water-bearing units at the 

three sites, any or all of these sites could contribute VOCs to 

well FL12. 

Five additional VOCs were detected in samples from well 

FL12: toluene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, chloroform, acetone, 

and 2-butanone. The types and concentrations of VOCs differed 

markedly among the four water-bearing units, indicating that 

the water-bearing units are separated effectively by the 

confining units. 

Although the primary contaminants of concern in this 

study are VOCs, the detection of arsenic in well FL12 is an 

important finding. The concentration of 102 μg/L in the deepest 

sampled interval (water-bearing unit 5) exceeds the current 

(2004) USEPA drinking-water standard of 50 μg/L. It is not 

known whether the arsenic is naturally occurring or anthropogenic. If it is anthropogenic, a possible source is Fisher, which 

overlies the subcrop of water-bearing unit 5. 

Well FL23 is in Fair Lawn Industrial Park, about 1,200 ft 

south of Fisher and Sandvik and immediately east of Kodak. 

Water samples were collected from water-bearing units 5 and 7 

in this well; nine compounds were detected. TCE was detected 

in samples from both water-bearing units, at concentrations up 

to 120 μg/L. Cis-1,2-DCE was detected in all samples from 

water-bearing unit 5 at concentrations up to 140 μg/L. Two 

other TCE degradation products, trans-1,2-dichlorethylene and 

1,1-DCE, were detected in samples from water-bearing unit 5. 

VOC concentrations were much higher in the samples from 

water-bearing unit 5 than in those from water-bearing unit 7. 

Contaminant types and concentrations in samples from waterbearing unit 5 were similar to those in the samples from the 

same water-bearing unit in well FL12, however, indicating continuity of the water-bearing unit and a hydraulic connection 

between wells FL23 and FL12. 

Water-bearing unit 5, which contained the highest concentration of VOCs in well FL23, is present beneath all three industrial sites (directly beneath the overburden at Fisher and as shallow bedrock beneath Sandvik and Kodak). All VOCs detected 

in well FL23, like those in well FL12, are present at one or all 

of the Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak sites. Consequently, the 

VOCs detected in well FL23 could be derived from any or all of 

the three sites. 

A three-dimensional, finite-difference ground-water flow 

model (MODFLOW-2000) was used to simulate ground-water 

flow in the study area. A particle-tracking post-processor 

(MODPATH) was used to delineate contributing areas to wells 

and compute flowpaths from potential contaminant sources. 

Another post-processor (ZONEBUDGET) was used to compute water budgets, to determine the flux of water from each 

potential contaminant source to each well, and to determine the 

effect of the pump-and-treat systems at the Westmoreland well 

field and Fisher on flowpaths of contaminated ground water. 

Model layer 1 represents the unconsolidated overburden 

materials overlying bedrock. These materials range in thickness 

from 6 to 100 ft. Model layers 2 through 41 represent the alternating water-bearing and confining units in the fractured-rock 

aquifer formed by rocks of the Passaic Formation. 

The model extends as far as 3.5 mi beyond Fair Lawn. The 

model boundaries were chosen to ensure that the entire flowpath of any particle of water that passes through Fair Lawn is 

included in the model. All of the model boundaries are no-flow 

boundaries, except the eastern boundary, which is formed by 

the Saddle River and is represented as a head-dependent flux 

boundary, and part of the western boundary, which is a specified-flux boundary representing water flowing into the model 

area from the west. 

Four steady-state ground-water scenarios were simulated. 

Two of the simulations represent ground-water conditions in 

1991 and 2000. These years were chosen because pumpage 

from the Westmoreland well field and at Fisher differed greatly 

between these two years. Recharge in both scenarios was 

assumed to be 20 in/yr. 

Because 2000 was a relatively dry year compared to the 

98-year period of record, a high-recharge scenario in which the 

recharge rate was 22 in/yr was developed. The purpose of this 

scenario was to determine the effects of an increased recharge 

rate on the contributing areas to wells. The fourth scenario, the 

“recovery” scenario, was used for calibration only. This scenario represents periods when pumps in some production wells 

were turned off. 

Measured ground-water levels in 70 wells, water levels in 

15 intervals in observation wells isolated by straddle packers, 

and base flow in five streams were used to calibrate the 2000 

model. The measured rise in water levels in observation wells 

in response to shutdown of pumps in production wells was used 

to calibrate the model simulation of the recovery scenario. The 

measured rise in water levels in response to increased recharge 

was used to evaluate the accuracy of the high-recharge scenario. 

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of model layer 1 

(representing the overburden) is 30 ft/d except in the areas 

representing fluvial sediments, where conductivity is 5 ft/d. The 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity of model layers representing 

bedrock water-bearing units varies from 1.4 to 79 ft/d. The 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity in bedrock confining units 

varies from 0.035 to 2 ft/d. The conductivity of all bedrock units 

varies among layers and was set to decrease with depth. The 

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the overburden (model layer 

1) is 0.1 ft/d. Vertical conductivity is 4.4 ft/d in all bedrock 

water-bearing units and 0.12 ft/d in all bedrock confining units. 

The vertical hydraulic conductivity of all streambed material is 

1 ft/d. Areal recharge throughout the model area was set at 

20 in/yr. 

Water budgets computed with the digital model indicate 

substantial interbasin transfer of ground water. For example, 

approximately 136,000 ft3

/d of water flows into the Henderson 

Brook drainage basin from neighboring basins, and approximately 175,000 ft3

/d flows out of the basin to neighboring 
106 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

basins. To put these amounts in perspective, recharge to the 

basin from precipitation is approximately 159,000 ft3/d. 

Water budgets also indicated that most of the water 

(66 percent) that enters the unconsolidated overburden (model 

layer 1) flows downward into the bedrock layers (model layers 

2-41). The other 34 percent remains in layer 1 and discharges to 

nearby streams and to recovery wells and trenches at Fisher. 

About 72 percent of the water that enters the bedrock layers 

eventually flows back into layer 1 and discharges to streams. 

The remainder flows to pumped wells. 

The digital model was used to delineate contributing areas 

to production well fields in Fair Lawn and contaminant plumes 

from Fisher, Sandvik, and Kodak. In 1991, when 130 Mgal of 

water was pumped from the Westmoreland well field, the contributing area to that well field encompassed about one-fourth 

of Fair Lawn Industrial Park and included nearly all of the 

Fisher property, less than 1 percent of the Sandvik property, and 

about three-fourths of the Kodak property. The contributing 

area to the Westmoreland well field in 1991 extended southwest 

almost to the well field and about 2.5 mi north of Fair Lawn. 

In 1991, the contributing area to the Memorial well field 

was northeast of the wells and south and east of the Fisher, 

Sandvik, and Kodak properties. The area was less than 500 ft 

from three other known contaminated sites. The contributing 

area to the Cadmus wells encompassed an area generally northeast of the wells. It included five known contaminated sites and 

was less than 500 ft from another site. The contributing area to 

the Dorothy Street wells included two known contaminated 

sites and was less than 500 ft from another site; however, no 

contamination has been detected in water samples from the 

Dorothy Street wells. 

In 2000, when only 49 Mgal of water was pumped from the 

Westmoreland well field, the contributing area to that well field 

was much smaller than in 1991. The contributing area included 

only a small part of the Fisher and Kodak properties and none 

of the Sandvik property. In contrast to the contributing area to 

the Westmoreland well field in 1991, which included most of 

the Fisher property, the contributing area in 2000 included only 

a small part of the Fisher property, partly because of the 

decreased pumpage from the Westmoreland well field and 

partly because recently installed shallow (less than 18 feet deep) 

wells and trenches on the property were pumping water at a rate 

of 2,025 ft3

/d. 

The contributing area to the Memorial well field in 2000 

was nearly identical to the area in 1991. The contributing area 

to the Cadmus wells was larger than in 1991 and added an area 

of about 0.3 mi2

 around well FL8 as a result of increased pumpage from that well. The 2000 contributing area to Cadmus wells 

included, or was less than 300 ft from, eight known contaminated sites. The configuration of the contributing area to the 

Dorothy Street wells in 2000 was substantially different from 

that in 1991 because of changes in the distribution of pumpage 

among the three wells. 

In the high-recharge scenario, when 22 in/yr of recharge 

was applied, the contributing area to each well field was smaller 

than in the 2000 scenario because the increased recharge rate 

enabled wells to draw the same amount of water from smaller 

areas. In this scenario, the contributing area to the Westmoreland well field included none of the Fisher or Sandvik property 

and only a small part of the Kodak property. 

The ground-water flow model was used to delineate contaminant plumes from the three industrial sites (Fisher, Sandvik 

and Kodak). In this study, the delineated contaminant plume is 

defined as the three-dimensional area containing flowpaths 

from a contaminated source area to their point of discharge in a 

stream or a pumped well. Because only advective flow is simulated with the model, the effects of density, dispersion, diffusion, dilution, and degradation of contaminants are not 

accounted for in the plumes. Plumes were tracked from areas 

within each site known to contain VOCs. Although ground 

water in the starting area of each plume is known to contain 

VOCs, it is not known whether VOCs are present along the 

entire path of the plumes, except where they pass through wells 

known to be contaminated with VOCs. 

The simulated plume from Fisher in the 1991 scenario 

extends to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, and 

the Passaic River, reaching a maximum depth of 260 ft below 

land surface. Part of the plume passes through the southeastern 

part of the Sandvik property and the northwestern corner of the 

Kodak property. In 1991, Westmoreland well FL14 captured 

94 percent of the water from the overburden and 31 percent of 

the water from the bedrock at Fisher, and Westmoreland well 

FL11 captured 16 percent of the water from the bedrock at 

Fisher. The deep recovery wells at Fisher (PW2, PW4, and 

PW5) captured 3 percent of the water originating in or passing 

through the overburden and 49 percent of the water originating 

in or passing through the bedrock at Fisher. The plume from the 

bedrock at Fisher does not reach well FL10, but it does pass 

within 150 ft of it. Because the plume does not include the 

effects of diffusion or dispersion, the possibility that water from 

the Fisher property contributed some of the water pumped from 

well FL10 under 1991 conditions cannot be ruled out. In 1991, 

3 percent of the water from the overburden and 4 percent of the 

water from the bedrock at Fisher was not captured by any well, 

but flowed instead to Henderson Brook. 

The simulated plume from Sandvik in the 1991 scenario 

extends to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, and 

the Passaic River, reaching a maximum depth of 200 ft below 

land surface. In 1991, Westmoreland well FL14 captured 3 percent of the water from the overburden and 24 percent of the 

water from the bedrock at Sandvik. Westmoreland wells FL10 

and FL11 captured 27 percent and 42 percent, respectively, of 

the water from the bedrock at Sandvik. In 1991, 97 percent of 

the water from the overburden and 7 percent of the water from 

the bedrock at Sandvik was not captured by any well, but 

flowed instead to Henderson Brook. 

The simulated plume from Kodak in the 1991 scenario 

extends to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, and 

the Passaic River, reaching a maximum depth of 260 ft below 

land surface. In 1991, Westmoreland well FL14 captured 

73 percent of the water from the bedrock at Kodak, and 26 percent of the water from Kodak flowed to the Passaic River rather 

than being captured by any well. 
The simulated plume from Fisher in the 2000 scenario 

extends to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, and 

the Passaic River, reaching a maximum depth of 260 ft below 

land surface. Part of the plume from Fisher passes through the 

southeastern part of the Sandvik property and the northwestern 

corner of the Kodak property. In 2000, Westmoreland well 

FL14 captured 6 percent of the water from the overburden and 

34 percent of the water from the bedrock at Fisher. In 2000, the 

recently installed shallow recovery system, consisting of seven 

wells and two trenches, captured 55 percent of the water originating in or passing through the overburden at Fisher. Deep 

recovery wells at Fisher captured 4 percent of the water originating in or passing through the overburden and 58 percent of 

the water originating in or passing through the bedrock at 

Fisher. Although the plume from the bedrock at Fisher does not 

reach Westmoreland well FL10, it does pass within 300 ft of it. 

Because the plume does not include the effects of diffusion or 

dispersion, the possibility that well FL10 captured some of the 

water from the bedrock at Fisher under 2000 conditions cannot 

be ruled out. In 2000, 35 percent of the water from the overburden and 9 percent of the water from the bedrock at Fisher 

flowed to Henderson Brook and the Passaic River rather than 

being captured by any well. 

The simulated plume from Sandvik in the 2000 scenario 

extends to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson Brook, and 

the Passaic River, reaching a maximum depth of 260 ft below 

land surface. Nearly all of the plume from the overburden discharged to Henderson Brook adjacent to the Sandvik property; 

the remainder flowed to a more distant reach of Henderson 

Brook. Of the water from the bedrock at Sandvik, 20 percent 

was captured by Westmoreland well FL14, 3 percent was captured by Westmoreland well FL10; and the remainder flowed to 

Henderson Brook and the Passaic River rather than being captured by any well. 

The simulated plume from Kodak in the 2000 scenario 

extends from Kodak to the Westmoreland well field, Henderson 

Brook, and the Passaic River, reaching a maximum depth of 

260 ft below land surface. In 2000, Westmoreland well FL14 

captured 9 percent of the water from Kodak. The remainder was 

not captured by any well, but flowed instead to the Passaic 

River and Henderson Brook. 

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results 

of this study: 

•	 The production wells in the Westmoreland well field 

(FL10, FL11, and FL14) all are in hydraulic connection 

with the bedrock and unconsolidated overburden 

underlying all three industrial sites that have been identified as potentially contributing sources of the VOCs 

in those wells. 

•	 The types of VOCs detected in the wells in the Westmoreland well field also are detected at the three industrial sites. 

•	 Under 1991 pumping conditions, the simulated plume 

of ground water from Fisher Scientific Company 

reaches Westmoreland wells FL11 and FL14 and is 

within 125 ft of Westmoreland well FL10; the plume 

Acknowledgments 107 

from Sandvik, Inc., reaches wells FL10, FL11, and 

FL14; and the plume from Eastman Kodak Company 

reaches well FL14. 

•	 Under 2000 pumping conditions, the simulated plume 

of ground water from Fisher Scientific Company 

reaches well FL14 and is within 300 ft of well FL10; 

the plume from Sandvik, Inc., reaches wells FL10 and 

FL14; and the plume from Eastman Kodak Company 

reaches well FL14. (Well FL11 was not pumped in 

2000.) 

•	 In 1991 and 2000, some ground water flowing from all 

three industrial sites was not captured by any of the 

wells in the pump-and-treat system at the Westmoreland well field or any of the wells or trenches in the 

pump-and treat system at Fisher Scientific Company, 

but discharged instead to Henderson Brook and the 

Passaic River. 

Acknowledgments 

We thank Kenneth Garrison and Ronald Grant of the Fair 

Lawn Water Department for providing access to their wells and 

historical water-level, water-quality, and pumpage data. We 

also thank Renee Bancroft, George Blyskun, Jacqueline Bobko, 

James De Noble, Jamie MacBlane, and Ann Wolf of the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for providing 

water-quality, water-level, and construction data for other wells 

in Fair Lawn. 

Literature Cited 

Carleton, G.B., Welty, Claire, and Buxton, H.T., 1999, Design 

and analysis of tracer tests to determine effective porosity 

and dispersivity in fractured sedimentary rocks, Newark 

Basin, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 98-4126A, 80 p. 

Cooper, H.H., Bredehoeft, J.D., Papadopulos, I., 1967, 

Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge 

of water: Water Resources Research, v. 3, no. 1, p. 263-269. 

Drake, A.A., Jr., Volkert, R.A., Monteverde, D.H., Herman, 

G.C., Houghton, H.F., Parker, R.A., and Dalton, R.F., 1996, 

Bedrock geologic map of northern New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigation Series, MAP I2540-A, scale 1:100,000, 2 pl. 

Enviro-Sciences, Inc., 1991, Additional delineation soil sampling and groundwater monitoring, Einson, Freeman and 

deTroy, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, ECRA Case #88306: North 

Arlington, New Jersey: Enviro-Sciences., Inc., unpaginated. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1976, Flood Insurance Study, City of Paterson, New Jersey, Passaic County: 

Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 36 p., 3 pl. 
108 Hydrogeologic Framework, Ground-Water Quality and Flow at the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site, New Jersey 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981, Flood Insurance Study, Borough of Glen Rock, New Jersey, Bergen 

County: Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 37 p., 1 pl. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1991, Flood Insurance Study, Borough of Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Bergen 

County: Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 37 p., 1 p. 

Geotrans, Inc., 1985, Hydraulic gradient control in the unconsolidated deposits beneath the Fisher Scientific property, Fair 

Lawn, New Jersey: Boxborough, Mass., Geotrans, Inc., 13 p. 

Golder Associates, Inc., 2000, Bedrock remedial action work 

plan, Plaza Road and Daly Field properties, Fair Lawn, New 

Jersey: Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Golder Associates, 2 volumes. 

Greene, E.A., and Shapiro, A.M., 1995, Methods of conducting 

air-pressurized slug tests and computation of type curves for 

estimating transmissivity and storativity: U. S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 95-424, 43 p. 

Harbaugh, A.W., 1990, A computer program for calculating 

subregional water budgets using results from the U.S. Geological Survey modular three-dimensional finite-difference 

ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 90-392, 46 p. 

Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G., 

2000, The U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water 

model—User guide to modularization concepts and the 

ground-water flow process: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 00-92, 121 p. 

Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 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 groundwater in New Jersey, 

Field guide and proceedings of the seventh annual meeting of 

the Geological Association of New Jersey: Union, N.J., 

Geological Association of New Jersey, p. E1-E36. 

Hvorslev, M.J., 1951, Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Bulletin 36, 50 p. 

Jacob, C.E., 1950, Flow of ground water, in Rouse, H., ed., 

Engineering hydraulics: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 

p. 321-86. 

Lacombe, P.J., 2000, Hydrogeologic framework, water levels, 

and trichloroethylene contamination, Naval Air Warfare 

Center, West Trenton, New Jersey, 1993-97: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4167, 

139 p. 

Lewis-Brown, J.C., and dePaul, V.T., 2000, Ground-water flow 

and distribution of volatile organic compounds, Rutgers University Busch Campus and vicinity, Piscataway Township, 

New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99-4256, 72 p. 

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988, A modular threedimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 6, chap. A1, 528 p. 

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1994, Summary report on site investigation and remedial activities at Sandvik and Fisher Scientific: 

Somerville, N.J., Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 14 p., 15 attachments. 

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1998, Report of groundwater monitoring, 

May 1998, Sandvik, Inc., Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Somerville, N.J., Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., unpaginated. 

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. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000-2002, 

Climatological data, New Jersey, April 2000–March 2002: 

v. 105, no. 4-12; v. 106 no. 1-12; v. 107, no. 1-3. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001, 

Known contaminated site list for New Jersey, 2001: 

accessed on June 16, 2004, on the World Wide Web at 

www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/stateshp.html#KCSL2001 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2002, 

New Jersey and Federal drinking-water standards; Federal 

and New Jersey State primary and secondary standards 

as of January, 2002: accessed on December 10, 2004, 

on the World Wide Web at 

www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/standard.htm 

Nicholson, R.S., McAuley, S.M., Barringer, J.L., and Gordon, 

A.D., 1996, Hydrogeology of, and ground-water flow in, a 

valley-fill and carbonate-rock aquifer system near Long 

Valley in the New Jersey Highlands: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4157, 159 p., 3 pl. 

Pollock, D.W., 1994, User’s guide for MODPATH and MODPATH-PLOT, version 3, a particle-tracking post-processing 

package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finitedifference ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 94-464, 6 chap. 

Parker, R. A., 1993, Stratigraphic relations of the sedimentary 

rocks below the Lower Jurassic Orange Mountain Basalt, 

Northern Newark Basin, New Jersey and New York: U.S. 

Geological Survey Map MF-2208, scale 1:100,000, 1 sheet. 

Quest Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc., 2002, 

Remedial investigation report for Kodak Facility, Fair Lawn, 

New Jersey: Clinton, N.J., Quest Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc., unpaginated. 

Reilly, T.E., and Pollock, D.W., 1993, Factors affecting areas 

contributing recharge to wells in shallow aquifers: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2412, 21 p. 

Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1984, Remedial investigation, Fisher Scientific Company, Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Northbrook, Ill., 

Roy F. Weston, Inc., unpaginated. 
Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1985, Aquifer characterization study, 

Fisher Scientific Company, Fair Lawn, New Jersey: 

Bannockburn, Ill., Roy F. Weston, Inc., 27 p., 2 app. 

Sloto, R.A., and Schreffler, C.L., 1994, Hydrogeology and 

ground-water quality of northern Bucks County, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 94-4109, 85 p., 1 pl. 

Springer, R.K., and Gelhar, L.W., 1991, Characterization of 

large-scale aquifer heterogeneity in glacial outwash by analysis of slug tests with oscillatory responses, Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts, in U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances 

Hydrology Program—Proceedings of the technical meeting, 

Monterey, California, March 11-15, 1991: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4034, 

730 p. 

Stanford, S.D., Witte, R.W., and Harper, D.P., 1990, Glacial 

sediments of New Jersey: N.J. Geological Survey Digital 

Geodata Series DGS96-1, revised 1995, accessed 

October 18, 2004, on the World Wide Web at 

www.state.nj/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs96-1.htm 

Stone, B.D., Stanford, S.D., and Witte, R.W., 1995, Surficial 

geologic map of the northern sheet, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map OF 95-543B, 55 p., 2 pl., 

scale 1:100,000. 

Literature Cited 109 

Theis, C.V., 1935, The lowering of the piezometric surface and 

the rate and discharge of a well using ground-water storage: 

Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 16, p. 519-24. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Ground water 

sampling procedure: Low stress (low flow) purging and sampling: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 

Ground Water Sampling Standard Operating Procedure, 

Final, March 16, 1998, 10 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001a, Fact sheet; 

Drinking water standard for arsenic, accessed 

December 10, 2004, on the World Wide Web at 

www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ars-rule-factsheet.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001b, Arsenic in 

drinking water, accessed December 10, 2004, on the World 

Wide Web at www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/quickguide.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, Fair Lawn well 

field, New Jersey EPA ID#NJD980654107, accessed 

September 17, 2004, on the World Wide Web at 

www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplfs/fs0200765.pdf. 

van der Kamp, Garth, 1976, Determining aquifer transmissivity 

by means of well response tests: The underdamped case: 

Water Resources Research, v. 12, no. 1, p. 71-77. 
For additional information, write to:

U.S. Geological Survey

Water Resources Division

New Jersey District

Mountain View Office Park

810 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 206

West Trenton, NJ 08628

or visit our Web site at:

http://nj.water.usgs.gov/